Wednesday, 16 October 2024

WEDNESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 2024

WEDNESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk, but Ministers have delivered 18 papers.

CLERK:

2023-24 annual reports of:

ACC

Crown Irrigation Investments

Crown Law

Inland Revenue

Kāinga Ora

LINZ

MBIE

Ministry of Education

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

NZQA

Remuneration Authority

Stats NZ

reports on the 2023-24 non-departmental appropriations for:

Vote Education

Vote Housing and Urban Development, and the

Emergency Management and Recovery portfolio

Government response to the:

Climate Change Commission’s Monitoring report: Emissions reduction (July 2024)

ACC 2023-24 climate report, and the 2024-25 service agreement.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee papers have been presented. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1 to Minister, 15 October—Amended Answer

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave during oral question No. 1 yesterday.

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was asked a supplementary question regarding funding for flood risks in South Dunedin. I replied that the previous Government had declined a proposal. What I should have said was that the previous Government did not fund the proposal. The South Dunedin Future programme was not included in the National Resilience Plan projects which the former Labour Government funded on 18 September 2023.

Question No. 1—Finance

1. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Good news. This morning, Statistics New Zealand released the latest inflation figures, which are for the September quarter of this year. This release shows annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation of 2.2 percent in the September quarter of this year. This is the first time that inflation has been below 3 percent since March 2021. We have broken the back of the inflation beast.

James Meager: How did this inflation result compare to expectations?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Annual CPI inflation of 2.2 percent was around the level most forecasters, including the Reserve Bank, were expecting. Prices for tradable goods and services actually fell by 1.6 percent over the year, which is good news for New Zealanders, with petrol prices dropping 8 percent. Non-tradable inflation, on the other hand, is proving stickier with an annual rate of 4.9 percent. Rents, rates, and insurance were, again—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh! That’s the bit the Government’s responsible for.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is sad to have the Leader of the Opposition interjecting and showing such disregard for the New Zealanders who have been pummelled by price increases that were crushing for years.

SPEAKER: That might have been a point of order, but it’s certainly not an answer to a question.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think in the spirit of debate, with a back and forth, this is something that all members of the House should celebrate together, because what it represents is a time in which New Zealanders will cease to have the crushing price increases that became the norm under Labour.

James Meager: How does this compare to previous inflation results?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealand recently endured a cost of living crisis, with annual inflation peaking at over 7 percent. From the last quarter of 2020 to the last quarter of 2023, consumer prices rose a total of 19 percent in just three years, and over that period of the previous Government, life got more expensive for New Zealanders by almost 20 percent, and people’s savings were eroded by almost 20 percent. Inflation is now back within the Reserve Bank’s target range; the genie is back in the bottle; and the era of high, persistent, crushing price increases is over.

James Meager: What is the target range for inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The remit I issued in December states that the Monetary Policy Committee‘s objective is to achieve and maintain future annual inflation between 1 and 3 percent over the medium term, with a focus on keeping future inflation near the 2 percent midpoint. The fact that inflation is within that band and close to the 2 percent mid-point means the Reserve Bank has the confidence to begin reducing interest rates. The bank is now easing off the brake it has been pressing firmly down on for the last few years.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our actions to get on top of inflation. This morning, Stats New Zealand confirmed that inflation fell to 2.2 percent in the September quarter, the lowest rate in more than 3½ years, and it is clear that our plan, our economic plan, is working, which is why under our Government we’re getting on top of inflation fast. Just before the election last year, Treasury picked that inflation would have only fallen to 3.1 percent by this time and wouldn’t have reached 2.2 percent until the end of next year. That’s despite all the scaremongering from the Opposition that fully funded tax relief—which Labour didn’t support—for supporting working families with the cost of living would actually push inflation higher. It didn’t do that. But, instead, our economic plan is delivering lower inflation, lower interest rates, two interest rate cuts in 10 months versus, I think, six or seven increases over the last six years. Importantly, what we’re seeing is that the foundations for economic growth to get New Zealand back on track are in place.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government cut funding for apprenticeships in critical infrastructure sectors when apprentice numbers are already in decline, compounding the skills shortages in the trades sector?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say to the member is the Apprenticeship Boost was actually another case of Labour leaving behind another fiscal cliff. We’ve made funding for Apprenticeship Boost permanent so the programme wouldn’t expire like it would under Labour and, at the same time, we’re targeting it at the skills that we need.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has he and his Government cut funding for apprenticeships in areas such as pipeline construction, bitumen resurfacing, road construction and maintenance, and drinking- and waste-water treatment when this country is facing major challenges in those areas and this will only exacerbate skill shortages?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have to make sure we are spending money carefully. That’s what we do on the side of the House; we don’t waste money. That’s only a very small proportion of those that are actually using Apprenticeship Boost, and what I’d say to you is that we are making sure that we’ve got support for the skills we need like building and agriculture and manufacturing, forestry, food, and hospitality.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why was providing over $200 million in tax breaks to the tobacco company Philip Morris more important to his Government than keeping people in apprenticeships?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. I think there’s a word there that probably shouldn’t have been in it. Do you want to ask that question again?

Hon Member: What’s that?

SPEAKER: I think you referred to the entity belonging to someone, which it didn’t. So just ask the question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why was providing over $200 million in tax breaks to companies like Philip Morris, the country’s largest supplier of cigarettes, more important to his Government than keeping people in apprenticeships?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question. What I would say to that member is that on this side of the House, we are very committed to lowering daily smoking rates. We are determined to deliver on Smokefree 2025 and we’re going to make alternatives available. Also what I’d say is, with respect to the so-called tax that he talks about, what we’ve done is make sure Treasury is conservatively estimating the loss of excise tax by any shift that happens to an alternative product other than cigarettes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Prime Minister, how often have you met someone whose logic is that when the tax on cigarettes go up, as it did December last year, it somehow is a concession to some business?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s just prudent to actually set money aside. And for the most extreme scenario, if we get a shift from cigarettes to alternative products—that’s what we’re accounting for.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should the construction sector have trust in his Government when they are cutting apprenticeships and, in their first 10 months in power, they have spent their time gutting school-building programmes, shelving State housing projects, cancelling major infrastructure projects, and leaving the industry staring down a pipeline that’s looking more like an empty barrel?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, what you see is you see business confidence at a 10-year high. Why is that? Because they know this is a Government dealing with and improving the economic fundamentals. We are making sure there is financial discipline and no wasteful spending. We’re making sure that inflation now, for the first time in 3½ years, is within the band. Interest rates cuts are coming down; confidence is up. That leads to economic growth and people in work.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If things are so good for the building and construction sector, why are there 10,000 fewer people employed in the building and construction sector now than there were the day he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because this economy is dealing with the lag effects of woeful economic mismanagement by that member and his former Government. What is good news is that consents are up 2 percent; the Infrastructure Commission’s latest pipeline estimates a total of over 6,000 projects—$147 billion worth; and the transport Government policy statement put in $33 billion for the next three years. If the member cares a lot about it, I look forward to his support of our fast-track legislation, because that was a great idea from David Parker. We’ve built on it; there’s 149 fantastic projects: 55,000 potential new homes, a 30 percent increase in electricity generation, and 180 kilometres of new roads, rail, and public transport.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t he admit that his Government doesn’t care about the damage it causes to New Zealand’s infrastructure, workforce, and economy, as long as his favourite pet projects, like tax breaks for landlords and tobacco companies, get billions of dollars that could so desperately be spent elsewhere?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Aww, it’s a terribly sad day for the Leader of the Opposition. We have good news, which is we have inflation in the bands, we’ve delivered income tax relief for low and middle income working New Zealanders—people the Labour Party used to care about but don’t any more—we’ve got fast-track legislation sitting there, and he refuses to support it. Come on board, do something positive.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

3. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent data has she seen on the welfare traffic light system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Data from the first full calendar month of the traffic light system is very encouraging. It shows 98 percent of beneficiaries are at green, meaning they are successfully meeting their obligations. Just 2 percent—around 5,900 people—were sitting at either orange or red, meaning they had not taken the steps required of them to find or prepare for work. While it is early days, this data indicates that the new system is helping beneficiaries to understand what is expected of them and helping them to stay on track with their obligations.

Joseph Mooney: How has the traffic light system impacted the number of obligation failures and benefit sanctions?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Since the implementation of the traffic light system, we’ve already seen a positive impact. In September, there were about 500 fewer obligation failures and 600 fewer sanctions imposed on beneficiaries than the month before. Again, while it is still early days, this is an encouraging sign that the system is working as intended by providing clear, straightforward information to beneficiaries about their obligations and helping them to take proactive steps towards employment.

Joseph Mooney: What message does the Government have for beneficiaries who are work-ready but not fulfilling their obligations?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: These numbers show that about 4,500 of the 4,600 beneficiaries who are being sanctioned for not fulfilling their benefit obligations are work-ready job seekers. Our Government’s position on this is clear: we will fully support job seekers who are motivated to find work and improve their circumstances, but we will not tolerate those who are capable of working and choose not to take the necessary steps to prepare for or find work. Receiving a benefit comes with obligations that reflect the expectations of the hard-working New Zealanders who fund the welfare system through their taxes.

Joseph Mooney: What are the future plans for the welfare traffic light system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Next year, we will introduce new non-financial sanctions and increase accountability measures for those who repeatedly fail to comply with their benefit obligations. We will also implement a requirement for individuals on jobseeker support to reapply every six months to continue receiving payments. These changes are designed to ensure the welfare system remains fair and that beneficiaries remain engaged in the process of finding a job. Our overall goal is to have 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit by 2030, as we work towards a society where more New Zealanders are in employment and able to support themselves and their families.

Question time interrupted.

Papers

Papers

SPEAKER: Before I call question five, I need to present the 2023-24 annual report of the Controller and Auditor-General. That paper is published under the authority of the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I was wondering about that!

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I can pass it over to you if want to—

Hon Barbara Edmonds: I’ll have a copy!

SPEAKER: Would you mind giving us a one-page summary!

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question time resumed.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fakaaue lahi, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement, “What New Zealanders can have confidence in is that they have a Government that is delivering what it said it would”; if so, now that FamilyBoost has begun being paid, how many families have actually received $250 a fortnight promised in the National Party’s election campaign?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): To the first part of the question, yes, and to the second part of the question, the member’s assertion is wrong. The commitment was for up to $250 a fortnight, and I am advised that, in some circumstances, families could get even more than $250 a fortnight. At the time of the Budget, Treasury’s modelling indicated that around 1.9 million households—3.5 million New Zealanders—would benefit from tax relief and FamilyBoost, on average by $60 a fortnight, and households with children would benefit on average by $78 a fortnight. I’m also advised that at least one party in the election was guaranteeing precisely zero dollars a fortnight in tax relief [Interruption].

SPEAKER: Wait; hang on, hang on. In silence. Respect for your own member.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I come to the House with the Labour Party’s policies which showed that we were actually offering tax reductions for New Zealanders, will Nicola Willis have to withdraw and apologise for that?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. I am going to hear that again because I couldn’t hear it because of the outburst. It’s a point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ve just finished.

SPEAKER: Yes, but what did you say? I didn’t hear it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll tell you what he said.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t want you to interpret it, sorry. We’ve only got one language in this House that I understand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Peters, if you don’t mind, I’d like him to repeat his point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, Mr Speaker, we’ve already had one Minister in the Government today have to come and correct an answer that they gave, making allegations about the previous Labour Government, and so will Nicola Willis have to do the same tomorrow?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Finance Minister Willis said “one party”, and straight away he took the guilt and confessed.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, thank you for that point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: New point of order. That question was on notice, and despite the comments by the Minister disagreeing with the so-called assertions in it, “up to” is inclusive of, and so a question asking for the exact number of $250 is still valid. Whether they disagree with how they presented it or not, “up to” includes $250. The Minister could still have made that point but actually answered the question, and she did not.

SPEAKER: Well, I think she did certainly address the question, and that’s the only judgment that I can make about questions. Does the Hon Barbara Edmonds have a further supplementary?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many families have actually received the $250 a fortnight as promised by Christopher Luxon as part of the National Party’s election campaign?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member well knows—or at least she likes to assert that she knows a lot about the income tax system, and that is calculated on the full year, which we’re only part-way through. [Interruption]

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just wait for a few seconds. OK.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the Government delivering what it said it would when, by the first week, there were 32,407 FamilyBoost claims but only 8,672 claims have been approved and paid?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m very happy to correct the member’s numbers. The latest stats for FamilyBoost, up to and including 15 October, is that 44,952 households have registered, there have been 38,206 claims relating to 35,489 households, Inland Revenue has paid $6.2 million to 15,749 households since 7 October, and Inland Revenue expects that around 100,000 households will be eligible for FamilyBoost. Can I repeat again: I want families to go on to that IRD website and claim for their entitlement.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the Government delivering what it said it would when she promised more than 100,000 families will get FamilyBoost, but have under-delivered with only 8,672 being paid in the first week?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I stand by the statements I have made that around 100,000 households will be eligible for FamilyBoost, and I am pleased that the number of successful claims is growing every day. I would say that this is far more effective than a promise to take GST off bananas and give supermarkets tax relief.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the IRD, that said, “FamilyBoost would require significant effort by recipients to access the product which may create a barrier to product uptake, particularly for parents of young children who are already time poor.”, and why did she not just do early childhood education 20 hours free?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We made a commitment that our childcare policy would put cash directly into people’s bank accounts. The way that we are delivering it will achieve that. We were also advised other ways of doing that would take many months and years of delay, and we weren’t prepared to make that delay. We wanted that cash for families.

SPEAKER: Can I just say that that constant talking all the way through the Minister’s question doesn’t change the answer and it doesn’t help the order of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That’s somewhat what my point of order is. Could you ask whether the questioner heard any part of the answer, because her bench mate spent the whole time screaming out during the answer from the Minister of Finance, and it’s a disgrace to this House?

SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I’ve offered to swap jobs with you before. Keep that up, and we’ll be heading down that track.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E tautoko ana ia i ngā—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on. I just need everyone to settle. OK.

5. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, our action to put economic growth on the fast track is something we stand by. Since we announced the 149 projects that would be listed in the fast-track legislation, the feedback that we have received has been extremely positive. The National Road Carriers Association described the list as balanced and achievable. The Electricity Retailers’ Association said fast tracking would help provide confidence to build and deliver affordable, clean electricity. Business New Zealand said the projects would stimulate job creation and economic activity at a time when it mattered most. It is a collective vote of confidence in our economic plan. Inflation is falling, interest rates are falling, confidence is rising, and now with reforms like fast track, we are delivering the foundations of growth. I just ask that member and their party to support the fast-track legislation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think it’s fair that his Government’s Fast-track Approvals Bill has given new life to projects previously denied by the Supreme Court, like the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining and the Ruataniwha dam project, that had already been opposed by local communities, iwi, and hapū?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I’m not going to comment on individual projects. I will accept that some projects will be controversial and be criticised, but obviously their environmental appraisal will happen through expert panels. But what I do not apologise for is that we are a Government that’s going to deal with an infrastructure deficit, a housing crisis, and an energy shortage. Actually, fast-track legislation helps us address those problems in this economy, and I just encourage the member to support us.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statement of his Minister for Local Government that said, “the ultimate localism is giving local people the right to have their say”, and, if so, would he then agree that his Fast-track Approvals Bill is a blatant disregard for localism and communities by deliberately limiting community input and public consultation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to that member I think it’s outrageous that she doesn’t want to deliver up to 55,000 new homes. I think it’s quite outrageous as a leader of a Green Party that you don’t want to increase renewable electricity generation by 30 percent. I think it’s quite outrageous that you don’t want to invest in 180 kilometres of great new roads, public transport, and also rail.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is entirely possible to consent new renewable energy projects without also consenting coal mining that will drive up climate-changing emissions, or does he take New Zealanders for chumps?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, no, but I hear New Zealanders saying they want things to get built in this country. They want things to get done, and that’s what we’re doing on this side of the House and that’s, frankly, why they elected us a year ago. They elected us to come here and to get things done for them, to improve their lives, to rebuild this economy, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. Support the fast-track legislation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister please explain to the House how the new coal mining that he has consented will almost all be primarily for grades of coal that will almost never be used domestically but exported offshore, meaning that his “Indonesian coal” talking point takes real liberties with the truth?

SPEAKER: Hang on. There’s just a small problem with that question. I think if you think about how you’ve phrased that—just have another crack at it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how the new coal mining that he has consented under the fast—

SPEAKER: No, that’s the problem.

Chlöe Swarbrick: —that will be consented—that is one of the 149 projects—

SPEAKER: Just say it in a succinct way and correct way.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Prime Minister please confirm to the House—or explain to the House—how the new coal mining laid out in the 149 projects announced under the fast-track legislation will primarily be for grades of coal that are not used in this country but exported offshore, therefore meaning that his “Indonesian coal” talking point takes incredible liberties with the truth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just say to the member we are going to get things built in this country. Mining is important—if you believe in electric vehicles, if you believe in smartphones, if you believe in solar panels and wind farms, then you need to have minerals. So we are proud of the mining projects. I just say to you, look, if you want to back fast track so you get more renewables, do it. If you want to end the gas ban so we stop importing coal, support us—if you want to back the mining so that we can actually get electric vehicles and other minerals we need for environmental benefits. [Interruption]

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why—

SPEAKER: Sorry, it’s very hard to take any question seriously when there’s so much barracking during an answer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister say that he values community voice and localism, as he’s so frequently stated throughout the election campaign, then actively implements policy that undermines and overrides community voice and that localism?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we can get community voice and we can also make decisions and get things done, and that’s what we’re going to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Prime Minister take the Greens more seriously if they’d have said something in opposition to the importation, massively, of inferior Indonesian coal under the last Government, of which they were active members, and now come here and placate their conscience with stupidity?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think there’s any direct ministerial or prime ministerial responsibility for that debating point.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his decision to appoint a commissioner to deliver a turnaround plan that will improve Health New Zealand’s financial performance; if so, how will he ensure that the current financial year’s performance is better than financial year 2023-24?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I absolutely stand by the decision to appoint a commissioner to Health New Zealand. The troubled health reforms, coupled with the deterioration of Health New Zealand’s finance and performance levels, left us with no choice but to take urgent action. It was not sustainable to continue with the status quo. To the second part of the member’s question, our Government has already made a record investment in health of $16.68 billion across three Budgets. I have directed the commissioner to take appropriate steps to ensure Health New Zealand returns to budget so that our record investment can be put to good use on the front line.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has he sought a so-called turnaround in Health New Zealand’s finances by assigning $130 million of cost for redundancies that are yet to occur to financial year 2023 rather than financial year 2024?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I have done to assure financial return to budget is to make sure that Health New Zealand has enhanced budgeting processes that align functions with accountability, move to a regional model with local monitoring and accountability, and regular governance meetings that include Treasury and the Ministry of Health.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has he sought a so-called turnaround in Health New Zealand’s finances by withholding pay equity funding that Health New Zealand were expecting in financial year 2023, until financial year 2024?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Absolutely not. I would point to exactly the same thing that member did in the 2022-23 Budget with nurses’ pay equity that was accrued in 2022-23, and they did not pay it till 2023-24—exactly the same—resulting in a deficit of $1 billion in her hands.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he have confidence that the treatment of Health New Zealand’s Holiday Act liabilities reflects best practice, or might this liability be inflated so that the commissioner can more easily engineer a so-called turnaround in future years?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: If that member had paid attention to Holidays Act remediation, we would be further through than we are. It is fair to say it’s challenged, but that’s also because we’re bringing together 20 payrolls, but we do have a schedule for Holidays Act remediation.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the reason that Health New Zealand turned up to select committee without its accounts and had 70 staff tied up in non-disclosure agreements because he and the commissioner are cooking the books rather than funding the health system properly?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: No, that is not correct. I would point to the opening address, to the financial documents that were released, where, of the three issues that are pointed out for the financial deterioration of Health New Zealand, the opening statement is “Staff recruitment (both insourced and outsourced) being ahead of budget, combined with weak internal controls that did not arrest the growth”, which was pointed out this year by the Auditor-General.

Question No. 7—Education

7. LAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made on improving school attendance rates?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I recently announced a second group of initiatives in the Government’s attendance action plan. From the beginning of 2026, all State schools will be required to have an attendance management plan based on what’s called the Stepped Attendance Response—or STAR. The basic premise of STAR is that every child’s attendance matters every day. Once a child is absent for five days, 10 days, or 15 days a term, the school must investigate the reasons for the absences and apply an appropriate and proportionate response in each case.

Laura Trask: How will prosecution be applied to parents of students who are chronically absent?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Parents can already be prosecuted for unjustified absences. I’ve directed the Ministry of Education to take a more active role in the prosecution process. Schools and attendance officers are actually asking for this when I meet them. The ministry will not prosecute parents of students who are absent because of chronic illness or health conditions associated with a disability or who are genuinely engaging with a school and the support offered. However—and it’s unfortunate—some parents actively avoid and evade that kind of support, and it’s in these circumstances that a child’s right to an education in this country is paramount and prosecutions could be used.

Laura Trask: How will the Government support schools to implement the STAR system?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’m currently meeting with attendance officers, deans, deputy principals, and other community agents engaged with attendance to develop best-practice materials that schools will be able to use in their attendance plans. The ministry is also developing materials which will help schools have difficult conversations about the underlying issues—such as bullying, anxiety, and disengagement—that are leading to poor attendance. I’ve asked the ministry to coordinate a multi-agency response with schools in each region and to review the resourcing applied to the attendance service. I’ve also directed the Education Review Office to review the systems and supports for students who are chronically absent. This will provide a good base of support for better attendance where everybody—students, parents, schools, and Government departments—has a role to play.

Laura Trask: What support has the Minister received in response to the attendance announcements?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: A former teacher emailed me to say—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What opposition have you received?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —“‘You beauty’ is all I have to say.” And I hear the heckling from the Labour Party, “What opposition are you getting?”; well, like most Government Ministers, the opposition I’m getting is pathetic, I’ve got to say. I’ve also had a teacher email, “As a teacher with more than a decade of experience, there is only one thing I know for sure: the more time the kids spend in class, the more they learn; the better they achieve in school. I applaud your focus on student attendance. Well done for this initiative.” Another said, “Well done on putting together a nationwide set of attendance and truancy expectations that are clear and easy to follow.” And my favourite: “You are a hero, David. History will judge you kindly. Please keep up the good work.”

Question No. 8—Education

8. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her decision to cut $30 million from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What is Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Te Ahu o te Reo Māori is a professional learning and development (PLD) course for teachers across the education sector who can partake in anywhere up to 20 hours of professional learning and development to learn te reo Māori.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she aware that Te Ahu o te Reo Māori was specifically designed for teachers, and, if so, why does she think a free te reo Māori course is an appropriate substitute for professional development for teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: What I know is that the course was 2.3 times more expensive than could otherwise have been commissioned. We know that 40 percent of people did not finish the course. We know that 10 percent of the people who did the course were not directly in front of students teaching them. We also know that there were another 10 percent of teachers who were doing the course that were doing it at a level that was not required to be used in the classroom. We made the decision because we know in the future that we can design and develop a course that will be much more practical and also get better value for the taxpayer’s dollar.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori—Māori Language Commission—chair Professor Rawinia Higgins, who is deeply concerned about the cut to Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, and has she taken up Te Taura Whiri’s invitation for open dialogue on the programme?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say that they would be also deeply concerned about the fact that as a system, we were having a PLD provision that was 2.3 times more expensive than other similar courses, and only had 60 percent of people actually finishing the course. I would also say that it is important that teachers in front of students can pronounce Māori names and use everyday common phrases woven into their teaching, but this particular course was not good value for money and we can contract better in the future.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: would students at the reo Māori lessons learn more if they kept their mouths shut while the teacher was talking? [Laughter]

Rawiri Waititi: You’re going to allow him to say that?

SPEAKER: Order! The House will come back to order!

Rawiri Waititi: You’re going to laugh about it?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You’ve got a million rangatahi watching you.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good, excellent. Go and have an argument outside. Be quiet in here.

Rawiri Waititi: Yeah, I’m keen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, you wouldn’t last five minutes.

Rawiri Waititi: I’m keen. You wouldn’t last five seconds, mate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You wouldn’t last five seconds.

Rawiri Waititi: You wouldn’t last five seconds.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You might walk out, but you’d be limping back.

Rawiri Waititi: You might not even get to the door. Stupid fool.

SPEAKER: Now, if that keeps up, the two of you can head outside and have a discussion.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does she say to rangitahi from Te Kura Kōhine o te Rāwhiti o Te Upoko o Te Ika / Wellington East Girls’ College who say—and I quote— “It is so important and just taking it away is so crazy because it’s something that was already taken away from us, and it’s taken so many years to try and get it back … We need more people, not less.”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’d say what I’ve been saying consistently: that as a steward of public money, it’s important that we get the best bang for our buck. When we’re able to contract something that is almost 2½ times less expensive and get better results, then we will do that. I’ve already said publicly that we’ve entered into negotiations and discussions with my officials about what we can do in the future to get better value for money.

Question No. 9—Education

9. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) to the Minister of Education: E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

[Does she stand by all her statements and actions?]

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, in particular my recent announcements of the first nationwide phonics checks in te reo Māori. Undertaken across a two-year period, this check for tamariki learning in bilingual or immersion includes oral assessments, including a hearing check for glue ear and multiple check-ins on early phonemic awareness to ensure that tamariki Māori are supported to excel in te reo Māori.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Could the Minister please explain how she’s demonstrating her commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi when making her decisions about education?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’d be pleased to. Every single thing that this Government and I have done as a Minister of Education has been completely and utterly mirrored in te reo Māori. You can take our phonics check that I’ve just talked about. You can talk about decodables for structured literacy that have been designed, written, printed, and delivered in schools for the first time in this country’s history. We could also talk about the maths resources that have been announced yesterday that are going to be available in te reo Māori—printed, delivered to schools by term 1 and term 2 next year. This is a Government that is totally committed to making sure that tamariki Māori and rangatahi Māori are achieving at their full potential, and we will continue to make sure that we put achievement at the heart of our work programme.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: How does making Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te reo Māori a lower priority for schools—than they currently are—align with the Government’s commitment to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve already said, we are putting student achievement at the heart of every single thing that we do. If we want to honour the Treaty, it means closing the equity gap so that the decades of disparity that have pervaded our system in the disproportionate representation of tamariki Māori and rangatahi Māori in the lower quartiles of our education and achievement system is closed. It is my utmost belief that education can and should be the primary protective factor for our kids and a way in which they can break through intergenerational cycles of poverty and disadvantage and live the life that they want, choose, and deserve.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What does she say to the 11 education organisations—including the Teaching Council, NZEI Te Riu Roa, PPTA Te Wehengarua, New Zealand Principals’ Federation, and Te Akatea—who say that the Government is proposing to, “demote the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say that that is completely untrue. I’ve already stated that putting educational achievement at the heart of our work programme to make sure that rangatahi and tamariki Māori are achieving to their full potential is giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What would she say to Māori communities who were not consulted on downgrading te reo in the Education and Training Act before this was put out for public consultation, or the defunding of Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, and may feel that their language, culture, and rights are being undervalued by this Government?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say what I’ve already said to this House many times today, that the course was not good value for money. We can contract much better in the future.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question specifically was around what she would say to Māori communities. This is in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 206/4, and the Minister was referring to the value for many of the programme, which is an unrelated matter under that particular Speaker’s ruling.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t really think, given the general tenor of the questioning, that’s a reasonable position to take.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Minister of Education please confirm that Māori student achievement and Māori school attendance reduced in the five years prior to her becoming the Minister?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: When we came into Government, one of the alarming statistics that was in front of us was the fact that 12 percent of tamariki Māori are at curriculum for mathematics by the time they go to high school. It is this Government’s absolute priority to make sure that those tamariki Māori are achieving at the same rate as every single other child, which is why we are heavily investing in decodable books and maths resources to make sure that we improve their academic performance so that they can go on to live the life that they want.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that this Government is utterly committed to supporting schools’ choice to offer te reo Māori if they choose, or not, if that’s the community preference?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m also proud to say that this Government, for the first time, I think, in this nation’s history, has included kura kaupapa Māori in our network planning for schools. Because we are dedicated to choice in education, we’ve ring-fenced $100 million for kura kaupapa property funding because we know the dire state of their property and we are absolutely committed to making sure that tamariki Māori and their whānau have the choice in education if they want to go to mainstream, immersion, rumaki, or kura kaupapa.

