TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: He aha ngā rīpoata hou kua kitea e ia mō te ōhanga o Aotearoa?
[What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?]
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Statistics New Zealand's latest labour market statistics show good news for Kiwi workers. According to data for the December 2019 quarter, average hourly earnings growth remains strong. Total average hourly earnings across the economy were up 3.6 percent over 2019. There are other measures too. The Labour Cost Index rose 2.6 percent over 2019—its strongest annual increase in over a decade. By comparison, Stats New Zealand Consumers Price Index inflation data for the December quarter showed annual inflation at 1.9 percent in 2019. For this Government, it's increasing wages that's the key to supporting New Zealanders to meet their cost of living.
Tamati Coffey: How is the Government supporting wage growth in New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government is committed to a productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy where all New Zealanders get their fair share. We have a range of policies and measures in place, which I'll just run through a few of. These include increases to the minimum wage; backing business productivity through our R & D tax incentive; negotiating pay equity agreements; more money going into Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, and other initiatives to boost the productivity of workers; and significantly boosting pay for teachers, nurses, and the police.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Has the Minister seen the reports from Statistics New Zealand's household income and housing-cost survey, which surveyed the period June 2018 to June 2019, which show that more than 46,000 people have been lifted out of poverty?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm working my way through that survey that's come out today, and I believe that the Prime Minister is correct. What we are seeing is the impact of a Government that actually cares about ensuring all New Zealanders get a fair share.
Tamati Coffey: What reports has he seen on other approaches to growing wages in New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen reports from some commentators who appear to be against higher wages. For example, one commentator this morning suggested that cancelling the Government's minimum wage increase to $20 per hour is something that they are thinking about. That would cost a full-time worker on the minimum wage—
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!
David Seymour: Has the Minister seen any reports of growth in activity in the photography sector?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don't analyse it down to that level, and, since the member stopped his dancing career, I think people are less interested in taking photos of politicians.
David Seymour: Who might be employing these photographers if there were any?
SPEAKER: Order! It's not something that member has responsibility for.
Hon Damien O'Connor: What reports has the Minister seen on economic growth in the Buller region?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Buller region, on the West Coast of New Zealand, has shown this year a 2.3 percent economic growth rate. This stands in contrast to three years ago, when the economy in the Buller region shrank 18.3 percent. The local mayor Jamie Cleine labelled the growth as a major turn-around, and I just want to quote him briefly: "The figures show we have turned a corner and reflect the feeling on the street that is … positive. Town is really busy and people are talking about the parking problems on Palmerston Street."
SPEAKER: That might be stretching it.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement when asked yesterday if there are standards of behaviour she believes minor parties in her Government should adhere to, "of course"?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): The only amendment I would make is that I believe all political parties should adhere to a high standard of behaviour.
Hon Simon Bridges: Has she seen any recent reporting of behaviour by minor parties in her Government that might, if she were to seek more information, breach her minimum standards?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. I've seen statements from a minor party recently demonstrating that those Ministers, MPs, have not been involved in the behaviour that the member alludes to.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept the Cabinet Manual states that "Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she believe all of her Ministers have acted lawfully and behaved "in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards", as required by the Cabinet Manual?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think her Deputy Prime Minister upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Prime Minister knew that a certain political leader was going to be swept into a court case involving $200,000 of illegal donations to a party, would she act on that matter?
SPEAKER: Order! On occasions we do, these days, allow hypothetical questions, but if that question was taken seriously, it would be referring to a matter that is currently before the court, which would be ruled out both on that basis and also a lack of prime ministerial responsibility for it.
Hon Simon Bridges: What ethical standards has her Deputy Prime Minister upheld in the last two weeks?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member wishes to ask a direct question about an issue around ministerial conduct, he is most welcome to, but I imagine the public right now sees the deep irony of this line of questioning from the leader of the National Party. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she trust her Deputy Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. This is how we've managed to deliver an economy together, and our relationship—an economy that has unemployment at 4 percent, that has wage growth at 3.6 percent, that today has delivered 46,000 New Zealanders out of poverty. If that member might look for a moment at what New Zealanders actually care about, it's their wages, it's their housing costs, it's what we're doing on child poverty, and with the New Zealand First Party and the Greens I am proud of what we have delivered through our trusting relationships and a strong Government.
SPEAKER: Before the Leader of the Opposition calls, I just want to say that during that answer there were two inappropriate interjections made. I've been asked to be a bit more liberal and soft by people on both sides, and I will, but there is a limit.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I don't mean to correct you in any way, but just would point out that you've also said in the past that once a Minister gives an answer, "yes", that's all that needs to be given. I can think of Mr Twyford being put in that position, Mr Hipkins being put in that position.
SPEAKER: Yes. The member is absolutely correct, but it does depend on the question. When there is a question of that sort, which goes to a question of trust and why, there will be a full opportunity to respond.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think her Deputy Prime Minister justifying taking photos of journalists by saying it's just doing "to them what they do to others all the time" meets the standards set out in the Cabinet Manual?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the Deputy Prime Minister has put out the clarity around that situation today and, again, I don't see how this relates to ministerial conduct.
Hon Simon Bridges: Has she spoken to her Deputy Prime Minister about the photographs taken of journalists?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he has had no involvement in that situation.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements and policies?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given—in particular, my statement that the economic speech given yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition was over-hyped, under-delivered, relentlessly negative, and full of tired ideas.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think Kiwis on the average wage pay too much tax?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think that, when you look at the global situation, New Zealanders pay tax at a much lower level than most other countries.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think Kiwis on the average wage pay too much tax?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand has the second-lowest tax on labour income in the OECD for the average single worker with no children, and for a one-earner married couple with two children, New Zealand has the lowest tax on labour income in the OECD.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why has his Government not offered a single cent in tax relief for Kiwis who work?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The tax rates that we inherited—if we're talking about income tax here—have enabled us to be able to rectify some of the problems that we were left with: our run-down hospitals, our run-down schools, the need to rebuild our police force. All of these things take time to do. We're making good progress on them, but the amount of money that's required to do that is the amount of money that we're getting in. We continue to try and build on our programmes of the last two years.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept many New Zealanders are struggling with the cost of living?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I accept that it has been, since time immemorial, an issue that the costs of living go up. As I said in the answer to question No. 1, the very best way to deal with that is to see wages lift. That's how we'll make New Zealanders more wealthy, and we're making good progress on that, with average earnings going up by 3.6 percent in the last year.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So when he increased core Crown spending by $6.5 billion last year, did he give any consideration to putting some of that money back in the hands of taxpayers?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would have loved to have done that, but the problem was we had hospitals that had been run down, $2 billion not put into the health system that needed to be, kids being taught in school halls and libraries instead of classrooms, not enough teachers, not enough police officers. So that additional spending is required to rebuild the public services that New Zealanders deserve.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm reports from Statistics New Zealand today on the household income survey, which shows that the median household equivalised disposable income has risen 10 percent in recent times, under this Government?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that that is the Statistics New Zealand release today. I can also confirm that the average household equivalised disposable income rose 4.9 percent just in 2019 alone.




Question No. 4—Public Housing
4. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does he believe the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill will create a fairer deal for people who rent; if so, how?
SPEAKER: The Hon Kris Faafoi—with a slight adjustment on the wording.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Yes. The Government is delivering a fairer and more secure rental market for renters and landlords with the introduction of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. We're doing this by limiting rent increases to once every 12 months and banning the solicitation of rental bids by landlords. We're also improving tenants' security by removing a landlord's ability to evict people out of their homes without giving them a valid reason. We're also giving landlords new tools to deal with antisocial behaviour and also rent arrears. Making rental properties safer and more livable is also the aspiration for the bill, by letting tenants add minor fittings, such as brackets to secure furniture against earthquake risk, making their homes safer for their young children.
Marama Davidson: Will these reforms improve housing security so that renters can put down roots in their communities?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes. The Government considers that every New Zealander should have a safe, warm, dry, and secure home to call their own, even if they're renting. One of the building blocks of this reform is improving the security of tenure, and this means that tenants who are meeting their obligations will feel confident that they can remain in their rental homes. We have already improved housing security in State houses by exempting retirees, children, and people with disabilities from tenancy reviews.
Marama Davidson: Will people who rent be able to make their house a home, through minor changes such as putting up pictures, securing furniture against earthquake risk, and making the property safe for children?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes. As I mentioned earlier, the Residential Tenancies Act changes as proposed will allow minor fittings, including securing furniture, protecting against earthquake risks, or making properties child safe much easier for tenants. Working with their landlords, the bill will allow tenants to install these minor fittings. This is limited to low-risk fittings that meet certain criteria, and tenants will be required to install and remove the fittings at their own cost and return the property to a reasonable standard.
Marama Davidson: How will these reforms limit rent increases?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Frequent rent increases have been found to leave tenants vulnerable to rental stress, particularly low-income tenants or tenants who experience changes in their financial circumstances. This bill will limit increases to once every 12 months to give tenants more certainty over their costs but continue to allow landlords to make reasonable adjustments to rent. This reflects the balanced approach we have taken to improve the tenants' security in their own homes while recognising that there are business needs of landlords.
Marama Davidson: Does he agree that there's more work to do before every New Zealander has a warm, dry, safe, affordable home to call their own, whether they rent or own?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes. We're doing this because over a million New Zealanders are now renting. When the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act was first introduced, 26 percent of New Zealand children were in rental accommodation. The latest figures have that at 43 percent. We need to make sure that there are fundamental changes in our residential tenancies legislation to make sure that children grow up in a home that is warm, dry, and stable.




Question No. 5—Housing
5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Does she support a housing market where private citizens can be outbid by the Government when buying their first home?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): It's never ideal when New Zealanders miss out on opportunities to get into their first home, and, if the member is referring to the Onehunga development that's been reported in the media recently, obviously it's an incredibly hard situation for the buyers, and I've sought assurances from officials that this is the only case as we deliver a thousand transitional housing places this year. Nor do I support a housing market where people are homeless, where families are sleeping in cars and garages, where people are dumped in motels, where we have a chronic shortage of houses, and where desperately needed State houses are sold off. That's the legacy we inherited from the previous Government, and we are putting it right.
Hon Judith Collins: Then why are more people living in motels, living in cars, and going homeless under her watch? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I'm very glad the member asked. What we can see, if we do the calculations, is the fact that we ended up—the previous Government's term of Government—with 1,500 fewer public housing spots. They failed to build. If they'd built at our rate, that we are over-delivering on, of 1,600 houses a year, that would mean 15,000 more public housing spaces. We would have no public housing wait-lists, we would not have people in motels, and we would not have homeless. That member should feel some shame about that.
Hon Judith Collins: So if the Government is in the market to buy houses, then why don't they buy the 323 unsold KiwiBuild houses that are languishing there? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because they are all available for first-home buyers to buy, and, if the member cares to look, what she can see, actually, is that we have had uplift in first-home sales. But I would also point out to the member that buying in homes for public housing is nothing new. If I look at the 2012-13 financial year, 261 public housing spots were delivered by the then Government and 164 were buy-ins—or 62 percent. If I look at the 2018-19 financial year, 1,805 public housing spots were delivered by our Government and only 22 percent of them were buy-ins.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Going from the original question, does she support a housing market where Kiwi private citizens can be outbid by foreigners when buying their first home? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the member, no, and that's why we made the changes to ensure that New Zealanders could achieve first-home ownership.
Hon Judith Collins: Is the Government competing in the first-home buyer market in a bid to increase the number of houses it is now claiming to have built? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Absolutely not. I'll refer the member to the previous question that she asked and the answer that I gave to that: that we are building far more houses and a lower proportion of them are buy-ins. The member cannot escape the fact that we are building more public houses than any Government has in generations. It is something we are rightly proud of. We are building houses to make up for a previous Government that sold them off. 
Hon Judith Collins: So does she agree with her chief executive Andrew Crisp, who told the Social Services and Community Committee on 20 November last year, "So Kāinga Ora and the community housing sector are, as I said, being very careful not to displace people from the market—that's the intention.", and, if she does, then why is he doing it? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I do agree with him, and what we can see, actually, is the record of Kāinga Ora: 22 percent in the 2018-19 year were buy-ins, down from the record 60-something percent that the previous Government achieved, and, actually, to date this year at 15 percent. But, for the record, I don't agree with that member's leader, who described our homelessness package as a knee-jerk way without a plan that was wasteful expenditure, either. 




Question No. 6—Transport
6. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about State highway projects?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): As part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, we've announced a fully funded programme of State highway projects—more than $5 billion worth—to help futureproof the economy, get our cities moving, and make our roads safer. These include the four-laning of the Tauranga Northern Link and Te Puna to Ōmokoroa on State Highway 2, which will improve safety on a dangerous stretch of highway where, under the former Government, suburban development was allowed to take place without the necessary roading upgrades. It also includes the Melling interchange, which will reduce the risk of flooding and help ease congestion at peak times, and upgrading State Highway 1 from Whangārei to Port Marsden to four lanes, which will improve safety and freight connectivity in the north.
Jamie Strange: What State highway projects are there in Auckland as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'm glad the member asked that. Not only are we widening State Highway 1 from Papakura to Drury to help make commutes quicker, we're also making Penlink and Mill Road State highways so we can speed up their implementation. Upgrading Mill Road to four lanes and connecting Manukau to Drury will not only ease traffic on State Highway 1 but connect fast-growing and job-rich parts of Auckland. Penlink, of course, will open up growth north of Auckland and connect Whangaparāoa residents to the very successful Northern Busway.
Jamie Strange: Will these projects simply be extra lanes of motorway?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No. Our Government knows we must look to the future as we design this very important infrastructure. These projects have been futureproofed to include provision for public transport, for freight, and for high-occupancy vehicles, and, of course, each of them will have separated walking and cycling pathways, to give people real transport choices, because we are the Government of infrastructure and the Government of the future.




Question No. 7—Health
7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement in respect of the COVID-19 outbreak, "At every point, we have made sure that our decisions have been informed by science"?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes. The New Zealand Government has taken a precautionary approach based on expert scientific and medical advice. So far, we have not had a confirmed case of COVID-19.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: What changes to advice and processes have been made in the wake of scientific evidence that the incubation period of COVID-19 is up to 24 days, not 14 days?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The scientific advice changes as the facts change. The evidence currently suggests that the incubation period is less than that. However, I am aware that there are reports suggesting some more. We take the advice of the health officials, from the scientists with the most up-to-date science, and make our decisions accordingly.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: What support, if any, has the Government provided to individuals wanting to self-isolate but having difficulty doing so due to their being in dwellings with several other individuals?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The steps that the New Zealand Government has taken in setting up a Healthline response, as best I'm aware, are unprecedented in other countries. We have gone much further than other countries. Certainly, I'm not aware of other countries taking the extensive steps that we're taking to contact people who are in the self-isolation situation. So I do acknowledge the member bringing that up. It's good to acknowledge that, in New Zealand, we are taking perhaps a more cautious approach than other countries, but that support for people is through telephone conversations, predominantly, where we have Mandarin speakers as well as English speakers available to answer any questions for people about the challenges they may face in self-isolation and to provide any necessary support.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: So what is his estimate of the number of people who have come back from China and not contacted Healthline, and is it possible that these people could not be following self-isolation advice?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Self-isolation is a very effective public health measure, and that's why we have adopted it here, as other countries have. We have already had over 4,000 contacts at Healthline, and beyond that, we know there are likely to be around a couple of thousand more that have come into the country. I'm awaiting updated numbers currently.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that the need for individuals to sleep in cars as a form of self-isolation is acceptable and informed by science?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is not my expectation. My expectation is that anybody with any challenges should be ringing Healthline and seeking help in their situation.




Question No. 8—Transport
8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his reported comment in relation to Auckland light rail, "The light rail connection I think will probably be another two years in the planning, the funding, the land acquisitions … Then you've got another several years to build it – so it's not going to happen tomorrow", and when will the completed light rail project in Auckland be open to passengers?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The answer is yes, and while more detailed time lines will be announced with the delivery partner, I can confirm that the project will be open well before 2047, the date promised by the previous transport Minister, Simon Bridges.
Chris Bishop: Why is the Government choosing a delivery partner and delivery model for the Auckland light rail project in advance of actually deciding what they want them to build, and isn't this a strange way to go about procuring a multibillion-dollar intergenerational investment?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, it's not at all. In fact, in the process of actually determining the delivering partner and the funding and governance of the project, a great deal of work is being done on design, route alignment, and all those matters. The fact is that the New Zealand super fund and their Canadian partners made an unsolicited bid that Cabinet decided was compelling and interesting, to the extent that it deserved proper consideration. When the private sector constantly says to us that we should be open to creative and efficient ways of financing—
Hon Chris Hipkins: Simon Bridges says that too.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —and procuring major infrastructure projects—
Hon Simon Bridges: But I know how to do it.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —this Government listens to them.
Hon Chris Hipkins: How many bridges?
Chris Bishop: Why, once the Government received the—
SPEAKER: Order! Both of you. Can the member start again. I remind both Mr Hipkins and the Leader of the Opposition not to interject while this member's on his feet.
Chris Bishop: Why, once the Government had received the unsolicited bid from the super fund, did the Government then not go to the wider international market and seek expressions of interest or bids from other international partners who may want to participate in the Auckland light rail project?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Simply because the proposal that was put to us, the unsolicited proposal from NZ Infra, is unique. Nothing like that has ever been tackled before in New Zealand, and the Government took the view that it was best to assess that financing and governance model and consider whether we wanted to do that before then going out to the market and inviting other bids.
Chris Bishop: Just in relation to that last comment, is he indicating to the House that if the Government, at the end of this current process, decides that there is merit in proceeding with a bid similar to the New Zealand super fund proposal, the Crown will then go back to the market and seek wider interest from international partners?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
Chris Bishop: Is he concerned by the comments in Greater Auckland in relation to the light rail process, notably "This seems an incredibly strange process. I can't think of anything else where you work out who will deliver something before you work out what you're going to deliver.", and why is he following this process?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, I don't accept those comments at all.
Chris Bishop: Why has the Government not published the specific requirements the Government is seeking from the Auckland light rail project given the enormous public interest and the lack of commercial confidentiality?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We released the outcomes framework, which was the core criteria that were at the heart of the twin track process, but the detail of the process is subject to strict commercial probity, and it's not possible or advisable to release that information during that competitive commercial process.




Question No. 9—Revenue
9. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Revenue: What is the marginal tax rate for someone on the median wage?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): The marginal tax rate for someone on the median wage in 2019 was 30 percent. However, this does not mean they paid 30 percent of their total income in tax. New Zealand has a progressive tax scale; so the average tax rate paid on the median annual wage in 2019 was 16.79 percent. Someone on the average wage of $65,000 pays an average rate of 19 percent. It is certainly not 33 cents in the dollar, and if members on the other side of the House would like a link to the IRD tax calculator, I'm happy to send it to them.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Buy that man an abacus.
SPEAKER: Order! I think it was Mr Hipkins on this occasion—or maybe I should blame Mr Lees-Galloway.
Dr Deborah Russell: What would be the effect on tax paid by a median income earner if they split their income into eight equal parts and funnelled it through the IRD that way?
Hon STUART NASH: Well, first of all, I'm sure the IRD would be alert to that, and if any irregularities were involved, they would take further steps. Thankfully, very few New Zealanders contemplate let alone try to rip off the tax system.
Dr Deborah Russell: What amount would a person need to be earning to be taxed at almost 33 percent in the dollar?
Hon STUART NASH: A person would need to be paid a salary of over $3 million to be taxed at nearly 33 percent in the dollar. Therefore, reports I've seen that claim the average earner would be taxed at almost 33 percent in the dollar are clearly wrong and overhyped by a few million dollars. It's a—
SPEAKER: No, no, the member has answered the question.
Andrew Bayly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe that the thresholds at which higher rates of tax are paid are fair for middle-income tax earners, and, if so, why?
Hon STUART NASH: I believe the Minister of Finance has answered this question about five questions ago.
Andrew Bayly: Does the Minister believe that middle-income earners are paying too much or too little tax, and, if so, why?
Hon STUART NASH: Well, they're paying a lot less than Mr Bridges said they were.




Question No. 10—Education
10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around the reform of vocational education?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Dr Shane Reti: How many people not taken up by the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST) will be made redundant, as he stated in the House on 29 August last year?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: None, because if the member reads the bill, he'll find that for all of those currently employed by one of the existing polytechs or institutes of technology, their employment automatically continues to the subsidiary that will replace them.
Dr Shane Reti: Is that also the case where the subsidiaries then become the NZIST?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The subsidiaries will become part of the NZIST on 1 April if the Parliament decides to pass that legislation, which I am confident that it will.
Dr Shane Reti: What were the concerns raised by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) when they first advised him not to proceed with the reforms, as they stated to the select committee last week?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have never been advised by the TEC not to proceed with the reforms.
Jan Tinetti: What progress has been made with the Reform of Vocational Education, or RoVE, over the six months since his announcement on 1 August?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A lot of progress has been made. Preparations are now well under way for the 16 existing Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITPs) to become subsidiaries of the new New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology on 1 April. Work is well under way on the establishment of Workforce Development Councils that will give industry a much greater voice and a much greater say over the training that is provided in their areas. The early steps of establishing the first two Centres of Vocational Excellence have already been taken, and there is a high degree of interest in that, and, of course, the Government is complementing all of that with a significant programme of work to encourage young New Zealanders to consider entering into trades and vocational education.
Dr Shane Reti: Did the Tertiary Education Commission initially not advise him against the reforms, as they presented to select committee last week?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The officials who prepared the initial advice on the reforms of vocational education and training—as it was back then known, I think it was called the ITP Roadmap—presented a set of proposals that the Government did not agree with, and we then worked with them to develop an alternative set of proposals, which is what have been passing their way through the House over the last six months.




Question No. 11—Research, Science and Innovation
11. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Will the Government give consistent funding to Scion to provide certainty to their work to create new fire spread models to investigate new extreme fire prevention methods?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): The $8.75 million research project to which the member refers is funded from October 2016 to September 2021 through the Endeavour Fund to prepare New Zealand for extreme fire. This research has been funded via contestable allocation continuously since 2004. After the current work has been completed, Scion will be in a position to identify what research is needed next. In addition to this, we also provide Scion stable and long-term funding through the Strategic Science Investment Fund. From this funding, Scion currently invests $120,000 per year into fire research aligned to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's extreme fire programme and $130,000 per year for fire weather and fire climate modelling. In addition to Scion's fire research, $580,000 is invested per year via the nature's challenges National Science Challenge into high-impact weather and wildfire research, as well as the investment by the Ministry for Primary Industries of $150,000 into the adapting to and mitigating wildfire risk due to climate change programme. Finally, in addition to participating in Scion-led research, the University of Canterbury undertakes related research.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: In light of the recent unprecedented Australian bushfires, why won't the Government ensure sufficient consistent funding to Scion to ensure the continuity of their groundbreaking research that would save New Zealand's economy at least $67 million per year rather than leaving it—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! There's at least two legs to that, if not three already.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I reject the premise of that member's question that there is somehow not sufficient funding for this research. I just went through a very long list of research that is provided, which I don't propose to repeat—a very long list of research that is provided—and I point the member to the fact that this is largely the way this research has been funded continuously since 2004.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The list that the Minister provided—some of that funding comes from contestable funds. And that's my question.
SPEAKER: Well, if that was the member's question, she should have asked it. She didn't.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did, but I was stopped.
SPEAKER: If the member would like a further supplementary, she may have one.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Given this Government's focus on planting more trees, isn't it reckless not to ensure fire research is considered a priority by the Government rather than leaving it for Scion to juggle this important research with other priorities?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I once again reject the premise of the member's question. This is the way in which fire research—wildfire research—in New Zealand has been continuously funded since 2004. There is a range of ways in which it's funded, and the research the member is pointing to that needs to be done is, in fact, being undertaken.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will she take responsibility for New Zealand not being better prepared to fight any extreme bushfires in the future?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I again repeat that the research that has been running continuously since 2004 is addressing the very questions that the member is suggesting that we should. The member should be very happy because the research she would like to see being undertaken is indeed being undertaken.




Question No. 12—Customs
12. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Customs: What recent announcements has she made about Customs keeping our communities safe?
Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs): I'm proud to report that, thanks to the tireless efforts of the New Zealand Customs Service and our coalition Government's decision to invest in a stronger, smarter border, this has led to a record three tonnes of illegal drugs stopped at the border in 2019, before they could hit our streets. Early numbers show that Customs made over 2,600 separate drug seizures of class A, B, and C drugs. This includes 1,180 kilograms of methamphetamine, 329 kilograms of meth precursors, and 739 kilograms of methylene dioxy-methyl amphetamine (MDMA) or ecstasy. This Government made the right call to invest to protect our border and the result is much fewer illegal drugs coming through.
Ginny Andersen: What investments have been made by the Government to help bust drugs?
Hon JENNY SALESA: This Government invested an extra $58 million in Customs to fight meth and the criminal syndicates who attempt to push these drugs on New Zealanders. This record haul with Customs stopping three tonnes of illegal drugs shows that our decision to invest has definitely paid off. Our Government's record investment enabled Customs to purchase new X-ray surveillance equipment, recruit new additional Customs agents, and upgrade our international intelligence network. In addition, Customs has also been working smarter through offshore collaboration with law enforcement agencies overseas to stop the drug traffickers' products before they even leave the overseas ports and airports.
Ginny Andersen: What does this mean for our communities?
Hon JENNY SALESA: These drug busts represent over $3 billion worth in social harm, according to the Drug Harm Index by the Ministry of Health, that was stopped from hitting our streets. However, we know that busting the supply of drugs is just one part of this work. We are also investing in reducing the demand for illegal substances. Our Government is putting more resources into addiction, into detoxification, and into residential care services for New Zealanders who are struggling with drug and alcohol issues.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, what was wrong with the policy of allowing a tonne of drugs to land at Ninety Mile Beach, which is a policy that she inherited—what was wrong with that policy?
Hon JENNY SALESA: Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: Order! I think suggesting that it was a policy is stretching it a bit. That question is ruled out.
 
ARMS (FIREARMS PROHIBITION ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)
First Reading—Leave Declined
BRETT HUDSON (National): I seek leave for the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2), in my name, to be set down for first reading forthwith.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is.





