Wednesday, 26 July 2023

WEDNESDAY, 26 JULY 2023

WEDNESDAY, 26 JULY 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

SPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[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 and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Visitors

Australia—Prime Minister

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome the Hon Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia, to my left, and his accompanying delegation, who are present in the gallery.

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Epilepsy Waikato Charitable Trust requesting the House urge Whatu Ora to fund vagal nerve stimulation therapy for adults with intractable medication-resistant epilepsy as an adjunct treatment.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Auckland Light Rail Ltd, statement of performance expectations for year ended 30 June 2024

Education Review Office, strategic intentions 2023 to 2026.

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

CLERK:

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Business, Science and Innovation (excluding the appropriations that are the responsibility of the Minister of Police, related to the Retail Crime Subsidy Scheme)

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Revenue

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Nikki Turner

report of the Privileges Committee on question of privilege concerning a member’s disclosure of the outcome of a vote taken during the Environment Committee’s consideration of a bill

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the

2023-24 Estimates for appropriation within Vote Education Review Office: Independent Monitoring and Assurance of the Oranga Tamariki System

2023-24 Estimates for appropriations within Vote Internal Affairs: Supporting Ethnic Communities and Community Development and Funding Schemes

2023-24 Estimates for Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage; for Vote Housing and Urban Development; for Vote Oranga Tamariki; for Vote Pacific Peoples; and for Vote Social Development.

SPEAKER: The report of the Privileges Committee is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Can I just join with the Prime Minister and say welcome, Prime Minister Albanese, it’s good to see you here and it’s a very special relationship that we have with Australia and it’s great that you’re here in New Zealand. Welcome. Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly my decision to prioritise the ongoing strengthening of the trans-Tasman relationship with Australia. In that regard, can I also join with the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming our good friend the Prime Minister of Australia to the Chamber today. I believe that the trans-Tasman relationship is the strongest that it has been in decades. In 2023, New Zealand and Australia celebrate the trifecta of significant anniversaries: the 40th anniversary of our world-leading CER agreement, the 50th anniversary of the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, and the 80th anniversary of the establishment of our high commissions in each of our respective capitals. This year, Australia announced a direct pathway to Australian citizenship for longstanding New Zealand citizens resident in Australia, a decision that I believe will bring our nations closer together, and I want to thank, in this House, Prime Minister Albanese and his Government for making that possible. And, of course, we have the FIFA Women’s World Cup, which we are jointly co-hosting—another example of how we can work together on the world stage.

Christopher Luxon: Who was correct: David Parker, who told media he quit as revenue Minister because his disagreement with the Prime Minister on tax policy made his position “untenable”; or the Prime Minister, who claimed he wanted to focus on transport?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m pleased to see the member’s focused on the big issues affecting the country. Both statements, of course, can be correct. I’m absolutely confident that David Parker is going to do an outstanding job as Minister of Transport.

Christopher Luxon: Does he agree with David Parker that his position as revenue Minister was untenable, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated yesterday, David Parker indicated that he was keen to move on from the revenue portfolio. I was doing a reshuffle anyway, so I was happy to accommodate that. I think he will do an outstanding job as Minister of Transport and, of course, I note that he is doing an outstanding job of repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act, something the last National Government spent nine years talking about and failed to do anything about.

Christopher Luxon: When did David Parker first inform him that he no longer wanted to be revenue Minister in his Government?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We had a conversation about it yesterday morning.

Christopher Luxon: Why, then, is David Parker still associate finance Minister with responsibility for assisting on tax policy when his position as revenue Minister is untenable because he doesn’t agree with the Prime Minister on tax policy?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Sorry, to clarify: my last answer is Monday morning, not yesterday morning—you do lose track of time in this place. I believe that David Parker’s position has been clear; he’s made his position clear. He’s very focused on his current portfolios and his current ministerial workload. I think he’s going to do a great job of it.

Christopher Luxon: Does he think David Parker was being a team player by quitting his job three months before an election?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Certainly more of a team player than the people who leaked his details about his Tesla.

Christopher Luxon: Was the Prime Minister—[Interruption] Let me carry on—

SPEAKER: Order! Members know the rules—Order!—when questions are being asked.

Christopher Luxon: Was the Prime Minister being a team player, stringing his colleagues along for six months with the promise of a wealth tax before nixing it from Lithuania?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject the assertion in the member’s question, but what I will say is that when I make a commitment on tax I’ll stick to it—unlike the National Party, who promised New Zealanders they wouldn’t increase GST and then did exactly that, meaning every time New Zealanders went to the supermarket, every time they filled up the car, they paid more because of National’s broken promise.

Christopher Luxon: How many times has he had to reshuffle his Cabinet since becoming Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Probably about the same number of times he’s had to reshuffle his line-up because of complications on his side of the House.

Question No. 2—Arts, Culture and Heritage

2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What announcements has she made about supporting Auckland’s St James Theatre?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): After being closed for the last 15 years, on Saturday I announced that the Government would be helping to unlock the doors of Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland’s St James Theatre. The Government is making $15 million available to support the restoration of the theatre, in recognition of its outstanding historical and cultural significance. This contribution matches and sits alongside Auckland Council’s $15 million. Successive Governments have signalled their support for the project, but I am pleased that we are finally able to get this contribution across the line to help to save this important piece of cultural and national heritage.

Helen White: What does this support mean for the St James Theatre?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This support will help unlock the theatre owner’s ability to upgrade the building structurally and seismically. More specifically, this funding will enable the theatre to get started on critical foundational and strengthening work, including restoring the floorboards and beginning work to restore the theatre’s art deco wonder. Restoration of the theatre is an ongoing labour of love for many, and this support will see the St James restored and revitalised as part of Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland’s illustrious arts precinct and city centre.

Helen White: What feedback has she seen on the announcement?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Heart of the City boss Viv Beck said Queen Street needed the energy and people that a repaired St James should bring—quote, “This will really strengthen this part of the central city. It’s been a bit of a sad site for some time, as it’s lay vacant. And I think revitalising this area, repairing the St James, will bring in more people and make it safer as well.”

Helen White: What is the next stage in the process?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Alongside St James Theatre owner Steve Bielby’s efforts to get spades in the ground, Manatū Taonga have begun engagement with mana whenua, Auckland Notable Properties Trust, Auckland Council, and Heritage New Zealand to determine the funding conditions for central government’s contribution. We’re committed to ensuring all key stakeholders have an adequate opportunity to input into the discussion. Getting a clearer picture of stakeholder values and aspirations for the future of the theatre will help to inform the development of funding conditions for a central government contribution. I’m advised that construction will begin in early 2024.

Helen White: How does this align with the Government’s priorities in Auckland?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland has been through a lot in recent times—that’s why this announcement and support is vital. We want to see the city centre revitalised. We want the Auckland CBD to be safe and accessible. We want the arts precinct that sits in the heart of the city to be exciting and vibrant, and we want our businesses to be connected, supported, and successful. The announcement underlines our Government’s commitment to keeping the heartbeat of the city centre alive and thriving.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How important is this investment in the restoration of the St James Theatre for the revitalisation of Auckland Central, and should this be considered as a sign of more good things to come?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’d like to thank that member for that question and also acknowledge that member and all other Auckland members of Parliament on this side of the House who understand the economic benefits to the restoration of the St James Theatre. It is about economic benefits and the flow-on impact to the businesses in the CBD. It is about the cultural and wellbeing benefits for Aucklanders and visitors to Auckland. It is about support for our art workforce in Auckland and across Aotearoa. Also, according to Viv Beck from Heart of the City, it is about public safety in the CBD. It’s exciting, and I am grateful to all of those who have been involved in making this happen.

Question No. 3—Transport

3. SIMON COURT (ACT) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with former Minister of Transport Hon Phil Twyford, who said in March 2018, “Solving Auckland’s traffic gridlock is also important for the rest of New Zealand with congestion in the city between 2015 and 2017 estimated to have cost the economy between $1.3 billion a year in lost productivity”, and has congestion become better or worse since then?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Yes, solving Auckland’s gridlock is important. We agree with the estimate of cost that is included in the member’s question, and, indeed, Government Ministers have used those same figures. We also note major investments into State Highway 1 in north and south of Auckland, as well as major improvements to the western ring route on State Highways 16 and 18, and continuing significant investments into the city rail loop have all made things better than they would otherwise be. That said, it’s interesting to note that Sydney, which has a much bigger population than Auckland, flows much better than Auckland because of their much better public transportation networks. We do agree—we believe that congestion is getting better in some parts of Auckland and worse in others. The areas that are getting worse include that the Auckland Harbour Bridge peak is getting longer, and congestion in the north-western corridor is also a problem. We’ve just spent significant money improving that north-western corridor, proving that roads alone don’t solve the problem, and further investments in public transport as well as roads will be necessary.

Simon Court: How concerned, if at all, is the Minister about time delays of more than 50 percent, compared to free-flowing conditions, for over five hours a day along State Highway 1 in Auckland, and what steps, if any, will he take to reduce congestion on the State highway network?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As the member will be aware, overcoming those challenges requires a combination of investment in roads, in rail, and in public transport, as well as dealing with challenges like how do you deal with congestion. There is legislation that was approved unanimously at select committee to move towards transport pricing in Auckland. That legislation is currently opposed by the National Party, notwithstanding the unanimous support for it at select committee—including from the then member of the select committee Mr Chris Luxon.

Simon Court: Is it acceptable that Aucklanders driving between Manukau and Albany face delays greater than 50 percent, compared to free-flowing conditions, for 4½ hours a day—that’s almost double the delays they faced in 2018—and should an efficient and effective road network be prioritised, instead of socially engineering people out of their cars, Minister?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It’s a false dichotomy. Actually, people choose to use the Northern Busway because it is both more cost-effective for them and quicker. The Northern Busway, a project of the prior Labour Government, is probably the most successful public transport or transport project in New Zealand’s history and it carries a substantial proportion of the peak flow in North Auckland, including through the region to which the member referred.

Simon Court: Will the Minister support ACT’s policy to supercharge building toll roads operated by public-private partnerships (PPPs), Minister, for New Zealanders who are fed up with waiting in traffic?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Labour Government supports tolling where it is appropriate, including in respect of Penlink, where that is being proposed. What we don’t support is unwisely structured PPPs such as that at Transmission Gully negotiated by the last ACT-National Government, which, with an appalling allocation of risk, left the Government facing enormous cost overruns that the subsequent Labour Government had to fund.

Simon Court: Has Labour announced any new roads which might ease congestion, or is it simply continued projects that were started by the previous Government?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We’ve both continued projects and done new projects.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the decision not to progress his tax proposal for Budget 2023 that “I wouldn’t have put so much work into it if I didn’t think that it had merit. But I also am a team player”; if so, approximately how many hours of officials’ time went into developing these tax proposals that were rejected?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement, which also said, “I’m also somebody who’s very conscious of the economic conditions that we’re in”. As I’m sure the member knows, officials do sometimes undertake work on policies that aren’t ultimately enacted. I think back here to the work officials did for the Rt Hon Bill English and the Hon Michael Woodhouse on stamp duty before it was rejected by the then Prime Minister John Key. In answer to the second part of the question, I am also advised that relevant agencies don’t hold that information, and policy officials don’t record their time in that manner. It is my view that the level of additional resources that would be required to assess that now would be a waste of taxpayer funding.

Nicola Willis: Why did the Minister direct Government officials to invest hundreds of hours developing a wealth tax, despite numerous commitments made in the 2020 election campaign, including the statement by Grant Robertson MP that, “I can reaffirm we won’t be implementing the wealth tax. We have our own tax policy and we have been very clear that we won’t be doing the wealth tax.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve covered in this House on numerous occasions, in virtually every Budget process that we know about, there has been work done on taxation and tax policy, for example, the seven months of work that went into looking at a stamp duty proposed by Bill English and Michael Woodhouse before it was rejected by John Key.

Nicola Willis: When, on 16 February 2023—this year—when he directed officials to “focus on designing a net wealth tax for Budget 2023”, did he do that with or without the blessing of the Prime Minister?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already indicated, that work was under way when he took over; he was happy to see that work go to its conclusion. The decision was then made not to go ahead with it.

Nicola Willis: Why, on 16 February, did he direct officials to stop work on the minimum tax proposal that had been advanced under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and instead tell them to develop a net wealth tax proposal, and why did this coincide with the election of a new Prime Minister?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member’s active conspiracy theory brain just needs to be held in check a little bit. If the member does read through the documents, she will see that the work was evolving. We were looking at a tax switch, because on this side of the House, if we’re even thinking about tax changes, we’re thinking about how to fund them, unlike the member who is proposing unfunded tax cuts.

Nicola Willis: Does he think it’s tenable to remain in his role as the Minister of Finance when a proposal he has put so much work into and continues to think has merit has been so comprehensively rejected by the Prime Minister?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know the member will be aware that in politics, from time to time, we put a lot of work into something and it doesn’t quite come off, similar to the member’s work on her leadership ambitions.

Hon Damien O’Connor: What work, if any, did the Minister do on GST?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We, during this period of time, did not look at increasing GST. We certainly did not look at increasing it—after having promised to not do that—before an election, as the National Party did.

Nicola Willis: Can he offer the House any insight as to why it’s tenable for him to remain finance Minister—despite disagreeing with the Prime Minister on this major tax issue—but it’s untenable for the Minister of Revenue to remain in his role despite similar disagreement; does it come down to one’s a man of principle, and one isn’t?

SPEAKER: Have you got any more supplementaries? That one’s ruled out of order. If you ask a question like that, then I’m going to leave it to the Minister whether to answer it or not. Clearly he didn’t want to. I’ve ruled it out.

Nicola Willis: Can he offer the House any insight into why it is tenable for him to remain finance Minister—despite disagreeing with the Prime Minister on this major tax issue—but it’s untenable for the Minister of Revenue to remain in his role despite the same disagreement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the course of every Government, there will be decisions made where some Ministers propose ideas and those ideas do not get through. The reason that I find myself wanting to continue to be the Minister of Finance is because I know what is at risk from a change of Government, and that is New Zealanders’ ability to get good housing, that is our education system, that is our health system. So I am very pleased to still be here, and I look forward to being here after 14 October as well.

Question No. 5—Infrastructure

5. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What progress has the Government made in addressing New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Infrastructure): Being smarter about the way we plan, deliver, and use infrastructure is critical if we are to close the infrastructure deficit and deliver what New Zealanders need now and in the future. Through successive Budgets, our Government has already invested $45 billion over the last five years and has committed another $71 billion over the next five years for infrastructure. Our recently released Infrastructure Action Plan, which details Government’s actions in response to the 30-year infrastructure strategy, also shows we are serious about delivering the transformation required to provide certainty to the construction sector. We’re embarking on the long-term nation-building that any responsible Government must do to ensure we are addressing the country’s current and future needs.

Shanan Halbert: How is the Government improving infrastructure resilience in response to recent severe weather events?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Budget 2023 ring-fenced $6 billion for the initial phase of a national resilience plan to support significant medium- and long-term infrastructure investments which focus on the resilience of New Zealand’s critical infrastructure. It is unacceptable that basic lifeline services like power, telecommunication, and transport links were out of action for so long. It identified a serious basic infrastructure problem that this investment will begin to address. The initial focus of the plan will be on building back better from those recent weather events.

Shanan Halbert: How is the Government helping to provide certainty to the construction sector?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The National Infrastructure Pipeline is the first of its kind in New Zealand and provides visibility of a $92 billion pipeline of funded infrastructure projects across central government, local government, and the private sector. This helps the construction sector to plan and invest in their capacity and capability to deliver. The development of the infrastructure priority list also has the potential to be a game-changer, standardising the process to address infrastructure proposals, ensuring value for money, and building an enduring project consensus from a very early stage. This will provide confidence across the sector to better plan and invest in building and training our workforce.

Shanan Halbert: How is the Government working with cities and regions to provide long-term certainty of planning?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our Government has been working with cities and regions through the Urban Growth Agenda to support long-term pipelines in our regional partnerships. Currently, we have six regional partnerships in six separate areas: Auckland, Greater Christchurch, the Hamilton-Auckland corridor, Queenstown Lakes, Tauranga - Western Bay of Plenty, and Wellington-Horowhenua. The Urban Growth Agenda is about the delivery of infrastructure that meets the needs of that particular region. We are the Government of infrastructure.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the total amount spent from the December 2017 quarter onwards on Emergency Housing Special Needs Grants to date, and is she satisfied with the Government’s performance on housing?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m advised that, since the beginning of the December 2017 quarter, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has granted 628,659 Emergency Housing Special Needs Grants, valued at just over $1.4 billion, in support of the immediate housing needs of individuals and whānau. Over the year to June 2023, the number of households accessing the Emergency Housing Special Needs Grants declined; there were 780 fewer households staying in emergency housing at the end of June 2023, compared to June 2022. In addition, we’ve also seen a decline in applications on the public housing register; there’s been a reduction of 2,961 applications between the period of April 2022 and June 2023. We’ve been investing both in preventing people from entering the emergency housing system with our housing support products, and increased support for those who require emergency housing. Initial evaluations clearly demonstrate the investment in support services, housing brokers, ready-to-rent programmes, and intensive case management, including working with MSD employment teams, are seeing better outcomes for those in emergency housing. In addition, the fantabulous work of our housing Minister has meant that we’ve seen the biggest public housing build programme since the 1970s. We’ve delivered already over 12,000 public homes in the time that we’ve been in office; in fact, to put things 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 the first State home was built back in 1937.

Chris Bishop: Why has the Government spent just $600,000 on the reset of the emergency housing system when $355 million was allocated in Budget 2022, when there are nearly 6,000 families living in motels and 480 are living in cars?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: What our Government has invested in, and as I touched upon in my primary answer, is a whole suite of support services that people can access prior to entering the emergency housing system and while they’re in emergency housing as well. Things like intensive case management—for example, those who need support services; housing support products so that people can stay in housing or be diverted into private rentals and not enter the emergency housing system. I could go on, but those are the investments that our Government has made.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the reset of the emergency housing system and money allocated in Budget 2022 and how much money has been spent to date.

SPEAKER: Can you remind me of the question?

Chris Bishop: The question was, “Why has the Government spent just $600,000 on the reset of the emergency housing system when $355 million was allocated in Budget 2022?”

SPEAKER: Not quite there, but it wouldn’t take much to join those dots together to address it. Do you want to have another go?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Sure. The additional investment is, as I mentioned—the whole point of the reset is partly to prevent people from getting into the emergency housing system. It’s to ensure that support that is provided to those in emergency housing can be accessed in a way that’s relevant to them as well.

Chris Bishop: Does she recall the Minister of Housing saying in 2021, “What we don’t have is people living in cars and on the streets”, and how does she reconcile that with her own data showing 480 people applied for the housing register while living in cars last quarter?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Actually, this is a point that I addressed in great detail last week in the House because the numbers that the member’s referring to don’t actually frame the issue well at all. As I mentioned previously, it’s a cumulative figure—

Chris Bishop: It’s your own data!

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, sure, it is MSD data, but it’s a cumulative figure—it is a figure that increases over time because people only come off the list if they get into public housing. Ultimately, the only way that we can get out of the housing crisis that we inherited from that side of the House is by building public housing, and that’s what we are doing. We have delivered 12,198 public homes on this side of the House, so that question about people living in cars is a bit rich from that side of the House.

Chris Bishop: Why did the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) reject the Wellington Homeless Women’s Trust application for four new beds recently—four—because of a new policy that says MHUD will not fund transitional housing beds in places that have communal facilities?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I don’t have ministerial responsibility for that.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. That’s not correct. She’s the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment; she’s responsible for emergency housing.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, not transitional housing, or special needs grants.

Chris Bishop: OK, nice—that’s you dodging it. We put it down to her—

SPEAKER: Order! Oh be quiet, Mr Bishop, for goodness’ sake. Everyone be quiet. Thank you. Now I’ve forgotten what the point of order was. Oh, that’s right; it’s up to the Minister to know what her responsibilities are. If she says that they’re not, then we’ll take it as being correct, unless further questions will illuminate some other answer.

Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if in this case it would be helpful for the Minister to—

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think so—no, no, no, sit down. No, I’ve made a ruling—OK?—and you’re not going to question it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, why was the primary question accepted if the delegations are incorrect?

SPEAKER: Well, clearly it was accepted because that was part of the Minister’s responsibility. What the Minister said—and we’re re-litigating both what was said and my ruling on it—was that she wasn’t responsible for what the supplementary was being asked.

Question No. 7—Public Service

7. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: What recent announcements has he made about strengthening New Zealand’s cyber-security readiness and response?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for the Public Service): The cyber-security threats New Zealand faces are growing in scale and sophistication. This Government is committed to staying ahead of the hackers to protect communities, businesses, and our public services. This morning, I announced that we’re acting on the Cyber Security Advisory Committee’s recommendation to bring New Zealand’s Computer Emergency Response Team, CERT NZ, into the National Cyber Security Centre, NCSC, and that this will occur from 31 August. The new lead operational agency will strengthen cyber-security readiness and response, as well as make it easier for people and organisations to get help. I want to thank my colleague the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications, the Hon Ginny Andersen, for her contributions to this important work.

Ibrahim Omer: What was the Cyber Security Advisory Committee and what did it recommend?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Following a number of high profile cyber-security incidents, the Cyber Security Advisory Committee, or CSAC, was established in December 2021 to advise on the role Government could play in lifting cyber-security capability. It was chaired by one of the early leaders of TradeMe, Mike O’Donnell, and included representatives from industry and cyber-security bodies, Consumer New Zealand, State-owned enterprises, large business, academia, and Māori. After a year of consultations, CSAC found the system was fragmented, created what they described as a “merry-go-round experience” for business victims, and did not present a safe experience for Māori, especially when information sharing goes unchecked. CSAC recommended the creation of a single front door to provide authoritative advice and respond to incidents across every threat level. It said this would be best achieved by merging CERT NZ and the NCSC, in part because the NCSC is subject to robust legislation to protect individuals and users’ data, whereas the previous Government did not put the same protections around CERT NZ when they established that organisation.

Ibrahim Omer: What have been the trends in cyber-security threats to New Zealand?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We know the scale, sophistication, and disruption caused by cyber-security threats are increasing. Criminal actors increasingly have access to tools that were previously only available to nation States. CERT NZ’s latest quarterly update said they’d received reports of $5.8 million of direct financial losses from cyber incidents in the first quarter, and the NCSC says they have prevented $33 million of harm to our economy over the whole of last year. The reality is the true scale of harm to our economy is likely under-reported, and having a single front door that can receive reports and offer help will provide more effective mitigations and better insights for the future.

Ibrahim Omer: What will be some of the benefits of having a lead operational cyber-security agency?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Having a merged agency to provide authoritative advice and respond to incidents across every threat level is now international best practice. I point to Canada’s Communications Security Establishment as an example of excellence that New Zealand should aspire to. A single front door will ensure that New Zealand is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities in the digital economy and provide secure Government services to our citizens.

Ibrahim Omer: What other investments has the Government made to strengthen New Zealand’s cyber-security?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since 2018, this Government has invested $94 million in improved cyber-security capability. We’ve delivered world-leading protection products, such as Malware Free Networks, to protect internet service providers and private networks; we’ve rolled out baseline security templates that make it easier for organisations to take advantage of innovative cloud services while better protecting their information; and we’re building a secure all-of-Government facility to house protected information at Whenuapai. The threats we’re facing are growing, and ongoing attention will be required to mitigate them.

Question No. 8—Child Poverty Reduction

8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Does growing up in a benefit-dependent home contribute to child poverty; if so, is she concerned by the increase in children living in benefit-dependent homes under this Government?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): A range of factors are associated with the risk of experiencing child poverty over the short and long term. Poverty and living in a benefit-dependent household are correlated, but there is no clear evidence that benefit receipt is causally related to child poverty. I am concerned about any child who lives in poverty, but the Government has a strategy to address the contributing factors and lift children out of poverty, and we are doing just that.

Hon Louise Upston: How will the Government reduce the number of children living in poverty when there are now one in five New Zealand children growing up in a benefit-dependent home?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction, I’m responsible for the Child Poverty Reduction Act that gives effect to a suite of measures and reporting. Before Labour came into office, we had no strategy, no reporting, no measurements, and no appetite to address the causes of child poverty. I’m proud to be part of a Government that has delivered a child poverty reduction strategy to create positive and transformative change, and I am proud to be part of a Government who, through Budget 2023, delivered targeted support to reduce household costs and support children in families that are struggling.

Hon Louise Upston: How can she reduce the number of children living in poverty, when there are now over 211,000 children living in benefit-dependent homes, a 39,000 increase since when you took office?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Those numbers are portfolio-specific questions for the Minister of social development. But what I can tell the member, as the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction, who monitors the data, is that this Government has made historic moves to address child poverty by tackling the causes of deprivation head on. What I can tell that member, too, is that 77,000 fewer children are living in low-income households on the after-housing-costs primary measure since Labour took office, and 28,700 fewer children are experiencing material hardship since 2018.

Hon Louise Upston: Will the Minister admit that this record number of children living in benefit-dependent homes just shows how Labour is failing to lift children out of poverty?

Hon JAN TINETTI: What I will admit is that eight of the nine child poverty measures have seen statistically significant reductions since 2018, and all nine have reduced. I am proud of the work of this Government in lifting children out of poverty.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree it’s unfair that young people on the benefit are eligible for almost $44 less every week than people 25 and up?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. That is why I have asked the Ministry of Social Development for advice on aligning youth rates of benefits with those of other main benefits. This work is on our medium-term welfare overhaul work programme.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the justification for keeping young people deeper in poverty through lower income support levels?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I believe it goes back to the 1980s when the decision was made to have a differential rate. That has continued over the decade. There are many policies within the welfare system that go back to the 1980s and 1990s that have not been tackled. This is one that I would like to see us address. It is in the mid-term work programme, as I said, which is one to three years. It’s certainly not something that we’re going to be able to get on to before the election.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What exactly does she need to review in the medium term to realise that it is unfair and we need to bring benefit levels for young people on par with their older peers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We still need to do the policy work. We still need to receive the advice and make sure that we’re looking at all unintended consequences that might come from a policy change. So that work has not started yet. I would like to say, though, that we have seen a significant increase of benefits for all beneficiaries because of the changes that we have made, including the increases. Also, we have seen a significant increase in the support for young people on benefit to actually get into employment. Income support is important, but support for upskilling and training and support into jobs is important as well. So we’ve been focused on both and we’re seeing very positive results with regards to Mana in Mahi, Apprenticeship Boost, He Poutama Rangatahi, Flexi-wage for our young people and we want to continue to invest there.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept it’s a political choice to leave this review for the medium term rather than prioritise it and end age-based discrimination once and for all?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It is a political choice. There is only so much capacity of any Government agency. There is only so much money with regards to what you can budget for—

Hon Member: $15 million.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —and so you do need to make choices with respect to what you decide to prioritise. It is certainly one of those areas—

Hon Member: St James.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —that we do want to focus on down the track, and that is why I’ve signalled it. The other side of the House is yelling out $15 million for the St James Theatre. I do want to remind the other side of the House that that will result in economic benefit, jobs, wellbeing—all of those things. So it’s very short-sighted of the other side of the House to think that that doesn’t matter in the scheme of things.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that for people aged under 24 who receive $44 less each week, that leaves those people more at risk of homelessness, needing to access a hardship grant, or getting into debt due to not being able to cover weekly expenses, and, if so, will she prioritise this review so that young people are not disadvantaged by current policy settings?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve already said that I do agree that it’s unfair and it is an area of work that is on the work programme for the mid-term. If I was to move that forward, that means other areas that I have prioritised would need to move backwards, and I’m not willing to do that. We’re not shifting the work programme around here. We need to make sure that we do have a very clear work programme. We’ve tried to be very public about what that looks like so people know what is coming in the welfare overhaul programme. I agree with the member; it does need to be looked at. I just can’t look at it before the election.

