Wednesday, 30 August 2023

WEDNESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2023

WEDNESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Bharat Guha requesting that the House consider removing Invercargill’s Southern Institute of Technology from the tertiary reforms

petition of Fired Up Stilettos requesting that the House establish the right of adult entertainment workers to bargain collectively while maintaining independent contractor status; outlaw all fines and bonds between employers and contractors; and establish a nationwide mandatory maximum that an employer can take from a contractor’s profits

petition of VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai requesting that the House urge the Government to honour the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child commitments to prioritise human rights of children in State care.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Leading New Zealand’s approach to housing and urban development. That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the briefing on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Customs

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Jared Rigg

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the report of the Ombudsman on Official Information Act compliance in the Ministry of Social Development

report of the Standing Orders Committee Review of Standing Orders 2023.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The Standing Orders Committee report, the Attorney-General’s report, the Ombudsman’s report, and the briefing are 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: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Absolutely, and I particularly stand by our actions to extend 20 hours of free early childhood education to two-year-olds, saving those families as much as $133 each week; make public transport free for kids and half price for more than a million young New Zealanders and low-income New Zealanders; remove prescription costs for all New Zealanders; invest in climate mitigation through the Climate Emergency Response Fund; pass fair pay agreements to grow wages and improve productivity; and tackle housing speculation so that first-home buyers get a fair shot by banning foreign buyers in the market, increasing the brightline test, and removing interest deductibility. I note that all of those things—all of that progress—would be reversed under a National Government as they make deep cuts to our public services. I do also note that without the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) and without the clean car discount, the Opposition would need to find around an extra 8 million tonnes of emissions reductions by 2030 just to stay on our current course, let alone make any progress in tackling the climate emergency. It would appear that the first casualty of National’s alternative reality is the climate. They seem to have completely given up—completely given up on tackling climate change.

David Seymour: Point of order. Entertaining as it is to watch a man dig, the Standing Orders are very clear that answers should contain no more argumentations or information than is necessary to address the question. Now it seems the Prime Minister is giving longer and longer answers that are more designed for politics than actually enlightening the House about “Does he stand by statements and actions or not?”.

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s actually correct. The Prime Minister’s not responsible for all of the comments about the National Party policy, and he should not be making those comments. Also—and I agree with David Seymour. However, I have noted, also, the increase in a lot of behaviour, including supplementaries that are so far out of order even I feel like I should jump up and rule them out of order. Which is—when one reflects on the previous Speaker, that would have happened a lot sooner. So this is what I’m going to suggest that we do: what’s good for one side is going to be good for the other side. If members don’t like that, you tell me and I’ll intervene, and I’ll intervene on both sides. So your choice.

Christopher Luxon: Why hasn’t his Government adjusted income tax brackets for six years, despite inflation of over 22 percent, pushing more and more working Kiwis in the squeezed middle into higher tax brackets?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The main thing that’s pushed people into higher tax brackets is that they are earning more under this Government. I note the National Party seem to hate the idea that people’s wages have been growing as fast as they have been under this Government, so they are promising, for example, a minimum wage earner 25c an hour in a tax cut, despite the fact that the minimum wage has gone up nearly $7 an hour under this Government—every one of those increases opposed by the National Party.

Christopher Luxon: Why did his Government choose to increase spending by 80 percent instead of choosing to let Kiwis in the squeezed middle keep more of what they earn, with meaningful tax relief?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve chosen to invest in our people, including through our public services. We have made the decision to pay our doctors more, to pay our nurses more, to pay our teachers more, to pay our police more, to make sure we’re investing in the public services that New Zealanders rely on, and to tackle some of the long-lasting legacy of the under-investment that we inherited when we became the Government, including recruiting more people into essential jobs, like doctors, like nurses, like teachers. I know the National Party solution to that now appears to be to slap a talent tax on those very people we’re desperate to recruit.

Christopher Luxon: Does he think it’s fair that someone on the minimum wage who chooses to work a few extra hours a week is now paying tax at 30c on the dollar?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What I think is fair is that this Government has made sure that the minimum wage has been keeping up with increasing costs: nearly $7 an hour increase in the minimum wage under our Government versus a paltry 25c an hour being promised by the National Opposition. I note the minimum wage barely moved under the last National Government, relative to the costs that minimum-wage earners were facing. Under our Government, minimum-wage earners are getting ahead.

Christopher Luxon: Does he believe the squeezed middle deserve income tax relief from the cost of living crisis or would he rather go on spending more of their money while, incredibly, delivering even worse outcomes?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What I think New Zealanders deserve, and I think all middle-income New Zealanders deserve, is to understand the consequences of the policies that are being put before them at this election. The smoke and mirrors exercise we’ve seen, where the National Party proposes to give a certain amount with one hand and takes a larger amount with another hand, thus leaving families worse off, isn’t going to actually support the squeezed middle.

Christopher Luxon: If it’s so easy for Grant Robertson to find $4 billion of wasteful spending 46 days out from an election, why on earth couldn’t he find any savings over the last six years, to offer hard-working Kiwis in the squeezed middle a single dollar of tax relief?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member’s question itself is an absolute fiction. The entire time we’ve been in Government, we’ve been looking for savings. Every Budget that we have produced has contained savings within it. We have been constantly focused on making sure New Zealanders are getting value for money from the taxes they pay, and that does mean investing to make up for the neglect of our public services that we saw before we became the Government.

Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that if he’d made any attempt to rein in wasteful spending over the last six years, he could have given hard-working Kiwis meaningful tax relief?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that the member repeatedly says that increased wages for doctors, teachers, nurses, and police is wasted spending. I’m looking forward to having that debate with him on the campaign trail.

Christopher Luxon: How can he have any confidence in his flailing finance Minister and his Government’s economic policies when National has just delivered a fully funded tax plan that delivers meaningful tax relief to the squeezed middle without increasing inflation, without borrowing more, and without cutting a single dollar for health and education?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I welcome the member’s invitation to provide further comment on the National Party’s fiction of a plan that they released this morning—for example, their multiplication by four of all of the numbers that are put out in their plan this morning; the incorporation of the good ideas of this side of the House when it comes to increasing Working For Families, which they now seem to be telling New Zealanders they would only get if there was a change of Government, when in fact this side of the House has already committed to those changes. But I do note in their somewhat heroic assumptions around their revenue that they seem to be wanting to massively increase the number of foreign buyers of housing and they want to significantly, by a significant magnitude, increase the amount of overseas-based gambling in New Zealand. I don’t think that that’s a particularly good way of aiming to fund tax cuts.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The credit rating agency Fitch yesterday affirmed New Zealand’s long-term foreign and local currency ratings at AA+, with a stable outlook. It follows Moody’s annual credit analysis affirming a stable outlook on New Zealand’s local currency and foreign currency ratings at Aaa. Fitch noted that New Zealand’s ratings are underpinned by the country’s advanced, wealthy economy, and robust governance standards and policy framework. We are, as a country, well placed to support New Zealanders and to make the long-term investments we need to build a sustainable and resilient economy.

Hon Phil Twyford: What did the report say about the Government’s response to a challenging economic outlook?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has continued to take action to consolidate spending, which Fitch said was expected to drive a sustained decline in the deficit. Our ongoing savings and efficiency programme has found almost $4 billion in savings over the forecast period, to help ease inflation pressures and meet our fiscal rules of returning to surplus over the forecast period and keeping debt levels under the 30 percent limit of GDP. Fitch noted that the Government’s strong track record of prudent financial management and our strong policy institutions and sound macroeconomic framework enhanced New Zealand’s resilience to economic and financial shocks.

Hon Phil Twyford: Why is it important to have the endorsement of the credit rating agencies?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These ratings are important for ensuring our cost of borrowing remains as low as possible. It also gives people more confidence that New Zealand is a good place to invest. In an uncertain global environment, Fitch’s report is a sign of confidence in our recovery and the Government’s commitment to meet our balanced and responsible fiscal goals, make our economy stronger and more resilient, and support New Zealanders with targeted cost of living relief that does not add to inflation.

Hon Phil Twyford: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as I’ve said previously, this is a difficult time for many New Zealanders. However, the labour market continues to show its resilience, with employment rising for the seventh month in a row. Stats New Zealand reported on Monday that filled jobs rose by 6,123, or 0.3 percent, in July, compared to a month earlier, taking the total number of jobs to 2.38 million. We know New Zealanders are doing it tough in the face of cost of living pressures and a deteriorating global environment, but we are well positioned to face these challenges ahead, with Kiwis in work in record numbers, wages rising, inflation heading in the right direction, and Government debt among the lowest levels in the world.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements related to Government tax and spending decisions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken. I particularly stand by the balanced and responsible approach that we have taken to supporting New Zealanders in dealing with the cost of living while investing in strong public services and taking a responsible stance, as affirmed last night by Fitch Ratings agency. I also stand by the way we have provided credible costings to show how we will pay for what we do, unlike others who have taken a tax and burn approach funded by foreign speculators.

Nicola Willis: Why, after six long years, has he failed to adjust tax brackets even once, even as Government spending has ballooned by 80 percent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: All New Zealanders know that when it comes to putting a budget together, you have to find a balance. In our case, we have had to face a pandemic where we have supported households and businesses to be able to come through that in better shape than most other countries in the world. We’ve lifted the wages of doctors, of nurses, of teachers. We’ve employed more doctors, nurses, teachers, and police in our system. These are the things that Governments do. We have to balance that with all of the other considerations and make sure that we keep a strong fiscal position for the future. This is a balanced approach that the Government has taken. It is properly costed. It does not rely on fantasyland economics, such as the member does.

Nicola Willis: Why can he always find funding for his pet projects but he repeatedly denies meaningful tax relief for the squeezed middle of New Zealand, slogging their guts out, being crushed by his cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because on this side of the House, we make sure that what we put in front of New Zealand is properly costed, adds up, and that we can pay for it. We’re not relying on our promises for an increasing number of foreign speculators to buy a dwindling number of houses in our housing market—that’s the kind of voodoo economics the member is currently presenting to New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: Hasn’t he lost all credibility when his books are in such a mess that he’s been left scrambling for savings that, just two weeks ago, he said would amount to cuts; and isn’t the reality here that this finance Minister has lost control and it’s time for new economic management?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We could take that lyrical expression from the member or we could take the view of an independent ratings agency who last night said that the New Zealand economy was in good health, had robust governance standards, and a robust policy framework, and who supported the Government’s strong track record of prudent financial management. So we could listen to “Trickola Willis” or we could listen to Fitch.

Nicola Willis: Why should Kiwis have confidence in a name-calling Minister of Finance when his big plan, his audacious idea for beating the cost of living crisis, is a few cents off some carrots?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government, over the course of the last couple of years, has stood by New Zealanders as they have faced increased cost of living pressures. We’ve lifted the family tax credit. We’ve lifted benefits. We’ve lifted the childcare assistance rates. We’ve lifted the minimum wage. We’ve helped people stay in their jobs. That’s the kind of real action that actually supports New Zealanders during a cost of living crisis. And every single one of those initiatives—opposed by the National Party.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that the assumptions as to revenue from a stamp duty to foreign buyers are braver than Charles Upham—and he had two VCs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The assumptions are heroic in the extreme, because what they rely upon is that there will be thousands of foreign buyers every single year, adding on to the previous year, trying to buy a dwindling number of homes. It simply doesn’t add up.

Nicola Willis: Who is more heroic: the finance Minister, who even though he completely disagrees with it, is blithely selling the GST reduction plan, or is, in fact, the former Minister of Revenue more heroic because he resigned out of principle, knowing the tax plans don’t work?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Both David Parker and myself are proud to be part of a team where we have delivered to New Zealanders sustained economic growth, high employment, low unemployment, and low debt compared to the rest of the world. I think it’s somewhat ironic for the member to try to dish out lessons on team work, as she behaves as the co-leader of the National Party.

Nicola Willis: Why should New Zealanders believe he stands for anything when he is defending a GST policy he does not believe in, he’s scraping together last-minute savings that he doesn’t believe in, and he’s campaigning for a Prime Minister who killed the one thing he did believe in, the wealth tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The “Johnsonville Amateur Dramatic Society” are really missing out on the member’s work today. I’ll tell you what I’m proud of, over here. I’m proud of being part of a Government that got New Zealanders through COVID, that supported businesses and households, that’s lifted 77,000 kids out of poverty, that’s got 60,000 more apprentices, that signed free-trade agreements with the UK and the EU, and has got on with the job of governing during a really difficult time. I stand proudly on the record of this Government on the economy, and I look forward to the member and I debating that across the country.

Question No. 4—Education

4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What progress has the Government made to support teaching supply in primary and secondary schools?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Teachers are vital to a successful education system. As a result of the Government’s $24 million teaching supply package announced last year, we have exceeded our target of 1,000 additional teachers. This Government has invested in teacher supply, and we’re delighted to have secured 301 domestic teachers in training already for the classroom and more than 1,055 experienced overseas teachers who have arrived in the country to begin teaching. Since Labour came into office in 2017, 3,500 additional teachers are now in the teaching profession.

Angela Roberts: How else has the Government supported the teaching workforce?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This Government backs our teachers. Whether it is through pay, conditions, or working with them to develop quality curriculum resources, we know how vital it is that teachers are valued. That is why I’m proud to be part of a Government that has delivered a 14.5 percent pay rise for teachers, an increase of 36 percent compared to a 10 percent increase in the nine years under the previous Government. This is in addition to improvements in conditions such as extra release time so teachers can be paid to plan for quality lessons.

Angela Roberts: What work is under way to market New Zealand as a desirable location for teaching?

Hon JAN TINETTI: While we want to encourage Kiwis into the teaching profession, we also need to compete globally to attract international teachers to our shores. The 1,000 extra teacher target, including 700 international teachers, was met through funding incentives such as the Overseas Relocation Grant of up to $10,000; Overseas Finders Fee of $3,450; and waiving the fee for 2,400 teacher International Qualification assessments. These initiatives have been successful in reducing the financial barriers to attracting and recruiting teachers from overseas. As a result, we have exceeded our target of 700, and now have 1,055 experienced overseas teachers arriving to begin teaching.

Angela Roberts: What work is the Government doing to support domestic work-based learning for teacher training?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We are committed to attracting and retaining the best, to teach our young people and set them up to succeed and have a life full of choices. Moves to attract domestic teachers include more than doubling the number of scholarships to support people to retrain as teachers, funding 100 teacher trainees to be placed in schools in Tāmaki makau-rau and Tai Tokerau while studying remotely, and placing 128 beginning and returning teachers in schools who struggle to recruit with incentives to stay.

Question No. 5—Education

5. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does she think the refreshed New Zealand curriculum for English and mathematics should be compulsory in all schools from 2026?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): The New Zealand curriculum is already compulsory in all schools, and maths and English is part of the curriculum. The refreshed maths and literacy curriculum is available to teach now and compulsory from 2025.

Chris Baillie: Which does the Minister believe to be more important in the curriculum: that the overarching kaupapa is expressing the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles, or ensuring our children have the literacy and numeracy skills they need to succeed in life?

Hon JAN TINETTI: It’s not either/or; it’s both.

Chris Baillie: Is the Minister concerned that the purpose statement of the English curriculum is “Language is my identity; language is my uniqueness; language is life.” “Engaging with mātauranga Māori through the creation and interpretation of texts provides opportunities to strengthen knowledge and understanding of te ao Māori and Māori perspectives, and to play a part in shaping a bicultural Aotearoa.”; and, if not, can she explain why there is not a single mention of spelling, grammar, or punctuation?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No.

Chris Baillie: Does the Minister agree with the maths curriculum statement that mātauranga Māori has mana ōrite, or equal status, with mathematics and statistics, and, if so, can she explain how teaching children mātauranga Māori will result in higher levels of achievement in maths?

Hon JAN TINETTI: In answer to the first part and the second part, yes.

Chris Baillie: Does she believe that spending $13,086,856 on a refreshed curriculum as of late July was good value for money, at a time when truancy is a major problem and standards are falling, and does she stand by her priority to push a compulsory curriculum that is little more than a Te Tiriti - centric word salad rather than deal with the real issues?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This Government has invested in a researched and evidence-based curriculum. I am proud of the work that we have done in curriculum and I stand by it.

Question No. 6—Police

6. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Police: What announcements has she made about supporting New Zealanders’ mental health and reducing demand on Police?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): The Government today announced work is under way to shift the way calls to 111 for people experiencing mental distress will be managed. Over the next five years, we’ve committed to a nationwide roll-out of a multi-agency and co-response teams to help people who need that assistance. We know that the existing pilots have demonstrated just how effective having police and mental health workers can be in those times of acute mental health crisis. We want this in every district, and we’re going to provide the resources necessary to make that happen. This change will also take pressure off police who do an incredible job. We’ll let them focus on their core function of policing and public safety.

Arena Williams: What does a co-response model look like?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Today’s announcement was alongside the successful Wellington district co-response model. In that pilot, there was a combination of a paramedic, a police officer, and a mental health specialist to respond to call outs and share information and coordinate services across those three different agencies. Through improved cross-agency information sharing, a lot of call outs are resolved without the need of a police officer or a paramedic. The evidence was clear. The University of Otago found that those seen by the co-response team were more likely to receive help in the community, 30 percent less likely to wait in the emergency department, and more likely to have better health outcomes in the weeks that followed. We want this nationwide and that’s why we’ll deliver this over the next five years.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. I seek leave to table the 2017 social investment mental health co-response policy announced by the Government that was then cancelled by Labour in 2018.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. That’s publicly available, isn’t it?

Chris Bishop: I’m not necessarily sure that it’s still publicly available. I think it would elucidate the House. If the Minister had actually bothered to read it, she could have not bothered with that last supplementary.

SPEAKER: Yeah, be careful. Don’t tell the House something—

Chris Bishop: I said I’m not sure.

SPEAKER: Yes, I’m fairly certain, so I’m not going to put it.

Arena Williams: What other steps will be taken to improve the response to mental health distress?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There’s more. In 2022, 10 percent of all 111 calls for assistance were for people in mental distress. In May 2023 alone, police committed 6,000 officer hours to mental health responses. That’s why we’ll also be improving triaging in emergency communication centres, we’ll increase the use of tele-health and digital counselling, and we’ll also work on multi-agency crisis hubs as alternatives to emergency departments. This a significant shift, and we’ve directed agencies to develop a full implementation plan, including resourcing requirements by March next year. Just as the Government set an aspirational target for increasing the police front line by 1,800 and delivered it, and we’ll do the same with the way we respond to mental health.

Arena Williams: What feedback has she seen for this announcement?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There’s been a lot. Shaun Robinson of the Mental Health Foundation has described a nationwide roll-out as a “no-brainer”, stating that, “What the trial of the co-response team showed was that a significant number of people got … much better level of support without having to go to hospital [or] without having to go into police custody. So it’s a win win win.” I also agree with feedback from the Hon Mark Mitchell, who has said our police service get tied up with a whole lot of things they shouldn’t actually be dealing with, and we’ve got to get them back on focus, responding to members of the public and putting their hand up for help. I look forward to cross-party support on this excellent initiative.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the incoming Labour Government cancel National’s fully funded co-response model in 2017 that was welcomed by the Police Commissioner, by St John Ambulance, and by mental health experts; why have they not funded that project; and why have they waited six years and six weeks out from a general election to re-announce National’s policy?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: With additional police resources, there are currently six running right across six different districts in New Zealand. I’m surprised that the member is not happy to know that these six pilots are now being made permanent, with a view to making them in all police districts to improve mental health outcomes for New Zealanders, and free up the ability for police to get on with police work.

Question No. 7—Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence

7. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: How are communities being supported to lead Te Aorerekura — the National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): I thank the member for the question. Empowering communities to build on the solutions they know already work is crucial to reaching our shared vision to eliminate violence. Through Te Aorerekura, we are moving away from the transactional ways of working and towards the relational, flexible, trusted, community-based approaches. So we have invested almost $1 billion in the family violence and sexual violence sectors since 2017 to build that capacity, we have provided flexible funding for community leaders to support their people in cyclone-affected areas, and we have established community groups representing diverse communities. We are investing not just money but time and effort into building trust and relationships that Government has not had before. It is community leading the solutions to the issues that they face, and we are here to support them.

Hon James Shaw: Who is leading Te Aorerekura in the communities that are impacted by violence?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Te Aorerekura is—and must be—led by those who are impacted on by violence, particularly those diverse communities who are disproportionately impacted and have been underserved by successive Governments. This requires authentic partnership with Government agencies to establish their own community groups. So they include the recently launched Ethnic Communities Network; the establishment of an independent Tangata Whenua Ministerial Advisory Group, Te Pūkotahitanga; an Expert Advisory Group for Children and Young People where rangatahi are able to specifically have a voice; funding an existing rainbow network to facilitate engagement with LGBTQIA+ communities; an Interim Disability Reference Group and a National Disability Expert Advisory Board, which will be formed soon in a way that is being specifically directed by the disability community; regular meetings of Pasifika providers who recently held their inaugural National Pacific Family Violence and Sexual Violence Practitioners’ Fono; a pilot regional elder abuse network; and working with those who have used violence, to support accountability and behaviour change. The voices of these groups will help lead where Te Aorerekura goes next.

Hon James Shaw: Does she agree with the Productivity Commission’s finding in their most recent report, A fair chance for all, that “locally led, whānau-centred and [culturally] enabled approaches can provide more effective assistance to people and families”?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Yes. We cannot solve family violence and sexual violence through a one-size-fits-all blanket approach. We must be locally led and whānaucentred. Through Te Aorerekura, Government agencies are coming together with tangata whenua, NGOs, and community to respond to violence through a joined-up, collaborative community approach that involves Government agencies and community groups. We know that violence response and prevention is about more than just the individual and an isolated response; it is about that person and their whole whānau having what they need to live a good life. So through that integrated community approach, we are starting to deliver that and see those very benefits. We’re also funding differently. Recently, I announced a flexible fund for communities in cyclone-impacted areas, which is allowing for whānau-centred and community-led responses to violence in areas experiencing added stresses.

Hon James Shaw: Is Te Aorerekura showing true Crown accountability by helping to address the harm that Government agencies themselves have caused when responding to violence?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Yes. Very importantly, Te Aorerekura means, for the first time in 180 years, Government agencies are explicitly and directly accountable for the harm that has been caused through unsafe responses and a lack of political courage and will to highlight a problem right in front of us—and I’m really proud of the steps that we are finally starting to take. In particular, the steps of ensuring that our workforces across our Government agencies and departments even understand the dynamics of violence, can identify them, and are able to respond safely so that no matter where someone affected by violence reaches out to for help, they need to be safe and supported to heal. So we’ve developed workforce tools, in partnership with community, which are already being implemented by key Government agencies such as police, justice, Oranga Tamariki, Ara Poutama, the Ministry of Social Development, and ACC.

Hon James Shaw: Is the Government continuing to rely on police reporting data and conviction rates to understand the prevalence of violence in Aotearoa New Zealand, and, if not, what else has been done to better understand violence?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: We know that relying on police reports and justice data alone never gives us an accurate or full picture of violence, because most violence goes unreported. Nearly all of sexual violence is never reported. It also does not tell us about the approaches and the actual interventions that are working for whānau and people. So Te Aorerekura commits us to building a system where survivors even feel safe coming forward to report the violence that has happened to them—whether that is to police, their community, or their own whānau—where people who use violence also get the support they need to change their harmful behaviour. We are creating a whole new outcomes and measurement framework to support Te Aorerekura which will give us better data and also show us the more evidence-based pathways forward.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Housing: Is she satisfied with the performance of Kāinga Ora?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes, the Government is particularly satisfied with how Kāinga Ora has turned around what was, essentially, a sales unit six years ago into an agency that builds thousands of public houses. Kāinga Ora has built or enabled a gross number of over 15,000 houses since October 2017 across public and transitional housing, KiwiBuild, and large-scale projects. This Government is building more homes than any Government since the 1950s. Unlike the previous Government, this Government is committed to the provision of affordable and social housing.

Chris Bishop: Is he aware that within the 15,000 figure he skites about, that includes 4,900 State homes sold or demolished under this Government and 4,000 redirects, which are the private rental market being leased by Kāinga Ora or other community housing providers to house people in need, and are not net new houses?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’re aware of all the figures. We’re particularly aware of what we took over with the previous National Government, who decimated New Zealand public housing. After nine years of the National Government, we ended up with 1,500 less public homes. Yes, we’re very aware of the figures. We’re also aware that if that previous Government had built houses the way that we’re building them now, you probably wouldn’t have a waiting list.

Chris Bishop: Why did Kāinga Ora lease an apartment building in Wellington at $250,000 per month for nine months to have no one live in it, at a time when the wait-list has quintupled to 25,000 families in the last six years?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You’ll have to refer that one to the Minister. I’m not over all the Minister’s decisions, but I’ll refer that to the Minister and come back to you.

Chris Bishop: Has she inquired as to why Kāinga Ora has a contract for seven Bloomberg computer terminals costing NZ$44,000 each, and is she satisfied that this is a sensible use of taxpayer money?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: When you inherit a housing crisis, you have to bring a lot of tools to the table, and Kāinga Ora invests—just for this member—between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion each year on building new homes. They have a portfolio of $50 billion and operate and manage a $12.3 billion debt portfolio. Like all large issuers of debt, Kāinga Ora uses Bloomberg, as it is industry best practice. The Government agreed with Kāinga Ora to borrow from the Crown’s New Zealand Debt Management, which reduces the cost by an estimated $62 million in interest per year. This will mean that Kāinga Ora will reduce the number of terminals once the current contract ends. So to sum it up for that member, if you were to invest $300,000 to save $62 million, that sounds like a good spend to me.

Question No. 9—Health

9. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Associate Minister of Health: What has this Government done to improve women’s healthcare and services so that they feel listened to and are enabled to live longer in good health, with increased wellbeing and quality of life?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Associate Minister of Health): This Government is proud of the work we have undertaken for women, and I am excited about the ongoing mahi. Last month, we launched the first women’s health strategy, which sets the direction for improving the health and wellbeing of women over the next 10 years. Right now, to achieve that overall vision, our Government is acting to improve women’s health. We know that breast cancer screening saves women’s lives, and we are working hard on improving access to our breast-screening programme, so that all the women who are already eligible for free mammograms get one. We’ve brought in abortion safe areas, which mean that people who wish to access abortion health services should be able to do so safely and without fear of harassment or intimidation. We’ve taken action on surgicalmesh harm and injuries during childbirth. We also have important work under way on integrating maternity and child services on maternal mental health and on cervical cancer screening.

Sarah Pallett: How has the Government strengthened breast cancer screening services and worked to ensure we improve equity for all women?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: This Labour Government has made substantial efforts to improve the national breast cancer screening programme. We have invested in a new IT register because our current register in no longer fit for purpose to provide a modern breast cancer screening service, and to support any future programme changes like extending the age range. However, once implemented, the new system will enhance and support women’s participation in breast cancer screening, with an opt-out screening model based on the population register. To get the staff we need for breast screening, our health workforce plan and breast-screening Aotearoa workforce development strategy focuses on recruitment and retention of the medical imaging technologists and radiologists. We need to enable more women to be able to be screened. We are also working hard to make sure that all women who are currently eligible for a mammogram get one. That is why providers of the breast-screening Aotearoa programme are offering Saturday and after-hours screening clinics and visits, and working with primary health organisations to identify overdue or unscreened women.

Sarah Pallett: How has the Government demonstrated improvements in the health system when it comes to listening to women?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: In response to women’s struggle for the treatment of birth injuries and for the restorative justice process on surgical mesh, we have acted. Our work to address the harm that surgical mesh can cause has seen six surgeons credentialed to remove it, educational materials for primary-care providers rolled out across the country, and a specialist female pelvic mesh service established to support and care for women. To date, this service has already received at least 109 referrals. Last week, the Director-General of Health supported a pause on surgical mesh to treat stress urinary incontinence, while we take further steps to minimise harm linked to the procedure. We are well under way to achieving the conditions to lift this pause, including progress towards establishing a register, and providing structured, informed consent with a patientdecision aid. We’ve also listened to women who have experienced a birth injury. We amended legislation so that women with listed birth injuries can access more timely surgeries and pelvic physiotherapy. Data from ACC shows that women are accessing this important support, with 4,470 claims accepted between 1 October 2022 and 2 August 2023.

Sarah Pallett: What further initiatives and investment will the Government be making in women’s healthcare services?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Through Kahu Taurima, we have begun an ambitious transformation programme for all women and whānau welcoming and raising babies, through to their fifth birthday. Already, we’ve invested in 40 hauora Māori and five Pasifika providers so that they can implement wraparound services that put women and whānau at the centre of their maternity and early-years journey. We are also developing educational tools for health professionals to support pregnant people with disabilities to have a better-quality experience as they navigate the health system. And we are developing a national bereavement care pathway to make sure that all bereaved women and their whānau are provided with high-quality, individualised, safe, and culturally responsive care across Aotearoa. Last, but definitely not least, in September, we launched our brand new HPV screening programme. This Labour Government has invested in not only a new register but also an entire new screening system for cervical cancer. We are using the latest innovation in screening to provide a test that women and people with a cervix can do themselves.

Question No. 10—Children

10. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Minister for Children: Is he confident in all the actions and processes of Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): I’m confident that Oranga Tamariki has made significant progress across a range of topics in the children space, including through our work to move to transfer resources and decision making to iwi and communities through the enabling communities work under the future direction plan. So far, nine prototypes have been launched with iwi and communities across the country, moving decision making and resources closer to tamariki and their whānau. We are already seeing how Oranga Tamariki’s change in approach is working, with uplifts down 70 percent since 2018, and we now have the lowest number of children in care since 2010. However, there is more work to do to improve Oranga Tamariki’s practices.

Karen Chhour: Can he confirm that the review led by Mike Bush into serious misconduct by staff at Oranga Tamariki youth justice residences will be completed and presented to the Oranga Tamariki chief executive by the end of August, as was reported on 10 July 2023?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Neither myself nor the office have received any version of the drafts of the report. I am advised that the report is still being worked on by Mike and his team. At this stage, I do not know when the report will be released, as it is being produced independently. I expect the review to comprehensively identify concerns and areas for improvement and provide a plan to address the findings.

Karen Chhour: In light of that answer, can the Minister then understand why youth care - experienced youth stood outside Parliament today and said, “Keep your promises.”, because they are sick of promises being made and not being accomplished?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: If the member had listened, it is a report that’s being produced independently. If I was to interfere, I would be accused of trying to influence the report in my favour.

Karen Chhour: Can he explain why four Oranga Tamariki staff members continue to be on paid suspension for over two years?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I think we’ve covered this in the House before. That is an employment process, and, of course, I can’t intervene in an employment process. We have to let it run its course.

Karen Chhour: Does he think it’s acceptable for 30 young people each month to be housed in motels by Oranga Tamariki due to lack of suitable alternative options, and, if not, what are we doing about it?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, I don’t think it’s acceptable, but there are times when accommodation can’t be found with the young person’s whānau, or even non-members of the community, so we have to keep them safe somehow. Usually, they’re in a motel for only one to three nights, and they are supervised.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Minister have confidence that Mike Bush, in doing the independent review, will be able to give it the rapid response it needs given that he’s just been appointed to the civil defence and emergency management response in Hawke’s Bay?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I assume that Mike Bush would not have accepted whatever other contract he has if he didn’t think he would be able to fulfil his other obligations.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can we expect a preliminary review before the election?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’ve already covered that. If the member had bothered to listen, it is an independent review, and I cannot influence the time lines.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. The member takes offence at being accused of not listening. I listened extremely well.

SPEAKER: OK, well, we’ll call that one all and move on.

Question No. 11—Health

11. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many nights since 1 July 2023 have there been no junior doctors available to cover overnight ED shifts at Palmerston North Hospital, and how many similar roster gaps are there through to the end of October?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I am advised that since 1 July 2023, there have been six nights with no resident medical officers, where two senior medical officers covered the night duty in the emergency department (ED). The current roster goes to 15 October. There are no roster gaps in September, and three nights currently in October with gaps yet to be filled. MidCentral is making every effort to mitigate roster gaps, and recently the senior medical officer team has reviewed current vacancies and stepped in to provide additional support. I am grateful to them for their contributions. Despite these challenges, I can confirm MidCentral is on track to meet planned care targets.

Dr Shane Reti: What responsibility does she take for a recent weekend at Palmerston North ED, where 14 patients spent more than 24 hours sitting in chairs waiting to be admitted?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We do not like to see those sorts of waits. That is why we have funded that hospital to develop additional space, including the recently opened 12-bed emergency department observation unit. In addition, Palmerston North is one of the hot spots with a number of measures in place to address acute demand.

Dr Shane Reti: What does she say to the wife of an elderly man taken to Palmerston North one evening who, hearing nothing, turned up at ED the next morning to be told he still hadn’t been seen and “there was my poor old husband stooped over in the chair, asleep, confused, incontinent, and freezing”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That is an extremely distressing story to hear, and if that member wants to share details of it, we will make sure that it is followed up on.

Dr Shane Reti: What was Health New Zealand’s response to the clinical director of Palmerston North ED, who stated that his hospital “is at serious risk of being unable to provide an emergency medicine service”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That is a very serious concern, and I understand—as I outlined in my primary answer—a number of steps are under way to make sure that roster gaps are addressed. But I have a wider concern when clinicians express that they cannot resolve their concerns through regular processes. That is why Te Whatu Ora is developing an external rapid review team to assess and address these types of situations. It will draw on national and international best practice to improve performance and learn and adapt across our hospital system. Palmerston North will be the first hospital to have the opportunity to use this model, but this team will be available to assess events in other hospitals, as needed, over the coming months. This new rapid review team will support clinicians and other hospital workers to tell their side of things to an expert reviewer so that rapid solutions can be found. This process does not replace existing line management, health and safety, or quality assurance processes, which are of course the first port of call.

Dr Shane Reti: Further to that answer, is she shutting down clinicians from going into the public domain when they feel they are getting no relief or remedy from the Minister and her office?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, we are taking their concerns seriously and providing a forum in which they can be heard.

Question No. 12—Trade and Export Growth

12. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth: What recent announcements has he seen regarding the ASEAN–Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area?

Hon RINO TIRIKATENE (Acting Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth): On Monday last week, I was fortunate to travel to Indonesia to sign an upgrade to New Zealand’s free-trade agreement (FTA) with the Association of South-east Asian Nations—ASEAN—and Australia in the margins of the ASEAN Economic Ministers’ Meeting in Semarang. The upgrade was welcomed by ASEAN as the FTA is viewed as ASEAN’s highest-quality free-trade agreement. The agreement has been in force since 2010 and is a central pillar of our relationship with ASEAN. The 10 countries have a population of over 700 million and, as a bloc, are New Zealand’s third-largest trading partner, with our exports totalling over $9.6 billion in 2022.

Ibrahim Omer: What does this upgrade do?

Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: The upgrade brings elements of the original agreement into line with more recent free-trade agreements such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and, in a first for any ASEAN agreement, the upgrade introduces a framework for cooperation on sustainable trade issues, including the environment, labour standards, and women’s economic empowerment. This upgrade will come into force in 2024.

Ibrahim Omer: How does this upgrade benefit Kiwis?

Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: This upgrade further boosts our already strong economic and trading ties with ASEAN and helps further cut red tape and costs on Kiwi businesses. The benefits include improved conditions for investors and service providers, greater transparency of fees and charges, commitments to support the flow of essential goods in times of crisis, and streamlined customs procedures. Recognising the huge increase in digital trade, the upgrade also introduces stronger e-commerce rules that aim to increase consumer protection and support the expanded use of e-invoicing in cross-border trade.

Ibrahim Omer: How does this advance the Government’s trade priorities?

Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: The upgrade advances the Government’s Trade for All agenda, strengthening our trade relationships and the FTAs that underpin them. Importantly, the upgrade introduces a framework for cooperation on sustainable trade issues. These FTAs have not only created new opportunities for Kiwi businesses; they also reflect New Zealand’s international leadership on sustainable and inclusive trade. Over the past five years, we’ve concluded four FTAs, with the UK, EU, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and RCEP, along with three FTA upgrades with China, Singapore, and now with the ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand FTA. Right now, almost three-quarters of our exports are with trading partners with whom we have an FTA. Six years ago, in 2017, this figure was around 50 percent. As a Government, we’re supporting Kiwi exporters to succeed and expand their international trade.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

To start my contribution today, I want to say, “Up the Wahs!” As a true-blue Warriors fan, and as a true league fan in this country, what I know about league fans and what I know about Warriors fans is they’ve got a keen eye and they’re super smart. They can tell a pretender amongst their midst. They know when there’s a pretender saying a half-hearted “Up the Wahs”.

Warriors supporters are really sharp. Warriors are also sharp and I tell you what: they, like every other Kiwi, are sharp-minded and have a good, hard look at who represents them in this House. I can tell them that what they hate being called is the “squeezed middle”. What I actually know is that they are hard-working Kiwis; they are die-hard Warriors fans. They man our streets, they work in our streets, they work in our buildings, they work for this country and they are not the “squeezed middle”; they are hard-working Kiwis.

So these hard-working Kiwis always know when there’s a pretender amongst their midst, and I can tell you that these hard-working Kiwis are saying, “Do National and ACT actually truly represent who I am?” “No!” is the answer, and if they look across that other side and that other side keep calling them the “squeezed middle”, they’re saying, “Hold on. I’m a hard-working Kiwi and I just want a fair go.” So this side of the House, and this Government, has given them a fair go, but we know that there’s lots more work to be done.

When it comes to the cost of living on that side of the House, they continue to call them the “squeezed middle”, while on this side of the House, we call them “whānau”. What we do to support them will make sure that they can push through the challenges that we have with the cost of living crisis. On this side of the House, I can name a number of those—and there’s so much more, but I’m going to name some of them.

Earlier this year, we boosted our cost of living package by providing over 1.4 million New Zealanders with more support. These are big shifts that demonstrate Labour’s commitment to supporting New Zealanders to supporting Kiwis. They don’t like being called the “squeezed middle”; they are Kiwis that need our help and we are here to deliver for them. Over 1 million New Zealanders are receiving cost of living relief with the winter energy payment. On that side of the House, they’re prepared to scrap that. I can tell you our constituents are saying, “This is awesome. We are warm during these cold winter days.” What we know is that’s at risk. We know that on that side of the House, when it comes to the cost of living, they might talk about the “squeezed middle” but they have never delivered for our people in this country.

On this side of the House, we’ve progressed matters such as making sure we lift the minimum wage. On that side of the House, they didn’t do that. In fact, they went so far as to vote against a number of the provisions that this side has pushed to support Kiwi families right around the country. I’m really proud of the Minister of Finance and our Prime Minister. They’ve done a fantastic job to steer our economy through some very difficult times. Once again, another credit agency continues to believe that our leadership, and this Government’s leadership, through these hard times has proven to be the best leadership in the world—once again confirming our strong rating. I want to acknowledge both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to make sure that our Government books look good and we are able to continue to support our whānau.

Another one of the important kaupapa that our people look towards is actually transport. We know that transport is important to get our country moving. What we have done is we have boosted our regional economies by upgrading roads, rail, bridges, ports around the country, making sure that we can support local economies.

I want to be very clear: on the other side of the House, we have had—over the years I’ve been in Parliament—ghost bridges. We’ve had promises of bridges. We’ve had plans that were never funded. Hot off the press: the latest National Party policy on transport is Mr Simeon Brown standing there with gumboots and a clean shovel. That is not going to deliver the outcomes our people need to fix the potholes in this country. We have a funded plan, a well thought out plan that will continue to keep our country moving.

In the last 30 seconds, I want to briefly touch on education. Why? Because there is an amazing man in the gallery, Dr Richard Benton, who has led the revitalisation of te reo Māori and tikanga Māori across our education sector. What we’ve heard today in question time, on that side of the House, is they want to get rid of those things—the things that the likes of Dr Richard Benton and so many others have fought for in this country. Finally, two final things. One, “Up the Wahs!” and two, “We’re in it for you.”

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, that was a fantastic speech by the Hon Peeni Henare. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise today to talk in the last of the general debates we’ll have before we rise and head out on to the campaign trail—and what a campaign it will be, because there are some very clear choices for New Zealand today. There are some very clear choices in terms of the type of future we want, and what we’ve seen today from National is smoke and mirrors: it’s unfunded tax cuts, they’re trying to tell people what they want but taking away some of the basic rights of workers. That’s what we stand for here: fair pay agreements and raising the wages of workers. That’s the way you fix peoples’ squeezed middle, that’s the way you deal with it—not by making up smoke and mirrors, distractions that try and look like tax cuts but actually, when you go through it line by line, there’s no money there.

So let’s have a look—let’s have a look at what the track record is right now for this Government. Record-low unemployment—post-pandemic record-low unemployment. We have not only Kiwis in work but Kiwis in training with apprenticeships right across New Zealand—60,000 young people who are getting opportunities to learn and earn and to take up a career. That’s changed lives, and that delivers more than what the others are offering. We’ve seen the biggest growth in housing in generations. In the Hutt Valley alone, we stood and watched as houses were torn down by the previous National Government and land was left vacant; people had nowhere to live. In that same land now in Ēpuni, we’ve seen new, warm, dry homes built: 160 units on that land alone. That school has got two extra classrooms, the local community veggie garden grows veggies for the lunches—that is a thriving community that this Government has delivered, and that’s why we’ll keep on fighting.

Also what we’ve done is deliver more police officers, with 1,800 extra police on the front line, and we know that as part of those 1,800 extra police, there will be 700 specifically dedicated to organised crime, because we’re smart in the way that we tackle crime in this country. By having those people involved in following the money, disabling organised criminal groups, and also operations like Cobalt that successfully prosecute gang members and hold them to account—we know that’s how we get outcomes in this Government.

I know there’s more work to be done, but let’s look at the good stuff that we’ve done already. The 50 percent increase in terms of funding our police—a 50 percent increase. And the scary thing is, when we see those unfunded tax cuts—and then there’s sort of this talk about “it won’t come off the front line”, well, the justice system works as a whole and if you’re going to cut the back office, if you’re going to cut the courts, you’re going to cut public servants, well, that’s directly on the front line. So you will see cuts in those front lines if there’s big cuts to our public service.

