WEDNESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
VISITORS
New Caledonia—President of the Congress
SPEAKER: I'm sure members would wish to welcome Roch Wamytan, President of the Congress of New Caledonia, who is to my left, and his delegation, who are present in the gallery. 
President Roch Wamytan, accompanied by Assistant Speaker Rurawhe, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 





EVIDENCE (DEFENDANT'S SILENCE AT TRIAL) AMENDMENT BILL
Introduction—Leave Declined
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I seek leave to introduce the Evidence (Defendant's Silence at Trial) Amendment Bill, a member's bill in my name, and for the bill to be set down as members' order of the day No. 1. 
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process being followed? There is. 





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly this Government's economic management, which has seen the median disposable income after housing costs increase 10 percent over the past two years. It fell, I should note, 1.8 percent in 2017, under the National Government. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Deputy Prime Minister accountable to her for his behaviour? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member, having previously been a Minister, well understands the Cabinet Manual. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't know whether you heard that question, but MPs and Ministers may be "accountable", but they're not "countable", and that's what he said. 
Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, he's counting, all right. 
SPEAKER: I was contemplating ruling it out for another reason, but I've been asked to be liberal for both sides, and I will continue to do that. And, Mr Robertson, please don't act like a fourth-former. 
Hon Simon Bridges: So does she accept that the Cabinet Manual states "Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour."? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, obviously—and that's why I referred to the Cabinet Manual. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think it is an appropriate response for the Deputy Prime Minister to play "Radio Ga Ga" to press gallery journalists attempting to ask him serious questions? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don't see how that is relevant to the Cabinet Manual.
Hon Simon Bridges: Was her Deputy Prime Minister's refusal to answer questions from the media yesterday an example of just how far her Government has fallen from her pledge that her Government would be more open and transparent?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would remind the member that when asked about very similar matters on his side, the member himself also deferred answering questions that related to his party, and he would do well to remember that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister: why would a member of Parliament or, dare I say it, a Minister be responsible for answering questions to the media when the party that's setting the questions up hasn't got the courage to ask that member one question in the House?
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why doesn't he ask me a question? Because he'd get toasted—that's why.
SPEAKER: I'll remind the Deputy Prime Minister, as the most experienced member in the House, that he does not add to his contribution once his bottom hits his seat. I will say that the Prime Minister has a lot of responsibility, but why people won't ask him questions is not one of them.
Hon Simon Bridges: What does it take for a Minister in her Government to be stood down by the Prime Minister?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I maintain absolute responsibility for every decision that I make as the Prime Minister in this House, and I stand by every one that I have made to date. But, again, the member may wish to reflect on whether or not he is setting a standard here that he himself will not keep.
Hon Simon Bridges: What does a Minister have to do to get reprimanded by the Prime Minister?
Hon Shane Jones: Trifling—trifling.
SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I stand by every decision I have made as Prime Minister and the leadership I have shown on the issues that I have had to face to date. I would remind the member that whilst he is referring to Ministers, he himself is attempting to become the leader of New Zealand, and he is applying a standard here that he himself is not applying to him.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which party's political donations are the subject of four court cases right now?
SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister does not have responsibility for those prosecutions. I think if we got to the point of asking the Prime Minister general questions about who's before the courts for what, that would be an unhealthy stretch from current prime ministerial responsibility.
Hon Simon Bridges: What is her response to the comment made by Heather Du Plessis-Allan earlier this week that the Prime Minister "looks either completely spineless or completely disinterested in running this country with integrity."?
SPEAKER: Order! The member knows, because he is an experienced member, that dressing up something which is out of order in a quote is in itself out of order. He will not repeat that.




Question No. 2—Regional Economic Development
2. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How is the Provincial Growth Fund supporting drought-stricken areas in Northland?
SPEAKER: And on this occasion, it is the Hon Shane Jones' chance to answer a question for himself, not for someone else.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Thank you for those words of wisdom. They shall fall in the appropriate place. The Provincial Growth Fund, supporting—
SPEAKER: If I could wave a finger at the member, I would.
Hon SHANE JONES: Up to $2 million has been allocated to set up temporary water supplies in Kaikohe and Kaitāia, funding the infrastructure necessary to pipe water from a Sweetwater farm and, in Kaikohe, from Lake Ōmāpere. Up to $2 million will also be supported by approximately $400,000 from the Far North District Council. Former Ministry for Primary Industries director-general Martyn Dunne will lead the project, reflective of how concerned the Government is to address outstanding issues in provincial New Zealand.
Jenny Marcroft: Why has this intervention been necessary?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: "Because we cancelled the previous Government's fund."
Marja Lubeck: You're useless.
Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, there are noises from the—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Who made that interjection? Who made it?
Hon Member: Which one?
SPEAKER: The one that was directed at me. Marja Lubeck will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Marja Lubeck: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: And it's not a wise thing to do.
Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, there were noises from the other side of the House. However, I realise some MPs may thunder out into the provinces and whimper in this House. I'm a lion on all occasions. Last week, Damien O'Connor, Minister, announced that the Northland drought is an adverse event. It has begun to affect essential facilities—schools are threatened, hospitals, old people's homes. A variety of essential services are at risk. Trucking water to the regions is proving to be prohibitively expensive. Residents should be able to go about their lives knowing that we believe, although you live in isolated parts of New Zealand, they deserve First World services, and I'm happy to accommodate those demands.
Jenny Marcroft: What other water storage schemes have been supported by the Provincial Growth Fund?
Hon SHANE JONES: Just to dispel any misapprehensions that the love is only being shared in the north, Wairarapa has been in receipt of significant support, and I acknowledge the various MPs—in particular, the right honourable Ron Mark and my colleague here from Labour—for their advocacy that Wairarapa not be overlooked. In addition to that, we are addressing concerns in the Kaipara Harbour because land-use change is on its way. But the Government cannot step back and remain aloof from the requests for assistance from landowners. Consequently, the first citizen of the provinces is stepping up for Northland yet again.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I've seen a range of reports which demonstrate the underlying strength of the New Zealand economy. The latest BNZ-Business NZ Performance of Services Index (PSI) shows that the services sector expanded in January at its fastest rate since March 2018. The PSI reading for January was 57.1, up five points from December, the third-largest one-month gain in the survey's history. BNZ economists said that the details "oozed strength", with new orders, sales, and employment all sitting above their respective long-term averages. Similarly, the ANZ Truckometer indicated a steady start to the year for our transport industry, with both the Light Traffic Index and the Heavy Traffic Index up. ANZ sees the recent slow-down in economic momentum, having found a floor, consistent with its economic forecasts. While these reports both show a positive start to the year for the economy, they both warn of uncertainty and risk created by the COVID-19 virus.
Dr Duncan Webb: What are the emerging risks from the COVID-19 virus?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury has been developing scenarios alongside the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Reserve Bank to help understand the potential economic impacts that the COVID-19 outbreak may have on New Zealand. Obviously, the virus is having an impact on global supply chains and confidence that goes along with that. Therefore, Treasury's latest advice is it will have a negative but temporary impact on directly exposed sectors such as tourism, export education, and some primary industries such as forestry and seafood. This will be felt in the GDP data for the first and second quarters of 2020, and Treasury then expects economic activity to return to normal as global growth picks up and supply conditions normalise in the second half of the year. Independent bank forecasters are therefore pointing to 2 to 2.5 percent growth in 2020.
Dr Duncan Webb: How is the Government managing and mitigating the risks posed by COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are in a good position to respond to any impacts of the virus because our economy, ultimately, is in good shape. There are the travel restrictions that people will be aware of, and just in the last couple of days, we've announced an investment of an initial $11 million into a tourism package to support what is an incredibly important sector to New Zealand, in an acknowledgment of the crucial role that China does play in our tourism industry. Looking ahead, we remain vigilant. If the virus outbreak is prolonged and the economic effects are sustained, other scenarios may come into play. We are working through those as part of the Treasury, MBIE, and Reserve Bank work.




Question No. 4—Prime Minister
4. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly this Government's measures to boost the incomes of the lowest-income earners, which saw 46,000 people lifted out of poverty last year. Now, despite some of the stats that you hear quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, this is actually the first data that starts to show—just starts to show—some of the impact of the Government's Families Package and minimum wage increase, and it demonstrates they are making a difference to people's lives.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she support the Commissioner for Children's statement earlier this week that the right to silence should be abolished in child abuse cases?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I agree with his sentiment; I think all New Zealanders would. The situation where we have no one being held responsible for what is a devastating case is something that of course we want to see changed. I would say to the member: I don't think we'd be in disagreement on this. I know some years ago this was something that the National Party faced when they were in Government. They sought to make law changes. Clearly, that hasn't necessarily been the solution we needed. We're now going ahead and looking again to see whether or not there are other solutions, and this is one of those issues where if the member would like to join us, I'd welcome it.
Hon Simon Bridges: What will I be joining her in?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In finding a solution that works, because the last attempt by the last Government didn't. It doesn't need to be political. It's a solution for kids.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will her Government make it an offence to criminalise the non-disclosure of information relating to child abuse cases?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will well know, some attempts such as that had been used in other countries unsuccessfully. Surely, what we want to do is something effective. We are looking at the experience of Australia, where they have not had successful convictions through their law change. So we are looking at this issue, but we're looking for a solution, not something that's failed.
Hon Simon Bridges: So is it then the case that her and her Government will not support an offence to criminalise the non-disclosure of information relating to child abuse cases?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I implore the member to work with us as we find something that works. The evidence is that what Victoria did failed. The evidence is that what you last tried to do, unfortunately, has failed. None of us want a situation where a child can be harmed in this way and no one is held to account. So the member will forgive us if we've only had a few days to work on this, but we are going to keep going.
Hon Simon Bridges: So is it—
SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, before the member goes on—and I apologise to him—Mr Jones, Mr Davis, Mr Robertson, and about 10 members from this side, led by the shadow Leader of the House, are making it very hard for me to hear the Prime Minister. I think all members agree that this is a serious issue. People might have different solutions and different views, but I think, given the seriousness of it, members should let other members hear what's being said by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is it the case, to be clear, that she and her Government will not support an offence to criminalise the non-disclosure of information relating to child abuse cases?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We'll support an initiative that works. Again, I come back to the Victoria 2014 law. Failure to disclose has led to eight charges and zero convictions in, basically, six years. I know the member feels deeply about this; so do I. So we need to find something that will work, not just on paper but in reality, for kids.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister that the right to silence does not exist in the case of the Serious Fraud Office having an investigation into party fund-raising?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That's not a discussion I've had.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will she find a solution to the Ihumātao land dispute soon given that the chief executive of Fletcher's today has said they are "not in a position to hold off [the] development indefinitely." and certainly won't wait another seven months for a resolution to the dispute?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That continues to be my ambition.




Question No. 5—Housing
5. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to prevent homelessness in New Zealand?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Homelessness Action Plan was released last week, and it aims to both prevent people becoming homeless in the first place and reduce the reliance on motels by increasing the supply of transitional housing. We'll deliver a thousand new transitional housing places by the end of the year, which adds to the 1,300 places we've already created since the Government was formed. We're also providing funding to expand a range of other initiatives to ensure people have the support they need to avoid becoming homeless. But we recognise that there is more to do, because we're committed to making sure every New Zealander has a warm, dry, secure home to live in.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Nice speech—it means nothing.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm just going to say to the shadow Leader of the House that I think he asked seven supplementary questions during that answer. Can I just suggest that if he really wants to have one, he stands up.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was no answer, Mr Speaker, so it'd be a waste of time asking the question.
SPEAKER: Well, actually, if the member cares to go back and reflect on what was said, I think at least three of his supplementary questions were answered. It's a matter of listening.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does this fit with other actions the Government is taking to prevent homelessness?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Alongside the thousand additional places we're delivering, of which I note 63 were available on the day of the announcement, and 39 had families living in them, we've put in place the largest public house build programme in a generation, with 4,000 new places added since we took office. It was unfortunate that at a time when demand for public housing was rising, the previous Government sold off State houses. We stopped that and we're putting things right by getting on and building more public housing.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What reaction has she seen to the Government's Homelessness Action Plan?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I've seen a range of very encouraging comments about the Government's plan. For example, Scott Figenshow, chief executive of Community Housing Aotearoa, said, "In 10 years' time, New Zealand will look back on this announcement as a turning point in how we bring an end to the housing crisis." Unfortunately, I've also heard one commentator describe the Government's action to prevent homelessness as "knee-jerk, wasteful expenditure". That dismissive tone to a serious crisis came from the leader of the National Party, and, frankly, I find it disgraceful.




Question No. 6—Justice
6. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements and policies?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): In relation to statements, I stand by all but one of them, which I'll talk about shortly. In relation to policies, I stand by the Government's policies, since as Minister I have none of my own. In relation to statements, at question time last week, I made a statement that there was concern about the National Party funnelling donations to electorate candidates through their party, including to the Hon Nick Smith, whose only declared donation in the 2017 election was a $25,000 donation from the National Party. I'd like to set the record straight—that, in fact, Nick Smith had two donations, one from the National Party for $25,000, and another for $223.30 but also from the National Party.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement that protecting the freedom of the press is vital to holding those in authority to account; if so, is the photographing and social media intimidation of journalists, as has occurred in the last week, consistent with Government policy?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In relation to the first part of the question and in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, yes.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he, noting his statements about the importance of the free press, share the concerns of the union E tū that the photographing and vilifying of journalists last week was "chillingly similar to countries where press freedom is suppressed"?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have noted both my statements and those of E tū.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is his stated policy of promoting freedom of the press supported by a journalist being called "a psycho" by the Deputy Prime Minister for asking questions about the propriety of a $15 million application for Government money from parties closely associated with the New Zealand First Foundation?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand by the letter of the law and the spirit of the law as contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which protects—through the application of the Act, in consideration of when laws are being applied—the protection of the freedom of expression.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe it's consistent with the freedom of the press for media officers to be raided by the police, and, if so, is he aware of any examples where that has happened in recent times in New Zealand?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, I would be most concerned if those in positions of power and authority were to use the powers—perhaps of the police—to raid the offices of journalists and broadcasters and publishers, and I'm aware that that has happened in recent New Zealand history.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does—
SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sit down. Can I ask the Minister whether or not he has heard of any examples in this country, in this country's law, or anywhere around the free and Western World where an inquiry has been sought into an application for funding that failed?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think that there have been inquiries of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature into a number of things, including into an application for a grant that was declined, and that has also happened in recent New Zealand history.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does his statement last night that "The Electoral Commission are thorough, good at their job, and very professional." give him confidence in their determination last week that New Zealand First's donations were not properly disclosed under the Electoral Act?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand by my statements and my general support of the Electoral Commission, and I note that they have a power of inquiry but they do not determine guilt or innocence of breaches of that Act or any other Act.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Which statement is correct: his statement last night "The Electoral Commission are thorough, good at their job, and very professional." or the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister last week that "The commission has no proof and no evidence and should be damned."; which statement is correct?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: A point of order—I think I know what it is, but—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, Mr Speaker. That is a statement from that questioner which I did not make, and that last word proves that. He cannot recite the evidence for the quote he gave.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, I'd be happy to table the news report that exactly quotes the words that I used in the question of what the Deputy Prime Minister said in criticising the Electoral Commission.
SPEAKER: I think we'll go straight to answering the question. I think it's the easiest way of—
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In light of the scope of the primary question, I continue to stand by all of my statements.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the Minister not repeated his previous statements on the importance of freedom of the media with the repeated attacks, in the last week, on those freedoms, with journalists being ridiculed—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's finished his question.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On every occasion I have been called upon to stand in support of journalists' rights and responsibilities and freedom of the press and freedom of expression, I have done so.




Question No. 7—Finance
7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his policies and statements?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context they were made and given. In particular, I stand by my statement yesterday about the situation this Government inherited where "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, and not enough police officers.", and that we're getting on with fixing that.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his statement to Radio New Zealand on 19 November last year regarding Ihumātao that the Government was continuing efforts to find a solution that respected all parties including the Crown, mana whenua, and Fletcher's?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he understand the frustration of Fletcher's chief executive, Ross Taylor, when he said today, "The reality is … we are … legal owners of a piece of land which is fully consented, that is empathetic to iwi considerations … and which we are entitled to develop."?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think if the member refers to Mr Taylor's full statement, he will talk about the fact that he believes that a solution is close to hand.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who will pay for the seven months' delay that Fletcher's has suffered?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Any issues around what will happen with payments are to come in the future, and I'm not in a position to comment on them today.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it not the case that more houses have been stopped from being built at Ihumātao than have been built by his Government's $2 billion KiwiBuild programme?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we're extremely proud of the housebuilding that's gone on under this Government. The fact that more than 3,000 houses have been built, and the fact that we've actually got public housing finally going forward after nine years of it going backwards and State houses being sold off, means we can be very proud of the houses we have built.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it the case that more houses have been stopped from being built at Ihumātao than have been built by his Government's $2 billion KiwiBuild programme?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that had the last Government built houses at the rate of this Government, we would not have the waiting lists that we currently have?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely can confirm that for the Prime Minister. The fact that—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No you can't.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, no we can, Mr Brownlee, because the rate of houses that we're building now is something that Government never even got near. At the same time, in the middle of a housing crisis, the response of that Government was to sell State houses. It is a disgraceful legacy, Mr Brownlee.
Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister seen reports that in the electorate of Napier, for example, the previous Government pulled down over 140 State housing units and built absolutely none?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In fact, I have. The member for Napier has been a consistent advocate for housing in his area, and finally, under this Government, he is starting to see some progress on that.




Question No. 8—Health
8. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about upgrading mental health and addiction facilities?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This Government is taking mental health seriously. We're building new services, and we're investing in new and upgraded facilities that support people's care and treatment. As part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, $96 million has been set aside for new and improved mental health and addiction facilities. That $96 million is on top of the $200 million that was ring-fenced for mental health facilities in Budget 2019. This additional investment will make a huge difference to mental health workers and the people that they care for.
Angie Warren-Clark: How will the Bay of Plenty benefit from mental health investment?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: So far, we've announced funding for four projects as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. Two of these are in the Bay of Plenty: $30 million has been set aside for the development of a new acute mental health facility at Tauranga Hospital, and a further $15 million for the facility at Whakatāne Hospital.
Hon Member: So good.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It is so good. I visited the mental health facility in Whakatāne last year and it was tired, and well past its use-by date. These investments will mean the Bay of Plenty has modern mental health facilities that better support people's care and are fit to meet future demand.
Ginny Andersen: How will the mighty Hutt Valley benefit from mental health investments?
SPEAKER: Order! The member will ask her question without—while I might well agree with the adjective, it's not something that should be part of the question.
Ginny Andersen: How will the Hutt Valley benefit from mental health investments?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As Minister of Health, I have visited mental health and addiction facilities across New Zealand, and all too often it's been clear to me that they have been neglected for many years. In the Hutt Valley, $25 million will be invested in a new acute mental health facility. This will be welcome news not just for the local representative who asked the question but also for the people that use the facility and for the staff that look after them it will provide a more therapeutic and culturally appropriate environment. In Taranaki, as well, $5 million has been set aside there to allow the DHB to complete refurbishments of its mental health facility. All these New Zealand upgrade projects build on earlier investments in mental health and addiction facilities, including at Hillmorton in Christchurch and the new facilities in Tai Rāwhiti, Hamilton, and Palmerston North.




Question No. 9—Justice
9. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement, "I could not conceive of such a power to compel someone to make a statement", and will the Government criminalise the non-disclosure of information relating to child abuse cases?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): In relation to the first part of the member's question, I stand by my full statement that "The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 sets out people's basic rights and equally determines the power of the State and its agencies. No person can be compelled to submit to an interview with the police apart from an obligation to provide identifying details, name, address, and occupation. I could not conceive of such a power to compel someone to make a statement ever being acceptable to New Zealanders". In relation to the second part of the member's question, I note that the previous Government considered mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse that would have been accompanied by a criminal sanction when they made changes to the Oranga Tamariki Act, and they decided not to progress that provision. They had the chance and they didn't take it then.
Hon Mark Mitchell: When he said, yesterday on Magic Talk radio, "Tell me what the law is to change that doesn't encroach on the longstanding kind of protections for innocent people we have", does he believe that family members who close rank and refuse to disclose information about child abuse to police when they're asked are innocent bystanders?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand with all New Zealanders who are absolutely appalled and outraged at the fact that a little infant boy sits in a hospital bed in Auckland because those who were charged with looking after him and loving him and caring for him did not do so. That is an outrage on the values of all New Zealanders and New Zealand. However, we need to make sure that when the police are conducting their inquiries, they do so with a legal framework that means that they get to do their job but without encroaching on basic rights and protections that every citizen has. Right now, the police are struggling to find someone to give any indication about who might have been in close proximity to that boy as they conduct their investigation. What I also pity is the fact that in these very difficult situations when the police are trying to do their job, when a community is trying to support the police in doing their job, there are those who would take political advantage.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Whose rights does the Minister think are more important: the four-year-old child that we have lying with a serious brain injury in Starship hospital or the adults who are closing ranks, refusing to cooperate with police, and not allowing the perpetrator to be identified, arrested, and charged?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand firmly with the rights of that little infant boy who sits in that hospital bed. Who I do not stand with are politicians who grandstand, who make calls for law changes that they would never contemplate, who make calls for law changes that when they had the opportunity in 2017 to do that did nothing about it.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the member confirm that the sad and appalling situation of silence around child abuse has happened before, and it was under the last Government and their actions at that time that was not to change this convention but instead to create an offence of failing to take reasonable steps to protect a child or vulnerable adult, that that has not resulted in a solution here, and that that is not a case for blame but a case for us to find another solution?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I agree with the Prime Minister that the duty on all those who are in a position to do so is to find solutions that work. In fairness to the previous Government, at least when Judith Collins was the Minister and shepherded through the 2011 law change, it did make some difference, there have been charges laid, and there have been convictions reached. The Victorian state legislation, passed in 2014, which did decriminalise failure to disclose, while it led to eight charges, has led to absolutely no convictions. But it's on that basis that I have asked justice officials to have a close look at the way—when the police are interviewing somebody, when there is a real prospect of prosecution and laying a charge, that we change the warning that is given so it shifts the balance toward an emphasis on disclosure by the person being interviewed, and not the right to silence.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister think that it's grandstanding when members of this Parliament are highly offended by the fact that we have a four-year-old Kiwi child in Starship hospital—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. He knows that's not a question.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: A supplementary question on this occasion, Mr Mitchell.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does he think New Zealanders would not accept a law change that would criminalise the non-disclosure of information relating to child abuse?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Because if they were prepared to accept it, the previous Government would have done it when it had the opportunity to do so.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Will he work with National to pass legislation that will help ensure those that perpetrate violence against our children are held to account?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm prepared to work with any member of this House who is prepared to do something useful, sensible, and that will actually work.




Question No. 10—Transport
10. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Why has the Government not gone out to the market and invited other bids for the Auckland light rail project, when he said yesterday, "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"?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I stand by my comments of yesterday. NZ Infra submitted an unsolicited proposal for the delivery of light rail in Auckland. Consistent with procurement guidelines, the Government is giving further consideration to that proposal. It's doing this by considering it against the alternative option of a procurement led by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). Following the Cabinet decision on our preferred delivery partner, the market will then be able to engage with either NZ Infra or NZTA.
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just reflect on that answer and whether or not it actually addressed the—
SPEAKER: I listened to it very, very carefully, and I studied the question very carefully, and it was answered.
Chris Bishop: Why did the Government not see if there was any interest in the wider international infrastructure construction market in building Auckland light rail, particularly once it received an unsolicited bid to build it?
SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to ask the member to rephrase that in light of the answer that was received.
Chris Bishop: What were the Government's reasons for not testing the feasibility of building light rail in Auckland with the wider international construction market?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because it's necessary to follow the Government procurement guidelines.
Chris Bishop: Why has the Government limited itself to only two preferred delivery partners for Auckland light rail?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because the Government procurement guidelines contain a process explicitly designed to deal with unsolicited bids, and we believe it was right to follow those guidelines.
Chris Bishop: Is he seriously saying to the House that, in the event that the Government receives an unsolicited bid for a project that the Government is seeking to procure, the procurement guidelines compel the Government to then put that unsolicited bid up against the other proposal on the table, and that's it?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The guidelines contain a process for dealing with unsolicited bids, and we have followed it.
Chris Bishop: Has he or his office had any engagement with the Office of the Auditor-General regarding the procurement process for Auckland light rail?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, but I'll say this: Cabinet decided to undertake this process on the basis of advice from a number of Government agencies. The Ministry of Transport has been leading a process in conjunction with various stakeholders and with oversight from Audit New Zealand and Crown Law. And the process is entirely consistent with the procurement guidelines.
Chris Bishop: Is there a chance that Cabinet will decide not to proceed with either the NZ Infra or NZ Transport Agency proposals, and if so, what happens then?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That's a hypothetical.




Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety
11. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by the coalition Government's commitment to increase the minimum wage to $20 an hour by 1 April 2021; if so, why?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes, absolutely. This Government is committed to sharing New Zealand's prosperity more fairly. With unemployment at 4 percent, and strong growth in the number of people in full-time employment, this is the perfect time to lift the minimum wage. We've increased the minimum wage from $15.75 an hour to $18.90 this term, and we are committed to raising the minimum wage to $20 per hour next year.
Marja Lubeck: What impact do minimum wage increases have for working people and their families?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: In six weeks' time, around a quarter of a million workers will get a pay increase to $18.90 an hour. The increases we have made this term are equivalent to more than $6,500 a year in the pay packet of a full-time worker. That's money for things like school uniforms, healthy food, and sports equipment. When hard-working people on low incomes have more money in their pocket, they spend it in their local community, and that is great news for the economy.
Marja Lubeck: What criticisms has the Minister seen of planned minimum wage increases?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have seen some reports from commentators who are against higher wages for hard-working, low-paid New Zealanders. One commentator this week suggested that cancelling the Government's minimum wage increase to $20 per hour is worth thinking about. Doing that would cost a full-time worker on the minimum wage around $2,300 per year. It's a timely reminder that people who work hard for lower wages get left behind when National's in Government.




Question No. 12—Prime Minister
12. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly this Government's investment in Customs to tackle drugs, which saw a record 3 tonnes of drugs stopped at our borders in 2019. This is also going to prevent harm—a harm reduction worth about $3 billion. This is in addition to measures like recruiting more police and restricting access to firearms, which I encourage members across the House to support.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she support legalising recreational cannabis?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member well knows, I've taken the position that it's my job to ensure that New Zealanders have information they can rely on in this referendum and that they make their decision on their own but with the best information possible. That's the role I'll play.
Hon Paula Bennett: Has she seen the statement by Duncan Garner that it is "a pathetic cop-out from the Prime Minister" that she is not confirming her position on legalising recreational cannabis?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think he may have actually even said it to me. I maintain the position that I have—that it is actually up to every New Zealander to place their vote, and their vote will be as good as my vote, but my job is to make sure that they have the best information possible. I've asked my Chief Science Advisor to play a role in that, and I'll maintain that position.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: He's even more stupid than you are.
SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: It seems like the most experienced and the least experienced members are making the same mistake today.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she support the wording of the referendum question being a specific reference to legalising recreational cannabis in order to avoid confusion with medicinal cannabis?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think there is value in making it clear that laws have already been changed around medicinal cannabis, and we wouldn't wish to confuse the situation.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that New Zealanders will be able to vote on whether they choose to legalise and control cannabis as per the draft bill, come this year's general election on 19 September?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and, of course, what we prepared is a draft bill so that there will be that full information available to members of the public—that if they support the bill, that is the legislation that at least three parties in this House have said that they will then support to enact.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is one of the main reasons her Government is holding a referendum on legalising recreational cannabis because she doesn't believe people should be imprisoned for cannabis possession or use?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It's because we believe New Zealanders should have their say on this issue.
Hon Paula Bennett: So one of the main reasons in the Cabinet paper was that they believed that they should not be imprisoned. Can she confirm, then, that the number of people in New Zealand convicted and sentenced to imprisonment solely for cannabis possession and use in the 2017-18 year was one person?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I've read that Cabinet paper, and, whilst it is not in front of me now, I can tell the member that one of the primary reasons noted in that paper was harm minimisation and the reduction of cannabis use. That is one of the goals. It is up to the public to determine whether or not they believe that is the best way to reduce cannabis use in New Zealand.