Question No. 10—Police

10. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour) to the Minister of Police: What recent milestones have been reached on the roll-out of the Tactical Response Model?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Earlier this month, I attended the first post-pilot roll-out of the nationwide Tactical Response Model (TRM) in Porirua for the Wellington district. This roll-out carries on the work of ensuring that the Tactical Response Model is available in all of the 12 police districts in New Zealand. The Tactical Response Model ensures our front-line officers have the equipment, the training, and the additional intelligence and support they need to identify and manage those people who present the greatest risk within our communities. As Minister of Police, one of my key priorities is to back our police and ensure they have the rules and the tools to keep our communities safe. That’s exactly what the nationwide roll-out of the TRM model helps to achieve.

Anahila Kanongata’a: What police districts has the Tactical Response Model rolled out in?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: As already mentioned, I was in Wellington to see the roll-out on 12 July, and the first districts to go live were also rolled out. Last year’s successful trial of the TRM was completed in four different police districts: Northland, Counties Manukau, Waikato, and Central. I am pleased to inform the House that since the Prime Minister announced earlier that the TRM will be rolled out nationwide, this model has been rolled out in Northland, Waikato, and in Wellington. Further to that, I’m advised that Southern district will go live later this week, and the Bay of Plenty district will be rolling out next week. Under the current time lines, police expect full nationwide roll-out in all districts by the beginning of September.

Anahila Kanongata’a: How has the Government enabled the Tactical Response Model?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The funding for the TRM model began in September 2021, when Cabinet approved $15.5 million to develop the model. Following the initial successes, Cabinet approved a further investment of $62.7 million to trial the Tactical Response Model in four proof-of-concept districts. Cabinet subsequently approved $122.5 million for the nationwide roll-out and ongoing implementation of the Tactical Response Model. Unlike others in the House, when this Government says we’re backing the police, we put our money where our mouth is.

Anahila Kanongata’a: What feedback has the Minister seen to the roll-out of the Tactical Response Model?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I agree with recent comments from the Police Association President Chris Cahill, who described the value of the national roll-out of the TRM owing to the success of those proof-of-concept districts. Those successes include encouraging results of the trials where there was an estimated reduction of about 40 percent in the use of force events where police were injured by a subject, compared to that experience without the TRM. It keeps our front line safer. I’ve also heard firsthand from front-line officers who are highly supportive of the model, who have told me that it provides opportunity in their policing careers to focus specifically on targeting high-risk offenders as a tactical response. Unlike others in the House who just talk a big game, we continue to actually deliver and back our police.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister think that New Zealand is a safer country today than it was six years ago?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I will refer to my full comment: I believe that New Zealand is safer with 1,800 additional police, and I also think that our front line is safer with the Tactical Response Model.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So is the Minister saying, then, that with the additional 1,530 front-line police officers that New Zealand today is a safer country than it was six years ago?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The ability for our front line to respond quickly to urgent issues is advanced by the fact that we have more police out there doing their jobs each day that are resourced, and we also have the assets of the Tactical Response Model that combine risk assessment as well as intelligence and kit to make sure that police on the front line respond quickly and also proportionately to risk.

Question No. 11—Corrections

11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement, “we have safely reduced the prison population”; if so, why?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: In the context in which it was made, yes. When we became Government, there was a prison population crisis. There were approximately 11,000 people in prison, and there was talk of triple-bunking, beds in hallways, and repurposing old boarding houses. Those options were not safe for communities or for Corrections staff. Corrections does not decide who is sent to prison or for how long; their contribution to the reduction of the population is through improving the efficiency and administration of processes. As a Government, we have not significantly changed sentencing laws, except for removing the flawed three-strikes, because there was no real evidence that it increased public safety.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What is the Minister’s definition of “safely”?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I encourage the member to pick up a dictionary.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know what the definition of “safely” is. I’m asking the Minister what her definition of “safely” is. That was the question.

SPEAKER: It is an answer. This is not quiz time; it’s question time.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What action is the Government taking to ensure Kiwi consumers are treated fairly by their banks, insurers, and credit unions?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Well, this week, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) opened for applications from financial institutions to become licensed. All registered banks, insurers, and non-bank deposit takers such as credit unions will need to become licensed to provide financial services to consumers and have a fair conduct programme. It covers about 100 institutions in all. They have until 31 March 2025, when the regime comes into effect, to get their new fair conduct programmes up and running.

Hon Phil Twyford: Where has the decision to require financial institutions to be licensed come from?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Since 2019, the Financial Markets Authority, working with the Reserve Bank, have reviewed the culture and conduct of banks and insurers. This showed institutions were not doing enough to put systems in place to ensure customers were treated fairly. The conduct of financial institutions Act was passed in 2022, which puts consumers at the forefront of institutions’ decisions and actions. This Act requires licensing for institutions providing financial services to consumers.

Hon Phil Twyford: What principles underpin the new conduct requirements?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Firms selling financial products will need to adhere to a new fair conduct principle by establishing a fair conduct programme within their organisation. Fair conduct principles will apply in the design of financial products at the point of sale, during claims or complaints, and throughout the life cycle of a product.

Hon Phil Twyford: What is at the heart of the fair conduct principle?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Putting consumers’ interests first is at the heart of the principle. It’s the right product for the right person at the right time that should govern how a product is sold and to whom, not an incentive for a salesperson. The Government continues to make progress on protecting consumers of financial products, and I thank the FMA for their leadership in this area.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Would some honourable member care to move—

Question No. 3 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Point of order. I seek leave to correct an answer.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of my answer to a supplementary question on question No. 3, when I referred to the select committee consideration of congestion charging, I was referring to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland that was presented to the House in 2021, not the resultant bill.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

We’ve had a couple of interesting questions during question time today, and Mr Parker actually just referred to one of those, which was around what has happened to the National Party’s policy on congestion charging. We did have an inquiry at the transport and industrial relations committee, and at that inquiry every single political party said that they endorsed congestion charging, including the National Party. Then, a mere matter of months later, the National Party have changed their position and they no longer support congestion charging. So this really does emphasise the importance of remembering the National Party’s slogan for this election: “Backtracking for New Zealand.”

When we come to thinking about the election that will occur in October this year, like all elections, New Zealanders will approach this election with a mixture of hope and a mixture of fear. This has been an incredibly challenging time for many New Zealanders: meeting the additional cost of living pressures that they have seen off the back of the COVID pandemic, and the stresses and strains that put on many New Zealand households. So what they are looking for from a Government—and indeed what they have seen from this Government—is that we will be alongside them every step of the way, just as we did through COVID, making sure that New Zealanders were kept well and safe and healthy, making sure that businesses kept going, making sure that we supported New Zealanders across the board to come through COVID in better shape than most other countries, and then looking to a future where we continue to look after New Zealanders, where we continue to provide housing—in particular, State housing. I am extremely proud of the 12,000 additional State houses that this Government has put in place.

I am also proud of the 77,000 children who we have lifted out of poverty as a result of the investments that we have made. I am proud of the fact that, as a Government, we have looked to the identity of New Zealanders and have said, “We believe we can celebrate Matariki. We believe that there is room to look at our histories in our schools—that we are proud as a nation. We must keep learning from our history and look into our future.” So I am proud of all of those things. They are the things that give hope to the future: the investments we’re making in infrastructure, in the game development sector, in research and innovation to grow the high-paying jobs, and to lower our emissions. That is what gives New Zealanders hope. But what gives New Zealanders fear is the opposite—what is at risk if the Government changes.

I was fascinated to hear Christopher Luxon say on the radio this morning that there was “good alignment” between ACT and National. Well, we know on this side of the House what that means. That means that public services across the board are at risk as a result of an ACT-National Government. The letters that we get from people about the winter energy payment, about what that means to New Zealanders—to Maggie, to Glenys, to Leigh, to Jane—who, just in the last few days, have written to the Government to say thank you for the winter energy payment. That’s gone with ACT, and that’s gone with National, because of the good alignment that they have.

There was one other interesting thing that Christopher Luxon said this morning, when he said that they hadn’t got their tax policy out because they were “just making sure we’ve got everything fully funded”. They’ve finally cottoned on—they’ve finally cottoned on—that, if they actually want a tax policy, they have to work out how they’re going to pay for it. Now, to the credit of the ACT Party, they have worked out how they’re going to pay for their barmy tax policy: they’re going to cut public services. They’re going to cut contributions to superannuation. They’re going to cut welfare benefits. And, at the moment, that’s the alternative.

So what’s at risk at this election is good, strong public services, a commitment to climate change action, and a commitment to supporting the most vulnerable New Zealanders. That’s what’s at risk. That’s at risk from an ACT-National Government who believe that tax cuts at all costs is what is needed, even if that means the undermining of our health system, even if that means the undermining of our education system. This is a party who went to the last election with a fiscal hole, the “Bermuda Fiscal Triangle”, and nothing has changed. That is a party over there with an unfunded tax policy, versus the hope that this Government gives New Zealanders.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): That was an angry speech—an angry speech—from a Minister of Finance who is wagging his finger at New Zealanders, telling them they should be grateful for what he’s delivered. Well, they’re not feeling grateful, Mr Robertson—they’re not feeling grateful—because they are struggling to pay for their groceries each week, which have increased in price at such a rapid clip that there are people at the checkout aisle who have panic attacks. They’re not grateful, Minister Robertson, that their rent has gone up $170 a week on average under Labour. They’re not grateful that their incomes are not keeping up with the mortgage payments, that they’re paying higher interest rates than other countries in the world, and that that Minister has mismanaged the economy so poorly that we are not only in recession, but we have high inflation, high, high interest rates, and New Zealanders from all walks of life are struggling.

You know what? I think this is why he’s angry: because he’s actually realised that the last six years have proven that Labour cannot manage an economy and Labour can’t deliver. Because, actually, under Labour, people are struggling more than ever. There are more children in benefit-dependent households. There are four times as many people on the State house waiting list. There are thousands of children growing up in motel rooms. There are thousands of children not attending school regularly. There are so many elderly people on waiting lists, wanting hip operations and cataracts replaced, that some of them are flying to Australia to pay for those operations themselves. There are people on gurneys in cold hospital corridors because there aren’t enough nurses. Grant Robertson has realised that this Labour Party project has failed.

What it is New Zealanders say when they see that ridiculous slogan “In it for you” is “Who is the ‘you’?” Because this is a Government that says they can’t afford to reduce New Zealanders’ taxes—oh, no, it’s not the right time, apparently, despite the fact that this is the time when the cost of living is higher than it’s ever been, when more people are falling behind in their debt payments, and when people can’t pay for the food for their kids’ lunchboxes. Now is not the time for tax cuts, apparently.

I’ll tell you who it is time for because—actually, I’ll tell you who Labour is in it for; they’re in it for BlueScope Steel, because there’s enough money for a cheque for BlueScope Steel, a multi-billion dollar company. There’s enough money for them to get $140 million so they can decarbonise, because why should they pay for that themselves? Who cares if they’re a big, profitable company? Actually, New Zealand taxpayers should be padding their pockets further.

I’ll tell you who else they can find money for. They may not be able to find money for a tax cut for someone on the average wage, but they can find another $90 million for Fonterra. Poor Fonterra only made $1.2 billion last year, so why would you prioritise taxpayers and ordinary working people when you can write them another cheque?

I’ll tell you who else they can find money for. He can’t find the money for tax cuts—apparently it’s impossible to find anywhere, there’s just no cash—but there is $1.8 billion for consultants and contractors to write reports for the Government on policy ideas that they then reject. There was enough money to spend hundreds of hours of officials’ time—huge amounts of money—developing new plans to tax New Zealanders, but there’s not enough money to let New Zealanders keep more of what they earn.

There is enough money for the IRD this year—this year, when New Zealanders around the country are pulling their belts tighter, are looking for cash, the IRD has got $30 million to spend on redecorating and refurbishing their offices. What I put to you is that when I hear about a Government that is not prioritising, that has failed to rein in the cost of living crisis, and then they say they’re in it for you, the “you” is not New Zealanders any more.

It is not enough for Grant Robertson to stand up and say that they tried, and they cared, and they did it for the right reasons. They have failed. In New Zealand today, we have an economy that has failed working people, who are slipping further behind. Many of them are chasing the hope that that Minister talks about—on a plane to Australia. That is not a failure that you can stand up and defend, when, at the same time, the services you said you would deliver are under more strain than ever, and crime is at record levels. This is a Government of failure. It’s time for change. National will deliver it. Don’t vote for the same thing if you don’t want the same result. No more failure for this great country.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Literally the one thing I agreed with from that member who just resumed her seat, Nicola Willis, from the rant that we heard, was the fact that times are tough. I don’t think anyone would disagree that things have been difficult for the past few years for New Zealanders and for us globally. But what we’ve always said, as the Government on this side of the House, is that while many of the drivers of that might sit offshore, overseas, and outside of the purview of us as a Government, what we will continue to do is work to mitigate the impact of that on New Zealanders. And that is what we have consistently done. We’ve done a fair bit of work to tackle the cost of living increases that people are seeing, but we’re also focusing on the rebuild—rebuilding more resilient communities.

I want to touch, briefly, on both the physical and the social infrastructure rebuild that we’ve been investing in and focusing on. In addition to our $71 billion infrastructure plan over the next five years, Budget 2023 set aside $6 billion extra for strategic investments as part of our National Resilience Plan. It is undeniable that we’ve seen both the hangover, the economic hangover, of the COVID pandemic, but more recently the severe weather events that we’ve seen, the flooding in Auckland, plus the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle. We must ensure that we build back better in the face of that. That includes things like futureproofing rail, roads, and local infrastructure that was wiped out by the wet weather events, and setting straight our telecommunications and electricity transmission infrastructure.

We don’t say it lightly when we say we are the Government of infrastructure and delivery. For example, just look at housing. I have spoken ad nauseam in this House to questions from members opposite—a certain member opposite—on public housing and our record there, both the housing crisis that we inherited when the then National Government was in denial that a crisis even was what we were experiencing, and since then, since we’ve taken office, we’ve delivered a record number. We’ve delivered 12,198 public homes. Over 10,000 of those are brand new builds.

I remember speaking to a young woman who was a teacher aide at the time, in my electorate of Maungakiekie, who had come back from Australia to raise her young family here. She was wanting to buy a house, was wanting to get into homeownership, and was living temporarily, she thought, with her family. She ended up living in a three-bedroom house with 14 others. This was with the National Government at the time, who did not build housing. In fact, one in seven of the public homes that we have in New Zealand today have been added in the last five years. This is an incredible achievement. Alongside that, we’ve increased transitional housing by 4,223 net places since October 2017.

If that side of the House, when they were in Government, had actually continued to build houses instead of leaving us 1,500 public homes fewer than when they took office, there would actually be over 21,000 new State houses, accounting for 85 percent of people on the current waiting list—85 percent. This could have been avoided; yet we’ve been building our way out of the crisis that we were left.

I also want to touch quickly on a couple of initiatives in Budget 2023 that speak to our social infrastructure. That is, policies that will directly benefit Kiwis feeling the pressure of increased costs of living: extending 20 hours’ free early childhood education to two-year-olds; the scrapping of the $5 prescription co-payment—I visited a local pharmacy in my electorate over the recent recess and he told me that just in the year, just in terms of what he had counted, he had absorbed $15,000 because of families who couldn’t afford to pay for their prescriptions and pick up the medication that they needed. Our local pharmacies will no longer have to do that because of the investments by this Government.

That side of the House, as Grant Robertson said, their tagline should absolutely be “Backtracking for New Zealand”. Their alignment with ACT will see us not have equitable services for our various communities, because that is ACT’s policy. We will lose the winter energy payment that so many have benefited from. Food in schools—many schools in my electorate are worried that they will lose the food in schools if that side of the House becomes Government after October this year, because, frankly, they will take us backwards into the crises, the multiple crises that we inherited back in 2017. I’m proud of our Government.

SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): A third of New Zealanders rent, and in my home and community of Auckland Central, it is more than half. Those renters in this country spend more of their income on older, colder, and mouldier housing than those who own. I challenge any MP in this House to argue anything other than the obvious reality that this is morally, patently wrong. Fiscally, I might add too, as it also comes at an immense social, health, and productivity cost, and a cost to education and employment absence. Under international law, anything short of adequate, affordable housing happens to be a breach of the United Nations’ recognised human rights.

So why is it that things are so bad for renters in this country? Well, a few decades ago, politicians in this House right here decided to put profit ahead of people. They decided to abandon the social contract which saw the sell-off of State houses in their masses. They sold off those State houses and handed over responsibility to the private market, to the extent that we now see the accommodation supplement paid out to the tune of approximately $2 billion per year, bidding up the private rental market.

We live today with the consequences of those decisions, and those consequences are one of the most unaffordable housing markets in the world, on almost any metric that you choose to measure; those consequences are found in the 25 percent of retirees living in insecure and precarious rental properties, which the Retirement Commissioner predicts will double, based on present policy settings, within the next 25 years; those consequences are renters presenting in our hospitals with preventable illnesses, particularly respiratory illnesses, some of which will stay with them for their entire lives.

The point of traversing this history is to demonstrate that the status quo is not inevitable; it is a political choice, and we are living with the consequences of political choices that have been made in the past—

Andrew Bayly: Are you giving a talk, Erica?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and to this day. The challenges faced by renters are consequences of decisions made in this place, Mr Andrew Bayly. Different political decisions can be made, and we can fix these issues. The solutions are clear, and so far only the Greens are willing to put forward the evidence-based solutions to those issues. They are, of course, a rental warrant of fitness, which would work incredibly efficiently in tandem with a register for property managers and landlords, and, of course, rent controls.

Here, I might elaborate that we actually already have a form of rent controls in our Residential Tenancies Act. Those are limitations on the amount of times that rents can be increased per annum to no more than once per year, and also that rents can be set at no more than what is considered market rate. The problem is: who determines what a market rate is? Well, it is landlords and property managers—

Andrew Bayly: It’s normally determined by the market.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and, therefore, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stoked to see that I’ve hit the Andrew Bayly button.

These solutions are blueprints to fix the rental housing crisis. You may hear members of the Opposition, as you just did, crowing about how ensuring these basic rights for renters comes at a cost to landlords. Well, let’s be straight up. Sure, there could be a slight reduction in the profits for the 2 percent of landlords in this country if we are to guarantee warm, dry, and secure housing for the 1.5 million renters. We make this political decision when it comes to the minimum wage, when we say that you can’t keep your workers in poverty in order to keep your business afloat. We understand that that is the basis of a false economy. That is the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of cost. I’ve got to say, it’s past time that this place realised that the exact same damn logic applies to the rental housing market, and the Greens are saying that enough is enough. We have clear evidence that the rental market is cooked. We have it in our housing crisis stories, which more than 700 New Zealanders submitted stories to. We have it in the people’s inquiry into student wellbeing, which also demonstrated that two-thirds of students regularly cannot afford the basics.

These are political decisions, and we have a solution—one which we put in the ballot today—in the form of a rental warrant of fitness member’s bill. In 2017, this House—and the Green Party, working with the Labour Government—passed the healthy homes standards. The problem with the healthy homes standards is that we are not accountable, as a Parliament, when we are not counting compliance. This rental warrant of fitness could bypass the ballot if the Government choose to adopt the legislation to fix precisely those issues, and we are calling on Labour to do—

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It was great to hear the member speaking about the great work that we did on Healthy Homes. It was a great collaboration between the Greens and the Labour Party to make homes warmer and drier for all New Zealanders. It addresses those big, long-term challenges, and certainly in my role as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I absolutely am focused on some of those big challenges, because it is so easy, if you listen to the Opposition, to go for those quick wins.

In the commerce sector in particular, I want to have a reflection on the work that we’ve done. We when came into office, nothing of any substance had been done in the area of competition law for nine long years. This Government has looked at what really matters every time someone goes to the shop to buy their groceries, fills up their tank, does some DIY, gets some insurance, or pretty much anything they touch in the area of competition. We need a competition law framework that is fair for all New Zealanders—fair markets for all, not for the few but for everyone, and that’s what we’ve been working for. We want markets that are productive, effective, but in particular, markets where profit does not illegitimately accumulate in the hands of the few.

The reforms that we did early on to make it possible to probe into markets that weren’t working were really, really important, because sometimes you look and think something doesn’t seem right but you haven’t got the ability to really delve into it. Well, the amendments in 2019 to the Commerce Act enabled the Commerce Commission to be directed to do a deep-dive and really find out places where things were going wrong. And every time we’ve looked, every time we’ve shone the light, we’ve seen problems there. So that’s what we are about—about looking for the biggest gain for those that need it the most, and that’s what a competitive market is. It’s one where prices are fair and where there is innovation—markets that are effective, efficient, and productive, not markets that are fat and lazy and monopolistic, and that’s the markets that the other side were sitting on for nine years, watching their mates get rich while everyday New Zealanders were paying too much at the supermarket, paying too much for their fuel, and while all kinds of other things were going wrong.

So we are focused on making sure that markets work for everyone, and we’ve looked at that. We’ve dived into the detail as well, looking at when market power is being abused, and for a long time those rules were pretty much a farce. It was almost impossible to hold anyone to account. So we changed the market power test to be an effects-based test, so that the onus is really thrown on the person exercising market power to show that they weren’t acting anti-competitively. What’s more, to reflect how important those rules are, we’ve upped the penalties that can be imposed, so that if you can’t determine quite how much money they’d made on their market breaches, you can impose a penalty of 10 percent of their turnover. Now, if you’re one of the big supermarkets, or one of the big banks, 10 percent of turnover is hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is how important this is, because that’s the kind of wealth that is being illegitimately extracted from ordinary consumers, who the other side of the House don’t care about. But that is who we want to put first—mum and dad going to the supermarket, filling up their car, doing a bit of DIY, and just trying to make ends meet. Rather than money going out of their pockets into the pockets of banks, insurers, and big fuel companies, we want to see it stay where it belongs.

Those market studies have real and immediate effects. We’ve seen—

Andrew Bayly: They haven’t had any effect yet.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Mr Bayly, for your support of the grocery legislation. Thank you for your support for the removal of land covenants. Thank you for your support for the appointment of a Grocery Commissioner, because it’s with your support that The Warehouse is entering the grocery market, Costco is entering the grocery market, Circle K is entering the grocery market, and Supie is entering the grocery market—and here comes my favourite capitalist, Damien Smith, heckling from the floor of the House in breach of the Standing Orders! This Government is committed to making gains that count for real New Zealanders, for families in New Zealand, and we’ll continue doing it now and for ever.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Well, if you have ever wondered what Grant Robertson does all day—because clearly it’s not growing the economy, solving our cost of living crisis, or reining in his wasteful spending—what he does is he sits in his office devising new party slogans for the National Party that he then emails around to all of his colleagues and says, “Don’t forget to use this every chance you get.” Then he has the audacity to stand up here and suggest that the National Party will make cuts to the education budget at the very same time that schools around the country have been emailed by the Ministry of Education saying, “Tools down. Stop your builds. Actually, you need to pull back on that school hall; that’s not going ahead. That gymnasium? That’s not going ahead. You’re not getting as many classrooms as you thought you were going to get.” Cuts in every direction—

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt. Is there a Minister in this House?

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Yes.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Sorry to interrupt.

ERICA STANFORD: That’s OK—cuts left, right, and centre to school builds because this is a Government that cannot deliver and cannot deliver on their promises. At the same time, in this Budget, they’re promising hundreds of new classrooms. They are completely unable to deliver on the promises that they already made to these schools, because we’re seeing cuts left, right, and centre.

Now, on the theme of a Government that talks a big game but just cannot deliver, despite their holier-than-thou claims about reduction of migrant exploitation, we now have the worst situation we’ve ever had in terms of migrant exploitation in this country. We have an influx of low-skilled, no-qualification, no-English migrants who are being exploited. They are the victims of scams, aided and abetted by poor Labour immigration policy that is teamed with terrible implementation at Immigration New Zealand (INZ) that has caused our borders to be porous.

The drawbridge has not only been lowered, but the castle walls have been knocked down and someone left the back door open. Three hapless immigration Ministers—in just under a year—that are totally blind to the Government’s actions and how the Government’s actions have caused what can only be described as a humanitarian crisis. Story after story in the media highlighting the scale of the problem: “Migrants cheated out of money in New Zealand work visa scam”, “Migrants pay thousands of dollars for visas, only to be left without jobs”, “Immigration job visa scam”, “Recovery of visa being paid for by migrants $30,000”, “INZ scheme ‘breeding ground for migrant exploitation’ ”—hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of migrants being exploited. It is being reported every single day, and yet these Ministers have their head in the sand.

Anu Kaloti from the Migrant Workers Association said that she is being “inundated with calls from migrants who are being exploited”. A simple search online shows scams on TikTok, Facebook, YouTube, videos, and adverts in their hundreds: “No English, job guaranteed, and a pathway to residence”, “No skill, no qualification required”—and with multiple emails to my office from people who work inside Immigration New Zealand pleading with me to do something. This is people who work at Immigration New Zealand saying that “within Immigration New Zealand, staff morale around the AEW risk management is below zero”—from the department itself.

All of this evidence of migrant exploitation, and this Government that talks a big game but just cannot deliver, because we remember the immigration reset speech in 2021 delivered by Stuart Nash: “We want to send a strong message that the migrant exploitation is unacceptable in New Zealand. We want to put a stop to migrant exploitation.” Despite the big words, despite the big promises, it is worse than it has ever been.

Despite all of this evidence, despite the slew of headlines, these Ministers, so divorced from reality, are not asking the right questions. Andrew Little, on TV last week, said, “I am satisfied the regime we’ve got in place is working.” Well, let me tell you why it is not working. This is a Government who has 24,000 businesses; they say they’re going to accredit to stop migrant exploitation. They have checked 2 percent of them—497 have been checked. By their own admission, they’re only going to check 15 percent. They’re giving out job tokens that are now tradeable commodities. These migrants are paying up to $40,000 for one of these tokens.

Hon Andrew Little: The member’s making it up.

ERICA STANFORD: Oh, the Minister says I’m making it up? Minister Little, why don’t you go and speak to some of these people? On the weekend, I met with 18 of these employers—18 of these migrants who are being exploited.

Hon Andrew Little: Why does the member make things up?

ERICA STANFORD: I’ll tell you what, Mr Little, wait till Q+A this weekend, because they are going to tell you exactly what you should have been asking the sector, but refused to do so because you’ve been blinded by your officials who tell you what you want to hear, but you’re not going to the sector—

Hon Andrew Little: Making it up.

ERICA STANFORD: —and asking what’s actually going on. It has been reported in the media, these things.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Little—

ERICA STANFORD: The Minister needs to do better.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. The inferences made by the Minister there—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard them, and I’ll judge accordingly. Thank you for any assistance you may offer. Just to remind the member, you can’t be offended on behalf of another member. I heard the comments, and I’ll—

Tim van de Molen: It’s not about offence to an individual member; it’s about offence to the House itself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Well, I heard those comments, and I will judge accordingly, but thank you for your assistance. Just start the clock again for Camilla Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call in this general debate. Now, you may have heard it said in this debate, or just in general, that Labour is the party of infrastructure, and that’s what I want to start my contribution with today. I’ve recently been talking about infrastructure at a number of different events; I was at the Building Nations conference in Christchurch, when infrastructure was discussed at length. I’ve also been on a number of panels in my home town of Auckland, discussing what Labour’s doing for infrastructure. As we know, infrastructure is vitally important for New Zealand, and we have, as a Labour Government, put $6 billion into a National Resilience Plan—and additionally $71 billion over five years, which is our pipeline of infrastructure changes that we have committed to and will be implementing. So that is why I feel very confident saying that Labour is the party of infrastructure, and in fact I think you heard the Minister say during question time that we’re the Government of infrastructure.

What do we need to implement these ambitious infrastructure targets to keep this country moving forward? We need a workforce that can deliver these for us. You’ve recently heard contributions from members opposite about their concerns about the workforce in New Zealand, and I sympathise. I’ve spent my career working for working people’s rights, working to make sure that their basic standards are upheld, and so I sympathise with that sentiment.

What I cannot accept is that that party opposite puts itself up as some kind of saviour of working people. Just last year, they voted against the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill, a bill in and of itself to protect migrants. You voted against it—you voted against it. So I do not entertain any arguments from that side of the House on protecting working people, and if the member Erica Stanford wants to look at the biggest risk to working people in this country, she needs to glance to her left because that party—the ACT Party, unlike her party—has announced a suite of reforms in the area of workers’ rights.

