Wednesday, 17 May 2023

WEDNESDAY, 17 MAY 2023

WEDNESDAY, 17 MAY 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Social Justice Aotearoa requesting that the House amend section 52 of the Corrections Act to require rehabilitation programmes for prison inmates be established within 12 months of imprisonment

petition of Kate Stone requesting that the House pass a motion formally recognising the State of Palestine and urge the Government to formally recognise the State of Palestine.

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

CLERK:

Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa, annual report 2021-22

Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa, statement of performance expectations 2022-23.

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

CLERK:

Report of the Justice Committee on the petition of Hāpai te Hauora

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Hayley Liu.

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What are the priorities for Budget 2023?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Budget 2023 has been put together under another set of challenging circumstances, including cost of living pressures, extreme weather events, and a difficult global environment. The Government has four priorities in tomorrow’s Budget as we navigate a pathway through this testing time. They are supporting New Zealanders with the cost of living, delivering the services New Zealanders rely on, recovery and resilience, and fiscal sustainability. Budgets are always a balancing act. Budget 2023 recognises that we need to look after people while at the same time moving back to a more sustainable fiscal position after the emergency spending required to get us through COVID.

Ingrid Leary: How is the Government meeting its priorities in Budget 2023?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Budget 2023 is striking a careful balance to support New Zealanders with the costs they are facing in the here and now while charting a course for a more productive and resilient economy. We are carefully considering our spending and have made trade-offs to keep our balanced approach. The ongoing costs of the recovery from weather events will be met within Budget allowances. This means we have put responding to the cyclone ahead of some other areas Ministers would have liked to focus on. Budget 2023 will continue to invest in essential public services and building a resilient infrastructure network while carefully managing our resources to ensure the long-term sustainability of our economy.

Ingrid Leary: What has the Government announced to support the priorities in Budget 2023?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has already announced a $1 billion flood and cyclone recovery package as part of Budget 2023. It covers issues such as rebuilding roads, rails, and schools, and also support for mental health, while preparing for future events with a big investment in flood protection measures. These investments will help ease the pressure on local communities already struggling with the cost of living from having to foot the full recovery build. We’re partnering with local government to make sure cost isn’t a barrier to getting recovery work done, and the package adds to the $800 million already provided in support.

Ingrid Leary: What other announcements have been made to support the priorities in Budget 2023?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One announcement that has been made in advance of the Budget is that we will be continuing to invest in addressing climate change. Budget 2023 will support funding for emissions reductions with a $300 million boost to New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd (NZGIF) to develop low-carbon projects, drive down emissions, and create jobs. This takes the NZGIF’s pool of capital to $700 million, making it one of the largest direct investors in New Zealand focused on climate change. Budget 2023 is a wellbeing Budget. It is about doing the right thing by New Zealanders facing cost of living pressures but also looking ahead to what we need to do to deliver higher-wage jobs with low emissions and economic security for all.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied with the outcomes taxpayers are getting from the increase in Government spending from $76 billion in 2017 to $129 billion in the current financial year?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the following: 70,000 fewer children in poverty than when we took office; record levels of R & D expenditure incentivised by the R & D tax credit; an economy that’s added 22,000 new jobs in the first three months of this year and average hourly wages rising by 7.6 percent; unemployment that’s been below 4 percent for seven consecutive quarters—a feat National didn’t achieve in even one quarter—a 61 percent increase in the number of apprentices in a 2½-year period; Pharmac providing 75 new medicines and widening the access to 137 different treatments; nearly 3,000 more teachers and an increase in the maximum base salary rate for secondary teachers of nearly 20 percent—twice the increase that they got under the nine years of National—reduced class sizes in years 4 to 8; 10,000 more children receiving specialist learning support than when we took office; 1,300 more classrooms; 63 million free, healthy school lunches that have been served to our children; reversing National’s cuts to the childcare assistance; 2.8 million New Zealanders now having access to primary mental health care; the reduced cost of seeing a doctor through the extension of low-cost doctors visits to children under the age of 14; more than 4,000 more nurses; 20 percent more doctors; graduate nurse salaries increasing 35 percent since 2017; a 50 percent increase in road maintenance funding, repairing more than 54,000 potholes. The list could go on.

Christopher Luxon: So why, despite spending $5 billion on education, are only half of our children going to school regularly, and why has academic achievement gone backwards?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: First of all, I think the member needs to be careful when he talks about regular attendance measures, given that the regular attendance measures last year were severely impacted by the number of children at home because they had to be because they were isolating with COVID-19. In terms of the most recent performance measures in terms of student achievement, he could refer to the Programme for International Student Assessment study, for example, that refers to 15-year-olds who did their formative years of schooling when they got their foundation literacy and numeracy skills during the reign of national standards.

Christopher Luxon: Why, despite spending $12.6 billion more on health, has every single health measure of performance, including emergency department wait times, specialist wait times, and immunisations, got worse?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member might like to forget the fact that we’ve had a global pandemic that has put our health system under significant pressure, but, actually, it does reflect the rundown state of the health system when we became the Government and the work that we have had to do to fix that. For example, we have had a shortage of doctors—we have had shortages in the health workforce that we have been focused on turning around.

Christopher Luxon: Why, despite spending $2.3 billion more on law and order, is violent crime up 33 percent, retail crime up 103 percent, and it’s quite OK to have a ram raid every 15 hours in this country now?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ram raids are a disgrace and they are absolutely not acceptable. That’s why we’re backing the police to tackle that, it’s why we’re putting 1,800 extra police on the beat, and if the ratio of police to population hadn’t declined as it did under National, perhaps we wouldn’t have inherited such a bad situation.

Christopher Luxon: How is it possible that despite widespread worker shortages, there are almost 50,000 more people on jobseeker unemployment benefit and there are 36,000 more kids growing up in benefit-dependent homes?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member chooses to ignore the fact that we’ve got record numbers of people in employment when he’s talking about unemployment numbers. We have record numbers of people in employment. It’s no wonder that Nicola Willis is doing so well in Auckland business circles.

Christopher Luxon: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to spend $51 million on a cancelled bike bridge, over $70 million on light rail that will never be built, and tens of millions of dollars reducing speed limits to literally slow Kiwis down?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that the member refers to all things where money has been spent in order to explain how he’s going to pay for his future spending commitments. Is he going to go and ask for that money back again, because he still hasn’t outlined how he is going to pay for any of the commitments that he has made, where the National Party seems to think you can both increase spending and decrease spending at the same time.

Christopher Luxon: Is it acceptable that his Government is spending a billion dollars more each and every week, and yet delivering lower immunisation rates, longer health wait times, higher rents, more kids in benefit-dependent homes, and fewer kids going to school regularly?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that one of the biggest drivers of increases in Government spending have been increased wages—money that is being spent on people. And I want to know, from his public comments, why he does not regard teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters as everyday New Zealanders—why does he not think that those people who go to work every day in the service of New Zealand are not everyday New Zealanders?

Christopher Luxon: When will he finally understand that just spending more money doesn’t mean anything if outcomes keep going backwards and life keeps getting harder for Kiwis?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member clearly didn’t listen to the primary answer I gave to the question. He might not like to hear the evidence of the change that that spending is making to the lives of New Zealanders. The 70,000 fewer kids who are living in poverty under this Government don’t think that that’s a waste of money—like he seems to think.

David Seymour: Why can’t the Prime Minister defend his Government’s record on healthcare waiting lists, school attendance, or safety on the streets without mentioning the word “COVID”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m pleased the member raised the issue of healthcare waiting lists, because, as a local member of Parliament, I recall the number of constituents who came into my office with a letter that said they had been referred by their GP to get a first specialist assessment, but because the waiting lists required that people who were put on the waiting list had to be seen within six months and the waiting list was full, they simply couldn’t be put on the waiting list in the first place. Unlike the tactics employed by the previous Government that stopped people getting on to the waiting list in the first place, we are actually focused on making sure people get the healthcare that they deserve.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that the number of operations actually taking place across the healthcare system has plummeted in recent years, and does that mean this Government’s real innovation is to start being honest that people aren’t going to get an operation under them?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We have to acknowledge the fact that our healthcare workforce on the front lines were the people that experienced some of the worst effects of COVID-19. They were more exposed to COVID-19 last year when it arrived into the country, and probably a greater proportion of them ended up being at home. That did have a disruptive effect on the overall health system. I think we should be grateful to our health workforce for the fact that they were on the front lines of the COVID-19 response and we should acknowledge that, rather than trying to pretend, as the member does now, that the global pandemic never happened.

Question No. 3—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

3. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: What recent announcement has the Government made regarding Matariki celebrations?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): Last week, the Government launched the Matariki karakia booklet at the dark sky sanctuary in Takapō/Lake Tekapo. The Matariki booklet contains karakia for each of the nine stars of Matariki, and will be distributed across the country to kura and communities as Aotearoa continues to embrace the occasion. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I’m on my feet. Be quiet. Simeon Brown will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Simeon Brown: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Can I start again? It contains karakia—and maybe Simeon Brown needs a few karakia to help him out with his problems—for each of the nine stars of Matariki, and will be distributed across the country to kura and communities as Aotearoa continues to embrace the occasion.

Christopher Luxon: So all the big issues are being done.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: And it’s great to see that the Leader of the Opposition embraces Matariki. The booklet presents the karakia in a way that is accessible for whānau and communities wishing to conduct their own Matariki ceremonies this year—98 percent of New Zealanders have heard of Matariki, and 87 percent have an understanding of what Matariki is about. [Interruption] Obviously, there’s the 13 percent that don’t have an understanding of what Matariki is about. I think that’s incredible, and this booklet will help cement the occasion and build on the success of last year.

Arena Williams: What is the significance of the booklet which was used in the proceedings of Parliament’s Māori Affairs Committee today?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Last year, the inaugural Matariki public holiday was officially launched through a whāngai i te hautapu ceremony at Te Papa Tongarewa—[Gestures towards the National Opposition benches]—or Te Papa to you guys. Te Arawhiti worked with the Chief Advisor Mātauranga Matariki, Professor Rangi Mātāmua, around the gifting of the karakia that were recited during the ceremony at Te Papa. The karakia in the booklet were penned by Sir Pou Temara and Professor Mātāmua. This is an invaluable resource that they have gifted to Aotearoa New Zealand, and it helps to make some of the mātauranga Māori underpinning Matariki accessible to us all.

Arena Williams: How will the booklet help New Zealanders celebrate Matariki? [Interruption]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I can see the enthusiasm from “Negative National”. The job now is to embed the day into our calendar while ensuring it remains grounded in mātauranga Maori and upholds the key principles and values associated with Matariki. Nearly half of New Zealanders have said they would like to do more to celebrate Matariki in 2023, and this booklet will help them to do just that. This booklet, along with a range of other resources, is free to access online, making Matariki an occasion truly everyone can commemorate.

Arena Williams: What kind of engagement did New Zealanders have with Matariki last year?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Last year, New Zealanders wholeheartedly—wholeheartedly—embraced Matariki. Let me share some insights with the House: just over half of the country did something to celebrate Matariki last year, with the most popular activity being viewing the Matariki cluster; 385,000 New Zealanders tuned into the live broadcast last year; Matariki content received 4.4 million views across social media platforms; and the potential economic benefits for the domestic tourism industry have been estimated at up to $160 million. Matariki is a time to commemorate a uniquely New Zealand public holiday. Together, we can all embed the occasion for years and generations to come.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Labour MP Grant Robertson, who said in 2014, “We will ensure that all New Zealanders get a fair go by reforming monetary policy and by ensuring that everybody pays their fair share with a tax policy where higher-income earners actually pay their tax and actually pay their fair share”; if so, is that what we can expect tomorrow?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do agree with the earlier quote from the then young, handsome Labour Party associate spokesperson for arts, culture, and heritage. I also agree with the spirited, youthful optimism with which that comment was made. However, I would note that my full quote includes reference to a capital gains tax, which was Labour Party policy at the time. That has already been ruled out for this Budget by both me and the Prime Minister. In terms of what we can expect tomorrow, we can expect that the sun will rise, that there will be a Budget, and that the National Party’s response will be written by AI.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does the Minister reconcile retaining a tax system that his own Government’s research has proven privileges the wealthy few with the 2014 statement of Grant Robertson, Labour MP, that—and I quote—“We will be a Government that puts people at the centre of the economy. Not speculators, not big interests, not the wealthy few”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do believe that our Government has made significant progress, including through the tax system in increasing the top rate, but also making changes—which I know are widely popular in the House—around interest deductibility, for example, for speculators and investors. We have made good progress on making our system fairer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he believe that Governments make considered, deliberate choices on revenue and spending settings, and, if so, is choosing not to fairly tax the wealthy—who currently pay less than half the effective tax rate of the average New Zealander—a considered and deliberate choice for the Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister and myself have indicated in the build-up to the Budget, it is correct that in the economic circumstances that we are in at this time, we do not believe that major tax changes are appropriate. We have made the tax reform that we’d promised to make at the 2020 election. Future policies are for political parties to make.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will his Government, then, choose to end poverty in tomorrow’s Budget by reforming Working for Families and raising benefits so that no children in this country go without?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am extremely proud of the record of this Government when it comes to lifting children out of poverty: 77,000 people, as the Prime Minister has indicated. I’m also extremely proud of the increases that we have made to Working for Families over the time that we have been in Government, and the support that we have given to low and middle income New Zealanders as we’ve found our way through COVID. This is a Budget where we have had to strike a difficult balance, but it will continue to support the most vulnerable in our society.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will his Government choose to boost teachers’, nurses’, midwives’, and emergency service workers’ wages and conditions to rival Australia?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said many times in the House, that’s something that this Government has been working towards to lift the wages of exactly those people. As we’ve stated before, there is a careful balance to be struck here. But I do take the member’s overall point, which is, actually, there are choices to be made about what we invest in. It does not automatically occur that money goes into our education and our health system to support the people that she is talking about. We have made the choices in previous Budgets to invest there. There are other parties in this House who like to think it’s some magic thing that that happens. It’s not; it’s because the Government chooses to invest in public services.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister acknowledge that all Budget decisions are therefore political choices, and is his Government’s choice tomorrow whether to end poverty and commit now to the necessary radical climate action to keep us below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, or continue tinkering?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that all Budgets are about getting a balance between the many, many different things that are the responsibility of the Government and the many things that we want to do for the future of New Zealand. I am proud of what we’ve done over the last six years, facing, as we have, COVID; facing, as we have, a difficult economic circumstance; and, now, an extreme weather event. All of those things factor into what we do in the Budget, but this will be another Budget from a Government that cares about people and invests in them.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to increase the supply of public housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Government is undertaking the biggest State house building programme since the 1970s, adding more than 11,800 net new public homes since 2017, including over 9,000 brand new builds. To put this in perspective, of the public homes in New Zealand today, one in seven has been added in the last five years. This is a significant achievement when you consider that we have been building State houses since 1937. There is a continued focus on delivery in the regions, new build supply, and partnership with community housing providers, Māori, and iwi. We have made a good start, but we know there is more work to do.

Helen White: How many of the Government’s new public houses are in Rotorua?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government has added 261 additional public homes in Rotorua since 2017. This is in stark contrast, if we compare the 2008 to 2017 period, to where the number of Housing New Zealand houses fell by 42 places. I’m also happy to report that over 370 new homes are currently in the pipeline and due to be completed in the next few years. This is helped by innovative solutions like off-site manufacturing, where Kāinga Ora has delivered 25 homes in Ranolf Street and Malfroy Road, and has another 42 public homes due for completion this year in Quartz Avenue.

Helen White: How is Lower Hutt benefiting from the Government’s new public homes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I am pleased to report that the Government is making good progress rebuilding public housing in Lower Hutt. We’ve delivered 215 new public houses in Lower Hutt over the past five years, and another 500 are in the pipeline. Under the previous Government, there was a net loss of 314 homes between 2008 and 2017. Over 650 Lower Hutt homes have also undergone the retrofit programme and improved to make them warmer and drier, with more planned to be retrofitted this financial year.

Helen White: Why has there been an increase in delivery of public homes in regional New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Housing providers build public housing when it is financially viable to do so. Prior to 2018, funding for the operating supplement was only available in Auckland and was capped at 50 percent of market rents. In order to increase delivery in regional New Zealand, we made changes to ensure that that operating supplement is available in all regions and is up to 100 percent in regional New Zealand. This means it is once again financially viable for both Kāinga Ora and our partners to build outside of our main centres. This has enabled delivery of new, warm, dry public homes in the likes of Nelson and Waimakariri, both with a 27 percent increase in public housing stock.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that savings and reprioritisations in Budget 2023 will, for the most part, go “toward funding agencies’ existing cost pressures”, and what steps, if any, will the Budget include to reduce cost pressures for everyday taxpayers?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): For the first part of the question, yes, and for the second part of the question, the member will just have to wait one more sleep.

Nicola Willis: Why is he more concerned with the cost pressures facing Government departments than he is with the cost pressures facing Kiwi households?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m absolutely not. I’m extremely concerned with making sure that we support New Zealanders to get through the cost of living crisis that we have. One of the ways we do that is by making sure that there are public services available to support them through that—public services which the member, on her current policy, will not be able to afford to invest in.

Nicola Willis: Have average effective tax rates paid by average-wage earners risen in the past six years, and, if so, by how much?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is correct that, as a result of inflation, that has occurred. It has occurred differently for different taxpayers, obviously, but, at an overall level, the Government is in receipt, I believe—last year, I think it was about $600 million more as a result of that. Equally, the tax take has increased significantly more than that because more New Zealanders are in work, more New Zealanders are earning more, and companies in New Zealand are making more money. The Government is making sure that we deliver to New Zealanders through a very difficult period of time, and that includes paying for essential public services. I’m sure the member will have heard in Auckland business circles that those people also want to make sure we invest in public services.

Nicola Willis: Isn’t it true that New Zealanders are being hit by higher tax rates, higher prices, higher interest rates, and yet he still refuses to adjust their tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economic conditions that New Zealanders are in today are a result of many different factors, which the member knows. We also know that it is the responsibility of the Government—as we have shown over the last five years—to support New Zealanders through difficult periods of time. I’m proud of the Government’s record in doing that. It does require a difficult balancing act. The member will know from the conversations she’s been having with Auckland business leaders that they too understand that.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that Auckland business leaders are concerned that the economy is going downhill fast—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Silence, please. I ask the member to ask it again.

Nicola Willis: —that the economy is going downhill fast, that New Zealand has the biggest current account deficit in the developed world, he’s run the books into the red, inflation is out of control, and interest rates have climbed higher and faster than in our history?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do spend a bit of my time with Auckland business leaders—possibly not quite as much as the member does—and they have expressed some concerns to me. One of those concerns was about the leadership of the National Party; I do admit that. I presume that’s the same concern they express to the member.

Nicola Willis: Which result does he think best characterises his wellbeing approach: New Zealanders having to wait longer for health services, increasing violent crime, the longest State house waiting list on record, thousands of children growing up in motel rooms, or New Zealanders enduring a prolonged cost of living crisis for two years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the things that best reflect our wellbeing approach are the fact that 77,000 children have been lifted out of poverty, that we have built more than 10,000 public houses, that we’ve increased Pharmac’s funding by 43 percent, that we’ve extended free and low-cost doctors visits to children under 14, that we’ve expanded school-based health services to over 96,170 students, and that we’ve had 745,000 sessions for mental health within general practice sites. I think our wellbeing approach is shown by the winter energy payment and the Best Start payment. I think it’s shown by the lifts we’ve made to the family tax credit and that we’ve made to main benefits. I think it’s shown by the free-trade agreements we’ve signed that are helping deliver jobs. I think it’s shown by the 62 percent increase that we’ve seen in new entry to specialist practice for nurses, occupational therapy, and social workers. I think it’s shown by the doubling of Pacific scholarships that we’ve had in our time in office. I think it’s shown by the extension of Mana Ake across different regions of New Zealand. I think it’s shown by what we’ve done through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme—this insulated more than 100,000 homes. There are numerous examples.

Nicola Willis: Does the finance Minister appreciate that, while he can stand there reading out a long list, the reality for everyday New Zealanders, who others in this Parliament are in touch with, is a prolonged cost of living crisis, real wages going backwards, mortgage payments that in many cases have doubled, a struggling economy, and a bleak outlook? That is what his economic policies have delivered.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely understand and appreciate what New Zealanders are going through. But the negative mind-set of the National Party means they don’t appreciate the hard work New Zealanders have done to get us through COVID, and the fact is that there is a Government that stands alongside those New Zealanders and doesn’t run them down.

Question No. 7—Digital Economy and Communications

7. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: What recent announcements has the Government made on expanding provincial connectivity?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): It was my pleasure to announce, last Friday, that the Government has struck a significant deal with major telecommunications networks to speed up the roll-out of 5G to regional towns right across New Zealand. Through these agreements with Spark, 2degrees, and One NZ, 55 rural and regional towns will receive expedited 5G services to help with economic growth and recovery for our provinces. This is in exchange for long-term access to 3.5 GHz spectrum band, allowing these companies to operate their 5G networks nationwide. From Oamaru to Ōtorohanga, Motueka to Murupara, this deal means that 5G connectivity is one step closer for more New Zealanders.

Naisi Chen: Why did the Government choose not to auction this spectrum?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It’s very simple: we had something the networks wanted—radio spectrum—and they had something we wanted—faster roll-out of 5G to provinces. That puts us in a unique position to negotiate an allocation and hit two birds with one stone. In exchange for commitments made by the major network operators, the Government will provide each of the three major operators with sufficient spectrum to operate their 5G networks nationwide. That’s great news, no matter where you are—Te Awamutu, Te Aroha, Taumarunui, or Te Puke.

Naisi Chen: What else does this deal include?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Interim Māori Spectrum Commission will receive 100 MHz of spectrum, in line with the previous agreement achieved with Māori. They will manage this spectrum on behalf of all Māori, ensuring equitable access and the benefits of 5G technology. To support rural connectivity, Spark, One NZ, and 2degrees will each contribute $24 million to the Government between 2023 and 2025. This funding will be utilised by the Rural Connectivity Group to expand mobile coverage into rural areas that would not have been otherwise commercially viable, bringing mobile blackspots down and ensuring comprehensive coverage. That’s more good news, from Greymouth to Greytown.

Naisi Chen: How does this build on existing initiatives?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This Government has continued to invest in connectivity for all of New Zealand. The agreement builds upon previous Government investment, including the allocation of $60 million through Budget 2022 for rural connectivity improvements. Additionally, $47 million has been invested in rural capacity upgrades which began in February of last year. With fibre and wireless now covering almost all New Zealanders, we know New Zealanders are getting connected faster in regions like Waitara, Wellsford, Wairoa, or any of the 42 towns I haven’t already mentioned.

Question No. 8—Revenue

8. Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his recent statement, “We have hard data confirming fundamental unfairness in our tax system”; if so, what specific policies, if any, has he proposed to Cabinet to address unfairness in the tax system?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In response to the first part of the member’s question, yes. For the first time ever, we have concrete data that indisputably shows that the effective tax rate paid by middle-income New Zealanders is much, much higher than that paid by our wealthiest citizens. Recent research from Inland Revenue has shone a light on the wealth, income, and tax paid by 311 of New Zealand’s high-wealth individuals, their life partners, and dependent children. They had an average of $276 million in net assets, totalling $85 billion for that group. The study showed that 93 percent of that group’s income comes from investment returns and that their effective tax rate, including the GST they pay in their expenditure, was 9.5 percent. In response to the second part of the member’s question: as always, Cabinet discussions are confidential.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: What is he doing to respond to the recent report, which estimates $7 billion per year is being stolen from Aotearoa taxpayers in tax evasion and tax avoidance enabled by a tax system that allows the rich to evade tax, further placing the burden on wage and salary earners?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The study didn’t show that there was illegal behaviour by anyone; it just showed that the incidence of taxation falls much more on people who earn their living from their labour and wages and salaries than it does on those who earn their money by returns on investments.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Will he significantly raise the budget of the Serious Fraud Office to enable them to properly investigate white-collar criminals who use lawyers, bankers, and accountants to get around paying their fair share of tax; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said, there is no evidence of illegal behaviour here on any great scale. But what this study does show is that it is necessary for Inland Revenue to have the proper powers to investigate who’s paying what in the tax system, and this report shines a light on what we think are unfairnesses.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was would the Government invest in the Serious Fraud Office. I don’t think the Minister came anywhere near—

SPEAKER: It’s definitely addressed.

Question No. 9—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

9. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What progress can he report on the work he is doing on the pricing of groceries?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Heaps is what we can do and what we’ve done. We’re taking actions to get Kiwis the best possible deal for their groceries at the checkout. This follows the market study into groceries that showed super-profits being made by the New Zealand supermarket duopoly. We are letting the little guys buy from the supermarket warehouses, putting an end to anti-competitive land agreements that shut competitors out, making a code for how supermarkets must deal with suppliers and we’ve established a groceries commissioner as a permanent watchdog for the sector, and more: last week, we closed consultation on a new unit-pricing requirement. This will empower shoppers to compare the prices of similar products much more easily, helping Kiwis get the best out of their budget.

Dan Rosewarne: How does unit pricing work?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Unit pricing helps consumers choose the best deal for their needs by comparing value and price. It’s particularly helpful where products are sold in different-sized packaging and by different brands. New rules will require supermarkets and other large grocery retailers to clearly and consistently display the price per unit of product so they can be compared more easily—for example, the price per 100 grams or by litre.

Dan Rosewarne: Will unit pricing bring prices down?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yes.

Hon Member: How?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Funny you should ask that. We know that consumers exercising more power with their product choices is likely to have an impact on the prices themselves. That’s because it keeps supermarkets and their suppliers in check on any prices that might be confusing or unfair. It makes prices more transparent, including price hikes. Unit pricing stimulates different brands to compete on value, and that’s great for New Zealanders.

Dan Rosewarne: What can Kiwis expect to see in the difference in their grocery bills?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The super-profits in the grocery sector have been many years in the making, and that is why we take bold, concerted, and consistent action. We’re committed to see that work in the many steps we’re taking. We expect unit pricing to be immediately helpful to Kiwis on tight budgets, and also helpful over time for everyone wanting to see their supermarket brands competing on value. We know budgets are tight right now, but we’re here to back Kiwi consumers to get the best deal possible, whatever it takes, not like the ACT Party and their National Party mates.

David Seymour: How much is 2 litres of milk and a loaf of bread?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, Mr Seymour, it depends where you go. If you go to The Warehouse, you can get 2 litres of milk for $3, the same milk is $3.50 at the supermarket, but if you buy Meadow Fresh, it’s about $5.70. So my message to you is shop around.

SPEAKER: Now, question No. 10, Erica Stanford. [Interruption] Order! Settle down.

Question No. 10—Education

10. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Erica Stanford: Are the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) reading results released last night, showing New Zealand’s score in reading has fallen to its lowest ever, consistent with her statement in this House that “progress has remained constant” since 2017—meaning no significant change has been shown?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The member continues to be fixated on generating a negative story, but the facts are much more promising. New Zealand’s year 5 students’ performance is above the international mean in this international assessment of reading literacy. In PIRLS 2021, New Zealand recorded an average reading literacy score of 521, which is significantly higher than the international average of 500 and consistent with our score in PIRLS 2016. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t more work to.

Erica Stanford: Why is it that under her Government, according to these PIRLS reading results released last night, the results of the lowest quartile of our students are performing much worse than the lowest quartile of students who rank much lower than New Zealand?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We’ve always been very open about the fact that there is a big discrepancy in our reading achievement—it is not new. The difference this time is that this Government is doing something about it.

Erica Stanford: Given these results, why is it that the young people who are most disadvantaged in New Zealand, who stand to benefit the most from being able to read, aren’t on track to benefit from a good education to break cycles of intergenerational poverty under her Government?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This Government is doing something about lifting achievement levels in this country. We have introduced the common practice model, which is the work that we’re doing that will come into play from 2024, and it will lift reading and literacy achievement levels in this country. But, first and foremost, this Government has acted on lifting achievement levels by getting rid of national standards. We have put in place a literacy plan to lift literacy teaching and learning, we have implemented progress steps to indicate essential time-sensitive aspects of literacy at each phase of learning, we have funded tutoring sessions for secondary school students whose learning was impacted by COVID-19, we’ve rolled out the Better Start Literacy Approach, and we have introduced ready to read phonics. We know that there is way more to do. We know that these result indicate action, and that’s exactly what this Government is doing.

Erica Stanford: Can she explain how these international PIRLS reading results for our lowest quartile of students doesn’t just confirm that this Government is failing our most disadvantaged students, where less than a third of decile 1 students attend school regularly and only 10 percent of decile 1 students can pass a basic literacy and numeracy NCEA assessment?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said in this House before, that is part of a pilot programme. I disagree with that speaker.

SPEAKER: Question No. 11—oh, a further supplementary, sorry.

Erica Stanford: Final question, Mr Speaker. To the Minister: can she explain how 70 percent of New Zealanders surveyed do not believe her Government has done enough to address failing literacy and numeracy results, despite all of the previous answers she’s given us today?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I know that that member is very, very interested in poll results, but New Zealanders can be assured that the Government is taking urgent action to address maths and literacy, and I absolutely acknowledge that there is more to do. The results won’t turn around overnight, but we have laid the foundations by investing heavily in medium to long term curriculum development that is evidence-based and world leading. This is on the back of little investment in the previous years prior to that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister believe that the decision taken by the previous Government to make it easier for secondary school students to achieve the literacy and numeracy requirements of NCEA improved or diminished literacy and numeracy levels in New Zealand?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I found that really difficult to hear. There were interjections through it, and now you’re—[Interruption] I’m on my feet. I’m about to make a ruling. I’m ruling that question out of order.