DEBATE ON PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Debate resumed from 13 February.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): It is a fantastic time to be a New Zealander. Unemployment is at near-decade lows of only 4 percent; wage growth is at near-decade highs at 2.6 percent; stronger growth than most other OECD countries; strong investment in our core public assets like schools, like hospitals, like roads, like railways; a record investment in the public health system, most notably a huge investment in mental health; and, of course, New Zealanders have a leader who they know and trust, in Jacinda Ardern. It is a great time to be a New Zealander. 
The members opposite, I've got one message for them: for goodness' sake, cheer up. While they busily try and talk down the country, they seem to be working on the assumption that New Zealanders have very bad memories. Well, let me take them on a little trip down memory lane, back to 2017, when two-thirds of people in New Zealand got a pay rise that was less than the rate of inflation. Across the OECD, New Zealanders had one of the lowest shares of economic growth going to wage and salary earners. 
That's why this Government has proudly increased the minimum wage. We are investing in apprenticeships and on-the-job training so that we can get people earning higher incomes. We've invested in a Families Package to boost family incomes, particularly for those who have been struggling with the costs of raising their children, and what has that resulted in? Near-record low unemployment, and wage growth near-record highs. So the members opposite really do need to cheer up. 
Let's go back. Let's remind ourselves of what we inherited in health—$2.3 billion worth of health services cut, or spending on health cut, over National's nine years in Government. The cost of going to visit the doctor increased by 44 percent during National's time in Government. South Auckland's largest hospital, Middlemore Hospital, had mould and sewage loose in its walls when we became the Government, such was the state of neglect that we inherited from the last Government. So this Government is making progress. 
We've made doctors visits $20 to $30 cheaper, or, in fact, entirely free for almost 600,000 New Zealanders. We are getting serious about home heating and making sure that every New Zealander has a warm, dry place to call home, and they want to get rid of that. We have hired 1,500 more nurses, 600 more doctors, and 500 other medical professionals, and, as I have already mentioned, we've made the biggest ever investment in mental health in this country. I don't meet many New Zealanders who don't know someone or who aren't related to someone who has at some point struggled with mental health. New Zealanders want to see us taking this seriously, and in this Government, after nine years of that problem being ignored, we are doing something about it. 
We are fixing up the hospitals that were for so long neglected under the last Government. Up and down the country, hospitals are finally seeing the much-needed capital injection that they have been crying out for. 
What about in education? Let's go down memory lane when it comes to education. When we came into Government, we had 214 overcrowded schools and 488 more schools at risk of becoming overcrowded. Kids were learning in gymnasiums and libraries because the last Government had put planning for growth on the never-never. We have taken action and we have been dealing with that. We saw a 40 percent reduction in the number of people who were training to be a teacher, and that is the reason that we are currently experiencing a teacher shortage. Parents were being asked every day, every week, to put their hands in their pockets to subsidise the shortfall in Government funding. When we came into Government, $146 million worth of supposedly voluntary donations were going into schools from parents, and we are taking action to deal with that. 
We're taking action to deal with all of those problems, in fact. We have already built 726 new classrooms up and down the country to get ahead of that roll growth and to deal with that overcrowding, and we have a fully funded plan—a fully funded plan—to deal with population growth in our school sector. Unlike the last Government, who kind of vaguely thought that maybe they should build some more classrooms but didn't have any money for it and thought that they could put it on the never-never, we have a plan and we have funded it. 
We have also fast tracked $400,000 investments—or pro rata, based on the school's roll size—for all State schools, all up and down the country, so that they can get ahead of those upgrade needs that we know they so desperately need. We are already working and making progress on recruiting more people into teacher training, and it's plugging those teacher shortages that we inherited from the last Government, and we know that there is more work to be done. 
We have introduced extra funding. We have given schools extra funding so they don't have to rely on parents for donations. I am very pleased to say that over 90 percent of the schools that were eligible for that have taken that extra funding up, and they are not asking their parents for donations this year. 
We have made NCEA and scholarship free for all New Zealand students because cost should not be a barrier. Inability to pay should not be a barrier to someone being able to obtain their school qualifications, as it has been. That is a problem that we have fixed. 
Let's go to housing, because this Government is proud to be taking action to tackle the housing crisis. Under that last Government, house prices increased by 10 percent a year in National's last term in Government. House prices were exploding, and what was their solution? To sell off 6,000 State houses—that was National's answer to the housing crisis, and look at where that ended up. Then, they suddenly realised there was a housing crisis—remember?—and we got Nick Smith's magical mystery bus tour of the places where he was going to build extra houses, which included cemeteries and substations. 
Unlike that Government, we're taking that seriously. One of the first things we did—and it's had an impact—was ban overseas speculators buying up houses, and that's something the other side want to do away with. They think that wealthy overseas speculators should be at the front of the queue, ahead of New Zealand homeowners, when it comes to buying houses in New Zealand. That says everything about their priorities when it comes to housing. 
I stand by that policy completely. Banning overseas speculators from buying houses has helped to bring down house price inflation in New Zealand, and it means that New Zealanders are getting their way back to the front of the queue to buy houses in New Zealand. 
We are building thousands of State houses to replace the ones the National Government sold, bearing in mind—as has now been well documented in this House—that we would not have had a waiting list for State housing if the last Government had continued to build at the rate they should have. Instead, they sold State houses, they demolished State houses, and they reduced the number of State houses, and the result is we've now got burgeoning wait lists for State housing. We are getting on top of that and we are dealing with that. 
Let's talk about transport. A fully funded transport plan to start the year—that's what we saw on this side. Not the promises on the never-never, which the last Government were so keen on making when they said, "We'll do these roads sometime in the next 10 years and we're not quite sure how we're going to pay for them and we haven't really done any of the planning and the design and the consenting work, but we'll just go out there and promise them anyway". Oh no, under this Government you'll get a fully funded plan.
We know that the last Government's efforts were pretty haphazard, and do you know why? I drove from Auckland to Waitangi just a few weeks ago, and I thought, "This is great. I'm going to drive on this new Pūhoi to Wellsford expressway that National promised back in 2009." I thought that would be a fantastic trip because it was going to be a nice, fast trip. Well, do you know what? Not one section of that road has opened—not one section of that road has opened. They only got as far as planning and funding it to Warkworth, and that still hasn't been done, 11 years after they promised that it was going to be there. The second half of the road was on the never-never. Maybe one day they would have got around to it, and I thought, "That's all right, because at least I'll be able to drive over the 10 bridges that Simon Bridges promised the people of Northland." No, no—yet another case of a promise on the never-never from the National Party.
What people get under this Government is that when we promise something, we will deliver it in roading. When we stand up in front of people and say that we will deliver a roading project, we'll put the funding aside to do it.
It's about time that the Opposition cheered up and realised that New Zealanders are confident. New Zealanders are looking ahead to the future, and they don't want to be dragged back by the National Party.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was very reassuring to hear that speech from Mr Hipkins. I couldn't follow all of it, but I'm sure he's trying to bolster what are very lagging and flat feelings across the other side of the House. I see them all; this is the most dysfunctional Government in recent history.
It was interesting, remember, when we learnt that Winston Peters, the Deputy Prime Minister, had not spoken to the State Services Commissioner, the most senior public servant, in the two years that he had been in Government, because he was suing him and a whole lot of other Government departments. I thought to myself, "That is a perfect encapsulation of a dysfunctional Government". I wonder exactly what conversations are going on—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. That is a matter which is currently before a court, and the member will not refer to it again.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Quite right. My apologies, Mr Speaker.
So I wonder what the conversations between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister are about at the moment in relation to taking pictures all around the place and in relation to the transparency around funding, and, of course, we've heard that the Prime Minister is too busy to talk to the Deputy Prime Minister about all these things. She's very focused on a whole lot of other things, including visiting Mr Elton John. She might well want to get an answer out of Mr Elton John as to who is the horny-backed toad in the Government. My suggestion is that it might be somewhat closer to her in the seating arrangements. Some of Elton's designs certainly line up nicely, I think, for Winston Peters.
You know you can't hold me forever
I didn't sign up with you
I'm not a present for your friends to open
This boy's too young to be singing the blues
These are the messages that she'll be getting through.
So here we are. This is a Government of missed opportunities—of missed opportunities—and of slow growth. This is a Government that inherited an economy that was growing at well over 3 percent—nearly 4 percent per annum—under the National Government; it's now slowed to an astonishing 1.6 percent last year, according to the predictions of the Reserve Bank.
We see Mr Faafoi is very tired. He's so exhausted after being in Government for 2½ years that he needs to step down from being a list MP up in Mana. You just relax. You just rest, Mr Faafoi. You'll get your time.
So we slowed down to 1.6 percent, which is slower than the actual rate of population growth, so New Zealanders got poorer—
Hon Kris Faafoi: Why are you so boring?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —last year. Why is that? It's because this Government has been complacent about growth.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! It's because it's part of my job, but it shouldn't be referred to from there.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This was supposed to be a Government that was about kindness, but that wasn't a very kind observation at all. I'm shocked.
So the growth was slowed, and that means fewer opportunities for Kiwis to get ahead, get a job—a satisfying and exciting job—to be able to look after themselves and their families, to be able to prepare for their retirement, to have that financial stability that they need. That's why a strong, growing economy is so important.
We've also seen no progress on housing. We've seen the number of people staying in motels increasing rapidly, we've seen the number of food parcels going out from Auckland City Council going up very substantially, and we've seen rents climbing more than $50 a week—and that's putting real pressure on New Zealand households. This is notwithstanding the fact that this Government came in and promised that they were going to fix it all with KiwiBuild. Right now, right here, Prime Minister Ardern's bumbling intervention in Ihumātao has meant that more houses have been stopped from being built there than the entire $2 billion KiwiBuild project has delivered so far for this country.
Nobody could believe that level of incompetence was possible, but that's what has been delivered by this Government in the last two years. Then, if we think of infrastructure, this Government started this year with a big hiss and a roar.
Hon Shane Jones: Yes, infrastructure Government—
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We had Shane Jones quite clearly talking in Parliament about pork—and we all know he's eaten a bit of it over the years—and here we have infrastructure, where they've announced $12 billion, but what they've effectively announced is that they have abandoned their transport policy. 
For two years, the transport policy of this Government was to come in, stop all the roads that National was building and shift away from reducing congestion to mode shift—and New Zealanders tuning in on their crystal sets will be wondering what on earth mode shift is, but that is the focus of transport policy under this Government, which is to get people out of one mode of transport, which is their cars, and get them into another mode of transport, which is walking, or cycling, or going on a bus. So if that is the goal of your transport policy—mode shift—then, in a certain weird and wonderful logic that anybody who's been trying to get around Auckland CBD in recent times will know, having cones everywhere and congestion, chaos, trouble, and strife is actually quite a good thing from the point of view of the transport planners, because that encourages people to mode shift out of their car and on to public transport, out of sheer frustration that they can't get anywhere. 
The transport policy of this Government for the first two years was to stop building all the roads that we were building and to fluff about trying to decide what to do about a light rail project that they promised, and, two years later, they still haven't worked out what the purpose of it is: whether it's to go to the airport or to be an urban transport renewal thing through Dominion Road. After two years, they realised that that transport policy was a completely and utterly hopeless and unpopular transport policy, and they've abandoned it and they've adopted our transport policy. 
But the only problem is that they've wasted 2½ years in the process, and it's a little bit like the old lawnmower back home—very easy to turn off, but a devil of a thing to start again. So they've turned off all those infrastructure programmes. They said: "We can't do that. We're not going to do this. We're not going to build the road north out of Tauranga. We're not going to build a road. We're going to put it all off for 10, 15 years." And suddenly, two years later, they decided, "Oh, actually, maybe we will. OK, yes, we will. We are going to do it after all. We've changed our mind. We've realised that the Greens are nutters. We shouldn't be following them. We're going to do all the National Party roads." 
But the problem is that many of the people that were going to build the roads have subsequently gone elsewhere. They've got so frustrated after two years of mucking around that they've focused on Australia where there's hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure being spent, and so, yep, we'll get them all back again, but it will take a long time. There'll be a lot of fluffing around and there'll be a high level of scepticism in the infrastructure space. So that's what they've done. They've achieved a slower economy. They've made no progress on housing. In fact, they've gone backwards: more houses lost, more houses lost at Ihumātao than have been built under KiwiBuild, and they've gone nowhere on transport. So I guess that's why they call it the blues, as Mr Elton would say. 
Then on top of that, we're going to be back in deficit this year. Can you believe that? So a Government that inherited massive surpluses after a prudent Government led by John Key and Bill English, and Steven Joyce—big surpluses, billions of dollars. So they've been unable to increase Government spending by 8 percent last year, four times the rate of inflation, and yet within three years they are projected to be back in deficit. That, frankly, is a disgrace, but it also is a real concern for New Zealanders because, you know, we're all just seeing right here right now the potential impacts of something like coronavirus, which is having a real impact on particularly the tourism sector, but also forestry, also international education. These are the things that you can't predict. Nobody would have predicted this would have been something we were talking about this month. But it comes out of left field. That's why you have a surplus. That's why you have some flexibility in the financial account—so you can handle things that you're not expecting. 
Drought is the other one. All our friends up in Northland and Auckland and the Waikato are really short of water at the moment. The farming community—the production is dropping. Production is dropping. There's been all sorts of announcements from the Provincial Growth Fund about all sorts of things. The only problem with the Provincial Growth Fund is that Shane Jones is great at making announcements, and he's world class at putting out press statements, but the money doesn't flow very quickly and there's lots of faffing around.
Hon Shane Jones: That's changing.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That's changing? Well, it would be good to know if we can get before the end of the three-year term whether they will have made any progress at all, and I doubt it very much. 
So we've got those short-term challenges around coronavirus and drought and that is why any good, prudent economic manager would have a decent surplus available so that they could do what they need to do to get New Zealanders through. 
Yesterday, we had Simon Bridges announcing our economic plan, which is a very robust and strong one, with a focus on getting New Zealand's growth rate per person back to the top half of the OECD, and, in fact, the top 10. We're going to be reducing that income gap between Australia and New Zealand so that more New Zealanders feel that they can reach their potential at home rather than going overseas, and one of things that people quite often forget about is when the previous National Government came in, we were losing the equivalent of a Westpac Stadium of New Zealanders to Australia every year. We managed to turn that around within nine years—nine years of great progress—so that more Aussies were coming back here than going the other way around. Sadly, those figures are turned around again, and that is one of the simplest measures of the success of a Government. 
We've gone from a successful, prosperous, outward-looking, dynamic economy to one that's sputtering along, when we've got so many opportunities before us. We need a decent Government to do that job, and we'll get that in seven months' time. Thank you.





Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. What a sad and miserable exhibition that was. That's as good as it gets from the National Party. From a leader that can't get his tax right, he's not going to get his facts right; I can tell you that. 
We are a positive Government, focused on tackling the long-term issues and challenges for this country. After nine years of neglect we have a big job ahead of us. We are two years into a journey that will take us, I'm guessing, about 15 years probably, or 18 years, to sort out what the National Government took nine years to destroy. 
We have committed a huge amount of money to mental health. That is an issue that affects each and every New Zealander. When I go into rural New Zealand on a regular basis, those people are asking how they can ensure that they get access to that support from central government. They've acknowledged the great commitment that this Government has put in place.
We are starting to work with farmers to improve the waterways in this country, the vast majority of which are in good order, but we have to ensure that we have a story of environmental management that backs up our claim to not only "100% Pure", but to the best, finest food and protein for the world's most discerning customers.
We've put money into education. Parents don't have to pay for NCEA fees. They don't have to make school donations in what should, effectively, be a free education system.
We've put money through the Provincial Growth Fund. The criticism is that it's a bit slow. Well, I say—and Mr Jones will back this up—it's better to be cautious and spend that money wisely than to throw it around, as the previous National Government did in its Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) application to agriculture.
We've got regions like Buller, for example. This is a small district in my electorate that lost hundreds of jobs because the previous National Government destroyed Solid Energy—hundreds of high-paid jobs. Now, we have a local rural economy that is booming and, in fact, the mayor and the community leaders of that district of Buller are now praising the Government for its commitment to regional New Zealand and the things we are doing for them.
Roads—the previous Government sweated the assets. We are tipping billions of dollars into a better roading network to support New Zealand, and rail and hospitals. We're building new hospitals so that New Zealanders can be assured of their healthcare, and, of course, as I've said before, putting money into education, which is our future.
I have to talk about biosecurity. It has been identified consistently as the number one issue across agribusiness and, indeed, across New Zealand—those who are concerned about kauri dieback; those who are concerned about the issues that we've had up and down through M. bovis, which directly affects livestock farmers. We've had a fruit fly incursion in Auckland that affects Aucklanders, but would have a devastating effect on horticulture should it get out.
Yesterday, I went to the Wairarapa to celebrate what is a world first, and that is the eradication of the pea weevil disease. This is a small insect that destroys pea crops, would have eliminated the possibility of growing and exporting peas from this country, and we have got rid of it. Thank you to Biosecurity New Zealand, thank you to the farmers for their cooperation, thank you to the local community leaders for their cooperation.
We've got to continue that level of collaboration when it comes to Mycoplasma bovis. We were handed that challenge when we came into Government. We've picked it up; we're running with it hard. We've committed to eradication, and we are spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars—a lot of that taxpayer funding—and the farming sector is grateful for that commitment through this Government.
I've said we've got rid of the fruit fly. We're making changes to the National Animal Identification and Tracing system—a traceability system for animals, for livestock in this country that should have been put in place five or six years ago, but, again, was neglected by the previous Government. We'll make changes to the 26-year-old Biosecurity Act, an Act that has hampered us in incursion management, but we're going through that very, very carefully to make sure that we have laws and systems that are fit for the future.
We've boosted biosecurity spending—we're well over $20 million. We've put in place X-ray technology, we're committed to getting rid of wilding conifers up and down this country, and we're focused on keeping out the brown marmorated stink bug and African swine fever, too—two of many, many diseases that threaten our economy and agricultural systems.
Mr Bridges may have forgotten about the farmers, but we haven't. We're committed to working with the sector in this country that has consistently carried us forward into the future. There's lots of noise. Lots of noise comes from the traditional party of farmers, but no longer, I have to say—no longer. They have a leader who ignores farmers, who's not up to speed with the challenges, and the previous Government ignored the real challenges facing us as food producers into the future.
We are a Government of reform. We have been in the 1930s, we have been in the 1950s, right through the 1980s—doing things that are necessary. As the KPMG agribusiness report in 2015 said, in fact, it's time to do the hard stuff. It's time to do the hard stuff, because the National Government liked to do all the easy stuff.
But there are some challenges facing us into the future, and that's why we're going to futureproof our farmers and their sectors. We're going to make changes to the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to ensure that our international champion Fonterra is fit for the future. We've got in place now a Farm Debt Mediation Bill, because the fair-weather friends of farmers—the banks—are now looking to exit in some areas. We need protection for farmers, and now we have some.
We've had a skills working group. The agribusiness sector was crying out for skilled people for years and years. We've stepped in and we're addressing that through the reform of vocational education. We're looking to make sure that we have a system that is fit for purpose and delivers skilled, enthusiastic young New Zealanders into the agribusiness and land-use sectors.
We've moved to protect our highly productive soils. Literally, thousands of hectares have disappeared close to Mr Mark Mitchell—close to him in Pukekohe—and they've disappeared for houses. We are going to protect the highly productive soils. We've committed $40 million a year to the Sustainable Food & Fibre Futures fund. The previous National Government made a lot of noise about its PGP, with $35 million a year. We've got $400 million over 10 years to support our innovative primary sectors.
We've set a vision through the Primary Sector Council that will be delivered soon, and we have come up with a world first, He Waka Eke Noa, that is a collaboration between Government and between industry to commit to reduce our emissions from agriculture. There's been a bit of talk of it around the world. We will be the first country to bring in agriculture, and to work with our farmers and land users to make sure that we reduce our emissions and do our part to reduce climate change, and keep global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
We are helping farmers be the best farmers for the world, not just the best farmers in the world. The list goes on: the extension service model; upping our efforts in animal welfare to ensure—particularly in Europe—that we can assure those consumers that we have the highest standards of animal welfare.
There are some environmental challenges ahead of us. We have an intensive system of agriculture that has put pressure on some of the soils and some of the water, and we're working through with farmers in a collaborative way to make sure that they continue to make profits but we continue to make progress, because without a story of integrity around land use, around environmental management and animal welfare, we will not be able to attract and expect to retain the premiums that we need out in the international market.
I am proud to be part of a Government that is taking on the hard challenges, that is leading us all into a better future, and that is committed to making opportunities available not just for the 1 percent at the top—not just for those who want to wheel and deal in houses—but for each and every New Zealander who wants to live in one of the most wonderful countries in the world and who has got here because of the hard work and the commitment of our ancestors, but should not be exploited by the 1 percent that the National Government was happy to entertain over the last nine years. We will do what is necessary to deliver a better New Zealand for future generations.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Well, thank goodness. I was waiting for the bell to finally call, but, thankfully, that member gave up before it was needed, because it was the most boring rendition of nonsense that I think we've ever had.
Well, we're supposed to believe that this Government cares about farmers—what a joke. Day in, day out, we hear from that Government over that side and their Green and New Zealand First people bagging farmers and provincial New Zealand—day in, day out. The New Zealand First answer to farmers is to plant their land with dirty, disgusting pine trees that, actually, you get turpentine from and which can actually poison waterways when those pine needles get into them. That's their answer to farmers: ruining the New Zealand economy but also the agricultural communities that this country has been very proud to have embraced and that many of us have been part of for many years and, certainly, I grew up in. 
It's great to see that the Prime Minister is so intent on listening to everything we have to say today. I think it's amazing the way she's so good with people in their seventies. First, it's Elton John; next, it's Winston Peters—all people with, let's say, a pension but also, let's say, people who like to dress up smartly and have the odd sequin. I think it's good that the Prime Minister is so good with these people. 
What she isn't good at doing is turning up and fronting up on the hard questions. This is a Government that couldn't even be trusted to put in place immunisations for measles, and now we're expected to believe that they could possibly deal with any of the big headwinds that the world is about to face when it comes to a virus that's come out of China and which has had, and will have, quite devastating effects on parts of our economy, whether it's in tourism, whether it's agriculture, and whether, especially, it's in the international education sector, which are big sectors of our economy.
We've got a Government, we heard today, where the Minister of Housing wants to say blame National—National—for the problems they've got in the State housing sector. When National left office a mere 2½ years ago, there were around 5,000 families waiting on the State house waiting list.
Simeon Brown: How many now?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are now 15,000 families—15,000 families. I heard today the Minister of Housing—and many of you will have heard it—saying, "Oh, that's National's fault." Well, no, it's not us. They weren't like that when we were in Government, and what's happened to the people. 
Remember Phil Twyford and Jacinda Ardern banging on about how we're not going to have anybody sleeping in cars any more, and saying that that wasn't right for the people in New Zealand, this wonderful country? Except there are more now—there are more. There are more people now sleeping in cars. Remember how it was terrible that motels were being filled up by people who couldn't get housing accommodation? Oh well, no, no, there are more now. There are more now. 
What's happened with rents, and all the measures that the Government has taken attacking landlords, against landlords, helping tenants' rights—what's happened? There are fewer places now available to rent, and guess what? The rental prices have gone up an average of over $50 a week—$50 a week for a house—
Kieran McAnulty: Sell them to foreigners—that's the secret. Open them up to foreign speculation.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That MP over there, that list MP, doesn't understand that that's a lot of money for a lot of people—particularly in Whanganui. Whanganui has just had this big increase in some of the rental properties. I've just been speaking with the MP for Whanganui, Harete Hipango, and what we know is this: rental properties have not just gone up in one particular block of flats by $50 a week—no, no, no—but by $150 a week, and what's happened? The private tenants have moved out and the tenants who are being funded through Work and Income have moved in at that rate. That's what's happening.
We're seeing a Government and Government agencies that are happy—happy—to push out people who are trying to get ahead themselves, pay their own rent, buy their own houses. As we've heard today, Kāinga Ora—the new name for Housing New Zealand—is going around taking houses that first-home buyers had signed up to buy. That's what's happening under this Government, and they're sitting around saying, "Oh, everything's going well. Anyway, it was National's fault." No, it did not happen under National, did not happen under nine years of sensible Government that got us through the global financial crisis, and this lot over there can't even sort out measles. That's how bad they are, and we're supposed to believe they can do anything with the gangs that they were so keen on.
Well, remember the 501s? Remember Kelvin Davis going on and on about his little 501s that he wanted to go and hug in Australia—just hug them to him—and how mean those Australians were to want to get rid of them? Oh, they were such meanie Aussies. Well, what's happened? This lot have been in Government for 2½ years, and what's happened to all those New Zealand Australians being sent back to New Zealand? Oh, I know, there are more of them, and they're badder—they're worse. Let's use Kelvin's language: "badder"—I think, actually, that's the Prime Minister's language, isn't it, really, to be frank. They've just got worse. 
Now, we've got Tauranga full of gang warfare, we've got Hawke's Bay the same, and this Government over here that said "Oh, those mean Australians are being mean to those little 501ers.", they're finally working it out—that's exactly what happened.
Greg O'Connor: Who was going to stop the Rebels setting up?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, that would be the New Zealand Police Association, when that guy was the president. Did nothing. All Greg O'Connor did was to crawl around the Labour Party and he was going to do something about it. Twenty-five years getting paid the salary of a superintendent when he was only ever a sergeant—says it all, really, doesn't it—and now he's come into his retirement job. Great to see that—great to see that. Never achieved a thing. Having said that, I think it's great. I think it's great. What's happened to all those extra police? 
Greg O'Connor: Who was going to stop it from happening? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What's happened to all those extra police? 
Greg O'Connor: Who was going to stop it from happening? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What's happened to all those extra police? 
Greg O'Connor: Who was the Minister of Police who was going to stop the Rebels setting up?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What's happened to—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This is not getting us anywhere. Carry on.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What's happened to all those extra police? Well, they're probably all down in Tauranga, all carrying the firearms that, by the way, our Government gave them. Our Government did that. We got the funding for the firearms, we got the lock boxes in for them, we got them the tasers, and who was against it? Oh, them. Them, them, them—they're all against it. Why? Why? I remember the Green Party banging on about the tasers. Remember? We were going to have police going round tasering people forever. Well, it's just been very nice to have the odd taser every now and again, to be able to sort out a few. But I've always found that argument is a better response than violence, Mr O'Connor. 
Let's have a look at corrections. Remember, this was a Government that didn't like us building all those prisons and those cells. Well, I bet they wish they had them now. Bet they wish they had them now. Their answer to it is legalise drugs and let everybody out. So I think we have some very interesting times coming up over the next seven months, if this Government lasts this long. I actually doubt whether this Government's going to last seven months. My take is we'll end up with an early election because the Greens are going to work out that it is extraordinarily bad for them to be in the same boat with this lot over here. They're going to sit around and think, "Wow, what's going to happen? We're going to get tarnished with them." Very hard to say how good they are when they're hanging out with this lot over here. 
Then we have—what have we got? Food parcels. Remember food parcels? Oh, yes. They were going to stop all that. What's happened? We're hearing from the city missions all over the country—that's right—that food poverty has got worse, not better. Worse, not better. Well, it would, you see, if people have to pay an extra $50 or sometimes $150 a week extra in their rent. That's what happens. All that's happened is costs have gone up and incomes have not kept pace with it. Every time a fuel tax goes on, as it has in Auckland—every time the price of fuel goes up, food prices go up. That means supermarkets become more expensive. 
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Food prices have been static for a long time. Check your facts. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It means that New Zealanders who cannot afford to feed their families on the quality of food they want have to make do with what they have or turn up for food bags. I see that other list MP over there from the Labour Party calling out and saying that food prices are stable. She clearly hasn't been to a supermarket frequently. I'd say this to her: that's why food banks' work has increased. It's not because of a National Government; it's all because of her Government. Labour has failed. They need to go, and so should all those with them. They need to go. We need National back. Thank you very much. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. 