Let me tell you about those policies. Those policies outline, essentially, the destruction of employment within this country. Now, that might seem—or it might sound—hyperbolic, but it is not—

Erica Stanford: Can’t deliver. No understanding.

CAMILLA BELICH: I do understand, actually, because this is my professional area of expertise. They have said that if they are part of the Government, the policy that they will be implementing is, essentially, to allow all employers to force workers into a contracting situation. What does that mean? That means the end of health and safety regulations for employers. That means the end of the minimum wage. I’m not making this up; this is the ACT policy. It means every right associated with employment rights would go. It would be a disaster for this country. It would take the model brought in by the John Key Government for screen workers, making sure that they weren’t allowed to truly be employees, and it would implement it across the entire economy.

I hear members opposite saying to me, “Well, that’s the ACT party policy; that’s not the National Party policy”. Well, we heard your leader on the radio saying there is “good alignment” between the ACT Party and the National Party—good alignment! If there’s good alignment, the only thing that we can expect is that their policies become your policies. When your policies come into place, we lose paid parental leave, we lose sick leave, we lose Matariki, and we lose holiday pay. Every single right that people enjoy and expect in this country as employees would go. This is the direct flow-on effect of this policy, and let me tell you, that is a lot to be at risk for New Zealand; the destruction of our working conditions is at risk this election.

Alternatively, you have the Labour Party: we’ve increased the minimum wage; we’ve increased paid parental leave; we’ve increased holiday pay; we’ve increased sick leave; we have increased almost every sector which directly helps New Zealanders with the cost of living, and we commit to continue to do that with the advent of fair pay agreements to make this country more productive and have better conditions for working people. We truly are the Government and the party of infrastructure, and we will get New Zealand moving with a workforce that is respected.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to talk about two reports the Government doesn’t want New Zealanders to see, and won’t release, and one report that they requested be delayed. The very first report that this Government is still hiding and does not want to release is the 2020/2021 health promotion unit, “That’s Us” campaign. This was a social media vaccination campaign for $1.5 million. It was signed off at the end of 2021 but actually only started after 87 percent of the target audience had already had their first vaccine. The lead person co-signed multimillion-dollar contracts, awarded to an advertising agency that their own private company also had contracts with.

Staff were so concerned that they wrote an open letter and left copies of it lying around the office, having already spoken with their management team, gone through appropriate process, and heard nothing. The person’s nephew and his partner were reported as both being university students at the time, and were paid thousands of dollars a week to work on the campaign while they were still living with the lead person. The small and late content that was produced also had issues, so the content wasn’t that great anyway for $1.5 million. A clip published in March riffs off what seems to be a young man about to skull a bottle of beer down a hosepipe. In another, a kid mistakes “getting vaxxed” with “Big Macs”. It’s against Te Hiringa Hauora’s policies—that’s the health promotion unit who organised all of this—to promote alcohol or fast food anyway.

This was a delegated responsibility to Minister Ayesha Verrall. She had the delegation for health promotion. Te Hiringa Hauora was the organisation. This was on her watch; $1.59 million. Now, more than a year later, she is still refusing to release the independent review that she asked for in March 2022. Why would we expect her to release any other information when a year later she is still refusing to release that information—that independent review?

Here’s how the Minister and her officials responded to questions around the programme—this is how it’s reported by journalists who are pursuing it. One: Health New Zealand has refused to release any signed conflict of interest forms, or the date they were signed. Two: it is reported that Health New Zealand declined to be interviewed, did not answer written questions, and appeared to hide behind the health reforms as reasons for why the campaign failed. I call on the Minister to release the independent review from a year ago now, on the “That’s Us” vaccination campaign—the failed “That’s Us” vaccination campaign.

That’s the first report that they are hiding. The second report that the Minister is hiding is the independent report into the Māori Health Authority that she received on 5 May—two months ago. There’ll be two possibilities: one, maybe there are improved outcomes for Māori, and, if so, spread the good news and celebrate it; or two, the Māori Health Authority has failed to achieve outcomes, and breached the Crown Entities Act by failing to provide full financial statements with their statements of performance expectations for December last year. Three: they’ve failed to have income and expense budget planning for the first four months of its existence; it’s a half a billion dollar entity, and this was referred to the Office of the Auditor-General. And four: they’ve seen an unbelievable bloating in staff numbers that is staggering.

The briefing to the incoming Minister in February this year revealed a staggering 227 fulltimeequivalents (FTE). Six months later, in fact, a few weeks ago, the chief executive told the Health Committee that the number, at full establishment, for FTEs for the Māori Health Authority will be 321. Not surprising, about a week later, in fact, in our post-hearing questions, that’s gone back to correction, and we’re kind of hoping that it might be a bit less. Actually, it’s 50 percent more, and the correction is that the fulltime-equivalent number for the Māori Health Authority will not be 321, but actually 400. That’s almost three times the number of FTEs than at Pharmac for half the budget. The Minister needs to release that independent report into the Māori Health Authority.

As for the report that she’s delayed, well, that’s just a circus of errors. This was to the faulty data that was put up on the website. They were warned by the Health Quality and Safety Commission that there were a number of concerns around the data. This advice was not followed. They gave the first report—remember, they said they could do it monthly; clearly they can’t. They gave the first report to the Canterbury team who were reluctant, “reluctant to undertake the work anyway because they didn’t have subject matter expertise.” Come the second report, they say, “No, let’s not give it to Canterbury, let’s try and manage it in-house.” Regional director roles weren’t present. The data was not checked by a second analyst. Districts were not asked to validate the data. What a mess—66 pages of indictment of failed planning, failed data, and failed accountability by this Government. Release the reports, Minister.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s my pleasure to be able to speak in the general debate and bring some happiness because, too often, I’m placed on the list about now—all the anger and unhappiness is outpoured but I always have to bring the good news. Time and time again I have to bring the good news, so here I am, yet again, placed right on the right spot on the agenda to talk about something I really love, and that’s infrastructure. There’s no better place to talk about that good news than the wonderful Chatham Islands which I represent—those good people who live in that isolated community 800 kilometres offshore between Wellington and Christchurch.

I say that because six years ago that community sat down and came up with an investment strategy; an infrastructure plan that said these are the things that matter most to these people. The bread and butter stuff that they said, “If we’re going to have a good, decent life in Aotearoa New Zealand, these are the things that matter most.” They include, and thanks to the Provincial Growth Fund, bringing the islands into the jet age, being able to get there, to that community—a vulnerable community, in a sense. Thankfully, five years on, $50 million later—what a good investment—they were delivered a runway extension to ensure that that community is resilient going forward.

I want to also add, too, that some of you may not know that they would have been the last people in this country to receive the mobile phone. We take it for granted. A year and a half on, those residents there now have access to mobile technology; a wee communication with someone who owns Starlink to enable those satellite dishes to be turned on. They have access to Starlink and a mobile phone network. The then Minister, David Clark, was quite shocked to learn that. He said, “So I’m going there to turn on a mobile phone network, to make the first call back to the mainland?” But those are the differences that a small investment but a good investment makes, helpfully delivered by Crown Infrastructure Partners, the rural connectivity group which comprises our three network providers, to literally get poles in the ground on the best sites, so not only Chatham Island but Pitt Island too, so those residents can do what we take for granted.

Most of the students have to go to the mainland for boarding school once they reach the age of 13. I wonder what it’s been like for them to come home during the school holidays and be able to keep participating in the lives that they enjoy on the mainland. That’s good news for them, because they are able to do the basic things that every other New Zealander has the right to do.

During the Budget, I was really happy to see that the $10 million was allocated for renewable energy. It’s diesel generated, a bit like Stewart Island / Rakiura and other isolated islands in New Zealand. But here we are, here, where there is no reason why renewable energy—so windmills, solar power, which many of them already have taken their own initiative to say, “This is the best way to bring our power bills down.” And they have probably some of the highest in the world. I think that was unacceptable. I think we could have done a lot better and we did, and I thank Minister Woods for that because it sounds like a lot of money, but, certainly, it’s not when you say, “Look, this is just basic stuff: being able to turn on the power, keep that power running, have a cup of tea, keep your mobile and your laptop charged, and live a decent life with dignity.”

Former Minister Nash, sitting in front of me here, with tourism—the cultural tourism product on that island is unseen by most New Zealanders. The good news is that the Tourism Infrastructure Fund provided just a little bit to unleash, and to uncover some of the secrets of the Chatham Islands. Look, I offer any member a hosted tour to take them across and see these are the things that matter most to these people of New Zealand.

To cap it all off, can I acknowledge the local council there, where the CEO will finish after 21 years in the job—Owen Pickles—53 years in local government, and that Crown appropriation that we give them to enable those citizens to live with basic services, as any council would, is delivered by them.

MELISSA LEE (National): Yesterday, Radio New Zealand board member Jason Ake doubled down on his political commentary about the Hon Kiritapu Allan, despite the Prime Minister calling it inappropriate for a board member of a Crown entity to make such political commentary. I completely agree with the Prime Minister, and I don’t agree with him often. Today, he has quit the board. Ake questioned why Kiri Allan was cleared to return to Parliament—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. Could you gentlemen at the back have your party outside, please? Sorry, Ms Lee—carry on.

MELISSA LEE: Do I get extra—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll give you an extra 10 seconds.

MELISSA LEE: Ake questioned why the Hon Kiri Allan was cleared to return to Parliament. He hit out at reactions to her arrest and resignation, saying sharks were circling while there was blood in the water. RNZ chair Jim Mather reminded Ake that he must avoid certain political activities in his new role, while Minister Willie Jackson said yesterday that, although Ake had been a vocal person, his commentary needed to stop if he was to remain on the RNZ board.

As a supporter of free speech, I completely support Ake’s right to commentary, except that he was on a Crown entity board—RNZ—and it should have been made very clear to him that while on a Crown board political commentary is completely inappropriate. It’s not the first time he’s done this. He actually did it on 18 July, after he was appointed to the board, on his Facebook, criticising another media company on their translation of stories into Māori, saying that stories written from a non-Māori perspective are a complete and utter nonsense. On 5 July, he also attacked a journalist from another news organisation, on his Facebook, for investigating a teacher who was allegedly struck off the teachers register for inappropriate behaviour with a student, or grooming that student—Ake’s words—saying that journalist’s questions did not need to be answered by the kura in question where the teacher had been employed, saying that there was no statutory obligation for the kura to answer the journalist. He was on the board of RNZ, has responsibilities to the Crown, and yet he was interfering in editorial matters, and it is none of his business and he should have known better, because Mr Ake has actually been on Government boards before, and still is. He was also the Hon Parekura Horomia’s press secretary from 2002 to 2006. He was the chair of the Māori Media Sector Shift panel from 2020 to 2022. He is currently serving as a panel member on Māori Education’s Te Pae Roa, since 2021, and he is serving as the Māori committee member for the Law Commission, since 2018. Should he or his comments be considered for the current boards that he now sits on—whether it is appropriate for him to still sit on those boards—is something that other Ministers should actually take into consideration.

The Radio New Zealand Act specifically says in section 14(4), “No governor of the public radio company shall be appointed to represent, or promote the views of, a particular interest group.” When Minister Willie Jackson appointed Jason Ake, did he know Mr Ake’s position on his role—that he was bringing to the RNZ board issues around the Treaty and transformation—which Mr Ake has actually said on his Facebook: that, as a board member of Te Whakaruruhau, it was his mandate “to be noisy around political stuff”?—I’m quoting Mr Ake. Is that the reason why the Hon Willie Jackson brought Jason Ake to the RNZ board, to change the culture that he actually often talked about? I can hardly believe that Mr Jackson did not actually know Mr Ake’s political connections or his political views, but members of a Government board should not make these kinds of commentary.

Today, I was also alerted to another board member with a conflict of interest—this time, the chair of TVNZ board, Alastair Carruthers. He’s also the chair of the New Zealand Film Commission. When media first contacted me about the potential conflict of interest of being on two boards, I actually said Mr Carruthers is an experienced board member and I believe that he will manage the conflicts very well. But today I am unsure. The information I have now actually says he’s a member of the Cornwall Park Trust board who voted against enabling film studios to be built on the Auckland Showgrounds site. He also is a director of Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, which controls Screen Auckland. Tātaki owns, on behalf of the council, two of the film studios. One has to wonder which hat he was actually wearing when he voted on the Cornwall Park Trust board to decide—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MELISSA LEE: Do I get 10 seconds more?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe that 10 seconds was already added. Thank you for your patience.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s always an honour and a privilege to give a contribution at general debate. I’m just going to talk about where I’ve been in the last couple of months. I know that the MP for Rongotai talked about bringing the happiness, but I didn’t hear any happiness in his speech. Anyway, I’ll just talk about where I’ve been—observing from a distance as our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, has been out selling our country in China. I want to acknowledge his leadership for taking Te Whānau-a-Apanui, the winner of Te Matatini. When we saw them perform at the Great Wall our hearts were really warm as New Zealanders, so I just want to acknowledge that. My speech today is about the leadership that I am currently experiencing under the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, and as I talk about four points of my speech, I’ll be able to demonstrate why we are in it for you.

I met with Malcolm Bell; he is a local board member in Franklin in the area of Papakura. I am a list MP based in Papakura, and after my meeting with him I went to have a sausage roll at the local bakery, and then I saw a chemist so I thought, “Oh, I’ll go into the chemist and just have a chat to them”. It’s Clevedon Village Pharmacy, and I spoke with Sue and Glenda and I asked them: “Is the $5 co-payment free prescription going to make a difference to anybody?” This is what they told me. They said that prescription bills are at the bottom of the list for everybody. If they’ve gone to the doctor—if they’ve got a grocery list, the last thing they will spend money on is their medication. They told me that it is making a difference—that the $5 free co-payment is making a difference.

So then I fell sick and I went along to the doctor, got my prescription—four lots of medication. I went to the Unichem chemist in Onehunga, and I’m ready to get out my card to pay for my medication and they said, “Oh, it’s free now”. I said, “Oh, what?” I had, myself, even forgotten that was happening. He said, “Oh, it’s free now, and it’s making everybody happy”. When we say “in it for you”, that’s what we are saying.

I then visited Sustainable Papakura. It’s a group that volunteers in Papakura with Rosemary Nash, and on a Monday they usually volunteer sewing bags for free and give them out to shops in Papakura where you can use them instead of plastic. I asked them about the winter energy payment: is the winter energy payment making a difference? They told me that the winter energy payment is making a difference, and can they have that the whole year round? I said, “Oh, I’ll go and talk to the policy makers about that”. So they said that it is making a difference in their lives. When we say “we’re in it for you”, that’s what we’re talking about.

I also went to Papakura Intermediate and I spoke with principal Bec Kaukau about the food in schools—the free lunches. I asked her, “Is it making a difference?”, and she said, “It absolutely is making a difference.” Why is it making a difference? She said that they’ve got volunteers in the school, they’ve got someone locally coming in, the community, the parents are coming in to help make those lunches, and it’s connecting the kids to their food—growing food at school—and it’s connecting them to their community.

I also met with Simon Craggs of Papakura High School, and he was proudly showing me this new outdoor facility at Papakura High School with a big smile on his face. He wanted me to extend a message of thank you to the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, because when he was Minister of Education these changes, these school renovation funds—I’ve forgotten the name. Anyway, it allowed Papakura High School to have this new outdoor facility where everything now happens in there. I also went along with the Minister of Education, Jan Tinetti, to Beachlands School where the principal, Anthony Noble-Campbell, said to me to pass this message to the Prime Minister: thank you for the classrooms that they’ve had when he was the Minister of Education.

Those things that I have just said came in under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. He is a fair leader, and all we want is a fair leader that is going to be fair for all of New Zealand. I can go on and on and on, but for me this is what we stand to risk—what is at risk—if we don’t look at the leadership from this side compared to that side. Mālō.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over the last three weeks, my colleague Mark Cameron and ACT candidate Andrew Hoggard and I have travelled around New Zealand—the width and breadth—in our heartland tour, speaking to ACT’s great policy ideas on tackling the issues that are in the faces of Kiwis every single day.

There’s a number of problems that our communities face. Not only are Kiwis struggling to put food on their tables and keep the heaters going, but they’re also struggling to understand why the Labour Government is so hell-bent on the divide between Māori and non-Māori within our society.

What really stood out in every single town, though, was their concern at the lack of law and order, lack of consequences being faced, cultural reports resulting in discounts, and, in fact, alarm when I mentioned to them that cultural reports are now costing not $3,000 per month, but $630,000 taxpayer dollars per month. Communities speak of our youth running amok, and of gangs left unchecked, unapprehended, to do as they please. Our communities are sick of it, and we’ve heard them loud and clear.

Just look at the statistics on crime under Labour: a 500 percent increase in ram raids, a 121 percent increase in serious assaults resulting in injury, a 20 percent increase in knife crimes over the last two years, a 42 percent increase in serious crime victimisations, and a 300 percent increase in assaults on police. Our retail workers are being beaten on by people who are 30 percent more likely to have done it before. There have been 18,769 aggravated robberies under Labour up to April 2023, but only 8,162 proceedings brought. There’s a 700 percent increase in youths on the National Gangs List, who have committed on average 26 offences each before they reached the age of 18. Between December 2022 and May 2023, gang members on the National Gangs List committed 2.8 firearm offences every single day, and the gangs will have no intention of registering their firearms.

I don’t think this is about being hard or being soft on crime; it’s about recognising the failure of this Government’s ability to deal with crime and criminals, and rejecting their social experiment on our communities. It’s failed, and it’s failed badly—not only our communities, but our country as a whole.

Recently, a 17-year-old convicted for the murder he committed while being a prospect for a gang received his gang patch while on bail and got a 70 percent discount on sentencing from his cultural report—12 months’ home detention for murder.

Last week, another criminal yelled out “Cracked it” to the court as he was escorted away to serve home detention for sexually assaulting a pregnant woman in her own bed while her child was beside her.

Labour has removed consequence to criminal actions; ACT will reintroduce it. Labour has focused on reducing the prison population but hasn’t focused on reducing crime. ACT will immediately start work on both policies. Labour wants to focus on reducing prison numbers and reducing Māori in prison, yet, under Labour, the Māori prison population has increased. ACT will focus on correcting behaviours while offering opportunities.

Our communities are living in fear. Our communities want change, and they need real change, and ACT is here to deliver it from this October. ACT will bring back three strikes for serious violent offenders, and at the same time will introduce three strikes for burglary. ACT will build more prison beds and abolish the prison reduction targets. ACT will place our youth justice facilities under corrections and build more youth justice beds. ACT will introduce infringement notices for shoplifting, resulting in instant practical punishments like community service, so that our youth experience consequence. ACT will introduce electronic monitoring for our serious youth offenders, ensure harsher penalties for crime in the workplace, and make 17-year-olds fit within the adult justice system.

New Zealand needs real change now, and Kiwis can make that happen this October by giving their party vote to ACT.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill

Second Reading

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take the first call in the second reading of the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill. This bill—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to move that it actually be heard a second time.

CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It now gives me even greater pleasure to commence the debate on the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill, the second reading thereof. Just for the benefit of the House and anyone who is following this debate, including perhaps, and I hope, Annie herself and perhaps some members of her family, this afternoon, the House has agreed through its Business Committee and at the agreement of the relevant select committee—for which I’m grateful—that the second reading will take place, as it is now, and the committee of the whole House stage will have the opportunity for discussion and debate, but then there will not be a debate on the third reading. So at that point, the bill will either pass or not.

I do want to acknowledge, actually—and I know I’m going straight to process, but it’s important, I think, if I can frame the discussion not only in terms of the important issues raised in the bill but also the way that parties have engaged in its discussion. I think that it’s important and fair that people understand that various political parties at the select committee table but also in the first reading and throughout have engaged very respectfully and helpfully in relation to this particular bill.

They have been mindful of its wider consequences, perhaps, and also so that all are assured that the Parliament as a whole has engaged with the issue in a way that recognises its importance to many New Zealanders who have been affected by similar but, in some cases, different events surrounding adoption, particularly during a certain period of our history when processes were less open and transparent, shall we say, and when it was fair to say perhaps that a degree of coercion was exercised in some cases, sadly—not in all, of course, I hasten to add, but to the extent that that took place in some cases and also without the knowledge, for many years in some cases, of the person being adopted. I think that is a fair subject for us to revisit in this House in 2023.

As I say, it’s something to which the House may also wish to return to in the future, perhaps in a more coherent and broadly applicable way than is the nature of a private bill. One of the things that the select committee grappled with was the tension between making a law that relates specifically and exclusively to one person and her family—and, of course, to that one person, my constituent Annie Oxborough, and her family, this bill is hugely significant. For others, its significance will be in the indication that this Parliament, at least—and we can’t speak for future ones, but I think it is likely that others will also engage in this subject in a way that may provide some comfort and recognition of the circumstances and the background of many other New Zealanders.

So I’ve sort of traversed a bit the process there and touched on the select committee discussion. I’ll return to that briefly, but first I’d be remiss if I were not to give at least a brief account of the circumstances of Annie Oxborough’s own adoption, because, of course, that’s relevant to the circumstances of passing this private bill now, including as it relates to the question of whether the aim of the bill could have been met in some other way. Members will be well aware that if there is another legal avenue by which a person can effect a change to, for example, their birth records, then they would need to take that route rather than take the time and energy of this House to achieve that. Sadly, it’s the case that for Ms Oxborough and for others in the equivalent situation, there is no such path, and, of course, that is part of the advocacy that she has brought and that others have brought, effectively, to this House by way of the private bill.

So in terms of the story of Annie Oxborough, as she is now, but Lisa Clarke, as she was then, she was born in February 1971, the biological child of Susan Cox—nee Clarke—and Scott Sinel. She was subsequently adopted and, in accordance with the Adoption Act 1955 and practices as well as procedure at that time, a new birth certificate was issued in December 1979, by which time Lisa Clarke had been renamed Angela Joy Marshall, being the legal child of an adoptive mother and father. Her name was changed subsequently. She married, and is no longer married, I understand, but through that series of changing circumstances, her name changed a number of times.

Nevertheless, we do refer to Annie as such, and it is this woman, whom I would not hesitate to describe as remarkable and a force of nature—and I mean that most respectfully, but she’ll know why I’m laughing while I say that. She’s a very forthright character and none the worse for that, and our parliamentary colleague and friend Rachel Boyack also, I’m sure, won’t mind me pointing out that she has also enjoyed that reflection, along with other members of the Governance and Administration Committee. Ms Boyack had the pleasure of interacting with Ms Oxborough, and I think she would probably agree with me that we enjoyed the opportunity to interact with the lady herself, and colleagues from around the House, as I say, did come into that environment.

I will name them, actually, because it’s worth acknowledging that the contribution they made was very constructive, it was helpful, and it has actually led to a couple of changes, which I’ll speak to only briefly because it might be better in the committee of the whole House stage that there are some searching questions being asked by other members. I certainly hope not, but—as I try to find the names of those relevant members of the select committee—I do recall that it was Ian McKelvie, the chairperson; the Hon David Bennett; Rachel Boyack, whom I’ve already acknowledged as being a key figure in those discussions; Naisi Chen; and Jamie Strange, and also a non-usual member of the committee, Jan Logie of the Green Party made a point of joining the committee for its discussions and deliberation because that’s an area of public policy that’s important to her. I do want to acknowledge the constructive spirit in which she engaged with the questions arising not only in relation to Annie but, again, more broadly.

So, just briefly—and I don’t need to take the full time that’s allotted to me, because I sense that most of the parties understand the issues, and I think I’m right in saying they agree with me on where the select committee has landed—there’s a minor and technical change whereby “birth certificate” was amended to “birth record”. That was done on the advice of officials who pointed out that, technically, that’s how one refers to the birth record from which a certificate can be made.

Also, we are adding by way of clarification, effectively, that this bill doesn’t affect any other legal rights of Annie Oxborough in relation, for example, to succession or her ability to make a claim under a will, and so forth. So that’s why a new clause was added, saying that the birth parents of Annie Oxborough are not her legal parents. It’s a fine distinction, but one that all involved should understand, and the reasons for that.

So I’ll leave my comments there at this, the second reading, noting that I’ll have an opportunity to make at least a couple more—if the bill is to pass its second reading—at a subsequent stage. But, again, I thank the members of the House who engaged very thoughtfully and very openly in relation to their own situations, in many cases, at the first reading with the ongoing discussion and good-faith debate that has taken place. I very much hope that the other parties are minded to continue to support the bill. I think it’s worthy not only for Annie herself but as a helpful step forward for those who are in a similar situation who do seek the comfort of this consideration to be given by the Parliament, and, on that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

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

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In my first reading speech on this bill, I noted that we would treat Ms Oxborough’s bill and her story with the care and respect that it deserves, and I hope that we have done that. I’m aware that Annie will, hopefully, be listening to the debate this afternoon, and I hope that she is as comfortable as she can be with the process that we have followed.

This is the second private bill that the Governance and Administration Committee—that I’m happy to be a member of—has considered this term of Parliament relating to birth records. Through both of those processes, it would be acknowledged, I believe, by most members of the committee and most members of this House, that we need a simpler and less intrusive process. Now, that does have some difficulty with it, and I’ll come to that later.

I note it being an intrusive process because the submission from Ms Oxborough makes harrowing reading. I’m not going to read it out in detail tonight, because part of me wishes to ensure that Ms Oxborough is the one that has that ability to tell her story, and it’s for us as parliamentarians today to follow the process of the bill and to leave Ms Oxborough to be the one that shares her story with the world.

I want to note my colleague Chris Penk, who has brought this bill through in a very considered and constructive way on behalf of his constituent, and I acknowledge him for that. He has outlined the important elements of Ms Oxborough’s story today.

My thanks do go to the Business Committee for agreeing to a truncated process today, which is certainly something that the select committee supported. We are aware that for health reasons for some of Ms Oxborough’s family members, it’s important that we do pass this bill as soon as we are able to, and my thanks to the House for agreeing for us to be able to follow a truncated process, and I do hope that we will be able to finalise this bill today.

There were some changes made through the select committee process that Mr Penk has already outlined, but I did just want to take us through. As I’ve already stated, this bill has had to come to Parliament because there is no process under existing law, and that’s why we’ve had to bring a private bill to the House.

Ms Oxborough wishes for her birth certificate to be updated and corrected. On advice from officials, we did find that wasn’t necessarily the most straightforward approach to take and that what we needed to do was actually amend the birth record. So my thanks to officials—in particular, the Parliamentary Counsel Office—for assisting with some drafting to ensure we had the clarity here in the bill. As you read through the bill, you’ll note that there has been definitions provided for “birth record” and three different definitions provided for “birth certificate”. So we have the pre-adoptive birth certificate, which was the original birth certificate when Ms Oxborough was born; the post-adoptive birth certificate, which was updated when the adoption order was made; and, finally, the new birth certificate, which is what will be able to be issued to Ms Oxborough once her birth record has been amended.

I want to make some commentary around wider reform before I finish my call, because whenever we have looked through these private bills, a lot of commentary has occurred within the House and within the select committee about the need for wider reform.

Can I first acknowledge the private member’s bill in the name of my colleague Tāmati Coffey, and note that he has had a very special day today, in being able to formally adopt his daughter today. Mr Coffey’s private member’s bill is regarding surrogacy law. Now, this is another adoption issue that exists that wasn’t an issue when Ms Oxborough was born, but is becoming more of an issue now and does speak to the need for wider reform. I note that the Government has picked up Mr Coffey’s private member’s bill because it is such a substantial piece of reform that needs to occur.

There’s further reform occurring being led by the Ministry of Justice. This is looking specifically at how we can ensure we’ve moved from what was a dreadful—utterly dreadful—closed adoption process where, quite frankly, babies were taken from their parents without their permission. We’ve moved from that process to a far more open adoption process, where children were able to retain contact with their birth parents and their birth family.

One of the options that the Ministry of Justice is now looking at is the ability to continue keeping those records in place, the records of the birth parents and the records of the adoptive parents, and having more modern and flexible approaches. The challenge that presents, that I do want to acknowledge that this House does need to grapple with at some point, is that those reforms won’t necessarily apply retrospectively, because that’s very challenging. In Ms Oxborough’s case, because her adoptive parents, who would not have supported this law, have passed away, that has made it somewhat easier for her to progress with this. But there will be thousands of other people out there in Aotearoa in similar circumstances who would like to be able to take a private bill, but know that in doing so, it could cause significant hurt to their family.