Question No. 11—Health

11. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: Is she confident that New Zealanders are able to see their GP when they need to, or enrol with a GP at all?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I am advised that in New Zealand, as of 1 May 2023, 4,882,883 individuals—or approximately 94 percent of the population—are enrolled in general practices. There are also a number of initiatives under way to address the pressures on GPs and improve access to primary care, improving providing alternative avenues to good care, providing staff and funding for general practices, and increasing the number of general practitioners practising in New Zealand. We know there are challenges in the primary care sector and there is always more work to do, and we’re getting on with the job.

Brooke van Velden: What are the consequences of New Zealand having only one GP for every 820 people, compared to Australia having one GP for every 575 people?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is important that we improve access to primary care, and one of the goals of the health reforms is to re-orientate ourselves in that direction. There is a number of initiatives under way to that end after the pandemic. That includes making sure that we have our immigration settings right to get general practitioners, including working with the Medical Council to see regulation for overseas-trained doctors to train directly in primary care, raising the number of general practice training positions, and making sure that those general practice registrars are appropriately remunerated for their training.

Brooke van Velden: What does she say to people who find it unacceptable that GP capitation levels increased by only 3 percent last year, when inflation increased by 7 percent?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Well, I say to those people that if you want to see the track record of Government funding for primary care, then that party over there supported a Government that raised primary care funding by 1.2 percent. This Government is offering a 5 percent increase to primary care this year—the highest ever. I know general practitioners are far too smart to buy the empty promises of the ACT Party.

Brooke van Velden: Will her Government commit to adopting ACT’s policy of increasing GP capitation levels by 13 percent—enough to subsidise an additional 2.5 million extra GP visits—to ensure accessible healthcare for everyday Kiwis, and, if not, why not?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I believe we’ve covered the major creditability gap with a party that has only supported a Government that led to a 1.2 percent annual increase in funding for primary care, compared to the increases we are and have overseen.

Brooke van Velden: Has the Minister raised with the Minister of Finance an increase to GP capitation, and, if not, why not?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have a number of discussions with the Minister of Finance of this Government’s vision for an inclusive, accessible, and successful primary-care sector.

SPEAKER: Question No. 12, the Hon—

Brooke van Velden: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question—has she discussed with the Minister of Finance an increase to GP capitation levels—and she did not address that question.

SPEAKER: Oh yes, she did.

Question No. 12—Police

12. 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): Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the third time, I stand by my full statement that it is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police. As the Minister of Police, I remain committed to making New Zealanders feel safer through the actions this Government is taking, including the delivery of 1,800 additional police, the roll-out of the Tactical Response Model, and also establishing a firearms registry.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How can she say that New Zealanders feel safer when the Government’s firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) have only been used twice in nine months?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The reality of a firearms prohibition order is that when it is issued, it is done at sentencing by a judge. It is a tool that this Government developed in legislation to enable the judiciary to enable an extra tool. I find it rich from that member, when they talked about and read Cabinet papers about firearm prohibition orders for nine years and failed to deliver one.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Government vote down firearms prohibition orders that the Opposition brought to the House?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This Government brought a fit for purpose rule that did not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and we passed that legislation and it’s now enacted.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Government bring a bill to this House that has only been used twice in nine months, with a rising incidence of gang members carrying firearms and using them?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I would like to talk the member through the process of a firearms prohibition order so he understands how the court process works. The orders empower judges to prohibit anyone convicted of a firearms-related offence and other offences, including murder and serious violent offences, from accessing or using guns. Following a full police investigation, police charge a defendant with a qualifying offence. The defendant appears in court. The ordinary prosecution process takes place. Due to the nature of criminal proceedings, there is no onesizefitsall model for what the prosecution process or for what the qualifying offence looks like. The defendant then either pleads or is found guilty of the qualifying offence, and they will appear for sentencing in respect of that offence, at which time the court may make an FPO as part of the sentencing process.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the Government pass a weak bill when they were warned by the Police Association that if they did, it wouldn’t be used, and nine months later, it’s been used twice?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I’d be wary of quoting the Police Association, given that member’s current stance on the firearms registry. The current bill passed and enacted by this Government provides the courts with a good tool that is utilised to enable those dangerous people who have access to firearms to have prohibition orders put over them, just as the firearms registry, when live, will do the same process.

Hon Stuart Nash: Is the Minister aware of any party in this House that voted against Government legislation that made it harder for gangs to get firearms and—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s out of order. That concludes oral questions.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll just hold up the Mānawatia a Matariki again. [Applause] Thank you, thank you.

There are only 11 weeks until the House rises for the election, and tomorrow the Minister of Finance delivers his sixth Budget. Even in the difficult circumstances that the country faces, he will be able to deliver a Budget that is appropriate for the circumstances and the times. On this side of the House, we look forward to the delivery of that Budget with some anticipation.

But compare that to the negativity that emanates from the other side of the House. That negativity started in 2017 under Simon Bridges, it ramped up under Judith Collins, and it’s just continued on under the negative National Party’s current manager. Negative Chris Luxon constantly talks down New Zealand. You see, he called beneficiaries “bottom feeders”. What a term to use to describe New Zealanders who are having difficulties. He heads over to the UK to some right-wing thinktank and talks to businesses over there, and he says that New Zealand’s businesses are soft. His social media is always attacking others.

I’d just say, lighten up, Chris—lighten up. Things are tough at the moment, but we will get through this time by being pragmatic and by being focused. And I just say, bro, your negativity is dragging you down, and then tell that to all your other negative National sidekicks over there. Even on a sunny Wellington day like today, a dark cloud just hovers over the top of them. It just hangs there. I hear they have even set up their own civil defence emergency management group to deal with the flood of negativity that emanates from their party.

On this side of the House, though, we aren’t wasting time complaining; we’re getting on with the job, supporting Kiwis today and building for tomorrow. While the “coalition of cuts” over there plots to slash our public services and send New Zealand backwards, we’re investing in Kiwis through things like our cyclone recovery package, which will fix roads, it will rebuild schools, and it’ll support our mental health in cyclone-impacted regions.

And while the “coalition of cuts” sticks their heads in the sand over climate change, we’re taking action through things like the Clean Car Discount. You know, they go on about the utes—having to pay more for those high-polluting things—and yet, at the same time, they complain about the cost to farmers when the farm gets washed out, when the fences get flooded, and all that sort of stuff. But they complain about the things that we’re doing to mitigate climate change. We’re also phasing out things like coal boilers in schools and partnering with businesses to stop burning fossil fuels.

As New Zealand heads towards a general election, it couldn’t be clearer what is at stake. And what is at stake is equity, what is at stake is investment in wellbeing, and what’s at stake is the focus on supporting New Zealanders, not tearing them down. We’ve supported low-income New Zealanders and families and brought 77,000 children out of poverty. We heard both the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister talk about the raft of things that we have done to help New Zealanders. We’ve built more public housing, as the Minister of Housing, Megan Woods, said. We’re building new hospitals and we’re building more schools, as the Minister of Education has told us. We’ve introduced fair pay agreements and pay equity. Imagine that, pay equity: paying people what they’re worth. We’ve introduced that legislation to make sure Kiwis get a fair pay for a fair day’s work. We’ve introduced the first uniquely—let me find it again—New Zealand public holiday in Matariki; and, again, look at the negativity that emanated from the other side of the House towards something that is so positive and so inclusive. It’s a holiday, and they’re upset about having a day off—well, mind you, maybe between a holiday and a day at work, they can’t tell the difference.

So these projects are all at stake under a Government led by the “coalition of cuts”. We don’t know what National’s financial plan looks like; we’d like to know what National’s financial plan looks like. But if it’s anything like ACT’s, it’ll include a plan to slash taxes for the rich while cutting essential services which everyday Kiwis rely on. Also what’s going to go is Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Arawhiti, the Ministry for Women, the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, and the Human Rights Commission. It’s disgraceful what’s at stake with the “coalition of cuts” over there.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): What if Aotearoa was a country where we held up housing as a human right, as a place for people to put down roots, to live in as homes, and not just a way to make a few uber-wealthy? What if Aotearoa committed to upholding the mana of all people, the way that all people deserve? What if we had a country where people could access the healthcare they need, the housing they need, the incomes they need, the education that will uplift everyone? What if that was the Aotearoa that we would all commit to in this House?

I want to offer my aroha ki ngā mate kua haere ki te pō [compassion to the casualties that have passed on into the night]. Those who lost their lives and wellbeing at Loafers Lodge yesterday; those who are connected to those people whose lives were lost; those who helped to try and save, and did indeed rescue, and now also have their own trauma, loss, and grief to deal with, including the first responders and also the broader community.

The loss of lives and wellbeing from yesterday could have been prevented. And that’s what I want to say clearly today. These are about political choices that led us to the situation yesterday, which is tragic, unacceptable, and did not need to happen. Political choices have prevented us all from having the Aotearoa that I laid out at the start—an Aotearoa that we all deserve. Political will—and lack of it—has been in the way of something that isn’t that radical, if we have a think about it; some decent, dignified lives for everybody and not just for the few. Collective responsibility should be here to be able to change all of that.

The tragedy yesterday asks—and begs us to ask—what do we value the most? What are the choices where people can have housing as a human right, where we have a comprehensive warrant of fitness, a health system that works for everyone, rent controls, things that are for the public good, income support for people who really need it, better wages and conditions? Those are public-good concepts. Those will do us all well. And where first responders, including firefighters, have what they need to do what they want to do, which is to care for everyone and save all of the lives they can.

The problems, many of them, which resulted in yesterday also include boarding houses and accommodation that had been unsafe and unacceptable before one of the houses burnt down yesterday. So many of us—and I mihi to my Green Party colleagues—have been highlighting this before the house burnt down and took lives yesterday. We will continue to raise that space in here about who and what do we value the most. The Greens are constantly asking for a warrant of fitness; scaling-up public council housing, public housing, State housing, community housing—affordable, good housing. Not a radical ask, I would think—especially in this place.

The profit off misery—the profit off misery—that this place has allowed to happen is completely scandalous. The way that we have over 40 years—over 40 years, at least—in this House led an economic model that is today seeing people profit off misery. The people who have so little choice. Would any of us be content with any of our whānau—people we love and care for—living with such little choice? The people without the resources and power and influence to be able to stand in this place.

This place is supposed to be a House of Representatives. Just today, we have had more information; this place is not representative. Not all of us own multiple houses and are going to make rules to change the system, are going to make the choices so that everyone can have a good place to live. How can we trust this House when it is not representative? I would like to think, no matter how many houses people owned, we could still come to a contractual agreement for social good; for public good.

Yesterday was unacceptable. We have solutions here that the Greens have been laying out for decades and I urge us all to pick those up and value people who have long been asking to be valued, who have long been accepting unacceptable standards as if that’s all they deserve. We can do better. We’ve got the solutions here. It’s political will. It’s political choice. I urge people to pay responsibility to everyone having dignity and not just building up the wealth for the few. Kia ora.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I too want to express my sympathies to those affected by the fire in Loafers Lodge in Newtown. When I was a junior doctor, it was my neighbourhood. I made a point of living two minutes from the emergency department, and living there and working there, I saw some of the people with complex conditions who came and went from the hospital; who were also the familiar faces we’d see on the streets of Newtown. Sadly, one of those is among those reported as unaccounted for from the fire. I want to express my deepest thanks to the first responders, including paramedics and those who cared and those who continue to care for people affected by the fire in the emergency department.

In reflecting on this urgent debate today, I want to say what an important and great opportunity we have through our reformed health system to create a truly equitable, high-quality, and patient-centred system. We know that our system has not been fair for everyone. It was too complex and fragmented, it was orientated around the convenience of providers rather than that of patients, and healthcare became dependent on where you live. On this side of the House, we believe that that’s not good enough. We are focused on reforms to create a more equitable system, where all people and whānau and their communities are supported in their health and wellbeing aspirations. So I see this opportunity as the greatest in a generation, but the difficulty and complexity of our task cannot be overestimated.

Transformational change like this doesn’t happen overnight, and it will take time for deeper issues, like resourcing and inequality, to start to improve. But I want to talk about the way that we are doing it, and one example is through our winter plan, where we are using the power of our one national health system to commission services closer to people’s homes, and where we are making the best use of our talented professionals to mean that pharmacists and general practitioners and others can practise at the top of their scope and be empowered to help people in their communities more.

Our health sector needs a change to do more like this, and I am determined to support it to do so. Services need to work for everyone and for the wellbeing of their communities, and there is a positive vision of our health system that we can realise through the reforms. But what do we hear from the other side of the House? Nothing but constant negativity, white-anting, and the failed policies of the 1990s that got us into this mess. New Zealanders need to know that a vote for the Opposition is a vote that puts their health services at risk. It’s clear that National’s tax plan—tax cuts for the highest-earning New Zealanders—means massive cuts to health, to education, to housing, and to all the social services.

National will try and tell New Zealanders they won’t make cuts, but without cuts their tax plan does not add up. A National-ACT coalition will cut taxes, but that means cuts to essential services, whereas we have increased funding to Pharmac by 51 percent since 2017, which has enabled them to purchase drugs like Trikafta for cystic fibrosis. A vote for the Opposition puts that at risk. We have increased the base rate for registered nurses by 43 percent since 2017, and we remain committed to settling pay equity claims. A vote for the Opposition puts that at risk.

We have funded and developed services like Decide, the national free abortion telehealth service. A vote for the Opposition puts that service at risk. We have created the Māori Health Authority. We are supporting by Māori, for Māori services to reduce the life expectancy gap. A vote for the Opposition puts that progress at risk. We have funded the roll-out of primary mental health services that are available in communities up and down the country. A vote for the Opposition puts that at risk.

Under this Government, health infrastructure spending has increased substantially since 2017, compared to the many years of austerity with no funding of health capital infrastructure under National. That has allowed us to get on and build improved services across the country, fixing and building hospitals. That is at risk with a vote for the Opposition.

There is too much at risk in this election—too much at stake—and we cannot afford to go backwards. There is no doubt we are living in challenging times, but we have a plan to create a more equitable health system that’s focused on the needs of New Zealanders, and we’re getting on with the job.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): New Zealand is going backwards under Labour, and it is causing great fear for many Kiwis.

I spoke to a woman in Birkenhead recently who said to me, with tears in her eyes and anguish on her face, “How will I convince my daughter to stay here in New Zealand when it is getting so much harder to get ahead; when the cost of living is so high; when people feel unsafe; when there are ram raids every day; when the health system is falling apart, with longer waiting lists; when education standards are falling?” She said to me, “They all want to leave for Australia, because it looks better over there right now, doesn’t it? The Government books are in surplus. The economy grew last year, at the end, while ours shrank. They’re delivering tax cuts to middle-income earners. There are lower interest rates. What I want is a Government that will fight to keep New Zealanders here at home, that will fight to show them that this is a country that can deliver them a better future, a country where there will be a lower cost of living, where a Government will bring discipline to spending, where it will let people keep more of what they earn, and where it will grow the economy.”

But the members opposite have given up on that. They have completely and utterly given up, and it is deeply sad to see that not only has Labour given up on giving people reasons to stay here in New Zealand; they are now actively encouraging New Zealanders to stay in Australia and not come home. I’m holding, in my hand, two advertisements that the New Zealand Labour Party has paid for with $10,000 of taxpayer money—advertisements paid for by Parliamentary Service and authorised by Chris Hipkins. What these ads do is target some of those bright, talented, hard-working New Zealanders currently living in Australia and they say to them, “Here’s how you become an Australian citizen.” Well, I find it sad. Because here is the news, if you’ll stop and listen: it is not your job to convince people to leave; it’s your job to convince them to come home. So what kind of a Government prioritises using $10,000 of taxpayers’ money—hard-earned—to advertise to Kiwis that they should stay away, they should become Australian citizens? That is how upside-down things have got in that Labour Government, and Chris Hipkins has signed off on it. As if the current brain drain isn’t enough; as if it isn’t enough that we’ve got 4,000 nurses short in our hospitals; as if it isn’t enough that New Zealanders feel so oppressed by inflation, by rising interest rates, by their wages falling behind, the Labour Government says, “Well, actually, we’re going to use your money that we’ve been overtaxing you with, to tell the Kiwis who have jumped the Ditch to stay right there.”

That is how badly Labour has given up, and you can see it. You can see it when Grant Robertson is sitting here in this Parliament making excuses for why New Zealanders should simply tolerate the fact that their real wages have gone backwards; they should simply tolerate the fact that the Government is spending at record levels and yet isn’t delivering better outcomes; they should simply tolerate paying more tax, paying higher prices, paying higher interest rates—because, in the finance Minister’s world, it’s all too hard!

Well, I say it is time for a National Government, who will have, as a driving mission, our desire to make this a country that more New Zealanders want to stay in. We want to say to that mother, “We’ll give your daughter a reason to stay here, because she will see a growing economy where she can get ahead, with safer communities, with better health services, and with education standards that are climbing not falling.”

This country is better than Australia. The only people who don’t think that are the members opposite, who are telling New Zealanders that they should make their life there. Well, I’ll tell you the difference between Chris Hipkins and Chris Luxon: Chris Luxon won’t be advertising to New Zealanders telling them to leave; he will be giving them reasons to stay.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): If that is not the most negative speech I have almost ever heard—it’s almost anti - New Zealand, what we just heard from negative Nicola. Now, I’m not sure what the rumours are up in those Auckland chambers of commerce, but we might have just heard from somebody believed to be New Zealand’s next Prime Minister. My goodness me, New Zealand, if this negative vision for Aotearoa is what’s on offer, then this country is in trouble.

But fear not—fear not, New Zealand—because we have at the helm Christopher Hipkins, aka Chippy. This is a man that is focused on the bread and butter issues. He’s out there on the streets, born and raised in Upper Hutt. He has worked diligently for a New Zealand that we can all be proud of. On top of that, he’s just been named as one of the best dressers in the world. Kudos to Barkers.

But that aside, I want to talk about what we have done. This Government has invested in our regions. Just last week, I traipsed up and down the East Coast region looking at the people we had invested in, looking at the roads that we had invested in, looking at the businesses up and down. All throughout Aotearoa, our regions are filled with New Zealanders committed to staying in their regions, because our Government has invested in this place here.

Now, though, we’ve heard from the Opposition. We’ve heard that they want to bring about cut, cut, cut, cut. They want a “coalition of cuts”—that’s all we’ve heard. I just want to remind New Zealand of the last time that the National and the ACT Party—the “coalition of cuts”—were in and what they did to New Zealand’s justice system. If you remember, they closed police stations. They didn’t fund the police. They froze the police budget year on year—that’s right. They tried and they failed to get firearms prohibition—

Hon Mark Mitchell: New Zealand was much safer.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: —orders over the line. Well, if Mr Mitchell thought New Zealand was safer then, either (a) his memory’s a little foggy, or (b) he just doesn’t read the stats. New Zealand was not safer back then, but he can plead all he likes.

One thing, though: whilst we’re on a little bit of history reflection, let’s reflect on the ghosts of the past. Oh, that’s right. One thing about this current iteration of the National Party: they clearly aren’t the party that was the John Key and Bill English Government—I’ll tell you that. That was with a Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance that denounced prisons as a moral and fiscal failure. That was a Government that said, “We know that a key to reducing crime in the long term is to stop young people entering the justice system in the first place.” This approach is also a central principle of New Zealand and international laws and guidelines—steering young people away from a life of crime and ensuring they don’t get caught up in the justice system increases the chance that they will reach their full potential.

Now, that was the basis of the John Key, of the Bill English, justice policy. However, the “coalition of cuts” is now promoting a half-a-billion - dollar investment. That is what the National Party is supporting: a half-a-billion - dollar investment into kiddie prisons—kiddie prisons. This is the one thing that I think the “coalition of cuts” has done that the Mongrel Mob will actually like. You are literally creating a kiddie kindergarten for criminals and gangs. That’s a half-a-billion-dollar investment. That is the National-ACT justice policy.

On this side of the House, we take an evidence-based approach. The things that we do: we put an extra 1,600 police on the front lines. That’s what this Government has done; one that takes law and order seriously. We’ve increased the police budget every single year. Now, how’s the “coalition of cuts” going to pay for extra police? No, no—that’s right. They’re going to find some more money to invest in kiddie prisons—kindergarten prisons. This is a Government focused on New Zealand, and we are so proud of the work we have done.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking today, and I just want to start out by saying that I listened to the deputy leader of the Labour Party, the Hon Kelvin Davis, talk about something really, really important today: Matariki. Basically, we were talking about another holiday, and I thought that that was the most important thing that the Minister could talk about with all the goings on in New Zealand at the moment.

Firstly, I want to talk about something that I think is actually much more important. I want to talk about the business community, the lifeblood of New Zealand in terms of driving this economy forward, funding the wasteful spending that that Government has embarked upon over the last six years. What I wanted to bring to the attention of the House is a raft of very important surveys that have come out—three very important surveys—and what they paint is a poor picture. They paint a dreadful picture of the ordinary mum and dad out there who are trying to live, trying to create a business, and trying to earn a wage, who are supporting their employees and working alongside them, and how difficult things have become.

But don’t worry, we’ve got the saviour, we’ve got the business specialists, we’ve got the business owner—not. We have got the new Minister for Small Business, the Hon Ginny Andersen, because I know she’s absolutely razor-focused on this issue. I just did notice, though, that since she has become the Minister, she’s issued two press releases—one relating to fog cannons and one relating to the flood victims—but she has taken no Cabinet papers at all since she’s become the Minister for Small Business.

Look, these surveys paint a dreadful picture, as I said: 70 percent of business owners now believe that the economy is going to get worse—70 percent; that’s a staggering amount of people—and a lot of it’s due to slowing sales. That means—read another term—there is a cost of living crisis, which means that anyone on New Zealand has less money now to go out and buy stuff in the shops and go and buy things for their family, because they have less money.

Of course, this is all leading to this dramatic loss in business confidence. Again, 70 percent believe that things are going to get worse, and that is really bad metrics, because when business owners lose confidence, what do they do? They stop investing, they stop new buying new plant, and they stop hiring new people. Worse than that, if they think it’s going to get worse—which they will under Labour—they will start firing staff, and that is the worst outcome that we could have in New Zealand.

Of course, what are the issues that they highlight? Well, a shortage of skilled staff—of course, we’ve heard about that. In every business I go to, what is the issue? The first issue is, “I can’t get enough staff.” But, of course, it’s rising inflation, it’s rising fuel and transport costs, and it’s rising interest costs. Why has that happened? Why are our interest rates going up? It’s because we’ve had a Government that just loves spending money and wasting money, and, of course, the Reserve Bank Governor, who has said it outright, explicitly—he’s had to raise the official cash rate, the Reserve Bank rate, because the Government can’t control itself.

So what does all this mean going forward? It is a time where business owners have had to now stretch deep into their own pockets to fund their own businesses, and, of course, many of them are now turning to their credit cards. This is one of the things that came out in the surveys. Of course, credit cards are really expensive. Forty percent of small and medium-sized enterprises have said that they have been unsuccessful in getting further credit from their banks over the last 12 months—that’s a staggeringly high figure—and so they are financially strained. That is the worst thing, and with interest rates driving up, that’s when you need money, because your interest cost on your debt is going to mean that you’ve got to find more revenue to cover those costs.

All of that means that we have got a problem in our business sector, and it’s not surprising that 40 percent, or two out of five business owners have said that they have got mental illness, and a staggering one out of five have self-diagnosed that they’ve been depressed at some point in time. That’s not the country that we want. That’s not the environment we want for our business owners, because they’re the lifeblood force of our economy.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Well, look, when we think about it, we’ve got a big decision coming up this year and people are going to be out there shopping for policies, and I want to think about where they’re going to shop. Because on this side of the House—think of us like a supermarket—we’ve got “Labour Mart”, we’ve got a good supermarket. The car park might not be full, but that’s because a lot of people would’ve walked there, would’ve caught the bus, would’ve caught the train.

Then you’ve got another supermarket. It’s called the “National/ACT Mart”—the “NACT Mart”, the “Nick-knack Mart” because they nick off the poor to give it to the rich. You know what that supermarket looks like? The car park’s crammed—crammed full of flash cars—but you know what? There’s no access ramp to get into it. If you go to Labour Mart, you get some good policies, good policies which are addressing the meaty issues. We put a “steak” in the ground on what matters. But what do you get if you go to NACT Mart? They’re off their trolley. Their policies are a basket case. They’re whipped into a frenzy, like Mr Bayly was, but, you know, they’ve got no answers.

You go to the fruit and vegetable section, and “lettuce” tell you what you see there. You see politicians who turn up, turn up to do the mahi, to attack the big problems. Go to the delicatessen at NACT Mart, what do you get? Cuts. Lots of fine delicatessen cuts: tax cuts, service cuts, cuts to nurses, cuts to teachers. You get a problem. You get an economy that would be in a tailspin as they give tax cuts to the rich in an inflationary manner, and yet here we are in a situation where we are today when we’ve got to address the cost of living. Over in NACT Mart, you’ve got some real problems. You’ve got a “cereal” failure in the breakfast aisle, I’ll tell you that. Their policies, frankly, are dog tucker.

So, look, what we need to do is address the big issues that we’ve got. In just a “Jif”, you know, Mr Bayly over there needs to think about what he’s saying about business confidence, because he’s not “Handy Andy” when it comes to how business confidence really works. A Government needs to work on the economy as a whole, and the spending that we’re doing in things like infrastructure, the huge amount we’ve put into rail—and I know we put a huge amount in disaster response into the Hawke’s Bay, and you’ll hear about that soon, because we can’t hang people out to dry. That’s not what this Government is about.

So use your noodle. Think about what we’re going to do here. We’ve really got to get into—while you’re scrambling around, we’re going to crack the big issues with some “egg-cellent” policies—you’ll be hearing those tomorrow—and we’ll keep doing the hard work here today.

So when you think about it, in terms of supermarkets, we’ve got no beef with their profits, but a competitive market is a rare thing well done. So that’s why we’re addressing those supermarket issues, and, in my portfolio, I’m very, very proud to do that, because what matters to New Zealanders is what happens at the checkout, and what have we got from them? Nothing. What we would see is falling wages. Every time we have put the minimum wage up—I’m very proud of our policy on minimum wage and living wage. What would we hear from them? Suppressed wages. What would suppressing wages do? It would flatten the economy. So it’s all very nice to, say, give tax cuts to your mates, in service cuts to the public sector, but all that would happen would be a problem in the economy where the wealthy have lots to spend and there are people on the streets.

We are putting funding into housing, police, schools, nursing, mental health. We’re addressing those big, long-term issues. We’ve made more progress on climate change than the National Government did in nine years. What did they do in nine years? Nothing. What policies do they have now? None.

The only policies the National Party’s got are the ones David Seymour gives them. Yeah, so think about that. I’m yet to hear a National Party policy. David Seymour at least is upfront about his crazy policies. Good on him—I give him credit for that. He wants to deregulate everything, but at least he’s honest and has the decency to stand up and tell us what his policies are, whereas the National Party is going to be told by their new Minister of Finance, David Seymour—should they ever get into Government—what to do. And what are the chances of that? Very, very slim. October 14—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Many times in this House, I have seen a hapless member fail to fill a 10-minute slot, but Duncan Webb couldn’t fill five minutes, and I feel truly sorry for the people of Christchurch Central, who have to have him as a representative. But there are more serious matters than Duncan Webb to be discussed this week, because it’s Budget week.

In particular, this week, we have seen some really interesting political theatre. We’ve seen Grant Robertson, the finance Minister, say he would cut spending by $4 billion, and people said, “Wow!”—except they forgot it’s $4 billion over four years; it’s only $1 billion a year. People forgot that Grant Robertson has increased Government spending by $49 billion a year. So his $1 billion a year saving is really 2 percent of all the extra spending that Grant Robertson does over and above his predecessor. What he’s really saying is that he’s going to keep going with 98 percent of the new spending he’s introduced. In other words, there is no change.

Along comes the National Party, and they don’t say how much they’d reduce wasteful spending by, but they do say they will give you a letter to tell you how much wasteful spending has happened and how much tax you’ve paid for it—an idea that, ironically, ACT introduced in 1997, when people still relied on letters to get information, before the internet became commonplace, and even then the National Party vetoed it, stopping it from happening when it was more relevant.

ACT, on the other hand, has produced an alternative budget—A Time For Truth—the only fully costed alternative budget that is produced in this Parliament year in, year out by ACT, showing New Zealanders the real choice for real change, not Tweedledee-Tweedledum; the same policies, different slogans; because New Zealand has had enough of that. This country is in a state of decline. We must choose on a spectrum between Australia and Fiji. Is New Zealand going to become a big Fiji—a nice place to visit but without the First World healthcare and education and transport infrastructure and services that people expect? Well, that is the trajectory this country is on when we have two parties that don’t give you a real choice. A Time For Truth is about telling the truth about where this country is up to and taking action to make it better.

This alternative budget—and people can download it from ACT’s website and go through it—reduces wasteful spending by $38 billion in four years, or around $8.5 billion a year. What that means is that we don’t touch a single front-line service—not one cop, one nurse, one teacher. Actually, we’re going to pay the teachers $5,000 more each. Actually, we’re going to bring defence spending up by 2 percent, to 2 percent of GDP. Actually, we are going to make 200 secure beds for youth offenders, so the police don’t play tag-and-release and so that the worst, most-hardened youth criminals get the mental health support, the education, the physical safety, the nutrition, and the discipline and security that they’ve never had in their life. We’re not going to touch any services; we’re actually going to boost Government services where they need to be, and we’re going to do that by reducing Government waste by the billion that has grown up under this Government.

Once we have boosted security to make the streets safe, defence to keep the South Pacific safe, and doctors fees so that you can actually get into your GP, and once we have shared half the GST with the local councils so that you can afford the infrastructure to build new homes—once we’ve solved those problems—we still have room to reduce your taxes, so that someone on $70,000 a year would keep just about $50 a week extra.