Tākuta Ferris: The Minister has referenced twice that Te Ahu o te Reo Māori was of lesser value—

SPEAKER: No—sorry, it’s question time. Start with a question.

Tākuta Ferris: Which courses has she used to determine the undervalue of Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, if I’m understanding the member’s question right, when we looked at the performance of each of the providers—there were 13—there was one particular provider that had a completion rate as low as 10 percent.

Question No. 10—Education

10. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Education: What update can she provide to her Make it Count action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yesterday, I was delighted to announce the four suppliers of ministry-funded maths resources freely available to State schools across New Zealand from term 1 of 2025. Schools will have the option to select from a range of flexible packages from PR1ME, Maths - No Problem!, Numicon, and Oxford University Press that include online resources, teacher guides, student workbooks, lesson plans, games, and activities. I’m really delighted that the Government has committed these resources directly to teachers and students to lift achievement and support the implementation of the new maths curriculum.

Rima Nakhle: What resources will be made available in te reo Māori as part of the maths action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: To ensure those learning through te reo Māori have the same opportunities to engage with the updated pāngarau curriculum, the ministry will be fully funding resources for teachers and students in te reo Māori that are curriculum-aligned and reflect best practice around the OECD. For the first time, I am proud that everything we are doing in structured maths and structured literacy is also being delivered in te reo Māori to ensure equitable access across our education system to high-quality resources.

Rima Nakhle: What other supports are being provided to schools as part of the maths action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The maths action plan brought forward the introduction of the new maths curriculum for the year 0 to 8 students from term 1 of 2025. This puts in the hands of our teachers a knowledge-rich, year-by-year, world-leading curriculum document, now supported by a substantial resource package. In addition, this Government has committed $20 million of professional learning and development funding to support teachers to unpack and embed the new curriculum and these resources in their classes.

Rima Nakhle: What feedback has she received?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The feedback has been heart-warming. From a teacher: “Thank you for the transformational changes you are making to literacy and maths for our tamariki.”, and from a principal: “We have been using PR1ME maths for about five years, and the difference it has made for our learners is incredible. We are thrilled that you are investing in this programme across New Zealand. All our learners will benefit. Our school budget will also benefit. We are very grateful.”

Question No. 11—RMA Reform

11. GLEN BENNETT (Labour) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill that “The Bill lacks many of the environmental safeguards its predecessor legislation contained. Even the much-maligned National Development Act 1979 had more environmental checks and balances”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): No. The Fast-track Approvals Bill is still before the Environment Committee. It includes environmental safeguards throughout the process, including at the referral stage and the panel decision stage.

Glen Bennett: How can he stand by his statement in this House on August 27, regarding fast track, “We’ve replicated the same law that Labour adopted.”, when that law contained projects like wind farms, solar farms, housing, and rest homes without ever overriding the Resource Management Act (RMA), the Wildlife Act, or the Conservation Act?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I can stand behind it because it is true. We have taken the process, or the extremely similar process, from the COVID-19 fast-track legislation in which the Government legislates projects and then they go off to an expert panel for consenting. As the member will be aware, the Government has recommended to the select committee that the panels have the ability to decline projects. In relation to the projects that the member’s just mentioned around wind farms and solar farms, he might have missed the announcement a few days ago, but we’ve announced 149 of them and 22 of the projects of the 149 were renewable energy projects. There’s a whole bunch of housing developments in there, as well.

Glen Bennett: Is the reason he’s claiming this fast-track bill is the same as the previous bill because he’s trying to distract from caving to New Zealand First’s demand to push private mining projects through without proper, public, or environmental scrutiny?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that new member has made a tragic mistake. He’s got no evidence for that, and, if he has, he needs to show it before he puts it in his question.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think it would be fair to say the question could be reworded.

Glen Bennett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the reason he’s claiming this fast-track bill is the same as the previous bill because he agreed to New Zealand First’s push for private mining projects, which will not have proper public or environmental scrutiny?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Look, I’m not claiming the bill is exactly the same as the—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Yes, you have been—yes, you have, and so has the Prime Minister.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No one has ever claimed the bill is the same; if it was the same, it wouldn’t be a bill in Parliament. By definition, it must be different. What we have claimed is that the substance of the process around the Government selecting projects and referring them to an expert panel which works on an expedited time frame compared to the traditional process is similar, and is in substance, the same. Clearly the bill is different. Firstly, it is a one-stop shop. It does not just deal with the RMA; it deals with heritage legislation, the Conservation Act, the Wildlife Act. So it is a one-stop shop. Secondly, it deals with national and regionally significant projects. So, clearly, it is different but the process that has been laid out in the bill is the same, or extremely similar, to the last Government’s COVID-19 fast-track legislation. In relation to the private mining—

SPEAKER: Hang on. That’s a really good answer at that point.

Glen Bennett: Did he receive a paper stating that seabed mining and offshore wind are incompatible as it disrupts the seabed floor, potentially delaying Taranaki offshore wind development until the 2070s?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’ve had literally hundreds of papers on fast track, so I can’t give the member an accurate answer. If he wants to put it down in writing, I’m happy to go away and have a look at it. What I would say, though, is that wind and mining both have futures in New Zealand, and it is possible to do both in this country. It is possible to build wind farms, as it is possible to have mining for coal and for other minerals that we need in New Zealand. New Zealand’s future is in doing all of the above, not closing our mind off to extractive industries that provide jobs and growth in regional New Zealand. That member’s party started life in a part of regional New Zealand founded on the mining industry; we are now the party of the workers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on a minute. OK, away you go.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: is it possible to have solar or wind power without mining?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m by no means a scientific expert on this, but my understanding from the phone that I spend so much time on is that it’s very difficult to make things like iPhones and, indeed, wind turbines, and all the other things we need in the modern world, without mining.

Glen Bennett: How can he pretend that this legislation is balanced—

SPEAKER: No, just a minute. The member’s own side are talking while he’s trying to ask a question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Well, you don’t have to stay in the House.

Glen Bennett: How can he pretend that this legislation is balanced when it resurrects projects like seabed mining off Taranaki, projects that have already failed under normal environmental safeguards but are now being rammed through on his watch?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, firstly, there are a couple of factual errors there. Firstly, they’re not being rammed through; they’re being referred to an expert panel for consenting. As we’ve indicated, the expert panels will have the ability, if they can’t manage the adverse effects, or the panel decides that the adverse effects from a project can’t be managed, those projects could be turned down.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What changes is the Government making in the building and construction portfolio, and why are these changes needed?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): To the first part of the question, the Government has a big year of building reforms already and we are just getting started. Our guiding principle is that building needs to be easier and regulations need to be streamlined, proportionate to the risk, and consistent nationwide, and place liability where it is most appropriate. For the second part of the question, we know that change is desperately needed and long overdue, including because of the housing crisis in this country, which has been a longstanding challenge and issue, one that the Government is utterly committed to solving through, among other things, the Going for Housing Growth programme of my friend and colleague Chris Bishop.

Cameron Brewer: What specific initiatives are under way to make building easier in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The Government has announced a range of initiatives from small common-sense changes to larger, more structural reforms, all with the goal of letting good tradies get on with the job. I won’t list them all here today, because I know you wouldn’t allow me to, but the most significant ones include removing barriers to overseas building products to drive competition and reduce prices, allowing granny flats and other structures up to 60 square metres to be built without a building consent or resource consent per the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement—extremely popular; not only with grannies, at that—and commencing a major reform of the structure of the building consent system to improve efficiency, certainty, and consistency across the country.

Cameron Brewer: How important is the building and construction sector to the economy?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Extremely important. So, notwithstanding the construction recession that we inherited, a recent report found that the building and construction sector contributed some 20 percent of all jobs in New Zealand, and $99 billion in sales. The system that we did inherit was a jungle of red tape through which builders were forced to fight for even the most simple project. Much of the regulation added no meaningful protection for consumers.

Cameron Brewer: How has the sector responded to the changes?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I meet regularly with building industry, from large corporations to small business and sole operators all over New Zealand. Overall, the sector is extremely supportive of the Government’s approach to reducing red tape so that they can get on with building. For years, the sector has wanted a Government bold enough to make significant reforms in the building and construction sector, and now they have one.

Cameron Luxton: While the Government is reducing red tape in the building industry, what is it doing to increase the standards and accountability for building professionals to ensure continued confidence in the sector?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I thank the member for the question, which is a very good one. The Government’s looking at strengthening requirements for building professionals, including penalties, to ensure that Kiwis have confidence in their biggest asset, namely the residential home. The vast majority of tradies are doing a very good job, but we do need to make sure that those who are careless or incompetent are held to account. The trade-off for reducing oversight for relatively low-risk work—for example, granny flats—conducted by qualified, professional, and respectable tradies, is that we have adequate safeguards in place to hold careless or incompetent individuals to account.

General Debate

General Debate

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

It is a happy day for New Zealand. Today marks the day that this Government broke the back of the inflation beast. After 3½ years, in which New Zealanders have suffered a cost of living crisis, with prices surging, with inflation out of control, today Stats NZ confirmed that inflation is back in band. It is 2.2 percent.

And, members, the good news doesn’t stop there, because the Reserve Bank has already moved to reduce interest rates by 75 basis points across its last two announcements. That is real money in real people’s bank accounts. The Reserve Bank, in reducing those interest rates, has spelt good news for mortgage holders, good news for those business owners who want to invest more, who want to hire more people. We are seeing the green shoots of economic recovery. After multiple increases in interest rates and a sustained period of out-of-control inflation under the last Government, good economic management is back, and the results are coming through.

Now, I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition of his words. Here is his Budget speech this year, in which he said, “Well, this is a Government that is fuelling inflation through tax cuts rather than helping to get inflation back down and interest rates back down again.” So the question is: will he eat those words? Who’s going to ask Mr Hipkins whether he was right? The answer is that he was wrong, because we have delivered the tax relief that the National Party campaigned on, we have delivered lower inflation, and we have delivered dropping interest rates. Next time members of the Opposition cry that the sky is falling and tell New Zealanders that bad times are ahead and that the Government has got it wrong, just remember what Chris Hipkins told you. He said, “This Government is choosing to prioritise tax cuts that are going to lead to higher inflation for longer.” Well, he was wrong then, and he’s wrong now.

It wasn’t just Chris Hipkins, of course. We also had “The Sage”, the finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds, who was very strong and clear in her conviction that “The Government is continuing to talk about tax cuts. That will only drive up inflation.” Well, Barbara Edmonds should know this. What tax relief has actually done is put more money in the bank accounts of 3.5 million New Zealanders. What tax relief has actually done is ensure that families up and down the country have a bit more money for their groceries, for their school uniforms, and for the bills they have to pay. What tax relief has actually done is ensure that some small businesses are seeing shoppers shop a bit more at their shops; some restaurants are seeing a few more people coming in through the doors, and all of this has been achieved with inflation coming down.

That really matters, because what New Zealanders had to get used to over these past 3½ years was that, every time they went to the supermarket, they found that the prices had gone up and up. Inflation got as high as 7 percent under Labour. Instead of doing what every orthodox economist was telling them to do—“Rein in your spending. Get it under control.”—what did they do? They poured fuel on the inflation fire: money for cycleway bridges, money for three waters that no one wanted, money for light rail projects that went nowhere, money for more policy analysts in more departments. And they didn’t deliver results; they delivered inflation. Then what was the Reserve Bank left to do? The Reserve Bank was left to crank and crank and crank those interest rates higher, putting real pressure on mums and dads, real pressure on people who had just bought their first home, creating real hardship in our community.

Barbara said it; she said we should heed her warnings. Well, I’d say, based on her accuracy of forecasting, she should never be trusted in what she claims will happen in this economy again. We are the ones that have delivered what we said we will, and it’s a great day for New Zealanders.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I start by congratulating the finance Minister in stewarding inflation down to 2.2 percent, that absolutely vital component in turning our economy around. Of course, it is this week that we celebrate one year since the election and a return from those dark, dark days when New Zealand First was not represented in this House. And, boy, could we see it from the mess that we came back to.

There was a Labour Party that was adrift, bereft of ideas, an economy in ruins, inflation rampant, a revolving door of Ministers. Even their own Prime Minister had abandoned ship on them! As evidenced, not much has changed in the last 12 months—although, I must say, Carmel Sepuloni has been quite entertaining on Celebrity Treasure Island—indeed, it might be contagious. The Greens have also had a shocking year, a revolving door of MPs, and, in fact, if we could hook a turbine up to it, it could be one of the largest renewable energy projects in the country, and they’ve been far too weak and indecisive to eject a member from their own party. God help us if they end up in power at some stage in the future. But enough of them.

We’ve had our sleeves rolled up. Our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has been out re-engaging New Zealand in the world, particularly with our neighbours in the Pacific and rebuilding our relationships with our foreign partners and allies in these very difficult geopolitical times. Casey Costello is busy delivering in the 500 extra police we won in the coalition agreement. For our seniors—Customs, he’s got them purring; massive hauls of drugs at the border and, yes, delivering sensible smoking cessation policies. Shane Jones and, to a more modest degree and more self-effacing degree, myself have been out in the regions. We are delivering the gospel of growth, with our sleeves rolled up at regional growth summits up and down the country. In fact, the matua is in Gisborne today preparing for tomorrow’s summits.

We’re not going to bow to the naysayers, the “can’t do” attitude that had prevailed, the red and green tape—we’re sweeping away the impediments to growth, jobs, and investment. This fast-track legislation that we have been instrumental in encouraging our coalition partners to bring forward will be the single most significant piece of legislation that we bring forward in this House. These 149 projects, the 58,000 homes, the 43 infrastructure projects—

Scott Willis: Are they signed off, then?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: —22, Scott Willis, renewable energy projects, 11 mining projects, and, yes, we do need mining and extraction in this country, and we are not afraid to back that industry. Eight quarries—how can you build roads and infrastructure if you don’t have quarries? That is our big, big push to develop regional New Zealand and kick-start this regional and national economy.

The Regional Infrastructure Fund, the $1.2 billion regional development fund, energy, water storage, wharves, and renewable energy—we will be delivering those projects. We will be co-investing and enabling projects and, once again, kick-starting this economy. You can see the lens and the influence that we have had on this Government, and it does build on our proud history of the Provincial Growth Fund, that $3 billion fund that we had in our last term here in Parliament, the 52nd Parliament. It’s just delivered everything from the largest mussel farm in the world to that deprived region up in Ōpōtiki—jobs, growth, hope up there for once—to actually reinstating the Hillside workshops that have been closed down as we support a return to engineering and manufacturing in its heartland of south Dunedin.

We have taken our country back in this last 12 months, back to basics—reading, writing, and maths at school; back to growth; back to an economy that can deliver First World jobs, First World education, and First World healthcare. We are only one year in. There’s much to do, but we’re well on the way and we will deliver on our promises from 12 months ago. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women): Mr Speaker, thank you. Well, it is an absolute pleasure to rise and take a call today. What a day, what a chance to talk about the amazing work that this coalition Government has achieved in just 10 months—oh, sorry, one year of Government. We are well back in the target range of inflation at just 2.2 percent. Take a bow, finance Minister Nicola Willis, for all of the hard work, alongside her colleagues, that she has put into helping drive down inflation in this country. New Zealanders have worked incredibly hard under an incredibly long period of duress and they are now starting to see and benefit from the green shoots of this recovering economy. That is what can be achieved in just one year of careful fiscal management. Imagine what else we can achieve in the coming years of this parliamentary term and beyond.

As the Minister for Women, I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the women out there who are helping us to rebuild this economy. Women are, without doubt, the backbone of the New Zealand economy, and often their work goes unacknowledged, unpaid, or underpaid, so I want every woman in this country to know we see you, we hear you, and better times are ahead. Thank you so much for the work you are doing—especially to the mums raising their kids to be strong and independent and setting them up for the future, the grandparents taking their children to school to spend a day focused on reading and writing and on maths. The female CEOs breaking glass ceilings and paving the way for the future leaders to come on behind them. The rural women who just do the books, which actually means they’re the accountant, the auditor, the HR manager, the legal adviser, the farm environment planner, the nutrient budgeter, the stock agent liaison, the calf rearer, the cook, the cleaner, and everything else in between that goes on on a farm; or the many other rural women who are heading up our industry bodies and all of the hard work that they do to contribute to that $53 billion food and fibre sector. You are incredible. You are incredible in your own right and you were rightly acknowledged yesterday on the International Day of Rural Women.

The women of New Zealand need to hear that the Government has their back. I want all women and girls in this country to have economic freedom. I want them to have access to world-class education. I want them to be protected from violence, and, of course, to have better health outcomes. I want to list a few things that this Government is doing towards achieving those aspirations. We’re building the economy that will, in turn, give prosperity to women. We’re increasing paid parental leave by 6 percent. We’re introducing FamilyBoost payments to help with the early childhood education cost, which has even been acknowledged just today as being a part of the factors driving down the cost of living. One of my big key priorities as the Minister for Women is bringing down that very, very stubborn gender pay gap. I’m going to be announcing the work that we’re going to be doing on that very, very shortly, and we’re looking forward to seeing women of this country being remunerated fairly.

Our Government is doing things that are actual and are tangible to changing and improving the lives of women and girls in this country. We are deliberately putting money back into the hands of parents. We are not a Government that is spraying a fire hose of cash across this economy—which caused the Reserve Bank to ratchet up interest rates harder and faster than many of us have seen in our lifetime. We’re helping to restore health inequalities in the health system. We’re extending breast screening to women aged 70 to 74. At the outset, that should save about 22 lives a year, and at its full implementation, about 65 lives a year. What a difference that makes to families across New Zealand.

It’s also Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I’d like to inform the House. I want to give a shout-out to the women who have battled and are battling breast cancer, and that, of course, includes some of our parliamentary colleagues, so our thoughts are very much with them at the moment.

We also want to improve the safety of women. We’ve made significant changes to law and order in this country. We are putting more cops back on the beat, keeping our people safe. We are taking a tough stance on criminals and we are looking to improve the laws around stalking, for women as well.

We know families have been bearing the brunt of the economic mismanagement of the previous Labour Government for six long years, and parents and families and women have been forced to make some really, really difficult decisions, but we want them to know things are getting better. We are not going to take our foot off the pedal; we are going to keep working towards giving them more choice and more freedom to live great lives in the best little country on planet Earth.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I want to talk to the announcement that the Auditor-General will inquire into the procurement processes for the contracting of services under Oranga Tamariki. The Minister welcomes the inquiry, yet yesterday she could not answer to me in the House that she was confident that the things that are being investigated by the Auditor-General—that she is confident in her organisation that those things have occurred. Yet when I look at the series of questions that we have had in the House, when I look at interviews in the media about this—and there have been numerous interviews on this—the Minister being unable to express her confidence yesterday, yet all throughout the months of questioning absolutely standing by the decisions, the processes, saying what her expectations were and that she had no concerns—yet, yesterday, she welcomed the inquiry.

On 2 May, I asked the first question of the Minister about the contracts that were coming up for expiry, and she said in the answer, “I expect that these reviews will prioritise the outcomes for children. [And] Some of these decisions are still Budget-sensitive, and we will find out more when the Budget is announced.” Later in May, when the Budget was announced, I waited to hear the details about the very things that I have been questioning. However, there were no such details to come.

Then, our select committee had the opportunity to scrutinise the Minister and the organisation on 17 June—2 May; 17 June. On 17 June, the chief executive was asked, “will you know by the 1st of July?”, the day after all of these contracts had expired. The answer was “Yes.” Then the question was asked, “And then will it be made public?” The answer was: “What we’ll do by the 1st of July is work with all the providers to finalise those agreements, [and] to vary them.” We waited and we waited and we waited for this information that the Minister promised us would be available at the Budget, then wasn’t available when all the contracts expired on 30 June. We were told it would be out by 1 July, and yet still, today, it is not finalised.

The Minister refuses to be accountable to the process and the decisions and has not provided the information through written questions, through parliamentary oral questions, through Official Information Act requests, claiming that they cannot do this because the process hasn’t yet been completed. This is about something that was supposed to have been done by 30 June, that we were promised by the Budget, by 1 July, and the goalposts just keep shifting. It has been an absolutely shambolic process, so I welcome the Auditor-General’s inquiry into this process. But, as this House is aware, it is not just the Auditor-General who is concerned; we also have the Independent Children’s Monitor who has expressed concern and asked questions, and when they didn’t get the information, used the provisions in legislation to require that information to be given. We also have the Children’s Commissioner who is concerned and has asked questions.

The Minister continued to stand in this House and claim that there was nothing wrong with what was happening and then turned on the social service providers themselves. She attacked them, calling them “cash cows”, and that they were disgruntled. She even confirmed on 8 August that the final decisions had been made a couple of days beforehand—well over a month after 30 June—and yet we still can’t get that information because, apparently, final decisions haven’t actually been made and the process hasn’t actually yet been completed. We are many, many months past that deadline and we are seeing the devastating impact for our social service providers, but, more importantly, the vulnerable children and families who they serve, who are in absolute disarray because of this Minister’s cruel cuts that are absolutely front-line services to our most vulnerable children and tamariki. I too welcome the Auditor-General’s inquiry into these procurement processes. Kia ora.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When the Prime Minister decided that the climate change Minister needed to be in caucus, was it for the purpose of staying informed on what is happening in adaptation to climate impacts? I would hope so, but, on the evidence, it appears that that has been an abject failure. I’m interested in hearing from this Government about the recent flooding events in Ōtepoti—Dunedin—because I want to know what this Government is actually doing to reduce risk to whānau in South Dunedin and in the vulnerable communities around the motu, because the planet’s on fire and all we’re hearing from this Government is lukewarm, lame excuses.

The 2015 floods highlighted the social and economic cost of continuing to pour oil and gas on the climate fire, and it’s only getting worse. By 2050, more than 10,000 homes of whānau in our biggest cities will become uninsurable. When are we going to get past photo ops? When will we get any meaningful work on adaptation, or will we simply get more oil, gas, coalmines, and Ford Rangers pouring more gas on the climate fire, putting more people at greater risk, and turning up the heat on climate impacts like flooding, fires, slips, and damage to homes and families?

Will this Government finally pull their heads out of the coal-pit? Members opposite surely know that sniffing fossil fuels damages brain cells. Addiction to fossil fuels is dangerous, and I can see droopy heads opposite, but back in September 2023, Christopher Luxon said that climate change was an incredibly important portfolio. Fast-forward to 2024, the PM has only visited Dunedin once, on 7 October, on a flying visit that seems to have been mostly spent dodging local residents—local residents who wanted answers to the Government’s long list of broken promises.

When the PM says, “I’m wealthy and I’m sorted”, we get the clear message that this Government just doesn’t care. I can inform members opposite that most people in South Dunedin are not wealthy and are not sorted—certainly not now—but they do care about each other. When the PM says he’s unaware about Dunedin’s request for partnership and support, we can only assume significant dysfunction in the caucus, because why did the Government reject the Dunedin City Council’s plea for $132.5 million to help the city cope with climate impacts earlier this year? Was the PM briefed on this, and, if not, why not? Was the Prime Minister briefed on the meeting we had on 2 May with the Dunedin mayor; the Dunedin City CEO, Sandy Graham; and South Dunedin Future programme leader, Jonathan Rowe; along with the Minister of Climate Change, Simon Watts; Minister Mark Patterson; and Ingrid Leary MP; and, if not, why not?

I live in the Greater Dunedin area, and in the 2006 floods, I was rowing across paddocks rescuing drowning sheep while the rest of the wider Dunedin area was under water, and there have been many flood events since. Sandbagging helps, but we recognise—all of us recognise—that we need to do so much more. There were workshops that I led in 2019, I think—Our City, Our Climate workshops—and those floods also inspired the South Dunedin Future work programme.

This is localism in practices, and when our co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was able to visit Ōtepoti recently, we met with those who had been flooded and those who had lost stock and had had homes damaged. We met with community leaders. We met with artist Aroha Lowe, who said, “Listen to mana whenua. Listen to tangata whenua. Listen to the whenua, and it’s telling you what to do.”, because, for eff’s sake, there are so many other priorities that we need to be thinking about, rather than putting pseudoephedrine back on the shelves.

When will the Minister of Climate Change actually visit South Dunedin? When will this Government listen? The climate is changing, so why aren’t we? We need to act now. The climate is not going to wait for politics to catch up. This is a choice that we have, and all we’ve heard from the Government is that it will look to develop a national climate change adaptation framework by some time next year. It is pathetic.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Charles Dickens once wrote: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”. I’d like to just start out by acknowledging those who are doing it tough and those for whom it is, in fact, the worst of times: those people who have lost a job, those businesses who are struggling, and those households who are struggling through a cost of living crisis. My message to them is that better times are ahead.

We’ve talked a lot today about green shoots—blue shoots—and there are some really good things to celebrate for those who are struggling. On cost of living: we’ve had it announced that inflation is down to a record 2.2 percent, interest rates 4.75 percent.

Shanan Halbert: Talk about Northcote.

DAN BIDOIS: Business confidence is the highest in nearly a decade. Those who are struggling, particularly in Northcote, are thankful that we’ve got income tax relief and FamilyBoost for those who are like me and who have young ones that will be going to an early learning centre. We’ve got green shoots on law and order, with respect to the tougher approach. I want to thank those in the police force for bringing to justice 40 Comancheros, and that is having positive ripples throughout our country. We’ve had a 22 percent reduction in serious assaults in Auckland. But there’s more to celebrate. Around cutting waste: we have cut waste from the previous Government. We’ve axed wasteful spending projects like light rail, three waters, Let’s Get Wellington Moving, Lake Onslow, contracts and consultants, and back-office staff, which has saved taxpayers billions of dollars.

We’ve gone back to basics on things like education. I want to acknowledge the passion that our Minister has for making sure we’ve got a better, brighter future for those future Kiwis. We’ve gone back to basics in infrastructure: making sure we’re actually getting things built in this country and getting things moving, but we know there is a lot for us to do. Our plan is: working to improve the quality of life and improve the economic prosperity of this country, because that is, of course, the underlying thing that we must focus on as a country to improve the next generation of New Zealanders. Like our education system: making sure that our kids and our grandkids have a best education, whether you’re Māori, Pacific, or any ethnicity.

Making sure that we have an attractive arrangement for foreign investment—I’d like to acknowledge the recent initiatives that will oversee an overhaul of the Overseas Investment Act. Making sure we actually deliver infrastructure in this country—that is what the Fast-track Approvals Bill is all about. If the opposite side was keen on seeing stuff built in this country, they’d come on board and support our fast-track legislation. But there’s other good things around foreign connections. I want to acknowledge our trade Minister Todd McClay for getting together and signing a deal with the UAE. That is actually fantastic—in record time—that will make a real, substantial, and tangible difference to those who wish to expand overseas.

The last area in our economic plan is around the innovation, science, and technology space. We’ve got a fantastic Minister in Judith Collins, who’s very passionate about improving the productive and innovative capacity in New Zealand. There are so many good things and good reasons to be optimistic, but we know there’s a lot for us to do. The coalition is paving the way for a strong and prosperous future for our nation. That’s the kaupapa that we live by and we will not wait for it. So we are focused, our plan is working, and we’re working hard to get our country back on track.

SPEAKER: Before I call the member Shanan Halbert—

Shanan Halbert: Mr Speaker—perfect timing after—

SPEAKER: No, wait on. No, no—hang on. I was actually saying something then. I was saying before I call the member Shanan Halbert, I just want to make it clear that I made a slight mistake in the order of things. I apologise to Dan Bidois and to Shanan Halbert, and I’ve given Shanan Halbert—if he looks at the clock—a small compensation for the interruption that he’s suffered. I’m sure that’ll be hard on the rest of us, but, none the less, we’ll put up with it!

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Mr Speaker, it’s actually perfect timing, and it won’t be hard on you at all. Over the next five minutes or so, I’m talking about the past year, since Scar took over this kingdom and the darkness invaded our lives and communities in Tāmaki-makau-rau, and, in fact, in Northcote, because the MP for Northcote, just down the road from me, didn’t mention anything about our local community. He didn’t talk about the fact that he’s cancelled local classroom buildings, he’s closing North Shore Women’s Centre, he’s cancelled the counselling services at the Salvation Army, he’s reduced our police numbers, he’s cut funding to Kaipātiki projects, and he’s cut jobs, so it was perfect timing that I am now in this particular position.

This is a Government that is choosing to spend $2 million for landlords and $216 million for tobacco companies. They are taking New Zealand backwards and taking us back decades on the environment and on issues pertaining to Te Tiriti. They’re not thinking of the future. They’re putting themselves and commercial interests ahead of our people and ahead of our New Zealand communities.