The other matter with that is that it would take up a considerable amount of the House’s time. I think what all members of the committee feel—but we don’t necessarily have an easy answer to this—is that we need a simpler, less-intrusive process where people can update their records in a private way without having to expose their life and their story and public in such a way.

For Ms Oxborough, what I do want to congratulate her on is that she’s taken this journey for herself and for her family, but in doing so, she has exposed to the country and to the Parliament a genuine issue that exists that I think we need to correct.

And so it is a pleasure to be able to hold Ms Oxborough’s story with the care and respect that it deserves, and I do hope very much that she will look back on this process and feel that she achieved something for herself and for the country. It is an excellent bill. I congratulate the member again on the diligence and care he has approached this with. I commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to echo the words of the last speaker, Rachel Boyack, in thanking Chris Penk for bringing this bill through the House, and the way that he has managed that process but also engaged with Annie and made her ambitions a reality, and done so in a very sensitive and understanding way. So a real tribute to you and your constituency work, and also to Annie. This will be something she’s looked forward to for a long time. Those of us in this House may be able to say what we think about the bill, but the emotions that she will feel will be quite probably different, in the sense that they’ll be more heightened. She’ll be more aware of what it actually means to her and her history and whakapapa—going back to her past—and understanding her future as well. So we congratulate her on her efforts to bring this forward, and for the success in getting this bill through the House, and looking forward to all parties supporting it here today.

The last speaker made some very good comments around the reform that’s needed in this area as well. I’d like to acknowledge Tāmati Coffey as well for the work he’s done in that area—well overdue. It’s one of those issues that I don’t think should divide this House like some other conscience issues. I think that it’s more for us as a Parliament becoming a little bit more up with the times of how life can change and things do change, and that we need to reflect that in the laws of the land as well, that were, you know, set up in a different time, with a different space, and a different attitude. Things are quite different now. I look forward to Tāmati’s bill coming forward. It won’t be under this Government, obviously, but, you know, in a future Government, that that actually is the case, and we actually see reform in that area.

This is a bill that—there wasn’t really too much dissention or need to change at the Governance and Administration Committee. The changes were quite minor, in regard to really the actual approach to the definition of how that is recorded. The second one was really around the succession rights. It was just a clarification, really. Not that in any sense there was any ability for any further succession rights to eventuate from this kind of a bill, but really just a clarification to make it clear.

The last speaker also raised the issue of the scale of this issue, if it actually was to progress further. I guess there’ll be other people out there that may be listening or looking at the history around this bill and thinking, “Well, how do I do it?” I don’t see that we’ll see a rash of people going to each MP and asking them to do a member’s bill in that regard. That’s simply not feasible and the department was quite clear that if they had even a dozen of these kind of cases, that would be an overload on their capability.

So really, this is a bill that is a trailblazer in the sense of setting down a direction, I think, for future Governments to actually look at this area and to try and accommodate these kind of wishes, and also to look at the wider area around surrogacy, adoption, to make that more up to date with the reality of how people live their lives now. So, in that sense, I think it actually might push forward—for other people in different circumstances—their wishes to see the Parliament be a little bit more open and up to date in its approach towards adoption. So Annie might not have just supported her cause, and other people that have the same cause, but also supported a wider issue around adoption that needs to be facilitated in this House.

So I commend the bill to the House, and congratulate all those involved in making this reality. Thank you.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege I think, as a member of Parliament, to be able to walk someone through their private bill and I do join with my colleagues in saying thank you to the local MP as well, Chris Penk, for bringing this bill to the House. I think it’s, like I said, a real privilege to be able to walk with someone’s journey.

I have to agree with Rachel that today, as we pass through the stages of this bill, we need to give Annie the space to tell her story. But I did want to thank her for coming to the select committee, for coming here, face to face, and telling us her story. When she came over to the select committee she presented us with the book that she wrote. There are words I have to omit from this title, but it is “Where the”—[Gestures]—“is my mother?”, so I’ll just call it Where … is my mother?—a book for grown-up adoptees, written by Annie herself.

If I may, I just wanted to read a few pages from this book, which I think tells her story beautifully. But as someone who wasn’t in New Zealand, or our family wasn’t in New Zealand, during the era between 1950s to 1980s and having any personal experience in this area, reading her book really opened my eyes to some of the realities of adoption, at least through Annie’s story and through her own experience.

At the back she writes: “An adopted child is born on the grave of another family. Adoption has a long history of being a celebrated act of love, charity, and saviourism. However, there has been a growing number of investigations and reports indicating that adoption is not what we have been led to believe. Why must I go to court to gain access to my identity? Why was it considered necessary to erase my identity? Why are the adopted treated as second-class citizens? Why are we all repeating this flawed ideology? Why are only some people considered tabula rasa?”

So I think with these words and these questions that Annie has left at the end of her book, for me, it’s about making sure that we correct some of the mistakes where we can. But as my colleagues have alluded to in their speeches as well, it’s that we prevent history from repeating itself and, as we go into the future, that we look at a bigger scale of law change and policy change to make sure that we have laws that serve the best interests of children, of families who are going through adoption, to make sure that the pain and the suffering of having to go through that process is no longer repeated and that we cater for that the best that we can.

It’s been just such a privilege to be able to serve on the Governance and Administration Committee. As we were discussing this bill and as we had gone through the stages and all of the submissions and looked at the intricacies of this bill—I think the changes made have been covered very well by my colleague Rachel Boyack, in the sense that we looked at other details on how we could limit it either to hers or the other options that there could have been available, but also what was unique about her circumstances of the fact that her adoptive parents have already passed and so there was no other interested party, I guess you could say, in a legal sense to this bill, and we opened up for submissions and we have been open about hearing different perspectives and different sides of Annie’s story as well.

But fortunately for us, this has been a really straightforward and really clean-cut case where Annie’s will is to have her birth parents on her certificate. She shared this story and I’ll always come back to her submission to the select committee, her oral submission—she shared her story of how she looked around the room. She has three other sisters that were all adopted as well, and she looked around the room and said, no, she can’t see herself in anyone. And I remember shedding tears that day with her when she said finally, when she had her child, when she held her own baby in her arms, she could finally see someone that resembled her and that had her DNA and that shared her likeness.

I think that is the power that we have in this House—to be able to do this. And I’m so pleased today that we have used that power to do something good and something meaningful for one of our people in New Zealand. So I commend this bill to the House at this stage.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a brief call on this bill, the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill. ACT will obviously continue to support this bill and appreciates the work of the sponsoring member Chris Penk in getting this through the House. We’re also supportive of the procedure of going immediately to committee stage and then to a vote at the third reading.

As others have canvassed, there is a broader context that has been discussed, both in the House and in select committee. And although the select committee was careful in making sure the bill didn’t affect any primary legislation or is at odds with primary legislation, it did outline a bit of a positive framework for how this might actually proceed for others. Is everything OK, Mr Speaker, you’re giving me some interesting looks?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, it’s fine. Just having a conversation with the Clerk. Carry on.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL: Ha, ha! No worries. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

So as I said, ACT supports this bill. Annie’s story is very harrowing and very impressed by her presence in the media and also sharing her story. There are many historical cases of closed adoption and a lot of pain has come out of that in the past. Those outcomes still exist to this day.

So this bill is positive in the sense that it shines a light on those issues. Not all cases will be like Annie’s, but nonetheless have the same origin that I think a future Parliament does need to look at and take into account the learnings and what the select committee has said and how this law change doesn’t have to be overly complicated to address a lot of these concerns, notwithstanding the fact that many of them are quite different.

The select committee obviously said they encourage the Government to consider reforms that could prevent the need for using private bills to achieve these outcomes, and we agree with that. The select committee made very helpful improvements to the bill around definitions, helped by the Department of Internal Affairs officials, which we think appropriately deals with any unintended consequences evident in clause 5.

So family connections are obviously deeply important personally to us as human beings and discovering new connections is also very special. I myself have found many new relatives quite recently actually just using DNA testing, and that’s a very interesting thing that I encourage people to do—

Hon Member: Are we cousins?

Dr JAMES McDOWALL: Many new cousins!

Wrongs have been done in the past, as I said. This bill shows that the solution doesn’t have to be too complicated. The framework sort of naturally evolves out of this bill, and there’ll be many in New Zealand who will be watching this debate with great interest—how it might affect them in future. As I said, I do hope that the next Government, whichever it will be, can look at this issue, and not just this issue but also around adoption, particularly around surrogacy. There’s a lot of liberalisation and simplification that can be done and I hope that it is done. Mr Speaker, thank you. I wish Annie and her family all the best and I commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill. I’d like to begin by acknowledging the courage of Annie Oxborough for bringing this bill to the House. It’s a very public process that she went through, and she made herself vulnerable as she went through that process. I’d like to acknowledge her courage for this. Also, I’d like to acknowledge the member Chris Penk for being a good constituent MP, in terms of bringing this bill to the House, in terms of serving his constituent. This was a very interesting bill for our committee, the Governance and Administration Committee. Generally, we deal with matters of local government and such like, but this was—I don’t want to say more interesting, but this certainly engaged us very strongly.

The reality is that, for years, women have had babies at different ages—some women from the age of 16 or even younger; others, like my mother, who at 48 had twins. Yes, 48. My mother actually spanned both spectrums, because she fell pregnant with me when she was 19, and she and dad were estranged in terms of their relationship—to use the pun—and so it was a difficult time for her, actually. Basically, she met with a doctor, and the doctor said, “It’s OK, Noeline”—and I do have permission say this—“we can send you to Australia and just have an abortion.” And she said, “Oh, OK.” But then, when she spoke to a couple of people—her workmate and her sister—they said, “If you go through with the baby, we will adopt the child.” She and Dad did get back together before she had the baby. She went through with it, and here I am today.

Andrew Bayly: And what a beautiful man you are.

JAMIE STRANGE: Oh, thank you. But many young mothers often don’t have that type of support around them. The member Andrew Bayly just complimented me, in terms of how nice it is to have me in the world, and I appreciate that, too. But many young mothers don’t have the support that my mother had, and it’s a very challenging time.

This was the story that we heard from Annie Oxborough—that her 21-year-old birth mother was not allowed to see her after delivery, and she was left with other newborns in the hospital for 16 days after her birth in Auckland. Medical records reveal that, as a baby, Annie cried so much that she had to be medicated. Actually, Annie’s mother had to pay a hospital administration fee of $1 when she left her child there. She even had to pay the hospital to leave her child in the hospital. The child was there for 16 days and then was adopted. When Annie’s mum met her 20 years later, she gave her back the slip of paper—the receipt for the dollar—obviously a very emotional moment for her and her daughter. Annie wasn’t allowed to see her birth certificate until she was 18. When she was 18 years of age, she was able to see her birth certificate. That then sparked a process whereby she attempted to track down her birth mother—her birth parents. It took her 18 months, and she finally did track down her birth mother and formed a strong relationship with her birth mother. This bill here today is the result of that relationship that she formed with her birth mother and her father.

As a select committee, as other speakers have said, there were some complexities within this bill. We worked through that, and I think we’ve landed in a really good place. We did also highlight the fact that there will no doubt be others who have been through similar traumatic experiences who would like their name changed on their birth certificate as well. This could be up to around 100,000 people across New Zealand potentially. It will be interesting to see how many of those people seek out local MPs to go through this process. The reality is that it may be difficult for the House to process 100,000 of these individual applications, so I am pleased to see that some work is being done on the Adoption Act, and I look forward to seeing that work progress. I’m also, finally, in closing, pleased to see that all parties, it appears, are supporting this bill. It’s the right thing to do. Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this second reading of the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill. I join with others in acknowledging the member who has brought this bill to the House, and also the work of the Governance and Administration Committee, who went through the bill and listened to submitters, including Annie Oxborough. Jan Logie was our person on that committee who heard the kōrero from Annie, and I want to acknowledge Annie today for sharing her story; for sharing her vulnerability; for sharing her words.

Jan shared with me, actually, some of the quotes from the book that was given to the select committee, and for me it really speaks to the search for connection, the sadness of what could have been if the person hadn’t have been adopted out. I just wanted to share some of those quotes because I think it resonates—it resonated with me when I read those quotes, but also I know that there’s around about 100,000 people that have been adopted in Aotearoa New Zealand, and perhaps some of this is similar to their experiences as well. I quote, “I couldn’t have my own children, so God sent you back to me.”; “Why has my mother not picked me up yet?”; “We are getting a puppy but can’t bring it home yet, it has to bond with its mother so it can be a happy dog.” This is another quote, “People say ‘real’ or ‘natural’, mother. But she’s just my mother. She is so pretty. She has long red hair like an angel. But I cannot find her. I will look for her tomorrow at the shops.”

I want to acknowledge all parties around the House, particularly those that were members on the select committee who could see this for what it was; could see that there was no pathway, actually, to do the things that needed to be done to support Annie and to acknowledge that we needed a new piece of legislation. The Governance and Administration Committee did do a thorough examination of the bill, and as some of the members highlighted, the main proposed amendments included replacing the term “birth certificate” with “birth record”, to ensure accuracy and alignment with contemporary terminology. Furthermore, the bill’s definitions have been clearly specified to avoid ambiguity in the interpretation, and it is essential that every aspect of this bill be precise and transparent so it can really honour the significance of Annie’s journey. Some of the members also touched on the need to actually sort of deal with some of those succession issues, so it doesn’t run into bumps into other pieces of legislation.

The committee also recognised the importance of addressing certain concerns, but I felt from reading and listening to the select committee that they really held on to the sole intention, which was to reflect Annie’s true lineage on her birth record, because that’s what she was after, and also safeguarding the integrity of her personal journey. The committee also reflected on the need for possibly wider reform—and people did speak about earlier that, if the department had 12 of these or 20 of these, that would cause problems. But I’m well aware, as are a lot of members all around the House, that this isn’t the first type of bill to come to the House; it does point to something that does need to be done.

I do want to conclude to let us remember that the purpose of this bill is to rightfully reflect Annie Oxborough’s lineage to her birth record. The committee’s examination and recommendations of its passage through the House is something that we support, because it supports that need for people to bridge that gap, to help them complete that journey in terms of who they are and to build those connections back to their connection to their parents, and also acknowledging much of the history that people have shared around some of those—way back in the day, where they used to be able to take your children off you, and how horrendous and how tragic that history is, and for us to remember that that history has happened. And also, the need to actually wrap support around those people that are actually looking for those connections, looking back to find those connections with their whakapapa. The stories are tough; the stories are sad, but those are stories that are really, really important to people like Annie.

So I would like to end this by saying: Nei te mihi atu ki a koe, Annie, kia whai wāhi koe ki tō tuakiritanga. Otirā tēnā tātou e te Whare.

[Here is the greeting to you dear, Annie; you have this space to develop your character. And, so, greetings to you all.] 

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a delight to speak on this second reading. I have reflected between the readings on how good it is to be able to progress this bill swiftly, particularly as I heard Chris Penk acknowledge in his introductory comments that the Business Committee has looked to have an expedited third reading stage, which I think is a great thing and shows the way this House can work together once a case has been clearly made and members are in agreement and have fully debated the merits, and put on the record the merits of such a bill and the challenges that the current law presents to people that rightly want to make sure that their identity is recorded authentically. It’s great to have that agreement and willingness to work together to achieve a good outcome, in this case, for Annie.

I also, in reflecting on this bill, noted the media commentary, which reflects on the way in which this House does its business and can do its business in such a cooperative way, particularly when it touches on personal matters. I think that that is something that we don’t celebrate enough: the way in which this House can work together, the way in which we, as politicians, are expected to debate matters robustly and that relate to our policies and the way we relate to each other and can separate that from the lives of individuals—sometimes in our own families and beyond—and make sure that we are actually doing justice to their lives without trying to point-score is really worthwhile.

So we heard stories from Glen Bennett about his mother seeking her adoptive parents. In the first reading, I relayed the story of my mother seeking information about her birth parents and my experience as a child going around the South Island seeking her birth parents.

Times are different, and we are able to put this wrong right. I am very much in support of doing that promptly, swiftly, and directly. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I’ll ably fill in for my colleague Todd Muller, who’s buried deep in his phone. I beg your pardon. Look, like previous speakers, I’ve also been reflecting on the tone and content of what we’ve been hearing in this House this afternoon. I just find it extraordinary what we do learn about the power of human endeavour. I have to say, Jamie Strange, that was quite an extraordinary relay of your own personal story and very touching and thank you for sharing that.

Like others across the House, it seems, I stand to support the passage of the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill through the House this afternoon for, hopefully by the end of the day, the third and final time. Can I also congratulate my colleague Chris Penk. I think it is a very honourable thing to do, for a member of Parliament to bring a bill to this House that will so profoundly change the life of a New Zealander.

I have to say, on that note, it is an enormously brave and powerful thing for said New Zealanders to approach a member of Parliament and seek to change a law. Most people, I think, would be put off by it or frightened by it, or overwhelmed by it, but not Annie Oxborough, and I’m very pleased that she has had the courage of her conviction to come to Chris and, indeed, come to this Parliament to seek for something that, to her, has not been right throughout her life. It is very important for us, as legislators within Parliament, particularly when an individual has been advised that there’s no room in the New Zealand statute to change something, that they do have the courage of their convictions to seek a private member’s bill and, again, for the member in charge to also take hold of that and create a private bill and bring it to Parliament.

So Annie, now, will be allowed to change her birth certificate to reflect the names of her biological parents, replacing those with her now deceased adoptive parents. We do admire that and we do wish her all the very best with her future endeavours and hope that this brings her, indeed, the peace and the understanding that I think she has sought.

I would also like to commend Naisi Chen for her comments. She obviously sat on the select committee and was able to have a really intimate understanding of Annie’s journey. I felt a twinge of envy, actually; I would have loved to have been a part of that myself. As I say, this is one of the reasons that we do come to this place, for all of its quirks, because every now and then you can change a life and you can make a real difference to someone and I do, on that note, like my colleagues, commend this bill to the House and wish Annie all the very best.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a short contribution to the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill, and I am really pleased that I’m able to take this opportunity. I begin my short contribution by thanking the member Chris Penk for bringing this matter to the House. I am not a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, and I do thank and acknowledge the select committee for their work. I also want to thank Annie Oxborough, not just for her determination and her perseverance but her aroha in wanting to know her whakapapa, which is really important as a New Zealand citizen—it is her birthright to know and to have the accurate records, in terms of her birth certificate, reflect it. And I really support her journey through that, because, under the current law, as we’ve heard from our colleagues, it does not reflect that.

So, respectfully, we’ve heard contributions from our members across the House that adoption—it’s actually quite a huge topic. In this day and age, we are in quite a different circumstance in terms of whānau and families, and especially individuals such as Annie, who want to have the rightful words on their birth certificate.

Just lastly, this is a huge issue for Pasifika communities, who have not had the courage or not had the education in terms of this issue on their birth certificates. So, respectfully, the Adoption Act does need to be updated. And I want to congratulate Annie Oxborough for her courage in bringing this to the House via Mr Penk. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill—the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill. It was fortunate that I was subbing in on the Governance and Administration Committee looking at this bill. The previous speaker, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, mentioned whakapapa, and this is what the underpinning of this bill is about. It’s about identity.

So what Annie has said is: quite frankly, after her parents have passed, she wants to reclaim her identity and ensure that her birth certificate reflects the name that her birth parents gave her. If you look back at the history, you’ll see that she was born in late 1971. It was in 1973—so only a few years later—that the late Norman Kirk brought into place the domestic purposes benefit, the DPB. Many people have criticised that. Can I say this—that fundamentally changed the rights of women, and started the process of stopping the shame and stigma towards those women who had children whose parents were embarrassed or otherwise, and society scorned them for having these children.

I’m one of those children too. I was adopted, and it took a full 18 years before the law—this country’s law, still in place today, the 1955 Adoption Act, that gave you permission to find out who your birth parents were. The person turned up from the then Department of Social Welfare; they present to you a couple of forms and say, “We’ve photocopied these from the electoral rolls; we think these are your parents”. You go through a process, and then out comes a birth certificate, with a bit of a red stamp on it and it says, “This is what your name was when you were born. These were your parents’ names. Good luck in finding them.”

That practice has changed, but the law remains. Can I acknowledge all of those MPs across the House who have done some work to say, “This is not reflective of the modern New Zealand world that we live in.” In saying that, can I congratulate Chris Penk, the local member, on taking this up on behalf of one of his constituents and saying, “We need to rectify this”.

The good news is change is coming, hopefully. The 1955 Adoption Act is being reviewed. I want to acknowledge the officials from the Ministry of Justice who have worked hard and have picked up some of the concerns of the previous speaker and said, “We know that this has been dreadful in practice to our Pacific communities, Māori.”, and there’s a good 100,000-plus. I don’t think we will really know the real figure. But none the less, I hope that that Act is reformed—for the many Annies out there living across this country who want to know, rightfully so, who their birth parents are and understand more about their identity, where they are from.

That’s taken a full 50 years for me to say, “This is where I’m proudly from.” But you can’t repair things that quickly, and some will still be saying that they find this process—for some, they may never want to know, and that’s OK too. But in this case, Annie Oxborough has said, “I do want to know. I do want to have my identity reflected on my birth certificate; that represents who I am.” She’s been respectful, noting that her parents have passed. I think that we won’t see this coming up. I want to reassure members that I think the process is well under way with the Justice officials to say that we will see reform.

The good thing about today is that it’s a good yardstick to say when the reform comes, we can reflect back on this, and make those changes once and for all. Because there have been many members who have tried to make some change within the adoption space, and not got very far. So, to the member, Chris Penk, for your work, to the committee, and the fortunate occasion that I had to be subbed in and to be approved, the material that made me want to speak today, on this particular matter: thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): This Parliament is a place that definitely reflects our society, reflects the values of our society, and as a House of Representatives it is a place that decisions are made which I want to say run parallel with what’s going on in the outside world. But sometimes I feel like we’re often a bit slow to the game or we have to be pushed and nudged a little to get to a place of making decisions that affect what our society reflects. If you look at things like adoption, if you look at things like our rainbow issues and rainbow reform and inclusion, if you look at things like Te Tiriti o Waitangi and including that as part of our founding document, when you look at the environment or climate or women’s rights and reproductive rights, the list goes on. This bill, this piece of legislation, is a reflection of our society and of us moving forward.

Now, I’ve got to say to the Governance and Administration Committee: thank you for the work you have done on this. It’s always encouraging to read the report that comes back and to see that together across the aisle of Parliament here it was agreed to in terms of getting this right so that Annie Oxborough could be recognised and have her birth parents recognised on her birth certificate.

I want to thank Chris Penk, who was been mentioned this evening, for his willingness to take this on. This is a justice issue. This is something that is important for people—for Annie, but I’m sure there are others out there who can reflect on what this means for them. So it is good, as a House, to be working together to get something right. For many people it might be strange that this is just for one person, but it’s a symbol of what it means for that one person and what it means for us as a House as we look to mirror and reflect the values of our society. So as my colleague Paul Eagle just said, looking at the review of the 1955 Adoption Act is something that we need to consider and we are considering. And it is time, because the early 1970s was a very different time when Annie was born to the early 1980s or the early 2000s, which are very different to the 2020s here and now.

In the first reading I reflected on my mother’s own journey and what that meant. I had the privilege last month to meet Annie Oxborough, thanks to Chris Penk inviting her here and spending time. It was lovely to briefly meet her and to see her face to face, to realise the significance of something that for many might seem so small but it is impactful—the fact that she can have a birth certificate that represents and names her biological parents. The fact that she can have a birth certificate that represents and names her lineage, her whakapapa, is crucial for so many of us. And I’m glad that this House has taken time to consider that for her. I’m glad that we’re able to make this change so that she can have that opportunity to be able to seek the change and to see the change on her own birth certificate.

For me as I reflect, I think of my mother today. The fact that she doesn’t have that opportunity, not because this House wouldn’t allow it but because she doesn’t know her lineage or her whakapapa. She has a small connection. But records of the 1940s have long since been lost to find who she was and the whakapapa that she has. So for me as a member of Parliament and someone who stands in support of this bill, I am glad to cheer and champion and say, “Yes. Let’s get on with it and let’s get this passed.” But it also makes me slightly sad to know that for myself—although I have my parents’ name on my birth certificate—there’s a part of me and my whakapapa that is missing because generations past and the way that life was lived and done and what we thought was right for the sake of a child or a baby has been lost.

But it is good. And I don’t want to dwell on the negative. I want to dwell on what is possible, and the fact that today we get to pass a law that Annie Oxborough gets to change her birth certificate. The fact that we get to think about what it means to make change in this country, in this House, so that we live in a 21st century nation where adoption rights, where the ability to have records to represent who we are are there and are in place. So thank you to Chris Penk. Thank you to the committee for working collegially together. Thank you to the fact that we live in a democracy that can do something seemingly so small but yet so great and powerful for somebody and for her generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill.

In Committee

Preamble and clauses 1 to 6

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill. First we come to the preamble. This is the debate on the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Point of order. I move that the provisions be read as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that the preamble and clauses 1 to 6 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We come to the committee of the whole House stage having already debated as a House the second reading of the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill, of course, and I don’t intend to repeat my comments for that. But I do want to start by acknowledging those who made contributions in that second reading, and again reiterating my thanks to those who did so also at the first reading, those who engaged through the select committee process, and those who also reached out to Annie Oxborough and engaged, and our college and friend Glen Bennett is among them, and I thank him for that.

I do just want to add, Madam Chair, as you’ve allowed me to make a couple of introductory remarks before I field any questions from colleagues of the committee, just to state clearly for the record, that, of course, the debate, and indeed the passage of this bill should it proceed, is not intended as any disrespect on those who have been involved in the adoption process. On the contrary, I’m very well aware that there have been many positive stories of adoption. Every experience is different, and, as I noted in my second reading remarks, there are different circumstances, and, of course, Annie Oxborough’s family represents one such experience, but, of course, it’s not a universal experience, and it possibly goes without saying but I don’t want to risk such an omission to indicate any lack of respect for those who have done the right thing in many cases, and done extremely well by others.

The only other introductory remark is just to acknowledge a couple of the comments that were made at the second reading. We heard colleagues share quite personal stories of their own families, and their own lives, and their own adoption in some cases, and also that point that was made well by others following my own attempt to bring to light the idea that we have on the one hand an impractical step whereby one person, or at least one family, is affected by a bill that is taking up the time and energy of the House, and of course it would be impractical for so many potential applicants to come to this place and be treated in the same way by the same mechanism. Of course, we have the ability in this House, at a future date, no doubt, for a future Government to examine the question more broadly and come up with something that will be satisfactory across a range of different situations.

My only other reflection—and I know I said I had only one more, and I’ve now got one more to one more, which makes two more—is just that I was grateful, as members, I think, on my right had mentioned, that Annie is really the instigator of the bill. I’m merely the voice through which she has been able to bring it to this place in a procedural sense, and, of course, we have all had the weighty responsibility of telling her story through our ability to speak in this House. So she lobbied her local MP, and it was adopted, not so much as a matter of party policy but in terms of colleagues of mine in my political party seeing the merit in supporting the proposal—other parties likewise, and again I thank them for that, and the House as a majority for doing likewise.

On a personal note, it’s funny because I came to this place thinking that, as a lawyer, I was able to help one client at a time but couldn’t influence the law as a whole, whereas as a policy maker and as a politician one gets to influence policy and help many more people than one at a time, and here I am after nearly six years and this is the closest I’ve got to passing a bill and it’s only helping one person—but it’s helping and she’s no less important for that.

On that reflective note, as the process and philosophically regarding what it is I hope we’re about to achieve, I’m grateful again for the engagement that we’ve had so far, and look forward to the committee of the whole House stage.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member in charge of the bill for introducing us to the committee stage, and, again, I just wish to congratulate him on the work that he does to progress the bill through the House. I do have a couple of questions for the member, because we have had some quite wide-ranging discussion in the second reading earlier today.

One of the matters that has come to the attention of the House and that came to the attention of the select committee is about the application of this bill—and I note the comments that the member has just made—to other members of New Zealand and people who may have been affected in a similar way and who may wish to follow a similar approach.