And who knows what ACT’s going to do? ACT’s strapline is “We have no bottom lines.” They just say that. They just say, “Oh yeah, we’ve got no bottom lines, we’ll do anything.” And National’s proposed coalition with ACT means that anything is on the table to be taken away from New Zealanders, and they should be fearful of that.

Let’s have a look at what else we’ve done in terms of the law and order space. We’ve introduced new search warrant powers to be able to make sure that when there’s intergang conflict, police can search vehicles, they can seize weapons, and they can make sure that that conflict is shut down quickly, and that’s happened twice since that legislation has been introduced.

What else are we doing? Guns—this is an interesting one for those members opposite, because they seem to be at odds about guns. So we’ve introduced a firearms registry, and we know that 82 percent of New Zealanders want that because they know it’ll make New Zealanders safer by taking illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and gang members. But over here, in ACT, they’re saying they’ll scrap it, and National’s not quite so sure. So who knows what’s going to happen with that—that one’s up in the air. Even though 82 percent of New Zealanders actually want a firearms registry, that’s at stake this election as well. We’re also setting up new firearm prohibition orders. National talked about that for nine years. They talked a big game; never delivered. Now, firearm prohibition orders are in order and able to be utilised.

There is so much to talk about in terms of what this Government will continue to do, but New Zealanders can rest assured that there won’t be smoke and mirrors. There won’t be empty, hollow promises—or that behind the scenes they’re closing police stations, they’re reducing wages, and they’re reducing workers’ rights. What you get with a Labour Government is people who are able to earn a decent wage; have a warm, dry home; have a good doctor and get access to health care: that’s what we deliver in this country—not cheap smoke and mirrors tax cuts that are a promise and a good look, but, underneath, there’s nothing there.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Today, I want to talk about the people that this Government has forgotten—the forgotten people in the squeezed middle of New Zealand who work hard for a living. They juggle multiple responsibilities, sometimes multiple jobs, family obligations. They do their best every day, and yet, under this Government, they are falling behind and they cannot get ahead. Every day, they are pummelled by the cost of living crisis. When they go to pay for their groceries, when they go to fill up their tank, when they go to pay their rent or their mortgage it just costs more and more.

My message to those people, those forgotten people in the squeezed middle, is that if you’re doing it tough, that’s because it is tough. It is not your fault that this Government has mismanaged the economy so badly that interest rates have doubled in just two years. It is not your fault that the Government has mismanaged the economy so badly that price increases are shrinking your paycheque every fortnight. It is not your fault that the Government has mismanaged the economy so badly that you can’t keep up with your bills. The person you have to look to, the person you have to blame, is the Labour Government.

I know that too many New Zealanders feel completely taken for granted by this Government. They get up, they work hard, they pay their tax, and all they hear from the Government is they’re too rich to deserve tax relief—they don’t deserve tax relief because the Government needs to spend it, maybe on a farewell party for a Government department, maybe for some more sausage rolls, maybe for some more consultancy reports about a cycling bridge over the harbour, or maybe for some refurbishment of the IRD’s offices. That’s more important to this Government than tax relief for working people in the squeezed middle.

I’m talking about people like Anna, who said to me, “We struggle to make ends meet and keep food on the table for our kids due to the increasing cost of food and petrol. We earn too much for any assistance, but not enough to get by. I don’t want my kids to miss out.”, and Sarah who said, “We are living week by week. As a middle-class family, we have never done this before.” Some of the stories are gut-wrenching, and they are ignored by this Government, who refused to give these people the tax relief they are owed.

I challenge the members opposite to tell Ben why he doesn’t deserve tax relief. Ben says that he and his partner got married last year: “We haven’t really been able to enjoy the first six months of marriage yet because we are stressed about money. Rent is expensive, food is expensive, fuel is expensive. No matter how many hours we work, we are constantly dipping into our savings. It’s only going to get worse.”

What the members opposite say is that Ben and his partner, they don’t deserve tax reduction, because Grant Robertson thinks he can spend Ben’s money better than Ben can. Well, on this side of the House, we disagree, and we will spend New Zealanders money wisely and responsibly so that New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn—so that a household on the average income, squeezed by the cost of living, can have $100 more a fortnight, and so that a worker on the median wage who is an electrician, a plumber, or a nurse can have an additional $50 per fortnight, because that is more meaningful than having another Government strategy document. It’s more meaningful than another visualisation of light rail on the front page of the paper. It’s more meaningful than the smoke, mirrors, and failed promises of the members opposite.

I want to talk about Jay, finally. He said, “By the time I pay my rent, utilities, phone, internet, insurance, fuel, pet food, and groceries, I have literally nothing left about two days after I’m paid. I feel like I’m bashing my head against a wall.” Jay, hope is coming for you, and it comes in the form of a National Government.

Labour has delivered a cost of living crisis. With us, there’s no smoke, there’s no mirrors; there’s cold hard cash for you.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): That speech was incredibly telling. Not one mention of wages, not one mention of investing in working people and giving them a wage and a job with conditions that they deserve. We’ve heard a lot from the Opposition comparing ourselves to Australia, saying that we are losing our best—but opposing absolutely every measure to try and bridge that gap, to try and improve conditions at work and continue to increase wages. Because, of course, it’s not just in the wages of our professionals this Government has invested in, it’s in wages at the lower end as well. Every single time this Government has increased the minimum wage, that lot have opposed it. And then they cry crocodile tears because they worry about the better conditions in Australia. And what we find today, after months of saying that we should be competitive with our neighbours, is they are going to bring a tax on to those skilled workers that we need in this country. And what they will do is they will look around the world and they’ll look at Australia and they’ll look at the UK and they’ll look at Ireland and Canada and they’ll say it’s easier to go and work there. They are taxing the skilled workers we need to give tax cuts to their mates.

I thought it was bold from the previous speaker, Nicola Willis, to bring out a couple of examples of people that are renting, people that want to have the dream of buying a home. What was interesting that was omitted in that speech was the declaration today that the National Party would let overseas speculators back into this country and back into our property market, rising house prices across the board to pay for tax cuts for their mates. Bringing in overseas investors, $5 billion investment into our housing market, for the sake of $750 million tax cuts for landlords makes absolutely no sense. That tax cut will mean that property investors and property speculators will be up against each other, driving house prices up on existing prices.

If they don’t believe me, I’ll spell it out real easy: the current situation with the brightline test and interest deductibility means that people are not buying houses and flicking them off for profit real quick. And they mean that if investors want to get interest deductibility, they build a new home. That’s what we need in this country, we need more houses. And it’s working. We’re seeing the proportion of first-home buyers is increasing and house building in this country is at record numbers. They want to reverse that. They want to take away those provisions, give tax cuts to landlords and speculators so that they can drive up the prices of existing stock. We can expect to see house build numbers fall. We can expect to see the first-home buyers numbers fall, all for the sake of what they described as “tax relief”. But at what cost? Because what we were not told today was what has to be cut.

We’ve heard some very high level promises, but we still haven’t heard how they’re going to fill the $10 billion hole in their budget. And we’ve been here before with the National Party. This Government has a plan that is fully costed and is transparent and is continuing to invest in front-line services—front-line services that New Zealanders rely on. Kāinga Ora, you can expect to be cut, just like last time. Those thousands of houses that this Government has built, that has put a roof over New Zealanders’ heads that had no hope under the National Government and are now in a warm, dry, healthy home with their whanau where they should have always been.

We are not going to try to pull the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes. Firstly, because that’s wrong; and secondly, because we know that New Zealanders are not fools. They won’t be tricked by today’s announcement. They will not be lured by the sake of some smoke and mirror exercise that claims to give them tax cuts but takes much more away—giving with one hand and punching them in the guts with the other. New Zealanders will not fall for this trick. We have seen it before, every single time a National-led Government comes in power, they frame it up to be all good. They take away money for maintenance on roads, they take away money for housing, they take money from health, they take money from education—they take money from the things that New Zealanders need and value, and the only Government that stands up for them is the Labour Government.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to serve as a member of Parliament in this House, and it has been a privilege to serve as the member of Parliament for Northcote, because this side of the House, our Government, is committed, and we’re in it for working families. We’re in it for supporting New Zealanders and Aucklanders through some of the most difficult times. We’re in it for the delivery of 2,250 new classrooms in our schools. We’re in it for fewer kids going hungry, with 100 million school lunches being delivered. We’re in it for lifting school attendance. We’re in it for the 60,000 apprentices earning and learning on our construction sites. We’re in it for 3 million free prescriptions that have gone out the door already. We’re in it for our mental health programmes that are serving 1 million New Zealanders. We are in it for cheaper public transport. We’re in it for closing the gender pay gap, a 14.5 percent pay rise for our teachers, a pay rise for our nurses.

I’m in it for Northcote, I’m in it for lowering emissions, and I’m in it for doing the mahi and demonstrating the leadership that this country needs. You won’t find a prouder MP than the MP for Northcote, because, under this Government, I’ve worked incredibly hard on the key things that matter to my North Shore community, the key things that weren’t delivered in the 15 years that National held this particular seat in Northcote. When I look at our local schools and I see the investment in every single school in the Northcote electorate, when I see the classrooms built in Birkenhead Primary, when I see the investment of $60 million in Northcote College, when I see our lowest-decile school, Onepoto Primary, redeveloped and opened for that community, those are the things that my community sees. That is the mahi that they recognise is delivered.

My community looks towards the additional police that we have on the beat, the expanded community police officers that are serving the North Shore under this Government. On the North Shore, those were the police numbers that were cut. That was the Beach Haven community police station that was closed under a National Government. My community, I believe, will see those things as we walk into the election on 14 October.

My community sees the 150 elective surgery beds that will open in January at North Shore Hospital. Those are the things that matter in education, in health, and, of course, Northcote has one of the best housing stories in this country. We’re on track to deliver 1,700 warm, dry homes, both public homes but, more importantly—just as importantly—homes for first-home buyers.

When I look back to campaigning for the seat of Northcote in 2017, my community was very clear. They wanted a future Government to end foreign speculation. They wanted to ensure that the houses that we built on Auckland’s North Shore were available for their children and their grandchildren to live in. I’m very clear about the work that this Government has delivered. My community in Northcote and in North Shore understand the tangible outcomes that have been delivered to our community.

Lastly, I touched on public transport: free for under-13s, half-price for under-24s. My electorate has the second-highest patronage of public transport in Auckland, and those are the things that are going to count. I’m proud of the work that we’ve done to extend the Northern Busway, one of the most successful pieces of transport infrastructure in this country. I’m proud of the work that we’ve done to push forward and bring into this decade the additional harbour crossing across the Waitematā, an actual bold plan that is full of leadership and demonstrates the needs of a lined-up, integrated transport network from one end of Auckland to the other.

It isn’t over yet; there is more mahi to do, and I’m committed as the MP for Northcote to keep delivering in the areas of health, education, housing, transport, and the cost of living for my community.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the last week of Parliament for the term, and it is the last week that this Government has to rush through laws. Change is on its way. Change cannot come soon enough, because I’ve been out in the community of Tāmaki; I have been doing street corner meetings, door knocking, public meetings, going and talking to people on their doorsteps, and what I have been doing is listening. I’m here to bring the people of Tāmaki’s voice to Parliament. What I have heard are their concerns and their hopes, and they are ready for change. But I’m not just meaning a change of Government; they are ready for a change locally too.

What is on the minds of people in Tāmaki, and why are they looking for change? Well, the cost of everything is going up. I’m talking petrol, mortgages, rents, clothing, childcare, food, and even when people I meet are not struggling themselves, they know that their neighbours are, and they’re worried for their neighbours’ futures as well. They see that Government spending is going up and yet we’re not getting any more value for the money that this Government is spending. Why is it that we keep increasing and increasing and increasing spending, but it’s not actually delivering more value? People are asking that question. We know that the local shops and businesses are being terrorised by criminals. It feels like the criminals are running our community. People feel afraid to even walk to the supermarket in broad daylight. People don’t want to send their kids out on their bikes to the local parks. When I was out in Glen Innes doing my street corner meetings, someone was shot the night before in the local community. People do not feel safe raising their kids around this lawlessness, and that has to stop.

People talk about going to Australia. I hear so many people threatening to leave, and their kids are threatening to leave too. We’ve got to turn that around. I’m hearing about division. People are over division being forced on us by this Government, and we want to live in a society that’s united, where everybody feels welcome no matter if your family came here 15 generations ago or one. We are all welcome, we are all equal, and we all have the same vote. That’s what we need here in this Parliament. I’ve heard from parents who are worried about the politicisation of their kids’ classrooms and just want us to get back to basics: stop doing so much poorly and just focus on the basics and do them well. I’ve heard about people wanting proper local voice, and people don’t say it as publicly as they may wish to, but they’re saying it on their doorsteps: that they haven’t felt like they’ve had democracy in Tāmaki for years. I have met so many people who have said, “I have lived here for decades and I’ve never met my local MP. You are the first person who’s knocked on my door and has actually listened.” And that’s what I’m here to deliver. I’m here to bring back common sense and democracy to the people of Tāmaki, and it matters who speaks for you in Wellington.

So this year we have the opportunity of delivering real influence—the real influence of Tāmaki in Parliament—because democracy is important, and together we can deliver that change for the better. There are two votes; there’s the party vote and there’s the electorate vote. If you’re like me and you’re wanting a change of Government, it’s your party vote that will deliver that. But, if you’re also wanting change for the better locally—and I know many neighbours are—it’s your electorate vote that delivers that. It’s only the party vote that delivers a change of Government. Your electorate vote gives you change for the better locally, and I’m asking for your electorate vote for the people of Tāmaki.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms van Velden, you’re not asking me for anything. Anything goes through me, so just no “you”, please.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’m asking the people of Tāmaki for their electorate vote. Now, if you are sick of division, of costs, of crime, and you are looking for change—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m not sick of those.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN: —then it’s a party vote for ACT. Mr Speaker, you may be interested in a party vote for ACT, too! But the people of Tāmaki are looking for a change of Government, and we’re looking for a change locally. I cannot wait to get back out on to the streets and meet more people.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Six years ago the country voted, and they voted for change. National was thrown out of office and Jacinda Ardern ascended to the prime ministership and there was hope and change on the way, according to Prime Minister Ardern. Labour came to Government promising to fix the housing crisis, promising to build light rail in Auckland by 2021, and they promised economic transformation.

After six years, let’s look at Labour’s record. What have we got? Well, the housing crisis that Labour promised to fix has got worse. Rents are up $175 a week since 2017. The social housing wait-list has quintupled and there are now 25,000 families in severe and urgent need of housing. In the last six years, the Government has spent $1.4 billion on emergency housing motels. Front page of The Dominion Post this morning: some motels charging $450 per night for homeless people to live in. One hundred thousand KiwiBuild homes were promised; after six years, 1,800 KiwiBuild homes have been built—1.8 percent of the promised 100,000.

Jacinda Ardern and Phil Twyford and poor old Michael Wood stood in Mount Roskill and said, “We’re going to build light rail by 2021.” Six years later, Simeon Brown’s kids have built more sections of light rail than the Labour Government have. We’re still waiting for the business cases, we’re still waiting for the final sign-off.

And economic transformation, that’s what Grant Robertson used to talk about. What a joke. Well, I’ll tell you what, we have had economic transformation—in the wrong direction. Inflation is treble what it should be. Inflation is 6 percent—we’re in a cost of living crisis that shows no signs of abating. Debt has massively increased. Government spending has increased by 80 percent. And my simple question for you, Mr Speaker, and indeed for the country is: is the country 80 percent better off for an 80 percent increase in spending? And New Zealanders waiting in emergency departments for longer and longer overnight do not think that the health system is 80 percent better. The parents of kids at school who can’t read and write do not think the education system is 80 percent better.

So this is a failed Government, and, ultimately, in 36 days’ or so time, New Zealanders will get to hold that Government to account. A Government that promised a lot—promised transformation, promised transport projects, promised to fix the housing crisis—and has delivered very little.

So where has Labour got to? What have they got? Because they’re going into an election campaign knowing that they have no track record to defend, nothing to campaign on. They’ve got two strategies. The first is to adopt National Party policy and pretend it was theirs all along. So on the roading front, National’s campaigning on new roads of national significance, and six years after cancelling all of National’s projects, Labour now expects the public to believe that they’ve had a road to Damascus conversion and they’re all in favour of roads. So suddenly roads that we were building in 2017, Labour’s said they’re going to build, like Cambridge to Piarere, the further extension of the Auckland Northern Motorway, and a whole series of other things.

We’re expected to believe that Labour is now in favour of a second harbour crossing because Chris Hipkins and David Parker plucked out of nowhere the emerging preferred option out of the business case process and stood next to Auckland Harbour and said, “We’re going to build it.”

On law and order, we’ve had a series of made-up, cooked-up announcements in order to pretend that the Labour Party care about law and order, and now, this week, we hear fiscal reprioritisation is the order of the day. After an 80 percent increase in Government spending, Grant Robertson has decided that it’s time to be Scrooge McDuck in time to save some money. It’s just not credible.

And then the second strategy is just to make stuff up about the National Party. Labour Party MPs opposite and some of their candidates are just going around literally making things up about National Party policy on their social media. It is desperate, it is disgraceful, and it is disreputable. They’ve got nothing. They have no track record, they have no vision, and no plans for the future. All they’ve got is confected culture wars, confected outrage, and endless negativity, and, ultimately, that is why they will be thrown out of office on 14 October.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): This side of the House has a vision. We have hope. We have a plan that is going to see New Zealand move and thrive. As the Labour Party, we have our values that define who we are. If it’s about workers’ rights, if it’s about fair wages, if it’s around somewhere to call home, it’s around caring for our people, it’s about caring for our planet—as the Labour Party, we are in it for you and we are doing what we can to make this place a better country in the future, because we are aspirational and looking to see what is possible.

I don’t often reflect back too much, and I often just want to look forward and see what is possible, but we came into office and there was a leak in the roof. There was a leak in the roof, metaphorically, of the previous Government, of the National Party Government. When you ignore that leak in the roof, the leak expands, it starts to rot some of the pillars and the posts and the ceiling, and you don’t see that leak in the roof or experience it unless you’re paying attention, until it starts raining down on you in your lounge or in your bedroom.

So we came into office and there was not just a leak in the roof but there was deep rot—there was deep rot that we have had to spend the last six years working to reform and to rebuild, not just put a patch over, not just to replace the roof but it’s around the beams and the pipes and the ceiling and the walls and the floors, to ensure that people can have a place to call home, that people can have jobs, that people can ensure that the future of our environment and our climate is safe and sound.

I was just listening before—and, of course, we’ve heard it many a time—to the KiwiBuild rhetoric that comes this way. We reset that a long time ago, and I’d rather be aspirational than do nothing at all. But I look at my electorate of New Plymouth and I look back at that rot of that ceiling and the roof and what went on. I look and see, in terms of the nine years that National was in Government, in terms of social housing built in the electorate of New Plymouth, less than six—less than six. I’m glad to say that currently we have more than 45 under construction, and by this time next year, the hope is we’ll have at least 200 social houses built in the electorate of New Plymouth. We are having to deal with the rot that was there and make sure that we build enough houses so that everybody—everybody—can have a place to call home.

I live in Taranaki, the energy province. It’s not just the energy province of the past but it’s also the energy province of the future. I was grateful last night to be in this building with several hundred people from the energy industry, several people from councils, from iwi, from community, from business, from Government to talk about the future of clean energy, to talk about the future of offshore wind. I am glad as a Government we are not ignoring what’s going on but we are looking to the future. We are looking at partnering with industry. We are looking at partnering with iwi. We’re looking at partnering with communities and with councils and with business and with Government to ensure that Taranaki will continue to be the energy province of Aotearoa New Zealand, but it will be the clean energy province where we retain jobs, we retain our environment as we transition to a carbon-neutral future. I’m proud of the Taranaki 2050 Road map. I’m proud of our just transition work.

I was speaking with many of those in industry last night and the conversation came up about the ban that we always get accused of, which actually wasn’t a ban. It was actually no new permits—

Simeon Brown: Sounds like a ban.

GLEN BENNETT: —very clear—and there is still work to be done. But they said to me, Mr Brown, that we can’t even imagine the fact of National coming back into Government and overturning that. They can’t imagine it, because we have moved and the future is clean.

The future is not in dirty oil; the future is in clean hydrogen, in green hydrogen. The future is in offshore wind. The future is in solar. The future is no longer looking at the past. The future is looking to the future, and you know that well. We are committed and industry is committed to moving forward, and we spoke last night about that. There is no way that we would go back now—we’ve come too far. We’re moving forward and we’re looking to ensure that generations to come will benefit from the future of clean energy and will benefit from the future of a low-carbon economy, that our future is for all of us, that our future is for our tamariki, and that the future is for all people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): The question on many New Zealanders’ minds today is: do I feel better off today than I was six years ago? The answer for the vast majority of New Zealanders is that, no, they are worse off today, after six years of this Government, than they were when this Government came to office back in 2017. This Government came to office on the wave of hope and aspiration that there was a better way. This Government was going to say, “Let’s do this.” Well, they have been let down by a Government where the problem is they forgot about the word “do” and they actually managed to not do anything.

So this Government has left the squeezed middle feeling more and more squeezed when it comes to their family budgets. They have got less money in their pockets to pay the bills. They are facing higher and higher rents and interest rates for their mortgages. They are feeling left behind by this Government. They’re not able to pay the bills. That is why the National Party has put forward what I think is an outstanding policy to help give the squeezed middle the tax relief that they need and that they deserve so they can deal with this cost of living crisis this Government has put on them over the last six years.

This comes home to us when we as members of Parliament hear the stories from people in our electorate. When I was told recently by a mother who said, “Well, I’ve just had to refix our mortgage, and we’re now left with $300 a fortnight to pay for the food, the electricity, the internet and the petrol—$300 a fortnight is all that’s left after we pay the mortgage.” That is what many New Zealanders are facing.

What New Zealanders need in times like this is not a Government which keeps changing its policies every three minutes. It needs a Government with a plan and a vision to get New Zealanders through it, and that is exactly what National’s Back Pocket Boost will do for many New Zealanders to help them get through this cost of living crisis and manage to get through and pay the bills that they’re facing.

As this Parliament comes to a close, what we see is a Government which is becoming more and more desperate—more and more desperate by the fact that they have lost their agenda. They don’t have an agenda, they’re going negative against every issue that comes up, and they are forgetting what they’ve campaigned on in the past. We’ve seen it in transport policy, where they came into Government, said they were going to transform New Zealand’s transport system, build light rail, and deliver the transport programme that was going to unlock New Zealand.

Hon Member: What did they do?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, what they did was they cancelled all of the roads of national significance, failed to get light rail built in Auckland and Wellington, and failed to even build a business case. But now, six years later, they’ve said, “Oh no, actually we’re going to build some roads again—we’re going to build some roads again.” When we announced earlier this year that we’re going to reduce the amount on consultants and contractors, the Government said, “That’s a terrible idea—you can’t do that.” Well, this Monday, they said, “Actually, no, we are a bit bloated in the Public Service and we need to reduce the amount we’re spending on consultants and contractors.”

Today, they announced they’re going to roll out the mental health co-response plan, something they cancelled when they came into office six years ago. These examples after examples give New Zealanders the sense this Government has lost its way. They’re not in touch with the reality of New Zealanders’ day-to-day lives and now they are desperately trying to find ways to give the public some idea that they’ve got some ideas for the future, but all they’re doing is going back to the policies they actually cancelled six years ago.

The National Party has a plan. The National Party has the ideas that New Zealand needs for our future, whether it’s in transport, where we’ll build the infrastructure that New Zealanders need; whether it’s ensuring that our Public Service is not bloated, but is actually delivering on outcomes and giving the services that New Zealanders pay for through their own hard-earned taxpayers’ money; or whether it’s giving tax relief on the basis and the principle that, actually, we on this side of the House believe that New Zealanders know best how to spend their own hard-earned money, not the Government.

This Government thinks that fixing the cost of living is by taking that money off New Zealanders and then deciding how we’re going to spray it around, with band-aid economics. We actually think that New Zealanders know best how to spend their own money, and that’s why we’re going to deliver tax relief to hard-working Kiwi families so they can face this cost of living crisis, they can address it, pay the bills, and we’re going to get our country back on track.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The election in 2017 was, with the benefit of hindsight, one of the most critical in modern times. As a country, we had no idea of the challenges we would face or how important who led our country was going to be. We found ourselves facing down a mass shooting, a global pandemic, a volcanic eruption, cyclones, flooding, and our leadership with the then Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, with our current Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, as her Minister for COVID-19 Response—leaders who were unafraid to put compassion at the heart of every decision. Decisions that were hard to make, hard to implement, hard to do, hard for us all pulling together as a country, but in that COVID response we had a result for this hard work of the lowest death rate in the OECD. With the tragedy of 3,300 lives lost in New Zealand completely overshadowed by the predicted 16,000 more if we apply the UK’s death rate to New Zealand.

We had then, as we have now, a Government that puts people first. In the midst of all of that, this Government delivered for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. We delivered paid parental leave, we extended it from 18 to 26 weeks, and plan to introduce paid partner leave in addition to this, taking nothing from the person who gave birth. We have reinstated the Training Incentive Allowance. We’ve increased the minimum wage from $15.75 to $22.70 per week—a 44 percent increase. We’ve given senior nurses a 59.9 percent pay increase. We’ve expanded bereavement leave to include stillbirth and miscarriage, passed the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, meaning that 28,000 people every year can access the care that they need. We’ve removed abortion from the Crimes Act. We’ve removed the $5 prescription fee. We’re making huge progress towards eliminating family violence and sexual violence; delivered 100 million free healthy school lunches; delivered 13,000plus—so far, and counting—warm, dry, social houses; free period products; winter energy payments; and more and more.

Yet this could all be taken away if National and ACT form a Government in October. Between the two of them they will stop the winter energy payment, freeze the minimum wage, put interest back on student loans, cancel free school lunches, and bring back the $5 prescription fee, unless you’re a superannuitant—but hey, you’ll have to wait another two or three years to become eligible to be a superannuitant. They will get rid of the Ministry for Women, the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, the Ministry of Disabled People, the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, the Human Rights Commissioner, and for what? Tax cuts for millionaires. National may try to convince you—not you, Mr Speaker, but I expect they would try to convince you, too. They may try to convince voters that some of these manifesto commitments of theirs are ACT’s and not theirs, but can we trust them?

Remember, National promised not to raise GST and that was precisely what they did. They raised GST five minutes after forming a Government. Does anyone seriously think that if we have a National-ACT Government that Christopher Luxon will be running the show? We have no idea what Christopher Luxon stands for because he changes his mind every time he sees a vote. He said that abortion is murder but that if he was Prime Minister he’d do nothing about that. I don’t believe him, I don’t trust him, and I don’t think that voters of Aotearoa New Zealand should trust him. He will do or say anything for a vote.

But David Seymour is different. He’s been very clear about who he is and what he stands for, the—terrible things that he will say and do for a vote. As Maya Angelou said, “When somebody shows you who they are, believe them.”

This election will be one of the most critical in modern times because we have so much to lose. On the one hand we have the offering of the coalition of cuts, on the other, Labour—a Labour Government, a team that is always in it for you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just want to acknowledge that this is probably my last speech in this term in Parliament, and therefore I also acknowledge the honour and privilege of serving my home and community of Auckland Central. I’d just to say we’ve got some unfinished business, so I do hope that I’m returned with that honour and privilege.

As many speeches before me have alluded to, a lot of our attention is turning full steam to the election campaign out there and reflecting on the sentiment and the anger and the anxiety and the exhaustion that New Zealanders are feeling within our communities, and I’ve got to say, it’s incredibly gutting as a result that so many politicians in here are willing to exploit exactly that exhaustion and that fear. New Zealanders deserve a Parliament and a Government that leads with bold vision and values and implements that through evidence-based policy.

I’ve heard a lot of talk this afternoon in this place about this economy, and every political party seems to bring it up as though it was handed to us on these stone tablets by the gods. But this economy is a set of rules created by people in this place, in the past and to this day. We do not live in a game of Monopoly, which, as I’ve said in this place before, was invented by a woman called Elizabeth Magie in the early 1900s to teach children about the dangers of an economy that is premised on land speculation. In the words of Jeanette Fitzsimons, we have an economy that at present exploits both people and the planet, but it doesn’t have to be this way. We can instead put in place rules that recognise the inherent dignity of people and the planet—settings that don’t actually run all of us into the ground in a trickle-down, dog-eat-dog race to the bottom.

Here’s the state of our economy: the Government commissioned advice and published it at the beginning of this year which showed us that the top 311 families in this country hold more wealth combined than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders. That is not an accident. It is a logical consequence of a tax system which is set up—and we know it is set up now, by virtue of that reporting—to see that those on the wealthiest end of the spectrum pay an effective tax rate less than half of that of the average New Zealander. What that means is that New Zealanders who, on average, hold a wealth of $276 million pay a lower effective tax rate—less than half the effective tax rate—of our firefighters, of our teachers, of our nurses, and of those who are the supposed average, everyday, hardworking New Zealanders that I’m assuming that the National Party invokes.

Now, we can unlock those resources that we already have here to unleash the potential of every New Zealander, like the Government did in the 1930s and 1940s in response to the Great Depression. Confronted with those crises, it decided to fairly tax those who had profited handsomely during a time of hardship for many, and instituted the public infrastructure which has subsequently been degraded to this day. They instituted public holidays and the 40-hour work week, and they instituted our public healthcare system, but they didn’t quite go far enough in ensuring that everybody had access to free dental care or a guaranteed minimum income, or to ensure that we had a carbon-neutral economy, which are precisely the propositions that the Greens are putting on the table this election.

Now, why is it that we’re hearing nothing from the two legacy parties about the necessary transformation to meet the issues of our time? Well, I’ve got to say that it’s probably got something to do with how there is no incentive for change when you are profiting from the status quo, when you are intent on gridlocking the window—the Overton window—of what is politically possible. That’s what we saw today from the National Party, unfortunately. We saw a tax proposal which sought to offer tinkering, and speculative tinkering at that.

I just think it’s important to put on the record what is on the table here. A retired couple under the National Party’s plan would receive an extra $13 per week from the Nats, but would receive $32 per week from the Greens. A family with two kids at primary school with a combined income of $130,000 would receive $50 per week under the National Party, but would receive $188 per week under the Greens.

They’ve also promised to double the price of public transport for people with low incomes and disabilities. They’ve also promised—kind of—a bit of the climate dividend, but if you read between the lines and get into the detail of their policy document, what you’d find is that, instead, they’re looking to raid the emissions trading scheme revenue raised into the Climate Emergency Response Fund to pay for their tax cuts, which disproportionately benefit those at the top end of town, and that’s not even getting into the heroic assumptions around foreign buyers. They have the gall to tell us that they care about house prices, but they can’t even say they want them to come down.

New Zealand can choose transformation this election, and it looks like a party vote Green.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Look, I’ve heard a lot of discussion in the last few months and accusations of being soft on crime. I want to raise about being soft on poverty and soft on hate and bigotry. And what we have seen is accusations of coalitions of this, this, and this. In fact, I’ve seen a coalition of bloated barons. But anyway, never have I seen such a wasteful use of influence when we have here those who are so lazy and apathetic that they are triggering fear instead of creating policy that could have been transformational and, indeed, provided solutions.

What we have seen amongst the screen of co-governance, He Puapua, Māori separatism, is a complete lack of attention on the white collar crime—the $7 billion in tax evasion that’s gone around safely unattacked and under the radar. We are the only tangata whenua party that has sight of the struggling poor, and saying consciously, Māori are not the problem to be punished, we are the opportunity waiting to happen. That’s why we have said we must continue to be fearless in supporting what we have seen, which is big parties refusing to address the problem of poverty.

We have talked about removing GST from all kai. We have talked about regulating supermarkets and their ability to hike prices, removing income tax for low-income whānau, increasing income tax on those earning more than $200,000, increasing the corporate tax from 28 percent to 33 percent. We will also—unlike what we didn’t see happen today—unlike National, talk about net wealth tax. We would implement a net wealth tax, foreign companies’ tax, land banking tax, vacant house tax. Our tax system is doing exactly what it was designed to do, and that is designed to give privilege to the rich. We’re not anti being wealthy, what we’re anti about is trying to get through a tax system that’s been designed against us.

So now what we have in Aotearoa is the richest 10 percent owning half of the wealth in the country, and on top of that, the average person in Aotearoa paying 20.2 percent in tax while the filthy rich pay 9.4 percent. It’s time that we were transformational. Te Paati Māori needs to be in with this next Government because that’s clearly what is lacking. We’ve seen the growing wealth inequality in our country. It’s unacceptable—totally unacceptable—that over 2 million people in Aotearoa earn less than $30,000 per year. And we’re wondering why we have other social complex issues. Nearly 50 percent of our working population do not earn enough to live. So we’ve got to shift the tax burden from the poor to the wealthy and restore dignity, fairness, and economic justice in Aotearoa—that’s what we stand for.

Instead, here what we have is a New Zealand where we’ve got more houses empty than we have people needing houses. But because we subsidise and don’t tax the extravagant lifestyles of the rich, it’s been normalised. No one should go hungry while supermarkets are making record profits in Aotearoa. No one should be homeless when there are enough vacant houses to house everyone. Whānau should not be having to choose between paying their bills on time or taking their babies to the doctor. And we are no longer accepting excuses from the two major parties who are fighting to keep people poor. We are putting our pou in the ground and now is the time for radical change—our tamariki are literally hungry for it.

Under our tax plan—our tax provision we talked about—4.2 million people will be better off paying less in tax in Aotearoa; that’s 98 percent of our population. We are endearing. Like I said, we must be fearless. And we keep talking about this: we hear a lot of talk about the unprecedented times, but we’re not, sadly, seeing any unprecedented solutions. It means that we have to sit there and be the smallest ones. We will put ourselves on the line for the type of radical change that’s needed.

So we stand at the precipice of an Aotearoa hou, and that’s the slogan that we’ve chosen, because we are the only ones future-focused on what Aotearoa could look like, where we could have economic justice. And it shouldn’t just be a dream; it should be a reality. So we don’t want to continue to be a people who survives, we want and we must go into thrivance. So we want thrivance for all people of Aotearoa. So we envisage an Aotearoa hou where every whānau is thriving. Our policy that we stand for, our values, and our kaupapa is to be the most transformative party supporting those who are truly focused on eradicating poverty, looking after our planet, and making sure that we can have dignity. No more beating up on minorities—that’s detestable. Kia ora rā.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, point of order. I wish to inform the House that in the extended sitting tomorrow morning, the business to be considered will be the Parole Amendment Bill and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

Bills

St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill

Second Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill be now read a second time.

I have every intention of being back in the House after 14 October as part of a Labourled Government. When that happens, I will no longer be the member of Parliament for Wellington Central because I am not running in that seat, and the excellent Ibrahim Omer will win that seat and be the MP for Wellington Central.

So, as I come towards the end of my time, 15 years, as the member of Parliament for Wellington Central, it’s with some pleasure that I’m able to stand in the House today and deal with what is a relatively minor matter but quite a significant one for St Peter’s Anglican Church. At the outset, I want to acknowledge, in this second reading, the work of the select committee in having gone through this bill. Like all bills, there were always issues; there are always things that come up that need to be dealt with and the committee dealt with those in a very sensible and rational way. I want to thank them for allowing members of the St Peter’s parish and trust board to be represented within the sessions of the committee. It allowed problems to be dealt with immediately and I think that kind of approach is actually a very constructive one, which select committees might want to think about more often when they’re dealing with private bills and bill of this nature—local bills that are very particular to the institution—and the knowledge of what it means, how a change would impact, in this case the St Peter’s parish and the endowment trust fund; having those people in the room is particularly useful.

I do want to acknowledge Ross Tanner for the extremely hard work that he has put in to this bill over a significant amount of time and—indeed, many of the other things he’s done in the Wellington Central community over the years that I’ve been serving it—and all of those from the parish who are represented today, for whom this bill matters.

To go back to the beginning, as it were, St Peter’s is a church that many folks will know. It sits very conveniently down on the corner of Vivian Street and Willis Street. It’s very close, about 30 or 40 metres from my electorate office, where I’ve been for the last 15 years. During that period of time, I’ve attended numerous events at the church ranging, as I think I might have said in my first reading speech, from somewhat the extraordinary Wellington Fringe Festival awards nights—which are not, when they play out, the kind of thing you would expect in a church, I can assure you, but they’re a lot of fun—all the way through to candidate debates, very serious debates on issues, and I want to acknowledge Stephen King, who’s in the gallery, and Charles Waldergrave and others who have led the Ngā Kōrero series that has happened at the church. That’s been an exceptional act of public interest, to have those conversations in the community with the doors, as they always are at St Peter’s, wide open.

It’s also, and I got this wrong in my first reading speech—I think I said the wrong Wilson, and the chance of doing it again; it’s Godfrey, isn’t it?—that’s what I’m looking for, yes. Yes, Godfrey Wilson, who delivered, in 1967, a landmark sermon on homosexuality at St Peter’s church, and the church has always been an institution that has, and certainly in my 15 years, celebrated diversity. As a church that does this work—social justice work; community engagement work; celebrates diversity; it’s an arts venue; it’s a venue that all Wellingtonians know is an open space for them; it currently hosts The Free Store Wellington—there are a lot of the most vulnerable residents of Wellington who see St Peter’s as an integral part of their daily lives. So it’s with that background that we bring this bill to the House; a church that has been there for a very, very long time and has much more to offer Wellingtonians and, indeed, the whole of New Zealand, but this bill will help them do that.

The particular trust deed that is being amended here dates back to 1922, and its provisions are very much based on a 1920s legal model. The investment powers of the trust board are limited in the existing trust deed and the provisions are silent on many of the legal provisions that govern the endowment fund. The 1922 trust deed also restricts the size of distributions to the lesser of either the amount of income earned in the current year or the preceding year, limiting the ability of the trust board to, effectively, distribute income for the intended charitable purposes. There is a great deal more money in the pot now than there once was and, unfortunately, because of the nature of the deed, it is not possible for the trust board to be able to give the money out in a way that I think they would like and, indeed, all of us would like to see.

So the trust board has recommended a revised endowment fund trust deed to address limitations and difficulties in its current operations. The revised deed is clarifying the investment powers of the trust board, bringing them into alignment with current best practice and removing those limitations on distribution that I mentioned in a revision of the trust deed. This will allow the trust board, the parish, to be able to play its role in the social justice and community interventions that I mentioned before, but also make sure that current and future trustees and the board itself is compliant with relevant legislation.

It’s important to note that the bill did go through all of the necessary things that happen when a private bill comes forward so, as far back as April 2021, there was a special general meeting of the parish to be able to work through the issues. There was a bit of coming and going with Crown Law—such is the nature of these things—but we found ourselves to come in front of the select committee with a bill that I am very pleased the committee has put through without amendment. I think that proves that the hard work that did go into it was well and truly worthwhile.

There were a couple of matters that were raised in the committee which the committee dealt with very well and I probably will leave committee members, if they choose to, to talk about that or we can take it up in the upcoming committee of the whole House stage. But they were matters which, I think, were dealt with relatively easily around the question of distribution and exceptional circumstances and around the interaction of this piece of legislation with, in particular, the charitable trust Acts and the Anglican Church trust Acts. In both cases, the committee talked to their advisors, listened to the church, and came to the conclusion that the bill could continue in the state that it was brought in front of the House.

So, for me, this is a bit of a landmark day when it comes to the work of a local MP because much of it is in this kind of vein where we work with organisations closely in our community for the greater good, and St Peter’s is most definitely an organisation that does that. They will now be in a position to be able to use more of the funds that they have for the good deeds for which they are well-known and to do so in a way that is legally safe and robust enough to be able to survive any future changes that might occur to other pieces of legislation.

So, with that, I do want to commend the bill to the House. I want to thank the select committee again for their work. I want to thank members of the St Peter’s parish, the trust board, in particular, for their hard work in bringing us to this place, and to wish the church well in its ongoing work in our city. I was once asked what my vision for Wellington City was, at a Rotary club of Wellington event, and I said I wanted Wellington to be the opposite of loneliness. And I think St Peter’s church does a great job in making our city that very thing. I commend the bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m actually very pleased to take a call on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. It did, I will admit, come as a bit of a surprise. I do not sit on the Governance and Administration Committee. It may even be a surprise for the parishioners of St Peter’s! I don’t think I’ve been called upon because I’m a trained theologian; I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think this is an attempt to advance the cause of ecumenism, because I’m a Catholic, but I’ll do my best to the Anglican Communion. I also don’t think it’s because I’ve had an excellent working relationship in the health sector, with Ross Tanner. I think it’s because it’s an opportunity, and it’s an opportunity first and foremost to say thank you. It’s first and foremost to say thank you, not only to those who do religious service, but it’s also an opportunity to thank those involved, including actually the Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, who’s speaking.

Part of the reason I am involved is that I’ve had to deal, for a variety of reasons, with religious trusts over the years. I’m not a lawyer or anything like that, but as those in the gallery will know, and those listening, often when these trusts and funds are put together for vestries or parishes or for religious good, the intentions at the time don’t often translate well into the future. As the parishioners, and certainly the trust board, know an enormous amount of work has to be undertaken. So can I start with some thanks, as we come into this second reading, and if I might, I’ll start with the Minister. I think actually—and he touched on it himself, from his own personal side—Grant Robertson is a great example of a hardworking local MP. I say that, obviously, on this side of the House. See what religion can do! Look, quite seriously, he’s a connected MP who actually works for the good of their community and, when there’s a need, works hard. I think it comes with a gravitas and mana, so I just acknowledge the Minister for the way that he has shepherded this private bill through.

Certainly, the select committee has had to do a lot of work alongside their officials. Any time you are changing a trust, things get complicated, let alone when you bring in the Charities Act or the laws around the Anglican Church, both in Crown law but, I would probably suggest, even within the Anglican tradition itself, and right through, of course, to the Charities Acts. The purpose of this, though, is relatively simple: the trust wants to use its money more effectively, and they’ve been limited to date, from a very initial small endowment to what has now become quite a substantial amount of money, which, as I understand, the parish wants to spend. Even though I’m an Aucklander, I know of St Peter’s; I know of the good that they do. It’s a massive contribution into Wellington and, as Mr Robertson put, it’s a way, amongst others, to address loneliness, at whatever level you want to articulate that. So this piece of law, as it progresses through the House, will give much greater flexibility to the trust board to spend money.