In fact, every single earner would be better off under ACT’s alternative budget. Everybody would get a tax cut or a credit, meaning they would take home more money because the Government would be wasting less, and yet, in the areas where we really need it, we would spend more on a Government that needs to deliver the security, the healthcare, the education, and the infrastructure for Kiwis to live good lives. That is the difference. The ACT Party provides the real choice and tells the truth in our alternative budget. It is a time for truth. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Negative Chris Luxon constantly talks down New Zealand, negative Nicola constantly talks down New Zealand, negative National constantly talks down New Zealand, and now David Seymour delivers us a fanciful plan to cut taxes for the wealthiest New Zealanders but keep delivering all of the services we love—just look away at the numbers.

It’s not believable, because when we speak negatively about our country, we discount all of the hard work; that New Zealanders have been going through some of these toughest times. Because these are tough times, but I know that we can get through them by working together and by being pragmatic—and tomorrow we’ll see a pragmatic Budget which does the things that we need to do well and makes an impact on people’s lives.

You know, I’m backing Aotearoa, and I’m backing the South Aucklanders who put me here. Negative Chris Luxon says that South Aucklanders are cooking up crimes in their South Auckland garages. He’s calling my people “beneficiaries” and “bottom feeders”. He could not tell me more clearly who he’s for, which is the wealthiest New Zealanders who do not look like me, who do not live in my community, who do not get up every day to work hard to put food on the family dinner table, who don’t go to work to serve their communities, who don’t go to church on a Sunday to make their lives better, who don’t send their kids to education because they want more. These are people who are working hard in our communities, and Labour is the Government that will be delivering for those people.

I ask those people to watch what’s being said today here, to watch the ACT Party deliver a speech today in this House where they don’t talk about National and ACT’s cuts that will benefit the wealthiest New Zealanders by thousands of dollars a year and, in some cases, would mean the CEO of Air New Zealand would get over $100,000 a year in tax cuts. The gumption of the leader of the ACT Party to say that everyone would be better off when minimum wage earners in my electorate will be a whole 39c better off per week. Shame. Approximately $20 better off per year, but they would lose those advances in their healthcare, their advances in their education.

We’re at a really important moment in our history. My generation is at a precipice where the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed Governments around the world, and our Government too, to invest in transformational change in our healthcare systems. There is so much momentum at this moment right now, where the New Zealand Government has made a change that we have never seen in my lifetime: Māori healthcare is improving at a rate which it never has. We have a say in our healthcare system which will mean that the lives of Māori people will change, that people who have always been left out of a health system which has not addressed their needs will be able to get the care that they need on a daily basis, that primary health care is for the first time designed for them. It’s so important that we continue that work.

It’s so important that we continue the work of this Government on our climate. And I don’t mean big, high-level ideas about climate change around the world; I mean our local streams, our local ngahere. The way that New Zealanders experience our environment will change in my lifetime in a way that it hasn’t for any other New Zealanders who have ever lived before. This is the time that the Government must invest in the way that we reduce emissions and that we live our lives so that we have stopbanks which stop the flooding in our towns—people in Manurewa and in Māngere are still out of their houses since the Auckland floods. We must invest now to make sure that we are properly protected and that we have adapted to the climate change which is barrelling down at us faster than any other Government around the world has managed to take on.

This is our challenges of a generation now. We are making progress. Labour has always been the Government of progress for the people. We have the ideas which are needed now to address these huge challenges that the world is facing. We are the party of change for the better.

People have a choice now. People have a choice later this year about whether one of the most regressive—regressive—Governments is elected with a “coalition of cuts” that makes cuts to education, our health, our public services, core public spending, those police officers that we have on the ground now looking after our people; or a Government that has advanced more than any other Government before it with priorities around climate change, around looking after our people, around our people, around our local streams, our ngahere, and our health. That’s the choice.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): There are those of us who are focused on supporting each other, on backing each other, and helping each other. When the going gets tough, the tough keep it together and keep working together. Never have we seen that more than in Hawke’s Bay over the past 12 weeks—it’s only been 12 weeks; it can feel like a year sometimes. But in 12 weeks, we have seen such an incredible amount of spirit, grit, and determination from our region to work together. It is times like this that we see the best in people, where people dig deep and support and work together.

And yet, right now, all I have heard from that other side of this House for the last three-quarters of an hour are negative stories; negative pulling down of people over and over again. We’ve heard negative National Party Nicola Willis go on and on and on about how terrible it is in New Zealand, dragging down—dragging down—the economy, where, back on this side of the House, in Government, we fight. We fight for the people of New Zealand, we fight for the people of Hawke’s Bay—we back the people of Hawke’s Bay and we back this country to go forward and be proud.

The only thing that’s going up in the National Party right now is the pension age. That’s right, they want to raise the pension age—pension age is going up from 65 to 67. That’s what the National Party want to do—not on this side of the House—and so does the ACT Party. They want to make hard-working New Zealanders who pay their taxes for years and years and years—when you get to 65, when you get to 66 under the National Party and the ACT Party, they’re going to cut it from you. They’re going to cut your super. You’ve heard it here: the National Party—the only thing they’re going up on is the pension age. Everything else—everything else—they have no plan. They don’t want to help New Zealand. They don’t want to help Hawke’s Bay either. I can tell you that the National Party has shown absolutely nothing that they would give to Hawke’s Bay—not like this side of the House.

Here’s where we’re delivering: in the last 12 weeks, this Government has provided $230 million to Hawke’s Bay as part of our recovery response. That’s $10.15 million to clean up the slash. That’s $133 million to clean up debris and silt. That’s $3.25 million for mental health. That’s $31.2 million to help businesses in their immediate response and recovery. I can go on and on around the amount of investment and backing that this Government is supporting and helping Hawke’s Bay with. We’ve seen over $50 million going into our immediate response to getting roads open. We’ve had Bailey bridges been built. And, yes, the thing I can commit to here, right now, is we will continue to back business, we will back our horticultural industry.

We are in this for a partnership—a partnership with Hawke’s Bay. That’s what’s wanted: where people work together. People need to work together, stand together, and be united. That’s how we get through this. That’s what you see on this side of the Government—a Government who cares, and a Government that will continue to work and back the Bay, through and through.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, there is only one more sleep until Budget 2023. It’s going to be a comprehensive Budget; a forward-looking Budget. It’s our plan that sets the stage for New Zealand’s continued progress and prosperity. This Budget will be a testament to the dedication and vision of our Government, which has tirelessly worked to address the challenges facing our nation to create a brighter future for all. I know that Budget 2023 is going to be testament to the Government’s commitment to building a resilient and inclusive society. It prioritises investments into skills, into science, and into infrastructure—all of which are critical for driving economic growth and improving the wellbeing of our citizens. With a focus on sustainable practices and forward-thinking policies, this Budget sets us on a path towards a greener, fairer, and more prosperous future.

On the other hand, let us not forget the Opposition—specifically the National Party. While they might present themselves as an alternative, their track record in similar circumstances raises questions about their ability to effectively govern and to address the needs of New Zealanders. The National Party struggles to present a cohesive vision for the future, and their policies often lack the innovative and progressive approaches needed to navigate the challenges of the modern world.

I’ve got a confession to make. I didn’t write that speech; ChatGPT wrote that speech. Even ChatGPT knows the negativity and the fact that National is not fit to govern. All the negativity that we’ve heard from the other side of this “coalition of cuts” has come through online. It’s come through to the fact that even an AI generic robot knows that they don’t have a vision for New Zealand.

I am so proud of the track record of our Government. I’m so proud of the fundamental investment we’ve done to make sure people, like myself, my generation, people from my background—who are children of migrant families—get the support to have a chance at thriving here in New Zealand. We stare down two very different futures for New Zealand at the coming election.

We know that there is one side of the House—our Government—making sure that we truly invest in every single New Zealander, and making sure that everyone who comes on to this land has equal opportunities to thrive in life. I’m so proud of making sure that we have given investment into our mothers; into children, through our paid parental leave. I’m so proud of making sure that we’ve raised the wages of teachers, nurses, and all healthcare workers. I’m so proud of the fact that our Government has prioritised those who are on the lowest wages to make sure that their work actually earns them a dignified living.

There is huge contrast to be made with the other side of the House. Those on the other side, the National Party, have been talking about the people who live in South Auckland garages. Those are human beings. Those are people who have a dream and have multiple talents. When I was meeting with the decision makers of Auckland City a couple of weeks back, I was telling a member, “Do you know who are the up-and-coming talent in our classical music world, our opera, our orchestras?” Those are the South Auckland kids who were given a chance. They were taken by buses to come into Auckland City to listen to those classical music performances, to be truly believers that they can make something of their lives and to make something of their talents. Those are the people that our Government will continually support. We’re not going to talk them down.

One of the privileges of being able to visit some of the businesses around New Zealand is to see the young entrepreneurs. This Government backs them. We’ve started more business loans. We’ve started our Business Payment Practices Bill, to make sure that those who are actually growing our economy—and not just the large businesses that negative Nicola is meeting with every day—have their voices heard.

So there is one more sleep until Budget day. We all know that this is going to be a great, back to basics, bread and butter Budget to truly look after every single New Zealander, and I know I’ll be proud of it.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise in this general debate to talk about a topic that we have not heard much about today, have we ladies and gentlemen? That is the topic of increasing economic growth. For those on the other side of the House that require a translation of what those words mean—because I do expect and understand that many on that side of the House would not have a clue what we mean when we say “increasing economic growth”—I’m going to give a little bit of a lesson around where we need to be focused as a country.

One of the areas that you are not going to hear much from that side of the House on tomorrow is what actually drives this country; pays for our education and health services; and makes us—and should make us—the envy of the world in terms of a place to live, raise a family, retire, and that is around the elements that drive economic growth. Infrastructure investment drives economic growth. You hardly ever hear conversations around infrastructure from that side of the House unless we are dealing with the tidy up following a natural disaster.

Before the natural disasters that we saw this year, did you ever hear of any announcements from that side of the House around large-scale infrastructure investment programmes that they would undertake to increase economic growth, increase jobs, and increase productivity? The answer is no, because they do not understand the reality of what is required in this country to get us to turn around the situation which faces us right now and get us back on track and get us successful in this world.

One of the issues around infrastructure investment is the need for certainty. The private sector requires certainty of pipeline, of what are those large infrastructure projects that the Government will partner with local government and the private sector to invest in over the next 10, 20, 30 years, and beyond. These infrastructure projects are critical in order to unlock the economic growth and potential within our regions, our provinces, and our cities.

Right now, this country is stuck at the stoplights, at the traffic lights, stuck on a red light, and it’s a red light from that side of the House that means this country is not going ahead. We need real leadership, leadership that understands the fundamentals—that economic growth is our pathway in this country to drive us from where we are today to where we need to be in the future. It beggars belief that on this side of the House there is a complete understanding of that, yet on the other side of the House they simply do not understand.

Recently we put out, at the beginning of this year, the National Party’s policy around “local water done well”—

Anna Lorck: They don’t like that anymore!

SIMON WATTS: —our solution in regards to long-term infrastructure investment in water across this country. And you hear the member from Hawke’s Bay, yapping on on the other side, because their plan will not deliver sustainable change for her communities, and her communities will tell her that on 14 October and it’s lights out, time for a new MP in that region. Rightly so, because this Government has failed to take the action required to turn this ship around and we are now, under this Labour Government, destined for that ship becoming grounded, and grounded pretty swiftly.

We need to unlock that economic potential through infrastructure growth. We need to get on and start building this country back. We need to start giving certainty to our private sector, to employ the workforce, to train apprentices, to get people out there and start building this country. That is the certainty that comes with long-term infrastructure investment. That is what’s not happening from the other side of this House. That is what is going to change 154 days from now. I am looking forward—under a Christopher Luxon - led National Government—that we are going to turn this country around, get this country back on track, and that is critical for New Zealand success and I’m looking forward to being part of that.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 11 May.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third and final reading of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill.

It has been a pleasure to be part of the Primary Production Committee that had helped, in part, progress this bill through all stages in the House, now to be debated in its third and final reading. The bill as introduced would amend the Forests Act 1949, addressing the growing concerns around the international trade and the illegal harvest of timber and associated processed wood products, both here and from around the world.

For New Zealand, this bill means giving surety to those in New Zealand of both domestic and export products of timber, and an assurance scheme that New Zealand timber products are from legally harvested practices here in New Zealand; equally of the wood products, as we are a country that imports.

The bill would create a new regulatory system that enables the forestry and wood processing sector to provide domestic consumers and export markets with greater assurance that those timber products are sourced by legal means. The bill provides for the role of registered advisers and assessors, which frames their legal responsibility and obligations when working alongside industry to certify and equally give certainty to harvesters and consumers over information requirements when selling processed products.

The select committee listened to over 30 submissions—some written and many were oral. The issues raised were canvassed and addressed in further second stage reading in the House and at the committee of the whole House stage. The premise of the bill was well articulated, that New Zealand needed to respond to the calls for further consumer confidence in this trade. We know we would be impacted should such a legal framework not be put in place, damaging our reputational brand. It was well acknowledged that illegal logging is a massive problem. By Interpol estimates, illegal harvesting and processing amounted to $150 billion globally, as was surmised.

As previously mentioned in my first speech, I attended, several times, in travel across the likes of South America and Latin America, and this is a profound problem found in cities like São Paulo, Rio, Belo Horizonte, Santiago, and others. The profound knock-on effects to traders is well canvassed and articulated in those countries, displacing indigenous people and destroying the country’s natural flora and fauna in the process.

Countries around the world are embracing the need to address this significant and ongoing issue, with multiple jurisdictions seeking to legislate against the illegal timber trade. The World Bank estimates the global market loss of value from illegal cut forest products is over $10 billion per year, amounting to a sum total of nearly 30 percent of the global timber trade.

New Zealand has a substantial timber export market, but equally has a substantial import market—an import market of nearly $2.4 billion in processed timber products was imported in the years 2021 through to 2022. Suffice it to say, bringing New Zealand in line with our major trading partners and other trading nations for the protections and assurances needed over timber products is imperative to give surety to New Zealand’s forestry industry, which contributes some total of $6.7 billion annually to our economy and employs near on 35,000 people.

Recently, the new Minister presiding over this bill ushered in Supplementary Order Paper 349 that addressed many of the concerns laid out by previous speakers and submitters in the submission process at select committee. I was gratified to hear, when I pressed the Minister on the potential of access issues culminated with ownership structures and existing agreements between harvesters and landowners, it was addressed, ameliorating my concerns and I am sure many of those raised by submitters.

Whilst the ACT Party acknowledges some individuals in the submission process raised concerns that were partially addressed—the likes of the credibility of weights and measures, definitions of legal harvest, and previously mentioned access issues—on balance, we feel that these issues have largely been addressed through the latter stages of the bill as it progressed through the House.

In such, it’s imperative that New Zealand continues to play a role—a very important role—as an international player at addressing this very salient issue, giving clarity to timber production, exports, and imports. ACT will support this bill at its third and final stage through this Parliament, and we look forward to seeing the certainty it brings to our wood and processing industries, both here domestically and abroad. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a short call on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. The scale of illegal logging internationally is enormous. It’s doing immense damage to forests, to plants, to wildlife, to indigenous communities who depend on and live in those forests, to rivers, to streams, to wetlands, and to the climate by destroying the planet’s lungs and the web of life which sustains us.

In 2021, just 9 percent of the world’s natural forests remained intact. So we need to be much more ambitious in protecting what remains from the scourge of deforestation, illegal logging, and other activities like illegal mining and the ecological collapse that goes with that.

It’s also because the proceeds of illegal logging support criminal activity, political corruption, and they strip indigenous communities of both their livelihoods and their rights. As Mark Cameron noted, the scale of the international trade is billions of dollars annually.

So this bill is well-intentioned, but it’s inadequate, given the scale of the crisis and the scale of action that’s needed. Where you have illegal logging, like illegal mining, short-term profits tend to trump everything else and you see some of the worst aspects of human behaviour and human exploitation of nature and a total failure to recognise the fragility of the web of life and our dependence on nature.

The Green Party is supporting this bill because it does improve on the status quo, but it could be so much better. It would have been much better if it had tackled the other commodities which lead to illegal logging and deforestation; not just wood and timber products but things like cocoa, palm kernel expeller (PKE), chocolate, palm kernel, palm oil—all of these products which also lead to illegal logging.

The bill certainly does provide a legal harvest assurance system for the forestry and the wood processing sector. It helps safeguard exports from Aotearoa New Zealand, enables market access, and protects our reputation as a safe trading partner. But that is just for imported timber and wood products.

It does take steps to improve the integrity of the supply chain, but this bill was promised 18 years ago by former forest Minister the Hon Pete Hodgson. The Green Party is disappointed that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) did not use the intervening 18 years to have a system that is more like the European Union—with recent regulations there, which cover a much wider variety of forest products—and that we are stuck with something that just deals with timber and wood products.

Given that Aotearoa New Zealand is the world’s largest importer of palm kernel expeller—around 2 million tonnes annually to feed dairy cows and agricultural intensification—if this bill had dealt with palm oil and PKE, we would be contributing significantly to avoiding deforestation and protecting the original forest cover, which is burnt and logged in order to establish palm oil plantations, and the breach of the human rights of the indigenous communities that that involves. If this bill had been more ambitious, it would really help protect that habitats of orang-utans, tigers, and elephants, and it would really help to reduce climate pollution and protect the lungs of the world in the forests of the Amazon and South-east Asia.

It’s really disappointing that the EU’s efforts since 2013 did not inspire MPI to provide much more ambitious advice and legislation. So there’s a shortcoming with the limited range of commodities—only wood and timber—that it applies to. It’s also got a very narrow definition of what is legal, which relies on the concept of “legal harvest” and requires logging companies to comply with the national laws. That’s problematic, because in countries like Brazil and Indonesia, we’ve had significant deforestation which has been seen to be legal, in terms of the national laws of those countries.

As Greenpeace Aotearoa noted in their submission, the Indonesian Government scheme for wood and logging “ignores international laws and agreements such as CITES [and the] International Labour Organization and [it] does not deal”—really fundamentally—“with the illegal trade of wood and wood products.” The Indonesian Government has undertaken very few prosecutions against businesses operating illegally in the forest estate, even when well-resourced organisations, like Greenpeace International, are reporting those breaches.

Also, the wood that complies with the Indonesian Government’s regime is OK to be imported into New Zealand. So that very narrow definition of “legal harvest”, which relies on national laws, is too limited. We would have preferred to have seen a much more comprehensive standard where legality included a requirement that the rights of indigenous peoples were honoured and that their consent and the consent of local communities was obtained before any logging occurred.

There’s also no full traceability for wood and timber products, because the bill focuses on “legal harvest” and doesn’t really recognise that the timber supply chain often involves the mixing of illegally logged wood with legally harvested wood. It relies quite heavily on international schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council, which doesn’t require full traceability of products in the timber supply chain.

So as Grant Rosoman from Greenpeace says—and I quote—“The bill will have a very limited impact” because of its narrow scope and these shortcomings and because 80 to 90 percent of the imported timber trade in New Zealand is already providing evidence of legality and sustainability through the requirements of the international tropical timber group. So there’s some added value, because it refers to “specified timber products”, which potentially includes things like paper and tissue, but it’s not clear in the bill what those specified timber products are.

We need stronger, more ambitious legislation. We need more Green MPs, because the Green Party hasn’t got the numbers to have a permanent member on the Primary Production Committee. This legislation could have been more ambitious and really tackled the issue of forest deforestation by focusing not just on wood and timber but also the range of other products like palm kernel expeller and palm oil. So the Green Party is supporting it, but it is an opportunity lost.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as a member of the Primary Production Committee in the third reading debate on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. It’s been a lot of work that the Primary Production Committee has been doing on forestry, as has the Government, and this particular bill is about making sure that we establish a legal harvest system, which would require log traders, primary processors, importers, and exporters to be registered and do due diligence on the timber they are dealing with to ensure it is not being illegally harvested.

One of the things that I can say, having sat through the select committee process and as part of the select committee, is that there has been a lot of collegial support, including industry, to work in partnership and work together on ensuring that we do have a legal harvest protection mechanism in New Zealand. Now, this is something that the industry has been focusing on for over a decade, and it’s also something that’s in line with many other export trading partners, so it gives me pleasure to stand and take a call and to see this bill go through.

It’s also probably worth a mention, when we talk about forestry, that we’ve just completed our forestry slash inquiry report into what was happening in Wairoa and Tairāwhiti. Through that, the Minister of Forestry—as we go through and look at how we are harvesting our forestry—has also just announced $10.5 million in Budget 2023 to provide to local government to support the clean-up of slash and debris in Hawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti and implement short-term, medium-term solutions around how we do that, and also looking at $25.2 million for the next four years to protect 21,000 hectares of hill-country farmland across Aotearoa and New Zealand.

So, on top of the bill that we’re putting through today, there is much more work to do in the forestry space. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a five-minute call—Nicola Grigg.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I can assure you, Mr Speaker, it’ll likely be two minutes, but I’ll give it my very best shot. Like my colleagues across the House, I too rise in support of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill at its third reading. And like the previous speaker, Anna Lorck, I also sit on the Primary Production Committee and have had the privilege of seeing this pass on through the various stages, and now, hopefully, into law today.

I think, as has been broadly canvased across all sides of the House, illegal trade of wood products and timber around the world is a grave concern, and I think that anyone in this House, where possible and where we can, will do what we can to mitigate illegal activity and illegal trade and, of course, the impact that that has on various communities and societies and, of course, ecologies around the world. Illegal harvesting—as the member for the Green Party pointed out—is an enormous problem globally, and I think is continuing to grow. But on saying that, the select committee saw no evidence that illegal harvest was occurring here in New Zealand. So this is the kind of bill—it’s a belts and braces bill—that will at least start to implement some form of framework to start to measure. And, as we say, if you don’t measure, you can’t fix. So this is why we have chosen to support it through all stages.

It is a very real problem and, as has been rightly pointed out, the vast majority of these problems are occurring in the likes of the Amazon basin. We do see issues with deforestation over there that is severely impacting native wildlife, flora, fauna, and, of course, indigenous communities. We will do what we can to support prevention of illegal harvesting of these sorts of timbers, especially through trade mechanisms where we can. So we do encourage strengthening of our international trading reputation and relationships, with particular regard to market access, and we do think that this bill will achieve that.

One of the reasons that we think it is an imperative to take this stance today is to protect our own industry as much as anything from illegal trade, and particularly safeguarding the New Zealand reputation as well. So we have put various mechanisms in place to ensure that. And of those 21-odd submissions that we did hear through select committee, I think the seven key themes that emerged from all of those submissions were—the majority of the concern was around complexity and cost of compliance—the breadth of the regulatory powers that have been installed under this bill, the scope of the legal harvest system, looking at sustainability, rights of indigenous peoples, products, and the partial exclusion of indigenous timbers, and, of course, enforcement and compliance. And I think what’s key to this is the log trader registration.

So, ultimately, it has passed through select committee with some amendments, some of which were quite necessary. And that is why we in the National Party will stand up here today and support it. We do want to ensure that we as a collective pass legislation that will promote good New Zealand trade practices and remove the impact caused by any illegal and illicit trading. And that is why we’re happy to support this bill in the House today.

Hon STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Forestry and wood products will play an increasingly important role in the New Zealand economy, across our varied and many communities, especially rural and provincial communities—this is the growing, the harvesting, the processing, and the trading, of course, of lumber and logs—so maintaining or enhancing the fragile social licence to operate is vital. This Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill provides this in the domestic and international trade space both to importers and exporters, so those who are buying timber through stores or who are exporting it know that the timber they are buying is legitimate, is from sustainable sources, and can be trusted.

We know that our global reputation as a country of integrity is vitally important. If we don’t get this right and work to meet, if not exceed, the expectations of global markets and international consumers, then we run the risk of becoming just another small economy at the bottom of the world, importing and trading in exporting commodities, and we don’t want that. This bill addresses international concerns around integrity of imports and exports, and that’s the reason why a number of other jurisdictions are also implementing similar regimes. It’s not to say that our current system or forest owners or importers and exporters lack integrity at all—far from it—but this just ensures we are meeting global best-practice codes of compliance.

There’s been a lot of work across the forest and timber industry to make sure we get this right and workable to ensure that the benefits far outweigh the costs. In fact, it’s my experience that anything that increases compliance and the integrity of a process and that weeds out cowboys is actually welcomed by the industry, because, as mentioned, it brings a level of integrity that is vitally important to the successful operation of our trade practices and our forestry business up and down this country. It’s the reason why we’ve supported this bill, it’s the reason why it’s important for our forestry sector, it’s the reason why it’s important for our international trading sector, and it’s the reason why it is supported by the vast majority in the industry and right across this House. Thank you.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): It’s good to take a call on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill, third reading. When I spoke on this bill during the second reading, I reflected on the 400,000 hectares of indigenous forest and some 238,000 hectares on Māori land. These lands contribute significantly to Māori socio-economic development. When I hear the word “forestry”, I think of my whānau. I think of my whānau, because this sector provides bread and butter—yes, bread and butter—for some of my whānau to survive.

In the 1960s, thousands of hectares of what was left of inaccessible, undeveloped Māori land were put into forestry leases, encouraged by Government at the time. I want to talk about one of those lands: Ngāporo Waimarino Forest Trust.

But before I do, I want to acknowledge, last Thursday, the passing of one of my whanaunga Robert Cribb, known back home as “Boy”, a humble, caring, soft, persistent man and leader committed to Māori land development from Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa, Te Awa Tupua o Whanganui [the Assembly of Mountains to the sea, the mystical river of Whanganui]. He dedicated his life to achieving the aspirations of his whānau, his marae, his hapū, and his iwi, and that was in land development through forestry and environmental conservation. This was always for the greater good of not just Māori but for the wider community that he lived in. E moe, e moe mai rā tōku kaihana. [Sleep, rest in peace, my cousin.]

This trust has 43 Māori land blocks located next to the Whanganui River. You can imagine, back in the 1960s, my kaumātua and kuia hearing about “Oh, you better do something about your land, because this is what might happen or what might not happen.” But, nevertheless, they got themselves together and they entered into lease arrangements. Half of the lands in this block, this trust, are in pine, and the remainder is in beautiful, plush, untouched, natural ngahere. I remember the stories of a time—actually, not too long ago—where blocks were stripped of their natural native trees, logs helicoptered out, tree poaching, illegal forest harvesting activities, and persistent contractors seeking harvesting permits to take our trees, to take our taonga, without permission. As the Minister said, illegal harvested timber has been debated in this House for over 10 years, and it seems even more. It is good to see this progress.

A newcomer to the Primary Production Committee, I acknowledge the culmination of a lot of the hard work that’s gone on, the former chair Jo Luxton and the committee at the time, and the committee now led by Steph Lewis, and also the Ministers involved over those times and years. I am grateful to them all for the hard work, for the diligence, and to see this bill commended to the House. Kia ora.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill at its third reading, and it’s one that the National Party supports passing into law. the illegal harvesting of timber is a significant problem globally, contributing to deforestation and ecosystem degradation, with wide-reaching environmental, economic, and social impacts on affected communities.

The question is: how does this relate to New Zealand? Well, forestry is New Zealand’s third-largest exporter. Its value at the year ending June 2021 was $6.3 billion; it’s anticipated that will be $6.7 billion by the year ending June 2023—this year. It employs around 35,000 people, and it’s a critical part of our economy. At a time when we have a balance of payments deficit that is the greatest in the developed world, it’s more important than ever that we are selling goods and services and products to the world and earning that foreign exchange. Forestry is a very, very important part of that.

So this bill is something we support as improving global confidence in the logs and the wood coming from New Zealand—having confidence in the integrity of the supply chain and the operators when the system is critical for both domestic processing and New Zealand’s reputation as a timber exporter to the world, and that important part it plays as the third-largest export earner for our country.

We also have a rising volume and diversity of imports into New Zealand, which increases the risk of New Zealand being seen as a conduit for the illegal timber trade due to a lack of mandatory assurance measures, something that this bill seeks to address and something that we support. And I should note that, globally, the world deforests around 10 million hectares of forest each and every year—10 million hectares; that’s an area the size of Portugal. Around half of that deforestation is offset by regrowing forests. So, overall, the world loses around 5 million hectares of forest each and every single year. In fact, 95 percent of that deforestation occurs in the tropics, something that New Zealand wants to make very clear that we want to have no part of and that our industry is not part of.

So while New Zealand has had voluntary measures in place since the early 2000s and there have been proactive initiatives by importers, the coverage has not been complete. New Zealand has historically relied on its reputation of being a low-risk producer of illegal timber products to ensure we have the market access to sell our timber into globally. However, more recently, New Zealand exporters have been required to demonstrate the legality of their timber products in a growing number of export markets. This bill, which shortly will become law, is something that can assure those markets globally that New Zealand is taking this seriously and does have an assurance programme in place to make sure that we are not exporting illegal timber to the world.

So I would just make the point, also, that the plantation forest area in New Zealand peaked in 2003 at 1.83 million hectares. It declined for the next 16 years, at just under 1.69 million hectares. Over the past two years, the area has increased by 43,000 hectares to 1.7 million hectares, and it would take roughly another two years of forestation at current rates for the estate to recover to the area of the early 2000s.

But as my colleague across the House Soraya Peke-Mason said, forestry is also very important for the Māori economy and Māori communities, providing both employment opportunities for rangatahi and to provide economic opportunities in our regions. So this is a very important—very important—industry for New Zealand, for Māori, for all New Zealanders. So this is a bill that we do support, and we’ll be pleased to see it shortly passed into law. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Ni sa bula vinaka, Mr Speaker. As always, it’s an honour and a privilege to take a call in this House of change, as the member of Parliament for the Ōtaki electorate.

While I wasn’t on the select committee who heard the submissions and worked on this bill, I do want to thank the Primary Production Committee for their mahi on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill as we come to the third reading today.

Our Government has been working and focused on addressing the issue of illegally logged wood for over a decade now. Under this bill, Aotearoa New Zealand is committed to trading only in legally harvested timber. This bill will establish a legal harvest system that will require the log traders, the importers, and the exporters to register and to ensure the timber that they are dealing with is legally harvested only. This bill brings us into line with other trading partners in other countries—for example, Australia, the US, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and China.