Front-line cuts are going too far and too fast—border workers, a hiring pause in hospitals, kids’ classrooms on hold, hundreds of front-line providers seeing their funding cut or reduced, the shameful Whaikaha attack on support for disabled Kiwis. The list just continues and continues, and each day, I wake up to this Government, and I think, what next? More and more cuts are made against the communities in our country.

In particular, today, I’m going to speak to the transport issues that we have in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, in my Auckland-issues portfolio. The Government has cut $564 million from the next three years of Auckland’s long-term plan in the National Land Transport Programme 2024 to 2027—that’s $564 million, for the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. That includes street maintenance, including footpaths, along with cycleways, safety, and bus services. They are all losers under this Government. The impact of these cuts will be large. They’ll be widespread. Road safety funding cuts will increase. They will increase, for Simeon Brown’s ears. They will increase deaths and serious injuries for Aucklanders.

Road harm costs Auckland an estimated $2 billion annually. Fewer people were dying on Auckland’s roads according to new figures compiled by Auckland Transport. In the year ending July 2024, 27 deaths were recorded in the year, down from six fatalities in the previous 12 months, and the Minister for Auckland ignores these statistics. He believes they don’t happen, and he’s cut their funding, but it’s important for Aucklanders to understand how many of us are less likely to make it home because of reduced road safety initiatives. Alongside that, what about our kids? The original road safety budget for Auckland involved a $70 million - odd contribution from the Government, but they’ve only given a mere six.

The Government’s view of Auckland Council’s cuts should include, under the official planned street maintenance and renewals, that they’ll lose $107 million over three years. Time-of-use charging, which they promised, will be cut by 77 percent, and road safety by 36 percent. The road safety cuts will affect education work and projects to make our roads are safer. Cycleways will lose about $90 million, or 35 percent of their funding. Electrification of ferries will have $89 million deferred, and buses will get $59 million less, both part of a three-year cut to spending—an attack on public transport in Auckland by $213 million.

Now, I asked the questions of the Minister of Auckland, Simeon Brown: what are you doing? What is your plan for Auckland? In fact, there are no answers, because there haven’t been any Cabinet papers that have been taken up, and there hasn’t been any work done. In fact, the Minister for Auckland isn’t advocating for Aucklanders, he doesn’t have a plan, and he’s only making more and more cuts.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): It is an absolute privilege to stand in the “Pride Lands” and follow “Zazu” in his kōrero today. “Simba” has arrived.

Hei aha rawa te takaroa

Whakaponotia

Whakarongo ake, ngā iwi o te motu e

Ki te karere o te hepara pai e

Hei aha rawa te takaroa

Whakaponotia

Te Tiriti o Waitangi

Te huarahi mana Māori motuhake

Te iwi e, he mea hipokina a Ihoa

Hei aha rawa te takaroa

Whakaponotia

[Do not delay

Believe

Listen, the people of the nation

To the messenger of the good shepherd

Do not delay

Believe

The Treaty of Waitangi

The path of Māori autonomy

To the people, sheltered by God

Do not delay

Believe]

Kia ora tātou. “Hei aha rawa te”—[Members applaud] Thank you, thank you; you’re taking up my time.

“Hei aha rawa te takaroa, whakaponotia” [“Do not delay, believe”] is the call to our people. We can no longer wait. We must believe in ourselves, believe in our solutions, sit comfortably in our rangatiratanga. We are tangata whenua, we are the sovereign, we are our own solutions.

E taku Māori e [To my Māori people], we can no longer wait. Hei aha te takaroa [Do not delay] for Pākehā to fix our problems and dysfunction that they have created for our people. We have now become impatient—very impatient—and angry, and so we should. Righteous anger is our right and we need to channel it into our own solutions and wellbeing.

Hei aha rawa te takaroa, whakaponotia [Do not delay, believe]—believe, and know who are. We have for too long been over-investigated, over-convicted, over-policed, over-stereotyped, over-incarcerated, overlooked, over-regulated, undereducated, undervalued, under-classed, assimilated, and subjugated in a racist and white supremacist system to make tangata whenua more like settlers. Like Europeans, like Pākehā—just second-class ones.

Our goal is to ensure that this is a one-term Government—everything the light touches is our kingdom, except that shadowy part over there—and ensure we grow more members who are unapologetic, unfettered, unbridled, and unceded Māori political voices here in this Kāwanatanga space. Hei aha rawa te takaroa, whakaponotia. [Do not delay, believe.]

Being the only tangata whenua movement in this House means that the weight of our Māori nation sits solely on the shoulders of the six people that sit here, in this part of the House. One of the easiest ways we can do that is that we need more of our people to enrol on to the Māori roll. For the first time, Māori on the Māori roll now out-populate Māori on the general roll—congratulations to our people. This is showing the new breed of Māori coming through.

The kōhanga reo generation has arrived—70 percent of our people are 40 years and younger. If we are 20 percent of the population, that would translate into more seats in this House if all of our people were on the Māori roll—18 to 20 seats. But because we have people still on the general roll—Māori people on the general roll—we get half of what we should be getting, which is seven Māori seats, when, in actual fact, it should be 14 if all Māori were on the Māori roll. That was at 16 percent. Now we’re at 20 percent, it will increase.

Andy Foster: They’re voting where they want to vote.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You’re not Māori.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Yes, be quiet. This is about us using this democratic process to our advantage. E hika mā [My friends], get on the Māori roll, ensure that we have more on the Māori roll to ensure we have more Māori seats for more Māori voices. E hika mā [My friends], this is our kōrero today. Kia ora tātou.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call to talk about a pressing issue in our tertiary education system, particularly our universities. When students go through our universities, what do we expect? We expect that students will be able to think independently, that they will be able to think critically, and they will have an innovative mind-set so that they can go out and solve the problems of this ever-evolving world, but this confidence and this trust that we have in our universities is recently becoming a bit shaky.

We have seen Times Higher Education world university rankings released recently, and none of our universities have risen in their rankings. We have seen some universities have dropped in their rankings, so, overall, we can say that we have experienced a drop. If I just pick one university, a top university—University of Auckland—it is no longer in the top 150 universities. It’s quite disappointing to see that we don’t have any universities in the top 150, and that the University of Auckland is no longer in the top 150.

What is more concerning is that, because of the direction some of the universities are taking, the rankings might suffer even more. I can talk about many, many issues, but I’ll pick one example: the University of Auckland has announced that they are going to introduce a compulsory course to teach the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori world view. This is a compulsory course worth 15 points for all undergraduate degrees—for all undergraduate degrees. I ask why is this course needed for all undergraduate degrees and why is it needed that this course should be compulsory?

This is going to create a lot of suffering for students because, at the end of the day, students are going to suffer, and, in the long run, our country is going to suffer.

Hon Member: How? How will it create suffering?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes, I’m going to explain that, because this course is—all students will have to study. If somebody wants to study science—for example, somebody wants to do a Bachelor of Science (BSc)—that student is wanting to do a BSc because the student is really passionate about science. Now, this course is going to be enforced on that student, so if the student doesn’t like this course, of course the grades won’t be what overall we would like to see, and the overall grades of that student will suffer.

Moreover, we know that, for any degree programme, there are some compulsory components that students have to do. For a BSc, there have to be some compulsory science components to be completed so that they can achieve a BSc degree, which is equivalent to BScs around the world, with the universities that we compare ourselves with. Now, because of this space that is going to be created for this compulsory Treaty of Waitangi and Māori world view course, other components will be pushed on to the rest of the time that is left for that degree and that is going to create more pressure on students. So who is going to suffer? Students. And, in the long run, our country is going to suffer.

Going back to our international rankings, yes, members out there might want to dismiss our lowering international rankings, but I say this: it’s really important that we improve our international rankings. One thing which is to be noted is that all our universities have dropped in one area: that is the international outlook. Universities, our universities, have lost credibility in international outlook.

I know that; I have done two degrees overseas. I did my BSc and Master of Science from India; I did my PhD from the University of Auckland. I have seen how the tertiary education system works in two very different parts of the world, and when students are looking around to study, they do look at international rankings. Top students are definitely looking at international rankings when they apply to study at any university around the world.

Also, the academics—if you want to attract brilliant people to come and teach and to do research in our universities, we have to improve our ranking because these people, when they’re looking for a change, they definitely look for university ranking. I’m calling on the University of Auckland to be inclusive and be forward-looking in their approach. I would like to see that they create the environment where all perspectives are respected, not just a one-sided view enforced on students. I’m calling on the University of Auckland to pause, to rethink, and to drop this paper that they want to introduce from next year, because students deserve choice. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I just texted my mother and told her that I was going to be speaking in the House, and she said to me, “Whatever you do, don’t sing.” So I won’t sing. I can’t sing anywhere near like that, so I won’t be singing.

Look, when I listened to the wonderful Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, and I see the way that our Cabinet is pulling together to turn this country around, it makes me proud to be part of this Government. Our Government inherited a complete shemozzle, rivalled only by the woes of Wellington City Council right now—inflation at a high; interest rates, high; and the only solution, it seemed, was for the previous Government to throw some more money at it, run for the hills, and hope that it might go away. Well, guess what! That was never going to work and it didn’t work. Thankfully, the people of this beautiful country are way more astute than some on the other side give them credit for and they voted for change, and the coalition Government has served up a good dose of change.

We have turned the dial towards a better future for our children. We have focused on accountability for taxpayer money, pragmatic changes to get things done, removing red and green tape, policy settings that will drive productivity, and a novel thing: a sensible and intelligent approach to managing the economy. Today’s Stats New Zealand announcement that the Consumers Price Index is back to 2.2 percent from its high of 7 percent in 2022 is indeed great news. What a relief to be in a country with a Government that knows how to get this under control, and the future once again looks bright. Tax cuts have been delivered into our homes, FamilyBoost is helping families, and interest rates are now down by 75 basis points, which is all contributing to our more rosy future.

Sometimes, people don’t understand the benefit that lower interest rates have for us. Lower interest rates mean families get to keep more of their money and maybe do something extra with their children at the weekend or buy the new sports uniform or the shoes that the kids need. That little bit more money goes into the economy. They spend it at the cafes, the dairies, and the retailers. It helps keep the businesses ticking over. Lower interest rates mean people have the confidence to develop properties, to build houses, to grow their businesses, and to increase the opportunities for businesses to invest, innovate, and expand. Lower interest rates mean that the new car you need to get to work is more affordable. And, of course, you can fix your rates at a lower cost.

All of this, coupled with the work being done to reduce the cost of compliance for our farmers to get projects fast tracked, to get the country back moving, bring back some pride, and instil a work ethic, is critical to our economic performance. If we can create more jobs, then we can get more people off the benefit, into work—that brings more to people’s self-worth than we might imagine. It brings them a new community, a sense of achievement, and a future. It teaches their kids that it’s good to get up and get going in the morning. Instead, these people would be now on the payroll, contributing to better health and education outcomes for their family and their whānau. It means, therefore, as a country, we can afford better health, better education, infrastructure, police services, and mental health and social support systems for those who really need it.

I know people are still doing it hard out there. In my electorate, we are seeing some of the worst indicators biting very hard right now. I see that at the coalface every week. It’s been a tough year, following the devastation of Cyclone Gabrielle and the recovery phases which are now continuing. It’s ironic that in the recent economic growth statistics and report, Tairāwhiti was leading the country in economic growth.

Dan Bidois: No way.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: It was. I’m sorry to tell you that that is money largely being spent in the construction sector on fixing up Tairāwhiti after the cyclone.

We are not there yet, but we know the turn-around is real and it is happening. I am stopped constantly in the streets, in my electorate, by people telling me to keep going—“Tell Chris and Nicola and the team, they’re doing a great job.” I’m grateful because it comes, sometimes, from people who I just wouldn’t expect it from. Just today, I received this letter in my inbox: “Hi Dana, I felt compelled to write and let you know how wonderful it feels to have a responsible group of people running our country. I am very proud of our Government and of all the partners. It feels like the grownups are in charge. And I fully support Chris Luxon. I think he’s the right man for the job. We’re lucky to have him working for us. I used to worry about our future, but that has gone now. Feeling quietly confident. Thank you.”

It is as important now as it has ever been to find new ways of paying for infrastructure, for finding new investment, for relieving costs where we can, and to exercise fiscal responsibility, because New Zealand is getting back on track.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the general debate today, and I’m going to be talking about how this Government is taking workers in New Zealand backwards. But, before I start, I just want to respond to one of our colleagues across the House who was complaining about doing a course on Te Tiriti o Waitangi at Auckland University.

I can say I took a compulsory course on Te Tiriti o Waitangi when I was a university student in my 20s, and I have used that information and knowledge every single day that I have been working in New Zealand since that date. It is absolutely unfounded to say that that information is not useful, and I challenge that member to take that course. Personal challenge: take that course and tell me after you’ve finished it if you don’t think of it and your mind doesn’t turn to it every single day when we talk about the important things affecting this country around our constitutional arrangements and the important place that Te Tiriti o Waitangi has in our Parliament and also in our country.

What I want to mainly talk about today is the Government’s actions towards working people. We’ve heard it so many times from those on the other side of the House, claiming to be the party of working people. We’ve heard it from the Prime Minister. We’ve heard it from the Deputy Prime Minister. We’ve heard it from New Zealand First. I say to those parties: show me that you are the party of working people by your actions. When I look over them, all I see is the biggest attack on workers’ rights since 30 years ago, when the Employment Contracts Act came in.

I’d like to go through some of these attacks on workers that this Government has made. First of all, scrapping fair pay agreements—agreements that would have led to higher wages and better conditions for some of our most vulnerable workers: bus drivers, cleaners, early childhood education teachers, supermarket workers, security guards—reinstating 90-day trials, getting rid of protections for people so they’ve got no rights at all within the first 90 days. I guarantee there is someone sitting in the House today who has received an email from a constituent who has been unfairly dismissed because of that policy—

Glen Bennett: Read that email out.

CAMILLA BELICH: I know I certainly have. “Read that email out.”—yeah, that’s exactly right, Glen Bennett, good point. Effective cut to the minimum wage—these are the poorest people in New Zealand, and this Government has, effectively, cut the minimum wage, meaning that they earn less despite official advice to the opposite—cutting the Pay Equity Task force. We’ve seen recently the public sector gender pay gap has risen. And how has this Government responded? They say they’re the best party for women, much better than the last Government. Well, show me by your actions. Cutting the Pay Equity Taskforce shows me that you’re taking New Zealand backwards.

Then we heard during the election campaign a reassuring word from the now Prime Minister: “We are going to not be reducing sick pay.”, he said. And what do we see when we see this Government come in? We see one of the proposals is to reduce sick pay for part-time workers. Now, who are part-time workers in New Zealand? Let me tell you. Almost 70 percent of them are women; a lot of them are carers. These are people who need sick leave. There is no justification for this broken election promise to cut sick leave for part-time workers.

There’s so many things—modern slavery. The Prime Minister said he would march in the street for modern slavery, but what do we see this Government doing? Nothing.

Then we have pay transparency—very important for people to be able to see where there are gaps and when there is unfair pay going to certain groups of people, especially Māori and Pasifika women. We see all work on that stop—shocking.

I just want to note, in relation to modern slavery, the Global Slavery Index says, on even any given day, 8,000 people in New Zealand are living in modern slavery. We need to take action now, and we need to do that also under our international obligations, under free-trade agreements that we have with the UK and Europe as well.

There are so many other things. I have 12 things to read out; I’m not sure if I can get through them all in the last five minutes—I probably can’t. I’ll have to come back and do another general debate speech because there are just too many attacks on workers for me to get through. I want to say, when the Labour Government is re-elected in 2026, you will know us by our actions, because we are the true party of working people. We will be reinstating all of these policies that have been cruelly taken away from New Zealand workers by this Government, which has been cruelly attacking them.

I want also to note that we are fighting back against this. I’ve done five public meetings around New Zealand on workers’ rights with the Hon Willie Jackson; I’ve got another two more. Then, on 23 October, workers around New Zealand, under a Council of Trade Unions initiative, will be gathering to fight back, not only on the cuts against workers but on the other unfair attacks by this Government—against Māori, against women, against people with disabilities. We are not taking this lying down; we are fighting back and we will be back in 2026.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, inflation today, Stats NZ, the number is out: 2.2 percent. What a win for New Zealanders. This is a great day for New Zealand households, a great day for New Zealand businesses. I remember, when I came into Parliament about 2½ years ago, we were sitting at over 7 percent, and then it was 5.6 percent last year, and here we are with a National-led Government in charge: 2.2 percent. It is within band. This is excellent.

There have been some good changes lately. We’ve seen some tax relief back to hard-working Kiwis. We’ve seen FamilyBoost payments. Families are now clearly better off than they were a year ago, and with the decrease in inflation, the Reserve Bank, in New Zealand, is moving to cut interest rates. We have seen 75 basis points already. They are talking about, potentially, that in the November review that they do, and the good news is that most households out there, roughly half of them, are on very short fixed-terms of six months. This is going to translate and flow very quickly into the New Zealand economy. The green shoots—or, as we say on this side of the House, the “blue” shoots—are reemerging in the New Zealand economy. The Mood of the Boardroom survey recently had confidence in the economy at 3.23 out of five. That’s the highest it has been since 2016, when, funnily enough, National was last in Government. You compare that to where the Mood of the Boardroom was last year, at 1.82 over 5. This Government is putting the books back on a credible path back to fiscal sustainability.

There is some other good news, and we’ve heard it talked about a little bit today—fast-track—and what a great thing fast-track is. The Infrastructure Commission estimates that every year we spend $1.3 billion on the time taken to get a resource consent, and that has nearly doubled in the last five years. Thank you, Labour! Well, what we’re doing is we’re putting through the Fast-track Approvals Bill. We’re going to rebuild our economy, and we’re going to grow and boost productivity. This is a one-stop fast-track consenting regime for national and regional projects of significance. It will cut red and green tape and make it easier to get things done. It will revitalise the New Zealand economy, and it will revitalise the Tauranga economy. I’m very proud that, in the Bay of Plenty, we have got 12 projects included on that schedule.

The Port of Tauranga is an absolutely crucial one, and that has been going on for six years—that has been going through the courts—and many people there find it extremely frustrating. The Port of Tauranga CEO has come out and said that it should have been built by now. It’s unacceptable to spend six years in a consenting process for something that was included in the Regional Coastal Environment Plan 30 years ago. We need to double our exports. We have a big plan to do that, but if we don’t have that gateway to the world, it isn’t possible. Another reality is that the container ships that are now being built are significantly larger, and if we don’t make the Port of Tauranga and the navigation channels fit for purpose and wider and deeper, those big ships are not going to come here. They simply will leave New Zealand off the map, and we will have to move our stuff to Australia to get it out there to the world. That would be a travesty for New Zealand businesses.

We’ve got a few significant roads included in there. Takitimu North Link Stage 2 probably should have been under way by now if the previous Government hadn’t cancelled it. Good news: it’s on the fast-track schedule. That will provide a four-lane median-divided highway to Ōmokoroa. Then we’ve got the State Highway 29 Tauriko network, a very important link in the “golden triangle” between Auckland, Hamilton, and Tauranga, and, crucially, the Port of Tauranga. We’ve got a number of housing projects: the Bell Road Limited Partnership in Wairakei South is going to add 2,000 to 3,000 new homes. We’ve got the Tauriko West housing and land development. There’s another 1,250 homes. We’ve got the Tara Road development; that’s 605 residential allotments. And there’s a whole bunch of industrial and commercial projects off the back of that. Now, we look at the fast-track and we have got 58 housing and land development projects; opening up 55,000 homes—I’ve already mentioned those in my patch—43 infrastructure projects; and, for those on the other side of the House, you’ve got 22 renewable energy projects.

This is a successful Government. Governments cannot live beyond their means for long periods of time without damaging the future prospects of their people. Just like any household, we are going to continue to drive more value from this economy. Inflation is back within band. This is a fantastic day for New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I move, That the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start with the women who made the case for this law change, the women who gave us the way forward to ensure that we would move from a divorce law which insisted that they wait in abusive relationships for two years before they could obtain a divorce. This bill enables people to move on immediately, and it came about because of three women.

The first is Charlotte Abrial, who brought a petition to this House in 2020, and brought the petition asking that in cases of relationships where there had been domestic violence, instead of waiting for two years for a divorce to become final, in fact that could happen within six months. In Charlotte’s words from the petition, speaking from her own experience, she said that the two-year stand-down period makes leaving an abusive spouse even more difficult because victims feel an obligation to go back and try to work things out. She said that, in many cases, each time the victim returns is worse, as the abuser’s control increases. She also commented that some women are not able to leave again because they may not survive the abuse. Thank you, Charlotte, for bringing the petition to the House and for making the House take notice of this matter.

The second woman I want to refer to is Ashley Jones. Ashley put together a petition and worked on it but, eventually, was unable to get it into the House, because she simply didn’t have the capacity to at the time. She persisted with her work, and when this particular bill was finally in front of the House, she came and submitted to the committee and told us her story. She put in a written submission. From Ashley’s submission: “Any woman (or man) that has reached the painstaking decision to leave their marriage, has already reached the realisation that there is no reconciliation possible, especially not in cases where abuse is prevalent. But the reality is, for abuse victims the current divorce process is not as simple as a 2 year stand down. For me, someone with a protection order in place, no contact or knowledge of the other parties whereabouts, it took a painstaking further 10 months to be granted my dissolution. That was a further 2 years 10 months of mental and emotional anguish on top of everything else that didn’t need to happen.” Ashley, thank you for your work in bringing this legislation to the House. Here, I’d also like to thank the Hon Chris Bishop for the work that he did to support Ashley as she was putting together her work in this area.

The third woman I would like to thank is a woman whose name has not been said in this House, because initially we kept her name very, very quiet. She did not want her name to be out there, because of some of the danger attached to it. When Angie Warren-Clark MP first brought this bill to the House, in her speech in the first reading, she referenced, obviously, Charlotte Abrial and Ashley Jones, but she also referenced someone who’d come to talk to her and told the story. I’ve been in contact with this woman today, and she sent me some words of her story too, and she gave me permission to use her given name. So, Adele, today we name you in the House, and we recognise your courage.

In Adele’s words: “It took two years, one month, and one day to get a divorce when I needed it desperately to get it before my then husband got out of prison. It was hard, it was terrifying, and so stressful to get it done in time as the Parole Board had phoned me three times, saying they were releasing him early and that he had rights. I had to plead firmly that they support my rights to feel safe and to not release him early so that I could be safe. It was a hard battle, a struggle mentally, emotionally. The fear was huge. I knew I needed the divorce as a boundary line by law for him not to seek to claim me as his property. I pushed so hard I even had to plead with the prison to deliver the divorce papers into his hands before he was released. I got my divorce with one day to spare only because I pushed and growled and defended the rights of victims of domestic violence.” Adele, thank you for those words.

These women all made the case that where there is family violence, a person should be able to obtain a divorce without having to wait for two years of separation from their former partner. The reason is that that two years holds the tie. It binds the victim to their abuser. That should not be the case. We simply need to change the law, and, today, I know that we’re going to do it so that, in cases where people have separated and where there is domestic violence, instead of waiting for too long and instead of waiting for two long years in which the victim remains tied to their abuser, a divorce can be obtained immediately. Thank you to each of those three courageous women.

Two members of Parliament have had a very strong hand in bringing this legislation to the House. I’ve already mentioned the first, the Hon Chris Bishop, who supported Ashley Jones as her electorate MP when she was first working on this issue, and when the bill came into the House, he enabled it to go through with his support. Thank you to the Hon Chris Bishop. But I especially wish to recognise our former colleague Angie Warren-Clark. Angie put together a bill on this particular issue, and it was drawn from the ballot, and it had its first reading on the very last members’ day before the former election. There was a lot of support for it across the House then. After the election, Angie asked me if I would take it through the remaining stages. Angie, my darling, it has been an absolute honour to shepherd this bill through the House for you. You know, it’s a bit hard to make a mark as a Government backbencher; Angie’s done it.

It’s really interesting to reflect on where our divorce law has come from. In 1980, we had a radical divorce law reform. Instead of having tawdry cases of deception or of adultery or whatever trailed through the courts, we opted for what is now known as “no-fault divorce”. If couples wanted to separate, it was taken to be the case, and they could obtain a divorce. The only evidence that was required was two years of separation. It was a very radical law reform in its day, but now we need something different. I think part of what this legislation, going through today, tells us is that, actually, we need to have an overall look at our divorce law. In the meantime, this change helps victims of domestic violence. Obviously, for the three women who fought for it, the change hasn’t come in time for them. They’ve got the change now for other women, women like Kate, who phoned into Newstalk ZB today—I want to thank Kerre Woodham for forwarding the clip to me—who talked about the feeling of relief and freedom that would be available to her with this law change.

Thank you to everyone across the House who’s worked on this bill, especially the members of the Justice Committee. Thank you to all those who have supported it. I did say the Justice Committee? Good, OK. I got there. I’m going to end with Adele’s words again and what this legislation means to her: “Now, all my pain and grief of the vicious domestic violence I went through has been transformed into legislation today, a law that will support many victims for days, years to come. What a legacy we gift them all today. So many lives will be saved.” Charlotte, Ashley, Adele, thank you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Can I start by acknowledging the excellent speech from Hon Deborah Russell in support of this bill, and also start by saying thank you to her for her work shepherding it through its final stages. That was a very heartfelt and meaningful speech and I’m sure people will really appreciate it. Can I also start by acknowledging Ashley, my friend who’s in the gallery, who, as Ms Russell has noted, has played a really important part in the genesis of this legislation.

Today is a very satisfying day, because it’s really Parliament at its best and it’s Parliament coming together—I believe it’s going to pass unanimously, which is a wonderful thing—to fix a problem. We get a lot of grief from this place, probably sometimes fairly, about being fixated on things that don’t actually matter that much—and maybe that’s true; maybe it isn’t—but this matters, this legislation matters, and this issue matters, and today we’re doing something about it, and that’s a good thing. It’s precisely what members’ bills should be about. It’s a very satisfying day.

Can I start by just acknowledging the three women that the Hon Deborah Russell noted, Ashley Jones, Charlotte Abrial, and Adele—who’s now read into the Hansard—for their courage and bravery and determination to try and make a difference for victims of family violence in the future seeking to get out of the marriage or the relationship. Can I acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark, who did the heavy lifting to introduce this bill into Parliament in the first place. I hadn’t actually realised until Deborah Russell mentioned it that it was the final members’ day before the 2023 election. I didn’t actually realise that. I’m sure that Angie is watching, and she should be proud of her work in introducing it to Parliament.

I think members might know that it was sort of an interesting process of events where Ashley came and saw me when I was the list MP based in Hutt South in 2021. I was actually looking up the news stories at the time—it was over three years ago; it was June 2021. She said, “I’ve had this idea, I’m going to do a petition.” I didn’t know that was the law—I mean, MPs can’t be expected to know everything about everything; there’s too much law already—and I couldn’t believe that you had to wait two years if you’re a victim of family violence. I just couldn’t believe it. I said, “That can’t be the case; it is the case”—but after today, it won’t be. She said, “I want to do a petition.”, and I said, “I’m very happy to support that, it’s a great idea.” We had over 5,000 people sign it, on the online petition. That was three years ago and I’ve been asked a bit by the media over the last couple of days why is it taking so long, and sometimes the wheels of justice move slowly and it’s been a bit frustrating.

Anyway, as she presented the petition, unbeknownst to me, Angie Warren-Clark was working on the issue as well and I didn’t know that, and then the bill got put into the ballot and then it got pulled. National was proud to support it back in 2023, and now, of course, it’s going to pass into law.

Can I thank the Justice Committee for their work on this bill. It’s a really good committee, very competent members of Parliament on the committee. I know they’re a very busy committee with the inquiry into the election and quite a bit of other law and order legislation making its way through—

James Meager: 21 bills.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: “21 bills”, says the chair—thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for your work and your support. Thank you to the Justice Committee. Thank you to Angie Warren-Clark. I want to thank Deborah Russell for picking it up. She’s been a very diligent, conscientious member in charge of the bill, so thank you.

It is a very satisfying day. Really, if you think about it and if you just step back a bit, what it’s actually about is fundamentally making a difference to reduce the harm caused by family violence and make it easier for, primarily, women who are the victims of family violence to move on—closure. It’s about closure and making it easier for people to not remain trapped in a relationship that has broken down in the worst way possible, for the worst reasons and in the worst way possible—making it easier for women to move on, gain closure, finality, and take the next step in their journey and their life.