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ngā mihi o te tau hou Pāremata ki a koutou katoa. 
E hiahia ana ahau ki te hoki muri ki te kōrero e pā ana ki te kōrero o Te Pirīmia i puta mai i tērā wiki. Ki te kōrero hoki e pā ana ki a Waitangi me āna kōrero mō te wiki o Waitangi. Ehara ko te rā anake. Ko tērā te wiki pai rawa atu mōku mō te tau tōrangapū. 
Nā, i runga i te paepae, i te taumata i rongo Te Pirīmia i tētahi kōrero. Hei ko tāna "Waihō mā o mahi e kōrero." E tika ana tērā kōrero. Waiho mō o mahi e kōrero. E kōrero ana wā mātou mahi mō wā mātou kaupapa katoa kua tutuki i a mātou i te tau kua pahure ake nei. 
Nā, i te tīmatanga o tēnei tau ka puta tētahi kaupapa mō te waihanga mō Aotearoa whānui. He tohatoha pūtea ki te whakapaipai ake i ngā kura, he tohatoha pūtea mō ngā hōhipere, mō ngā rori, ara tereina, wērā mea katoa. 
I roto i Te Tai Tokerau, puta te kōrero, neke atu i te kotahi rau o ngā kura ka whiwhi i ētahi atu pūtea hei whakapaipai ake i o rātou kura. Tino harikoa ahau nātemea ko ā tātou tamariki tērā ka whiwhi i ngā painga o tērā pūtea. 
Tuarua, i puta te kōrero ka hoatu $10 miriona ki te hōhipere i roto i Kaitāia ki te whakatikatika i tērā o ngā hōhipere, ā, ka tāpiri atu tērā ki te $24 miriona ka hoatu ki a Whangārei, te hōhipere i Whangārei, me te $7 miriona ki te hōhipere i Te Pēwhairangi. 
Ka puta tētahi atu kōrero mō te rori matua. Mai i Whangārei ki te tauranga waka ki Marsden, ki Port Marsden. Neke—
Hon Shane Jones: Āe, āe, Ruakākā wāpu—Marsden Point. 
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Āe. Neke atu i te $692 miriona ki te hanga i tērā o ngā rori e whā ngā ara, nā, kua tohatoha tērā pūtea ki te hanga i tērā ara. 
I reira hoki māua ko te matua, ko Shane, mō te whakataunga, mō te tohatoha i ngā pūtea mō te ara tereina, ngā rerewai; kātahi te harikoa o te minenga o Whangārei ki te rongo i te kōrero ka timata anō te ara tereina mai i Whangārei ki Ōtīria ki tōku hau kāinga i roto i Moerewa. Ka hoko anō hoki i ētahi whenua, ka tāpiri atu tērā ara tereina ki Te Tauranga Waka i Whangārei, he mea nui tērā mō Te Tai Tokerau. 
I te wiki o Waitangi i whakaputa te kōrero neke atu i te $6 miriona i tohatoha ki ngā whenua Māori, e whitu ngā kaupapa kua whiwhi i a rātou, neke atu i te $6 miriona. Nā Te Minita Shane Jones tēnā, me Nanaia Mahuta anō hoki. 
I puta te kōrero e pā ana ki ngā reiti Māori i runga i ngā whenua Māori. Ko Te Tai Tokerau tētahi kei raro e putu ana e pā ana ki te reiti Māori. 
I tētahi pākoko mō Whina Cooper i Pāngaru, he rā tino ātaahua tēnā hei whakanui i te whaea o te motu, anā, ko Dame Whina Cooper. 
Ko Te Rau Aroha he whare maumahara, he whare pupuri taonga mō ngā hōia o 28th me wērā atu o ngā pakanga o te ao. I tohatoha ētahi o ngā pūtea o Te Provincial Growth Fund kia hanga tērā whare maumahara mō tātou katoa. 
Arā noa atu ngā kaupapa i kōrero Te Pirīmia mō te ara whiti. 
E whakawhiti ana ngā mema Māori i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata i tērā arawhiti ia rā, ia rā, engari i te rā o Waitangi, i kite tātou i whiti a Anaru Iti i tērā arawhiti, i whai kōrero ia i roto i Te Reo Māori; he tohu tēnā e hiahia ana mātou te tohu ki te ao e whakawhiti ana i tērā arawhiti. Hei aha? Hei painga mō tātou katoa. 
Kua pau te wā engari he rārangi roa tonu ahau e hiahia au te kōrero. Kua tīmata ngā mahi engari he mahi nui kei mua i te aroaro i tēnei tau. Engari waihō mā o mātou mahi e kōrero. Kia ora. 
[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Greetings to you all for the new parliamentary year. 
I would like to go back to a speech that the Prime Minister delivered last week. I would also like to talk about Waitangi and her remarks from the entire week in Waitangi, rather than just the one day. That week is always my favourite week of the political year. 
Now, on the paepae, the Prime Minister heard one of the leaders remark on her speech. He said, "Let your work do the talking." That is spot on. Let your work do the talking. Our work in recent years has done the talking for us. 
At the beginning of this year, we announced an infrastructure initiative for wider New Zealand. It was a distribution of funds to repair schools, for hospitals, for roading, for rail and for other things. 
Talking specifically of the North, announcements were made, more than 100 schools received funding for repairs. This makes me really happy because that means our children are receiving the benefits of that funding. 
Secondly, there was an announcement to distribute $10 million in Kaitāia to repair the hospital, add to that the $24 million that was given to Whangārei, the hospital in Whangārei, and the $7 million that was given to the hospital in Te Pēwhairangi. 
There was also an announcement about the State highway from Whangārei to the Port of Marsden, in Port Marsden. 
Hon Shane Jones: Yes, yes, Ruakākā wharf—Marsden Point.
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yes. There was more than $692 million to build a four-lane highway; now, that funding has been distributed to build the road. 
My venerable elder Shane and I were present at the launch, where funding was allocated for the rail track, and the railways; the crowd in Whangārei were elated to hear that there would once again be rail from Whangārei to Ōtīria to my hometown of Moerewa. Some land will be purchased and the railway track will be added to the Port of Whangārei; that is massive for the North. 
During Waitangi week there was an announcement that more than $6 million would be distributed for Māori land, whereby seven initiatives will benefit to the tune of $6 million. That was Minister Shane Jones' work, along with Nanaia Mahuta. 
There was an announcement regarding rates on Māori land. The North is one area that is thwarted by rates on Māori. 
The occasion to unveil the statue of Whina Cooper in Pāngaru was a beautiful day where we celebrated the mother of the nation, Dame Whina Cooper. 
Te Rau Aroha is a house of remembrance, a house of treasures for the soldiers of the 28th Māori Battalion and other wars. Funding was provided by the Provincial Growth Fund to build that museum for all of us. 
There was also an announcement by the Prime Minister about a bridge. 
Māori members of Parliament in this House of Parliament cross the divide every day, but on Waitangi Day, we all saw Andrew Little cross that divide when he delivered his speech in Māori; that is a sign that we want more of the world to cross that divide. For what purpose? For the benefit of one and all. 
I have run out of time, but the list is so long that I could go on. The work in front of us this year has only just begun. We will let our work do the talking. Thank you.]





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I sat last week in this House, listening to the Prime Minister's statement, I was filled with incredible pride and joy, all of which was dispelled as I sat listening to the previous National members speak.
Kieran McAnulty: Weren't they bitter?
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: They were incredibly bitter and talked about neglect. But actually, the National Party member who resumed her seat just before we rose, in her capacity as the Minister for Ethnic Communities, did absolutely nothing that was noteworthy for our diverse communities. There was not one Cabinet paper in five years in that portfolio, and that gives us an indication of how much our diverse ethnic communities were neglected under the previous Government, regardless of the rhetoric that we hear from that side of the House.
However, what I wanted to start with was that regardless of where we might come from—whether we were born here in Aotearoa New Zealand, whether we've been here for three to four generations or we've migrated here—I think we can all agree on the fact that we want New Zealand to be the best place to live. That, when I think about it and reflect on it, is the role of the Government, and that's how I look at what this Government has done over the last two and a bit years since the Government took office and the vision that we have for New Zealand's progress. That's why I'm proud. I look at it in terms of the facts of looking after our people, the fact that we have a responsibility to look after the environment and to ensure that we have sustainable economic growth as well.
A huge part of looking after our people is to ensure that we reduce the cost of living. I want to address that, because the previous speaker, the Hon Judith Collins, touched upon it and claimed that not enough is being done in that space, and yet wages have increased 4.4 percent. We've increased significantly the minimum wage, which has seen a boost of about 200,000 people.
Kieran McAnulty: They're going to stop that.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: That's right. That's right—they want to stop that. Then, I think about the elderly Indian woman I met some months back who had worked for a company for 26 years, and in all those years, she had been on the minimum wage. How do people like that survive if we don't significantly boost the minimum wage?
Reducing the cost of living through cheaper doctors visits for about 540,000 New Zealanders—people are actually picking up prescriptions because it's cheaper to see their doctor. They're not having to make decisions like "Do we see the doctor or put food on the table?"—basic decisions that should be the right of all New Zealanders as well. We've scrapped NCEA fees and increased funding to schools so that the pressure on parents has been decreased as well.
Housing: Housing First places have increased, and that sits alongside a massive increase in the number of State houses that have been built. We stopped the State house sell-off. That party, when they were in Government, had actually decided to sell off all our State houses when we were in the middle of a housing crisis. How does that make any sense?
Looking after the environment: phasing out single-use plastic bags. We've started investing in cleaning up our waterways, working on standards to improve the health of our waterways and stop degradation, and passed the historic zero carbon bill. We have an historic agreement with our primary sector to make sure that collectively we address emissions.
Looking after the economy: the economy is strong. It's resilient. Our fiscal position remains stronger than countries we often compare ourselves to. Our economy is growing faster than the economies of Australia, the UK, and the EU. As I mentioned, unemployment is at an 11-year low, at under 4.4 percent.
Infrastructure spending: we're boosting infrastructure spending by $12 billion to upgrade New Zealand investment in road, rail, schools, and hospitals.
Finally, I want to touch on the changes to the Office of Ethnic Communities, where the fund, which was static—started in the last Labour Government at $500,000, increased by the National Government by $20,000—has now gone up to $4.2 million per year for our communities to access. It's open all year round, and it shows that we have a Government that truly believes that diversity is our strength and that all our communities have a right to feel safe, to feel valued, and to be able to thrive. 
I want to acknowledge Minister Salesa, the Minister for Ethnic Communities, now. I have seen her bat for our communities day in, day out, and get the wins that we've wanted to see to see our communities thrive, and that's been acknowledged by our communities. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): If there was ever a really clear example of the difference between the lofty rhetoric of this Government and the hardbitten reality of what's actually happening out there, it's in the health sector. The previous speaker just finished by applauding and lauding the Minister for Disability Issues, when the people and the clients of the Laura Fergusson Trust are scrambling to find new accommodation because they can't keep their doors open. That's the hardbitten reality of this heartless Government.
Now, there are always challenges in the health sector, but for successive years, through a global economic recession, Vote Health received twice the rate of inflation every year, and services were going up and up and up and waiting times were going down. It was the most benign industrial relations environment in generations. The Minister of Health when in Opposition was apoplectic about a proposed $90 million combined deficit in DHBs in 2017, and two years later—put aside the Holidays Act; put aside the IT write-offs—the deficits of DHBs are approaching $600 million. I ask the Minister when is he going to get off his horse and change the record of "Nine years of neglect!" and look in the mirror to find the reason for the problem that had been created solely by this Government. 
Now, the other speakers—and, indeed, the Prime Minister's speech—crow about things like cheaper GP visits: 540,000 extra, cheaper GP visits. What they don't say is that the Labour Party in the 2017 election campaign campaigned on cheaper GP visits for everyone. They said, "This is what the National Government is promising. We're going to promise more.", only they broke that promise.
Māori and Pasifika health is mentioned in the Prime Minister's statement. This is an outrage, that they should even mention Māori and Pasifika community health, who cannot pay salaries to their nurses because DHBs are keeping money and funding increases of up to 15 to 16 percent and throwing crumbs at Māori and Pasifika health providers. Pharmac is mentioned. Extra cancer drugs are mentioned. What's not mentioned is the $114 million they took out of hospital-based medicines funding, and the DHBs are still scrambling on it. The 12 linear accelerators are mentioned. What's not mentioned is that that's business as usual. The previous Government funded 10 of them over a three-year period because that's the normal capital replacement programme that is necessary to keep our DHBs and our public hospitals going.
Now, I will acknowledge there was a quite big dollop of money for mental health in Budget 2018 and that was necessary and appropriate. The problem with that is it's not getting spent. It's not getting spent, and it's certainly not getting spent in the areas that the Government said it was going to be spent in or, indeed, in the areas of most need.
But what's most ubiquitous and just terrible about Budget 2019—
Hon Shane Jones: Oh, "just terrible"? Oh!
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Stand by, Mr Jones. He might be a grandfather at one point, but I hope he can find a midwife for his tamariki, because independent midwives have been treated scandalously by this Government. They were given a co-designed report that the previous Government had agreed to as a way of avoiding the litigation that was emerging, and these guys have tucked it in the bottom drawer and pretended it doesn't exist.
The Ministry of Health had to apologise to the College of Midwives for their failure to even prepare a Budget bid in 2018. In fact, it should have been the Minister and the Government that apologised. The response? Nothing in Budget 2019. Apparently, they've been told there will be a solution in 2020. We'll see, because, actually, if there is anything that the Government has to deal with, it's the deficits now, before they even start with new money, and I would hate to be in Grant Robertson's shoes when it comes to Vote Health 2020.
They've said a lot about capital projects, and I cannot believe they continue to perpetuate the myth of sewage down the walls of Middlemore Hospital. That did not happen. But the other fiction in that section of the Prime Minister's statement is this—
Hon Grant Robertson: You put no money into capital at all.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, no capital at all? That's exactly what this speech says. The Minister of Finance interjects. In the paragraph on page 3, for example, in 2016, no new money was put aside for health capital expenditure, only I've got Vote Health 2016 here. Capital expenditure: $2.7 billion—$300 million in another category of capital expenditure. In 2017: several hundred million dollars. It's a myth. It's a fiction, and we can go through the hospitals that were upgraded on the previous Government's watch: Middlemore Hospital clinical services building; North Shore Hospital inpatient, emergency department (ED), mental health; Waitakere Hospital ED, radiology, theatres. We could go on: Taranaki, Hutt Valley, Wairau, Greymouth, Christchurch, Burwood, and Dunedin Hospital, and I'm not talking about the rebuild of Dunedin Hospital—
Hon Grant Robertson: Which you never committed to.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —I'm talking about—we'll come to that, Mr Robertson—the remedying of the neglect of the Clark Government, who would not upgrade the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), whose staff were working in disgraceful conditions. The paediatric ward at Dunedin Hospital was a million years old. They needed extra funding. They didn't get it from the Clark Government. The NICU, the children's ward, the mental health acute block, and the emergency department were all extended on this Government's watch.
The Minister of Finance is wrong. He knows he's wrong, because the Dunedin Hospital rebuild was committed to in 2017 by the English National Government—the end. They crow about $2.5 billion in the Prime Minister's speech, but $1.6 billion of that was on projects that were already committed to by the previous Government.
Now, in my list I was careful not to attribute the sorts of capital projects that were approved by the Clark Government and yet completed here—Wellington Hospital is a very good example of it—but no such courtesy is extended by this Government to the previous Government. The fact is that capital projects occur all the time, and all the arm waving and "Aren't we great?" when they actually approve something is completely unnecessary. In fact, I wish they would—I wish they would—approve the funding through Treasury for the detailed business case for Dunedin Hospital, because my sources are telling me that that is a huge hurdle that Treasury have not allowed—
Hon Grant Robertson: Just you wait.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —to get over. Oh, he says, "Just wait and see." We are waiting to see whether we're going to get half a pyramid—that's what we're waiting to see, half a pyramid; you may recall the old insurance ad—because it sounds to me like the lofty rhetoric and the hardbitten reality are going to be two different things.
Now, all of this financial stress could be accepted and tolerated if, indeed, we're seeing more coming out the other end, but actually we're not. We're seeing lower levels of elective surgery, longer cancer treatment waiting times, emergency department waiting times—out—smoking cessation rates are lower than they certainly were and where they need to be to get to smoke-free 2025.
Harete Hipango: Vaccinations—
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: But the biggest scandal—exactly, Ms Hipango—is vaccination rates. When we came to office in 2008, they were a scandalously low 63 percent, and through hard work and clear expectations by the Government on the DHBs, they got to 92 to 93 percent. They are backsliding because this Government doesn't believe health targets are important, and what is the consequence of that? A meningococcal outbreak in Northland, a measles epidemic across the country that we exported to Samoa, and what are we seeing now? Well, I think it's a lead-footed response to a global pandemic that may not have come to our shores yet but could well do, in the coronavirus outbreak. I think it's incumbent on the Government to reassure the public that they have a plan, they're executing a plan, and they're communicating a plan. They have been slow out of the blocks.
So that's the hardbitten reality. Forget the lofty rhetoric, forget the criticisms of the previous Government, and look at the data—the throughput data; the improvements in New Zealanders' health—because that's not what's being delivered to New Zealanders right now. It's absolutely consistent with the theme of non-delivery of this Government. All we see in this speech is "Job not yet done.", and that would be fine if the job had even started. But the New Zealand First coalition agreement has about five things, or six things in health—Mr Jones knows five of them haven't even been started—not delivered. It's not good enough. It's non-delivery. New Zealanders deserve better.





Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.





EDUCATION (VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM) AMENDMENT BILL
In Committee
Part 1  Substantive amendments to principal Act
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Today, we are opposing the reform of vocational education bill as we believe it will irreparably damage the sector and it is not the solution to the challenges that we acknowledge in the sector. The committee of the whole House is the one opportunity many polytechnics will have to place their views on record in this House. The effects of reforms are unique to each polytechnic and to each region. Today, we will place on record how the reforms will impact every polytechnic and every region. Every polytechnic made a submission to the reforms, or nearly every one, and we will draw on that information to show that unique impact.
I'm looking forward to hearing from Maureen Pugh at Tai Poutini on the West Coast. I'm looking forward to hearing from Jonathan Young—the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki in New Plymouth; from Lawrence Yule—the Eastern Institute of Technology in Hastings; and from Hamish Walker in the deep South—the Southern Institute of Technology, Invercargill. I want to hear their views. Their constituents, their people, legitimately and rightly, would like to have their views recorded in the House.
I want to turn now to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name, SOP 436, an SOP seeking for NorthTec to be exempted from the reforms. Today, we are fighting for NorthTec to be able to decide what they will teach, where they will teach, and how they will teach it. Today, we are fighting for local decision-making to remain with NorthTec and not with the mega polytechnic, or even further removed with the workforce development councils. NorthTec is particularly good at forestry. If NorthTec decides that they are able to teach a forestry course in Kaikohe, maybe with blended learning, then that should be their decision. Matt King is fighting for NorthTec in Kaikohe. Matt King is fighting for NorthTec in the Far North. He's fighting for learning across all of the Far North because he believes Northland knows best, which drives to some of the crux of this bill and why we are arguing against it.
NorthTec told the Education and Workforce Committee that the bill is flawed. Their representative view of the region is that the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology is "a creature of the [Ministry] of Education."—that's a direct quote from NorthTec. They're of a view and they're concerned that there are possibilities in this bill for political interference in tertiary education, and they raised that by saying the way the bill overturns the limitation in the Education Act that the Minister may not identify a specified organisation to which funding may be provided or denied runs the risk of significant political interference. NorthTec has assets of about $13 million. These have been hard accrued. It is also fair to say they've been running a deficit of several million dollars, and I believe and have faith in their plan to correct that and redress it over a strategic plan over the next two to three years. I've seen that plan. I know the staff. I have faith in them. These reforms will completely turn upside down the ability for NorthTec to redress those concerns and to reach a balanced budget.
So today, we fight for the survival of NorthTec. We fight for their students; we actually also fight for their staff, and this SOP in my name seeks an exemption for NorthTec from this bill so that we can decide what is best for Northland. I come to the point—and I'm sure other regions will say the same, that their regions are the best at fighting for their regions, at deciding what the tertiary sector offering in their regions should be, and that's what I'm expecting to hear. I'm indicating to you that we hold ourselves as being quite good at forestry, and I think NorthTec would be well accepted as being good in that space. We must be able, surely, to decide where, when, and how we're going to teach forestry. That must be local decision-making. We know that is best.
So we've put on the Table an SOP in my name that seeks to exempt NorthTec from the reforms, and I'm looking to the wide and varied discussion of the impact across all of New Zealand. The Office of the Auditor-General said this was the widest range of public reforms of public entities in the past 30 years. That shows the potential disruption that this could be. We have great concerns for that. Again, we respect and honour the privilege that is the committee of the whole House, that for the first time, and maybe the only time, will give those regions a voice. So we're concerned. We respect this privilege and we'll honour it, and I'm looking forward to my colleagues informing me, informing the House, informing Hansard, and all those who are watching as to what the impact of these reforms will be in their regions. I stand by the SOP in my name in the committee. Thank you, Mr Chair.





HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I rise to speak in support of Sarah Dowie's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), SOP 438, which seeks to exclude the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) from this bill, the transitional arrangements that convert existing polytechs into this mega polytech. This bill is absolutely going to gut the province of Southland, not only cost jobs at SIT but it's going to cost the province a lot in the long run. SIT is the heartbeat of Southland. The negative consequences of this bill come from the centralisation of assets and the centralisation from the decision-making powers. My colleague Sarah Dowie, who's currently travelling to Parliament in a plane at the moment, and I have been fighting this for well over one year. This will send the Southland community back to the days of the 1980s-1990s, when we had a declining population.
SIT and the Southland community have a proud history of innovation, and you only need to go back a couple of decades, when a group of innovative Southlanders got together and they came up with the idea of free fees at SIT, the only institute in the country to offer this. SIT was able to do this due to the fact that decisions could be made locally on the ground. If we go to this one mega model where all decisions have to go through head office, you will stifle that innovation. The bill currently presents a centralised New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology that will be slow to adapt, lack that innovation I just spoke about, and be risk-averse. Losing those local decision-making powers from the locals who know the area, who live in the area, is a step backwards.
I want to talk about SIT's innovative approach to recruiting international students. These students don't have just a financial impact into the community but they benefit the entire community, as they often stay in Southland. They keep our churches open. They keep our schools going. They provided much-needed work on farms for farmers. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country in Southland. We're short of workers. We need these students, who often become much-valued members of a community.
We also have a huge skills shortage in Southland. We need Southland to push forward, which is why, five years ago, we came up with the regional development strategy to attract 10,000 new people to Southland by 2025. The fact that a wonderful lady by the name of Penny Simmonds, who's been at the helm for 22 years, has probably the most innovative approach to attracting international students—because of SIT's small nature, she can go overseas, they can move quickly with the times and the market, they can recruit these international students, and the only assurance they've had from the Minister of Education over the past 12 months is "We're not going to put that at risk.", but there's no detail in the bill.
You only need to look at the TAFE model overseas in Australia, and recent surveys on that model from international recruitment agents show that it's very hard to follow. It's unresponsive, because most students, the one-size-fits-all model—students go to the larger centres. SIT has 13,000 students, therefore will no doubt miss out.
The other area I have significant concerns about is the ring-fencing of the assets at SIT. You need to look at the last financial year. It had $38.5 million in assets; $7.5 million was raised by the local community to get SIT off the ground. The cash reserves have been built up and invested back into capital projects and into areas like accommodation blocks, into programme development equipment and facilities for students' general wellbeing. Taking away those decision-making powers from a local level, you lose that connection from the province, from the local decision makers who know where to put that money. What the Government's basically saying is that the head office decision makers in Wellington know better than the people in Southland.
This is probably the biggest reform that'll send Southland back, definitely in my generation. I acknowledge Minister Hipkins for fronting up to a public meeting in Southland where several hundred people turned up in orange T-shirts: "Stand Up for SIT." I just hope the Minister will listen to those concerns and seriously consider having a carve-out for SIT. It's the most innovative and best-performing polytech in the country.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak to new Part 9 in Schedule 1 of the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. I am speaking on behalf of the Auckland region. I believe that the Auckland region is a very different region compared to other regions in our country, so the polytechnics that are in the Auckland region should not be put under the same umbrella as the Minister of Education is proposing through this legislation.
I'm based in Auckland. I'm based in Mt Roskill and, of course, I travel around not just in Auckland but outside of Auckland too, and I have seen there are clear differences between Auckland and other regions. The demographics are different. We know that Auckland makes up a significant part of our population, and out of that population a big proportion is made up of people that have come from other countries and have settled here, but they call New Zealand their home. So when people come from other countries, they bring different skills, different educational backgrounds, and, based on those skills and educational backgrounds, they start up their businesses, and then they are looking for local skills, skilled people that are available locally to fill up those jobs that they create through the creation of their business. 
So these polytechnics are mainly seen to be providing for that skill gap that exists in different regions. I fear that the proposal that the Minister has put through this legislation will fail that industry that is looking for that local skill, local skilled people, to fill up those gaps that are created by them creating more and more jobs. So it's actually a good thing when businesses have more and more vacancies coming up, but they should be able to fill up those vacancies by seeing that our youth or other people—those who go through refresher courses, through polytechnics—are able to fill up those positions.
In Auckland, as I said, demographics are different. It's made up of a lot of migrant people. They bring new ideas and we should actually support them to bring those ideas and to establish those ideas into businesses. So for people that go through polytechnics, what they are looking for is some courses or diplomas that will prepare them to fulfil the requirements that they have to fill up those vacancies that come up. For people to expect those people to move from one region to the other region to attain those skills, that is something that is not going to be practical because it can be quite expensive when somebody is doing a diploma or a short course, expecting that person to move from one region to the other region if the centralised approach doesn't work for their region. Moreover, for businesses to rely on people coming from other regions to be employed in their business is also not a practical idea. So it's really important that localism is maintained, especially in the Auckland region.
So I would like the Minister to actually take a call and tell us how the Minister is going to address this issue of Auckland being such a different region compared to other regions when it comes to the requirement of skilled people and also the training requirements that exist for our young people and also people—those who want to go to refresher courses to take up newer jobs or just to grow themselves in their existing jobs. 
This legislation brings a centralised approach and that is my concern. Auckland, I believe, should not be part of that centralised approach. There should be a special approach for Auckland. We know some polytechnics are suffering; some polytechnics are doing really well. We don't want to see those polytechnics struggling even more because of this centralised approach, because if they will not be able to provide for that skill gap that exists in Auckland, they will not be getting new people coming and joining courses in those polytechnics. So this will result, in my view, in a bigger failure for polytechnics, so this needs to be definitely looked at, seriously looked at, and I will look forward to the Minister's response to this concern that I have raised. 
The other issue I would like to raise is that we know that polytechnics rely on not just local students, they also rely on students coming from overseas as international students. We have heard this again and again that so many polytechnics are suffering because there are students that are enrolled in these polytechnics but are not able to come to New Zealand because they are not getting that immigration clearance that they should be in a timely manner. That's why so many polytechnics are suffering. I think the Minister needs to take that into consideration as well, because these polytechnics, ultimately, will need students. As we have seen, the purpose of this sector is to provide for the local skills gaps that come up from time to time, and if our polytechnics are not able to get people, to train them to take up those positions, then this will be a complete failure. We do not want to see failure after failure in the education sector. 
The polytechnic sector is important, as we have heard just now from my other colleagues from this side, from North to South, and they have a different stance.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill at this committee of the whole House stage. I intend to take a few calls on this part, being the substantive part in this bill. In the first call, I'd like to focus on the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST) council. In my second contribution I'd like to come back to talk about the Manukau Institute of Technology and concerns which had been raised in the south-east Auckland community. 
So firstly, I'd like to take a call regarding the NZIST council, and I think it's important that we as a committee of the whole House understand the mega change that this bill is making to create what will, essentially, be a mega polytech to take away the regional decision-making from our local polytechs. If we look through the bill, what we see is that this bill, essentially, takes away power from local polytechs to be able to make decisions around courses—where, and how they can be—the regional skills mix, academic freedom, polytechnic governance, community involvement, cash reserves, capital projects. All of these key decision-making roles, which are currently made at a local level, will be wrapped up into the mega polytech and given decision making by one central body, which is the mega polytechnic NZIST council.
Kieran McAnulty: Read the new bill. 
SIMEON BROWN: I have read the bill because I was on the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr Kieran McAnulty, the list MP from where—nobody actually knows where he comes from because he doesn't really get round—
Hon Member: Australia, I think.
SIMEON BROWN: He's from Australia from that accent, that's right.
One of the key one of the key issues that I'd like to raise and I'd like the Minister of Education to be able to provide some clarity over is around what seems to be a conflict in the power that the NZIST council has to appoint members to its student and staff advisory committees. Now this power comes under sections 222L and 222M of new Part 15A, set out in clause 49. They have the ability under those sections to be able to, essentially, appoint the members who will then be the membership of the advisory committee. So it says there that when appointing the members, they've got the power to do so. Under section 222L, they must establish these advisory council committees.
Now, if the Minister looks earlier when it comes under section 222G of new Part 15A, set out in clause 49, the membership of the NZIST council is made up of at least eight, but not more than 12 members, one person must be a person who is elected by its staff committee, and one person is a member who must be elected by its student committee. The question I have is whether the Minister sees any level of conflict over this appointment process, seeing as the Minister will have the power to appoint the remaining members other than the one appointed by the Māori advisory committee. The Minister will have the power to appoint the remaining members of the NZIST council. The NZIST council then has the power to appoint who will sit on the staff committee or the student committee. 
So, essentially, what you have is you have a circle of power, which all involves the Minister appointing people who will then appoint people whom he wants appointed to the NZIST council. So not only does he have a majority on the NZIST council but he has the ability to appoint people to the staff committee and the student committee who will then appoint representatives who will be in line with what he's after. I want to ask the Minister whether he has any concerns about what seems to be an apparent conflict and whether he has looked at other options at which the staff and the students are able to have their voices heard rather than having what seems to be a very tightly controlled process whereby the Minister, essentially, retains control.
I guess that raises the question over whether that is what the Minister wants. Is the Minister, essentially, wanting full control over the NZIST council, where there is no delegation down to students, down to staff, down to regions, and where he is trying to suck all that power into his office here in Wellington? I think the only thing the Minister said is, "We won't be having the head office of this NZIST council in Auckland or Wellington." Well, I can tell the Minister where the head office will be, and it sounds like it's going to be in his Beehive office here in Wellington, regardless of where the NZIST council might meet or where the chief executive might go for his daily meetings with his NZIST council. So I'd like the Minister to answer those questions, because that's what the regions of New Zealand are worried about. That's the concern they're raising up and down our country—the control that the Minister is having.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I hope perhaps to be able to take a couple of calls on this bill this afternoon, not necessarily consecutively, but in one I'd like to focus on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 443 that is in my name and is on the Table at the moment. It naturally refers to the Waikato Institute of Technology, more commonly known as Wintec. 
So I have the great privilege of being, effectively, the member for Wintec in this House. Wintec has two campuses in my electorate—the city campus and the Rotokauri campus, both of which have been performing extraordinarily well and meeting considerable demand for many years now. I'm very proud of all they are achieving. I'm very proud to be associated with them. So I want to say, as the member for Wintec, I am deeply concerned that a model that is working very well in the Waikato region, and that caters for many from outside our region and for many international students, is, effectively, at great threat of being undermined when they have not requested that at all. As previous speakers in this debate have noted, the reforms threaten to bring major losses there and elsewhere around the country, and, in particular, effectively the seizure of assets in a way that I find absolutely inexplicable and indefensible. 
We have, as others have already noted, the potential here for another fees-free disaster, and I think that will become apparent as people dig down into the specific points of this bill. I do want to commend the huge body of work that Dr Shane Reti, the National Party's tertiary education spokesperson, has done, because he is a very details-focused individual, very analytical, and he really has not only done the work of unpicking what this bill is all about but he's been around the country meeting with councils and staff from all of the polytechnics and talking at length with them about how they are affected by it. So I hope that he, in particular, will be listened to with considerable respect. 
I want to acknowledge the Minister of Education is in the chair, and I thank him for being here this afternoon. I don't criticise him for the fact that he hasn't taken a call yet, because I believe that he's probably been showing other members some respect and hearing some of the concerns. But I hope he will take a call fairly soon and frequently during the afternoon, because a number of different matters have been raised with him. I in particular would like to put a few questions to him at the outset, because I focused in the second reading debate last week on some of the major concerns that we've heard, particularly from the Tertiary Education Commission and from Treasury, and I do believe that the Minister needs to respond to them. 
I asked the Minister if he's concerned that the Tertiary Education Commission has warned that the reforms will cause workforce disruption, a decrease in student numbers, potentially of 18,000 students and 2,310 apprentices, and will not meet the needs of industry and the regions. That is a pretty damning assessment, and so I hope that the Minister is going to give us his response to those concerns and, in particular, to be able to find some way of allaying them. 
The second thing is that I was deeply alarmed—and so I know are many other members, particularly on this side of the House—to hear Treasury's risk analysis of the Government's review into vocational education, describing the review's potential impact as ranging from extreme to major. That, again, is a very damning assessment. I think the Minister must answer the question of how he responds to that dire warning and why, apparently, he seems to be ignoring it or at least taking an "I know best" approach, because this is the assessment of Treasury, and when added to the assessment of the Tertiary Education Commission, it sends out two very strong red flags, and those issues must be addressed this afternoon. 
The third question that I want to put to the Minister relates to the fact that, effectively, the Government's reforms will dissolve local polytechnics into a hollow and meaningless legacy campus. Now, as I've said, the Waikato region is very proud, and rightly so, of the success and the significance in our economy and in our community of Wintec. But this bill is pulling down a very successful high performing institution to create a much less effective, a far more mediocre, model. So I ask the Minister, what message is he sending to the Wintec council, its staff, and its students—who I have the privilege of representing in this House—who have been doing so well for so long and who have not asked for these changes and who stand to lose considerably from their implementation, without any rational explanation or compensation for the loss of those assets? 
I've come to the end of my first call. I hope the Minister will deal with those, and I'll talk to my SOP later.





STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. I am going to speak to my colleague Nick Smith's Supplementary Order Paper, 435, which really seeks to take the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) out of this bill. My colleague can't be here today, so I'm going to try and take the lead for Te Tau Ihu. 
There are two campuses from Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, one in Nelson and one in Blenheim, so they cover both of our electorates. They are significant entities, particularly in Nelson but also in Marlborough, and they reflect the unique characteristics of that area. In Nelson there's quite a close link to the Cawthron Institute and a lot of the research that goes on in aquaculture and marine biology, and there's a good business campus there in Marlborough. There is the aviation component of NMIT. There is also the very important viticultural course that's run there, and the facilities that are there are quite unique really in the country, with micro vinifications, so where wines can be made in very small batches so that the students are able to follow their progress right through. 
Now, why that is important, and why I raise that, is because NMIT is able to be nimble. It's able to respond to the needs of their community, and what that community needs, and the fear is—and I think it's quite well-founded—that if this is all rolled up into one entity, whether it's run out of the Minister's office or wherever that happens to be doesn't actually matter. What we know is that when things become large and are centralised in such a way, they lose nimbleness and an ability to actually react to what's in front of them. I would argue that there will be very few people in New Zealand in the tertiary sector that would have any understanding of a viticultural course and a winemaking course. I think that is beyond doubt. And to have that ability on the ground to react to what is needed—and what we've seen in Marlborough is the school of wine is linking in with that. So that's a secondary component reaching into tertiary, and I think that that is really important. That's where I think education will go in the future, and good on it, particularly with boys and education and getting them to see the point of education. That's half the problem and why so many boys are failing. They don't actually get what the point of it is. They don't see it linking to what their future is. 
But going back to the facilities—so these have been very successful entities. NMIT has cash reserves of $15 million or just over, and that's going to be subsumed into this body, and I don't think that's fair at all. It certainly isn't fair. Because an entity has been successful, they're going to be punished, and they're going to help the entities that are not well run and have lost a lot of money. I think that shouldn't be all put in together. But I think the really important point I want to make, when in 1902 the Nelson technology unit was put together, the community, the ratepayers of Nelson, paid for and gifted that land that the entity went on. Now we have assets of $100 million. So those assets that the ratepayers paid for are going to be stolen by the Government—no say from them—and that is just beyond belief. How can an entity like that come in over top, take the assets? Who knows? In the future they might wind it up. We'll just say we're going to do it all online now—we don't need that campus; we're going to sell that land. We'll take the money, put it back in the consolidated fund. Having done that, the ratepayers of Nelson that paid for that land and that asset in the first place just get that taken away from them, and I think that's absolutely appalling. 
It all goes back to the unsuccessful entities around the country that have failed. We are now using the successful ones, like NMIT, like Southern Institute of Technology, and we're going to take those assets, take that money, and prop up the unsuccessful ones. Rather than focusing on the problem, we're punishing the successful. That is not a good way to deal with anything, and particularly the education and the future of young New Zealanders. I think that this is a huge mistake and it's run by ideology and not good sense.





Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll just take a short call just to point out a couple of things, one of which is that when we became the Government, there were significant issues in the vocational education sector. In 2017 alone, the losses were $53 million. Since the coalition has been in Government, we've had to put $100 million into this sector. 
I sat around a select committee table with members of the Opposition who agreed that there were problems in the vocational education sector and who said, "Oh, we've got to do something." What I've heard today is a whole lot of individuals get up and ask for carve-outs for their particular region, without one real acceptance and acknowledgment of the significant issues for vocational education to fill the major skills gaps that we have in this country. 
This is a reform bill. It's a significant piece of legislation, and we had submitter after submitter—particularly the industry training organisations—come before the Education and Workforce Committee and beg for change in order to be able to fill the skills gaps that we have in this country and to be able to provide a coherent system across the country. That's what this legislation does. 
I'll just give the example—and there were plenty of examples—from the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation, from the Primary Industry Training Organisation, from the electricians, and from the master plumbers and gasfitters, who all said the same thing. I think the Primary Industry Training Organisation gave the example of the SPCA, which offers graduations for animal care courses. It offers 13 different courses across the country, with no consistency. 
That's a really small example, but the guts of this bill is reform and to ensure that there is a consistent system across the country. Individual carve-outs aren't going to deliver that. I haven't been able to see one cohesive, consistent argument coming from the Opposition on this. 





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call. Clare Curran, the last member that spoke, spoke of a holistic sense of what's happening in New Zealand, but I rise to speak on behalf of my own institution, the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT). I ask for a carve-out under Supplementary Order Paper 433, in my name, principally because the Eastern Institute of Technology has never run a deficit; every year, it has had increasing numbers attending its courses; it has $30 million worth of reserves in the bank; and the land on which it sits was gifted by the Hetley family in Hawke's Bay. That's why I ask for a carve-out, because all this is is nationalisation of a regional asset—a highly successful regional asset—to serve the political ideology of the day and to actually help solve the mismanagement of other institutions, principally in large urban centres of New Zealand. I am strongly opposed to this change. 
This time—this very time—last week, I sat at the Eastern Institute of Technology with the establishment unit as they did some of their consultation, and I asked this specific question: what will happen to the $30 million of reserves that the Eastern Institute of Technology has, and what will happen to the land? I was strongly assured by the head of that unit that the Minister assures us that that land and those reserves will be made available for the people of Hawke's Bay and its wider area. Minister, I acknowledge you shaking your head. Maybe—
Hon Chris Hipkins: No, I'm nodding. 
LAWRENCE YULE: —you would take a call—maybe you are agreeing. Maybe you would take a call and tell me where in the legislation it says that, because in my reading, I can't see it. It was asked for in the submission from EIT. It seemed very sensible and practical to me, but I actually can't find the specific clause. 
Equally, in the submissions that were made by EIT to the Education and Workforce Committee, they raised this point: in the make-up of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Training council, there is no guarantee of any form of regional representation. It is all controlled by the Minister. 
Minister, you might think that that's a small deal, but I will give you an example of what has happened recently in Hawke's Bay. The district health board in Hawke's Bay now has not one single representative from the city of Napier, despite that fact that it has 75,000 people living there, and that is because the Minister of Health chose to ignore that city. EIT is actually in Napier. EIT and other regional centres need to be assured that they're not going to be left out of the mix in the representation for regional centres. 
I also note some of the comments from the union—the Tertiary Education Union—who represent EIT. They made this comment—and, Minister, I draw it to your attention—"The loss of morale at The Eastern Institute of Technology is palpable and if the power imbalance is not addressed a lot of good people will leave the profession." Minister, that is because EIT, who I speak on behalf of, is one of the best-run institutions in New Zealand. Yes, you have some problems to fix across the sector, but you don't have many problems to fix at the Eastern Institute of Technology, and all the metrics say it is doing a great job. 
So, Minister, I ask you to answer the questions I have given—particularly about the reserves and the land—because, like a previous speaker has said, if they are somehow nationalised, even in the future, I would regard that as theft from the people of Hawke's Bay, and I would rally and fight against that at any time in the future. I am opposed to this bill, but I would at least ask that some of my questions are answered. 





JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak in the committee stage of this bill. I come from Taranaki, from the city of New Plymouth, where we have the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki (WITT) as our polytechnic that serves our region. It has a campus in New Plymouth and one in Hāwera, and it serves 3,500 students. It has recently had a new chief executive, who is leading that organisation with great energy and vision, and it has what I consider a particularly high-class board of councils that are all local people who have a great passion for our region and who are professional, experienced, and connected to our community. 
There are many aspects of this bill which I think do not assist with the ongoing development of a centre of excellence that we wish and know WITT can become for our region. I think that is, in particular, around losing independence or losing the ability to actually determine their future by becoming a subsidiary of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. The kind of homogenisation of the tertiary sector training for skills and trades in technical areas does not actually befit, I think, New Zealand particularly well, because Hawke's Bay is different from Taranaki, it's different from Northland, and it's different from Waikato, and we have different needs. 
The Minister will full well know the decisions that his Government made that affect one of the significant industries, or perhaps two or three industries, in our region. So I want to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 429, which I have lodged, and that's regarding independence by our local polytech to be able to manage and control its assets. We need to have that flexibility, that nimbleness that I don't believe a national organisation will afford.
In our particular region, the Government has sought to transition our very effective and professional workforce away from the oil and gas sector. Yes, they will have transferable skills; unfortunately many of those transferable skills take them out of the country to other countries around the South Pacific, and Asia-Pacific in particular. The sort of skill base that we need in our region is unique, and it needs to have, I believe, management and decision making around that and, particularly, the assets that support the training that is needed for our region for, I think, regional control around those assets—I think it's very, very important.
I'm sure that the Minister has been to our site in Bell Street where WITT operates from, and I'm sure he will understand that it's down a residential street; there's virtually no parking as you approach WITT. So the council and the community of New Plymouth may, at some point in time, wish to relocate and have different areas in which they can do their training from. I think that the nimbleness around this is best left for local people.
The previous speaker, my colleague Lawrence Yule, mentioned that the polytech in the Hawke's Bay received a bequeath—the benefit of a considerable piece of land. Look, I doubt very, very much that we're going to see those sorts of bequeaths come, which are a huge benefit to local communities in terms of their training facilities, if the concern is that those donations—and often in the millions and tens of millions of dollars—just end up in Crown ownership. I think that when people make an investment into a local community, they want those local communities to have control and management of their local assets.
So my SOP is requesting a carve-out that WITT and its council—a very professional, dedicated group of people who I trust implicitly for the future of WITT's ongoing success—would, in fact, have the ability to control and manage their assets, and that it wouldn't just be absorbed into some national pool. Thank you, Mr Chair.





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to stand and speak to the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill today in the committee of the whole House. I'm going to speak in support of Tai Poutini Polytechnic, on the West Coast, and probably in a different position to that of some of my colleagues who have spoken today. It's not particularly well-endowed with asset or cash reserves, but it's certainly a very integral part of the needs of training and education on the West Coast.
The main concern that I have about this particular bill is the way that it strips the autonomy from our local decision makers around skills, trade, and learning opportunities. For instance, we know that the proposal is that there will be an advisory group set up, that there will be some advisory role there, but I would argue that we need that advisory position to be regional—so a regional advisory group or committee that involves the stakeholders from that local community, including the employers, maybe local government, and local iwi, because they are the ones that know the needs best. At the moment this bill does not appear to have an advisory role that can be initiated locally so that we can actually initiate some suggestions and advice that are local, because, as we all know, centralisation of ideas is not always applicable as a blanket across this country. We need to take note of the specific needs of rural communities across this country.
It's not just the centralisation of the polytech. We see that at Tai Poutini, along the West Coast, where it's not just the one thing that is being taken and being centralised but it is actually the cumulative effect of a whole lot of stuff that is being centralised and taken away from local communities.
When I was listening to my colleagues speaking earlier—my colleagues Stuart Smith and Jonathan Young—talking about the valuable assets that have been accumulated by the various polytechnic institutes around New Zealand, and the way that their assets were actually bequeathed to those communities is very much like the same scenario that we're seeing with the racing reforms, where those assets which are gifted and supplied and maintained and fundraised by local—
Hon Scott Simpson: Over generations.
MAUREEN PUGH: —over many generations, thank you, Scott Simpson—that these have been accumulated and built and owned by those communities for many generations, and, then, in one fell swoop of a reform bill, can be seized by the Government.
Now, I've seen the same thing happen in smaller communities, even with our local playcentres, where a central body comes in and seizes assets that have been built and funded by local communities. I argue that this is totally immoral, and I think that the Government needs to rethink how it seizes these assets out of these communities.
But as I talked before about the cumulative effect, we're seeing the same thing happen with local racing clubs, we're now seeing it with our polytechnic, and in my area we've seen it with the removal of our ability to do small things—I'll use whitebaiting as an example. It's not just the one thing that happens to us; it is the cumulative effect of a whole lot of policy coming down on us.
Before I finish my contribution, I would just like to ask the Minister in the chair about the likely cost of this, because we know it is a sector that is particularly under some financial stress and this is definitely going to impose more cost on that sector. I need some reassurance from the Government that it is going to be well-funded if it is going to be implemented and that it is going to deliver for the people in the regions. We are totally reliant on these training organisations to deliver the pipeline of skills that we are going to need to maintain our local industry. If it's not funded well, it won't be delivered well and that pipeline gets a kink in it—and we can't afford to have that happen in this country. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the more, I think, measured submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee was from the Otago Polytechnic, who probably didn't display quite the tub-thumping outrage that our near neighbours in the southern region did, with Southern Institute of Technology's protest meeting that the Minister of Education very bravely attended. The subsequent week was much more measured, as was the submission, and I want to talk to it in relation to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 437 regarding Otago Polytech's role as a future subsidiary.
Now, what the Otago Polytechnic said in its submission was that—it pointed out, actually, that when Cabinet originally agreed to the provisions, it was for the continuation of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology subsidiaries unless there were good reasons not to do so. It pointed out that the bill, when it came through to the select committee, provided for the automatic dissolution of subsidiaries on a given date. It recommended that that not be the case, and that, actually, what they described as the "earned autonomy" of polytechnics should be able to be maintained. That wasn't followed; my SOP will enable that to occur. There are very good reasons for that. I think the southern South Island polytechnics are the exemplar of good vocational academic and financial performance.
It doesn't just happen, actually—it wasn't like that 15-odd years ago—but through good management, good academic excellence, and a high level of pass rate that came out, Otago has a very, very good reputation. It has a global reputation, particularly in health sciences. Both the University of Otago and Otago Polytech with its nursing, midwifery, and occupational therapy programmes are qualifications that can be taken anywhere in the world, and a prospective employer will know where Otago is.
They have a significant concern about the loss of autonomy that could have been protected if Otago is allowed to remain a subsidiary of New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. Cabinet looked at that at the start and decided against it, which I think is a reflection of the centralised ethos, the collectivist, centralist ethos of this Government, actually, that it knows best. Well, I can tell the Minister that the Otago Polytechnic staff, students, and stakeholders know that that isn't the case. They know that a good polytechnic does require that level of autonomy, it does rely on that level of employer and stakeholder engagement.
I have been an employer that relies on the product that comes out of the Otago Polytechnic and I was super impressed with the willingness that they had to listen to me as the employer of their product and say, "Look, I think it can be improved in this way." or "I can help by enabling students to come, whether they're arboriculture students, or mechanical engineering students, or nursing students, and work in my organisation as undergraduates." Now, the reality is that level of autonomy is going to be lost if the bill as it remains in the committee of the whole House is passed in to law, I have no doubt. That was the concern that the Otago Polytechnic had; it's the concern that my SOP seeks to address. 
The last thing I want to touch on is the SOP—I think it's in Mr Falloon's name—regarding the management and control of the assets, and other colleagues have talked about this. I don't think Otago has quite the asset base, particularly cash and physical assets, that other organisations around the country have. But the reality is, they did not come to pass purely because of Government fiat and investment. They came about because of the community's involvement in this polytechnic. The community is going to have quite a bit to say about the Government by fiat, by law, appropriating those assets for central use, particularly if they are liquid assets—cash assets—without any guarantee that they are going to be hypothecated back to this region. So I remain concerned at the loss of autonomy, the loss of identity, and the loss of control over the academic programmes. These two SOPs seek to remedy that, and I commend them.





TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm delighted to stand up this afternoon and speak to the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, and particularly here in the committee of the whole House. I would like to build on the very good contribution that we have just heard from Michael Woodhouse reflecting on the perspectives that he brings from his community to this issue. 
In fact, listening to the debate, as I have now over the last 10 minutes or so, what I am struck by is how very different the performance and approach and scale of each of our polytechnics are in this country. What we're pushing hard against this afternoon is a one-size-fits-all, centralised, cookie cutter approach, when actually the lived experience of the communities of New Zealand with respect to their engagement with the polytechs, their local polytechs, talks to the fact that our polytechs are incredibly varied in terms of scale and approach and journey and experience. The idea that they all have to be subsumed to the centre, I think, is very much a retrograde step. 
I'd like to talk specifically about the issues of Toi Ohomai in my area in the Bay of Plenty, which over the last five years has seen two substantive polytechs reflect on their structure, reflect on their capability and competence to be able to deliver to the communities of the wider Bay of Plenty, and agree that they should join forces and collaborate and actually merge to become Toi Ohomai. At the very time that they have merged and become this new entity, with huge community engagement and stakeholder support, they are subsumed back to a centre and have no ability to be able to be a subsidiary of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology.
I have a specific question here for the Minister. It's all very well to look at the spectrum of performance of polytechs, which I think all of us in this House would agree has not always been first-rate, but then why do you assume that the best model is to take all of those polytechs, regardless of financial performance, regardless of the fact whether over the last 12 months to two or three years they have confronted themselves their own sustainability and have found a solution, which means they are strong, they're economic, they've got a great capital base, they have the support of the community—yet you think what is best for Bay of Plenty is to subsume it back into the centre? It is as if you are driven by an ideology that is because there are some that are weak we are going to subsume those that are strong and force them into a model which is not fit for purpose, in our view, and is not actually going to deliver against the community expectation. 
Hon Scott Simpson: But it is ideology.
TODD MULLER: My colleague says it's ideology, and it is, because you are not looking at the individual circumstances of each one of the polytechs. No one argues that those that are poor performers should not look to improve and have the necessary structural improvements to enable it, but surely not at the expense of those that have already done this journey and have landed an outcome which I think, certainly from a Bay of Plenty perspective, from a Tauranga perspective, Toi Ohomai has done remarkably successfully.
So when I look at this particular legislation, I think Supplementary Order Paper 440 that I have put in place, which asks essentially for Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology to be excluded from the transitional arrangements in the bill, converting those resources that the community have worked so hard to reflect on, to focus, to refine, to get to the point where you've got a strong capital structure—and it's interesting. I look across the House to a colleague who is clearly of a different political philosophy and comes from that area, and it'd be fascinating to hear her contribution when she knows the journey that Waiariki polytech and Bay of Plenty polytech, in particular, have been on and the connection those two institutions have now created as Toi Ohomai with the community of the Bay of Plenty, with the community of Zespri, and with the employers who look to that institution and see it as local, relevant, and delivering skills that the community and the business people of Tauranga want. This is a retrograde step and I find it quite remarkable that Kiri Allan would be able to put her signature on something which is going to take our community backwards. Thank you, Mr Chair.





Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to speak in support of the Hon Michael Woodhouse's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 437 as it relates to the Otago Polytechnic campus. The SOP seeks to exclude the Otago Polytechnic from the transitional arrangements in the bill that convert existing polytechs into the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology subsidiaries.
In particular, I wish to add my voice to that of Mike Woodhouse, but also add in words in defence of the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic. It is not hard to do. I have, with the assistance of Google, had a brief refresh of the courses offered at the Cromwell Polytechnic, which, I have to say, in the years that I have known and been a little bit associated with the polytech through visits and taking a general interest, have evolved over time to meet the needs of that particular community, and meet the needs they do. I will go through some of the courses very briefly. But just to say that around the Upper Clutha, Central Otago region and particularly around Cromwell, the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic is held fiercely and loyally and in high regard by employers, by secondary schools, by primary schools, by orchardists, by viticulturists, by builders—you name it. The Cromwell campus has well and truly an identity of its own, and that identity is fiercely held. I'm assuming I do have some time left on the clock, Mr Chair, so I will just keep going. [Interruption] 
Oh, thank you, 10 minutes; that's excellent. I can certainly keep going for 10 minutes, because I feel so strongly that the embodiment of this SOP 437 speaks exactly to what is very wrong with this Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, in that it strips and challenges that community pride and buy-in to the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic—for why?
Could the Minister in the chair please explain to not only this member but other members of the Opposition, but, more importantly, to those lecturers; to the management; to the supporters of the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic; to the students; to the past students, who are now working in and around the Upper Clutha and far further beyond, beyond these shores, who have taken with them the excellence which is the hallmark of the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic.
I'm just going to go through a few of the courses and explain to the Minister in the chair, and I ask for her comment on the importance or not. She may not think that the courses offered by the Cromwell campus of Otago Polytechnic are important. Well, I believe they are. So I'm going to run through them.
There is a course for bike mechanics. Why would that be important? Because, of course, the New Zealand Cycle Trail is a very important feature of Central Otago. Thank you, John Key, and your vision and funding support for the New Zealand Cycle Trail, which has rebooted the tourism industry in and around Central Otago, and will do into the future.
Outdoor adventure—Cromwell, of course, is circled by a range of mountains, some outstanding scenery, and also not only opportunities for adventure tourism but, again, opportunities for employment within that outdoor adventure - adventure tourism space, once again, adding to the economic sustainability and future of Central Otago, with its burgeoning population and high birth rate and extremely high growth rate, the fastest growing region in New Zealand for some years.
Early childhood now features as a course offered at the Cromwell campus. If there is a sector of professionals that is sorely needed, I would say that that is one now and into the future. How wonderful it is that local secondary students can move from Dunstan High School, they can come from any of the high schools around the region, go to Otago Polytechnic, and commence their training.
Brewing—of course, craft breweries are very strong. Again, very strong tourism application, very strong for employment around the region. If you can't find a craft brewery, then you're not looking very hard in and around Central Otago. There is cookery, of course. Once again, a high tourism area, and medals get won every year at national culinary competitions. Farming—there is a partnership with the Tinwald Farm around high country farming. That is a very special niche function of the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic.
Now, the Minister—and I do hope she has greater insights than this—may stand up and say, "Don't worry. It can all still happen." But will it have its heart? Will it have that fierce, fierce loyalty from the manager all the way to the student on their very first day of Cromwell campus, Otago Polytechnic? Because it is theirs. Now the proposal is that not only does the Cromwell campus become a subsidiary but it becomes a subsidiary of a subsidiary. How can that be good for the Cromwell campus of the Otago Polytechnic? I think not.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Chair. You must have known that I was going to speak about an entity that is very close to where you live. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill in the committee of the whole House.
It's an unusual place for me to be because education is not something that I've specialised in in my time, and didn't in my time at school either, but, none the less, I have been the beneficiary of many people who have had the benefit of spending some time at the Universal College of Learning (UCOL), and moving on, often, to greater things as a result of that.
So I want to speak in support of the Supplementary Order Paper in my name, 442, which effectively excludes UCOL from the parameters of this bill. But in doing so, I want to raise a few issues that I think are so important when it comes to talking about entities in our communities that are different and specialise in their regional and local entity, and the place that they come from. In UCOL's case, it was formed in 1902, so it's been around for very close to 120 years—118 years, to be exact. That's a pretty amazing performance. So you have to think that when we're thinking of making dramatic changes to an entity that's been around that long, there's got to be a very good reason for doing so. I want to enlarge a little bit on that in due course.
But UCOL also has branches in Whanganui and Wairarapa and Horowhenua. As you well know yourself, the Whanganui one is a very valuable asset to that community. I'm sure that Harete Hipango might speak on that a little later. But I wanted to emphasise the Whanganui thing for a couple of reasons, really, and one is to emphasise the specialist nature of regional entities. In Whanganui's case—and you might think is a little odd—they had a course in glass-blowing for many years at the Whanganui branch of UCOL. Interestingly, there's a very big business in Whanganui, founded on the basis of the training that came out of that.
There are also businesses in Shannon and in Ōtaki, very close to where I come from, that have been founded on the basis or on the back of, effectively, the courses that were provided in Whanganui to specialise in something that was particular to the local area. There are many other examples of that, but I want to use another example, and it relates to Taumarunui. It really also, I think, emphasises the fear that I have about the centralisation of anything, actually, in New Zealand, because I don't think that—having been an amalgamation proponent myself of many things in my younger days, as you get older, you realise it's not the answer to everything.
I want to just talk about Taumarunui for a moment, because UCOL provides courses into Taumarunui which specialise in training young people in the building industry. That course has trained at least five different batches of young people—or it would be more than that—who have gone through the course in Taumarunui. In the beginning of the Christchurch rebuild, they then went on to Christchurch and got jobs very quickly. They would have struggled to get jobs had it not been for that training. That was specialist training provided by a regional provider on the back of demands from a local community.
Ironically, at the other end of Taumarunui, provided by Unitec, is a course in catering. Catering, of course, is hugely important to the central North Island, which relies very heavily on the tourist industry and, again, struggles to get people to work in that sector.
So the provision of those courses by either UCOL or Unitec, in Taumarunui's case, is hugely valuable to local areas. Without the local input into those sort of things, I don't think we would ever get them put together. So it's very strong, the community need for this. I think it's very important that we have a local input into this.
In my experience of centralised organisations, they struggle to grasp or comprehend the need that small, regional, and provincial communities have. So I'm very strongly opposed to the parameters of this bill. I know that UCOL has been in a number of positions on this bill, in recent times, but none the less, I think, at the end of the day, we need to make sure that we provide something that works locally, something that's effective and efficient for our local community, and provides, particularly for the young people in our communities, but also gives those people in need of retraining an opportunity to do it easily and close to home. Centralising any of this stuff does not achieve that. Thank you.





DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak. It has been worthwhile listening to my colleagues talk about some of the monumental reforms that this bill represents and the, quite frankly, disastrous effects on local communities and the regions that they represent. While those economic impacts are extremely important to consider, I'd like to consider this afternoon the timing of the bill and the wider economic context.
We know that our economy is facing an uphill battle at the moment. We've got an overburdening Government, that's for sure, and there's a significant skills shortage, and what we have here is a bill that actually doesn't relieve those pressures—you could argue it compounds them. The building and construction sector is crying out for new workers. That is a fact; we all know that. And we also know that, if the Government wants to build any KiwiBuild homes, they should look to get people who know how to use a hammer. But what the business case shows for this particular bill is that there will actually be over 2,000 fewer apprentices. That, when we get down to raw impact, should speak for itself, that particular number.
The other thing that we should consider is the impact of these reforms on the international student market. What we know now: it's worth over $500 million to our economy. Unfortunately, the Cabinet paper barely mentions it, and it seems to have been somewhat overlooked when developing this policy. But then we've also got delays in visa processing that was limiting the growth in this area. Now, just getting back to the economic context, we've seen the impact of coronavirus on the international student market. Economists are forecasting that potential negative growth in quarterly GDP, and we've got the tertiary sector pleading for exemptions on travel bans that have stopped Chinese students coming to New Zealand.
So we've got a context here that needs to be understood for this particular bill and the timing of it, and I do have a question for the Minister around—or, quite simply, this represents massive upheaval in the sector, and we're facing this context that I've just tried to outline. Is this a good time to be doing this? Has the Minister thought through and has he quantified the full impact, especially after knowing how, I'll just call it, dark Treasury was on the full impact of this bill.
Now I want to switch over to an amendment in my name, and it is asking for the deletion of clause 43(a)(vii) from Schedule 1—and that's on page 68, lines 20 and 21, just to be very specific—and what it does is remove the New Zealand Hair and Beauty Industry Training Organisation from being recognised as a transitional Industry Training Organisation (ITO) for the purposes of transitional arrangements for this bill, to take them out, and here's why: they were very clear in their submission. And for those that were able to hear what they said in person, they were very clear, and the numbers, again, speak for themselves. This is an ITO that has had to work very hard to get where they're at. So they're obviously registered. The industry is not regulated, so their qualifications aren't compulsory. They've celebrated 50 years of apprenticeships, not 15—50 years—and they've got a very long, successful history of on-the-job training. They're well respected; they represent $579 million to the economy, 11,500 people employed. So there's context for why we think that this amendment should pass and remove their particular industry.
What they've also said is that they know that the industry ownership of workforce development councils should be in the hands of industry. This is some of the feedback that they were giving on the bill. They've also said that they need further clarification of roles within the system. So they were being constructive with what they were saying. And when you come down to the final sum of things, they should have that deletion clause work, we think, in their favour. They know that the bill is a massive risk to apprenticeships and to trainee numbers. We also know, again, that Treasury backs them up with that and that providers don't have—[Time expired]





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'm happy to take a call to respond to some of the issues that have been raised by the members opposite. There is a relatively consistent theme running through them—around regional autonomy, regionalisation, regional skill needs—and so I'll address those issues as a group, but first a little bit of context.
It is important to note that the polytech sector has been struggling for some time. This is not a new problem; this is a problem that has developed over many, many years. We're at the point now where 13 of the 16 polytechs around the country are currently running a deficit. So they are in financial difficulty. Many members have spoken about the cash reserves that X polytech here or there has accumulated. Many of them are blowing through those cash reserves pretty damned quickly at the moment, and if the situation is allowed to continue, they won't be debating the cash reserves, because there won't be any left because those polytechs are eating into the reserves that they have accumulated because of the situation they find themselves in. Enrolments have been in decline for quite some time now. If anything, they've plateaued under this Government, but they were in decline for several years prior to that, and that's in the context of businesses crying out for skilled labour and decrying the fact that we are not training people up appropriately to do the jobs that they have on offer.
So why are we doing these reforms? To provide more nationally consistent qualifications. Dr Reti made the observation in his contribution: why shouldn't NorthTec determine what skills someone working in the forestry sector needs? Well, actually, we want the forestry sector—the forestry industry—to be specifying what the skills are that they want, and we want them to have the reassurance that, regardless of where around the country people are trained with those skills, they're going to be getting a nationally consistent product, because if you're working in forestry in Northland or you're working in forestry in Rotorua or in Gisborne or in Nelson, actually the forestry companies want to know that you've been trained to a high standard that meets their needs. So these reforms are about making sure that the training available throughout the country is consistent. It's not going to result in a reduction in training around the country—in fact, quite the opposite; it's designed to ensure there is more training around the country—but it's actually putting industry and businesses and employers into the driving seat of determining what their skill needs are and making sure that the standards that are set are the ones that meet their needs.
With regard to ring-fenced assets, the Government has been very clear that our cash reserves that have been accumulated by Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPs) will be ring-fenced for spending in the region that has accumulated those. That is the policy decision of the Government. That's recorded in the Cabinet papers and in the Cabinet minute. That is very clear.
Parmjeet Parmar raised concerns about international students and the Government stopping international students starting their enrolments. I can only assume that she was talking about the travel restrictions put in place as a result of the novel coronavirus. That is something that the Opposition themselves have called for. So, if that was the point she was making, I'm not entirely sure exactly what her line of argument was with regards to that.
Simeon Brown, I think, raised the concern about the Minister being responsible for appointing all of the polytech council members. Actually, in fact, that was a decision made by the last National Government to change the make-up of the polytech council so that the Minister was the person responsible for appointing them. He also raised concern about the lack of democracy in staff and student representation. In fact, I'd point out to him that, under the last Government, staff and student representatives were removed altogether from the governance of the polytech sector, and we're putting it back into place, and I make no apology for that. I think that's, in fact, very important.
The members opposite have constantly talked about their local polytechs and have said it's all working very well. In fact, it isn't. If it was, their polytechs wouldn't be in deficit; their polytechs wouldn't be cutting courses and laying off staff as they are now. The biggest risk we face here is actually the risk of no action at all. If the Government did not do something, in fact many of these polytechs would continue to drift to next to nothing. We put $100 million into the polytech sector in bailouts in our first year because that's not something—
Jonathan Young: In Auckland—in Auckland.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, it's not just in Auckland, actually. It's not just in Auckland. The member's local polytech, Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki, is one of those that's in the "high risk" category in terms of ITPs.
They have some financial challenges themselves, and the local community, I think, is well aware of the difficulties that the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki faces. So I think members should be quite careful in arguing that we shouldn't do anything, when, in fact, what's that likely to result in is a decline in the level of training that's available all the way around the country. The other arguments put forward by members are all a variance on the same theme and I think I've already addressed those.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to take a quick moment to respond to a couple of things the Minister said. He said in his speech that the biggest risk was doing nothing at all. I'd like to just remind him of the Tertiary Education Commission, which said that the risk of workforce disruption by these changes was almost certain and the impact would be extreme. The risk of participation in vocational education reducing would be almost certain and the impact major, and the risk of needs of industry and employers not being met would be almost certain and the impact extreme. So, I don't think it's fair to say that the biggest risk is doing nothing; the biggest risk is what the Minister is doing right here, today. 
I'd like to take a few moments to talk about my local polytech, which is the Manukau Institute of Technology, and I have Supplementary Order Paper 434 to remove it and exempt from these changes. I do, firstly, want to acknowledge that, yes, the Manukau Institute of Technology has faced some financial challenges, but if you look at this submission, which they made in regards to this bill, they highlight the impact that there has been over the past year due to the reduction in international students as a direct result of this Government's changes to immigration policy and visa processing delays. That has been a significant contributor to some of their financial challenges. 
I think the Minister needs to reflect on the changes which have been made and the impact that they have had on this sick sector, plus also the visa processing delays, which this Government has caused and the cost that that has had on the sector. As they said, that has limited their ability to respond to the needs of the community that we serve. The Minister can stand there and talk about how the sector may be struggling and failing, but he also needs to take some responsibility for the Government's changes, and policy changes that his Government has brought in, as well. 
One of the key points that the Manukau Institute of Technology makes is that they currently serve 14,000 students studying and training at the institute. Of these, 38 percent of them identify as Pasifika. If you look across South Auckland, we all know that it has a large proportion of Pasifika people living in South Auckland. Now, the key question that they have raised and asked in their submission is, where is the voice of Pasifika people in this new mega polytechnic? We've got the student body, the student representatives, we've got the staff body, we've got the Māori advisory panel; where is the voice of Pasifika in this establishment? 
They asked for the establishment of a statutory Pasifika advisory council, set up to represent the voices of Pasifika peoples. So my question to the Minister is to challenge him and ask him to take a call and explain to the communities of South Auckland what he has done in response to that request by the Manukau Institute of Technology and the voice of the Pacific community that they represent in South Auckland. 
The second question I'd like to ask the Minister is how is he going to ensure that South Auckland's voice is not lost in these changes? He said that the head office won't be in Auckland or Wellington. So how is he going to ensure that South Auckland's voice is going to be represented? South Auckland has one of the youngest populations in New Zealand. South Auckland has some of the biggest infrastructure challenges over the next 20 to 30 years. You just need to look at Mill Road, which they cancelled then started again, or the development at the airport, which is going through the roof. There is an enormous amount of work being done. There is going to be a huge need for skills across South Auckland, and the Manukau Institute of Technology is a crucial part of delivering those skills for the future. 
So I want the Minister to stand up and to tell the people in South Auckland, the people in my electorate, the people in east Auckland, that he can guarantee that there'll be no reduction in traineeships and student participation in South Auckland and there will be no reduction in those roles for the future jobs that are coming on stream over the years to come. Because that's what matters in South Auckland—it is that we have the skills and the people, we have people willing to fill those jobs; they need the skills. The Manukau Institute of Technology does a great job helping to task them to do that, and he needs to stand up and guarantee that there'll be no reduction. Because if you read the Tertiary Education Commission's report, they said there is an extreme likelihood of an extreme impact of a reduction in those traineeships across New Zealand.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to just respond. There was a point that a member raised earlier, which I didn't respond to in my first contribution, and that was issues around the risk assessment put forward by officials. I think it's important to note that the quoting that he was doing in that was from the unmitigated risk assessment, and, in fact, the point of doing an unmitigated risk assessment, as you say—if you don't put any mitigations in place, what could go wrong? The risk assessment did that and it did it fairly, and it pointed out all of the risks. Of course, mitigations have been put in place that deal with many of those issues—in fact, they deal with all of the risks. There are mitigations in place for all of the risks. No reform of this nature has no risks. The question is how you manage it. I'm confident—and it's all spelled out there—in the business case and in the Cabinet papers that were released and how those risks are being managed. 
One of those is very considered in the risk of declining demands—so in declining participation, declining employer support. One of those is a very real risk; it's a real risk of continuing with the current system as well because we're already seeing that declining participation. There are mitigations in place to stop that and probably one of the key ones is that the processes are being done over a period of time. It's being done very carefully and very considerately. It's not being rushed and it's being done in a very collaborative way so that those who are involved in the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics sector and in the industry training organisations sector, those who are involved in workplace training, do have the opportunity to have their voices heard and be involved in designing the future. I think that's very important. That's the way the reforms have been designed and that is a big part of how we mitigate those risks. 





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa in this committee of the whole House stage of the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. I just need to respond to a few of the points that have been put forward by members of the Opposition and also to add my support or tautoko to what the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, has put forward. 
The first thing that I think is just really important to raise is that during the second reading of this bill and, actually, indeed, during the parts that I contributed or participated in at the select committee stage of this bill when we were hearing from stakeholders and from members of the community who will be impacted by these reforms, I spoke across the aisle to members of the National Party because I am really keen on all of us working together for something that is going to be transformational and therefore a massive opportunity in vocational education for this country. I'm therefore quite gutted that they seem to have acted outside of that opportunity for good faith collaboration, particularly because during the second reading, only last week, I asked for them to share their Supplementary Order Papers that they alluded they were going to put up this time around in this committee of the whole House stage. What they have done is kept them secret—keep all the cards close to their chest until they could table them just before this reading now, which has meant that they have presented the opportunity for themselves to, essentially, filibuster and not contribute, and it feels like the opportunity for meaningful collaboration and creative collaboration has been squandered. So I'd just like to say it's gutting—it's gutting. 
The previous National Governments and the reason that we have ended up in this situation with this need for reform and for transformation, is that polytechs were left to flounder. That is immediately demonstrable if you look at the bill that we had to pick up when we came into Government, and the fact that the vast majority of these polytechs were in a situation where we had to come, as Government, to their financial rescue. That's not at all to say that everything was going wrong but it is to say that the party which often holds themselves out to be that of financial sustainability or good planning when it comes to the economy really left us in a bad place here. 
I'd state as well, with regard to that, that I've heard from a number of those inside the polytech sector—inside Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics and Industry Training Organisations—that it appears as though that could arguably have been a conscious decision by former Ministers of Education within the National Party Governments because they wanted to see that transition into privatisation.
If that's the case, to bring some good faith to this argument, they're more than welcome to put that explicitly on the table, because I feel that would be a much more constructive contribution than what they're currently offering with attempting to slowly remove, on an ad hoc basis, through every single individual Supplementary Order Paper, every single one of the polytechs that are named in this bill.
I also think, just in my final minute and a half—because this will be the only contribution from the Greens in this committee of the whole House stage, because I think that we have had a thorough debate so far—that I'd like to reiterate—
Hon Tim Macindoe: This is the place for the detailed consideration.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that it's important—I understand, Tim Macindoe, that you'd like to filibuster, but I'd really like to see some good legislation passed—when it comes to the average age of entry for those in the polytech sector. The average age in which one comes to study in a polytech is around 27 years old. I mentioned this in the second reading of this bill. The reason that that is important is because it highlights the lived experience of those who are in the polytech sector. They are often those who have left school, who have potentially tried a little bit of tertiary education, have decided to maybe try some form of occupation, but then have decided to ultimately retrain. 
This is important because it indicates the ongoing changes that we are going to see in our economy, as there is less predictability for those who are working people. It is really critical that we consider the potential that we have to build on a positive future when it comes to vocational education because of the opportunities that it presents in terms of minimising people's exposure to the precariousness of the gig economy but also to the challenges that we are going to face in a just transition to a climate neutral Aotearoa come 2050. The Green Party of Aotearoa is proud to add support to this bill.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Look, I intend to talk about a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) for a local issue, Minister, not regional—all politics is local—and I want to talk about the Minister of Education's prior contribution, not the most immediate but the one before that. But before I get to that, I can't help but comment on something that Ms Swarbrick just said in her contribution, where she said she was gutted, sought to chastise members on this side of the House for not sharing SOPs prior to the committee stage. Well, not only is it completely common but, quite frankly, I would argue it's the norm for the Government, which she and her colleagues prop up, to pass in SOPs just hours before the debate begins. So she might want to take a wee look in the mirror and have a chat to her colleagues on that side of the Chamber before worrying too much about what Opposition members do with their proposed amendments to bills.
But the bill as a whole fundamentally holds a window up to the ideologies of the Government and the parties, with their socialist leanings, that comprise it. Fundamentally, this Government is of a view that any problem, real or perceived, can only be resolved with more Government, and that means more centralised control and centralised planning. They don't tend to think too much about the fact that nowhere else in the world has centralised planning ever worked, but that's their fundamental ideology and what they do. It reminds me of the wisdom of Winston Churchill, who remarked that the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, and the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. That is precisely what this so-called transformation—and it's big, but it's exactly what this so-called transformation will achieve.
The Minister has said that there are some polytechs that aren't doing so well. No one is arguing that that is not the case. But his solution, instead of actually fixing the problem, will see those issues and those miseries spread across the entire country, to include those institutions that do quite well or very well through top-down, centralised planning. It is fundamentally a solution for a Government that only has a hammer in the tool box and sees every problem as a nail that needs beating. The Minister strongly alluded to this himself when he talked about the balance sheets or the operating expenditure of polytechs and going into deficit.
What he's sought to do to address that is take industry training off those very organisations, who are so close to the private sector organisations that the training is there to deliver for and benefit, and place it into the polytechs. Well, quite frankly, I just call that out as deliberately switching some money around to try to prop up organisations that should be looking themselves to better structure their services, their courses, to meet the needs of their student bodies or potential student bodies, employers, and New Zealand. He is simply shifting something that's working well, mostly, somewhere else to prop up some polytechs, in this case, elsewhere. It's not going to add anything. It's not going to improve anything. It's going to pretend that he's solving a problem. It won't do that.
But I'd like to turn now to the actual SOP, SOP 444, which reflects and responds to the failure that is inherent in a central planning, centralised control environment, where everything is decided upon high and is completely divorced from the local facts and situation, not in a region necessarily but right down at a local level. I want to speak about Whitireia. Now, Whitireia themselves did not submit on the bill, to my knowledge, but the Tertiary Education Union did, and they expressed in their submission the very problem that this bill brings about, which is the divorcing of the planning from the needs on the ground. They raised several points, worrying that the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST) would fail to be able to understand the local needs of the students, the potential students, and, in fact, even the teaching body as well.
So what I'm seeking to do and seeking to get support from this House to achieve is to divorce or remove the assets of Whitireia from the centralised control under NZIST that this bill puts in place. By retaining that control locally—[Time expired]





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
Andrew Bayly: Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): It's OK; I did hear you. Hold the line please, caller.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk to something completely different in this bill, which hasn't been raised to date. We've been able to understand the polytechnic positions, and some of our colleagues have been able to express the industry position. I want to talk to a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name. Well, first of all, I want to address what Chlöe Swarbrick was saying about collaboration. I'm more than happy to collaborate, but she also could have picked up the phone and reached out. We heard nothing. I heard nothing. So this is a two-way path in the first instance.
Secondly, nothing's secret here. We've been working on the committee of the whole House for several weeks and communicated with the clerks weeks ago to get some guidance as to how this might look. In fact, just yesterday, we flagged with the Clerk exactly what our plan was. His initial response was, "You don't need to tell me your plan." My response was, "Well, it's a good thing. Surely, the more shared knowledge is good for all of us and the committee of the whole House will go well." So from a collaboration perspective, how much more clear can we be? Nothing's secret here at all.
I want to talk to the part of the bill that talks about the reporting period, which hasn't been discussed to date—the reporting period for the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST). SOP 436, in my name, makes the recommendation that the NZIST produce a report every six months, and I say that taking on board advice from the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG), who have been very concerned with the time frames, very concerned that this is hurried. This is such a tumultuous sort of transition, with all these entities, that I'm not convinced that the reporting as it's stated in the bill is enough. I think that there needs to be shorter periods so that we can look at what's happening here, so that we can monitor things more closely and make changes if we're going to. So this presumes that we're going down this path to destruction, if you like—call it what you may—but at least let's give ourselves the opportunity to fix it or pull it back if we see that things aren't going as we'd planned.
So what I'm proposing here is that the NZIST produce a report every six months, because I am concerned that the monitoring is not enough. I think this will also talk to, even though this SOP doesn't specifically, reporting of the subsidiaries. We're concerned—certainly, I'm concerned—with the subsidiaries. I will allude to it in other parts of this discussion, but very concerned with the three months—January, February, March—of reporting and then the nine months. That is that we revalue all polytechnics at the end of March, and then we start a new financial year. Everyone has been concerned with that.
The polytechnics are concerned. How do you do a mid-year—it's not quite mid-year, but a third of the year—revaluation? That is hard. That takes time. There is a cost to doing that. That is going to be very complex and very hard, so we have concerns with that. Then you're going to add in, or we're anticipating adding in, the other nine months of the reporting year. What a mess. How challenging is that going to be? And we already put into the second reading the words of the OAG that if we talk about a conversion to a subsidiary, it will be much harder under the Public Finance Act to do this amalgamation across reporting periods. We understand that if you use the words "transfer", it's much more likely to be able to be consistent with the Public Finance Act, but I see nothing in here or in the new SOP 428, which the Government has tabled, that addresses that concern. So we're just going to find out when it happens, when we find out that, in fact, we can't do—we'll call it mid-year—this mid-year amalgamation of financial reporting.
So while I'm talking specifically about improving the reporting period for when the NZIST is established, these same arguments could equally apply for when the subsidiaries are established. It's going to be a substantial upheaval. Why would we not want to look closer so we can fix things if they look like they're broken on the way? I think that's the question I'd like the Minister of Education to address: how much harm can there be? If he has concerns—he's mentioned the risks that are put up in the programme business case and how he's mitigated them. Surely, this would seem to be a sensible mitigation as well, to look more closely at the reporting period. I'm suggesting for the NZIST, but I'd also suggest for the subsidiaries.
So this is a new piece of thinking in this part of the bill. I'm also interested to know if the Minister is anticipating speaking to the SOP that the Government's putting forward, which we've seen for the first time today, or is there nothing there that's going to be talked to? We'd be interested if you do that. We'd like to talk to that as well. That will certainly be new information. I challenge the Minister to give some thinking on that. Thank you, Madam Chair.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Motion agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 428 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Amendments agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 429 in the name of Jonathan Young to clause 49 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 430 in the name of Chris Bishop to clause 49 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 431 in the name of Nicola Willis to clause 49 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.





Part 2  Repeals, revocations, and other amendments
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We move now, colleagues, to debate on Part 2: clauses 70 to 73, and Schedule 6.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Can I apologise: with flight delays, I have only just arrived back in Wellington. In addressing Part 2, I want to note the significance of this bill for the community and electorate of Nelson that I represent. Schedule 6 of Part 2 removes the term "polytech" as part of this Government's plan to get rid of a structure that has served New Zealand for over a hundred years.
My first question for the Minister: where is the mandate from communities like Nelson, that has had a polytechnic for 115 years, for you to take away the local control over that important institution? Did any Labour candidate or any Labour Minister indicate that if my community voted for the Labour Party, they would be getting rid of the independent Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology? I've heard from people in the sector that this has always been, Mr Hipkins, your secret plan from Opposition days and that you did not have the courage of your convictions to put it to the electorate and that you have, as a consequence—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, can you use another descriptor, please? Could you use a more appropriate descriptor, please?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, was not open with the community of Nelson or New Zealand about his plans to get rid of institutions like the Southern Institute of Technology, like the Otago Polytechnic, and the likes of my own Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. So my first question for the Minister: where is the mandate for this radical policy?
The second question I have is in respect of the coalition agreement, and I note there are New Zealand First members of Parliament in the Chamber this afternoon. That coalition agreement says that the Government is going to decentralise, that it is going to provide more control in the regions. I say to the New Zealand First Party: where is your mandate to take away from regions like Nelson and Marlborough the control of crucial public institutions like our polytechnic?
The third question I've got for the Minister, related to those, is what about the Nelson City ratepayers? In this bill and in Schedule 6, you are going to nationalise an asset that was paid for by Nelson ratepayers. Do you know the history of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology? The valuable land in Hardy Street was funded by ratepayers, was funded by the Nelson community. So where is the justice in central government taking over an asset that was paid for by the Nelson community? As I read this part of the bill, there would be nothing to stop the national institute from one day selling off the land in Hardy Street, taking the money, and deciding to spend it in Christchurch, Auckland, or any other part of the country. So I say, on behalf of the Nelson ratepayers, how is it fair for the Government to take away an asset that was uniquely paid for by the ratepayers and community of Nelson?
A further concern that I have is how can we possibly expect the national institute proposed in Part 2 and Schedule 6 of this bill to be more responsive to the skill needs? I'll tell you what was insulting, Minister, is when you had a nationwide consultation process on this bill and you told the businesses of Nelson to go to Christchurch. Does the Minister in the chair have any idea that it's a five-hour drive to Christchurch? For any of my businesses—and they strongly objected to the process—to consider that Nelson is somehow some suburb of Christchurch shows how out of touch this Government is to regional New Zealand and how flawed this policy and this part of this bill is.
I have been overwhelmed with opposition from business, overwhelmed with opposition from students and lecturers and others—[Time expired]





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I think it's important to note at this point that Part 2, the consequential repeals, revocations, and other amendments—basically, it sets out what happens as a result of the decisions that the committee has already made in Part 1 of the bill. I do note that there are some orders that are being revoked here, including three examples of amalgamations of polytechnics that were done under the last National Government. It is repealing some amendments to the Education Act relating to the governance of polytechs—for example, the ones I referred to earlier—again, enacted under the last National Government. The points being raised by Dr Smith I think I responded to in my comments on Part 1.





A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Part 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 428 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 1, and the following amendment in his name to new clause 48, be agreed to:
in Schedule 1, new clause 48, replace "4 June 2020" with "6 July 2020".
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Amendments agreed to.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, there are 13 proposed amendments to clause 27(3) of new Part 9 of Schedule 1 to exempt certain polytechnics from the transitional arrangements that convert existing polytechnics into New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology subsidiaries. These amendments are so similar in substance that I propose to test the will of the committee, putting the question on a random selection of these very similar amendments.





The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 434 in the name of Simeon Brown to Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 437 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 440 in the name of Todd Muller to Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 442 in the name of Ian McKelvie to clause 27(3) of new Part 9 of Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): As a result of the these votes, the following amendments are out of order: the Hon Gerry Brownlee's amendment relating to the Ara Institute of Canterbury, set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 432; Lawrence Yule's amendment relating to the Eastern Institute of Technology, set out on SOP 433; the Hon Dr Nick Smith's amendment relating to the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, set out on SOP 435; Dr Shane Reti's amendment relating to the Northland Polytechnic, set out on SOP 436; Sarah Dowie's amendment relating to the Southern Institute of Technology, set out on SOP 438; Maureen Pugh's amendment relating to Tai Poutini Polytechnic, set out on SOP 439; Dr Parmjeet Parmar's amendment relating to Unitec New Zealand, set out on SOP 441; the Hon Tim Macindoe's amendment relating to the Waikato Institute of Technology, set out on SOP 443; and Brett Hudson's amendment relating to the Whitireia Community Polytechnic, set out on SOP 444.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can we just clarify that those amendments, as a result of the representative sample you took which were voted down—those amendments are actually voted down rather than ruled out of order, but they were in-order amendments?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I was on the point of questioning that myself, actually, but my advice has been that they're ruled out of order. May I double-check that and get back to you? That was what I—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'll just finish my sentence, if you don't mind. That's what I set out before I put the first group of votes—that because they were very similar in substance, I would take that representative sample and then the rest would be ruled out of order.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. One of the amendments is in my name. It relates to the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. It's an institution that has assets worth way over $50 million. It seems an extraordinary ruling that just because an amendment may be lost in another part of the country, the Parliament is not to have a specific vote as to whether my Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology—and I point out it's the second-largest public institution in Nelson, second only to our hospital, and it's a change after 115 years, and the effect of your ruling is to not allow myself as the elected representative for the people of Nelson to specifically put to this Parliament whether the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology will be gone.
Now, I have noted many debates, both from Opposition and Government to various reforms. This is a very novel ruling that just because an amendment that affects some other part of the country might be declined, you're ruling that I can't even put to the Parliament the amendment that has such a profound impact on my constituency.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you, Dr Smith, I did explain—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So I seek your clarification as to whether my amendment in respect of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology is out of order or whether you as Chair are not allowing the Parliament to vote on that because of some ruling that there's been some vote on some amendment for some other part of New Zealand.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): It's neither novel nor new, Dr Smith. I outlined the procedure before I started taking the vote. There was no question then—had there been, and as I will now, I will confirm that Speaker's ruling 117/2 from 2010 by Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith says that "A chairperson has to consider the admissibility of amendments that are substantially the same as an amendment that has already been negatived by the committee."
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Have you read the Speaker's ruling yet?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, I have. And I also know that—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Dr Smith. Have you read the Speaker's ruling that I just referred to?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, I have. I have it right in front of me. And I am also familiar with—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Point of order, Dr Smith.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The ruling that was made by Speaker Lockwood Smith related to a series of amendments that were moved by the then Labour Opposition that chose to choose every single possible date. So when the legislation came into effect, could it be 1 January, 2 January, 3 January, 4 January? And what he says in that ruling 117/2 is that you could, effectively, stymie the reasonable processes of Parliament by effectively moving 367 amendments per year on different days of which a law would have effect. And it was a perfectly reasonable ruling with those many dates.
The judgment that you need to exercise is as to whether it is reasonable, saying that you couldn't just amend every single date, that you will not allow amendments for the 20 different polytechs around New Zealand. And, as I remind you, you're talking about my own polytech, an asset of over $50 million and an institution that's been around for 115 years, which I think is a very different proposition, and that is why I'd ask you to reconsider and to allow those members of Parliament, constituency members who are talking about the second-biggest institution in Nelson, an organisation that employs hundreds of people, thousands of students, that has been around for 115 years—that I, as the constituency member of Parliament for Nelson, should not be debarred from moving an amendment to protect that institution.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Speaking to the point of order, as one of the members responsible for that ruling being made in the first place during the debate on the Auckland super-city, and having sat on that side of the House for most of the eight years since that ruling was made—or for all of the eight years since that ruling was made—I can confirm that other Chairs of the committee have used that ruling in the same context that you are using it now. In fact, it's been used to rule out amendments exempting local authorities, for example, one at a time from various provisions of legislation. This is not a novel or uncommon use of that. In fact, it's been discussed on many occasions through the Standing Orders Committee, where the decision was made to confirm that ruling on the basis that Parliament should spend its time in debate, not in voting on repetitive amendments.





Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Speaking to the point of order, look, I would just like to take a moment to back up the Hon Nick Smith's point, and I'd ask, Madam Chair, a very well-respected person that you are in the Parliament, with your long-serving career, just to reflect on actually the serious point that the Hon Nick Smith has made. These are institutions in which our communities have invested over long periods of time, and they are being, effectively, in our view, wiped out by this legislation. And I accept there's a debate that's going on around then where those functions transfer, but I think it is reasonable and it is fair for you to consider whether it is appropriate to then remove the ability of this Parliament to record those members that voted for each of those institutions to not exist.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Speaking to the point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Tim Macindoe.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I've listened carefully to your explanation as to why you would wish to invoke Speaker's ruling 117/2, but I would respectfully suggest to you that it shouldn't be applied in this case, because while as we who were there at the time remember the Auckland governance debate and the endless sort of succession of dates there, this is not a comparable situation. And in fact, the explanatory note that is in the Speaker's ruling there notes in brackets, "A series of amendments to change a date ruled out of order after an amendment to change the date had been defeated." They were all substantially the same apart from the fact they were moving one day backwards in time, as I recall. 
Here is something that is very different. Yes, there are a large number of polytechnics from around the country that are indicated, but I would strongly associate Waikato and Wintec with the comments that Dr Smith made a moment ago in relation to the Nelson polytechnic for which he was being the champion because I feel the same way. But—and this is the difference—we all acknowledge that there are some polytechnics that are listed in those series of amendments that are not doing so well and that are therefore not comparable. 
If we weren't looking at a bill—or, rather, a measure from the Minister—that is effectively using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, then it might be that some approach of the type that you are suggesting would be appropriate. But here we have a number of polytechnics that are very different in their circumstances, very different in their financial position, very different in their viability, and very different in the problems that need to be addressed. That's why, Madam Chair, I would ask that this particular Speaker's ruling not be invoked, because the amendments that our side of the House have been putting forward are not the same.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. I think you've made valid and interesting points. This was a subject of discussion at the presiding officers' meeting earlier today. There was unanimous agreement that this was the correct process to follow. I believe that there would be a different perspective on it had members not made such clear contributions during the debate and if they wished to have their opposition to the proposal recorded, but that wasn't the case, so my ruling stands.
The question is that Schedule 1—





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek the recall of the Speaker.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Certainly.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is a very significant ruling. It changes substantially the role of the Opposition, and it is the appropriate way for this substantive extension of the Speaker's ruling to be dealt with.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think you have to move that the Speaker be recalled.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That the Speaker be recalled.
Motion agreed to.





House resumed.
Speaker Recalled
SPEAKER: Madam Chair, I just want to indicate that I have been following this matter from outside the Chamber. I do want to give members an opportunity to put their point of view—hopefully with a little more relationship with the Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings rather than the substance, because I've heard quite a lot of, sort of, substance of things but not necessarily a relationship. But, because it is now the dinner hour, I am going to adjourn the House, and I will come back here at 7.30 p.m. to hear those arguments.
Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
SPEAKER: The House is resumed. Before I ask the Hon Ruth Dyson to address me, I do want to apologise for my error. I, probably as a long term believer in dinner breaks, declared it as a dinner break when, in fact, I should have heard the point of order and continued and dealt with it. I apologise for that.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Speaker, prior to the mistakenly adjourned dinner break, at the start of the voting on Schedule 1 I indicated to the members that there were 13 amendments proposing amendments to clause 27(3) of new Part 9 of Schedule 1 to exempt certain polytechnics from the transitional arrangements that convert existing polytechs into New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology subsidiaries. I indicated that the amendments were so similar in substance that I proposed to test the will of the committee, putting the question on a random selection of these very similar amendments. I then proceeded to put the vote for four of those amendments, the only difference between them being the name of the institution. At the end of those four votes being lost, I ruled that the remaining nine were out of order.
The Hon Dr Nick Smith challenged that. We had an exchange in relation to the specific Speaker's ruling 177/2, potentially.
Hon Tim Macindoe: 117/2.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you, the Hon Tim Macindoe, 117/2, from Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith in 2010, ruling out subsequent amendments because of their similarity to the ones that had already been negatived by the vote of the committee. Dr Smith believes that this is not an appropriate ruling to judge the amendments that I ruled out of order, and so recalled the Speaker.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question is quite significant in terms of the relative power balance that always exists in the Parliament between the Opposition and the Government.
There are three substantive points that I want to make. The first really significant question is: are the amendments substantially different or not? Now, if we reflect on the Speaker's ruling from 2010, I was actually the Minister in the chair, and what happened was that there were over a thousand amendments moved to slightly change the date, whether the date was going to be 1 November, then an amendment for 31 October, then 30 October, etc. The Speaker at the time ruled that those amendments were substantially the same. I think that was a correct and a balanced ruling. I've looked back on the rulings, if we go back to the bible of our Parliament Erskine May, and the reference that it makes about what determines what is a substantially different amendment. I think it provides some guidance as to whether the amendments are substantially different for the Parliament to be able to reasonably consider those.
Then my second point is around the practical effect. Parliament's procedures need to be practical, they need to be able to work so that the Opposition is able to fairly express its opposition to views, but equally so you, as Speaker, have to ensure that the Government is able to reasonably do its business. Now, if you take the Speaker's ruling from Lockwood Smith back in 2010—of which you made a very considered and, in my view, sensible contribution at that time as a member, not Speaker at that time—it is that if every individual amendment was allowed, you would have the Parliament voting for about 13 hours in that situation, and that is not reasonable. I would put to you that for Parliament to have approximately 20 minutes to consider nine amendments about each of our individual polytechnics is not at all unreasonable in the context of the balance of power that you, as Speaker, have to dutifully and carefully try and manage.
The third point I wish to make is actually really important in terms of the role of a constituency member of Parliament. One of the amendments is in my name as the member of Parliament for Nelson. It affects the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, which is the second-largest public institution in my electorate. It's been around for 115 years. It is unique and different—and this is important in terms of the substantial question—in that it's the only polytech in New Zealand where the land was actually funded by the ratepayers of Nelson. We're talking about a substantive asset being transferred over to central government, going from the control of a board that is 100 percent locals to one that has no locals on it. So I would put to you that for the committee of the House not to allow a constituency member of Parliament to individually have their amendment voted on—that is the second-biggest institution in Nelson that's been around for 115 years—is infringing on my rights to be able to advocate for the 70,000 people that live in the constituency of Nelson, who feel very strongly about this issue.
I think on the basis of those three points that proper balance, not just about the practical issue, but more importantly about the rights of the Opposition to be able to fairly put amendments around each individual institution, when there are only 16, is reasonable. I put to you, if, let's say, it was an amendment to exclude 2,600 schools and each individual school was moved, I would suspect that a reasonable Speaker would say "That would tie the time of Parliament up for many days." We are only talking about 16 individual institutions, nine additional votes. I think you should rule in favour of the Parliament being allowed to individually consider those amendments, particularly to protect the rights of constituency members of Parliament to be able to advocate and put issues to the House.





SPEAKER: Before I hear from any other member—because I don't want this debate going off in a way which is contrary to the Standing Orders—I let Dr Smith, as the father of the House, have a long period for his argument. But I am going to, before I hear anyone else, draw everyone's attention to Standing Order 307(5), which postdates Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith's ruling. It was a matter that was carefully considered by the Standing Orders Committee and by the House in the adoption of the changes of the Standing Orders in 2011. What 307(5) says is "Where amendments are proposed that, in the opinion of the chairperson, are the same in substance, the chairperson may select amendments…" etc. That is a much tighter arrangement than what used to occur, and that was a very deliberate decision of the Standing Orders Committee under the leadership of Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith. It was, of course, a unanimous decision of the committee and of the Parliament to change the rules to that effect. So we've gone from having any suggestion of an objective test to one which is subjective. The Chair has made it very clear what her opinion is, and that is not something for the House to second guess.
I will say that this has been a matter of previous ruling in 2018, 14 August 2018, a very good ruling on the part of my Deputy Speaker, Hon Anne Tolley, when considering the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill with a parallel approach as to exemptions for particular primary produce.
It's a relatively new Standing Order in our experience, Dr Smith, but it is now pretty well-established, and one which has been reinforced recently by a ruling from the Hon Anne Tolley. So what I want to make clear is that I will only hear argument on the substance of the application of that Standing Order. I will not hear about this polytech, that polytech, or the importance of something else. If anyone can give me a reason that indicates that it's not actually Ruth Dyson's opinion, then that is the only argument that will work here. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Speaking further to the point of order, the substantive question under Standing Order 307(5) is that the Chairperson has that discretion if they are the same in substance, and the key question I wish to put to you is that the issue of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, as compared with the Christchurch, Otago, or any other—
SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume his seat. I have made it very clear—and I have read it to the member—and the question is "in the opinion of the chairperson". Do I have to say that again? It is "in the opinion of the chairperson,". It is a discretion which this House decided to give to the Chairpeople of committees. They have that, and it's not something, in my opinion, that they can be second-guessed on. 
Given that, I don't think there's any matter now I have to rule on. I'm going to declare the House back in committee—I'm not sure whether the Chair is going to come from my left or right—for further consideration of this bill on the following matter. 





In Committee
Debate resumed.
Schedule 1 (continued)
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the committee for my Supplementary Order Paper 435 to be put to the committee. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 2
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 428 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 3
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 428 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 4 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 5
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5 be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedule 5A
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 428 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 5A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5A as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Schedule 5A as amended agreed to.
Schedule 6
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 428 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 6 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 6 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.





Clauses 1 to 3
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to speak to the enablement date of this bill. In this contribution, I'd like to raise several points. I'd like to suggest that, at a minimum, the first enablement date be the end of 2020, and I'll make the arguments for that, and, in the second instance, the end of 2022 may be even more suitable.
In the first instance, to talk to the haste that this bill is progressing and that these clauses talk to when they'll bring it into law. This is reckless haste, frankly—reckless haste. If we look at most of the submissions from the polytechnic sector, somewhere in their submissions, everyone said, "This is hurried". The industry training organisations said the same. This is far too hurried, and I'm making the case that this is reckless haste. In fact, if we look at that independent body, the Office of the Auditor-General, they also had concerns. They had concerns for the timing of the schedule, and, indeed, expressed some doubt whether the espoused objectives could be achieved in the time frame that had been mentioned.
We heard the Minister Chris Hipkins talk about the risks that are outlined in the programme business case, and look to allay fears that "Yes, but then the mitigations reduce those risks." Well, one of the risks was that the schedule was not achievable. This clause does not mitigate that risk; it perpetuates it. Surely, if the hurried nature is being pointed out in the programme business case and the risks around it, then the mitigation is to slow it down. So I'd point to the Minister's own words and his own actions—from his own team, so this is from Treasury; if we go across the programme business case, the regulatory impact assessment, this is a combination of panels from Treasury, from the Ministry of Education, and from the Tertiary Education Commission all saying that there is a risk that the schedule will unbuckle the objectives that the Minister is trying to achieve.
So the first proposal that I have, to change the timing from what is stated in these clauses, is to have the bill enabled at the end of 2020. Now, I say that for two things. A key factor here is that currently as it reads—and I've mentioned it before—there's a break in the financial year. So the first three months, we have one set of financial statements, and then the next nine months, we have a second set of financial statements, and we hope to heck that under the Public Finance Act we're going to be able to bring these together in some comparable way, because that's what we need with financial statements. We need to be able to compare year to year to year, not year to three months plus nine months—that doesn't actually help us. 
So I'd ask the Minister to consider, at least, ridding ourselves of that anomaly and the risks going with that or, furthermore, tell us what the cost is going to be of that single action. What are the costs going to be to revalue every single institute of technology and polytechnic? What is the cost to having a three months plus a nine months financial or aggregated set of financial statements? I don't imagine that is going to be cheap.
So, firstly, if we were to have an enablement of the bill in these clauses changed to the end of 2020, we wouldn't break a financial year. We could still have comparable data year on year.
Secondly, if this is good, if this is the answer and the solution to our vocational education sector, take it to the campaign trail. Get a mandate from New Zealanders in September, and then at the end of the year 2020, you're good to go. If this is so good, take it to the campaign trail. That would be another advantage of having this bill enabled at the end of 2020. I would still make the case that these clauses bring in a lot of haste; more haste than there needs to be. That would still be very hurried, in my view. 
Those in the sector that I speak to think that there are several years in this. They've looked back at when the teachers colleges were amalgamated into their current form, how that was over several years—in fact, a number of them have said, "Look what happened there". Contestably, it either went right or it went wrong but that took many, many years to get to the position we are today, where they may or may not—again, contestably—be suitable. That was over several years. Look at the costs that it took. 
So I think we should draw on that. Let's not reinvent the wheel. If this is going to work, if we think it's going to work, let's change these clauses, and let's say 2022 as a start date. I think the sector would take a big breath. But, again, I'd come back to the two options that I'm suggesting the Minister speak to: the first, take it to the end of 2020, get rid of this whole broken financial year, take it to the campaign trail; secondly, a more thorough deployment, more likely to succeed—if it's going to succeed—would be 2022. I'd ask the Minister to speak to those matters.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I am very happy to speak to the issue of the pace at which the Government is moving. There is no question that we are moving at pace with regard to these reforms. There is, of course, a risk of moving more slowly, of stagnation, and also of prolonged decline, effectively, because some of the institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) and some of the industry training organisations (ITOs) have actually been clear that if we are going to go ahead and do this—and the Government has indicated we are intending to go ahead and do this—actually, they risk losing staff, they risk losing the employers who are currently engaged in training, if there is too much uncertainty over too long a period of time.
In fact, we constructed this in a way that there is some flex in the way that the reforms are implemented. So if you look at the ITP sector—the polytech sector—most immediately they become subsidiaries, and most immediately that's about the only thing that changes for them. So they'll continue to function much as they do now on 1 April as they were at the end of March. So there is then a transition period that spans over several years where the Opposition, if they wish to campaign on a different approach, will have that opportunity to put that to the electorate. Of course, we will be putting to the electorate these proposals; the Opposition will have an opportunity to propose a different approach, and the transition timetables, of course, will give them some ability to do that.
With regard to workforce development councils and the establishment of workforce development councils, the ITO sector has been very, very clear that the longer this takes, the higher the risk of losing employers and the higher the risk of having fewer apprentices being taken on. In fact, some of the ITOs are going so far as to say that the transition that we're engaged in at the moment is already taking too long, and, in fact, they want to move at much greater pace.
With regard to the technical issue around part-year reporting, officials have been working very closely with the Office of the Auditor-General to make that process as unbureaucratic and as seamless as possible so that it doesn't create undue compliance burden on the ITPs as they move from being independent entities to being subsidiary entities. I can give the member the reassurance that that work has been progressing very well.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are issues here of the integrity of our parliamentary and democratic process, and there are also issues of the public interest that means this Parliament should support the very good amendments that have been put forward by Shane Reti.
The first of those that my colleague Mr Reti has made is that the Government has no political mandate for this change. You're looking at an institution in my own area, 115 years old, that has over 400 staff, that has 4,000 students, and not a single Labour member had the courage to tell those people that if Labour was the Government, we would lose our independent polytechnic. I contrast that with the approach that was taken by John Key and the previous National Government. We had the challenge—and it was a big controversy—over the mixed-ownership model. What we said was that we would put it to the people, that we would not proceed with the mixed ownership—big change with Air New Zealand and the power companies—until the people had the right to have a say. 
So I'm saying: why is it that members on the Labour benches are not prepared to support the amendments that will let New Zealanders have a say on such a fundamental reform to some of our most important public institutions? And then I want to put this question: the coalition agreement has this to say: the coalition Government is committed to relocating Government functions to the regions. Is that what we're doing with this bill, I say to my friends across the Chamber in New Zealand First? Are we relocating functions to the regions? No, we're not. We're taking off every one of the regions and centralising the control of our polytechs. This is exactly the opposite of what New Zealand First said—and not just what New Zealand First said but what Labour said in the coalition agreement. I say this is morally repugnant for the Government to be legislating exactly against what it said it would do in relocating functions to the regions. And then I say this: if we want to make sure we're making decisions in the public interest, imagine the disruption for the sector that we go through this huge reform and then there's a change of Government in September—and that will be for the public to decide—and then we have to undo it all. How does that serve the public interest? 
National is absolutely committed that if we are the Government, the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) will be an independent institution controlled by the people of Nelson, rather than what Mr Little wants—and it's not surprising Mr Little has never won a provincial seat and has been rejected time and time again by voters, because he does not understand the interests and the locality importance of local interests. 
The last point I would make is to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins. I was disappointed that with flights being delayed I was not able to participate in the earlier debate. It was fascinating for me that I sat on the plane next to a guy who's in the scaffolding industry and, from the moment we sat on the runway in Nelson, he spent over half an hour telling me how awful these reforms were, how bad they were for the scaffolding industry, that we have seen a decline in the number of people in that very practical industry of apprentices as a consequence of this reform, and that is repeated over and over again by industries all over New Zealand. And that's why I say to this Parliament, support Shane Reti's amendment; let the public decide. There's a very clear choice. Members on this side of the House say that regions should be able to have their own locally controlled polytechnic, and they shouldn't be taken over by some massive Government department. 
The last point I have to make is this: my local polytechnic met with me earlier this year. You know what their big worry was? This reform is resulting in the loss already of a significant number of NMIT's best staff. And my chief executive expressed very real concern about that.
Hon Andrew Little: Oh, your chief executive? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the opposite—the chief executive of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology and many others are saying if you're worried about the loss of staff, let's put it to the country. A very clear choice on a policy of which Mr Little and his colleagues never had the courage to tell the electorate: that they would be robbing regional New Zealand of control of their local polytechnics, and that's why this reform should not come into effect until the public have had a say through the ballot box. 





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. Earlier this afternoon, I hadn't anticipated that I would be—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just a reminder—sorry to interrupt—but just to remind everyone, I did indicate to Dr Smith that we're on the "Title", "Commencement", and "Principal Act". It's not a general debate; it's title, commencement, and principal Act. I call the Hon Tim Macindoe. 
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was simply going to indicate that I hadn't anticipated taking a call in the title and commencement debate, but I wanted to explain the reason why I am doing so. And that is primarily because this is a very significant measure, which has huge implications for the tertiary education and the industry training sector and huge implications by extension to the New Zealand economy. 
This afternoon, on regular occasions, I sought a second call. I had spoken once. I sought a second call including, as I had foreshadowed in my first call, the opportunity, I hoped, to speak in favour of my own Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I never got that opportunity, and while listening to the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick take the sole call for the Green Party, I heard her make the comment that we had had plenty of debate and therefore there was no need for any further debate, we could move on—or words to that effect. At that point, I interjected to Ms Swarbrick that her party had only taken the one call, as she'd just indicated, and, in fact, apart from the Minister, there had been no other Government parties' speakers at all. That, in my view, did not indicate anything like sufficient debate. 
So when I interjected, I heard from Ms Swarbrick that I was apparently filibustering. I took great offence at that, because not to be able to speak to my own SOP was hardly a case of filibustering but, just as Dr Smith has so eloquently argued, it was, in my view, a denial of my right and my responsibility as the member of Parliament for Hamilton West, in whose electorate the two campuses of Wintec are located, to be able to push their case to be exempted. 
So I am speaking now in this title and commencement phase strongly in support of Dr Reti's proposed amendment. I don't actually agree with his suggestion that we should go for the earlier date of the end of this year, 2020, because, of course, it's a very busy year that will be interrupted by the election campaign and people's focus will be not only on the general election but also the referenda that we are considering. I don't therefore believe that that is sufficient time whatsoever. 
I am, however, strongly supporting his alternative suggestion that the date of implementation or of enactment should be deferred until the end of 2022. As has already been noted, that will give all of us as parliamentarians the opportunity to campaign on that, and other candidates from outside Parliament at the moment the opportunities to front up to the institutes and the industry training organisations in their electorates, find out what is felt there, get a grasp of the issues, then go out to the wider public and argue for or against.
Now, if this bill, which has had such inadequate debate in this Chamber today, is then rushed through and enacted at the end of this year, I believe we will be doing a great disservice to the public of New Zealand and in particular to the polytechnics, who are the subject of this very important measure. Now, I acknowledge that the Minister took a few calls latterly. He is a very articulate and measured speaker, but I was very disappointed that he glossed over many of the important questions that he was asked, including three that I put to him—none of which he answered. So again, I would suggest that there has not been sufficient debate. 
This is our only opportunity in this House to give really detailed consideration to the specific aspects of this legislation. I don't believe that we have had it. Therefore, I am arguing strongly that the very least we can do is defer the date of enactment to ensure that, if necessary, the 52nd Parliament and its members have a chance to consider this measure in greater detail with greater engagement from members across the House, rather than the very one-sided debate that we have had today, and I don't believe that that is unreasonable. 
As Dr Smith noted before, we have a precedent in the way that the previous Government, led by Sir John Key, dealt with the mixed-ownership model for State electricity companies and the part share in Air New Zealand. That was a matter of considerable public importance and concern; so is this. And I hope very much that even at this late stage, the members opposite will see the reasonableness of that particular case, and instead of just moving closure motions, which is all most of them have chosen to do all afternoon, they would engage in the substantive nature of this debate, in particular as to the implications of rushing this through by the end of this year, which I consider to be deeply undesirable and unfair. 





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement of the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill.
I'd like to propose an alternative name for this bill rather than the one that it currently has, because I don't believe it reflects the true nature of what this bill will do. The name that I would like to propose is the "Education (Mega Polytechnic) Bill", because I believe that more accurately defines actually what this bill does. This bill will make one mega polytechnic for all of New Zealand. It will gut our regions of their regional polytechs. It will gut their assets. It will centralise them. And, as has been said very clearly by prior speakers, this is going against the nature of the coalition agreement, which said that we would protect regional jobs. Well, I guess the question that I have is: what's in the secret coalition agreement? Because there must be something in there.
This bill grabs money from the regional polytechnics. We've heard the Eastern Institute of Technology has $30 million in cash reserves—money which they have built up over many years by prudent financial management, which will be taken by this mega polytechnic and which will then be decided how it's spent by the mega polytechnic.
We've heard of the resources which have been given by the community, the land which has been gifted to help create these institutions for the training of people in those regions. That will be taken and given to the mega polytechnic for them to decide how it is to be spent, and what's to be done with those assets, and whether those assets should be rationalised.
We also know that this change will take the power from the regions and centralise the power into a central organisation, rather than allowing regions to be able to prioritise what they want to do in their local area.
So I think the title which I'm proposing, the mega polytechnic, is a much better reflection of what this bill actually does, because you look at all of the things which this bill does: what courses, where, and how they are made. At the moment, it's the local polytechnic. They're the ones who are able to make those decisions. Now it's going to be part of the mega polytechnic.
Academic freedom—the local polytech currently has academic freedom. That now gets brought and it's part of the mega polytechnics' responsibility, without the full academic freedom rights being delegated down to any subsidiaries.
Community involvement—currently, decisions are made by local councils. All decisions are now going to be made centrally by the mega polytechnic, at the head office.
Cash reserves which are currently spent on local needs—the decision will be made by the mega polytechnic as to what those cash reserves will be spent on. Any capital projects—currently, it's the local polytechnic which decides what capital projects are to be done. Any of the subsidiaries, they will have to go cap in hand to ask whether they're allowed to do any of those decisions, any of those capital works that they want. They'll have to ask whether it's within their delegated decision-making, or if not, they'll have to go cap in hand to the mega polytech to be able to make those decisions.
In terms of who sits on those regional boards, well, we're going to have a mega polytechnic with the Minister having full control over who is going to be sitting on the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology board. This bill is incorrectly named. The Minister might think that he's reforming the vocational education and training area, but what he's actually doing, if you look at the Tertiary Education Commission report, is he's going to make things worse. We're going to see a high likelihood of workforce disruption, with an extreme impact. We're going to see a reduction in participation in vocational education, with a major impact on our economy. We aren't going to see the needs of industry and employers met by this mega polytechnic, and that's going to have an extreme impact on our economy. I ask all members to vote for what this bill should be titled, "The Education (Mega Polytechnic) Bill".





KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's nice to actually get a chance to speak on this bill. I haven't had an opportunity, even though I tried to take the call, because I had an amendment, but unfortunately, that wasn't allowed for during the general debate. So thank you, and I'm very grateful that you've kept the telephone lines open between you and the floor.
The issue I want to talk about is this issue about the implementation date, because I think it is an issue around the practicality of what's been proposed. This, by any standards, is a massive organisational transformation and change. What we're talking about is not only the creation of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, which in itself is this very significant organisation tasked with providing and arranging and supporting a range of vocational education and training, but also it is involved in the consolidation of existing networks of polytechnics.
Then we've got the creation of the workforce development councils, and we've got a number of those. Of course, their role is to provide skills leadership, set skills standards, develop qualifications, endorse programmes, moderate assessment, and provide advisory and representative roles.
The thing that really worries me, and the one that's most pertinent to me, is the construction sector, where we currently have about 25,000 being trained in the sector. The two lead organisations in it—the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation, particularly—made a submission which was very much against this. One of their issues was the lack of certainty around it. The other one was the New Zealand Skills Organisation. The central part about this is about how this change is managed and the time frame for managing that change.
I have actually been involved in doing a lot of these types of changes, and I know how complex they are. So just take, for instance, the two main new organisations that are going to be created: the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, and the workforce councils.
First of all, there is going to be a need to develop a statement of corporate intent or something similar for that entity or those entities. Of course, we're talking about seven of those workforce development councils. There's going to be a need to work out the governance arrangements—how many do you have, what the skill sets should be, how are they appointed, who appoints them, who is going to recruit the human resources firm to recruit them? That all takes time.
The issue around management—what is the nature of the skills? How is it going to be managed? Is it a devolved management style? Is it much more directorial? Does it complement certain skills? Particularly, we talk about advisory as opposed to overseeing different types of qualifications. We've got the operational aspects, accounting—how's that all going to be done? That's all got to be created. Have you got existing platforms for these organisations to be able to adopt, to be able to put those in place?
We've got branding issues. What's going to be on the top of the logo when the organisation is set up, apparently on, effectively, 1 April 2020? The contracting arrangements between these entities will be a significant thing, and I could tell you that this is where the tension point will be between any new entities. Who has got the power? Who has got the influence? Ultimately, it reflects in the personal remuneration of the people who get the powerful jobs. That's why it will be an incredible scrap.
Then you get into the issue of the entities that are going to be transferred, and this raises valuation issues. Now, as you're probably aware, there's three different valuation methodologies: capitalisation of future maintainable profits, net tangible assets, and the discounted cash flow method. The reason I'm talking about these is these are all complicated processes to follow. To go and do the net assets will require official independent valuations. That takes a long time. The modelling—all that takes engagement with the people concerned. Let's hope that they're there. What I'm actually getting at, and I hope you get my point by now, is that the operational aspects to put this in place are immense. The idea of having this all come together and do it so quickly is just inane, and it shows people who have actually got no experience and want to see consolidation but without understanding what the key ingredient is for a successful organisation. That is building a good culture, and this is not even reflected in the conversations.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I'd like to just make a riposte here to the statements that the Minister has made talking about the speed of this bill, which I spoke to in my first contribution, agreeing that there is haste, and saying that because of the uncertainty of the reforms, people are changing jobs, that it's damaging the industry. So the solution is instead of having uncertainty of reforms, to have certainty. That's why the commencement date is what it is.
Well, let's reframe that. Instead of having an uncertain badness, his solution is to have a certain badness. That just simply does not make sense. The commencement date of 1 April still needs some reflection.
Furthermore, with that commencement date, the Minister is almost alluding to the fact that it will be somewhat business as usual. I think these were the words you were saying: a long transition to change it, if we wanted, was what he was saying. Well, can I just point out that, with a commencement date of 1 April, several key things happen.
First of all, there's disestablishment of the local polytechnic councils and the local government arrangements. So that's quite significant with the 1 April commencement date. But secondly, something more structural happens on 1 April. That is, the polytechnics become subsidiaries, and under the Companies Act certain obligations befall them. More specifically, under the Companies Act, when you're a subsidiary, you must act in favour or accordance with the wishes of the parent. More specifically, what this will mean is that polytechnics, as a subsidiary, will be unable to talk against, to criticise, or to critique the NZIST and therefore, by obligation, the workforce development councils and the Government. We will lose that ability for rational debate around how to make it better, how to critique the parent, how to critique the system through the structural formation of subsidiaries of polytechnics on the commencement date of 1 April.
I don't think that's helpful. None of us like criticism, but how do we improve unless we critique ourselves or we're externally critiqued? It doesn't really matter where the critique comes from. But what this bill will do, with the haste that this is moving through, is it will put an end to the ability for those in the sector, at the polytechnic level, to reasonably critique and offer comment against the direction that the NZIST, and therefore this whole policy direction, will be, and I just simply don't think that's helpful. I don't think that's useful. I don't think that's a tenet of a good system.
Again, with a longer commencement date, this could maybe be looked at and thought on again. There could be more time to anticipate what we actually do want: comments from the sector even though they may not be comments we want to hear. We understand that, in a subsidiary arrangement, they may not be able to do that. How do we change things? How do we figure it out? How do we maybe put removal of doubt clauses into the bill that says, "No, no, it will still actually be OK for a subsidiary to critique their parent body"?
But again, on this sort of haste—the Minister has agreed that the bill is moving at haste, and made arguments—I mean, you've really got to say people are leaving the sector because of uncertainty. The bill's causing the uncertainty; this whole policy is causing the uncertainty. It's a somewhat circuitous argument. So I would come back to the position that this is moving too fast, everyone in the sector is—well, certainly most people I speak to—saying that 1 April is not a date that can deploy or even attempt to successfully deploy the policies that the Minister is looking to bring into play. And again, I'd ask him to reconsider the commencement date.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to put to the committee that a far more sensible title for this bill would be to refer to it as the "Ratting on Regional New Zealand Bill". I think that would fairly describe it. I want to put to Government members, any single member of the Government—I don't mind whether it's a Labour member or a New Zealand First member—to answer the question as to how the title of this bill is consistent with the coalition commitment. The coalition commitment—and I read it word for word—the coalition Government is committed to relocating Government functions to the regions.
Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I'm reluctant to interrupt any speaker's contribution, but in my view this contribution is clearly in breach of Speakers' ruling 114/6: "An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents." I put to you that the alternative proposed by the member is in breach of that very Speakers' ruling.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank you very much for your consideration. However, I think the argument that he's making around the title—I wouldn't call it sensible, but I think the argument that he's making is quite rational. I'm going to allow it.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would love that member, or any member of the Government, to understand how the title and this bill are consistent with that commitment that they gave in black and white to New Zealanders that they would be relocating Government functions to the regions, when this bill does the exact opposite.
We shouldn't pretend this is some minor bill. For most of regional New Zealand, the polytech is one of the biggest Government agencies, and what this bill does is take away the local regional control and give it to a central bureaucracy. It does the opposite of what the coalition agreement does, and that is why I seriously say this Parliament should consider the title of this bill to be the "Ratting on Regional New Zealand Bill"—because there was no mandate at the last election. Neither the Greens, Labour, or New Zealand First said to regional New Zealand, "If you vote for us, we're going to get rid of your local polytechnic." Nobody said that.
In fact, like I say, in the very coalition agreement of which the Labour and the New Zealand First parties form this Government, they promise that they would actually return services to the regions. I would love my colleague opposite from Wairarapa, rather than taking some pedantic point of order, to answer the fundamental question: how is this bill consistent with the coalition agreement of committing to relocate services to the regions, when this bill does the opposite? Is there any member on the Government benches—
Hon Andrew Little: No, because we're not clowns, like that member.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Mr Little might want to indulge in personal abuse—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Why doesn't he answer the question? How is this bill consistent—
Hon Andrew Little: The member is a clown. I'm not talking to clowns.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Minister, all members in this House are honourable and will be treated as such.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would love Mr Little to honourably explain how a bill that takes away 16 regional polytechs and puts them into a national organisation is consistent with the coalition agreement, and the title of the bill—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I would love you to debate the title.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Indeed. I'm saying that the title of this bill should reflect what it does, and that is it rats on the coalition agreement that commits to relocating services to the regions, and that if the Government wants to rat on the black and white words that's in the founding coalition agreement of this Government, they need to explain why. I have not yet heard a single contribution from any Government member to explain why this bill does the opposite of what they said they would do. 
We might choose a different title. We might call it the "New Zealand First Memorial Bill" because that party is doing so much damage to regional New Zealand that most political commentators think they're toast, and this bill is contributing to it, and so the "New Zealand First Commemoration"—or "Valedictory"—"Bill" might be a more appropriate title. My view would be that any title that makes plain the scale of the reform and the impact on regional New Zealand would actually be an honest description, and the fact that there is not a single Government member who is prepared to explain the consistency of this bill with their commitment to relocate services to the regions when it does exactly the opposite speaks volumes about how morally bankrupt this coalition Government is.





ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Clause 1 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Clause 2 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.





ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL
In Committee
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We turn now to the Electoral Amendment Bill. And, as we come to Part 1, can I just make the comment that I would like to remind you all that the House has agreed to the bill's second reading, which establishes the narrow principles and objects of this bill. So matters relating to prisoner voting, lowering the voting age, and donations, including foreign donations, are outside the scope of this bill and will not be debated. Consequently, Jami-Lee Ross' Supplementary Order Paper 324 is ruled out of order on that basis.





Part 1  Amendments to principal Act
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I just wanted to speak briefly to the important contents of Part 1. It contains a number of substantive measures, as well as some technical and somewhat consequential changes to support those substantial changes.
The critical area to start with is clause 5 and the amendment there to section 83, which allows the Electoral Commission to treat a special vote declaration as an application for registration as an elector. This will make it easier for voters who are not enrolled and have to do a special vote to fill out one form, not two, and so that will expedite that process. And of course, because the bill also provides for election-day enrolment and voting, it will make it easier—particularly on election day, which, for the 90,000 people who turned up to a voting booth on election day in 2017, would make a huge difference.
Clause 6—in particular, the insertion of new subsection (3A) after current section 88(3), which allows a person who is present in New Zealand to both apply to be an elector and also to conduct a vote and to receive a ballot paper; that is the critical thing that this part of the bill is seeking to do. So it achieves the objective of election-day enrolment. I know some members in the Opposition were concerned that when they saw the advice of the Electoral Commission—the Electoral Commission had expressed a preference to make this change for the election in 2023, but, actually, when they were asked about it by me as Minister, they said it could be implemented for election 2020. And that is what we're seeking to do. They are well apprised of that. The bill is here and I have total confidence their systems will be able to accommodate just this. There are a number of other changes that follow in the subsequent clauses. They are largely technical and deal with administrative requirements the Electoral Commission must do in an election.
The next, I think, quite critical and substantive section, or change, is in clause 14, inserting new section 155A, which is about the use of licensed premises as polling places. So we've now moved on from election-day enrolment in voting to the other thing, which gives the Electoral Commission more flexibility about where they locate polling booths, particularly on election day. The commission, in more recent elections, has allowed for advanced voting booths to be in places where, like supermarkets and malls, liquor is sold. But that hasn't been allowed for election day itself. This will allow the Electoral Commission to continue those polling booths in those places on election day, subject to other provisions in this bill that allow the votes cast in those places to be counted somewhere else—and those are the next provisions. Clause 16, amending section 174(1), allows the commission or returning officer to designate another place to be a place where votes are counted. I'm very pleased to see the changes that the Justice Committee made. I think that tidies that up with the consequential technical amendments that are there.
The next critical bunch of issues, clause 17, cover off the situation where there is an unforeseen or unavoidable disruption that requires polling either in a particular polling booth, or perhaps even more broadly than that, to have to be disrupted and perhaps moved. There's a process set out for that that includes consulting, before a decision is made, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as those experts with some knowledge about the particular event, and then, at the time a decision is made, to then notify the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that a decision has been made to change arrangements for a particular polling booth or a number of booths, to deal with that disruption. The remaining provisions there are consequential and technical amendments that allow that to happen.
That's a brief summary of, I think, the critical aspects of this bill. I think it goes a long way to adding further improvements to this great democracy that we call New Zealand, and will give more opportunity for more people to vote and to do so in a way that is convenient to their workaday lives, the sort of life patterns that people live these days, which makes for, I think, very good changes to our electoral system.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The first point the National Opposition would want to make about this bill is the very poor precedent it sets around making electoral law changes. We're an unusual country: we don't have a constitution, we don't have a second House. We should not have a system, in a country that celebrates itself as being one of the best democracies in the world, where the Government of the day by a slim majority can change the rules for the next election. And that is why we've had a longstanding precedent around the process for these sorts of changes: that they're done on a bipartisan basis. There were nine electoral amendment bills during the term of the Key-English Government. Every single one of the Government bills was consulted extensively with the Opposition. In fact, there was very substantive compromise on many of those Government bills. This is actually the fourth electoral bill from this Minister, of which there has been zero—no—consultation, at all. We only actually found out about this bill as a consequence of questioning during the annual review of financial Estimates.
Now, the most substantive change in this part is about the issue of same-day voting and enrolment. The first point, it's very clear, is this: the Electoral Commission, which I think is well respected across this Parliament, said they did not support same-day voting and enrolment for election 2020. That is absolutely a matter of public record, and I'm happy to table the minutes of the Justice Committee where they are word-for-word what the Electoral Commission said. And so the Minister of Justice, I can only conclude for reasons of electoral advantage, is going against the advice of the Electoral Commission.
Here's the second part of sneakiness around the same-day enrolment and voting: when the Minister announced it in a press release, he failed to mention that to be able to introduce same-day voting and enrolment, the date of the election result would need to be delayed by 10 days. Now, that's very significant. The whole country sits on edge from election night to when the final election results are announced. Extending that by 10 days is substantial.
Now, it is the compromise. The Electoral Commission has said to the Minister, "Look, we can't do same-day voting and enrolment unless you give us another 10 days to sort the issues through and count the votes." It was sneaky and dishonest for the Minister to not mention that in his press release when he announced this bill, underlying the bad faith that goes around that provision.
Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member on his feet just reflected on the Minister through the use of the word "dishonest", and I believe that is out of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, yes, but it would be for the Minister to take offence at that, not for another member to take it. While we're talking about the Standing Orders, also there's a Standing Order around eating in the House.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would love the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, to give an explanation as to why when he announced this provision, he was not upfront with New Zealanders that the announcement of the election result would need to be delayed by a further 10 days for there to be able to be same-day enrolment and voting. That is what we now know was the advice that came from the Electoral Commission. That was in the bill. But, of course, the Minister did not wish to advise the public of that significant change to the way in which our elections would be conducted. There is a balance, and the balance that needs to be found is in terms of members on this side of the House, who want to maximise participation and we want to maximise the integrity of the vote and the timing of it. And here's the trade-off: should 3.4 million New Zealanders have to wait another 10 days for the election result because 19,000 people couldn't be bothered getting themselves on to the roll? The Government has chosen to take the views of the 19,000; we take the view of the 3.4 million New Zealanders who have done so.
Then the second question is this, and this is very effectively communicated in the advice from the Electoral Commission: the problem is that if you allow same-day enrolment and voting, why would anybody bother to enrol? We're, effectively, changing the law with this bill that says there is no requirement now to enrol—don't bother. You can front up to the polling booth any time you like and whether you are enrolled or not, you'll be allowed to vote. Their concern, the concern of both officials and the Electoral Commission, was that if you allow same-day voting and enrolment, over time you remove any incentive for people to actually enrol and ensure that our overall electoral system works.
There's a third part of the reason why we think it's reasonable for people to be required to enrol to vote. Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I haven't rung the bell yet!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm just pre-empting you so that I can continue. [Bell rung] Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Dr Nick Smith.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The third reason is that there's a requirement in the law that candidates are known at least 20 working days before the election. That's fair enough. Of course, the voter has a right to know who the candidates are so they can go and check them out and make sure that they are reputable people, listen to what they say, test their policies. That's at the heart of democracy. But there's a quid pro quo: if the voters have a right to know who the candidates are, don't the candidates have a right to be able to know who the enrolled voters are so that they can communicate with them and that they can present to them their policies, ideas, so that they can be persuaded to the merits to either vote for them or not?
So in my view, the reason the Government is advancing the measures around same-day voting and enrolment against the advice of the Electoral Commission is simply because they see that it's going to make it easier for them to win the next election. It is as crude and simple as that. It is not principles-based.
Darroch Ball: That doesn't make any sense. Explain that a bit more. Explain how that works.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It was done without consultation, and it was not—oh, very simply. The member from New Zealand First, who won't answer questions about what the foundation has been up to, but very happy for him to take a call—
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, members opposite, I think he was listed as one of the bagmen, and I think the media would love to know what he was up to with the New Zealand First—
Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think—well, I hope—that you were anticipating that I was about to call Dr Smith to order, because I made it very clear in this debate that we are not talking donations. That is out of order.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I understand that fully, Madam Chair, and I'd invite the New Zealand First member to, rather than interject, participate in the debate. If he'd like to answer some of those questions, the whole of New Zealand would love to know—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): And I would not allow it.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the answers to those.
There are provisions in this bill that should have come through the proper process. Since 1946, the practice of the New Zealand Parliament is that we have an inquiry by the Justice Committee into the election. Following that inquiry, where issues—many of the issues that are covered in this bill, around flexibility, around location of polling booths, are then worked up through the select committee process and then provided for in a bill. National was perfectly up to cooperating in that process. We actually support the extra flexibility around polling booths, particularly the changes of a greater use of supermarkets, making some practical changes so that that's more convenient for voters. We think that's a good thing. In fact, it was National that introduced the notion of polling booths being able to be held in supermarkets.
We think the current law is rather puritanical in respect of the issue of alcohol outlets. In some of our back country communities, actually, the local pub is the centre of where people can most conveniently gather, and providing the Electoral Commission applies some appropriate conditions, we think it's perfectly proper that some of those country pubs may be the appropriate place for those communities, and we support those amendments. Equally, we want practical provisions around where there are civil emergencies, of which we've had too many in recent times, with the Kaikōura and the Christchurch earthquakes. We do want practical provisions in the law, and we're pleased with the changes that were made at the select committee stage of this bill, in which those provisions were improved.
So our argument is not that this is a bad bill; it's that this has been a very poor process, that we should not have the Government of the day cherry-picking the various electoral law changes that it thinks will give it some sort of advantage. It sets a particularly poor precedent when we're now on to our fourth bill in the term of this Parliament, of which there has been zero consultation with the largest party in the Parliament, about electoral law changes.
I spoke to the Minister 2½ years ago, and I said National was up to working cooperatively on sensible electoral law changes. He has not chosen to pick up the phone once. He has not chosen to have a single telephone conversation with me once. I simply say to the Minister in the chair: that door remains open. And I'll give him another commitment: if National is the Government, which is a better chance than not after September, a National Government will maintain the strong tradition that we did during the Key-English years, treating electoral law with the respect that it deserves, developing electoral law proposals on a cross-party basis, because, actually, the democracy of New Zealand, the integrity of our elections, requires that we treat electoral law with that sort of respect, so that New Zealand indeed can say that it is the proudest little democracy in the world.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill Part 1. I intend to request a reasonably fine examination of the part—"fine" in the sense of a fine-tooth comb, not necessarily fine in any other sense. I'll do my best.
The particular matters we're talking about, and I'll just say this by way of a prelude—not an apology exactly, but by way of explanation for the detail with which I'll be interrogating the provisions, which is to say that the area of electoral law is so important that the detail really matters and can be contentious. It's almost like a meta-law: it's the law that enables people to come to this place to make other laws.
Passing then to the detail of what I'd like to raise with the committee of the whole House, in clause 6, amending section 88 of the Electoral Act, we see the bill talking about applications received after issue of writ. That's the scenario where, newly, under this bill, we will have a situation whereby people can enrol to be electors and also cast their vote, essentially, on polling day, as well as up to that time. But I note that in replacement section 88(1)(a), that's not the case on polling day from a person outside New Zealand. Bearing in mind that we're talking about someone who is eligible to vote in the election, notwithstanding that they are outside New Zealand, I wonder what the thinking is behind the policy whereby we would preclude those who are outside New Zealand from enrolling to vote but we would say at the same time that, none the less, if they were already enrolled to vote, they could cast their vote from outside New Zealand.
If I've misunderstood that point then, obviously, I'd be grateful for the clarification, or, indeed, correction, but I would certainly be grateful to know the reasoning behind that if my question is, sort of, founded on a correct assumption. On a related point, the polling day that's referred to in that same provision—I just want clarity, if I may, as to whether the polling day is measured as the calendar day, for example, Saturday, 19 September 2020 as it will be on this occasion, or perhaps it'll be the time that the polls are open on that day, whether that be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or whatever is standard. I don't know off the top of my head, but no doubt the officials or someone else with access to Google will be able to find out what is standard in that regard. It's probably an obvious enough point that we're talking about New Zealand standard time when we talk about the polling day, although I will note if we're discussing the situation of voters, or would-be voters from outside New Zealand, that it's our time zone and not the same calendar day but, for example, in the United States, some full day behind almost that that would apply. 
Remaining within that same subsection—but just looking probably more out of interest than anything—we've got "a person" and then we've got "any person" in those paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively. I don't think that's probably intended to be a meaningful distinction, but if anyone can tell me otherwise then, again, I'll be grateful for the information. 
Moving then to the next aspect of clause 6, and its subclause 3. What we've got there is the replacement of section 88(3)(c) within the Act, and that's the scenario basically where "the person may, … (i) be issued with a ballot paper" or a special vote ballot paper, according to the circumstances that are set out. I'm just interested—again, perhaps from a linguistic perspective as much as anything—that it says that they "may" be issued with a ballot paper. Elsewhere we have the active voice used—it talks about, for example, in the provision I was discussing before that it's the Electoral Commission that may or may not do certain things, and here we've just got that the person "may, … (i) be issued with". I presume it would be the Electoral Commission that would be doing the issuing, but the construction of that sentence doesn't specify exactly who would be doing that. So I don't know if that's a deliberate piece of drafting or if it's just intended that it might be—perhaps it could be issued by any one of a number of different authorities. 
Finally, within this contribution—but, actually, I wouldn't mind continuing; I've got a couple more other similarly interesting points. In subsection 4—again, within this section 88 of what is currently the Act—we hear that if a person who is present in New Zealand applies on polling day for registration, then certain things apply. So my question is why a person would need to be present in New Zealand for that to apply? It's a similar point that I was making in relation to applying to be on the electoral roll from overseas. I wonder why it is that a person must be physically present in New Zealand when, after all, one can transmit a vote remotely. Then, actually, again, a similar point to that raised before—we've got that in that circumstance, the Electoral Commission "(a) may issue the person with a special [voting] paper;" but "must", if they subsequently determine that the person is qualified to be registered, etc., "enter the name on the electoral roll." I would have thought that it would be a matter of compulsion in both cases so that the Electoral Commission, if these various situations apply, should issue the special vote ballot paper and then enter the name on the electoral roll. So I would have thought that the word "must" would be appropriate in both cases and not in just one of those. But, again, happy to be corrected or given some guidance from the chair or elsewhere in the Chamber, and that would be helpful indeed. 
While I'm on my feet, and with some time remaining—
Kieran McAnulty: Oh, not more. 
CHRIS PENK: —and to the delight of Kieran McAnulty, as always. He's ducking down, I wasn't sure if you were, in fact, ducking down or just—no, I won't. At clause 8 we were looking at the amendment of section 99 within the Act, "Notice of alterations to roll". We see there that the name of a person can be removed or entered on the roll; different situations in which that would be entirely reasonable. We see then that that notification of that must be delivered to the person immediately, either personally or sent by post. I wonder how strictly the Minister of Justice would envisage the word "immediately" to be interpreted. That's a pretty high standard in this day, especially of non-immediate post, or, I should say, not regular daily post necessarily. I suppose in the context of electoral law, talking about the time that someone can register to vote and have a vote counted, perhaps if there's some sort of final date by which that might be advised. So "immediately" in that context might mean by the date of the return of the writ or the date of the announcement of provisional results or whatever. So any guidance that can be given from the chair on that aspect would also be gratefully received. 
Heading back a bit further up in Part 1, looking at clause 5, that's the amendment of section 83 within the Act, that's the "Application for registration". Again, we've got the Electoral Commission being given discretion to treat a special vote declaration as an application for registration. Notwithstanding the fine reputation that the Electoral Commission have—and certainly not casting doubt on their use of such discretion—it seems to me that it's entirely unnecessary for them to be given that discretion. We would hope that the criteria that are set out at 3A(a) and (b)—that they would simply follow through and do those things that are prescribed in that. 
A couple of questions regarding that in the remaining minute and a half—the form that's approved by the Electoral Commission for use as an application for registration, I envisage, presumably, that this would be a form approved in advance, but actually it doesn't specify that. I presume again, but don't know—and the officials may know if the Minister himself doesn't readily—whether it would be standard to have that approved form published in advance on a website so that it's available to all to know, as opposed to a situation whereby a person might complete their declaration in a form that's not approved, but subsequently is deemed to be acceptable. Then, finally, looking at the formal requirements for the declaration to be made, certain details need to be filled in. That's fine; we can look at the cross references for that, and then that form must be signed. Whether it must also be signed by a witness is not clear from this particular provision. It might be clear elsewhere, it might not. Indeed, that's probably knowable by a bit of research, but not having done that—and, in any case, thinking that in the committee stage it's helpful to have clarity in these matters for the benefit of those who will be applying the system later on—I request the Minister to turn his mind to that. If there's any advice he can give the committee of the whole House in that respect as well, it would also be very gratefully received. 





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I'm very pleased to allow my good friend and colleague, the member for Helensville, to sit back with his fine-tooth comb and take a well-earned rest. 
I want to start by drawing attention to some of the things that the members of the Justice Committee were agreed upon, because I took part in the debate on the second reading last Thursday, which was at times a pretty tempestuous experience; it certainly highlighted where there are significant differences of opinion. But for those who are listening, it's also worth pointing out that there is much that the committee was agreed upon and that we have recommended to the House in our report on this Electoral Amendment Bill. 
If I could just give a couple of examples of that because they are significant—one is the recommendation for this bill to provide for voting to be able to take place in a wider range of places, and, in particular, with a focus on licensed premises and other areas where alcohol can be sold. In the past, there's been an absolute blanket ban on that. I doubt whether there would be many people at least who would argue that it would be desirable to have voting actually in an area where alcohol was being consumed, such as a pub. But there are the licensed premises where it is quite possible to walk through to an area that is not being used for the sale and consumption of liquor, and I don't think anyone would have much problem with that. A good example would be a sports club, perhaps an RSA or a service club of that sort. 
But also there's the issue of supermarkets, and, increasingly, particularly with advanced voting and many people taking advantage of their opportunity to vote in advance over the 12 days leading up to election day—most of us go shopping several times a week, and therefore the opportunity to vote in a supermarket makes perfect sense, if it's a heavily populated area. At the moment, the legislation wouldn't allow that because most supermarkets, of course, have a licence to sell liquor.
So I think there are some very pragmatic changes there that have been made, and there's also, arising from that, a recommendation that there should be a new clause 16 to allow votes to be moved from a voting place to another area for the preliminary count of votes. Now, at the moment, the Act requires that the votes are counted where they are cast, and a typical example would be a school or perhaps a church hall, which has been set up by the Electoral Commission as a voting place in a particular electorate. It's relatively easy, therefore, to make arrangements for that same venue to be used for the counting of the votes, but if we are, for instance, to move, as it would appear that we are going to, to allowing supermarkets to be used for that purpose, it would not be appropriate for the counting to be taking place in, say, the foyer of a supermarket, which is a very busy area. Therefore, there needs to be adequate provision within the law for those votes to be moved to a sensible area, which would perhaps be a workroom, staffroom—something which is secure—therefore enabling the count to be taken place without any interference or unwarranted interruption. Of course, you need then to ensure that the law makes adequate provision to ensure the security of the transfer of those votes. That, again, is a matter that the Justice Committee was able to agree upon, and I doubt whether there will be any opposition to it in this House.
There is one other aspect that I'll draw attention to before I get on to one or two of the more contentious issues. Clause 5, which enables or would enable special vote declarations to be treated as applications to enrol or to update details—now, currently, the enrolment form and the special vote form contain largely the same information. So the committee is saying the Electoral Commission should be able to—not absolutely required to, because they may have reasons to believe it isn't appropriate, but should be able to treat the special vote form as an enrolment form. Given the fact that many New Zealanders are nomadic—we've got so many people who are voting from overseas and all sorts of things—it does make sense, I think, to ensure that we continually strive to have the most accurate enrolment information possible. So I commend the Minister of Justice for putting this proposal before the committee, and the committee, as I say, warmly endorses it.
There's also the provision, under the bill as introduced, clause 17, the new section 195(6), that sets out some situations that would be considered unforeseen or unavoidable disruptions. It's interesting to have a look at some of the provisions that could be contemplated in that for a polling disruption. These include a natural disaster—well, imagine if, and we all pray it won't happen, but if there were to be another Canterbury or Kaikōura earthquake on an election day, it would be inconceivable that the election activity could continue. It would be inconceivable in those circumstances that voting could be continued. There's also adverse weather conditions—well, just in the last few days, we've seen the terrible flooding down south, and my heart goes out to all the people of Mataura and surrounding areas who are dealing with that. What a horrific experience that has been. Again, you wouldn't have been able to have voting being conducted while people were dealing with a terrible weather event of that sort. There's also the possibility of riots or disorder—well, fortunately, they're not particularly common in New Zealand, but we've seen just recently, for example, in Hong Kong, which is a highly respectable democracy, where, nevertheless, rioting would, if we had something similar here, make it very, very difficult.
But I want to go on to the fact that the next thing is the inclusion of the provision for a terrorist act, because, again, we all pray that we will never see another terrorist act, but if the terrible atrocity, the anniversary of which is approaching just a month away, of 15 March in Christchurch—if anything of that nature were to happen on election day, it would clearly, again, make it impossible for voting to continue. So these are all sensible changes.
Now, I say that, and I've laboured those points perhaps just to emphasise that this is not a wholly contentious bill, but the point that my colleague Dr Nick Smith made before about process is one that we on this side of the House feel very strongly about, and we object to. As he mentioned, there were nine bills during the previous term of Government led by Sir John Key and, latterly, Sir Bill English, and all of those were measures that were brought through the House consensually with full consultation with all Opposition parties, and that's the way it should be. Here we have the fourth example in less than three years where the new Government has put through changes to our electoral laws in a way that has not involved consultation with this large Opposition party, the National Party, or, presumably, with the ACT Party, and we find that constitutionally obnoxious. In particular, it is worth noting that it's not just the Opposition that is opposed to it. The Electoral Commission advised the committee that the 10-day extension to the announcement of the final election result is a direct consequence of allowing same-day enrolment because of the extra complexity that it would add to the vote, and the commission had previously told the committee that it therefore did not support same-day enrolment.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: For 2020.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: For 2020. So for this Minister and his party to be pushing ahead with this, for reasons that we believe have far more to do with their own electoral advantage than what is in the best interests of the nation, is obnoxious.
Now, Dr Nick Smith mentioned in his contribution earlier that it was just under 1 percent of potential voters who turned up on election day last year and were turned away because they were not enrolled, and that, therefore, just over 99 percent of the voters would be inconvenienced by having to wait another 10 days for the formation of a Government when this is introduced. That is a significant point, but I think that even more significant is the fact that because of this provision—i.e., to allow same-day enrolment—we will see over time a steady increase in the number of people in that category, and therefore the delay will get greater and greater over time. There will be no incentive for people to enrol in advance if we say, "Well, just front up on election day and even if you're not enrolled, we'll get it all sorted then." That will add considerably to the time required, that will delay the publication of the vote, and, as I say, over time the whole process will become more and more cumbersome.
That's where the point that Dr Smith also made is so valid: that it's not just the fact that the voters need to know who the candidates are—and that's why we have a provision for the final date for the closing of nominations for the election—but that the candidates have an absolute right and, I would argue, a responsibility to know who the potential voters are. Now, the moment somebody gets enrolled—
Michael Wood: Nick Smith told us this about 15 minutes ago.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: —on the Electoral Act—Mr Wood, as you would know; you are an electorate member of Parliament—you have the opportunity to contact those particular voters. One way that you might do that is by direct, targeted mail, and I think most candidates have at different times used that opportunity. Of course, you can't do that if you don't have somebody on the roll in the first place, and therefore the ability of the candidate to reach out to the potential voter to sell his or her message, to argue on the things that he or she believes to be most important issues of the campaign, is taken away. I don't believe that that serves the interests of democracy at all well. I don't believe that it results in a well-educated election—
Darroch Ball: What nonsense. Just nonsense.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: "Nonsense.", says Mr Ball. [Time expired]