When countries around the world trade with us here in Aotearoa New Zealand—particularly in the timber industry—they will know that they are trading with a country that is doing the right thing, that is ethically right in the way that we harvest and trade in terms of our legal timber. Like the member Stuart Nash talked about earlier, that is really important for the way people perceive us overseas and for our import and export business.

So just a short call today. This is a great piece of legislation and I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I present a legislative statement on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I move, That the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Speaker and colleagues, I am very pleased to be able to return to the House for the second reading of the bill, after the Education and Workforce Committee has completed its consideration and returned its report to the House. I wish to start by thanking the select committee for their hard work on this bill; thanking the, I think it was, 21 submitters who took the time to give their views and assist us in improving this piece of legislation; and also to thank the officials who supported the select committee with their consideration of the legislation. That is certainly valued.

I’m pleased, also, to be able to return for the next stage of this bill because it is another Labour Party manifesto commitment that we are fulfilling with the passage of this piece of legislation. It’s very important for me, as Minister in the workplace relations and safety portfolio, as it is in other portfolios, that we follow through on those things that we said we would do when elected. This was one of those specific things that we identified in our manifesto and received a clear vote of support at the election and an endorsement to move through with this policy. So it’s good to be able to move forward and follow through on that commitment. And it is an important one.

I don’t think any member of this House would feel satisfied with the level of harm that continues to occur in New Zealand workplaces, from the North to the South, the East, and the West. Overall levels of harm in New Zealand workplaces, be it acute injuries and fatalities, lesser levels of injury that none the less have significant impacts on individuals and significant impacts on productivity, or, in fact, the biggest area of them all—workplace-based health and poor health outcomes that flow from people’s working conditions—we would all want our country to do better and cannot feel good about the fact that, generally, we cause higher rates of harm in our workplaces than nearly any other developed country that we compare ourselves to. Rates of harm, across fatalities and serious injuries, are around about twice the rate of Australia and around about four times the rate of the United Kingdom.

Now, we have made some good progress. The Pike River tragedy was a wake-up call for our system. There was a widespread view that things needed to change. It led to the Health and Safety at Work Act, greater clarity about obligations within the system, a new regulator, and a new and strong focus, supported by a strong strategy that WorkSafe oversees. And we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that we have made progress. We met the key targets around reducing fatalities and serious injuries, but they’re still too high, and we need to keep doing more work and keep moving forward if we want to shift them down. This bill speaks to the fact that we know—we know, without a shadow of a doubt, based on the experience of workers and businesses and based on the clear international academic research—that having an empowered workforce, with workers directly able to represent through their concerns and issues, to engage in problem-solving around health and safety, and sometimes to say, “No, that is not safe”, to receive appropriate training and support in that role, that having worker representatives in those roles makes a very significant difference to health and safety outcomes within our workplaces.

In New Zealand, we do have a system, under the existing Health and Safety at Work Act, that allows many workers to be able to have a representative in their workplace who has those rights, duties, and abilities under the Act, who is able to access education, and who has that formal role within the system. But, at the time that the legislation made its way through the House in 2015, the then National Government, which had originally proposed that as a universal right for workers—to have a representative—made a change during the legislative process to, effectively, carve out smaller workplaces of less than 20. It is true that, within the existing legislation, workers in smaller workplaces which are deemed to be high risk can continue to have the right to have a health and safety representative.

What are the problems with that that we’re trying to solve with this piece of legislation? Well, the primary one is that the size of the workplace does not mean that there is necessarily less risk to the workers who are there. It can equally be the case in a workplace of 80 people as it is in a workplace of 25 people that there are risks that might apply to those workers. And, on an evidential basis, we know that having a representative in place who is suitably educated and supported can help to reduce those risks and the possibility that those risks might play out in harm to their fellow workers.

There is also quite an important moral component, in my view, here as well. The people who bear the burden of harm in our workplaces are workers. They are the ones who get hurt, who become sick, who are injured, and who are killed. They are the ones who bear the burden of the harm, and so it is only important—in my view, just and reasonable—that they have a seat at the table in a formal sense to be able to represent concerns, to resolve issues, and to make our workplaces safer. So, effectively, this piece of legislation removes that carve-out that came midstream in the previous legislative process and ensures that workers in these smaller workplaces do have that ability to be able to request a health and safety representative or a health and safety committee, in the same way as workers in larger businesses do as well. That is the case for why we think it is important for this legislation to move through.

At the same time, I don’t overstate the impact of this piece of legislation. It is a modest but useful contribution to the health and safety landscape. It won’t fix everything on its own, by any stretch, but that fundamental right of workers to be able to have a rep, we think, is an important one. But, in noting that it is not a huge change, I do want to turn to some of the opposition and some of the arguments that we have heard against this, which I think, frankly, have just sort of overblown the potential impact of this change on workplaces up and down the country. The first thing to be clear about is that it doesn’t actually make it compulsory that every workplace have a health and safety representative or a health and safety committee; it simply means that workers in those workplaces of fewer than 20 employees have the legal right to request a health and safety representative and committee, and that the employer then has a legal duty to respond to that and facilitate it.

So what is my expectation here? It is that some of our smaller workplaces—workers there—will see the value in having a health and safety representative or a health and safety committee, and they will make that request, and the employers will need to respond to it and support it. But, actually, it’s my expectation that, quite probably, in many of our smaller workplaces, workers may not see that need. They may be satisfied to work within existing, less formal ways of raising issues, and that’s just fine if that works for them. But in those workplaces where those workers are the ones on the front line who face the risk, who are most exposed to and, therefore, most aware of the risks and what can be done, where in their judgment they would be safer and feel safer for having a health and safety representative or committee, I think it is quite appropriate that they have the ability to request that and for that to happen.

In the Australian experience, where there is no such exemption below 20—remembering that we based our Health and Safety at Work Act on the Australian model, law, and regulations—it has been a mix. Some smaller businesses have ended up with reps and committees, and some haven’t. So I think that is where we will land as well. I just put that on record, just so that we have a proportionate debate in this House. As I say, I think this is a useful change, but I think that some of the criticisms that this will be a significant burden across the economy simply aren’t borne out by the evidence and simply aren’t borne out by a reasonable set of assumptions about how this legislation will move forward.

I note that the select committee has made one change to the legislation that it received, and that was a change to some of the language, changing the language around workers having the ability to “may notify” an employer of their desire to have a rep or a committee—changing that to “may request”, which is then linked to the legal duty of the employer to respond to that request. The reason the select committee made that change is that it made the language more consistent with language in the rest of the Health and Safety at Work Act and, therefore, meant that there is a greater simplicity for people being able to engage with the legislation. And the advice that the committee received was that, if there was a different form of language, it might imply that Parliament meant something different by way of how that process should operate, which is not the intention. So I think the select committee has done a good job there of scrutinising the legislation and making sure that it’s as easy and efficacious to utilise for all concerned.

In concluding, health and safety is enormously important. Every Kiwi deserves to go home safe. Having a WorkSafe rep makes Kiwis safer, and this legislation will make sure that more workers have access to that. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. I note the speech by the Minister around this legislation and what it fundamentally does.

About 10 years ago, or coming up to 10 years ago, a National Government brought in the health and safety legislation to try to improve the workplaces of New Zealand, the safety rates, following the Pike River disaster. And everybody in this Parliament—and, I’m sure, New Zealanders—agree with the basic premise that we should do what we can to ensure that people return home from work safe to their families, to their loved ones, so that they can continue to enjoy life as a New Zealand citizen and do well. And so there’s been enormous resources put in by Governments but also by businesses up and down the country to try and improve our safety record. There was a significant improvement in the first few years. That level of improvement has tailed off in recent years, notwithstanding continued large further investment. And that is a real challenge that we face as a country and one that we want to see improved.

The original legislation when it came to health and safety committees and representatives within workplaces put a cap on 20 employees for larger businesses. Yes, that all makes sense and it works, but we spared small businesses from having to have these arrangements, because we were concerned about the costs imposed on what are small businesses and the pressure that they are under. This bill removes that and says that even if you’re a tiny business with only five part-time employees, you may be required to have a committee and have a health and safety rep. They need to go off and do training for a day or two, and that’s just what has to happen.

We in the National Party don’t agree with this amendment. We think the original arrangement limiting it to businesses with more than 20 employees was appropriate. I heard the Minister say he had the moral case for this, and the moral case was that it is the workers that bear the burden of harm. And, yes, that is something we should be absolutely focused on in order to keep New Zealand workers safe. But one thing he sort of neglected to mention was that it’s not just workers that bear the burden of harm when it comes to trying to operate a small business successfully. We in Parliament go up and down the country meeting small-business owners, many of whom, as all the surveys will demonstrate, have very high levels of anxiety and depression. And there is a sense of hopelessness on the part of many small-business operators in this country who feel overwhelmed and overburdened with the pressures that they face not just from a from a trading perspective—that is part and parcel of trying to run a small business; you have to compete to survive—but they are also overwhelmed by the level of costs and regulations being imposed on them that they are not able necessarily to cope with or pass on to customers, and so the pressure is on them.

If you go to Retail NZ, if you go to the small-business agencies, you will see the real burden that falls upon them, as well—notwithstanding, of course, the law and order concerns if you’re a small retailer worried about ram raids or many other law and order type issues, which is a separate—well, it’s not unrelated when it comes to health and safety. For many of the small businesses I mentioned, particularly small retail operators, little dairies, the number one health and safety issue they face is crime and people attacking them. So a Government that’s really focused on them will be focused on actually restoring law and order in this country and doing that effectively.

Our concern more generally is to ask how we ensure that we continue to improve our health and safety outcomes as a country but also be mindful of the practicalities of those small-business operators who over the last few years under this Government have faced one thing after the other in terms of additional costs. We’ve seen very, very significant increases in the minimum wage, above the rate of inflation. And everybody wants to have higher incomes. Absolutely. But if the Government’s response is just to legislate for higher incomes and just assume that small businesses can afford to pay it, or their customers can afford to pay it, well, that’s fine, but most practical people will recognise that it’s only a more productive business that can sustainably pay higher incomes. That’s what you need. If you want to have higher incomes, you need a sustainably more productive and competitive business. Otherwise, higher incomes, in the absence of that, will inevitably lead either to higher prices or to that business struggling to survive.

And so they’ve had all those increases. They’ve also had a doubling of the sick leave entitlement. And, again, if you talk to most small-business operators, the amazing thing about the sick leave entitlements is they’re not pro rata-ed in the sense that if you have a person who works one day a week, they were entitled to five days’ sick leave; now they are entitled to 10 days’ sick leave. And so if you’re working one day a week, then all, of a sudden, 20 percent of your days could be sick leave days. And you’ll hear many small-business operators saying that the workforce does tend to fall into two camps: those who very rarely take sick leave and those who take the full entitlement. If you double the entitlement, then that has an impact. Then you’ve had an extra public holiday. Then you’ve had the imposition of fair pay agreements that are coming down the line, which will lead to a whole lot more additional costs.

And then there’s this one here, this bill, where a small operator with a handful of employees may have the obligation of sending one of them off for two days of health and safety. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment estimated it might cost $1,355 to provide the two days of training that’s required. Of course, they have to be put up somewhere else and there’s travel associated with it. And then there’s the small problem of: well, who actually does the job while they are away for two days? So you need an extra person coming in. So it all might add up to $2,000 or $3,000 that a small business has to find.

Now, Minister Wood, sitting here in Wellington, says, “Well, that’s no big deal, nothing to worry about; everything will be fine.” But if you’re on the edge, a small trader who’s under pressure, it all adds up. And as the Minister said, yes, the end of the world is not going to arrive because of this bill. This is not a major piece of legislation that’s going to be the end of the world for small businesses. It’s just another—another—thing that they need to concerned about; just another thing that that comes on top of all the other things that have come down the line. And so our overall perspective is that this is another burden that they don’t need at this time. And the idea is that a small business with a small group of people who sit down around the table at morning tea together over their sausage rolls and their cup of tea can sort out these issues informally and be very focused on a health and safety culture, because the obligations of an employer in terms of providing a safe employment operation don’t change if you’re a small business or a big business; the obligations still lie on the owners of those businesses. And so that is how we think it should be carried out.

We on this side of the House stand very much for a culture of improving our health and safety in this country. We believe the existing legislation with regard to health and safety representatives and health and safety committees is appropriate—that is to say that larger businesses with more than 20 employees should have them, and those smaller businesses should be able to deal with these things as they have over the last few years. And with that, I’ll leave my comments.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is good to be standing here and taking a call on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. The reason it is good is because looking after workers means we look after businesses. Looking after workers means we look after the economy. When we talk about sustainability, it is as much about the people in our economy as any other input.

I just want to reflect for a moment on some of the submissions and valid concerns that were raised in the select committee. One of them was from Business New Zealand, who suggested that smaller persons conducting a business or undertaking would know their workers and would know each other and that informal supervision would be effective. Well, if that is the case, and a firm already has great health and safety systems and great relationships with their workers, the workers may not need or feel the need to go down this road. But it is their option—their right—that we are giving to the 500,000 workers who work in these smaller enterprises.

They were concerned that the existence of official appointees sends a signal that health and safety is that person’s responsibility and not that of every worker. It’s not true; it’s the opposite. In having workers who are well-trained, they take up the responsibility to look after each other and they will improve things in the workplace.

We keep hearing about the cost of workers. Actually, workers are an investment, and we know that when we invest in these workers and their education, health and safety improves, productivity improves, and staff turnover reduces. Sometimes the most costly investment that a small business makes is in its team and its workers, and this investment is impactful. It is really important.

We heard about the cost of sending them off for two days’ training. Well, I think, now, that’s a great thing—a grand incentive to have that on your CV. Imagine valuing a worker who’s got really good skills when it comes to health and safety, and working collegially with their workmates to make their workplace safer and thus more productive—imagine valuing that. “I’ve got this on my CV, employ me.”—what a wonderful conversation to be having.

This is about enabling workplaces to be great; this isn’t about clamping down. This is a great piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to take a call on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill.

I’ll just pick up on a couple of the comments made by the last speaker, Angela Roberts. Firstly, her point that we keep hearing about costs, the point I would make to that speaker is, yes, and you continually don’t listen.

I want to give the House a case of a small-business owner who I had a conversation with about this bill, who was echoing many of the sentiments of the submitters who came to speak on the bill, because she was saying to me, “Erica, my business is barely viable because of all of the increased costs.” And some of the costs are those that the previous speaker from the National Party side spoke of, about the increase in extra leave—sick leave, public holidays—wage increases, general cost increases. She said, “My business is squeezed.” I said to her, “Well, here’s something that’s coming down the pipeline in this bill.” When I explained it to her, she just threw her hands up and said, “When will the assault on small businesses in this country stop?” She said, “My business is barely viable as it is with all of the additional costs over the last few years and this is just another thing on top of another thing that we don’t need.” So when the previous speaker says, “We keep hearing about the costs.”, well, this is a business owner who is in the eye of the storm of these costs and she just wants this Government to listen and say, “Actually, stop putting all of these burdens on us, because we are sinking rather than swimming, and that’s what we want for our businesses.”

The other thing that the last speaker mentioned was, “Look, I’ve got this on my CV, employ me.”, and that’s one of the points that I was going to make in my contribution, around the fact that, regardless of the need, the requirement, for a health and safety representative, committee, and formal process for these small businesses, regardless of whether or not there have been health and safety breaches or it’s an unsafe workplace, regardless of the fact that it might be the safest workplace with no breaches and everything’s been working fine, if an employee decides that they want to go down this track and make a request of the employer, then the employer has no choice: they must oblige. And so in the case of a business where there have been no breaches, where there is a perfect safety record, they still have to—regardless of all of that—say yes to the worker so that, in response to the last speaker, yes, that employee can have it on their CV and have it as a great thing to say to the next employer: “Look what I’ve got on my CV.”, at the cost of the last employer, who had no choice, regardless of the fact that his business was actually perfectly safe and he only had two employees.

We spent hours—it’s almost to the point of being amusing—in select committee talking about two words. I want to just turn now to the fact that there was one small change made to the bill and there were hours of deliberation over this, around the fact that replacement section 62, inserted by clause 4, said a worker “may notify” and section 62(2) said if a person conducting the business or undertaking (PCBU) “receives notification”. The majority of the committee decided that that was in contrast with replacement section 66, inserted by clause 5, which says workers “may request” the PCBU to establish a health and safety committee and then the PCBU must establish a committee after receiving a request. So using the terms, apparently, “notify” and “notification” and then “request” may well have been confusing.

The committee decided, by majority, about the different actions that are required because of these two different words and decided that “notify” might mean a more formal process. So we had to make it very clear in our select committee report that that was not the intent—that it’s not around a super formal process that has to be in writing, for example. So we went down the track of changing everything so it all lined up to say “request”, but we have said in our deliberations that that does not imply that the PCBU can decline, because when you think about the word “request” it indicates that there could be a declining of that request; we have made it very clear in our select committee report that action must be taken. So, many hours spent poring over the words “notify” and “request” and then ending up with “request” but making the note that request cannot be declined. So that was the only change that was made to the bill.

We won’t be supporting this bill, as my colleague Paul Goldsmith has already given many reasons for. But I think, in the end, it comes down to a balance. You know, the National Government that put in place these rules realised the cost—the enormous cost on small businesses—and set that level of 20 employees. We don’t believe that the balance needs to be shifted in this case. And, actually, this bill, we think, goes too far in that it forces employers, once a request is made, to put in place a health and safety representative and committee, regardless of their track record and regardless of the health and safety potential problems in that business.

So, for that reason and for the all of the additional costs that have been piling up on our small businesses, we will be voting against this bill. And I say to the woman that I was in the car with the other day, who was talking about all of these additional costs and the fact that she’s barely holding her head above water and that this would just be another thing that would potentially mean that her business wasn’t viable—I say to her that the National Party will continue to stand up for the 105,000 small businesses around the country that will be impacted by this law, and vote against this and other similar legislation which just puts more and more costs on our small businesses who, actually, in these times, we need to fire up. Thank you.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a short call on the second reading of this bill. It is the first time I’ve been able to speak in this House, and I just want to acknowledge the terrible devastation that happened in Wellington—in Newtown, particularly—yesterday at the Loafers Lodge. Six people, incidentally, lost their lives, and that is a tragedy and it’s unnecessary.

I stand here in this House today talking about health and safety. I listened to the other side of the House and I listened to their arguments about not supporting this bill, about not supporting the rights of the workers in companies to be able to elect a health and safety representative or even a health and safety committee, and I think about the unfolding situation as the police go in and do their investigation at the Loafers Lodge and I think about the health and safety surrounding that particular building. I wonder and I care for the workers who worked inside that building and, potentially, some of the health and safety concerns that they may have wanted to raise but maybe didn’t have the opportunity to raise.

This bill will, from the time that it passes in this House—and this bill will pass—give workers the opportunity to be able to elect a health and safety representative and a health and safety committee, if they choose to, to be able to request information from the business itself and to be able to inspect a workplace. Trained health and safety representatives may be able to issue a provisional improvement notice to address a health or safety problem or to direct a worker to cease unsafe work.

Workers inside any company see things at the front line, and it’s incredibly important to be able to give those workers the opportunity to be able to raise problems when they see them. I know that because, as of the middle of last year, I was a hospitality business owner. We had a bar and a restaurant, and we had many health and safety issues that would come forward. Often it was staff raising it, but I also understand how I was an open-minded business owner and I would listen to my staff, how I knew that there were some operators that actually didn’t and/or wouldn’t listen to their workers, because they had other pressing priorities. It is a shame, and I think that what we’re attempting to do here, to give voice to those workers, is incredibly important.

I heard the previous member talk about the imposition of potential cost and the assault on businesses. This is not an assault on businesses. This is an incredibly rational piece of legislation which is going to give voice to workers and, hopefully, those workers and business owners—small-business owners—will be able to work constructively together on the issues that are raised. This is 100 percent not part of an assault on business owners, as was previously suggested. This is a great piece of legislation that workers up and down the country will, hopefully, breathe a sigh of relief from, and I hope that we start seeing them pop up.

And it’s not compulsory—this is not compulsory; this is an option. It is absolutely just an option for workers to be able to take this up if they so feel as though their voice isn’t being heard.

On this side of the House, the Labour Party have always been about looking after the voice of workers, and this bill demonstrates that 100 percent. The contribution from the other side of the House represents their interests and who they represent. On this side of the House, we’re doing the right thing. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. It’ll come as no surprise to anyone that ACT opposes this bill. Listening to the arguments from the Opposition, it is really quite sad. I’m really pleased that the last speaker, Tāmati Coffey, is one of the only good ex-employers around, but he might be really interested to know that most employers—most of them—are actually good people just like you.

The name of the bill is comical, even. It’s lots of words needed just to set up a committee that, in itself, isn’t needed. And it really does show how out of touch the Government is when it comes to doing small businesses working in New Zealand. Like the Plain Language Act, the fair pay agreements, last night I listened to the Grocery Industry Competition Bill—just solutions looking for a problem and just make it harder to do business in this country.

The bill amends the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to reduce the size of the persons conducting business as usual from 20 down to with no limit, health and safety representative or five or more workers “may establish a health and safety committee”. It’s not going to be compulsory, as was mentioned, and workers may prefer to engage in less formal ways through regular health and safety meetings, like they do now; like almost every business that I know—small business—does now, quite happily; they don’t need this. Again, it’s the lack of consideration of the imposition on businesses, and the fact that there is no evidence that there’s anything to solve and to acknowledge that productivity must be a major consideration in any legislation.

I would like to thank the submitters, and obviously they did fall into two separate groups. The Employers and Manufacturers Association pointed out there was no evidence to support the bill that would justify the cost and disruption to business, As was mentioned before, it’s going to take two days training per year, 105,000 businesses: that’s 210,000 training days. Fees are paid for by the business, plus you’ve got to replace the person who’s out being trained. The lack of productivity is just immense.

I heard the Government members scoffing when one of the National speakers started talking about minimum wage and the sick leave, and scoffing as if, “Here we go again.” Absolutely no understanding of the effect that these policies are having on small businesses at all. Business New Zealand said that to impose additional and unwarranted obligations on smaller businesses at a time when many are already facing difficult economic conditions—and, again, it’s a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Of course, we also heard from supporters of the bill. Guess who! The unions, those groups who represent 14 percent of workers. Unite Union said employers “have no interest in workers’ views on their [health and safety] and actively prevent effective [worker engagement, participation, and representation].” They forget to put any evidence at all for that statement. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions said evidence would indicate that, in the long run, the change is likely to “benefit the balance sheets of small business.” I don’t know where they get that from; there’s no evidence attached at all.

On Monday, I met with a workplace compliance officer to inspect the LPG tanks in my business. We went round, we had a look—looked at the safety valves, checked out the fire extinguishers, made sure the folder was all up to date of staff training, and doing what we’ve done every year once a year. This sort of stuff already happens—it already happens—and it’s a real shame that the Government doesn’t know that.

Most employers and employees who I speak to think that sections 45 and 46 are the most important of the Health and Safety at Work Act. It reads: the “Duties of workers while at work” and 46, the “Duties of other persons at a workplace” must “take reasonable care for his or her own health and safety; and take reasonable care that his or her acts or omissions do not adversely affect the health and safety of other persons.”

It’s the common-sense rule, the personal responsibility rule that, unfortunately, just doesn’t equate with the current regime. Whether it’s education or committing crimes, it’s always someone else’s fault or someone else’s responsibility. One submitter who owns a small business said, “This will introduce unnecessary additional compliance for small business, add cost, and in turn drive further price increases and inflation. There should be more responsibility and liability attached to individuals to encourage them to take responsibility for their own actions.” Just so much common sense.

The constant assumption from the Government that “employers are bad; employees and good” is really quite offensive. The division that they intentionally try and create is very unhelpful for business in New Zealand. Employers are good people; they care about their employees, their conditions, their pay, their welfare, and their future. Like farmers looking after their land, it’s in their best interests. ACT opposes this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. I’m pleased to rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill.

What this bill does is it removes the ability for a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) with fewer than 20 staff that are not in the high-risk designated area of employment to decline the request for an election for a health and safety rep, and also the ability for any PCBU to refuse a request to establish a health and safety committee where the PCBU is satisfied existing practices sufficiently meet their requirements. Basically, it’s about making sure that more of our businesses have the ability, when requested, to have worker voice to improve the health and safety. What this will result in is, hopefully, appropriately trained health and safety reps who can meet with the employer and pass on information from other colleagues who may be struggling to articulate their concerns about what they’re seeing in a workplace, who might be a bit nervous or not that confident in communicating or have had negative experiences with an employer previously. It enables that trained health and safety rep to do an inspection in a workplace and to be able to issue—if they’re appropriately trained—provisional improvement notices (PINs) to get a change to ensure that the workplace hazard is removed and people can be safe in their workplace, and that they can direct workers not to undertake unsafe work until fixed.

Now, these provisions—in effect, we are following through on a recommendation of an independent task force that was set up in the wake of Pike River, where they noted that worker participation was a crucial weak link in the New Zealand health and safety system, and they recommended that all workplaces have access to reps and health and safety committees. That was in the wake of what I think everybody around this House surely recognises as a day of absolute shame for our country, where the just running down and hands-off approach to health and safety came home to roost in the death of 29 men in their workplace.

I hear the discussion from National and ACT saying, “This is a solution looking for a problem. There is no evidence of a problem.” I want to just speak back to that and say that, last year, 64 people died at work. More than one person a week died at work in this country, and they are saying that there is no problem. We have a rate of workplace fatalities double that of Australia per capita; death in our workplaces is four times that of the UK. And this National and ACT Party are saying there is no problem. They are happy with that status quo. They are happy and willing to accept that number of people not coming home from work, that number of families who lose a member close to them. That is what they are accepting when they stand up in this House and say, “Everything is fine. The cost on business is balanced equal to the cost of those lives.”

Joseph Mooney: Absolutely disgraceful. What a disgrace—what a disgrace.

JAN LOGIE: That is what those members are saying, and I think that is disgraceful.

I would also note where they’re saying—it’s nothing to do with this bill, maybe, but we have to recognise that, actually, the data we do have in terms of injuries, the now workplace, not even the fatalities show that the smaller businesses have much higher rates of injury.

Chris Baillie: Can you show that?

JAN LOGIE: Yes, the ACC data showed that workplaces and firms of around 20 workers or less were 57 percent more likely to suffer an injury than larger businesses, and 23 percent more likely to suffer severe injuries than workers in a larger firm. But that side of the House is saying, “That is not a problem; nothing to see here.” The international evidence is unequivocal: it is absolutely clear that health and safety reps, that workers’ voice, and that those committees make a difference. They make our workplaces safer because, actually, those people doing the work, see the problems. Sometimes it just needs support structurally—it’s not about the intention of the employer, but just the structure for that voice to be heard, to be able to address the problems, and to ensure the safety of people. I see somebody in National theatrically yawning at this conversation about the safety and death of workers and our country, and I just have to say that I find that deeply offensive.

Hon Members: Deeply offensive!

JAN LOGIE: So they find my speech offensive—so offensive to actually be bringing into this House the reality of workplaces in this country—

Chris Baillie: You’re abusing employers.

JAN LOGIE: —and it’s seen as an attack on employers to be talking about the deaths of people in their employ. How is that the case? Why is that adversarial? I’m not making it adversarial. I am saying that that status quo is unacceptable, those deaths are unacceptable, and we have a choice in this House to make a difference based on evidence to save some lives, and to prevent people from further serious injury.

I would say that in this bill that a lot of the submissions—I do want to speak briefly on those. That, actually, there were a lot of other issues raised around this, and I do think that this bill is a first step. I think there is clearly, from the submissions that came to us, more work that needs to be done. Significant concern was raised about the way the legislation is currently being interpreted in terms of the training available, and there was a call for the legislation to ensure that the initial training of two days enables health and safety reps to achieve the New Zealand Qualifications Authority standard that would enable them to take action and issue a PIN.

I would note that I was deeply disappointed in one of the employer groups that came to the committee: they offer a two-day training—two days is prescribed in legislation—but it does not include the assessment for that qualification to enable the workers who do that training to issue PINs. So if they want to be able to have that intervention, they have to do additional training in their own time, at their own cost, to be able to play the role that was intended by the legislation. I don’t believe that that necessarily needs a legislative change, but it absolutely needs intervention to change it because it is, I think, an appalling abdication of responsibility and working around the legislation as it is not intended.

Also, there was the call for union reps to be able to issue PINs and therefore being roving reps. Also, the Disabled Persons Assembly had a great contribution at the Education and Workforce Committee, noting the concern for disabled people being able to access some of the health and safety measures in their workplace and that there was systemic discrimination. There is a fund through the Ministry of Social Development to support people in the workplace, but recent research from the Disabled Persons Assembly shows that, actually, people are not accessing that as they need to. It’s very clear to me that we need to have more promotion of that and a review of those rules.

Finally, I just want to call out for the petition that was launched on Workers’ Memorial Day for there to be legislation to introduce corporate manslaughter to actually hold people accountable for the failures to keep people safe at work and to recognise that as a profound duty, which it is not currently, properly, I believe, recognised as.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, what about the rest of us?

DAN ROSEWARNE: —and Committees) Amendment Bill. Mr Brownlee’s woken up over there. Now, during the committee stage of the bill and today, you know, the Opposition have focused the debate around productivity. They say the two days’ training per year for small businesses would equate to too much lost productivity, but it doesn’t appear that they have considered the lost days of productivity across those businesses due to preventable workplace injuries, and I want to point out that according to ACC, the average care hours per serious injury claim is 58 days. That’s 58 days where that worker would be away from work, which will be at significant cost—not only for the businesses but also the workers’ families and the workers themselves. Now, if that serious injury was prevented by a trained health and safety rep, I would argue that investment in that two-day course is money well spent.