I think that’s what it was about for Ashley, and I think it’s what it’s about for many women who have been through the enormous trauma of abuse or family violence, where the law says currently you have to remain tethered to your abuser for two more years until you can leave and formally make into law what is the practice—make the legal reality what is, in fact, the reality. That’s a really powerful thing—that’s a really powerful thing.

Today, we are righting a wrong. Deborah Russell talked about future reform to divorce law and she canvassed some of the history. That’s for another day, and reasonable people can disagree about some aspects of it, but what I don’t think people will disagree on is this change, and the fact that it’s passing the Parliament unanimously, I think, speaks to that. It’s interesting, whenever you raise it with people, people are quite staggered to discover it’s not the law. They expected that Parliament would have fixed this before now, and it turns out that we haven’t, but now we have an opportunity to do it.

I don’t want to take up much more of the House’s time. I know Ashley would tell me, “We just need to get on and pass it, it’s taken long enough already.”, and on that, I agree with her. I just want to acknowledge you, Ashley, and thank you for your support. It’s been wonderful to have you here over the last two or three years that this bill has been making its way through the process.

I want to acknowledge Deborah Russell: thank you for the bipartisan nature with which we’ve approached this issue. It’s been really heartening, actually, and it’s really, I think, proof positive that when Parliament turns its mind to something and wants to do the right thing, despite all the noise out there, actually, we can. It’s a really great thing.

Thank you, Deborah. Thank you, Ashley. Thank you, Charlotte. Thank you to Angie Warren-Clark as well. Today is a good day. It’s a satisfying day. We’re putting right what is a wrong, and I look forward to its passage through Parliament and then coming into force in due course. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora; thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m really happy to rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki, the Green Party, to offer our wholehearted support for this mahi. I want to begin by acknowledging the powerful wāhine who brought this to the House today and have endured over the last three years, just patiently waiting for this to happen—and to see the fruits of your labour, the fruits of your courage, the fruits of your bravery happening before us today. We lend our wholehearted support to your mahi and acknowledge you for all of the work. It would not have been easy to put yourself out there, to have your own personal stories out there in the media. That would have taken a huge amount of bravery, so thank you so much. As we’ve seen, every progressive step that we’ve seen in the prevention of family violence in this country has always been as a result of the courage and bravery of survivors like yourself. Thank you for your mahi.

I also want to thank the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for all of her mahi on this bill and bringing this forward, and Angie Warren-Clark and Chris Bishop as well for the collaborative mahi that we’ve seen here and for fronting up to the Justice Committee and answering some of our more detailed questions about what more we can do to improve the bill or not even necessarily the bill, but what we need to look to for the future to provide other means by which people can provide that evidence that family violence has occurred. We can have a world where there isn’t family violence and where there isn’t sexual violence, and it’s all of these incremental steps that will lead us to that point.

I’ll keep my contribution to the point and brief, but I’ll just say that this bill does mean a lot to me as the child of a solo mother who also escaped an abusive relationship. I know how difficult it can be particularly for those women to free themselves of the shackles and the binds that attach them to their abusers and to be able to move forward with their life without fear, without living in constant fear that they might be contacted or that there will be more opportunities for their abusers to be in contact with them and just more binds to those abusers. We really appreciate this bill.

What we would like to see next is whether we can incorporate different forms of evidence to prove that family violence has taken place. Obviously, this one focuses on protection orders, which is great. That’s one mechanism, but also how could we open up that scope of evidence to include things like written evidence from doctors or police or other trusted people that are involved in those processes. We can look at that evidence, but today is such a crucial and important first step towards that. We won’t solve it all today, but this is a really good and earnest step towards solving these issues.

When I looked at the Women’s Refuge website, I saw a figure that said that sometimes it can take women up to seven attempts on average to leave an abusive relationship. That just shows how deep some of those binds go. I think that this bill at least removes one barrier for those survivors and it makes it—for people experiencing abuse—a lot easier to unshackle themselves from that abuse.

As you know, I just want to mihi to my colleague Marama Davidson for all of the work she did around Te Aorerekura and looking at how we can totally eliminate family violence within our country. I just want to acknowledge that that strategy still stands and that we’re still looking at all different options and tools that there are available to eliminate family harm in this country.

Thank you to the wāhine who have spoken up and made this a reality. Thank you to Dr Deborah, to Angie, and to Chris Bishop for all of their mahi on this. I like to see that collaborative approach across the House, and I like to see the things that we can achieve when we put our politics aside and work together for something that I think we all want in this House, which is a world free from family violence. That is our contribution, and I’m proud to say that we fully support this bill. Kia ora.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support this bill. I would like to thank the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for the work she has done on this bill, and also Angie Warren‑Clark, the previous member in charge of this bill, and Dr Deborah Russell for carrying on with the workload that came with this bill going through the select committee process and then going through the second reading and now coming to the third reading. I want to acknowledge your efforts.

I heard that Ashley is in the gallery, so I want to acknowledge Ashley, and I also want to acknowledge Charlotte Abrial, as Dr Deborah Russell acknowledged. I want to acknowledge them and also want to acknowledge all other courageous women out there—those who have made efforts at their level. It takes the effort of many, many women for that to come to this level, so I want to acknowledge everybody who has worked in the background as well to ensure that this bill comes before Parliament and that we are at the stage where we are agreeing to pass this bill.

In short, this bill is to actually provide relief to victims of family violence, because this is to see that they are not tied in that relationship for two years and complying with that requirement of separation of two years before they can get a divorce. As the member from the Green Party said, it takes seven attempts for a victim to leave their relationship, and that is true. It is not an easy thing for anybody to leave their relationship. As humans, we have this nature where we always want outside to look as if everything is going fine, even if behind closed doors there is a lot of violence and a lot of suffering that goes on. As soon as we open those doors and come out in public, we want to pretend that everything is going fine behind those closed doors and nobody actually wants to admit it, because it’s not an easy thing.

I was chair of an NGO helping victims of domestic violence, and I didn’t work directly with any of those victims, but, obviously, because I was involved in that organisation, I used to hear a lot of stories. I also know that after women come out and seek help, then also the abusers, if they reach out to these women, they will try to mend the relationship, they would like to reconcile, and then they would like to behave as if nothing has happened. Then, after these women, these victims, go back, again, the abusers would come back to their original behaviour in just a few weeks’ time, and those women used to be back there seeking help again. Sometimes with this system, it feels that they are going through this process again and again, but I think it is really important for us to realise their situation and see what they are going through. This bill is going to provide huge relief to women—those who are really wanting to come out of that trap, come out of that relationship, and start their lives again.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Todd Stephenson, who is a member of the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge all of the members on the Justice Committee as well for their work on this bill. The changes that the select committee has made on this bill are really commendable. It actually really solves a lot of issues that were not originally addressed in the bill, and that is the job of the select committee process. This bill actually has come out looking much, much better, and it actually has covered a lot of ground.

It has also covered ground about what kind of protection orders are going to be considered as evidence in this case. It is quite clear that it is the final protection orders, not the temporary protection orders. Also, there were some discussions—as I have read the report and have seen—about if there was opportunity to broaden the kind of evidence that could be used in this process. I think the select committee landed at a very good decision that the idea of this bill is to not elongate the process. The idea of this bill is to simplify this process where there is a genuine reason for somebody to come out of that relationship. In that regard, the select committee has done a commendable job.

I want to again, finally, acknowledge Dr Deborah Russell and all those courageous women, those who worked behind the scenes to bring this bill to Parliament. The ACT Party supports this bill. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation, and I thank the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for her careful consideration of our amendment and, I hope, the appreciation of the concerns that we have on this legislation.

I suppose I would like to put some context in this legislation: we have an abhorrent amount of family violence in New Zealand. We know that, and we know that we need to do better in our protections. The tragedy of this legislation is that we have had women with protection orders in place who have not been protected. They have felt still under the control and bond of a relationship that they have exited and have still been under that level of control. Our concern in this legislation has been that even with a dissolution of marriage, it does not negate the need for a protection order to remain and it does not negate our responsibility as a country to ensure that we are doing better.

I suppose I would go back to my first encounter of this reality as a very young police officer when I was called to attend an incident where a woman had called the police because her ex-husband, who had just been released from prison after serving a life sentence or serving a serious sentence for the manslaughter of his second wife—within two days of being released from prison, he was back at the home of his first wife. Therefore, it showed to me that not only do protection orders, not only do dissolutions of marriage, not only does the threat of police presence, not only does the fact that she had moved and changed addresses provide or afford her the protection that was necessary in that case—and that instance is over 30 years ago, and I don’t think we have got much better.

The environment is such that we have serious issues with families that are broken, with women that are broken, but we also have an instance that men are broken. We have men and families that have no concept of what it is to be in a family, no concept of what it is to be in a loving, supportive relationship. Those are the areas that I think—this is not the end game, this is not the destination we need to be.

We support any protections that would give women the opportunity to feel safer and feel protected, but the concern in this conversation is that, at the same time, women will be making decisions in highly emotional and vulnerable times. As we said when we sought some sort of resolution to provide an assurance that women would be given, or the vulnerable person in the relationship would be given, protection—an assurance that they were given proper legal advice, that they were not making decisions about property, about support, about custody in an emotional state, and that the escalating of a dissolution created some vulnerability, that those decisions would be made at a volatile time.

That is all we’re seeking: to ensure that we are not, in the solution, creating further problems down the track; that we need to know that we are also working on a holistic approach. We have the family violence and sexual violence work programme that we are working on, and there are a number of areas we know we need to fix. But I have real concerns that we are seeing this as a solution, and I hope that is not the case; that we are seeing it as an important step and a protection and an assurance to brave women who have felt this terrible burden of the bond of a relationship, but that we need to continue to work on this space and make sure that women who are the subject of a protection order—or anyone who is subject of a protection order—know that the protection order means something, know that they do not have to live in fear, that we are doing better to ensure we’re doing more.

Not all relationships that are in this volatile and violent environment are marriages and, therefore, we need to be sure that we are balancing this conversation. The other concerns that we had are that we have allowed the protection orders to create that degree of separation, but when the protection orders are put in place, it is a volatile time, it is an emotional time, and we know there is generally an escalation of violence and concern at the time those protection orders are issued. If the protection order is seen as a flag to end the relationship completely, are we creating risk of escalating violence when there hasn’t been a cooling-off period before the dissolution of marriage?

I only say things like this out of caution. I only say this in the hope that we review this legislation; that we continue to review the impacts that are occurring; that we do things cautiously and with consideration; that we also look at the same time to the ways that we can strengthen families; that we can empower women, that we can make sure that they know that when a protection order is put in place, it means something and there are serious consequences for breaching it; that we also give an opportunity to those who are the perpetrators of violence to be given some level of intervention; and that we recognise that we need to rebuild families. We need to provide some level of support and counselling before the marriage has ended, because there have been instances—and I know this has occurred in my own family—where there has been a very volatile and turbulent relationship that, through alcohol help, drug rehabilitation, a whole range of counselling, a family has been turned around and saved.

I just hope, when we work through these processes, that we have a real recognition of the whole problem and that this is an important piece of legislation, and I acknowledge all of the people that worked towards bringing this legislation forward—it is important that you have the freedom to choose the dissolution of your marriage—but I want to know that you also, when you go down this path, have sufficient counselling, have sufficient legal representation so that you are not deprived of property, of financial interests, of custody rights, of all of the things that go towards the dissolution of a marriage.

I truly recognise the effort that was brought by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell and for Chris Bishop and the ladies who have helped this legislation become a reality, but I hope we continue to have a conversation. I hope we recognise that there is risk in what we’re proposing here and that we do work to stem that risk and we do the work that ensures that we are still recognising the importance and value of family, that families will go through terrible times, there will be horrible situations, but sometimes there’s an opportunity to rebuild.

I hope, as we do this piece of legislation, work forward, as we continue to focus on family violence, that we have a real chance to recognise that no family is beyond redemption and that we equally balance the ability to dissolve a marriage with the ability to rebuild a family, and as we move forward, that we recognise the importance of marriage, we recognise the importance and solidarity that comes from a strong family, and we do all we can to ensure that is protected, moving forward. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā hoki tātou. Kua riro māku ēnei kawenga o Te Pāti Māori e tuku ki to tātou Whare. Nō reira ka tukunga i runga i te reo Māori, i roto i te reo Māori, kia kitea ake rā te rerekētanga o te whakaaro Māori i tō te whakaaro Pākehā.

Inā tētahi kupu kōrero nō te iwi Māori e mea ana “Taku wahine pūrotu, taku tāne pūrotu, kōrua ko te tau e”. Inā anō hoki tētahi kōrero e mea ana “He wahine, he whenua, ngaro ai te tangata”. Arā kē pea te kōmata o ēnei kōrero e mea ana “He wahine, he tāne e ora ai te iwi”. Nō reira hei reira te pūnaha, hei reira te puna o te whakaaro nui o te iwi Māori ki ēnei momo whakaritenga, tōna manako nui he tiaki i te whānau.

Nō reira kia tiakina ngā whānau ka tika, taha tāne, taha wahine. Engari ko te mea nui ko te taha ki ngā uri, te taha ki ngā mokopuna, te taha ki te whānuitanga o te whānau e hōrapa nei i ngā tahataha o te tangata kotahi kia ea ai te kōrero “Ko taku toa, he toa takitini, he toa takimano”.

Nō reira kei te tautoko atu mātou i tēnei ture. Kei te whakanuia tonutia ngā ringaringa, ngā waewae i oti nei i a rātou te whakakaupapa i tēnei ture. Hei aha? Hei hāpai i te oranga o te tāngata ka tahi; o te whānau ka rua; otirā o ngā tamariki mokopuna ka maua ki te kupenga o aituā, o raruraru, o aha rānei.

Nō reira e tika ana ngā whakanikohanga kua oti nei i ngā komiti te rāwekeweke, kia kaua rā e āhei te kaupēhipēhi, te kaupatu rānei kia tūkinotia anō e te kaihara. He ara e whai mana ai te katoa. He ara e whai mana ai te taha ki te whānau, otirā te taha ki te tāngata, i te mea kua aupēhitia e tētahi atu.

Kāore au mō te kī atu nā te ringaringa o te tāne, nā te ringaringa o te wahine rānei. Engari i te mea kua aupēhingia. Kia ahatia? Kia whitikina ki te ora, kia kaua rā e noho ki te pōuriuri, e rua tau te roa, neke atu. Me tō tātou mōhio, mō te iwi Māori, ēnei tūāhuatanga ka taka mai i roto i te pōharatanga, ākina e te waipiro, e te tarutaru, e te kore mahi, ēnei tūāhuatanga katoa.

Ō tātou koroua i haere ki ngā pakanga o te ao, i hoki pakaru mai, kīhai i āwhinatia. Ko tō rātou āwhina kei te puna o te pounamu waipiro, nāwai nāwai ka heke mai he taonga tuku iho te inu waipiro me ngā mahi katoa haere tahi me ia.

Nō reira ehara tērā i te kaupare atu i te tikanga whakatika, whakarauora i tō tātou whenua, i tō tātou iwi Māori, otirā ngā tāngata katoa e noho nei i roto o Aotearoa. I te mea ehara i te mea ko te pōharatanga he taniwha ka ngau i te Māori anake, kao. Tērā tētahi tokomaha e noho nei i roto o Aotearoa e patua kinotia e te pōharatanga, ngā māmā, ngā pāpā, ngā whānau, ngā tamariki, ngā mokopuna, ēnei tūāhuatanga, ākina e te waipiro, ākina e te tarutaru, ākina e te kore mahi, ēnei āhuatanga.

Nō reira kei te tautoko ake Te Pāti Māori i tēnei o ngā pire e mea nei tēnei taha, oti nei te katoa, arahina e tētahi, me taku mōhio he pire ā-mema tēnei. Nā ka whai hua, ka whai hua ngā inoi a te tūmatanui o waho, i roto i ngā pire a ngā mema nei. Nō reira he akoranga, tāku e whakapae nei he akoranga kei roto. Nō reira kia kaha tātou ki te manaaki i te tono o te tūmatanui ki te whai i ngā tikanga i waiho mai e ngā mātua tīpuna o ngā taha e rua o tēnei Whare, me te whakairo i te ara e ora nei te katoa.

E āmine atu. Tēnā tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all. It has fallen to me to convey to our House the responsibilities of the Māori Party. And so they will be addressed on the foundation of the Māori language, in the Māori language, so that the differences between Māori and Pākehā thought processes can be seen.

There is a saying of the Māori people that says, “My beautiful lady, my handsome gentleman, both of you are beloved”. There is another saying that says “Women and land are worth a man’s life”. And perhaps the highest form of these expressions says, “By women and men together the people will be well”. So therein is the system, therein is the source of wisdom of the Māori people for these types of arrangements, its greatest desire is to protect the family.

So it is appropriate that the family should be protected, both male and female interests. But the most important thing is the interests of the descendants, the interests of the grandchildren, the interests of the entire family that is spread out on all sides of the individual so that the saying will be realised “My strength is that of many, that of thousands”.

So we support this legislation. We continue to honour those who worked so hard and were able to complete the formulation of this legislation. For what purpose? To promote the health of the people, in the first instance; secondly, of the family; indeed of the children and grandchildren that have been caught in the trap of calamity, of difficulty, and of whatever else.

And so the enhancements that the committees have crafted are appropriate so that oppression and assault are not enabled so that they can again be abused by the offender. This is a path on which all maintain their mana. A path on which mana is maintained with respect to the family, and the people, because they have been oppressed by another.

I’m not saying that it was done by the hand of a man or by the hand of a woman, but because they were oppressed. What is to be done? Transcend to health so that they don’t remain in darkness for two years or more. And we are aware that, for the Māori people, these circumstances fall out of poverty, assailed by alcohol, drug abuse, unemployment, all of these types of things.

Our forefathers that went to global conflicts returned broken, and they weren’t assisted. The help they received was at the bottom of a bottle of alcohol, and eventually alcoholism became an inherited problem, and all the activities that go along with that.

So that is not a deflection of restorative procedures, healing our country, our Māori people; indeed, all people that reside here in Aotearoa, because it is not like poverty is a demon that assails only the Māori people, no. There are many people that live here in Aotearoa that are seriously beset by poverty; the mothers, the fathers, the families, the children, the grandchildren, all of these, assailed by alcoholism, assailed by drug abuse, assailed by unemployment, all of these things.

So the Māori Party supports this bill so says this side, indeed all of us, led by one, and, as far as I know, this is a member’s bill. And it will be of benefit, it will bring to fruition the requests of the public outside, within these members’ bills. And so there are lessons here, I put forward that there are lessons in this. And so let us all strongly support the requests of the public to follow the procedures that were left to us by the forbears of both sides of this House, and to carve a path by which all will benefit.

I am in support. Greetings to us all.]

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill.

I acknowledge, as the speakers before me already have, the genesis of the bill. I think it’s important, particularly as parliamentarians, that we do acknowledge the members of the public and ordinary New Zealanders who take it upon themselves to create extraordinary change. I certainly pay tribute to you, Ashley Jones, Charlotte Abrial and Adele for the work that you’ve done. I pay tribute to all the 5,000 people who’ve signed the petitions, and I pay tribute to all 32 of the Justice Committee submissions. I think being involved in the democratic process is a really great way to make change and we’re seeing it happen today; although, it has taken quite some time. I think the ability of ordinary citizens to create extraordinary change is something that we need to celebrate and it’s something that not every country is able to do.

I’m a member of the Petitions Committee and we were visited by a delegation from Laos and I think they were quite amazed at the level of access that the people had in New Zealand to change the law and to access their elected representatives. In that vein, I want to acknowledge the elected representatives whose work has led us to this point: the Hon Chris Bishop for receiving this petition; Angie Warren-Clark; the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for continuing this work; James Meager for chairing the select committee; the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual violence, Karen Chhour; the previous Minister, Marama Davidson; and the previous under-secretary, Jan Logie.

I’m really happy that the House is coming together on this. As the Minister the Hon Casey Costello said—and this is probably one of the few times that a Green MP will agree with something that Casey Costello said—this is, and should be seen, as a first step, an important first step, towards solving this issue. I’m sure we can all agree that this is just a step towards the broader problem of addressing family and intimate partner violence, but, none the less, a very important one because we shouldn’t need to wait two years to separate from abusive partners. This bill changes that. This bill is an important step towards removing those kinds of levers of control that violent and abusive people do exercise towards their partners, whether they’re male, female, or non-binary.

I want us as a House to consider the other factors that do exacerbate violence, and I do want us as a House to work together to continue to overcome and address some of those factors that do cause and exacerbate family violence. I want to ask: are we, as a Parliament and as a society, doing everything we can to ensure that victims of family and partner violence are provided access to assistance and support? Yes, family violence protection services, Women’s Refuge, women’s shelters, men’s shelters, and help signs, but also material support to enable people to transition people out of these violent situations. Are we, as a Parliament and society, doing everything we can to minimise the socio-economic conditions that exacerbate family violence? I was reading a paper earlier today in preparation for this speech and I think there was something that was quite alarming: every percentage point that unemployment increases is correlated with an increase in men being violent to their partners. We can’t just divorce what’s happening in households to the conditions of the wider society. This is the most important thing of all: are we building a just society that upholds and enhances the dignity of everyone, particularly our most vulnerable? I think all members would agree with me that we do want to see more action, that we all can do better.

Again, I want to pay tribute to those who brought this petition here: Ashley Jones, Charlotte Abrial, and Adele. Thank you for the work that you’re doing. And thank you to all the members for working together on this very important first step so that we can overcome the scourge of violence in our society.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): The current law requiring a two-year wait period before you grant divorce in cases of family violence is not just outdated; it is dangerous. It keeps victims tethered to their abusers, prolonging their trauma, and it puts lives at risk.

As we’ve heard in submissions from submitters and from experts in the field, the period immediately following separation is one of the most dangerous and volatile periods that there can be for family violence. By mandating a two-year wait, we have run the risk of extending this period of heightened risk up until today.

This bill seeks to change that. By allowing for the immediate dissolution of a marriage or civil union upon the granting of a final protection order, we are granting victims a clear path to safety and to freedom. We are saying unequivocally that the State will not be complicit in keeping victims bound to their abusers.

Today is the conclusion of a long journey for victims of domestic violence and for the advocates for survivors of domestic abuse. Today represents a small but significant step towards empowering those trapped in abusive and violent relationships to extricate themselves, to break free from control and abuse, and to regain autonomy of their own lives. Importantly, this legislation does represent a collaborative, cross-party effort to continue to combat family violence and protect those most vulnerable in our society.

We all know here that family violence is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach. This bill is not all of the solution; it is an important piece of the puzzle, though. By removing this barrier to leaving abusive relationships, we are sending a powerful message to those in those relationships, and that message is that we believe them, we support them, and we will not let legal technicalities stand in the way of their safety and their freedom.

It is worth noting that this legislation today has received broad support from across the political spectrum and from a wide range of community organisations. That consensus reflects the urgency and importance of this issue. It shows that when it comes to protecting the vulnerable and standing against family violence, we can come together to find common ground, and many speakers today have referred to that very point.

Like many of those speakers in the House today, I did want to acknowledge those individuals whose courage and determination have brought us to this: Charlotte Abrial; Ashley Jones in the gallery, who initiated petitions calling for this change; and another name to read into the Hansard is Adele, as Dr Russell mentioned earlier on. It is their bravery and their willingness to share their stories and their experiences of the abuse that they suffered, the sense of being trapped and shackled in relationships which were controlling and manipulative, which have enabled this change. By custom, we tend not to address visitors in the gallery, but I’m hopeful that we can relax that custom somewhat today so that we can acknowledge those true drivers of change—the Charlottes, the Ashleys, and the hundreds of others who have advocated and supported change for many years.

Change can take a long time and sometimes it seems frustrating that appeals to Parliament seem hopeless and fruitless, but the efforts of the likes of Ashley and Charlottee and Adele show that change is possible through the democratic process in this House. A petition can lead to a member’s bill, which can lead to scrutiny by a select committee, which can lead to positive law change that we are seeing in the House today. I’d like to say to those people that their voices have been heard and their advocacy has made a real difference.

Like many others today, I’d also like to acknowledge the hard and collaborative work of the Justice Committee. No doubt, anybody who experiences legislation done by committee can experience the frustration of trying to get things perfect and trying to produce a law which avoids all unintended consequences.

No doubt, there will be some people out there today who feel that this bill doesn’t go far enough. We’ve heard a bit of that today as well. I think, during the select committee process, of some of those proposed changes around the evidence requirements that were mentioned by Tamatha Paul; concerns about whether people will be rushed into decisions about relationships that might have impacts on spousal maintenance or property or custody. But underlying all those concerns, we must always be aware that, in striving to achieve perfection in bills, we’ve got to keep in mind the policy intent, which is to protect and support those in abusive relationships, to regain control of their lives and not be told by the State that they must remain legally connected to their abuser. Every individual and every free adult has the right to associate and not associate as they see fit within reasonable limited justifications. In my view, giving the State control over whether you remain legally connected to an abuser is not a justified limit on that freedom, and today that will change.

We have heard some criticisms throughout the process about the bill overturning our no-fault divorce system and slowly eating away at that otherwise clean system, but, of course, we don’t actually have a no-fault dissolution system. There is a requirement in our divorce and separation laws that couples must prove irreconcilable difference before they can obtain absolution. The only way to demonstrate irreconcilable differences is two years of not only emotional separation but physical separation. Yet we don’t stipulate those same controls or protections in place when people enter into relationships. In fact, we don’t even require formal documentation for legal obligations to arise in the case of de facto relationships. It is almost as though it takes two minutes to tie the knot but two years to break the shackles. I’m not entirely convinced that the State should continue to play such a controlling role over relationships and over our private lives, especially when violence and especially when abuse is present. Perhaps there is scope for further progress in this area, but perhaps that will also need to wait for another day.

Like others before me, I will acknowledge the Hon Chris Bishop, who supported Ashley’s petition, who raced Angie Warren-Clark to get a bill into the ballot, and who was pipped at the post. I’ll also acknowledge Ms Warren-Clark for her contribution in getting the bill in the tin and into the House. I wanted to pay particular respect to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, who has brought the bill through the House from Ms Warren-Clark. Dr Russell joined our committee on a number of occasions as we considered the bill, and I always found her contributions, at all times, of the highest quality, always insightful and thoughtful, and we were very grateful for her contribution and her advocacy on this issue and on this bill. It’s fair to say that New Lynn was very well represented on our committee, actually, with both Dr Russell and the member for New Lynn, my colleague Paulo Garcia, being a permanent member of the Justice Committee. The folks in West Auckland should rest assured that they are very, very well represented in this House by two very capable and competent advocates in their area.

I, finally, wanted to just acknowledge the tireless work of our front-line services and our front-line workers—those in Women’s Refuge, Victim Support, the National Council of Women, women’s organisations, men’s organisations, and countless others across the country who work every day in stopping-violence programmes and in family protection programmes. They are the ones who support victims of family violence, day in and day out. They are the ones who know that this legislation will be another small tool to help protect women, families, and men who are victims of violence. I want to acknowledge their advocacy throughout the submission process, their contributions, which have also led to progress in other areas of protection in the law, including stalking laws, which the Government has indicated it will be introducing later on this term. That is another outcome from the submission process that we can draw our attention to and point to as a positive, another contribution that the likes of Ashley have made to this House.

As we move forward, we must continue to work on making protection orders more accessible and more equitable. I think we should consider the recommendations from the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group’s report, which have suggested streamlining and reducing costs for protection orders and applications. Of course, our work is not done. Passing this bill is an important step but it must be part of a continued commitment from all of us to address family violence in all forms. We must remain vigilant. We must be ready to make further changes as are needed. We must commit to working together and commit to providing the resources necessary to make these legal protections a reality on the ground. This bill does represent progress. It represents compassion. It represents our commitment as a society to stand against family violence and to support victims of family violence.

I want to address those who may be listening who are currently in abusive relationships. This legislation is for them. It is a recognition of their struggles and it is a tool to help them find safety. I want them to remember that a protection order or a dissolution of marriage is just a small part of that journey. There are services and support available for them at every step. Please reach out. Please ask for help. They are not alone. There is more to be done, and we here across the House are ready to do it. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. This is a good bill that intends to reduce the harm that family violence causes in New Zealand families, by allowing a party to a marriage or to a civil union to be able to apply for an order dissolving that marriage or union if they have been a victim of family violence inflicted by the other party in the relationship.