DEBATE ON PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Debate resumed from 18 February.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): While we've been in the House today, the name suppression has been lifted in the case that has been brought by the Serious Fraud Office in relation to donations to the National Party. Unsurprisingly, I think, members will be able to learn now that the people involved are the very people who we heard about last year in the taped phone conversation between Simon Bridges and Jami-Lee Ross. Jami-Lee Ross is one of the people who has been charged, and it is very important for members of this House to remember that he has been charged about activities he undertook when he was the whip of the National Party.
I heard on Morning Report this morning the leader of the National Party try to claim he didn't know anything about the $100,000 donations to the National Party.
SPEAKER: Order! I want to remind the Minister of Finance of Standing Orders 115(1) and (2) and (3), which make it very clear that matters awaiting or under adjudication, or supressed in any court—and it's not a suppression order any more, but it is under adjudication—may not be referred to in any debate, subject to the discretion of the Speaker and the right of the House to legislate on a matter. If a member wants to refer to a matter that is currently awaiting adjudication, one needs to refer to 115(2), whereby an application is made to me, and my decision, which I certainly have not made in this case.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect, obviously, that ruling. I just would like some clarification around referring to matters that are in the media that report on the case.
SPEAKER: One does not get around the Standing Orders of this House by the fact that some media have reported something. The Standing Orders of the House stand on their own, and the fact that it has been reported that a particular matter—even previously reported, before there were charges—has occurred is not an escape.
Now, the member, and certainly the member on his right and the shadow Leader of the House, will remember that there was at one stage a considerable debate within the Standing Orders Committee on this. There was one member who stood for a different position. That member is currently standing here. He had no support from colleagues on either side of the House. It is my view that the Standing Orders are inappropriate in this case. The member should have the right to comment on cases before the courts if they so wish and they do so in a careful manner, but the decision of this House was, on the review of the Standing Orders, that that right does not exist. As the Speaker, I must enforce rules even if I think they're not the best rules.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: So on Morning Report this morning, I heard the leader of the National Party claim to have no knowledge whatsoever of activities inside his own party. That speaks volumes about the lack of leadership that is being shown by Simon Bridges, and all the more so coming on the back, as it did, of a so-called economic speech given by the Leader of the Opposition earlier this week—a speech that was the most overhyped speech I have seen in my time in this House. It was empty of any actual ideas for how to move New Zealand forward. 
But it's not just me that has been saying this. The Stuff editorial this morning, and all of the Stuff papers across New Zealand, said that "voters will rightly be wary of National's business-as-usual approach in such rapidly changing times." It also quoted a very modest man named Grant Robertson, who said "tax cuts always come with a tradeoff.", and then it talked about what National was doing and said "Nowadays, … we are not swayed by the mirage." That's all they've got. All they've got is a mirage. There's no actual policy; it's a mirage. 
I look forward to this election campaign, where Paul Goldsmith will have to show me the money, because there is no sign that the National Party understands that if there are going to be tax cuts, there are trade-offs, and we know from the National Party's history what those trade-offs will be. It means money not going into our schools. It means money not going into our hospitals. It means not enough police officers on the beat. It means ignoring a housing crisis, and going the other way and selling State houses. It means taking money out of the pockets of the lowest-income New Zealanders by deciding that the minimum wage doesn't need to go up. They are the trade-offs that the National Party likes to make in the pursuit of these kinds of policies. So we will see in this election campaign who has the promises that add up, and who is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders. 
It is a great honour for me to be the Minister of Finance in this Government. Everywhere I go around New Zealand, I have the conversations with the business community where we get into the numbers of being the Minister of Finance, and I am proud of the numbers that this Government has—the fact that we do have annual growth of 2.7 percent, putting us well ahead of our trading partners, and, even though as the economy globally slows down, New Zealand continues to outperform Canada, Japan, Australia, the UK, and the euro area. Our economic management approach of, yes, being careful and of making sure that we do reduce our debt as a percentage of GDP—it is less now than when we came in. We've just spent $12 billion on infrastructure, and our net debt is still less than when we came in. We have run $13 billion worth of surpluses, and we will run them again in the future. Unemployment is down to 4 percent. We've got great numbers coming out of the consumer confidence services index. 
So I can spend all day and all of this contribution on the numbers, but that's actually not what being the Minister of Finance is about. It is fundamentally about people, and making sure that all the people of New Zealand get to share in our prosperity. 
I just think of three or four of the people I have met in recent times who show how this economy is working more for all New Zealanders. The young woman that I met in Kawakawa, who was working on the Hundertwasser Art Centre, and who had come through to work on that project from Mana in Mahi—from Willie Jackson's work that he has been doing in Mana in Mahi. That young woman had come from being on the unemployment benefit for more than six months. She did not know what she wanted to do with her life, and because a Government cared about her and this Government cared what happened to her, she's now on that site. She's actually running the place, to be frank—a Ngāpuhi woman, clearly, from there; running the show—making sure that that building is being built well, and working with her fellow cadets who are working on that site. 
I also think of the school principal here in Wellington, at Karori West Normal School: Janice Shramka, a woman who will soon be retiring after distinguished service in the education system in New Zealand. I went and visited her in January, 12 days before school started, because I knew Janice would be there, because that's how committed our schoolteachers and principals are. I found her—after walking around the school for a while—standing on one of the paddocks out the back with a local tradesperson, writing down the projects that they would be doing with the $376,299 that this Government have given for her school to be able to do that work. What Janice Shramka told me that day was that she had gone off on her holiday in December the happiest she had been in most of her time as a school principal, because she walked away knowing that the teachers in her school were being paid properly, that we were finally addressing pay issues for teacher aides, that we actually finally had supported the rebuilding of property, and that she could finally do those $376,000 worth of jobs that hadn't been done in her school. She said, "We now have a Government that cares about education.", and I want to congratulate Minister Chris Hipkins on his leadership of that work.
Then I think of the community services card holder who wrote to me last year about the fact—she's an older woman now—that the stress had been lifted from her life by the fact that she could go to the doctor knowing she could afford it, and that she wasn't making a decision about her health on the grounds of money but on the grounds of how she felt. She finally felt that she had some confidence because of our policy of reducing the cost of going to the doctor for more than 600,000 New Zealanders.
Then I also think of the older New Zealanders who have written, I think, probably to most of the MPs on this side of the House about the winter energy payment, about the fact that those basic decisions about keeping warm in winter can now be made without the fear of the costs, and about the fact that people can heat their homes, not just one room. We all know the story of people who were only heating one room in their home because they couldn't afford it. The winter energy payment has come along and delivered to those people some security.
So for me, being the Minister of Finance, yes it's about the numbers, yes it's about making sure that as a country we prepare ourselves for the future, but it's mostly about the people, and that's what got forgotten for nine years. They sat on that side of the House—on this side of the House then—and said, "We've got a rock star economy because we've got growth rates at a particular level." Well, the rock star economy was delivering the schools where people were being taught in classrooms. It was delivering the mouldy hospitals. It was delivering the dirty rivers. That's not success, and on this side of the House, we're proud that we are taking a different approach to what constitutes success in our society.
We know that as a country now, we once again will face challenging times in our economy created by an external force—in this case, COVID-19. But we know that this Government, as a result of what we've done for the last two years, means we are well prepared to face up to that, and I can guarantee New Zealanders that this Government will continue to invest in them. We'll continue to invest in our people, in strengthening our communities, and in protecting our environment.
By the time we get to September this year, the choice will be ever more stark between a Government and parties of this Government who are looking to the future, who are futureproofing our economy, who when we give speeches about the economy, we mention climate change, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. The choice will be between a Government focused on the future and futureproofing our economy and a Government with their eyes in the rear-view mirror, selling tired old ideas—selling a mirage, as the Stuff editorial said today. That is the choice at this election: whether or not we want to go forward as a country confident, prosperous and sharing that prosperity, or whether we want to go back to selfish individualism on the other side of the House. The choice is clear. A Jacinda Ardern - led Government will be re-elected.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to draw your attention to Speaker's ruling 32/4 and ask you a question with regards to that Speaker's ruling. It's a longstanding ruling from 1989 by then Deputy Speaker Terris, where he said that "There are no grounds for ruling against a member making a statement that there is a legal action in existence." My question there is, really, around the definition of "legal action", whether the fact that there is a legal action taking place in the court—whether referring to the fact that that is happening is something that members cannot do, or whether that is, in fact, acceptable. I accept that having read all of the relevant Speakers' rulings around matters before the court, it's important that the Parliament doesn't get into the specifics of the case or seek to influence the court in any way, but surely a member must still be able to refer to the fact that there is an action in existence.
SPEAKER: I'm sure there's a random thing with Speaker Terris' rulings, and on the basis of statistics he would occasionally get one right. This, I think, is probably that one. The fact that there is a legal case in existence can be referred to, but Mr Robertson certainly went further than that previously and referred to detail of it, and that is something which is not allowed.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Finance, in Opposition, said "Judge performance by GDP per capita." The truth and the fail mark for that Minister is that every year that he has been Minister, our country has gone backwards and it has gone to the lowest level in more than a decade.
But this afternoon, I want to talk about déjà vu of a slow-motion train wreck of another Labour Government over big secret donations to Mr Peters. We have a Deputy Prime Minister who has been caught out not complying with our electoral laws—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —now lashing out—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat when I stand. The member knows that he cannot accuse a member in that way. He knows that he cannot. I'm listening very carefully to him, as I listened to the member before, and the Standing Orders will be applied strictly, including to that member.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek clarity, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No, the member will continue his speech.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The language I used was identical to—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I said the member will continue his speech.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Electoral Commission has concluded that Mr Peters did not comply with our electoral laws.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will withdraw that statement unless he can provide me with the writing, in writing, to that about that member of the House, naming that member. If he cannot, he will withdraw and apologise.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. The New Zealand First Party has been found by the Electoral Commission to have not complied with our electoral rules, and he is now lashing out with ugly attacks on the media, on his own previous party officials, on the Opposition, and even on respected institutions like our Electoral Commission. The worst part of this whole debacle is that neither the Prime Minister nor any member opposite will stand up for the core Kiwi values that underpin our democracy.
Now, Grant Robertson has made mention of the issues involving Jami-Lee Ross. I'll totally observe the ruling that you have just made, Mr Speaker, but here's the interesting part: why did the Labour Party substitute on to the Justice Committee, on the issues of electoral law, that member when such serious conduct was in question? And why does the Labour Party continue to exercise the vote for that member when, frankly, every member of this House—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. It's not generally the rule that the Speaker intervenes on matters of fact, but when someone is making an allegation as to who is exercising votes in the House, it is the obligation of the members to tell the truth. The member will—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The whips for the Labour Party have been exercising the votes for that member. But let's go back to—
SPEAKER: No. Look, again, it is not my role to make sure that the member observes the facts, but when he is making incorrect statements—and he knows he's making incorrect statements—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, he doesn't.
SPEAKER: Well, the member has been in the House hundreds of times when votes have been exercised for Jami-Lee Ross, and if he cannot tell the difference—the member will resume his seat.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: You're running a protection racket.
SPEAKER: I call the next member.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, Mr Speaker. Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No, I've terminated the member's speech.
Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has sat and tolerated that member blaming the New Zealand First Party, not accurately reflecting that it is the foundation that is being studied. Secondly, he has misrepresented—
SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume his seat, OK? I have dealt with Dr Nick Smith. He has made an exceptionally unparliamentary reference to me, and I have terminated his speech. Is there another member who wants the call?





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Apologies, sir. The way in which it was reflected, I did not gather that you had terminated his speech. I apologise.
This is a dark day in terms of how low the National Party are prepared to go. They are losing support with this form of smear, deviousness, stigmatisation. They have no friends here. They are losing support amongst garden-variety Kiwis who are not interested in the National Party taking up the cause of the media. The media is not made up of shrinking violets; they are key contributors to the democratic process through the fourth estate. They don't need Paula Bennett to conveniently forget the last nine years of history. They don't need Nick Smith to overlook his own patchy record on such matters pertaining to judicial appearances.
I want to come back and talk about what Kiwis are genuinely interested in. Let us speak about four things. Today, they raised the question as to why we are maintaining the right of silence in matters pertaining to child abuse—and I will not talk about a case that may or may not be currently being investigated by the police. The right of silence is an ancient doctrine. The police currently have a host of other options available to them if they want to squeeze people who should be talking and make them talk.
Secondly, how many times over the last nine years have we seen this pattern, sorry to say, too disproportionately amongst my own community, the Māori community. I say to the people, the gangs, the gang hangers-on, up in Hawke's Bay and other places: when children are traumatised, assaulted, if you do not speak up, you are cowards. Don't blame Oranga Tamariki when the remedy lies within yourselves. Stand up and shine the torchlight of honesty on the affairs of their own whānau. People who act in that cowardly fashion, we call them, in the Ngāpuhi country, kutus—they are a type of social head lice—and I condemn all the people that are hiding behind either legal doctrine or manufactured excuses called colonialisation so as not to take responsibility for this awful social disease afflicting many of the members of our Māori community, where little ones are punished and older people who ought to be held responsible are evading those responsibilities.
Let me now talk about the gangs. The gangs are a social cancer, and partly what I've heard from the other side of the House, I cannot but agree, but I say to the other side of the House: over the last nine years, you allowed the police resources to shrink in proportion to the growth of the P-fuelled gang mayhem. As the gangs sent back people, either willingly or unwillingly, from Australia to New Zealand, that's when we needed a massive increase in surveillance and statutory power and in police numbers. So excuse me if we think "crocodile tears" when the other side of the House all of a sudden wants to borrow some Schwarzenegger approach of wandering around South Auckland and other such places in souped-up armoured vehicles. The reality is: follow the money, honey. That is a famous expression, and it is what we must do in order to curb and bring these gangsters—the gangsters with muscle and bling are creating the most destructive image amongst the rangatahi, the young people, that we are endeavouring to work for.
So, be under no illusions: the gangs have no friends amongst our party. That's not to say Christian reformation is not possible, but if you want to take the Christian route, get your gang patch, dig a hole, and burn it. Don't try and pretend to be Christian, turning up at Waitangi but whilst you're secretly continuing to deal the lifeblood of gangs, which is cruelty, menace, money, and death.
I want now to talk about what the people of the North have been saying today. They are glad that they have a champion—not the sitting member, who thunders back home and whimpers when he's in Parliament, not the trolls that continually seek to undermine the work of our stakeholders and various leaders in the North. They are happy that a Government, within a remarkably short period of time, has provided a remedy to a Zimbabwe-like problem of water access in Kaikohe and Kaitāia. The council should not be allowed to get off scot-free as we have announced $2 million to ensure that our senior citizens, our kōhanga children, our schoolchildren, our businesses, garden-variety households can enjoy what you and I expect to enjoy every day in urban New Zealand: access to volumes of quality water. We have solved that problem in the short term today.
You don't solve those problems unless you're prepared to take risks, and we didn't come from the North into Parliament without the ability to absorb risk and manage risk. Now, I know outside of the North there are other places that central government should look at, but the Northerners today can breathe a sigh of relief that in myself and the other three Ministers, we have made a robust decision that will ensure that they enjoy access to water.
Recently, I was privileged to catch a ride on KiwiRail, and we went to the Waiotira tunnel, built in 1920. It has taken the Jacinda Ardern - Winston Peters duo of leadership, a hundred years later, for a Government to go back and fix up that tunnel. What we are finding in KiwiRail is that they're not relying on the Australian-based, overpriced consultants. They have had the ability to draw and harness talent long since neglected and overlooked by the other side of the House to fix up the infrastructure ourselves. All they ever needed was some pūtea, some self-belief, and a clear direction, a pathway of hope. That's what KiwiRail, as a key feature of an integrated and robust future transport system, has by working with the current Government.
There are five things—if you look at a star, it's got five points. Of course, now there's a thing called the "Northern Star", and I don't claim to be that; I'm talking about the five-pointed political policy star shining in the North. The first point of that star is the revitalisation of rail north of Auckland into the North. Thank you, Rt Hon Winston Peters. The second point of that star is the creation of a world-leading dry dock facility owned and operated by Babcock in association with the navy. The third point of the star is the four-lane highway. To demonstrate that our party, our Government, is willing to take a risk, bring forward $12 billion worth of expenditure. There will be a four-lane highway from Whangārei to the new, expanded Northport in Ruakākā, Marsden Point.
The fourth point of the star is that the Ports of Auckland will move. The Prime Minister has identified that the current location of the Ports of Auckland has outlived its social licence. It will go. Work is being done as to whether or not it goes to Tauranga, to Northland—or whether or not, as certain consultants would like, we're going to build a massive island in the Manukau Harbour and hope that the ships of the world will go over the most treacherous bar in New Zealand, or we're going to build a massive island in the Firth of Thames. I have very, very dim views about both of those options.
The fifth thing which we ought to bear in mind is the longstanding challenge that goes back to John Banks' days of relocating the naval resources out of Devonport, freeing up that estate for housing, providing an opportunity for new entrants into the navy to be able to afford to live as they join the forces as ratings. The pathway leads north. That's why all of the mayors, all of the civic leaders, all of the community advocates, and all of the senior business identities have joined a programme called Kia Kaha.
The five-pointed star of progress and development is a navigational star, and we have set our course by those five things. Thank you very much.





Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look, I rise to take a call on this Prime Minister's statement, and I want to begin with a quote. The back of this quote is in response, actually, to the Hon Shane Jones, by Walter Cronkite: "Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy." My second quote is actually by our Prime Minister: "Around the world, democratic values and institutions are under threat in a way that many of us … expected to see in our lifetimes." I think it is appalling, and it is one of the first times in my parliamentary career that I am ashamed of this Parliament—we are aware of covert photos being taken of journalists, and it is appalling that the Prime Minister will not actually call her Deputy Prime Minister into line. 
I would acknowledge that we are about to celebrate 150 years of our press gallery, and my point to the Parliament would be: if we do not stand up for some of those press at a time like this, where, at the highest level, that can be considered intimidation, then who will? On this side of the House, we do stand for freedom of the press. My plea to the Prime Minister is to say something, do something on this issue, do it for a country that is proud of our democratic record, that gave women the right to vote—first in the world. And, actually, freedom of the press does matter, Shane Jones, and we will stand up for freedom of the press on this side of the House.
We heard from the Prime Minister a lot of hype, and in fact I want to respond to the Hon Grant Robertson's comments around overhype and mirages. Well, if we look at every single area of this Government, there is hype and mirages. If we take our economy, again, we saw the Prime Minister trying to rewrite history. We were a Government that left the country in surplus. We dealt with the global financial recession, we dealt with the Canterbury earthquakes, and we left the country in surplus.
And then we look at our economic indicators. And you know what, Grant Robertson? They do matter. They matter in the stories that we hear across this side of the House, in the stories of those people in South Auckland who are paying more for their fuel as a result of the Government's fuel tax. They matter in the stories of other people across New Zealand whose median rents have gone up, some commentators estimate, by an average of $55. They matter when we hear from the chair of ACC today, who has said that we have major increases in levies coming. Again, under a National Government, cost of living was lower because we managed to keep those accounts in order.
They matter when we talk about the area of infrastructure. This is a Government that manages to put up a whole lot of mirages. The reality is, under our Government, we saw Waterview, we saw Victoria Park Tunnel, we saw the City Rail Link (CRL) announced. This is a Government where we've got CRL 15 months delayed, we've had roads cancelled, and then they have the nerve—they have the nerve—two years later to try and announce a $12 billion infrastructure package of which a range of things and a range of communities have been basically postponed for two years.
This is a Government, in the area of housing, that, again, put up a mirage of 100,000 houses to be built via KiwiBuild. How many were delivered? About 300. So, again, it's a Government that talks massive but breaks a whole lot of promises.
Let's go to the area of education. We were a Government that increased our education budget every single year that we were in office. This is a Government that now talks about the fact that under the last Government, there were overcrowded schools. That is correct. But what we saw on the front page of the New Zealand Herald the other day was 700 schools over capacity. So for a Government gifted the best opportunities of a generation, we have seen overcrowding in classrooms. And again, what are we seeing? We're seeing shifts and we're seeing drops in educational achievement. We're also seeing huge promises not delivered in education. There are over 50 promises not delivered in education. Where are the free devices, Chris Hipkins? Where is the 100 percent qualified ratio in early childhood? Where is career advice for every child? Again, the litany of broken promises continues despite all of the gifts of a generation that were left this Government by the last National Government?
In the area of health, in the area of public services, one of the reasons why it is hard to get a picture to cut through those mirages on this side of the House is because this Government scrapped the Better Public Service targets. But here are some figures in health that I'm sure every New Zealander would want to know. What do we know? In the last eight months, we've got $230 million more in deficits. What do we know? We know that there's 6,000 less elective surgeries happening in New Zealand compared to the last year. What do we know in the infrastructure and transport area? Well, again, the Hon Simon Bridges listed a litany of projects that were promised but that are now not being delivered as a result of this Government. We haven't even got on to the Prime Minister's audacious promise in Auckland around light rail, because we know that that project hasn't actually even started. Again, it's another flagship promise that has completely been broken.
What do we know in other areas? Well, what we know is that this is a Government with very low standards around its Ministers. And I do want to acknowledge that if you look under Prime Minister Ardern's leadership, not only have we seen ministerial resignations but we saw a major resignation around the area of open Government. We've also seen the Labour Party sex scandal. And now we have seen, as I mentioned before, at the outset of my speech, a new low, an absolutely new low in our Parliament that the Prime Minister—and I'm looking at Chlöe Swarbrick right now: where are the Greens on the issue of freedom of the press? Where are the Greens? The reality is the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted to being involved in covert photographs of the press. If it had happened on this side of the House, the level of anxiety, the level of speaking up, would have been completely different.
So this is a Government that was handed the best conditions of a generation. We were the comeback country. We had taken a country that was staring down a decade of deficits into surplus. We've seen huge improvements in a number of areas such as Māori and Pasifika education achievement. Now, in every major area, we have business confidence tanking. We've slipped in terms of our economic performance to being, I think, the seventh worst in terms of the OECD. We've seen our health and education indicators going backwards. We've seen a litany of broken promises. We've seen some extraordinary flagship programmes fall, from KiwiBuild: from 100,000 houses to 300 houses; from light rail: not even started. We've seen incompetence at the infrastructure level like never before, and the fact that the journalists are somehow clapping when Labour are turning up, announcing projects that have been delayed for two years is pretty extraordinary.
We've seen, in the area of law and order, gang activity like never before. And what do we get from the Prime Minister? A complete lack of leadership around Ministers. What I get from a number of New Zealanders who come up to me is that they say, just like Grant Robertson said at the outset of his speech: they expected there would be additional investments in people, they expected to see less children in poverty, but we know that there's more. They expected to see less people necessarily in welfare and in hardship. But we know that there's tens of thousands more. We know, on a number of the major social indicators around our most vulnerable, life is worse under Labour, and we know that as well because our economy is getting worse so we have less opportunities to be able to pay for the kinds of public services that New Zealand needs. 
We needed a Government that was going to show leadership, but in every single area—in the economy, in health, in education, in infrastructure, on the basic issue of freedom of press that you would expect the Labour Government to step up and stand up for our democracy—they were missing in action. And I'll tell you what, Grant Robertson, that's what I call a mirage. This is the most overhyped Government in a generation, and National looks forward to taking office in September to lead a Government that will not only improve our economy, improve our public services, will reduce crime, but will ensure that New Zealanders have a better life, and we will also stand up for the freedom of press in our democracy.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I just want to say that the last speaker is someone who I admire, because not only has she experienced some personal issues, she's actually an athlete and someone who I know works very hard. She reflects what many of us across the House bring: the desire to have a better country. We're here for the right reasons. We may not agree on the way we get to that, but many of us are here because we want our country to be the very best that it can. 
I'm really heartened by some work that we did earlier this year as a caucus with the Prime Minister when she gave us the opportunity to talk about how we wanted this election campaign—and, therefore, our policies—to roll out. And what she said was she wanted this to be positive. She wanted this election campaign to be a contest of ideas, she wanted us to actually ensure that when we were out there discussing what Labour and this Government had done, that we were being truthful and honest with the people, and that they could make a decision for themselves. And, actually, our people deserve that from us. Our young people demand that from us, and I am really heartened by that. I took that message to be one thing: that we are now encouraged to be the best that we can be, because politics can be pretty dirty—it can be pretty grimy—and, unfortunately, some of that can rub off. But if you come from the place that you hold within yourself some integrity, that you are doing everything you can for your country, then you can rise above a lot of that. 
Now, what heartens me is, yep, we know that we've done a bit of work, but we know the weight of expectation is upon us to do more. And I'm really heartened when I talk to people in my electorate—or when they, unsolicited by me, give me their opinions—because some of them really tell me that with what we are doing, we are on the right track. 
I want to quote from a couple of emails that I got, and I will call this woman Katie. I didn't know her before she sent these emails, but I was really impressed by what she had to say. I didn't ask her for this, but this is what she told me. "I know that going into an election year there will be a lot of … flying around, so I want to give you a perspective from a beneficiary. Since I met you, my financial and life situation have improved enormously. I no longer want to just die. Life is not always easy, but I have enough money to eat well, I can pay all of my bills, and going to WINZ is no longer a desperately miserable experience, and the winter payments actually help. I can afford school fees. I can buy my daughter anything that she needs—luckily, she likes op shopping—and if there is something we want but don't desperately need, we can now plan to save for it. I haven't needed to rely on food parcels or the kindness of others. My mother was close to death before Christmas and I was able to just book a flight and go. She's now OK. This is a thankyou note. I have many things to be grateful for now. This is because of your Government. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Please extend my thanks to the coalition Government."
That's fantastic. She also goes on to say she thinks Phil Twyford is a hero. But that's another matter. [Interruption] I know. I know. But what I want to say is that out of the mouths of constituents come some pretty honest things. And what really heartens me is that when I've been talking to people about the things that we want to do, the things that we've done already, they're actually encouraging us.
I want to talk about one school in my electorate that's actually going to benefit from the infrastructure package that we're putting out to the tune of $260,000, and that's Banks Avenue—one of the schools that, post-earthquakes, is going to have to sustain a rebuild. I've gone to that school every year, a couple of times every year, to talk to them about, you know, the issues and stuff. In Opposition we tried to support them to get some extra help from that Government. The extra help we were looking for was they were given pūtea to rebuild their school. That pūtea was supposed to last them for a period of time while they were in situ on their current site to rebuild on to their new site. 
While they were in situ on their old site, they had maintenance issues that they had to actually pay for from that pūtea that the National Government gave them for the rebuild. So year on year, their maintenance costs actually ate away at the money that they were going to be able to use for their rebuild. So when this was announced, that they were actually—from us—getting $260,000 for their maintenance, they went "Thank you. You've listened." That's one school in a whole country of schools that's going to benefit because we listened to them about what their needs were. 
Now, Banks Ave is a very unique school, because a lot of the children were impacted by the earthquakes and they also asked National in Government to support them with some extra support for those children's needs; also not forthcoming from that Government. What do they have now? They have Mana Ake. They have Mana Ake workers going in there to support children who've got significant behavioural issues because of the trauma they've experienced from the earthquake. That makes me enormously proud. 
They're small things: things like families not having to pay for school donations, things like elderly people saying in wintertime, "It's fantastic that we've got the winter payment.", and actually not knowing that that's going to happen every single winter—every single winter. Those things, they may be small—we're on a journey—but people are actually starting to resonate that we are delivering to them. But we have so much more to do. There's so much more I could talk about. You know, just as I was sitting here, I was watching a lovely clip over the shoulder of my colleague there of his son enjoying an ice block, I think, at home, and I think about what it is that we want to leave for our country, and that's definitely about how we support our children. 
Now, we've done some things. We've increased the amount of time that mamas and papas can stay at home. You know, paid parental leave is a really important aspect to how we ensure that we bond well with our children. But going past that, what do we want for our kids? We want our kids to be healthy and well. We want to make sure that they've got access to good healthcare; that when they get unwell—and unfortunately they do—cost is not a barrier; that if they have serious illness they can go to a hospital that doesn't have stuff running down the walls; that those hospitals, those facilities, are the very best that they can be for those kids; and, actually, that their families and their parents are supported to be the best that they can be too. 
Now, we've got a real problem in this country and it's called family violence. I'm enormously proud of how much money we have put into supporting services. But we have got so much more to do. Whānau resilience—supporting families to identify the issues and work on them so that they can be the best parents for their kids. That's extraordinary stuff, and that will be a game-changer in years to come. Supporting kids to get over the trauma they experience in homes where violence is present; supporting kids to get over the trauma they experience when they have to live through several years of natural disaster. That's game-changing stuff. That's the stuff that brings some of us to this House, and makes me extraordinarily proud of our Prime Minister when she says we are going to be positive. This campaign is going to be a contest of ideas. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I follow my colleague, who talked about the Prime Minister's kind of pledge about it being a positive campaign. Prime Minister Ardern also talked about the fact that this was going to be the most open and transparent Government that had ever been, that last year was going to be the year of delivery, and that this year was going to be about truth and honesty. Well, how quickly things change.
One of the things that people rely on from their Prime Minister is a Prime Minister who demands—actually, the Cabinet Manual states it, so it's not about demanding it, it's just about delivering it—standards of Ministers in their Cabinet. That doesn't say Ministers of the same political party in their Cabinet; it says Ministers.
So it's somewhat fascinating to see—when we have pretty much exactly the same situation play out as did in 2008—a Minister in Cabinet not standing down, not offering to stand down, or not being stood down by the Prime Minister, and two very nasty issues occurring related to ministerial behaviour. It's not about are you the leader of a political party; it's a Minister in Cabinet.
The Prime Minister's job is to uphold the standards, to uphold the standards that the New Zealand public expect of their Cabinet. As my colleague Nikki Kaye spoke about before, a very new low in this place last week, and that was by the Deputy Prime Minister admitting to the media that he was involved in the covert surveillance of journalists. So—
Darroch Ball: That's not true.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —if that's what the Prime Minister was talking about when it was about—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is not an acceptable interjection. The member will withdraw and apologise.
Darroch Ball: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So, if that's the standard, if that's what the Prime Minister wants New Zealanders to think of when she talks about the most open and transparent Government, when she talks about truth and honesty, and when she talked about last year as the year of delivery, well, I'm sad to say it's a pretty low bar, because at the end of the day, New Zealanders want a Government who delivers. Actually, they want a Prime Minister who isn't just full of hot air. At the end of the day, she leads a team. She is accountable for every single Minister in her Cabinet, not just the ones she wants to have.
So let's look at some of the things that she said in her statement, because this is, of course, the debate on the Prime Minister's statement, so I'm going to touch on a few.
Child poverty—she talked about cost pressures for families, about new jobs that have been created, about the so-called transformation of the welfare system, and about things like Mana in Mahi, which she was an enormously proud of. Well, the reality is talk is cheap—talk is cheap. At the end of the day, New Zealanders want to know that the members of Parliament in this place—and I do agree with the speaker who resumed her seat before me—New Zealanders want to know that the people in this place are doing their damnedest to improve their quality of life.
So child poverty was meant to be the top priority for Jacinda Ardern, and she was going to solve it. Well, guess what! We've got 15,000 more children living in benefit-dependent homes. We know that 60 percent of children who live in hardship come from benefit-dependent homes. Seven of the nine indicators of poverty have gone up, so on that one area alone, the Prime Minister is not delivering.
Actually, if you think about—as many of my colleagues do, and we discuss it on a regular basis—you know, supporting the most vulnerable, what does it come down to? Can they afford their everyday costs, whether it's housing, whether it's petrol, whether it's filling the supermarket basket and making sure that they've got food at home? Well, the reality is we now have a record number of Kiwis who are seeking hardship assistance—half a billion dollars more in assistance. So this isn't a country where New Zealanders are doing it well. They're not doing it better than they were two years ago.
So if, as the member opposite said before, this is a Prime Minister who's talking truth and honesty, can we at least get some honesty around the number of Kiwis who are doing it tougher under this Government than they were two years ago? 
The housing crisis, as they often wanted to talk about. Social housing register: three times as many people on the social housing register—three times as many people.
Hon Peeni Henare: Nine years.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So it's really unfortunate that the member opposite isn't interested, because at the end of the day, when this Government came in, the number of people who were on jobseeker support, or the dole—oh, that's right, we're not allowed to call it the "dole" in here, according to the Minister for Social Development, even though truth and honesty, that's what the Prime Minister calls it.
Hon Peeni Henare: It's not the "dole".
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Oh, here we go again. They don't want to be held accountable for the 27,000 more New Zealanders that get the dole. Remind the Prime Minister—remind the Prime Minister. But 27,000 more New Zealanders have to front up to Work and Income because there aren't the jobs available.
Oh, and the Prime Minister was bragging about the fact that there were a large number of jobs that have been created. What was that number? This is the world of truth and honesty. Eighty-seven thousand; 4,000 a month, compared to 10,000 a month under National—4,000 a month. So why is it—oh, now the members opposite have gone quiet, because at the end of the day, every single one of those 27,000 people don't have the same opportunities because they're not in work.
Oh, and what was the big flagship employment programme? Mana in Mahi. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern launched it and said 4,000 people in the next year. Then it became 2,000. Then it became 2,000 in four years. So it's a bit like the KiwiBuild of employment initiatives, where I think there's been about 300 people so far.
What members opposite fail to realise, when you fail to deliver for the most vulnerable New Zealanders, guess what! It's the children in those households that are the most affected. So when we say 15,000 more children in benefit-dependent homes, they clearly don't care about it. So instead, they talk about this transformation of the welfare State. Where is that transformation, Associate Minister for Social Development? Where is the transformation of the welfare State? This is a campaign of truth and honesty.
Three out of 42 recommendations. So, you know, a group of very hard-working New Zealanders that participated in that advisory group—one of the 300 working groups, by the way—put a huge amount of effort into making recommendations, and the Government accepted three. So it ain't going to change any time soon.
So, unfortunately, we have more New Zealanders who are stuck in poverty because they can't get a job. These are New Zealanders that, you know, they want to work, but, actually, when they go into Work and Income, because there's all these new case managers, they can go for three months with not one conversation with someone from Work and Income about getting a job. That is disgraceful—that is absolutely disgraceful. So the caseworkers—
Hon Poto Williams: Prove it.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Actually, it's in the Ministry of Social Development's own statistics and answers in terms of employment engagements. It's called a written parliamentary question. If that member opposite, who is a Minister, Associate Minister for Social Development, doesn't believe the written parliamentary questions that her own department is providing, how is that a campaign of truth and honesty? I ask you that. How is this a campaign of truth and honesty if the Minister herself doesn't have confidence in the answers that are given to members opposite whose job it is to hold the Government to account? Oh, but, actually, we're not allowed to ask questions about the 27,000 extra people who now have to ask for support because they can't get a job—they can't get a job; 27,000 more people. I'm particularly interested in young people who don't have those opportunities: 7,000 more people under the age of 25—7,000. That's a crime. That is a crime of lost opportunity. National knows what you need to create jobs, give people opportunities, and give them the ability to be in the driver's seat of their own lives, making their own choices, looking after their—
SPEAKER: Order! Order!