Reading through the original trust’s Act and so forth, they were very limited, based on either the income of this year or of the previous year. But so much more can be done. I know the select committee—and we might bring it up at the committee of the whole House stage: it’s really around the question of how we go from having it so tight and limited, to whether it’s far too open, as some may have suggested. I don’t think that is the case by any means. I think this is one of the great things of parish endowment funds and the like: that, actually, you’ve got a group of people who see the wellbeing not only of that fund but of the people they serve. There are also questions around the whole interaction—or rather the committee was looking at the interactions—between, obviously, the endowment fund itself, the initial legislation back in the 1920s, and again how that fits in with the current Charities Act. As Crown Law has advised, this is a piece of law that is important to be working its way through Parliament. So, as I say, we’re pleased to support it on this side of the House.

Look, I’m not going to chew up the House’s time by running through all the particulars, other than to say that this has been well considered, I think well traversed, and ultimately—ultimately—I think it’s going to further the aims, obviously, of St Peter’s. And I want to really stress that word “further” because the work that you already lead in the community is important, well-known, and respected; this is going to enhance it even further. And, if I could somewhat bookend where I started, this is ultimately going to be an expression of that love and faith in society. It is one thing, if I might, to preach and to talk—says a politician!—but it’s another to actually do. If I might, it’s that whole faith and works playing together, without creating a new schism or argument. We have faith and works working together, and the jolly decent thing is that you have a lot of money to spend. I have absolute confidence that will be done so well for the people of Wellington. Thank you very much.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to take a call on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. I unfortunately missed the first reading—I was not in the House and so was unable to take my call that day—so it is a real pleasure to be able to take some time today to speak to this bill. I do so with two hats on, I guess, the first being the deputy chair of the Governance and Administration Committee that considered the bill, but my other hat is being probably one of the staunchest Anglicans in this House. There are many, who I am looking at in the gallery today, who I know, and who my parents know, through being a very proud member of the Anglican Church for 43 years of my life.

I do want to begin, as well, by acknowledging the member for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, and his 15 years in that role. I know he will still hold the role of Minister of Finance from the middle of October and going forward, for at least another three years. But I do want to note the remarkable contribution and just reflect on the small role I had in his selection for that fine position as the member for Wellington Central, having been a member of the Labour Party, living in this fine electorate at that time. I know that, for the member, the work of churches and other groups, such as unions and other NGOs, in the area of social justice was one of the dear causes for his heart for Wellington Central. So I do just want to acknowledge the work that he has done and how pleased I was to be able to play my very small part in helping him be here in this House.

Hon Grant Robertson: You had your wedding in a different Anglican Church, though.

RACHEL BOYACK: But yes—no, I was married at—

Hon Grant Robertson: The larger one.

RACHEL BOYACK: —at the larger one. At the one that sometimes—I’m not going to use the colloquial term we have for it, because I might get in a bit of trouble. But at the one across the road, where I married my wonderful husband, Scott, who I am just going to mention because he intimately understands some of the work that’s involved in these bills.

Scott is an accountant in Nelson but has spent many years, until recently, on the Nelson diocese finance team. So he’s spent a lot of time meeting regularly to look at the finances of the Nelson diocese as a volunteer within the church, as well as being a church treasurer of two Anglican churches, which is how he ended up becoming an accountant. Initially, that’s what I was going to be, when I was growing up.

I just want to turn to the bill briefly, and then just make some comments, if you’ll indulge me, around the role of the church in social justice, and some of the times we face now. Firstly, though, I will turn to the bill.

The purpose of the bill is to make amendments to the trust deed governing the endowment fund that the church holds. One of the challenges that we do face in the Anglican Church—it’s not just the Anglican Church; it’s other organisations—is that because these institutions are so old, they are often governed by statute as opposed to sitting alongside a trust deed of some sort that’s come through current law that we hold. We’ve actually seen a few of these bills come through the House this term, such that the Governance and Administration Committee has said we’re quite keen to take a look at what other options we could have for amending these. On one hand, they do take up the House’s time—which I don’t suggest is something we shouldn’t be doing—but it also takes up a significant amount of time for the organisations that put forward private bills. I note that we probably will be discussing some matters that are relevant, when we have discussions around Standing Orders, because we want to make sure that those organisations that are the holders of these pieces of legislation are able to make changes to them in a way that is nimble and flexible. But also, there is a useful option here for the House and for the select committees to be able to test out those changes and any changes that could be of concern to the House.

It’s something that our committee has grappled with this term, and it’s a good thing for us to discuss. I am not suggesting any wholesale changes to Acts and how they operate, because I would probably have the Bishop of Nelson on the phone to me tonight saying to me, “What are you doing?” But I do think that having these bills come through has allowed to have that conversation, which is really good.

Essentially, as the member in charge of the bill, Grant Robertson, has pointed out, the main purpose of the bill is to ensure that the parish can use the funds that it has available to it to do the work that it wishes to do. I have a number of examples I can use from my own experience, where money is set aside—for example, in some of our parishes in Nelson—where it can only be used to maintain the church organ. We end up with literally millions of dollars sitting in accounts to maintain the pipe organ. Now, being the holder of a music degree, an Anglican Church musician myself, and the daughter of a church organist, maintaining the pipe organ is very important. We often have these situations where we end up with money being attached to a specific item within the church, and, actually, the church’s objectives and what they want to do with that money—and, in this case, St Peter’s plays a huge role in social justice—it means it makes it very, very difficult for the church to be able to achieve the objectives of both the people who establish the parish, what they want to achieve for the parish, but also the current members of the parish.

So what this bill does is it allows that flexibility in terms of how that money can be spent, while still ensuring that the capital account can be maintained in perpetuity, because that’s important that it doesn’t get drained and the funds be reduced.

One of the things the committee did grapple with was the comment in the nature of an “exceptional circumstance”. So I just want to make some commentary around that, because clause 5(3) states that “In exceptional circumstances, the vestry may request that the Trust Board make an additional distribution.” We did have a discussion around whether we needed a definition for what “exceptional circumstances” were, but we, in the end, decided to stick with the case by case basis that should be exercised if an exceptional circumstance does materialise that would require a larger amount to be dispersed.

I’m sure we will be able to ask the member in charge a couple more questions during the committee of the whole House stage. Before do, though, I just wanted, I guess, turn to some comments around social justice, because, a couple of weeks ago, I had quite a moving moment when I was walking down the corridor on level two of this House. One of our retiring members Jamie Strange called out to me and said, “Rachel, I’ve got this in my office and I don’t what to do with it, and would you know what to do with it?” And I went into his office and he had a banner with the Anglican Church logo on it from the 1998 Hīkoi of Hope. I opened it up and I was extremely moved to open up this banner. It was given to Jamie Strange by former MP for Christchurch Central Tim Barnett. So I contacted Tim to find out how he came into possession of the banner. It had been given to him by a Christchurch priest from the Canterbury diocese, who had arrived in Wellington and given it to him, and it ended up hanging on his wall while he was in Parliament. So he gave it to Jamie Strange, who’s given it to me. So I’ve been in touch with Michael Hughes, who’s the General Secretary of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia and I’m going to be returning it to the Auckland diocese—they’ve determined that’s where it should go—on Saturday, when I’m in Auckland.

It’s been remarkable for me to just reflect on the Hīkoi of Hope and talk to mother about it, because it was a formative time in my life, when we had a cost of living crisis in the 1990s. At the end of that time, we had seen—well, during that time, actually, early on, we’d seen benefits cuts, we’d seen high unemployment, and we’d seen selling off of State houses. That Hīkoi of Hope was one of the turning points, I think, in the life of New Zealand, which did lead to the election of a 1999 Labour Government, and certainly influenced the first vote I took, in 1999.

In these times, which are very, very tough, as an Anglican who proudly stands on the values of social justice, being able to talk to this bill tonight is actually a real reminder to me of the Anglican values and the Labour Party values that I hold, that I believe align very closely. This is a time where we need to put hope first and where we need to look after those who are most vulnerable, at all times. That’s why I’m so proud to be a member in this House—on this side of the House that is looking at how we house people, lift incomes for our most vulnerable, and, at this time, focus on hope and not fear. I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it really is a pleasure this afternoon to be speaking on this bill. In my time in Parliament, we’ve dealt with a lot of bills that perhaps come from the 1950s or the 1960s or a relevant amount of time ago, but very seldom do we ever deal with one that comes from 96 years ago, and actually from 1927—and it really is a no-brainer to be working on the updating of this bill.

I really do want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee—I’m an ex-member and a chair of that committee, and it really is interesting, and I have worked with Rachel Boyack in the past and there are some very interesting pieces of legislation that come through there. And perhaps I can sort of understand—having not been on the committee through that phase—thinking about how we might deal with some of these bills in the future, because the time and effort that churches and other groups have to go through in getting a bill like this passed through Parliament can be quite onerous, and for a lot of groups are also quite costly, unless there are some charitable legal options that they’re able to take in terms of people doing some of the work for them.

I also have noted that the church has been extremely good, and I’ve taken a lot of lead from the Hansard on the first reading, particularly the speech done by the Hon Grant Robertson, talking about how the church has provided important community services for the people of Wellington and worked really hard on issues like climate change, working for families, living wage—a range of things in the social justice area. And I must say that at a time where we’ve only got a matter of hours left in this House and sometimes the tensions of politics—particularly at election time—tend to take over and tolerance disappears, it’s actually really nice to be standing here and working with a group of people who have provided so much tolerance and love for all. And if it means that we become more tolerant of each other in this House, then maybe you might like to come back more often, because at the moment it’s having a really good effect on the House of Parliament.

So the bill has been through significant consultation with the St Peter’s parish community, and I have to say, from all accounts—and not having any involvement in this, but the feedback that I’ve had is that the church has worked extremely hard to get the bill to this stage. It is a significant achievement, and you should all be proud of where you’ve got this to. We note that the bill restricts the size of the distributions to the lesser of either the amount of income earned in the current year or the amount of income earned in the preceding year. And for good reason, the trust board wishes to amend the deed to resolve this. So now the bill basically states, in clause 5, that the Trust “may … distribute up to 4% of the [trust] fund in [any] financial year … lend to the parish … [and is able to] make … additional distribution[s]”—in certain circumstances, up to a limit of 20 percent. I can understand why the Governance and Administration Committee have had a discussion about “certain” and “exceptional” circumstances, except that I can also understand how that could be very hard to define and probably something that is probably best left to the judgment of those who sit on the trust board, because each exceptional and certain circumstance may end up being quite different, and we hope that you don’t face too many of those, because often they come in adverse situations.

So the St Peter’s Endowment Fund, according to the information I’ve been given, is worth $5.7 million in land, property, and financial security. So I must say, over the course of many, many years, it has been a very soundly-run fund, which has been put to some extremely good use. And I think it’s commendable that the trustees wish to modernise and reflect, because modernising after 96 years is a very fair request. To take account of the provision of all relevant legislation that currently exists, a lot has changed in 100 years. I lost my grandmother about 2½ years ago, and she was 104 years of age, and I often reflect on the things that she would have seen in her lifetime, and it’s really been interesting, probably for her and many other people who have the luck of reaching that age—hopefully in good health—that they do see a lot of change in their lifetime. Certainly, 96 years is a fair period for a piece of legislation to be lasting.

So Crown Law did advise the trust board that to vary the provisions of the trust deed, they must seek to do this through a private Act of Parliament, which of course is why we’re here now, and it has taken quite a considerable amount of time, but we’re here now—and I really think that this is a very good bill to enable the trust board to lend to the St Peter’s Anglican Parish in Wellington, but also to be able to carry out the good work that they’ve been carrying out through until this time. So with that, it’s my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill.

Before I carry on with speaking on the bill, I just want to add my voice to the voice of other members who spoke in this House about the member who brought this bill to this House, the Hon Grant Robertson, and the last 15 years of his service to Wellington Central. In the last few months, I’ve been engaging with a lot of Wellingtonians on the campaign trail. The testament—what I hear from the people that 15 years of his service to Wellington; even the last six years, being the Minister of Finance, he is always someone who turns up to events, whether they’re big, small, medium. I just want to thank him for his service to Wellington, but also for bringing this bill on behalf of St Peter’s church today.

The purpose of this bill is to modernise governing arrangements of the St Peter’s parish endowment fund, which was last updated a long, long time ago—which was 1927. The trust board was established by the declaration then, of the trust board, which was 8 August 1922.

I just want to talk a little bit about St Peter’s church. It is one of the entities that makes Wellington feel like home. I know that many members of the church are today here with us, and many of them are people that I proudly call good friends as well. Because the role of the church, in making Wellington what it is, and looking after those most vulnerable members of our communities—the member in charge of this bill talked about the church’s role in highlighting the issues of the LGBTQ communities 50 years ago, for example. But also, in the last 15 years of me being in Wellington, I had a lot to with the church; that’s around the social justice and the work that the church and its members do fighting for the living wage and the fair pay agreements for those who are most vulnerable in our communities.

But also, their role, and the work that they have done with the members of the Muslim community after the March 15th attacks: St Peter’s stepped up and embraced the Muslim community. They organised a lot of events after events, making the community feel good, but at the same time also feel safe as well. Not only their members, but they managed to bring members of the Wellington community in wrapping their arms around the Muslim community as well.

It was only after—in May, the second day from the Budget, the church’s child poverty action group got us together to talk about Budget 2023, but also the work that has been done in the space of child poverty. It was a very useful discussion to everyone who attended. I was one of the people that was lucky enough to be invited and be there.

So, a few years ago, St Peter’s church was one of the entities that spearheaded the campaign to increase the refugee quota. I remember Bishop Justin, who was walking all the way from Wellington Central to Parliament barefoot and demanding the politicians step up and increase the quota. Those of us who are in refugee communities are very grateful for the work that the church has done not only in the space of increasing wages but also speaking up on behalf of those often vulnerable communities.

So, this is a good bill; it’s a timely bill. I want to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee, who did diligent work on this bill and made it the way it is today, and also the submitters, who took time to submit to this bill. I’m sure their submissions improved the bill, and because of their contribution and engagement the bill is now better than it was at the beginning. It’s a timely bill and it’s a good bill. I commend it to the House.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the ACT Party, I rise to speak on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. It was very interesting reading through this, because, again, not from Wellington; however, experienced a lot what has occurred in Christchurch with the Anglican churches down there.

Reading through all this, it was very interesting the history that Minister Grant Robertson informed us, when this was originally sat back in 1922, then the endowment fund in 1927—and at this stage, we’re 100 percent sure there’s no one of that age here. However, things have changed.

Hon Grant Robertson: Willie Jackson’s here.

TONI SEVERIN: But one will never know—one can always be hiding. But then, also, the charities trust—this is part of that—is to get us back into modern life. Even the Charitable Trust Act, which is 1957—we might have a few people that are closer to that age—then again we’ve had the Anglican Church Trusts Act 1981, which I’m thinking we’re coming a little bit closer to home for many people in Parliament; and then, of course, the Trusts Act 2019.

But it was very interesting to read through and find out that the minimum trust payments are that they could only pay out £1,500—and many people wouldn’t even know what a pound looks like—and then it goes to £10,000. So we’re no longer working with pounds; we’re working with dollars. Anything that can help a great organisation that does great work—we’re all for it, especially when they have been able to achieve the savings that they have and doing the good work that they have within the social justice area.

I understood this makes it just that much more flexible to be using this money, and that’s great, especially those from us in Christchurch that understand when extreme circumstances can occur and especially with us losing many of our old churches in Christchurch—of which many were Anglican churches—that extreme circumstance that they have in this bill, we hope, in Wellington, do not need to use on an earthquake. But we do know that adverse things do happen and there’s also anything with buildings, we know, when they are of age as well, we just hope that everything’s going well.

But in general, the bill: we were quite happy. I did not sit on the Governance and Administration Committee, but I believe that they have gone through this very well, and that Crown Law has come through. We might need to start looking at some of these quite old bills that may need to be updated, because we are constantly changing laws here and many people get caught in the changes. It’s a huge cost, as well as time, for these people that have these sorts of trusts and conditions placed on them from like 1927—that’s, yeah. It’s hard to believe, to think that they’ve operated for this length of time with these constraints that they had around them.

So with that, we commend this bill to the House and we think it’s going to do a great job to help the Wellington community and help St Peter’s parish to continue their good work that they have achieved. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to arise and take a call on this bill, the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. I did sit on the Governance and Administration Committee—a great select committee—as well, when we scrutinised this bill. I thoroughly enjoyed the submissions process, because I got to meet many members of the church and their excellent legal adviser who we’ve now become very good friends with over many bills—advising my select committees—including members of the clergy as well, and to see your dedication to your community and to the church as well.

I took a particular interest, I think, in the way that churches are governed and the structures that we hold to hold this sacred institute, but at the same time to have laws—the laws of man, really, is what I call it—to interact with the Church of God, and being able to go into those discussions and see where the church interfaces with law, with the society, in terms of the social justice programme that my colleague Rachel Boyack has already talked about. That was something that has left a long-lasting impression with me after that interaction that day, especially the submission from the social justice committee—so having another arm, another body to specifically carry out that work but also the different memberships that the trust has as well. So it’s great to hear also that day that this bill and the changes we’re about to make here in the House has the support of the whole entire church and all the different branches and all the different arms of the church as well.

I do have my own story with the St Peter’s church on Willis Street. It’s probably not one that people expect. I stay in the Victoria Street Precinct Apartments, which are built right next to the church and on its land. On the first Sunday, I remember, when newly elected, that I stayed in that apartment, I worked to the beautiful church bells, which were obviously an hour before I had anticipated getting up that day, because I was trying to recover from the campaign trail. Then I’ve since learnt that if I want to have a sleep-in on a Sunday morning, I shouldn’t be staying in my Wellington apartment.

But then I saw the different people that streamed into the church and then I discovered that on the ground floor of my apartment building there was that community centre as well. And I saw firsthand the work that St Peter’s were doing on the ground here in Wellington and within its own community. That was probably the most straightforward way that I could really appreciate the wide-ranging work that the church is doing here in Wellington. For this bill to be able to give the church, I guess, its wider power—it’s a bit more flexibility in terms of how it deals with its finance, in terms of how it supports all the other different types of work that it’s doing. I think it’s just a much needed change.

My colleagues have limited my use of this following phrase to probably once a month or once a year, which is “This bill was enacted before I was even born.” I think I can say that very safely for this bill, as the member who’s just resumed her seat has mentioned. Today’s bill is one where we’re trying to amend an Act—so the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Act 1927, and obviously, in that original Act in 1927, we have built a structure that is of that time and obviously does not work and is no longer compatible for modern-day New Zealand.

Being able to update that to make it compatible and to be able to analyse across different legal entities into the ones that we have and that are most comparable, in terms of the legal instruments that we can use to help and build the Church, I think is very much necessary. And it’s really good that we’ve looked at, in the select committee process, how the funds are distributed. We know that there’s $5.7 million in the investment fund. That’s a great and healthy, I think, financial governance that we’ve put into place in the church. Being able to still support that and support the church in a sustainable growth in the years to come, to fulfil its vision and mission in the community, I think is something that I’m extremely proud to have played a part in.

We’ve also looked at the exceptional circumstances, as well, in the select committee process where we can, I guess, deviate a little bit from the set rules, where we can respond to some of those needs. I think there’s no other better example than COVID-19, when we had to really be creative and be nimble about the way that we responded in those kind of circumstances. So being able to give the trust a bit of flexibility in how to respond to unanticipated events has been really good as well.

Then there was also the liability and indemnities of trustees, which I think is now quite a standard clause in most trust deeds, and then there’s some other loose ends that we’re tying in. Obviously, the select committee also commented on the future of these private bills and how Parliament can better respond to them and be more efficient for both the people who want to change a trust deed and for Parliament as well.

This is a great bill. I’m very proud and very humbled to have played a little part in this, and so I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. I rise to take a very brief call to demonstrate the Green Party’s support for the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. I acknowledge the member, the Hon Grant Robertson, for bringing this forward on behalf of a significant constituency within his electorate. This is amending a bill and a trust that was put in place in—as we’ve heard—1927 and is about reflecting the will of the church and their community. And I really feel like it’s their business—ha, ha! And the sooner we get to the point where Parliament doesn’t need to spend time on enabling the church to do its own business, the better. I support this bill.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): As I start, I want to acknowledge the Rev Bob Scott, who, a month ago, passed away. He was not only a good Labour man—member of the Labour Party but he was one of the ministers at St Peter’s back in the 1960s. I had the privilege of knowing the Rev Bob Scott and was saddened by his passing, but also reflecting on the work that he did at St Peter’s, the work that he did to support the InnerCity Mission and ministry, things like—we think of the Wellington City Mission, and Bob Scott was integral in that.

So I just want to reflect and pause to acknowledge the Rev Bob Scott for his contribution to St Peter’s, to the parish, to the wider community of Wellington, of New Zealand, but also he stretched beyond that because the work of apartheid in South Africa—he was a part of working to end that regime, and to bring healing into not only places like St Peter’s but also around the world. So I want to acknowledge the Rev Bob Scott this afternoon as we come closer to passing this piece of legislation.

Now, I did mention it in my opening speech in the first round—the first reading, and I know that the Hon Grant Robertson has also talked about it, but I just get a chuckle from the fact that Bob Scott and his antics—his antics with the Rev Godfrey Wilson and that national radio programme back in 1967—all from St Peter’s. The first open and affirming speech for our rainbow community from a church in New Zealand, and that will go down in history as a good thing. At the time, I’m not sure if people thought so much of that, but we look back at the journey and the steps to not only homosexual law reform or marriage equality but to the liberation of our rainbow community that I’m part of. So I want to say thank you not only to Bob Scott and Godfrey Wilson but also to the parish of St Peter’s. I see some of you in the gallery this afternoon and I say thank you for your mahi, and continue to do the mahi.

I guess that is what this legislation is about. It is around ensuring that this fund, created a number of years ago, continues to serve the purpose of the church, which, of course, we know is to serve the purpose of community, to build community. For those of you who are familiar with the Christian scriptures, obviously it’s around feeding the hungry, it’s around clothing the naked, it’s around visiting the prisoner and the sick. This legislation, although it’s words and it’s about legislation, it’s actually about the purpose which is to serve the community of Wellington, and the community of the world, as we see with many of the ministers and reverends that have gone on to work around New Zealand and the world.

I just want to acknowledge that this does need to be updated. There’s been lots of conversations around what should or shouldn’t be done in this House, but, at this point in time, this is the legal process and we will support it—very much. It’s around streamroll—almost said steamrolling—it’s around streamlining, let’s stick to that, shall we? Around streamlining the role for the trustees and to let St Peter’s plan so that you can continue to do your mission and your ministry.

Now, we all seem to try to find a story or a connection back to St Peter’s, it just feels like we’re doing that this afternoon. So I will do the same because, you know, I’ll just play along. And my earliest memory of St Peter’s was back in the 1990s. I was young and fit and handsome and had hair and didn’t have a belly, and all those sorts of things—

Simon O’Connor: In the last millennium.

GLEN BENNETT: And it was in the last millennium and I do remember going to midnight mass several times at Easter. I was a good Salvation Army boy and so I remember going to midnight mass one Easter—probably my first time and I remember getting this shock of my life when communion came round and, you know, the Salvation Army were very good, we had teetotallers—and to partake in the blood of Christ and the body of Christ made me a bit nervous when I realised I was partaking in alcohol. But in all seriousness, it was significant to reflect on what that story is, which is around giving up your lives to serve others.

This legislation helps to empower to do that. We thank you for your service and your mahi, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand today and speak in support of the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. I looked through the first readings of the speech as well as the report that came from the select committee, and obviously this fund was set up some time ago—1927—and in the first reading someone unkindly asked Ian McKelvie if he recalled it at all. I wouldn’t be so unkind as to suggest that of course. But speaking of Mr McKelvie, he was of course the chair of the select committee that took this bill through its submissions process. So the bill went to the Governance and Administration Committee in March this year and looked at the submissions, the nine written submissions and of course a number of oral submissions. And we can see from the submissions that the board members have worked diligently to ensure that this bill goes through to ensure the successful continuity of their endowment fund.

I served about nine years, I think, on Community Trust South and it is a significant responsibility for trustees of endowment funds like this that they not only make sure they are doing good work with the fund in their time, but also that they are safeguarding the fund for perpetuity and ensuring that it will be there to continue this good work of the church going forward. So you can see from the submissions and from the work that this board has done that they are very mindful of those significant responsibilities that they have. So clause 5 is the particularly important one which allows the trust board to distribute up to 4 percent of the endowment fund in any financial year. And it is that delicate decision making of that balance of being able to use funds as they are needed but also to ensure that the fund is not eroded over time. And so they’ve come to a very conservative but also very sensitive balance in that 4 percent.

They have noted, in clause 5(3), that under exceptional circumstances they may be able to exceed that 4 percent, and quite sensibly have not tried to put limitations or definitions around the threshold of what could be an exceptional circumstance. I think that’s been a very wise thing to do because there will be unforeseen circumstances that have to be considered at that time in the context of what is occurring at that time. So I think, wisely, they have left some opening there for the trustees to exercise good judgment and I know they will show that same sensible and enduring responsibility that they have shown up until now.

The administrative powers are covered in clause 6 and then clause 7 very importantly talks about mitigating that liability and indemnity of trustees. It’s really important that the trustees can go about their work without that fear of any losses that may occur—because there will be times when it is quite tough to be able to make that sort of return, and they have to have that indemnity. But of course they will be very aware that it doesn’t indemnify any dishonesty or wilful misconduct or negligence. But I’m sure that the very good trustees of this endowment fund will never fall into that category. So I am very pleased to be one of the speakers lending support to this St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. Thank you.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Mihi ana ki a koe e te Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa ngā rangatira o te St Peter’s.

[Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and to you, all the distinguished leaders of St Peter’s.]

It is my pleasure to take a short call on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. The bill seeks to remedy, with relation to income distribution, matters within its trust deed. The purpose of the bill is to bring its trust deed into the modern world. There’s no doubt, of course, deeds need to be reviewed from time to time. I was not involved with this bill, but I congratulate everyone that was involved. This bill does a number of things. It removes the restriction on the trust to distribute income, it repeals the former 1927 Act, and it ensures any future amendments can be provided under provisions of the Anglican Church Trusts Act 1981 and possibly the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.

St Peter’s has a long and rich history, which dates back to 1848, of advocating for social justice, especially for the lost, the last, and the least. In my world and that of Te Haahi Rātana, te pani me te rawakore—the orphans and the widows and those of the greatest need in our communities. I acknowledge also historically they are open to all in every aspect of worship, regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientations, race, or faith. Sadly, we can’t say the same for other Christian groups. But I commend and wholeheartedly celebrate St Peter’s in a way that due respect needs to be held here with their inclusivity. So in particular, of course, their long advocacy on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community. I acknowledge too that the Wellington City Mission was formed from St Peter’s—it’s iconic to Wellington. I thank St Peter’s on behalf of every one of you. You do such a great service to our people. Tēnā koutou mihi ana ki a koutou tātou katoa.

[Thank you all, greetings to you all.]

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be the last National Party speaker in this debate on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. People who are watching on television or listening on their radios—or, indeed, in the gallery—will have got the sense now, having heard other speakers in this debate, that there is unanimity across the Parliament and support for this piece of legislation. That’s a good thing, because too often in this Parliament people look and see us arguing, debating philosophy and policy and principle, and all that sort of stuff.

Hon Grant Robertson: Philosophy?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Occasionally, we do do philosophy. My colleague Simon O’Connor is very good at it. So it’s quite nice, occasionally, for us to be united on a good piece of legislation that’s actually going to continue the good work that has been done over a long number of years, since the establishment of the original piece of legislation many years ago—back in 1927, I think, was the first piece of legislation.

Our Parliament has a history that dates back to around that time—and, in fact, even earlier times—of doing these special, bespoke pieces of legislation for a range of organisations, whether they be charitable, sporting, or indeed religious. I can remember, on a number of previous occasions in my time in Parliament, having to update legislation relating to other organisations. I remember after the Christchurch earthquakes, when there needed to be some updating of some of the bespoke pieces of legislation that related to horseracing and jockey clubs around Christchurch. The fact is that, when these pieces of legislation were first formulated, they were formulated with good intent, to encourage good community outcomes, for organisations that were doing good work across the nation in the particular sector or field that they operated in. But, over the years, many of those good intentions have been overtaken a little bit by time. The good intention remains, but the practical application of the piece of legislation has become, for a variety of reasons, limiting, inflexible, and not best placed to provide the kind of nimbleness and good governance that is now required in a modern environment, for a changed set of circumstances, and also not particularly well futureproofed. So I want to commend the local member, the Hon Grant Robertson, for his work in bringing this private bill to the House. He’s the sponsor, but it’s promoted by the St Peter’s Wellington Endowment Fund Trust Board. So it’s appropriate that, in this Parliament, we do update, modernise, and futureproof the good work that the folk at St Peter’s do, not only in the parish but also for the wider community that they represent.

In a previous life, I served for a number of years on an Anglican parish vestry that didn’t have the benefit of an endowment fund but was a heritage building over 100 years old. I have a particular memory of my years on that vestry, of the constant battle in terms of raising money to do significant maintenance work on the historic building, which was much loved in the local community but actually not necessarily as well supported by the local community. It was a relatively small congregation of wonderful people, generous of spirit, time, and energy, and financial support, but always struggling with the need for fixing some windows, or updating the roof, or fixing a leak, or upgrading the toilet facilities, or maybe the kitchen in the hall needed work—all those sorts of things that are a challenge constantly for the good folk who, almost inevitably, give so generously, voluntarily of their time to promote and encourage these wonderful institutions that form the very fabric of so many of our communities around the nation. In my electorate, in the Coromandel, we’ve got a number of churches that are of a similar vintage to St Peter’s. In Thames, in particular, we have a couple of outstandingly beautiful, magnificent, hard kauri built churches. I’m thinking of St George’s Anglican Church in Thames, and also St James’ Presbyterian Church in Thames—beautiful examples not only of religious buildings but actually of magnificent architectural buildings in their own right. But the constant demand to keep them up is ongoing and never ending.

So not every parish has the opportunity of having an endowment fund or a bespoke piece of legislation that goes with it. So, when we have an opportunity to update, modernise, and futureproof, as we are doing with this piece of legislation, that’s something that I think we should take advantage of. I know that to get to this point will have involved many, many hours, not just formal meetings and discussions within the trustees’ meetings but also amongst wider members of the congregation and parish community. They will have given very careful thought to the prudent and pragmatic approach that is going to be needed to ensure that this iconic building and this iconic institution that is so much part of central Wellington will be maintained and kept in good order and good governance over the many, many, many years ahead. I don’t have a particular knowledge of the building itself, other than I can remember about three years ago participating in a political debate on climate change in the precinct of the church. It was actually quite a good debate—

Hon Grant Robertson: Did you learn a lot?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, I had divine guidance on several matters, and I can remember James Shaw participated in that debate, as did several others. Now, I’m not sure that he was particularly inspirational in providing me with divine inspiration on that particular evening, but I do recall that it was a very appropriate and good setting for a debate that was in good mood, good heart, and just representative of the sorts of things that a church like St Peter’s provides to the wider community. It’s not just the Sunday services and the religious outreach; it’s far more than that. Other speakers have made mention of the very good and proud record that St Peter’s has, but I know, as a traditional Anglican myself, that by and large we don’t like change. Change comes slowly and with a lot of debate and a lot of angst and often a lot of gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands, but, eventually, we collectively get there, and so, on this piece of legislation, it’s an absolute pleasure to, as I say, be the last speaker on behalf of the National Party in this portion of the debate.

We will pass this legislation today, before the Parliament rises tomorrow, and I think it’s very fitting that part of what we do in the conclusion of this Parliament is to pass this piece of legislation. So, again, my thanks and appreciation go to everyone who has been involved in getting it thus far, and my best wishes and sincere good hopes for future endeavours. I’m sure that the church, the parish, and the community are going to endure, prosper, and succeed for many, many years to come.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a delight to rise and take a call on this bill. We’ve heard very much already about the changes that are required to modernise and make it possible for St Peter’s parish to continue to lead and to support their neighbours and the fight for social justice. So we’ve heard about all of that.

I guess I have a little confession that my children are not from a family that connects regularly with a church community. As a teenager, the only time I went to church was to sing because the acoustics are great and musicians are welcome in most churches. So my family only really experiences church communities when we go to weddings and to funerals, and maybe the odd christening. Yet, they had been beneficiaries of your mahi.

So when we were locals in in the Aro Valley and my kids were a lot younger and we’d walk down Willis Street, they would see the people congregating and waiting for that very precious container to open up with The Free Store in the evening. You know, my little daughter would ask me what’s happening. It was such a wonderful opportunity to be able to explain to her not just what was going on, but why; and be able to really share that sense of community, and not just that it’s good to look after your neighbours, whoever they may be, but how you do it; you just do it.

I want to thank you for teaching our children about social justice and about service—

Camilla Belich: Go the Catholics!

ANGELA ROBERTS: —and the Anglicans—and, really importantly, for our young people that when things are hard—because they are tough at the moment—to help them through; to know, after seeing what you do, that there is hope that comes from service. It is because of this I’m delighted to commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of this bill.

In Committee

Preamble and clauses 1 to 10

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. We come first to the debate—

Glen Bennett: A point of order, Madam Chair. I move that all provisions be read as one—be taken as one question.

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 10 stand part.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): In what I suspect will be a fairly brief committee of the whole House stage, because we’ve had a good discussion during the second reading—

Chris Penk: Just you wait—just you wait!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Mr O’Connor told me he’d be brief. But I only had just the two matters I wanted to raise here to make sure we cover them off, and they were the two matters that the select committee took advice on.

The first of those was around the additional distribution option within clause 5, and that relates to the question of exceptional circumstances. There was some discussion around whether or not there needed to be some criteria for that, whether there needed to be some further definition around the question of exceptional circumstances.

The committee considered some proposals from the Ministry of Justice around that idea—as I said, a definition or perhaps revisiting the maximum rate, which is a distribution of up to 4 percent of the fund in each financial year, which is in the first part of clause 5. But in the end, the committee decided, having talked to the trust board and its advisers, that, actually, the criteria which follow in clause 5, which are listed off there—the needs of the parish, the investment strategy of the trust, the desirability of maintaining the capital of the fund, and any other relevant matters—was sufficient for dealing with that. I think that was a pragmatic decision, but important that the committee had the opportunity to go through that.

The other issue was around what would be caused in terms of interaction between this legislation and the Charitable Trusts Act and the Anglican Church Trusts Act and whether or not there would be a complexity in the relationship between those statutes and some consideration of whether or not it was desirable to repeal an existing private Act without any replacement legislation. In the end, the committee agreed with the proposal from the trust board and others that, actually, clause 9(1) makes clear that “Any future amendments to the trust deed may be made in accordance with the Anglican Church Trusts Act 1981 and, where applicable, the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.” So that covered off that concern. They were the only two matters that I wanted to draw to the attention of the committee.

As this will probably be one of the last moments that I speak on this bill, I just want to acknowledge all of those who have spoken in the second reading and the first reading. I thought they were excellent contributions, and I think everybody has understood the kaupapa of this legislation well, and therefore it is time for it to be passed.

Preamble and clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Bills

St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill

Third Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill be now read a third time.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 2 August.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Members, when the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill was last read, we were up to call No. 5.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to take a call on this excellent piece of legislation, the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, and quite fitting, I dare say: from one bill by the current member for Wellington Central to another bill by the future member for Wellington Central.

Now, this bill is not only brought by an excellent MP but contains changes that will make a real difference for workers in New Zealand, and can I just say I am so proud of Ibrahim Omer. I cannot imagine the extreme bravery and tenacity and intelligence and strength of personality that it would take to be a refugee from a different country to come to New Zealand; to suffer the injustice of wage theft in your work; to then become active in your community, organising other workers; to be elected to Parliament; and then to successfully bring a piece of law in order to remedy the injustice that you yourself suffered. What an incredible achievement, my friend.

Quite aside from that achievement, this bill is extremely necessary to right a wrong, really, within our system. At the moment, if you are employed by someone and that employer doesn’t pay you money intentionally—what would commonly be understood as theft—then there are no repercussions for that employer apart from civil remedies. That is not acceptable. If employees steal from their employer—and that’s what we’re talking about—the first thing that employers do is go to the police, and that employee suffers the full force of the law if they are found guilty for that offence. There is no justification for having a different rule apply to employers than it does to employees. It’s not right, and this bill will make it right.

It’s not, also, a bill which is without precedent. We’ve got cases of other countries adopting wage theft bills to indicate fairness between employers and employees. We’ve had similar legislation introduced in Norway, and also much closer to us, in Victoria. So I was shocked and surprised when reading the earlier speeches in the first reading debate that this bill is not being supported by National and ACT members, parties that purport to be tough on crime. As the member bringing this bill said in first reading, this bill is a bill which is tough on crime. When you steal, you should suffer the consequences of those actions, if you’re found guilty, and this bill does just that.

Now, some members opposite have said in previous readings that there are already mechanisms to allow those employers who don’t pay their employees to be held to account. I do not agree. The way that employees would have to do this is through civil claims, through taking claims for unlawful deductions of wages, having enforcement through the civil court. This is a difficult process, has to be self-initiated, and is often outside the reach of many of the workers that suffer wage theft.

This should be bread and butter work for the New Zealand Police. When you steal from someone who works for you, you should be held to account by the New Zealand Police, and this is what this bill would do. It’s extremely important that we seek to remedy injustices when we see them in our society, and the different treatment of employers and employees in relation to payment is one of those areas which we must address. This is so we have equitable consequences within employment and seek to remedy what has been established over a very long period of time as the power difference between employees and employers. People must be able to work and be paid what they are owed, and this very good bill seeks to achieve that.

So I once again want to commend my colleague and my friend Ibrahim Omer for bringing this excellent bill to the House. This bill will make our laws better, it will make them fairer, and it will make them more equitable for New Zealand workers. I commend it to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m stoked to get to stand up and speak in support of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill in the name of Ibrahim Omer. And just acknowledging the significance of this piece of legislation and it being brought to somebody who, I think I’ve just heard, has experienced this themselves and is now looking at making change for everyone else in that position. It’s the best of Parliament if you ask me, when that is able to happen. So congratulations.

I also want to talk about that point, reinforce the message that’s already being put out there, about equity. Like, if employees can be subject to criminal offenses for stealing but an employer, we just pretend it’s somehow in a different category and not as important. That’s a really socially destructive message to send, as well as the impact that it has on those workers’ lives. And if we’re wondering in terms of is this a big issue, like I think one of the points of information that I looked to was the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) hospitality survey of workers in 2022 that found 18 percent of hospitality workers they surveyed were not getting the minimum wage. Just hear that again: 18 percent. And 22 percent of the workers they surveyed were not getting their correct holiday pay, and another 22—or possibly the same 22 percent—were not getting correct time off or paid for the stat holidays. So this is widespread and our system at the moment is clearly, based on those figures, not working to stop that theft. Our families and our communities and marginalised workers are paying for that on a daily basis when they are struggling to pay their bills.

I also want to look at whether this is—overseas examples. There’s been research I found around comparing different states in the US and wage theft interventions that found that laws that most dramatically increased punitive damages saw the greatest declines in the incidence of minimum wage violations, while other types of wage theft laws did not appear to have any effect. So we have evidence, and I hope the select committee will be testing that evidence through the process about, actually, are the fines strong enough in this bill, do we need to strengthen them to get that effect.

I also want to commend the member for using the member’s bill opportunity to be able to address what he can, but there is a wider issue in terms of the structure of our labour market and enforcement of basic employment rights that I do think needs to be acknowledged. We have a really precarious situation for many workers in temporary casual situations, contracting—whether they’re actually contracting or not—who are unable to access their rights through our court processes. One of the recommendations out of the AUT research was that we should be increasing our labour inspectorate to be able to ensure that the laws we have in place are enforced so that the burden does not always sit with the person who’s affected and being harmed by the behaviour of others, in this case employers.

And just to point out that New Zealand, I think the last report had one labour inspector per 57,000 workers. The International Labour Organization’s recommended level is one labour inspector per 10,000. We are far out of step. So when we hear messages from this certain side of the House about cutting our Public Service, actually we need to be increasing it when it comes to enforcement. But we are very pleased to be supporting this bill because it is an equity issue and it is a really significant problem in our community that is long overdue to be addressed. Congratulations.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It’s a huge privilege to speak on this bill. I just want to begin by saying that everyone should receive fair pay for their hard work, and Labour is working hard to protect our workers and their rights, and is ensuring that they get a fair deal without exploitation by strengthening laws around work. This bill amends the Crimes Act 1961 to clarify that not paying an employee wages is theft.

Currently, offences relating to theft by a person in a special relationship are insufficient to account for wage theft by employers. Right now, the processes are too complex and can discourage those who are victims of wage theft to raise their concerns. This bill makes a distinction which will set out in the law—giving clear direction to employees—that they have the right to be paid what they are due. It’s a symbolic change for workers, and it will be the first time that this distinction will be clarified in law.

Workers deserve protection under the law, and it’s often our low-income and immigrant workers who are victims of wage theft. Ibrahim Omer, the member who introduced this bill to the House, discussed this before the debate was interrupted a couple of weeks ago. We’ve just heard Camilla Belich talk about Ibrahim’s journey and how he got to this place, and I’ll tell you what, mate, it’s an absolute inspiration to see you here in this House, being able to effect change. I’m blimmin proud of you, and I’m blimmin proud to be your mate.

This also came up when the Hon Phil Twyford and I, and also Ibrahim Omer and Camila Belich, had an Afghan community forum several weeks ago, where we got the community together and had a chance to discuss their experiences in New Zealand. A lot of them have only recently moved to New Zealand after this Government conducted evacuations from Hamid Karzai International Airport, and they have just recently resettled in Auckland. It was really good just having a chat to them about work and how they have settled in and how their employer-employee relationship was going, and one of the things that concerned me was around how they weren’t totally aware of what their rights were. So that was a very important thing for us MPs to hear, so we can provide that wraparound support and that constituency service, particularly around what their employee rights were.