The question I had for the member is whether this bill also has the potential to apply to other people and any comment the member may wish to make around those who could also be seeking similar redress through the Parliament or through another process.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a very helpful question. The member herself, having participated very thoughtfully in the select committee process, will be aware that this was a major point of discussion. We were careful not to imply that there was any greater direct significance to the case of others, but she’ll recall that we discussed—and I think it’s helpful to put on record now, hence my gratitude for the question—that it would be only in an indirect way that this would be useful for others, which is to say that if this puts on the political agenda—or the policy agenda, I should perhaps say—the idea that this is an area in which we need to pay some attention as a country, I think that will be useful. Not only does the bill itself not apply to others, it is a private—in that sense, a “private bill”. It is also the case that, even in terms of Annie Oxborough’s own situation, it is narrow, in the sense that it is only to amend her birth record, from which a birth certificate could be made, and it doesn’t affect, for example, any rights of succession that she might have or any other legal rights in relation to family links and ties.

I suppose while I’m on my feet, again, in the committee stage, I should point out that the motivation for different people in this situation will be different. We heard as a committee, for example, that, for some people, it is the much more practical reality that would drive them towards such a solution, were that generally available. I refer specifically to the gentleman who noted that he himself had been adopted, that he has a child now who was diagnosed with a life-threatening genetic condition, and he made the point to us, quite movingly, that had he known his own biological links and history—or whakapapa, as we might say—then he would have been able to seek medical help for his son sooner, understanding more fully the implications of that lineage, literally in the blood sense, knowing where had come from and what that might mean for his own offspring, medically speaking.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you to the member Chris Penk for that useful response—I think that’s very helpful. One of the other—I guess what we would call crudely—unintended consequences, potentially, from this bill, which the member alluded to in his response, was about the potential for those who may take an approach like this to be able to seek access, for example, to estates when birth parents pass away. This is a challenging issue, I think, for people who have been separated, through a process, from their birth parents and then have been reconciled and been able to form a relationship later in their lives. But this is a matter that did come to the Governance and Administration Committee’s attention and could potentially open up opportunities for people to be able to seek access to the estate. So I’m just interested in, I guess, two questions for the member. One is around the appropriateness of that and whether it’s something that needs to be considered on a case by case basis, and any particular protections that have been put into the bill to protect from that situation occurring.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you. Again, I thank the member Rachel Boyack for her thoughtful analysis and the question that followed that. I think we’ve been engaged in a bit of a balancing act here. We have sort of wanted to open the floodgates only enough to prompt a response that is more general, that would be able to help others in another way, but not in a way that would result in potentially thousands of such applications to local MPs, or other MPs, in areas throughout the country. So the wisdom of encouraging—as my colleague and friend David Bennett said—even a dozen or so cases I think would be a great burden. And I don’t mean that unkindly, but it would be a lot for the relevant Government agency, the Department of Internal Affairs, to contend with, to advise as many as 12 times, if we’re saying a dozen, just for the sake of argument. And, of course, for the House’s time to be engaged in a private bill on multiple occasions simply wouldn’t be practical. So I don’t encourage that. In fact, I officially discourage it.

But having said that, I don’t think that Annie would want me to give any suggestion that she is minded only to have this situation ameliorate her own situation. Indeed, she’s been an advocate, and members of this House have made it clear that they are advocates, for improvements in the way that other situations might be handled. Perhaps it could be in the future—and I speak not as a matter of party policy but just thinking aloud, so to speak. It might be a matter of a law being amended to allow such applications, so that those who wish to make such applications can do so. Those who are perfectly happy not to revisit the past in that way, you know, would have the choice not to do so as well.

I do note for the sake of the record—not only as it pertains to this bill but also as a relevant consideration, at least in my mind, as to the circumstances of this matter—that Ms Oxborough’s adoptive parents are no longer with us, so we haven’t had to be concerned that the effect of this bill would be disrespectful or might appear disrespectful in a way that would be inappropriate to those persons themselves, who, as I say, we mean no disrespect to, and likewise for others in such situations.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his engagement earlier, and I wish to assure the committee of the whole House that I don’t intend to take many more opportunities to speak on the debate, but I did want to put on record at least one more point. And, obviously, I’ll engage with any other questions that come. That’s just to acknowledge, from the point of view of emphasising the point, that this is a difficult and onerous process, not only for the applicant herself but also it’s absorbed a lot of time and energy and resources. Of course, that’s been perfectly appropriate, but I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the work of certain colleagues, including Jo Irain and also the staff in my electorate and community office, Cheryl and Emily; those who have drafted the bill and worked with us in quite an iterative way to ensure that it was as good as possible; the policy advisers; those who provided procedural advice, in terms of how the bill might be passed in this House. I acknowledge and thank them all.

I also thank those whose advocacy has allowed this matter to come to my attention. There was a media piece by Duncan Garner, and he noted that a contact of his—Mr Todd Muller—might be interested in taking on the matter. My colleague Mr Muller in turn got in touch with me and suggested that I may wish to take it on because Ms Oxborough was living—remains living, in fact—in my own electorate of Kaipara ki Mahurangi.

I do want to acknowledge all of those—and, of course, Annie herself. If this is the last opportunity that I have to speak on the matter, then I do want to place on record my thanks to Annie. The courage that she has shown has been very impressive. I don’t think it is an easy matter at all for some, actually, to approach their local MP about a matter that is important to them. In any case, I think others in this House would agree that we should not be regarded as intimidating persons to approach regarding any matter of politics or policy. But the reality is that if there is a sense in which we are less accessible than we might be, then I hope those listening will know that every member of this House, I am sure, would be grateful to have a conversation that is respectful and in good faith about things that are important to them, whether locally or as a matter of national policy—that is to say “nationwide”. And certainly that’s been my case, my experience with this. Annie has come forward with courage, she’s allowed us to tell her story on her behalf, and I thank her for it.

Preamble and clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Chris Penk: Without debate, Mr Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without debate.

Third Reading

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): I move, That the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill be now read a third time.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Companies (Directors’ Duties) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Companies (Directors’ Duties) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Companies (Directors’ Duties) Amendment Bill. We come first to clause 1, this is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to make a few brief comments on this committee stage of this member’s bill, the Companies (Directors’ Duties) Amendment Bill. Just to acknowledge a few people that got this bill to where it is today: the original mover of the bill, Duncan Webb; Rachel Brooking, who had custody of this bill for a short period of time before entering the ministry; and also the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, who worked very hard on this bill—and I want to acknowledge the work that they did and also the submissions that they heard, which led to some substantial changes to the bill that members would have seen and that we debated in the second reading.

Members will see that there is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name on this bill that just clarifies the matters that may be considered along with the very short bill that this is. So I’m happy to take any questions that members may have about the bill which, as members will be able to see, will be a very brief one—but I think an important one in terms of clarifying that directors are able to take into account other matters apart from profit in their duties. Members may ask what the purpose of this bill is, and I would say the purpose is in the very first three words: “To avoid doubt”. So I look forward to answering any questions members may have.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be clear, we are debating the title, clause 1. Can I ask the member, why on earth did we call it the Companies (Directors’ Duties) Amendment Bill? Because with the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that’s been proposed by the member, which changes the purpose and the requirement on the directors away from a requirement because it talks about “may”, and so let me just be clear about what her Supplementary Order Paper 396 says—I’m just going to read it in the proper context of what’s written here: “To avoid doubt, in considering the best interests … [that] a director may consider matters other than the maximisation of profit.” That means it’s not a duty, it’s not an obligation, and therefore the heading is totally inappropriate, because it doesn’t talk about a duty. It may have when the bill was first introduced by the Hon Dr Webb, but, of course, now we’ve ended up with a virtue-signalling bill that talks about an intention or a consideration that a director may have regard for, and therefore it’s not a duty as the title specifies. So I would love to know why the member didn’t put up an SOP to change the title.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move that all provisions be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. In that case, I will re-put the question. The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.

Clauses 1 to 4

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you to the member Andrew Bayly for that question. It is actually not one that I had considered may be put to me, but I enjoyed considering the reasoning behind that while I had the opportunity as that member put the question to me. My response to the member would be that I don’t think it is inconsistent with the idea of a duty to propose and clarify the matters that directors may consider, and I think it is quite proper that title remains the same. And for that reason, I didn’t consider putting in a Supplementary Order Paper to change the title of the bill.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, I think that was a valiant attempt from the member to try and do—I think she should have just stopped after she said the first thing, which is that she hadn’t considered it. And I think that’s probably the case because, of course, this bill was introduced by Dr Webb and had some madcap ideas in it, which the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee disagreed with and the advisers disagreed with and the submitters disagreed with. So I suppose one of the questions I’ve got to ask is: why did the member take on this bill? Why did she believe it was important to continue this bill and assume and take it over from the member?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to traverse, I guess, how the member foresees this bill actually coming into place in practice, in terms of the provisions that have been created, in terms of just giving the potential opportunity to consider things other than profit. And while, of course, that may enable the more ethical company directors to then, you know, broaden decision making, whether the member is concerned that by not having a stricter provision so that they must consider other things other than profit—whether we’re missing out on an opportunity to actually create a much fairer economic system and more rigor in the decision-making process for company directors. And so I just wanted to get a bit of the rationale behind the “may” versus “must”.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): If the member wants to stand up—the member in charge of the bill—I’m very happy to yield. I think it’s a very good point raised by the Green member about the requirement for “must”, which is the purpose or intent of his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 399, and the “may” that’s been adopted by the member sponsoring the bill. I am also very interested in this, because both SOPs refer to the need for directors to have regard to other matters other than maximisation of profit. Can the member inform us why she has a view that directors of businesses don’t currently also have regard for other factors when considering their duties?

The reason I make this point, I think it’s an absolutely fundamental point—and it was one that occupied the minds of the committee and certainly occupied the minds of the many submitters who made a good job in submitting to the committee—which is that if you are a director of a company, you are incredibly naive, stupid, or weird if you don’t have regard for factors other than profit maximisation. Particularly where companies have customers, and most companies do, if they’re not cognisant or up to date or aware of the needs, desires, and wants of their customers, inevitably that means that businesses fail.

So when directors are making decisions about their businesses, I would suggest to you, particularly with ones that have a strong retail customer focus, but it’s not exclusively that, they will always be mindful of ESG factors—environmental, social, and governance issues—and the wider issues that may affect their business. This is the reason why this bill has been deemed a virtue-signalling bill and a waste of Parliament’s time. And I would like the member to tell us why she thinks that directors don’t currently have that view. Because if they do have that view, then her SOP 396 is a complete waste of time and that means the entire bill is a complete waste of time. And I’ve got to say, many submitters did think it was a waste of time.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you to both members for their various contributions and I’ll just go through some of the matters raised. The member from the National Party asked me why I decided to take over this bill from Duncan Webb. I did go through a process of going through all of the different submissions and looking at the report of the select committee before deciding to take this bill forward. The reason that I decided to do that is because I do think that this bill provides a valuable clarification in directors’ duties that I think will be a benefit to New Zealanders. The member, I’m sure, will agree that it’s important to have clear law that is easy to understand, and I think that this this very small bill in my name assists with that. So that’s in relation to the member’s first question.

In relation to the contribution from Ricardo Menéndez March on whether I do believe there needs to be stricter conditions, I think that this is the right balance in this bill. You will see by reading it that there’s three different provisions, which means that it’s up to the director of the company to consider the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters. To avoid doubt, they “may”, and then it provides some examples as well. So it’s very permissive in terms of allowing flexibility of company directors to consider matters outside of the maximisation of profit. I think, for a member’s bill, requiring them and putting the word “must” in there, as is mooted in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 399, would be more of a substantial change, possibly not appropriate for a member’s bill in relation to how that would change company law. So that’s my view. That’s why I haven’t included that word in SOP 396; I haven’t sought to change the wording came back from the select committee.

But I did just want to make a few comments, if I may, about the Supplementary Order Paper that I did decide to add to the bill—a change from what was suggested in the select committee. I did read the select committee’s report in detail and it was notable for me that even though the original member in charge of the bill had provided a list of matters to be considered, when the select committee was considering it, they did refer to ESG—or environmental, social, and governance—matters. Now, we know that this is an established term that people are aware of. And the reason I decided to put that back into the bill is to really fulfil the purpose of the bill more effectively by not simply clarifying what may happen, but also giving some context for the purpose of the bill—so we know that the ESG matters are something that is being well understood within discussions within companies, but we also know that we have legislative precedent for the use of that term.

We have the KiwiSaver Act 2006 in section 129, which specifically mentions ESG factors, and for me that was beneficial to have that precedent already existing in law in relation to putting that term back into the bill. I also did a bit more research and found that there was reference in the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Act—which this House considered a few years ago—which, while not referencing, I don’t believe, ESG matters within the substance of the main piece of legislation, referenced in the debates in the House the ability for companies to take these matters into account when they’re deciding things. So it was a very thoughtful process that allowed me to arrive at the decision around the Supplementary Order Paper that I decided to put in. So I just wanted to clarify that for members.

In relation to the final contribution from Andrew Bayly, I think that there are many directors of companies who are not aware, or could be convinced, that there is doubt about their ability to look at matters other than the maximisation of profit. And to avoid that doubt, I think that this bill provides a very valuable clarification that they may look at other matters, that there are things which are outside maximisation of profit which are relevant for directors. On that basis, I consider it to be a valuable addition to our company law.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Picking up on the comment by the member regarding, I guess, the purpose of members’ bills, I just want to acknowledge that we have had, historically, a range of members’ bills that are really substantive and make really massive changes in people’s lives and in the system, and in more discrete, targeted members’ bills such as this one.

I guess I wanted to seek some clarification as to—and we do support the purpose of adding that language “to avoid doubt”—whether this is a missed opportunity to actually ensure that it doesn’t still enable some companies’ directors to just continue business as usual. Because then all we’re doing is, I guess, for what we could consider good players—and I myself do have doubts about the so-called nature of ethical capitalism—but how does the member see, then, this bill being able to actually prevent the status quo for the worst players in the system when it comes to decision making?

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the member standing up, and I think she is genuine in sponsoring the bill, but I obviously have a different view on it. She made the comment that she had looked at the submissions. It’s the submissions that were the troubling element to this bill. Important organisations such as the New Zealand Law Society and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—which are not insignificant organisations by the way; just to make the point—oppose the bill. There were concerns both around the unintended consequences of opening up directors to potential court action, but there was also the point that they said there was no clear rationale on what the proposal by the member required, and we are concerned that this is more of a solution looking for a problem.

One particular thing: the office of the clerk to the select committee—and again, we’ve all sat on select committees; these are people who are not prone to exaggeration and outlandish comments—“Because the bill does not permit or prohibit any activity, it would not have any legal effect. The lack of legal effect brings into question whether this legislation is necessary.” There are other people who talked about it. There’s the strong view that you could achieve the same outcome simply through Cabinet making a resolution and there is no need for any specific legislation. So, in deciding whether to take this bill on, she said she looked at these particularly powerful submissions. Why does she disagree with the concerns that these august organisations have made to the select committee?

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Ms Belich. I thought she was about to stand up.

I just wanted to reiterate some other comments that were made—that I’m sure the member is absolutely genuine in putting this forward and wanting to improve the wellbeing of society and how it interacts with companies. I just had a slight concern there around the balance of how that may play out with the directors’ fiduciary duties and then with obligations from a context beyond the financial piece—how that would be balanced in court—and what sort of feedback we have had around that. I mean, there will obviously be an environmental, social, and governance component about it. In the New Zealand context, there may be a Te Tiriti context around that. I’m just interested to see what feedback there has been around that space and how that would be balanced against the fiduciary duties, and how those two will balance against each other. I wouldn’t want to see a situation where a director has got something over here saying that they need to look after the financial wellbeing of the company and then this piece coming in and they’ve got to look after some wider social goals. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I thank the members again for their questions and engagement on this bill. In terms of the contributions that members have made, Ricardo Menéndez March talked about his reservations on the effect of ethical capitalism. I’d just reiterate to the member that this is a small bill and not looking at those big issues, which I can understand the member is passionate about. But this is, I don’t think, the vehicle to address some of those wider issues.

In terms of the submissions, yes, I did read and look through all of them, and I did take into account their feedback. I am aware of the feedback in opposition to the passage of this bill, which I did take seriously. The thing that I would mention to the member is that, because of the process that we go through—and the member will be aware of this, but just for the benefit of others watching—all of the submissions were received when the bill was in its first initial stage, and a lot of them reacted to the list that the original bill had put into place. I know that there are other factors included in their submissions as well, but I think the select committee did take into account some of the concerns that submitters had around the list which was included in the original bill.

As the member will be well aware, that list was removed at select committee, and the proposal at select committee to have it as a much narrower, much simpler bill I think addressed not all—and I agree with the member that there are some people who’d prefer this bill not to go ahead at all. My view differs from that, as it obviously may from the member’s as well. But I do think that a lot of the concerns relating to the particular matters in the original list of factors to be included are avoided through adopting the recommendations by the select committee and also with using the more commonly used term of “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) in the Supplementary Order Paper which I’ve suggested. So I do acknowledge that. I did take that seriously. I just formed a different view from some of the submitters, and I do think that a lot of this will be taken into account by the changes that have been made.

In terms of legal effect, those who study statutory interpretation will be aware that any word in the law is capable of affecting the way that that law is interpreted. So, although this particular bill is very small and does, as I’ve mentioned several times before, have “to avoid doubt”, “may”, and “for example” as ways of mitigating the potency of this bill, I think that the impact of it will be to allay any doubt for directors that they are able to take other matters into account. So that kind of goes to a few of the member’s queries on this. The purpose of it, as I said in my initial statement, was to avoid doubt.

Just in closing my comments on those particular questions, I note from the select committee report the National Party’s minority—well, I don’t actually think it’s minority, because I think ESG is 50:50, but their view as stated in their report is: “Whilst we agree that there is benefit in corporate leaders taking into account ESG factors, we note that directors already have existing obligations under their fiduciary responsibilities.” So I would just note, for the members present who are opposed to the bill—and I respect that that’s their ability, to take a different view than other members in this House—that they have stated in their select committee report that they do agree there is benefit in corporate leaders taking into account ESG factors. And that is the purpose of this bill.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): This is a rubbish bill. This is unnecessary, and I wonder if our greatest capitalist on the Labour side has been consulted on this bill, because he knew that buying shares in the company at Auckland Airport was the right thing. It had nothing to do with stakeholder capitalism, it had nothing to do with socialism, it had nothing to do with environmental, social, and governance—and this isn’t even effective in law. So why is this going through the House?

I said to Duncan Webb, right at the start, this is the worst bill I’ve ever seen with regards to directors’ duties. Every director in the country must be laughing at the Labour Party with this—must be laughing. What is the point of this bill? Let’s move on to something more substantive, and let’s just get this rubbish out, because it is a rubbish bill.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, I’m just fascinated with that member’s contribution, and I’m looking around and saying, “Who is this famous capitalist?” And I’m looking over—there’s Mr Nash over there, he looked like he was going to stand up. And now I look over to the other side and I see Andrew Little—I didn’t think that was the case. Oh, there’s people on the backbench, they’re burying their heads over there; maybe a couple of them have changed their pecuniary interest. And then I spy someone over there—is that who you are referring to? The good member from Mt Roskill, is it not?

Hon Michael Wood: Yes, and he’ll be here after the election, unlike that member.

ANDREW BAYLY: Right. Oh, that’s good that the member for Mt Roskill acknowledged himself as a capitalist. Thank you.

Hey, so I want to go back. You’re saying that you’ve made these changes—and I’m saying this to the member who’s sponsoring the bill. Well, I don’t know whether you have sought—and now I’m using the word “sought” and I’m looking at the member—whether the member has actually sought independent advice on the proposed change that she put in her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). But I actually, overnight—because the member’s SOP got lodged late last night I think, or first thing this morning—went to a very well-known legal firm to ask their view of whether the change that you’re proposing in your SOP, what it meant for people. And the view comes back: this strengthens the virtual signalling—slightly, comma, slightly—and all the advice of the Office of the Clerk and all the recommendations of the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee, these criticisms still remain valid. That was the view of a very senior partner in a very well-known law firm.

So the member has dismissed the legal and all the people that made submissions. The other side of the coin, did she have regard for the NZX—which has been developing a code of corporate governance, which again, the issues around having regard for a wider set of factors such as ESG factors, which she’s talked about. It is already embedded in good corporate governance, so it is already there.

So I keep asking the member, why did she want to sponsor this bill and why has she made these changes when clearly the law already provides for it and permits directors to have regard for much wider issues, or factors, in making their decisions. There is good work being done in institutes like the institute of governance and also the NZX. So all that is already in place. And so I fail to understand why the member thinks this wording, which talks about “may have regard to other factors” is so vitally important and why that is such a game-changer.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Madam Chair, a point of order. I totally agree with the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no, no. Thank you. We are descending very quickly into disarray, which I don’t like. So I’m going to address the question is that the question be now put. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, again, to the members for their contributions. I’d just like to note, for the member who said, “Why are we doing this?” and “We need to move on to something else.”, it is, in fact, the member’s contributions that are preventing that very thing from happening.

In terms of Mr Bayly’s contribution, which I feel I’ve addressed in some detail already in this committee stage, the National Party, who Mr Bayly is a member of, has said, in their very report, in this very bill, “we agree that there is benefit in corporate leaders taking into account ESG factors” This bill provides clarity and avoids doubt that they are able to do that.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Right, last contribution. This bill has had widespread opposition, and given that it costs $200 a minute to debate any bill in the House and particularly one that results in this level of change—which is virtually nothing—I’m going to close down and stop my contributions. But I just make the point: I think we’re absolutely wasting our time. Virtually everyone who has been a participant in this process believes the same, and has come to the same conclusion.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Camilla Belich’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 396 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 73

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 399 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 104

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 73

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clauses 1 to 4 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 28 June.

Hon STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m standing to oppose the Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill.

Now, there are different ways to get things done in this House. There are members’ bills which the Government of the day just simply does not agree with. It goes through a process, and that’s the end of it—it dies a death. There are other members’ bills, however, that the Government actually supports in principle, but for whatever reason, the Government of the day decides that the more robust process in terms of achieving your policy outcome is for this to go through a Government process as opposed to the member’s bill process, and this is one of those bills.

Now, this is an important bill. It’s something that in principle, the Labour Government supports, and as a former Minister of Tourism, I understand the value of living the brand—you know, we go out to the world with “clean, green” and “100% Pure”. That’s how we sell ourselves globally, and at this point in time, it is incredibly important that we actually walk the walk and that we live the brand. That is why this piece of policy is very high on the Government’s work agenda. At the moment, we’ve got Ministers and we’ve got officials who are actually doing the work with regard to this piece of legislation out there at the moment.

Now, let me just walk through the processes. If we supported this as a member’s bill, what would happen is it would go to a select committee. It is time-restrained, and a select committee with cross-party consultation does work, albeit with officials that attend the select committee. But the bottom line is it is constrained through the processes, which are also constrained through the select committee process.

If this is sponsored by a Government or if this is part of the Government’s policy agenda, then it is not constrained by the same limits that the select committee process is. One of the really important things with regard to this is to identify the key stakeholders, understand what their concerns are, work through those concerns, and come out with a piece of legislation that, when it’s introduced to the House, the really heavy lifting has been done.

So of course when a bill around this piece of policy does come to the House, it will still go through that select committee process and there will still be an opportunity for robust debate, but the heavy lifting will have already been done by Ministers and by officials in a way that allows full consultation and in a way that allows us to understand the issues and, hopefully, come up with solutions that are suitable and that are amenable to those key stakeholders for whom this is a really important issue. So I’m not saying that by the Government’s adopting this sort of policy statement or this principle, it doesn’t go through a proper process—it absolutely does—but by the time it comes to the House, then we’ve ironed out a lot of the problems.

Also, there is a lot of work being done. As a member of the Environment Committee, I can say that we have heard from officials about this very issue. I mean, we understand that this is important for Kiwis—we really do—but we also understand that there is a high level of complexity. It’s not a matter of just saying that we’d ban everything in the conservation estate. If it was that simple, it would have already been done. But there are key stakeholders for whom the consequence of what we are talking about in this member’s bill isn’t recognised and it isn’t dealt with. We believe—the Government believes—that we could end up with a piece of legislation, if we followed this member’s bill, that was far from ideal, and there is no doubt about it that when you’re doing something with regard to our conservation estate, we need to get it right.

That is why the principle behind this is supported, but this member’s bill isn’t. But that doesn’t mean that we won’t be seeing something come to this House at some point under a Labour Government in the next term that doesn’t deal with this issue—

Damien Smith: Ha, ha!

Hon STUART NASH: Yeah, I know. Well, it may come sooner—you know, it may be within the first six months—but I can’t make any promises. But what I can say is because a lot of the work will be done, it’ll be high on the next Labour Government’s agenda.

So all I would say to those who are watching, and all I would say to those for whom this is a really important issue—and I understand that it is for a lot of people—please don’t think that the Government’s opposing this bill means we oppose the policy intent, because we don’t oppose the policy intent. We support it, but we just believe that the work needs to be done so that when the legislation is introduced, it has integrity, we’ve worked out the issues with the key stakeholders, and when it goes to the select committee, it is in a much better space than this bill is. So Labour opposes this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank members for their speeches, but I guess my response is: if not now, then when? An Official Information Act document from a briefing, Conservation portfolio priorities, released under the Official Information Act—that briefing, 2 March this year. The Department of Conservation’s advice to the Minister, and I quote, “We consider the key priorities for the remainder of the term, with the biggest impact for conservation and biodiversity outcomes, are deliverables relating to no new mines on conservation land, the oceans work programme, and a number of other matters.”

The Department of Conservation has listed the no new mines as being a key priority, yet we have seen absolutely nothing from the Labour Government on when that priority, that comes from the 2017 Speech from the Throne, will actually be advanced. So it’s well and good for the last speaker, Stuart Nash, to say that it’s coming, but it has been coming since 2017, and in this term there’s been absolutely no obvious work on it.

Other speakers like Angela Roberts claimed that the review and reclassification of stewardship land needed to occur before this bill could proceed and before we could have legislation which protected conservation land from mining. That review is not the answer. It won’t deliver the protection which our indigenous biodiversity needs, either on the West Coast or in the Hauraki-Coromandel region. That’s because on the West Coast 82 percent or some 530,000 hectares of stewardship land has been proposed for reclassification by the national panel, and that’s been recommended for historic reserve or conservation park status. So 82 percent of the land proposed for reclassification is not going to get any additional protection from mining, because “conservation park” is the weakest and lowest form of legal protection, and Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act doesn’t include conservation parks in the lands that are protected from mining.

There’s 180,000 hectares inland from Greymouth near Kōtuku Moana, Lake Brunner, that’s recommended as historic reserve. That historic reserve wouldn’t be protected from mining either. So the reclassification of stewardship land that a number of Labour members have referred to in their speeches is not the answer, because it doesn’t provide adequate legal protection by strengthening the legal status of the land that’s being proposed for reclassification.

Jamie Strange talked about visiting an underground gold mine in Coromandel and being impressed by remediation. I’ve been to that mine, I’ve been underground there, but that provides no defence for species like Archey’s frog, threatened with extinction from vibration and blasting under conservation land, which is currently being proposed by OceanaGold. Archey’s frog has been on the planet as a species for around 200 million years. We in the Greens think that species like that and our biodiversity deserve protection.

It’s only the northern part of the Coromandel Peninsula which is protected by Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. This bill would ensure that the southern part and the conservation lands there, which are just as important ecologically as those on the north of Coromandel Peninsula, are also protected.

Stuart Smith talked about—well, made it sound as if we were trying to stop mining throughout Aotearoa. Two-thirds of New Zealand is outside the conservation estate. The bill does not affect that at all, except for no new coal mines, and that’s important to protect our climate.

Labour speakers have also mentioned concerns about pounamu. The bill may make it more expensive to mine pounamu, because fewer pounamu boulders would be uncovered in the course of alluvial mining on public conservation land. But there’s absolutely nothing in this bill to prevent the mining of pounamu. If the wording needed to be changed to make that clearer, we could expect that to happen in the Environment Committee.