So I suppose my question for the Opposition is: what would be the Opposition’s message for the family of an employee who has suffered a life-changing injury at work in a small business? That could be entirely preventable had that employer invested in that two-day course for that health and safety rep. On all injury claims in New Zealand, 36 percent are still not back working after 10 weeks. So if that trained health and safety rep prevents one serious injury in the workplace or, in other words, if a serious injury is prevented in 5,000 of those businesses with under 20 employees, you’re saving around 250,000 days in lost productivity.

The point I’m making is that injuries arising from accidents demand an attack on three fronts. The most important is obviously prevention. Yes, the employee has a role in that, but so does the employer. Next in importance is the obligation to rehabilitate the injured. Thirdly, there is the duty to compensate them for their losses.

Now, to ensure the longevity of our world-renowned ACC scheme, we need the likes of the Opposition to consider the financial sustainability of the scheme, and to consider the potential burden that preventable injuries place on future levy payers, including the Government. And given that around 575,000 small businesses exist in New Zealand, making up 97 percent of the total firms and 29.3 percent of our workforce, small businesses play a valuable role in contributing to the improved health and safety outcomes of New Zealand workplaces. This legislation will help small businesses do just that. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sam Uffindell—five minutes.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s very good to rise and follow on from my friend Dan Rosewarne over the side of the aisle. It’s good to see you back here in New Zealand, my friend.

I rise to speak on the health and safety at work amendment bill—

Hon David Bennett: Right, stop this speech now—stop it now.

SAM UFFINDELL: —terrible speech, isn’t it?—and I am going to oppose it. I see Minister Michael Wood is over there. We are definitely going to oppose this one. I mean, this is just a classic—more regulation, more costs—and what is the problem we’re trying to solve?

Look, it’s probably a good endeavour—you know, you see something there and you’re like “Oh, if we have a health and safety person, that’s going to really stop all the bad things from happening.” But I’m not sure how much risk assessment has been done around whether this is a high-risk situation. You’ve got a small business and you’ve got one person who says, “Oh, I want a health and safety inspector.” Is it actually closing any risk?

Also, are we just going to play the game where we look to minimise risk at any cost, irrespective of what it may be? That’s why I asked at the start whether there has been any cost-benefit analysis done on this one, and I’m not necessarily sure that there would have been.

I also note that there wasn’t a lot of consultation that was done with the small retailers and businesses involved, and I find that pretty disappointing. I think that if you are going to go out of your way to impose costs on people, then you need to engage with them in some sort of discussion to understand what their circumstances are and understand whether they’ve got the ability to cope with it and whether it’s actually going to move the needle and make things safer for people. I mean, I don’t mean to be rude, but this is typical of this Government, which just continues to not really consult and continues to add costs on to businesses.

Businesses have had a real hard time under this Government in the past few years: consistent minimum wage increases, consistent additions of compliance, worker shortages—there are a lot of things that keep getting piled up on this. On top of that, you get the wider economic issues that we’re all facing: inflation; additional regulations, wherever it may be; and chronic worker shortages, adding to more worker inflation. So my suggestion to the Government would be: instead of adding continual burdens to small businesses, it would actually be better off considering giving the regulator WorkSafe New Zealand a clear set of objectives to work to, rather than the vague measures that have recently been released.

There are some reasonable costs here. It’s approximately $1,300 a year for people to make sure that they are training up or providing that training to that mandated health and safety person, who may not necessarily make much of a difference. That might not be a one-off cost either, because you might get the situation in a few small businesses you may have a bit of a turnover happening there and these people may be having to face that cost every year, and so why have we really done it? That cost also doesn’t take any account of any potential lost productivity.

So it seems that every time I rise to speak on any bill that this Minister has introduced, I, unfortunately, have to rise to oppose it, and this is going to be no different. He hasn’t looked up at me yet. I keep trying to bait him, but there he is. He’s working away on the next piece of legislation that I’ll get to rise and speak against, no doubt, before this Parliament is out.

Hon Michael Wood: Say something useful and you might get a response.

SAM UFFINDELL: Oh, he’s chirped up now—there he goes. That’s good. I’m glad I got your attention, Minister. The “Minister for Potholes”, the “Minister for Auckland Light Rail”, the “Minister for Nurse Shortages”—he’s lit up. But no, no, it’s very good to have you here, Minister. I do admire a Minister who actually sits through the duration of the readings.

Hon David Bennett: No, he’s on duty.

SAM UFFINDELL: He’s on duty. Well, there you go. I mean, one day, maybe when you’re the leader of the Labour Party in six months’ time, you might not have to do House duty.

But I will wrap this up there—all tongue in cheek here—and just say that we will of course oppose this bill, and I will leave it there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Marja Lubeck—five minutes.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. Unlike the previous speaker, Sam Uffindell, who was smiling all through a very serious issue of people getting seriously injured, hurt, and even killed in our workplaces, I would like to talk a little bit about what the bill actually does.

I also want to make a comment on the words that the ACT member used a few times during his speech, which was the word “offensive”. But what I find terribly offensive is referring to this bill and the measures that it takes to keep our workers safe as an “imposition”. I also take offence to the previous speaker talking about “playing games”, when it has been pointed out by the Green Party member very eloquently that we still have hideous rates of injury at our New Zealand workplaces: 64 people die a year in their workplaces. And that member called it playing games. Now, that is offensive.

Nobody on this side of the House is saying that employers are bad, but our levels of harm need to reduce because the rates of injuries and killing of workers is too high in comparison to other countries. We have made good progress, as the Minister pointed out previously, but we need to keep doing that work to reduce the harm done to New Zealand workers.

Now, the previous speaker and others have also mentioned: what is the problem we’re trying to solve? It is serious injuries of so many workers in our New Zealand workplaces; it’s 64 workers not returning home to their families from a day’s work—now, that is the problem we’re trying to resolve, and I commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House and not kicking the can down the road, because this Government actually does tackle the long-term challenges we see in this country. It is international research. So I say to the people that are saying we don’t know what a risk assessment is and a cost-benefit ratio, read the international research. The evidence is really clear that worker representations make a real significant difference to the health and safety outcomes in a workplace, and that is why this bill is so important.

Now, it is no surprise to me that ACT or National advocate for the status quo, because that is what they do. But “status quo” in this case means that the rates of fatalities per 100,000 workers are, roughly, double what we see in Australia and they’re four times what we see in the UK. Now, our Government doesn’t think that’s good enough, so our Government is taking measures to change that with this bill—this very good bill that the Education and Workforce Committee, chaired by the excellent Camilla Belich, has tackled.

I thank the committee for their work. I thank the Minister for having the courage to bring so many good bills to this House addressing some of those long-term challenges, addressing the gaps that the National Government left us, and I commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Before I begin, can I please acknowledge the tragic deaths at Loafers Lodge, and specifically the families that have now been displaced. I do want to acknowledge the firefighters and the first responders, and, as we move forward, specifically the Wellington community. May those who lost their lives rest in peace; manuia lau malaga.

I rise to make a short contribution. On this side of the House, we have heard our Minister speak that the reason why this amendment bill must come to the House—must be passed—is it’s about honouring the Labour manifesto, the election promise that we made in 2020, to support and protect our workers, because, currently, the health and safety of many workers across the motu—there are decisions being made for them that they don’t understand—specifically those employees in small firms where the workers are only totalling 20 or under. This bill, the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill, will help those workers to be formally engaged to request that, when they require some good advice for health and safety requirements, they are able to participate and they are able to use this mechanism, because currently they don’t feel safe.

A person who is labelled as a “person conducting a business or undertaking” can make the decision, if they are working for an employer with under 20 workers, to refuse to establish a health and safety representative or a health and safety committee, because, in their view, the current practice meets the requirements.

This amendment bill was introduced and referred to the Education and Workforce Committee and was reported back to the House on 5 May. I want to acknowledge the officials and the 24 submitters who provided further recommendations for the Education and Workforce Committee, and I thank them for their work, and I am very pleased that I am now a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

The intent and the objectives of this bill are very clear, because we want our workers to be safe, we want them to understand their rights and their obligations, and we want to reduce the harm in terms of some of those workplaces where they don’t feel safe. So we’ve heard what the other side have said, and they say there’s no problem—they are the problem: the National Party and ACT. Labour is delivering on its election promise. We want this bill to go through to reduce the risks for our workers. I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill in this, its second reading. I speak in opposition to it because this is just another burden being added on to small businesses. The bill removes the threshold where persons conducting a business or undertaking are only required to have a health and safety representative or establish a health and safety committee if they employ more than 20 employees.

Some of the banter that’s been going on in the House today has been fairly unpleasant around employers showing disregard for their staff members. I have never seen, in my time as an employer and liaising with a range of industry employers, that they are not absolutely committed to ensuring that their staff are safe and are not in situations where they are hurt or worse. But this legislation has no risk assessment, so it’s another one of this Government’s one-size-fits-all. It doesn’t matter whether a small business is low risk, they will be required to elect a health and safety representative and pay for their training if just one person within their employment requests that, regardless of what the risk of that small business is.

When the National Government previously brought in the health and safety legislation, that limit of 20 employees was set because many small businesses are low risk, and the cost of putting in and training health and safety representatives was too great, and there were more informal ways in which those small businesses could address health and safety issues in their business. Many small businesses have a range of ways in which they support their staff. Many of these small businesses are family-type businesses; they look after their staff as if they are family. I’ve been to a number of industry small businesses, particularly, where they’ve put in place a range of health and safety measures—things like tool box talks at the start of the day to go over risk assessment, sensible things that are going to work to keep their staff safe. So this takes away from the employers doing those sensible things with their staff and, instead, requires them to set up processes that are more appropriate for larger businesses.

It’s disappointing that the regulatory impact statement notes that there was no particular consultation with small businesses, which, again, speaks to this Government just going ahead and doing things without asking the small businesses: what is the impact? How could this be done better? Is there another way to do it? “No. We know best. We are Government; we know best here in Wellington. This is how you will do it.” So it’s not surprising that they didn’t undertake that consultation, because I’m pretty sure they would know that the feedback would be that it is not welcome—another potential cost and more regulation, and it would not be welcome.

Month after month, we see this Government passing new legislation and more regulations that add further to the cost of running a small business. We know that small businesses in this country are already struggling with a number of other factors. They’re struggling to get back on their feet after COVID-19. They’re struggling with rapid and rampant inflation. They’re struggling with chronic worker shortages, ram raids, crime—things that are impacting on the viability of their businesses. You might—sorry, not you, Madam Speaker; the Government might think that just adding another thing on isn’t a lot, but it’s the final straw that breaks the camel’s back, in many cases. The smallbusiness owners and the farmers feel like they are just facing a deluge of regulations and legislation, and it is impacting on their confidence. We see that regularly in the surveys that are done and the polls that are done around confidence levels. It impacts on their innovation and their desire to grow their businesses.

So this bill does nothing but impose additional costs on at a time that our small businesses are being absolutely hammered by enough costs already. This Government is very good at sheeting back inflation to things that are happening overseas, but this Government needs to realise that every time they add on another regulation, another piece of legislation with a burden on small businesses, it has to go somewhere. It has to be passed on somewhere, and that somewhere is on to rising costs of products and services that those small businesses are responsible for. So this Government doesn’t seem to get that there is a correlation between their actions and the inflation that this country is experiencing.

There might have been noble reasons stated today on the other side of the House of why this legislation has been put up, but let’s remember, this was part—and, in fact, the previous speaker, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, said it; this was honouring the manifesto of the Labour Party in the 2020 election. This was payback for the unions. So this is something that they have promised the unions—

Hon Michael Wood: A point of order. It is a longstanding Speaker’s ruling that implying that a member or a party is doing something as payback for an external organisation is out of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you to the member and with apologies. I hadn’t picked that up. The member will withdraw and apologise.

PENNY SIMMONDS: I withdraw and apologise. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The previous speaker noted that this was honouring their manifesto—the Labour Party’s 2020 election manifesto. It was honouring a promise to the unions. So the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has calculated what this will cost small businesses—and, again, the other side of the House might say $1,300 or $1,400 is small change, but, in these small businesses, that’s actually a significant cost to them. It becomes more significant when there is turnover of staff, and often these small businesses have high turnover of staff. They may well have a number of staff coming in for a short period of time, and so this actually could become quite a consistent burden for that small business that they are constantly having to train their staff and have their staff away from the small business during that time.

Small businesses have had to absorb so many additional costs over a short period of time from this Government, and I’ve gone over a number of those already, but the small businesses cannot keep absorbing this cost. They must pass those costs on eventually, and that does impact on inflation. It does impact on the cost of living crisis. This Government really needs to start joining the dots and seeing what they are contributing to this cost of living crisis.

This is not a bill with only narrow impact—105,000 businesses in New Zealand fall under that 20-staff threshold. So this is a piece of legislation that is going to potentially impact widely across New Zealand on small businesses. So we can expect to see the products and services that small businesses, supply going up as a result of this piece of legislation that this Government has put in place. Therefore, this Government will have to take responsibility for the impact that has on inflation. This Government will have to stop saying that everything that contributes to inflation is external to New Zealand. It is not; it is the things that this Government is doing, the spending that this Government is undertaking, and the burdens of legislation and regulations that this Government is putting on to the productive part of our economy that are contributing to inflation.

This implies that our small-business owners are not doing everything they can at the moment for the health and safety of their employees. It is an unnecessary piece of legislation. Our employers are committed to keeping safe their most valuable assets: their staff. We oppose this legislation.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill.

I also want to start with my acknowledgment of yesterday’s tragedy in Newtown. This incident happened about 300 metres from where I live—just down the road from me. A lot of people who have been caught in this tragedy are people that I know very well. Specifically, I want to acknowledge Liam Hockings; today, we found out that he is missing. Liam was my neighbour in 2011 when I lived in one of the apartments in Wellington Central. Then we both ended up moving to Newtown. Every day, I’d see him walking down the street and buying stuff from Countdown in Newtown. It would be only a few days ago that I spoke to him, and he looked very happy. I want to acknowledge his family and that this is very devastating news to all of us.

Health and safety issues in New Zealand is—at some point, something needed to be done about it. I actually want to acknowledge the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety—who unapologetically has been standing up for working people, for vulnerable people—and the Education and Workforce Committee for their work on this bill. The situation around health and safety needs to be improved, and this bill is going to do just that. It’s a step in the right direction.

Workers in New Zealand are exposed to a higher risk of work-related harm than other countries, like the UK, US, Australia. Only in 2022, about 60 people have lost their lives. If this incident, if this fatality doesn’t wake us up, then what’s going to wake us up?

I hear the argument that “this is going to cause more monetary loss for businesses.” What about the lives that are being lost? Those lives, by simple legislation, can be saved. But the fact that people’s lives are being ignored, that the monetary benefits are being put before people’s lives—I just can’t understand it.

We are a First World country in many ways, but our health and safety issues or problems need to improve. I have worked as a cleaner, I have worked in farms, and I have seen vacuums blowing up on people’s backs, and I’ve seen people being hospitalised by accidents that could have been prevented if we had legislation like this in place.

We do have a legislation—we do have a health and safety legislation. For example, setting up health and safety committees brings workers and the employers together, and they can cooperate on improving health and safety. This legislation that we have now only applies to employers who have more than 20 employees. It doesn’t go far enough in protecting people and saving people’s lives.

So this is a very simple legislation that’s going to make a difference in people’s lives. It does really concern me that members on the other side are really standing up on this bill, opposing this bill, but without even giving enough reasons, except the monetary loss to employers.

This is sensible legislation that’s going to change people’s lives. It’s the right one. I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

Motion agreed to.

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Bill read a second time.

The result corrected after originally being announced Ayes 74, Noes 44.

Bills

Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JO LUXTON (Minister of Customs): I present a legislative statement on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon JO LUXTON: I move, That the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to provide for clearer arrival information obligations to help with Customs-related border management matters. This includes things such as collection of revenue and detection of restricted or prohibited goods. This bill also aims to improve the collection of arrival information by introducing new offences to enforce the system. This bill will support the digitising of the paper passenger arrival card. The New Zealand traveller declaration is part of work towards a safer and smarter border using technology.

We already have a smart and safe border by international comparisons, but it’s important that we continually work to improve this. Moving to a digital system for collection of arrival information has a number of benefits, such as improving risk assessment at the border. It will allow quicker assessment of information against risk factors. It will also help cut down unnecessary referrals to border officers. When the digital arrival card is in place, only some people will be referred to a Customs officer if their digital arrival card identifies a potential risk or issue. This frees up the Customs officer to concentrate on those where a potential risk is identified and to look out for persons who might display suspicious behaviour. Those travellers who voluntarily complete their New Zealand traveller declaration prior to arrival will be able to experience a more streamlined process on arrival in Aotearoa.

This bill does not include specific stand-alone provisions relating to the sharing and protection of this information. This is because the bill links to the existing robust information-sharing framework and protections in the Customs and Excise Act. Also, the Privacy Act will apply on the arrival information requirement provisions in the bill. The bill also introduces two new offences to encourage compliance by travellers. Most travellers provide arrival information. I expect these offences will only apply to a small group who do not provide their information or do not provide it in the way or timing required, or provide false information. The two offences are: failing to provide the required information and providing information that is erroneous in a material particular. That second offence is not meant to capture minor accidental errors that have no harmful consequences.

Other changes include regulation-making powers to set the timing for when arrival information can be required and to exempt categories of travellers from providing arrival information. It also provides for Customs to verify information on behalf of other agencies, which is set out in other statutes. This bill does not add new requirements to provide arrival information. Travellers to Aotearoa are already required to complete an arrival card, which includes personal details and questions.

Section 56 of the Customs and Excise Act sets out the broad purposes for which Customs can collect arrival information such as border security. Customs needs information from a range of sources to undertake its role. The information provided through the digital arrival card is provided from the individual. The traveller states if they are carrying anything that needs to be declared and they provide information that is not provided to airlines, such as whether they are carrying any prohibited items in their baggage. The arrival information questions, particularly those on concessions and prohibited goods, provides an individual the opportunity to do the right thing and declare if they are carrying something prohibited or if a person has quantities over the duty free limit, such as tobacco or alcohol.

The bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which considered several public submissions on the bill. I would like to once again thank the committee for its valuable consideration of the bill, in particular the scrutiny of collection of personal information and information sharing. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee recommended some amendments to the bill unanimously, which were incorporated into the bill following second reading. These changes allowed for the phased implementation of the arrival card obligations in the maritime space and made some minor enhancements to improve it.

To summarise: this bill clarifies arrival information requirements, improves the functionality of the system by providing for regulation making to set when arrival information is required and who is exempt from arrival information. The bill also improves the enforcement of those requirements. The amendments will ensure Customs can fulfil its important border management role and support the shift to digital collection of arrival information through the New Zealand traveller declaration. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to congratulate the Minister of Customs, Jo Luxton, one of the finer Ministers in the Labour Government, I would imagine, and who has been, I must admit, a very good friend on the Primary Production Committee and somebody who it’s great to see as a Minister. Well done, and congratulations. It’s a good thing that you’re bringing this bill through the House. So, well done to Jo Luxton.

The National Party will be supporting this. This is a simple and necessary bill for travellers coming into New Zealand. I guess the only thing is to make sure that somebody that may not be technologically savvy, like myself, still has the ability to get back to New Zealand, if we wanted to, just in case we can’t operate our phone or whatever device properly. So there’s probably just—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Your daughter will do it for you!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Ha, ha! Thank you, thank you. Well actually, in saying that, she did buy a movie yesterday, at 10 months old, and it wasn’t a great movie, and now we have to watch it. But, yes, I’m sure she’ll be more help than I would at doing these things.

That’s probably the only real issue. You know, we can see that these things need to change with time and technology. When people come into the country, they probably wonder what that information is actually used for and whether it is collated properly and, if it is digitised, then it probably does have more reason to do it. All those arrival cards just didn’t make much sense as to what actually happened with them. They were cumbersome, and people would have wondered why they had to fill in something in writing and then not actually know what happened with it. So at least that data would be accessible and would be retained and could be of some benefit at some point. So the National Party supports this bill.

The only other thing I’d say is that our airports—especially Auckland—are terrible at the moment. Effectively, anybody coming in would think they’re coming into a Third World country, which, effectively, the economy is at the moment. But Auckland Airport really needs to be a lot more efficient. We don’t want to give up our biosecurity and our customs roles, but we need to have efficiency at airports for the traveller experience and also just for the nature of travel if we are a country that wants to be productive and encourage people to come and visit this country. So that would be one thing that—not quite on the bill, but, you know, is part of a package of someone coming into New Zealand. If it is digitised, if it is a bit easier—we don’t want them held up at the airport for three hours while there’s something else that’s happening there. That’s inefficient. National supports the bill, and we look forward to passing it.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Voting

Correction—Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to seek leave of the House to correct a vote on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for the votes to be corrected. Are there any objections?

TEANAU TUIONO: That’s one vote in favour for Meka Whaitiri.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The record will be corrected accordingly. Thank you.

Bills

Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill, third reading.

This bill is a very simple bill. It just amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018, and in doing so it provides for clearer arrival information obligations and improves the enforcement and functionality of the system. The bill will enhance border management and the passenger experience by supporting a safer and smarter border. We live in a digitalised world, and we have to update our system accordingly.

Why we support this bill is simple. It’s necessary to support the implementation of digital arrival cards. While the digital arrival card can be implemented under the existing legislation, the bill only improves how the arrival information system works. And that is where there are a lot of changes to the time when information can be provided, and it provides for officers to enforce the system.

We had a few submitters—about five of them. There’s a few different views from the submitters. Some obviously agreed that we need to digitalise our systems; some expressed their concern. None the less, the vast majority were in favour of the bill.

I’d like to commend the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, who worked collegially on this bill. As a committee, we collectively examined the bill and recommended that the bill be passed with amendments unanimously. And while a simple bill, it does make a difference, and it’s a good bill. I commend it to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Can I start by agreeing—that I think the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which considered this bill, is exceptionally good. The chair—I don’t know exactly how to articulate it, but she’s great, she does an excellent job, and has moved this piece of legislation through very positively in the House. So, Madam Speaker, if you get the opportunity, please pass on my thanks to her—I’m sure she will appreciate it.

Hon Members: Aw!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Does that get me an extra five minutes? No, I’m only kidding.

Look, National continues to be very pleased to support this Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill, as we now move into its third and final reading. As I did at the committee stage, I want to acknowledge the new Minister of Customs, Jo Luxton, who is in this role and has picked it up at a very, very late stage. Fortunately for her, I would say—and not a reflection on her, but fortunately as a new Minister—it’s a bill that is relatively without controversy.

Look, seeing we’re in the third reading, I’ll traverse a few of the aspects, to make sure it’s well recorded and for those at home to understand what this is all about. Fundamentally, we’re moving away from those little, DLE-size blue arrival cards that we are all familiar with, on to a digital asset. So for New Zealanders and others visiting New Zealand—actually, sorry, I’d better back that up: a New Zealander can’t, strictly, visit New Zealand. So for New Zealanders returning home, and others within the Realm, and for those visiting, they are now, from late June, going to use an online system. For many Kiwis, they’ll be somewhat familiar with the system, if, like me, you had to use the New Zealand traveller declaration. It’s going to be a similar system. Can I stress the word “similar”—it’s not a health declaration. It’s, in effect, the same questions that we are familiar with when we return to the country, and those questions are actually a mixture of Customs and Ministry for Primary Industry questions that are put to us.

It’s going to a digital format. This is a prudent way forward, which is one of the reasons this side of the House supports it. We are becoming a much more technologically driven country, and, for me, personally, I’m hopeful that because this information will be swiftly available—obviously, Customs and our other agencies will be able to use and deploy it. But it’ll also be of use—and we had the likes of the tourism industry come in and speak to us to say they would really appreciate being able to get quick access to that arrival data; it assists with their planning. I should again put for the record: the systems in place with Customs are already pretty good, if not excellent, actually. As the shadow Minister of Customs, I have to say they’re a remarkable agency. As many in this House know, they do an exceptionally good job. And so these aspects are tinkering, if you will, or are subtle changes around the edges. They already share information very strongly and positively with the likes of the tourism industry—at a high level; better be clear to the House and others. They’re not sharing particular and personal data. It’s high-level data. But if this is now coming through a digital means, that’s a positive.

As I say, it’s now going to a digital format. One of the elements that exercised quite a bit of time within the select committee was the question of whether there would be new questions. For those who have taken the time—as I am sure everyone in this House, as I look around, has studiously studied the bill; it’s only four pages—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Twice.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Twice, says one of my colleagues here: the Hon Michael Woodhouse. Long and short, the legislation does not—repeat: does not—prescribe the questions which should be on the arrival card. And the committee was a little concerned about that, primarily because we did not want to see a host of new questions appear that some of us would feel were intrusive or frivolous or unnecessary. Why I’m sharing this is I think it’s really important to put on the Hansard, as we were given very good and clear advice that the existing Customs and Excise Act makes it very, very clear the scope of what the chief executive or the Comptroller of Customs can put within the arrival card—and that applies to other agencies as well. It was therefore thought that it’s better to empower, as this piece of legislation does, the chief executive or the Comptroller of Customs to prescribe those questions by regulation. There’s always a chance—well, there’s not always a chance. There will be a chance in the future that we have to update those questions, and it’s better done by regulation rather than literally another amendment bill has to be created and we have to come back into this House and go through a first, second, third reading—obviously, a committee stage and select committee as well. So it’s prudent to leave that to the comptroller or to the chief executive of Customs.

The other element which exercised us a little bit was around data security, and particularly around the sharing of information. We were given very good and strong assurances that there are already positive, if you will, memorandums of understanding between the likes of Customs and the Ministry of Social Development, our intelligence agencies, Police, and others, to make sure that that data is appropriately used. And, really importantly for those at home, this bill does not change any of that. It doesn’t change any of that, whatsoever.

It’s not so much a question; it’s an encouragement to the Government, that, again, while we support this to make sure the support systems are in place—we’ll all know, possibly in our own families, those who are not particularly tech savvy; they will find it a challenge to log on to any system and do this digitally—to make sure there are systems in place to assist those people at the border whether it is through an online system or whether they still have access to paper. It’s my understanding, from a comment from the Minister, I think in the second reading but perhaps in the committee stage as well, that a paper option will still be available. But, as I say, it’s not just about the systems; it’s making sure we have people in place.

I just want to end with a couple of last thoughts, if I might. One is around the maritime vector. It’s something which the chair of the select committee in foreign affairs has heard me speak about before, perhaps. We are really, really good at policing, for want of a better word—despite we’re talking about Customs—policing the airport vector of people arriving. We are not, in my opinion, as good or as strong or as consistent as we could be within the maritime vector. I’m not talking about defence forces. I’m aware that there’s a delay of a few months via this bill for them to implement the system. I’m talking about the cruise ships, and so forth. Personally, I think we just need to tighten up a little bit there, to make sure that those arriving into New Zealand via the likes of cruise ships go through the same or very close to the same rigour which we have at our airports.

And the second thing is—and I mentioned earlier about changing the questions. One—it’s only a suggestion. I’m big into modern slavery—or, sorry, I’d better rescind. I’m not into modern slavery; I’m against being, you know, a modern slaver. Let’s be really clear about this. This is the problem with our nomenclature in this Parliament. I would love to see a more robust approach in our questioning, to ensure that we’re capturing elements of modern slavery. And also—and it’s a very particular issue, but it might be surprising to some people both in this House but certainly at home—around forced organ transplantations, which, sadly, happen around the world. And New Zealand is a bit of a laggard in this space. We are not asking the appropriate questions to flush these behaviours and actions out. And so it’s just an example of how we may change, through Order in Council or regulation, our questions coming into the country. It’s a much longer and wider debate, but those of us from across the House who are interested in human rights see there are issues around organ transplantation. We see issues around modern slavery. And as with an event last night, we see issues around our Magnitsky sanctions. All three of them are areas we do not—again, do not—have adequately in this country.

So an encouragement with this new bill, which I am confident will pass tonight, that not only we set these systems well into place but we apply them appropriately, not only to protect the Realm but also to make sure that New Zealand continues to enhance its human rights framework. And with that, I commend the bill to the House.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to improve and modernise the processes at our border. The bill provides an explicit obligation on arriving passengers to provide prescribed arrival information and creates new regulation-making powers to set the time by which our arrival information must be provided to Customs. The bill also creates new offences for failing to provide described arrival information and for providing false arrival information.

These new changes mean that the bill allows the creation of a digital arrival card that will make arrivals more efficient and easier to handle. The digital arrival card will make arrival to New Zealand a better experience, for those of us that have travelled recently and for visitors, and free up border officers from unnecessary referrals and allow them to concentrate on identified risks.

Also, I’d like to thank my colleagues in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their work on this bill, because the select committee has only had to make minor changes to make sure that the bill works effectively and provides extra time for the Defence Force and cruise ships to adapt to the new regulations. The committee also made sure that the bill was held to the highest standards on privacy and data collection, as the previous member mentioned, and consultation with the Privacy Commissioner has shown that this change would not expand the range of personal information that the visitors provide beyond what is already provided for in the Customs and Excise Act. So it’s a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the third reading of this bill, and there isn’t a great deal to add. Customs obviously do an incredibly important job protecting our border, and this bill enables the enforcement of border regulations to work much more efficiently, we hope, by digitising the arrival declaration. And whilst sophisticated systems exist throughout a traveller’s journey, with all sorts of things updated, this is one area that’s remained rather old school. The benefits have been well canvassed, ranging from improved risk management to faster assessments of travellers, we hope, and ideally fewer people being referred to border officials.

I appreciate that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has looked into a few issues I raised in the first reading, and I believe they have adequately addressed them. A few questions remain outstanding following the committee of the whole House stage, but they are relatively minor and not a problem for our ongoing support. I do appreciate the nature of the roll-out, the fall-back—having the paper cards still available and remaining in place—and the way that this has been trialled to do so. Concerns I raised around changing circumstances, in previous readings and the committee stage, have been, I think, mostly addressed, and I thank the Minister for that. I do agree that having a more agile system in place here makes perfectly good sense, though I do hope it doesn’t open the door to a river of constantly changing regulations that could become very confusing for travellers, so I’ll just note that.