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. We accept the politics that we think we deserve, and it's becoming kind of obvious that it's election year. As somebody inside this House, I must say that I can absolutely empathise with members of the public who see the kind of argy-bargy that goes on in this place and decide to turn away. In fact, oftentimes when we're sat in here and we look up at the public gallery and we look at the faces of young people, school children, it becomes immediately obvious that the behaviour that transpires here would not be acceptable in classrooms across the country. So it, therefore, feels somewhat quite far removed from the supposed solutions that we in this House are empowered to create.
This is a House of Representatives. I'm very earnest and talk about this all time, but I think it is important that we do reflect on the fact that all of the 120 seats in this place are a representation of the votes of New Zealanders. Of a possible more than 3.2 million New Zealanders, only 2.6 million of those New Zealanders decided to vote in 2017. Those more than half a million New Zealanders could have changed everything. So I really want to drive home that we accept the politics that we think we deserve.
The Greens believe that all New Zealanders deserve a home—and by that, I don't just mean four walls and a roof over your head; it is more than just a warm, dry, stable place to rest your head. Home is somewhere where you can put down your roots, where you can create your history. Home is where you can walk or cycle through the streets in safety any time of the day because you know your neighbours, because everybody has enough to get by, and because there is an unashamedly proud, humble, and shared sense of community. Home is enough shared kai for everyone, a space to test ideas and to communicate difference of opinion respectfully. Home is where you build opportunities on a solid foundation of belonging. It is where you raise and educate your kids. It is the trees that you point out as have being yay high when you were a kid, that have grown as you have. It is the soundtrack of native birds—our birds that don't exist anywhere else in the world—that emphasise the beauty of quiet moments. Home is the legacy that we create to hand down to the next generation. Our tamariki and their tamariki are entitled to clean water, to fresh air, to a stable climate, and to locally produced food, as much as they will eventually be entitled to grandma's earrings.
Our home is Aotearoa New Zealand. Our home was founded nearly 160 years ago when tangata whenua signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which notably was a rather different document to the Treaty of Waitangi that was put forward by the colonial English. These two very distinct architects had different blueprints in mind for the house that we would build, and we haven't done a sterling job at reconciling either of those plans in the century and a half since. That fundamental blunder has meant a number of New Zealanders—largely tangata whenua Māori—weren't factored into the design of this House. But the political pendulum has swung between building a longer table and removing seats in a punitive game of musical chairs. We are a richer country than we have ever been, but that wealth and access to it is more unequal than ever.
When New Zealanders turn to opt out of the political scenarios that are unfolding before their very eyes, they give this silly business—which turns into unequal access and opportunities within our home—permission to continue. As Margaret Mead put it, "Never doubt a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; [because] indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
I'm incredibly proud of the work that our small but mighty caucus of eight Green MPs of 120 in this place have achieved. Not everyone yet has the home that the Greens believe all New Zealanders in Aotearoa New Zealand deserve. It is a home worth fighting for. The decision to build it rests in the hands of New Zealanders come this September with the general election. I implore New Zealanders who are unhappy with the status quo to muck in, because they have the opportunity to choose the politics that they deserve. Kia ora.





Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Following my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, I wanted to talk about my reflections on this, the beginning of my ninth year as a representative in this House. I thought back to my maiden speech, and I recalled that one of the major factors that led to me putting my name forward to stand for Parliament, and to come to this place, was an absolute belief that democracy is possible and that this place should be a place that solves problems on behalf of all of our citizens and residents here in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is entirely possible that we can have constructive, meaningful debate that reflects the many shared values and differing interests of all the people who live in this country.
Like many other countries in the world, and as my colleague has pointed out, there is, perhaps, a sense that people are losing faith in their representatives and in the ability of democracy to solve the biggest challenges that we are facing. The reality is that here in Aotearoa New Zealand, like other places, there are barriers to achieving a better future; there are barriers to achieving equality and that fundamental right that, I think we would all agree, all humans have to a warm, healthy, affordable home; to clean water; to sustainably produced healthy, nutritious food; to a future that is not going to be marred by climate chaos that is increasing.
We could have transport systems that enable us to get around our communities in ways that don't rely on fossil fuels, that don't take up so much land, that don't result in congestion, and that lead to happier, healthier communities. We know this is possible. We've seen it happen in many, many other places. Even here in Aotearoa, where we've invested in great public transport, people use it; where we have safe, separated cycleways, people use it; where we have had, in the past, investment in State homes, it has made a difference and we have reduced homelessness.
And, of course, this Government has taken steps to address some of these challenges, but the truth is that we need to go further and faster. The major barriers that I see to us achieving this incredible vision, which, I think, almost all New Zealanders would agree with, are twofold. One is a kind of belief that things are this way because they have to be this way and they couldn't possibly be different. I see that we're constantly defending the status quo and that there's a bit of a fear of change.
But the second barrier is much more insidious, and that is that the people who profit from the injustice and the pollution that we have in the status quo are putting money into campaigns to protect their privilege. The thing that helps them most is not just the money and the power that they exert; it's actually that they perpetuate this belief that things cannot be changed, that these people here in this House are not here to represent the ordinary person, that they don't have the ability to participate in this system of governance, to make decisions collectively for all of us, and decisions that will benefit all of us. 
I believe there's an alternative. I do. I believe that we can change in a way that is going to lead to a multitude of benefits and we can have much more constructive and productive dialogue in this place. The reality is that this preference towards the status quo, and the people who profit from it, is damaging nature, it's stealing the future of young people with climate change, and it is leading to an increasingly divided population. Here in Aotearoa and overseas, we can see this happening because people have been marginalised and excluded, they don't have enough to make ends meet, they can't respond to the problems that we are facing. [Interruption] 
SPEAKER: That was my fault. I hit the—take about a minute.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So how do we do this? How do we fix this? Well, firstly, we need people to get involved. If you believe that things can be better, if you believe in protecting nature, if you believe in a fair and equal society, get involved in this political system. We need your voice, we need your vote, and we need you to be involved.
Secondly, we need to work together to solve our collective problems. We have to recognise that those politicians who promise more of what we've always had, and who will deliberately set out with attack ads that mislead and breed fear and division in our population, must be ignored. They must lose in the political fight that we're going to have for the election. We need to say that is not what we want. Don't give in to fear. We are a community who can work together to solve our problems. Don't believe those who will tell you that it's farmers versus urbanites, that it's younger people versus older people, or that it's the rich versus the poor. The reality is that too few people benefit from our current system, and together we can change it.





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Before I begin my speech, I seek the indulgence to be able to just acknowledge the passing away of Tofilau Kerupi Tavita. The reason I acknowledge him is that he put a petition into this House in 2018, and it was in regards to the name of Jesus being removed from the prayer. I just want to acknowledge he has passed away, unfortunately. He was a champion, and when he championed the cause, it wasn't just from a religious perspective that he had—he's a Christian man—it was from a principled perspective. I want to acknowledge that, for a number of years, he championed this and asked that others would stand up for this.
On a number of occasions he would talk about the reasons why, because he was questioned that it's just a name. Some of the replies would come back that—he reminded us that in 1854, on 24 May, when the Parliament was first constituted, actually up in Auckland, not in Wellington at that time, the very first debate was actually about the prayer, and it talked about putting all personal interests aside, talked about the peace and prosperity of this nation, and it ended off "in Jesus' name". And so hence the reasons why he felt that was important as well.
The conversation was also too—I know the Hon Peeni Henare will know this—that in 1840, when Henry Williams, the missionary, was commissioned to translate Te Tiriti o Waitangi at that time from English to Māori, and Māori to English, he referred to the book of Ephesians 2:14-18, in the New Testament, where it talked about the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile being brought down but by the blood of Christ, on the cross of Christ. And so the word "kawenata" was the word "covenant", and we will hear many times the word "kawenata". It's a covenant relationship; it's a sacred relationship. And it's the sacredness about the reasons why he protested, and wanted others to protest, about the name of Jesus being removed from the prayer.
So, I thank you for allowing me to acknowledge him as champion for that. Because of that, I think that's also raised a number of issues. When people have said, "So what will be the hallmark not only of this Government but also too the conversations throughout the election period of time?" And often it will be the word "competence", but I think it will be the word "values". What is it that we value most?
I remember being up in Waitangi this year and speaking to some of the kaumātua, and one of the words they said, the comments they said, was this: "Alfred, there was a time when you could shake the hand of another man, you could look into their eye, and you knew that their word was their bond." Their word was their bond, and it's a word called "trust". What we hear out at the moment, and I want to refer to that, is that can we trust not only our politicians but can we trust the current Government? And, from a number of people, what they're saying to us—and I'll refer to it because I've already started—up at Waitangi, they sort of said, "Well, can we trust this current Government?" There was a lot of unease; there was a lot of talk about the things that had been promised—there are a lot of promises about the fact that this is the largest number of Māori Ministers in the whole history of the New Zealand Parliament of 165 years. It is something to be celebrated, absolutely. But it's one thing to get there; it's another thing to do the business, and again, to shake the hand, look in the eye, and be trusted. Can they be trusted to deliver?
I was asked about the difference that National makes. So what is the difference? You might want to listen up there, Marja Lubeck. The difference is this word: mana motuhake. Mana motuhake means self-determination. In other words, it's giving power to the people, not power to the State—power to the people. So when we talk about that—
Hon Member: Tino rangatiratanga.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: That's right—tino rangatiratanga. It has the elements of that, right? It's power to the people, enforcing the ability for people to choose. Then they said to me, "So what is the record that National could hold up with?" Well, we had the unveiling of Dame Whina Cooper, who was also too a champion, a person who could be trusted. She was also the president of the Māori Women's Welfare League. But when did that begin? Under a National Government in 1951, in granting $1 million, under Sid Holland, to the league to establish the Māori Women's Development Fund. Te Wānanga o Raukawa, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—1981 and 1993—under a National Government. Why? Because it gives power in the hands of the people—in this case, to Māori—to make the decision to do what they should do. The establishment of Te Māngai Pāho in 1994, the establishment of the Māori Television Trust, and even funds for the community-based Māori language initiatives in 1998; this is what you call putting trust in the hands of the people—mana motuhake, tino rangatiratanga—in other words, empowerment to the people. That is not what is being seen in our country today. That is not what is being seen. Why? Because this Government is about a socialist ideology. It's "power to the State" not "power to the people". And for them to keep saying that they are the people's party, that is not true—that is not true. Why? Because, under this Government and under its history, there have been more things that have been achieved, even if we talk about it.
Let's talk about Whānau Ora, and the only reason I talk about that is that it was raised with me over there. I have to say—I think the Minister is here today in the House—one of the things they held up was this: the Whānau Ora outcomes framework that was developed in 2015. It was a partnership agreement that was agreed above all. Here's what they said: you might as well throw that away—because, unfortunately, under this coalition Government, they have thrown it away. They've decided to do something else, something new. The promises that were made have not been delivered. The $20 million that we said there—and I'm only quoting the people that were there; I'm only quoting the people that were there—there was an unrest because they don't believe that they can continue to trust a Government that says one thing and does another. This is really important.
This speech is about the Prime Minister's speech and the Prime Minister's statement, but what the Prime Minister has started to hide behind is around some of the issues that I think are critically important, and that's in regards to the referendum around legalising recreational marijuana. Let's not confuse it with cannabis. It's marijuana. That's what it is, right? I just Māori-fied it there a bit! It's marijuana. Whatever you want to call it—weed? Right? The thing is this: this Government has prided itself on saying that they've spent $700 million to address the issues of mental health. We just heard Alex Berenson. It's unfortunate that Chlöe Swarbrick didn't come there. She would have heard some evidence that tells the truth.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Research him, though!
Hon ALFRED NGARO: Research it. That's right. That's what you should do—Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence. It's a lie to pretend the fact is that this is all good. The old days of the Woodstock that maybe, I don't know, the honourable members over there, Phil Twyford and so forth—that Woodstock sort of cannabis; that's not the sort of cannabis we're talking about. This is the sort of stuff where the THC levels back then were 12 percent. We're talking about 80 to 90 percent. This is the sort of drug that, if we unleash it upon our community and our society, it will do more harm than good. I ask the members on the other side: let your conscience speak. Let the voice of the people speak. Let them tell you this: this is bad, this is wrong, this referendum. You can hold your hands—I think that's a prayer. You keep praying. You keep praying so that you will hear the truth. This is what the fact is.
Evidence shows that there's a hidden epidemic around violence. The States that have legalised marijuana have shown that it makes a difference. I ask that the members on the other side would have their conscience heard. Let them see the truth. The truth is that this is all wrong. This is all bad. But you've sold yourself into the lie—you've sold yourself into the lie—and here's what Alex Berenson said: the THC levels cause psychosis; psychosis causes violence. If we allow this referendum to go through, if we sugar-coat it to make it say it's going to be great, that there's going to be less people going into prison, less people going to courts, that it's good for the young people, that's a lie. We should reveal it for what it is—we should reveal it for what it is. It's all bad for this country.
The Prime Minister was also wanting to hide behind what's about to be unleashed—a very, very important bill which I think is significant to this nation, and that is the abortion law reform bill. I know it's a conscience bill. There are different views in this House, but that cannot be hidden. I want to speak for those that are out there. Over 25,000 submissions were made, and 96 percent opposed this bill. Why? Because it is unsafe—it is unsafe. So I again ask those on the other side to be wary, be concerned, and seek the evidence that will tell you what the truth is. It's not about a moral situation. It's not about a moral view. It's about the evidence of whether it's going to be safe in our country. There will be many others—this cannot be hidden—and I'll be one of those who'll be speaking out against this, and I hope that others will continue to stand and say that this is wrong. 
I know that there is a Supplementary Order Paper that's coming, in the name of Darroch Ball, which says that there should be a referendum. I hope there is. I hope that he will push hard enough, because I know that those who will vote for this bill will find that this liberalisation will cause more harm to those who have a disability, those who are discriminated against, and those who are vulnerable. This Prime Minister can no longer stand in this House and around this country and say that she stands for those who are vulnerable, for those children, because what she's allowing to happen through the legalising of recreational marijuana, the abortion law reforms—these things are not good. Why? Because when you shake the hand of another person and look them in the eye, they should be able to say that they trust each other. Your word is your bond.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Let the people have their say. That's what we just heard from the last speaker: let the people have their say. And did they have their say at the last election? Yes, they did. And that is why that speaker is over there and that is why we are over here. And that's why the people of New Zealand are enjoying an economy that has 2.7 percent growth—more growth than the USA, more growth than Australia, more growth than Canada, and more growth than Japan—and more than many other OECD countries. And what does that side have to say about it? They have a whinge. They are whingers. They've been whingers from the day after the election and they are whingers now. Nothing has changed—negative Nats. And how's that working for them? The best they can come up with is a 10-minute sermon on things that people don't care about.
They have an opportunity to have to speak about the Prime Minister's statement. Here it is—pages of what this Government is doing and what this Government's vision is for this country. And what have they been doing today? Whingeing—whingeing. They have been pretending that New Zealanders do not remember the nine years that they were in Government. They are pretending—when you look at the likes of Nikki Kaye, who stood up today and talked about education and made it sound like they were the same saviours of our students, despite the fact that there were 214 overcrowded schools under their Government and there were nearly 500 classes at risk of being overcrowded.
They are not the saviours of education. They are the threat to education and the facts back it up. Compare their record to the record of this Government here—this Government that has been in for 2½ years and has built 726 new classrooms. 
Jan Tinetti: 726?
KIERAN McANULTY: Yes, 726. So compare that with overcrowded classrooms and students and schoolchildren learning in libraries and learning in gymnasiums. I've lost count of the number of schools that I have visited in Wairarapa, and they've shown me what was their library but is now their new-entrants class because the previous Government did not invest in education. I am proud to be part of a Government that values education and has a fully funded plan for expansion and for catering for the expansion of population. Fully funded—isn't that an important word, or phrase, I should say: fully funded. We've heard a lot of talk about what they would have done and what they could have done if they'd got in. They said they'd do a lot, but they didn't back it up by funding it. And they accuse us of empty promises. What is the point of saying you're going to do something if you don't back it up with funding? 
We hear a similar theme under health. We have heard reports of sewage running down the walls in our largest hospital in the country. And they stand there and claim that they were the Government of health. What a load of rot. There was $2.3 billion worth of funding stripped from the health budget in real terms. They claim that they funded health. What a load of rubbish. They say that they funded it every year, more and more and more. Yet why did we as a Government inherit a situation where people were screaming out for health treatment? The reality was that they were all rhetoric.
And now, instead of standing here and offering solutions to the big challenges that we face in this country—because, of course, waiting lists didn't grow in two years. All the challenges that we're facing and addressing as this Government are the effect of the previous nine years of Government. And what do they do? They have a whinge. This is despite the fact that 1,500 nurses have been funded in 2½ years of this Government. Six hundred doctors have been funded in 2½ years. What happened in nine years? 
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Nothing.
KIERAN McANULTY: That's a good answer—nothing. And the same can be said for housing. Here we are in a situation where there are thousands of people on waiting lists all around the country. This is not a new phenomenon. Yet under this Government, we have built more State houses than we've seen in generations. How do we compare this to the previous record of the previous Government? We built them. They sell them. They sold State houses. And then they have the gall to stand up and criticise this Government for not doing anything for the homeless. What a cheek. If that previous Government built houses at the same rate that this Government is, we would not have a housing crisis. That is a fact. And the fact is also that they are sitting there and looking at their papers and their laptops, not saying anything because they know it's the truth. They know that they refused for nine years to accept that there was a housing crisis, believing that the market would sort it out. Well, it's because of this belief—this belief in the trickle-down, which was debunked generations ago—that we're facing the issue that we've got.
And, of course, I mentioned the economy earlier. We have growth rates that would be the envy of many OECD countries. We have 4 percent unemployment—the lowest rate in over a decade. And what do they do? They whinge. They keep whinging because, of course, their plan is better—if you talk to them. What a load of rubbish. What did their plan deliver us in terms of employment? Where was their scheme, like Mana in Mahi, that was going to get people off the dole and into apprenticeships? If they have the gall to say that they are the party of apprenticeships, I have a question: when we had the largest rebuild in the country after the Christchurch earthquake, where were the Government-sponsored schemes to ensure that the people working on those rebuilds got apprenticeships? None. Nothing—because the market would have sorted it out. There was a prime opportunity for them to say to these large companies that took on Government contracts, "Yep, good as gold. You do the building that we need you to do. But here's an idea. How about for every three or four migrant workers that you bring in to rebuild Christchurch, you just take on an apprentice?" It's not much to ask. Nothing—and it put us back for years. This Government is doing something about it.
What is their solution? The promise of tax cuts—the promise of tax cuts. We've been here before. Here they were, throughout the last year, saying we should have done tax cuts. They said, "Last election, if we got elected, we would've cut taxes." And here we are again. Yet they were also saying, when we were in negotiation with the teachers, "We would've cut taxes. Oh, but we would have paid you more. We would have cut taxes. We would have paid the nurses more. We're going to cut taxes. We're going to spend more than Labour, National, New Zealand First, and the Greens on roading." What a joke. You can't have it both ways. That's what I'd put to them. You can't promise tax cuts and also promise to spend more, unless you cut services. So what are they going to cut?
Hon Poto Williams: What services are they cutting?
KIERAN McANULTY: They don't know. Simon Bridges, the leader of the National Party, stood up there, under much fanfare, and said that he was going to cut taxes. Righto, good as gold. The next question that the media asked was "What are you going to cut?" "Oh, dunno. Haven't really thought that through." That's in the next announcement. Righto. So, all right; they've sort of talked about the Provincial Growth Fund. They've called that a slush fund. So are they going to cut that? Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are going to go around the Wairarapa electorate and say they'll cut the $950,000 put towards the youth in education and employment—things like that. Perhaps they're going to say that the money we put in to make sure that 6,000 fewer trucks travel over the Remutaka hill to Wellington carrying logs will be cut—"It's not going to go on rail because that's the Provincial Growth Fund and that's a slush fund, and we're going to cut that." Are they going to go around the Wairarapa electorate and say that the dark sky reserve can get their money taken off them? The Wairarapa primary sector skills development scheme—their money's gone. What about the $400,000 dollars put into the Dannevirke rail hub, or the upgrade of the Route 52? See you later—and all to pay for $20 a week tax cuts. 
If you think I'm pulling numbers out of the sky, I do wonder why their spokesperson on finance went on to Radio New Zealand and talked about the figure of 20 bucks and then swiftly back-pedalled. He said 20 bucks, and then he said, "Oh, woops. Uh—oh, shivers. No, no—I didn't actually mean 20 bucks." So what is it, a couple of bucks? Where's the detail? They're promising a lot and delivering nothing. I would like to see—I would like to see—them go to their supposed support base in Wairarapa and say, "In order to give you guys a $20 a week tax cut, we're going to take away the $7.11 million that this Government has put into the water scheme."
They say that they are the Government for farmers, yet I'd put this to you: on page 6 and 7 on the Prime Minister's statement, she dedicates to farming, agriculture, and rural communities. Here's a question for you: how many times did Simon Bridges, the leader of the National Party, mention rural communities, regional economies, or farmers? None—not once. He stands up there and screams at this Government about non-delivery for the regions. The Prime Minister dedicates two pages of her statement to them, we have numerous examples of this Government investing in regional economies, and they stand there and don't even mention it. Yet again, that side of the House is taking rural economies and rural people for granted. We are the Government that is delivering for rural economies. We are the Government that is investing to make sure that people have real jobs with decent conditions on the back of a strong economy that is the envy of the world.
So I'm proud to stand up here in support of the Prime Minister's statement. I'd rather be a winner than a whinger. 





Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): I move, That this debate be now adjourned. 
Motion agreed to.