The new offence created by this bill will capture employers who owe wages and intentionally do not pay them to the employee. This includes the unlawful withholding of wages, salaries, and other monetary entitlements within the employment relationship. This bill supports the Government’s commitment to ensuring that everyone should receive fair pay for hard work. Labour is working hard to protect our workers’ rights and ensure that they get a fair deal without that exploitation, and by strengthening laws around work.

As discussed earlier, stealing a computer or a car—that’s considered theft. So why should stealing wages be any different? For once, what we would like to see is for the National Party to exercise what they so frequently preach in this House, which is to get tough on crime and support victims, and support this bill, because over on this side of the House, we’re committed to cracking down on crime, and this is part of that.

This bill is about human dignity. This was highlighted by Council of Trade Unions president, Richard Wagstaff, who stated that wage theft is an insidious practice that tends to target low-income and immigrant workers, and he further stated that we hear too many stories of hard-working people being ripped off by dodgy bosses, with no real repercussions. So it’s an important to have meaningful penalties for employers who steal from their workers, and it’s important that the law makes it clear that these criminal penalties do not replace an obligation to pay back the wages owed to workers.

So, in sum, everyone should receive fair pay for hard work. That is what Labour is all about—it’s about preserving workers’ rights. I’d like to thank the member who brought this bill before the House, and I’d like to commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to be able to rise and take a call on this very important bill. I do want to acknowledge our member Ibrahim Omer, who has brought this important bill, the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill of this year.

I had to go back to the Hansard to read what the bill was about and the circumstances. And as a new migrant, I could only reflect on my own family who had gone through a similar process—but at the time, my family did not have the skills and probably did not have the courage. The purpose of the bill is to bring in line the important amendment in the Crimes Act to enable migrant workers, but also from our communities—some of our communities have been here a long time.

The member in charge, Ibrahim Omer, has carefully given his contribution, and I want to acknowledge him because of his passion, but also his courage. He went through probably a very awful episode. It was a tough situation, and, no doubt, reflecting what others had also gone through but did not have the tools or the skills. He, as a migrant worker with an employer who thought that he could just make the most of the situation, and Ibrahim had lost probably his dignity as well.

So in the Wages Protection Act 1983, it’s a general rule that employers, when they have had employees do work for them, that they pay accordingly because those employees deserve the wages and they are not allowed to deduct any of the money that is owed to the employees. So this is an important bill to protect specific employees. It amends the Crimes Act 1961. The bill seeks to criminalise an employer who carries out this action unlawfully—those who would take the employee’s wages. So when the bill passes, we know that it will give employees certainty to protect those rights. It’s been well-considered, it’s been well-traversed, and it inserts a new section 220AA into the Crimes Act 1961 that provides for an employer’s intentional failure to pay an employee any money. It is very clear: it is theft. So the enforcement penalties are important because when there are situations as such, sometimes our new communities to Aotearoa are too—what we call—whakamā; they’re too embarrassed and they don’t know what to do. So it is important that this bill reflects that and that they protect the employees. It’s important to our representatives in this House as lawmakers that migrant communities have the protection.

So I welcome the recommendation and I strongly support our colleague. I thank him for his courage and that the fair pay, the protection for workers—we don’t want our workers in New Zealand to be exploited by anything. We want our employers to act within their rights, that when they have had workers and the workers have done really good work, that they pay their employees and that they are protected and it is set up very clearly in law.

Just as I wrap up, it is important, when we have people of other cultures who come to the land of Aotearoa, that they understand their rights and obligations, and when they do hard work that they are paid a fair wage. The Labour Government has worked really hard in terms of ensuring that Aotearoa has the laws of the land and looks after employees across the motu. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to commence my contribution on the first reading of this Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill in the name of Ibrahim Omer by congratulating him on having a bill drawn from the ballot. There are many MPs who, in the life of their parliamentary careers, either don’t have a bill drawn at all, and then there are some who seem to have remarkable luck. I’m thinking of Louisa Wall, particularly, who seemed to have incredible good luck at having member’s bills drawn.

But on this occasion, this bill has been drawn. I’m sure that the member in whose name it is, Ibrahim Omer, is very committed, and very sincere about the objectives that he seeks to achieve from this piece of legislation. But it’s a piece of legislation that is affectionately referred to around these precincts as a “ballot-stuffer”. It’s a piece of legislation that is put in by a backbench Government MP to load the ballot, in order that Opposition bills are less likely to be drawn. It’s a classic ballot-stuffer. It seeks to essentially be a solution that is looking for a problem. It’s been widely acclaimed by only one organisation, as far as I could see, and that was the Council of Trade Unions (CTU)—Richard Wagstaff.

I did a little bit of a search into media commentary or analysis of this piece of legislation. All I could find was an endorsement from the CTU. I think that gives people who may be listening to this debate at home or on television watching it, or in their cars listening to it on the radio, a sense of what the purpose and tradition and history behind this piece of legislation is. It’s a piece of union legislation. The Labour Party and the trade union movement, their history, their politics, and their connectedness is very well known and needs no further elucidation in this Parliament.

But I suspect that the intent, as I say, though well meaning, doesn’t really match the reality. Notwithstanding the speeches that have been made by Government and Green members in the debate this afternoon, there simply isn’t any evidence of systemic and widespread abuse in this area. Naturally, and, of course, worker exploitation is an issue that is serious, and from time to time, does occur. But the vast majority of employers are good employers. The vast majority of employers are good employers. Yes, just as in any other sector of the economy, or any other sphere of human endeavour, occasionally, there are people and businesses that don’t meet the measure of acceptable behaviour in terms of how they account for workers’ wages. That does, from time to time, occur.

But that doesn’t mean that we should suddenly change what has been a long held practice in the New Zealand civil jurisdiction of applying matters of this sort through a civil process, rather than a criminal process. It doesn’t mean that we should necessarily just toss the baby out with the bathwater. What this legislation would do actually has potential to achieve a perverse negative outcome. The proponents of the bill, including the mover, the member whose name it is in, Ibrahim Omer, would indicate that by putting it into the criminal jurisdiction it’s going to have some kind of better outcome for people who have been the victims of poor employer accounting and management of employee wages and funds. That’s not going to be the case, because we know, we know that our criminal justice system is already under immense pressure—immense pressure. The likelihood is that any action that comes as a result of this legislation—should it ever see the light of day, by the way—is going to actually slow down rather than speed up. And it will put the criminal justice system—already under great pressure—under even more pressure.

So look, this bill will get a first reading. The Government will use its majority. The Green Party will support it. But we, in the National Party, don’t support it. It will get a first reading, it will go to a select committee, and then it’ll be up to a future member to lead it through to its natural conclusion at some point.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I begin, like my colleagues, in congratulating Ibrahim Omer on having his bill drawn from the ballot. I must admit, I have mixed feelings about the ballot—as a previous member mentioned, I am one of those who has not had any ballot success—but I do think, in this instance, it has produced some magic. This is the right bill, this is the right time, and it is most certainly the right person to bring this issue to the House. Camilla Belich referred to my colleague Ibrahim Omer as the future member for Wellington Central—which he absolutely is. He is also the co-chair of Labour’s ethnic caucus, and this is an issue that he’s bringing which affects many people in our multicultural communities, which is very, very important.

I do just want to respond to the previous speaker, Scott Simpson, and his comments about this being a “ballot-stuffer” and that it’s not needed—but then maybe it will be problematic. I agree with him that most employers do the right thing and they’re great employers, but there are some who aren’t. I’ve spoken a number of times in this House about working at Youth Law for almost a decade, where about 40 percent of our work was employment-related. People would call us with issues like this. They would say, “My paycheque is repeatedly incorrect, even after I’ve asked about it.” They say, “I don’t get to take a meal break or I have to do work tasks even though I’m clocked out.” They say, “I’m an hourly worker who completes overtime hours, but I don’t get paid for my overtime.” They’ve said to us, “The workplace has misclassified my work status.” They say, “I’m a contractor, which means that I don’t get minimum wage or overtime.” They say, “My boss makes me pay upfront for a uniform and they make me pay other costs as well; I’m never reimbursed.” They say, “The employer asks me to purchase things on behalf of the company; they never reimburse me.” They have often said, “I have left my job, but never, never received my final paycheque.”

This is happening. It is happening frequently, and, unfortunately, it is happening to the people who are often in the shadows already, who can’t afford legal advice; who won’t pursue this through the courts. The previous speaker also said we were putting this into the criminal justice system—we are not removing rights under the civil system. This really is, in my view, for those really serious cases. We have a definition of criminal theft already in the Crimes Act. Not all instances of theft are prosecuted; that’s where you move in to prosecutor’s discretion in terms of what they prosecute and what they don’t. And no doubt the select committee will be investigating this and asking questions about this as it goes to select committee.

A large part of this bill is about one key question, which is: what separates the things that accrue civil liability from those that legitimately accrue criminal liability? A number of members have pointed out that when an employee steals from their employers, they can dismiss you, bring a civil claim, and they can call the police where they may be subject to criminal liability. That is not the case if you are an employee who hasn’t been paid what’s owed to you. There is a moral gravity; there is a public interest in criminal conduct. It’s not about resolving a dispute simply between two individuals; it’s about society having skin in the game because there’s moral gravity around the issue. Theft is deemed criminal when an employee commits it, but not when an employer commits it—and that says that there is something askew about our moral gravity.

Lisa Mariott wrote that “Justice is challenged when people [engage] in the same activity [but] receive different sanctions”. That is entirely what this bill is trying to protect. Richard Posner, who wrote An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, said that the criminal law exists to impose punishments such as imprisonment in situations where tort remedies are an insufficient deterrent. Deterrent, in this case, is the taint of conviction, and often, in my view, that is going to be a fine—but no doubt the select committee will investigate this further. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to begin my response by thanking all the colleagues who spoke on this bill. I appreciate the kind words that have been said about me, but this is all about the people who have been affected by wage theft. I’d like to thank the Green Party for their support.

Wage theft is widespread and it’s happening everywhere. There are hundreds of stories out there in the media. You don’t need to even go too far to see how bad and how deep wage theft is in our country. As many colleagues indicated, there are so many stories but, unfortunately, tonight, what we hear from the Opposition MPs is that—these people are being told that your stories, your pain, what happened to you doesn’t matter. The reality is that this bill is simply set to make wage theft a crime. Stealing from an employee, deliberately, is a crime. It doesn’t make sense that when employees steal from an employer, they can get a penalty—imprisonment of up to six years. If it’s the other way around, it’s a civil matter; the employer can get a slap on the wrist and they can get away with it.

This is all about righting the wrong. It’s about correcting the inconsistency in our justice and crimes Acts. Now, we all know that the Hon Scott Simpson said that, yes, the vast majority of employers are good and they treat their employees with dignity and respect but we also can’t deny that there are businesses for whom their whole business model is all about stealing from people, from vulnerable people who can’t speak up for themselves. Yes, it happened to me but it’s happening as we speak now, and it’s every day, it’s deep, it’s widespread, it’s ugly, it’s a blood sport in our country, and that’s not OK.

We have heard countless stories from throughout the country when the bill was introduced in this House and I have received emails, messages, phone calls, people sharing their stories, and I have spoken about this in the first reading. Now, tonight, Opposition MPs are telling these people “Your voice, your pain doesn’t matter.” What a shame; so much for being tough on crime, because wage theft is a crime. Stealing from anyone—whether employees stealing from employer or the other way around—it is a crime and it should be treated as such.

This bill has been referred to the Education and Workforce Committee, of which I am a member and also deputy chair, and I’m really, really looking forward to engaging with submitters and people with the real stories. There is nothing more powerful than people’s stories, people who have been affected by this bill. I’m really looking forward to hearing from them. Not only from them; I’m also looking forward to hearing from businesses, from good businesses, good employers who actually—I have spoken to quite a few employers who don’t like what’s happening, they don’t agree with what’s happening; they want something to be done about wage theft and exploitation, and I’m really looking forward to engaging with them because this has been going on for a long time and we cannot tell people that your story, your pain doesn’t matter. Enough is enough.

Again, I’d like to thank all the members who have spoken tonight in support of this bill and I still ask the Opposition to reconsider this because it’s not OK. When the poor steal from the rich it’s a crime; when the rich steal from the poor, it’s a civil matter. It’s unfair; it needs to change. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

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

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

That the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Bills

Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill

First Reading

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move, That the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

On the last member’s bill day of the 53rd Parliament, it is my honour and utter privilege to rise for the first reading of this bill in my name, the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. This bill has its origins in the work that I have done in the family violence space for many years. I’ve volunteered, I’ve worked in paid employment both as a domestic violence Act adviser and managed Tauranga Women’s Refuge, and I also grew up in a home where family violence was present.

The violence I experienced growing up has shaped my life’s work to break the silence, the shame, the stigma, and the myths of family violence. May my voice in this House give courage to others that they are not alone. One in three women are affected by violence in their lifetime. One in four women are affected by sexual violence in their lifetime. Disabled people report significantly higher rates of intimate partner violence than those without disabilities. Our rainbow community are more than twice as likely to experience intimate partner violence. We have the worst statistics for family violence in the OECD. Our police force spends 50 percent of their time on family violence; in 2022, there were over 175,000 investigations. Our families are harmed. Murder of women and children and men happens with shocking regularity, and we live steeped in a society where the gendered nature of men’s violence against women and children is in every walk of life, social strata, ethnicity, and age group.

However, we also have world-leading legislation that supports a wider definition of “violence” than in many countries. We have a community that calls for help from the police and intervenes. We have an exceptional strategy in Te Aorerekura, which seeks to eliminate family and sexual violence. We have a Minister focused on the work, and a joint venture Te Puna Aonui across the whole of Government to ensure work has progressed across the State sector to support the community to live free of violence. There has been record investment in the front-line expert services in the last six years to ensure that they are able to focus on the prevention and intervention of family violence.

So we now come to the origins of this bill and the reasons why I want it to progress. When I was first an MP, a woman came to see me. She told me of her horrific experiences being married to a very violent man. He hurt her physically, broke her bones, cut her, isolated her, drugged her, sexually assaulted her, hurt her pets, abused her children, held her captive, systematically stripped her of her rights and her sense of self. She finally fled and he was eventually held to account for his violence and was jailed. Throughout his stay in prison, she remained married to him and terrified of his release date. She knew that her tormentor would further abuse her when released, but she was afraid to file for divorce. Upon release, he did indeed stalk her, destroyed her credit rating, and took it upon himself to systematically degrade her online and in public. When she eventually built up the courage to file for divorce, while in hiding and terrified he would find her, he went to ground as a tactic of abuse and could not be found to have the divorce papers served, and it took her an incredibly long time to divorce him. It cost her financially and emotionally; and, remember, she remained terrified that he would find and kill her, as he promised to do.

She came to me years later, strong, fierce, and rebuilt, to ask why, since he had been so violent and abusive, did she have to wait two years to get free of him? Remaining married to him, including the time it took to get the divorce, caused her fear and anxiety and destroyed her credit rating by using their joint names and their marital status, and he kept her at his mercy. I do not forget that story and her experience.

Fast forward to 2021, and Ashley Jones and her petition to “Change our archaic divorce laws” so abuse victims can be free of their abuser. I mihi to you, Ashley, here in the gallery. You’ve risen above your experience to make a change for all victims and survivors of violence. Thank you, Ashley, for bringing your petition.

While Ashley was bringing this petition, I was coincidentally working quietly away on this legislation. I made contact with Ashley to let her know I was in the last draft stages of this bill. Ashley, your story of abuse and frustration was the final piece of motivation for me to lodge my bill into the ballot. Thank you for sharing your story with us, and for your strength.

To Chris Bishop, thank you for your work with Amber to support her to bring this petition, and indeed to all the members of this House who will support this bill at first reading. Family and sexual violence should be universally condemned by all here, and we should all work together towards ending the legacy of hurt.

Divorce, decree nisi, and dissolution orders in New Zealand have an interesting history. The Family Proceedings Act 1980 set up the Family Court, which became a closed and private court and resulted in no-fault dissolution—a far cry from the distasteful voyeurism previously experienced. We now have a very simple no-fault divorce system. This means that the couple wanting to end their relationship by a dissolution order—a divorce—have to meet a set of basic criteria. Once met, if both agree, or, despite one of the parties not agreeing, a dissolution order is possible. Divorce or dissolution for marriage and civil unions have two criteria in the Family Proceedings Act: that there are ir-re—I knew that I would do this—irreconcilable differences, and those differences are evidenced by a separation of two years. My bill seeks to amend the primary legislation by removing the mandatory period of two years from separation where there is clear evidence of family violence, thus taking away an opportunity to further abuse the victim/survivor.

There are a few clauses, but I’ll focus on the important ones. My bill amends the Family Proceedings Act in the following ways: clause 4 amends section 38, which is the powers of the registrar to make an order for dissolution of a marriage or civil union where the application is uncontested. Family violence becomes a ground for dissolution by an accompanying affidavit. Clause 6 inserts new section 39, which is the real essence of this bill and states, “(1) Despite section 39, an application for an order dissolving a marriage or civil union may be made on the ground that a party … has been the victim of family violence inflicted by the other party.” The grounds are established if they are “a protected person under a protection order or under a registered foreign protection order; and (b) the other party is the respondent”—i.e., the violent person.

Further, the bill describes the evidence needed for how that would be proved. The evidence needed is either the copy of the decision or a copy of the order—so quite simple. “(4) Where the ground … is established, the court shall … make an order dissolving the marriage or civil union.” To avoid doubt, which is a favourite clause of mine, there is no requirement for the parties to live apart for two years for that ground to be established.”

Madam Speaker, members of this House, this is a relatively small bill which covers those married or in a civil union who are victims of violence, who apply for a protection order in the Family Court, or one that is granted in the District Court, who seek to end their relationship with the other abusive partner. This bill supports those women to do so without having to wait in limbo for two years. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is adjourned for the dinner break and will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. Members, when we broke for the dinner break, the House was considering the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I call the next speaker, Chris Bishop.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Can I just start by acknowledging Angie Warren-Clark, the sponsor of this member’s bill. Isn’t it a lovely thing that, in the final two days of the Parliament, we can come together in a collegial, good-spirited way and pass through at first reading a member’s bill that is very worthy and has quite a storied history?

I want to acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark for the work that she’s done on this, which, I know, is something that she cares very deeply about. I’d also like to acknowledge Ashley Jones, who has had a bit of involvement with both Angie Warren-Clark and myself. A couple of years ago, Ashley approached me to accept a petition—she was a local Hutt Valley resident at the time—around, essentially, what has become the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I was very pleased to accept that petition on the steps of Parliament alongside my colleague Chris Penk, who’s our shadow Attorney-General and courts spokesperson, and also the Hon Simon Bridges, who was our justice spokesperson at the time. It’s feels like Simon left a long time ago, actually, and it has been quite a while since that petition was accepted.

We were very pleased to accept it, and we indicated then that the National Party would support measures to make it easier to get a divorce in the case of family violence. I set upon writing a member’s bill, and little did I know that my colleague across the House—Angie Warren-Clark—was also writing a member’s bill. I was all set to lodge it in the members’ ballot, and then a press release appeared from Angie Warren-Clark, saying, “Bill to make it easier for victims of family violence to get divorced.” And I thought, “Oh, I’ve been beaten to it! This is terrible!” It sat in the ballot for quite some time, and it’s been pulled out, and I’m very, very pleased that it can get a first reading, just at the tail end of this Parliament. Angie Warren-Clark and I have met with Ashley this afternoon and this evening, and we got a photo by the Kate Sheppard statue on the black and white tiles, which I think is appropriate, because I think this will go down as “Ashley’s law”. That’s highly appropriate, and I hope that it will be able to make its way through into law, in the third reading in the new Parliament.

I also want to acknowledge Rachel Williams from the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge, who has done an enormous amount of work on this issue and supporting Ashley as it goes through the process of the petition. It’s not easy for people to present petitions to Parliament. It’s easy to get something up online these days—you don’t have to go through the forms—but it’s not an easy process to present it and then speak and have it considered by the committee. Actually, I think we need to do a bit of work on making it a bit easier, actually, but that’s a side point. But I acknowledge Rachel and all the work she’s done.

The thing about this bill—and the issue—is that, when you explain to people the origins of it, they say, “But I thought that was the law already.” They’re genuinely astonished and stunned to discover that victims of family violence have to go through the quite convoluted proceedings to get a divorce, and they have to wait the two-year standdown period. People are genuinely astonished. I have talked to so many people in the community who say, “Oh, that can’t possibly be the law.” But it is. The Family Proceedings Act is now 43 years old—so 1980—and it’s probably in need of a rewrite, which someone will have to do at some point.

Anna Lorck: Hear, hear!

CHRIS BISHOP: That was a “Hear, hear!”, was it? Very good. See, look at this crossparty bonhomie breaking out across the Parliament. It will need a rewrite, but this brings the law into line with community expectation. That is really important: the law should always keep pace with the desires and expectations of the community, and that’s, ultimately, what the Parliament is all about. I think many people are shocked to discover that it’s not the law already.

Can I say that it is too hard for victims of family violence to get a divorce in New Zealand, and that is the fundamental aim of this bill. Angie Warren-Clark has outlined for the Parliament the background to the bill, and I mihi to her for her quite harrowing explanation of some victims and the experience that they have gone through. I don’t traverse that again but just acknowledge her and the words that she said, and acknowledge Ashley, whose story is on the public record. Family violence is a scourge in New Zealand, and as I think Angie Warren-Clark said in her contribution on the bill, it’s not really an issue that should be political, actually. It’s not really an issue that should be the subject of party political debate. The solutions are challenging and multifaceted, across multiple different parts of Government, and, actually, one of the good things this Government has done is to pick up a lot of the work that the last National Government did around family violence and continue the cross-Government coordination efforts across the social services, justice, police, and multiple Government agencies involved in that space. That has been a good thing, and Marama Davidson has led some of that work; Jan Logie before that, in the Parliament before now.

There’s no one simple solution to this issue. If there was, a politician would have sorted it out a long time ago. There is no one silver bullet to it. What it will take is sustained effort over many, many years, across multiple agencies. As Amy Adams, who did a lot of work in this space from the National side of the benches, used to say, it will also take a lot of cultural change as well, and that is harder to do. The Parliament and the law can lead culture, but it’s also the other way around, and we need our communities to step up as well. I don’t say that in a way that disparages all of the extraordinary community efforts that are going on in many communities around the country—many, many community-led efforts that frequently are more effective at addressing this problem than Government is. It is a scourge, and it is a blight on our society. This bill falls within the ambit of improving the situation for, let’s face it, women—almost overwhelmingly women—who are affected by family violence, and that is a good thing.

Finally, can I just say, in my final couple of minutes, that I do think we need to improve the way our court system operates, in terms of accessibility and usability; I say that, cognisant of the comity between Parliament and the courts. But, at the end of the day, it’s Parliament that funds the court system, and Parliament, I think—and the Government—is entitled to expect a certain level of service from the courts. Too often, in my experience as an MP for nearly nine years now, people find it too hard to engage in the court system. I don’t mean the filing fees and legal fees; they’re too expensive as well. I just mean the simple act of engaging with the registrar and visiting the court to file documents and forms—the endless forms that people are required to fill out, which are sometimes available electronically, but more often than not are not available electronically—and the times they are required to be filed. I think the system could be easier, and I think there could be more of a customer service ethos in the court system.

I know that my colleague Chris Penk has been doing some thinking about that. I don’t say that to disparage the staff at the courts in particular; they work hard. It’s just that the system needs an improvement and the IT needs an upgrade. The system has not kept pace with technology. The general usability of the courts needs to be better. I have been talked to by many people, including those who have dealt with the Family Court and divorce law generally, who have found it very difficult. I think that’s something we could all aim to improve on over the next few years, no matter who is in Government, or indeed in Parliament. But tonight is all about this bill—this important bill—to make a progressive step forward for family law and divorce law in New Zealand. And, in particular, it’s about Ashley, who brought it to Parliament’s attention and showed that one person with a good idea who’s prepared to speak to it and prepared to show determination and enthusiasm for something that is important can help change the law. Thank you very much.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s the job of members of Parliament to do all we can to help make people’s lives better, and to do that, many of the changes that come to us come from people’s experiences. To know tonight that this is Ashley’s law, someone who I haven’t met before but someone who I have heard a lot tonight is courageous—and there will be many, many women in this country now who will be grateful for you stepping up and doing this work. One person can, in New Zealand, change a law.

Another way that MPs can help is through their own experiences, whether that is in the work they do or whether it is in an experience of a family member. In this case, it’s important to acknowledge my colleague Angie Warren-Clark and the work that she too has done in the area of family violence, an area that needs so many people like Angie to be helping women and families and children and, most importantly, to be able to bring things to Parliament so we can, as MPs, do what the key role of our job is: help people so they can get on better with their lives.

It is extraordinary that you do have to wait two years before you can get divorced when you have experienced family violence. Some parts of our divorce law—I agree with Chris Bishop, it is probably time that we had a really good look at it. Part of this legislation is that to enable a quick divorce, you first have to go to seek a family protection order. That’s something that I hope through the select committee we discuss, because for some people in these relationships that is a challenge in itself, and we should be, as I said, making it as easy as possible for people to get out of relationships that are breaking families and let them be able to know that we will, through this Parliament, help them to do so.

A member’s bill is an opportunity for us to change, shape, improve, and bring ideas, make it simpler, make it easier, and do good things, and to see tonight that we have the whole of Parliament on the second day before the 53rd Parliament rises—that we are coming together on something like this, that is so significant. So in my last comments on this, again, I would like to congratulate you. I know that when I go back and talk with some of my legal friends they will say this is one of the best things, best pieces of legislation, we can do. I know that there will be many more people out there, Ashley, who through this will come and make a contribution. And I hope, and I know that my colleague Angie Warren-Clark does too, that we will even make it a better bill if we can and how we can. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT to support this bill. I’d just like to congratulate Angie Warren-Clark for having the opportunity to put this through just before we rise. I really appreciate that we can have these conversations, because they’re often very difficult and people don’t know how to have these conversations. This is the second time today that we’ve had a conversation around family harm and violence, and ways that we can make it easier for people who have suffered at the hands of others, and I really appreciate having a chance to discuss this matter.

I’d like to begin by saying that the opening statements in your general policy statement say it all: “Everyone deserves to live a life free of violence and all people should have the right to feel safe in a relationship and to leave that relationship if they experience family violence.”—that says it all. It’s really hard for a person to leave a relationship like this. There are so many barriers that are in place that make it very difficult to make that decision in the first place, and it takes great bravery to walk away. There’s the fear of the unknown. Often, you have children in those relationships. Often, you may not be working. You may be the main caregiver of these young people, and the fear of not knowing where the pay cheque may come from—or living a completely different style. It can be quite a traumatic experience in itself. So if we can find a way to make it easier for that separation process to happen so that there is not an imbalance of power—somebody holding power over you and holding you closer for longer than needs be—that is a great thing.

We need to be able to take control of and have self-determination over our futures. Family violence is not only harmful to the person experiencing that violence but it’s harmful to the people that are seeing that violence as well. Many times that’s our young people. We know that when our young people see violence within home life it can actually affect their futures, growing up. We want to make sure that our young people have the best start in life and that we can empower parents to make those decisions. If we can allow a parent or a person who is a victim of family violence to have freedom a little bit quicker—I appreciate that.

I have seen the devastation that family violence can cause. I know of many situations where it’s gone on longer than it should. Applying for restraining orders and making sure that that person can’t come near you sometimes just isn’t enough. We want to feel like we can move on; move forward. The longer you’re having to wait for this divorce process to go on, you kind of feel like you haven’t moved forward—there’s still something holding you back. This is a great way to help those people to move on, to heal, and to create a better future for themselves.

It also protects them from things I heard Angie Warren-Clark talking about: loans being taken out—joint loans—putting people into debt that they can’t afford to pay back, which makes creating a new future very difficult. So when that marriage is still there, there’s the opportunity for the perpetrator to punish you and to make your life very difficult. So this will help stop that problem and that issue. I hear that quite a lot—where debts arise that the victim did not know about, and when they try and get a loan to rent or to buy a new property, they’re stuck with this debt that they had no idea about. So, hopefully, this can help with that problem also.

So thank you. I appreciate that we’ve had the opportunity to speak to this, and I hope this makes life just a little bit better for those who have suffered from family violence.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill, and just to acknowledge my colleague Angie WarrenClark—and congratulations on getting this bill to this point. We know this is something that Angie Warren-Clark’s very passionate about after having spent many years supporting those impacted by family violence. So congratulations—it’s great to see it coming through.

Now, this is a very important issue. The Petitions Committee recently considered not only one but two petitions in this area—and I know a number of colleagues have acknowledged Ashley Jones and the role she’s played in raising this issue here in Parliament; so it’s really great to have her listening in tonight, but also there was a second petition by Charlotte Abrial, who looked at the same issue. What she was asking was that legislation be passed to shorten the time required for separation, just down to six months in situations where there’s family violence.

This is an incredibly important issue for so many people, because if you look at the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, what they estimate is one in three New Zealand women have experienced physical or sexual intimate partner violence in their lifetime. But when you include psychological and emotional abuse, that rises up to 55 percent. So this is something that impacts many, many people.

As we know—we’ve had it traversed a bit tonight—New Zealand’s got a no-fault system. What that means is a judge doesn’t have to consider why a marriage has ended or the role that either partner played. The only ground, really, is that the marriage or civil union is irretrievably broken down, and that needs to be established by the judge understanding that the couple have lived separately for two years or more—and that needs to have happened immediately prior to them putting in their application. We think back, “What was the original aim of that?” I think it was really to make sure that people had made up their mind and that decision was final. But in a situation where you’ve got family violence, then reconciliation may not either be appropriate or desirable.

I think for many people, having to wait two years because they’re meant to make that decision is not really appropriate. I think this is reflected in some of the comments that were included in the written submission for one of the petitions considered by the Petitions Committee that was just talking about the impact of having to wait two years in a context where somebody could then take that and use it as a way of staying as part of your life; and, as people have mentioned, the risk of potentially having somebody taking out loans or financial implications for that. One of the other quotes basically just said that the mental battle of knowing that it’s for two years makes trying to get counselling and healing to move on really impossible. So just that whole situation was difficult. Another comment that was made was that you can also see it being a barrier for people leaving domestic violence situations if they have to contend with the situation for another two years.

So in response to Charlotte’s petition, in August 2022 the Petitions Committee recommended that the Government review the requirement for the two-year period between separation and dissolution of marriage. This bill is a very important step in that direction, because what it means is that people will be allowed to apply for an order to dissolve their marriage or civil union if they’ve been the victim of family violence and that family violence has been inflicted by the other partner in that relationship.

It actually will allow the marriage or civil union to be dissolved immediately—not waiting for that two years or even for a shorter period of time. But for that to be established, the court will have to make sure that the grounds are there. So what you’d need is a copy of the court’s decision to make or register a protection order under the Family Violence Act 2018 or the Sentencing Act 2002, or a copy of the order itself. That would be required just to demonstrate that family violence has occurred. But apart from that, there wouldn’t be any requirement for you to wait for any period of time.

Just one note, though; the commencement is delayed by six months just to allow courts to be able to put the necessary changes and processes in place. This is just a really important bill. Again, congratulations to my colleague Angie Warren-Clark, and I’m very, very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I really want to congratulate Angie Warren-Clark, who we know has a strong, robust experience and commitment of longstanding both to safe responses to domestic violence, family violence, and also the prevention work. I was really pleased when, earlier on and last year, we were able to have the conversations about getting this bill through the House. So I’m rapt it’s here. Of course it absolutely aligns with making sure our legislation and our laws are cognisant of the harm of family violence and how we can perpetuate that as a system, as laws, and how the laws can actually cause further damage. So this is ka pai and, of course, the Greens will be supporting it.

One of the key principles our responsibilities must recognise is how important it is to empower and protect victims of family violence and that our laws should never enable abusers by leaving victims of family violence tied to abusive relationships—of course, in this case for two years or in some cases longer. Being forced to remain in those relationships, it also sends, unfortunately, an abusive message to the rest of our community about what people and women are supposed to put up with. So it’s really important that we all support this bill.

There was a particular part of the legislation—and I really look forward to the conservations, particularly with the member, about the evidence requirements. And I did want to draw to the attention of the House, for example, that in the residential tenancy space, we have amended the Residential Tenancies Act so that a victim of family violence can withdraw from their tenancy with a much shorter notice—I believe it’s two days. That allows for people, once again in abusive relationships, to not be tied down by legislation to those relationships and living circumstances. And I’ll be really upfront; I am not aware of where the conversations have landed to date. I can see in the bill that currently the evidence requires a protection order or an order under the Sentencing Act or the order itself. I know the member understands this and has currently still really strong relationships with the sector. It will be really good for us to be able to work with the sector on evidence and understand their expertise and their guidance about the burden of evidence and making sure we have the right balance.

I’m aware that we all want to be wary of willy-nilly applying for dissolution of marriage and divorce, etc., but that’s not a big risk to be afraid of. I think it takes a lot. It’s actually more the case that victims of abuse in abusive relationships actually just find it hard to speak up at all—to make changes at all. So I do look forward to seeing whether or not we are able to make sure that we aren’t placing undue burden on what the legislation currently includes as sufficient evidence. I’m really pleased that in the tenancy withdrawal example, victims can work with doctors, their GPs, with family violence organisations and expertise to get written evidence and written support. Basically, it makes it much easier. We all know, we all understand, how hard it can be for protection orders and orders under the Sentencing Act, for example. So just wanting to make sure that that threshold of evidence doesn’t place an undue burden. [Tāmati Coffey stands to take the call] Oh, look at that. I really commend this bill to the House.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. You can tell that it’s serious by the tone of the contributions in the House. Sometimes in this place, we are loud and boisterous and we are looking forward to a good old head to head. But when you’re talking about things like family violence, it becomes really serious. You can tell that, because all of the contributions that have been held in the House tonight have had a certain tone about them, because we all know that family violence is real and that it’s in our communities.

I look around the House and I think about the different areas of the country that we all represent, but, actually, it doesn’t matter which part of the country that we represent. This is an issue that means a lot to New Zealand and it is befitting that we’re able to stand here and talk about family violence in an open and honest way, as parliamentarians, to talk about this bill sitting in front of us at the moment.

Can I thank Angie Warren-Clark, who has been a comrade of mine since 2017, when we first came into this House. She’s brought this bill to the House, which has been great, but we knew when she came in that she was passionate about family violence and making sure that we were doing as much as we could as a Government to be able to turn around the plight that women face against abusive partners.

We know that it is prevalent. I visited Tauranga Women’s Refuge and I’ve seen the work that they do in Rotorua, where I live. I’ve seen the work that the Rotorua Women’s Refuge—Waiariki Women’s Refuge—do in our space looking after women who, for better or worse, have found themselves in an abusive relationship and are looking for support and comfort from people who have worked in the sector. Whether you’ve been the chief executive officer of a woman’s refuge, like my colleague has, or whether or not you are just a member of the community, it’s really, really important.

Today, I was delighted to see a press release from the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge talking about exactly what we’re talking about tonight in terms of this bill, and talking about the plight of a person called Ashley Jones, who left her marriage in 2020. She was then subject to the rigmarole, the process, of having to go through to be able to divorce her partner, who was clearly abusive, who she no longer wanted to be with in a committed relationship, who had broken the vows of being a good and honest and faithful partner. She wanted out of that relationship.

What happened was that she was subject to blockades at every turn. She was subject to the process and the agencies saying that she had almost like a stand-down period to be able to “work this through” with her partner. It was through her frustration that she rallied and it was the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge that came to meet with parliamentarians and politicians to say: this should no longer be something that we have to deal with. If you have a woman that is clearly from an abusive relationship and wants to exit that marriage as quickly as possible, the law and we, the parliamentarians that execute that law, should be trying to make life better for her, whoever she is and wherever she lives.

It was the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge that got behind Ashley Jones, brought this to Parliament, brought it to the attention of people like Angie Warren-Clark, and it’s for that reason that we are discussing this right now. Ashley Jones should be free to be able to leave her marriage, leave her relationship, if she is being abused by her partner. Other women out there should be able to leave their relationship because it’s not a good relationship and it does not add to their wellbeing. And, even worse, if there are children involved and children are watching this unfold in front of them, nothing scars children like being able to see their parents fighting, like being able to watch their mother being hit by their father.

For that reason, it’s upon us as parliamentarians to be able to change the law. What’s been brought before us tonight is the right thing. I thank Ashley Jones, I thank the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge, and I thank Angie Warren-Clark for bringing this to the House. I commend it.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s a huge honour for me to speak on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I, too, agree that all people should have the right to feel safe in a relationship and be safe when they do decide to leave.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the leadership of Angie Warren-Clark because she has, through her leadership, brought this bill into this House. Using her experience as someone who has worked in the women’s refuge area, she actually brought insights into this work, and I want to acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark, who also chairs the Social Services and Community Committee. I want to acknowledge Ashley Jones for the courage that she has taken to, first of all, make the steps to seek help and depart, although she wasn’t safe from her partner.

Usually in this House we talk about other people’s experiences but I’ve been sitting here contemplating whether I should talk about mine or not. So, at the age of 18, I got married and then at the age of 20 I realised that I actually wanted to end the marriage. So, when I did that, my former husband at the time wasn’t violent but he became violent when I made the decision to leave. So then I went through the whole process of the Family Court where I got a protection order; we had two children at the time. I think what this bill does is bring in dissolution for family violence, bring in the conditions, the grounds that a person requires for a protection order, and the other party is the respondent. I think there are different levels of violence. Whether that violence is physical or whether that violence, as in my case, is psychological, with verbal threats. This bill provides an opportunity for people, as in my case, who have decided to leave the marriage and would like to end it within the two years because the former partner or husband has become a person they didn’t know, has become violent. So that’s what I think this bill acknowledges: there are different stages of family violence. Family violence is not only physical but also is psychological, and sometimes that psychological harm lasts longer than the physical.

I want to acknowledge that there are three grounds, like I’ve said before—a protection order, the other parties and the respondent, and sufficient evidence, providing a copy to the registrar. Often in these cases, and like in my case as I’ve shared—I had two children both under two at the time that I had to think of. So for all the people who are currently in a situation where they’re making a decision whether it’s safe to leave or not to leave, this bill is sending a signal that you can do that, that one can do that. If you want to end the marriage—get a dissolution of the marriage sooner than two years—then you can do that.

In my case, I got the protection order because the former husband became threatening. I didn’t seek to have an early dissolution, because he left for Australia and then I didn’t go through that process—well, he actually sent the dissolution of marriage across the Tasman to me. So I want to just acknowledge that there are different stages where a relationship does become unsafe. But, going back to the essence of this bill, it is talking about making sure that all people should be safe in the relationship and that when they do decide to end the relationship because they no longer want to be in that relationship, they should be able to leave the relationship safely.

Usually the people that are caught in the middle are the children, and I want to acknowledge all the children and my kids for being in those situations. The people who have courage to leave a threatening relationship or a violent relationship—it does take a lot. It is not something that you do at a whim and it’s not something that you want to go through the Family Court to share all your secrets that happen behind closed doors. It is a serious decision that you want to make.

Again I believe that all people should have the right to feel safe in relationships and I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. I rise as the last speaker for the National Party and it’s important for New Zealanders to know the extent, the reach, the breadth of family violence in our country. Each year, New Zealand police conduct more than 100,000 investigations—and that’s only of reported incidents—related to family violence. It is estimated that one in four women and one in eight men experience family violence in their lifetime. Madam Speaker and New Zealanders listening in, this is a very important piece of proposed legislation: the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill, first reading.

First of all, I acknowledge Ashley Jones, supported in the gallery, because it was through the harrowing lived experience of what you’ve been through that this legislation is now going to change the lives not just for you but for many other victims of family violence. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe.

I also acknowledge the proponent of this member’s bill, my colleague Angie WarrenClark, and also my colleague Chris Bishop, both of whom were available to Ashley at some point in time during this harrowing journey. The point of this legislation is for those persons who have been the subject of family violence and in a marriage or a civil union. This bill will enable the expedition of the dissolution, once upon a time framed as a divorce; so a dissolution of that civil union or marriage. It will expedite it. Because what the law requires at the moment, presently under the Family Proceedings Act—the grounds to be satisfied are that there’s been an irreconcilable relationship or the nature of it is irreconcilable and it has irretrievably broken down. And also the legal requirement is that there is a period of two years of separation, of living apart, before in the eyes of the law it will validate that dissolution or divorce—previously known as—of the marriage or civil union.

What will be interesting, when this bill does come to select committee—and that will be in the 54th Parliament, and this being the 53rd Parliament to see this introduced at the first reading and to ensure that it gets carried through—is the submissions from the sector that deals in family violence. And anticipating that there may well be a submission from Ashley at some point in time, but also a submission around the relevant parts and componentry of this proposed legislation to do with the meaning of a protection order. Because the facets of a protection order, for those of us who have practised in the Family Court and also in the Criminal Court, there’s a temporary protection order that can be made on a without notice basis, where the other party to the proceedings does not have their evidence heard, and the judge will make a finding of fact or determination based on one party’s view. And often that will be the victim or the person subjected to the family violence. Then there’s what’s known as a final protection order, so it will be interesting to hear submissions, anticipated submissions from the New Zealand Law Society, from the family law section of that New Zealand Law Society, and also the criminal bar.

But importantly, this legislation is recognising that the victims of family violence who are in a legal relationship, defined as either a marriage or civil union, are locked into that. So I listened to Ms Warren-Clark’s context and background of Miss Ashley’s journey to get to this point and stage in the harrowing lived experience of the violence. And although the perpetrator of that violence had been imprisoned, the victim or subject of the violence was imprisoned in a legal relationship. The whole point of this is to expedite the termination or the dissolution and the completion of that, to be able to be removed from having been incarcerated also through that legal relationship.