I’d just like to acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark, who supported, during her previous work with Women’s Refuge, also a whole range of women and families experiencing family violence—the support she gave—and she also took that experience and brought it to this House. I’d like to acknowledge Deborah Russell, who took this bill up and continued to pursue it through the House, and I’d like to acknowledge all the parties that are voting in favour of this bill today. I’d like to also acknowledge all those victims of family violence, including those women that inspired this bill. Your continued fight for having greater rights for victims in New Zealand takes another step forward today.

As already noted, there is support right across the House for this bill, and we’ve also seen support across the House for work kicked off by Labour and the Greens, Te Aorerekura, which is New Zealand’s first national plan for reducing family and sexual violence. It’s really important that we continue to have cross-party agreement on big issues such as family violence in New Zealand, but with that comes a word of caution, when we’re operating currently in an environment where police are now attending calls of family violence only if there is a high level of risk or threat to life or a seriousness that reaches a threshold, which no one can explain clearly and that must be very difficult to ascertain for a 111 call responder via telephone—to try and ascertain what the level of risk is.

On top of that withdrawal of services we’ve seen by police due to pressure on the front line, we’ve also seen a retraction of Government funding in the area of Oranga Tamariki preventative contracts that go into those whānau who are, more often than not, experiencing high levels of family violence and provide essential services such as counselling and support for families to be able to work with children and to enable children to remain within their whānau and not be uplifted due to unacceptable levels of either family or sexual violence. The withdrawal and the ending of many of those contracts compounds with police withdrawing from attending non - threat-to-life family violence call outs.

This, for me, raises real alarm bells for us here in New Zealand if we are serious about making our country violence-free for the next generation of rangatahi, for young New Zealanders. When someone reaches out for help in New Zealand, when someone is a victim of family violence, we need to be able to respond, and currently in New Zealand, there has been no additional resourcing for family violence support services to fill the gap left by those cuts to Oranga Tamariki and left by that withdrawal of service by New Zealand Police. That means we do have young people growing up in New Zealand being exposed to unacceptable levels of family violence on a day-to-day basis. I believe it is unacceptable that violence is normalised in young people’s lives. It contributes to a whole range of negative factors, and it also drives crime within New Zealand. If this Government was truly serious about reducing crime, it would also take family violence more seriously than just voting for a member’s bill.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I join others in rising to support this third reading of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. As the Hon Chris Bishop said earlier, what a satisfying day this is in Parliament, and this is all about the essence of Parliament coming together to fix a problem. I want to commend and acknowledge the three brave women that have done a lot of the heavy lifting in those early days with their advocacy and their work: Charlotte, Ashley, and Adele.

It goes to show, also, the work that a member of the public can actually do and the results that they can achieve when there seems—as all of us MPs get it from time to time—a level of cynicism in the community, period. That when you suggest, “Oh, why don’t you write to your MP?” or “Why don’t you make a submission?” or “Why don’t you put in a petition or why don’t you take it further?”” that, “Oh, nothing will change. I’m too small and too small a cog in the wheel to make change.” Well, Ashley Jones, in particular, has made a real case for others that if you’re prepared to do the work, you can change laws in the New Zealand Parliament through advocacy and through working with members of Parliament.

I want to acknowledge also Angie Warren-Clark, the former Labour member who introduced this bill just before the Parliament finished up in 2023; and our colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, who shepherded it through the Justice Committee in the past 12 months. She conscientiously worked alongside the Justice Committee in a—as has been acknowledged—bipartisan and productive way to get this in as good a shape as a bill could be to make it legislation.

Just to take people back—because I always think it’s important that everyone makes a slightly different contribution so that those that might be listening on radio or in the gallery or watching Parliament TV get a sense of just what’s come together to produce this third reading; this piece of legislation—I go back to the petition on the parliamentary website of Ashley Jones in 2021: “Change our archaic divorce laws so abuse victims can be free of their abuser”. Petition request: “That the House of Representatives review our current divorce laws in New Zealand and consider changing them.”

Petition reason: “Abuse is about power and control. I strongly believe that the laws stating I must be separated for 2 years before my marriage can be dissolved have allowed many occasions of power and control. It feels like the system has allowed him to abuse me further. We as a country pride ourselves on being anti domestic violence, yet I feel our laws are allowing it. We care about mental health, but being stuck in this state of limbo is damaging mine. Other countries have made [changes]; it’s our turn now.” So that was the purpose of the petition; that was the title of the petition back in 2021. According to the parliamentary website, the number of signatories was 5,310.

As well as that, I want to give an example not only of a member of the public or members of the public doing some of the heavy lifting but, really, the role of an MP in responding to that and taking it a step further. I want to read out an excerpt from Chris Bishop’s Facebook back in June 2021—and there’s a picture here of the Hon Chris Bishop and Ashley Jones. Chris is in a blue top, by the look of it.

“Meet Ashley”, says Chris on Facebook underneath that picture. “Did you know that in New Zealand, you need to be separated for 2 years before you can file for a divorce, even in the case of family violence?

“Ashley wants to change that and she’s put forward a petition to Parliament … which I’ll be proud to present to Parliament soon. [Link in the comments]

“Ashley has very bravely put herself forward as someone who has been affected by abuse within a marriage. She says that the current law allows abusers to continue to have power over former partners for up to two years, and that in some cases it keeps people in abusive relationships because it feels like there is no way out, or causes those that do try leave to be sucked back in by their abuser.

“Lots of other countries have exceptions to the stand down period for divorce for those that have suffered domestic violence. If you agree, please sign Ashley’s petition.

“The petition closes on 22 June [2021] and after that I will present it to Parliament.”

As they say, the rest is history.

I just thought it was important to take you through that early process and how it can be done on other aspects of our law in many different areas, in many different fields where the public can still put up legislative change. That is the benefit of private members’ bills—now commonly known as members’ bills—where if something has seemingly fallen through the cracks almost or hasn’t been acknowledged, a petition like Ashley’s can be positively responded to. This amendment bill, as we see today, will pass its third reading unanimously, by the look, across the House.

The National Party supports this bill as it introduces measures that make it easier to get a divorce in the case of family violence—that is the bottom line. We also, as has been alluded to by others, acknowledge the appalling rates of family and domestic abuse in this country, and we all know across this House that we want to address that and get better results for New Zealand families and New Zealand children. As has also been said, our work is not done. This is important to this Government. Hence, you see it as the fourth out of nine Government public sector targets where we want to reduce the number of victims of violent crime—people who are victims of assault, robbery, or sexual assault, for example—by 20 fewer victims.

This Government is committed to not only joining the forces across Parliament and around Parliament today in passing this legislation that Ashley and others have advocated for some years now but we are committed as a Government to making sure that the fights that we had during the election, with the public where they told us that they wanted us to crack down on the escalating criminal activities and level of violence and level of retail crime and level of assaults and level of serious assaults, ram raids, family violence—the public sent a clear message to this Parliament. While we acknowledge the success of getting this over the line shortly, our work has just begun.

I wanted to finish by assuring the House that this Government—a coalition Government of National, ACT, and New Zealand First—is absolutely committed to carrying on the work of cracking down on law and order, of getting some results for the New Zealand public, and of making New Zealand community and family a safer place for future generations. I commend the bill.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s a funny day in many ways when we’re doing something as important as this. I can imagine for those looking on for whom it’s been a long journey through what’s a pretty labyrinthine process to find themselves here and hear these speeches which, to be honest, are a little bit repetitious, because we do all agree with the process here.

In some ways, what’s going on in this place right here today is a bit of a formality. It’s an important formality, but I think it’s really important to recognise that this process—this formal process here today—actually represents a huge amount of work by a large array of people, and, most importantly, those women who came to this House and presented a petition and really just asked—I mean, what a great democracy we have when someone can come to this House and say, “Look, I think this is wrong. Can you fix it?” And someone picks it up and says, “You know, I think we can.”

As many have said, this is only one small part of what we need to fix, not only in all of New Zealand but just in the whole sphere of domestic violence. I’m proud of what the last Government and my colleagues and colleagues in the Green Party have done and are doing in the domestic violence space, with things like Ginny Andersen’s stalking bill, which the Minister of Justice has picked up and said he’s going to actually progress as a Government issue; and, of course, Angie Warren-Clark, who brought this bill to the House, and Deborah Russell, who pursued it; and the domestic violence leave bill, which I think Jan Logie brought and was picked up by the then Government as well—all really important things.

I think what this does—and what this bill, in particular, does—is kind of shift the thinking around what domestic violence is and what its consequences are and recognise that physical violence is only a small fraction of the harm that comes from domestic violence. Controlling behaviours and that kind of exertion of control from a distance, which is exactly what this bill is seeking to address, is as harmful in many ways as the physical violence itself, and as oppressive, and interferes with the leading of a normal and fruitful life just as much. This is just a small step. This is a formality, but an important one.

I just want to recognise once more the hard work that’s been done by everyone who’s contributed to this process. Along with the rest of the House, I won’t take up any more time, but I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and stand in support of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill at its third reading, and I just wanted to reassure the member opposite, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, that this won’t be a repetitive speech because I have not spoken on this bill in this debate.

Look, this is a good change. It’s one tool in the toolbox to help those with domestic violence issues to gain freedom and move on. It’s a change that I think most New Zealanders would be shocked to learn isn’t already law, because of our high rates of domestic violence in New Zealand. We have one of the worst rates of domestic violence in the OECD. There’s about one-third of all family violence that’s reported, which means that two-thirds of all family violence in this country is not. Police attend a family violence episode every four minutes in this country, and 16 percent of all front-line police call outs are, in fact, related to domestic violence. Two-thirds of all family violence incidents have children present. The impacts of domestic violence are hugely disproportionate for Māori, for those with disabilities, and for children, with deep social and mental costs, not to mention economic costs.

This is a good change to enable the dissolution of a marriage without evidence within two years. It will enable those who have been through domestic violence to have the opportunity to break away and apply for divorce immediately, thereby freeing themselves of the harm and the pain that they’ve gone through.

We must do better as a society—we must do better as a society. We must move away, in my view, from the view that this is OK and thinking that “I’m a victim, and it’s OK for me to do this.” It is not OK to have domestic violence of any form—physical, mental, or other. Us men have to do better. We’ve got to do better in terms of role-modelling better behaviour, and we have to do a better job of taking personal responsibility for our actions, right across this country.

It is my privilege to commend this bill. I just want to acknowledge, of course, everybody that’s been in the discussion in the debate which I’ve heard today. It has been very moving. To all the petitioners—Ashley Jones, Charlotte, and Adele—thank you. To Angie Warren-Clark and Dr Deborah Russell, Chris Bishop, the hard-working Justice Committee, and all the petitioners—this is the result of your actions in signing those petitions, year in, year out. It has led us to this law change today, at the third reading.

I think the vision is quite clear for what we want the future of our country to look like: a safer country. For me, on this side of the House, it’s a country where personal responsibility is at the fore of all human interactions, and a society where there is zero tolerance of domestic violence. With that, I wish to commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s getting quite late in the process and I’m very conscious about not unnecessarily delaying this formality, as my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb described it, or standing between the celebration that all of the people who have been involved in this process very richly deserve to have. I will be very brief, I promise. I just want to say a couple of things and then also pass on my thanks to all the people that are involved.

I think the no-fault system—if we cast our minds back, some of us—was introduced in the 1980s; in 1980, I believe. As laws often do, it improved the previous situation where the judge no longer had to consider the role of one party or another and who was at fault. Our divorce law is more than 40 years old now, and, as has been noted by several people who have made contributions through this process, it does need to be reviewed and it does need to be looked at. But that is not for today.

Today, we are thinking about this particular bill, the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I think that so many other people have very eloquently summed it up and have provided illustrative examples and provided nuance and perspective that I’m sure the Hansard will reveal, in due course, as being a worthwhile debate.

As a society, it sort of beggars belief that we’ve got to this stage and still rely upon those antiquated ways of thinking, but it’s part of a much bigger suite of antiquated ways of how we position intimate relationships and violence and dependency and gender roles and all those various sorts of things. I very much look forward to the fact that this bill—whilst it’s profound, while it’s impactful, and while it’s really important—may kick off a wider conversation about various other things.

I would like to acknowledge the Justice Committee. I would like to very, very sincerely, and most importantly, acknowledge Charlotte, Ashley, and Adele for all that they have done. I think it would probably be with the passing of time that they will fully appreciate their contribution, because I’m sure, at the moment, it feels as if a small thing has happened and, as time passes, they will realise that it’s a very large thing indeed.

I’d like to tautoko my colleagues the Hon Deborah Russell and the Hon Chris Bishop for what they said in the House today, and to particularly acknowledge the Hon Deborah Russell for her work that she has done in shepherding this bill through, very graciously always acknowledging everybody else’s contribution. That’s much appreciated. And, importantly, I just also want to acknowledge and congratulate Angie Warren-Clark. This was a real passion for her, and if she sees something is wrong, she’s one of those people that inevitably has to correct a wrong. She was very passionate and really proud to put this bill in the biscuit tin and very proud when it was pulled from the tin, and she got, I think, the privilege of being able to introduce it on that last day of the previous Parliament. So congratulations to everybody. It’s a good day, and I hope everybody is able to celebrate in their own way. I commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as the final contribution in this long journey for many women and men and children—but in particular, women, if you would allow me to say—across New Zealand and across the world, those that are the victims of family violence in its many forms. It’s a sombre conversation we’re having today, and rightfully so. It’s created a sombre mood because family violence is sombre. Family violence is one of those things that affects so many people and, for the most part, they travel through their days as though they’re not experiencing it, because you’ve got to put on a smile for the world.

I’m Lebanese. I was raised in a Lebanese traditional Catholic household, and I remember going to my Lebanese Catholic school in Punchbowl in Sydney back in the day when divorce was absolutely taboo. Of course, we’ve moved from that, in many respects, but I remember the few friends that I had in school whose mothers did insist that they leave their husbands for reasons of family violence, and the stigma that was attached to them because of the views of society.

We need people that are brave to call out that stigma and to say that stigma shouldn’t exist. We need people like Ashley Jones—thank you for being in the gallery again today—and that courage that I referred to in my second speech on this bill because some people don’t have that strength, because of the circumstances they find themselves in.

Family violence is about harming, it’s about controlling behaviour. What can this look like? It can be physical, it can be emotional, it can be psychological, financial, sexual, a combination of all of these. It could be as simple as giving someone the silent treatment for two years. Controlling behaviour; what can that look like? That can look like making sure a partner knows the password of their spouse’s phone, checking messages, checking social media pages, telling the partner what he or she should not wear, telling them who they should be hanging out with, who they should be having coffees with, who’s allowed to come home and visit them, telling them that they’re not allowed to watch TV—in fact, they should be doing other things—and telling them many times in a way that’s aggressive or passive aggressive. That’s what controlling can look like.

When I reflected on Minister Bishop’s first speech with respect to this bill, the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill, the Hon Chris Bishop referred to culture change. He said—if I may quote—“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 … used to say, it will take a lot of cultural change as well.” My colleague Dan Bidois, the MP for Northcote, referenced that, but there’s a lot that we can do. There’s a lot that the gentlemen—or not so gentle men—in Aotearoa can do with respect to leading that cultural change. Again, I thank you, Ashley Jones, for being one of those leaders in this kaupapa.

Essentially, if we can wrap up for anyone listening from home, watching from home, this legislation, as we mentioned, was introduced into the House by MP Angie Warren-Clark, the former Labour MP, but there’s a lot of people that really put their hands together to make it what it is and to get it to where it is. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in this regard as well, and the Hon Chris Bishop.

As we’ve mentioned before, but I think it’s important in our wrapping up, the intention of this amendment bill is quite clear and quite succinct: to amend the Family Proceedings Act 1980, and the amendment will be that a party to a marriage or a civil union who has been the victim of family violence—who finds themselves the victim of family violence inflicted by the other party in the relationship—can apply for an order from the Family Court to dissolve their marriage or civil union, and that is to get a divorce without having to wait, as they do now, for two years to pass. This bill will remove the requirement for these parties to live apart for two years before a dissolution can be acquired.

In researching more and deeper about the need for this change, it’s interesting, and if someone has a spare 10 minutes on their hands, they can look back to the history of divorce law in New Zealand. It was referred to as divorce in the past, but then it became dissolution of marriage. It kind of started around 1867, formally, technically, and people had to, basically, go through Parliament, at first, to get a divorce. I’m sorry to my male colleagues in the House, but women, you know, men could get divorced from women if they were unfaithful, but women couldn’t necessarily get divorced from men on those grounds, and I’m not saying that I’m condoning any type of unfaithfulness, but that was the case, and we’ve come a long way. Then, in 1981, the Family Proceedings Act 1980 came into effect and it moved divorce from the High Court to the newly created Family Court—just a bit of history there. From that date, for legal purposes, divorce became known as how we’ve been referring to it, as “dissolution of marriage”, again in the Family Court.

As we conclude this final contribution on this bill, I would like to say that, on a personal level, as I’ve mentioned, I was raised in a household where divorce isn’t very common, and I’d like to read a quote, if I may, because I understand and I agree that in the situations that we’ve canvassed over the three stages of this bill, there’s an absolute need for this change to take place. But I’ve also seen families that try and work through it together, and this is where this quote comes to mind, a quote by Mother Teresa: “It is easy to love the people far away. It is not always easy to love those close to us. It is easier to give a cup of rice to relieve hunger than to relieve the loneliness and pain of someone unloved in our own home. Bring love into your home for this is where our love for each other must start.”

I encourage people to step out of themselves and look into themselves—are they abusing? Are they the perpetrators of violence?—and think about quotes like that. Thank you, Ashley. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. We come first to clause 1. This is the debate on clause 1, the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I had planned to speak to this by, really, prefacing my remarks in a contribution and then having some questions for the member Katie Nimon. I don’t want to dwell on this too long, because the committee will be aware that we do support the member’s bill, but I’m really just wanting to get a sense from her how it will work in relation to other processes involving mental health strategy and also in the current context. What I’m hoping to do is to preface my questions with some remarks and then to keep this fairly brief.

First of all, I’d like to congratulate the member Katie Nimon on shepherding this member’s bill, which she inherited from the now Minister Matt Doocey, and for getting the support of the House. We do support the bill. When I look at the title, which I will come to, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill—just to preface my question around that title with the context that this sits and will sit alongside a number of other strategies under the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act, including population groups; so New Zealanders, Māori, Pacific, disabled communities, women’s communities, and rural.

When I look at the title, “Mental Health Outcomes”, it immediately stands out that this is not a strategy that sits with a population group. It is something different and distinct. This is why Labour didn’t actually have a mental health strategy in the first place. We did consider it seriously when we were in Government and decided that because the first strategy applies to all New Zealanders—that is, a New Zealand health strategy—it would deviate somewhat to have a health strategy for mental health, which we feel cuts across the whole of the health sector.

Then I look at the principles, which are around equity, access, cohesion, and being people-centred, sustainable, and responsive to needs. The changes that we made in the Health Committee certainly try to achieve that. Members will be aware that there are changes, to the word “wellbeing” rather than to “addiction”, and various other changes that we suggested.

All in all, we do think this is in a good shape and we do congratulate the member and we do want to work constructively. What we would like to seek from the member out of today’s short session really is an understanding of, well, three things. The first one is related to the independence of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. Originally, as the bill was drafted, the commission would not have been independent and it would have been considered a health entity, which would have required it to be a Government entity. What I’m asking the member, really, is: can she provide whatever assurance she can as a member, even though she is not the Minister, first, that that was unintended in her drafting, and, secondly, around her commitment and her Government’s commitment to the independence of that entity?

My second question relates to the ability of the Government—given that the Government policy statement (GPS) is required to take into account these health strategies. How does the member see this particular strategy—the mental health outcomes, as it is in the title—fitting into the Government policy statement, given that that statement has already been articulated, and, in her opinion, how does it render the usefulness of this bill?

Then my final comment—which will really save us having to jump up and down; I know that this is a wide interpretation of the title—is: how does the member see the mental health outcomes of the strategy being able to be fulfilled in an environment where there are workforce freezes, where the Minister has not taken advice from officials as to the impact of Oranga Tamariki and disability cuts on the mental health sector, which is evidenced in Official Information Act request 67722. I realise that the member isn’t responsible for that, but I think that we would like to hear how she sees this strategy being able to be reconciled in that context: front-line freezes and the timeliness aspect when we’ve got people in the South, young people, who are not meeting the requirement to be seen by specialists within the three weeks set by the mental health Minister.

Those are just a few examples. I realise that the member will be hard-pressed—[Time Expired] Mr Chair, may I continue?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Bear in mind we are on the title.

INGRID LEARY: Yep. If the member can answer those questions, I really feel that that’s probably as much as she can do, being a member’s bill, and so I won’t be offering any further contributions or questions. I just think it’s important to get a sense from the member how she sees this bill contributing to mental health strategy given those various comments around the GPS, and also her commitment, on behalf of her Government, to the extent she can as a member, to the ongoing independence of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that clauses 1 to 8 and the Schedule stand part.

Clauses 1 to 8 and the Schedule

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): It’s a great pleasure to rise in support of my colleague Katie Nimon member’s bill, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. I was ready and rearing to go to have a lengthy, full-on debate about the title of the bill, clause by clause, but it looks like we’re going to have to start with a broader, wider, encompassing overview of the bill as a whole, as happens when we take all these clauses as one question. Can I start by congratulating the member in charge of the bill both for her good fortune and also for her stewardship and dogged determination in bringing this bill through the House. It is quite cheeky that a member in their first term gets to have a bill not only pulled from the ballot but progress its way through the House too, and, hopefully, into law in no time. Congratulations to Ms Nimon on her success. May it be the first of many, many bills to come.

This is, of course, a bill aimed at improving the healthy futures of our nation and of Kiwis in New Zealand by improving mental health outcomes. Of course, one of the first steps that this Government took to improve mental health outcomes was to appoint the country’s very first mental health Minister. It’s no coincidence that the very first mental health Minister, Minister Matt Doocey, was in fact the author of this bill. It may come as a surprise or as a shock to many in this House that the now Minister of Mental Health was, in fact, the author of this bill and, in fact, had this bill in the ballot in the previous Parliament, before it was drawn and handed over to Ms Nimon. I wanted to start just by giving that wider context, too. This is a Government which is dedicated and committed to improving the mental health outcomes of all New Zealanders, starting right at the top, with the country’s very first dedicated Minister for Mental Health.

With that, I wanted to start by asking the member in charge of the bill—and I’m aware that she doesn’t actually have any officials with her, so it may take some time and some process to get through the questions, because, of course, she’s doing this under her own steam and doesn’t have an army of thousands of officials behind her. I’ll start with some very broad, helpful, welcoming—easy, maybe—questions to ease our way into this very robust and long debate tonight. The first one was: just generally, what is the genesis of the bill? Why is this bill important to New Zealanders? We’re talking about the entire bill. If you can give us a very, very good, in-depth run through in your mind of why the bill is needed. What difference is it going to make to those New Zealanders who are faced every day with mental health challenges, as they get up, hopefully on their way to work, trying to graft and make a living but are faced with some of the most serious mental health concerns that we may face?

In fact, I think we are still, as a country, not quite at the point where we treat mental health the same as physical health, so I’m glad that we are here today having this debate and, in fact, recognising that part of this is to insert a mental health and wellbeing strategy and to try to lift the profile of mental health so that it is treated the same as physical health, so that if you are having a bad day at work, people are willing to talk about it as though you have sprained an ankle or you have perhaps dislocated a knee or a patella—that people are willing to talk about that and are willing to encourage their colleagues to be open about their mental health. I’d thought I’d start with that question to the member in charge. What is the genesis of the bill? Why is it important for the committee to support it? Why is it important to go through, as I believe your intention is, without any further change? Why should we be supporting it tonight? And I look forward to your answer on that one.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I call Dr Ayesha Verrall.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you. It’s always a pleasure to have one of my titles announced in the House! Congratulations to the member on bringing this bill. I’m sure it will do a lot of good. I have one question, which is the question I raised at select committee and also mentioned in my second reading speech—so I’ll ask it again—which is: is there any intention from the Government to modify the Government policy statement (GPS) during this term of Government? Understanding the answer to that question helps us know what the likely impact of this bill would be. The GPS lasts for three years. Once a strategy is written, nothing happens to it unless it is reflected in the GPS. That is the marching orders the Minister gives to health services. So, unless there’s a modification to the Government policy statement based on the consultation and contents of the strategy, it won’t help people in the community unless that happens. My only question about this bill—which, in all other respects, I believe is a very good bill—is: will it have an effect on the health services in New Zealand through a modification to the GPS?

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, I’d just like to congratulate Ms Nimon on getting this bill through, and it looks like we’re going to have support around the House, which is certainly where I hoped we would get to.

I’d also like to thank the members of the Health Committee. We’ve got Dr Cheung here, Dr Campbell, Dr Verrall, Ingrid Leary, Cam Luxton, and other members from the Greens and the Māori Party. It’s been a fairly good and agreeable process the whole way through, and, look, we did take this bill into the select committee and we recommended several changes, which have already been somewhat touched upon.

I think one of the important ones was the removal of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission as a “health entity” under the Act. I’d like to get a sense from the member as to how important she believes it is to preserve the independence of the commission. It was definitely something that we wanted to uphold, and I think that was called out pretty early in the proceedings by Ingrid Leary, if I’m not mistaken—a good pick-up there from you, Ingrid.

We also made a change around removing clause 6 of the bill, where the Minister would have been required to consult with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission in preparing the Government policy statement. We did propose a new section where the Minister could consider advice provided by the commission, and I’d be interested to know whether the member is agreeable to that suggested amendment.

There are some other parts in there. The committee recommends making the mental health and wellbeing strategy provisions come into force after 12 months. I’m wondering whether the member has had any discussions there with the Minister, or whether the member is agreeable to that, as well.

The reality is—and I think we’ve talked about it in select committee as well—that this is a relatively straightforward bill. Yes, there have been a few alterations, but, look, we’re trying to get to a place in New Zealand where—and I think we are getting there under this Government. It would be a falsity to say that we have ever achieved or are in the process of achieving great success in that space, because the mental health need out there in New Zealand is such that it requires everyone across this House, no matter who is in Government, to keep working very hard on it.

I’m very proud that we have this bill before the House and that we have a mental health Minister—the first Minister to have that role in New Zealand—who was actually the original author of this bill, and Ms Nimon is now the owner of it, but we have huge strides to make, and this bill is a good place to start in setting the general direction.

We did take a bit more of a holistic approach on this. We wanted it to include that wellbeing piece. It does have the mental health and addiction part of it too, which is very important, and I think we wanted to call that out there—the exact wording of that will be in here—but there are several questions there that I would want to put forward to the member, and I will leave that for her to consider and reply when she is ready. Thank you.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, thanks for everybody that’s asked questions so far. I will try and take them in a bit of a storytelling order, if I may. Thank you to James Meager for asking about the genesis of the bill because it leads quite nicely into some of the other questions.

Of course, in 2022 mental health was not included as a strategy in the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022, so, of course, we are on the back foot with our mental health strategy and how we progress that. That is a great consideration for me in terms of the commencement—and I take all of the feedback from the select committee and really appreciate that. Everything that we do, I believe, really has to have a strategic intention to provide the foundation for what decisions we make, whether it’s funding or otherwise.

To address one of the questions from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall—if I can find where it says about the intention to modify the Government policy statement (GPS) during this term of Government. I can’t speak to the exact timing, of course—I’m not the Minister, nor am I in the Minister’s office—but one thing I guess I’d ask is: did the other strategies impact the GPS? Of course, this is rhetorical because the questions are being asked of me, but I have no doubt that the intention of the strategies in general as part of Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) were to influence and be introduced or included in the GPS.

That is the very intention of this amendment. This amendment wouldn’t be being made if it was going to go nowhere. Just to acknowledge, obviously, my predecessor in shepherding this through: the honourable Minister Matt Doocey, who’s now the mental health Minister, that was his hope when this was drafted. That is also my hope. But, of course, GPS—they all take their time, they all go through a process, and this amendment is not necessarily intended to be a quick tomorrow fix; this is about implementing change for long term.