While an early declaration may present some challenges, in theory, with circumstances changing as I just mentioned, I think the benefits outweigh this, especially as an early declaration allows for better education—they get presented with it, what people can and cannot bring in, and how much and so on—and I think this will result in fewer mistakes and, hopefully, not too many offences, which have obviously been introduced by this legislation.

So, in summary, that’s all we really need to say on this bill. The modernisation enabled is probably very well overdue, and I commend it to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this third reading of the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill. This bill aims to improve customer-related border management by introducing clear arrival information obligations and digitising the New Zealand Passenger Arrival Card—something that we support; it’s 2023, so moving things to a digitised platform completely makes sense.

I want to acknowledge the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for moving this through the select committee but also engaging in some of those concerns—valid concerns—that people have around data protection and privacy. And I note the discussions that happened during the committee of the whole House and, actually, during this first and second reading as well, where members sought assurance that the bill would not compromise existing memorandums of understanding between, like, Customs and other agencies, between Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Development—so not getting in the way of that but finding a way to use all the advantages that you get from a digitised system as well. And also noting some of the concerns around—and the rationale, after hearing it from various members from around the House—the rationale for enabling a CEO to set those regulations; that if there does need to be a different set of questions that need to be canvassed within the digitised arrival card, they are empowered to do that, and also to acknowledge that members want to have better clarifications around that, which is totally appropriate.

I think about this in terms of the last three years as we moved through COVID and how—coming through the border—we needed to have a system that actually was a lot more agile and a lot more flexible, so, sort of, making sure that we have the systems in place if, God forbid, something else happens, so that we can have that flexibility that you don’t actually get with a paper system as well. But also acknowledging that some of our whānau aren’t the most tech savvy, and so having that paper option is also about ensuring that there is that accessibility as well. And also noting—because I live in a rural community out in the provinces—that sometimes the power goes out, so having the paper option can be quite helpful. Hopefully, that never happens at the border with our airports, and so on and so forth.

So that’s all I have. I don’t have more to add to this bill.

Simon O’Connor: Keep going!

TEANAU TUIONO: You want me to keep going?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No!

TEANAU TUIONO: Nah, he doesn’t. He doesn’t want me to keep going, because he’s had enough. So the Greens support this bill.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): One of the reasons I haven’t heard for replacing the paper cards with digital arrival cards is people like me with really bad eyesight—those cards are tiny and there’s tiny little spaces—and then really, really bad handwriting. I’m sure there’ll be a lot of Customs officers out there who not only will be freed up to manage risk but will actually heave a sigh of relief that they’re not wading their way through all these illegible paper cards. But I have to say, like the previous speaker, Teanau Tuiono, I really welcome the fact that paper cards will be available for those who, for whatever reason, will never be able to move into the digital space. And so I think that’s a really good part of the system.

As far as what this is intended to do, many other speakers have already said. I just want to focus really on the clearer obligations that this bill makes around when the information is provided and the way it’s provided. And I note that because it’s a strict liability offence, there are really good defences in the bill, particularly in clause 6 around providing erroneous material, if it’s just putting a slight number wrong, something that is not intentionally material and doesn’t have a material effect that that will serve as a good defence. So that’s heartening too when it comes to natural justice.

So, as other speakers have said, it will make the border safer and smarter. It’s clarifying our obligations at the border, it’s making enforcement and functionality better, but, most of all, in my view, it’s going to make life much better for Customs officers who don’t have to deal with bad handwriting and those tiny little cards that are quite difficult to fill out. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this is a sensible bill for the time that we live in, but it does have the potential for a little bit of disruption on the way through, and I think it’s good to hear that others in the House have expressed a concern that those who perhaps don’t have access to the digital platform will still be able to use the paper system, at least for a time, because we do give the comptroller the opportunity to actually end that in this bill, as well. I think, in that regard, because there is a lot of authority confirmed for the Comptroller of Customs, there is a need to make sure that this House does express its desire for this to be a successful implementation of a 2023 experience that people should be able to have. But there are circumstances where people won’t, and so that should be covered off.

The other thing that is a little unclear is the time lines that might be involved and the circumstances that would arise if someone, for example, comes through duty free and inadvertently buys a little bit more than their allowance. How is all that going to be handled? How is it worked out? And I think the other thing is—Madam Speaker, you would know, and most in this House would know—that sometimes we find ourselves in jurisdictions where it’s not advisable to switch on your electronic device. So what would happen in that circumstance? Will there be facility on aeroplanes, etc., to be able to access those declarations and make them?

I think the point that Ingrid Leary made is a good one: that a lot of the information that is on these cards is often scruffily put down and very much a challenge to work out exactly what’s said. I suspect that most of those cards never get entered into the system. If there is someone there who’s taking each of the arrival cards and punching in what’s there, it hasn’t been evident in discussions with Customs and with the Ministry for Primary Industries to this point. So this is obviously going to give the system a lot more information—a lot more accessible information—and, from that point of view, and given that we’re a country that does need to protect our borders, we’re not so much worried about someone turning up with an extra bottle of spirits or something, but we are definitely worried if they turn up with food items that might be contaminated and could have a very adverse effect on whole industries in this country.

So, with that, can I say it was an interesting exercise. Our committee, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, is, of course, extremely well chaired, by a most competent chairperson, who, interestingly, survives with only minimal advice from her co-chair! But it’s always, I’d have to say, extremely valuable, and I appreciate the way she receives that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill. I’m not privileged to sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, although having heard the wonderful words about how enjoyable the committee is and how ably it’s chaired, I’m slightly jealous of my colleagues in the House.

This is an important piece of legislation. Our borders are significant and it’s important for the security of our country and also for our very dedicated Customs officials to be able to do their job properly. This relatively straightforward piece of legislation moves New Zealand forward to what many other countries do in relation to the collection of information at the border. I’ve travelled recently twice overseas after not travelling at all over a period of time due to COVID, and it became clear that most jurisdictions are moving towards this electronic collection of information. This is not merely to move with the times but also to allow the people who are assessing risk at the border to be able to do their job more competently, and I understand from reading the legislation that this will assist them to be able to more ably do their job.

It also creates two new offences, which, of course, are necessary in any regime to make sure that there’s compliance with that. I understand from reading the legislation that it’s unlikely that those will be necessary for the majority of the time, but obviously they’re needed for a new system and to ensure that we do have the compliance that we need for our borders. So, along with colleagues from around the House, I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): It’s a pleasure to take a call on this important bill tonight. It’s also a pleasure to speak after the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who is a well-respected member of this House, who knows this area well, and who has acknowledged the chair of the committee that considered this bill—the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—as one of our finest committee chairs in our Parliament.

Now, can I speak to the importance of this bill for introducing a digital arrival card. That will make a significant impact for the workers of our Customs Service—those are workers who are really important to our economy. We’ve heard from members around this House about the importance of our biosecurity systems and the safety net that protects our exports and our primary production sector.

But those workers, they are South Aucklanders around the Auckland Airport; they are workers on the front lines of our airport; they are people who look out for our community; they are people who put themselves on the front lines of COVID during the global pandemic, protecting our borders; and they are the people who we stand in solidarity with every day around the Auckland Airport and, indeed, around the other international airports in the country, who my colleagues on the other side of the House are giving a shout-out to now in this late stage of the debate—in this late stage, because it is the Manurewa MP who has given a shout-out to her Manurewa workers and the workers of South Auckland.

It’s important to make sure that we are updating our technology so that our workers are doing the most efficient jobs that they can and that we are supporting them through these times when there are shortages at our airports. That workforce is under pressure, and everything we can do to support them is good work in my books.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was just enjoying that little discussion there, but it’s my pleasure to rise and take a call on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill, which will soon become law. This bill amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to provide clearer arrival information obligations, to improve the enforcement and functionality of the system, to improve border management and passenger experience by supporting a safer and smarter border, and to support modernising our border by making improvements to support the implementation of a digital arrival card. I trust that the focus will very much be on what those intentions are, noting that we want to ensure that those who come here and don’t have maybe as great an access to the digital tools that others might are still able to take advantage of what’s intended by this bill.

I also was pleased to hear South Auckland customs workers getting a call-out. Look, I’ve lived and worked in that region in the past myself, but I should say the border certainly doesn’t end there. We’re here in Wellington tonight, and I need to make a shout-out to those who are working here in Wellington. I need to make a shout-out to those in Christchurch who are doing the hard work, and in my home town of Queenstown—make a shout-out to all those workers who are doing that work to make sure that we protect our border and look after our economy.

I should just say that this is an arrival bill we have. I’m pleased to say we have been seeing a strong growth again in tourism. It’s certainly not back to anywhere near what it was, but it is coming back and that is very, very good to see. It’s very important for our country and our economy. At a time when we have a balance of payment deficit that is the highest in the developed world, it’s really important that we have this foreign exchange coming to the country, and it’s great to have those tourists coming from overseas to share our wonderful country and that we can share with them. Also, this bill is to make sure we protect that other part of our economy, the primary sector, which is so important, and that we make sure we don’t get any foreign organisms that could severely damage that sector. So this bill is a good one to address that and make sure we are protecting our border well in that respect.

I do have to make one light comment, and I hope it’s light, but this is an arrival bill; maybe it should also be a departure bill, because I picked up the bill from the from the Table tonight and I see the Hon Meka Whaitiri is still listed there on the bill—a Government bill in the name of the Hon Meka Whaitiri. So there’s, you know, a little bit of an oversight there maybe, but we all have these moments.

So, anyway—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: The first bill passed by an independent MP!

JOSEPH MOONEY: First bill passed by an independent MP, as my colleague says. So there we are—there we are. There’s always a time for a first, and maybe tonight’s it.

But, look, in all seriousness, this is a good little bill. It’s well-intended. We want to make sure that we continue to have people moving smoothly through our border but also protecting that border, and, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A pleasure to take a call on this Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill, and let’s bring it back to the arrival part of the bill. So I would like to start with congratulating my friend the Hon Jo Luxton as the Minister of Customs on her new position, and she did a fabulous job, I thought, last night when she took the chair for the first time at the committee stage of this bill. It has been traversed extensively.

This is a good bill, necessary to support the implementation of a digital arrival card. It will support a safer and smarter border, and it’s good that we had reassurances given earlier on that paper versions of this arrival card will remain available. There was, in fact—talking about light moments—a bit of a funny moment just before the dinner break, when some concerns were expressed by Mr Bennett, stating that he may have some trouble filling out an electronic arrival card, and the Assistant Speaker Jacqui Dean suggested that his daughter could perhaps do it for him. Now, I understand Mr Bennett’s daughter is 10 months old, but apparently she is extremely talented and beautiful.

Now, in a previous life I would have been handing out these paper-based arrival cards, and often—I pick up on Mr Brownlee’s comment—there were issues with these cards. They were sometimes not loaded, sometimes they actually had the wrong languages on the card when they were needed in a different language, and I’m also sure that airlines are pleased that they no longer have to carry these in large amounts to hand them out.

Now, the other comment that was made by Ingrid Leary I thought was excellent because I recently had to fill out one of these arrival cards when I left my whānau in the Netherlands—a shout-out to my sister, who’s watching—and it is extremely difficult with the small print on the cards. So moving to digital cards and to a digital border deals with a lot of these issues.

It would be remiss of me to not commend the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and its excellent chair for their work on getting this bill through the House. They made some amendments and some other minor changes that have been well traversed, so all that I need to do is commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you, and I do want to assure the House that the correct Minister’s name will be printed on the final bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Charities Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I present a legislative statement on the Charities Amendment Bill.

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I move, That the Charities Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Charities are a core component of a well-functioning, cohesive society and support our nation’s wellbeing, stability, and health. Charities deliver a number of critical services that many rely on and step in when times are particularly tough. We saw this during the COVID-19 pandemic and more recently after the severe weather events. Charities bring people together—people who care about a cause and making a difference, people who want to help those less fortunate and make a positive impact on our society. To say that the work that charities do is valuable would be an understatement, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the charitable sector for their work.

I am sure that every member of this House has interacted with a charity at some point, as a volunteer, an officer of a charity, a donor, or even a beneficiary. The charitable sector is where I spent most of my working life before entering Parliament, and I have experienced firsthand some of the barriers that charities encounter in their day-to-day mahi. That’s why I’m pleased to see the Charities Amendment Bill have its second reading today.

This bill amends the Charities Act 2005, which is a key piece of legislation for the sector. It was established to provide a voluntary registration, reporting, and monitoring regime, to ensure that entities receiving tax benefits continue to carry out their charitable purpose. The Act has been in place for almost 20 years and it was time to ensure that the legislative settings are still fit for purpose.

Changes to the wider operating environment have prompted the need to modernise the Act; we got this feedback loud and clear from the sector. For example, there have been changes to other legislation that charities need to comply with and also relatively low and declining rates of compliance with the Act. This bill makes practical improvements to the Act to make it easier for charities to continue with their work while balancing the need for transparency and accountability. The bill makes changes that will increase transparency, improve access to justice, and simplify financial reporting that’s required from small charities. Charities should be able to focus on the valuable work that they do while enjoying the benefits of being registered. However, it is also important that the public continues to have trust and confidence in the sector. This bill seeks to strike a balance between these two goals.

Before I get into the finer detail of the bill, I would like to acknowledge some people who have helped contribute to its development up until this point. Can I thank the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, Angie Warren-Clark, and committee members for their constructive consideration of the bill. I am aware that several committee members have extensive experience in the charitable sector, and I’m confident that the committee has used this experience to improve the bill. I appreciate the time the committee has taken to understand this bill and the views of submitters, and I recommend that the House take note of the select committee’s report and adopt the amendments recommended by the committee.

I’d also like to acknowledge and thank all those who shared their views on this bill. Their submissions have improved the bill and I appreciate the time they took to prepare written submissions and to appear before the committee. One submitter succinctly noted that the kaupapa of bringing the laws governing charities into the modern era was important, and that legislation should cover all charities fairly and equitably to ensure that those who need their services receive them. I acknowledge submitters who have engaged with this work since the Act’s initial review back in 2018. Submitters expressed their appreciation for the ongoing opportunity to provide input on the bill, and other submitters agreed that the resulting legislation reflects that input.

In addition to these comments, there are some matters raised by submitters that I would like to discuss further. The bill aims to remove red tape for charities, to allow them to focus on their day-to-day work. The bill does this by enabling simpler financial reporting from small charities, to reduce the compliance burden of reporting. Charities have a duty to financially report each year, to ensure transparency and accountability in their operations. Submitters emphasised the need for simpler reporting standards due to the compliance burden created, and outlined that current reporting under the tier 4 standard is much too onerous for small charities, who typically have minimal resources at their disposal. I am pleased that this provision was met with overwhelming support by the sector. Making practical improvements to the Act is crucial to support charities to get on with their work and reduce that financial reporting that I mentioned for small charities. That’s a real-life example of this change.

The bill aims to improve public accountability and transparency by improving the mechanisms to strengthen the governance of charities. One way that the bill does this is by amending the definition of “officer” to ensure that people with significant influence over the substantial decisions of the entity are captured in the definition. Officers of a charity are not just limited to the treasurer or the chief executive (CE) of a charity, and this change will ensure that people with influence over decision making and the direction of the charity are appropriately defined as officers. Support for this provision emphasised that stakeholders, funders, and the public are entitled to expect the highest standard of best-practice governance for those who lead charitable entities, and that amending the definition of “officer” is clearly intended to improve the accountability and governance of charities.

The bill also introduces a new requirement for charities to review their governance procedures at least three-yearly, to ensure that they are current and assist the entity to achieve its charitable purpose. Submitters commented that this would improve governance practices in the charitable sector and that it aligns with good-practice guidance. Overall, the provisions aim to improve the standard of governance of charitable entities while not unduly overburdening organisations, and I consider that the amended provision reflects this intent.

Improving access to justice for all charities is another key change in the bill. The bill allows more decisions to be appealed, to improve access to justice. Rather than just limiting it to the Charities Registration Board decisions, some of the more significant decisions of the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs can be appealed. Submitters in favour of this provision highlighted how the expansion of the appealable decisions heavily favours charities and improves their access to justice.

Some submitters maintained that this expansion should not be limited to just significant decisions and should include all decisions of the registration board and of the chief executive, but that would be impractical. It would be impractical to broaden this to include all decisions, as this could prevent the CE from exercising their essential compliance and enforcement functions, and that’s not the intent of this bill. The amended provision includes more decisions by the CE that charities may be able to appeal and maintains the improved access to justice that is intended by this bill.

So, to sum up, so many of our charities carry out important work to support people who are struggling or going through a particularly tough time. This bill aims to make it easier for charities to operate while also maintaining public support for the sector, which is critical. This, in my view, will continue to support and strengthen the charitable sector. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

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

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Charities Amendment Bill in its second reading, and speak in opposition to this bill.

The objectives of the bill are to make practical changes to support charities to continue their vital contribution to community wellbeing, while ensuring that their contribution is sufficiently transparent towards its parties and the public. We contend that this amendment bill does not do that.

National absolutely values the work that our wonderful charities and the volunteers undertake for our communities, right across New Zealand. And they deserve to be able to operate under legislation that’s workable and enables them and their volunteers to contribute.

Volunteers contribute an enormous amount to this country—around $4 billion worth of work—and that keeps our communities connected, it supports those that need support, and it revitalises and enriches our communities. There are 28,000 registered charities in New Zealand and they deliver a wide range of services, and we say thank you to all our registered charities and all the wonderful volunteers that work in them.

But because of that, they deserved much more than a tweaking of the Charities Act. Labour, in their policy in 2017, said they would carry out a first-principles independent review of the Charities Act. They have not done that, and this Government is a master. They do not understand that they should under-promise and over-deliver. They are an absolute master at specialising in over-promising and under-delivering, and we have seen that with the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill and the transformation they promised the disabled sector. We’re now seeing it again in this Charities Amendment Bill and the promises of this first-principles independent review that’s now landed in just a few tweaks to the Charities Act.

So people are naturally disappointed in it, and that is why the majority of the submissions called for the bill to be withdrawn. They made it very, very clear that the fundamentals of the Charities Act are not sound, that the definition of “charitable purpose” is not working well, and it does not meet its stated objectives of making practical changes to support charities. So they do not support this amendment bill.

The bill is just another example of unnecessary and unhelpful piecemeal changes being imposed on a sector. But the bill has not been adequately thought through, and you can see that from the submissions. It has not brought in the changes that were wanted; it has put in a myriad of unintended consequences that will place further unnecessary barriers in the way of charities. Even the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) said in its own regulatory impact statement that there is inadequate consultation, inadequate problem definition, and a lack of evidence to support the proposals.

The National Party considers that the definition—let’s get some specific things in here—of an “officer” should be limited to governance only, the trustees of a trust and members of governing bodies. I go to a submission from one of our very, very fine charities down in Southland: Number 10 Southland Youth One Stop Shop. They say in their submission, “We oppose the following proposed changes to the Charities Amendment Bill. This definition of officer is broad, vague, and doesn’t include criteria for deciding who is an officer. It confuses the governance and management relationship and is inadequate for purpose.” That is the sort of submission that came in on this.

Let’s go to another part of the bill. The National Party considers that it’s misleading to state that the bill expands the range of decisions that are able to be repealed when, in fact, the bill limits charities to a mere handful of decisions made by charity services. Many submitters called for all decisions made under the Charities Act to remain appealable, as per the original Charities Act.

Again, I return to the submission from Number 10 Southland Youth One Stop Shop. So they say in clauses 23-26 (55A): it “restricts charities to four types of appeals only, which is too closely prohibitive. Restricting appeals to only be heard by the Taxation Review Authority is unreasonable given that not all appeals will be tax-related. Charities are much more than their tax status. The choice to go to the High Court is expensive, but charitable entities must be allowed to retain their choice of appeal body.” So I’m sorry, again, the specifics were not supported.

The National Party considers that requiring three-yearly reviews of governance procedures creates an unnecessary red tape for charities, and it’s contrary to the stated objectives of the bill—and we heard the Minister say that it was going to simplify things. Well, it doesn’t simplify things. It is a blunt, prescriptive, one-size-fits-all legislative rule that does not work in the areas of charities law because they inevitably fail to accommodate the diversity of human endeavour. An increasing array of exceptions and exemptions then becomes needed.

So, again, this notion of one-size-fits-all from this Government puts our charities in a situation where they will be much worse off. The National Party members believe that the bill is fundamentally flawed and it is not able to be remedied with further tinkering. We support the call by the majority of the charitable sector submitters for the bill to be withdrawn and the Labour Government to honour its manifesto commitment to carry out a proper first-principles post-implementation review of the Act and for it to be carried out independent of the DIA.

This original Act was brought in and introduced in 2005 by the then Labour Government. However, at the committee stage in 2004, the bill was almost entirely rewritten and then rushed through under urgency in a single day without proper consultation. Does that sound familiar to anyone? The National Party was concerned about the process then, and we are concerned about the process again.

Interestingly, the Minister has said that she’ll consider a fuller review after this bill has been implemented. Why? Why would you implement a quick bill and then do a full review? So why are we wasting this Parliament’s time on legislation that could very easily be irrelevant?

There is so much in here that has been opposed by the submitters. I see again that the submission from the Number 10 Southland Youth One Stop Shop says that the bill must have greater clarification on “what constitutes advocacy and political lobbying and what is permitted.” These charities are concerned, and it is not addressed in this bill: the issue of charities being able to advocate for their charitable purpose without fear of their charitable status, their grant funding opportunities or contracts—Government contracts—being withdrawn. That has not been addressed. The charities, in their submissions, have identified that and yet this Government has not listened to them.

This bill, we have said, is another example of unnecessary and unhelpful piecemeal changes being imposed on charities against their will. It is not a full review of it. It is nothing like it, and the DIA even confirm it themselves. We oppose this bill.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, before I commence my speech in regards to the Charities Amendment Bill, it’s the first time I’ve had the chance to rise and extend my condolences to the Newtown community for the tragic fire and loss of lives, and to also extend my thanks for the work that the emergency services have done. It’s hard and it’s traumatic work, and I want to acknowledge them and thank them for their work.

It’s a real pleasure to rise and speak to this Charities Amendment Bill, and I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, for her shepherding of this bill. The Minister has a really long history of working in this sector, so she understands it well, and I’m delighted, therefore, that she gets to progress this bill on behalf of the Government. I also want to acknowledge our Internal Affairs team who gave us the advice; the Parliamentary Counsel Office team for their drafting; and our clerks who organised the whole running of this process so that everyone was where they should be at the time, that technology worked, and that the process ran smoothly. They spent many hours facilitating this work so our submitters could be heard. And what great submitters they were—and the submissions we received.

My thanks go to the many charities, the peak bodies, and the individuals who submitted. We received 95 submissions and heard 28 oral submissions. As a result of what we had heard, we made some really significant changes to the bill as presented at first reading. I want to acknowledge those who took the time to give us their feedback, because I think this is how democracy works. We heard the feedback, and we accordingly made some significant changes. Many of us here across the House have volunteered for charities. I myself ran a charity for five years, and I’ve also been in the service clubs, and many of us—as the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan said—on the select committee have had a history of service.

I can assure the House tonight that we took this bill extremely seriously. In fact, when we talk about changes that we made, there are 28,000 charities we know in the community, and one of the changes we made directly affects tier 4 charities. Those are the charities that have less than $140,000 per annum. That’s half of those charities. At the very least, 14,000 are affected by this piece of legislation, so I’m really delighted to speak to this bill. We’ve made some practical improvements to make it easier for charities to continue their work. It increases the transparency by improving access to justice and enables simpler financial reporting for those smaller charities. So these are the 14,000 charities that I’m talking about, the 14,000 charities who will have an easier or simpler process for reporting. And that is in order to reduce the red tape, it is in order to support those charities who are run often by the smell of an oily rag and who are also having, perhaps, difficulties with retention of people who are volunteering their time. So it is one of those areas where I’m particularly pleased that we were able to alter the legislation.

The bill as introduced—we’ve put in place a number of changes to that legislation. My time is running short, so I’m going to quickly run through the list of the things we heard from our submitters and then changed in the bill, and basically that is as a response to the scrutiny and the feedback from the members.

Clause 20 of the bill inserts new section 42G, requiring an annual review of governance procedures by charities. We removed the annual review and put it in at three-yearly. That was our response. The work still needs to be done. The review to ensure that a charity is performing its charitable function still needs to occur, but once every three years as opposed to annually. So we listened to that feedback.

Change two: the term “officer” was too broad. We had lots of submissions that spoke to us: was a cultural adviser an officer? Was someone who was doing tasks for the charity considered an officer? So we inserted into the legislation the term “significant influence” so that we basically ensure that there is more than just significant influence. So we said they have to have significant influence and exert powers over the strategic, financial, and operational decisions of a charity. So we define the “officer” as a person who holds that significant influence, and it is important that we did that.

There are many other things that we did in this piece of legislation. I recommend the member who resumed her seat, Penny Simmonds, has a read of the legislation and actually looks to what we have changed. It is significant. It is worthy; 40,000 charities are affected. I commend it to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start my address today by acknowledging the 28,000 charities across New Zealand who make New Zealand work by supporting individuals, supporting families, supporting communities, and providing social cohesion in so many, many different ways. What the charities sector deserve when they provide over $4 billion worth of value to New Zealand is to have legislation that is workable. They deserve to have legislation that makes it easier for them to provide the service to New Zealanders that they provide each and every day.

They deserve to have a Labour Government who delivers on the promises it makes, and a 2017 election promise—

Anna Lorck: That’s right—they do. They deserve a Labour Government—they do.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Just quieten down, over there. You might want to listen to what you actually promised in 2017, because you promised the charities sector a comprehensive, first-principles review. That is why the charities sector—the dozens and dozens and dozens of organisations that took the time to sit before us and submit on this legislation—are frustrated. They feel let down, they feel ripped off, and they didn’t get what Labour promised in 2017.

I want to bring the words of some of the submitters to this House. So, rather than using my words, I want to bring some of their words, because these are organisations like Age Concern, who said, “Age Concern New Zealand would like to see a first principles review of the Act carried out by an independent body such as the Law Commission.” What charities want to see with that first-principles review is a revisiting of the definitions of charity and charitable purpose. That’s at the heart of what they are wanting to see in terms of this change.

The Breast Cancer Foundation New Zealand—which is particularly important this week, as I think of a dear friend of mine and a family member—also want a first-principles review. They’re concerned about the impact on charities in New Zealand of these changes. Community Housing Aotearoa: “We continue to emphasize the need for an independent review of the Charities Act. Many of the concerns our members have with regards to how the definition of charity is being interpreted has not being addressed through this amendment bill.”

Charitable organisations are incredibly frustrated. On the one hand, they have the Government, which is speaking to them through the Ministry of Social Development and through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment of a relationship model to commissioning, and yet, on the other hand, Charities Services is now being seen instead as a registrar and as a regulator. So what is it, Labour? Do we trust them, or do we not? Do we want to understand and enable them, or do we not? Do we want to put more regulations in the way that prevent them from doing their work, or do we want to support their work and support them to do more of it?

This one, from Community Networks Aotearoa, represents many peak organisations such as Presbyterian Support New Zealand, the D.V. Bryant Trust, my own Taupo Council of Social Services, Neighbourhood Support, and the list goes on: “We wish to emphasise that there needs to be a first principles review of the Act. This is best done by an independent body to ensure comprehensiveness and integrity of the process and to ensure there are no conflicts of interest. We have been promised this for some years, and we believe that the majority of the Charitable Sector wish for this review.” What’s more disturbing, though, is a paragraph a little bit further on: “We would really appreciate a more positive view of the amazing community and voluntary sector. Where the first point of view is that all this extra regulation is not needed. But that this Sector is recognised and supported into a trusting and participatory environment with the Government.”

So I’m not quite sure why members opposite were laughing at that, because I do take the concerns that these people raise very seriously. They are the ones—they are the volunteers, they are the organisations—that work tirelessly up and down this country. I would challenge any member opposite to say that they don’t value their work and to actually listen to the voice of the charitable organisations who are frustrated—frustrated—by the Government not delivering what they promised in 2017.

Actually, what they then say is that the tinkering isn’t worth it, and the frustration at not having the first-principles review frustrates a sector who already operate on the smell of an oily rag. So I don’t think it was too much for them to get what they were promised delivered.

Here’s another one, from Philanthropy New Zealand—again, a peak body organisation involved in significant organisations, with over 200 members who give donations and bequests to these many organisations. They “support and advocate for the need for a first principles review of the Charities Act … as per the commitment made by the Government in its election manifesto. This would offer the chance to consider the value and purpose of the charitable sector, the value charities add to people’s lives, the environment and the economy, and how the government can best support the sector in its work.”

So it is frustrating, and I accept that the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee has talked about some of the tweaks that have been made as a result of the select committee process, but the fundamental issue is that this is not a first-principles review. Tinkering at the edges doesn’t provide the transformational change that Labour promised them. It’s one example of many, unfortunately, where what they thought they were getting is very different from reality, and many of them have actually said, “Look, just take it back. Take it back, start again. We’re patient. We want it to work. We don’t want piecemeal change, because for our organisation, those levels of changes potentially take us backwards. There’s a huge amount of work and energy and cost in implementing changes. Can we just do it properly and can we just do it right?”, which is what Labour promised and hasn’t delivered.

That is why people are so, so frustrated in the communities sector, and my colleague Maureen Pugh has been working with the community and voluntary sector for many, many years and has been hearing their frustration at the Government, because, actually, they didn’t think that they were asking for much. They didn’t think they were asking for much.