So Forest and Bird polling has shown that two-thirds of New Zealanders want public conservation land protected from mines. We’ve been hearing a petition from Coromandel Watchdog in the Environment Committee, signed by more than 11,000 people. That is seeking, if the Government is not going to implement that Speech from the Throne commitment or pass this bill, to at least to put a moratorium on all new permits.

The Green Party says: if not now, then when? The Department of Conservation has said that this is a priority, but we’ve seen no action. We need to see action to protect our biodiversity, in a nature crisis, from further mining.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 11

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

Noes 104

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and the House will resume at 7.30 p.m. this evening.

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill

First Reading

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I move, That the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a real honour to be standing here today to speak to an issue that is really important to me. This bill comes from a place of my own lived experience of being boxed into a system that treated me as an identity group first and a person second, and since coming here, I’ve been seeing and hearing the stories of people who have been on the receiving end of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Before coming to Parliament, I thought it was bad. Once in Parliament, I came to understand that it was a lot worse than I could ever have imagined.

When it comes to the safety and the wellbeing of our children, that should be front and centre before every other factor. When I look at legislation like section 7AA, I can see that it was well intentioned, but the unintended consequences have been dire for many children and caregivers around the country. Many caregivers have just given up out of sheer frustration.

One case that did make the media comes to mind, and it was around the care of a young girl referred to as Moana. Moana was traumatised and neglected by her own whānau for years before she was placed in a safe, loving home. It was heartbreaking when bureaucrats then got involved and tried to remove Moana from their care because the Pākehā family could not provide for her cultural needs. The High Court ruled in favour of her caregivers, and that should have been the happy ending to this story. Instead, there was appeal after appeal by Oranga Tamariki (OT) and the family that had let her down in the first place. Tragically, the caregivers had to give up their beloved little daughter because they could no longer afford the battle. Section 7AA meant that OT did not put Moana’s wellbeing and best interests ahead of all other matters. It failed the caregivers, who had done nothing but love and care for her, and it failed a young Māori girl by depriving her of the loving and supporting environment that she needed. It should never have ever gone this far, and section 7AA was the justification for these awful decisions.

During the appeal hearing, noteworthy apprehensions were raised by a respected scholar regarding the risks associated with ideologically motivated advancements. Dr Nicola Atwool expressed her thoughts on this matter: “Māori children placed with non-Māori caregivers are being uplifted and placed with whānau that they do not know and in some instances live a long way from where the child has been living, making any sort of … transition impossible. In these instances, section 7AA, … that requires decision-makers to consider the importance of a child’s mana, culture and whakapapa, is cited as justifying this action. Again, the practice is ideologically driven and is neither child-centred nor trauma-informed. Uplift is traumatic for children. It involves the forced removal of a child or group of children from all that is familiar to them at an age when they cannot comprehend what is going on. Forced removal should only occur in the most dangerous situations where the risk is imminent.”

Section 7AA has led to devastating uplifts in cases of low to zero risk. There are tragic stories that come across my desk each week where caregivers are at their wits’ end when it comes to dealing with OT. I hear from European grandparents fighting for the right to care for their Māori grandchildren and being sidelined in the decision making because their opinion is considered to be of less value than the hapū, iwi, and whānau of these kids, who have often have failed these children. I hear from Māori—a family who have said to me they had been encouraged not to include the non-Māori part of their family in the care of the kids, and they felt this was unfair and wrong but were too scared to speak out. How is denying a person’s whānau and whakapapa, Māori or non-Māori, consistent with tikanga?

I hear from caregivers openly being told that they’re not the right race. I hear from caregivers supervising children who are being made to visit family members who have abused them, because cultural connection is more important than the child’s mental health and welfare. I myself have personally witnessed the trauma these visits have caused. I’ve heard stories from foster parents of kids soiling themselves before the visits and having nightmares for days after. Surely, we just want these kids to get the care and the support that they need—how far are we willing to let this go?

ACT says that race-based decision making in care needs to stop. We asked the public to sign a petition if they think State care should be colour-blind. So far, 13,408 people have signed this to send a message to this Government that the divisive, race-based approach they have brought to State care is not OK and that the child’s wellbeing and safety should be ahead of all other considerations.

I wrote a column a little while ago about a family I knew before coming to Parliament that had taken on a foster child. I named her Mary. They saw that Mary needed a loving home where she would feel loved and safe. Mary had suffered abuse and neglect, and then had been passed around from family member to family member. Before the age of seven, she’d been in eight homes. She did not know what a stable home was until she was placed with her foster parents. After a while, they were led to believe they would be providing this young girl with a home for life, a home where she would have the stability she so desperately needed.

After two years of caring for and loving her, they were suddenly told that they had to prove they had Māori heritage, or she would once again be placed with her whānau. OT claimed that the most important thing for this girl was to be raised in a culturally appropriate environment. OT was happy to take Mary from this loving home and place her with a family that had been known to abuse her in the past. This story shows how bizarre and how brainless this law really is. These caregivers are the exact same people. They would be raising Mary in the exact same house. Whether OT would have allowed them to continue lovingly raising her depended on whether they could point to an ancestor from hundreds of years ago.

Fortunately for Mary, they could, and she still lives with them. She is doing well at school and she has a home for life, where she is safe and thriving. Thank goodness for that branch they found on their family tree, or Mary’s story might have been very different.

Can Labour really look vulnerable kids in the eye and tell them that they’re fighting for this kind of system? This is only one of many cases where I’ve seen children and caregivers being treated in this manner, and not all of them have had a happy ending.

My bill seeks to ensure that OT is colour-blind and that they always act in the best interests of the child. This is a crucial step towards creating a more just and equitable society where every child can thrive and succeed, regardless of their ethnicity, culture, or background.

I feel OT needs to be colour-blind in its operations, and this means that the agency must treat every child and family fairly, regardless of their ethnicity, culture, or background. Every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their individual needs, and their safety and wellbeing comes first.

Abuse and neglect does not discriminate, and when we have a system that boxes us into different categories based on ethnicity, this can be harmful. I’m not saying we don’t acknowledge a child’s culture—this is an important aspect of their identity—but the notion that non-Māori cannot raise a Māori child in a culturally appropriate manner is harmful. It perpetuates the idea that these kids are their ethnicity first and a human second. It suggests that only Māori people can understand and appreciate culture and that all Māori share the same values, which is simply not true. It implies non-Māori are incapable of learning and embracing other cultures, which is also a dangerous stereotype.

As a child, all I wanted was a home where I felt loved and safe. I did not care what ethnicity the people caring for me were. Children and young people need to know they are loved, and as far as I’m concerned, love means love in any language. This has got to the point where caregivers are thinking twice about whether they want to put themselves through the hassle of trying to raise a child, and OT seems to be doing everything in its power to keep children in or to return children back to homes that may not be safe or in the best interests of the child.

If we truly see our children as taonga, let’s start treating them like they’re precious, because right now, many children in this country are being treated like property that gets passed around from place to place until they’re broken beyond repair and with no care for their rights or needs, and this needs to stop. I urge members around this House tonight to think long and hard about the way they vote. This is about making sure all our children are in environments that will provide them with the best start in life. It’s about making sure that no child will suffer in the name of being raised by the same race as them. It’s about making sure that kids’ need for love and for safety and for freedom from neglect are placed first—as it should be. I commend this bill to the House.

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

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill, and I want to firstly acknowledge the member Karen Chhour for bringing this to the House. I refreshed my memory on your maiden speech, Karen, and you spoke about wanting to do this in your maiden speech, so I want to acknowledge you for bringing this bill here and I acknowledge your lived experience.

However, Labour will not be supporting this bill. We will not be supporting this bill for many, many reasons. The reality is, quite simply, that section 7AA of the Act creates a policy that supports and enables Māori children and all children to be cared for. Your general policy statement states that the “duties of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki … are at odds with the agency’s primary purpose to support the wellbeing, and act in the best interests,” of the child. I cannot reconcile that purpose with the reality of what section 7AA actually does, and I understand your sense of frustration around some of the awful stories that we do hear—I understand that. But section 7AA is in place for a reason, and it binds the Crown to a practical commitment under the Treaty to ensure that policies and practices have the objective of improving the outcomes for tamariki, rangatahi, and whānau Māori. This amendment was inserted specifically to create a fundamental obligation to ensure that Māori are supported to have improved outcomes.

Now, I’m going to quote a reason for this—and my apologies, because it is a quote and so I will be reading. The Waitangi Tribunal report Wai 2915, which is He Pāharakeke, he Rito Whakakīkinga Whāruarua—apologies for my pronunciation—says that “The disparities that we examine are both enduring and stark … It is sufficient to note the following from the evidence we have heard. Between 2000 and 2018, the incidence of tamariki Māori aged 16 and under in State care rose from one in every 125 Māori children, to one in every 64. By 2012, tamariki Māori were five times more likely than their non-Māori counterparts to enter State care. Māori were 54.7 per cent of children in care in June 2013, climbing to 61.2 per cent of children … in 2017. The proportion of Pākehā children in care over the same period reduced from 33.2 per cent to 26 per cent.”

The duty of the chief executive is put in place because the primary users of this service are Māori, and to take a child from a Māori family and not take into account their cultural needs is actually harmful—it’s harmful to those children. However, I heard the member talk quite clearly about children being taken from families that they’re happy with. Reverse uplifts no longer occur, and we cannot and do not support that kind of behaviour. The Minister has put a stop to that, and it is really important to note that.

The evidence across the plethora of information I looked at is starkly clear that Māori children thrive when their needs are attended to, including their cultural needs. It is better for Māori children. Now, I don’t say that in the sense that—I struggled with how I would talk about that, but as the mother of Māori children who has carried whakapapa in my own whenua, I feel like I can say that. So, as a consequence, I do want to say that I do know that our children will absolutely be better off this way.

I just want to quote another item in regards to—the research is just so overwhelming. It is difficult with the member’s heartfelt desire to make a change to literally just stand here and speak with the overwhelming evidence that says section 7AA needs to be in place and that we are now building a system that is much more robust and which is much more approachable and appropriate for all children but also to try and stem the uplifts that happen within this country. “Nicola Atwool, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Otago and expert on child attachment, explained that even in cases where the child is experiencing neglect or harm at home … uprooting children from their family and culture can have traumatic consequences. ‘There seems to be, I think, still some really naive assumptions that, if parenting has not been adequate or, in some cases, quite severely damaging, their children will automatically connect to someone else. They don’t and the research tells us that. We know that the birth family remained significant,’ Atwool said.”

This bill is a divisive part of ACT policy that talks quite significantly to a separatism which we do not believe in. Being able to have culturally appropriate services and culturally appropriate delivery of those services, and being understanding of other cultures or differing cultures actually isn’t a bad thing. It isn’t a frightening thing and it isn’t an evil thing. It is something that we, as a country, need to be mature enough to understand that there are differences in this country, and some people need to be supported to understand that.

Penny Simmonds: In 10 weeks’ time, you’ll look back on this and you will regret it.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I’ll look back on this and regret saying that we need to work in harmony together and support and value each other—is that what I will look back on? As the mother of Māori children, I can tell you that I will never once in this House apologise for saying that we should work together in harmony, and separatism is not for us. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker, I think that I should probably—now that I can’t hear myself speak, I shall take my seat and say that the Labour Party absolutely, categorically, does not support this bill.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a brief call this evening of five minutes, and I’ll maximise the utilisation of that time. It’s important that this debate is focused on the welfare and best interests and the paramountcy principle of the children and that New Zealanders and members in this House understand what the law is about.

The debate in the House is of course one that is with passion. My colleague Karen Chhour, who is the member proposing this member’s bill, has spoken from lived experience, and I acknowledge that, Karen. I also acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark, the previous member who has spoken, in terms of her position as chair for the Government on the Social Services and Community Committee and your lived experience as a mother of Māori children.

I stand and address the House as the spokesperson and lead for the National Party for children and Oranga Tamariki, and I too speak from lived experience. That experience is as a child advocate for a period of 30 years. I specialised in the law around child welfare, care, and protection.

I have a plethora of notes before me and I will speak in terms of the member’s bill, which is to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Now, it is so important—this is a very complex area of law—for people to understand that I come from that premised experience of 30 years. I acknowledge the lived experience, not only of the member but of all of those children, young people, and family members that I’ve represented and advocated for over the period of time.

In 2017, the National Government made several amendments to the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, and one of those amendments was the introduction of section 7AA by a former member of the National Party, the Hon Anne Tolley, who was at the time the Minister for Social Development. Ms Tolley promoted the amendment, saying that “when a child [must] be removed from their family, first … you have to [ensure] that they are safe. If you listen to the young people, … the next thing they want is to be with their brothers and sisters. … The next part … is that they want to know who they are and where they belong. So if they are Māori, they want to know their iwi, their hapū, their marae, their whakapapa … because it is part of who they are,”. That is what section 7AA is about.

I’ve heard the member talk about the best interests and welfare of the children, and that’s what section 4A of the Oranga Tamariki Act is about. I’ve heard the member and others address in this House the policy and, frankly, the bad practice, the poor practice, of Oranga Tamariki social workers and the implementation of the reverse uplifts of children. The reason that was done was because of that bad practice and poor policy—which the Minister has since reversed—because there were social workers who were focused on section 7AA and that a Māori child should not be with a non-Māori family. That was wrong, because that is not what the law says. Section 4A is very clear and is very precise, and that is the paramountcy provision, which is the basis for every other section under the law. It says, “In all matters relating to the administration or application of this Act”—which includes section 7AA—“the well-being and best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration,”.

Members know well in this House that I’ve spoken on any legislation that deals with our children, whom I have advocated for and always will continue to do so. Our children’s interests are first and foremost, before any policy setting or any poor bad practice social work in practice that’s gone on. We have case law in the Moana case, a Family Court decision that went to the High Court on appeal. We also have Supreme Court decisions that recognise the importance of Māori values and concepts within the placement of our legislation. Regrettably, social work practice has not adhered to the implementation of section 4A. The paramountcy provision of our child’s welfare and best interests, safety, and protection has been foremost to section 7AA.

In the short time I’ve got left, I’ll say that the National Party’s position is we recognise the importance of New Zealanders having a voice. We are a Parliament, and we advocate and represent that voice of New Zealand. However, it is so important that we also have the process of due diligence and due process of a select committee for New Zealanders to submit, and it is at that forum that the National Party stands in support of this bill, not for the total repeal—to make that clear—but for this to come to the select committee and for New Zealanders to have their say. If the National Party gets into Government, we would not be repealing it, but we would look at amending this and making it more precise and tight. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. Can I also just start by acknowledging the member Karen Chhour and say congratulations on getting your member’s bill pulled from the biscuit tin. But not only that, I also remember—as Angie Warren-Clark talked about—your maiden speech, your lived experience, and the passion you have in this. So I want to acknowledge that.

But, like Angie Warren-Clark said, I personally cannot support this bill and neither can Labour, and I will tell you why. If I start right from the start, I wish that we didn’t have to have Oranga Tamariki, because that would mean that every tamariki and every rangatahi in Aotearoa New Zealand was safe and loved and that would be a great reality. Unfortunately, that is currently not our reality. Our current reality is that we do have to have something to be able to make sure that our children—all children; all tamariki and all rangatahi from Aotearoa New Zealand—are safe and well, and this is what we have in Oranga Tamariki.

However, our other reality is that, unfortunately, we know and we’ve heard, and Angie Warren-Clark talked about the Wai 2915 inquiry—we know and there’s so much evidence and research that tells us that, unfortunately, tamariki Māori and rangatahi Māori have higher proportions going into State care, and we can’t ignore the fact of that. Unfortunately, while I know that the member’s intention is to make sure all children are safe, this bill will not do that. This bill, in fact, will make it worse for tamariki and rangatahi Māori.

At the moment we make sure that the chief executive (CE) has the responsibility to make sure that the policies and support are there, and making sure that there is a partnership and that we are doing the right thing in terms of our responsibility under Te Tiritiri o Waitangi. Part of that is to make sure that when we are seeing those spikes, we don’t just ignore them. It is about looking at and addressing what that looks like. Currently, we have the powers—or the CE has the powers—to do that.

This bill, which repeals section 7AA, will take away those responsibilities or those powers for the CE to specifically focus on tamariki and rangatahi Māori. The difference is that we know that for some of these cultural practices in terms of the tikanga in some of Te Ao Māori, we have to make sure that we find measures that are going to be able to support them in the culturally appropriate way. I know that the Opposition might not agree to that, but it’s a reality and it’s a fact.

I also have lived experience in terms of working in that space. As you can see, I have my Pākehā side and I have my Samoan side, and I know that it’s about making sure both of those are upheld. It’s not a thing where you can separate it out. I can’t separate out my Pākehā side, or my Scottish side, from my Pacific side, and neither can these kids—neither can our rangatahi and tamariki Māori.

At the end of the day, the Government is already putting in initiatives to make sure that we have more Māori organisations to be able to work with not just the tamariki and not just the rangatahi but the whole whānau, because, at the end of the day, that is what we want. We want to make sure, where we can, that the tamariki and the rangatahi that are going into care can, if possible, return back and make sure that they are returning back to a safe and a loving household, and that’s what it should be about.

I am also unapologetic in terms of making sure that where we do have cultural differences, we need to make sure that we are putting in the right support for those cultures, and that is one of the reasons. It’s in Wai 2915—it’s in that inquiry—and it shows that because we haven’t, we’ve seen this spike in tamariki and rangatahi Māori going into State care. If we truly care about all Aotearoa New Zealand kids, then we need to care about—

Karen Chhour: Some kids need to go into care—their parents don’t take care of them.

TERISA NGOBI: —the Māori kids too, Karen Chhour. We need to make sure that all kids matter, and so that is what it currently does.

This bill is divisive. It’s separatism—that’s what it is. That’s what your party is about—sorry, Mr Speaker; not you. That is what the ACT Party is about.

We don’t believe that on this side of the House. We make sure that everybody is heard—every single person’s voice is heard—including our Māori tamariki’s voice, and that is what this is about. We’re making sure that we do the right thing, and making sure that—unlike this bill does—we don’t—

Angie Warren-Clark: Race-baiting.

TERISA NGOBI: —yeah—cause more trauma to those children. I absolutely do not commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I’m rising on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill, and I’d like to acknowledge the ACT Party member Karen Chhour for sharing her lived experience with us. We acknowledge that she has made genuinely positive contributions to our political debates regarding the state of the so-called care in this country. The Greens are saddened to actually see that being undermined by this bill, because while I want to uphold the lived experience that each of us—including her—bring to Parliament, it’s important to recognise that as legislators, there is a limit to each of our lived experiences and that we actually lean on a collective range of lived experiences to inform the pieces of legislation that we debate.

There are many reasons why the Greens cannot be supporting this bill. These include things like this bill running counter to Puao-te-ata-tu, it runs counter to the Waitangi Tribunal rulings, and it runs counter to the calls from VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the interim report of the royal commission into abuse in care. Why it is particularly disappointing is because over the course of this term, the ACT Party and the Greens, despite all of our differences, actually had found common ground in holding and challenging the Labour Government to account for ignoring these same voices on the Oranga Tamariki Oversight Bill. But we do want to acknowledge that now, when it suits their political narratives, they do the exact same things: ignoring the voices that have said that we do not need a repeal of section 7AA and that, actually, having a Tiriti framework in these systems is clearly important. So “disappointment” is honestly an understatement.

I acknowledge that many of us are leaning into our lived experience, but I would like to lean on the lived experiences of others who have contributed, actually, for several decades to this debate, and let me take us back to the late 1980s, around when I was born. Puao-te-ata-tu, in the report, noted that “At the heart of the issue”—and I’m quoting—“is a profound misunderstanding or ignorance of the place of the child in Maori society and its relationship with whanau, hapu, iwi structures.” It continues, saying that “We have been disturbed at the extent to which Social Welfare institutions and indeed the courts, have a clientele which is predominantly Maori. We think that as a society we cannot survive much longer if we continue to ignore these facts and the situation which gave rise to them.”

If this is the feedback that we’ve been receiving back then, and it actually reflects the feedback that we continue to get, it shows that rather than dismantling Tiriti provisions, we do need to strengthen it. Yes, our Oranga Tamariki system is in dire need of overhaul, but that won’t come by removing Tiriti provisions. If we move a bit closer to today, to some of the commentary from the Children’s Commissioner—which, like I said, the ACT Party was in support of kind of having a stronger Children’s Commissioner and having it being independent, and they know that—it is that “To keep pēpi in the care of their whānau, Māori must be recognised as best placed to care for their own: this involves by Māori, for Māori approaches that are enabled by the transfer of power and the resources from government to Māori.” If we want to recognise that the Children’s Commissioner has played a historical and important role in that monitoring and holding those entities to account, I think we should be taking these statements very, very seriously.

Even more recently, if we go to 2021, the Waitangi Tribunal also found that “The disparities we examine are both enduring and stark. … Between 2000 and 2018, the incidence of tamariki Māori aged 16 and under in State care rose from one in every 125 children, to one in every 64. By 2012, tamariki Māori were five times more likely than their non-Māori counterparts to enter State care.” They continue, talking about how the Crown and Tribunal recognised that it was “unacceptable and that … the Treaty of Waitangi would require that”—actually, that this is a sign that we have failed our Tiriti obligations and that we actually, as a Government, should take “active and positive steps … to address the disparity.” At no point did they actually suggest that removing Tiriti provisions would go some ways towards that, because, as tauiwi, the Tiriti provisions—

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

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): I’ve taken this call to express my concern and opposition to the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill, and I believe the member who has brought this bill before the House has the best of intentions—I really do. But I stand strongly against this piece of legislation because it threatens to undo the progress that we have made to give better care to Māori children separated from their families.

This bill runs counter to the wellbeing of children in Aotearoa. This bill aims to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, and this section creates the duty for Oranga Tamariki to respect the Treaty of Waitangi and to report publicly on the measures it has taken to fulfil that obligation.

This section was introduced to make sure that Oranga Tamariki takes into account the significance of whakapapa, culture, and identity in decisions concerning the welfare of Māori children. There is a significant disparity between the number of Māori and non-Māori children being taken into State care, and this creates the need to provide better care for Māori children and to address the systemic issues that have led to this situation. This section provides the legal push to make sure that Oranga Tamariki does its most to engage with Māori communities and to provide children with a familiar and appropriate cultural environment. Increasing engagement with Māori communities and ensuring that children are placed in a culturally appropriate environment only when it’s safe to do so will absolutely create better outcomes for the children, and that should always be the priority for Oranga Tamariki.

When I think of the care of our children, I also think of the Te Whare Tapa Whā model that was developed by leading Māori health advocate Sir Mason Durie in 1984. This model describes health and wellbeing as a wharenui, or a meeting house, with four walls, and those walls represent taha wairua, which is our spiritual wellbeing; taha hinengaro, our mental and emotional wellbeing; taha tinana, which is our physical wellbeing; and taha whānau, our family and social wellbeing. Our connection with the whenua and the land forms the foundation, and when all these things are in balance, we thrive. When one or more of these walls is out of balance, our wellbeing is impacted.

In my view, section 7AA represents three of those four pillars within Oranga Tamariki: taha wairua, which is our spiritual wellbeing; taha hinengaro, the mental wellbeing; and then also our social wellbeing. Repealing this section would be like pulling these three pillars out from our whare, and it cannot stand any more and it cannot complete its purpose. In this case, it would threaten and weaken the link between whakapapa, culture, and identity in decisions concerning the welfare of Māori children.

While most Crown agencies are bound to consider the principles of the Treaty, section 7AA goes one step further. It obliges Oranga Tamariki to give practical effect to those principles in reporting back publicly on what measures have been taken to achieve that obligation. This section also gives Oranga Tamariki the responsibility to consider structural issues that have historically disadvantaged and negatively affected Māori children in care. So it’s quite a holistic approach: helping the children in need and trying to help solve issues that have led to this situation in the first place with care. The amendment bill under consideration today ignores the unique needs and experiences of Māori children and families, and it fails to acknowledge the ongoing impact of the historical social injustices and systemic discrimination on Māori communities.

Section 7AA has had a tangible result on the performance of Oranga Tamariki. Since it took effect in 2019, there’s been a lot of improvement in the wellbeing of tamariki Māori, and trying to go back on this now would be a significant step backwards. So, unfortunately, I cannot support this bill, the Labour Party cannot support the bill, and we do not commend it to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I join others to comment on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I start by giving credit to our colleague and friend Karen Chhour, a woman of not only lived experience in this space but considerable passion, advocacy, and skills in speaking up for the most vulnerable, and I congratulate and I thank her for doing so.

There’s been a lot of passion in the House tonight, discussing and debating the proposal that is before us. I think that is a good thing. It would be sad if we were not concerned enough about the issue that is at hand, such that we were indifferent and passionless regarding the situation of some of the most vulnerable members of our society. So if I may take a moment to congratulate those who have spoken with such passion, albeit approaching the subject perhaps from different angles at times, then I do wish to place that on record.

I think that there is, notwithstanding the passion in the debate and the discussion, a need to understand in a very clear-headed way exactly how the law—the legal framework as a whole, including this particular piece of law, the Oranga Tamariki Act—would operate. So, as I understand it, the basis of the proposal from Ms Chhour is that we want to emphasise and clarify and confirm in the law the paramount consideration that is the welfare of the child.

Now, I don’t say that to suggest that members who are taking a different view on the bill don’t want what is best for the child, but the fact of the matter is our law is already structured in such a way as to make the welfare of the child and the wellbeing of the child the paramount consideration, and, of course, we can and should consider different factors that would lead to promoting such wellbeing, and an aspect of that would be cultural considerations. But in the hierarchy of how these things are considered at the top of the tree or at the centre of the circle, and hence the child-centred approach, or the primary purpose—to use another different expression of the same idea—the key to it all must be the welfare of the child. I think what we have ended up doing is discussing this from different angles and we’re in danger, I think, of losing sight of the fundamental point that there are different possible harms involved to the young person.

I believe—as I think colleagues across the House would also say they believe—that there is an element of harm in removing someone from their cultural context. That’s not an ideal situation. There are no good options when we are contemplating how best to place a child other than in their natural family situation in which they were once living. But the reality is that we are asked, as policy makers, and we ask those who execute policy to make difficult decisions to balance harm and to choose the least bad option. So if we allow our calculus to be quite simply that the best interests of the child must be paramount and take that as a starting point, and from underneath that flow all the other considerations, rather than regarding conceptually a series of pillars of all equal standing, then I think we will come closer to achieving the aim that I hope and expect we all share, which is to reduce the possibility of harm to a child in her or his family environment.

To this extent, I think we’re arguing over how best policy may be reflected in practice. Obviously, there’s been a good deal of publicity about the practice of uplifts and reverse uplifts, where, obviously, a child is removed in circumstances that are obviously distressing, not only to the child himself or herself and families—plural—sometimes involved in the movement but also those who care about such things, and, as I say, I hope and expect that that is all of us.

I do just want to note briefly from the perspective of being the shadow Attorney-General that it was distressing to see an element of judicial interference in relation to a matter that came in front of the courts along these lines, both between an agency and the courts and within the courts, in terms of a live proceeding in a manner that wasn’t consistent with the court process as it should be. So that was disappointing. It reflects the complexity and the importance of the matter.

As my colleague and friend Harete Hipango has said, we support the intent of Ms Chhour’s bill. We do support it at its first reading for all those reasons.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to speak to this bill, and I want to first acknowledge the efforts of our colleague Ms Chhour. I sit on the Social Services and Community Committee with Ms Chhour, and I have seen her deep and heartfelt need to make a difference for children so that the harm that was done to her many years ago is not repeated.

I also rise as someone who has spent a lot of years—like Ms Hipango, a previous speaker—in the Family Court as a Family Court lawyer, and I have fought reverse uplift cases. I have fought Oranga Tamariki on behalf of caregivers and on behalf of whānau in the sorts of cases that Ms Chhour has been describing to us. So I have some understanding of the situation there, and what I would say first is that we all want all children to have that equal right to love, care, sustenance, and a proper, safe home. We all want that. The issue for me—and I refer to the reports that previous colleagues have talked about, going back into the 1980s. The issue is that the system wasn’t fair. It remains unfair, but it has been unfair for decades and decades, and it has specifically been unfair to tamariki Māori.