EDUCATION (VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM) AMENDMENT BILL
Third Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Today is a very big day for vocational education and training in New Zealand. Today is the day we start to bring our vocational education and training systems back together, where we create a unified nationally consistent system of vocational education and training that will meet the needs of New Zealanders. It will meet the needs of New Zealand employers. It will ensure that we can plug the very serious skill shortages that we have in New Zealand and that we can rise to the challenges of the future.
This bill is about creating a new system that's easy to understand, that's easy to navigate, that's responsive to the needs of learners and employers, and that's flexible enough to keep changing and evolving as the needs of New Zealanders continue to change and evolve.
We want to ensure that every New Zealander, regardless of where they are, has access to the education and training and skill development opportunities that they need to thrive in the workplace and that they need to thrive in their lives.
It is important that we take a long-term perspective when we are considering these matters. The bill has designed a new system that will ensure the long-term skill needs of the country are identified and are planned for. This bill takes into consideration the significantly changing nature of work, both here and around the world, and it responds to the fact that many current employees—increasing numbers of employees—are going to need access to upskilling opportunities and retraining opportunities throughout their working lives.
To touch on the main things that this bill does: first, it establishes workforce development councils that will give industry greater leadership across vocational education and training. Workforce development councils will replace existing industry training organisations (ITOs). They will pick up the ITOs' standard-setting role, but the key difference is that standard-setting role won't be limited only to on-the-job training but will apply to off-the-job training as well. One of the persistent concerns that we have heard from industry—and it wouldn't be just our Government; it would be every Government over the last 20 or 30 years—is that businesses are not satisfied that the training that's delivered off the job is meeting the needs that they have on the job. This bill, through the establishment of workforce development councils, puts industry and employers in the driving seat of determining what their skill needs are and ensuring that the system delivers them.
It ensures a much more comprehensive and robust and viable and strong network of training delivery up and down the country, both on the job and off the job, by bringing together the 16 existing institutes of technology and polytechnics and the supporting on-job training functions of industry training organisations. New Zealand has been unique in the world in trying to treat those things as two completely separate systems. Most other systems have a very strong connection between the training that's delivered off the job and the training that's delivered on the job, and that is something that we are seeking to re-establish through these reforms.
The bill establishes a new regulatory framework for vocational education and training and has transition measures in place that start from 1 April, when this bill comes into force. 
I want to focus on something that hasn't been focused on much in this debate, and I'm going to focus on it because it answers many of the questions and concerns that members and others have raised, and that is in Schedule 3 the bill inserts a new charter into the law for the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST). The NZIST—which is the working name—is the organisation that brings together our polytechs and the supporting functions from the existing ITOs.
The charter sets out what that institution must do and how it must operate. For example, it requires the organisation to offer in each region a mix of education and training, including on-the-job, face-to-face, and distance learning, that's accessible to the learners of that region and that meets the needs of learners, industries, and communities. This bill is about ensuring that regions get access to the education and the training that they need. It requires them to operate in a manner that ensures that its regional representatives are empowered to make decisions about delivery and the operations that are informed by local relationships and to make decisions to meet the needs of their communities. The talk that this is taking power away from the regions is simply not true.
The bill requires in the charter for the NZIST to ensure that international learners are attracted to train and study in the regions throughout New Zealand. This is actually a stronger provision than what we have now, where the bulk of our international students are attracted into Auckland. This bill changes the law, and it requires the network of polytechs, the NZIST, to ensure that they are going other places in the country so that the regions also get their share of international students.
It requires them to ensure that there's collaboration across the national network. It requires them to maintain a high-quality coherent network of infrastructure that meets regional skill needs. So this idea that somehow regions are going to be asset stripped is wrong. The charter protects against that. 
It says that the NZIST must operate in a way that allows it to empower students and staff on academic, non-academic, and wellbeing matters and matters relating to the organisation's practices and services. This is about ensuring that those who are affected by these reforms are empowered by the reforms. It requires them to develop meaningful partnerships, including with Māori and Pacific communities, with small employers—that's in the law: small employers; they've got to have relationships with small employers—with local government, with iwi, with hapū, and so on.
It ensures that the organisation is expanding industry training, on-job training, into smaller employers, where we know that they want to train but they currently don't feel they get enough support to train. By bringing a more supportive network together, we can give smaller employers more support to take on apprentices and industry trainees, and that is something that they have been asking for for some time, and we are going to deliver it.
It requires them to align education and training delivery to support the unique social and economic goals of local communities. This is about making sure that what's being delivered is responsive to local communities, because, despite the best efforts of those involved in the sector at the moment, that hasn't always been the case. You don't have to visit too many chambers of commerce or industry or business groups to know that. Businesses are crying out for change, and the Government is delivering that.
Inclusivity and equity are core principles for the NZIST. Again, that's set out in the charter. Equitable access to learning opportunities for all learners—again, it's set out in the charter. Culturally responsive practices—it's set out in the charter. A collaborative working relationship with schools, wānanga, and other tertiary education organisations—again, it is set out in the charter. But I want to focus particularly on one aspect that is so often missed when we're talking about this, and that is the importance of the new system ensuring seamless transitions. 
At the moment, if someone is engaged in off-the-job training through a polytech or an institute of technology and they get a job in that field, they often find they lose the recognition of the learning that they have already done because they don't complete the qualificational programme that they were enrolled in, and often those providers then get penalised for that through the funding system. The system has to work around people's lives. People will move in and out of training that's happening on the job and training that's happening off the job. That's the nature of the current labour market, and the education and training system has to move seamlessly around that and adapt and evolve to that. The charter ensures that will happen. That can't happen at the moment, because the on-job training system and the off-the-job training system are treated as if they are completely separate when, fundamentally, they are not. They are delivering the skills that are needed in the workplace, and they have to operate hand in glove. 
I want to thank all those who are involved in the sector for their goodwill towards these reforms. The changes are only just starting. This change journey, as it gets under way, will gather a head of steam, and I want to particularly acknowledge many of those who were initially opposed to the reforms and who are now committed to making them happen and making them a reality. 
This Government is absolutely committed to putting trade training, and vocational education and training back on the map. This bill is a huge leap forward from where we have been. It complements the work we are doing to encourage more young New Zealanders into trades and vocational education and training, to turn around the decline in that area that we have seen over the last decade, to ensure that businesses have access to the skilled workers that we know that they need to thrive, and to ensure that those workers have the skills that they need to thrive in the workplace, to earn good, healthy incomes, and to have a high standard of living. These reforms are going to deliver those things. I commend this bill to the House. 





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today to lead the National Party opposition to this bill, a bill that heralds the biggest upheaval of the largest number of public entities in the last 30 years, and a bill that I believe and that we believe will irreparably damage the polytechnic sector, industry training, and regional communities. 
In this contribution, I will speak to three parts. In the first, who says these reforms will fail, and what is the independent analysis; in the second part, what does failure look like; and in the third part, I have a proposal for Tracey Martin and New Zealand First. 
To the first part, then: who says these reforms will fail? I have four independent Government entities that I'll draw information from who all say these reforms will fail. First of all, the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) and the programme business case. Here is what their view and their summary, the Minister of Education's own department, his own people—here's what they say about the risks of these reforms. The risk of workforce disruption is "Almost certain". The risk of participation in vocational education dropping is "Almost certain". The risk that the needs of industry and employers are not being met is "almost certain". The risk that the needs of the regions are not met is "Almost certain". Finally, and here's the most damning part, the likelihood that the new model does not achieve the desired outcomes is "Likely", and the impact of all of these is "Extreme"—the Tertiary Education Commission. 
At select committee last week, the chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission said that they had advised the Minister not to proceed with the reforms initially. I think that's a damning indictment of these reforms as well. 
The second body I'd point to is the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the TEC through their regulatory impact assessment, and they assessed the likelihood of several attributes around these reforms. They said that the likelihood of achieving cost efficiencies was "Low", the likelihood of achieving productivity gains was "Low", the likelihood of achieving a stronger voice was "Low"—this is the regulatory impact assessment from the MOE and TEC. 
The third independent body is Treasury, who led a quality assurance panel who also assessed the reforms and assessed the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Here is their verbatim quote—their assessment—of the regulatory impact assessment: "the Panel does not find the RIA fully convincing … The costs are subject to some uncertainty and the monetised value of the benefits appear highly indicative."—the third body saying that these reforms will fail. 
The Auditor-General is the fourth independent assessor saying that this will not succeed. They also confirm that this is the largest change to public organisations, and here's what they say. They have "concerns about the timetable for the reforms.", and it is not clear how non-vocational education delivery will become more sustainable. 
Four independent entities are all saying that these reforms will fail. Our team have looked at this, and many who have been in the political domain for many years have not seen such a damning report of a proposed programme as these reforms are putting up. 
I will turn to the second part of my discussion, and that is: what will failure look like—when these reforms fail, what does that look like? Well, what it looks like, first of all, is that industry training will be less robust, with less participants. Small industry training organisations like the Hair and Beauty Industry Training Organisation (HITO)—the hairdressing industry training organisation—will be amalgamated into large workforce development councils, and their voice will be lost. Today, we place a stake in the ground for hairdressers and the industry training organisation HITO. We place a stake for them. 
IT will be merged with manufacturing, and that does not seem like a natural partner. Gas distribution will be merged with manufacturing, engineering, logistics, and technology—again, not a natural partner—to go into the workforce development councils. Remote pastoral care, especially for primary production, will be less and not more. Today, we place a stake in the ground for farmers and primary production training. 
There will be less learners in vocational training. We know from the TEC's own programme business case that in the short term, there will be 18,000 less vocational learners. In the medium term—maybe it gets better in the medium term? No, it's still bad: 23,000 less vocational learners in the medium term. There will be less learners under these reforms, and, again, this is their own information. The one mega polytechnic will have absorbed all the assets from regional polytechnics, and they will have spent it on the cost of the reform and their own ideological agenda. 
Under failing reforms, out-of-region provision for polytechnics will cease, and that'll cause a huge loss of morale and hope across the sector and, indeed, worsened financial viability. The statement was made at the second reading that the well-performing Southland Institute of Technology (SIT) was only supported by its Auckland campus. That is not true. We have it on good authority that there were a total of 46 domestic equivalent full-time students (EFTSs) in Auckland in 2019, and eight international EFTSs—hardly a large number—and outside of the mains, which the SIT took off Tai Poutini Polytechnic as a gesture, there are very few students from SIT in Auckland. They are not propping up SIT, but I think failure will also look like out-of-region provision disappearing from the purview of polytechnics. 
Regional autonomy, academic freedom, and the ability for every region to determine what they will teach, where they will teach it, and how they will teach it will be at the command of the all-powerful workforce development councils. We will fight against these. 
Now, I want to come to my third and final part, and I want to propose a question in the shape of a proposal. It's a question to New Zealand First and to Tracey Martin specifically. I want to thank her for her kind words. I too can work with you, Tracey Martin, and I think you're very thoughtful in this domain. 
I have a proposal for you, and it looks like this: today, you and I—let's purchase the whole polytechnic sector. We own it. We've assessed what the fixed assets are on the balance sheet. It's $2.5 billion of assets, and I'll go you halves. You and I—$1.25 billion each. In fact, let's do more than that. This is the Shane Reti & Tracey Martin Buy NZ Polytechs Ltd—that's what we'll call it. That's what we'll call ourselves. 
Hon Tracey Martin: "Martin & Reti". 
Dr SHANE RETI: Well, it's too late, because I've already reserved the name with the Companies Office. Those of you who are online, search the Companies Office. We're company registration No. 14800883, and I want to thank the Companies Office for their help. I said I'd give them some profile around the excellent work that they do. 
So we're now a company. We're the Shane Reti & Tracey Martin Buy NZ Polytechs Ltd. I'm not 100 percent sure where I'm going to get $1.25 billion from, but that's another matter. So here's the question—we'll talk later—that I ask you to ponder very deeply on: you and I now own the sector; if we had this skin in the game, are these the reforms, on this timetable, that we would undertake? Would this be the solution? If you and I owned the polytechnic sector, would this be our solution? I would say to you it would not be my solution. I ask you to ponder that question because even though it's sort of an example—we don't have skin in the game—we are the stewards of taxpayer money, so we're speaking on their behalf.
I just do not believe—I know you've thought from this space—that if we were partners in a joint venture, you would say "This is the right path forward, Shane. This is what we need to do and this is the time frame we need to do it in." I think we would take more time. I think we would come up with other solutions. There may be parts of what we see in front of us that may make sense, but what we're signing through as a bill today I do not believe would be what you and I would come up with. I think if that statement is true, then New Zealand First has the opportunity to get this right by voting against this bill today. If that's what your heart tells you, if that's what your business head tells you—that, yes, there is a better way than what this bill is proposing—then vote against it.
This is not the solution, I believe, and so, in summary, we are opposing this bill. The National Party, in opposing this bill, speaks for all the regional polytechnics and industry training, and today we say no. Thank you.





JAN TINETTI (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you. I'm very excited to be standing here today in this third reading of the reform of vocational education and training—I've got that around the wrong way: the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. It's exciting because as a former educator—and yes, it wasn't in this sector, but as a former educator—I always used to get frustrated that we would keep doing the same old, same old and expecting different results, and that's exactly what I've just heard. I've just heard that we shouldn't be actually looking to make any changes in this sector, because there might be a risk. That was talked about, but that mitigation has been put in place. That's what we do when we look at risk: we mitigate that risk. If people understood the bill in its entirety, they would know that that risk has been mitigated.
Thirteen of the 16 polytechs are running in deficit. That is unsustainable, and this side of the House will not accept that any longer. That is why this bill is so exciting today. We are looking at a modern education system for our tertiary sector, for our skills sector. It is very exciting. We are creating a strong, unified, and sustainable—and that word is the most important, "sustainable"—system. We don't currently have one. Today, we change that. 
I commend the Minister of Education on his work that he has done in this space. This new system is simple. It is simple to understand and it's easy to navigate, and that is something that I'm hearing out in the sector a lot, not only from the tertiary sector. I'm hearing it from industry—they are excited. I'm also hearing it from the secondary guidance school counsellors, who are very excited about this system and how much easier it is for them to navigate, for their pupils, in what we heard the Minister talking about: that really important transition point. I have even heard it from four, five, six sources, maybe, on Monday, of school guidance counsellors who came to me and said "Thank you. We can't wait for this system to actually start. It will be better for our students."
Sector and industry input was huge throughout this bill. We heard it during the select committee stage. There was plenty of opportunity. We listened hard. We worked hard in that select committee, and I know that that's reflected in the final version of this particular bill. We're going to see better outcomes for the regions, because we're going to see a more consistent approach to the skills training in the regional areas. That is a very exciting part of this bill. We're going to deliver not only better outcomes for the regions but better outcomes for Māori and Pacific learners and better outcomes for disabled learners. What more could we ask for in that bill? It is there. If only people would actually open it up and read it and understand it and actually come and say, "This does need to happen for that sustainable pathway forward."
The current polytech and industry training system and the way that they work and are funded independently of each other is clumsy. It is clumsy not only in its legislative stature but in the way that it actually operates as well. This system and this bill today will tidy that up and make for a much better way forward. These reforms respond to the huge changes that industry and sector were crying out for. They respond to a changing world, they respond to a modern education system, and I am extremely excited to see them coming into place today. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.





Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I rise, actually in a very sad way, to speak to this Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. Can I start, though, by just acknowledging my parliamentary colleague the Dr Shane Reti—I nearly called him "the honourable". It could be a slip of the tongue. You are doing a fantastic job. Actually, the work and the heavy lifting that Shane has had to do, given the scale of disruption and the number of people that have contacted the Opposition regarding these reforms—I just pay tribute to you.
Look, at the outset, I do want to acknowledge that in many areas, the Hon Chris Hipkins and I have been able to work together, whether it's NCEA reform or even to pull the Tomorrow's Schools reform to a much better place. Unfortunately, it is with absolute sadness that in this area of the education portfolio, we could not be further apart, and I'm going to walk the Parliament through some of the arguments Shane has already put up as to why we think that this is possibly one of the most devastating, destructive pieces of reform to reach this Parliament in the education area, really, in the last 20 years.
I want to start with the outset, the premise of what the problem is. It is correct on this side of the House, and it's been acknowledged by my learned colleague Jan Tinetti, that there were issues in terms of the viability of the polytechnic sector. That is correct. It is correct that the last National Government actually did undertake some mergers in this area. We know that there are issues around standards and quality, which we have previously raised and successive Ministers have raised, but as my colleague has pointed out, the solution was not this. The reality is that the overwhelming chorus from the hairdressers of New Zealand, from when I sat in the public meeting with the people of Invercargill as they voiced their concerns to the Minister—and I do note that the Minister has not listened to the people of Invercargill—was that this is a massive overreach.
I was fortunately very privileged to be awarded a fellowship to Singapore, where I sat down with their officials and I talked to them about what is a comparable sector and the fact that they have less polytechnics than New Zealand. But to move to a single mega-merger is something that National has opposed, and for the following reasons. The first is the cost of this merger and the benefits. Shane has already worked you through that it's not just the Opposition that have raised significant issues around process, around the costs of the merger, around the benefits versus the disadvantages; we've heard from Treasury, who have raised significant issues around uncertainty and costs. We've heard in the regulatory impact statement itself about cost-effectiveness, issues of productivity. We've heard that the Tertiary Education Commission themselves said to the Minister, "Don't proceed with this." So pretty much everybody has said to the Minister, "This is a massive overreach. You've gone too far. The proposals don't stack up."
The Government has to take responsibility. It's not just the Hon Chris Hipkins that will wear this at the election; it will also be—unless New Zealand First at the last moment, and I'm looking at the Hon Tracey Martin here, pull the plug. They will wear the fact that these reforms are not only bad from a fiscal perspective; they are bad from a governance perspective, they are bad from a regional perspective, and at the election, people will understand that more clearly. It is not OK, and I really do respect Jan Tinetti to say that people haven't read this legislation. Actually, we have heard from a lot of New Zealanders who have read this legislation, and that is part of the issue that they have. 
National has made a number of commitments around this legislation because we are opposed. The first is around community assets, and we did hear very eloquently from the Hon Nick Smith yesterday of an example in his area: Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT)—$50 million worth of assets. These are hard-fought assets by the community. There are philanthropists who have been involved in this; there's community groups. So we see this as large-scale theft by the New Zealand Government from the regions, and we will be making that case over the coming months, and we have committed to returning those assets to the communities, to the people who have hard fought for and built up those assets for the future.
The next issue that we are deeply concerned about—and it could never have been more prevalent, and at a timing level it could not be worse—is the issue of international students. We know with coronavirus that we are dealing with a very devastating event for New Zealand. I am fielding queries all over the country from people who have arrived here, some people who have ended up potentially having to go to campgrounds, people who have been stuck at airports, young people who are dealing with distance study. So the way that we handle ourselves through this period is crucial to be able to keep our international reputation. 
I am, on a daily basis, as is Shane, trying to pedal hard for New Zealand, to ensure that they have confidence in us. So to throw this massive piece of reform—and it's not just the Opposition who have raised these issues of our international reputation. Chris Hipkins himself has actually received advice on this, at a time when we've got coronavirus, but also people see massive uncertainty. They've got questions about their previous academic qualification and the status of that and what that means in terms of their future job prospects—it's actually quite serious, and the Opposition are very concerned about that.
In the area of industry training—well, again, we have a very, very simple philosophy in this area: that industry training is best led by industry. Shane is absolutely right. In fact, I was with a hairdresser recently. She will be voting National, and there'll be a whole lot of other hairdressers in New Zealand that will be voting National as a result of this. Their voice has been taken away. There are many industries for which the case has not been made for what is excessive ideological Government control, centralisation, and there are many industry training organisations who are scratching their heads and actually are getting very motivated to campaign against Labour and the other parties in this Parliament, because they feel they are losing their voice. But it's worse than that.
You know, we believe on this side of the House that, actually, when you look at a community like Nelson, you look at NMIT, part of the innovation that has come from these institutions in the area of aviation, in the area of marine, has been because of that partnership between the institution and industry. What these reforms are doing, whether it's industry training, whether it's the single mega-merger, is they are paddling in a very different direction, where they are providing a greater disconnect between industry and our education institutions, and National will certainly oppose that.
I think the other thing that we really do want to point out is that at a time when we've got significant pressures around the education budget, we know that there is hundreds of millions—and, again, we are very sceptical around the costs of this mega-merger—that are being spent on this, given that it doesn't have the support of industry, doesn't have the support of a number of institutions, doesn't have the support of many of the communities from which assets are being stripped away. But also, to be able to pay for this, we've seen the cancellation of things like both awards and scholarships, innovation projects, ICT graduate schools—cancelled as a result of this.
So let me be very clear: if I am the Minister of Education and I have the privilege to be the Minister of Education in September of this year—and I, hopefully, will have a couple of Cabinet colleagues alongside me, Dr Shane Reti—we will be paddling in a very different direction. We will be returning assets back to those communities, to the people of Invercargill, to the people of Nelson, who have been sold a pup by New Zealand First that they care about the regions. We will be returning those assets to those communities. We will be ensuring that at an education institutional level, there are greater partnerships between industry and those institutions. We will be stopping some of this reform, because we actually believe that there's no way that the Government will be able to implement all of this by the election, which we know they have a longer time frame. 
We will be absolutely ensuring that we lift quality and standards where possible. That might include some shared services, but that is the right thing to do. It is not just what we believe; it's actually what multiple Government agencies told the Government around these reforms, that they were wrong, that they were not going to be cost-effective, they were not going to lead to greater productivity. It also represents the will of many people in New Zealand, from the hairdressers across the country to the people of Southland to the small businesses across New Zealand, and we will stand up for them. We will reverse what we think is ideological centralisation and madness.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the bill. First of all, it is a little confusing, the rhetoric coming from the National Party. On one hand, they say that they will not work with New Zealand First at all, that they don't trust New Zealand First, that they cannot do any sort of working arrangement with New Zealand First, but then on the next hand, Dr Shane Reti wants me to go into a $3 billion business with him, and the Hon Nikki Kaye pleads with us to vote with them on this piece of legislation. I really, really need some clarity around the messaging, because you know, Dr Reti, that we will always work with people who are reasonable and practical and responsible when it comes to the direction of New Zealand. So as long as the National Party can get their colleagues together and decide which message they're actually after, then come and let me know—come and let me know, Dr Reti.
The next thing, ladies and gentlemen, about this piece of legislation, and what we've heard so far, is, first of all, I'm not sure whether I've heard the National Party admit it or not yet: I heard the Hon Nikki Kaye there say that there were some challenges and so they merged some polytechs, but I'm not sure whether I've heard them actually admit that this Government, when it came into power, found that we had to pump a hundred million dollars in the first year to keep polytechs alive in 13 out of the 16 regions.
The other thing that's very telling is in all of the meetings that I have been in around this topic and with the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), not once was there a solution by the previous Government on the table. Not once was there a solution for how to make this industry sustainable, how to make sure that the regions of New Zealand and the young people and, actually, just the general population had access to vocational training.
So this Government needed to be inspirational. It needed to be visionary, because we could not keep pumping taxpayers' dollars into a broken system. I have not heard anything from the National Party in their opposition to this bill that suggests that they have a plan. They are actually saying they're going to keep part of this plan. They're talking about undoing bits and pieces of it, but they're talking about keeping some of it.
The Hair and Beauty Industry Training Organisation (HITO), the hairdressers of New Zealand—your representative group—came in to see me. We whiteboarded this up. They told us where their issues were, where the barriers were, during the discussion period. We have addressed those issues. The legislation changed between the discussion document and what is now about to pass through this House.
When we talk about the workforce development councils, we talk about industry, through the workforce development councils, having the capacity to direct 80 percent of the TEC's funding in vocational training. Never before has industry had such an opportunity, through the workforce development councils, to direct Government funding into the skills that they need to produce the New Zealanders that can walk into their workplace and start on job, and most of that training will be delivered on job. One of the problems that the industry thought was going to happen was they thought that everybody was going to be put into a polytech classroom. That is not what is going to happen. We have combined the work that we've been doing around the future of work where we need to train, un-train, and retrain constantly our workforce. That includes our 40-year-olds, our 45-year-olds, our 60-year-olds, our 65-year-olds, because there is no retirement age in this country. People are allowed to, and should, keep working as long as they wish to work. It keeps them healthy and it keeps them connected. We are aware that most of that training and retraining will need to be done on job. There is a lot of scope. It's a visionary picture that the Minister of Education has put together, and industry is excited about it. Educators are excited about it.
But I understand about patch protection, and I understand that change upsets people. I do understand that, but as we have worked through—I whiteboarded it with Māori business, I whiteboarded it with the HITO, with the electricals, with the master plumbers. We have been through these conversations, and changes were made. New Zealand First is confident that we can get our polytechs and our regional provision on to a solid footing and we will finally be able to deliver, through workforce leadership, through workforce planning, given back to industry, the right skills to New Zealanders to be able to deliver for business the skills that they need to grow their businesses.
I'm going to sit down in a minute, but I want to say one last thing around the protection of assets. The Minister had already come out prior to this legislation coming into the House and said that assets that were given to polytechs, that were raised by community funds or had been gifted and so on, there is a way to ring-fence those assets. I would say to the National Party: you are not talking about giving away assets that were purchased with taxpayers' dollars. Surely, that is not what the National Party is saying. So the Minister has already said there is an opportunity to ring-fence those cash assets so that they are spread back into the area the polytech currently has. The Minister also gave concessions around those assets—and I mentioned the Invercargill Licensing Trust and the Auckland campus when I was talking about the Southern Institute of Technology.
Sarah Dowie: Keep your hands off their money, too. Keep your hands off their money.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: So if there have been—Ms Dowie, let's have a constructive conversation rather than screeching across the House—assets that have been given by the Invercargill Licensing Trust or assets that have been gifted by other means, there is an ability to ring-fence those for that polytech. But if those assets were bought with taxpayers' dollars, they are taxpayers' assets, and surely—surely—the National Party is not talking about putting into private hands or into a private trust taxpayers' assets. Surely, they are not.
So New Zealand First will support the bill. We'll continue to work with industry, we'll continue to work with the Minister, because something needed to be done. The National Party had absolutely no idea. They left behind a complete disaster, and this Government stepped up.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Our position on this bill hasn't changed. I'm taking this call to say that we'll be opposing this legislation in the third reading—this is the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. It was really interesting to see how the Hon Tracey Martin got so excited about the company that Dr Shane Reti mentioned he is planning to set up in partnership with her. I should say that she should not get too hopeful, because, no, we have already ruled out New Zealand First and we will not be working with New Zealand First. That's very, very clear. I thought I'd make it very clear, because she appeared so excited about that.
I'm disappointed to hear the way the Hon Tracey Martin talked about taxpayers' money. All of a sudden, now this Government has realised that taxpayers' money has to be valued differently. The way she talked about taxpayers' money and control over polytechs clearly shows this Government is about control. It's not about polytechs, it's not about local communities, it's not about local learners, it's not about local businesses, but it's all about their control.
This legislation, as we know, is to integrate vocational education and workplace training into one statute. This reform—we have been saying this from day one—is going to be really disastrous for the vocational education sector. We know this is going to bring a centralised approach, which is not going to work. We have been saying that, and there are several reasons why we believe that the centralised approach, through the setup of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Training, will not work. We also notice that workforce development councils (WDCs) will be taking control of all 11 industry training organisations (ITOs) These 11 ITOs will be absorbed into these WDCs, and we know that small ITOs will suffer because there will be no way for them to have their voice heard in this whole process.
Talking about process, from the start we have seen that this has been a very, very rushed process. These Government parties were in Opposition for nine years, but all of a sudden, when the Government was formed after the last general election in 2017—an accidental Government; that is what people say, and I agree with them—they didn't know what to do, so they carried on with the Order Paper that was set up by the previous National Government. For up to around 1½ years' time, we saw Ministers rushing to the House to fill up the House time because they wanted the House, obviously, continuing and wanted to look like they had some business on the Order Paper. Then in just the last few months, we are seeing this kind of legislation coming up, and the whole process has been rushed through. We would have actually liked to see that more time was given to this kind of legislation because it is such a big reform of our vocational education sector.
In the select committee process, we had to sit in subcommittees. There's a reason why we have a number for each select committee. These people, those who submit, they spend a lot of their time to write their submission and then appear before the select committee as well. I can imagine it must have been really disappointing for them to come to Wellington, and Dunedin as well—we had some submitters there—to see only three or four members on that select committee. It was only because we had to meet the report time line for this legislation to the House. Not just that; in the committee of the whole House yesterday, I was really disappointed to see that while members this side, members that are standing up with their local polytechnics, were taking calls, Government members were really keen to shut down the debate. We have been fighting, and we have been very clear that we will continue to fight, for these polytechnics. We want that localism maintained, and we will make sure that polytechnics continue to have that kind of localism when we come back in Government.
The other important point that my colleagues have also raised is about their assets. We had the big lecture from the Hon Tracey Martin that taxpayers' money can be taken away any time, but what about their effort that they have put in to establish that polytechnic, according to the industry needs that are there at the local level? It's really disappointing to see that this Government thinks that they can come and put a control like they want to through this centralised approach, which we know is not going to work for anybody at the local level. Having this head office dictating to all these polytechnics what they should be doing, we have no confidence in this model. We do not believe that this kind of model is actually going to work and will understand what local industry needs are.
I raised this before, yesterday in the committee of the whole House, that the Auckland region is a very different region compared to other regions. There might be some similarities in other regions, but Auckland definitely has some dissimilarities, and we need to take into account those dissimilarities. Putting them under that same head office is not going to deliver for the Auckland region.
The other point I mentioned was about immigration. Yes, we acknowledge some polytechnics are suffering, and it's not because of other reasons, but one of the reasons that we know is this current Government's policies, because as soon as this Government was formed, there was a negative signal sent out to the country's international students. They stopped coming into our country, and that's why so many polytechnics have been suffering. Yes, it's easy to blame so many other reasons, but I believe that this has been one of the main reasons, because our international education sector is vital for these polytechnics. Now, of course, we have coronavirus, which we have talked about, so these polytechnics are going to suffer even more while they're going through this reform that is being imposed on them by this Government.
The next issue that I want to raise is about job losses. The Minister, the Hon Chris Hipkins himself, has accepted that there will be substantial job losses—the "substantial" word has been used. Our tertiary education spokesperson, Dr Shane Reti, has been saying this from day one—that there'll be at least more than a thousand jobs lost—more than a thousand jobs that we believe will be lost because of this reform.
It's really sad that this Government takes this lightly. At the start of this year, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—this is because of their other policy—said that there will be 6,500 jobs lost because of their policies in this year, and now with this legislation, we will see more job losses. These people have been working hard in their sector, and if we see these polytechnics in our regions—cities are different—some of those people, I believe, are living there only because they have that job in that polytechnic. Now, those people, when they become jobless, what kinds of opportunities will they have? They may not have other opportunities available to them that match their skillset. But this Government thinks it's fine for this many people to lose jobs. On this side, we care about employment; we know that employment is important for people. The economy's already sliding into a really, really bad place under this Government, business confidence is going down, people are not employing people, and here this legislation will lead to job losses, and, as I said, more than a thousand people will be losing jobs because of this legislation.
So how can this legislation be a good thing for us? We have been hearing a lot about making the vocational education sector sustainable. Sustainable? Yes. Providing access? Of course it has been providing access to people—those who need training. We said that, yes, there are some polytechnics that are struggling, but there are polytechnics that are doing well as well. So who is going to make sure that the polytechnics that are working well will be actually provided support to do better?
Polytechnics that need support—we want to be sure that they will be lifted up. But in this legislation, we do not get that assurance. All we see is this is a big reform so it will be a centralised approach—that is what this legislation will bring, but there is no assurance that this will actually really support our polytechnic sector. And, as I said, yes, all polytechnics are not the same—there are some polytechnics that are doing really well, and we have no assurance that they will be doing better with these reforms.
Talking about assets, again, and cash reserves—it's important that those polytechnics are able to utilise those resources for their own development, and that won't be happening under this Government, because this Government likes to have that control. Nanny State—they are quite known for bringing nanny State, and this legislation, actually, is a very good example of that. They want to control everything from here; they want to look like they know what's happening in different parts of a country without going out and talking to people, without giving them the opportunity to say what they have to.
So we are quite disappointed, because this legislation is going to take away the voice of local businesses, local learners, local employers. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I would like to join with other members of this Government in celebrating what is the third and final reading of this vocational education reform bill. I want to touch on and address a few of the points that have been raised by members of the Opposition. I think it makes sense primarily to, firstly, address the contribution by Dr Shane Reti. It is very much in his characteristic style to which I've become accustomed, which is deeply thoughtful, and very creative, actually. I think that's the furthest that I've ever seen anybody in this House go for a gag—to register a company—and I think that we have seen the equivalent of the Green Party members bringing protest signs into the House; for the National Party it's registering a company. It's funny to see that that's where we land in terms of how we are representing our respective demographics out there across Aotearoa New Zealand.
I also want to touch on a number of the points that are being raised by the likes of Nikki Kaye and the honourable Parmjeet Parmar. I really want to dig into these, primarily because I think it is important to address what appear to be some very deep inconsistencies, and I don't do this for the sake of doing that typical political tit-for-tat thing.
Matt King: Of course you do!
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I find it, quite frankly, Matty King—Matt King—rather distasteful and unnecessary, and a waste of everybody's time. But, ultimately, what we're talking about here is how much we can trust what is being put forward by the respective political parties and by their talking points.
So in talking about that kind of trust and faith, on the points that have been raised by the honourable Dr Parmjeet Parmar, there was this kind of what felt a bit like crocodile tears around job losses. The National Party was saying that they deeply care about employment. I can totally empathise with them on that point. But on the issue of what we inherited with regards to polytechnics and the state that they were in, and having to inject that $100 million when we first came into Government—the first year, in which none of our policies had yet, at that point in time, come into effect—we inherited that when we opened the books and saw what was happening in the polytech sector. To say that we should somehow keep all of what's been going on on a lifeline while the National Party figures out what kind of solution they want to put forward is really quite confusing.
They also spoke about—and I'd like to agree with Dr Parmar that Auckland is special. I agree that Auckland is special, and this is the opportunity that's provided by the likes of the workforce development councils: for regions around the country to no longer unnecessarily and wastefully compete with each other, but actually to specialise and to showcase why they're special, and to attract people to their regions because of that specialisation.
So, too, I'd really like to touch on—again, as I have done in pretty much every single reading of this bill so far—and address the localism point that's been raised by members of the Opposition. And I'd like to acknowledge my colleague across the House Lawrence Yule, who was indeed the head of Local Government New Zealand, who, I note, was opposed to many of the measures that the former National Government undertook around removing localism—the likes of, for example, the amalgamation of different regional and city councils into the Auckland super-city. So I'd just like to state upfront that I'm really excited about the newfound passion for localism within the National Party, and I look forward to their support of a number of Green Party measures when it comes to things like revenue-sharing, and otherwise, between local and central government. And I'm sure Lawrence Yule will be on board if he can't get the rest of his party on board.
So now to address the bill itself, not just the critiques that have been levelled, which I hope I've kind of showcased seem to be rather baseless, not least because there isn't any form of solution from the National Opposition. But I just want to touch on three key points. The first is to address and unpack what we're actually doing here and why we're doing it. The second is to note that change was inevitable, not least because this sector was run down demonstrably by the previous Government. And the third is to state that this is not going to be a static transformation. There is much more to come; it doesn't end after we pass this piece of legislation. And as many of the local members from the National Party Opposition mentioned during their committee of the whole House contributions yesterday, this is going to be a process undertaken over the next few years, and I hope that they engage collaboratively and creatively and constructively to ensure that we get the best outcomes for our communities.
So to the first point: what are we doing here? Why are we doing this? The first point, of course, is to improve outcomes for learners. And I'll note that I'm being heckled at the moment around that point of improving outcomes for learners. So it's probably important to state that it was the National Party in Government, in their former term of Government, who removed the right of staff and student representatives to be on boards of tertiary and polytech institutions—and I will return to it later. This decision by the former National Government was noted by a number of submitters, not least by staff and students from the likes of Unitec, who stated that as a result of these decisions under the former National Government, we ended up with poor decisions under polytechs because their voices weren't taken into account. So forgive me if I feel as though what we're currently hearing from the National Party are crocodile tears.
The second important thing, following improving outcomes for learners, is greater coordination in the workforce. And surely if the National Party is going to consistently bring up the need for employment, this is a good thing. We're talking here about providing a nationwide roadmap of the kinds of jobs that are going to be available, and where people can study in order to get those jobs. That is a practical measure which I would have thought everybody in Parliament could support.
And the third point around why we are doing this is to ensure that we have joined-up thinking that isn't just some highfalutin kind of ambiguity but is about reducing, or actually intentionally trying to end, unnecessary competition between polytechs across the country, many of which I'm sure the National Party, as well as my colleagues in Government, have spoken to and found many challenges under the funding situation that they had to operate in prior to these proposals. That's not to say that these proposed changes were at all met with huge celebration across the country. Change is hard, and we will happily acknowledge that as this Government. 
The other important point around that joined-up thinking is to allow regional specialisation and the championing of what each region around the country does well. So to my second point: that change was inevitable. As I stated earlier, when we came into Government, opened up the books, and looked across sectors at the challenges that were being faced, I am astounded that the Nats appear to be in favour of us continuing to allow polytechs to be kept on this lifeline—the can kicked down the road—to the tune of approximately a hundred million dollars a year. It's astounding. 
We've also heard from polytechs—a number of whom submitted to the select committee—that they felt as though they were being run down under the former Government, to the extent that they felt as though they were perhaps being edged slowly into privatisation or into having to close down. 
I'd also like to touch on the point raised by Dr Shane Reti around the olive branch that was extended, particularly to the New Zealand First Party. Throughout the committee of the whole House stage, the National Party spoke about all of the Supplementary Order Papers that they had tabled, which were to do with every single polytech that's listed in this legislation. I'd like to remind the National Party that the Greens, too, are always happy to work across the aisle, when you are willing, as Dr Shane Reti is aware—we worked together on things like medicinal cannabis. There is much better opportunity to do so in other massive reform areas. 
Just in my final minute, I think it's important to state that this is not the end of the road; we don't pass this legislation, and everything's clamped down, and that's that. This is going to be an evolving process, and relationships here are going to be critical. And I really hope that with the passage of this legislation today, at the third and final reading, after it passes Royal assent and then everything kicks into gear, the National Party are able to work constructively with their local polytechs, with their communities, to make sure that we get the best outcomes across the board. We are not going to get that from resistance for resistance's sake. It is about trying actively and proactively to ensure that we get the best possible workforce development councils, for example, that represent the best of our regions across this country. And I'd just finally like to state that so, too, the success of this depends on the ongoing involvement of communities and their new entities; success relies on collaboration.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill. There was a brief moment a little bit earlier this afternoon when people weren't sure whether I was actually in the House. I am here, but I may need a cushion just so that I can be seen from time to time. I do suffer from small man syndrome, but that's OK.
It's great to be here and great to take a call on this bill. I would like to just refute a couple of the points made by the previous speaker from the Green Party. She made a very astute point, which was that once we pass this legislation, it won't just be a rosy road straight away. And I would like to just remind the speaker that that is dead right. There isn't going to be a rosy road for the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand sector and vocational education and training in New Zealand under these changes, and the advice that the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) have been very clear to us about has been that this will cost taxpayers $200 million to $400 million for the cost of these reforms—to make these changes—and that there will be an additional $50 million per year needing to be put into the sector just to make these changes work. So no, there won't be a rosy road, and, in fact, it's going to cost an enormous amount of taxpayers' money to make this work.
Secondly, we've been told by the TEC that there is a high risk that there will be thousands fewer traineeships, thousands fewer apprenticeships, and that this will see basically a slowing down of the progress which has been made in increasing apprenticeship numbers and increasing traineeship numbers across New Zealand, as our economy was going so well under the previous Government. I would also like to remind the members on the other side that when they talk about the financial state of the polytech sector, they should actually look at the Government's financial state. They inherited surpluses as far as the eye could see, and now we see that they've even managed to put the Government into deficit, and they also should take a look at the district health board sector as well, while we're talking about financial troubles.
So what does this bill do? This bill consolidates all polytechs into one under a mega polytechnic. It uses our apprenticeships and traineeships to prop up the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST), and it grabs millions and millions of dollars from our communities to basically prop up this new machine: $12 million from Ara, $4.4 million will be stolen from the Southern Institute of Technology, $6.5 million stolen from Toi Ohomai, $3.6 million stolen from Northland. Millions of dollars and that doesn't even go to the community assets which have been paid for, donated, by generous people in the community or paid for by ratepayers such as what's happened in Nelson—
Chlöe Swarbrick: They can be ring-fenced.
SIMEON BROWN: —for the local polytech. These communities—and I hear people on the other side. I hear Chlöe Swarbrick on the other side saying they're going to be ring-fenced. Well, what's the threshold of what's going to be ring-fenced and how are we going to guarantee that this money will actually stay in those communities? I can see this money being sucked up and being used elsewhere around New Zealand, and I can see that as the NZIST gets in, those commitments, those promises which have been made, will be forgotten. That is, unfortunately, what I think will happen under these reforms. 
As I said earlier, the advice we've received has made it very clear that the cost will increase and the results will be less than what we see now. So what we see is that we're going to see fewer apprenticeships for a higher amount of money.
Lastly, in conclusion, what is the National Party going to be doing if we're elected in September this year? We will return polytechnic assets taken by Labour and give them back to their communities, and we will return apprenticeships back to industry. National supports apprenticeships and regional polytechnics. We will fight for their voice and their autonomy against these ideological education reforms. And if we are successful this year, we will return to regions the assets the Government has taken. We'll give them back their autonomy. That's what we'll do if we're elected back to Government, and we can't wait to get that done from 20 September. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In my area, in the Hutt Valley, one of the big advocates for these changes has been the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce, because they see the clear benefits for local businesses and small employers. One of the biggest issues that I hear from those small-business owners is that the people they get employed haven't had on-the-job training. This is why it's a great bill. It gives young people who are learning the opportunity to learn in the workplace and to have that hands-on training alongside of the extra-curricular support. And that is the key difference. It's addressing that disjuncture we've had between training and real life skills in the workplace, and that is why local businesses support it, that is why the local chamber of commerce supports it, and that is why our young people will be better off for having better learning and better job experiences as they train. I commend this most excellent bill to the House.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you very much indeed. Earlier, National speakers have reiterated National's very strong concerns over this deeply flawed bill which is unwanted in many parts of the country.
I particularly want to commend the very detailed, thorough, thoughtful analysis that we have had from Dr Shane Reti, the MP for Whangārei and our tertiary education spokesperson, this afternoon and indeed throughout the whole process of this bill. I have seldom, in my 12 years as a member of this House, seen a colleague engage so fulsomely, so intelligently, so thoughtfully in an issue and provide the leadership that he has. And I want to acknowledge that because it's been impressive. And to those who have attacked Dr Reti through this process, I want to point out that he is a gentleman who engages—
Chlöe Swarbrick: And a scholar.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: —very thoughtfully. A gentleman and scholar. Yes, I agree, Ms Swarbrick. He is a gentleman and a scholar—and he's sitting right in front of me, so I don't want to get him too puffed up, but he has engaged very thoughtfully with institutes of technology right around the country. And I know how much that was appreciated in my own city of Hamilton, where he met with representatives from Wintec. They have—
Dr Shane Reti: A good polytechnic.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: —huge confidence in him. It is a very good polytechnic, as Dr Reti is stating, and I want to thank him for that very constructive and thorough engagement. [Interruption] I'd like to write that into the record, Dr Reti—ha, ha—but that might be problematic at this point.
This is a measure that uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It's a measure that tramples over property rights. It's a measure that treats all New Zealand polytechnics as failures when many, including Wintec, have very proud records of success.
Hon Willie Jackson: So he's next in line. 
Hon TIM MACINDOE: It's a measure that has the potential, Mr Jackson, to do enormous damage to our tertiary education system, and to our industry training organisations, and to many communities, especially in our smaller, regional centres.
Now, last night, I was present for the whole of the committee stage debate on this bill. In fact, I had Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 443 in my name, seeking to exempt Wintec from the bill's provisions. My reason for doing it was on the grounds that Wintec is doing well. I'm a great believer that if something ain't broke, you don't try to fix it. But I was only given one call in that committee stage of the debate.
It's well established in our Standing Orders that on important measures, members might—not will, but might—enjoy up to four calls per part of a debate on a bill. Last night, I took my first call and I spoke on some of the important provisions of Part 1. In particular, I put questions to the Minister of Education that were not answered.
I signalled that I wanted to speak in my second call on the SOP, and I was not given the chance to do that. I think this is a very worrying development in this House, because it's not the first time that members opposite haven't spoken, and instead members have just wanted to shut down the debate with closure motions. They are doing a great disservice to our country on a measure of this magnitude when they don't engage in the debate and they simply look to shut it down.
So let me conclude by saying this bill shouldn't pass today. At its very least, the commencement date should be deferred until well after the people have spoken in this year's general election and the next Parliament has a chance to consider the verdict of the people. So, therefore, I supported last night the suggestion from Dr Reti that it should be deferred at least until a date in 2022.
This is a very sad day for my region, and for all who have contributed to the proud history of Wintec, which dates back to 1924—so just four years short of our centenary—and which, last year, had 13,000 students. I want to thank the chair and council and the acting chief executive and staff of Wintec for their very fine work over many, many years. I am sorry that their fine work is being demeaned by this Government and undermined by this very poor bill. But I will continue to support and advocate for Wintec in whatever way I can in my capacity as Hamilton West's MP.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill, and I want to record the party's position and the reasons for it.
We have an education system at the tertiary level that centres on the student—not the institution, on the student. The reason for that is intuitive to most people, that education is about investment in students, ensuring that this country and those individuals have the skills and abilities to navigate a better tomorrow. That much should be simple.
An unfortunate thing, but a number of the institutions in the polytech and institutes of technology and polytechnic sector were failing the students. The problem was that the students, who have their whole lives ahead of them and understand what is in their best interests, were trying to send those institutions a message: we don't want to give you our money; we think you should go broke. That's what was happening to those institutions. They were failing because they failed the students. What a logical system.
Anybody who's ever been in business will know that if your customers aren't giving you their money, unfortunately they're trying to tell you something. You either adapt and start giving your customers what they want, or you go under. That should have been the reality for these failing institutions.
What are the priorities of this Government? Is it to ensure the welfare of the student? No. We see in this legislation that this Government wants to protect the institution. This Government thinks it's more important to save failing institutions by merging them into an even bigger bureaucracy that is just as likely to fail as the ones it replaces, instead of giving the students options.
What were the options for those students? Well, actually, they have many, because outside of this mega merged polytechnic are a range of innovative private training enterprises, of real businesses that actually have to attract a student's dollar to make a buck, who are now going to be marginalised because when they were succeeding, when their competitors were failing, the Government has come along and tips the playing field away from them and towards the institutions that were failing the students.
So here's what we have from this Government: in a situation where we had failure and students voting with their feet and going places that were better for their future, this Government has decided to put the institution before the student, to put centralisation before choice, and to put a much bigger bureaucracy before entrepreneurship, creativity, and the rights of New Zealanders to make a better tomorrow for themselves.
Let me finish by making a prediction. This bureaucracy that this Government is creating with the passage of this bill today—unless some members on the Government side come to their senses before the vote—will be no more successful than the bureaucracy it replaces, because it has all the same problems. Fundamentally, it will be driven by politics, rather than the individual choice of the students who know what's best for them and their future.
When this bureaucracy fails, we, or at least some of us who are still here in this Parliament, will find ourselves back here once again trying to reform a failed bureaucratic system. What this Government should have done is say the funding for education belongs to the student. They can take it to the institution of their choice, and if the institution can't make a buck, and it's closing down, maybe that's what should happen. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I'd like to talk for quite a while, but I can't. But I will say this, I agree with part of what the previous speaker said. He was responsible for propping up a failed system; he admitted that in his speech today. He knows what a total failure it was, but he pledged his undying support, sadly, to a National Government who did not appreciate his skills and his efforts and his innovativeness. Now I'll give him the opportunity to support a Government who knows what they're doing—who knows what they're doing.
We took over a $100 million debt from a Government who didn't give a stuff about the regions, about our young people, about our students. Shame on the previous National Government. Shame on David Seymour for propping them up. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.





DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): The previous speaker, Willie Jackson, has just said that the Government knows what they're doing. This is how they know what they're doing: they're now about to implement the most damaging tertiary sector reform in 30 years. If the previous speaker thinks that that's the definition of knowing what they're doing, then they need some serious help.
This is nothing more than a fees-free disaster in the making. That's what's going to happen—another round of a fees-free disaster in the making. You're putting billions of dollars of taxpayer money at risk, and the Government knows it.
The number one travesty—the number one travesty—of this reform that we will pass, certainly, in just moments away, is that the Government—this is their biggest blight—has failed to see the most obvious thing right in front of them, that industry understands the needs of industry best. I'll repeat that again: industry knows the needs of industry best. And, instead, they've been run roughshod over, and there's a Government that apparently knows what they're doing, according to the previous speaker, but it is industry that knows what industry needs best.
There's another aspect to this particular massive upheaval and reform, the most damaging reform in the last 30 years in the tertiary sector, and that's the timing of this—the economic timing and the context of what this Government's doing. So the economy, we know, is facing an uphill battle at the moment. We've got an overburdening Government and a significant skill shortage, and here they go with a massive, massive reform at this particular time. It's not going to relieve pressure; it's going to compound it.
We've got the construction sector crying out for new workers. We need workers who know how to swing a hammer and—ahem—get some KiwiBuild houses built. But, instead, we're going to face over 2,000 fewer apprentices. And that's what Treasury says, that's what the business case says: 2,000 fewer apprentices. That's what your own numbers are telling everyone.
And then there's the international student market. We know that they've faced a lot of pressure with the issues in delays in visa processing of late. And now we've got coronavirus, where the international student sector is crying out for some certainty around, perhaps, exemptions to travel bans. Whatever it is that they need, they're crying out for. So you've got this economic setting at the moment, and here we are running roughshod with massive reform—the biggest in 30 years. Does the Government really want to push through these reforms at this particular time? That's in addition to the reforms just being fundamentally wrong anyway. These are the sorts of questions that we put to the Minister, and the Minister just ignored it at our committee stage yesterday.
And then I want to raise the Hon Tracey Martin referring to her whiteboard exercise with the hairdressing industry—worth, by the way, $580 million to the economy; that was the 2017 figure. It's a very big industry and very big contributor to our economy. When the Hon Tracey Martin referred to her whiteboard exercise, literally, with the industry, she didn't actually say what the outcome of that was. But I can tell you what the outcome of that was. It's written down here from the hairdressing sector: "Our position on the reform has not changed from our original submission, which included a petition with approximately 1,000 names of hairdressers that did not support the proposed changes". So there you go: there's the hairdressing opinion on this particular reform. 
Whiteboard exercises or not, in the Hon Tracey Martin's office, it does not matter. They don't support it. We don't support it. This is damaging reform and yet another damaging reputation on this Government.





MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): How extraordinary it is that after around 40 speeches from the Opposition over the course of this piece of legislation in the House, we have not heard a single solution for how we move forward the interests of the vocational sector in New Zealand, one of the most critical sectors for the wellbeing of our young people and the future of our economy; a sector inherited by this Government, bleeding money, $100 million a year, and with massive shortages in key sectors of vocational training. Try and find enough plumbers or electricians or carpenters or labourers out there at the moment—a legacy of failure and a legacy of that previous Government that did nothing over nine years to deal with these problems.
With this Government, and under our Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, things are different. We are taking up the challenges, dealing with the long-term challenges presented in the sector, and we have a positive plan to make sure that this sector moves forward, that we train the young people that we need for our economy and our society, and that we give them a bit of hope and the skills that they need to develop useful careers in our society.
This is a good piece of legislation. It has wide support across the sector, across staff in the sector, across key industry organisations, and it's going to make a real difference. It's part of this Government's positive plan. I'm delighted to commend it to this House on this, its final reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
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.
Bill read a third time.





ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL
In Committee
Debate resumed from 18 February.
Part 2 Related amendments and repeals
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2 of this bill does two things of which I want to make some comments on in the remaining three-and-a-bit minutes that I have.
The first of those is in replacement regulation 52 of the Electoral Regulations, inserted by clause 24, and there we are making changes to the regulations, and I want to emphasise to the Chamber how strongly National supports those. These are amendments about making it as easy as possible for our defence personnel serving in different parts of the world to vote. The reason National's—
Michael Wood: You told us last night.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —so supportive of those measures, Mr Wood, is that the very people that are serving our country in dangerous places around the world, championing the values that Kiwis hold dear of democracy, should not be inconvenienced in any way in being able to exercise their vote. In fact, our view would be that through their line of work and the risks that they are taking for New Zealand, it is incumbent on New Zealand and our Parliament to ensure that they are able to exercise those democratic rights, and that is properly provided for in clause 24, that makes changes around the voting for those members of our Defence Force.
The part that I'm far less enthusiastic about is clause 19 and the changes that it is making consequential to the Government's decision and voting on the same day. That is not a change that was recommended by the Electoral Commission for the 2020 election; it's a change that the Government is making because it thinks it can screw the scrum a bit its way for the 2020 election. We know there are about 19,000 votes where people have not enrolled on election day. The reason that National is nervous of the provisions in clause 19 is that it completely removes the incentive for people to enrol. Effectively, what the Government is saying to the people of New Zealand is "Don't bother enrolling, you can turn up any old day you like and you'll still be allowed to vote". It will be a consequence of these provisions, including clause 19, that over time the number of people enrolling will drop because there is no restriction or no requirement to do so.
And we're also concerned about the consequential amendments that have the election writ day, final conclusion of the election, and the results announced being delayed by 10 days. Already we have a problem of too great a portion of the electoral cycle being consumed by election uncertainty; I already see it in the Government's eyes today that they are more concerned with re-election than getting on and governing the country, and the concern that we have is that New Zealand has a very short electoral period—three years. That period has been further shortened in my period because we have not only the election and the results of the final special votes being counted, we can have periods up to 100 days of which negotiations occur to be able to form a Government and that is just churning up an increasing proportion of the three years electoral cycle.
So what we see in the consequential amendments in Part 2, in clause 19 is the Government delaying the formation of a Government by 10 days. Some people say, "Well, what the heck? What's 10 days?" Well, actually, the Government spends $1.3 billion per week. That's another week and a half of which you don't have an elected Government giving clear directions to the officials and all that Government is responsible for, and that is one of the reasons that we are not supportive of the change the Government is wanting to make around same-day enrolment and voting. We think the Government has overruled the Electoral Commission on this view, that they've overruled the practice in the sort of democracies that we would want to be associated with that don't allow same-day voting and enrolment, solely because they think they can get some small electoral advantage by allowing that same-day voting and enrolment.
So this is not the worst electoral bill nor the worst part that we have seen from this Government. It is the fourth without any consultation. The bulk of the provisions are minor, administrative, and supportive. We are particularly supportive of those changes in respect of the New Zealand Defence Force that I've already mentioned. But we are not supportive of the change around clause 19, and the same-day enrolment and voting and those consequential amendments.





MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm speaking to Part 2 of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I just want to focus a little bit, if I may, on the amendment of regulation 12—that's within the Electoral Regulations 1996—of course, Part 2 being consequential amendments, the other parts of our law that need to change as a result of the more substantive parts or aspects of Part 1 that we've already discussed in some detail.
Looking at regulation 12, I wanted to focus on some of the mechanics of the list of late enrolments, and specifically the timing of that, and also what it is exactly that the Electoral Commission must do in relation to the list of people who have taken advantage of the provisions of Part 1 in enrolling later than they're currently able to do. Just to be clear, when I say "take advantage of", I don't mean that in any sort of ugly way, but rather to avail themselves of the opportunity that the bill is now going to afford to them.
So I note that it's "as soon as practicable after polling day" that the obligation applies for the Electoral Commission to send a certain list to the returning officer. We'll get to that list perhaps in a minute—I can sense your excitement to do so—but focussing first on this aspect of timing, as I say, as soon as practicable after polling day, I wonder if the Minister can advise, perhaps leaning heavily on his officials, noting that he is not the same Minister who was in the chair last night, whether any thought was given to another formulation of timing.
For example, it might be that the obligation applies as soon as practicable after polling day but, in any case, not later than the return of the writ, or in any case, prior to either the final results being announced or the provisional results being announced. Alternatively, the Minister might offer a view as to whether there is a certain period of time that it would be ideal or desirable to have the Electoral Commission send those names. So if the Minister can address that aspect, that would be very helpful indeed, not only for the purpose of the current debate but, I suppose, to shape the understanding of the Electoral Commission, following the election, as to exactly what is expected of them, other than that reasonably vague instruction to simply do so "as soon as practicable after polling day". So that was the first thing that I was interested to raise.
The second is in relation to the list of persons who will be sent in the way I've described, and these are the persons whose names have been entered on the electoral roll for the district after writ day and by the end of polling day under various sections of the Act. I wonder if the Minister can explain why it is that the Electoral Commission wouldn't simply advise all the names of eligible electors—so that would include not only those who have recently become eligible but also those who were already eligible prior to that time. It seems, perhaps, that what we're going to end up with in the regulations is an artificial distinction, given that the law, the policy behind the law, and indeed the provisions of Part 1 now establish a regime where all enrolments are to be treated the same. Indeed, all enrolment applications are to be allowed whether or not they are before writ day or indeed on polling day. So I wonder if we're going to have somewhat of an anachronism within the law whereby we're going to have a list of persons over here and list of persons over there for which there is no meaningful distinction.
Alternatively, I suppose, we can look—[Bell rung] Madam Chair? Excuse me; I misunderstood the timing. The other aspect I was interested to look at within that provision was whether there might be someone else who would appropriately receive that list of persons of newly enrolled electors. Those might be, I suppose, the people who already receive notification of new electoral enrolments. Members of the public who are watching this broadcast, both of them by now, might be interested to know that, actually, enrolments that are made in the course of a three-year parliamentary term are, as a matter of course, periodically—I think, perhaps, on a monthly cycle, but I'll be corrected if I'm wrong there, but in any case, periodically—advised to the offices of sitting MPs, and that's a matter of current members of Parliament, electorate and list, I presume, being able to maintain contact with—[Bell rung] Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I, first of all, before I call the member, apologise—in my excitement with the content of his speech, I made an error and pushed the bell a minute early.
CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Your excitement is understandable and, indeed, shared. In fact, I will excite you not much longer, Madam Chair; I've almost finished my points—if indeed I've started them! The question was, really, just whether the Minister can advise if there's anyone else who should be receiving this information following the newly registered electors having come on board, so to speak, the electoral train leaving "Election-ville Station".
The only other point was just around the point regarding New Zealand Defence Force members. Dr Nick Smith has already made the point about allowing those who are defending democracy to indeed practise it as well. I've made that point already; so, as much as I'd love to go there again, so to speak—and I know others would as well—I shall refrain from doing so.





MICHAEL WOOD (Senior 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.
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.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.





Clauses 1 to 3
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.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the Electoral Amendment Bill without amendment.
Report adopted.