The other point before closing, is that as an advocate for my lifetime for children and young people, there’s a particular and an important component of this bill that addresses the fact that children who are part of that relationship, arrangements for the welfare of the children on dissolution, is to be considered. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wouldn’t say it’s a pleasure but it is a privilege to take a call on this bill tonight, and I acknowledge my colleague Angie Warren-Clark, who is the member who is progressing this bill through the House. Like other speakers, can I also acknowledge Ashley Jones for her bravery and tenacity bringing a petition to this House and seeing this through and being willing to tell her story publicly, because that requires a significant amount of bravery.

I think most members in this House will have experiences and stories that they can share that would explain why a bill of this nature is so important, and I certainly have one. When I moved to Nelson, where I’m the MP now, nearly 15 years ago, the first friend I made when I moved to Nelson, who is now my very best of friends—we became good friends, and within a couple of weeks of that friendship beginning it became clear to me that she had sought me out because she needed to leave her relationship. It has led to years and years of both my husband and I providing support to this very dear friend of mine and her wonderful children. She still hasn’t actually finalised that divorce, yet she suffered for years and years, and from time to time today still suffers as a result of that. There were so many circumstances where protection orders were breached, where rocks were thrown through windows into children’s bedrooms in the dead of night and nails put under my husband’s and my car tyres, things that can’t really be mentioned were left in people’s letterboxes, people were chased with vehicles, and people were threatened and assaulted in multiple ways. If a law like this had been in place at the time, it would have been so incredible and it would have created so much freedom for her for the fact that it doesn’t require the respondent to agree; it just requires there to be that protection order sitting in place that has been put in place by a court.

I think that this is why so many of us come to this House. It is because there are so many stories of people where it’s actually so clear that the law needs to change to make people’s lives safer and to bring justice to people and to make children’s lives safer. It would have made my friend’s life and her children’s lives much, much safer if she had been able to dissolve the marriage at the time that her protection order was put in place. It also had a massive impact on issues to do with matrimonial property, because there were so many threats that if the divorce was carried out more violence would occur or that the issues to do with matrimonial property would be held up, would be fought back against. So it was used as another form of power and control in the relationship.

So I really do commend my colleague and the many MPs who I know have a background in this area and who have worked on this bill. It is good to see that there is support across the House for this bill tonight. As the bill states, everyone should have the right to have a life free of violence. It’s fundamental, I think, to what we all believe in, in this country, and anything that we can do as a House to improve the law so that people’s stories aren’t just stories, they actually have meaning in terms of changing law—that is why we are here. We come to this place to make New Zealand a better place for people who are suffering an injustice.

So my thanks again to Ashley for bringing your story to us. Often through members’ days, this is where we are taking bills like this through the House on behalf of people who have shared a story and inspired a law change. So I thank you for doing this. It will mean a lot to a lot of people in New Zealand, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes in reply.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): It is such an honour to stand here and to thank this entire House for their support of this bill. I do like the name “Ashley’s Bill”—we’ll perhaps work on that.

This has been probably a very serious matter in the House tonight, and just before I start my full contribution, I’d just like to correct the record in one respect, and that is the member Harete Hipango made reference to Ashley’s story but conflated it, unfortunately, with a previous story of another woman. I just want to make it really clear, Ashley’s story is very different from the one that I told, and that is for Ashley to correct the record publicly when she is ready, but I wanted to acknowledge that in case there was confusion from anyone.

Madam Speaker and members of this House, this is a relatively small bill, which covers those married or in a civil union who are victims of violence who apply for a protection order in the Family Court, or one is granted in the District Court, who seek to end their relationship with the other abusive partner—that is it, simply. The bill supports these women and people to do so without having to wait in limbo for two years.

This bill could go further, and I acknowledge that there are many, many people who do not apply for protection orders as their fear is too great, the effort is too insurmountable, the abuse may escalate, and they worry about that, or that the courts are a system, an institution that they themselves don’t trust. There are many reasons.

I also note that there are a number of family and sexual violence offences that could be captured that have not been. I’d like to think the Justice Committee and the community who submits into this process could canvass these views, and I want to acknowledge the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, the Hon Marama Davidson, who came and spoke tonight on this bill, for her good work in Te Aorerekura and as the Minister. I think she has raised a great point and one that I thought long and hard about when we put the evidence together.

So just for the record, in 2022, there were 4,463 protection order applications, and 1,900 of those were granted, and in the criminal court there were 897 granted, so that is not a lot of people that this bill would cover. So I want to just put on record the consideration and the discussion around that point, noting as well that I was involved in the tenancy legislation where we put the two days in for victims of family violence. So I do think that that is worthwhile having that discussion.

What we don’t want to have, however, is the removal of no-fault divorce in this country. We want it to be a simple process so that we don’t go back to the time where evidence had to be provided—who was at fault and those kinds of things. So we have a very fine line to walk, and this is where I landed in terms of where I thought we could go. But I am completely open to the views and the values that are presented from the community, from the Justice Committee, our officials at the Ministry of Justice, and, in particular as well from the community who does the work. I want to end by thanking that community, the refuges and the stopping violence services and the sexual assault support services that have, essentially, uplifted and held the victims of family and sexual violence.

I want to acknowledge them, because often they do the work. They ask and ask and ask for things to change and nothing does. I was one of those people and I am asking for this change, and I’m very pleased to be able to do that as a member of Parliament. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill

First Reading

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) on behalf of Dr Tracey McLellan: I move, That the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. Madam Speaker, you’ll note that I am not Dr Tracey McLellan, and it is a pleasure to take a call on behalf of my good friend and colleague and to present, on this members’ day, this bill that she has drafted, which is the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill.

Today, I’d like to talk about a bill that impacts the working lives of millions of New Zealanders. It’s a relatively simple but effective bill that will restore financial protections taken away by the National Government in 2008, ensuring New Zealanders aren’t disadvantaged in the golden years of their retirement. We firmly believe this is a practical step in the right direction for employee rights and financial planning.

Let’s start with KiwiSaver. Since its inception in 2007, KiwiSaver has become an integral part of financial planning for around 3 million New Zealanders. That is a lot of us putting aside some money every week for the future, looking forward to what will hopefully be a comfortable retirement. Because KiwiSaver contributions are generally made over many decades, any small advantage gained or disadvantage incurred at the outset of employment can have a significant cumulative effect later on down the track. It’s important, then, that we make sure KiwiSaver is a fair and robust scheme—this was the intention when it was developed. But in 2008, just a year after KiwiSaver was established, the National Government of the day took away some key protections for those enrolled in the scheme. As it stands, an employer isn’t legally required to offer the same terms or benefits to someone enrolled in KiwiSaver as they do to someone who is not. What that means is that employers can offer employees lesser terms, fewer benefits, or even reduced chances for training and promotion, simply because they are enrolled in KiwiSaver. This is patently unfair and undermines the notion of equal opportunity that New Zealanders value.

I acknowledge that most employers do the right thing, but there is room under the current law for some to take advantage and cut corners, and when such opportunities arise, a small number of people will do just that. This piece of legislation seeks to close the existing loopholes and ensure parity for employees, regardless of their retirement arrangements. It seems almost absurd that these loopholes are in place currently, but it was National’s Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008 that opened the door to this inequity, and it’s up to a Labour Government to close that door and ensure a fairer KiwiSaver system. That National bill was a significant piece of legislation that enabled employers to ride roughshod over many employee rights. So it’s not too surprising that the last provision of the amending Act, the consequential amendment to the KiwiSaver Act 2006, was largely lost. It is this consequential amendment that we are seeking to rectify with this member’s bill.

This is a relatively straightforward bill, but I would like to go over some of the key elements. Most significantly, the bill seeks to ensure equal terms of employment. It mandates that employers must offer the same terms of employment to employees who are KiwiSaver members as to those who are not—if that sounds simple and fair, that’s because it is. The bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to introduce what is known as an “adversely affected” test. This is essentially a checklist to help figure out if an employee is being treated unfairly just because they have chosen to be part of the KiwiSaver scheme. The test looks at various aspects of a worker’s employment terms such as salary, work conditions, benefits, opportunities for growth, and so on. If any of these areas are lacking in comparison to employees without a KiwiSaver account, that’s a red flag and action needs to be taken.

The “adversely affected” test is an important component of this bill, so I’d like to delve into it a little bit here. Obviously, it is important to determine who is being discriminated against because of their superannuation choices, and the test will establish that. An employee’s employment can be considered adversely affected if, for example, they are not offered the same salary or wages as other comparable employees or don’t receive commensurate fringe benefits such as the use of a work vehicle or free, subsidised, or discounted goods. The “adversely affected” test also extends to equal opportunities. If an employer does not offer opportunities for training, promotion, and transfer to employees on an equal basis—irrespective of their membership in a KiwiSaver scheme or a complying superannuation fund—then that employee can likewise be considered adversely affected.

Another amendment this bill makes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 is to facilitate legal recourse for discrimination. Specifically, the bill makes it easier for those employees who are considered adversely affected by the aforementioned test to file a personal grievance. This provides the legal framework for those discriminated against due to their KiwiSaver membership to seek recourse. The bill will come into effect three months after it receives Royal assent. From that point on, the terms of new employment contracts and amendments to existing ones will need to be in line with these changes. The bill also contains some transitional provisions, which will apply to employment agreements entered into after a certain date, and to variations of older agreements made after that date.

The Labour Party is proud to be the party that introduced KiwiSaver to New Zealand and it is important that the fundamental principles of KiwiSaver are upheld. We have too many people in New Zealand currently retiring without superannuation schemes of a large enough balance to be able to retire comfortably. It is important that Governments do everything that we can to ensure that people are able to save as much as they are able in a fair way, so that when they retire, they have enough to live on at that time. It’s particularly important for women—and we know that women are often subject to discrimination in employment, and that is another matter that this Government has been working to address through pay equity. We know that women regularly retire with a lot less in their retirement savings than men do, and this bill—alongside supporting workers who often don’t have strong bargaining rights—will support women, who are often discriminated against in their employment.

At the end of the day, this bill is about fairness. It’s about making sure that everyone gets a fair go, whether they’re saving for their retirement through KiwiSaver or not. It’s a straightforward but significant step that corrects a wrong and it upholds the values that we hold dear here in New Zealand. This bill is a piece of good, common sense legislation that strengthens the financial futures of New Zealanders and upholds our principles of fair play.

On behalf of my colleague, Tracey McLellan, I look forward to seeing this bill progress through the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the coming months, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak on the behalf of—or open up the batting, as it were, for the National Party, on the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill. I’m sure there’ll be a lot of keen anticipation as to whether we will be supporting this bill in the first reading, and I can inform the House that we will support it at first reading to be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Look, I think, you know, Michael Cullen was an interesting finance Minister. He was—up until Grant Robertson, I suppose, probably knocked him off the perch—I think, one of the most rapacious Labour Party finance Ministers; a great tax collector. He kept on collecting taxes and never ever yielded any kind of tax relief. But when it came to the introduction of KiwiSaver as an institution in this country, I think he is one of the relatively few members of Parliament who can point to a significant contribution, because there’s no question that many New Zealanders have been able to and encouraged to save more for their retirement because of this scheme. In a perfect world, people should have every ability to choose how they want to save—whether they want to pay off their mortgage more or spend their money at particular times of their life—and so we were always a little hesitant around such a scheme. But, I think, time has indicated that it has worked well, and so that is why we have continued to—or we did, under the John Key Government, and we continue now to support the scheme.

It’s quite different to Australia. A lot of people will say the New Zealand sort of, contributions—near 3 percent or 4 percent in many instances—are well short of the scale of the contributions in Australia, for example, which are much larger. The only point I’d make there is that they have, ultimately, a very different approach to superannuation in Australia. In New Zealand, we have universal superannuation. Everybody over the age of 65 has access to it—it’s not means-tested. We went through a period of our history where we experimented with that and it wasn’t well received, so we have a universal superannuation. So the purpose of the saving through KiwiSaver is not to, kind of, replace that pension but to augment it, to give people that little bit extra so that they can have a more comfortable retirement while also being able to rely on their universal superannuation. The Australian system is different, really. Ultimately, they have a meanstested system, and it is, in effect, a replacement for Government-funded superannuation for those who have the ability to save a lot over their course of their working environment.

So I think we need to be careful about just following the Australian pattern, because it leads to a very different outcome, which I don’t think is necessarily better. I think our approach—universal superannuation with every encouragement for people to add to that through KiwiSaver—is a good approach.

Now, this bill—what does it do? Well, it has identified a potential problem, which has been identified by the introducer of this bill, Tracey McLellan, whereby it is possible for employers to fiddle around with the arrangements between workers who take up KiwiSaver and those workers who don’t. As everybody knows, it’s not compulsory in New Zealand currently to have KiwiSaver, and some people don’t, for a whole variety of reasons. So it is possible in theory that an employer might offer particular encouragement or different benefits to employees that don’t take up KiwiSaver and therefore don’t require them to put in the 3 percent or 4 percent that they’re putting in. This legislation deals with this, and, in essence, forces employers to treat them all the same. Then, any KiwiSaver contribution is on top of that. Then, it gives the ability for a personal grievance to enforce that.

Now, it’s often the case in these circumstances, when it comes to tinkering with the regime that that KiwiSaver operates in, that there can be unintended consequences and you could end up with, actually, outcomes that aren’t anticipated. That’s why, yeah, we are happy to support this to go to select committee, and, if it is the will of the next Government, that we continue with this member’s bill if a member can be found—if Dr McLellan survives the election or one of her colleagues wants to pick up the bill, then we’ll consider that through the select committee process—

Arena Williams: She’s a survivor.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —which is a robust process—

Arena Williams: He thinks she’s getting a promotion.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and we’ll have the opportunity to do that. Now—

Camilla Belich: She might be a Minister.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you very much for those comments. So here we are. Of course, the most important thing when it comes to KiwiSaver contributions is, of course, the more people earn, the higher their incomes, the higher the KiwiSaver contributions can be. So, fundamentally, we’re a Government—well, we’re a party and hoping to be a Government that will focus on growing those New Zealand incomes so that we can not only enjoy a higher standard of living today but can also salt away some savings for later so that we can have a more comfortable retirement. That ultimately rests on an effective growth plan.

We haven’t heard too much about an economic growth plan from Mr Robertson and from members opposite, but the foundations of that haven’t really changed. It’s about having an environment that is encouraging of investment because, ultimately, how do you grow the economy—how do you grow the economy? You have to find some people who are prepared to invest their money to start a new business, to grow a business, to take on the world, to start exporting—all those things rely on investment. So you need a climate that’s encouraging of investment. You need good quality infrastructure. You need decent skills that people can draw on. You also need to keep taxes low—and we’ve heard a lot about taxes today. We’re a country that wants to keep those taxes as low as possible.

But perhaps I might be trespassing on the good will of the Speaker by going too far away from this particular bill—other than to say that we thank the member Dr McLellan for bringing this bill before us. We’re happy to take it to select committee and have a look, and we’ll see how it progresses in the next Government.

This will be the final members’ day for the year, and it is worth taking a moment to reflect on the many contributions of members. I’ve been a member of Parliament for 12 years. I’ve had a bill in every ballot and I’ve only had one drawn. I’d just like to state on the record that there’s something wrong with that ballot system. I want to see the odds—I want to see the odds—because it doesn’t seem right to me that there are some members that get a whole heap. And I’m thinking of—well, I won’t name names, but there’s some members that have been a lot luckier than me over the course of the 12 years and I just want to put that on the record. But I’ll leave it at that.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill.

I too have had the thrill of having a bill come out of that biscuit tin, so I absolutely congratulate Dr Tracey McLellan for having had her bill drawn. It’s a really wonderful experience for a backbencher to be able to bring something through to the Parliament which is often their “why”; it is often something that’s really important to them personally. I’m sorry that she’s not here today to be able to go through this particular experience, but I look forward to her future contributions with regard to this bill.

I’d also like to thank the National Party for actually supporting this bill, because it’s a significant thing when you look at a bill like this—which is about something so important—and that should probably rise above politics in some ways. It’s so critical that people in this country can save for their retirement. It’s a really big deal and it’s an area where there should be, in my view, way more common ground than there is, because it’s so absolutely critical and it’s a future forward situation.

There are a few things that we can tweak in our worlds which are very significant to people. One is tax settings and the other is employment relations, I think. Those things really, really impact people’s lives in a very fundamental way and empower them. I can see that this bill combines the two, because it looks at the employment relations settings and it tweaks them—and not, I don’t think, in any overbearing way; in a way that will encourage more investment and more investment in an area of people’s lives that will give them greater empowerment and security at a really important time in their lives.

I’ve got to say, I’m one of those wayward people who didn’t have a lot of KiwiSaver. I was working for myself and I had every excuse in the book. I was paying down my mortgage. I had all sorts of reasons why I didn’t quite have to get around to doing anything more than the minimum contribution. Then I went on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I got quite a shock at the information that was coming through to me about how low our savings are. And they’re particularly low, of course, for women. So it’s incredibly important that there is as little pressure in an employment situation as possible to opt out of a KiwiSaver arrangement; as much encouragement as possible for employers to let people into those schemes and to see them as a fait accompli. That’s incredibly important to women in this country.

I just want to dwell on that for a minute, because I don’t think a lot of New Zealanders understand just how low the level of saving is in comparison to what they should be saving. I read that the savings for a 40-year-old are $36,000 for an average, but $43,000 for men and $32,000 for women. That’s quite a difference you can see between women and men in that space. That’s going to go out and be much, much worse by the time they get older. Somebody with that level of average savings is going to end up about $400 short of what they need when they reach retirement age. That’s a significant amount. So it’s really, really important New Zealanders save and we encourage them to do so, but it’s also really important we recognise things like gender inequity in this area.

I’m really proud of some other work that has happened on this side of the House which is related to making sure this happens. That is the promise that there’ll be a top-up for women or people on parental leave so that they’re actually bringing up those incomes. Because, as a previous speaker said, just a little difference in saving—a few months, nine months—extrapolates out by the time you reach retirement age. So it’s incredibly important that we recognise the value that women, in particular—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a call on the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill, and I hate to disappoint Helen White—and I’m sure it comes as no surprise that ACT opposes this bill. We oppose it because we fundamentally disagree with Government getting so involved in the employer-employee relationship. If we look at the explanatory note of the bill, it says, “The majority of employers in Aotearoa New Zealand do the right thing by their workers, but a small minority will seek to circumvent their responsibilities in order to cut costs.” Small minority—this legislation is just not necessary. It really is another example of a Government that just doesn’t trust employers and business owners, which is really sad and really not justified, and it’s all about control.

The bill would introduce grounds for raising a personal grievance where an employee’s employment has been adversely affected as a result of their membership with a KiwiSaver or complying superannuation fund. The conditions upon which those personal grievances can be taken, just to mention a couple—obviously, you have to belong to a KiwiSaver scheme—the employee’s employer refuses to or omits to offer them the same conditions as other employees, whether it’s a condition of work, money, fringe benefits, or training.

Workers can choose whether they want to work in a particular place if they want. If they don’t want to, they don’t have to. There are other places if the conditions aren’t what they like. That’s what employment contracts are all about. Workers should also be able to use their KiwiSaver how they want, contribute how much or how little they want. KiwiSaver at the moment’s not performing particularly well, and some people may want to use it in different ways—for example, to pay off debt, maybe. If they want to use it to pay off debt, then they should be able to, and that’s pretty basic, really. You pay off debt, eventually save, and then you can invest. That’s the sort of financial advice that should be taught at schools.

The bill also proposes repealing section 101B of the KiwiSaver Act 2006, which entitles employers and employees to agree that an employer’s compulsory contributions do not need to be in addition to ordinary pay. So the Government is actually getting involved in telling an employee what they can and can’t do. It really is unfortunate that the mistrust of employers is so much as to be interfering with the employment contract process.

I listened to a debate before dinner, and any New Zealander who just happened to tune in at the same time, listening to the Labour speakers, they’d wonder what country they were in, because it’s just not the reality of business in New Zealand. Business owners are good, hard-working people. They take the risks. They go through all the stress of employing other New Zealanders, and the extra costs they’ve had to accept, just suck up, over the last six years, we won’t dwell on it today. I think it’s been mentioned enough over the last wee while, and the rolling of the eyes over there is—I’ve had enough of those.

To be constantly vilified by this Government—business owners—is just quite disgusting. Thank goodness it’ll stop on 14 October. Employers and employees can breathe a sigh of relief. ACT opposes this bill.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Well, it might be a distraction, but I want to respond a little bit to Chris Baillie, the member from ACT. If I heard him right, the logic was basically: most people who run businesses are good jokers, therefore it’s some kind of crime by the Government of the day to put in place rules that prevent people rorting the system and discriminating against people who are signed up to KiwiSaver. Is that basically the logic of it? So I urge anyone who’s listening tonight to consider that that philosophy, that mind-set, will permeate a National-ACT Government were it to be elected in October. The country would be the worse off for it. Because that is the kind of mind-set that we heard tonight that would actually govern this House, this Parliament, if National and ACT were elected. This country has so much to lose.

I was pleased to hear Paul Goldsmith before, who has clearly softened during the years of a Labour-led Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I would like to hear this speech. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Paul Goldsmith has clearly softened his views; being exposed to a very capable, reasonable, and reform-minded Labour Government has meant that at least Paul Goldsmith has come round to the idea that KiwiSaver is something worthwhile for this country. He had the good grace to acknowledge the late Hon Dr Sir Michael Cullen. One of his great legacies during his time in politics was—well, a couple of them that are relevant to this debate—KiwiSaver, but also the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Paul Goldsmith had the grace to recognise that.

Kudos also, to Dr Tracey McLellan, who is with this bill putting right an unfortunate mistake—to put it charitably—committed by the last National Government in its dying days; an amendment to the KiwiSaver legislation that created two loopholes in the law—the first basically said that employers were not legally obliged to offer employees enrolled in the KiwiSaver scheme the same terms and conditions of employment that they offer to others. Secondly, it basically opened the doors for employers to offset pay increases against KiwiSaver contributions.

Now, the great beauty of KiwiSaver is that it is based on the nudge. It basically creates the conditions to gently change the behaviour of New Zealanders and save more. That’s important for two reasons, actually. First, as a country, for a long, long time, we simply haven’t been saving enough. It’s a structural problem in our economy. We do not have the pools of capital to invest in our own economic development, our own businesses, because we haven’t been saving enough.

Secondly, we have this wonderful treasure that is New Zealand superannuation. The universality of it means that we have some of the lowest rates of senior citizen poverty in the world, but its universality necessitates a certain modesty in the scheme. That means you can live on New Zealand super, particularly if you own your own home, but if you don’t own your own home, it can be pretty tough to survive. Therefore, the power of the idea behind KiwiSaver was that you’re incentivising Kiwis through the nudge to save more for their own retirement, and to live a better life as a result.

The changes that Tracey McLellan is fixing are designed to eliminate the possibility that a small number of unscrupulous employers might exploit these loopholes, effectively discriminate against Kiwis who are enrolled in KiwiSaver, and undermine the incentive, undermine the power of the nudge. That has the effect of undermining KiwiSaver as a whole. It could mean, if it wasn’t for Tracey McLellan’s bill tonight, that KiwiSaver savers would be disadvantaged by those loopholes.

It’s very clear that Labour is the party that New Zealanders can trust with their retirement income. We created KiwiSaver. Look at the enhancements in the 2023 Budget. On the other side of the House, they’re promising to lift the age of entitlement for superannuation to 67, against the advice of the Retirement Commissioner. New Zealanders don’t like that and they won’t trust it.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with pleasure that I rise again today to speak in support of a member’s bill, this time the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill, in the name of Dr Tracey McLellan. Basically, this bill aims to ensure that workers cannot be discriminated against for being part of the KiwiSaver scheme or superannuation fund.

Currently, employers are not legally obliged to offer workers enrolled in KiwiSaver the same terms of employment, salary or wages, conditions of work, fringe benefits, or opportunities for training, promotion, and transfer as a worker not enrolled in the scheme. So the bill aims to restore these protections, which were retracted by the National Government I think under urgency not long after coming into Government in 2008 without any warning to the public. So public beware, leopards tend not to change their spots. It also makes clear that an employee’s wages cannot include the employer’s compulsory contributions to KiwiSaver. These changes, we believe, should provide greater incentive to join KiwiSaver or a similar superannuation scheme and just maintain the intention of the scheme. So we’re fully in support of that. It just seems a small but useful tweak to the scheme.

There’s a sense, we’ve heard from a member from the ACT Party, that all employers are always great, never take advantage of any loopholes or exploit their workers—always, always good and shame on anyone who would suggest otherwise; seeming to miss the, I thought generally acknowledged, imbalance of power between workers and the bosses. I don’t know. It’s a different world, perhaps, that that person is living in. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody here say that all employers are bad employers—I just don’t think that’s been said by anybody. But there is an imbalance of power and there certainly are breaches that we have evidence of that are widespread in terms of across our workplaces.

In fact, in this area, I saw the review of the KiwiSaver scheme evaluation final summary—I can’t remember the date—that noted that 18 percent of employers reported changing their remuneration practices as a result of KiwiSaver. Those who did applied a salary sacrifice. It’s important to note that KiwiSaver can have complicated effects on wage rates which may not have been captured in this research. So I think that’s a bit of an indication that this practice may not just be the very rare occasion that’s been suggested or never happens, as we may have heard.

I do want to speak briefly in the remaining time about some of the points raised around security and old age, which is one of the parts of the points of KiwiSaver and our national superannuation scheme: the point that national superannuation was designed at a time where there was an assumption of homeownership, and that is no longer the reality for an increasing number of New Zealanders. And we do need to come to terms with that as a country. The people who are least likely to be able to own their homes are also the least likely to be able to build up significant amounts within their KiwiSaver. It is an inherent inequity within the KiwiSaver scheme when we are not addressing that in terms of wider workforce policies or adjustments to compensate for those inequities. And the evaluations of KiwiSaver are actually pretty on the line about the benefits of it while it’s widely bought into, but so many people only manage to get a small amount of savings that doesn’t significantly help them at the end of their life, compared to those who are already privileged. So I do believe there is a broader conversation for us as a country to how we address that inequity and ensure a life without poverty in retirement for everyone in this country.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, thank you. KiwiSaver is the kind of transformative economic change that Labour members can be proud of. Labour in Government makes big change, not only for our economy in addressing a structural problem which exists with our savings rates but also makes a huge difference for the lives of working people—

Simon Watts: Your leadership speeches are going to have to be better than this.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —especially those people, Simon Watts, who are most disadvantaged throughout their working life: women, takatāpui, young people who don’t have access to education. Those are the people who get the best thing out of KiwiSaver which is a dignified retirement—because it is universal. As my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford pointed out—and it is something I want to build on—the structural problem in our economy that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen addressed when he launched KiwiSaver in 2007 was about creating a scheme which employers and workers could buy into and make sure that they had a certainty in investing the savings they needed for their retirement for those times in their lives where they were most vulnerable to economic shocks. That’s in our later lives when we’ve stopped working and our earning potential drops, but it’s also in times like when we buy our first home and we’re most vulnerable to changes in interest rates because our mortgages are the biggest—like me at the moment. It’s something which helps people through those tough times, those shocks, and it creates household resiliency. In our economy that’s really important because we need resiliency, not only at a household level but also at a community level and for our wider economy in this country.

The changes in this bill reverse violence to the KiwiSaver scheme, which was so transformational and was so important in 2007, where the National Government, as Jan Logie points out, under urgency, made several changes to KiwiSaver as part of its wider package of personal tax cuts. They called this total remuneration package approach as something which would allow employers to essentially offset pay rises against KiwiSaver contributions. It did violence to the KiwiSaver scheme because KiwiSaver was never about making up people’s total remuneration. It was about solving this big economic problem that we as New Zealanders faced in that our national savings rates are low.

If I can come back to that point, our national savings rates have grown somewhat in the last decades, but that growth has been disguised by what is essentially growth of the savings of the top 1 percent of wealthy households in this country. And it’s a trend that we see globally. That is offsetting a declining household savings rate of the lowest 90 percent—so all of us earners—in household savings rates. What that means is that we get this inequality of savings which creates, over our entire economy, a problem of structural inequality. We see a growth in the kind of investments which are conservative and managed through funds and banks, and households don’t actually have the kinds of savings which get them through those economic shocks. So ordinary people on the ground are exposed to those shocks and experience them in really significant ways where those with savings don’t have that.

This addresses that. Those changes, which were made by the National Government in 2008, undermine that economic problem which the Hon Dr Michael Cullen solved with KiwiSaver. That’s why this bill is really good, because it shores up those savings and it ensures that KiwiSaver is protected for everyone into the future. Alongside the super fund those are two things which mean that all New Zealanders can look at Labour and say, “These guys have a track record of protecting our retirement, of making sure that we, in our older age, are not only able to live on this universal income but that we are secure, that we feel safe in our future.” And that’s something that I want for all kuia and kaumātua in my electorate of Manurewa.

Since Labour established KiwiSaver in July 2007, New Zealanders have saved tens of billions of dollars into those retirement savings, and that’s important for all of us. A really positive change, in the last 50 seconds that I have, that I want to talk about in this Budget 2023, is the change for women’s KiwiSaver, because on average women have lower KiwiSaver balances and retirement income than men, with parenting and the time off from the workplace representing one of the main reasons for that. The way that this Government has responded to that is we have made sure that the Government contributions continue to go into women’s savings accounts during those parenting years. It will make a huge difference for women’s retirement savings. Toby Moore, one of the best people in this building, he worked on that. It’s due to that kind of work and the work of many people in this building, not only MPs in this House but also the staff who make sure that this kind of revolutionary policy changes our economy for the better and makes it work for everyone. That’s why I’m proud to support this member’s bill, the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill and all of the work that Labour does on KiwiSaver.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Madam Speaker, it’s my pleasure to take a call on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill.

I also want to, like other members in the House tonight, congratulate the hard-working member for the Banks Peninsula electorate, Dr Tracey McLellan, for getting her member’s bill drawn from the ballot. You know, that’s a quite an achievement, because some members have had relatively, you know, shorter careers and they’ve had bills drawn on a regular basis. I’ve not yet have that privilege to date, and, interestingly, the former Speaker, the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard, had a long career and never actually got a member’s bill drawn from the ballot. So when one is drawn, it’s particularly special. It’s a special moment.

The member for Banks Peninsula has addressed an important issue with her member’s bill, because it seeks to restore protections afforded to KiwiSaver members by the Employment Relations Act 2000, before it was amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008. It aims to ensure that workers cannot be discriminated against because they are members of a KiwiSaver scheme or complying superannuation fund.

As it stands, employers are not legally obliged to offer workers enrolled in KiwiSaver the same terms of employment, salary, wages, or conditions of work, or those fringe benefits, or even opportunities for training, promotion or transfer. And as a worker, if they’re not enrolled in that scheme, they could be at a disadvantage. Employers are also permitted to offset pay increases against workers’ KiwiSaver contributions and these legislative loopholes have the potential to significantly disadvantage New Zealanders saving for their retirement. This amending bill will restore the protections provided by the principal Act before it was amended in 2008 and ensure that most workers cannot be discriminated against simply because they are members of a KiwiSaver scheme or a complying superannuation fund.

This bill fits in with our wider plan for financial security of Kiwis. KiwiSaver was the key policy of the 2007 Labour-led Government that radically boosts the prosperity of Kiwis in their retirement, and it’s also supported by their employers and the Government. It also builds resilience so Kiwis don’t have all their eggs in the one basket.

I serve on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We recently had the Reserve Bank Governor before the committee to discuss the Monetary Policy Statement. We were discussing the housing market and the governor touched on KiwiSaver adding to the resilience of the New Zealand economy. Since the establishment of KiwiSaver, our population is becoming less reliant on equity in the home as our key investment, with us moving to a broader, more diversified investment portfolio through KiwiSaver investments. This has allowed people to diversify and it should be absolutely encouraged. The last thing we want is for people to be discouraged from starting KiwiSaver with their employer because there is a possible disadvantage there. This would heavily affect their financial position in their later years, as has been mentioned by members on the side of the House. This House needs to do all it can to encourage KiwiSaver uptake and this bill does that.

Just to provide more context to this bill, there have been some real positive changes to KiwiSaver in Budget 2023, our Wellbeing Budget. On average, women have lower KiwiSaver balances and retirement income than men, with parenting representing one of the main reasons. The widest gap between men and women is among those in their 40s and 50s. Women in their 40s have about $10,000 or 30 percent less in their account than men, while women in their 50s are down by about $13,000 or 32 percent. So this is a gap that we have taken measures to close. In Budget 2023 the Government is enhancing the KiwiSaver scheme for parents, so when they do take parental leave, then their KiwiSaver contributions are covered. This recognises the unpaid nature of childcare.

This bill goes towards enhancing that financial security for people, so I commend it to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m not going to spend too long on the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill, because National is supporting this bill. It was interesting listening to the members on the other side; they’re not necessarily full of compliments in the dying hours of their Government. But I don’t blame them; I’d be pretty upset as well if I knew that I had to look for a new job in 49 days. But that is the reality, and that’s probably why they’re a little bit upset on the other side of the House.

Hon David Parker: Your job’s not going to change.

SIMON WATTS: Welcome back. It’s good to hear those voices back, isn’t it? Look, National fully supports the KiwiSaver scheme. We’re obviously supportive of this bill, which is going to provide additional protections in play in order to support those people who are most vulnerable. That makes sense, and that is sensible. KiwiSaver, obviously, is supplementary to the universal superannuation that is offered in this country, and it is something that enjoys considerable buy-in and has been successful, and continues to be successful in this country. So, on that basis, I will commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Madam Speaker, I’d like to just pick up on some comments made by my colleague, the Hon Phil Twyford, about the contribution from ACT and the member Chris Baillie, because I think it’s a really interesting insight to the way ACT thinks about our institutions and protections and the kind of libertarian—and I would say Trumpian—politics being offered by that party.

So the logic said that most employers are—as the Hon Phil Twyford said—good people, I think, or good blokes and therefore there was no reason to afford them these protections. And that really worries me because if we take the logic further, what that means is that in any situation where most people are good but there is a human rights issue, it is better not to legislate. Now, I can think of, for example, the fact that most taxi drivers would never dream of harming a passenger in their taxi, so let’s not have protection for taxi passengers. Let’s not have protection for schoolchildren, because most people in whose care they are will look after them. We can take it on and on and on. My point is really that it is a very dangerous libertarian view to suggest that because most people observe the law and follow good behaviour, that somehow absolves us as a society of affording protection for those small and finite instances where there are human rights abuses and breaches, and that really worries me. This bill, the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill is an example of legislation that does close that loophole.

My second issue is that it’s great the National Party is supporting this legislation, but to hear the Hon Sir Michael Cullen called “rapacious” is really interesting and affronting, especially for, I’m sure, the people from my electorate in Taieri. And those were the words of the Hon Paul Goldsmith about Sir Michael Cullen, who is commonly referred to as one of the greatest finance Ministers that we have had in this country, followed, of course, by the Hon Grant Robertson. Sir Michael Cullen is from what was the St Kilda electorate, then the Dunedin South electorate, now the Taieri electorate. He is revered in our electorate. He is far from rapacious. He is somebody who recognised that, as New Zealanders, there is a big public benefit in ensuring that we all do well together, that when we—

Hon David Parker: It works well in Australia.

INGRID LEARY: Exactly, it works well in Australia said the Hon David Parker. And when we make sure that we have the means and that our seniors have the means to support themselves, that is a public benefit that takes an additional burden off society. It is something worth doing, that’s why we have universal superannuation, also the brainchild of Sir Michael Cullen, and that is why we have KiwiSaver.

The third point is that while this is about workers’ rights and protecting and affording them to those who might otherwise be discriminated against, as somebody who chairs the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I’m always mindful of the stability of the system. And this is really important, that the system has integrity, and without these protections—and there are 3 million members of this KiwiSaver system—we simply can’t ensure that it will be stable because it is vulnerable, it isn’t complete and whole, it lacks integrity. This closes a gap. The integrity was there to start with and, as other members have said, it was the National Party who, under urgency, removed those protections. It also sends a signal, as has been mentioned by other members, that KiwiSaver is worth investing in, and that’s really important to get trust in the system from those who contribute to it.

I would just ask those listening to this debate to think about the direction of travel because this great member’s bill by my colleague Dr Tracey McLellan is really about the direction of travel and it’s about worker protections. And look what our Government has done. We are the ones who believe in fair pay for hard work. We have boosted the minimum wage to $22.70 per hour; we have worked really hard to address the inequities in the female-dominated sectors, it’s something I’m really proud of, around equal pay. We are addressing pay gaps in health and education—they are two of the biggest sectors, 60 percent of the workforce in the Taieri electorate, as Sir Michael Cullen so aptly reminded me when we were doing street corner meetings together just three years ago. And I remember that very fondly as he came out to support. And for that reason, I hope that people watching see the benefit of this. It’s a great bill, I commend it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): I call Rachel Boyack—five minutes in reply.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it is a pleasure to take a call in reply on behalf of my outstanding colleague and the sponsor of this bill—the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill—Dr Tracey McLellan.

Can I begin in my reply by thanking the immediate speaker just prior to me, Ingrid Leary, for the comments she has made about Sir Michael Cullen. Look, on this side of the House, we are incredibly proud of the contribution made by our finance Ministers towards superannuation for Kiwis. On this side of the House, we had Sir Michael Cullen. On that side of the House, we had Muldoon, and we could go back to look at all of the mistakes that the National Party made around superannuation and what could have been. I am so proud to be a member in a Labour Party following on from the outstanding work that Sir Michael Cullen brought to this Parliament.

I’m going to just touch on some comments made by Paul Goldsmith in his contribution. He talked about the need to encourage investment and that we need to bring more capital into this country. Well, that’s correct. That’s why Labour put in place KiwiSaver in the first place: not only to encourage people to save for their retirement but—as my colleague Arena Williams mentioned—to ensure we were actually correcting a massive imbalance in capital markets in New Zealand.

But yet, the National Party today have put forward policy that will encourage and push property speculation again, and will drive investment away from mechanisms like KiwiSaver that help us to build a pool of capital to invest in a productive sector. They’ve announced they want to make it easier for property speculators to invest in non-productive housing and continue to push prices up and bid up against first-home buyers. So it was quite a bizarre speech to listen to from Paul Goldsmith tonight, where he essentially was trying to argue something that’s completely contrary to policy that National—I note they’ve gone quite quiet now—have introduced today.

A number of speakers tonight have mentioned the importance of good superannuation policy for women, and I was disappointed to hear the interjections from Simon Watts, who was saying, what have we done about this? Well, there is a lot we have done about this. Just recently, in this Budget, we’ve introduced the requirement for those on paid parental leave to continue receiving their KiwiSaver contributions. Because we know that during that time, particularly women who take long periods of paid parental leave, they miss out on those contributions. That has outcomes far reaching beyond that time because of things like compounding interest. So we know that it’s not just what you miss out on during that time, it’s the interest that you collect on it that is lost to you.

The other thing we’ve done, of course, is actually put in place proper pay equity legislation so that women in the first place aren’t actually earning less than they should be—because that is a fundamental component of superannuation; of KiwiSaver: that 3 percent has to be 3 percent of a decent wage. Very proud of our work on the side of the House to both lift the minimum wage, lift wages generally, and particularly to deliver better wage increases for women.

I must finish by responding to some of the comments from the ACT Party tonight, and can I just encourage anyone listening to the debate tonight to please not take into consideration the irresponsible advice that was given by the member from the ACT Party, Chris Baillie. I think it’s always very important that members of Parliament don’t give financial advice, because that financial advice was, quite frankly, appalling. I just want to note that many people would say actually, as well as paying down debt, you should also be investing in your retirement. Those are things that you should be doing at the same time, so I just want to encourage people to take some proper advice rather than listening to that member.

But also that member seemed to fundamentally misunderstand an important component of the Employment Relations Act that is so important for this bill, which is that there is an inherent power imbalance between employer and employee. There is plenty of law in New Zealand that does legislate around the employer-employee relationship, and it’s actually quite frightening to hear an ACT member tonight essentially state they’re going to get rid of all of that if they were to become Government. I think every worker and every union member should be paying attention to that member’s contribution tonight. This is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): The question is,

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party is putting to the vote tonight that the—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Order! Order! I require the member to read the words about reading the bill for the first time. You should have that on your run sheet.

Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you. I move, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Kia ora.

Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you. The National Party is putting to the vote tonight that the breast cancer screening age be increased for New Zealand women. The National Party backs clinicians to do a better job with cancer management for New Zealanders, and we will give them the tools that they need. We agree with clinicians in the Breast Cancer Foundation that free breast cancer screening needs to be increased for women between 70 to 74 years of age inclusive.

Increasing the breast cancer screening age was the National Party’s first campaign 2023 health manifesto policy, and we were sending three signals: (1) that we care about New Zealand women, (2) that we care about cancer, and (3) that we care about preventative health. We want to lift our collective cancer game and start benchmarking ourselves against other countries that we want to compare ourselves to. For women in Australia, the screening age is 74, but not for New Zealand women. For women in Canada, the screening age is 74, but not for New Zealand women. For women in Australia, the screening age is 74, but not for New Zealand women.

Increasing the breast cancer screening age is estimated to save 65 New Zealand women per year, and we value every single one of those lives saved; this Labour Government does not. The Breast Cancer Foundation writes, “One woman a month will needlessly lose her life to breast cancer thanks to the Government’s latest refusal to uphold its promise of lifting the breast cancer screening age to 74, says Breast Cancer Foundation NZ. The Government has just responded to a select committee’s investigation into breast screening, saying it is unable to immediately roll out free mammograms to women aged 70-74, despite committing to do this in 2017. Parliament’s Petitions Committee recommended in March that the Government should consider extending the screening age from 69 to 74, after receiving a petition by Breast Cancer Foundation NZ signed by 10,600 people.” I will talk more about this petition further.

We agree with the Breast Cancer Foundation. This Labour Government does not support women with breast cancer. In 2016, Jacinda Ardern received a 10,000-signature petition to extend breast cancer screening. She stood there smiling, shaking hands, and taking photos. She committed to extending breast cancer screening and then did nothing—even worse, she didn’t even bother to advocate for increased screening.

I know that from a ministerial question from 27 October last year to the Minister with delegated responsibility for women, Ayesha Verrall, the current Minister of Health. To Minister Ayesha Verrall, October 27 2022: “Has she received any written communications … from the Prime Minister advocating for increased breast cancer screening amongst women aged 70 to 74”? Answer: “No.” Jacinda Ardern had the photo moment. She smiled; she waved. She had the power of Prime Minister, and then she did nothing.