I think what has happened here is that there is a bit of confusion in this bill over two things that are being done. As my colleague Harete Hipango and other colleagues have said, it is not the case that whānau connection to tamariki is paramount—it is not. The best interests of the children remain absolutely paramount, and there is a complex set of figures, ideas, and concepts that get considered every time one of these decisions comes before the court. That is one thing, and if Ms Chhour really wanted to look at those issues, she maybe needs to look at section 4A, because that is the one that tries to set out what the legislature tried to enunciate as what are the factors that a judge should look at in considering a child’s best interests, and that includes the maintenance of their connection with whānau, hapū, iwi, and family. That is where there is that delicate-dancing balancing act going on.

This section is actually quite a different matter. Section 7AA is an attempt to address the structural inequities and the embedded racism in the way in which Oranga Tamariki works. While it has been tried—including by yours truly—to get Family Court judges to operate on the basis of section 7AA in the context of an individual custody case, what section 7AA is actually about is the professional conduct of the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki in designing structures, in trying to make relationships with hapū, whānau, and iwi in the community, and in reporting back on those changes.

It was the Hon Anne Tolley, from the other side of the House, who brought this in. I’m disappointed that those current members, with respect, haven’t got quite the courage of their convictions to stay the distance, because the fact is—

Simon Court: Well, it didn’t work.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: —this is something that is working. What shows that it is working is that when you get a Government into power with a Minister like Mr Davis, who is prepared to do what I personally feel, which is to condemn bad practice and hold Oranga Tamariki to account and to uphold the mana of all children—that’s what we’ve seen. We have seen the dramatic fall in uplifts of pēpi and of children generally. We have seen the dramatic change in that appalling process of reverse uplifts.

It’s not about children being automatically placed with Māori whānau—that is not what it’s about. It’s about bad social work on a number of fronts and poor social work practice that we are steadily addressing, and we are seeing in those dramatic figures the impact of what was put in place by the Hon Anne Tolley. I cannot commend this bill.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): He aha te mea nui o e te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

[What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.]

Karen, mihi ana ki a koe. Respect, sterling mahi, and absolutely dedicated over this kaupapa.

Angie, ka rawe hoki ō kōrero—

[Angie, very eloquent what you have said]—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We use full names in the House, please.

TAMA POTAKA: Angie Warren-Clark, ngā mihi ki a koe, e hoa, ka pai ō kōrero.

The wellbeing and best interests of children are paramount for those in State care, as captured by section 4A of the Act, and this bill seeks to repeal section 7AA of the Act, which places duties on the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki to support the wellbeing and act in the best interests of the child or young person. We support this bill at the first reading for the purpose of all Kiwis having input, but would amend the relevant section rather than repeal it.

It appears that our colleagues in the ACT Party are concerned with a couple of items: number one, the health and wellbeing of children in State care is deteriorating—tautoko—number two, Oranga Tamariki prioritises the placement of children with whānau Māori over the best interests of the child and, effectively, interprets placing children with Māori families as being in the best interests, being in conflict with the paramountcy provision, or section 4A of the Act, which requires decisions to be in the child’s best interests—āe, kei te rongo; I’m hearing it—and, number three, the provision is race-based or race-preferenced law. Well, kāore i te taukoko—I don’t support that idea.

As my whanaunga colleague Harete Hipango mentioned, National introduced this provision many years ago, and some folks at Oranga Tamariki and elsewhere have misused the intent, the purpose, and the application of this provision, but the courts have concluded that the provision in and of itself is not race-based. I won’t go into the details of those decisions, except to observe that tikanga will have an increasing relevance for our judicial and legislative system, and I have been known to encourage conserve of curiosity in that matter.

The main problem—the main raruraru—to me, is not the section itself, but rather the misinterpretation and misapplication of the section, and this is exactly the reason why we are elected to be here in this Whare Mīere, this House: to draft and better curate legislation that carries with it certainty and clarity. We would not repeal the section, but, rather, would amend it to ensure greater certainty in social work and bureaucratic practice.

My view is based on a couple of items. The stats disparity is shocking: 91 of 1,000 Māori are reported to Oranga Tamariki, two-thirds of all children in State care are Māori, and tamariki Māori are six times more likely to be in State care. Those disparities are shocking, and that’s why we introduced this section: to better help Oranga Tamariki to work with Māori communities to come up with solutions to support, manaaki, and tautoko those tamariki. Sometimes it has worked; sometimes it has not.

While perfect is the enemy of the good for tamariki, good is not good enough. The State alone cannot provide solutions for Māori children in isolation of Māori communities. The provision was initially drafted with the intention to be specific needs and relationship - based, and our erstwhile colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson received advice that this provision did not contravene the rights set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

National also acknowledges that the Treaty of Waitangi is a founding document of New Zealand. It’s one of our values and it is set out in the constitution, and, where suitable, Te Tiriti or the Treaty—or both—can guide substantive policy and legislation.

Now, our colleagues from the yellow-pink side of the House have espoused the view at times to remove the Treaty from legislation altogether, or to subject it to referendum. This is not a waka that I, respectively, sit in.

The Greens would have the Treaty of Waitangi as the Rosetta Stone for all legislation and wealth distribution, or redistribution. Again, it’s not a waka I sit in; I take a more moderate view.

Repealing section 7AA cancels the bandwidth of the CEO—the tumu whakarae—of Oranga Tamariki to work with local communities to provide targets, measures, and solutions for Māori children in need of care and protection, but section 4A, the paramountcy provision, sets out the ultimate threshold for Oranga Tamariki behaviour. All sections, including the interpretation, use, and implementation of section 7AA, must be done in light of the paramountcy provision. It would be contradictory of us to dismiss this provision entirely, which is intended to be a genuine option to address and meet the best interests of the child in State care.

It is with these minor thoughts that I take this Puanga evening back to the backbench. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour): Thank you, e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to make a contribution on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the member Karen Chhour for bringing this bill into the House and giving us an opportunity to contribute.

I just want to remind everybody that section 7AA is about the duties of the chief executive in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. For all of us in this House, our identity runs through our body—our DNA. It pumps every second. It is important. We name our children after our ancestors. Most of us, we talk about our food, and when we recall the memories of our ancestors, it strengthens us.

I have spoken many times before about my experiences in Child, Youth and Family. I entered Child, Youth and Family in 1987, working in the mailroom. It was called the Department of Social Welfare. That was the year Pūao-te-ata-tū: The Report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Māori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare was released by the Hon Ann Hercus. Why I say that is that 1925 was the year of the first Child Welfare Act. From 1925 until Pūao-te-ata-tū in 1986, the law was colour-blind—it was colour-blind. It only came from one perspective, which was to treat every child like a Pākehā child.

In 1955, the Adoption Act was changed. It was changed to enable non-Māori to adopt Māori children, so it has been 68 years since that has been colour-blind.

I want to talk about 1989, when I was a clerk. I was a clerk in 1989, when there were changing names for the Department of Social Welfare. Then came the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act. So the Act became the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act, and it provided family group conferences and it then started to acknowledge the Māori child in their whakapapa, in their place in the whanaungatanga, and acknowledged the responsibilities of their hapū and of their iwi to these tamariki.

In 1992, the Department of Social Welfare, where I was still a clerk, went into five different business units—five different business units. But in 1999, it came back and it was then called the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. That’s the first time the word “Child” was in the title of an organisation. Throughout those years, it wasn’t until 2014 that the section under—we’ve heard about it. We’ve heard about it in the House, about the Hon Anne Tolley. I was working as a senior adviser in Oranga Tamariki here in Wellington, on the service design team. When we’re talking about this, we started off with a white paper. We got all the children’s voices—all of the children, throughout the whole country—and they told us how important it is and that their whakapapa is so important to them. The whakapapa is so important—the children, their families, and everybody else spoke about it.

I talk about this because this is talking about Māori children. This is talking about the State’s responsibility to Māori children. If we had started on the right track and if section 7AA was in it back in 1925, we would not be here talking about this.

I talk about my past roles in Child, Youth and Family as a social worker, as a manager, and as a senior adviser because it’s about practice. I’ve seen bad practice. I’ve seen bad, bad practice where social workers—there was a neighbour that the child called “Auntie”, and the social worker treated that next-door neighbour as whānau and placed them there as a whānau placement. All that time, they had no connection. So I know what it is about bad practice.

Section 7AA acknowledges the Māori child as someone belonging to a collective, and the responsibility of the collective to this child and the responsibility of this country. Section 7AA is exactly what it is: it sets out the duties of the chief executive to responsibilities to Māori in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi. I do not support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Karen Chhour—five minutes in reply.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to thank everybody for the conversations we’ve had tonight. Some have been respectful, and some have actually been quite offensive—when I’ve had two Labour MPs accusing me of division, separation, and even one using the words “race-baiting.”

Now, the reason I brought this to Parliament is through personal experience as a Māori child in care. I know what it’s like to be a Māori child in care when things go wrong, and as far as going back into history, into the 1980s, I can tell you that I was part of that 1980s experiment and it didn’t work. It failed me and I survived in spite of the experiment, not because of it.

I was told as a young person that all I needed to do was embrace my whakapapa, embrace my culture, and it would make everything OK. I didn’t get treated for my trauma; I didn’t get treated for my needs. I just got told, “If you accept your culture and the people around you, this will make it all better.” I was sent back into an environment that petrified me, that was awful, and where I spent every day wondering whether I was going to wake up the next day. I spent two years in a home that I should not have been in, based on this kind of rhetoric, and there are many kids that I have seen this happen to in my community, too.

Now, culture is important. Culture is great, and I have embraced it as I’ve got older. But putting children back into environments based on “Family is the best place for them to be, no matter what” is actually dangerous, and I have seen the effect that it has had on children. Now, there are family members that can be worked with, and I think that this should happen so that they do have the skills and the ability to have these children back.

But young people need to be heard when they say that they don’t feel safe and they want to be put somewhere where they feel safe, and children are ending up in homes—temporary homes—because we cannot find whānau, hapū, or iwi for them to go to. We’re not giving them the stability they need because we’re waiting to find somebody that is willing to take them. Surely, our young people, at the end of the day, deserve stability, love, and care above everything, and that’s what I’m bringing to this House.

I’m not race-baiting. I’m not being separatist, and to be told that is actually very insulting. I think we need to get past those attacks, because they’re lazy and they don’t actually address what we were debating.

I really appreciate it that National has taken the time to say let’s have the people have their say at a select committee stage, because that’s where this needs to go, and there may be a compromise. There may be a way that we can make this bill work and have the people have their say.

Let young people have some self-determination over their lives too, because surely the Treaty does not just work for whānau, hapū, iwi, and parents. It’s also there for the children, because children deserve to have self-determination over their future and their lives too.

If they are living in a traumatic environment that’s not good for them and that isn’t in the best interests of them, surely it is the responsibility of the Government organisations that are meant to be protecting all our children to step in and make sure that they are safe, because too many children are falling through the cracks because we’re so busy worrying about all these idealistic issues rather than what’s in the best interest of our kids. Whilst it’s best intended—and I understand that and I have said that—there are so many unintended consequences from looking at children as an identity first and not a child.

We need to be looking after the child’s needs—what they need—and we’re not doing that well. Oranga Tamariki is failing badly for all our children, not just Māori children, and I’ll tell you what: Māori children are not that different to any other child. They want to feel loved, they want to feel safe, and they want to know that tomorrow is going to be a good day, and that is what I was intending with this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 73

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill

First Reading

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I move, That the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

This bill is one of the reasons I came to Parliament; it’s my “why”. We talk about that quite flippantly sometimes, but this is a bill that came about because of my experience over 25 years of employment law. It was a fairly frustrating experience because what I saw was a parade of low-paid employees coming into my office who couldn’t move jobs. They couldn’t ask for a pay rise, because they wouldn’t get one, because they couldn’t move jobs, and they couldn’t move to better work.

It’s really important for low-paid workers to be able to do that. Most people get a pay rise by moving up in their career, and that’s an important freedom that we should have. I’ve seen kindergarten workers, I’ve seen all sorts of low-paid workers—milk workers—who are restrained. Those are not the kinds of people that most people in this country think would be restrained from going to another company in competition with the one that they’re working in. We need, in this country, to get higher wages. We need, in this country, to build productivity. Restraints of trade, called “non-competition clauses” in America, are getting in the way of doing that and there’s good evidence to prove that.

I want to talk about the nature and structure of the bill that I brought to the House. I brought to the House a bill which bans restraints for low and middle income earners, and I did that because they are the workers who need to move the most. They are also the workers who are not earning enough to be able to go to court and challenge the restraints that are in their employment agreements. Usually, the people who came into my office—the kindergarten teacher or the seamstress—hadn’t actually read what was in their contract and they signed it.

Often, the restraints that I saw were probably not enforceable at law, yet most of those people walked away. They didn’t actually take their employer on with regard to the restraint, and that’s because they simply couldn’t afford to. It costs a lot of money and it takes a lot of confidence to go to court. That’s why, when you ban these restraints, you see wages go up, and they go up for our most vulnerable.

I can tell you that because there’s work in America that proves it. In America, some of the states actually ban these restraints. When they do so, they see an uptick in wages of 6 percent over five years. Now, that’s quite a lot of money to most people and they move from job to job—and guess what! It actually helps small and medium sized businesses because they have a stream of workers that they can’t otherwise access.

Now, this practice of restraints didn’t used to be such a big deal; it didn’t happen as much. But, actually, it’s a growing practice and we didn’t know it was happening in this country because we don’t keep individual agreements and it tends to happen there. They’ve done a study in Australia and it shows that one in five workers there are restrained—one in five. It is just not possible that those restraints are really to do much more than what I am saying they are to do. They are there to stop workers moving into other work and stop them moving to the competition, and those things are very much linked. This suppresses wages and it suppresses innovation.

It’s really important that you can go, as a worker, and set up on your own account when you’ve grown those skills. That’s a good thing for our country; that will make us thrive as a nation and it will feed our small businesses. In California, they actually banned all sorts of restraints—so a very much wider group of restraints—and a lot of people say that’s why they have Silicon Valley. They have it because the IT companies actually do not restrain their workers and it helps move people. And there is innovation as a consequence—it actually encourages that kind of knowledge nurture, and that is what the evidence says.

It’s got so serious in the United States that the Federal Trade Commission will be bringing in a rule banning them. If we don’t ban them and they do, they will be ahead of the curve in terms of what they’re doing for workers and we will not. So this is a rule that has application across the entire States and that will be happening, and it is on the table right now, because other countries have recognised that this is actually keeping people poor.

Now, I want to talk to you about the other part of this bill, because there’s a ban on low-income workers and medium-income earners getting those restraints. It’s a simple thing which means that they know and employers know exactly what the story is. But I haven’t chosen to do that for workers on three times the minimum wage, so that’s workers on about $120,000. They can be restrained, but there are some rules around that.

The first is that everyone thinks about it in terms of what it costs. It costs not only the employer but it also costs the employee. So there must be reasonable consideration for that. Now, consideration’s a legal word, but it just means “price”, “value”. You have to attribute value to that, and that will actually sharpen the mind as to whether you need it. There will be a limit on that restraint. It’s actually six months—it’s a decent amount of time—and then you can go across.

Now, before I finish, I want to talk about one restraint which really shocked me. Because I have had a lot of individual employees in my office, and they had come in and they had often said to me—often the women—that they would not be actually challenging their restraint because they couldn’t afford to, that really worried me. Those were the seamstresses and the kindergarten teachers.

In fact, the research suggests that in those cases where they have banned these restraints—and one of them is Oregon, in a very similar form to this law—women’s wages went up double the amount of men’s. That is an interesting indication. If we’re serious about pay equity, that’s where we have to go. We have to fix the mechanisms. There is speculation about why that is. That’s the stats. My speculation is that a lot of women lack the confidence and they’re the second income earner, etc. They are not the people who take cases to court. So that’s the situation.

But the case I want to actually focus your minds on is not that; it was in a collective agreement and I was absolutely shocked to see it. It was the Starbucks agreement. Now, the Starbucks agreement bans its baristas—its workers on $20.50 an hour—from working other places for six months if they work in competition. Can you imagine what that is? I presume that’s a McDonald’s. I presume it’s a little cafe. They are not allowed to move, and it went into a collective agreement. That is absolutely shocking to me because I never thought I’d see it in that context.

I’ve seen it in the Amazon agreements for the workers in America. I’ve seen those contracts in America. But I did not know that it had come here, that practice. This law, as it is currently being interpreted in New Zealand, does affect baristas. We have had a case on that. It’s called Fuel Cafe and it affects the baristas.

This law is coming to our shores—that kind of practice is coming to our shores—thick and fast. You know who it benefits? It does not benefit medium and small businesses. It does not benefit New Zealanders. It benefits multinationals who cynically stop their workers going to the competition, stop them asking for a pay rise because they can’t go anywhere else. For me, that is shocking. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party does not support the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill of Helen White. It’s interesting that we’ve just heard a speech from the member talking about the United States and the experiences of the United States. One of the things that she might have looked at—one of the geniuses of the United States—is that there are all these different states, more than 50, all with different approaches. What people see is that there has been a massive drift of population and investment away from high-tax states to lower-tax states and lower-regulation states, particularly in the south of America. And that’s great. People can decide what kind of business environment they want to live in and what sort of tax environment they live in, and so they move. This is exactly the sort of legislation that would be encouraging a lot of people to move around, because, if there is an issue there—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Sorry, I’m just going—with apologies to the member—but, man, the noise is getting up a wee bit. Now, I know this is going to be a vibrant debate; I understand that. But can we keep the interjections rare and reasonable, and can I just ask members of the House that, when they are full of excitement and passion, if they wish to interject, can they do so from their seat.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you. So there is a kernel of an issue here that the member raises around excessive restraints of trade for very modestly paid workers. But that’s not what the bill is talking about. The bill includes everybody earning up to three times the minimum wage, which in New Zealand is $141,648, which happens to be about 95 percent of income earners in New Zealand. The bill will apply to virtually all New Zealand workers and so, effectively, ban restraint of trade agreements for virtually all New Zealand workers. And there is a reason why we have restraint of trade. It’s not unreasonable for a business which has developed its own secrets and skills, and trains up somebody in those skills, and trains up somebody to have all the connections in a particular industry—it’s perfectly reasonable for citizens to contract between those things, and this bill bans that for everybody earning up to three times the minimum wage, which is over $140,000 in New Zealand and most New Zealand workers. We think that is extremely excessive. Then it requires half-payments if you do manage to be over that—half of weekly earnings for the six months, if there was a restraint of trade, which would be a very serious impost as well.

The only point we’d make is that we’ve got two challenges in this country. One is that we’re, on the economic front, facing extreme war for talent with Australia. We’ve just had the Prime Minister from Australia over here, and he’s got their hands out, saying, “Come over here, all your skilled workers. Come here and we’ll take you all.” And we’re also struggling from a lack of growth. Now, if the solution to that is higher taxes for those who move, that’s going to be difficult. It’s not going to help growth. But if you continue to add costs and inflexibility into New Zealand businesses, such as this and such as the fair-pay agreements and all the other additional rigidities that this Government is imposing on our workforces and the relationships between employees and employers, that just makes it difficult for people to invest, it makes it difficult for people to grow, and it makes people think twice before they take on workers, give all the trade secrets and understandings of your business to them in order to train them up with the sure fire knowledge that they can just walk off to the competitor the next day and take all those learnings with them.

Yes, there is an issue that Helen White has identified, but this bill that’s before us in the House is a sledgehammer to break a nut, and it is just another example of legislation being pushed through to make our workplace environments less agile and less flexible. It’s coming at a time when businesses are struggling with cost of living pressures, with labour market shortages, a barrage of thefts and ram raids and all sorts of other troubles that they have to deal with, one thing after another confronting New Zealand businesses, and then lo and behold, along comes Helen White from wherever she comes from, in Auckland somewhere, with a brilliant idea to make their life even more difficult and even more difficult to maintain the things that they have developed in their business in a reasonable way.

My only suggestion to the member would be to go back to the drawing board and think about this more carefully, and when she has, we’d be very happy to consider a better bill. But, as far as this bill is concerned, I’m afraid we will not be supporting it. Thank you very much.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s a pleasure to take a call on the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill brought by my colleague Helen White. I remember Helen, prior to being elected into Parliament, talking about how one of the things she wanted to change was the unfair situations of restraint of trade, and then I was there on the day that it was drawn from the biscuit tin, and so I congratulate her on having this very good bill drawn and, hopefully, being able to become part of the law of New Zealand before this term of Parliament is up, or possibly next term, depending on how we get through the readings in the next sitting block.

I just wanted to focus a wee bit on some of the comments made by the members opposite about the situation of restraints of trade, and I think Helen gave a really good overview of how this bill works, so I won’t go over that ground again. Restraints of trade are currently prima facie illegal for all workers in New Zealand. That is the current, stated law. So to hear members opposite say, “Well, this will affect too many people.” is a little bit unusual considering that, at the moment, unless these restraints are proved to be reasonable, they are actually illegal for all workers. So I think the—

Toni Severin: What happens when you have an employment lawyer write your contract?

CAMILLA BELICH: When you have an employment lawyer write your contract, usually the employment lawyer will write a contract to benefit the employer and so it’s important that people get the advice that they need when signing contracts. But the member does raise a good point which is that most of the time in New Zealand—and I’ve worked in other jurisdictions as well but in my experience working here—people don’t scrutinise their employment contracts to the nth degree around restraints of trade. It’s usually something that comes up when they’re leaving a job. And that’s problematic because it’s only when they come to leave a job that they realise that, actually, they are restrained and these are sometimes enforceable restraints that can actually stop them from moving on to other work and becoming part of the productive economy, which I assume is what we would all want people to be—to be able to make a living—especially in the cost of living situation that we have at the moment.

But people don’t always read them and they don’t always know that there’s a restraint of trade clause in there and it does stop them from moving on, which is regretful. So I think it is an important restriction on the use of these, and I think it will make it clearer for people, the context in which restraints are appropriately used, and Helen did go through all of those areas and I don’t have as much time to go over all of them. Just in short, the restraints do not apply to the highest earners and there may be some argument for the very highest earners working in very competitive industries to have some kind of restraint, if reasonable, in some circumstances. So for those who are above the income threshold, they will be able to be restrained in some instances. It does apply a payment for that period of time which you can’t work, and I think most reasonable people would say that if you are not able to work, you should receive some compensation for it. It’s not their full wage; it’s only half of that wage. So that is another positive thing about this bill—the requirement for people to be paid for those small cases where there is a reasonable restraint.

So those are all really important steps that I think will help address some inequity that we currently have in the situation in New Zealand where we do have something which is meant to be illegal for everyone, but we know that sometimes, when it’s in your employment contract, you don’t have the benefit of an employment lawyer to be able to say to you, “Well, that’s not reasonable.”, then you may not be able to apply for the job that you want. You may, as my colleague has said, be in a situation where you can’t earn the types of income that you would otherwise be able to earn. It might unfairly prevent you from earning an income. It might unfairly prevent your career from progressing.

This bill goes a really long way to making sure that the situation for workers, when they do have a restraint of trade, is fairer, and I think it will not only improve the situation for working people but improve the clarity and the accessibility of the law for most people which, to this date, has been only outlined in case law, which is not very accessible to the majority of the population.

So I commend, again, the member Helen White for bringing this bill. Well done, Helen, and I think it will make a real difference to New Zealand workers. I commend it to the House.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise to speak to the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill. ACT will not be supporting this bill, which probably doesn’t surprise too many over the other side. The bill has four main parts. It provides that restraints of trade have no effect wherever an employee earns less than three times the minimum wage—that was mentioned earlier; it limits the use of restraints of trade to those situations where the employer has a proprietary interest to protect through the use of these provisions; it requires employers to pay employees who are subject to a restraint of trade provision an amount equal to half of the employee’s weekly earnings for each week that the restraint of trade remains in effect; and it limits the duration of restraints of trade to no more than six months. That’s basically what the bill says.

But restraints of trade, just like was mentioned earlier in the last bill, are there for a reason. Restraints of trade are there for a reason. Starting up and owning a business is really hard work. Building good will and clients is really important. They invest money—business owners invest money. They take the risks, often not paying themselves but making sure that their staff get what’s owed to them. Loyalty and the safeguarding of those things that make a successful business are not really unreasonable expectations. The bill doesn’t address scenarios where lower-paid employees have access to confidential information and an employer will be unable to protect their interests.

What happens now when a business needs a worker and a worker needs a job is they have a meeting, they work out what’s fair, agree to the terms of employment, and sign a contract. Then they shake hands and they start work. Once they start, the employee gets paid. They get holidays, they get rest breaks, they get sick leave, they get KiwiSaver, and they get numerous other rewards. The employee just needs to do what they voluntarily agreed to do. It’s a fair, mature system and it works. We let the two parties negotiate in good faith. We certainly don’t need any more legislation. This Government’s mistrust of business owners is really sad, and it’s through the bills over the last couple of years. It’s just really sad and the disrespect for employees is really patronising.

The feedback already that I’ve received from legal employment experts—and, dare I say it, even more expert than what we’ve got sitting opposite us—is that the bill is not necessary. Some of the comments I’ve received are: “The law change is a blunt instrument and unduly restrictive.” Here’s another one: “The law has the intent of protecting lower-income workers who are subjected to unfair restraint of trading laws. However, the sort of examples the law was aimed at protecting against were probably unenforceable in law anyway.” And the last one from an employment expert: “It isn’t clear what mischief the bill is attempting to address and resolve that is not able to be adequately dealt with by the courts. We consider that if passed as introduced, the bill would create more issues than it is attempting to resolve.” They’re experts.

This bill is a waste of time. It’s not needed and shows a real lack of knowledge yet again as to what makes businesses tick. It’ll pass this first reading, submitters will overwhelmingly oppose it, and the Government will ignore them. That’s just par for the course with this Government. ACT supports business and common sense and roll on 14 October. We oppose this bill.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to rise in support of the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill. Just to mention some of the comments that Mr Baillie made, he said that the bill is, if challenged in the courts, unenforceable, then he comes back and he says the new bill is unnecessary, it’s not going to doing anything—a bit controversial there.

The restraint of trade in an employment agreement is a provision that stops an employee from working in their field, in their area, for a competitor after their employment has ended. In some jurisdictions, this restraint of trade is known as a non-compete clause. Just for context, the competition is where an employee is prevented from working in a similar field to their former employer’s business. Non-solicitation is where a former employee is allowed to pick another job in the same industry but is restricted from contacting their former employer’s clients about their new businesses. This is unjust, it’s unfair, and it needs to go.

This is what this bill is all about: it seeks to amend the Employment Relations Act 2000 to include a restraint of trade provision that will prohibit the use of restraints of trade in employment agreements for lower to middle income employees. For me, this is the heart of this bill. This bill defines “restraint of trade” broadly to include both non-competition clauses and non-solicitation clauses.

The reality is restraints are usually made by people at the beginning of an employment relationship, before they have an idea what they’re signing up to, which could turn out to be a nightmare. They sign whatever is put in front of them, because they need to earn a living, they need a job—they’re desperate. This ends up disadvantaging them.

It’s hard to measure the true impact of this rule or this law in New Zealand due to the lack of data, but we know many employees on a modest income choose to stay in low-paid work in order to abide by the restraint. This in turn depresses the wages and thieves innovation.

To me, Labour is all about protecting workers’ rights, and Labour will always make sure that workers get a fair deal by strengthening employment laws. This bill is part of the broader strategy to stand up for workers, unlike the other side—it’s always about business. Actually, some of the things that you’re arguing conceptually disadvantages businesses—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Calm it down! Order!

IBRAHIM OMER: It is in in the public interest that lower-paid employees should be free to take a job whenever they want, however they see it, and without any restriction.

I want to commend Helen White for bringing this tonight. A lot of working people will be looking up and will be saying, “Thank you, Helen, for bringing this, for doing this.”, because this is going to mean a lot for a lot of employees—

Hon Member: Are you talking to the House?

IBRAHIM OMER: —and it’s going to change—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member is addressing the House through the Chair.