So the National Party, clearly, are not supporting this bill. We think it’s fundamentally flawed, because that is what the charitable sector have said for themselves. We’ve listened, we’ve reflected, and I’m very deliberately bringing their voices to this Parliament tonight because they don’t feel as if they’ve been heard and I think it’s important that they are.

The National Party support the call of the majority of the submitters in the charitable sector who have asked for the bill to be withdrawn, for the comprehensive review to be undertaken, and then for legislation to come before the Parliament once those issues have been surfaced by an independent review. That’s another point that I do think is important: they do want it to be independent. So, at the moment, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is responsible for Charities Services. An independent review means that the work done on policy shouldn’t be done by DIA; it should be done by someone independent. The Law Commission is one that’s been suggested, and that’s what the charitable sector would be expecting.

We do actually see that piecemeal change like this produces more harm than good. For a sector where many of them—whether it’s organisations like SuperGrans, who I’ve met with tonight, or whether it is organisations working with victims of family violence—are working with vulnerable New Zealanders, we owe it to them to make it as easy as possible for them to do their work and to have a Government that delivers what they promise.

So we will be opposing this legislation. We’re opposing it on behalf of the charities sector, and we bring their voice to this Parliament tonight.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute privilege to speak on the Charities Amendment Bill. I disagree with the last speaker, the Hon Louise Upston. She spoke about this bill creating more harm. Well, I totally disagree with that.

I am a member of a charity, and I want to acknowledge the 28,000 charities and all the important work that they do, particularly the volunteers in charities. Like I said, I’m involved in a charity—Radio Tonga of Aotearoa—and we are all volunteers. One of the changes that submitters have told us—all 95 submitters told us—is that they wanted to ease the burden on small charities, in terms of financial compliance. I can tell the House that I have been a treasurer of the PACIFICA women’s organisation, and it takes a long time to complete all this compliance that needs to be done. So this change that we’re bringing in is allowing the regulator, allowing the chief executive, to reduce very small charities’ compliance, in terms of reporting.

Another change that we’re bringing along: when the bill was first tabled, it required charities to review their governance procedures just to see if their charitable purpose was still according to their first charitable purpose. The bill had said “1 year”. Submitters said that one year was too short, and that a lot of work needed to be done to get that submitted. So we listened to submitters. In the bill as now amended, we’ve amended it to “3 years” so that charities will now have three years to look at their governance procedures and to make amendments to that.

I want to also talk about these practical, bold changes as something that will, in my experience as a treasurer, as a secretary—and I deliberately, for one of the organisations that I am in, chose not to hold a position, in terms of an officer, because I know there is a lot of paperwork that needed to be done. So, obviously, this bill also defines the word “officer”, in terms of a charity. So even though, let’s just say, for myself, I am a trustee of Radio Tonga of Aotearoa—even though I don’t hold a position as a secretary or treasurer—I am still one person that makes significant decisions in this charity. So that will encapsulate me as one of those decision makers, holding me accountable for decisions made by the trust that I currently am part of.

What the bill does is it also enables the charities to review the decisions made by the chief executive. What that means is that there is a list—I can’t remember it at the moment; doesn’t come to mind—that also identifies that, if the regulator or if the chief executive has made a decision about a charity and removes their charitable purpose, removes their status, the charity can actually—it widens the scope for them to review that decision made by the chief executive.

Also one of the things that it does is look at the best-practice guidance, clearly defined. Lots has been said about what submitters have said in terms of the first principle, but what we did hear is that the submitters did agree to some of the changes that the bill had set out. I want to acknowledge the submitters.

Of course, I am a member the Social Services and Community Committee. I want to acknowledge our chair, Angie Warren-Clark, who does a really good job. We’re a really good committee. She enables us to have a point of view, and I think that’s what committee chairs need to do: allow members to voice their opinions. I want to also acknowledge the leadership of the Minister, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, for shepherding this bill into the House, bringing all her experiences into the House.

Again, I want to point to the fact that part of this bill is about empowering the regulator to ease financial reporting for very small charities, which will reduce their compliance, enabling them to continue with the much-needed work that they do. I commend the Charities Amendment Bill to the House. Mālō.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT for the second reading of this bill. ACT supported this bill to the Social Services and Community Committee because changes in this area of law are quite infrequent, and the sector has been hoping for change, as promised six years ago. The select committee did indeed provide that opportunity for many charities and organisations and stakeholders to make submissions and to get in touch with MPs throughout the process and afterwards, and I thank those that spoke to me during and following that process; it was extremely helpful.

Given changes in the sector don’t come by often, many expressed a sense of excitement following Labour’s 2017 policy and its manifesto to undertake a first-principles post-implementation review, which would, ultimately, lead to changes to the Charities Act, which could, in theory, be welcomed in the charities sector, and that those charities would be heard from throughout the process. As we’ve heard tonight, that review has not happened.

As this is seldomly looked at by Parliament, it is understandable that people will be worried that unresolved issues in this bill could be enduring and damaging to their sector. So, unfortunately, while changes do need to take place, this bill is not it, and ACT will be opposing it from here on.

So submissions to the select committee did not give me a great deal of confidence in either the process of the drafting of the bill or the depth of consultation, nor the consideration of potential unintended consequences. Many submitters who got in touch with me spoke of their frustrations. As has been mentioned by other members, the regulatory impact statement noted inadequate consultation and evidence, which is surprising, given how long these changes, or the background of these changes, have been in the works.

The role of Charities Services was also a topic of discussion. Many expressed a concern that there’s a bit too much advocacy and campaigning, perhaps even political to an extent, rather than just supporting charities with a light touch.

Another concern is that the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) might have been a bit heavy-handed, that they might have strong-armed the process, whether that’s in their advice to the Government, their advice to the select committee, or being an overall imposition on charities conducting their activities lawfully. Moreover, some stakeholders felt that DIA officials put walls up until decisions had already been made, time and time again, making it a difficult process.

The bigger picture is that the regulatory environment is becoming more complex and more controlling, making the jobs of those in charities more and more difficult. In order to thrive and be productive, charities ultimately need less bureaucracy. They need to be able to get on with what they do best: providing essential services to the communities that depend on them—often to provide systems significantly better than the Government, I might add. What they don’t need is Government interfering too much, and this bill is a case of that, with agencies making decisions with little accountability to the charitable sector.

Certain concerns have not been addressed, notably the supposed benefits of the bill in the explanatory notes—for example, reducing financial reporting—and I just don’t buy it. This idea of reducing red tape—it just doesn’t make sense. It appears that it is distracting from the true intentions behind the scenes. New regulations don’t actually make life easier for charities, and these definition issues are still outstanding. Charities won’t thrive with the heavy-handed, unelected officials calling the shots and looking at them with suspicion from the outset. Further, I feel that the three-year review process is arguably just going to pay lip service to the DIA and not be particularly effective.

What the sector needs is a move towards more independence, including in its oversight. If reform isn’t forthcoming, then the Government should focus on the law that’s already there: that everyone in a charity has a requirement to act in good faith and for the benefit of their communities. In the absence of well-consulted and well-crafted law changes, the Government should just step back, stop trying to micromanage charities, and let them get on with doing what they do best within existing regulations. So we’re opposing this bill. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on the Charities Amendment Bill second reading. I’m new to this piece of legislation, I have to admit. I didn’t have the privilege of sitting through the Social Services and Community Committee to hear the submissions, and so I’ve been trying to do catch-up. To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure I’m fully there yet. Hopefully I will be as the bill progresses. I do want to say I’ve heard two very, very different views expressed from the Government side and the National and ACT parties. And on my reading of it, it’s possibly somewhere in the middle from what I can see at the moment.

So I do just firstly want to acknowledge the important role of—the language I like is—community organisations. I find “charity” a bit slightly triggering of Victorian values and some model of the wealthy doing good to others, which I know is not inherent in it but that’s kind of the history of that word for me that I don’t like, so I tend to think of the community and voluntary sector and tangata whenua sector. They play an incredibly important role in our society. I think that has been acknowledged by everyone, and they are very, very different. It’s important that they are different because that ecosystem is the best way we have of ensuring different peoples’ needs are able to be met. And central government is never going to be able to form a relationship with people in the way that our community and voluntary sector and tangata whenua organisations can.

We’ve seen it again and again through COVID and recently through the adverse storms and the cyclones. These organisations were the people that stepped in and kept people afloat. We know from research that was launched recently around the state of the sector that they are really, really struggling at the moment. What’s come through in terms of the survey is increased stress, a sense of overwhelm around the increase in demand and need of their services and help, and no increase in funding for many of those organisations or in some cases actually a reduction in funding. And the kind of complexity of the issues that people are struggling with has just changed fundamentally from what it was 20 years ago, and people are desperately trying to keep up. They are way more nimble than Government agencies can be in terms of being able to do that response, but the staff in the organisations are really anxious and stressed at the moment.

I hear from the Government members but actually leaning in on the point that this legislation provides the ability for the chief executive to offer an exemption on financial reporting for those smaller organisations. I specifically want to talk to the value of those smaller organisations, and particularly we know that Māori organisations often have struggled to build the relationships and get the funding from central government because of the compliance involved in the application process and the red tape. But yet they’re the ones that hold the most precious relationships, right? I’ve heard, actually, in another jurisdiction, somebody who was a commissioner overseeing all the family violence work who pointed out that in their view what they saw was that organisations who were competent and able to win tenders for funding contracts were the least competent and capable in delivering the change that was needed.

So this piece of legislation, actually, is part of that puzzle, because we have professionalised our expectations of the community and voluntary sector in a way that has privileged large organisations. It’s interesting, really, hearing from the National Party in terms of this bill when they have been so complicit in that process over many years of starting to privilege more and more larger organisations, wanting to deal with fewer organisations because that made Government’s job cheaper and easier, and now to hear them singing the praises of the smaller organisations and the need to listen to them was kind of jarring for me, to be honest, but maybe they’ve learnt—maybe they’ve learnt! Ha, ha! That would be nice.

So I do want to say: so this enabling the exemption around financial reporting is a positive thing because that helps get those organisations to be able to build that relationship and recognise the value of that work. However, giving the charities commission the ability to review, and requiring agencies to review their governance structure every 3 years—I’m not convinced that that helps us get to that place around enabling organisations to do things in the best way for them and not building more compliance on.

I do want to acknowledge as well that from the submitters the very strong call—and I suspect it’s jarring for the Government members, but that point about a lot of the submitters calling for the delivery on that first-principle review, and that’s because, in particular, the way our legislation is set up and its relationship with advocacy is deeply problematic. We’ve increasingly had analysis coming from the community that we’ve been imposing kind of business models that work in the corporate sector on to tangata whenua and community and voluntary sectors that have traditionally had very, very different ways of working that actually are not improved by imposing corporate business models.

Actually, being able to see a need and respond in partnership with others with far more flexibility—and I point to, I think, an op-ed by Denis O’Reilly talking about some of the experiences in the 1970s and the comparison to now for people who are wanting to think about some of those issues. I’m not harking back to the 1970s, I can’t remember them myself. Ha, ha! I certainly wasn’t working in the sector back in that day. I may look like it some days! But I do think he makes some good points and there is an increasing kind of sense of need to critique the control from central government of community organisations and asking “Is that helping them to do what they need to do or not?”

Also Social Service Providers Aotearoa—to pick up from their submission. They were centring the importance of that review actually fully embedding Te Tiriti o Waitangi at the heart of legislation, governing the practices of charities in Aotearoa New Zealand and to ensure Treaty principles are integrated within charities legislation. That is something that the Green Party would really support, and it is a shame that after this time we’re not at that point at the moment. I do call for the need for that work and to go back out to our communities and get to kind of the heart about how can the sector thrive and what support can we offer to ensure the sector thrives, as opposed to how do we ensure compliance and confidence in terms of people donating money. That doesn’t feel to me like that’s the central question. The central question for the Greens is: actually, how do we support these organisations to do the incredibly important work that they do, and that to be front and centre? So, on that note, we are supporting this bill.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Charities bring people together who want to make a difference, who, through a whole range of initiatives, can come together and support things that need good volunteers. Never have I seen more of this than in the past 12 weeks in Hawke’s Bay, where charities have played a huge role in helping people through Cyclone Gabrielle. Just last Friday night, I went to Nourished for Nil, which is a charity that started back in 2017, where I was there the very day that they started. They repurpose all the food and give it out so it doesn’t go to waste. On this Friday night, there were 300 food boxes given out—a regular Friday night—and there was an amazing team from the 80-strong volunteers who were working the distribution network on this Friday. It just showed what can be enabled through having a vision and a purpose and bringing a lot of people together. Now, many of these volunteers are retirees who want to be kept connected and doing something good for their community.

Earlier that week, I had another opportunity to go and visit Christian Lovelink. Christian Lovelink delivers household goods to people in need, and during Cyclone Gabrielle they have now repurposed donated household items to refurnish people who needed new homes or temporary accommodation to go into since being displaced. These are just two of examples in Hawke’s Bay alone of the many, many charities who work very hard, and they need to have legislation that also enables them to do their work well.

Now, this bill talks about getting rid of red tape, and a lot of it is practical support that can be given to smaller charities. It’s those charities that sometimes can get bogged down in much of the bureaucratic stuff that can hold people back. So I think, from having listened to the many speeches tonight, that the practical changes that are being made in this bill are worth it, and I’d like to again say thank you to all the charities and all the volunteers who give so much to make a real difference in the work they do for others. Thank you, Madam Chair.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Watts—five minutes.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to talk on the Charities Amendment Bill second reading. We’ve transcended a number of perspectives this evening in regards to this legislation, starting off with the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, who articulated a very positive and optimistic overview in terms of the select committee process that can only be described—listening to the contributions from the Hon Louise Upston and my colleague Penny Simmonds—as being on another planet. Because the reality is, when you read the responses provided by the charities that made submissions on this bill, the narrative that we are hearing in the House from the other side in regards to this bill could not be further from the reality.

And that is a great shame, because the charity sector is a significantly important sector. The member for Tukituki, who just outlined the role which they have and continue to play in the Hawke’s Bay, is absolutely right: they do do that. Before coming to Parliament, I had the pleasure of sitting on the Diabetes New Zealand trustee board, overseeing Diabetes New Zealand and the role which they play across our communities, across this country—and, as we know, diabetes is a significant illness that impacts a huge number of individuals, whether they’re type 1 or type 2. But what I saw in that role as a trustee, at a national level but also in the Auckland branch, was the huge amount of contribution and outcomes that the charitable sector do provide to our communities.

It is without doubt that the charitable sector have the ability to open doors that no other agency, whether it’s central or local government, can achieve, and they do so quite simply because they understand the people which they support. Many of the people who volunteer on these charitable organisations have a life experience or have an association, or may also have a disease or illness, for which the charity stands. And with that knowledge and understanding, they have the ability to connect with our communities in a way which derives significant value and gets better outcomes. I can only hope that we really leverage what I see as untapped potential in the charitable sector more, and actually see them alongside the delivery of core services to our communities at the same level at which we often place our central government agencies and others. I think there is a significant role for them to do that.

The challenges, really, in this bill, which have been widely canvassed, relate to the fact that the bill as it stands is not fit for purpose. It is not going to deal with the underlying issues that the charitable sector themselves made submissions back to the Social Services and Community Committee on. It is a great shame when our democratic process does not enable the provision of the feedback being correlated and translated into an improved bill.

Hon Member: Have a look at the changes we incorporated.

SIMON WATTS: I can hear some comments coming from the other side. Maybe they were part of the select committee. I doubt it, because if they were, they would know that exactly what I’m saying is actually the reality.

Hon Members: Have a look at the changes we’ve incorporated.

SIMON WATTS: And you can hear them continuing to talk, can’t you? You can hear them continuing to talk there, can’t you? Very, very interesting, when we reflect back on Hansard, what those comments were. But they will be in writing, now that I’ve referenced them.

So I think we need to reflect on what needs to be done, and that is a proper review of the sector, following through with what the sector has been calling for, ensuring that we do take a genuine approach in order to make improvements in regards to this bill. A future National-led Government will no doubt pick up the pieces of the failure by this Government to make meaningful change in an area and a sector that is so critically important to our country’s success and which I think epitomises the best of our country in regards to the people who play in that. I think it is very disappointing that this evening we are passing a bill that will not deliver value and outcomes for our communities, but I am in hope that in 155 days we will see a change in Government and we’ll have an opportunity to put this right. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Charities Amendment Bill. I hope you will indulge me if I first acknowledge the terrible hurt that is currently being felt in my community as it is the community of Newtown. As the MP for Whangārei, I want to acknowledge my people who have lived, in the last four weeks, through the loss of four of our young people. I want to acknowledge the whānau. I want to acknowledge our extraordinary first responders. I have to say, at this moment, my town is submerged in grief. And I want to particularly acknowledge at this moment the community of Raumanga and of Ruakākā. Raumanga were the first to lose a young person, and Ruakākā are the most recent, and the weight of that grief is very heavy on my people at the moment.

And it is some of that grief that charities in our community will be helping to alleviate—charities like the Bream Bay Coastal Care Trust, charities who, as my colleague and friend Angie Warren-Clark remarked, live on the smell of an oily rag. I grew up on the back of such a charity. My mother opened the Miriam Centre, a child abuse and family crisis centre, about 35 years ago, and I quite literally grew up between my mother’s back office and my father’s back office in the family law firm down the road. I know how hard it is for these small organisations to manage the regulatory responsibilities they have while they are trying to do the mahi in the community. It is not necessarily in the skill set of those running a charity, who are trying to get out and do the work of helping people and raising them up, to have to bear the weight of regulation and reporting. These are charities, and as my friends and colleagues have said, about half of them are the small ones. About 14,000 of the 28,000-odd charities we have in New Zealand are the small ones, and it is difficult for them to bear the regulatory load. And that is where this bill comes in.

Now, I’ve heard, again and again through the night, the criticisms coming in from the Opposition. I guess when you’re not in the position of having to do stuff, it’s very easy to throw stones. But the point is we are trying to do something, and as a wise person once said to me, the enemy of getting anything done is trying to get it perfect. Never let the fact that something is not all-encompassing bells and whistles stand in the way of the fact that it is a darn good thing that will make multiple important changes.

I want to thank the officials for the work they put in—as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, I saw the blood, sweat, and tears they put into this bill—and, most of all, the submitters who made so many good and helpful suggestions, which we have done our best to incorporate. I want to point out to all of them that when we did our work, we did it with a deep understanding of the difficulties, the real-life struggles of running a charity. When you have, as your chair, a woman who ran Women’s Refuge for about nine-odd years, when you have Anahila, who has also been involved in charities for more years than I can count, and when your Minister herself is a member of so many charities, believe me, you have the depth of experience with which to work.

So the things that, very briefly, we are doing here are to remove regulation. They will reduce the reporting requirements, they make it easier to seek legal redress without having to go to the High Court, and they do a range of things that will make a real, tangible difference to the work of people who are incredibly necessary to our community, to my community. I look forward to taking Angie Warren-Clark and Minister Deb Russell to several of them next week to talk about the important work of charities in my community, and we will be able to talk to them about the improvements we have made to their work. I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve enjoyed hearing the speeches, albeit some in debate, about this particular bill before us this evening.

Charities are a core component of a well-functioning society, and when I think about my community on the North Shore and Northcote and Beach Haven and Birkdale, I think about the number of voluntary, charitable organisations that do the hard work on the ground. I look back to the work that was completed over the COVID-19 pandemic, the groups that got out on the ground, delivered food to families in very difficult circumstances, and who helped vaccination sites across the country lift our immunisation rates. I think about the people in this room, and just looking at my colleagues, not only do we have people that have worked voluntarily in their church organisations, we mentioned Women’s Refuge, in chairing community houses, in community justice organisations, and in local marae. We certainly have a good wealth of experience of not only people that have run charitable organisations, managed them, but also acted as volunteers for many, many years.

I have the privilege of chairing the Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project. Our core line of business is about running facilities that are available for community groups for free, in most circumstances—for young people and children to come and host events there, for mums’ groups to come and meet there, for our new migrants to share in Aotearoa New Zealand experiences. Those are the hubs of our community. We also do the outreach, of course, and I think to a major project that our organisation runs, which is Community Eats, which focuses on the redistribution of kai across the community, both in those that are giving and those that are distributing back out to the community. Those are the types of initiatives that we want to enable and we want to support.

But I know, as the chair, in a very detailed way, the heavy load that our small team carries in order to both deliver the work that they need to on the ground but also maintain the administrative and operational background that they need to and the challenges of sometimes complex situations, to manage the regulatory expectations and the compliance expectations of both funding of council, so on and so forth, not to mention the charitable responsibilities that they have under what is the current Charities Act 2005.

Now, we know that the sector overall is incredibly diverse, it’s nimble, and about 28,000 organisations are registered nationally. My understanding, from the information that I have read, and I wasn’t a part of the select committee hearing, but of that 14,000, effectively half of that will benefit from the changes that we make through this legislation this evening.

This bill includes the provisions to enable reduced financial reporting requirements for very small charities, just like the ones that I spoke to this evening, to mitigate the compliance burden; to clarify who an officer is and their role; and measures to improve the governance. It is very challenging, in many small organisations, to establish good governance groups, people that are prepared to do it on a voluntary basis and able to mostly commit the time that is needed to make these organisations effective.

The bill will also clarify and improve compliance and enforcement under the Act and increase the transparency and fairness of regulatory decision-making by the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Charities Registration Board, and, lastly, to introduce a similar appeals mechanism by empowering the Taxation Review Authority to hear appeals under the Act.

This piece of legislation makes steps to lifting some of the compliance responsibilities on 14,000 very small charitable organisations. Let’s be charitable this evening to them. Let’s lighten some of their workload. I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. I rise and address the House as the last speaker for the National Party, in opposition to this Charities Amendment Bill. Before I move on to speak to the specifics of the bill in the debate this evening, it is appropriate to acknowledge the deceased of Loafers Lodge here in Wellington, their families, the first responders, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the police, St John Ambulance, the hospital workers, and also those charitable organisations that have mobilised around that community.

Secondly, I also acknowledge those acknowledgments that have been made in the House this evening in terms of tragedies that have occurred in the local communities that we all come from. Cyclone Gabrielle, the adverse weather events, the recent death of the young man up in Whangārei and the other young persons, and also acknowledging, again, the efforts and charity of our charitable organisations and communities that mobilise and wrap around in support.

My third acknowledgment this evening, because those earlier ones have tended to address a socio-economic demographic of our most vulnerable communities—I now move to acknowledge the other end of the spectrum: Dame Rosie Horton, who gave a lifetime of service and commitment in the charitable fundraising philanthropic area of her life. She died earlier this week and it is appropriate to accordingly acknowledge her for her service, because the contribution that was made there meant that there were many in those most vulnerable communities who benefited from her efforts.

I now turn to address the bill and the debates in the House this evening. When I spoke to this bill at the first reading on 28 September last year, I commenced my speech by stating, “charity begins at home”. It’s really important that the Government take heed of it because the meaning of “charity begins at home” is that those in a position of responsibility first and foremost address the very people that they are meant to care most about. Earlier in the debate this evening, my colleague Penny Simmonds, as the first speaker for the National Party, spoke very forthrightly and robustly. However, I heard from the Government benches nothing but a rabble raucous retort of what is rational debate. Such behaviour and conduct is uncharitable. We need to focus, importantly, on the substance of the debate, and not target the debater.

So I turn, now, to the bill. This bill came before the scrutiny of the Social Services and Community Committee. It was introduced into the House on 21 September last year and then referred to the select committee on 28 September. The Minister Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan was invited to provide an initial briefing to the committee on the bill, and she did so on 9 February 2023. Submissions were called for and there was only a month for those submissions to be made from a sector that represents 28,000—28,000—registered charities. Now, those are registered charities—there are numerous other charitable organisations that aren’t registered, so we’re looking much wider in scope. There were 95 interested groups and individuals who made submissions and oral evidence was heard from 28 submitters in Wellington.

Now, what’s been very interesting is some of the contributions from the Government benches this evening. I have found it rather patronising when we hear that there is a Minister and perhaps three other members of the Labour Government sitting on this select committee who come from the experience of working in this sector. I certainly acknowledge that, but that should not displace the views and the representation of those 28,000 registered charitable organisations in this country as having lesser meaning, effect, impact, and substance—and that is, effectively, what this Government has done.

The National Party has filed a minority view, and the substance of that minority view is premised on the views of those submitters representing the majority of those 28,000 registered charitable organisations and many non-registered charitable organisations. So the National Party, again despite some of the contributions from members in the House because of political orientations that go with it—what I emphasise in this House this evening is that the National Party take heed and listen to the sector most affected and most impacted by legislation that comes before this House.

Submissions: written and oral. I quote Sue Barker, who is a specialist charities lawyer and member of the core reference group for the review of the Charities Act. “The Government has no mandate to pass this Bill. The Bill represents a broken manifesto promise”—heard that before—“and does nothing to meet its stated objective to ‘support charities to continue their vital contribution to community wellbeing’ … It is a sad indictment on our democracy that policy”—in other words, the Government officials from the Department of Internal Affairs who have driven the shaping, the structure, the content of this Charities Amendment Bill, that their advice has been accepted “without critical examination”. So “It is a sad indictment on our democracy that policy is effectively being set by an unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucracy, while the fundamental concerns that the vast bulk of the charitable sector are consistently ignored.” So important that the public is aware of this—“a sad indictment on our democracy”. This is something that New Zealand has experienced time and time again from this Government, and here we have that again repeated in this Charities Amendment Bill.

My colleagues have addressed those members who were on the select committee, which I wasn’t on at that time—have addressed the detail of the bill. There’s a significant section within the Charities Act itself that is not being addressed within this amendment bill: section 5, which is the very definition of charitable organisation—what is a charity? That has been totally dispensed with.

So the other point that I make is that not only were there those 95 written submissions, 28 oral submissions, there had been extensive public consultation in 2019 with engagement of 1,200 people at that time—the online presentation was viewed 650 times and there were 364 written submissions at that time. Again, the feedback from the community: those persons representing and advocating for the 28,000 registered charities in New Zealand, their views were dispensed with because it would seem that the Minister and those members from the Labour Government sitting on the select committee—where the select committee is weighted heavily in favour of the Government, who has the majority say and rule on this—know better than the charities sector of our country. Disappointingly, this bill is going to be passed into law dispensing with the very views of those people who know better—who know best, actually—than this Government. It’s on that basis that the National Party opposes this bill. In conclusion, I do not commend this bill to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So from budget advice, to animal rescues, to environmental clean-ups, it’s really hard to imagine our communities without charities. And I think it’s really important that they just get on and do what they do best. I think about the work that charitable organisations did during COVID down in Southland. I think it was the really strong connections that they had with the community that meant that they could support so many people with welfare checks, providing food parcels, and making sure that everybody was connected with the services that they needed. But being a registered charity also confers significant financial benefits, and so it’s really important that transparency is retained. And so what this bill does is it makes a number of changes that will ensure that charities can get on and do what they do best, but also be still publicly accountable.

I really want to acknowledge the people that made submissions on the bill. So the Social Services and Community Committee heard 95 submissions and 28 oral submissions, and, as a result, as a committee, we did listen to the advice that those submitters gave us, and we’ve made a number of really practical changes. I just want go through maybe two or three of them. I think the first one was a lot of the submitters raised an issue with the bill, where there was a requirement that charities review their governance procedures annually. I think the point there was to make sure that those procedures meant that the charities were still able to achieve their charitable purposes. But what submitters told us was that annually was too much, and, in particular, for those that were small charities and relying on a handful of volunteers. So, basically, the committee listened, and what we recommended is that that be changed to at least once every three years to give them that time to be able to do that.

One of the other things that people talked about was the definition of “officer” in the bill, and the fact that it was too broad. So the original definition was anyone who is able to exercise significant influence over the management or administration of the entity. I think what submitters were saying there was that that was a bit too vague, and some of them were concerned that if you had people that were volunteering for the charity, they may be put off because they might have thought that they inadvertently might get caught up in the responsibilities that came with that definition. A number of people also raised that in terms of the implications for cultural advisors. So, again, as a committee, we listened to that, and we recommended changing that definition and making it much more defined and tight.

So what we recommended changing it to was someone who holds a position within the entity and is able to exercise significant influence over substantial decisions, but also, including in that definition those that had some delegated powers that otherwise would have fallen on the trustees, board, or governing body of the entity. I think the stance is that by making that much more tight, that would get away from a lot of those concerns that those submitters had.

We also recommended a few other changes, and one of them was expanding the range of decisions, made by the chief executive, that charities could object to or appeal, so that that was broader, so that charities, if they disagreed with something, had a wider range of options in which they could make that appeal.

So I think what we’ve done is we’ve made some quite practical changes there that mean that charities can get on and do their work, but making sure that they’re still accountable.

I think, just before I finish, I would like to just thank charitable organisations for the work that they do. I’m just thinking through the impact. Many in communities down south and across the country rely on charitable organisations at some of the most difficult points in their lives, and so charities are making sure that people can access things like food parcels, budget advice, counselling services—you know, their work is absolutely vital. But I also think, from an environmental perspective, the work that some of those organisations do down in Southland, in terms of organising beach clean-ups, thinking about the predator control, so that we’ve got our unique biodiversity, and all that native tree planting. There’s a lot of work that charitable organisations do, so it’s really important that we have legislation that’s fit for purpose and that can let charitable organisations get on and do that while still being accountable. So I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 74, Noes 44.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 74, Noes 44.

Bills

Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill

Third Reading

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill.

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

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

This bill is one part of the Government’s work to reduce delays across the entire justice system. Reducing delays in the justice system is critical to ensure New Zealanders can effectively access justice. Some of the ongoing work to address court delays includes increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, the High Court, and the District Court through to 30 June 2025; establishing the Criminal Process Improvement Programme, a judicially led cross-agency programme to reduce backlog in the District Court by establishing best practice in court procedures; and establishing a joint work programme with Te Whatu Ora, the Ministry of Health, and Corrections to address issues around court-ordered forensic reports. This Government has also helped around 93,000 more people access legal aid. The costs of accessing legal aid have been removed, the repayment thresholds have been increased, and interest will no longer be accrued on unpaid legal aid debt. Together with the Family Court Associate, these initiatives aim to increase access to justice and improve the experience and process of court proceedings.