In 2017, it was one of the five health priorities for the coalition Government, and still they did nothing. Breast cancer screening is a broken promise for this Labour Government, broken many times over. In 2021, Ayesha Verrall is still the Associate Minister for women’s health responsible for breast cancer. She received a memorandum on 13 December 2021. The memorandum is from the Cancer Control Agency titled “Summary Evidence for Breast Screening amongst women aged 70 to 74 years.” The memorandum states, “Extending breast cancer screening to women aged 70 to 74 is reasonable.” I will repeat that. The Government’s own memorandum states, “Extending breast cancer screening to women aged 70 to 74 is reasonable.”, and they do nothing.

The memorandum also talks about prioritisation, which this Labour Government then clings to as a safety net in an attempt to excuse and forgive lazy and incompetent decisionmaking in this matter. Put simply, this Labour Government buried and refused to act on the evidence that increasing breast cancer screening for New Zealand women is not only reasonable but important. We know they buried it, because on 4 November last year, I again asked the Minister for women Ayesha Verrall a question: “In what written communications with officials or colleagues, if any, did she express a need to progress breast cancer screening to include 70-74 year olds”? Answer: “I have not written to the Ministry of Health, [Health New Zealand, or the Māori Health Authority.]”—she did nothing.

This Labour Government has received all the evidence that increasing breast cancer screening is important and saves lives and is reasonable, and they’ve buried it. They don’t understand cancer; they simply don’t care.

Even their own select committee in February this year, in response to a petition to increase the breast cancer screening age, said this: “Health New Zealand accepts that international evidence confirms that the eligible population for breast cancer screening should be extended to include people aged between 70 and 74 years.” With the Government’s own agency, Health New Zealand, accepting the evidence for and recommending breast cancer screening be extended, surely there is nothing more to say or do? However, the Government are desperately trying to justify their lack of interest by hiding behind the screening IT system and the need for an IT upgrade. This is a poor excuse and can be easily exposed for the sham that it is.

There are three points to talk to: firstly, increasing breast screening from 70 to 74 years deals with an already known audience. They’re already on the register, and all that’s being captured is a further two mammograms, two years apart. This is not a redesign.

Second, in May 2021, Ayesha Verrall announced $55 million for the proposed screening IT upgrade and committed that it would be up and running in two years. Well, here we are, and where is it? It was never going to happen. The Minister confessed in written parliamentary questions that only $5 million of the $55 million has been spent—barely 15 percent of the funding for breast cancer upgrade—and why? Because this Labour Government spent the money elsewhere, because this Labour Government decided health reforms were more important than breast cancer, because this Labour Government decided cycle bridges were more important than breast cancer, and because this Labour Government decided a warehouse storing expiring rapid antigen tests was more important than breast cancer. They are wrong. The four-year costs for this programme are in the order of $30 million. Compared to this Government’s wasteful spending, it should be a priority.

The third point, around the IT upgrade, is a revealing Cabinet paper released a few weeks ago, confirming that the IT upgrade was actually never going to include breast cancer screening anyway. The business case in the Cabinet paper makes it very clear that the IT upgrade was never going to go beyond “45 to 69”. The purpose of the $55 million IT upgrade is “maintaining mortality gains and early cancer detection for women 45 to 69 who participate in screening”. The IT upgrade was never going to include expanded breast cancer screening anyway. It is a poor excuse. I don’t buy it. The Breast Cancer Foundation doesn’t buy it. New Zealand women don’t buy it.

In conclusion, I challenge any party here tonight to vote down increasing breast cancer screening for New Zealand women. If Labour MPs vote against this bill tonight, then I say to New Zealand women who care about breast cancer: take a position, pull on a jersey, and take this Labour Government to the polls in October and vote them out.

Breast cancer is too important to be left behind. National backs New Zealand women, and we back their fight against cancer. Thank you.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Well, goodness, that was an unnecessarily cross speech I’ve just listened to. I rise to take what is probably going to be the last time I stand to make a substantial call in this term of Government to speak on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill, which has been brought to the House by Dr Shane Reti, as we heard earlier.

Madam Speaker, I’m going to just ask for your indulgence, as this is possibly my last substantial speech for this term, because I want to just spend a very short amount of time this evening just thanking the many, many people that actually stand behind us as we stand here and do our job in creating the best possible legislation that we can for Aotearoa New Zealand. I want to just acknowledge “Team Ilam” first: Nellie McIntyre—

Nicola Grigg: Is this a valedictory?

SARAH PALLETT: —Hannah Long; Alex Seren-Grace; Casper Howell, my executive assistant; and Beth Walters. I’m beyond grateful to them for their dedication to the people that they serve.

No, I’m not giving a valedictory speech, Ms Grigg, but I am going to take some time to explore the virtue of gratitude. I’m going to explore the virtue of gratitude towards the people who were—

Nicola Grigg: How about the bill?

SARAH PALLETT: —I’m going to get to the bill; please bear with. We’ve got 10 minutes; you can spare me a few seconds. I’m going to spend a few seconds just acknowledging and thanking, with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, the people who work so hard here in the House: Jenny, Peter, Ivan, Kelly, and the team, the amazing people in the Office of the Clerk, our security teams, ICT, cleaners, Parliamentary Service, translators, and interpreters. There are so many people that stand behind us, as I said, as we do this, and I apologise for taking my time to do this. But I do want to address the bill, which I’m going to come to now.

The Labour Party supports the extension of the age range of breast cancer screening from the current upper age of 69 years to 74 years. So I just want to start by saying that we support this bill.

We’ve heard some really disparaging comments from the Opposition about the work that we’ve done already towards making sure that this age extension doesn’t come at the cost of adverse impacts to the rest of the population, because this is a really significant problem that we need to avoid. Breast cancer is, basically, the most common cancer affecting New Zealand women. It affects about—well, we’ve got 3,550 cases diagnosed and 600 deaths from breast cancer each year. Breast cancer screening in New Zealand is an extraordinarily important part of our healthcare provision because it has reduced breast cancer mortality by 30 percent for the women screened, compared with women who have never been screened.

This is where things get personal for me, because I lost my mother to breast cancer. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer when I was eight years old, and it came back when I was a little older. She died when I was 21 years old. She didn’t have breast screening when she was asymptomatic. She discovered a lump in her breast, and that’s how the cancer was detected.

When my first daughter—my eldest child—was eight years old, I found I had breast cancer, but I was lucky. I was actually much younger than whom the screening programme in Aotearoa actually covers, but I fell into a high-risk category and I was part of a screening programme that was completely separate from the one that we’re exploring this evening. But I was extremely fortunate. I had no symptoms. I had no lump in my breast. But when my eldest child was eight years old, the same age that I was when my mother was diagnosed, that mammogram that I had as part of the screening programme that had been created for my high-risk situation—that screening process discovered that I had very early stages of breast cancer.

Because I had that mammogram when I was asymptomatic, because I was fortunate enough to be able to have that screening process before a lump was large enough to be felt—to be palpated—I was lucky enough to have cancer detected early enough to have successful treatment. I was 36 years old when I was diagnosed with cancer, and I’m 56 now. I have been 19 years cancer-free—I am extraordinarily fortunate. So for me, this isn’t just about population health; this is personal, as I said.

The Labour Party is doing a great deal to ensure that that screening process is available for women. But one thing we need to bear in mind is that Māori and Pacific women have lower rates of screening participation and the last time we extended the age of screening, what happened was that the gap between Māori and non-Māori extended from 11 percent to 20 percent reduction in screening. There was a significant negative impact, and that’s something that in our intention to do the right thing, we need to make sure doesn’t happen.

We know that Māori people have cancer at a higher rate, and to address the accusation that Dr Reti made that this party doesn’t care about cancer—well, it’s kind of funny that we set up an entire Cancer Control Agency to look precisely at what is going on in New Zealand with this disease that takes so many of us too early, and to give us the tools and give us the information that we need to make sure that we do the right thing. In addition to Māori and Pacific people, women living with disabilities, gender-diverse people, and women who live rurally are also going to have distinct barriers to breast screening.

So what are we doing already? Whilst we do recognise that this needs to be done, and although we’ve heard an impassioned speech from the other side, the science is not as clear as it might be. In the UK, for example, screening ends at age 70. In Scotland, which is obviously part of the UK, screening ends at age 70. When I sat on the Petitions Committee, we read and heard some compelling evidence to show that actually screening cannot necessarily bring benefit for those older women, but we have come to a position of accepting the evidence on the other side. With these things, often things aren’t necessarily clear-cut, but we accept that this screening needs to happen. So what are we already doing? We’re tackling this problem from three points: workforce, ICT, and screening equity, as I’ve already outlined to a small degree earlier.

The current capacity for delivering mammograms is constrained by our shortage of medical imaging technologists and radiologists, so we’re addressing that through the health workforce plan and the BreastScreen Aotearoa Workforce Development Strategy 2022 - 2032. The overarching aim is that we have a sustainable and diverse workforce, and that population-based register that we heard Dr Reti be scathing about, the one that cost $55.6 million of Government investment—the current register does not have the integration, flexibility, or scalability required to provide a modern breast cancer screening service and to be able to provide and support these programme changes, so we desperately need this. We desperately need this investment, and that’s why this Government has stepped up and provided it.

Once the current ICT rebuild is completed, there will be 122,000 additional women aged 45 to 69 years old who are eligible for breast screening but who are not currently enrolled with Breast Screening Aotearoa. We’re going to be capturing as many women as we possibly can, which is going to be critical to saving lives, and screening equity—the quality improvement review of clinical quality and safety was commissioned in response to the identification that a large number of people had been waiting longer than they should have to be offered their appointment for their first mammogram, and 26 recommendations were made on the need to improve equity. One of the review’s recommendations was to establish Pae Whakatere for three years to oversee and ensure the implementation of these recommendations.

We recognise the value in extending screening; we are already doing the work that we need to do it, but we will commend this bill to the House. Tìoraidh an-dràsta.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party tonight in support of the first reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill.

I will keep my contribution relatively short but I wanted to congratulate the member Shane Reti on having his member’s bill pulled. It is always quite wonderful to be able to debate an issue that is dear to each member’s heart, and one that people have backed enough to put into the biscuit tin for themselves, and so congratulations on having it pulled.

The ACT Party wishes to send this bill to the select committee so that we have the ability to have a fulsome debate about the analysis of breast cancer screening for people between the ages of 69 and 74. I also want to acknowledge the countless hours of work and advocacy that members of our community have put in, allowing for this bill to get this stage. I know many, many women throughout New Zealand have been advocating for an extension of the breast cancer screening age, with a lot of passion. I’ve met many of them in the community, myself, so congratulations for all the hard work from these many women who have been championing this cause, and to Shane Reti for bringing it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Yes, I apologise, members; I should have said the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting New Zealand women, and around 3,500 cases are diagnosed each year. Unfortunately, around 600 women pass away as a result of breast cancer each year. That’s why early detection and screening is so important, because what the New Zealand evidence suggests is that breast cancer screening can reduce mortality by about 30 percent when you’re comparing those who have been screened to those who have never been screened.

So as we’ve already heard in the House, Labour supports the extension of the upper age range of breast cancer screening from 69 to 74 years, but it’s also important that we do it in a way that ensures those that are currently eligible for screening are not adversely impacted. I think my colleague Sarah Pallett talked about some of the work that’s already been under way to ensure that occurs. Why that’s important was because when the age range for screening was last extended back in 2004, and it was in the context of constrained capacity, what we found was that participation for Māori women was negatively impacted. What we saw were inequities between Māori and non-Māori women increase significantly. This is something that we really want to avoid happening again.

So what the Government has been doing is making a number of substantial changes and efforts to improve national breast cancer screening. Just going through a range of these things. I mean, the first one is significant work to regain the participation rates that fell during the COVID-19 pandemic. So there’s been work—things like Saturday clinics and after-hours screenings—just to make sure that people have got every opportunity to get screened and to get caught up. Also working with primary health organisations to make sure that they’re actively following up people that are unscreened or who’ve fallen behind in terms of their screening.

We’ve also heard about some of the significant investments in the new IT register, because it’s important that we’ve got the IT and the tools to back up the delivery of a modern screening service. So in Budget 2021, significant funding was allocated over four years to replace the existing IT infrastructure so that it can support that innovation and change, which is critically important.

There’s also some of the constraints around workforce. So work is also under way to address workforce shortages, particularly for medical imaging technologists and radiologists. And making sure that as we look at expanding, we’ve got the workforce there that can support that. Also addressing inequity issues, because, basically, we still have significant inequities, particularly for Māori and Pacific women, so making sure that we can get those inequities addressed in a very meaningful way.

So what we’ve done is we’ve got a lot of work that’s already under way to make sure that if we go through and roll out that age extension, then there are not going to be those capacity constraints which result in the impacts that we saw back in 2004 when they extended it last time, and to make sure that we can maintain our current screening rates for all those who are currently eligible.

So while we support the extending of the upper age range to 74 years, we do have a number of concerns, just particularly around this bill. So we’re quite keen to see that a significant amount of work happens at the select committee process to address these. I think the first one is just the uniqueness of prescribing something so specific in the primary legislation around screening, but also particularly the age range. Because what it means is as the evidence underpinning the screening programme changes or technology changes, best practice changes, the question is do we really want to have to come back and address the primary legislation each time?

It’s also not clear why we’ve gone into that very, very specific level about a particular age group without thinking about other aspects of the screening programme more broadly in terms of quality and in terms of mechanisms to ensure informed decision-making, clinical quality, and safety. So thinking around if you’re going to put something in legislation, which bits do you put in versus why are we so specific on this element.

I think there’s also concern around the same level of specificity in the women’s health strategy, so talking about one particular intervention, but it’s potentially precedent setting because then there’s a whole range of other interventions that may well be very relevant to New Zealand women and why aren’t we including those? But if we do, do we lose the ability to have that high-level strategy? So we’re happy to support this to select committee process, where I think significant more work will need to be done. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill, and I want to commend Dr Shane Reti for putting this bill forward and having it drawn. As has been canvassed by other members, what this will do is extend the age range which allows people to access free breast cancer screening from 45 to 74, so adding an additional five years.

We want to acknowledge that, in an ideal world, everybody should have access to free breast cancer screening when they need it and that we have to do more to expand the age ranges. So we are supporting this to select committee because it’s important that we are able to hear from submitters and officials around what impact it will have on life expectancy, what are the other considerations we need to have around additional resourcing that may need to go to make this happen in a way that meets the needs of the community both in terms of workforce and equipment, and also for advocates who have been calling for an expansion of the age range.

I think, from a Greens perspective, we should always be looking at both ends of the age range and actually expanding it also on the lower end of the age brackets, because some of the research that we’ve seen does show that that can have a really meaningful impact in increasing life expectancy and quality of life. But I do think this bill provides the opportunity to have a really robust debate and we do think there are merits in this bill. The select committee process could also help illuminate and inform Parliament and what else the Government needs to do to make this work so that we’re not just expanding the age range but actually making sure that people who need to access free breast cancer screening are able to do so in a way that is also culturally competent, that reaches our rural communities, etc. The Green Party is happy to support this bill to select committee and have a conversation there.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Members, it is time to leave the Chair. This House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow when we will resume for the extended sitting to consider the Parole Amendment Bill. Pō mārie.

Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2023

(continued on Thursday, 31 August 2023)

Bills

Parole Amendment Bill

Introduction

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is resumed for the extended sitting, and good morning. I understand that it’s the intention of the Government to introduce a bill.

CLERK: Parole Amendment Bill, introduction.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Report

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I present my report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Parole Amendment Bill to the House under Standing Order 269.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That report is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. According to a determination of the Business Committee, the bill is set down for first reading immediately.

First Reading

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): I present a legislative statement on the Parole Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I move, That the Parole Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

The Department of Corrections plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system by supporting the maintenance of public safety and the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. Legislation needs to support Corrections to fulfil this purpose in relation to offenders living in the community on extended supervision orders, or ESOs, as they are known.

Today, we are legislating urgently to respond to a High Court judgment in June that has impacted the enforceability of some programme conditions for offenders on an ESO. There are relatively few people who have been impacted by the judgment in New Zealand—approximately 27, but they are high-risk offenders. This High Court judgment found that the wording of the Parole Act 2002 prevents offenders on an ESO with residential restrictions from being required to live with their programme providers. Using a single provider model to deliver both the programme and residence conditions for these high-risk offenders is a longstanding practice of Corrections. It ensures these offenders have a wraparound support and supervision during their reintegration in a stable and structured environment.

While the ESO regime was introduced in 2004, the part of the Parole Act that today’s bill seeks to amend was introduced in 2014. Section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) was not intended to affect this longstanding practice of using a single provider model; the wording of the Parole Act has done so inadvertently. Instead, this section was intended to avoid offenders being subject to daytime programme conditions that were, in effect, de facto residential restrictions. We need to pass this bill to urgently ensure that Corrections can continue to enforce these high-risk offenders programme conditions despite the June judgments, and can continue to impose these conditions in the future to support the reintegration of these offenders and to keep the public safe.

Corrections has continued to protect public safety following this judgment. This bill ensures that this will remain the case, by repealing section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) of the Parole Act, with this section being the subject of the High Court judgment. This bill means that Corrections and the Parole Board are protected from formal challenges and can continue to impose such conditions in the future. The bill has retrospective provisions to apply to the current impact of offenders and any future offenders on an ESO who have a single provider delivering both their programme and residential conditions. I’m confident that these amendments support Corrections to continue doing its job of maintaining public safety and supporting the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.

I want to acknowledge the bill’s impact on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, or the BORA—the BORA rights of these offenders. You will see that the Attorney-General has issued a section 7 report on the bill’s inconsistency with section 7 of the BORA. This was anticipated as previous amendments to the Parole Act, including introduction of the ESO regime in 2004, were deemed to be inconsistent with BORA. Because public safety is paramount, these previous legislative amendments were still deemed necessary and passed into law by Parliament. Similarly, I consider that the changes in the bill are justified on public safety grounds and are in keeping with Parliament’s original policy intent. To assist in mitigating potential BORA intrusions and to compensate for the removal of section 107K(3)(bb)(ii), the bill adds an additional protection for offenders by requiring the Parole Board to undertake at least two-yearly reviews when the offender is living with their programme provider. This change ensures that programme conditions continue to have a reintegrative and rehabilitative focus, and are not for longer each day than is necessary.

In addition to added protections in the bill, officials at the Department of Corrections are working to ensure that offender rights are well covered during implementation. BORA issues can be dealt with in a thoughtful way through the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s substantive review of post-sentence orders, which is due to be completed in late 2024.

To conclude, I want to thank members for accepting the need to pass the bill rapidly through all stages. It is critical that we address the issues raised by the High Court decision as soon possible. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on this, the parole special conditions imposed on extended supervision orders amendment bill, which has been rushed into the House today by the Government to fix a problem that has emerged over the last few years. National will of course be supporting this bill, and we support it being done quickly for the purposes of maintaining public safety.

So, just to give people a sense of what the issue is, there’s a small group of people—26, currently, across the country—who have been given extended supervision orders by a sentencing court for an offender who has exhibited long-term patterns of serious sexual or violent offending and who poses a real and ongoing risk of reoffending. So this is not a widespread or a large group, but a very small group of very dangerous offenders that the justice system has determined need to be looked after in a serious way, even after they’ve finished their jail sentence.

For a long time, there have been a number of providers throughout the country who look after this small group, and the practice has been that they stay overnight with a particular provider and, in many instances, during the day they are also looked after by the same provider. It’s emerged at some point along the way that somebody has raised the point that “Well, hang on, this may breach section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) of the 2002 Act.”, which says that a person shouldn’t be kept in the same spot by the same group overnight, or with the same provider. So that’s left a question mark about whether the practice that’s been under way for a long time is legal. In the worst case, I suppose if somebody was to challenge it, they could just walk free during the day or during the night—one of the two areas—and be unsupervised and a major risk to public safety.

One of the two fundamental questions that we have—and we hope that the Minister will explain and elucidate, perhaps during the committee stage—is when did the Government become aware of this issue? At some point, the Government made the decision to ask for a High Court declaratory judgment because at some point, obviously, the issue was raised as to whether the current practice was legal or not. So they decided, in their wisdom—I would have thought they would have had two options at that point, which is to say that if somebody raised a question of whether this is legal or not, they could have right there and then brought in legislation such as we have here to deal with the issue in order to be watertight and water safe. But, instead, they decided to go to the High Court and ask the question of whether the current practice stacks up under the legislation.

They went to the High Court, and then, on 27 June this year, the High Court determined that that section does prevent the board from imposing a special condition that requires an extended supervision order offender to reside with—or results in the offender residing with—their programme provider. I suppose the second question we have is: well, when the Government decided to go for that judgment from the High Court, why did they not have a plan B in place, recognising that there was always a chance that there was always a chance that the High Court might decide this?

I would have thought they should have had a plan in place, right then, right there, to sort the issue, but instead, what we’ve had is a period of nearly 2½ months following the judgment from the High Court where the judgment has been up online and, in theory, people could have read it and, in theory, they could have just walked away from their supervision. Now, it seems like the Government has got away with it and nobody has, but that seems to have been a reasonably risky approach. So I suppose our question is: when did the Government know about it and why did they not have a better plan in place when they went to the High Court?

Having said all that, what’s happened has happened, and so we agree that this legislation today is required in order to ensure that the current practice can continue. People might ask, “Well, why can the Government not just change the practice and have one provider to look after these people overnight and another one to look after them during the day?” The advice that we’ve been shown suggests that that could be done, but it would take a long time to get that in place and to find providers who are able to do that. I don’t know whether that’s the case or not. I assume that as that’s the advice we were given, and maybe we might be able to hear a little bit more also from the Minister to explain just why it’s impossible to do that or difficult to do that in a timely fashion.

Ultimately, this comes down to the effectiveness of any Government to keep New Zealanders safe from what is, like I say, 26 people currently—a very small group of very dangerous offenders. We would like to think that the Government would be absolutely focused on ensuring that the systems are in place to deal with that effectively. We support this legislation, but we are, like I say, concerned that the events were able to carry on in this way for a few months where that uncertainty was allowed to continue, and the response has been, I believe, a little bit slow in dealing with it. But we will have a chance to debate that briefly this morning and get the legislation passed so that New Zealanders can be reassured that the current conditions in place can continue. With that, I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

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

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for an opportunity to take a call in relation to this bill. There are times at which this House makes legislation under circumstances of necessity, and I believe that this is one.

I’d first make a comment in terms of the use of urgency. I do know that sometimes we lament the use of urgency in the House, but in truth we provide for it in our Standing Orders, not only urgency but extraordinary urgency as well. So, as a matter of our parliamentary process, we recognise that there are times at which we will need to make decisions under circumstances of necessity. And certainly when there is a significant risk to public safety, that is justified.

Now, this bill is really the result of the declaratory judgement under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908, which has been referenced already. Mr Goldsmith, when he was seeking responses to why it was at that stage, it was also made in the shadow of the case of C v the New Zealand Parole Board, and Mr Goldsmith asked the question of why we can’t find, very quickly, providers who would both be able to provide the rehabilitative treatment as well as the residential programmes. At paragraph 15 of the declaratory judgment, it speaks to an affidavit that was provided by Ms Brittany McNamara, who was the national manager of high risk at the Department of Corrections, and I’ll quote from it, in paragraph 16. She said, “It is often difficult to find acceptable housing for the riskiest ESO offenders in the community.” And so it is that practical issue, really, that has resulted in this declaratory judgment and indeed now this legislative change.

So in terms of the declaratory judgment, the parole board was seeking a declaration in relation to whether section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) prevented an accommodation provider from ever providing rehabilitative programmes, and they also posed two other questions for consideration. The first was that if it doesn’t, what limits, if any, does that section establish on the board’s ability to impose conditions that enable an offenders accommodation provider to also provide rehabilitative programmes. And finally, they posed a question about whether the parole board has the power to revisit its decision, imposing special conditions in the event that its previous decisions are found to be inconsistent with the law.

Judge Isaac’s provided a very thorough decision and he concluded at paragraph 104 of the judgment, “For the foregoing reasons, I declined to make a declaration sought by the parties. In my view, section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) of the Parole Act prevents the board from imposing a special condition that requires or results an offender residing with his or her programme provider.” Now, while that was the final decision, having read—I haven’t read the whole judgment—but having read parts of it, I did note at paragraph 86 that Judge Isaac did acknowledge that one can readily imagine a rehabilitative programme that might involve a residential component for entirely proper therapeutic reasons. What he says is, “As Mr Butler acknowledged, there is some strength in the party’s submission that the broad interpretation may be overboard in its effect, because in some situations there are no additional concerns about an ESO offender being subject to a programme operated by their resident’s provider. In this respect”—he goes on to say—“the concerns of Sir Ronald Young and corrections about the implications of a broad interpretation are well founded, but practical considerations must yield to the statutory language.”

That is really the core of the judgement in terms of where we are moving today. He goes on to say, “If Parliament wishes to enable programme conditions that require an offender to reside with the programme provider, it will need to amend the language it chose to adopt, which is what we are doing today. In doing so it will no doubt consider again the balance between protection of the community and the Bill of Rights implications.” And we have tabled with us the Attorney-General’s provisions today.

I would conclude by saying I do think bill of rights considerations are important, and indeed to compensate for the removal of section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) of the Parole Act, and because New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions are engaged, the bill adds in a balancing protection by requiring the parole board to undertake periodic reviews of their special conditions so that human rights, bill of rights protection is woven in there again. I will lastly say, again, that I do believe this is a bill of necessity and I commend it to the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Mr Speaker, thank you for the call. I’m a former Minister of Corrections in two different terms of Government, and extended supervision orders are something that I’m very well aware of—in fact, House, we had something to do with them, maybe as Minister of Justice. What people are talking about here, generally, is high-risk child offenders who, despite every rehabilitative measure that Corrections have taken—and Corrections do the most that they can possibly do to help people change their behaviours, particularly with these people—they have taken every step possible in that, should they reoffend, as they normally reoffend, then preventative detention would be the right course of action for a sentencing. The problem is, for that to happen, then these offenders that we’re talking out would have to go out and, in most cases, sexually molest children. And I’m not sure that there is anybody in this House who would think that we should let one child or one family go through that; or multiple children or multiple families go through that—because these 26 people will not, cannot, choose not to change their behaviours. They are an absolute nightmare for Corrections to deal with.

I know that Corrections has to try and get these people out into the community and in housing and all that sort of thing once their sentences are served. I’d really love it if Corrections stopped trying to put them in my electorate—and I’m sure every member of Parliament here would feel exactly the same way—because they absolutely are a danger. When I consider the resource that goes into managing them in the community, it is immense. It’s not just one person with them during three shifts during the day. You’ve got to have multiple people, because otherwise what happens is that that caregiver can very well become manipulated by people who are psychologically able to do that. They are very clever at manipulating—that’s what happens with this sort of behaviour. The right place for them, frankly, in my opinion, is in jail, but the trouble is you can’t do that post the sentence that’s been delivered.

We are happy to support this bill because we know it is necessary. There are times when Parliament has to come together, grow up, and act in the best interests of the public and we know that the rights of 26—in most cases violent—sexual offenders against children must be trumped by the rights of children and their parents not to have to worry that they’ve got one of these people in their community unleashed, unsupervised, and out free. So yes, we do support it. I mean, there are questions about whether or not we could have toughened this up a bit further; dealt with that. But the point is that Parliament can’t always work out what a judge is going to say, what a decision is going to be—and that’s the point of Parliament being able to come together in urgency. We spend a lot of time in urgency talking about a lot of rubbish, but this is actually a good bill that we are taking to be able to protect the most vulnerable people in our community, which are our children, and I cannot believe that we would not do so unanimously—and I hope we do, because the children have to come first.

I know that some people who have never had anything to do with being the Minister of Corrections or working in Corrections may well look at Corrections and say, “Well, why can’t they do this?” or “Why can’t they do that?” But I want to give a big shout-out to the staff at Corrections who, every day, have to go to work with the people that none of us would ever choose to, and they are real heroes because they have to deal with this every single day. And being a staff member at Corrections is not always viewed positively in all parts of the community, but what we should do, I think, is to acknowledge the enormous effort that those staff put in—whether they’re corrections officers or whether they’re probation officers or whether they’re people in administration, who put in to helping people make better choices in their lives.

But the people we’re talking about here will never make better choices, and that’s the problem. In some cases, they have been incarcerated for many years, and despite every effort—every time they’ve been released, they will go back to their old ways. Their old ways is not a burglary—which is an awful thing to have happen to you. Their old ways are to destroy a child’s life, and frankly, I cannot believe that anybody would not want to support this bill. There are always questions about whether or not we could have had it a few months back, all those sorts of things—but the point is, it’s here. It’s here today, and we think—and we know—that the children of New Zealand come first, and they’re the ones that we have to do everything we can to help their family, their whānau, their parents to protect—and if we can’t do this together unanimously, then that would be a real shame on those who didn’t. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on it. I want to again shout-out to those staff in Corrections who do their very best under immensely difficult circumstances.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Parole Amendment Bill, which is a simple bill. It is to amend the Parole Act to clarify that offenders subject to an extended supervision order can reside with their programme provider in a residential setting.

It’s important for parliamentarians in this debate—and in all debates where considerations about the rights of detained people are considered—that we are really clear with what our intention is and the sort of rights balancing exercise that this Parliament is taking into account. The question here—and why we’re debating it—is what Parliament’s original policy intent was with section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) of the Parole Act. Because New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights are engaged here, this bill would add a balancing protection by requiring the Parole Act to constantly review the way that those rights are being weighed up by the Parole Board, but it would also remove that section which is the subject of this declaratory judgment.

The point I’m making here is that when we consider those rights—and perhaps the Minister will elaborate on this in committee stage, because it’s useful for us to do that—the two fundamental questions are not the ones that the Hon Paul Goldsmith asked about—when the Government knew and why the plan was not necessarily in place—they’re questions about how specific this Parliament needs to be when we’re making decisions like this. And the first question that we should ask ourselves as parliamentarians is: is this a punishment? Is a rehabilitative programme which is conducted in a residential setting a punishment at all? That is an important consideration when Parliament designs this kind of legislation which gives people an ability to rehabilitate from what they have done or to continue to be treated, because that is one of the goals of our justice system and it was a subject in the declaratory judgment itself.

The second question is whether this is also detention at all, because the degree of freedoms that people have in these settings is different from what the Hon Judith Collins described as putting them in jail. It is intended to be so, and these providers provide a setting where these people can enjoy lots of the freedoms that they wouldn’t be able to enjoy in a prison setting. Those are important questions for us. This Parliament today is coming together to change the way that this operates to be much clearer. This is an improvement in our law and these are the kinds of decisions that we should be able to make under urgency.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Parole Amendment Bill. Being the Corrections spokesperson, I have had the pleasure of visiting a rehabilitation programme, such as mentioned in this bill, where the parolees are on release into the care of this programme and they are getting a rehabilitation programme while residing at this residence. This bill came in because of a High Court judgment that it wasn’t clear enough whether or not these parolees under daytime supervision could be in a rehabilitation programme as well as stay in the same location overnight. However, once you have been to one of these programmes, you see how well they do try to work with these people to try to rehabilitate them. As we know, we are only talking about 26 in this; however, the programme that I visited dealt with other people as well, whom they do try to integrate very well back into society.

However, these 26 are not so easy to rehabilitate and reintegrate back into society. As has been stated before, they are high-risk offenders with sexual and violent tendencies. It’s a sad reality that we do have these types of people still in our communities that we have to take care of and make sure have whatever little rehabilitation we can give them, and monitoring to make sure that they and the public are being looked after. Because we still realise that, yes, they are humans; yes, there is possibly something wrong with them; and we have to make sure that we do not override the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, the safety of the New Zealand public must come first.

So, in general, we are supportive of this bill, because we feel that New Zealand safety has to come first. I understand that out there we still need a lot more work done in the rehabilitation field with many of our prisoners in New Zealand in general. I would also like to thank our Corrections staff, who put themselves on the line daily to keep New Zealand safe—and also all the people that are involved with rehabilitation programmes, which I’ve also met in the course of being ACT’s Corrections spokesperson and visiting several of our prisons. The work and the mahi that they do is huge, especially to try to help rehabilitate people where they can.

But, with this bill, as we state, it was a court case that was brought to the High Court, and it was that section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) of the Parole Act that wasn’t clear enough. It showed that there was a loophole here—that, if a good lawyer had seen this, these 26 people may not be residing at the residence where they are also getting a rehabilitation programme. Now, again, National can argue, “How long did it take for them to find out that this was going on?” But, like anything, that’s not the case. This is a case of: we know there’s a problem, we know it has to be fixed, so let’s get it fixed today. This is what, to me, urgency or extended sittings are all about: when we find something that isn’t right and it has to be corrected as soon as possible. This is where I agree that we needed to get this through all stages.

Also, the thing is, like the Hon Judith Collins was saying about releasing people into your area, well, we all don’t want anybody in our area. However, we do know that these people have the right to be able to live—however, still with the proviso of people’s safety. The public’s safety has to come first. I know, in Christchurch, there was a facility that they wanted to build for sex offenders. The community came together and said, “Please, not in my area.” However, when you looked at that area, you could understand why they said no, because there were many schools very close to where this facility was. So, you know, there is a balance that has to be held: one for public safety and one for these offenders and getting their lives back on track.

Also, the other factor is, for these offenders, if they are fortunate to have caring family that still want to be part of their lives, being able to be released somewhere where they may be able to have a positive family around them as well—that is a very large thing for the rehabilitation of any prisoner: to have some form of family there. But, also, we know, when you have these high-risk sexual and violent offenders, that’s not always the case, because a lot of the family members do want to cut ties with them because of their offending. That’s very sad that we still have that. But the thing is, when we have a very large country, there are lots of spaces that we need to put people in, but the thing is that, one, we’ve still got to make sure that the public is aware and that they feel comfortable that these people aren’t going to be walking loose within their community, and, two, we also have the bill of rights, to make sure that these Corrections parolee people are also being well treated and looked after. From what I’ve seen from some several of these residential programmes, they are indeed, and also the people that work there do a lot of work to make sure that our community is safe. So, with that, Mr Speaker, I would like to commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is a perplexing move by the Government. We keep talking about this shocking court decision that came out, but it actually came out in June, not yesterday, and it was a result of issues raised in, in fact, a 2016 judicial review of this programme. We’ve had seven years to do something about this problem that we’ve found ourselves in—so we’ve had two Governments not act. We’ve had seven years to not get it right and not need the final day of Parliament to have an all-stages, rushed job of this bill.

It’s also funny because it’s like the court found some technical issue and we’re just quickly fixing it. The court found a breach of six of the 30 fundamental rights contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So one in five of the rights that we’ve committed to as a House of Representatives and a nation are being breached by the programme that we’re talking about.

Normally, when an adverse finding like that happens, the idea isn’t that you’d quickly legislate to overturn that precedent—that you’d quickly legislate to say we want to breach those rights in one day, without a select committee process. Normally, it means you’d go back to the drawing board, you’d look at the rights that are being breached, and you’d look at—as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act requires—to what extent they can be justified to be breached in a free and democratic society. You’d come up with solutions that are right for the risks, and there are risks here. You’d do that lawmaking process with the notice that the court has put you upon to get it right.

So, instead of that, we’ve got this knee-jerk piece of lawmaking, and I do acknowledge that there are risks. I do acknowledge that we do need to get this right. But I want also the Government to notice that not only has this not just urgently come up right this minute but that even if it had, we have public protection orders already in place in our law that could easily apply to the 27 people—I’ve heard it’s 27 and 26; I’m not sure what happened to that one last person between the Labour and the ACT speeches—and process them properly with law that’s in place. We could begin this process, hear from the experts, hear from the public, hear from the justice community, the probation systems that are in place and what we actually can do within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act framework, to legislate properly.

I just do want to say that if we commit to having a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act system—a human rights framework—it means being committed to applying those rights when the worst has happened. We can’t do it just when it’s easy, we can’t do it just for the people we like—that’s what the human rights framework is for.

In fact, the criminal justice system is the front line of our human rights - based system. If we’re willing to let it go when terrible things have happened or when we don’t like the people, then we can’t really say that we operate in a human rights - based system at all. If we’re willing to push laws through in one morning when our higher courts tell us that we’re breaching one in five of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act fundamental rights, we can’t say that we’re even really committed to this democratic process.

So this is bad lawmaking. It’s not urgent and necessary, because other mechanisms exist in our law to make us safe for the time that we need to get this piece of legislation right, follow the democratic process, and highlight the rights that need to be balanced.

It’s a surprise to see this bill come through the House this morning, and it’s a degradation of both this House and our justice system. I don’t commend it to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to take up the issue that my friend Golriz Ghahraman has just talked about, because I think it shows quite a stark contrast in what I think and what she does.

This is a bill that’s really practical. It’s about real people who could be really hurt. Our job as parliamentarians is to make that call sometimes. It is a hard call. You’ve heard the speeches from every side of the House. Nobody’s being unthoughtful or are disrespectful of people’s freedoms and rights. But that has to be balanced with the freedoms and rights of others. Sometimes, we need to make the hard call, and that’s our job. If, in fact, we are brittle about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, we’ll erode people’s confidence in those rights, because they will erode the very joy and privilege and wonder that it is to be a child in this country, because people will be let into situations where they are in danger to those children.

So I, for one, am pleased to see something like this prioritised at this point. I don’t think it has been not considered; I think it’s been considered, and a reasonable, practical decision is made. That’s acknowledged by the judge who talked about how practical considerations had yielded to the language in the last Act. We’re here now to do something that’s important to New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I just want to acknowledge the fact that the bill is in the House, even though it is the last sitting day. We have a responsibility as a House to be able to support the Government in addressing this issue.

I want to acknowledge the Green speaker, Golriz Ghahraman, who highlighted the fact that it goes back to 2016, when the issues were raised, but it’s apparent that those issues were probably contested and the Government finally decided to seek some advice and take it to the High Court and get a judgment on it, which they did. But the thing that really concerns me is the fact that the judgment came back on 21 June; that’s two months ago. I don’t know whether the Government had done any prior preparation in terms of if the judgment was against the current rules or whether it was going to support the current regime, but it clearly came back and it said: no, the current rules—there is a breach.

I don’t know why we’ve waited two months—on the last sitting day of Parliament—to bring this bill into the House, when we are talking about some of the worst recidivist and dangerous offenders that we can have in our community. Not only that, but they are the biggest risk to the most vulnerable people in our community, and that’s our children. So I really am puzzled as to why this bill was not brought to the House within a week, maybe within a fortnight, of the Government receiving the finding—why we’ve waited two months to continue to operate a system that we know, and the Government has known, is in breach of the law.

I just want to take a minute, too, to acknowledge all the staff—the front-line staff, in particular—that work in our corrections system. We often stand in this House and acknowledge, rightly so, our first responders, whether they be front-line police officers or our paramedics or our ambulance officers or our fire fighters or our nurses and doctors, manning our emergency departments. But we very rarely stand in this House and talk about and acknowledge our corrections officers. They have got just as important a role to play in our community in terms of keeping us safe, but they’re often invisible. They’re doing the work that we don’t see.

It’s been highlighted that they have a pretty tough work place that most of us wouldn’t want to take on and they deal with the people that as a society we say are too dangerous to be out in the community. I think that we owe it to them that if there is a High Court ruling showing that they may be themselves put in a difficult position, because there is now a breach of the law, we act quickly and far more quickly than waiting two months in getting this bill into the House. But in saying that, of course we’re going to support the bill. It’s important that this is passed under urgency today and it’s important that the public can be confident that our laws are actually supporting our front-line corrections workers and they are able to actually keep these people under control.

I’d like to talk to the issue around the fact that we should not for one minute kid ourselves around the serious risk that these people—often they show no remorse, they show no empathy and it’s probably highly likely that you’ll never rehabilitate a serious recidivist child sex offender. So it’s important that we do pass this bill, but I just want to put on the record that I don’t think it’s good enough that the Government waited two months to actually bring this to the House. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): In response to that previous speaker, the Hon Mark Mitchell, yes, late June was the ruling. But the impact of the judgment was high, so work had to be done. The complexity of the matter was excessive, so work had to be done. It wasn’t just something you do overnight with the flick of a pen; there actually is the legal team, there are the implications, there are the operational solutions. Work has to be done, and we’re here now.

So we’re here. I know, in looking through, that the Department of Corrections have done all they can to ensure the safety of community and to ensure what they’re doing is correct, and we’re here to pass it together.

I just want to acknowledge the Hon Kelvin Davis. I know not many Ministers choose Corrections, and he has. He chose it because he wants to ensure that our corrections system is fit for purpose in the 21st century and that it looks after wellbeing of all incarcerated but also all those in the community as well as communities. I commend this bill to the House.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and take a call on the Parole Amendment Bill, all stages. I do so sitting here, having listening very carefully to the comments made on all sides of the House this morning, and also reflecting on the work of my father, who served as a corrections officer for 33 years.

We’d have quite long discussions as I was going through my law degree, and he would say that the vast majority of people that he had encountered throughout his career could be rehabilitated and successfully reintegrated into our society. He took great pride in helping them on that journey. He would say to me that there are a very, very, very small number of people who, no matter what support you try and wrap around them, are still at a high risk of repeat offending in our community. It’s these people that we are here discussing today. These are, as has been said, individuals who are at a very high risk of reoffending, and in a very, very harmful way to members of our community.

So we are having to walk a fine line here in balancing the rights of our community to be safe, but also against the rights of these individuals to reintegrate into society. Extended supervision orders (ESOs) are a way that we can ensure protections and wrap-around support around those individuals, but in a way that they can still engage, to some extent, into society. For example, there was a well-known individual subject to an extended supervision order who resided just near the Whanganui Prison. The people supporting that individual took him down to the wharf to go fishing. He was able to go into the supermarket and do his own groceries etc.