ARMS LEGISLATION BILL
Second Reading
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I move, That the Arms Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
We all know why we're here today. It has been a long journey. The journey did not actually begin on 15 March 2019; it began on 30 June 1997. Almost 23 years ago, Judge Sir Thomas Thorp told us what was wrong with our firearms legislation. At that time, the Arms Act was already 14 years old. In 2020, the Arms Act 1983 is not only well out of date but dangerously out of date. Successive Governments failed to act on Thorp's recommendations, and what has been the cost of that failure? The National Party knows. The ACT Party knows. They know because former MP for Epsom, the former National police minister, the former leader of the ACT Party, the Hon John Banks, has told them. He said, following the terror attack last year, that the greatest disappointment of his political life was his failure to act after the mass murder at Aramoana in 1990. I refuse to be the former Minister approached by victims' families in 20 years' time and asked: "Why didn't you change the law, why didn't you take guns off gangs and bring in tougher penalties for gun crime?" These are the questions that will haunt Simon Bridges and David Seymour instead.
Owning a firearm is a privilege, not a right. We need to do all we can to ensure only law-abiding citizens are able to obtain firearms licences and use firearms. Since March last year, police have seized 2,138 illegal firearms from gangs and other offenders. It's an average of 43 a week—
Hon Nathan Guy: Is that all?
Hon STUART NASH: Is that all? These are the guns that have been pointed at or used against police, and you say, "Is that all?" Shame on you, Mr Hudson. 
There is no point in members opposite wringing their hands over last week's news from Tauranga when a police car was riddled with bullets from a high-powered weapon. Welcome to a police officer's world. Welcome to the everyday reality of policing. I am on the side of police. I am working hard alongside the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and others in Government to give police all the tools and the resources that they need to stay safe as they work to keep our communities safe; that includes the trial of the eagle helicopter in Christchurch, just announced this week; it includes new body armour; it includes new police on the street, soon to pass the milestone of 2,000 new police since the coalition took Government; and it includes tougher penalties for gun crime—and Mr Hudson is not voting for that. It includes new powers to stop a gang member ever getting a firearms licence, which they technically can do at the moment—and Mr Hudson is not supporting that. This is the true Government of law and order, not a party of cheap rhetoric like the members opposite. They ran down police numbers and ignored the Australian gangs who arrived in 2008.
I want to address some of the changes made at the select committee. I want to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their time and their careful deliberation, especially those who turned up to the meetings. I certainly want to thank the chair who, I think, did a fantastic job under trying circumstances. Since it was introduced, more than five months ago, the legislation has been improved by the public process. The committee heard from every single submitter who asked to be heard. Their voices have made a difference. I have also worked closely and collaboratively with the Hon Ron Mark and New Zealand First to ensure that we get the best law possible. I thank them for their constructive dialogue.
The improvements deliver on the bill's objectives and enhance the workability for both firearms licence holders and the police. The legislation will place greater controls over high-risk firearms and the safe use of all firearms. 
Let's look at some of the changes: licence duration. We propose firearms licences for five years' duration instead of the current 10 years. Many submitters commented that this was too short. The committee found most firearms licence holders who receive a conviction do so within the first five years. So it recommended five-year licences for first-time licence holders only. Then, for successful relicensing, it would be a 10-year licence. However, if an applicant had their previous licence revoked or let it expire, their new licence would be for five years once more. The introduction of an interim step added more security and then gives trust by allowing a longer licence period after someone has demonstrated that they are deserving of the privilege of holding a firearms licence.
The committee also reviewed the notice required for when police wish to inspect a firearms licence holder's storage or a shooting club's firearm storage. It is recommended this should be at least seven days' notice. 
The committee also clarified that temporary transfer of firearms for less than 30 days would not require an update to the registry unless they are pistols, restricted weapons, prohibited firearms, or prohibited magazines. This ensures that when firearms licence holders lend another licence holder their firearm, or leave their firearm temporarily in the care of another licence holder while travelling, they are not creating an overly burdensome compliance system.
There are other technical changes. This includes a recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner that access to the firearms registry be clarified so that the only reason to access is to assist agencies in their functions relating to arms. For example, Customs' access and use would be around managing the import of firearms into New Zealand.
There were also changes recommended to the provisions relating to health practitioners. These provisions are about keeping people safe during times of vulnerability. The committee has clarified the definition of health practitioner to ensure that only appropriate health professionals have to consider informing police of a concern with a patient.
For the first time, the fit and proper person test for a firearms licence explicitly excludes gang members, associates, or members of an organised criminal group—and that party isn't voting for that. Why is the Opposition trying to block this? They like to shoot off their mouths, but do nothing about the actual criminal shooters. Changes made by the committee also give police the power to consider whether someone applying for a licence has had restraining orders made against them. The use of firearms in family harm is an indictment in our society.
Dealers: the committee clarified the activities that would now require a dealer's licence. It is recommended that the bill state that a dealer's licence is required for people engaged in lending, hiring, selling, or supplying firearms as a commercial activity central to their business. The committee also recommended that members of shooting clubs selling firearms for the benefit of the club, and hunting guides operating on a small scale, be exempt from the dealer regime.
Several changes and clarifications have been recommended for the certification of shooting clubs and shooting ranges. This includes removing the requirement for ranges to have public liability insurance, lengthening the time frame for obtaining certification, and clarifying that a range officer, not a manager, must be on duty when a range is in use. This better reflects many shooting clubs' and shooting ranges' practice and terminology. 
The changes we are looking to implement in this legislation have been worked on assiduously over the past few months. But, in reality, there is at least 23 years of knowledge and analysis behind them. As mentioned, John Banks himself said his greatest regret as Minister of Police was not being able to change firearms legislation. Stand for something for a change, Mr Seymour.
We have taken the time to do a sense check on this bill. I am pleased with the work that the officials, most MPs, and communities have put into the creation of a better firearms system. A UMR poll in September found 70 percent of people supported strengthening our firearms laws; 16 percent were opposed. In Canterbury, a staggering 81 percent of people are calling for tougher gang laws. It is up to us as Government to listen to the voices of our communities, to take into account the health and safety and wellbeing of the good men and women of our police service who are out their every single day facing this threat, and to balance the lawful use of firearms against the harm they do in the wrong hands.
This is a very good bill that is long overdue, and it's an absolute privilege and a pleasure to commend this bill to the House.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's actually quite rich that we have a Minister leading a bill that is focused almost entirely on greater cost, regulation, and rules on people that already follow the law, and he's prioritising that ahead of things like firearms prohibition orders that would actually do something, giving police a genuine additional tool to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, and particularly gang member criminals.
The Minister of Police has been gazing at his navel for over two years now on that initiative. We campaigned on it in 2017. We've had a bill in the members' ballot. It's now been drawn for a second time. The Minister and his colleagues voted it down in 2018 and they've denied leave for that measure to be brought forward. Over two years later, he's still wondering what he might or might not do about it, but he's very quick to add cost and regulation on members of New Zealand society that do not break the law and do not represent a risk to public safety, while doing basically nothing about those that do.
Now, when this bill was introduced and had its first reading, we made it very clear that we opposed it for that very reason: the very reason that it does nothing about genuine criminal activity in gangs and does everything about layering cost, administrative burden, and regulation on people that already follow the rules.
Now, the backdrop to the committee considering this bill, particularly in its latter stages of consideration, was a New Zealand with a proliferation of gang tension and violence, often involving firearms. Just in the space of two or three weeks: gun shots in Ruatōria; gun shots in Napier at a health centre; a shotgun blast in Taradale, which almost hit a young infant in a car seat; and pistol crime shots in Tauranga, with semi-automatics used, a triple homicide—or two homicides: one double and a single homicide there. Of course, a suspect also lost his life while seeking to evade police. This is the backdrop in which we were considering this bill. What does the bill do about those sorts of crimes? Absolutely nothing—it does absolutely nothing.
Here's the thing—here's the thing—the Minister doesn't want to accept, which is the evidence—and this actually strikes to the registry too. He and the Prime Minister have repeatedly said, "We'll keep guns out of the hands of criminals." Well, that's certainly not the evidence that was presented to the committee in this instance, and, in the select committee inquiry of 2016-17, the evidence out of Australia—which has had a registry for many a year—was that in the case of homicides, in 90 percent of those involving firearms, the firearms are not registered. So the register is not keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. To his point about the provisions in this bill about how gang members can be denied a licence, well, just under 90 percent of firearms offences in Australia—that evidence showed us—are committed by people who don't have a licence. So putting tougher licence provisions on people that follow the law is going to do nothing at all for those that don't.
It was an absolute opportunity missed. We could have added firearms prohibition orders to this bill in committee, the right place for consideration of serious policy. But the Minister instead wanted to do a bit more navel gazing and had some sort of consultation thing that ran to about 13 January—still plenty of time to have taken that and placed it in the bill; he chose not to. He chose not to add provisions to the bill that would have targeted genuine criminal activity and gangs.
Instead, what he did do, of course, was he did add greater regulation-making power by seeking to drop on the Finance and Expenditure Committee a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), SOP 408, seeking to ban a couple more firearms types that he and the Police had missed the first time around. Now, that actually, arguably, is a good thing. The committee is the right place to discuss and debate that. But one of the things it did—perhaps the most egregious part of that SOP—was, right at the very end, it enhanced the regulation-making power that was placed in there in April, permitting the Government, through their advisers, Police—or Police through the Government—to ban pretty much any firearm that they might want to at any time. In fact, it goes further, because the way it seeks to enhance that power is to limit what can't be banned. So it's actually making a far too powerful regulation-making power even worse.
Along the way, though, what the committee was expected to do, and to report on, was to make life a bit tougher for those who already follow the law. For instance, clubs and ranges—which the regulatory impact statement from officials showed very clearly have no history in New Zealand of a problem at all—suddenly are expected to have administrative processes and burden placed upon them—on groups, small groups, of volunteers—that threaten, in some cases, the very existence of those clubs and ranges. The worst point of all about that is that they are the safest areas for firearms use in the country. They are already regulated by rules of shooting bodies, because most of them—not all of them, but most of them—participate in some sort of sports shooting activity. It could be pistol, it could be 3-gun, it used to—until the law changed—be service rifle, and others. But none the less, those clubs and ranges are the best managed and the best regulated through their club arrangements. Instead, the Government just wants to layer more on them. It's not going to make anyone safer—it's not—because people aren't unsafe in those environments in the first place. 
Along the way, of course, we looked at the fit and proper person test, and there was this desire to have proactive notification. We discovered in the Finance and Expenditure Committee—I won't say "quite by accident", but we discovered in the committee—that such already exists. It exists under the Health Information Privacy Code, which already permits health practitioners to notify the police if they are concerned about a serious threat to the life of—in this case—the firearms holder, to the public safety, or to the lives of others. 
There are two parts they have changed. One is actually good, which I'll start with, and one is not so good. The part that they've changed which is really good is that it, effectively, creates an indemnity from prosecution for that health practitioner, which we're told does not exist under the code and existing legislation. That's a good thing. It gives an additional sense of protection to the practitioner that if they are discharging their duty well, they are not going to face prosecution. 
But the bad part is that it changes the threshold for notification. It actually reduces it down, and neither the Government directly nor their advisers could give a proper justification to the committee as to why that was necessary. We suggested that they could take the threshold words as currently exist under that code, bring them into the legislation, wrap around that protection, and have a very, very solid, proactive notification system and one that we would have no problem at all supporting. But they chose not to do that. 
With regard to the registry—as I have touched upon—which we're told consistently will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the evidence from overseas shows it simply won't do that, and in some jurisdictions it has shown to be so difficult to try to implement and so costly that they've actually pulled it out. But in the places where it does remain, we have seen the evidence that it simply doesn't deliver on that objective. 
Now, we're not opposed ideologically to having a registry, but what we say and maintain is that it's got to deliver a practical and useful objective that is measurable and—most of all—achievable. With the repeated claim from this Government that this is about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, we know through the evidence it cannot do that. We cannot support it on that basis. 
We have maintained, since April, that there should be exemptions allowed for the legitimate use of now prohibited firearms. Pest control is one, and we thought we were going to get a regime for pest control in the first bill in 2019, but that didn't happen. Despite submissions on this, it wasn't discussed in the select committee this time. Instead, the police and the Government have put through a regulation which flies in the face of what they have set up in the first place. They said that they were going to stop people having faux companies claiming to be pest controllers to work around the law, but they're now encouraging farmers to do exactly that. We don't think that's the right way to deal with this sort of policy, and that should have been in the committee. 
Sports shooters—as I've said, those clubs and ranges are the safest place for the use of firearms in New Zealand. There is a legitimate use for sports shooting. There should be an allowed exemption, specifically for those that affiliate to genuine international bodies that hold genuine international competitions and where the members here are prepared to affiliate to a body that has suitable regulations, such as Pistol New Zealand, which is highly regarded. 
This was an opportunity to actually create a decent bill that would tackle crime, not the innocent. Regrettably, the Government has chosen not to do that. 





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Arms Legislation Bill, and I wish to begin my speech with thanks. Thanks to the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who worked hard on this bill, including many of the members of the Opposition, who engaged very constructively with it, but especially the members of the Government. I'd like to thank the submitters who put in submissions—all 3,527 of them—and I would especially like to thank the 381 submitters that we heard in person. 
I think we sat for 41 hours on this particular bill. I missed a few hours of that because we had simultaneous subcommittee meetings running, but other than that, I heard all the submissions. 
There was some very strong representation from the gun lobby—from people in support of guns—and, in fact, some really extreme views. One submission blamed the Prime Minister for the massacre in Christchurch. It said that the Prime Minister at the time that the licence was issued to the shooter was the person responsible, and then said, "It disgusts me that the Prime Minister has accepted no responsibility herself." It was an astonishing claim, and one that I felt just undermined the submission entirely. 
Another submission said that the real problem was that the bill all went wrong in the preamble and that "owning firearms is a right". It never really has been in New Zealand. Then it went on to complain that "New Zealand law is being made compliant with the United Nations treaty" and it used the word "globalists"—the "globalists" that signify someone is speaking from an alt-right perspective. That is someone who wanted guns in this country and did not want this bill. 
I think the submission that worried me the most was the person opposing this bill who said that the real problem was State control—it was not an issue of safety, but there was an issue of increasing State control over the people, comparing New Zealand to Venezuela, Russia, China, and Germany in 1933. This person went on. He said, "I am asking as a young New Zealander, don't set us down this path to subjugation. This route will only end in tears one way or the other, and given our current leadership, that ending is likely to be with the words 'Arbeit macht frei'."—what an extraordinary thing to say. 
Extraordinary claims like that require extraordinary evidence—extraordinary evidence that there is subjugation and a lack of freedom in this country. I would like to point out that today, the news came out that the Cato Institute has ranked New Zealand in terms of freedom in the world, and where has it ranked New Zealand? At number one. There is no evidence to support some of these extraordinary claims made by the gun lobby. 
Nicola Willis: You'll take us backwards—you'll take us backwards. 
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Of course, there were many, many—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry. Ms Willis, I wonder if you wouldn't mind leaving the Speaker out of the discussion. Thank you. Sorry, Dr Russell. 
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: There were many, many other representations from people opposing this bill, very strongly worded, from gun enthusiasts and gun clubs—people who brought up some objections to the bill. Some of them were very, very strongly worded, but they made some good points. For example, with respect to gun licences, they said, "Come on, if someone has proved themselves, do we really need to go through the process every five years?", and that is why, as a committee, we came back with a recommendation that after you've proved yourself for the first five years of your licence, then we'd go to a 10-year licence. That was a reasonable compromise that we took because of what submitters said. 
Submitters said that, actually, it was unfair that police could turn up with no notice and inspect the place where guns were being kept. As a committee, we agreed, and we've come up with, I think, the really good idea that there has to be seven days' notice. That's sitting in this bill, and that is because of people who came and made submissions, and we listened to those submissions and made a change. 
We have said that if a person is lending a firearm, then that does not have to be recorded on the register straight away; instead, we've gone for 30 days. If you lend a firearm to someone or give it to someone, then it must be recorded in the register after 30 days, and why that length of time? Well, that means that someone has got enough time to lend a shotgun to a mate for a hunting trip and it doesn't need to hit the register. So, again, a perfectly reasonable compromise there. 
In the bill as drafted, the bill had said that we needed a range "manager" on duty at ranges at all times. Now, a "manager" implies a certain level of control over club activities, and lots of people belonging to gun clubs which operated ranges pointed out that under their rules, they typically have a safety officer on duty whenever the range is being used. If we reflected that—having a safety officer—then that would capture the existing good process and would work perfectly well. So we've made that change in the bill—and so on and so on. Right through the bill, where good suggestions have been made, however strongly worded, we have taken up those suggestions to make this bill work better. So that robust engagement has worked.
We did not accept reinstating MSSAs—or military-style semi-automatics. People came up with two reasons for them. One was pest control, but we've worked out a perfectly good way of managing genuine needs for pest control, not just somebody who wants to go and shoot a few bunnies over the back of the farm on occasion. The other reason was for sports. People felt that there was a justification for having MSSAs for shooting sports. We pointed out—many of us pointed out—that it wasn't exactly an Olympic or a Commonwealth sport; it was actually quite a minority sport. So shooting is a Commonwealth or Olympic sport, but not this particular discipline. And they said, "Well, actually, it was under consideration for the Olympics.", but that turns out not to be the case. In fact, the four proposed new sports for the 2024 Olympics are break-dancing, sports climbing, skateboarding, and surfing. So that is not the case.
So why put this bill in place? Because people want it—people like Rural Women New Zealand. Rural Women New Zealand, who deal with firearms all the time, are strongly in support of this bill. They surveyed their membership, and 83 percent of the members of Rural Women New Zealand agree with the purpose of this bill; 71 percent agree that there should be a registry for guns, for firearms. They agreed that licensed clubs and shooting ranges should be regulated. In other words, this body of women with real standing from the rural community support this bill.
The Suicide Mortality Review Committee supports this bill. Why? Because, and I quote, "There is strong evidence that more restrictive gun laws are associated with lower rates of suicide involving firearms [and] studies from Australia have found that the introduction of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement … was associated with a reduction in firearms and total suicide rates".
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists echoed the Suicide Mortality Review Committee that there were 860 firearm deaths over the 15 or so years between 2000 and 2015—54 a year, on average. About 75 percent of those firearms deaths are suicides. Better control of firearms will reduce our suicide rates.
The Public Health Association of New Zealand supported having a five-year licence. Why? Because data shows that of those aged 16 to 19 when first issued with a firearms licence, 31 percent had been convicted of an offence by the time they were 20. By the time they were 30, 45 percent of them had been convicted of an offence. That five-year period is worth having.
And why should we support this bill? The words of someone who calls themselves an ordinary citizen, a parent, a grandparent. This person said—and, actually, I can't tell whether this is a man or a woman. It just says, "I have been moved to make this submission because I am concerned that the opposition to the proposals comes largely from arms item-holders."—that's firearms holders.
While the view of all affected parties is important, as in all legislation, this legislation also needs to consider the view of New Zealanders who are not firearms holders—the majority of the population. And what is that view? Well, we have that view from survey research. We know that 70 percent of New Zealanders support strengthening New Zealand's existing gun laws. The great majority of New Zealanders support this bill. We have made sensible moves in response to the submissions we have received, but we have retained the register. We have retained greater control over firearms. We retained the core of this bill: that owning and using firearms is a privilege, not a right, and it's a privilege we extend to our law-abiding citizens. I support this bill.





Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's an honour to take a call in this very important bill this evening. I'm from a partly rural electorate, and a farmer myself, and, indeed, a keen hunter, and I've been brought up around firearms since I was very, very young. Indeed, I'm a licensed gun-holder, and now I'm enjoying educating my children about the safety of a firearm. Typically, farmers in New Zealand have a .22 rifle or a shotgun, and they may have more than that, but that's typically what farmers have for pest control. I'm curious with this bill this evening—that it goes further in a lot of aspects than we on this side of the House are comfortable with, and I wish to address those this evening.
While the Government talks positively about a firearms register, I think what they don't quite realise is that it's failed in Canada. It cost over a billion dollars—
David Seymour: Two billion.
Hon NATHAN GUY: —two billion, Mr Seymour mentions—and the Canadian authorities have backed away from it. What we hear from the Government this evening is that they seem to believe that a register is going to reduce criminal activity. Well, just have a look across the Tasman, over in Australia. For 90 percent of criminal activity involving firearms, those weapons are not in a register. So this register is going to be extremely costly, and I have some real grave—what's the word?—
Hon Members: Concerns.
Hon NATHAN GUY: —concerns that this register will cost an absolute arm and a leg and more and won't stop criminal activity. Also, the licence time frame, from 10 years to five years—well, we have thrashed that out hard in the select committee, and we know that that is going to cost more for law-abiding gun owners than it does currently now. That is a concern that we raised in the select committee process, but often that fell on deaf ears.
I want to also talk, as I did in my introductory remarks, about pest control. That is a massive issue for rural communities and farmers, and we pushed hard in the select committee to say that, surely, farmers and their employees, if they are licensed firearm owners, should be allowed to go out and exterminate possums, rabbits, wallabies—the list goes on—Canadian geese, deer that are ravaging a crop. The Government seemed to sit through the submissions with very much earmuffs on, and then they've come up with this sort of a workaround whereby they are now proposing in regulation to allow farmers to set up a commercial pest control company. We think that while that may indeed work, it is a workaround that has come too late and should indeed have been in the primary legislation.
Then we come to something that is extremely topical, and that is gangs that are growing in this country—1,600 more patched members under this Government's watch. It was curious to hear Stuart Nash, the Minister of Police, stand up and be holier than thou and say, "We're doing all these wonderful things.", and yet gangs are running rampant in his electorate. The Government once again have their earmuffs on with our proposal of a firearms prohibition order, which will get tougher on criminal activity that involves firearms, and also on gangs. I know that the Greens are against this, and they have stopped the Government being tougher on criminal activity involving gangs and firearms. That is a crying shame, and that is playing out in communities right now, whether it's in Hawke's Bay, whether it's in Tauranga, or whether it's in other communities around the country.
Hon Clare Curran: You're hurting my ears.
Hon NATHAN GUY: So what is good about the firearms prohibition order—Clare Curran won't need to put up with me too much longer; she'll be leaving this place, like me, and I wish her well.
What is exciting is that Mr Hudson here, our police spokesman, has had the luckiest day in his political life in this place. He has had, last week, the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) drawn out of the biscuit tin. So what is going to happen now with the votes in the Parliament? Are New Zealand First going to stand up and support Mr Hudson's bill to get tough on gangs? They didn't the last time. We've tabled it numerous times over the last 12 to 18 months. It's been voted down. Now it's going to come into this House. Mr Hudson has got a real opportunity to stand up on behalf of New Zealanders that are worried about their safety in their own homes, with gangs running rampant under this Government—1,600 more gang members under this soft-on-crime Government is a hell of an embarrassment.
What is also a concern to us are these regulations involving clubs and ranges that are going to be burdensome. Also, when we think about Pistol New Zealand—and they work with the rifle guys, the clubs that are involved with shotguns, and, of course, the pistols called 3-gun, and that has a strong set of rules. They came in and made very passionate submissions to the select committee and said that we are, effectively, an international body. So if someone abides by the 3-gun rules that are common throughout the world, why on earth would you want to be going and regulating the hell out of these 3-gun clubs? That is something that we can't fathom.
So in summary, we have some concerns. If we are lucky enough to be in Government after 19 September, we will be making the necessary changes. We came into the select committee process and said, "We think that this bill should be strengthened with 13 changes." We've been lucky enough to get two of those changes accepted. We'll be fighting through the select committee process, with Supplementary Order Papers, to see if New Zealand First can come around to our way of thinking and get a hell of a lot tougher on these gangs. There is an opportunity for the Parliament to send a message right now to gangs that we've had enough. We want to crack down on them, and yet, unfortunately, our speeches, our messages, have been falling on deaf ears. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): It's a pleasure to take a call on the Arms Legislation Bill. Can I acknowledge that 15 March 2018 absolutely changed this country in terms of what took place down in Christchurch, and it required real leadership, and we got that through our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who stepped up and made a commitment to making our communities a lot safer—of course, with the Minister himself, and I want to acknowledge the work that the Minister Stu Nash has done in bringing this bill to the House. 
I want to acknowledge the work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. You see, I come from a rural community. I'm proud to be a member representing Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and the Tai Rāwhiti and Hastings, and, yes, many of my constituents are farmers as well as rural people. They too have said they want a safe community—and this is what this bill is addressing. It's acknowledging the rightful use of guns; they are acknowledging that for many of my community who have raised up and used the weapons and the guns safely. But it's around removing guns from those that commit harm, and this is what this bill is attempting to do.
So I do want to acknowledge the work of the select committee in bringing a much better bill. Essentially, the significant change that the committee has recommended and the Minister addressed in his opening speech is the introduction of a firearms register. Who would argue with that? It also talks about the terms of the firearms licences. We also talk about the amendment to the fit and proper person criteria, to ensure that those that are owning a gun are both fit and proper, and, of course, it creates new offences and penalties. The bill, ultimately, helps keep guns out of criminals' hands. It's a simple bill. I think all members of this House should support it. I commend it to this House.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Arms Legislation Bill at this, the second reading. I did not have the benefit of attending the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I acknowledge that others in the House spent much more time than me, therefore, considering those particular submissions. But I do want to place on record that I've received a large volume of correspondence and had many discussions with constituents in my electorate on this and, indeed, other firearms law - related matters. I promised those constituents that I would consider the Government's proposals in good faith and arrive at a conclusion, along with my colleagues in the caucus of the National Party, that reflected what we thought would be in the best interests of New Zealanders and their safety.
With that background, I have, of course, considered, again, along with fellow members of the National Party caucus, a couple of key distinctions when considering the bill. One is the provisions that are in the bill, and one is the provisions that are not in the bill but might be usefully added. I'm foreshadowing a number of conditions of National Party support that have been highlighted and, indeed, explained pretty clearly, I think, already by our police spokesperson, Brett Hudson. We make a distinction, too, between that which looks good and that which does good. Of course, it's possible for a thing to do both, but in the case of some of the provisions of this bill, it appears clear that the intentions and, indeed, as I say, the look of the thing may be good, but the effect is not necessarily one that is beneficial overall for the purposes of maintaining the safety of our population—firearms owners and others alike.
So it is that I turn my attention to the conditions that we've set out. Alternatively, we might think of these as proposals to change the law for the better, such that the National Party would be in a position to be able to support them. Before I do, I'd like to give an example of what I meant by the difference between that which looks good and that which does good. A spreadsheet isn't going to stop a bullet, obviously, unless it's particularly long and printed out and particularly cleverly placed at the time, and so it is that the firearms register proposal should be seen as a measure that is potentially useful but in practice may fall short of the mark for which it is intended.
Looking, then, at the first of the conditions that the National Party has set out by way of proposed changes: the first is to require that police be notified of the existence of a club or range. This seems to me a very sensible, practical approach, understanding and recognising the value that clubs, as collections of firearms users—indeed, members of the club—are able to provide in assisting the State to understand the potential dangers, I suppose, of any of its members and, of course, conversely, to frame the proposition in a more positive light, the members who are clearly law-abiding, honest, hard-working folk, notwithstanding that they enjoy the activity of shooting in a controlled and safe environment from time to time.
I don't want to overstate the case, but I believe there's an ideological difference between the two sides of the House in this matter: comparing the approach whereby, on the one hand, we favour bringing on board the clubs, communities of interest within our communities more broadly, and expecting and hoping that we would be able to gain some value from understanding on the ground what the situation is with regard to members, and on the other hand, and across the side of the House that is currently in Government, a belief, rather, in the power of the State to understand and to record and to be able to control better than the citizenry can its members, and to understand the dangers that are posed. For that reason, I contrast directly the proposal by the Government in relation to creating a register, which would be envisaged to be omniscient and therefore can be regarded as worthy of omnipotence, as compared with we on this side of the House, who believe that it's more valuable to be able to understand from a practical perspective what those who belong to these clubs are actually all about.
A couple of other matters, and these are of particular moment to those in the rural parts of the Helensville electorate, and I make no apology for emphasising their advocacy to me in particular. One is exemptions for those involved in pest control, a practical matter in some parts of New Zealand, as I say, including the part of New Zealand that I'm privileged to represent currently, and also exemptions for those involved in sport shooting, those exhibiting the discipline and the rigour of that particular activity, whether they represent a region, perhaps, of New Zealand or New Zealand itself on the world stage, or perhaps take a less ambitious approach but, none the less, a disciplined approach and, indeed, a safe approach—the safety being the element that I'd really like to emphasise in relation to those involved in sport shooting. Again, I think, as with the pest control, we have a very good argument that has been made through a number of submissions to the select committee process and by way of approach to many members of Parliament, and I support those exemptions as a very sensible, practical measure.
I've already mentioned an ideological difficulty with the register, but more importantly, perhaps, in practice, the reality is that what we will trade off for the intended benefits of having such a register is a false sense of security. Of course, the information in such a document is only going to be as good as each data point within it, in the same way that a chain is obviously only as strong as its weakest link, and other similar metaphors. And so it is—and I'll sanitise the expression somewhat, but it's a case of "stuff in, stuff out." Obviously, if we're not fully able to rely upon a register as being 100 percent accurate, then it will be of limited value accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that we would of course like instinctively to be able to rely upon its contents absolutely.
A related point, although one, I concede, probably of lesser strength, is that the existence of a large amount of data held by the State is, of course—in this case, data that's very valuable, in particular to the personal security of those who are on it—liable to be lost, is liable to be breached or leaked or somehow otherwise not controlled in the way that we would expect. So the privacy, but again, as I say, probably more importantly the security of those on the register is something for which we should have grave concerns, and I do hope that if the Government is successful in passing the law, including the register, every effort will be made to protect those whose names are on it against the loss, inadvertent or malicious, of that data, because that would represent one of the most serious data breaches, and this country has not been immune from those from various Government systems. It seems inevitable, in fact. I hope to be proven wrong on this point in relation to the firearms register that is being proposed. That would be a dark day indeed for New Zealand, providing, as it would, a veritable shopping list for those who would do ill to others.
The regulation powers within the bill that the Office of the Clerk, I understand, recommended the removal of: from a constitutional point of view, the desire for executive exigency I don't think is strong enough to outweigh the desirability of lawmaking that is more robust simply than providing for regulations in such key areas as this. The Parliament has proven, for better or worse, that it is capable of passing laws in very short order in relation to this space, and so it could surely do the same again in future, whereby the subject of the regulations, as envisaged by the bill at the moment, could, in fact, be the matter of Parliament made law, now and in the future.
The requirement for practitioners to notify police if they sense that there is a threat to individual or public safety: again, very well-meaning, but going back to that crucial distinction between that which looks good and that which does good, I think it's necessary we turn our mind to the possibility of an unintended consequence whereby a person, perhaps who is a firearms owner and perhaps has some sort of mental health difficulty, might feel a chilling effect whereby they are less forthright about coming forward about the difficulties they are facing. So the National Party proposal is to strengthen that to require in particular urgent situations.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand and speak on the Arms Legislation Bill, having just read the select committee report. I unfortunately wasn't able to sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee hearings for this legislation, but I was involved with members across the House in the urgent and timely response that we had after the terrorist attack on 15 March, where we heard from a huge range of the general public and those who were immediately impacted, and stakeholders from the gun sector and otherwise, about the reforms that were proposed in tranche one. I want to extend the Green Party's thanks to those from across the House who've engaged in this process so constructively, particularly to the honourable Minister Stuart Nash for his work in leading this.
What we are happiest with in this Arms Legislation Bill, tranche two of these reforms, is the online registry. It is, of course, a privilege to own a gun in this country. We aren't the likes of America, where it is enshrined in a constitution. In much the same way, I think, that many New Zealanders would think that it isn't necessarily a right to own and utilise or operate a vehicle, that same approach I think we should be applying to guns.
So it is the case that what we're proposing here in the Arms Legislation Bill is a register that has some similarities with a motor vehicles register as operated by the New Zealand Transport Agency. I would note that there's been a number of those who have seemed to oppose it because of the seeming cost or administrative burden or otherwise that they're talking about, but as far as I'm concerned, if you were to follow the input from those who have experience within police organisations—in fact, those who were in Parliament in the 1990s around the response that we had to Aramoana and the tragedy therein, and those who responded to the 1997 Thorp report. At this point in time, it's approximated that we have around 1.5 million guns in New Zealand, but it's impossible to know because we don't have a gun registry. If we were in 1997, in response to the Thorp report, as was recommended, to have implemented the gun registry, we might have a grasp on that.
So I just really want to reach across the aisle and speak to the point that was raised by my colleague Chris Penk, who stated that limited data is of limited value. Look, we agree with that, but in that same vein of thought, it is really important to recognise that the more time that we allow for the accumulation of that data, the greater value it offers for solving crimes, for pre-empting and stopping crimes from happening in the first place, and had we done this over 20 years ago, then we may be in a much better position than we are now with the unknown 1.5 million - odd guns out there at present.
It's really important as well to speak to the changes that have been put forward around licensing and also around the fit and proper person criteria. I find it quite interesting that the Opposition seems to oppose the notion of there being checks and balances, or, rather, the notification of people who have mental ill health. I would state that the Greens are often the ones who are speaking about the stigmatisation of those with mental ill health, but on this point, in particular, I find the inconsistency fascinating in that the National Party seems to be unhappy with the notification of something like mental ill health but is really happy to talk about people's connections to the likes of organised gangs or otherwise. Surely, we should be applying the same tests to the both of them—surely, we should be applying the same tests to the both of them.
I also want to speak to what has been raised by a number of members throughout the process that we have gone through, and I want to actually applaud the Opposition for their work constructively with the Government on passing the first tranche of gun regulation and changes. I also really want to applaud the frontbencher for the Nats the Hon Judith Collins, who at the point in time, post - 15 March, said, and I quote, "Bugger off!" to the gun lobby, and said at that point in time that she thought, if my understanding is correct, that a gun register is essential. So I am really interested to hear what that former Minister has to say.
I also think that it is—
Hon Member: And Chris Bishop?
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Yeah, it is going to be really interesting to hear from other members, such as Chris Bishop about his position, because it seems to have ebbed and flowed. I do wonder who has been in his ear, and I'd love to hear his rationale for now falling in behind the rank and file of the National Party.
It's also the case that this legislation, as proposed and as has gone through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, creates new offences and penalties. This is something that the Greens take really seriously, when we're talking about creating those new offences and penalties: that, on balance, when it comes to the real challenge of making sure that our communities are safer and that we are regulating effectively, that we have struck that balance here.
There are a few bits and pieces that we look forward to continuing work with, with our Government partners, and hope that there is continued constructive engagement from the Opposition. I'm looking forward to the committee of the whole House stage and to eventually passing this bill in its full and final form, creating that registry that should have been created well over 20 years ago, and putting a few things right. The Green Party is proud to support this bill.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member who just resumed her seat, Chlöe Swarbrick, in her speech imputed improper motives to another member Chris Bishop for the positions he takes. Now, in Standing Order 120, I think, it is very clear that that's unparliamentary, and I think she should withdraw and apologise for that. I find it quite offensive. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I didn't take that inference from that.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Madam Speaker, she said that his position had changed inexplicably and she wondered who had been in his ear. I think that's quite an improper inference.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): No, that's not unparliamentary. I think if you're—there's a different type of influence. Being persuaded by something, that's different than being influenced, in the way that the Standing Orders refer to.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My word, I have reached the pinnacle of my political career, when I, a boomer—
David Seymour: It's just beginning.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yeah, well, actually, the member is quite right, it is only just beginning; I would have thought, halfway—when I, a mere boomer, am praised by the great Chlöe Swarbrick, my word! Am I good or what? So thank you so much, Miss Swarbrick. I take your praise—with a grain of salt, but I take every bit of praise I can get, because I am not so proud that I can disdain any compliment.
Now, let's get back to business, shall we? We supported, wholeheartedly, the first tranche of work on this, and we are finding ourselves disappointed to have to say that, actually, the second tranche, this bill, has not come up to the mark that we would expect. I have been, like many other MPs, spoken to by many constituents, and my constituents know that I always take their advice and then I make my own mind up. I am fully in support of the first piece of legislation that we passed. This legislation, however, does have some issues that I think could be addressed, hopefully in the committee of the whole House, but which the current bill is not actually addressing.
One of those is the issue around a firearms register. I don't have a problem with the concept at all, and I know the National Party doesn't have a problem at all with the concept of a firearms register. The issue is in its implementation and the fact that it will only be a register of firearms of those people who legally own their firearms and who therefore put their firearms or their names forward to be included. If this Government that we're dealing with on the other side of the House was so concerned about the illegal use of firearms, then they would have been adopting the firearm prohibition orders that our party tried to bring in when we were in Government and couldn't get enough support in Parliament to get that done, because parties that we relied on to work with us on that would not support it. What these firearm prohibition orders do is, if someone is a gang or organised crime member and they have access to firearms or they have some connections with them, then they are in a position where they can't hold firearms licences and own firearms—not legally anyway.
We have a situation in New Zealand where we have a lot of gang members, and they seem to have been growing: about 15—
Hon Nathan Guy: 1,600.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —1,600 extra gang members—
Hon Nathan Guy: Last 2½ years.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —just in the last 2½ years. And what that tells us is that they're growing—
Brett Hudson: That was the year of delivery, all right!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —in the year of delivery, under the current Government. How many of these 1,600 extra—I think we've now got about 10,000 gang members in New Zealand, something like that? About as many as we have cells for them. About 10,000 people are not going to voluntarily put their hands up to owning firearms that they've stolen or they've bought on the black market or they've come by in some other way. They're not going to do that. It's going to be Joe and Janet Farmer who are going to tell the police which firearms they've got. And what we know is that registers—electronic registers, hardcopy registers; though this would be electronic—can be hacked, can be accessed by people who are criminals, who are involved in organised crime, and who will have then a list of the law-abiding people who have firearms, and what firearms they have. And that is, I think, a problem.
So we don't have a problem with the concept of a register, because we understand that these are dangerous weapons whose purpose is to kill. We understand that. But we also understand that the people who will be complying with the law are those who always comply with the law, and that the people that we're most concerned about are the people who almost never comply with the law, and who this Government can't be bothered dealing with. Maybe it's because they think that they won't do as they're told. Well, obviously, a lot of people are not doing as they're told, because—what, there's 56,000 firearms handed in, is that right? Out of, what, 1.25 million that's estimated? Not all of those firearms, of course, have been handed in, and there will be ones that are now declared illegal. And some of them, many of them, will be. But there will be other firearms that haven't been.
One of the areas that we've been concerned about in our party, and certainly in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, has been people such as the shooting associations, the competition shooters, who have said to us that now they can't own the firearms that they use in international competition. When I suggested that maybe they could take those firearms overseas and leave them overseas, well, no, they can't, because that's also a breach of it. They need an export licence to do that, and they can't do that either.
So we're actually, with this legislation, taking away not only the possibility of people being killed with these weapons but, actually, the very legitimate sporting activities of people who've never shown any inclination at all to break any law, ever, and who have been trying very much to work within it. So I think these are things that could have been addressed. I particularly note the submissions from the pistol shooting association, who had very good solutions for how we could deal with this, because they have had a very strict regime since the 1980s, which works really, really well. I can't understand why the Government hasn't accepted that—and for some reason they haven't.
We also have some concerns around the shifting of a firearms licence from five years to 10 years. Now, I don't understand that, because—I mean, I understand that a firearms licence is an important document, but this is at the same time that we've shifted the passport from five years to 10 years. I would have thought a passport was a pretty important document. It is actually a primary method by which people prove their identity. To be going from a five-year to a 10-year licence in that, but a 10-year to a five-year licence in a firearms licence, doesn't make sense, does it? It just sounds like it's punitive, and it's all about whacking around people who own firearms. 
I understand a lot of farmers own firearms, but there's no reason for this Government to punish them just because they're farmers. They do enough damage to our poor farming and farming families as it is now; don't need to do any more.
And then there are the issues around collectors. Well, some of us have family members who are collectors, and they're finding they're really upset because their collections that they've built up over the years—of World War II things and various other things—just get destroyed. It's all very well to say, "Oh, they can have these guns decommissioned and basically destroyed in front of them.", and that will suddenly make them right, but these are silly, silly rules. 
And then we've got sporting ranges. Well, they want shooting ranges in this bill to have a similar certification process to clubs, but they must also have public liability insurance. What's the insurance got to do with anything, with safety? Insurance has got nothing to do with safety. How many people are being shot on these ranges? None, that's how many—none, zero, zip, none. So what's going on here? And then you see that the certification lasts only for—guess what!—five years, compared to clubs, which are indefinite. So what's the point of that? And then we recommend amending the bill to require notification to police at a shooting range rather than certification. Well, you know, it just seems weird to me. So there's a lot of stuff that actually seems extremely punitive and doesn't need to be like that.
I think the first Act that we brought through with such acclaim within Parliament was sensible; this, however, is going too far. This is overreaching. This is actually treating with contempt people who are law-abiding people, who have a reason to own firearms—whether it's for sporting activity, shooting pests, or on a farm because you need to have a firearm with which to put down an animal that is suffering. These are things that actually exist in the real world, not in Parliament. I think this is a lost opportunity, so I'm hopeful that the Government will listen and will consider changes, because I would have thought New Zealand First would want to bring about changes. I would have thought New Zealand First would want to be able to say something that they've achieved, which is to help work with us to bring about these changes. Thank you. Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The following call is a split call—Jo Luxton.





JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the leadership that our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has shown and the Hon Stuart Nash has shown by bringing this piece of legislation to the House. [Interruption] Thank you. Thank you for that cheer. I see you're all in agreeance.
I grew up in a little place—spent time for a few years on a farm in a little place—called Ngakuru; I don't know if any of you are familiar with that. My dad worked on a sheep farm there. My husband is a keen hunter. He may not be that great, but, hopefully, he's not watching this evening to hear that about his hunting skills. I have sons who are avid hunters, and the one thing I know—and the one thing that we've all talked about—is that owning a firearm, having a firearms licence, is a privilege, not a right.
Now, I have not been a permanent member of this select committee. I have sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee maybe once or twice. When I sat in on that select committee, there were some actually really good arguments brought about by people that were submitting. I'm really pleased to see some of the things that they talked about have been brought about in this legislation, one of them being around the dealer regime whereby people who are from clubs who sell firearms for the benefit of the club, hunting guides, or operating on a small scale are exempt from that dealer regime. To me, I think that makes perfect sense. I also live in a rural, provincial area of New Zealand where there's lots of farming, lots of areas where people can go hunting. 
Ultimately, this piece of legislation is about making New Zealand safer. And I heard the argument before about targeting gangs, etc., etc., but actually quite often many people, not just here but around the world, who go out and use a firearm in a crime have never had a criminal record. Something has happened to them within their lives and they've just decided to go out and commit a crime of some sort with a firearm. 
We can no longer sit and continue to wait for things to happen. Situations like we saw in March happen before we act. We have to act now. We can't allow tragedies to happen again and again and again. So I just want to say that I commend this bill to the House. I commend the Minister and the Prime Minister for their leadership on this.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Ian McKelvie—five minutes.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've listened to a few speeches today and I suppose the thing that concerns me, or disappoints me, most is that I've spent a fair bit of time listening to the Government telling us how we think, and that's extremely frustrating for me. As Judith Collins said, we supported the first piece of this legislation wholeheartedly. Some changes were then made to that legislation through regulation, which certainly didn't help the piece of legislation and didn't help our people. But since then, we've gone through a select committee stage on the second piece of legislation, which I think there are many gaps in. 
The reason I think there are gaps in it—because if you look at what happened with the first piece of legislation, we were given a whole lot of recommendations and information by the New Zealand Police. Some of that information was about the number of firearms that were out there, and they estimated there were some 240,000 firearms that should have been destroyed; in fact, they destroyed 56,250. So if that's the best information we've been given on this whole firearms piece of legislation, I think it's hugely unlikely that when we get to implementing the register we're going to have anything like accurate figures or accurate information to run that register to buy. 
So I think the problem that I have with this legislation—I've got to say, I fully support gun regulation that's reasonable and puts rules in place or legislation in place that controls what happens with guns. This legislation badly fails to do that. One of the reasons it badly fails to do it is because of the haste it's been introduced with. I've been around this Parliament a while now and sat on the arms inquiry—I think it was in 2016-17—where we learnt an awful lot about guns. We visited gun clubs, we visited ranges, we visited police armouries, and we visited the place where the police keep the guns that they've confiscated. We even inspected some of the guns that had been confiscated and there are some pretty dramatic, sort of, homemade guns they'd picked up in their time. So we could see at that time, and I still support the fact, that there's certainly a need for legislation to manage the way these guns are out and about in our community. 
A problem with this legislation is it does nothing to take guns off the people that we wanted to take the guns off, and the 2016 inquiry was entirely around trying to establish how guns got into the hands of criminals, gangs and other people that don't need to have guns in their hands. We've achieved absolutely nothing in five years, in my time, looking at this gun legislation, by the legislation that we're passing today. It's hugely disappointing, I think, to have got to this point and achieved very little to make New Zealand and New Zealanders safer in what they do. That's the reason that we oppose this legislation; not because we don't think, as the National Party, that we need to be in a much better space with respect to firearms in New Zealand. 
I think the other thing that occurs to me is when you put legislation in place in a hurry—and we've seen quite a lot of legislation put in place in a hurry, including the last round of the gun legislation—then it inevitably leaves the shortcomings in the legislation and it's found later to be inadequate and fails. There's no question this legislation will have to be reviewed when we move forward. One, because the gun register in its form that they've proposed—and it's not complete—won't work, and the other is because some of this stuff is rushed and will not work. 
I think, with respect to the register, the security around the register is hugely daunting and challenging for all gun owners, because, effectively, you end up with what's sitting in your house, sitting on a register that's clearly been shown already not to be secure. I think that's one of the great concerns the gun people had. 
There's a couple of other things I want to very briefly touch on, because I don't have long to do it. And that's where, I think, there are shortcomings in this legislation that may well criminalise people who have certainly no intent of being a criminal. I put myself in that place, to some extent, having recently shifted house. I had no idea, or didn't think, I guess, to inform the police I had shifted house. Frankly, I don't have a gun in my house, but that's the other irony of this piece of legislation. I have a licence but I don't have a gun, but because I have a licence, I have to have a place to store a gun in my house—pretty extraordinary. I didn't know that either. So, effectively, you could end up—there's a lot of things that are going to be very untidy as this piece of—
David Seymour: Lucky the member's in Parliament. He might not know otherwise.
IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! Yes—legislation gets implemented; I think it's going to take a long time for the dust to settle on it. I hope it gets implemented in a rational manner that doesn't end up criminalising a whole lot of people that shouldn't be criminalised, and a whole lot of people who are innocent, and very solid New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call David Seymour—five minutes.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT, to oppose the Arms Legislation Bill. Let me acknowledge the public who presented to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. As a member of that committee, I heard them. They often received a hostile reception from the chair, whose salary they pay, but they persevered.
One analysis found there were 3,841 individual submissions—90 percent opposed, 7 percent in favour, 3 percent weren't sure. Opposition to the bill, I have to say, was overwhelmingly rational, polite, and drawn from practical experience. Those people gave five key reasons why the Arms Legislation Bill should not be passed by this Parliament.
Number one: it invades the doctor-patient relationship. We heard from people who were facing or had faced mental health challenges. Our country is on a journey with mental health where it's becoming more acceptable to talk about it. Doctors can already legally report on their patients if they believe there is a danger to that individual or to the public. But what is this Government doing? Well, it's passing a law that says that the police must tell your doctor if you have a firearm licence, and doctors are encouraged to report on you. I can't believe that this Government, of all Governments, would actually undermine mental health, of all issues. We heard from people who said they'd be less likely to seek help because of this legislation. At the committee of the whole House stage, ACT will challenge National and New Zealand First to support amendments removing the invasion of the doctor-patient relationship.
The register—number two—is not just useless, it is a disaster waiting to happen. The bill originally said you had to update the register in real time. Sensible people came to the committee and said not every hunting spot has Wi-Fi or a cellphone coverage area. They said, "OK, maybe you only have to update the register every 30 days." Then it was pointed out that 30 days is enough time to commit a crime. So if the register doesn't stop crime, what's the point, especially when it's a disaster waiting to happen?
Even while the committee was considering the bill, the police managed to lose data in relation to firearms. A register in the hands of the New Zealand Police—
Hon Stuart Nash: No, they did not. Fake news—fake news.
DAVID SEYMOUR: —is one leak away—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Sorry to interrupt the member, I apologise. Mr Nash, you do not sit on the cross benches and interject, and you do not change seats in order to better interject.
DAVID SEYMOUR: I've never seen a Minister responsible for a bill come to this House on such a defensive, and so he should be ashamed of his role in this legislation. ACT will challenge National and New Zealand First to support an amendment removing the register from this legislation.
Number three: the regulations on clubs will make us less safe. Voluntary organisations in this country usually have two or three people who do everything. If those people melt away because of the onerous restrictions placed on running a club by this bill, we'll have fewer people shooting with the support and supervision of a club, and we will be less safe. You see the irony. Every time this Government, through this bill, tries to make us safer, they make things worse. ACT will be challenging National and New Zealand First to support amendments to remove the onerous restrictions placed on clubs by this bill.
The real problem that's been outlined by speakers can be summed up as the fact that this bill does not punish criminals. It makes criminals of people trying to follow the law. That is the travesty of this bill. All of the requirements go on people who are trying to follow the law. It is the worst kind of chimpanzee politics where this Government attempts to punish a group of people it thinks are politically unpopular. Don't we see that coming through in the attitudes of the chair of the select committee and Labour members towards the licensed firearm community?
But, finally, let's talk about the timing. A Government that was truly constructive and inclusive would have waited for the royal commission to define the problem before they tried to solve the problem, and what have they done? They haven't waited for the royal commission. They shortened the select committee's time for this bill to five months from the usual six. Why just five? Well, so that the Prime Minister could announce, before the 15 March anniversary, that she'd passed another bill. It is political theatrics masquerading as public safety, and that is the greatest shame of all. It is, in fact, to borrow a term from across the Chamber, an absolutely despicable piece of lawmaking. This bill must be opposed, and if it passes, the worst of it must be changed by the next Parliament. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): The sad part of politics, sometimes, is that people, in desperation for the saving of their party or their own seat, must take, sometimes, extreme views. We've seen that just now. You know, what we had was an opportunity for this Parliament to get together and support a bill that actually is a fair and rational approach to gun control.
I point the other side of the House very quickly to the fact that in their time in Government, they had an opportunity to adhere to recommendations for gun safety. They only took seven. When asked why, they said, "That was then; this is now. We're going to look at this; we're going to work constructively." But then came along the election, and everything changed, because they realised that, actually, they feel there are votes to gain in this. I think that's sad.
When you look at the previous record of Judith Collins as former police Minister, who expressed support for these sorts of measures; now they are against it. When you look at the views of former National police Minister John Banks, who says his greatest regret was that he did not act more strongly after the terrible massacre in Aramoana. The fact is, and I think this is regrettable, that there are politics at play here, when there is an opportunity for this Parliament to take a lead.
This bill will not stop me hunting. This bill will not stop the gun clubs in Wairarapa and across the region doing what they do best in showing leadership in regional areas, teaching gun safety and discipline. I have absolutely no hesitancy as a member of this Government, as a resident of a rural area, and as a keen hunter, to support this bill. I commend it, and I commend the Minister and his officials for the work on this bill.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): This bill is a classic case of overreach. We oppose this bill, and for good reason. That's not to say we don't support firearms reform, and we did in the first bill that went through this House.
I, as a firearm owner and licence holder, was concerned about the proliferation of large magazine semi-automatic weapons that were available for sale, and much of that was dealt with in the first firearms bill. However, the thing that most worries me about the first bill was the significant delay in publishing the remuneration terms for the buy-back. That was a case of very poor implementation by the Government, and that led to an appallingly low level of people handing in their rifles.
We all talk about—we've collected 56,000 weapons, and we all think we're much safer, but the reality is that we are not. We don't know how many weapons there are. It's anywhere between 1.1 and maybe 1.5, even though the police have been issuing import licences for these types of weapons coming in since 1983, but somehow we don't know the figure.
But I can guarantee you that there will be thousands of these weapons that are wanted and should have been brought in and handed back, but because of the poor implementation of the first round, they have not. This has led to a case where we might feel we are safer, but in fact, we're not safer. That's my first issue with the way that this process has worked.
In terms of this bill, we did have two wins. National played an instrumental part in making sure that the licence duration changed. When the bill was introduced, there was a requirement that there would be a five-year rollover of the licence period. We in the National Party fought that because that is not required. The statistics said, and the argument was, that you should be looking at and assessing new gun owners, and we agreed that in the first rollover that's when you should be doing it in a five-year period. But, thereafter, people by that stage often get married and move into stable relationships, don't move home so much, and the 10-year period was deemed to be sufficient. That was the success that the National Party brought to this bill, to reduce the initial period to five years but thereafter maintain it at 10 years.
The other area that we had success on is the issue around dealer licences. We were concerned about guides going out—and we talked about hunting guides going out and taking people out in controlled situations and being captured by the dealer licensing requirements. We also talked about film armourers. Thankfully, the committee listened to our protestations about those requirements in the proposed bill, and the amendments got changed thanks to National.
But there are so many things that we did not get through in this bill, and it is to my great regret that we didn't. The first is around the regulation of clubs. Many of us MPs—and we all claim to represent a lot of urban electorates, but those who have actually gone out and visited the pistol clubs, the gun clubs in their electorate, will find that in the main they are incredibly well organised, they are very careful about safety, they monitor people very well, they do all the sort of things that every New Zealander would hope that they would be doing, and, best of all, they teach young New Zealanders how to use the firearm safely. But this bill has now imposed stringent regulations on those clubs, and I think that's wrong because if any of the organisations in New Zealand will help create a more safe environment and create an environment where young New Zealanders can use weapons in a safe manner, the clubs of New Zealand are the very places where that should and does take place. Yet this bill cuts the core of them.
It didn't just stop there. Our Government people wanted to make sure that the sporting clubs were also captured. So these are the gun ranges and all those sorts of things. We wanted notification of the gun ranges and the sporting clubs, but, no, we've now got a certification regime, and that is far more onerous. Also, there's now a requirement for public liability. And as we heard from many of the speakers, that puts an added financial cost and pressure on those types of organisations. In many cases, many of them are going to choose not to carry on—and, again, that is a travesty.
The sporting shooters: this is an area that we traversed widely in the first bill that got passed through this House. Again, this is a small group of individuals who do competition shooting both domestically and internationally. They have expensive firearms. They are the ones that will be least keen to see their weapons burgled, because their rifles, their weapons, will be the most precise and set up for their own situations so that they can compete. And, hey presto! We had a Government who didn't see that they had a valid right, that they were a very, very safe category—probably the most safe category—because when they are competing internationally, or even domestically, they are subject to some of the rules that are the most stringent around safety, and yet we could not get that through. And where was New Zealand First on that? Nowhere—nowhere.
Then we had the collectors, already subject to huge restrictions. Collectors have to have special-sized safes, much thicker than the ordinary licence holder has, like I do at home. They are subject to, again, a lot of scrutiny; checked every year. But hey presto! That wasn't enough. Even though we haven't had issues with collectors, here we have a bill that places more restrictions on them. The requirement for storing parts off site and other areas—probably in less secure areas—again, just overreach of compliance.
Then we had the issue around pest control. Again, many of us in this House come from farms, own farms, and know about it. What we're talking about is the legitimate destruction of pests that cause a lot of mayhem in New Zealand: goats, deer, pigs, geese, and paradise ducks are examples of this. There was this view that prevailed in the committee with certain members who thought that that was not a legitimate cause for farmers to be able to look after their land, to make sure that these pests didn't ruin the natural habitat of New Zealand, and yet weren't safe enough to be able to have weapons and to be able to go and shoot these animals when required. So we came up with this long-winded process that you've now got to form a company and it will have to be specially certified by the police and all that sort of stuff, and the intent of it and all that sort of stuff. Of course, there's this overriding impractical, illogical view that you'll just be able to pick up the phone to a company and say, "Come and shoot my pest right now". But there are certain of those animals—birds, for instance, paradise ducks—that you only shoot when they've got young fledglings because at other times you can't get near them. But yet there was this incomprehensible lack of understanding about how you go about doing that. Where was New Zealand First in that argument? Nowhere.
Again, there was an issue of licensing of firearms. We have had a licensing arrangement in New Zealand before—we've had it before. We had it, and we've heard about the Canadian examples and other jurisdictions. The issue with the licensing is that it has got to be accurate to be useful. We heard, already, from that small category of E-Cat firearm owners who are subject to the most stringent controls and are checked every year. They said, even then, that police couldn't keep their records about the number of firearms and all the registration around that accurate. Yet we're talking about going out and trying to register 250,000 people and over a million rifles. It's not going to work—it's not going to work.
I think this is one of the biggest issues, the jurisdiction that this will impose on the police, because this is a significant burden that they are now going to have to undertake. There was no consideration about how you might practically do that in the future.





Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it falls to me to stand and speak on behalf of the New Zealand First caucus on this Arms Legislation Bill before the House. As I start, I want to do a couple of things. Firstly, I want to acknowledge all those New Zealanders who made submissions.
I want to acknowledge the feeling of hunters and shooters who have always been law-abiding citizens of this country, who have never transgressed, who have always demonstrated absolute responsibility as they've participated in their chosen sport: be that service rifle; be that deer stalking; be that duck shooting; be that trap, down the line, skeet, whatever—all of which I myself have participated in.
I want to acknowledge that those law-abiding New Zealanders who have been declared fit and proper people for a long time were just as horrified by the events of 15 March as anyone else in this House. For many, it was the nightmare that they feared might happen one day. I want to acknowledge that most of those people also share the same objective of wanting the Government of the day to ensure that our streets are safe and that we have laws and restrictions and constraints in place, around access to firearms, that do keep people safe.
I want to acknowledge the Cabinet decision to remove military-style assault rifles from the hands of category A licence holders. That's a deliberate decision made by the Cabinet and advanced with police recommendations in the form of this bill.
I want to acknowledge the fair and reasonable concerns raised of those who would have preferred to have seen the royal commission report before legislation went through. The New Zealand First caucus understands their view.
I want to acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the improvements they have made to the bill and for demonstrating through the amendments that they have agreed to—and this is by majority—that a number of the propositions being put forward in the legislation under the recommendations of New Zealand Police were unnecessary and even, as stated by the committee itself, deemed to be unsound. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Police for accepting those recommended changes to the legislation.
I have to acknowledge that there are quite substantial changes being put forward by the committee, and I won't rotary hoe that paddock because I know we're going to get to the committee of the whole House and those amendments will be debated, I know, very strongly. So I won't go through them, but I think it's fair to say that the New Zealand First caucus has some reservations. Indeed our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, did say on 19 October 2019, when we were in Christchurch and we went out to listen to and speak to some firearms owners who held a very orderly, almost family picnic-type protest in Latimer Square, to quote him, New Zealand First was going into this process with open ears. We did not have, in his words, tin ears—that we had asked them to express their views, their concerns, make their points during the select committee process, and that we would listen, that the New Zealand First caucus would listen.
Indeed, on 7 February, Clayton Mitchell, who is the New Zealand First spokesperson for sport and recreation and has been attending select committee hearings on this bill, tweeted and said, "NZ First looks forward to continuing to work constructively with Minister Nash over the Arms Legislation, to get the optimal balance between legal gun use and compliance, as well as restating our Party's views that police should be targeting criminals not law abiding gun owners." Mr Clayton Mitchell MP has been firm and resolute in that and has been supported by the caucus as a whole. Those things have not changed. The New Zealand First caucus have always said that they'll work constructively towards sensible legislation that is pragmatic, that achieves the purpose of the bill, improving safety, is fair, and is reasonable.
Much has been made in this debate and during the course of the passage of the bill through select committee about gangs and the threats that they pose, and how this is going to resolve that. I just want to point out that I've been in this House a wee while and I've heard this debate when National's been on this side of the House and Labour on that side; propositions by the late Rt Hon Mike Moore when he fought against gangs, for tougher legislation on gangs when he was part of Labour in Opposition and he met with a tin ear from National. I have been on those benches myself proposing a suppression of gangs bill and having it turned down by the same Labour Party because they thought it was too tough. Then I have sat there and watched the National Party join with Mr Stuart Nash when he was in Opposition and support a select committee inquiry that, of all things, recommended a registration system of firearms, and all of this in the name of reducing gang violence.
I'd say I'm probably the only father in the House who's actually had a daughter sitting in a car beside another car where a woman was shot through the chest by a gang member in a drive-by shooting. I also have a son who's a front-line police officer who tells me: "Dad, every day of every week we're picking up firearms off of gangs, and something has to be done about it." New Zealand First is looking for a pragmatic way through that also protects, as far as we possibly can, the rights and privileges of legitimate firearms owners and firearms users.
I want to conclude by saying two things. The committee of the whole House is a place where this debate will be worked through. Mr Mitchell has already made it clear, and I'm talking with Minister Nash about some things that we just want to settle in our head. One of those things is resolving the question—and it was discussed in the select committee's deliberations—around the proposal to instate, and Chlöe Swarbrick raised this issue, the question as to whether or not police should continue to administer firearms law; the question as to whether it's appropriate to have an entity that is the enforcer of the law and the writer of the law, where the separation of powers is blurred.
Right now it is of concern to me and to New Zealand First that the confidence of firearms owners in police has been undermined. New Zealand First has all along said there is need here for a conversation about an arms authority that takes that statutory responsibility, thus leaving the police to one side to simply enforce the law, just as New Zealand Transport Authority issue the drivers licences, determine the testing regime, decide who is fit and proper to have a drivers licence. So too there is a strong argument, we would contest, for a separate body doing that, leaving the police not to write the law, or rewrite it through regulation, according to what they wish, but leaving them just to enforce the law.
So I think this conversation has to go on. I think there was a further conversation to be had around farmers who have serious problems with pest control. There is a serious conversation to be had around sporting shooters, and there's also some recognition due to COLFO. It hurts me to hear people labelling an organisation, the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners, as a gun lobby or equivalent to the National Rifle Association.
Brett Hudson: Well, that's your Minister, Mr Mark.
Hon RON MARK: That hurts me, Mr Hudson, because something that I don't think members of this House do realise or understand is that certain people in this country, by virtue of the endorsements they hold, are muted and have their hands tied behind their back. If they come forward to make a submission, they immediately identify themselves in public as being a collector or a restricted firearms owner, which opens their home up to being a target for gangs seeking access to these types of firearms. They are never going to jeopardise their personal safety by coming along and publicly identifying. These people are lawyers, doctors, professionals—I know one who's an economist. I know many of these people are schoolteachers. They are very responsible, law-abiding New Zealanders, and they need an organisation like COLFO to represent their concerns because they cannot for fear of identifying themselves and putting their family's safety at risk. So we acknowledge that, and we will do our very best to represent their interests. Thank you, and I say to the committee—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired.





The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority 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 the Arms Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
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.
Bill read a second time.





NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC HEALTH AND DISABILITY AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. 
This bill amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. The bill repeals Part 4A of the Act, which provides the legitimate policy framework for funded family care policies. By repealing Part 4A, we will be removing the discriminatory elements of the current legislation. This will result in our disabled people and their family carers being treated fairly, their human rights being upheld, and—alongside a full package of funded family care—much improved family and whānau wellbeing. 
I would also like to thank the Minister of Health, the Hon David Clark, as well as the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who assisted with this legislation before it was handed over to me. 
Part 4A provides for the Crown and district health boards to have family care policies to pay resident family members to provide personal care and household management support for their eligible ill or disabled family members. However, when Part 4A was introduced in 2013, the then Attorney-General found that the limitation to rights and freedoms in Part 4A could not be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This is because Part 4A of this Act allows the exclusion of certain resident family members from being paid for providing support and prohibited claims to the Human Rights Commission for family care policies; that was wrong. That's why the parties of our Government have been so committed to repealing Part 4A and undoing a shameful legacy of the last Government. It is the right thing to do and our coalition Government is delivering on this commitment. 
In July of 2019 the Prime Minister announced changes to the funded family care, including repeal of Part 4A. This repeal will allow the Crown and district health boards to continue to implement lawful family care policies. Resident spouses and whānau of eligible ill or disabled people under 18 will no longer be excluded from being paid under these policies. The repeal, alongside fairer pay rates and greater choice in employment models, will help support better standards of living and agency for disabled New Zealanders. 
This repeal of Part 4A will also enable future complaints about the policies to be made to the Human Rights Commission on the basis of human rights discrimination. The Human Rights Review Tribunal and courts will be able to hear complaints. This legislative change will ensure consistency with human rights law and uphold New Zealand's commitments under the United Nations convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to treat disabled people equally and to uphold human rights. 
This bill will address a petition presented to the Health Committee in 2018 asking the Government to repeal Part 4A and stop discriminating against family carers. The select committee process will enable people with care needs, affected families, and other stakeholders to make submissions and have their voices heard by the committee, and I encourage the public to do so. There was no opportunity for submissions to be heard by people when Part 4A was introduced. We acknowledge that that was wrong. 
The prohibition by the previous Government on fairness and others challenging what families and carers see as discriminatory legislation was an act that has brought national and international concern by the disability and carer communities. The introduction of this bill, to repeal Part 4A, is how we begin to right that wrong. Our Government is committed to making Aotearoa New Zealand a place where disabled people, their families, and carers are treated with respect, fairness, and dignity. 
This is a short bill that will make a very large difference in so many people's lives. As such, I don't need to take up any more of the House's time. I am pleased to be able to present this bill here today. I strongly commend this bill to the House. 





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the National Party and as the new spokesperson for disabilities. The National Party will support the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill in its first reading and through to select committee. We look forward to the process of the select committee where we will be able to hear from legal experts as well as the disabled community about the effects of this legislation and also its changes. 
National does recognise the crucial role of the families in providing care and support. It did so, because in 2013 it introduced this piece into the legislation that we are about to amend. It was under this National Government, previous Governments had the opportunity, but the National Government saw fit that it should be—in fact, it was one of only three countries in the world at that time, the Netherlands and Sweden, and so New Zealand was the third to be able to introduce what they call a funded family care policy to ensure that families could be recognised. 
What will be challenging is the fact that not all things are equal. There are many discretions that we have in legislation that mean that not all people are entitled. So just because someone is able does not always mean that they meet the criteria and are able to and are entitled. So hence the reasons why there was a cautionary element in regards to Part 4A of this bill. So we look forward to the discussion and the conversation around that. We are supportive of what will be, I think, an important element to continue to support the care packages for the disabled community. 
We know the objectives of this are to change Part 4A, and, in particular, what is being recognised inside of that, around the framework, around the role that the Attorney-General in 2013 had highlighted, where he had stated that Part 4A could not be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that Part 4A allows for an exclusion of certain resident family members. We don't resile from that. We think it's important that discretion is held. It's important to do that. We have an ageing population. We have healthcare facilities that at the moment are at full capacity. So, therefore, wherever possible, where the appropriate relationship with carers, with family members, is there to provide that support and that care, then there should be some ability to allow the Government to fund their role—or responsibility, in this case—especially to their loved ones. 
So, we don't intend to speak too long. We support this to the first reading and into the select committee, and, again, to have the conversation. I would again want to preface this, though: while the Minister has said that this is important, it will be a small change that will also have a big impact, I want to have a cautionary measure that while we may want to do this because it's the right thing to do, it's the way that we would do this; discretion has to be shown. We want to be able to allow for the funding of family members but at the same time too, care and concern in how we do that is critically important to us as well. So, we commend this bill into the House. 





LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. This year marks 20 years since Peter Atkinson and Susan Atkinson, Gillian Bransgrove, Jean Burnett, Laurence Carter, Peter Humphreys, Clifford Robinson, Lynda Stoneham, Stuart Burnett, and Imogen Atkinson took a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. The complaint, essentially, was about parents of adult children with disabilities being excluded from being recognised as carers, and, therefore, receiving support from the State. That drove them to go to the Human Rights Commission. That then drove a Human Rights Review Tribunal decision. It was appealed by the Government to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. 
The Court of Appeal said that the ministry's policy of not paying parents where a non-family member would be paid was discriminatory on the basis of family status. Further, the discrimination was not justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That drove, in 2013, the National Government to create a piece of legislation to actually limit them and also limit the ability of parents, whose children had disabilities, going to the courts to seek redress. 
Twenty years later, my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa, whose name this bill is under, is coming to rectify that massive injustice. It's incredibly humbling, I suppose, for the National Party to come here tonight and support that legislation, because the guts of their opposition, can I say, was that it was fiscally unaffordable. That's what Minister Ryall said when they pushed that bill through in one day in 2013. So it's wonderful that they've joined us tonight in working to rectify. 
What Clifford Robinson said—50 years he's been looking after his disabled children—was that all good things come to those who wait. So thank goodness this House finally will ensure people like Mr Robinson—who has been looking after his two adult disabled children for 50 years—are going to be recognised for the contribution that they make to our society in being carers. 
So I commend this bill to the House. I can't wait, as the chair of the Health Committee, to hear from those parents and for their stories to be given space to be heard so that we can fully acknowledge their contribution to New Zealand society. Kia ora. 





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to this bill. The legislation, as we've heard, that was enacted in 2013, effectively, did three things: one, close family members of the disabled were to be unpaid; two, those who were not close family members were to be paid—to be paid at the minimum wage level; and, three, as we've heard, there was no recourse to the Human Rights Act or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Now, there were a number of reasons supporting the thinking, the information, and the circumstances at the time. We're now seven years later. There are new sets of information, new circumstances, a new Government, and new party leaders. This is a proposal to repeal the legislation, and, certainly, this is the option that this bill has taken, and it's on the table. 
Now, the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the funded family care package describes a range of options. It says we could do nothing. We could repeal but replace section 70E of Part 4A. We could repeal, put a litigation bar in, and a compensation framework. The fourth option was repeal, no litigation bar, and a compensation framework, and the fifth is to repeal in full. 
Now, there are two important time periods for this bill. Prior to 2013, there is potential litigation risk, but the advice, through the regulatory impact assessment, is that the Limitation Act will apply, so there's probably no fiscal risk to that. The risk then becomes litigation from 2013 through to the date of repeal. Again, the RIA suggests that that is somewhat unknown and unbounded but could possibly be up to $170 million. The RIA recommends two approaches—either repeal in full or repeal with a litigation bar, which says, fundamentally, you could not take litigation from 2013 through to the time of repeal. 
I'll make several comments. The first is that under the regulatory impact assessment, repeal is predicated on Budget 2019 providing enough funding for the proposed changes. Now, we've heard that a full repeal option could have a litigation risk of $170 million, but Budget 2019 only allocated $32 million. So I think there's some alignment there as to what the RIA says is almost a caveat on this bill progressing: that it must be funded in 2019—in the last Budget, not in the Budget coming forward. 
The second point I want to talk to is the departmental disclosure statement point 2.3.1., page 5: "did the RIA Team in … Treasury provide an independent quality assessment of [the Ministry of Health's internal RIA]?" The answer is no. This is an unbounded unknown for a large sum of money. I would strongly suggest Grant Robertson and his Treasury quality assurance team, or they're a panel, actually, who have the responsibility for externally assessing internally generated RIAs—I'd strongly suggest to Grant Robertson, please, could he bring his team to the table and offer an opinion on this. 
The second issue I want to raise from the departmental disclosure statement is point 3.7.: "Have the policy details [being] given effect by this Bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill's provisions are workable and complete." The answer to that is no. I'd suggest that's another piece of work that hopefully will be in front of the select committee before we even get to it. 
I want to conclude then by saying we should always have an open mind and be prepared to at least consider to review legislation, no matter what flavour brought it into the House. We expressed concerns yesterday about the polytechnics becoming subsidiaries and having less of a voice to critique and criticise the Government under the provisions of parent-subsidiary in the Companies Act. I would bring this to this House in this discussion also that we should have concerns where we might not be able to openly discuss legislation that we've introduced and say, "Huh, new circumstances and new people. Maybe we need to relook at it again.", and I think it's in that context that this side of the House is saying exactly that. New people, new circumstances, seven years later—let's look at this again and see if we can make some sense of it. 
So, in that context, you're hearing our team saying that we're supporting this through to select committee, and we look forward to the discussion there. Thank you. 





JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. This bill will repeal Part 4A of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, and this legislative change will ensure consistency with human rights law and it'll uphold New Zealand's commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
It's a really great committee that I sit on, the Health Committee. We are generally a very collegial committee. So it is a real pleasure that this piece of legislation will be scrutinised in the Health Committee. 
It is interesting to note that in 2018 we actually received into the Health Committee a petition asking the Government to repeal this very piece of legislation we have before us today, Part 4A, to stop the discrimination against family carers. Now, the select committee process will enable those people who have brought the petition to us to have their voices heard. There was no opportunity for their voices to be heard when this piece of legislation went through in 2013, because there was no select committee process. So now it is a great opportunity for them to let us know what their voices have to say on this issue. We in New Zealand First and Labour opposed that bill in 2013. But moving along now—
Chlöe Swarbrick: And the Greens. 
JENNY MARCROFT: —and the Greens—we are able, with the willingness of the National Opposition, to pass this almost unanimously through this first reading anyway. 
Part 4A provides the legislative policy framework for funded family care policies in the health sector. Now, this Government has improved family wellbeing with a suite of changes, together with our funded family care package. Chucking out Part 4A and overturning that hard-nosed policy that was implemented by a National Government is a step in the right direction. No wonder there were howling cries from across the country, and, in fact, from around the world there was concern raised by the disability sector and carer communities. But Kiwis caring for family members of high and very high support needs will have their right to challenge, now, the laws and policies that directly affect them. They will have that right restored to them through this piece of legislation. They were rendered voiceless by a National Government. We now give them back their voice. I commend the bill to the House. 





JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take a short call on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill, and I follow after my two colleagues, the Hon Alfred Ngaro and Dr Shane Reti, on this bill that repeals Part 4A. 
It's interesting that seven years down the track, we come and—as Shane has said—there is new leadership and the passage of new legislation. On this side of the House, we are really pleased to be able to support the first reading of this bill and to support the bill into the select committee, where conversations can be had and discussions can be had. As a non-member of the Health Committee, I'm quite envious that that will happen and I won't be there, but all I can say is that this side of the House is open and willing to sit down with the coalition Government and have that discussion, listen to what people have to say, and work from there on out. 
My comment, really, post-that—should this bill pass through all stages—is that the coalition Government will follow it through by making sure that there is adequate funding within the disability sector for the legislation to be enacted fully. At the last Budget, I noted that the disability sector came to us and asked for $250 million extra towards their disability services, and did not get anywhere near that, actually. So it's great to have this bill here, and it's great to have the parties agreeing for it to go to the select committee. I just hope that this coalition Government will actually follow it up with the funding and will listen to the disability community as they put their submissions to the Government benches. 
So, without any further ado, I tautoko everything that has been said on this side around this particular bill, and I look forward to its progress through the House. Kia ora. 





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in support of this amazing piece of legislation, and I just want to applaud the Opposition for—as has been mentioned by other colleagues in this House—the humbling process that it takes to come into the Chamber and admit that there has been a change of mind. I think that oftentimes in this very bizarre sound bite - media environment, we have this perversity of thinking whereby if we are to change our mind when we come up against new evidence or new information, it's characterised as flip-flopping, and that's somehow seen as a bad thing—that you evolve and that you change your mind. But I don't think it is in any other part of our everyday lives, so it definitely shouldn't be seen as a bad thing that our feelings change here in this House. So I want to applaud the National Party for, at the very least, coming on board at this first stage of this bill. 
That's not to say that there shouldn't be a process of accountability or otherwise, and I want to applaud them as well for stating that they did—hopefully. I haven't heard that they did the wrong thing, but they are acknowledging that they did enact these changes in 2013. 
So the first question is: how did we get here? What are we actually doing with this piece of legislation? I think that it has been outlined quite fully and freely by other members of this Government in their contributions, but, essentially, what we have in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act is a framework that enables those who are looking after people with severe disabilities the ability to get funding to provide that care and those services. However, in 2013, under urgency, the former National Government moved an amendment to that legislation to block carers who happened to have a familial connection to those people with disabilities to whom they were providing care. At that point in time, it was raised by a number of us across this House, and it's been raised by other members of this Government in their contributions—it was both the Greens, the Labour Party, and New Zealand First who opposed those changes, but none the less, it was rammed through in a matter of less than 24 hours. 
It happens to be the case that this is a situation that I bring up regularly when talking about my hobby horse across the country, which my colleague the honourable Minister James Shaw will be quite familiar with—that being my personal feeling about the need for a supreme, codified constitution, because what we saw with the inclusion of Part 4A under the National Government in those amendments in 2013 was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, obviously, says that if there is any legislation which is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it is presumed that the will of Parliament overrides our New Zealand Bill of Rights—anyway. 
So that's how we got here. I want to acknowledge the incredible work that has been done by former Green Party MPs in championing a revocation of these changes that were implemented under the previous Government—the likes of Kevin Hague, particularly; the incredible work of Catherine Delahunty; and also our former deaf MP, Mojo Mathers. Just this morning, I was meeting with an awesome disability advocate, someone who is really keen on making sure that we have more accessible cities, and he was talking to me about the Election Access Fund Bill, which is Mojo Mathers' legacy piece of legislation that I'm fortunate to be moving through the House—thankfully, also with the unanimous support of all parties in Parliament. He said, "It's all very well and good for us to be talking about things like greater representation for deaf and disabled people within the House of Representatives, but at the end of the day, I just want to be able to cross the street safely." So that's the kind of basic, fundamental stuff that we're talking about here. 
I also, just finally, really want to acknowledge the work that has been undertaken not by those parliamentary champions, not by those within NGOs, not by those who work in the legal sector or those who have a voice within the commentariat and our media, but I want to particularly acknowledge the disability community, those who have, day in and day out, attempted to articulate the challenges that they face in a society that was consciously constructed without them in mind, and their work across the community in bringing forward a petition, which now, I believe, has been in front of the Health Committee. Today is a great day, and it, hopefully, marks unanimous support for the first reading. The Green Party is very happy to be supporting this piece of legislation and looks forward to the submissions from the public at the select committee stage. 





HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you. It's a privilege to stand this evening and for the first time this year—and for a long time, in fact—to address the House in relation to this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Mr Speaker, you and I both know, being locals of Whanganui, that one of our own from that community who has committed and dedicated his life working as a disabled person and an advocate in the disability sector, Robert Martin, had been honoured in the New Year Honours List and is soon to be knighted for his advocacy on the global stage, on the United Nations. In fact, members in this House and members who have been in the House since 2014 may well recall when Dame Tariana Turia, as Minister for Disability Issues, recommended Robert Martin—soon to be Sir Robert—for the post, travelling with him to New York to support his nomination in 2014. He will return to New York again to seek reappointment in that role, to continue the advocacy in this space—and importantly, one around the disability communities. 
As has been comprehensively covered in my colleague Sir—"Sir"? Could be, but Dr Shane Reti. He has outlined the background to this, and I won't go into that, because this call that I'm taking this evening is a brief one so that we're able to get through this bill, hopefully, and the speaking of it this evening. But to say, with that having been traversed as to why we've arrived, the proposed amendment to the legislation, as it has been, noting that Part 4A was introduced at a time where there were—it curtailed the limitations around the eligibility of family members in caring for their own disabled family members. I think members of the public are interested in the context of that, and I hope to take a call at the second reading of this to go through the history as to how we've arrived at this. 
But in conclusion, people are also interested as to where this is leading to, so the time line. This bill was introduced into the House on 21 January this year. Here we are at the first reading, and then, come 14 April, the Ministry of Health will look at extending the eligibility around the funded family care criteria and the rates that go with that, with those new pay rates taking effect as at around that time—14 April. Then, the DHBs will look at expanding that eligibility around the payment scale to family members looking after their own disabled persons at around about the end of June 2020, all going well, and then Part 4A being repealed at the third reading of this on 1 September 2020, by which time we will still be in Parliament and will be debating the merits of this. 
I am confident that there'll be further robust discussions at select committee level. In taking this brief call, the National Party commends this part, this reading, to the House. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Willow-Jean Prime—five minutes. 





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi, māku e mihi kau ana ki Te Minita nānā i mau mai tēnei ture ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei pō. He tū poto tēnei. 
Ko tāku, e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire, pau te kaha, nō reira ka hoatu tēnei ki Te Komiti mō Te Hauora ki te āta titiro i tēnei o ngā pire, ngā ture, ki te āwhina, ki te tiaki, kia whiwhi mana, kia whiwhi moni anō hoki ngā whānau e tiaki ana o rātou tāngata e māuiui ana, e hauā ana. 
Nō reira, ka whakairi tēnei ki mua i a koe: e tautoko ana, pau te kaha. 
[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I acknowledge the Minister who is responsible for bringing this legislation before Parliament tonight. I will be brief. 
I support this bill wholeheartedly. Much work has gone into it and it will, therefore, go to the Health Committee for a more detailed analysis on the legislative aspects, the wraparound support services, the financial assistance, and the increased status afforded to families that provide care for their sick and disabled. 
Therefore, I conclude with these remarks: I give my unequivocal support.]





AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to take this call in support of this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill, at first reading. Many New Zealand families play a crucial and vital role in the support and love and care of those members of our family who, for some illness or disability, are not in a position to care for themselves. I can state categorically that my own family is providing this care as I speak, as I'm sure members in this House will have someone in their family or they will know someone that's in this very same position. 
The mainstay of all societies is not the State; it is the family unit, and it is the individual and the family that they exist within. Thus, the responsibility for the care of those individuals does lay first and foremost with those family members, and this is true for all our communities in this country, whether you've been here a thousand years or have just come last year. This is what we do—we look after our own. But from time to time, that burden on families can be heavy indeed, and so families will look to the wider community, their wider family, to a care provider for support, and that also includes the Government. As a country, we stand very proud in our compassion and care for others, and particularly also when they are not even related to us. 
So giving families some relief from the situation, the challenges of care, does require financial resources. As has been noted by members on this side of the House tonight, I'm proud to be a member of a party that when in Government in 2013, still managing some of the challenges of economic trade winds of the global financial crisis and subsequent earthquakes, still managed to provide this funded care network. So that stands strong in our record; I'm pleased that was noted. 
I stand to support this bill to the next stage, to the select committee, where we can get meaningful debate and discussion and really look towards how we can best implement a plan to go forward for the communities, the families, who are in need. It's a useful time to enable the committee to get some good advice of experts and to hear from those individuals, those families, whom this bill will affect. There are some pragmatic and hard decisions that have to be made, where we look to identify how we best support these families, and we do have to carefully balance the needs of the whānau. So I'm pleased to support this bill to the House. Thank you. 





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand to take a brief call on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill—the funded family care repeal of Part 4A. It's abhorrent to me, to my party, and to our Government that Part 4A of the primary legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is a shameful legacy of the last Government. Let's get on with it. I commend this bill to the House. 





Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill at its first reading. Just to set the record straight on some of this, I think that when it comes to the disability sector, it's incredibly important that they are represented in Parliament, and the select committee process will be an appropriate time for them to talk not only about family caregivers, which is at the heart of what we do for our own families. If a family member is disabled, we look after them—the complex arrangements that need to be made sometimes to help finance those arrangements on a home-base level need to be very carefully thought through. 
So we're supporting this bill. We want it through to select committee, and we want to be able to hear from the members of the disability community who are really affected by this and whose lives have been touched by trying to come up with the best possible solutions for their own family members, to surround them not only with love but also with care, and to have the financial ability to do that. 
I think that the funded family care network which we established in 2013 is something that we as a nation should be proud of. We're very proud on this side of the House that we did that, and I'd like to commend the work of the Hon Nicky Wagner, who was the Minister for Disability Issues and worked closely with Bill English—Sir Bill English, as he is now—to come up with the social investment approach. We have had the intention and, indeed, the strong desire to ensure that properly constructed structures are put in place but then that they are properly funded. 
I note that, unfortunately, last year's coalition Budget was a very bad Budget for people with disabilities. There was hardly any money for them. This particular piece of legislation is going to cost a lot, and it needs to be very carefully thought through and then appropriately funded. This coalition Government has failed woefully in its funding of all disability services, and the disability budget has actually gone backwards—and that's for the first time in five years. 
The disability advocates that I have spoken to over the past year or two who had asked for last year a $250 million increase received $7 million less last year than they have in the past. So for a coalition Government that virtue-signals like there's no tomorrow, there does need to be money put down on this so that that is not just building up false hopes but it is actually funding what is needed, as opposed to just talking about it. I mean, to have the disability sector at the lowest levels we have seen as a proportion of Vote Health is a disgrace, and for the smug and the self-satisfied on the other side of the House, they probably need to swallow that pill and do their best to get some more money out of their Minister for what is an essential service. 
So in, for example, Enabling Good Lives, which Nicky Wagner began, we have a framework with a disability strategy that is all set and ready to go. This coalition Government seems intent on doing—I think you're up to about the fourth iteration of finding out whether Enabling Good Lives is a good thing. There've been pilot projects in the Waikato, for example, that at the time that we left Government in 2017 were all set and proven with their case and ready to go and with the funding. Instead, the disability sector have been telling me loud and clear that instead of getting money for their services, it's been taken out and put into yet another evaluation of Enabling Good Lives. 
Get the act together, coalition Government. Put some money into this, put some money and care and concern into the disability sector, and ensure that you put the correct provision in so that Enabling Good Lives, which is the game-changer, which is the way that the future is headed for people in the disability sector in New Zealand—one in four of us have disabilities. We need to do better as a country, we need to do better as a Parliament, and the coalition needs to do better as a Government. So before the triumphant shouting of how fabulous you are with your virtue signalling goes through, we'd like to see some solid money put up instead of tinkering with various things. 
The caregivers' package is a very good thing within this piece of legislation. Narrowly focused though it is, this amendment bill, we will support it through, but the coalition Government can expect that we will be paying very close attention to what funding is going to be put into this, because, so far, the coalition's record on this has been nothing short of disgraceful. Let's hope that you get organised to actually fund this properly, because the disability sector deserves better. They deserve more and they deserve better consideration than they've had from this coalition Government, which has talked a lot and done absolutely nothing. 
So while I commend this bill to the House, I expect it to come, as National do—we expect it to come with a decent price tag to actually fund it. Don't just get hopes up falsely and then not fund; get properly funded, and at that point, we'll perhaps start taking the coalition Government more seriously when it comes to disability matters. But I will support this bill. We will support this bill through to first reading, and we need to look very, very carefully at what the disability sector say. So I commend it to the House, but with reservations. Thank you. 





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Health Committee. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.