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Electoral Amendment Bill and to speak to these changes which the Government's ramming through this House in the lead-up to the 2020 election. I just want to take up from where my learned friend the Hon Tim Macindoe left off, speaking about the same-day enrolment changes which the Government is ramming through before the 2020 election, as he says, with a particular desire to try and create some form of electoral advantage in the lead-up to the 2020 election.
I was overhearing some interjections from the member for Mt Roskill where he was trying to tell Mr Macindoe to simply knock on people's doors. Well, Mr Wood might knock on people's doors to do electioneering on election day, but, actually, that's against the law. We can't go out there on election day and knock on people's doors. I'm not sure what some of his union mates might do, but, actually, that's not what our job is.
Election day in New Zealand is a day when all electioneering ends and when we go to vote. Every single other day of the year, all 364 days—well, actually there'll be an extra 365 days this year—we can add enrol to vote and every other year you can enrol to vote on any day of the week, at any time, anywhere; it is up to you. But on election day, it is voting day. That is the day when we go to vote. And the implication of this bill is we are going to have up to a 10-day wait for the election results to come through—an extra 10 days that all New Zealanders will have to wait for the Electoral Commission to go through those potentially around 1 percent of people who didn't enrol prior to election day. To check their enrolment, to actually make sure that they were actually eligible to vote, and then to be able to process their votes will create a 10-day delay. 
And I think it's important that we actually question the 19,000 who attempted to same-day enrol, because I don't know whether there's actually evidence to prove that all 19,000 were actually eligible to vote, if they could have voted. Some of those might have been people on working visas. Some of them may have been under the age of 18. There may have been a range of reasons why they turned up to vote on election day. I think we need to even question that number and I'd ask the Minister of Justice to take a call to explain the evidence behind that 19,000 to prove that they were actually all eligible voters. And I don't think the Minister will have that because they would've had to have gone through the process, the 10-day, extra-long process to actually check to make sure that they would actually all be eligible. 
And so you hear objections from people saying, "Well, yes, MPs, we've got a responsibility to get out there and reach everybody and to make sure we talk to everybody that we can." and we do that. That's the responsibility that we take very seriously—to talk to people regardless of whether they can vote. I don't ask people when they come into my electorate office whether they're on the electoral roll. I don't ask people if they're over the age of 18. I talk to everybody in my electorate who wants to talk to me. I answer their questions. I explain my positions, and I'm happy to meet with them. But actually, when it comes to elections, we have a responsibility, as people standing for office, to reach out and to engage with those people who have the responsibility and the privilege to vote for us. The right to vote is something which I take very seriously. It was something which has been fought for over many, many generations and is something which needs to be protected and something which needs to be honoured. 
And I go back to the point where I started, and that is we have 364 days, or 365 days in a leap year, in which we are entitled to enrol and we have one day in which we have the privilege and the responsibility to vote. And in the National Party's view—in the National Party's view—that should be—
Darroch Ball: You've got a fortnight now; two weeks now.
SIMEON BROWN: Well, yes, you have a two-week advance vote. Yep. You have a two-week advance voting period as well, but we are able to campaign during those times as well. Election day in New Zealand is a very special day in that we aren't, like some other countries, Mr Ball, where you can campaign on election day and all sorts of other weird and wonderful things. Actually in New Zealand it's a peaceful day. The campaign's over and we go to the polls and then that night the election results, preliminary results, come through and then two weeks later, the results. Now, we are going to wait an extra 10 days under these provisions and that is unacceptable for New Zealanders who have a right to know what the results are and who will be forming that Government.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just take the opportunity to respond to some of the comments that have been raised and perhaps just in response to the member who has just resumed his seat, Simeon Brown. He is simply plainly incorrect that on voting days, you know, people can't campaign and knock on doors. They do throughout the entire advanced voting period, which is a period of two weeks leading up to election day. The member is simply wrong about that. 
But there's another member who is wrong about a lot of things, too. So the Hon Dr Nick Smith said a number of things. For example, he said that under the previous Government, nine bills and electoral law changes—all of them done by consensus with an agreement. That is simply incorrect. It's simply not true. So they changed the law to take away the right of those who have been sentenced to prison for less than three years. They took that away. That was a Government bill. Every Government member voted for it. It was approved by the Government caucus and they rammed it through Parliament. No consensus. No consensus. 
We just have to tell the truth in this House—I think it's very important—because here's another thing, too. He said that the first time that he found out about this bill and what we were intending to do was when members of the Justice Committee questioned officials at the select committee. Again, not true. I wrote to the select committee on 4 December 2018, following the report of the Electoral Commission, which made a number of what it described as non-controversial suggestions and I said the Government would pick those up. I did that because the committee was way behind in its timetable for its inquiry into the general election and, as it turns out, it was another full year before that committee even reported on its inquiry. And it was important for these changes that are important—they are about promoting democracy in this great country of ours—and that's why we're doing this. And I'm sorry that members in the Opposition are so tardy and lax. They can't keep up. They don't want to help improve our democracy and will hold up inquiries. That's very unfortunate. 
Can I turn to very, I think, constructive questions raised by the member Chris Penk. He wondered why in, clause 6, the proposed changes to section 88 distinguish between those in New Zealand and those outside New Zealand, and this comes through in a number of aspects. Can I refer the member to the very first operative clause in the bill, which is clause 4 and section 60. This is about who may vote and it distinguishes in new section 60(g) "any person present in New Zealand—(i) who is qualified to be registered as an elector of the district; and (ii) applies, on polling day, for registration". So after section 60(f) a new paragraph (g) just deals with those who are entitled to vote on election day. So if you are outside the country, because the whole notion of election day enrolment is that you've got to both apply and cast your vote and have that counted, it is too problematic for someone outside the country to try to do that. So the benefit of election day enrolment and voting is confined to those who are in the country and who can turn up to an election. I think that answers his other question about "present in New Zealand" and what have you.
Now, there was another question I think the member raised in relation to clause 5 and the form that's used and approved in advance. It follows that in order for a form to be used, it has to be approved and it's typically promulgated by Order in Council, hence the approval. And so the member need not lie awake at night worrying whether the forms that are going to be used—
Hon Member: I have been.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm sure the member—I can see it on his face, but he can rest assured and tell his constituents that all the forms that will be used in the 2020 election will be fully approved, endorsed by Order in Council, and every member, perhaps bar one from Nelson, will be very happy with the approach that we take. 
I thank the member the Hon Tim Macindoe for his adumbration of those parts of the bill that he finds agreeable and indeed his colleagues find agreeable. And again, I, just on the grounds that I've already outlined, challenge his concerns about process in relation to the Electoral Commission's advice about same-day enrolment and voting. Their advice to me was very clear. They were agreeable to the idea. Their preference would be to implement it for 2023. They consider themselves under the previous Government to have been resource constrained and all these other things. We've worked with them to deal with their resource issues. But when I said, "Could, however, it be implemented for 2020?" they said yes it could. And let's get the law on and let's do that, so there's that.
In relation to the extra 10 days, just to be very clear for those who are watching on from home about the extra 10 days. We already have a period by which the writs have to be returned, which is, I think, 50 days. So from the time of the polling, polling day itself, and the time when the writs are returned confirming the final result, it's 50 days, so that is to be extended by 10 days to 60 days. The last time the time available for the Electoral Commission to ensure all the counting was done and was accurate was pushed out was in the 1950s. It was under Sid Holland; it was a National Government at the time. They pushed it out by another 10 days. Because the population's getting bigger and more people are voting, we have to have more time to count these votes to get it accurate, and the same is happening now. So there is nothing unusual about this. The election night interim result will still happen. We will all go to bed on election night—with the odd exception of a few elections—knowing largely, with a reasonable degree of confidence, about who either is going to form the Government or could form a Government. And once the final results are through—
Hon Tim Macindoe: 1993, 1996.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There are exceptions, and Mr Macindoe does highlight the odd exception. But by and large, our robust democracy has survived these little breakouts.
I've just been advised that my reference to the concerns raised by Chris Penk about forms in clause 5, they are not approved by Order in Council, they're approved by the Electoral Commission, so let's not undermine their role. But the Electoral Commission—because they are thorough and good at their job and very professional, and we are pleased to have the Electoral Commission that we do—will do a very good job with those forms.
In terms of the points raised by Simeon Brown, and again he's expressed concern about the 10 days extra, and again, I think Mr Brown need not fret. There's nothing unusual about this. No one is going to lose their jobs, Earth will continue to spin on its axis during this extra 10-day period, and life will carry on. It is interesting to observe in Belgium how they did not have a confirmed Government for, I think, 18 months—it might've been two years—and commerce carried on, people's lives carried on, the kids played sport, the adults played sport, and life was generally good; that will continue to happen during those 10 days. I give that cast-iron guarantee to this House that ordinary life will continue for all citizens during that 10-day period, and no one need fret about it.
This, in the end, is the constant and eternal journey we are all on to perfect our imperfect democracy. We think we're close to perfection but there's more that we can do. These are just little extra steps so that we can just slightly perfect what we've got now. It would be good after the next election, when the Justice Committee does its next inquiry, for it, perhaps, to do it a little more speedily, and then we can kind of bring on these changes. Those changes and doing them in a timely way is important for the Electoral Commission because they need time to prepare, make the changes, organise themselves, and bid for extra resources, where that is needed, so that they can continue to conduct elections in the very expert and professional way that they do.
So on that note, I hope I've answered the members' sensible questions.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Minister of Justice, in that contribution, has confirmed all of the key facts around the concerns from National members.
The first concern we expressed was that this is the fourth electoral amendment bill the Government has advanced without any consultation with Opposition parties. We said that with all nine—and I was very careful with the choice of my words—Government bills that were introduced during the John Key - Bill English years, there was consultation, there was compromise, and there was across-the-Parliament support, and that fact has been confirmed by the Minister.
The second thing that's been confirmed by the Minister is that the Electoral Commission recommended against same-day enrolment and voting for 2020. They said they could do it for 2023 but they recommended against it for 2020. Cabinet and the Minister overruled that because they thought there was an electoral advantage.
Then the third part we said about this bill is that it delays the provision of the final writ on the election result by 10 days. The Minister began by disputing it, and then in his contribution confirmed it. Again, National says that is a concern. That is a delay in which Government can do—my view is that of the three-year electoral cycle, the whole business of government is consumed with the process of the election and the formation of coalitions for too big a portion of that. I remind this Parliament that we spend $1.2 billion per week, and every week that we're not providing the scrutiny and the focus on getting good value for money, and all those things, is a step backwards.
Here's where I want to challenge the Minister. The Minister asserts that we need to extend the period to count the vote because the population is growing. That is garbage. Are we really saying that the United States, it's got 340 million people, needs longer to count their votes than the country of New Zealand that's got 5 million people? That doesn't make sense. Are we saying the UK—it's got 65 million people. Does that mean that they need 13 times as much time as New Zealand to count the votes? Oh, come on, pull the other one. There is no logical argument that says that as your population grows you need to extend the period of which you count the vote. Here's the part on which I think the Minister isn't correct, and that is that in an MMP environment every one of the eight elections that I've been involved in has actually been quite close; the determination of the special votes, one or two seats here or there, can make a marked difference. I'd give the example of 2017. In my view the change that resulted in two seats changing in the final count of the vote from election night was significant; equally so in each of the preceding elections. The argument that the 10 days makes no difference is factually incorrect.
Now I was very encouraged by the Minister's strong support for the Electoral Commission. He said that they're a strong agency, he said they're an organisation that has integrity, and it's an agency of which we're proud, and National members support all of those. Here's the question: why has the Minister been silent when the Deputy Prime Minister—
Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. At the beginning of this committee of the whole House debate, the presiding Chair made it very clear that this debate was to be confined to the matters in this bill, and explicitly ruled out references to other peripheral activity, including issues about donations, and what have you. This member is straying right into the very territory that he was on notice about at the commencement of this debate, that this debate was not going to get into.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the Minister wants to follow that strict rule there was no reason for him to give a set of comments about the competency and the confidence that he had in the Electoral Commission. It is perfectly proper for me to respond to the points that the Minister has made.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank both members. The Minister is correct. At the beginning of this committee stage for this bill the presiding officer did set out the boundaries for this debate. I'm going to ask all members to stay within those boundaries. I was hoping the member was going to not go there, but he should come back to the bill.
While I'm on my feet, all the comments and discussion around the—[Hon Dr Nick Smith standing]
Hon Member: E noho—e noho.
Hon Clare Curran: Sit down.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —hey, I'm on my feet, OK; you don't need to interrupt—processes are not what we're debating. We're debating Part 1 of this bill. If members have a new argument they want to discuss, now would be the time to start bringing it out.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I just want to reinforce that National members totally support the Minister's comments, the Minister of Justice, and his confidence in the Electoral Commission. That's important because the provisions in this part do give the Electoral Commission additional discretion and powers around emergencies and those things. But we do note, with deep concern, the attack by the Deputy Prime Minister on the Electoral Commission, that we think is inappropriate and wrong.
I want to raise a quite specific question in respect of clause 14 of this bill, and that is in relation to the issue around licensed premises. Members across this Chamber might have different views on the justification for the legalisation of cannabis, but it does seem anomalous to me that in this bill the attitude that is taken and being amended around alcohol being sold in premises is not going to apply to those premises—and I have looked at the copy of the Minister's draft bill in respect of cannabis. So my question to the Minister is why is it appropriate that we are going to restrict the provision of polling places on premises that sell alcohol, as is provided in new section 155A, but there is—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Desperate.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member wants to say—well, should we be having a polling booth in a place that the Minister is proposing, a licensed premise to sell cannabis.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I move, That the question be now put.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a reasonably quick one on this occasion, I think. Polling disruption, sir, remaining within Part 1, obviously—my colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe has already spoken about the kinds of situations in which this situation may arise, and I don't intend to either try your patience or, indeed, embarrass myself by giving an inferior rendition of a song already well sung by Mr Macindoe, but it did occur to me that it's interesting that we're talking about disruptions that are unforeseen or unavoidable. It occurs to me now—and I'm embarrassed to say that it didn't occur to me at the time of the select committee consideration, that the phrase "unforeseen or" is somewhat redundant. I mean, one might have a disruption that's unavoidable and, notwithstanding that, one might have foreseen it. It's of no consequence from the perspective of whether polling is disrupted. 
Anyway, that's sort of more by the by, so to speak, but the part that I was wanting to highlight for the sake of the nation is section 195, as it would be, within the existing Act—we're talking about clause 17 of the bill—"Adjournment of poll on polling day", and, actually, I don't really have a question for the Minister so much as I'm wanting to speak to what I actually think is a good bit of lawmaking by the Justice Committee as a whole. The provision that we've created—and, yes, I do include myself in that first-person plural, so I'm patting myself on the back somewhat. What we've got there—actually, if I'm to be fair, the officials gave us some very good advice in this space. 
Looking at the scenario where a poll might be adjourned on polling day, a pretty serious scenario of the kind that Mr Macindoe mentioned—so, without going through them all, they include a riot or disorder, a terrorist act, and so forth. In that situation, the Chief Electoral Officer must consult with a number of people, and they are listed as three items, but they could be more than three people. One is "the Prime Minister;"—well, that makes sense. That person is of course nominally in charge of the country, and I say "nominally" in the sense that one is somewhat a caretaker in that role. But, nevertheless, it's as good an authority as we have, even in that situation in relation to the election. Also, "the Leader of the Opposition;"—I think that's important for a sense of fairness and balance as between the Government and Opposition. 
One thing we did discuss was the fact that that wouldn't mean the leaders of other parties in the Parliament, including in the coalition—for example, if there was a Government coalition or indeed parties that make up the Opposition, notwithstanding that the Leader of the Opposition is not their leader—or Independents, but also similarly precluded would be candidates for the election who are outside of Parliament at that time. We thought that notwithstanding that we were not being fully comprehensive, that was a fair place to land, so to speak, because in the scenario that we're talking about of extreme disruption, an adjournment of poll on polling day is a very serious consequence. It would not be right to force the hand of the Chief Electoral Officer to have to consult with a large number of people, and we thought it was reasonable that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition could brief their respective people and offer a perspective from their respective sides of the aisle. 
Then, we come to the third category of person, which is "any person or organisation that in the Chief Electoral Officer's opinion is able to give information about the scale and duration of the unforeseen or unavoidable disruption;", so that's a different rationale, really. The consultation, I think, in the case of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition is in the nature of giving advice about what is happening and keeping them briefed, really, as opposed to taking advice about the nature of what's happening. But in the case of someone or an organisation that the Chief Electoral Officer might wish to contact and think is appropriate to find out, for example, the prospects of the terrorist act or the riot or the adverse weather condition, and so forth, abating, that's something that we thought was valuable to provide at that time. 
Similarly, in the case of a notice being given of adjournment, "as soon as is reasonably practical" after that direction, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are to be notified. Again, I suppose we'd have a reasonable expectation that they would represent the interests of a pretty large proportion of the population between them. Then, to give public notice in any way that seems appropriate—there's a degree of flexibility there, recognising that in the case of a terrorist activity, etc., it might be possible to be a bit creative about the way that information gets out there. 





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the question be now put.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Jami-Lee Ross' amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 324 are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Part 1 agreed to.





Part 2  Related amendments and repeals
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'll just speak very briefly on this part of the bill, and this includes a number of consequential amendments just to make sense of the rest and tidy up the relevant regulations. 
I note in particular, in clause 19, the change to regulation 12 of the Electoral Regulations. That, again, is consistent with the newly acquired right of those who wish to cast a vote but who are not on the roll at the time of the election day to turn up on election day and to both enrol and cast a vote. That provides the mechanics for the Electoral Commission to send the returning officer a list of the persons whose names have been entered on the electoral roll for that district after writ day and up to the end of polling day. 
The only other part I would draw the committee's attention to, which I thought was interesting, is the allowance and disallowance of votes of members of the Defence Force. So every effort is made to ensure that members of the Defence Force serving here or overseas can participate in our democracy—the very values of which they are, in fact, defending abroad. So we want to do our best to make sure that their vote counts, and that is provided for in that particular regulation. On that basis, I conclude my remarks.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): There's a very strong consensus across the Parliament around the importance of our defence personnel that are serving overseas that the provision by which they are able to vote is made as easy as possible for them, and we are supportive of the provisions in Part 2 and replacement regulation 52, set out in clause 24, that provide for that. We would argue, on this side of the Chamber, that those brave men and women that are serving in our armed forces, defending the very values of democracy, have, at least, the same right as anybody else to vote, and it is proper that Parliament makes specific identification of their issues to enable them to participate.
We'd also note the regulation changes, that there was some discussion in the Justice Committee around the issue of supermarket voting. It's an innovation that National introduced, and supermarkets these days are one of the places where people most frequent and it is entirely appropriate that we make voting as easy as possible. The issue that the select committee spent some time on was that the law requires that the votes be removed from the voting place and that they be counted in a place that's free of other people. I think we'd all agree that it's not particularly appropriate to have returning officers in a busy supermarket continuing to count the votes. So there has been a change to allow the votes to be removed from the actual polling place but still counted. On the amendments that the select committee made that've been carried through into the regulations, it is our view on this side of the Chamber, not because we have any concerns about the Electoral Commission, but that it is good practice to always ensure that scrutineers are able to stay with the polling boxes, that where we are using those extra provisions, that that is able to be done, and that has been carried through in the amendments provided for in Part 2. We're pleased that there has been sensible amendment by the Government to ensure we maintain that belt and braces approach to the protection of the security of those voting boxes.
The one part of which we have difference of view in respect of Part 2 of this bill is in respect of the regulations that, again, are designed to allow these late enrolments. Our view is that the Electoral Commission and the taxpayer go to extraordinary efforts to make it as easy as possible for people to enrol. Anybody in this Parliament that suggests that somehow it's hard, I'm surprised by how many opportunities there are for people to get themselves on to the roll. We are actually going well beyond what most democracies—where you look around the world, and you ask the question, "Do most liberal democracies, of which we respect, make sure that there is a separate enrolment process?" The reason for that separate enrolment process is that while we share the value that we want as many New Zealanders to vote as possible, we also want to ensure the integrity of the vote. By ensuring that there is a proper enrolment process, in our view, separate to the process of voting is adding to the integrity of the role, and that is best practice internationally around the running of elections.
So the provisions that we have in clauses like 19 that are designed to facilitate this Government proposal for us to have people simply enrol on election day and vote at the same time is long term going to undermine our system of elections. Effectively, with these regulations we are saying to New Zealanders there is no bother, though, bothering yourself with trying to enrol. There's absolutely no requirement, if we pass these regulations, for anybody to bother enrolling. Why do it? Why, if there's absolutely no restriction on your capacity to vote, would people bother to enrol? I think that is a dangerous and wrong culture to establish. I think the long-established principle in New Zealand electoral law, going all the way back to the 1850s, that people—and, actually, all around the world—need to make the effort, they need to get themselves on the roll, and as a consequence of doing that they are then able to exercise their free and democratic right to have a say in the governance of this country.
So, again, National, in Part 2, would want to express our concern about this obsession by this Government of doing something that most democracies do not allow to do. Very, very few democracies around the world exercise the capacity to enrol and vote on the same day that it's facilitated.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. As Dr Nick Smith has just noted, in most respects Part 2 is not overly controversial. In fact, it's largely amendments that are consequential upon the more substantive provisions of Part 1 of the bill that we've been debating. But there is still, nevertheless, that very controversial aspect to which Dr Smith has just been alluding.
Just before I deal with a couple of points in Part 2, I just want to draw the attention of the member Darroch Ball to the wording of the report, because when we were having the debate in the second reading last Thursday, Mr Ball on several occasions used the term "the National Party minority view". When I took my call, I pointed out to him that the National Party had not expressed a minority view because we're not in a minority on that committee. It's a split committee. Mr Ball then—and I didn't have a chance to respond then, so I'm responding now—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No. Thank you. Yeah, I presided over that, and so we're not relitigating the second reading; we're actually debating Part 2 of this bill. So, what happened in the second reading? The House accepted the bill, and now we're going through each part. This is not the time to be examining the process. I want the member to actually speak to the bill, not to the process.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Absolutely understand that, sir, and I wasn't seeking to relitigate. I was simply going to point out that the word "minority" doesn't appear in that report as the member had indicated. But for Part 2, I'm in the slightly unusual position as a member of the committee of now asking the—
Greg O'Connor: Build a bridge and get over it.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: As the real party of infrastructure, Mr O'Connor, I'm happy to assure him that we'll be doing that on numerous occasions, should we be given the privilege to govern again. But unfortunately, at the moment, infrastructure has come to a shuddering halt thanks to the actions of his Government. But then I really would be transgressing well beyond the scope of the bill. I'm simply responding to the member's totally inappropriate interjection. 
What I was about to ask the Minister to do was to focus on clause 19 in Part 2. He has already drawn our attention to it, he referred to it in his opening comments, but I don't feel that he's really given an explanation as to why that particular clause is necessary and—to the average punter reading it—it could seem to be slightly convoluted. So I would be interested to know—and I think some who are listening to this debate at this moment would be interested to know—why is this particular clause necessary after the votes have been cast? And I mean necessary in the sense of why does it have to be written into this particular bill when it's something that would be happening anyway? Is he concerned that it might otherwise not happen? I'd just be interested in his comment on that. There may be a very good reason and, if so, I look forward to hearing what it is.
I also do want to pick up on the point that Dr Nick Smith was referring to with respect to members of the New Zealand Defence Force, because I think all New Zealanders—or certainly the vast majority of us—hold members of the New Zealand Defence Force in the highest regard and for very good reason. They serve us extraordinarily well, courageously, and with great diligence, and they thoroughly deserve our highest respect and admiration.
So regulation 52 in clause 24 refers to the "Allowance or disallowance of votes of members of Defence Force". Of course, at any time when there's a general election, there will be members of the New Zealand Defence Force who will be deployed overseas or perhaps just deployed in such a way on some sort of training within New Zealand—maybe in the navy, out to sea, or whatever—whereby it's much more difficult for them to cast their votes than it would be for a civilian.
But regulation 52(1) refers to "The Returning Officer for the district in respect of which a special vote has been cast in an election by a member of the Defence Force must allow the special vote if"—then (a) and (b). Again, I'm wondering what has changed so much to make it necessary for this to be written into the bill. There may be, again, a very good reason. My colleague the member for Helensville is a former member of the Defence Force. He may well take a call and be able to shed some light on this, but I'm wondering if the Minister can just give a little bit of history to explain what has led to this particular regulation 52(1)(a) and (b) being written in. And, of course, regulation 52(2) comes to the conclusion that "If a special vote cast by a member of the Defence Force is not allowed under subclause (1), the Returning Officer must disallow the special vote." Well, I would imagine that that is equally applicable to somebody who's not a member of the Defence Force. 
So I'm just genuinely puzzled as to why it is necessary for this to be a special provision in the bill. It probably wouldn't take a long time for the Minister to answer, and there may well be a very simple explanation, but I am hoping that we will hear it and look forward to hearing from him when possible. 





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. As anticipated by my colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe, I would indeed like to take a call just to comment briefly on the members of the Defence Force regulation within the electoral regulations, as amended by Part 2 of this bill.
There's a particularly corny line in some kind of military film—I think it was actually on a submarine—and it was to the effect, and I'll excuse myself from the American accent: "We're here to defend democracy, not to practise it." But in fact, as has already been alluded to by the Chair, I think it was—the fact that our Defence Force people are indeed defending the values of democracy isn't a good reason for them not to have the opportunity to practise it. 
In 2007, I was a member of the Australian Defence Force and had the opportunity to cast a vote in that election. I was overseas, even from the point of view of Australia—I think in the Middle East—and I would just like to place on record that notwithstanding the laws of that country that require voting, I did not avail myself of the opportunity to vote. I may have broken the law, but at least I cannot be blamed for the rise and then the fall and then the rise and then the fall of Kevin Rudd. 
I'm just interested in the fact that there's a witness needed to sign a declaration. I suppose it's inevitable that Defence Force personnel, even on deployment, will have the opportunity to have a witness available to sign and verify the declaration that they have made under regulation 52 of the Electoral Regulations 1996. On Navy ships, this might be in what's called the ship's office where a new sailor would be encouraged to go and ask for a "thick regulator", which sounds like a bit of engineering kit but, actually, it's a rude way of describing one of the naval policemen or police persons. A regulator being, sort of, the shorthand for that, in the way of being asked for a can of striped paint, or a left-handed hammer, and so on.
Anyway, a member of the Defence Force, I presume, civilian or uniform alike, is captured by the regulations. So it seems sensible, for the reasons that others have stated, that we provide, in these consequential amendments, for the regulation to be amended in this way, even though, actually, I do share the point—I can't elucidate the matter that Mr Macindoe has raised in relation to that, so the Minister might have to spare both of our blushes.
My final note is just the circular nature, which amused me—nothing wrong with it. Replacement regulation 52(2), set out in clause 24, states that "If a special vote cast by a member of the Defence Force is not allowed … the Returning Officer must disallow [it]." I suppose you can't really say much, other than the fact that if it's not allowed, it must be disallowed. Fair enough, I guess. So I'll leave it there for tonight. Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Minister and anyone else able to provide further comments on that, all the best.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'll just take this opportunity to respond as briefly as I can to the very good points raised by the Hon Tim Macindoe and Chris Penk. Just on the last point, to Mr Penk, there is a difference between something that is not allowed and the act of disallowing it. One, I think, requires the application of intellectual or physical force, the other is a state of being.
In relation to clause 19 of the bill that, I think, Mr Macindoe raised, which is about the Electoral Commission sending to the returning officer, basically, the up-to-date list of people who enrolled on election day. There is an existing provision that that provision emulates, but obviously it aligns with the fact that the enrolment now goes right down to the end of polling day. It is obviously to ensure that the returning officer has an accurate roll against which to count the votes. So it's an existing provision amended just to accommodate the election day enrolment.
Then in relation to clause 24 and the provisions for members of the Defence Force—there is also an existing provision, and the only material change to the provision in the bill is the removal of a reference to form 20. It looks different because the previous regulation was drafted some time ago in the days when the Parliamentary Counsel Office did seem to be interested in the number of words being used. It seems to be less of an issue these days. So a lot more words are used to achieve exactly the same thing, apart from the deletion of form 20, but that is what that provision amounts to. I hope I have answered the members' questions.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I move, That the question be now put.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Firstly, can I congratulate the Minister on the small piece of regulatory reduction that has occurred by removing reference to both form 20 and form 21. The only thing I would note is it is a small step forward for the overwhelming—one small step for man, when at a time the Government is passing so much extra regulation. But it is a good step, and I want to acknowledge that.
The bit where I am wanting the Minister to make a further contribution is around clause 19, and this ongoing debate that we're having around the issues of writ day and its extension by a further 10 days. That is part of clause 19 in regulation 12. That is the rationale for New Zealanders having to wait a further 10 days under that regulation for the Electoral Commission to conclude the election cycle. I think most New Zealanders out there find the uncertainty that already exists between the results on election night and the time it takes to get the writs—and, of course, you've then got the significant period of time. In the first-past-the-post days, we generally got a pretty clean election result and, from writ day, the Government could get on with business.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member but it has come time for me to report progress.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill with amendment, and progress on the Electoral Amendment Bill.
Report adopted.
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.