So we’re not talking about keeping these people in jail. We are simply talking about and making a practical fix here today to ensure that those extended supervision orders can continue, and that an individual subject to one of those ESOs can remain in residence with those trying to support them and rehabilitate them. So, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under urgency, this Parole Amendment Bill has been introduced to the House, and the National Party without hesitation supports this, as has been noted and shared by my colleagues who have previously spoken and addressed the House. The Hon Judith Collins has spoken from the experience previously as a Minister of Corrections, a Minister of Justice, and spoke on the basis of extensive knowledge and experience around these violent offenders, and particularly sexually depraved, sexually deranged, and sexually violent offenders. That’s what this bill is about, in terms of addressing what has been detected by the courts as an anomaly in terms of the law.

As spokesperson for children for the National Party, without hesitation, without reservation, the National Party and I as the spokesperson for children support this bill, because, as has been heard in the House, this is about balancing rights and correcting the law where the court has deemed that there has been an inconsistency and that under the Parole Act, the extended supervision order has, effectively, been breached with the implementation of these residential rehabilitation programmes. In terms of balancing of rights, without hesitation, the children who have been the victims of these sexual abuses, their rights are far greater, and so it is just, it is right, that the duty we have as parliamentarians is to amend the law. I take a short call on this basis.

The National Party is concerned, as has been heard—the Government is amending and correcting what has been an anomaly and how that’s been interpreted by the courts. There is concern that under urgency, on the last day of this 53rd Parliament, the Minister of Corrections, who is also the Minister for Children, is front-footing this now. It’s noted that this declaratory judgment came out on 27 June, and so there is a question as to why this wasn’t given greater priority—and no doubt in my mind, in terms of children’s rights in this country, the importance of this legislation to be amended to ensure their protection.

Under urgency last night, also, was a member’s bill that again addressed the issue of violence, and it was around family violence and the importance to prioritise the victims. That’s what the National Party’s position and stance is, to acknowledge that victims have been victimised and to ensure that there are ongoing protections that are in place under the law. So, without hesitation, without reservation, the National Party is supporting what is the correct thing to do.

As spokesperson for children, I am somewhat perturbed to hear the Green Party’s stance on this in opposing this bill, in opposing it on the basis that it’s viewed that the breaches of sexual abusers’ rights for some reason take priority and precedent over children who are victims of these sexual abusers. So I put that on the record as spokesperson for children. I’ve always said, and I will always continue to advocate, as I have done in my former life, the paramountcy of children’s interests and their welfare.

From the National Party’s point of view, this Parole Amendment Bill will ensure that our children are cherished, that their rights are far greater than any sexual abusers’ rights under this law. So, without hesitation, without reservation, the National Party supports this bill.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take the final call on the first reading of the Parole Amendment Bill. I am not a lawyer; I am a māmā, I’ve been a teacher, I’m a member of a community, and what I know is that normally I don’t have to think about this because I trust the system to keep us safe while at the same time making sure that we have safe, stable, structured environments for reintegration of these offenders. I’m grateful that we’re able to see the balance of urgency for public safety—the balance between that urgency and being very considered in making sure that this bill is right. It is because of that, given that there seems to be a lot of consensus about the why and the how, that I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 13

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

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

Ayes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 13

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

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: According to a determination of the Business Committee, the Parole Amendment Bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): I move, That the Parole Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

First of all, I’d like to thank members for their contributions to this bill in their first reading speeches. I’ve listened to the views and I’d like to address some of the points people made. Firstly, around what members of the National Party said about why this is happening now and what happened since the High Court judgment. The timing is unfortunate that we are on the last day of Parliament, but the June decision meant that we needed to have something before the House rose for the election.

Because public safety is the paramount principle in the Corrections Act that governs all of the Department of Corrections’ actions, driven by this, since the High Court judgment, our officials have explored all possible options to respond to the judgment, including a thorough assessment of possible litigation strategies that are unlikely to be successful, but the officials had to look at all those particular options. Operational changes were deemed not to be feasible as Corrections would have to separate out the residential providers from the programme providers and that would just take too long to set up.

Given the impact of the judgment and the complexity of the matter, it took some time to work through not only the legal implications but also any potential operational solutions. Over the month of July, the implications of the decision became better understood. Following advice from experts on the intricacies of the judgment, it became clear that operational solutions were not viable and that the key public safety risk lay with the daytime programme conditions being unenforceable. What that means is that these people on extended supervision orders (ESOs) would basically have been free to wander in the community. These are people with the most heinous violations of people—in particular, there’s a number of child sex offenders and other sex offenders. We simply cannot risk having them free to wander around in the community.

If I think about the Green Party’s contribution, and I’m disappointed that they and the Māori Party are choosing to vote against this, I’d say that for us to take this through the whole process—you know, a proper process; not through urgency—it would have meant probably nine months of engagement to get to this point. That means nine months where people on extended supervision orders are free to wander around the community—and they are the worst offenders. Now, the notion was raised that maybe public protection orders—believe me, Corrections has applied for these people to be put on public protection orders, but the bar is so high that they have missed out despite the nature of their offending.

I really appreciated the contribution of Arena Williams when she said, “Is being rehabilitated in the places you reside actually a punishment?” So, looking at a typical timetable of one of the ESOs, they are supported to have walks in the community, to go shopping, to eat out in the community, to participate in things; but it’s all supported. They have quite a lot of free time. As Arena Williams asked, is it really actually a punishment for them to be supported in the programmes that they are supported to do? Is it detention, given that they get to go out shopping and participate in things in the community—they’re supported to do that sort of thing, so is it really detention? Is it punishment? I think that the majority of fair-minded New Zealanders would say, no, it isn’t.

So there have been some good contributions from around the House, but I consider that the amendments in the bill are necessary to enable Corrections to continue to manage these high-risk offenders in ways that provide them with wraparound support through a single-provider model. All we are talking about is the ESOs: if they reside at a certain place with certain providers, the High Court judgment says that they cannot receive the daytime support—their programme—from the same people. I think most people would say, “Isn’t that great to have 24-hour wraparound support where they can stay somewhere where they can actually be supported to engage out in the community?”

As I said in my first reading speech, using a single-provider model to deliver both the programme and the residence conditions for these high-risk offenders is a longstanding practice of Corrections. It ensures these offenders have wraparound support and supervision during their reintegration in a stable and structured environment. While the ESO regime was introduced in 2004, the part of the Parole Act that today’s bill seeks to amend was introduced in 2014. Section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) was not intended to affect this longstanding practice of using a single-provider model, and the wording of the Parole Act has done so inadvertently. Instead, this section was intended to avoid offenders being subject to daytime programme conditions that were, in fact, de facto residential restrictions.

We need to pass this bill to urgently ensure that Corrections can continue to enforce these high-risk offenders’ programme conditions, despite the June judgment, and can continue to impose these conditions in the future to support the reintegration of these offenders and to keep the public safe; in particular, to keep our children safe. I further believe that the bill should be progressed urgently to mitigate risks of formal challenges which would undermine the rehabilitation and reintegration of these high-risk offenders.

I’d like to take the opportunity to again address some of the points first raised at the first reading. Can I start by thanking the Hon Judith Collins for her contribution and by echoing her support for staff at Corrections who have dealt with an incredibly complex issue here. For example, because these are the most high-risk offenders currently able to live in the community, all have exhibited long-term patterns of serious sexual and/or violent offending, pose a real and ongoing risk of reoffending, and most have histories of child sex offending. Many also have significant or complex health challenges such as diagnosed disabilities, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders.

As the Hon Judith Collins said, corrections officers work with these people whom most people would never want to engage with. I think her speech answered some of the points raised by the Hon Paul Goldsmith in his contribution, in particular with regards to the timing of this bill today.

When this law was changed, the previous Government and Corrections were confident in their interpretation of the Act that the purpose of section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) allowed for offenders to reside with their programme provider. When the Parole Board sought a declaratory judgment, Corrections was therefore dealing with an incredibly complicated legal situation with outcomes that were incredibly difficult to predict. It is not generally good process to use an urgent amendment to try and pre-emptively override a potential court judgment, so Corrections found it appropriate to follow the legal court case and explain the historic interpretation of the section of the Act and the Government’s intent in amending it to read as it does.

As has been said this morning, the court case has now issued its judgment and this bill is here today to do what, as parliamentarians, is a core part of our role. For me, public safety, and especially the safety of children, must always remain our number one priority. So I thank the House for accepting the legislation today and we will pass it accordingly.

Also in response to the Hon Mark Mitchell, I would like to emphasise to him paragraph three of the legislative statement to ameliorate some of his concerns. There is a low number of affected offenders, but, due to the high-risk profiles of these offenders, Corrections and its contracted providers have continued the longstanding approach of managing these offenders through a singleprovider model since the June judgment. Corrections has continued to protect community safety since the judgment—in other words, whilst working through a very complex topic with the potential for significant unintended consequences if the wrong amendments were to be made.

I am running out of time, but turning to my colleague Golriz Ghahraman, I understand of course that this bill has intersections with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as I outlined in my first reading speech. However, it remains my view that Parliament was right to legislate with this regime in 2014 and that upholding it today is appropriate, therefore, as well. These are serious offenders, as has been well canvassed, and we cannot ignore the public risk that would come from letting these conditions lapse.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for answering a number of questions that were raised in the first reading of this bill and I don’t want to elongate the process unnecessarily.

The alternative, which seems to be what the Greens are proposing, is that this very small group of serious repeat offenders, primarily sexual offenders—this group has been described as having a variety of very complex needs, including drug and alcohol addictions, physical and intellectual disabilities, and mental health challenges, and some of them show a lack of remorse and empathy; a very small group, 26 people currently. The alternative, I suppose, is that they’ve served their prison sentence and we should let them just go for it.

The problem with that is that there is an extremely high risk that they will create new victims. It’s a pretty hard call just to say that those people—the next victims of these people that can be very highly predicted to create those new victims—should just pay the price of a sort of strict reading of the human rights legislation. That’s why the House has taken the view that public safety should take pre-eminence, but it is why, also, the regime, as implied, requires frequent reviewing by the Parole Board to make sure that nothing more than is required is imposed on those people.

We can debate the human rights implications of it, but that, strictly speaking, is not really the issue of this legislation. The practice has been in place since 2004 around having people kept in overnight in one facility and having the programmes provided by the same provider in the same place during the day. So it’s really a simple question of whether that is legal or not. As we’ve seen, that has been challenged and, as a consequence of the judgment, the Parole Board is now bound to amend the affected conditions of those 26 people and may be required to remove the programme conditions where an offender residing with the provider is intended to be supported; that is put in jeopardy by no longer being lawful. The inability of Corrections to enforce the programme conditions means that that group of offenders could be out, as the Minister said, on the streets. We’re not prepared to take that risk. We’re not prepared to take that risk in terms of public safety, and that’s why we ultimately support this bill going through.

Yes, we can argue about the timing and we can argue why perhaps they could have had a plan B in place maybe to do it fractionally more quickly. Fortunately, it hasn’t come up in the two months since that judgment and public safety has been maintained. So, ultimately, we accept the need for this legislation and we support it. It’s pleasing to see that across most of the House there is a willingness to do what needs to be done in order to keep the people of New Zealand safe and we’ll support this bill from here on in. Thank you very much.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also wanted to address some of the concerns raised by my Green Party colleague in relation to this bill.

I spoke in the first reading about the national manager of high risk at the Department of Corrections noting that it was difficult to find acceptable housing. It was noted that she also said, at paragraph 17 of the declaratory judgment, “If the court were to find that single agency provider arrangements are immiscible, Corrections would need to consider making applications for the more restrictive PPOs in respect of some or all of those individuals.” I would say, firstly, that if you are subject to those public protection orders (PPOs), you’re, essentially, required to stay in secure facilities—prison-like facilities. So those people would be subject to far greater New Zealand Bill of Rights Act breaches, and I don’t think that’s justified—not while Parliament considers its position. I simply don’t.

As the Minister then pointed out, Corrections has actually applied for PPOs for some of these individuals, and they fall short. The Minister was pointing to the gap there. This is a bill that addresses a gap, by necessity.

The last thing I would say is that my view in relation to bills like this is that the word “review” is very important, and I do think that this is something that a future Parliament should turn its mind to. Several members have raised very important questions that this House ought to consider.

Finally, as this may be the last time I speak in this Parliament, for this term, I would just like to say that the Justice Committee, to whom this bill would have gone, has worked very collegially. I do think the speeches across the House today are showing that we take these matters very seriously. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): In the spirit of the comments that were made by Vanushi Walters, the chair of the Justice Committee, can I acknowledge her and the outstanding work that she’s done leading that committee, and the other committee members that are in the House. This is not going to be my last speech in the House—because we do have to get this through urgency—but just following on from her comments, I do want to pick up on one of the comments that she made around public protection orders (PPOs).

Make no mistake that if there is a gap in the system, the public should not pick up the tab for that and they should not be exposed to that additional risk, especially when you are talking about the seriousness of the offending that these offenders have actually committed, which is, for most of them, sexual offending against kids. I’m sorry, but a PPO is absolutely appropriate, because we do not want to be playing Russian roulette—

Hon Kelvin Davis: The judge makes that decision, though.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —with the safety of the—well, I’m addressing the issue that was raised by the chair of the committee, who said that it would be inappropriate, if there was a gap in the system, to apply a PPO to an offender, and I disagree with that. The Minister himself is still in the House and has laid out for us clearly how risky and how dangerous these offenders are, so it’s far better that they have a PPO and we know where they are and that we protect the community. That’s not what was put forward by the chair of the committee.

Hon Kelvin Davis: But the judges make those decisions.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The other point that I want to make—sorry, what was that, Minister?

Hon Kelvin Davis: Yeah, I said I agree that judges make the decision on the PPOs.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, OK—thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. The Minister agrees with the point that I just made.

I do want to acknowledge the Minister for seeking the advice from the High Court and at least getting this issue fixed. I do have an issue around the timing. I appreciate the fact that he has responded to the issue that I raised in my first reading speech, but I’ll still say that they should have been better organised.

Look, our front-line corrections officers are expected to respond immediately. They don’t have the luxury of sitting around for six weeks or two months to try and get something right. I feel that it would have been incumbent upon those that were responsible for getting those amendments done to have already done some of the work and already had that well down the track so that we didn’t expose and have that risk for two months waiting for this bill to come to the House.

But, on saying that, as we have said clearly, it’s important to get this through urgency. I support this bill.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I want to be crystal clear: the Department of Corrections has continued to protect public safety following the declaratory judgment. I want to join with the Minister Kelvin Davis in thanking those corrections officers who discharged their duty with nothing but dignity. They do such important work for our communities by making sure that public safety is upheld and by overseeing these programmes, which, ultimately, are rehabilitative, and which take people from a state where they cannot re-enter the community and continuously try to provide them with the care and the rehabilitation that they need.

Those corrections workers do not need the extra challenge of dealing with rules which are unclear. The best thing that this House can do now is to clarify the rules about how they are meant to continue to discharge that duty that they do for all of us with honour. That’s what this bill does, and I thank the Minister for his work in bringing it to the House.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on the second reading of the Parole Amendment Bill. I’d like to thank the Minister, the Hon Kelvin Davis, for clarifying how this bill came about. Clarity makes it much easier for people watching what’s happening to know exactly why we are pushing this bill through under urgency.

As I stated, I visited a facility that looks after daytime and night-time parolees, and, as the Minister stated, they are allowed to go out for walks and be part of a community and go shopping with supervision. These 27 that we are talking about, which this bill is going affect immediately, are, we know, a high risk to our children. Our children’s rights have to come first, over the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, in this bill, in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, we have a review every two years, so these parolees will be reassessed to see if their circumstances have changed. So we are trying to balance the rights of both those who we have to keep safe within our communities as well as these people who have offended, and, as stated earlier, they are high risk. They have mental health issues. We need to still be able to look after them for them to get that rehabilitation. We know that sometimes the rehabilitation will not work, but at least they are getting support, they are being assessed, and they are being looked after by people that know their circumstances.

We know that some of these parolees will be able to use their persuasiveness to persuade people that they are OK, but we need to know that those who are looking after them will be aware of what sort of persuasiveness these parolees try so they can push the boundaries to make themselves seem better than they are.

It’s a sad reality when mental health and intellectual disabilities are in place, and the thing is that we need to make sure that those with mental health issues and those who have intellectual disabilities are looked after a bit more. If we can identify their needs a little bit sooner, they may not go down this track of becoming the worst offenders in terms of sexual violence.

It has been a great honour in this last term to be able to stand up for the corrections officers that look after these people. It is quite sad that they also found that many times they have not been listened to. They put their lives on the line every day that they go to work; it’s the same with our front-line police. I take my hat off to those who deal with these types of offenders, because not everybody would want to do that.

And in terms of this order, as you read through it, there are about six sites around New Zealand. As many people say, they don’t want it in their backyard, but we do need to house them somewhere and our communities will have to be understanding. Communities need to be aware and to be brought along on any further offenders being put into their community.

As I said earlier in my first speech, in Christchurch a facility was to be put in and the public came together and said no, not in this area, because of where it was located, and that was totally understandable. There were many schools in the area, especially girls’ schools. So I understand that a lot of communities don’t want this measure, but primarily we’ve got to make sure that New Zealanders feel safe and that our children feel safe. Those who are mothers will understand that they become mama bears when it becomes vitally important for their children. I have not been fortunate to have a child myself, but I am a stepmother and am soon to be a step-grandmother, and I am looking forward to making sure that their safety and wellbeing is put first.

Again, as I stated, this measure is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, a review will be done every two years so that these people are being assessed and we’re making sure that their rights are not being eroded. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Since we’re doing these speeches thick and fast, I will repeat some of the concerns but also respond to some of what I’ve heard in the House since.

The Green Party does oppose this bill. We don’t see the problem as having arisen moments ago, and the type of urgent approach that’s been taken by the Government, some of the these concerns were raised—well, the majority, actually, of the core concerns that came up in the June declarative judgment of the High Court were raised in a judicial review in 2016. We see this as having been a core issue raised some seven years ago, ignored by two different major party - led Governments. So to deal with these significant rights issues on the final day of the sitting of this Parliament in extended hours in one go is not acceptable, given what’s at stake, given that we’re not talking about some technical discrepancy—people have used the word “anomaly”. Actually, in the criminal justice system, the rights that have been raised as being breached are not anomalies at all; what is an anomaly is seeing a bill or a system that’s been in place that breaches so many of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights being passed without examination in one morning.

So we have this House on notice that what we’re passing breaches six of the 30 fundamental rights contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that’s one in five of the fundamental rights that are being breached. Normally, when the judicial branch of Government puts us on notice that rights are being breached, that isn’t a trigger for this House to pass urgent, unexamined legislation to make it legal for us to continue to breach those rights; normally, that’s a signal for us to come back, take the rights breaches seriously, hear from the community, hear from experts, and examine the law.

Now, I’ve heard one National Party speech that I find particularly offensive in terms of the mischaracterisation of the balance that the Green Party is talking about here. Of course we’re not talking about a balance of the rights of child victims of sexual offending as against the offender. It’s extremely offensive that that member, especially a lawyer, would suggest that. The balance of rights that have been raised with us here, as always, is the balance of the breach, the incursion on someone’s rights, as against what is necessary in a free and democratic society to uphold the interest that the bill is seeking to protect.

So the interest being public safety: do we need to impinge on a particular right in that particular way in order to uphold public safety? And that’s always the case. We always have to examine rights breaches in that way. It’s absolutely not the case that we get to invoke the name and the harm of child victims in order to justify anything we want to pass in this House, and, in particular, holding that balancing exercise of what is necessary in terms of rights breaches, as against any interests that we’re trying to protect—in this case, public safety. This is absolutely at the heart of a human rights - based system and always a careful assessment in justice lawmaking, because of course it’s in the criminal justice space that prejudice is always high. Sympathies rightly run deep, so to invoke the name of victims to justify rights breaches in an unexamined way, or to criticise anyone who wants to engage in that balancing exercise, which is necessary and our duty, is offensive.

So, coming back to this process, the process means that we won’t have that examination, that we will pass law just to make it legal to continue those rights breaches. We’ve heard repeatedly about some of the issues that the offenders that this bill will apply to have. We’ve heard the seriousness of their offending. We’ve heard that they are the most dangerous, but we’ve also heard that public protection orders will somehow not apply to them or that they won’t meet that standard. It’s not to say that public protection orders should always be utilised, but if we are really talking about the most dangerous offenders then I do have a question of why they aren’t quite dangerous enough for public protection orders.

I also have a question around why we won’t be implementing, for example, a sunset clause, which would have made this urgent and unexamined process that we’re running through here, if it is that urgent, more in line with what we normally want to see in a democratic system, which is to say, “OK, we quickly need to take care of this. We don’t want any unintended releases.”—we’ve also heard that this isn’t really detention, but of course a court found that it was—“but we will, in fact, examine the law.” What we, in fact, need to say in that law, and what we need to, in fact, empower Corrections to do, as against the rights that may or may not be breached in a proper legislative process later on—and we will necessitate that by building in a sunset clause here. That hasn’t happened either.

So this is a degradation of the way that we normally do things, and the law itself is a degradation of rights, and it’s been done in an entirely unexamined way. So we don’t commend it to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Always a pleasure and privilege to stand and make a contribution, and this is the Parole Amendment Bill, second reading. This Government takes public safety and the integrity of the justice system seriously. I would like to acknowledge the victims and their families who unfortunately have to experience these offenders. As a registered social worker, I’d like to acknowledge all the probation officers and those who work in the field who continue to support rehabilitation to change these serious offenders. As we’ve heard, the bill amends the Act to clarify that offenders subject to an extended supervision order can reside with their programme provider at the provider’s residence. Again, this Government takes public safety and the integrity of the justice system seriously, and on that note, I commend the Parole Amendment Bill to the House. Mālō ‘aupito.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Chris Penk—five-minute call.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an interesting debate and an interesting week, indeed, in Parliament in relation to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues. I join with others, including the Minister the Hon Kelvin Davis, who have acknowledged the work that is done by corrections officers. Their work is difficult and dangerous, and these are non-trivial issues for us all to consider, not only, of course, in terms of the substance of the offending and risk to community but also, of course, in terms of the human rights of all concerned.

Obviously, the constitutional element, in terms of the court having made a ruling and Parliament deciding to respond to that, is interesting in itself. I won’t rehearse the ground that’s been traversed already by others in relation to those other issues, but I just acknowledge the Attorney-General’s report on the inconsistency, as he sees it, with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of this bill, and he identifies four different bases for that. One is the right of persons finally convicted not to be further punished—and we can have a discussion about whether there’s punishment involved in terms of the programmes—freedoms of movement and peaceful assembly, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, and the right to natural justice.

As other National Party members have already made pretty clear, we do support the Government not only in terms of making the bill but also having this truncated process, for the reasons that have been set out. So I will just make a couple of reflections on the fact that Parliament, rightly, must be able to declare its own intention in relation to bills, and if it’s the case historically that bills have been passed into law and the intention of Parliament at that time wasn’t clear to the courts, then it’s incumbent on Parliament—so Parliament has not only the right but the responsibility—to offer some clarification, and that’s what we’re doing here today.

I’m just trying to get my head around it. I’ve only seen the bill relatively recently, and likewise the Attorney General’s report, but I think what’s happening is not so much that the courts have said that the legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—so it’s not that they’re making a declaration of inconsistency that we’re needing to respond to—but they’re interpreting it in a way that has a certain effect in the real world, albeit that’s one that they would regard as consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I know that’s pretty gnarly stuff and quite complicated, but I think it’s worth us saying for the record that it’s not that we are happy with the idea that we make law that’s inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, albeit if there are sufficient policy justifications, then we can.

Lest anyone listening should think that we are totally blasé about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZ BORA) issues, it’s that we ultimately reserve the right to make decisions that are appropriate for a democratic institution. Courts are not democratic, and if I say that, that’s not meant to sound dismissive or negative about them, but their great beauty is that they’re not democratically responsive. They shouldn’t be subject to the baying of the crowds, etc. But, then again, we in this place owe our position to responding to the needs and the desires of the community through elections, and so on. So I think our constitutional arrangements are pretty good in that way. It means that in this case we’re having discussions on Parliament working quite quickly to clarify its intention.

I will leave my remarks there, except only just to say, if I may, that I think it’s been a really interesting discussion about the idea of whether the conditions that are being imposed are in the nature of a punishment, as opposed to something that’s for the benefit of the offenders. I think that perhaps because these are mandatory and they’re imposed. In the language of the NZ BORA report, they do have a punitive nature in addition to being rehabilitative. But I think it’s probably fairer to characterise these as a continuation of the punishment that had already been imposed by the courts, rather than a separate and additional one. So, to my mind, it’s less of a double jeopardy - type situation and more of a matter of clarity in terms of the conditions on which a person may eventually be reintegrated into society. I join others on this side of the House and, indeed, the Minister and the Government in commending the bill to the House.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It looks like I’m the last speaker on the Parole Amendment Bill. This is not an easy strike to balance. The heart of this is all about taking the public safety and the integrity of our justice system very, very seriously—and also, we respond to the recent High Court judgment. But the intent of this bill is to amend the Parole Act to clarify that offenders subjected to an extended supervision order who live in the community can now be required to live with their rehabilitation programme providers. It’s also all about taking the victim’s safety very seriously as well as protecting the offender’s human rights and dignity as stated in our bill of rights. We do so by providing them with structured and wraparound support to minimise the risk of reoffending—because we are talking about some of the worst offenders, so this bill is timely. Without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): According to a determination of the Business Committee, the bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the bill.

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): Members, the House is in committee on the Parole Amendment Bill.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Members, as I said, the House is in committee on the Parole Amendment Bill. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a brief note from me, as much as anything, acknowledging that we’ve had already a bit of discussion by way of the first and second reading debates. Actually, within that, there was a bit of interaction whereby questions, effectively, were asked on this side and answered subsequently by the Minister and others who were able to represent the Government’s position. So I don’t feel the need to interrogate those same matters again.

I would be interested to know whether the Minister could just explain, because I think it would be helpful, given that we are doing this urgently, albeit technically not in urgency, because the Business Committee—the Parliament as a whole—has agreed for this quick process. So the question to the Minister is does he understand just how quickly this law will be not only passed in here but also in effect. I know that’s quite a gnarly, technical issue, and we don’t usually worry about such things particularly, because we know it might be the day after Royal assent or on a particular calendar date that a bill becomes an Act and enforceable and effective. But in this case, obviously, it’s a matter of some importance, and that’s why we’re reacting quickly. So any guidance that the Minister can give us in that regard would be helpful.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it would just be useful for the Minister to just go on the record to respond to each of the points raised by the AttorneyGeneral when he went through that, and the questions that have been raised, such as: does he believe that this legislation that we’re passing imposes a second penalty on these 26 providers, and, if not, why not?

In terms of retrospectivity, in the sense that the bill goes back and changes the law in effect for how it has been imposed over the last little while, does he think that that’s justified, and, if so, why?

The next question, about the right to a lesser penalty, when the penalty changes after the offence is committed—that’s another point that’s been raised. Ultimately, Parliament has decided that these people have served out their sentence, but Parliament in its wisdom has decided that public safety requires an ongoing level of supervision. I’d like to just hear from the Minister how he justifies that, and why he thinks it’s necessary.

The next one’s around freedom of movement, and peaceful assembly. You know, there are restrictions that are imposed under this regime. They can’t just wander around as they see fit, and have freedom of movement. So that has been curtailed. Again, I’d like to hear from the Minister as to why he thinks that is justified.

In terms of arbitrary detention—that’s another thing that’s been raised by Mr Parker—again, does he believe this is detention? We think this is being done ultimately for the benefit not just of the community but of the perpetrator, or the person that is under parole conditions. I think even the most lost offender in this area ultimately doesn’t want to be doing the offending in the long term, so is it something for their benefit or not, and is it detention or not? So I think that’s an appropriate thing.

The final one is around natural justice. At review, are these 26 people going to get a fair shot when the parole goes to consider them again? So I’ll be interested in hearing from the Minister on that to reassure the committee that he thinks it’s justified. My sense, and our sense in supporting this legislation, is that those challenges to the human rights of these people affected are justified, and that’s the nature of our support for it.

The final thing we did raise in the first reading speech—I would just like to get clarity in terms of the time line from the Minister around how this occurred. The regulatory impact statement refers to a court decision in 2001, I think, raising issues with this regime, which led to the Parole Board asking for the declaratory judgment. I’d just like the Minister to confirm that, or just identify at what point were serious concerns raised with him, and the ministry—either justice or corrections—around the effectiveness of the regime. Again, there’s no point being difficult about all this, but just maybe give us some insight into the thinking or preparations made as we were waiting for the declaratory judgment.

As it has turned out, it seems like we have over the last past two months avoided a serious problem, and we’re pleased that that’s the case.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the Minister. Within his second speech, he clarified why this was being bought urgently through Parliament today and that we weren’t going to have a select committee process where people could submit.

The reason why I’m standing to ask is because many New Zealanders over the last wee while have been concerned that they have been excluded. However, this is one bill that I would like to point out to New Zealanders why these could be excluded, and to have the Minister then explain why we have come to this point, to where this bill has come to us at the committee of the whole House, to pass it all at once. So that way, people out of the Parliament understand why there are needs to bring things like these bills in urgency, where the select committee process can be diverted and where most members of the House here are happy for this to be brought to this stage.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just try to address the issues raised. First of all, to Chris Penk’s question about when does this come into effect, it does come into effect today. This also goes to Toni Severin’s question as to why we have to do things quickly. If there is any sort of delay to this bill passing, then it does give the opportunity for anybody on an extended supervision order (ESO) to go out into the community, because they would have that amount of time, be it 24 hours, be it a week—well, obviously not a week, because Parliament is rising. If we didn’t do this, then they would have that opportunity. We just want to mitigate any possible chance that somebody on an extended supervision order can say, “Oh well, my programme conditions don’t apply, and I’m free to wander out in the community”. So that is the issue around the urgency.

Around Paul Goldsmith’s question about if the regime is, in effect, a detention. Well, the ESO regime by its very nature is a post-sentence order, and has, therefore, consistently been found to constitute a second penalty, contrary to section 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But this bill does not fundamentally alter this position. I don’t propose that the bill be amended to address those matters, as the intention was to make the minimum changes necessary to urgently respond to the High Court judgment. There is a risk that making any further changes than what is proposed will create unintended consequences and legislative inconsistencies within the Parole Act 2002.

In terms of the time line, a judgment was first made in 2021. The Parole Board and the Department of Corrections wanted to get some clarity around that. The judgment came out at the end of June. As I said in my first and, I think, second reading speeches, officials did have to look into what the ramifications of the decision were. They had to seek advice from experts to separate out the people that someone on an ESO can live with and to make that different from somebody who could provide the programmes. Operationally, it was just going to take too long, and, again, it would just provide more time for people on the ESOs to ignore them or, basically, wander free in the community. Again, as a Parliament, I think all of us find that unconscionable. We just could not take that risk.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 13

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

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Parole Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): According to a determination of the Business Committee, the bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): I move, That the Parole Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I’d like to thank everybody for their time during this first and second reading speeches and for the insightful debate during the committee of the whole House. Very insightful, thank you, Mr Goldsmith.

The Bill amends the Parole Act 2002 to address the issues raised in the recent High Court decision of New Zealand Parole Board v The Attorney-General. The High Court found that section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) prevents offenders on extended supervision orders from living with their programme providers. This was not the intention when the section was drafted in 2014. This bill enables Corrections to continue to manage these high-risk offenders in ways that provide them with wraparound support and maintains public safety without the risk of formal challenge following the June judgment. Specifically, it does this by way of enabling offenders to live with their programme providers. This bill will increase safeguards to ensure that combined programme conditions and residential restrictions are no more restrictive than necessary by requiring regular reviews of conditions.

I think it is important to address the issues raised in the High Court decision as soon as possible. Programme conditions for approximately 27 high-risk offenders on an extended supervision order cannot currently be enforced, hence the use of urgency to progress the bill through all stages. I would like to thank MPs from around the House for their support of this important bill, and on this basis I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, we’ve all given a number of speeches on this very short bill today, which has gone through. You know, it is, I suppose, a bit of a metaphor for this Government’s overall justice agenda that on our final day in Parliament, we’re fixing an urgent problem with urgent legislation. It’s not somewhere we would want to be, but it needs to be done, and on that basis we support this legislation.

Ultimately, the practice that has been in place since 2004 to deal with a very small group of very serious—very serious—mainly sexual offenders who are clearly a danger to society, and in particular to children—a regime has been set up in place to help deal with the transition for these people back from prison into the community in such a way that keeps the community safe. Now, the practices have been in place since 2004; a law change was made in 2014 which wasn’t intended to change that practice but, in the course of time, some queries were made about how it fit with one clause of that legislation.

In 2021, a court case queried that; the Parole Board then looked into it and decided that they needed to get some clarity around this and asked the High Court to make a declarative judgment. They did that and said, “No, the law doesn’t allow you to do what you have been doing for some time.” Now, the consequence of that is that this small group of very serious repeat offenders would be able to set out, sort of without any restrictions, during the day. That’s not a risk that the Government is prepared to take and it’s not a risk that we here on this side of the House would be prepared to take.

So, when you strip it all away, that’s the choice we’re left with: do we support this or do we not? Of course we do support that, because I think most people in this House do prioritise public safety. That doesn’t mean we are unconscious of the trade-offs that we have to deal with when it comes to the human rights consequences for that. It does raise a whole range of issues, and the AttorneyGeneral’s report shows that, but, ultimately, Parliament has to make a judgment, and that judgment has been made. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Following the debate this morning, I know that we in here in the House have traversed a whole range of views. As the National member who has just resumed his seat, Paul Goldsmith, has just mentioned: we have weighed up all the different factors. But ultimately, I think, we look back at our purpose of why we are here: to uphold the maintenance of public safety and the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders—so making sure that the offenders get the wraparound services that they need but at the same time protecting them from the community and making sure that they have the right programmes and those are enforceable on parole. So that’s why I think this is a good bill, and I do thank all the members in this House who have debated this bill rigorously today. So that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t intend to repeat the comments that others have made, nor my own comments at the second reading. Of course, we’re passing through the various stages and readings of the bill quite quickly. The reason for that has been well explained from the Minister and then from others on all sides of the House. I do note that the Greens have taken a different position in terms of whether they regard this as being such an urgent measure and—

Golriz Ghahraman: And Te Paati Māori.

CHRIS PENK: And Te Paati Māori. OK. Thank you. They’re entitled to that view, of course, but we’ve landed where we have in terms of wanting to support the aim of ensuring that there isn’t a disconnect between the courts’ view of the matters and Parliament’s view of the matter, and we don’t wish for any public safety imperatives to fall between that gap.

So with those comments made, I do think it’s probably fair to note that when Parliament passes laws very quickly, obviously there’s always a risk that you miss things or that unintended consequences haven’t been canvassed—and there’s consultation with the community. In this case—and, similarly, in the case of repeal-type legislation—I think it’s more permissible to act quickly because we are returning to what is a known state. We’re not passing, from scratch, a new measure that would have to come in from that which was understood before, and the world would have to sort of change and respond and that we wouldn’t have had, as lawmakers, the benefit of that discussion to create some sort of new regime from scratch.

What we engaged in the purpose of is returning the world to the situation that we had understood was already the case, but for the court ruling. So I think, at the risk of sounding defensive in terms of the parliamentary process being quite so quick, apart from the real-world imperatives, I also think in terms of House procedure and lawmaking in general, it’s defensible to the extent that we are merely clarifying something that Parliament had intended in the first place.

My second of three points was addressing the question of retrospectivity. So I would argue that we are not making law retrospectively to the extent that we are merely saying that the law that had already existed, in Parliament’s mind, does still apply. We’re not saying that the punishment for a thing now needs to be greater than it was, because that would be a retrospective application of the criminal justice system against a person—or 26 persons. We’re instead saying that we are going, we are returning—I’m trying to not use the word retrospective. I mean, to look backwards is literally the meaning of retrospective, but we are looking backwards but we’re doing so to say that the real-world understanding of what is the case under the Parole Act needs to return to how it was that Parliament thought it had made the situation in the first place.

Finally—and now I am actually repeating myself a little bit, but I think, if I may say, it’s an important point—I don’t consider, with respect to others who have a different view, that we’re in a double jeopardy situation whereby a person is having an additional punishment. I think we are ensuring that the terms of the punishment that was handed down to them in the courts in the first place is able to be served and managed. Because, of course, the parole system reflects part of a coherent whole-of-Corrections procedures anyway, whereby a person is sentenced and might have a period of incarceration and then have a regime whereby they are, you know, able to exit that—but in a managed way and with the rehabilitative programs that are meant to be part of that.

So I apologise, first, if that’s rather nuanced; and, secondly, more importantly, if it hasn’t been expressed that clearly, you’ll forgive me hopefully because this is a bill that many of us have seen literally for the first time only two hours ago—was introduced to the House at that time. It has been a quick process, but I think within the bounds of the constraints that we’ve had in terms of the realworld situation and also our desire to be helpful and pass this as quickly as it needs to. It’s been a pretty reasonable discussion; a helpful one.

I reiterate—as this may actually be the last National Party call on the matter—that we have joined with the Government to support their intent and the detail of making this change. We commend it, therefore, to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Parole Amendment Bill. Just following on from the previous speaker, Chris Penk, I just want to note that most members of this House are supporting this bill today.

This bill has a real focus on rehabilitation, which is an important component of our justice system, ensuring that those people who are able to be rehabilitated—which I would say is most people in the justice system—are able to get the support they need to do that.

What this bill specifically does is correct an issue within the Parole Act, where those who are on extended supervision orders aren’t able to live with the rehabilitation provider, and so it limits the ability for that rehabilitation to occur.

I think most of us in this House, and most New Zealanders, would agree that ensuring people who are undergoing a rehabilitation programme can access the right wraparound support they need in order to do that is critical to the effectiveness of rehabilitation.

So this bill does correct a wee error that occurred, so it needs to come through the House. I commend it to the House.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the Parole Amendment Bill. ACT is supporting this bill.

The thing is that we have to weigh up the victims, the public safety, and also those that are affected by the change that is effected by this bill. As we stated earlier, we do realise that, yes, it does a correction to the bills of rights for these parolees. However, there is a two-year review system being built in so that they are not just stuck there.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, this is a good system where these parolees are in a service that looks after them. They are getting attention during the daytime and rehabilitation programmes. And as the Minister earlier expressed, many of these probably are able to go out into the community under supervision for walks, for grocery shopping, so that’s a huge part of them also feeling that they are part of our community.

However, we agree that this needed to be put through, and I appreciate the Minister also informing us why it has been put through in such a rush so that this does not cause too many problems within the legal system.

Once again, I would like to thank all those that are involved within Corrections’ rehabilitation programmes that—day in, day out—are looking after these people that need this extra care. We’re talking about 27 people that are high offenders within the sexual and violent tendencies—and, most of all, this is why we are here today in this Parliament. It is to make sure that public safety is paramount. If we can help in some way for those whose future this bill will affect, as well as those that are currently under it, we will be very happy if that can be the case. But, also, we do know that there are many people out there that are just not able to be helped. We have to make sure that we have a good system, that these people are looked after, and, most of all, the victims and, hopefully, that there will be no more further victims of these people. I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise for a third time, in a very quick succession, to raise the Green Party’s concerns about this bill. I thought I’d begin by answering a question raised by Paul Goldsmith earlier, when he said, “Is there really a 2016 judicial review that raised these same issues?” There is, and it was, in fact, referenced in the very first paragraph of the declarative judgment that came out in June that we’re all here to discuss. So, yes, in 2016, the National Party Government found out that these issues existed and didn’t act, and then successive Governments didn’t act for seven years. Then, in June, we had the declarative judgment. So it is deeply disappointing that we’re gathered here today, on the final day of Parliament, over an hour and a half or two hours, to quickly pass this law.

People who’ve spoken have kept saying we’re striking a balance, but, realistically, we’re not engaged with the balancing exercise at all. What we have is a court decision—or several court decisions, starting in 2016—that told us that a number, not just one, not just two, but six New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights are being breached by the practice of Corrections in the application of the existing law. To be very clear, this is separate to the Sentencing Act, so it absolutely is not part of people’s sentences. This existing law is breaching in its application—or Corrections are breaching in their application of that law—six different rights. Now, to examine whether or not those breaches are necessary for public safety—and sometimes they absolutely are. That is built into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act system: that we balance rights as against the interests of public safety or other people’s rights. Absolutely. But there has to be a good faith, serious examination of what is needed by way of the infringement of an individual person’s rights as against what we’re trying to achieve. What we haven’t done is that balancing exercise.

What we’ve done is we’ve found out that those breaches exist. We’ve gone, “Oh no, they’re really serious offenders and we quickly need to fix this before anyone finds out and tries to assert their right.” And we’ve come to Parliament and we’re passing this law to make it legal to continue to do the thing that we just found out was breaching all those rights. We haven’t actually examined any of them in detail. We haven’t examined the practice in detail. Some of us know something about the way that the programme is implemented, and some of us have raised the issue of child safety. Some of us have raised the seriousness of the offending. But, actually, that process needs to take place with the detail, with the lived experience, with the expertise of Corrections coming to a committee process, with other legal experts engaging in it. We need to relook at what we’ve been doing and why the court has raised these issues. That hasn’t actually happened. To be very clear, we’re just passing law to keep doing the thing we were doing. Whether or not it’s justified, we don’t actually know, because we haven’t examined it.

What we also haven’t done is look at what we can do to prevent people from being released. It’s also interesting that people are saying, “It’s not detention, but we don’t want them released.” What we haven’t done is look at the existing avenues we have to bridge that gap, like applying public protection orders, like implementing a sunset clause on this bill right now, so that that proper legislative process can take place at a later time—the way that was always intended; the way that it is our duty and responsibility to do as responsive, responsible lawmakers. So it is hugely concerning to us as the Green Party that this type of knee-jerk response would happen in the criminal justice space, where rights breaches are the most serious because they impinge on people’s liberties, and the most fundamental of those, with the mighty force of the State. I say again that, if we’re not willing to uphold fundamental rights when it’s difficult, when it’s a bit icky, when prejudice is high, actually, we can’t say that we are truly committed to a rights-based framework. So I don’t commend this bill to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): I am pleased to speak to the third reading of the Parole Amendment Bill and, ultimately, no more confusion. This bill fixes the anomaly of current legislation, and I want to thank all of our parliamentarians who have made contributions this morning and especially for your support. I want to thank our Minister, Kelvin Davis, for his leadership.