Delays in the Family Court can be particularly harmful in the family justice system because of its role in making decisions that affect children, parents, and whānau at challenging times in their lives. I just quickly want to pivot to many of the submitters that took time to provide the Justice Committee with their wisdom, their views, their expertise, to assist in the formation of this bill. In particular, there was one gentleman by the name of Paul von Dadelszen. He was the former Deputy Chief Family Court Judge. As a baby just graduated from law school, I took up the role of judge’s clerk, and I had the privilege of working with Paul von Dadelszen and some of the work that he was actually doing on some of these proposals—and that was almost 20-odd years ago. But I note that Judge von Dadelszen—he’s retired now, but he took the time to submit on these bills, to really walk through—and there’s been several iterations over a long period of time—the thinking that had gone in by the judiciary, by practitioners, by the courts at various stages that has resulted in this ultimate outcome, which are the Family Court Associates. But they build on—I guess I just want to highlight the whakapapa by which the introduction of these Family Court Associates has been made into this House and, indeed, law, this evening.

An accessible Family Court that operates without undue delay is key to a fully functioning family justice system. Significant reforms were made to the Family Court system in 2014, and were intended to help people settle arrangements for the care of their children without having to appear in the Family Court. However, some of these changes led to delays across the Family Court, which had significant negative impact on children, parents, and whānau, and exacerbated existing issues already likely in many of those family environments. In 2018, the Government established an independent panel to examine the 2014 reforms and consider the impacts on families and children. The independent panel provided its final report, Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau, in 2019, which provided 69 recommendations. The independent panel found that experiences of the family justice system were generally negative and that delay in the resolution of court cases impacts on most areas of the Family Court system.

We know that delay is a significant factor in undermining trust and confidence in our Family Court. It keeps parents and children in stressful and uncertain situations, and can contribute to deepening parent and whānau conflict. There are a large number of children involved in Family Court proceedings. Children exposed to ongoing inter-parental conflict are four times more likely to have social and emotional problems than the general population. Further, some children do not have contact with non-custodial whānau for long periods of time while proceedings continue, which can cause relationships to deteriorate and be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child and whānau. In some cases, there are long-term, intergenerational impacts, particularly for tamariki Māori who lose connections to their whānau and, by dint, their whakapapa. The impact of delay, of course, is not limited to children. For example, for victims of family violence, court processes can be re-traumatising, and court delays exacerbate and prolong trauma.

The Government is committed to addressing these barriers to justice and strengthening the Family Court. The establishment of the Family Court Associate forms one part of a wider long-term programme of work to respond to the independent panel’s recommendations, and are part of the Government’s commitment to address court delays more generally, as I’ve already set out.

In 2020, the Government began its reform based on Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau and aimed at better supporting whānau through the family justice system. The reforms have included reinstating legal representation in the early stages of Care of Children Act 2004 proceedings in the Family Court, with legal age for eligible parties; providing quality, accessible information for children, parents, and families to help them navigate the family justice system; establishing Kaiārahi—Family Court Navigators—to help parents and whānau navigate the system.

Briefly on that point, I just want to acknowledge some of the incredible work I’ve seen by those Kaiārahi. I had an experience up in the Manakau court, a couple of months ago now, where I got to meet with those Family Court Navigators, who walked me through what their day-to-day life was. In terms of working with whole family units, I was astounded by the depth and breadth of the way that they form relationships.

And, finally, as a part of this work, we’ve also increased lawyer for child remuneration to incentivise the recruitment and retention of skilled practitioners.

The purpose of this bill responds to one driver of delay identified by the independent panel: the high administrative workload of judges. The panel recommended that a new position be established in the Family Court. The bill establishes the Family Court Associate role to take on some of the workload of the Family Court judges. That will reduce delay up to 25 percent, it is estimated, in terms of time, and assist in improving the process and experience of people participating in Family Court proceedings. This new role will help Family Court judges to progress cases instead of undertaking time-consuming administrative tasks.

The Family Court Associate will be a judicial officer with independence from the executive. As a judicial officer, the Family Court Associate can take on tasks currently performed by a registrar, but they can also take on some judicial work that does not require a judge’s expertise or experience but could not be done by a court officer as well. This includes decisions made at early stages of proceedings in interlocutory matters, such as directing parties to undertake dispute resolution, making orders by consent, appointing lawyers, and convening settlement conferences. The Family Court Associate will spend most of their time doing work on the papers, but they will also appear in court for some matters as well. Matters that are complex or have a significant impact on people or human rights will remain with judges, including final decisions that materially affect children, such as guardianship.

This bill also includes a requirement to review the Family Court Associate role to evaluate its effectiveness. Going through the submissions that were made to the select committee, I noted that there were a number of submitters that sought that very sound recommendation to undertake the review to ensure that the role has done what it was intended to do, which is to reduce those delays in the Family Court and also to see whether any amendments would be desirable.

Finally, I want to acknowledge those that worked on this piece of work: the chair of the Justice Committee, Vanushi Walters, and all of the members. And I want to acknowledge, of course, as well, the independent panel for their work, Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau, which has indeed informed the creation of the Family Court Associate role. Finally, I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have said all along that where, in the courts portfolio, we have a proposal from Government that we can support because it will improve the lot of those who are going through the system, we will support it. We continue to support this piece of legislation, the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill, because we think it is worthwhile. We think it does something that will indeed help to reduce the delays in the court system. So I begin, on that bipartisan note, to explain to the House that National will support this bill at its final reading, and we wish well all those who will be affected by the work of the courts, including the future Family Court Associates themselves.

I think it’s fair to place this bill in the context of the efforts that the Government has made in relation to the Family Court these past six years. If we take a step back from that, we should consider the old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied, and, of course, that means different things for different courts. In the criminal court context, we have people who should be presumed innocent until such time as they are proven guilty, held on remand. That places a great strain on the system. We have in a civil context, the perverse incentive for people to delay proceedings and to avoid going to court, in a way that would prejudice the rights of others. And in the Family Court, we have lives that are left in limbo for far too long; we have division crystallised, breakdown exacerbated, in a way that the Minister actually explained, I think, very well.

So it is common ground, I think, on all sides of politics, that we must speed up our courtroom processes. Sadly, that’s not been the experience of the last six years. To be fair, it’s been a longstanding issue in our New Zealand courts that matters take far too long to be decided. And, of course, that is to the great detriment not only of those working in the system but also, more importantly even than them, those who are innocently involved in matters that take so very long to be disposed of. So the Family Court Associate is, I think, a role that will help. As the Minister has explained, it’s similar to that of a judge, and it’s almost a situation of walking like a judge and quacking like a judge but not, in fact, being a judge, being a judicial officer. And I should explain that—

Simon O’Connor: What are these judges up to these days?

CHRIS PENK: Yeah, I might need to duck for cover, after perhaps putting my non-webbed foot in it, but you get the idea—

Harete Hipango: You’re getting in a flap!

CHRIS PENK: And we don’t even have a Speaker Mallard any more to appreciate these! Anyway, we’ve upgraded, haven’t we, ma’am?

Hon Members: Move on.

CHRIS PENK: I’m being encouraged to move on, so I shall. But, actually, there are a number of different constraints that face the Family Court system at the moment, and having a Family Court Associate will help in some of those respects but not in others.

Some of the constraints that currently are the cause or a contributing factor to the delays actually won’t be resolved by this. For example, it’s pointed out that the Family Court Associate will have the power to obtain reports such as cultural, medical, psychiatric, and psychological—that’s a worthwhile thing for Associates to do—but, of course, the constraint at the moment exists largely in the unavailability of sufficient numbers of people who are qualified professionals who are willing and able to supply those reports. There are various things that could be done about that, probably outside the scope of this bill, so I won’t traverse those now, but suffice to say that that’s a constraint that isn’t directly addressed by the bill. And any serious reform of the Family Court system must consider such wider factors as that and understand that the Family Court Associate will be operating in very much the same environment as the Family Court judge currently is.

Other problems such as self-represented litigants: with all the best will in the world but perhaps less experience and training than qualified lawyers, they do inevitably make life difficult for those working in the system. And I say that not in a way to sound as though people do not have the right to access justice; of course, everyone has the right to access justice. If the system is such and their resources are such that they feel they are best served by self-representing, that’s an indictment on the system more generally. But, again, Family Court Associates will have to deal with that issue as best they can. Again, there are things we can do, but, again, I would suggest that that’s not something we had best litigate, so to speak, in the context of this bill.

These other problems will persist, and so we have, I suppose, in the nature of a band-aid solution—of course, a band-aid can be helpful if the wound is small enough that it will cover it, but I think we shouldn’t pretend to ourselves that this is a more comprehensive solution than it is. And I think we should all feel challenged to provide policy solutions that will actually provide a more comprehensive approach to reforming our courts. If I were to summarise it, I would say that there is a huge administrative burden at the moment. The Family Court Associate role being established by this bill will help, because some 25 percent of the judge’s workload is administrative and the Family Court Associates can do some of that work. But, of course, if we were to remove some of the administrative burden by making the processes more straightforward, more user-friendly, there would be less of that work needed in the first place.

In terms of what has happened to this bill since it’s gone through, I think the Justice Committee’s treatment of it was very positive. I think I’m right in saying that the chairmanship passed, during the course of that bill being in front of the select committee, from the Hon Ginny Andersen, as she now is, to Vanushi Walters. May I say that I think the committee, under their leadership, has done a good job of examining what’s needed in the bill, and, as the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, has rightly and graciously acknowledged, the committee had a certain amount of help from a number of very useful and informed submissions, including former judges, no less. So it’s been a worthwhile exercise to improve the bill.

The changes, which we don’t need to go through in detail, were along the lines of recognising that the Family Court Associate will be a judicial officer, albeit not a judge, but it’s appropriate to provide them some of the protections which, of course, protect the system as a whole, such as saying that they’ll have the same immunity and they can’t be removed for grounds other than the pretty narrow ones on which it’s possible to remove a judge currently: inability, which is pretty tightly defined, or misbehaviour. We don’t want judges or, as I say, Family Court Associates to be able to be removed on the whim of those who might simply dislike the decisions that they reach. So we thought that was appropriate.

I say “we”; I wasn’t a member of the committee per se. I think I might have attended some of the consideration and the hearings and submissions, but certainly I did my best to familiarise myself with these issues that were being discussed at that level. We saw, as well, at select committee that a Family Court Associate would be able to direct a registrar to appoint a lawyer to assist the court under several Acts. That’s an administrative decision; an important one, but one that’s not necessarily judicial, albeit that it should be exercised in a judicious fashion. So that’s, I think, helpful and, again, along the lines of performing some of those administrative tasks, will be useful.

Even more arcane than that are a couple of changes made in the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Government, which, again, we supported. We thought it was helpful to have the Oath of Allegiance, under the Oaths and Declarations Act, to be required to be taken—I think one “takes” an oath—by Family Court Associates, just as with judges. And also there’s a quinquennial review—I think I’m right in saying it’s every five years, but I like using that word anyway, so let’s hope it’s five years! And I don’t know any equivalent names for other ones.

Simon O’Connor: Say it again.

CHRIS PENK: So the quinquennial review timing has been established by Supplementary Order Paper, which, as I say, we supported.

So, with a minute to go, I’ll summarise my comments by saying again that we support this measure. We think it’s helpful in itself. Of course, the question, I suppose, is begged: why not simply appoint more judges? Because a judge can do everything that a Family Court Associate will be able to do—is my understanding—albeit that the reverse doesn’t quite apply. It might be that there are good reasons for that. I mean, there’s currently a cap on the number of judges one can have. I’m not quite sure why; I think that’s something we could all look at. There was actually a lifting of the cap on the number of judges in primary legislation as Budget urgency in a previous year, so perhaps we have that to look forward to in the next 24 hours or so. And I’m keenly looking across the aisle to see if any Labour Party colleagues who might know what’s in the Budget can give any clues with their body language, but I’m getting nothing back. Indeed, I think we might need to wake one of them up before her contribution, but that’s a comment on me, not on any of them. So we supported this bill. We continue to support the bill. It’s a good idea as far as it goes, but more is needed. We support and commend the bill to the House.

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

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call. We’re wide awake on this side of the House. And I thought I might just start by responding to some of the comments made by my colleague Chris Penk, but I’ll reassure him that he doesn’t need to duck for cover. I did want to comment on his reference to the very well-known phrase that “justice delayed is justice denied”. And that is a very well-known phrase, and I want to begin by thanking some of our submitters, because those are words, but clearly it is felt very differently when you’re going through some of those court processes.

And whenever I come up against what I consider a key principle of legal process, I’m always a little curious about its history, so I did look to see when this concept of “justice delayed is justice denied” came up in history, and it goes all the way back to the 1600s, so it is a really well-embodied piece of our justice system. It wasn’t the only theme that emerged from submitters. Others were the powers of Family Court Associates, the independence of Family Court Associates, the training and experience, ensuring safety in the Family Court system, Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, participation, consultation, evaluation, and monitoring as well. So there were really robust submissions, and, once again, I would like to thank our submitters and the Justice Committee for its work.

In the second reading of this bill, I did make reference to some of our submitters, who included the New Zealand Council of Victim Support. They raised a very important issue, I thought, in regards to the Family Court being used as a tool of abuse. And, of course, this is a bill that responds to that critical issue as well. It is only one part of this Government’s response to this issue. Very recently, Minister Allan did announce that a new bill would be announced to prevent victims of abuse from being further abused or traumatised in the courts as well. We had a number of excellent submitters.

The last one I wanted to acknowledge, was the Disabled Persons Assembly New Zealand for their submission, and they really spoke to the aspects of how the Family Court system doesn’t, in many ways, work for disabled people, but they were also really positive about some of the changes that this bill brings into being—particularly the creation of the Associates. And they submitted that, with the introduction of the newest Associates, there was an opportunity for the courts to look more broadly at disabled people’s experience in the court system.

So I will leave my contributions there, just only to say that it is wonderful to see that there is broad support across the House for this bill. I do look forward, I hope, to seeing this bill pass this evening. But very much like the Disabled Persons Assembly New Zealand, I look forward to seeing what impact this very new role will have on our court system, and I commend this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the third reading of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill, and I’ve previously spoken to the House, actually, at the first reading. As has been heard in the House this evening, justice delayed is justice denied, which is a phrase that I’ve used speaking to a number of other court-associated type bills before the House. So when I did address the House at the first reading, I talked about the importance of timeliness, particularly for our children—not just adults in the Family Court system but particularly and especially children, because the concept of time is so very stretched out and delayed for children. So it is so important that the court not only just makes the system more efficient and effective, but timing is everything, especially for our children but also for all those applicants and persons who are part of the Family Court proceedings.

So with this legislation, there will be the appointment of Family Court Associates who will be required under law to have at least a minimum of seven years’ legal practice experience as a barrister and solicitor—so very important because, effectively, the Family Court Associate is taking on a judicial role, and the focus of that role is to alleviate the administrative workloading for our judges. I have raised in this House before that in terms of making the Family Court more effective, more efficient, more timely, it’s going to take so much more than just the appointment of Family Court Associates, and when the National Party is in Government, my colleague Chris Penk, who is spokesperson for courts, is already looking into and is drawing on the depth and breadth of experience of practitioners in this field throughout the country by engaging and, importantly, listening—something that I could commend this Government to do, and is doing on this bill, but it is a bill proposed by this Government—to implement what is going to be the most effective impact system.

So the Family Court system needs to be technologised. In the days—and it seems to have been a lifetime ago now, almost seven to eight years—working in the criminal court but also the Family Court, the Mental Health Courts, coming back to the Family Court, the importance of utilising technology to be able to facilitate accessibility but also efficiencies in timeliness. This bill doesn’t address that. It’s about putting in place more persons. I have said in this House before that we need more Family Court judges. I just draw on Minister Allan making mention and reference to retired judge His Honour Judge Paul von Dadelszen, who I appeared in front of on a regular basis when I travelled to Hastings in my Family Court role as a court-appointed lawyer for children but also in my district inspector of mental health role, because Judge von Dadelszen was a specialist mental health judge as well as Family Court judge. So I’m actually quite pleased that, for a change, the Government has listened to somebody who does know more than they do in this sector—so, Judge Paul von Dadelszen.

I’ll also make mention, too, of a former Family Court—and he was a Principal Family Court Judge who is now this country’s Ombudsman, Judge Peter Boshier. These are people, like a number of others, who have left the profession and giving service in the Family Court. But what I have also said in terms of the appointment of Family Court Associates: we need to look at the timeliness of appointment of judges as well, because what is tending to happen with the number of judges coming to retirement age exiting—and there is a number of them—we are leaving a void of a wealth of practice experience on the benches. So Family Court Associates will address administrative workloading of the Family Court judges, but that does not address the case decisions that need to be made.

And I do emphasise—and my colleague Chris Penk looking too in terms of making more efficient the courts system and my colleague Paul Goldsmith who’s our justice spokesperson—we really do need to look at boosting and bolstering our resourcing of people in addition to technologising.

I’m also heartened. This is the third reading, so it’s my last chance to make special mention of those special people who I served with in the Whanganui District Court covering the mental health court. Family Court Associates, actually, because the mental health jurisdiction comes within the Family Court jurisdiction, may in part be addressing this to alleviate the workload of Family Court judges to deal with that other jurisdictional work.

So I make mention of those who are continuing to give service in the Whanganui Family Court: people such as Sheryl Chapman long-time service; former, now retired, Rod Newport; Tracey Butler; and then there is Marcus Vettise, who was a registrar, 30 years’ service plus. I mentioned Tasi Sua in a bill about social workers last week, 40 years’ service. And the reason I do this is because it’s localising and taking it back to the community I come from and people who are passionate about the service that they give. Rama Brownlee is another, then there’s Dale and Chris. You know who you are. So I have the privilege to stand in this House to acknowledge and to say to our people in the community on the ground who do know better than most of us here in this House, the effect and the impact that it has in terms of customer service and how we facilitate the people most in need.

The select committee, which I wasn’t part of—my colleagues the Hon Paul Goldsmith, the Hon Mark Mitchell, and I believe Chris Penk also took part in these discussions around this Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. Submissions were heard or were considered from 31 interest groups and individuals with 14 submitters that were heard. In scrutiny and taking heed of those submissions, I see that the select committee turned their mind to applying what had been submitted by way of extending some of those Family Court Associate powers. And I turn to, within the bill specifically—and I’m quite heartened by this, because in the days when I did practise law—Schedule 2 of the bill; new Schedule 2 inserted into the Family Court Act 1980.

There was many an occasion—in fact, a lot of wasted and lost time of a judge sitting on a bench dealing with counsel before, to make appointments, as counsel to assist the court, counsel to represent children, and counsel to facilitate, either as a McKenzie friend or otherwise.

So new Schedule 2 is looking at alleviating the time of judges so that they can orientate and focus more of their work into the substantive application of listening to evidence, court hearings, and then making findings and determinations by issuing decisions. And that’s the fact that I emphasise, that we do need more judges, because we have a growing population. We have a country that’s in crisis with a cost of living crisis, with adverse weather events, with tragedies, and, of course, that affects people who are part of that fundamental, foundational societal construct called family and whānau.

So the Family Court Associates will now take on the power to appoint lawyers in obtaining reports as well, such as cultural reports, such as medical, psychiatric, or psychological reports. All those important administrative functions of a judge now will be passed on to a Family Court Associate.

So this is practical legislation, but it does need to go further to address that very issue of concern that it is a continuum we experience and it will become more of an experience with the crises that we have in our communities. Justice delayed is justice denied, and this is but one part of a whole mechanisation of the Family Court that, with tweaking and adjustment, may just speed it a little bit, but time will tell when there’s a review of this in five years’ time. So 53 seconds remaining—I can wrap it up in a matter of three seconds to say that we commend this bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m going to speak very briefly, because, as has been repeated a number of times, justice delayed is justice denied, and this bill shouldn’t be delayed any longer.

But I am going to say this: as someone who spent many years as a Family Court lawyer, many years researching the Family Court, and who spends a lot of time talking to Family Court practitioners, I really struggle when I hear members of the Opposition attempt to school this Government about the fact that it apparently is not supporting the Family Court enough. I’m sorry, but I was in the court in 2012 when the party on the other side gutted us, when the party on the other side removed the right for representation in the early stages, which caused the absolute disaster of delay that we have now, which skyrocketed ex parte applications, which caused a crisis of self-represented litigants.

This bill is one of many practical, sensible changes that this Government’s bringing in, because we do the darn mahi, unlike other people who, in the interests of cost saving—can I just say, to hear someone talk about how they’re going to spend lots of money on judges when they gutted the court in the interests of cost saving, when they refused to listen to the very judges they have mentioned tonight, I find that really difficult.

This bill is a good, simple step forward. It will give the judges, who are currently buried in paperwork, real, practical assistance. It took this Government to do it, because that Government was about phony cost savings. They stripped the lawyers from the clients where they were needed, and it decimated the court. When I talk to my colleagues and I see the stress that they are still under, when I hear them talk about how they are barely hanging on because of the delays that they see their clients having to go through because of the workload created by the absolutely pointless reforms that we knew would decimate the court, when I see them talk like that and when I hear the sort of rhetoric from the other side—empty, lacking-in-responsibility rhetoric—I despair. But you know what I don’t despair about? This bill. I darn well commend it.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too have a speech, and I promise I won’t be as passionate about it, because my thoughts are going to be about the kids within the Family Court rather than the personalities across the way.

ACT will continue to support this bill, but we do have concerns around the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that went through during the committee of the whole House stage. It was tabled without thorough explanation as to its contents, and through my speech I’d like to reflect on some of those aspects.

In the committee of the whole House stage, a Supplementary Order Paper was lodged by the Government that made fundamental changes to the way children are processed through the Family Court when Oranga Tamariki are involved. Questions to the Minister, who sat in the chair—which was the Minister of Police at the time, Ginny Andersen—were around the removal of the ability of a Family Court Associate to actually assist when it comes to children caught up within the Oranga Tamariki Act, and that was made.

This bill sought submissions from the public, and I’d like to thank and acknowledge all of those people who came through and spoke to us. Some of those stories were quite heartfelt, and, of course, they came looking for change. The Justice Committee completed a report and I’d like to acknowledge all of those that sat on the committee, because we thought we worked really well together. All parties that were involved within the Justice Committee agreed to the report’s contents and its presentation.

But then, at the eleventh hour, an SOP was produced that makes fundamental changes only involving those kids caught up in the Oranga Tamariki process. Family Court Associates now won’t be able to direct people to attend counselling, won’t be able to grant people leave to make representations, they can’t direct a mediation conference to be convened, and they won’t even be able to adjourn proceedings.

We hear constantly that we’ve got kids caught within the system—some of them for eight months, some of them for a lot longer than that—and that they’ve been removed from their families and are currently stuck in limbo. And without discussion with the people, with the submitters, even with the select committee, the Labour Government has just removed this ability for Family Court Associates to deal with these administrative issues of a child caught within the Oranga Tamariki system. This is what Family Court Associates are meant to be dealing with; it’s what they’re being created to do. This removal has been made with absolutely no valid explanation or reason given at all.

When inquired upon in the committee of the whole House stage, in the first explanation given by the Minister, it was stated that submitters had expressed concerns around the uplifting of children and that the Minister of Justice had considered it best to remove clauses from the bill that give a Family Court Associate the powers of a judge to uplift under the Oranga Tamariki Act.

But those clauses around uplift actually remained in the bill; they were not being removed. All the administration pieces have been removed, except for section 39, about the placement of safety warrants; and section 40, about the warrant to remove a child. Both of those sections have remained.

Subsequent inquiries did not produce any further information, apart from the Minister’s statement that these issues are weighty ones. I would have hoped that we would consider all matters that are before the Family Court as being weighty ones.

And when the Minister later commented that it’s important, that the delay for our children—not to have contact with whānau for significant periods of time—is damaging for our community, it can be detrimental to the wellbeing of tamariki, I wholeheartedly concur with her. I firmly believe that the Minister, in fact, both Ministers—the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police—who have represented on this bill, have these kids’—these kids caught in this fraught Family Court’s system—best interests at heart; their parents’ ability to get their kids and themselves out of the Family Court system even more so. As the Minister of Justice actually said in her speech tonight, the court delays exacerbate and cause trauma to these kids. So I’m disappointed with what I feel is a significant change, made undemocratically and without good explanation, when the comments around children’s welfare are not disputed by any party in this House. It’s unconscionable to those very kids that we’re trying to protect and get through the Family Court system in a timely way.

Nevertheless, we still support this bill, because Family Court Associates are expected to reduce the workload of our overstretched, our overworked, and heavily burdened Family Court judges. There are six Family Court Associates expected to be part of the initial tranche of recruitment, with the remaining positions to be filled over the following two years. They should receive training similar to that of a judge. The New Zealand Law Society indicated that there are 173 potential practising lawyers who would be able to fill these roles. And it should make a difference to around 25 percent of the estimated administration time of judges, freeing up a quarter of the time that judges have, to enable them to be able to really look at the serious issues that are before them.

I have another concern around the change in the reporting time, because it was that we had to report within five years. The report on the effectiveness on reducing delays in the Family Court no longer needs to be produced within five years of the Act being implemented. The report now only needs to be started within five years, and it can be produced at any stage afterwards. Labour has initiated a clause via a Supplementary Order Paper that delays reporting on delays. ACT won’t hold this one up any longer. At this stage of this parliamentary term, we will support the introduction of Family Court Associates to help our Family Court judges. And with ACT’s policies in place, and those that are coming, we look forward to helping all children caught within our Family Court system without excluding those that are caught up in the Oranga Tamariki regime.

So, with that, ACT continues to support this bill through its third reading.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Charities Amendment Bill

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is with some trepidation that I seek leave of the House to correct the record.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Order! Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the end of the Charities Amendment Bill second reading, there were two votes held. I would just like to record the Hon Meka Whaitiri’s vote on those two votes—which were, in both of them, one vote in favour.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you very much.

Bills

Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. I won’t say the phrase that we’ve all been saying across the House repeatedly, but delay is really bad for justice, and it is a breach of justice. It is well known as being the plague of justice systems that marginalises those who to attempt access our fair and transparent systems, which this should be.

The Family Court deals with some of the most difficult issues of our justice system. It deals with abuse issues, it deals with issues that sometimes spill over into the criminal jurisdiction, which is where my experience of dealing with the Family Court came in, in the criminal courts, but it also deals with really important property rights, custody and access rights to children, and helps people to traverse a period of their lives that very emotionally burdens them. And so we have a duty of care to everyone who tries to access our system of justice at that point.

I do want to say that the delay has become a source of abuse and trauma, and I think others have said this, and it is true. So as well as being a rights breach, we are, in fact, causing further trauma and re-traumatising further those who are already in very distressed circumstances as they try to access our Family Court system. And it’s for a lack of resource that that has been happening for years and years now.

I do want to acknowledge, as others have done, that the Family Court system has been pointed out to us as a House of Representatives and in select committee on issues to do with this court. In particular it has been used as a source or tool of abuse in an ongoing situation where those who access the Family Court system are already involved in dynamics that have power imbalances, that have abuse issues, and that have economic imbalances that can be reflected in the way that this delay then manifests in further traumatisation of victims. It is our duty as a House of Representatives to ensure that legislation goes forward to manifest in a fair and just and transparent way.

And as someone who has worked also in a child rights context in our system of justice, I would say that, in particular, the breaches of rights that the delay in the Family Court processes has caused have impacted on children and young people. It has meant that their rights, wellbeing, and viewpoint haven’t been centred in the process, which is a legal obligation of us all—pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to legislation that we’ve adopted that has said that we will, in fact, centre the rights, wellbeing, and views of children in all matters that impact them. This can’t be done when delays go on and on for years on end. As we know, a young person’s life magnifies that delay in time. So to be without access to a parent or to be forced to have access with a parent that isn’t fit to be the caretaker of that child can cause a magnified harm that we are here to protect young people against and that this system is there to protect young people against.

I do want to say—because others have touched on issues with the Family Court—that, yes, it was gutted years ago, and we all remember that. Those of us in the justice sector who took that Government and that Minister of Justice to court and won, remember that? I want to remind my Labour Party colleagues that the Bar Association took the then Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins, to court on judicial review and won, having the finding from the Court of Appeal that the legal aid system she’d instituted was unlawful for prioritising cost cutting over what was the only legislative purpose that her delegation allowed, which was to provide fair and high-quality legal services. That system is still in place, and it hasn’t in fact been addressed. The court’s concerns still remain. So free access to mediation through the legal aid system to prevent cases from being forced into the Family Court—that still remains. A lack of access to legal aid for those who can’t afford high-quality legal services in both the criminal and Family Court systems still remains.

So if we did address those resourcing issues, I think we would be in a better place to say that with this bill, with the allocation of resource to the Family Court Associates, we are truly addressing not only the delay, but a fair, transparent, and accessible system of justice for all those who need to access the Family Court would be in place. So this is a good first step, but there’s a lot more to go, and all of that requires resource. I do look forward to the Budget tomorrow where I hope that there is more resource for a system of justice that we can truly say does not delay or abuse justice but creates a fair, accessible, and equal system for New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Emily Henderson—no, no. No; Helen White.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will take a very short call and let everyone go home. What I want to say about this bill—first of all, I actually commend my friend Emily Henderson, whose passion you heard and who I actually respect for that passion. It brought her to the House. It was things like the delays in the Family Court that brought her here. My ex-husband was a Family Court lawyer, and it was very distressing when that happened, so it’s really nice to see something that’s going through that will really look at that problem and fix it. I really like the fact that there’s a review that will come in after five years, when we have five years of data, to make sure we’re doing the right thing and we’re getting it right, and that’s good for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House. Good night.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the chair. The House is resumed at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.