When the GPS is amended to include the forthcoming, I hope, mental health and wellbeing strategy, I really look forward to that. The timing will be as a result of this bill first being passed; secondly, being passed based on the timing of what is indicated in the amendments in this bill, and then, of course, it being worked through, implemented, and so on. That also is similar to a question that Ingrid Leary raised, which is: how does it fit into the GPS? Obviously, as I said before, it’s an ongoing thing, I hope, to be many and all GPS in the future as they go through their three-yearly process. I really look forward to that.

Just to speak to another item, I think, that has been raised a couple of times, which is the independence of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. I actually think I front-footed it when I presented to the select committee by saying, you know, “Sorry, folks, it was a drafting error. It was never intended for it to be identified—the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission—as a health entity.” It is interesting that, almost accidentally, it has really highlighted the importance of the independence of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

I think, if it hadn’t been a drafting error, would we have had this discussion? Would the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission have been so open about how important their independence is and to maintain that? I’m almost glad that that drafting error was in there. I went in and front-footed to the select committee, saying, “Hey, drafting error; not intended. Happy for the independence to be maintained.”, but I feel like I have had to explain myself at every single point in the process since then. I’m happy to keep saying that.

To the point also made by Sam Uffindell—and thank you, to acknowledge you as the chair of the Health Committee and your contribution to the process—on how important I think it is to maintain the independence. Look, I think that is exactly the message that we got from the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. You know, actually an independent body that’s involved in this process really does help add gravity to the message that we’re getting through, and actually that what is being proposed in the strategy that the Minister of Health—or, by delegation, the Minister for Mental Health—will be writing, that it’s substantiated by people that are really seeing it through all the research and all the work that’s being done.

Just while I have the chance—five seconds—Sam, there was a third question that you asked that I missed, if you wouldn’t mind repeating that if you have that on record. I did write down two of those three.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): All right. The committee is suspended and will resume at 7.30 p.m. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee is resumed. Before the dinner break, we were debating the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. The question is, again, that clauses 1 to 8 and the Schedule stand part.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to acknowledge our member Katie Nimon for bringing this bill to the House. This bill is very important, but I also want to highlight her performance in front of the select committee earlier in the year. As a new member of the Parliament, she came to our select committee well prepared and organised, and she was able to answer some of our concern as well. For that, well done, Katie. Also, I would like to acknowledge the Health Committee as well for the hard work and their passion in this topic as well, across the House. We’ve got a chair, Sam Uffindell; we’ve got a deputy chair; we’ve got Hamish Campbell and me; and we’ve got, of course, members from across the House as well.

Going back to the bill now, because, as I say, this bill is very important because over half of the people living in New Zealand actually experience mental illness and addiction challenges at some point in their lives. Nationally, one in five people experienced some kind of mental illness in the last year, and 3 percent of the people experienced serious mental issues.

My question is: if this is a very serious issue, why did you set a commencement date for 12 months? This is actually referred to in new section 46A, which is related to the making of the mental health and wellbeing strategy. It will not take effect until 12 months after the date on which the Pae Ora amendment bill comes into force. It’s more like: why 12 months; why not six months or earlier if it’s a very important issue? Can you give us a little bit of detail on this and just a little bit of clarification as well. As I say, this is a very important issue for New Zealand that actually affects a lot of people. Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a very important bill, and I’m glad for the member who has brought it to the House. I appreciate we have already heard that the Hon Matt Doocey originally worked on this—I think that’s really important—and we’ve touched on various aspects of this bill. The previous speaker, Dr Carlos Cheung, has talked about the 12 months and about the development of the strategy.

I suppose I would like to ask the member—and it probably, really, touches on the importance of mental health. In our life, 50 to 80 percent of us probably will be affected by some periods of mental distress, and I think it’s really important that we have services that deliver well. Touching on some of the things that we heard in the Health Committee, I think there were about 57 interested groups and individuals who actually spoke to various different parts of this bill. We heard from 19 oral submitters. One of the important things is, I think, probably when it talks about “The Minister must prepare and determine a Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy.” I suppose my question is: how is this strategy going to fit in with the other ones, and what is the role of the Minister in this strategy?

Of course, we heard in the select committee that there is a whole range of people wanting to have a say. We also heard from different ethnic groups—also those from the Asian community, who are very interested in a mental health and wellbeing strategy. My question to the member would be around how this is going to be implemented and what it means going forward, given the fact that we heard from Asian groups, we heard from different sectors of society, and since so many of us are probably going to have periods of mental distress at some stage in our life—how that’s going to go forward.

I would just echo the words of my colleague around the 12-month time period. I think it would be interesting to hear the member’s view on what that means and, overall, the Minister’s role going forward.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): You get used to sitting in the chair and actually being able to take the call when I want to answer something! Look, I just want to address a couple of things that I didn’t get the chance to before the dinner break.

Firstly, I think I’ll address the question about the commencement date of 12 months, because it’s clause 2 that it’s recommended by the select committee to delay the requirement to have the strategy by 12 months, to allow time for necessary engagement and development. I think my answer to that—and I did say in the second reading—is that I’m supportive of that. Obviously, that came as a result of hearing from people who submitted, and from officials as well. I don’t want to set anybody up to fail. I want this to be a robust strategy that makes a difference. As I said at the time, if 12 months is what is required to get that up and running—obviously, the original bill was passed in 2022 and, obviously, those strategies that were originally included had some time to be established and inform the work that they were doing. I think that’s important. I’d rather not rush the work that the Minister has to do to get this ready, because, of course, acknowledging that this is a member’s bill, it’s not something that is necessarily being done at the Government level, and so I want to be as supportive as I possibly can. I think that’s my answer to that question.

Going back to one of the questions from Sam Uffindell—to consider advice from the mental health and wellbeing strategy—again, I think, given that that is the advice that was received from submitters, that was supported by officials, I think that’s the best course of action. My answer to that, as well, is: whatever is going to make this most effective, that’s what I want to see. This is not my own personal agenda; this is for the outcomes of mental health in New Zealand. Whatever it is that we can do to make sure that’s most effective, then brilliant. If the mental health and wellbeing strategy said, look, they’d rather that their advice is considered, rather than they had to be consulted at every level, then that is wonderful.

Actually, going to a point that Ingrid Leary raised—and I’m surprised she’s trying to shut the debate down, because I actually haven’t answered her questions in full yet—one of the questions she asked was: how do we enable the workforce? What I’m putting in in this member’s bill is to have a mental health strategy, and, inevitably, that will call for either a stronger workforce, a more targeted workforce, or a greater workforce in some cases, I have no doubt. Of course, I won’t be writing the strategy. Here what I am asking is for there to be a statutory requirement for there to be a strategy. I have no doubt that part of that strategy will be informing what workforce is required, how we enable that, how we support workforce development, and in the right areas as well. Recently, I visited with a group of primary school principals, in fact, with the Minister of Education, and they spoke about counselling in schools and having that support available for the students and enabling that work at a level there as well. We’ve got to look at where is the support going to be most effective and most impactful. I have no doubt that that will all come through in the strategy.

While I have my time, I will also get to the point—actually, thank you very much to, I think, Hamish and, perhaps, Carlos; I’m going to conflate both questions together. One of the questions was about the strategy and how it fits in with the other strategies. I think that’s a really good point that I actually was thinking about earlier in the evening. Obviously, as was mentioned, the original Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act had strategies for women, for various ethnicities, and for rural communities. I think rural communities are a great example to make where it lies with mental health, in particular. I’ve seen some really poor examples in strengthening mental health and support in the rural communities. The Rural Support Trust do a fantastic job. There is obviously access to general services through the health system, but we know that there is a greater issue in rural communities. I have no doubt that these strategies will integrate in the same way that strategies for women and rural and ethnic would already work together. I expect that these would also be the case.

Not that it’s typical practice, I suppose, to respond to questions asked from the—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Katie Nimon.

KATIE NIMON: Thank you. Not that it is—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Katie Nimon’s still on her feet—I’ve given her another call.

KATIE NIMON: Thank you, Chair. Not that it’s typical, I suppose, to take questions when the member’s sitting down but also trying to close proceedings, but Ingrid Leary did mention the—

Hon Scott Simpson: They don’t like talking about it over there.

KATIE NIMON: —yeah; ha, ha!—Government policy statement (GPS). I did actually already answer that question and how it fits into the GPS, much like, I imagine, the intention of Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022. When those strategies were in place, I have no doubt they were intended to be integrated and considered when the GPS was being created, much like this will when it is next reviewed and redeveloped. I really look forward to that. I really look forward to a well-informed GPS with a strong mental health strategy. I think that that is a really important one for us.

I also look forward to Sam Uffindell’s third question—that I’m still burning to answer—that I did miss that first time you were on your feet. All right.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going through the mental health and wellbeing strategy by clauses, now, it might seem very obvious to some, but I’d just like the member Katie Nimon to draw out a little bit more why we changed the reference to addiction with “wellbeing”.

The reason I ask is that it’s one of things, in health, where health is really this global, holistic concept of, you know, physical, biological, social, and spiritual wellbeing, so to me it’s kind of repeating the same thing, to use the term “wellbeing”. Actually, addiction is a very important part of the mental health complaints and conditions that people suffer from. Are we in any way deprioritising addiction through reducing that and not having that at the forefront. I certainly know, in my experience in general practice, that addiction is a very huge problem in the community. It doesn’t just relate to alcohol addiction; we have drug addiction, there’s gambling addiction—there’s plenty—there’s other substances, inhaled substances; even addiction to pornography. All of these things can really affect people’s mental health. They globally can contribute to other conditions as well. People who have addiction problems with gambling, for example, often have financial stress, and that then impacts on their mental health just through their general stress in their life.

I’m just wondering if you could explain a little bit more about that terminology—whether or not this is any way deprioritising addiction. Is there a complete focus change on that? In new section 46A, inserted by new clause 7, it does mention minimising harm from addiction—that is included—but I’m just thinking, with the overall title of the bill, if, somehow, changing and removing addiction has deprioritised that in any way.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Look, I wasn’t going to take a call on this bill, but I feel compelled to, to out-compete my colleagues this evening! But, no, seriously, this is a serious topic, and I think we’ve got our own stories of mental health challenges in our own families and settings. I’m very, very encouraged by this bill.

There is one question that I have lingering from this bill, and it relates to an organisation that I’m about to run a half-marathon for in a week and a half. It’s the Mental Health Foundation, and I’m really curious to understand where organisations like the Mental Health Foundation fit in this mental health strategy. There are some great, fantastic, high-impact organisations out there doing great work—far better work, in my opinion, than most Government agencies—to make an impact in the mental health space. Great initiatives in Northcote—a shout-out to Hearts and Minds.

My question to the fantastic member—and I’d like to just acknowledge Katie Nimon for her work in bringing this bill to the House. My genuine question to her—because I haven’t caught up with her for a while, so I thought I’d just do this in a formal setting like this—is to ask her how she sees the role of community organisations in the mental health space and how she sees them fitting into, particularly, new section 46A, in clause 7, in the preparation of the mental health strategy. I think that there are a lot of organisations out there in New Zealand that would be really keen to understand that, and I’d appreciate any reflections from the member on this fantastic evening in the Chamber. Thank you.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. To answer the question on addiction rather than wellbeing, I’m really glad the member asked that question, because that was something that took me a little bit longer to kind of come around to in the changes recommended from the Health Committee. Obviously, I don’t have to take them all and, you know, I can maintain my own personal view, but of course I really respect the process. Like I said earlier, it’s not my own personal agenda. I want to see there be a mental health strategy; I think that’s really important.

I think we have got a lot of work to do, as members earlier talked about, around breaking down the stigma and treating mental health issues—whether they are short term or long term—like we do a dislocated knee; a nod to the member Carl Bates. For me, I think that’s really important. The terminology, I think, sometimes can be a little bit just about what fits into the system, and I think that was the recommendation. I do take it on board that the term “mental health and wellbeing” is more widely recognised and acknowledged within the health system as sort of the typical terminology, and I think addiction comes within that.

If we start to define it, we’ll probably get into a position where, when people want to add more amendments, they’ll say the “mental health and addiction and suicide prevention and recovery”, for example, and I don’t really want to open that can of worms. If we can be broader and refer to it as “mental health and wellbeing”, knowing that addiction does usually tie in or is typically considered part of—obviously, if you’re dealing with addiction and recovering well, it’s all about your wellbeing, but obviously it is a mental illness.

Look, I am confident with that, and I think, again, with the advice from officials in having that, and then supported by the committee, I am confident. Of course, we don’t necessarily want “addiction outcomes”; we want people to have good mental health and good wellbeing, and having people free from addiction is one of those outcomes. If we get into defining what each and every one of those mental health outcomes is, I think we’re probably sliding down a sort of slippery slope.

Again, I’m really happy to be guided. I thought the process that the Health Committee went through was really good. Lots of good people did submit to it, great organisations, and just to acknowledge them—which I think is a lovely segue into the point that member Dan Bidois raised about how this fits into organisations. Credit to you for running a half-marathon; it’s not something I could do, but we all do different things for mental health, and I think that is something that’s got to be considered in this strategy. Like I say, I’m not the one writing it; I’d sure love to contribute some thoughts—absolutely—but we can’t do this on our own as a system, and it’s an impossible task if we think that the New Zealand public health system is going to do all of this.

A strategy sets the tone, it sets the direction, it sets the intention, and then a lot of people jump on board with this. I did acknowledge in my speech, probably second reading, about an organisation called Mates4Life, doing this absolutely out of the love of their own hearts and receiving funding from all sorts of places that’s not public at this stage. I think, again, for them, they’re working off what we said is our intention and our goal, and that’s driving them, but it’s not necessarily their funding.

I think, to that point, the strategy or the strategic intention, our strategic objectives, what we’re wanting to achieve, is what gives the signal to these organisations to get involved, to get on board and to match up. Hey, look, if some of them think, “I’m going to go out here and do this because this lines up with what you’re saying and perhaps I might get funding for it.”, look, that happens all the time, and we do see that, but we’d rather be lined up with a system-wide approach and how that’s going to work and, you know, get those results, because at the end of the day, everything that these organisations do is to get results. If they can add into what it is that the system’s doing, we’re going to get a far better outcome for New Zealanders. This is the very intention of what we’re doing.

I obviously feel very strongly about this and I’m really pleased to have support from the whole House because what we’ve really got to do is have a joined-up approach that gets us results, that is future focused, that leads where the funding goes, and that connects in every sector of our health system, not just in rural communities or ethnic communities where we know those statistics feature higher on suicide rates and mental health cases.

At the moment, in Hawke’s Bay, obviously we’ve got considerable issues. We’ve got considerable issues in Hawke’s Bay after Cyclone Gabrielle, and when identifying a targeted response after an event, whether it’s the Christchurch earthquake, which I know people are still dealing with—and I have a friend that has a traumatic response every time a truck goes past her house because of the Christchurch earthquakes, and I know that she’s not alone in that—there have to be ways that we target those events. It doesn’t mean that we have to have a new response every time that event, or an event, happens, that we have a post-disaster approach; you can only really achieve that through a strategy that is statutory.

I go back to the earlier point that I made in reference to how this fits in with the Government policy statement. This should be an ongoing process for every Government policy statement that is designed for ever, every three years—that the mental health and wellbeing strategy is considered as a fundamental aspect of that in every single decision that we make. All that we can do otherwise is make estimated guesses, fling money into the atmosphere and hope it lands somewhere, and that’s not what’s going to get us the results. Especially, learning from what we did last time, redefining that, and then targeting it better in the future—I’m really excited; that is fundamentally what this is setting out to achieve, and why I keep saying I don’t have my own personal agenda of what’s going to be in this strategy. I couldn’t possibly comment, but I really hope that what we achieve is a far better target to where we’re going to go in the future. I’m really, really excited about that.

That sort of broadly answers the organisation. If we set the tone right, organisations will fall into line and do a fantastic job, as some of them already are, but I tell you, I get the feedback that they are struggling to find—in previous years, have been struggling to find—a sense of direction about where they fit into the grander scheme of things. I think that’s the way that I would address that question. Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Motion not agreed to.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member Katie Nimon, there, for that quite succinct and detailed answer that she gave. I did ask a number of questions in my earlier opportunity to speak with her, and there were another couple of questions that I will get to for the member. Look, during this process, we did have a number of submissions come through, right? Obviously, there’s been a significant surge of mental health instances, and COVID has exacerbated that—or it certainly did. I think you’d probably see that mental health of youth, in particular, has trended in a negative direction for about the past 12 to 15 years. That’s really come to the forefront, and COVID really pushed that out and exacerbated that a lot.

We did hear a number of submissions, and we did hear them from youth groups. We did hear them from Māori—young Māori. We heard them from individuals. I think some of the really touching ones that we heard were from family members of individuals—especially family members or parents of young people who were suffering mental health episodes, mental health illnesses. We heard from mental health and clinical organisations. We heard from healthcare specialists and workforce representative bodies. One of the overriding things that we heard throughout all of that is that they wanted their voice to be heard. They wanted to have a say in that. I was curious then—if the member has an opportunity to answer some time this evening—around whether she heard any of the submissions there and whether there were any that really stuck with her. I’d also be quite interested to know whether the member thought, through this bill—or where committee amended it to at the committee stage—whether it has taken account of that ongoing request from submitters for their voices to be heard.

We heard from youths about how they feel that often their voice isn’t considered and that they want to be part of that decision making. Look, we recognise—and I have mentioned it before—the acute increase in mental health concerns among our youth, and we want to make sure that we do incorporate those voices. There’s no point us designing stuff that—I think the member over there was about to get to their feet, or no? Just rearranging, adjusting your legs? But, look, where I was going with that? Sorry, I was going to give you the opportunity if you wanted to say something. Where I was going with that is that we want to make sure that we are incorporating those voices. I’d like the member’s feedback on whether she feels that we have done enough with the adjustments we’ve made at the committee stage or whether she believes there are opportunities for us to go further in that response.

We also had Te Hiringa Mahara, who supported the introduction of the mental health and wellbeing strategy that will fall under the existing Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act. This being a new strategy, I’m curious as well whether the member had looked at that piece, and, if she had, what her thoughts were around that. I guess my overriding point here, Ms Nimon, is that there were a number of submitters, and I’m just curious around how much of that you followed and what the key points that you took out of that were, and whether you also think that the amendments the committee made at select committee stage reflected the will of the submitters, obviously keeping in mind that we have a direction that we want this bill to go in. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a privilege to stand today and ask some questions of the member Katie Nimon—and congratulations—now at the committee stage of her member’s bill, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill.

I’d just like to acknowledge in the committee tonight those members of the Health Committee who worked on this bill that have posed questions of the member. We did—as the chair of the committee, Sam Uffindell, has outlined—consider a number of submissions, and we heard oral evidence from 19 of those submitters. They did traverse a number of issues, and I think it was really important in particular that we heard about the value and the importance of the patient voice. I’d also like to note that, on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, they also value the importance of patient voice inside the organisation of that commission. I’d be keen to hear from the member how she also values the patient voice and how that came through in terms of the submissions we heard.

I do have another couple of questions, because we do recognise that it was the Mental Health Foundation who we heard from—also, as the bill was drawn in your name; originally, I think, in your predecessor’s name—and I want to quote them. They said, “Without a mandated strategy”—because this bill is about implementing a strategy—“Decision-makers can simply revert [back] to using outdated—but deep-rooted—deficit models around mental health and addiction and focus on solely expanding services”. We know that, as we increase services, it doesn’t necessarily pave the right pathway for the direction of travel that we want our mental health and wellbeing strategy to take. Just expanding those services is, they say, “an approach that can’t—and hasn’t—solved Aotearoa’s wellbeing crisis.”—just reflecting on the vital importance of having a strategy.

Some of the submitters we heard from supported the strategy’s broad focus on mental health and wellbeing, and I think we have heard already tonight about the emphasis, actually—that it should focus on addictions in that strategy. We also heard there was debate on whether developing a new strategy might overshadow existing initiatives, like Kia Manawanui Aotearoa. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

My final question to you is: in the bill, it talks about the amendment Act being able to better enable long-term planning. Could you just give your vision of what that long-term planning looks like—what your expectation of that long-term planning and then delivery of that planning would look like? Thank you very much.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you very much to the members. Firstly, to Sam—and thank you for coming back to your third question. I’m really pleased about it, because I do recall now when you said that. Look, I appreciate that, because, obviously, my take on the submissions was that they were really in favour of this, and obviously some of them—largely the same submitters—during the 2022 Act, where the mental health strategy was omitted, were really pleased to see it come back again, but, again, want to make sure that they get it right.

Then, just to speak to a few of the clauses that haven’t been talked about: one was, obviously, clause 4(1)(vi)—that wasn’t really so much raised; clause 7, keeping the name as originally drafted, with the broader health and wellbeing approach; and then, of course, we’ll obviously—and without disregarding clause 2 and clause 4. You know, I think the significant things were maintaining the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission’s independence; making sure that we don’t get too focused on the word “addiction” and that it’s a broader issue; and, really, just the approach and what it entails. I think, inevitably, submitters get quite excited, potentially, about what the strategy might include, and so then we’ve got to consider—and I’m really pleased that the Health Committee did consider—how, then, this piece of legislation can enable that. All of those things that the submissions covered—are we having and do we have a piece of legislation that enables all of those concerns and hopes and aspirations? I think—and with huge respect to the select committee and the drafting of the current Minister, the former member—they do pay good heed to those points.

Then, of course, the one that I think is the most significant is the delay of strategy provisions by 12 months to allow time for preparation. I think that kind of comes down to hearing from organisations that there just needed to be time to do this right. I take great comfort from the fact that action can be taken in response to those submissions—that this is going to be something that we do and do well. Then I think, to take from the points raised by Jenny Marcroft—and thank you to the member for those three questions—talking about long-term planning, talking about having a strategy, and does it overshadow existing functions and initiatives, and then, of course, how do we get the patient voice and include that?

I just want to acknowledge something that the Minister for Mental Health has already done, which is the Suicide Prevention Action Plan, and how much emphasis was put on getting those with lived experience’s voice and getting their views and making sure that that was informed. I think that that is really a signal for how this is going to go, and I’m really pleased about that—taking really good care of not only how we develop it but then, once it’s developed, how it is put out into the universe, so to speak, and then getting those voices involved.

You asked what my vision was for the long-term planning of that. I’d like, as any good MP would, to see a real focus on data and what works and what we need to address—and, like I did signal before, the issues in rural communities, breaking down stigma, helping people to be more comfortable talking about issues, and getting quick support, really, rather than people having to go through so many hoops to get the support that they do get, and especially having to feel like they’ve passed some severity bar. Often, we don’t want to wait until it’s—actually, in any case, and in so many cases I’ve seen, people feel like they have to do something really bad to get the support that they need. These are all the things that we need to consider.

I did say earlier—and not in this context, but to add it to this context—what I’d really like to see from a long-term planning point of view is workplaces, individuals, friends, and whānau seeing mental health, or mental illness in this particular respect, being the same as physical. I think a lot of people have a really hard time acknowledging invisible things. You can liken it to back pain: back pain is one of those things that’s really hard to prove or to show to anyone, but it’s debilitating, and because you don’t have a cast, it’s not necessarily something that people see or take seriously at all times. I do give that lens to it as a helpful metaphor. I’d really like to see that be the case.

Then, finally, to the point of overshadowing existing initiatives and what the strategy would do, I would like to see that, where those initiatives are right and doing what they need to be doing and achieving outcomes, they won’t be overshadowed; they will be absolutely learnt from, brought into this strategy, and go to do amazing things. In that particular case, if we’ve got functions or groups out there doing stuff—I keep mentioning Mates4Life; I can’t help myself, they’re fantastic—then I would say that those will be learnt from, developed in how we can have this in a workplace environment. This is something where companies are getting involved, training their staff like first aiders but with mental health, and the onflow effect of that is huge, and it is a direct removal of cost burden on the emergency system because we know how to triage it.

These are the things that I think, if we’re doing them right—we’re doing them right, right now—nothing will get overshadowed, but there will inevitably be things that we’ll highlight that aren’t working. And I think that that’s necessary, because that means the strategy is working. Like I’ve said a couple of times, I don’t get to write the strategy but I really look forward to seeing how this goes and, again, am very pleased we have had whole of the House support this. I look forward, I suppose, to debating it on the third reading. Thank you very much.

Clauses 1 to 8 and the Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 September.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thanks for the opportunity to speak on the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. Given that there have been several weeks since we last considered this bill, I thought I would just take a moment to remind us of the bill in front of the House.

This bill was introduced in the House in the 53rd Parliament and it was then taken over by Camilla Belich, in Opposition, as a member’s bill in the 54th Parliament. The bill would insert a new section, section 220AA, into the Crimes Act 1961 to provide that an employer’s intentional failure to pay an employee any money owed in relation to that employment is theft. The bill details that theft by an employer in the context of this bill, should it be passed by this House, would have a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment, a fine of $5,000, or both, and in any other case, the maximum penalty would be a fine of $30,000. This bill was brought in to ensure that in circumstances where an employer intentionally steals money from an employee by, essentially, not paying them, that employer would be held accountable under the criminal jurisdiction as opposed to the civil jurisdiction.

One of the challenges that we traversed when we went through the select committee process—chaired by Katie Nimon, the member for Napier—was: what exactly is the size of the problem that this bill is trying to solve, and what is the number of employers that are actually undertaking theft from their employees? Through that select committee process, we worked through a number of amendments to try and clarify some of the intent. The amendments—all amendments—to the bill, through the Education and Workforce Committee, were unanimously adopted by the select committee. The recommendation of the select committee on the bill as a whole, though, by majority was that it doesn’t get passed by this House. However, the amendments were accepted by majority.

The first amendment and thing we tried to clarify through the select committee process was the meaning of an “employment agreement”. We thought that it was important that the term “employment agreement” had the same meaning as in section 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, and so there was a new subsection (3) inserted to make sure that that was clear to anyone who was reading the bill.

The second amendment that we traversed was clarifying the coverage for homeworkers. Under the Employment Relations Act, “employment agreement” includes a contract for services between an employer and a homeworker, with the term “homeworker” being defined in section 5 of that Act, and we thought it was important that we made it clear that this covered homeworkers, should the bill be passed by this House.

The third thing that we wanted to make sure was clarified through an amendment was what entitlements are covered. We spent some time as a select committee determining or looking at what exactly would qualify as theft by an employer and how you would determine what the entitlements that were covered are, and so we needed to make sure that this was clear in the bill when it was presented back to the House. We thought that the bill should be clearer on the payment in question being the payment required under an Act of Parliament, because, often, an employer can choose to pay additional things to an employee. There might be particular circumstances where they provide additional benefits that aren’t necessarily part of the package of employment. So we thought it really needed to be clear what the bill covered, and we defined that as being payments required under an Act of Parliament.

The challenge, however, even with the amendments in place, is that at the end of the day, the relationship between an employer and an employee is currently covered under the civil jurisdiction—under civil law—and, essentially, this amendment wants to take part of that relationship and put it into the criminal jurisdiction. At the moment, we have three pieces of legislation that, essentially, provide an umbrella over these sorts of circumstances. We have the Employment Relations Act, we have the Minimum Wage Act, and we have the Wages Protection Act, which really is related to unlawful deductions by an employer. This additional piece of legislation would add an unnecessary piece of legislative compliance when there are already existing mechanisms to ensure that employers appropriately remunerate and pay their employees. Indeed, Community Law Centres o Aotearoa expressed concerns about how this could be difficult to prove.

One of the things that came up through the process of consideration in the select committee was: when is withholding a payment from an employee intentional, and would you end up inadvertently being in a scenario where you have an employer being criminally liable because there was a mistake? Look, to be fair, we addressed a number of these issues, but not to a level of satisfaction, I think that would make sure that employers could feel comfortable that should this piece of legislation be part of the statutes of this House, they couldn’t get caught up in the unnecessary and costly additional layers of compliance that this House would, essentially, burden them with. I don’t know about you, Madam Speaker, when you are traversing the mighty—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you don’t bring the Speaker into the debate, Mr Bates.

CARL BATES: When I am traversing the mighty electorate—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s better.

CARL BATES: —of Whanganui—which I know you happen to pass through from time to time; the wonderful Whanganui electorate—and when I’m talking to both employees and employers, what employers are looking for right now is certainty about the future of the revenue of their businesses so that they can pay their staff, and employees are looking for certainty of their jobs and the relationship that they have in terms of their employment relationship, with the success and the continuing success of those businesses.

I think, really, that both parties are aligned in wanting to ensure we reduce the legislative burden, the red tape, and the compliance that sits around businesses so that the money that they have can go into where it’s most needed—and that is, keeping those businesses open and functional and returning a return—and ensuring that we’re able to provide wage growth to employees, and every time we add another layer of legislative compliance, we just add something else that those businesses are going to have to deal with.