IBRAHIM OMER: Sorry, Madam Speaker. In a nutshell, this is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I’m pleased to take a call on the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill, and we want to commend the member Helen White for having this bill be read. It’s always interesting to see a majority Government taking this very important and substantive piece of legislation via a member’s bill, particularly when we were having a discussion about the purpose of a member’s bill and whether they should be narrow or broad. But I actually am a believer that there is scope to do substantive change in legislation and to our system via members’ bills, and restraints of trade is an area that is well overdue for us to address.

It’s been really interesting to hear members throughout the debate—particularly from the ACT Party—portraying their relationship between the employers and the workers as an even playing field when we know that it is not and that that is inherently, simply not the case. Restraints of trade are becoming more common in Aotearoa. Despite what people may have believed, which is that it’s the kind of thing that is left to CEOs, it’s increasingly more commonly used for lower-waged workers and for people in the gig industry, and many people in Aotearoa will be familiar with the case of Tova O’Brien, who actually went through a very—

Hon Member: Oh, poor old Tova—poor old Tova!

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK, but it helped illustrate the problematic element that restraints of trade actually can have for people and the impact that it has on their employment.

Do you know what? Independent from the National Party’s views—who seem to be bemoaning me mentioning her name—it is an example of the impact it can have on people, and in Aotearoa there are some cases. The member who is sponsoring this bill mentioned an example of a barista from Fuel Espresso who was under some pretty ridiculous restraint of trade conditions. He’d been required to work for an outlet more than 100 metres away from the one where he’d quit his employment.

But these kinds of things apply to hairdressers, to airline workers, and the impact that it has is that if you leave your employment, unless you go to another trade, you end up either having to then go into receiving income support, which we know actually for many is way below the poverty line—so it sets people up to actually fail in terms of them having a good safety net, or it forces them into another trade. So restraints of trade serve no one but controlling employers who seek to have more power over workers, and while there isn’t heaps of local academic research on the impacts of the restraints of trade applications here in Aotearoa, we have overseas examples in the US, where it is increasingly more used in the gig industry.

It was really interesting, again, to see the National Party talking about how this bill was going to lead to the brain drain to Australia, while not acknowledging that, actually, Australia has a more unionised workforce. It has higher taxes for high-income earners and a tax-free threshold—which, I mean, we support, and we’re actually kind of into that.

So I think that the idea of portraying this bill as risking people leaving to go to Australia is a dog whistle, and it shows the colours of the parties of the right, which is to side with employers and never take the side of the workers, who actually are the backbone of our economy. The employers are nothing without the workers who are there in their businesses, providing the labour for them, and it’s not even—

Hon Member: Oh, good on you, “Karl Marx”.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Actually, yeah, it is a socialist statement, but it is also simply a fact.

So we welcome this bill. We welcome the opportunity to have workers who have experienced restraints of trade submit at a select committee stage, and I actually foresee that we’re going to have some really interesting submissions from workers themselves. Unlike what the National Party alludes, we’re going to have a wave of employers talking against this. We’re probably going to shine a light on the state of restraint of trade practices in Aotearoa, and that will help inform this process to ensure that whatever comes out of it is fit for purpose to protect our workers—to protect the backbone of our economy. Kia ora.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great privilege to rise and take a call on the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment bill. Good day at the office, thank you, Helen White. It’s really great to be here in support of this bill. We’ve heard a lot of “Chicken Little-ing” tonight; it’s happened before. People are terrified about what this bill means and what it doesn’t mean. It’s obvious that not everybody has read the entire bill because they’re scared of things that are clearly not going to happen when you read the bill properly.

At the moment, because of restraint of trade, it isn’t, you know—the argument that we’ve got legitimate propriety interests, and you can see it, you know, trade secrets, all that sort of thing. Well, there is an opportunity and this bill protects confidentiality and fidelity. I think it is a real stretch to argue that someone who has been taught how to make a coffee—a good one or a bad one—should be punished and unable to shift jobs, the reason being because you’re trying to legitimately protect your proprietary interests. I think that is too much of a stretch.

The real impact is, as we’ve already heard, that it depresses wages and stifles innovation because people can’t negotiate for better pay and conditions, and they can’t move on. The interesting thing is this is about—we’ve had a bit of market failure with this and with the way things are operating at the moment. This is actually about restoring some balance to the market. This is about making it possible for someone to go, “I’ve got something to sell, I’m a fantastic barista, and I think that I should be getting paid more, or maybe have better working conditions, or work in an innovative business. I’d really like to go and work for that business,” because we have ambitious business owners in this country, who don’t need to compete on low wages. They want to be able to compete because they’re innovative and they’re successful, and they invest in value—their most precious resource which is their workers. The problem with those businesses is they can’t compete because they can’t attract those workers to a much better business, because of the restraint of trade of those workers being able to move on.

We talk about agility. Well, stopping somebody from going to a better workplace because you’ve got a fantastic potential employer, that’s not agility. That is dampening the opportunity for innovation and to improve productivity. Anyone who has run a business, or been involved in an enterprise, especially a small enterprise, knows that we have to be agile and creative and we have to make the most of our precious employees—not exploit them, but make the most of them.

I grew up in a hairdressing salon, and I have discussed this with my mother, who was a fabulous employer. She employed a lot of apprentices around New Plymouth over the years, and we discussed the restraint of trade, which is common practice for most hairdressers—the idea being that if you leave a salon that your clients may want to follow you. That’s an interesting challenge. But my mum said actually the time when her staff might have wanted to leave wasn’t because she was a poor employer, because she was a fabulous employer. She trained her staff really well and she looked after them. The problem was maybe there wasn’t a great fit between the culture of her salon—we know what salons are like, they’re incredibly vibrant and most salons are quite different from each other. She might have had a staff member who wanted to go and work in another salon, and she’d say, “Good luck to you.”

So, actually, what it does when you’ve got staff who can move freely with their skills, it ups the game of the employer, “How do I make sure that I keep these people I’ve invested in?” Restoring some power to a well-trained worker actually improves productivity. It makes sure that you are more likely to retain your workers, not lose them—weirdly enough. I know it seems counterintuitive. But if you can look after your workers because you fear losing them to someone who’s going to offer them a better job, actually, that’s going to help with your productivity.

It is a sensible bill. It isn’t outrageous. Employers will find that this is actually something that will help them lift their game. It’s going to help us look after our workers. It is because of this that I commend the bill to the House.

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

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s a huge honour and privilege to speak for the fourth time in this House today, especially in this Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge Helen White; often, in this House, we acknowledge people bringing in their lived experience of this House, and we are fortunate that Helen, an employment lawyer, has brought her experience to this House. And as she had said in her opening remarks, this is the “why”; this is why that she came into Parliament, just to sort out this unfairness. We also heard from Camilla Belich, who is also an employment lawyer, who also commends this bill to the House. The reason why I say that is because we are hearing from people who used to live this day in and day out, and when they say, “This is not fair”, I tend to believe them, as they’re experts in that area.

So we understand and we remember that Helen White had brought this to the House in 2022. What I take from it is that we’ve heard today what a restraint is that an employer—it’s in the name of the bill, “restraint of trade”. We’ve heard from people on both sides of the House; all throughout the House, talking about the restraint of trade in an employment agreement. And we’ve heard from Helen White herself that when people sign these contracts, sometimes they don’t get to that fine print. We’ve all experienced when we’re too excited about receiving something, that we just sign the contract and we forget to read the fine print.

Helen White said that this bill prohibits the use of restraints of trade and employment agreement for lower and middle income employees. So what this bill does is that it provides that the restraints of trade that have no effect wherever an employee earns less than three times the minimum wage. I’d just like to remind the House that we increased the minimum wage and we’re now at $22.70. So if you earn less than $68.10, this bill will apply to you. So it’s talking about protecting low and middle income earners. We’ve heard from the Green member who used the example of Tova O’Brien—who probably earns more than $68.10 an hour. We heard that it does work. However, this bill focuses on lower and middle income earners earning less than $68.10 an hour.

What the bill also does is it limits the duration of restraints of trade to no more than six months—no more than six months. I think that’s really fair, because at the moment the current Employment Relations Act is silent on that; there is no income threshold on the current law. So that’s what this will change. It also requires the employers to pay the employees who are subject to the restraint of the trade provision an amount equal to half of the employee’s weekly earnings during the duration of restraint—I think that’s fair. It is fair to provide an opportunity, to provide an income for someone who has chosen to go and work for another employer. We want everyone to have an opportunity to upskill, and if there’s no opportunity for growth, we’re giving opportunity for lower and middle income earners to look elsewhere, and whilst they’re in that restraint period, it’s only fair that the employer contributes to that period of restraint. So that’s where it says that it requires employers to pay employees who are subject to a restraint of trade provision, an amount equal to half the employee’s weekly earnings.

This continues the Government’s work on a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. We have increased the minimum wage since we came into Government in 2017. Currently, the minimum wage is $22.70, and the living wage is currently $23.65 per hour: we are working away there. We are the party for the workers. We’ve got the experts on this side telling us that this is fair. Through their experience, I agree with them, and I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I firstly want to acknowledge the member Helen White from Mt Albert for her bill on the Table this evening. Helen and I are class members of 2020—I have a high degree of respect for her, a new member, and it is a shame, obviously, with a member that’s going to be in this House for many years, no doubt, with a seat like Mt Albert, that we’ve got a bill such as the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill in her name, which, obviously, we will not be supporting.

Isn’t it interesting: did anyone hear the quote before that the reason we have Silicon Valley in the United States of America is because they don’t have restraint of trade clauses in their contracts? Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous than a comment like that? A little history lesson: Silicon Valley started in 1955. The three reasons why we have Silicon Valley are not because they don’t have restraint of trade agreements in their contract; it has a little bit to do with Government research and development in defence, a little bit to do with venture capital—and I know that scares a number of members on the other side of the House. Venture capital—don’t worry; it’s OK—and another aspect as well, which was that they had a number of universities. I didn’t see, in my in-depth research this evening, that restraint of trade was the reason for Silicon Valley, but that is one of the things that the member stated in her opening address this evening. But for those at home going, “Crikey, if this is our pathway to economic success and growth in this country, all we need to do to grow our economy is through restraint of trade clauses.”, I’m sorry, we’re going to let you down this evening. It isn’t the pathway to prosperity. The only pathway, Madam Speaker, as you know, is two ticks blue on 14 October. That’s right—that is right.

So let’s talk about restraint of trade clauses, right? Because they’re not all bad. The other side of the House have been painting this picture of, like, they are the most evil cause that you could ever have in a contract. Well, guess what! In order to have a legal contract, an employee and an employer need to agree to have that clause in the contract. It’s called personal responsibility. I know on that side of the House, they hate that word. They hate the concept of personal responsibility. But at the end of the day, the fact is, if those two individuals agree, shake hands, and sign an employment contract, they can have one of these clauses, OK? So it’s not illegal. If they agree, it’s OK.

They are there to prevent an employee from setting up a similar business that may affect their employer. Is that genuinely unreasonable? You get a job. OK—we heard about Starbucks a lot this evening. Starbucks, you know, a good global corporate, doing a lot of work and all that. But if they employ someone and they teach them how to make coffee—and that’s an art, I agree with that—isn’t it reasonable that they don’t just quit after they’ve learnt how to make coffee and set up a coffee shop right next door? I mean, you know, they’ve sort of invested in that individual in that, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable. But tell you what: how many times has Starbucks actually taken employment action against a barista for making coffee and leaving early? Never. Never in this country, I think.

So this whole fallacy—“Oh, we can’t back it up with any data. There’s no data. It sort of feels like this might be a good idea.”, and the Greens going, “Well, it feels like it’s a good idea.”—that doesn’t cut it, does it? We’re not in the business of doing legislation in this House because it feels like a good idea, are we? No, we’re not. But that is what we’ve got in this country—a Government that puts bills in front of this House because it feels like the right thing to do. Well, I tell you what: I feel like I’ve had enough of this Government. I feel like, for this Government, it is time to go. I’m sick of this Government, and I’m not the only one. I think the majority of Kiwis are sick of this Government as well.

So if you haven’t guessed where we stand on this bill, I’ll tell you what: we are opposing this bill. Helen, no disrespect. Helen White: great member for Mt Albert, but this bill is not going to cut it this evening. We will be opposing this bill. We wish it all the very best for its passage through to the future, but I can tell you what: under a National-led Government this isn’t going to last 10 seconds. It’s all over. It’s all done. No more on this bill. We’re finished this evening. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a business owner, I find it intriguing that there is an Opposition who thinks it is reasonable to not be able to attract good, experienced people to your business because a competing business has a restraint of trade on workers who are earning less than $120,000—where we have workers who are earning the minimum wage, all the way through—and are unable to be attracted to a job because another business won’t let them go. To me, that is unreasonable. I find it insulting that the Opposition members think it’s laughable.

So the reason that I think we will see this bill proceed with such strength is that when we come to listening to submissions through this bill process, we are going to hear some absolutely fascinating stories about where businesses have constrained people from working; where a business can employ someone for three months, let them go, and they can’t go and do that same job for somebody else for six months. What is reasonable and fair about that?

So the Opposition talk about business, but they don’t talk about growing business. They don’t talk about how people learn and develop and upskill and go from job to job and keep growing. They don’t talk about how businesses need to be able to attract staff. If you are a good employer, you can retain staff. But you are also a good employer when you let staff go to jobs that they might want to go to—you should not hold them forever. Actually, people advance through their careers when they are able to get new jobs. Sometimes those people actually come back after they’ve gained skills somewhere else. It’s those sort of things that we can do to actually improve career development; where we can do more for helping and supporting competition, which is great for business.

But when I listened to the member who brought this bill, Helen White, and when I talked to her about it today, I learnt so much more from her experience in dealing with clients who are in these situations. To think that a qualified early childhood education teacher is working for one company and she cannot—or he cannot—then go on to work for another company for six months. What’s good about that? It’s not about growing the business that’s trying to hold the person back. It’s about growing the person in a thriving way for a career that will, in turn, educate and grow the growing young minds of our nation.

There is nothing wrong with competition. There is everything right in being able to support people to grow and develop in their career pathways. That reason is why I, as a business owner, will take absolute interest in this bill and, also, hearing from other businesses and other employees who have experienced this. I’m sure we will hear from those businesses that want to be able to protect confidentiality. Absolutely, this bill still will protect confidentiality. But what it will do is enable people on lower wages to advance and not be inhibited from an employer they leave. With that, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): It’s been a real pleasure to listen to the contributions made by colleagues from all sides of this House, but I would like to start by addressing the challenge to my assertion that this was something that was actually in the interests of business and of productivity. This is a subject I care about, so I appreciate that not everybody has gone away and done the research, but I want to draw your attention to an article that talks about the situation in California. This is an article that comes from, I think, the Financial Times. It says: “In the early days of the computer industry, Silicon Valley was rivalled by the Route 128 corridor”—this is the road through the Boston suburbs, in Massachusetts—“as a hub of innovation.” But California won out decisively here, and many people think the lack of non-compete agreements in the “Golden State” is part of the reason. To see why, think about why Mark Zuckerberg moved Facebook to the Bay Area when he decided to get serious about it. He and his investors believed in the Facebook promise. They thought it was possible that it would become a huge, super-successful company. For that to happen, you need the ability to literally grow the enterprise at rapid clip, hiring lots of technology workers, hiring lawyers who are familiar with the tech legal issues, hiring HR people who are used to dealing with computer people. That is actually the way Silicon Valley grew, and California has one of the most liberal restraints. It takes away most of the ways that you can cut a non-competition clause. And business thrives as a result.

So I ask you, and I ask all the people who look at this, to consider this and to actually think about it really seriously, because we have a problem in New Zealand. We have a problem where our wages are too low and our productivity is sluggish. The way that we are going to move that is not by doing what we’ve been doing before; it’s about staying ahead. That’s why America is bringing in a ban across the entire United States which does, effectively, what I’m proposing here. So do you want to be after it, or do you want to be before it? And now tell me: which is the party that is actually looking after small and medium businesses? Which is the party that’s thinking into the future? Because we must—must—adapt. And I would like those who are interested in this area to make submissions. It’s going to be really important we hear your stories. I’ve heard them, because, when I announced that I was bringing in this bill, I heard from New Zealanders, and I was quite shocked by some of the stories I heard. It brought up related issues. It brought up things that I had not heard of. I had not seen the Starbucks agreement. This is an area where we need to hear from New Zealanders; we need to know your stories and make sure that the version of this bill that comes in after the select committee process is one that meets your needs—the needs of ordinary New Zealanders—but also meets the needs of business.

I appreciate there will be some fear around things like protection of client lists, but remember that this bill also protects confidential information. It also has reinforced the duty of fidelity. This is an attempt by me to write a law which will actually be right for New Zealanders and progress both wages and productivity. It will foster small businesses. It will foster medium businesses. What it won’t do is allow the monopoly of workers and the restriction of their capacity to move in their careers by large multinationals. That’s the truth of it, and that’s a very, very important truth.

So while I acknowledge Tova O’Brien for actually bringing an issue like this forward in her own case, even Tova knows that this law is not particularly about people as articulate and confident as Tova O’Brien; this is about people who are not. This is about the women of New Zealand who actually have been disadvantaged as a result of us neglecting this aspect of the law. This is about our baristas. This is about our mechanics. This is about New Zealand workers. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 73

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill

First Reading

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

It’s always a thrill to have a member’s bill pulled out of the ballot. And tonight it is a special occasion because earlier on this evening we celebrated downstairs the successful nomination of Dr John Barker, who has been appointed Director-General of the International Organisation of Vine and Wine, which is called the OIV but is often referred to as the UN of wine. It is a very important international body. It has 50 member States and it really handles all the regulations and international rules around the grape-growing and wine industry. I acknowledge in the Speaker’s gallery members of New Zealand Winegrowers, who were here earlier this evening. So it’s quite appropriate that we have this cellar door bill up in front of the House today. We’ve got this anomaly in the law that I’ll go into shortly that is really quite anomalous. It’s quite a lot of silly bureaucracy that just needs to be fixed, so that’s what this bill endeavours to do.

The wine industry is the sixth-largest export good by value, and, actually, what’s not covered in that is that the main markets for wine are actually OECD countries, so higher-income countries where higher values can be obtained for goods exported there. And the halo effect of our wine exports into those markets is, I think, often undervalued. Those customers that buy our wine are discerning consumers and they, from buying our wine, get an impression of a country that can produce high-end, high-quality products, and that goes much wider than the wine industry.

But it’s also very important, the wine industry, as a tourism offering. It’s the second-largest export industry effectively—the tourism industry. And that brings in a lot of valuable foreign exchange for New Zealand, and all of our wineries cellar doors are benefiting from that. High-end tourists go around the country to cellar doors. They incorporate that as part of their tourism experience in New Zealand.

I asked the library to research for me where cellar doors were in New Zealand and in which electorates, because I thought it would be quite a good idea to lobby the members of Parliament. Many of you have been lobbied and some of you have done a great job of lobbying on my behalf, and I really thank you for that. I was surprised by how many electorates have them. Who knew there was one in Taranaki - King Country? They all provide—

Hon Member: Barbara Kuriger knows.

STUART SMITH: Yeah, Barbara—yes, Barbara knew. [Interruption] Yes, I know; I’m coming to Tukituki. This is great. I’m having quite a bit of input from the other side. I really appreciate that. So it actually touches almost every electorate, and I have visited cellar doors from Northland and all the way to Otago and, as you can see, I have not suffered from it. So I highly recommend it.

But on to serious business. There are two gaps in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 that have really caused quite a lot of issues for the wine industry and this bill seeks to deal with those. Cellar doors cannot charge visitors for the wine samples that they taste. They are not able to do that. It’s a premium product and a premium experience, but that devalues it. Of course, cellar door profitability is impacted by that and it often leaves the customer in an awkward position, feeling like they’re obliged to buy some wine. I’ve been in that position. I know how they feel and it’s awkward for the winery as well.

This bill allows winery cellar doors to charge for the samples of their own wine they serve to their visitors. Reflecting current industry practice, a sample will be defined, which is not currently defined under the Act, and it is limited to a maximum of 40 millilitres. Currently—we have tested this—most of the samples are about 30 millilitres, but if you make it 30, then people are likely to be occasionally over the limit. So if we make it 40 millilitres, that is approximately 18 samples per 750 millilitre bottle. So it’s not a lot of wine.

Second, the limited categories of off-licence available to a winery under the Act mean that all the winery cellar door licences are granted under section 32(1)(b), which is available to retail businesses where at least 85 percent of their revenue comes from off-sales. So this means, in effect, that if a winery is both a cellar door and a cafe or restaurant, their revenue from the restaurant will normally mean that there’s much less than 85 percent of the winery’s total sales coming from off-sales. So to fit within that, they’re typically forced to create a separate legal entity as a cellar door and then apply for an off-licence. This forces wineries into creating a new business, adding cost and complexity, and does nothing, actually, to advance the objects of the Act—and I’ll come back to that shortly.

This bill corrects this anomaly by adding a category of off-licence available to wineries holding an on-licence, such as a winery or a cafe. Definitions of “winery” and “winery cellar door”, which reflect the current use of those terms, are in the bill.

So the object of the Act is that the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly, and that the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised. This bill will further that object, in my view.

Regulations under the Act already recognise that winery cellar doors are the lowest risk category. So that’s already been covered in the Act—it’s viewed as a very low-risk entity, and I think anyone who’s ever been to a cellar door will know that.

For any members who feel a little bit of a reluctance to support this bill, I urge you to vote for it and send it to the Justice Committee. I’m sure we will get lots of submissions from wineries and from people involved in the licensing of such entities. I think it’s a really good opportunity to air those views in the select committee.

I know I’m biased—I came from the wine industry. I remember, some years ago, before I came into Parliament, when I was on the board of New Zealand Winegrowers, we thought about if could we get to $2 billion worth of exports, and we would make that as a target. Well, it is $2.41 billion currently. Part of the success of the wine industry actually comes from the cellar door experience of people coming to New Zealand to visit it. We see tourists from all over the world, in a campervan, going around and visiting cellar doors all over the country. And that is so good for our regional employment. It’s good for the cellar doors, obviously, but it’s also good for the other businesses that benefit from it.

After Cyclone Gabrielle—so, Anna, I did say I’d get to this—in Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne, really, they’re struggling as it is. They’ve had a terrible experience with that cyclone. Let’s make it easier for those wineries to make some more money and sell some of their wine and get them back on their feet. So I commend this bill to the House.

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

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it is a great pleasure to rise and take a call on this member’s bill. Congratulations, Mr Smith, on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill.

It’s not unusual for us to bond across the House over such wonderful things like Marlborough and Taranaki and, of course, wine. At this time you reflect; it’s often a conversation around primary industries. We all start to reflect on our shared connection and our shared heritage, and the connections that we have with the wine industry is just one of those. I spent most of my summers in Marlborough, and I can remember having friends and going from watching the sheep in the Wairau Valley to clipping the garlic, through the summers, and then on that same piece of land owned by Peter Jackson, I can remember my first year at university learning how to tie up those first lot of vines which now are part of a multibillion-dollar business.

I can remember friends at university, at Lincoln, who came off the hills—they were pretty good at looking after sheep—and then going on and doing their postgrad in viticulture because they knew that was the future, and then becoming international winemakers. So my peers, I’ve watched them and how primary production has changed in that valley, and how it’s not just changed the landscape but the way we live our lives down there.

We’ve all been to weddings at wineries and many of us have worked in them and we know, looking after our visitors, and it’s a wonderful experience. So it is part of our culture, not just a part of the narrow word of “the economy”. So it is really great that the care has been taken to fix up this frustration.

As we’ve already heard from our member over the way, this is complicated and messy, and it’s been really frustrating. We’ve heard a lot of the details about the difference between an off-licence and an on-licence, and if you have an off-licence you can’t charge, and if you have an on-licence you need to get the off-licence so that you can’t charge, and it all seems a bit muddly. I guess that bringing this legislation up to speed and modernising it is a wonderful thing to be doing.

We’ve got over 600 small wineries, and over the years we’ve seen some really innovative entrepreneurs who, like my brother, have literally put those posts in and planted grapes, right through to big growers and winemakers and multinational companies. We have 600 small growers and this will be really impactful for them. We heard about how things during COVID were really difficult when they couldn’t have cellar door sales. But what it did, I guess, COVID, with so many things, is it reminded us of what was important and it wasn’t just selling stuff but that experience. I think we’ve already heard about the high-value experience and the wine that we grow and sell right around this country and that cellar door experience being one that we want to make sure that we can continue, especially with our small winemakers.

We heard them saying, “We might have six visitors in a week and we might open 12 bottles of wine and they last three days and, jeepers, that’s quite an investment when you might not end up selling anything.”

Nicola Grigg: Twelve bottles of wine in three days—crikey!

ANGELA ROBERTS: And for a small cellar door, you might not drink at all—do the math. OK.

Nicola Grigg: I’m not judging.

ANGELA ROBERTS: OK, you’re not judging. Oh, that’s good to hear. It’s really interesting hearing how important the wine industry has become to our international trade; you know, sixth largest export. The UK’s our second largest export market for wine, and it was really exciting this year when we signed the free-trade agreement with the UK and finally got those tariffs taken off, and we’ve started to fix some of the bureaucracy and some of those barriers that have come in over the years around labelling and all those sorts of things. So this industry is huge and it’s only going to get bigger because of the fabulous commitment that this Government has made to realising the dreams about opening up international markets and supporting all of our wineries in that way.

This is a sensible piece of legislation. It’s wonderful to see the care and the detail that has been put in. The difference between 30 millilitres and 40 millilitres—really interesting stuff. And the great thing about this is that it is really going to be supporting innovation. Our small winemakers operate differently in our community down in Marlborough. They employ people in a different way. They consider how they invest in their land and how they treat their land quite differently. They are our innovators. It’s really exciting when you go to one of those small wineries, whether it’s in Taranaki or on the East Coast or down in Marlborough or Central Otago. It is those small players that we really want to make sure that we pay attention to and that we support.

It just doesn’t make sense when you start sort of unravelling it and going, “Oh, well, you know. Just open a cafe.” Well, people who make wine want to make wine. And they want to have conversations with people at the cellar door about the wine that they make. Some of us have had the privilege of going to cellar doors in other parts of the world—literally a cellar door in a cave in France—and there’s no problem. Sometimes you’ll get your 40 millilitres for free, but it’s not unusual to be asked to make a small contribution. And I can remember being in Europe and actually feeling that I could go to the cellar door and spend a few francs on a little bit of wine and not feel really stink about it, rather than going along and having a few nips here and there of wine and then being expected to buy a nice expensive £40 bottle of wine. So actually we never went and enjoyed the experience. And while I never would have been somebody to go and buy the expensive French wine at the cellar door at the time, I’m much more likely to come back to New Zealand and buy my French wine or have a slightly more sophisticated pallet because I’ve been able to get access to the culture of wine. Now, how is that for a really good reason for having a glass of wine?

There will be concerns, of course, raised about anything that comes to this House that is dealing with the sale or the control of alcohol. So we should consider this bill really carefully. I’m a little disappointed that I’m not on the Justice Committee. Maybe the Primary Production Committee should have a good crack at it, but I understand the reasons why it is there. So the other thing that we need to make sure of is that it will go to the committee and it will be dealt with really thoughtfully, as it should, because this is a conscience vote. It is a matter for us to consider very, very seriously. And that is why people will have the opportunity to argue against the bill. It is important that we can do that. And we’re really, really looking forward to seeing this come back to the House. It will be great to be able to read the submissions from all of those who will be impacted positively. And it is nice to have an excuse to focus on and celebrate one of our favourite—oh, are we allowed to have favourites?—primary industries, and then to welcome the bill back to the House. So I wish the Justice Committee all the luck in the world. I’m sure they don’t get such lovely bills coming through all of the time. And then we will expect to see a fabulous bill come back to the House.

So this is for all of the people in the industry, whether they are working at the cellar door, whether they’re making sure those grapes are well and truly mushed up into a beautiful, beautiful glass of wine—those who have really been in there from the beginning. Marlborough is relatively young compared to some parts of the country, but it is a wonderful part of our global brand and it’s got a long way to go and it’s nice to see someone paying attention to the little things that will really, really make a difference. I look forward to hearing a good conversation about definitions of wineries and cellar doors. Maybe they should all be in caves, I’m not really sure. So it is because of this that I recommend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.