In my short contribution: when a person who meets the calibre of high-risk offenders moves into your local community, you take notice. And just some years ago, Corrections made that call—and I want to shout-out to Corrections—that a high-risk offender was moved a few doors down from one of our local primary schools. At that time, parents were alerted; the school community was alerted and elected leaders, and they came together. I want to shout out to Corrections for listening to our community, because they then made the decision to move that specific person to a more suitable location because that person needed help. This bill will uphold protection of our most vulnerable citizens—our children—protection of our communities, and, on balance, public safety. So specifically for our corrections officers, I want to thank them for their work. I strongly support this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Mark Mitchell, five minutes.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I just want to reiterate some of my earlier comments in the passage of the bill through the House today. Yeah, I acknowledge the Minister and the fact that the bill is in the House. It’s important that we do support it. It’s important that it is passed under urgency because, at the end of the day, public safety is number one, and we’re talking about the worst offenders that could possibly be out in our community, and those are child sex offenders, and recognising the fact that although the number is relatively small, the amount of harm that could be perpetrated is immeasurable.

I think the other thing that needs to be remembered is that although we do all believe strongly in rehabilitation and trying to deliver programmes that will allow a person to stop their offending and re-join society in a positive way, I think there has to be recognition of the fact that that some of these child sex offenders show no empathy, they show no remorse, and the evidence shows that they’re virtually impossible to rehabilitate. So the focus from the State should always be that public safety and especially our children—our most vulnerable in our society—are protected.

I’ll finish off by raising a couple of the concerns that I have about the fact that the High Court judgment was two months ago and we’re now using the last day of the sitting term to pass this under urgency.

I want to reiterate and just reinforce again the outstanding work that our front-line corrections officers do. Without a doubt, they do a job that many of us would not be prepared to do. They do a job every day where they are dealing with some of the worst violent and sexual offenders that we have in our country. They’re in prison for a reason, and that is, quite simply, public safety.

We often talk about and we get up in this House and we recognise the outstanding service and often the bravery and the dedication of our front-line police officers, our firefighters, our ambulance officers, our front-line emergency department nurses, doctors, and medical staff, but we very rarely stand in this House and acknowledge the outstanding work that our corrections officers do. They have just as important a role to play in keeping our communities safe, and they do an outstanding job, but they are largely invisible. Sadly, the only reason they normally come into public view is because something has gone wrong. I just want to acknowledge the fact that they are working under very trying and challenging circumstances at the moment, not having the numbers that they need to be able to deliver rehabilitation programmes and other things that they want to go about and do, and they have a very difficult job and I want to stand in the House and put it on the record that we thank them and we acknowledge the outstanding work that they do to keep our communities safe.

The only other point that I’d make—and I acknowledge the Minister on this, because the chair of the Justice Committee, Vanushi Walters, stood and said that we shouldn’t be using public protection orders (PPOs) on these offenders; it’s a breach of human rights. I completely, totally disagree. I think that we’ve already outlined and we’ve talked in this House at length about the risk that these offenders pose, especially to our children. If there was any time that a PPO should be used, it is to keep these offenders so that we know where they are and that public safety and the community safety is put at the heart of those decisions.

So I disagreed with that position. In all fairness—and I want to acknowledge the Minister because across the House, he agreed with me and said, “That is right; we should be using PPOs.” So although I’m on record saying that it’s disappointing that it’s taken two months to get into the House, because I can tell you now, our expectation on our front-line corrections officers is that they respond quickly and professionally. I don’t know if they’ve necessarily been backed up by the people that had the responsibility to actually look at the amendments, get them ready, get them fit for the House, and bring them back in. I think that if we expect our front line to be responsive and respond quickly, they should be backed up by those that are actually dealing with the legislation in that back office role with this legislation coming into the House. So on that note, we support the bill. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to rise to speak to the third reading of the Parole Amendment Bill. As has been traversed extensively across the House, this is a simple but a very important bill that enables Corrections to continue to manage high-risk offenders on extended supervision orders in a way that not only provides them with wraparound support but also ensures public safety.

Using that single provider to deliver both programmes and also residential conditions has been a longstanding practice, and I’m very happy to support the changes being made. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 13

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill

First Reading

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): I present a legislative statement on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

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

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I move, That the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

I’m so pleased to be presenting the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill to the House for its first reading. This bill will support the New Zealand news media industry by incentivising fair commercial deals between news media companies and the big online digital platforms. The bill promotes voluntary commercial agreements and creates a bargaining code to ensure commercial discussions are fair. When deals cannot be reached voluntarily, the bill provides a bargaining and arbitration process that acts as a backstop to support our local New Zealand companies.

The intent of the bill is to address the bargaining power imbalance between multinational global digital platforms and local New Zealand media outlets. This is about fairness. We want to see fair negotiations and fair deals for New Zealand media companies, in line within what we are seeing globally. This important legislation will encourage deals and ensure smaller news media entities are not left out. This Government supports a free and independent news media ecosystem and wants to support New Zealand media companies to be self-sustaining in a digital future.

The bill will provide a pathway for media companies to be viable in the 21st century. It will provide a critical revenue stream for media companies and ensure the sector will not be reliant on Government funding in the future. Fair deals will create enduring partnerships and ensure the ongoing sustainability of local regional newspapers and radio stations right across Aotearoa. The threats to block news in Canada proves the extraordinary market power that these platforms wield and underline why we need regulation to ensure that deals can happen here for our local content creators. A free and independent news media is critical to our democracy here in Aotearoa. We need a vibrant media system that contains many voices and can provide local news to all New Zealanders.

The media landscape has changed. Without this legislation, the local newspaper and radio station is under threat. People are accessing their news online. This shift has undermined the viability of traditional business models for news media. Without the ability to monetise their content online, New Zealand news publishers will continue to see declining revenues and an inability to retain journalists, and will produce less news content. While some commercial arrangements have been reached, overall progress has been slow. Small local publishers and news outlets are at risk of missing out on deals completely. It’s become clear that the market isn’t working and there’s a role for Government to support fair negotiations with global platforms. These issues have been acknowledged by the Commerce Commission as well as competition authorities overseas, such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in Australia.

The New Zealand news industry is struggling. In the last decade, newspaper advertising revenue has halved while costs have continued to go up. Increasing costs to produce news content combined with reduced incomes has contributed to the halving of the number of journalists in New Zealand. The current model is unsustainable and has a real impact on journalism and local community news. This will have real impacts for our local communities that rely on getting news to get their information, something that all politicians should be worried about.

The digital platforms generate significant revenues in this country. They make a lot of money from New Zealand. The digital advertising market in this country is estimated to be around a billion dollars a year. However, most of this money goes overseas, and the people whose hard work is used to generate that wealth are not fairly compensated. News publishers are trying to negotiate for the fair value of their work but are largely unsuccessful because they’re too small and struggle to get deals. We have seen this with our very own News Publishers Association (NPA). While Google made some deals, Meta has refused to engage with the NPA despite the Commerce Commission authorising collective bargaining.

Something needs to be done to create a fairer digital news market. This bill is a way to support fairness and ensure that all news organisations, no matter their size, are receiving fair compensation for their work. It will create a bargaining code that will guide good faith negotiations to help our smaller regional and rural news outlets to enter into fair deals. The bill is designed to be flexible and futureproof to ensure it can adapt to the changing media environment—while Google and Meta are the two biggest players today, that might not always be the case.

If a digital platform can show that it makes a fair contribution to the New Zealand news media industry, it will receive an exemption in the bargaining process. The Broadcasting Standards Authority will oversee the framework and they’ll determine which companies are eligible under the legislation, and this will be an independent process, obviously, at arm’s length from the Government.

The bill has provisions for Māori media, supports smaller news publishers, and requires digital platforms to strike deals with Māori news publishers. The bill also allows media companies to come together to collectively bargain without authorisation from the Commerce Commission. This will benefit all news publishers to combine resources and improve their bargaining position. The Google News Showcase deals that are currently in place show that commercial partnership between news media entities and digital platforms are possible, and both parties can thrive. The bill is already having an impact on the digital news market place.

New Zealand’s not the only country taking action to support its news industry. Both Australia and Canada passed legislation to encourage commercial arrangements between news publishers and digital platforms, which has been welcomed by the news media industries. At the same time, the US, the UK, and other countries are considering similar legislation. Despite strong opposition from digital platforms, our likeminded international partners are sticking up for their news industries and New Zealand needs to do the same. It’s critical that we present a global united front in support of free press.

News content is a valuable commodity. The news keeps people informed and up to date with important issues, as we all know. It provides vital knowledge and connections for local communities. Having trusted sources of information in the digital age is becoming increasingly important. Highquality news media supports democracy and provides information to New Zealanders on the issues that matter to them. I’m pleased to be able to present the bill to the House because it directly supports a free and independent news media, and will bring some justice and equity right across the New Zealand market place—certainly, that’s the hope—and ensure that all New Zealand media companies can continue to survive in a digital future without the need to be reliant on Government funding. I therefore commend the bill to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and will support its passage in 2024.

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

MELISSA LEE (National): Well, I start by saying the National Party will oppose this bill, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. It is really interesting that one of the final acts of this Government is, once again, to mess with the fourth estate, our digital economy, and our media landscape. This is, effectively, a licensing and registering of news media, a very first for New Zealand. The Minister for Broadcasting and Media actually claims—and he has some criticism from the stakeholders—that this bill will see payments to the media sector that will replace the ill-fated Public Interest Journalism Fund—which was $55 million, we all know, but actually was about $150 million all up with bailouts—that only saw the further erosion of trust in our New Zealand public media landscape. National will have to seriously look into—I will have a serious job to ensure that independence and trust can actually return to our media sector regulators and funders when we are in Government after 14 October.

It is important to note that National has always said that if it can be clearly shown that digital platforms are breaching intellectual property and copyright and making money from news content from New Zealand’s media, they should pay for it. I have yet to be presented with the evidence that this is in fact happening. If tech companies like Meta, Alphabet Inc., Google, or Twitter / X are utilising and monetising news from the New Zealand media sector, they should pay for it; I support that. There is cause for claim before the courts and regulators for restitution. However, if people like us are freely posting and sharing news links on Facebook and driving traffic to the news sites, why should Facebook have to actually pay for that? That is a completely different story. If a person searches for an article using Google search—that’s how the internet is supposed to work—and it takes them to the news website, that is a service and benefit that the media sector actually benefits from that search.

Digital platforms do not actually produce content. In the case of Facebook, the Minister actually talked about—they rely on content generated by users, including you and I, Madam Speaker; we share it on our Facebook feeds. When the news is shared on Facebook, people actually click on the links, it actually takes them to the news website away from Facebook. Facebook doesn’t actually make money from that but the Minister thinks that they should actually pay for that. I encourage submitters—if this bill actually gets to select committee—to actually look at how the copyright is in fact breached, how it’s actually taking place. I encourage them to seek legal advice, as we already have well-established, tried and true processes in this country for civil justice. We do not need yet another regulatory regime without cause.

If it is, in fact, about advertising, which a lot of people actually will remember—in the old days, traditional newspapers relied on classified advertising. I remember, as a journalist, sub-editors used to actually walk around with a mock-up of the newspaper. It was, you know, about yay big—about an A5 size—and it would be filled with squares of advertising on the paper, and whatever column inches were left after the advertising was placed was what news actually went on. So they relied on this classified advertising. But guess what! Those things actually disappeared when platforms like TradeMe and seek.co.nz actually replaced that classified advertising, because it was so much easier for people to search for jobs and search for classified ads on the digital platform than on the newspaper. And so to now characterise the Googles and the Facebooks as the bad guys that are taking revenue away from media is, in fact, a decade too late and also the wrong platforms to actually be targeting the payments for.

Media also utilise these platforms to grow the audience. Bluntly, a mandatory bargaining code is effectively another tax by this Labour Government—in its dying days—for businesses that innovate in the digital sector and are already supporting the media landscape.

The bill undermines the role of the Commerce Commission, which has a careful and independent role in regulating businesses and media. It hasn’t even been a year since the Commerce Commission made its ruling authorising the collective bargaining that the Minister talked about for media with digital platforms. It should at least be able to review, you know, it should actually be reviewed by the Commerce Commission—it hasn’t even been a year—through its independent position, before the Government decides that they’re going to bring in a new regime to force upon this country, and particularly before an election, on the media, to negotiate.

Well, guess what! The commission already investigated the very issue of media bargaining, on the Minister’s request, giving the sector the ability to collectively bargain. It is, in fact, really interesting to actually note that 95 percent of New Zealand’s news media have already got deals with Google. And Facebook—not as many, obviously, as the Minister had actually said. And, you know, for Google News showcases where New Zealand news actually appears—and that is actually quite a good thing that they’ve done that; they’ve done that without being forced to do so. I guess this bill is supposedly for Facebook to come to the party.

I think it is really ridiculous when platforms like Google have supported an estimated $16.5 billion worth of economic benefit in 2022 alone for New Zealand businesses to actually work on the platforms and on the digital economy. We should actually support innovation. The Minister’s own officials have actually said that whether to carry news content on these platforms is a commercial decision for each digital platform, and they suggest that maybe other platforms might replace them. With this bill, who would bother? Because the threat of humongous fines is massive; I think on tier one it is 10 percent of their total revenue. That is a humongous amount of money, and what this bill would potentially do is make the platforms decide not to carry our news. And who would miss out as a result of that? Even the Ministry for Culture and Heritage actually commissioned a report, which says that regulating to require payment to news media companies from the digital platforms would not necessarily lead to an increase in public interest journalism.

So why is the Minister bringing this on? I guess it is an ideological thing. He wants to support his mates in the media, but what he has to understand is that he needs to look to Canada as an example. When C-18 passed in Canada, what happened was that Facebook and Google also agreed that that’s what they will do. Facebook has now decided to block Canadian news from that platform and Google will follow, as I said. And the result is that it is the indigenous media and smaller media companies who are in fact suffering. A lot of them actually relied on Facebook users to share their news stories to reach more people, which effectively brought them to their website. One of them actually talked about how they enjoyed more than 300,000 viewers or readers of their news and after Facebook actually blocked Canadian news, it has actually now been reduced to 60,000 and they believe that they’re going to be absolutely devastated and potentially have to close as a result.

The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill should be fair, but this isn’t fair. This is actually skewed towards news media and it certainly does not promote bargaining. The word “bargaining” implies the right to walk away and not participate. But if you don’t participate you will be made to pay. This is actually not a fair move. This is not a fair bargaining code. This is literally, as someone actually called it, a shakedown. We do not support this build.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): What the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill does is it will empower better journalism through enabling resourcing—better resourcing of journalism and that is because at the moment the playing field is really David and Goliath. There does need to be a backstop of required bargaining, because we know that in David and Goliath situations, it’s very easy for the Goliath to walk away and not be involved—which is exactly what these big digital companies would probably prefer to do.

When I was a journalist for many, many years, it was a different environment. There wasn’t digital news, and there wasn’t the pressure of immediacy and competition with getting the word out as quickly. There weren’t the news cycles; there weren’t the deadline pressures.

I would never shoot the messenger—I think the journalists mainly do a good job, but they are under a considerable amount of pressure. What happens when the sector is under-resourced, as it currently is, is that the why gets dropped. So we see the what, where, how, and who, but the why part of what has led to particular policies or situations gets left behind, and that makes our democracy really vulnerable in terms of the oversight job that the media does as the fourth estate. I’m thinking about these wicked problems that we face, such as climate change, misinformation, inequality—we see a lot of focus on politics and personalities or on events, but very little on the why. In fact, Jonathan Milne, in Newsroom this morning, was saying that good journalism requires an investigation of the why and the policies.

So that’s what this bill is attempting to do. It’s requiring the parties who have the weight in the digital space to come in and negotiate in good faith so that the sector can get its fair dues, so that journalists can do their job well and do them better, and I hope that going forward we do see a bigger focus on the why.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s probably my last opportunity to speak in this Parliament, so I’d just like to wish everyone all the best—there’s some event coming up, apparently, in a couple of months. I do actually mean that—I think everyone who’s not a politician doesn’t realise what we all go through in this period. So I just want everyone to enjoy the process, and all the best. Hopefully, we’ll see most of you back.

This bill, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, is certainly a solution looking for a problem. I really don’t understand the need for it at all. We’re in incredible times. I think if we look back at other major changes, like going from horse and cart to the combustion engine, while it happened rapidly, it was nothing like the pace we’re seeing in the change in the digital world, particularly when it comes to the media and the way they interact with that. One of our major newspapers, Stuff, was sold for a dollar. In days gone by—it wouldn’t be that many decades ago; maybe only a decade or two ago—those sorts of banners would have gone for billions or at least hundreds of millions. But now it’s a dollar. That was a real opportunity to innovate, and I don’t think we’ve really seen that.

People consumer their news in different ways, but when you click on a link from social media and go through to that website, the host news organisation’s website, you see digital advertising. In fact, I advertise digitally through Stuff, and the New Zealand Herald, so that is how they’re benefiting from it. So why would you want to pay to put our stories on your website, on Facebook or whatever else it is? That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me, and I listened very carefully to the first three speeches, and I didn’t get an answer except from my colleague here, which basically confirms my view that I’m very sceptical about the need for this bill.

I know that this is a very difficult and uncertain time for journalists because of the fast pace of the change. But the reality is that people do not want to consume their news through a piece of hard paper. They’re mostly going through the digital portal to read their news, and that does impact on their advertising. But the classified advertising, like the TradeMes of this world, have eaten their lunch basically, but it’s much more user-friendly for the public. So why would we ever want to change that? We can’t do that. We can’t walk that back; the horse has bolted.

The media now needs to find a way to actually adjust their business models to make it in a digital world. I think that they haven’t done that successfully yet. I don’t know if someone will find the magic way to do it, but I think there’s actually an opportunity in the digital world for a very small publisher to get a lot of coverage. A lot of people who are well read write opinion pieces and they get a lot of hits through social media and I think that’s a real opportunity. People want that sort of that thing now. We’re no longer the media of old, and I think that with the Public Interest Journalism Fund and all the lockdowns and the misinformation that came from supposedly trusted sources, people now don’t trust. They simply don’t trust because their trust was abused through the lockdowns and all the misinformation that came out.

So now some people, wrongly, I think, have gone down a rabbit hole as a result of that, but the Government made that problem far worse with the Public Interest Journalism Fund and tying the values of those media organisations to the Government’s values. I think that was a really sad day for New Zealand, and this is part of the problem or the fallout from that that the Minister is trying to address with this bill. I think he’s doing it with good intentions—I don’t doubt that—but it’s the wrong solution and we oppose it.

I don’t know how the media platforms actually benefit from this in the end, because what we’ve seen in Canada is that it’s actually had the reverse effect. Those platforms that were sharing the news are now not, so they are getting less exposure, not more. So what people will do is just go further to selected media organisations rather than getting a broader perspective on what is happening, and that’s a really sad thing. It’s really sad if you’re only going to read and consume your news in an echo chamber—that is really sad. But that’s effectively what we got with the Public Interest Journalism Fund. We didn’t have that broad sweep of views that inform the public, and I think that was very sad. I was angry, actually, when that came out. I thought it was really a bad move. All of the things that we talked about at the time, things that would happen as a result of that, have happened. So we’re still in the stages where those media outlets are trying to react and adapt to this new world that we live in. And it is kind of like the survival of the fittest, so I can really understand why those media outlets and the people working in them would feel so uncertain at this time.

But Governments picking winners, as my colleague says, is always a bad way to go. I don’t really have any more to add, but we do have major reservations about this. No doubt the Government’s got the numbers to pass it. It may not even be picked up next time around. I don’t think we would if we’re fortunate on 14 October. So with that, all the best.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I really hope that this actually does go through, even if there is a change of Government. I’m standing on this side saying that I really hope there isn’t, because this is really important.

I used to work in a newsroom, and I believe in the quality of journalists and their integrity and what they bring to the table. I also know that they work really, really hard to put that content together. What this is is nothing to fear. This is a fair process that needs to happen, because for a long time those big organisations have been cutting and pasting really good quality journalism to their own platforms. What this does is it gives an opportunity for journalistic integrity and quality journalism to be recognised and fairly compensated in that process. And to date, it really hasn’t been.

So I thank the Minister for bringing the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill forward. I know that there are news platforms out there that have been seeking compensation like this for a while, or, if not just direct compensation, actually just the ability to be able to get around the table and bargain with some of these Goliaths, as my colleague Ingrid Leary talked about before.

It’s really important that we do this because journalism is getting harder and harder and the purpose of the bill—let me read it, because I think it’s really important to remember why we’re doing this: “The purpose of this Act is to support sustainable production of New Zealand news content by ensuring that operators of digital platforms make a fair contribution to the cost of producing news content that is made available by their digital platform.” That’s it. That’s why we’re here. That’s why we’re bringing this discussion to the table.

On this side of the House, in the Labour Government, we’ve always talked about fair pay; a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. That’s exactly what this bill is doing. I commend it.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party. It’s my last speech in this current term, and I’d like to thank all my colleagues in the House and Minister Webb, my colleagues in the ACT Party, and the members of the New Zealand public for the right and privilege to have served. I hope everyone has a great election.

As New Zealand’s only member of Parliament who is an anarcho-capitalist—believes in free minds and free markets—it’s not going to surprise you that I’ve convinced our party to oppose this bill. Even though the Labour Government may feel ideologically this is suitable, I’m going to give you some reasons why it’s not. I admire their tenacity, but we did kill the Radio New Zealand - TVNZ merger and now the objective is to kill this.

This bill will die when the current Government is not re-elected in October, but the standard practice of consultation with the industry has not really occurred in this space. It’s the State again intervening in the market place to force one industry to subsidise another declining industry. Money this Government pumped into media via New Zealand On Air over the last three years since 2020 has led to suspicious motives and led to the public of New Zealand losing trust in this institution and also the institution of the fourth estate.

The $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) was welcomed by media outlets, which competed for the cash to fund jobs in journalism projects, while it lasted, but the strings came attached with the PIJF, and that was one of the Government’s downfalls. This bill is no better, as the strings remain, but only indirectly. The Government needs to stop thinking it has the right to gerrymander news media markets through its various conditions for funding.

The Cabinet paper for this bill says that “continued funding of public interest journalism ‘increases risks around the perceived independence … and public trust in the media’ ”. Clearly, the hope is that payments from the big tech titans will fill the void as the PIJF fund spending is done and dusted. With the Minister, I always wonder what’s in it for the Government, and I looked on at the TVNZ and RNZ merger and its motives. This is a way of finding money for the media to replace millions of dollars of public interest journalism funding.

Now, Google has done deals with over 50 local large- and small-scale news media outlets. The sums involved are confidential commercial secrets, as they should be. This arbitration process does not add any value to the industry or to how you manage that mechanism, and that does contravene, I think, some of the Commerce Commission rules and regulations.

The ACT Party’s view is that there’s absolutely no need for this bill at all. It’s actually a waste of time. This bill did receive a sort of low-key reveal of the law to make big tech pay for news. There was no launch at the “pulpit of truth”. There was no big media hype about it. In fact, Simon Shepherd asked Willie Jackson a year ago, “Are you putting the hard word on them to secure deals to pay for content?”

The potential for politicised, extraordinary tactics by the Government and Minister is understandably high under this bill. People have mentioned Canada. They did introduce a similar online news Act in June 2023, and both Meta and Google have agreed to not host Canadian news content in return, which has had significant impacts on consumers, including during emergencies. The objective is to require platforms which host digital media to pay for media producers for their content. This is to provide sustainable income for New Zealand media companies without reliance on Government funding. It means forcing one industry for another.

The Government’s Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill requires that news media be subject to professional standards, conditions that threaten to curtail the role of the fourth estate. This aspect of the legislation will limit media diversity by risking the viability of independent news sources who would prefer not to have their editorial discretion constrained. Creating a funding scheme only for regulated news media entities makes the media market increasingly uncompetitive for independent producers and limits media diversity. The bill has a stated intention of supporting a free and independent news media industry, yet is adding a further requirement that to be eligible for funding in the scheme, news entities need to be under the issue of the PIJF and simple, direct funding. This is no better as a bill with the strings that are attached. The editorial decision-making is anything but guaranteed with this type of approach, and the explanatory note of the bill notes it seeks to reduce risk to public media by removing direct Government funding of media.

This bill has no place in the media landscape. The industry is already addressing this issue. They’re already doing their own deals to make sure that this is regulated. Self-regulation in a free market is the best way forward for this industry. Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Let me start by wishing you the best as you step out of this place into brighter sunsets and sunnier islands. And also supporting the words with colleagues who will be stepping on to the campaign trail—I look forward to jostling elbows with yous out there on the campaign trail. This will be, I guess, my last time speaking in the House this parliamentary term, so this will be the last time that colleagues Shanan Halbert and Tama Potaka will hear my dulcet tones reverberate around this hall. So I rise in support of this Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill on behalf of the Greens—supporting all the arguments in support of this bill as well, but also, I think it’s really important for us to recognise the importance of the fourth estate and what that means for our national democracy, but also, importantly, for our regional democracy and our rural democracy as well.

As I was listening to folks, I was reflecting on how few rural newspapers there are between the Manawatū heading up towards Hamilton, and it’s probably like that around the country as well as more and more stuff moves online. The importance of actually having those voices report the news from those communities’ perspectives—it’s really, really important, because when we strengthen that regional democracy and that rural democracy, that’s good for all of us. That’s good for the functioning of society, and I just wanted to reflect on the real importance of that.

As politicians, as MPs, we get put under the microscope by the fourth estate; by the media—and probably a few of us around here have felt that burn when they’ve done that as well. But it is important to have that critique. It is important for functioning democracy to have that sort of criticism. And I note that nobody’s up in the press gallery at the moment, because before I came down I noticed that the journalists were out there grilling both the National Party and the Labour Party on their tax policy bun fight out on the tiles just before as well—which is their job, and good on them, but I would like to remind them that the best tax policy is on greens.org.nz. We need to be making sure that the very wealthy pay their fair share so we can have all those good things like free dental care and so on and so forth. So journalists, if you’re out there, take a look at our website; we’ve also got a tax calculator as well. But anyway, I’m deviating from the bill, so I’ll get back to it.

This bill aims to enable fair bargaining between New Zealand news media and social media platforms for news content. This is achieved by providing good-faith bargaining code and a framework for revenue sharing on news content which is provided by news media but distributed and published on social media. It’s important to note—unlike Facebook and YouTube and all of these other platforms where they just share our content, those things are powered by an algorithm, and the algorithm actually prioritises those top 100 things that you will see on your Facebook feed. And so, I guess, at least with the media—with the fourth estate—they’re actually human beings. Like, I’m fairly certain most of them are human beings and that’s different from the algorithm. And I heard comments from that other side that actually if you have too much public-funded journalism, you end up in an echo chamber—actually, that’s what the algorithm does. It actually prioritises those top a hundred items or whatever so that that you will engage in it. It’s the engagement that actually gives those companies the money; its engagement that actually makes those algorithms work. They’re not actually people, it’s an algorithm.

So that’s what our local democracy and those voices that we need to report are actually competing against, and it’s really important for us to recognise how damaging that has been for our democracy. We only have to look to what happened in the United States—and I reflect that within the OECD, New Zealand has one of the lowest public broadcasting funding per capita—and the US is worse. And we saw what happened there with the with the movements onto the Capitol Hill and how they’re still grappling with that, because they actually haven’t been able to deal with the real fundamental issues of democracy and what the impact of these social media giants and their actual responsibilities are to our wider democracy here within in New Zealand. So I support the bill because this gives some shape to that; it provides us with an answer. The algorithm isn’t walking around on the streets of Taihape, or walking around on the streets of Fielding, or walking around on the streets of Levin, or Ashburton and so on and so forth—we need people to actually do that.

And here’s the thing with the journalists as well: they’re always held up to criticism, which is fair enough, actually. I was just noting how the host on Breakfast has been hauled in front of the media for criticising members of this House, and I don’t know whether that criticism was justified or not—but there is an accountability there that journalists have that some conspiracy crank with a camera does not have when they publish their stuff on Facebook or Google or wherever. So there is a massive, massive discrepancy, and it’s important to recognise the strength of that journalistic integrity and importance of that.

So just to touch on some of the components of this bill. The code and bargaining system will be administered and monitored by the Broadcasting Standards Authority, which will become the independent regulator of the scheme and code. The regulator will develop the code of conduct to support the bargaining process under the legislation, and this will create obligations on eligible news media organisations and eligible digital platforms subject to the framework. The bill defines eligible news media organisations through adherence to professional standards and New Zealand content and audience. Eligible digital platforms are defined as those which present or facilitate access to New Zealand news content which have a bargaining power imbalance in their favour with New Zealand news media. The bill has a mechanism for eligible news media companies to trigger formal bargaining with eligible digital platforms—followed by mediation and then arbitration if parties do not reach an agreement with specified time frames. There are pre-described duties imposed on parties bargaining to negotiate in good faith and comply with obligations in any code of conduct developed by the regulator, and there are a couple of actual additional features to the regulator as well, Madam Speaker, or Mr Speaker—we’ve had a change in the Chair.

I wanted to make a final reflection on when this type of legislation was passed in Australia. People were wondering, “Well, what’s going to happen here—are the social media companies going to bail?”, and they did try to bail, but then they quickly came back to the party when they found that they were actually losing revenue. So what I think this points to, and the reason why we support it, is that it’s a trajectory of a conversation that we need to be having in terms of the power imbalance of social media companies—because these guys are massive: this is the Goliath of the Goliath versus little David here. And the importance of actually understanding that within the wider context and the impact on our local democracy, on our regional democracy, and our national democracy as well—and what that means on a global scale. So I support the bill.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on the first reading of the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. As has been discussed in the House earlier, declining news media revenues will have a detrimental impact on New Zealand’s democracy and the ability to keep New Zealanders informed of local issues.

The media landscape has changed and without the ability to monetise their content online, New Zealand news publishers will continue to see declining revenues and an inability to retain journalists. This will lead to news content that does not go through the usual fact-checking process. I tend to look at these issues through a security lens and my concern is that without this bill, people will move to online news platforms that don’t have the traditional checks and balances to verify news content. Our recently released National Security Strategy actually highlights the challenges that we face because of the changing media landscape.

We all agree that a free and independent news media is critical to our democracy in Aotearoa, and we need a vibrant media system that contains many voices that can provide local news to all New Zealanders. In a world where we are seeing many actors at play that seek to divide us, it’s more important than ever to make sure that we support our future financial security for news media organisations—which will allow them to concentrate on producing content that can counter mis- and disinformation online.

So this is an important bill. It’s a timely bill for the media landscape that we’re facing, and I absolutely commend it to the house.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): He puru taitama e, he pūru taitama hoki, he pūru taitama, he pūru tukituki, he pūru taitama e. Ka haere a Minita Hakihana e ki te taha ake i a Meta ki te whiri pūtea, ki te whiri take, o te whakawhiu ki wāhi kē.

[A bull of a man, a real bull of a man, a bull of a man, a rampaging bull, a bull of a man. Minister Jackson goes alongside Meta to negotiate finances, to negotiate matters, of throwing it somewhere else.]

It gives me great pleasure to rise and talk to the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill that has recently been introduced—in fact, this morning—and what I want to say is that, in the words of The Buggles: video killed the radio star, but digital won’t kill the journalism star. Digital will not kill the journalism star. I am very mindful, though, of the algorithm, because my Facebook page has not been oily enough lately. So I refer all members of this House to like a few more of my Facebook posts. Now, another register, another tax, enforcement mechanisms, and bargaining—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’re pushing it just a little bit, Mr Potaka. A bit of respect for the House and talk to the bill.

TAMA POTAKA: Yep—another register; I don’t know if you managed to see that, Mr Speaker. Another register, which, effectively, drives bargaining processes between the digital platforms and others is something we don’t need. My colleague Melissa Lee spoke to the Commerce Commission’s role and how that actually can be a more genuine and real way to deal with some of the bargaining risks that have been, in my view, overplayed by the Minister introducing the bill, the Hon Willie Jackson, and some of my colleagues in the House.

Now, I wanted to refer to some of our exquisite and exemplary Māori journalism over time, because these examples will show you how people have morphed, how people have evolved, and we don’t have to rely on more Government intervention into this space. I wanted to start with that programme Koha—Derek Fox and others—and Waka Huia, with Whai Ngata and others, who were exemplary and excellent Māori journalists in the early 1980s. Over time, those things moved and Māori journalism moved, and then we ended up with Te Karere and some people with quite—how would I describe it?—quite explicit haircuts, like Hirini Henare and Martin Rakuraku, but also others like Tini Molyneux, who has re-emerged in the journalism space after 45 years and has changed and evolved and doesn’t need to rely on Government intervention in order for her to get her stories out.

There are other people as well that were on those Māori news rounds—like Bailey Mackey, another great legend of Māori journalism and Māori production, who moved over time and did not need a Government intervention in order to get his stories, in order to get his journalism, in order to get his productions, in order to get his programmes out and about. He did not need the Government to put their hand up and say, “Actually, we’ve got to control this space.” He’s utilised the digital space that he’s operating in. He’s moved from journalism, and he’s morphed into something, but, ultimately, his kaupapa—getting out Māori stories of consequence and Māori stories that make us happy and Māori stories that make us feel like we’re part of this grand old democracy called Aotearoa New Zealand—he’s actually moved with the times. And people who haven’t moved with the times have looked and done other things.

Another person, another great example, is Mihingarangi Forbes. What a great example of someone who came from Te Karere—or she came from Feilding, actually. Lucky we mentioned that! Friendly Feilding. From Feilding, she went into Te Karere, and now she’s one of New Zealand’s foremost producers, presenters, directors. Another great example is actually young Julian Wilcox, last seen playing for the third XV of Te Aute College in 1993, who has moved from being on Radio Kahungunu, 1992-93 vintage, into shows with Tere Harrison and others in 1997-98, directed by Tuku Morgan, another Māori journalist of notoriety, and is now presenting to The Hui—40 years of active participation in the journalism space. He did not need a bargaining process to tell him “This is how the international digital platforms must interact with you.” So, no, we think this is overbearing. We think it’s a slippery slope. The idea of forcing a bargaining precious from Waatea marae is not something that we would support. Kia ora tātou.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to be able to take a call on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. What an absolutely exciting bill.

Mr Speaker, if you would indulge me: when I was born or when I first had memory, we had a black and white TV. Then we moved on to the colour TV, then there was the plasma and the flat screen. And now in my household, I don’t have a TV; I don’t even have a landline phone number. So as technology progresses—and probably the only time I ever listen to the radio is through apps streamed on my phone—as Parliament, we need to help media progress with the technology and with the ages. This is exactly what this bill is doing.

Platforms make money through advertisements which pay for the clicks they get on to their different apps or different social media platforms. The way that people come and the time that we spend—and some of us in this House today have been scrolling our phones because we have to have interesting content that keeps us on these platforms. That content—a lot of that might be our weird and wonderful TikTok, or whatever, videos that members of this House have generated, but a large part of it is the news and, probably, a lot of it generated by this House as well.

So for the platforms to pay our media the right amount in terms of the content they create and the traction that they draw on to these platforms so that we as users, as well, stay on that platform, I think is getting the fair deal for New Zealand to support journalism in this country, to support our democracy, to make sure the right information gets out there, and to support New Zealanders to make the right choice. That’s why I commend this bill to the House and look forward, in our select committee, to be listening to submissions.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I rise to give my final contribution in this 53rd Parliament in the House. Perhaps people may not know this, but I come from old-school journalism, where I happen to own and publish a magazine that is 11 years old called The Profit, which writes stories—well, my husband, Damon Harvey, writes the stories—for promoting business. In the old-school way, this magazine is paid for through advertising and is given away to readers who can pick it up in Hawke’s Bay. Now, some of those stories end up on digital platforms, and, as a small-business owner, currently, there is no way to earn any income from those stories and the hard work that goes into them and the hard work of the businesses that feature in them.

I think this is one of the things I find perplexing when I hear from the National Party that, as a promoter or champion of small business, they can’t see the benefit in actually considering that this bill can actually enable business. It happens time and time again in this House, where it’s actually the Labour Party that supports and helps grow small business. And when we talk about local issues that are driven out of local regions, out of local news media, out of regional newspapers, this bill, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, will help to support them, and that’s why I’m commending it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Very good to rise here. We’re in urgency—it’s just ticked over midday on the final day of the 53rd Parliament, and it’s an honour to be able to rise and give my last speech in the 53rd Parliament. Speaking on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill—the first reading—sneaking it in here right before we close up for the year and head into the election, I just want to wish everyone all the very best going into this election season.

I heard the Minister’s speech earlier in this reading and he noted that it’s looking to maximise the benefits for local media. I think there is some fairly good intention in there and it is genuine, however I don’t think it is going to achieve the outcomes that the Minister for Broadcasting and Media desires. There’s a few issues in that, you know—we already have rules in place that prevent digital platforms breaching copyright and making money from news content. Where they are doing that, they will be found to have not been doing what they should be and they will be forced to pay for that. However, this is a different situation in which we’re doing here—I’m getting told by the Speaker to go a little bit louder.

We have a situation here where tech companies, if they are utilising and monetising, then you would be expected to pay for that, but the question is whether you would expect them to pay for that when people are freely sharing news stories on their social platform. We would argue that that isn’t the role of Government; it shouldn’t be for Government to come in there. That is the place for commercial negotiations to take place. This bill effectively nullifies any negotiations that have been made and imposes a mandatory bargaining code and, effectively, another tax on businesses. So it isn’t something that we would support.

There has been a big move, and speakers on this bill have already discussed how there has been an evolution in the way people consume their media. And there has—I mean, long gone are the days of the big broadsheet; I think there’s about one left, but people don’t tend to consume it like that. I used to read the paper every day, the physical version of the paper; I simply don’t purchase it any more. I consume it either online or I’m directed to it via social media.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You can’t read it!

SAM UFFINDELL: I didn’t hear that from the honourable member over there.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It was funny.

SAM UFFINDELL: I’m sure it was very funny. I will have to read the Hansard record—[Interruption] I won’t repeat that one. No, no.

But I would read it, and I know a lot of people do consume their news through stuff that is posted on social media that will be redirected through to a news media site. To say that the digital provider, Facebook or Meta in this instance, should have to pay for that because someone’s freely posted, I think is going a bit too far and is something that commercial entities could discuss themselves. We have seen where such instances have been imposed—and we note the case of Spain and I believe Canada was the other one. Ultimately, those big providers such as Meta have simply switched off that service. They are not willing to get into the situation where they may be fined or face penalties and they’re not willing to take on the administrative burden of what such a situation would impose on them. As a result, people are worse off.

I hear that there was quite a bit of talk around looking after the smaller media outlets, and I’m sure everyone here, especially those from regional electorates, will have those; we certainly do in Tauranga. I know that they will in Hawke’s Bay where the previous speaker, Anna Lorck, was just discussing—they will have their local news media outlet there. A lot of that traffic that’s driven to it is going to be through these digital platforms, people going on there and then linking through from there. It was also mentioned by someone else how you can be a relatively small media provider but you can have quite a significant reach, and a lot of that is done through promoting or having your content promoted through social media. I think we’re somewhat short-sighted in expecting that that will all continue and companies like Meta will just happily go about paying the tax. As I’ve stated, what we’ve seen overseas is that that doesn’t really happen.

We’ve seen here—I think the Minister expects this to raise, I believe it was, $30 million to $60 million. We would question whether that will actually occur. We would probably say that that is a little bit misleading, and what is likely to happen is that that won’t be raised at all. They will simply opt out, as they have done in other countries.

We believe that there’s no need for the Government to be interfering here. We’ve made that perfectly clear. We think this is simply more overreach. We don’t believe the Minister has had a great run looking after or attempting to move the New Zealand media landscape. We can point to the mega media merger that failed. There have been concerns raised about media independence, and we’ve seen millions spent through the Public Interest Journalism Fund and $20 million - plus spent on the failed merger. So while we do note—and I did say it at the start of this—that we think he has good intentions in raising this, I think it is somewhat short-sighted and I don’t think it will achieve what it is that he wants to achieve out of this. We note that this will be the first and only reading of this bill in this term of Parliament, and the next Parliament will have an opportunity to consider where it goes from there. I will leave it there and state that my position and the position of the National Party is that we oppose this bill.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take the final call on the first reading of this bill, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, and what will probably be the final legislation that we pass in this House in this term of Parliament. Can I just put my thanks on record for this term of Parliament for all of those who make this place tick for us as MPs: the security staff, the messengers, the Clerk’s staff, the wonderful people who bring us glasses of water and make sure we’re fed—all of those people. Can I just place my thank you to you all.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. I’ve recently just seen an exact example of why this bill is needed in my own electorate. One of our high-profile and very experienced journalists, Tracy Neal—who has previously worked for the Nelson Mail, for Radio New Zealand as a regional reporter, and now works for New Zealand Media and Entertainment and in a public interest journalism space—recently had a story that gets shared across multiple platforms. So it’s often shared on the New Zealand Herald and in our local community newspaper, the Nelson Weekly.

She put up a post on Instagram recently where the exact story—all of the images, all of the writing—had been completely ripped off and put on a Canadian news outlet with a different journalist’s name. There wasn’t even a single change to any of the headlines or any of the text inside the story. For our fantastic journalists in this country who get up every day to tell the stories of New Zealanders here in New Zealand and across the world, when this type of thing happens, it’s utterly infuriating. It’s plagiarism. It’s undermining her good work.

What this bill does is give media outlets the ability to actually tackle these kinds of issues. I note that whenever we raise words like “collective bargaining”, the National Party has an immediate response to that and their immediate response is to oppose. But what we know is that when we provide mechanisms for organisations from within the same industry to work together to get fairer deals—fairer outcomes for that industry—actually, that allows them to do just that.

So this is an excellent bill. I look forward to it progressing through the House in the next term of Parliament under a Labour Government, and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today. Can I thank all those involved in the legislative calendar this year to get to this stage. You know who you are and you all know that we couldn’t be here without the help of you all, so thank you very much.

The House adjourned at 12.24 p.m. (Thursday)