That sort of relates to the other part of moving the relationship about employment from the civil jurisdiction to the criminal jurisdiction, and even the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions agreed that it could be difficult to prove when a non-natural person was being dishonest. It would be challenging to exactly understand in a court of law when a company, as opposed to a person behind it, was being dishonest in not paying an employee.

Not only do we have a very smally defined or ill-defined lack of clarity around the size of the problem; we have a solution to the problem that is going to create another level of legislative burden and that’s going to muddy the waters of the employment relationship between the civil and the criminal jurisdictions, and we’re going to add to the challenge that already can occur in the employment relationship when you have that small number of employees that are vexatious in their relationship with their employers. As per the select committee report, I do not commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): The reason Carl Bates’ speech was largely incoherent is because the thinking behind it is equally incoherent. This is the pearl: the idea that because an employment relationship is a civil contract, the employer shouldn’t be liable for stealing—the parallel of that is if a person working at a bar nicks money out of the till. “Oh, it’s a civil relationship; we don’t want that to be criminally liable.” Of course an employee who steals from their employer is criminally liable. If they intentionally deprive their employer of property, then they’re criminally liable. But—this is Mr Bates’ argument; it’s all a bit confusing—if the employer intentionally deprives an employee of their property; that’s not criminal. The asymmetry of that relationship is typical of the National Party.

This is not some complex bill. It just says this: if you steal stuff from your employee, you’re criminally liable. If you know that you’re obligated to pay, if you’ve got the money but you intentionally choose not to pay them, if you intentionally deprive them of their entitlement to wages, you’re criminally liable. What does the criminal law do? It sets boundaries between right and wrong. To steal from your employee is wrong; it should be criminal. The idea that it’s a bit too much admin—in fact, the member used the term “red tape”, as if paying your employee honestly is red tape. That is shameful. That’s someone, I think, who once called himself an accountant, and yet here he is defending the right of employers to steal from their employees by intentionally withholding wages illegally. This is not a complicated bill.

As for the difficulties of prosecution and what’s the burden of proof and evidence, well, that’s a prosecutorial decision. As we know, the Solicitor-General has a very fulsome set of guidelines on when to make a prosecution. There are two fundamental elements: is the evidence there—does it meet the evidential threshold?—and is it in the public interest to prosecute? It’s not rocket science. Yes, if the evidence is cloudy, you probably won’t get a prosecution. If it’s not in the public interest, you won’t get a prosecution. But where we have a clear case of an insurer knowingly taking wages from their employee, the prosecution should and will follow.

That’s why this is a bill that’s properly before this House, and I’m hopeful that other parties in the House other than the National Party will support it. I’m sure the ACT Party, who are property-mad, will support it, because the right to property is one of their foundation stones. Our former friends New Zealand First, who used to be our coalition partners, I’m hopeful will stand up to what they say they stand for, which is the rights of workers—as does the Labour Party—and make sure this bill passes through the House. As for the National Party, dancing on the head of a pin with ridiculous and incoherent arguments about red tape and the civil and criminal distinction in employment relationships, it really shows them up. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I’m very proud that Camilla Belich has brought this bill to the House, and very hopeful we’ll see this through the next stage so we can look after workers’ wages properly. I absolutely commend this to the House.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and good evening. I haven’t spoken in the House for a while, so perhaps I would just like to start with a shout-out to all of those in the Wairarapa electorate, from Central Hawke’s Bay, Tararua, and the Wairarapa. Spring is here, most have had tax relief, interest rates are on the way down, hard-working parents are now able to get FamilyBoost payments, commodity prices are better than they have been, and just in case the news hasn’t got through, announced today, the inflation genie is back in the box. Inflation is now at 2.2 percent for the year end at September, and the darkness before dawn, as Nicola Willis previously described the state of the economy under the previous administration, is finally starting to lift. Thank you for trusting us as a Government to manage the economy out of recession.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s your minute to do general debate; now you will speak to the bill.

MIKE BUTTERICK: Thank you. Now, the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, in the name of Camilla Belich, is not one that we can support. The bill has been introduced for the purpose of criminalising the act of employers intentionally failing to pay employees rather than treating it under civil law.

The main provisions: the bill would insert new section 220AA into the Crimes Act 1961 to provide that an employer’s intentional failure to pay an employee any money owed in relation to the employment is theft. The bill would also set maximum penalties for this new offence of theft by employer. If the employer is an individual, the maximum penalty would be one year’s imprisonment, a fine of $5,000, or both. In any other case, the maximum penalty would be a fine of $30,000.

We have a view, in the National Party, that a significant number of employers are good employers. Yes, there will always be a very small number of employers that aren’t, but that doesn’t mean we need to run around and impose new legislation to address an issue that already has a clear pathway of resolution. That pathway, I might add, is a long-held practice in New Zealand’s civil jurisdiction of addressing issues of the sort that this bill seeks to address or reinvent and of doing so through a civil process.

This bill is unnecessary as there are prevailing mechanisms that actually already exist. The Employment Relations Act contains provisions to address circumstances where an employee isn’t paid or is paid less than the amount stated in their employment agreement. The Holidays Act contains provisions that address non-compliance and also allows for interest to be paid on any unpaid entitlements, and the Wages Protection Act and the Minimum Wage Act contain provisions preventing unlawful wage deductions.

Transferring the ability to adjudicate a dispute to a criminal court won’t speed up the process; it will almost certainly slow it down, which will not result in any improvement in outcome. All this bill will do is transfer said disputes from the employment relations space, for potentially making deductions from payslips and not paying, into the criminal prosecution space. This will more than likely result in a number of unintended and unnecessary consequences.

To sum up, at present the failure to pay an employee is currently dealt with as a civil matter under the Employment Relations Act, where the mechanisms I’ve already mentioned exist, and where the employer and the employee have a clear duty to act in good faith and penalties already exist if they don’t do just that. The actual theft of money is dealt with under criminal law, and I refer to an article from 23 May 2023 that says—and I quote—“Such a law could however potentially make it far more challenging to undertake a deduction from wages even in valid cases and has the potential to foreseeably expose the employer to criminal liability, or at least the threat of such risk. The Wages Protection Act 1983 and 40 years of case law makes it very clear on how a deduction is to be actioned, the advent of this may give miscreant employees more impetus to refuse to allow deductions in legitimate cases.”

We don’t need to impose further unnecessary complications on those in our region that are the lifeblood of our local economies, those small to medium businesses that have persevered, for far too long, under the burden of a recession they didn’t cause—not now, when there’s light at the end of the tunnel. It’s not necessary to implement new and needless legislation, adding frustration, cost, and complexity. That’s why National doesn’t support this bill.

Perhaps Labour may want to reflect on this bill. Perhaps they’ve been sidetracked, dreaming up further ways of relieving those in our communities that have endured so much for so long under their administration. The Labour Party’s latest attempt to do this seems to be fixated on not only more rules but also more tax. They seem quite addicted to tax.

Helen White: This is nothing to do with the bill. Back to the bill!

MIKE BUTTERICK: I’ll get to the bill.

But they’d tax our land, they’d tax our beds,

And they’d tax the tables upon which we’re fed.

Yes, back to the bill. All this bill does is transfer disputes, potentially around deductions from payslips and not paying from the employment relations space into the criminal space, and we believe that would have all manner of unintended consequences.

We heard in the select committee from the Community Law Centres o Aotearoa that they express concern that the offence would be difficult to prove and easy to defend, noting that dishonesty offences are typically very difficult to prove. Business New Zealand noted the very high threshold that “beyond reasonable doubt” imposes in criminal cases compared to the balance of probabilities standard in the Employment Court and how this makes proving intention especially burdensome for prosecutors. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions pointed out that mens rea can be very hard to establish for non-natural persons, as my parliamentary colleague Carl Bates alluded to earlier.

Shanan Halbert: It was a terrible speech.

MIKE BUTTERICK: It was a very good speech from Carl, the very hard-working member of Parliament for Whanganui. It’s a great electorate, that. It’s almost as good as the Wairarapa.

The New Zealand Law Society submitted that section 219 of the Crimes Act 1961 frames theft with reference to “dishonestly and without claim of right”, taking, using, or dealing with property. They contended that the use of “intentionally” in clause 4 could inadvertently capture situations where employers genuinely withhold paying employees money owed, and that clause 4 could create situations where employers are made criminally liable for not paying money that is legitimately and intentionally disputed, while the employer lacks the intention to deprive their employee of what they are owed.

Overall, there are existing provisions in the Employment Relations Act, as mentioned previously, to protect employees with pay disputes, and the use of the Crimes Act would have too many adverse consequences and be too difficult to prove. So, as I said, the National Party—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Turn the page!

MIKE BUTTERICK: Apologies?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, just turn the page if you’re going to keep reading. You may as well turn the page.

MIKE BUTTERICK: Yeah, I can turn lots of pages if you like—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member was reading quotes, and that was why I was letting him get away with the pages.

MIKE BUTTERICK: Yes, I could finish my poem if the member over there would like. It took me a while to write. I was just talking about how they’d tax our tractor, and they’d tax our ute—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now you’re back off the bill—

MIKE BUTTERICK: Back on track? Back on track, Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill.

MIKE BUTTERICK: To finish off, National won’t be supporting this bill. It’s unnecessary. It just adds more regulations, another complexity that employers don’t need. There are many mechanisms that already exist to protect employees. We do not support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to start with something that a friend of mine, who’s another employment lawyer, once said to me, and it really stuck: “When you don’t have capital, time is what you’ve got to sell; that’s all you’ve got.”

When somebody takes your time—contracts that time—and then takes it from you, it’s actually more serious than it is in many situations, and I want to give an example of where I’ve seen this impact. I had a case when I was a junior. I had a senior lawyer and I was the junior, and it was in the Employment Relations Authority—it was probably the tribunal back then; it was quite a while ago—and it was with Oh Calcutta restaurant. They took on some Indian employees from India. They took $2,500 for them to come into the country and then they employed them on contracts which said that they would be paid $350—I think $250 was actually paid, but they had a contract that said $350—and then they had another contract with this company seal on it saying the lesser amount.

When they made a fuss about that—they were working, by the way, 92½ hours a week; they were working lunch and dinner—they were chucked out on the street and they were, basically, told that they would have to leave the country. I remember threats that were made about how they would never be paid and they weren’t paid at that point. The employer intentionally took their money. They had children back in India. They were terrified about losing their ability to work here.

That’s an example of what happens when you don’t watch. What was the strangest thing about this case is that halfway through the case, we were talking about the fact that they paid this extra money to come to the country, and the tribunal member wouldn’t believe it because they’d never seen it before. I look back and I think if we had only noticed what was going on and how serious it was; if we’d only noticed, perhaps we would have avoided the pain that was caused to so many more employees in this country by that kind of habit and that behaviour which we had a blind spot for in New Zealand.

While I absolutely think small businesses are good employers often, and medium ones—and I am absolutely appalled that this would be suggested as a punishment to them. It is not. Those people pay their workers. It isn’t always the case. Sometimes you get this kind of scurrilous act, and the key word here was “intentional”. You had to be at the beyond reasonable doubt stage to meet this test. It was when you intentionally took someone else’s money, and that might be all they had. That might be all that they had to trade on, and you took it and you disempowered them. It is a power relationship and we accept that in the employment situation.

Now, what’s the difference—why is it that Camilla Belich and Ibrahim Omer went for a criminal standard here? Why is it? Because, when we say this is a crime, we say this is serious; we take it seriously. It’s very different. There’s another really practical reason: because the State looks after people in the criminal area. Criminal victims—the State looks after them. It says, “No, that’s not OK. You can’t take that person’s money intentionally, because they worked hard and you must not take their money.” That’s called theft and it’s serious and we take it seriously, and the State prosecutes, not the individual.

Think about my three men at Oh Calcutta. Do you think they had any money? They didn’t even have anywhere to sleep that night. They were not going to take a civil prosecution through without the help of someone. With that case, it was actually the help of a union. They hadn’t actually joined, but the union stepped in and helped, and that’s how they got there, but most of the time, those people are never going to take a case. They’re never going to take a civil case. Now, one of the saddest aspects of that case—and we did win the case and they didn’t actually close up; they did end up paying those guys out—was they only got paid for 40 hours a week, because the rest wasn’t even contracted apparently. There was some stolen time as far as I’m concerned there too.

We have a long way to go in this country before we get the settings right, and the first thing we have to accept is that there is a power imbalance. We have to accept that people in this situation deserve as much protection as we give other victims. They are victims, and tonight, if you vote against this bill, you’re voting against the recognition of people who have been exploited and power that has been misused. The power of money is a big thing in the life of somebody who hasn’t got it. Thank you.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): What a bunch of crocodile tears—what a bunch of crocodile tears. Anyone would think they’d never been near the levers of Government. Well, can I remind the Labour Party that they’ve been in and out of Government for nearly 100 years, and now, after six years with an absolute majority of 65 MPs and having a full opportunity to put it through as a Government bill, you have the tenacity to turn up to Parliament tonight and advocate for workers—and most of you are former constituent MPs, can I point out—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’re having a little too much use of the word “you” tonight—from both sides, actually.

CAMERON BREWER: They—they. Thank you, Madam Speaker. For a second, I thought you were saying I was transgressing from the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you’re on the bill.

CAMERON BREWER: I know you’ll give us a minute’s grace.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you only get half a minute because you’ve got a split call.

CAMERON BREWER: OK, well let me start that grace period now, Madam Speaker. We are the party of workers, and the Labour Party know that. Shanan Halbert knows that. He knows that the person that represents the workers of Glenfield is Dan Bidois. He knows that. We’re also the party of democracy, and we listen to the parliamentary non-partisan decisions that come out of the Education and Workforce Committee. Can I read this, Madam Speaker, straight off the explanatory note recommendation of the Education and Workforce Committee, that the National Party is taking adherence to here: “The Education and Workforce Committee has examined the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill and recommends by majority that it not be passed.”

Camilla Belich: Yeah, that’s how select committees work.

CAMERON BREWER: And so after this, and Camilla Belich knows, this has been going through—the first reading was over 14 months ago—the scrutiny, the painful scrutiny and examination by the Education and Workforce Committee, it has come out with the recommendation that it not be passed. And now they have the cheek to oppose what our judicious, conscientious, and hard-working Education and Workforce Committee have recommended after listening to submissions, after listening to officials, after listening to business groups and industry groups.

Camilla Belich can go on as much as she wants, but she had six years—she had six years and an absolute majority. She could have stood up in caucus seven years ago and said, “Why don’t we make this a Government bill? I’m so concerned about it.” She could have stood up three years ago, with 65 MPs. She was jammed in the corner because there were so many MPs. They didn’t need to consult with anyone; they could have just done this on their own. They could have just whipped it up in the caucus room and said, “We’re passing it. We’re so concerned.”

The crocodile tears that Helen White’s been crying tonight! But, no, suddenly they get into Opposition and they’re all a sudden interested in this piece of legislation. They’re suddenly interested in this piece of legislation, and it’s all our fault for ignoring the prosecution—the hard-working, conscientious select committee. We are the ones that are listening to the non-partisan select committee—

Steve Abel: As if!

CAMERON BREWER: —the Education and Workforce Committee—Steve Abel—that decided on merit, and so happened to be majority, that this not be passed. We listen to what select committees have told us and the work that they have done and the examination that they’ve taken out, and, on balance, we are not going to go against the select committee and their hard work for the last 14 months. We are the party of workers; we are also the party of business. We believe, as my colleague Carl Bates has taken us through, in chapter and verse—that 10 minutes went so quickly, too—how these areas are comprehensively covered. The complexity that this would bring about is not worth going down that track. That’s why 100 years of Labour Parties have never taken this step.

The protection is there. It’s well and truly covered, and covered in a comprehensive way for New Zealand workers. We, Mike Butterick, went through the different statutes that are in existence to protect workers and the opportunities that are there for those that have had wrongdoing against them. The National Party, hand on heart, as the party for workers, cannot support this bill and go against the intentions of the select committee.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do love a good debate from my friend, my mate over there, Cameron Brewer. The thing I like about him is he plays it straight—you know where you stand—but that was one of the most terrible speeches that I’ve heard from him because he talked about the National Party being the party of workers. In fact, I’ll tell you what they’re a party of: they’re a party of cuts; they’re a party of chaos; they’re a party of broken promises; they’re a party that is out of touch, just like the Prime Minister; they’re a party of tobacco; and, just for Cameron Brewer and Dan Bidois, they’re a party that is closing down the North Shore Women’s Centre on the shore—how shameful. It’s my privilege to have delivered a lot of things to the North Shore, unlike those two: schools, police numbers, you name it. They haven’t done anything yet.

Cameron Brewer: And delivered a 9,000 majority.

SHANAN HALBERT: Tonight, it’s my privilege—

Hon Member: He’s delivered nothing. What’s he talking about?

SHANAN HALBERT: —to be able to talk about this particular piece of legislation. And I love that I rarked them up, because they know that they have delivered nothing. They have delivered absolutely nothing to Auckland’s North Shore. Just like the Minister for Auckland, they’re sold out on Auckland and they’re sold out on our communities—[Interruption]

Now that they’ve quieted them down, can I acknowledge my colleague. She hasn’t had six years in this place—my colleague of the class of 2020 Camilla Belich, and a good Northcote and North Shore resident herself. She does some good work. Can I acknowledge you, Camilla, and the work that you’ve put into this particular bill—also, my brother Ibrahim Omer for the work that he has done in bringing this bill into the House and carving this particular pathway. I look back, actually, to his maiden speech and his commitment to this House and, absolutely, his commitment to workers. That’s what the Labour Party stands for.

I just don’t understand how it is that the National Party believes that employers not paying their employees shouldn’t be a criminal offence. How is it that tonight they can vote against this particular bill that sets up a higher threshold when our most vulnerable workers are ripped off by their employers? I like to think that many people in this House have had a vulnerable moment in employment, perhaps when we were teenagers, you know, perhaps when, like me in hospitality, you had a run in with the boss and they threatened not to pay you. Well, in fact, this piece of legislation means that you do have to be paid. This bill amends the Crimes Act to clarify that intentionally not paying an employee their wages is, in fact, theft. The law as it stands does not address this, and this and wage theft are mainly followed up through the civil courts, rather than enforcement through the police.

I like to think that, around this House, in the many cases today, we have been able to support members’ bills on members’ day because they are particularly good kaupapa. This is another one that comes before this House, and it’s a test on who supports workers, who supports our kaimahi, our most vulnerable workers, to not only be paid what they’re worth but to be looked after and recognised under our workforce legislation. I’m calling on all of the ACT Party, the National Party, and New Zealand First tonight to support this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Well, it is my experience in this House that there’s nothing like an employment relations bill to bring out the fire in both Labour and National, and where those divisions lie. It is for the true balance in New Zealand First to come through and sort through the mess that we’ve been listening to.

First of all, for this Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, this is New Zealand First’s first opportunity to contribute to this bill. It was put into the House during those dark, wind-swept days when we weren’t represented in these halls. As the Hon Duncan Webb articulated in his speech, whilst we may have changed horses in the ensuing period, we actually haven’t changed our core values, and that is very much that we are an egalitarian party. Because we haven’t had the chance to be in this process up until this point, we’re taking the last call here, not for any nefarious reasons but for the fact that we weren’t part of that select committee. The bill did come up quite unexpectedly at the last members’ day, and we wanted to listen very carefully to what both sides had to say before taking it to our caucus for discussion.

It is the view of the New Zealand First caucus that this bill is not without some merit. New Zealand First has always taken a balanced approach to employment relations. We absolutely believe that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. We have an absolute history of championing workers’ rights, particularly around increases to the minimum wage, which we’ve taken into and been successful in coalition negotiations. We actually had Dennis Maga, the chief of FIRST Union, speak to our convention on the weekend. We are generally interested in hearing workers’ perspectives on employment relations issues under this Government.

Conversely, we also understand that employers are critical to building this economy. They risk their own capital and often put their family home up to provide employment and a living for others. Of the businesses in this country, 97 percent are, in fact, small businesses with under 20 workers or more. In fact, so much do we understand this—I could go back to the Hon David Parker over there who would remember this—that we absolutely arm-wrestled Labour to accept retaining 90-day trials for those small businesses under 20 workers, in the 52nd Parliament, because we do understand that critical balance between employees and employers.

I’d like to commend the member Camilla Belich for bringing this bill forward and picking it up from Ibrahim Omer, the original proponent of this bill. Thank you, Camilla, for your constructive engagement as we have worked through some of the details.

It is New Zealand First’s view that there are two clear anomalies in the law. It is already a criminal offence for wage theft of immigrant workers on work visas. New Zealand First cannot see why New Zealand citizens or permanent residents should not be afforded the same process of legal redress. Secondly, it is a criminal offence for an employee to steal from an employer. This, to us, seems an inequity.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to the committee of the whole House stage. We, however, have listened carefully to the concerns on this side of the House. There are some things that we want to see examined further through that committee stage. This bill must focus on real crime—intentional and malicious acts of theft by employers; not unintentional mistakes or delays to the cash-flow issues. Without clear distinction, the risk is that honest employers facing financial hardship may be unfairly penalised.

Moving this issue from a civil to a criminal jurisdiction changes the burden of proof for both employees and employers. Criminal cases require more evidence and resources, potentially straining the justice system while making it conversely, potentially, harder for workers to successfully pursue cases.

Further, we believe that the shift from the balance of probability to beyond reasonable doubt will increase the difficulty for employees to prove theft by employers. The higher threshold could mean fewer successful prosecutions. This requires further investigation to ensure that the bill truly benefits employees, without creating unintended consequences.

New Zealand First is eager to ensure this bill does go to the committee stage and does get tested by all parties in this Parliament. We will remain engaged in working through the finer details. I’m sure the member will help us to alleviate some of those concerns. At it’s very core, we believe that business is about paying and being paid. A fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, and you should be paid. With that, we’ll commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I move, That the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, it is actually an honour and a privilege to stand before my colleagues and yourself today for the second reading of a member’s bill in my name. This bill, as was just mentioned, is the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. It was drawn out of the ballot on 1 February 2024, this year, and the first reading was 20 March this year as well. It was open for submissions between 6 April and 6 May, and 12 submissions were made. I take that as a positive thing that there weren’t that many submissions. The way I’d like to take it in this instance is that it means that a lot of people were very much in support of the intention of this bill.

This bill at its core is about victims. I don’t shy away from the fact that victims and protecting victims plays a huge role in the course and the direction of my actions and my thoughts, especially having the privilege of being a member of Parliament. This member’s bill has also opened up my eyes to the oscillations of lawmaking. I go back to the first reading, and I was very excited about what we had ahead of us, because of how much it would be able to protect victims, especially reflecting on some awful, abhorrent examples of how victims were being contacted from prison by the perpetrators of the crime against them.

I’m still pleased that we are charging ahead with this bill, and I’m hoping that I still will have the support of the House, but significant changes have been made, and I guess that’s where I come back to the oscillations of lawmaking and the eye-opening experience thus far that this has been for me. I reflect back to when we started receiving advice from Corrections. The advice—and it’s noted in the departmental report—essentially, prima facie, seemed like it was changing massive parts of the bill. To be honest, my human nature was like, “What’s going on here? I thought we were going down a certain path. Why are these drastic recommendations being made?” We conversed about it. The Justice Committee were very—I’m very blessed to have my colleague James Meager as the chair of the Justice Committee. He’s compassionate, he’s able, and he’s extremely acute.

James Meager: Cute.

RIMA NAKHLE: Acute—cute like my little brother, but acute. What I appreciate was the patience of the Justice Committee and Corrections staff as I navigated through the recommendations that were being made. We asked our questions, we got some thorough answers, and we went back and we asked again. Recommendations were made, and we proceeded to accept those recommendations. First and foremost—and this holds quite a weight and magnitude with respect to the intention or where the bill is going—is that we’re going to ensure that the provisions only apply to people in prison.

Now, as much as I and many people would have loved for these restrictions to apply to people that are under the care of Corrections out in the community, the fact of the matter is there’s about 26,000 people in the community, and it would be almost impossible for Corrections to make sure that they can keep an eye on all of them and all the communications they’re making, so we brought it to just affect people that are in prison.

Secondly, we’ve deleted what was clause 5 and clause 6, but we’ve, essentially, expanded what was clause 4. The amended clause 4 of the bill now is going to be amending the powers and functions of the chief executive of Corrections in section 8 of the principal Act, the Corrections Act 2004. After section 8(1)(j), it’s going to insert new paragraph (ja) “ensuring that processes are established and maintained [by Corrections] to inform visitors of prisoners and recipients of prisoner communications of measures that they can take if they do not want to be contacted by a prisoner”.

We also accepted the recommendation that we amend section 77 regarding outgoing telephone calls to add, after section 77(5) new subsection (5A) “In deciding what conditions (if any) to impose, the chief executive or the Commissioner of Police must take into account the interests of victims”. I’m pleased that we’ve managed to get across the line, so far, the word “must”, “must take into account”, as opposed to “may take into account the interests of the victim”.

We’ve also amended section 104, and that pertains to general considerations relating to mail. We’re adding into section 104(g), after “the interests of victims”, “(including, in particular, being free from unwanted contact with prisoners)”. And we’re amending section 128. This is pertaining to offences by a prisoner. We’re actually adding a new offence. That new offence in section 128(1)(r) will be, hopefully, that a prisoner cannot contact a person or solicit anyone else to contact a person who the prisoner knows or ought reasonably to have known that they don’t want to be contacted. This part in particular—we did spend quite some time considering this; what entails this “ought to have known”. But, in the end, I and so far the committee feel comfortable with that amendment.

I’d like to thank the people that made submissions. Sorry, before I do that I’d like to state that we have removed one of the clauses that was saying that Corrections had to include in their annual report a report about these measures. We’ve removed it because the strong advice from Corrections was that it was not very feasible—doable. But I’m comforted by the fact that we can ask questions during annual review to try and extract that information as well.

I’d like to thank the people that made submissions. In particular, I’d like to highlight Victim Support. What I appreciated about the written submission of Victim Support is that they spoke about how victims deserve to feel safe—absolutely; 100 percent. This, essentially, encapsulates a big part of what we’re trying to achieve with this bill. They highlighted that victims deserve to be free from revictimisation. When we look at what’s been happening in the last few years with respect to perpetrators being able to contact the victims of their crime, that’s what happens; it becomes a revictimisation. This law will help to ensure that victims are free from revictimisation.

I appreciate the fact that they said victims deserve to have autonomy. Sometimes, victims want to keep some level of contact between their family and the perpetrator. The way we’ve amended this bill touches on that. Indeed, assisting victims to move forward, or when they have autonomy and they make that clear choice that “I do not want to be contacted by this person in prison.”, that helps them to move forward as well. I thank everyone that’s been involved in this kaupapa so far and I hope that the whole House can continue to support this very important bill. I commend it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for an opportunity to say a few words about this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

I’d like to start my contribution by acknowledging the member Rima Nakhle for her very studious shepherding of this bill through the select committee process. As she has just noted, like with any bill, there’s an intentionality behind it, there’s an impetus behind it, but sometimes the details need to be worked out. I can attest to the fact that she took on that role with great aplomb and the Justice Committee was able to get the bill to this stage with that cooperation in mind.

Labour’s going to support this bill. We think that victims of crime deserve to feel safe and supported and, in particular, rightly so, when they don’t want to have contact or any type of contact with the people that caused them harm, their offender. That’s why, to a large extent, Corrections already has non-contact conditions in place to support that right. This bill, as introduced, sought to strengthen those conditions but, as has been discussed, it was operationally quite difficult to implement, given that it also would have included all of the monitoring and communication of people on community-based sentences and on orders and on parole, which I think was roughly about 26,000 people.

As you can imagine, Corrections can’t practically monitor the communications of all of those people outside the prison system in the way that they can comprehensively do it inside the wire. The Justice Committee requested that the relevant agencies continue to monitor the safeguards that are practically available to them now, which is all that we could really do, and then it proposed these—there were a few amendments, but the two main ones were introducing a new offence of making unwanted contact; to make it an offence against prison discipline. As we know, the bill already provides a suite of punishments if found guilty for that transgression against prison discipline; also, to insert a new section to require Corrections, as Rima Nakhle said, to take into account the interests of victims. That might not seem like it’s terribly robust, but it does provide that legislative foundation to say, actually, this is a priority, and when we’re thinking about prisoners’ communications in regard to their telephone calls and mail and things like that, one of the things that you have to take into consideration at the top of the list is the interests of victims.

This approach, in an effort to make the bill workable, still supports victims and makes clear what those obligations are to the Department of Corrections. It’s those obligations that I think are really important, certainly to us on this side of the House. During our last term, when Labour was in Government, we made the largest ever financial investments into victims. We launched operational pilots, pilots in the courts, we tripled the level of funding for victims’ assistance schemes, and actually even doubled the level of funding for victim support.

Whilst this bill doesn’t do a huge amount, it doesn’t do anything that’s incongruent with our stance, our previous stance in our long history on supporting victims. For that reason, we will be supporting the bill at this second reading.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora, and I’m happy to speak to Rima Nakhle’s bill. I just want to acknowledge that Rima is from Lebanon, and right now it’s terrible what’s going on in Lebanon and we as a House—I would hope—would like to acknowledge the suffering that is going on there and how hard it must be for you to be witnessing that in your homeland.

The Green Party centres the rights and protections of survivors, including those of family violence. Family and sexual violence is a scourge on our nation. It’s one of our greatest shames, it would be fair to say, and the statistics alone create a frightening picture, made worse by the fact that we consider how little of it is unreported. It’s very important that we centre our approaches around the impact on survivors or—as we commonly would call them—victims. The bill aims to protect victims of crime, and individuals under a protection order, from unwarranted contact by prisoners.

This bill has undergone significant change through the Justice Committee. The Department of Corrections raised concerns about the operational and practical challenges. That’s, to be clear, that the Department of Corrections supervises 26,000 people in the community and about 9,500 prisoners, making it difficult to monitor their communication. The select committee recommended an alternative approach to prevent prisoners from making unwanted contact with victims of crime: to create a new offence under prison discipline where a prisoner contacts someone who the prisoner knows, or reasonably ought to know, does not want to be contacted—and that is appropriate. Somebody who is a survivor—who is a victim—should not be contacted by the person who has committed the harm to them. We absolutely support that principle.

It also suggested establishing an obligation on the chief executive to be required to establish and maintain processes to inform visitors of prisoners and recipients of prisoner communications about measures they can take if they do not want to be contacted by a prisoner. It is right that Corrections should be informed of that information by those who are survivors of harm. It also requires that Corrections take victims’ interests into account, in particular being free from unwanted contact when deciding what conditions to impose on prisoners regarding outgoing telephone calls.

Now, despite the creation of a new offence, the Green Party, on balance, continues to support this bill at the second reading. It supports victims to be able control what contact they receive from prisoners and makes clear the department’s obligations to victims. It supports our party’s policy to better enforce no-contact orders and generally to support the victims of crime. In part, this is because it includes people who have a protection order against somebody, including those who seek protection from family violence.

We do not support the too-easy knee-jerk concept of “tough on crime”, because, for decades, Governments have created a justice system that ignores the drivers and the causes of crime and instead puts people in prisons with inadequate rehabilitation support. Often, as we know—and there’s very strong literature on this—those people who end up being the perpetrators of harm were very often, themselves, the victims of harm.

In no way does having been a victim of harm justify you being a perpetrator of harm—in no way—but for us as a society to understand the systemic causes of harm, we need to have the ability to dispassionately recognise what is the origin of the characteristics that lead to harm being caused by people. Very often, they themselves were the victims of harm. That is why we reject the simple headline “tough on crime”. We need a more sophisticated and compassionate and, frankly, scientific, evidence-based understanding of the drivers of harm in our society. These approaches on “tough on crime” have failed to address the underlying drivers in crime, and, in many cases, have pushed people further into crisis.

This is a bill that we commend, for it establishes a very important principle: that those people who are the victims of crime should have the ability to take control of their own circumstances and to protect themselves from further harm from those people who have harmed them. We will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it is actually my genuine pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT and talk on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. I want to really commend my Government colleague Rima Nakhle for being able to get this bill drawn and then move it forward in the process. In fact, Rima Nakhle and I actually have quite a lot in common. We’re both lawyers—or retired lawyers now, probably, we would say. We’ve both lived in Sydney for a long period of time, and have both had a bill drawn out in this Parliament.

I actually have the pleasure of sitting alongside Miss Nakhle in the Justice Committee, and it is a real pleasure to work with her in that select committee, along with all the other members of that select committee, particularly when we have a bill like this where we can actually work constructively together. That’s not always the case in the Justice Committee, because this Government does have a different approach on law and order, which, I would like to say, is victim-centric and also wants to make sure people are punished for crimes.

Before I come back to how I think this fits nicely into the coalition Government’s crime agenda, I do just want to reflect on the bill and the process, because it was genuinely constructive. I do want to thank James Meager, the chair—I don’t know if I’d describe him as cute, but that has been said. He did a very good job. I’d also want to acknowledge all of the members of the select committee, including the Opposition members, because it was actually a very constructive discussion. As has been covered, the bill as introduced has been altered, but the intent behind it, I think, has been honoured. I actually do want to thank the Corrections officials and, of course, the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I see that Minister Mitchell is here in the House tonight, and so I would like to say that the Corrections officials were amazing during this process, and so, as the responsible Minister, you should pass that on—they really did go out of their way to make this workable.

As we have heard, there were some issues that we uncovered as a select committee around workability, but we were able to forge on and, again, Rima Nakhle was very gracious in working through those issues with us and also being open to changes while still being honest to the intent of this bill. We, obviously, did have some submissions—not too many, but the ones we did have were very impactful and did home in on the details.

I think what we’ve ended up with really is a very useful member’s bill that is actually going to offer an additional layer of protection to victims. Again, these are people where protection orders are in place. Obviously, the person who has caused them harm is in prison and they do not want to be contacted by that person, whether it’s phone calls, emails, post—whatever that kind of communication is, that wants to be stopped. What we now have is a requirement on the chief executive to put in place these processes and actually articulate what they are and make sure that they are understood. Again, that was a change that was put in place, and, obviously, this new punishment section, or—yeah, we’ll call it that. Really, the new offence of unwanted contact, adding that in—so, again, that gives Corrections the power to actually do something when a prisoner intervenes, in this regime.

Obviously, one of the things we did talk about was Corrections having—and, again, Mr Abel talked about the number of people actually under the control of Corrections, some 9,500 actually incarcerated but many, many more in the community. Of course, it was impractical to place this onus on Corrections to deal with, you know—just have this restriction on people in the community. I think that actually uncovered a very important issue around inter-departmental communications—communications between the courts, Corrections, and even the Police, when these kinds of protection orders are in place. I think, as a select committee, that’s something we want to follow up on, because it does seem that we don’t actually have a kind of connectivity about when protection orders, etc., are in place. Again, I think that’s something we want to follow up on.

I just want to return to saying how I think this fits into the Government’s agenda on law and order. That’s why I think it was really good that this bill was drawn out. We’ve gone through the select committee process, I think we’re going to get to the committee of the whole House process, and, hopefully, a successful third reading—but that’s all in the future. I think, again, as reflected across the three parties, that we do have an approach on law and order that is victim-centric and making sure that, actually, the rights of victims are upheld. A part of that is some of the other changes in law and order that we are introducing. Again, there’ll be a lot of discussion in the coming weeks around things like three strikes and the other changes around sentencing that we’re going to be doing. That really is us saying that, you know, things in New Zealand have got out of control and we want to put tougher measures in place.

Mr Abel, we want to have people properly protected and incarcerated where necessary, but I do think rehabilitation is a worthwhile thing. We’ve already introduced changes so we can actually have some rehabilitation programmes for people on remand. My own bill addresses some issues around rehabilitation programmes. It is very important. In fact, we were lucky enough, some members of the Justice Committee, to travel during the recess to Christchurch, and we actually visited the women’s prison in Christchurch and got to spend some time in the therapeutic community that had only been open a few months, which I think was a really, really interesting experience.

Minister Mitchell, if you get the chance to go down there and meet with that therapeutic community, I think it really is a very interesting model. We heard from the people in that community about how it was turning their lives around. Some of them had actually asked to be transferred into that prison just so they could participate in that programme. It was really a kind of multidisciplinary, really trust-building community. Obviously, we need to see the results—it had only been opened a short while—but it had very promising results. Actually, the women there were really invested in wanting to turn their lives around. That’s, obviously, another thing that we’re very keen to encourage, because we don’t want people returning to prison—that is very expensive, and when they could be contributing members of our society that is a much better outcome for everyone.

Again, I think it’s great timing that Miss Nakhle’s bill got drawn, because I do think it just adds to the wonderful compliment of policies and initiatives we’ve got across the spectrum. I really do think it will make a difference for victims’ interests and rights. As I said, it was a very rigorous process where we addressed the issues that were uncovered, and, again, I think it was a select committee process actually working at its best. While it is only a short bill, I think it will do great things by reinforcing that, where victims do not want this unwanted contact and that is known, that is stopped. It was very heartening to hear from Corrections about the processes that they already have in place, but this would expand and make sure that this really was well known to victims, about their rights.

I think this is an excellent member’s bill. It’s been a pleasure being part of the committee to work on it, and it’s great to see we’re getting widespread support across the House to do something for victims. I will definitely be commending this to the House, and ACT is very pleased to support it.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. It is my first opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation. I would like to recognise my South Auckland neighbour Rima Nakhle for bringing this to the House and traversing this complex process to get this bill to this stage. I think, fundamentally, we’re talking about enhancing safety within correctional facilities by introducing just another obligation on the chief executive and prison managers to prevent that unwanted communication.

We’ve talked a lot about victims today, but I think we also need to recognise that this is about those that are subject to protection orders, and that that’s an important component as to what we’re doing. It’s not lost on me that this is the second time I’ve had to speak this evening in this House about the ability of us as a Government to implement greater protections, to think more broadly about what we’re trying to deliver for our communities, and to ensure that we have some level of safety—and recognise that we are trying to deliver, across the House, really practical solutions. They may be incremental and you may think that it’s not quite everything you want it to be, but I think it’s a really important piece of legislation. We’re not just talking about this being an obligation on the corrections process to inform but in some degree it’s an empowerment of those that are subject of protection orders; it’s an empowerment of the victims to be able to take a little bit more control of their destiny.

I talked a lot today about how we know that the protection orders aren’t giving the security that we want. We know that they’re not giving that safety net to the extent that we want to have them, but I think as we educate and empower those that are vulnerable and those that have been victims of their rights—and this is just another opportunity. Beyond the intention of what you wanted to do about the communication, it’s actually another opportunity to talk to our vulnerable people, to our victims, to empower, strengthen, and give them some hope as to their ability to control their destiny. I think, in that regard, I would credit that the bill has actually achieved something a little bit more than I think we first thought it would.

The other component I would really like to touch on is about Corrections themselves. I think this is an organisation that is often demonised and is often held to account for not delivering everything we want—that they are the necessary evil that we really don’t want—but when we look at Corrections and we look at the proactive way in which they contributed to this legislation, they really did come to the party to try and find a practical way to navigate, recognising their limitations but also offering the opportunity to do something better. These are people that are truly committed to providing some protections for those that are vulnerable. Contrary to the discussion that we’ve heard across the House, they are committed to rehabilitation, they are committed to trying to break the cycle. There are some really dedicated and hard-working individuals in the Corrections sector.

I’d also like to use the opportunity, because it’s been raised in the House tonight, to talk about this idea of understanding the drivers of crime. I think we can stand on this side of the House, with this Government, recognising that we have done something so significant in terms of shifting the dial on criminal activity, because the one really solid determinant beyond all others is the education we give our young people. That will be the determinant as to whether we shift criminal activity. That is part of this discussion where I really think it’s important that we look at all aspects. We’re not just talking about victimhood; we’re actually talking about breaking the cycle of crime as well and empowering the victims. I think that educational start, that ability to have your destiny under your control, is one of the strongest things we can do to ensure that we break the cycle of criminality. That is the hope that we want to give young people. We do not want to rob them of their potential. We want to recognise that every child has that great opportunity to be more and better than they even dreamt they could be. I think this is one of the things that makes me so proud to be part of this Government.

I think we also want to touch on the fact that there is this tendency to talk about your life being in somebody else’s hands. We really need to drive that personal accountability and that responsibility and your ability to control your destiny. That’s why I like the fact that we are talking about a piece of legislation that will inform those that are victims, that will inform those that are vulnerable, and have protection orders, of their powers and their ability to control their destiny. I think it’s a really important piece of legislation around how we’re going to move forward and discuss better opportunities.

I talked a bit earlier tonight about the woman whose husband, as soon as he was released from prison, went straight to her house after being released from murdering his second wife, and the intervention. What I didn’t mention was that, at the same time, the woman had lived for nearly nine years in a state of constantly being harassed. That’s why she’d moved house so many times. That’s why she had. With all of his network, as soon as they were released from prison, they would track her down, and they would find her—under the protection orders. Granted that’s 30-odd years ago, when I was a lot younger and could still pass the physical competency test, but we’re now talking about a time where it worries me that not much has changed. Not much has shifted.

These are all of these little steps that we’re delivering: all of those little opportunities we have to ensure that we are respecting the rights of those that are vulnerable, that we are strengthening the level of importance that these protection orders have, that we are making sure that when you are in custody and when you are serving your penalties, you are deprived of some level of rights and that you are constrained to some extent, and that there is accountability for when you break those rules.

I really commend the effort that’s gone into this. Justice Committee, I can appreciate, going through the notes, how much you’ve had to navigate to get this one over the line. The beauty of this process, the legislative process, is that there is compromise, there is opportunity to think of a different way to come to the same end conclusion.

I would like to talk briefly about New Zealand First’s position on this space. We have talked repeatedly about our determination to put victims first and to create a wrap-around response to make sure that we don’t create more victims and that those that are victims are better supported and better protected. Really, as we go through this whole process of all of these incremental pieces of legislation, what we’re saying is that we hear you; what we’re saying is that we understand. When you have members of Parliament who are prepared to stand up and do the hard yards to find a way to navigate a piece of legislation that will give us some really smart solutions, even if they’re in little increments, even if they’re little steps in the right direction, it’s really encouraging about our democratic process, about the parliamentary process, and about how we make laws. We can take a problem, we can identify that there’s something that we might be able to do better, and we can take little steps forward to ensure that we achieve it.

That’s really encouraging, and it’s encouraging across all of the platforms we’re doing. It’s encouraging about the fact that we recognise how important education is. It’s encouraging that we recognise how important it is to have a good home and to get our young people out of motels so we can break that cycle. It’s encouraging to be able to sit in this House and come across pieces of legislation that we can all collectively come together and go, “Hey, this is a great idea. It’s not perfect, and maybe we can build on it. Maybe we can do more.” But, right now, we’ve got a piece of legislation that says, “Hey, how about this?” We will do something to make sure that our vulnerable people are heard, that we’re listening to them, and that we’re prepared to pass a piece of legislation and do the hard work.

I can appreciate, Rima, this has not been an easy process for you. I commend that you got this bill drawn. I commend that we’re actually sitting here today looking at one more way that we can make sure victims know they will be protected, they will be heard, and that, when you have a protection order, we will make sure it means something. We will make sure that more will be done to ensure you will be safe and you’ll be protected and you’ll be empowered and you’ll be able to move forward with your life. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Like the other speakers in this debate, I do want to congratulate MP Rima Nakhle for the work on the bill up to this point. I’m sure that she has been doing a whole lot of really important work to get the bill back to the second reading, as it is now.

As other speakers have alluded to, the bill did change during the select committee process. I’m not a member of the Justice Committee but, having heard from the Department of Corrections about difficulties operationalising the bill as it was, they were pretty substantial changes and the Justice Committee proposed an alternative approach that would be more feasible for implementation.

I just wanted to follow up on the comments from my colleague Steve Abel about how important it is to have a survivor-centred approach to justice and how important it is to avoid re-traumatisation. A survivor-focused approach systematically focuses on their safety, their rights, their wellbeing, and their expressed needs and choices. Ensuring that survivors of family violence are protected from unwanted contact can be seen to align with that approach, and that’s why the Green Party is supporting this bill.

However, I do want to take the opportunity in this debate to point out that a survivor-centred approach to justice is fundamentally different from some of the current tough on crime stance which this Government is pushing, which I, unfortunately, don’t think is evidence-based and won’t reduce harm over the generations—in fact, it could lead to more harm, unfortunately. When it comes to family violence, it ends up being the justice system itself that can cause as much harm as the actual family violence, and it certainly leads to the perpetuation of violence in many aspects of our society.

As the previous speaker, Minister Casey Costello, said, I think we do need to listen to the people who are most affected. I think the Green Party absolutely supports that. If we did listen to survivors of family violence, I think we would be taking a better approach overall to how we address restorative justice and justice in this country. The imminent apology that is going to result from the inquiry into the abuse in State care, I think, is a good example where that was a really painful process, a difficult process, and while some steps are being taken, we’re still falling well short of what is needed to address the harm that was caused in those circumstances where it was the State that was responsible.

As we can see, there’s a lot of support for this bill across the House. Maybe this is an opportunity to shift away from adversarial processes towards genuine restorative justice and to build some cross-party support for a more effective approach to reducing crime and harm in our society. As such, the Greens strongly urge the Government to continue prioritising Te Aorerekura, the vital system-wide changes that that advocates, because that strategy—and I have to acknowledge the work of the Hon Marama Davidson as the former prevention of family and sexual violence Minister, and also the work of my former colleague MP Jan Logie, who was the under-secretary who started that work. That is about primary prevention over a 25-year period, and it is a blueprint for change. Again, the Hon Casey Costello mentioned that not much has changed in 30 years, so maybe it is time to take a different approach.

It’s hard to take seriously the Government’s commitment to that approach when funding has been cut to so many providers in the prevention of violence space—$18 million per year has been cut from prevention community contractors, and some of those people have been delivering key, evidence-based functional family therapy and other proven methods of preventing family violence.

Anyway, to summarise, the Green Party are supporting this bill. It is a step towards fostering a survivor-centred approach within our justice system, and that is a good thing.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare, otirā aroha mai mō te mikirapu i ngā wāhi kōrero.

E mihi ana ki te mema o tēnei pire nāna i kawe mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata, ki a koe, Rima. Tēnā rā koe mō te kawe i tēnei pire whakahirahira mā mātou ki te kōrero. Waihoki e whakaaro nui ana ahau me tō tātou pāti ki tō iwi, ki ō whānau kei tō iwi taketake, ki Lebanon hoki.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to all of us of the House, and I apologise for mixing up the speaking order.

I acknowledge the member of this bill who has brought it into the House of Parliament, to you Rima. Thank you for bringing this significant bill forward for us to discuss. Furthermore, our party and I offer condolences to your people, your families in your native people, and to Lebanon.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori ki te whakaatu, ki te kōrero mō tēnei o ngā pire [to demonstrate, and to speak on this particular bill], the Victims Corrections Amendment Bill. Te Pāti Māori supports this bill and he reo whakamiha hoki ki te komiti whakahaere i roto i te Justice Committee hoki [and a voice of gratitude also to the managing committee too, i.e., the Justice Committee.]

For our whānau at home, this bill intends to protect victims of crime by preventing their perpetrators from contacting them, having the protection orders in place for victims. It amends the Corrections Act 2004 to create an obligation for prison managers and CEOs to ensure that victims and others who are subject to protection orders under the Family Violence Act 2018 are protected from unwanted communications from prisoners.

This is a serious and pervasive issue in Aotearoa, affecting people of all ages, genders, ethnicities, and socio-economic backgrounds. However, we all know that Māori are disproportionately represented. People living with this trauma should not be forced to relive it through ongoing communications from their perpetrator. This is a common-sense, pragmatic, yet simple law change that would provide relief and protection to victims of crime. I was truly surprised to know that this was not a law already here, in Aotearoa.

Ko tā Te Pāti Māori e manako nei i roto i tēnei pire ko te tiaki i ngā tāngata kua patua e te tūkino a ngā tāngata kei ngā whare herehere kia whakahaumaru i a rātou. Mō ngā tāngata kua kite i te pani, te pouwaru me te rawakore. Kia tiaki i ō rātou tinana, wairua, hinengaro, whānau hoki, kia korowaitia, kia haumarutia. Ko te maruāpō o tēnei o ngā pire he tāhuhu i te tangata.

I roto i tēnei o ngā pire, e whakaaturia te mana ōrite.

[What the Māori Party desires within this bill is the protection of the people who have been assaulted by the abuse of the people incarcerated in prison, so that they are safe. For the people who have been orphaned, bereaved, or impoverished. To protect their bodies, spirits, minds, and family too, so they are cloaked and made safe. The aspiration of this bill is to back people.

In this particular bill, equal rights are on display.]

Māori are overrepresented as victims in the criminal justice system. We are the most impacted group by any changes made in this space. This bill will bring a positive change for victims, it allows us to listen to the families of victims in crime, and it is what is needed to address the harm. I roto i te mana o te mana mokopuna [Within the power of the rights of the grandchild], this will go a long way in protecting mokopuna and whānau who have experienced this violence. This is a straightforward bill that we, from Te Pāti Māori, intend to still support. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The previous speaker, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, started her speech by apologising for getting the order wrong. I don’t think she needs to apologise, because I was watching the TV and the numbers at the top as well and I thought that they were one behind too. I think we can put that down to a technical blip rather than any fault of the member. I just wanted to note that for people watching at home—and just to congratulate you and welcome you back from overseas. What a great achievement for you as well.

It’s quite difficult as the chair of a committee to get up after eight people have spoken and then do your traditional job of recapping what happened in the select committee and who came and submitted and what the process was. I thought I would do that. However, I thought I’d go a little bit off-piste at the start and talk about the sponsor of the bill, Rima Nakhle, and her advocacy for the bill throughout this process. I think, first of all, I want to congratulate the member for having her bill drawn. It is the second one of my colleagues that I’ve jealously had to congratulate tonight for having a member’s bill pulled in their first term and one which will, hopefully, have support of the House—and I think it does—and it will be seen all the way through.

I wanted to make a comment on Mrs Nakhle’s advocacy and support for victims and victims’ rights, because, having sat on the select committee with my colleague for almost a year now, I have not seen a more fierce advocate for the rights of victims and for victims’ issues on that committee than anyone else who sits on the committee—to the point where I think sometimes other members of the committee may get a little bit tense or might have some concerns about the way that my colleague does advocate for victims, because she isn’t afraid to point out when offending has impacts on victims. She isn’t afraid to push back on submitters who take a slightly maybe one-sided approach to the justice system and forget about the rights of victims. She is always there to support them. She is always putting forward what she thinks is the right thing to do, which is to put victims at the heart of our justice system. That is what this bill is about. I really congratulate my colleague for bringing it forward. I’m sure it’s the first of many, many bills like this that she will be able to speak to and sponsor in her long time through the House.

Can I acknowledge the support that she has out there, not only in her electorate but at home as well. I know her number one fan is probably watching late at night—he always is—and he’ll be texting through his support and his commentary. Just to Roger out there: big shout-out to Roger, and I thank him for his support for Rima in this bill too.

Look, it’s important I put that on the record, because throughout the process of this bill and of many bills that we face and we scrutinise in the Justice Committee, victims are central to everything that we think about. It’s central to this Government’s approach to justice; it’s central to this Government’s approach to crime and to corrections and to rehabilitation. The number one focus is about reducing the impact of crime on victims in our community, and this is a small but meaningful step in doing so.

I wanted to take the House through some of what the select committee did discuss through that process that we undertook for several months. As we’ve heard, there were a handful of submissions made—12 in total. Now, that doesn’t seem like a lot—certainly not as many as we have received on other bills, and it’s certainly not as many as I anticipate receiving on some of the bills that we will be considering shortly—however, we should not substitute quantity of submissions for quality of submissions. If anyone has the opportunity to go into the select committee tool and to read the departmental report, you will see a very thorough analysis of the submissions made by those 12 individuals and organisations, and especially from the three oral submissions.

I wanted to put that on the record because, a lot of the time, people think that it’s the number of people submitting on a particular issue that counts, or it’s the number of forms or the number of emails that you can get through that really makes a difference. Yes, while quantity does show strength of opinion for or against an issue, more often than not, select committees are persuaded and convinced by the strength of arguments and the quality of arguments made in submissions. We’ve seen that here in this bill, where most of the submitters were strongly in favour of the bill and most of the submitters made their submissions around the rights of victims as well.

As we have heard, the select committee did make a number of changes to the bill on the basis of advice by Corrections officials. I wanted to echo the comments of Mr Stephenson, who spoke very highly of the Corrections officials. He has had a lot to do with them recently, for his own bill, and I’m sure—

Todd Stephenson: In a professional capacity!

JAMES MEAGER: In a professional capacity; not in any personal pastime capacity! I would echo his high praise for the officials from Corrections. We have seen them for a number of bills now, including the quite substantial Corrections Amendment Bill that we walked through. On every occasion, their advice has been clear, it has been concise, and it has been valuable in the select committee’s consideration of what changes to make to this bill.

In particular, in this case—and I know Ms Nakhle won’t mind me mentioning it—there were probably times when there was perhaps a little bit of disappointment that some of the advice coming back indicated that the bill might not have been able to achieve what it originally set out to achieve. That’s fairly common in members’ bills, because we often have an idea, it’s a good intention, it’s put into a bill, and it’s pulled out of the ballot, but then, when the officials toss it around and they go through the operational implications, sometimes bills with the best of intentions just aren’t able to be operationalised, and this is one of those bills in this case. That’s why some of the changes have been made, to reflect the fact, as many members have mentioned already, of the shocking statistic or number—that Corrections have responsibility, control, or supervision of around 26,000 members of the community and 9,500 prisoners.

If you look at the departmental report, it goes through the steps and the kind of engagement and the controls that Corrections have in place for those 9,500 prisoners, where they can screen mail, they can check mail, they can have access to emails, they can put in place controls on ingoing and outgoing phone calls. Those are the kinds of things which, whilst onerous, are able to be operationalised within the Corrections system. That is not the case for those 26,000 individuals in the community. It was very clear from the start that, while, I think, in an ideal world, we would like to be able to put some more controls and some more conditions in place to make sure that victims of crime and people who are subject to protection orders are not only safe from prisoners inside prison but also safe from those who have offended and who have been released into the community—and who may still wish to pursue victims or family members or those who just don’t want to have contact made with them.

I would draw the House’s attention to the section at the end of the departmental report which does take members through some of the things that Corrections can do to monitor communications of offenders in the community. There are some restrictions that can be put in place by the Parole Board, there are some controls that can be put in place, but when we are talking about 26,000 people, it’s just not feasible to do so and operationalise through this bill. That’s not to say we shouldn’t stop trying to reduce those numbers. We shouldn’t stop making those investments in crime prevention. We shouldn’t stop Nicola Willis’ social investment approach, where we will be looking at programmes and measures that work, including rehabilitation for prisoners on remand. I reflect on the trip that we took to Christchurch a couple of weeks ago—a very good trip—and we visited the justice precinct and saw the exceptional facilities, the court facilities, the police facilities, the linked-up approach that the justice pipeline is taking, but also, we saw what kinds of services and facilities are available out there in our Corrections institutions, at Christchurch men’s and Christchurch women’s prisons. I will reiterate how impressed I was with the women at Christchurch women’s prison, in the therapeutic unit that we went to.

When we talk about trying to do our best to make sure we rehabilitate prisoners—and there is the stick side of it; there are the punitive controls. Having a new offence in here about prisoners who do contact people who do not wish to be contacted is the right thing to do, but there is also the side of this Government and this Government’s approach which is that we do need to make sure that when people are in our care and in our custody in prisons, they are given the opportunity for rehabilitation. I was struck by the relationship that those women had with the Corrections staff. It wasn’t a master-slave relationship, nor was it a collegial buddy-buddy relationship, but it was one that was built on respect, and it was one where Minister Costello mentioned the idea of taking responsibility for your actions. The women in that unit reflected back to me, and I’m sure to the group, that their experience in the short time that they’d been in there certainly made them realise that they were the ones who were accountable for their actions, they were the ones who could make decisions and make changes in their lives, and with the support of the Corrections team and with the support of the community and the Government, that is what can happen when we put the right resources in the right place.

This is a small change in the right direction. It will do a significant amount to provide reassurance to victims of crime that they will be free from unwanted contact. I look forward to hearing more about it in the committee stage, and I look forward to its passage through the House in the coming weeks and months. With that, I would just like to congratulate Mrs Nakhle and commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Goodnight, everyone.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.