TUESDAY, 17 MARCH 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for a Government statement and responses on the Government's emergency economic package, consisting of two 15-minute speeches, seven 10-minute speeches, and one five-minute speech, as agreed by the parties. 
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 





MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
COVID-19—Emergency Economic Package
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I know that every member of this House, whatever our political differences, is here because we believe in this country and in our people. Today, we face a challenge that requires us to harness every bit of that spirit and give our total commitment to protecting the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. That commitment is of the utmost importance as New Zealand faces its greatest health and economic challenge in over a generation. 
Our response in these times must be to put people first. This is a period of time that will test our resilience but also our commitment to each other. He waka eke noa—we are all in this together. 
Today's economic package is about cash flow and confidence. It is only the beginning of what this Government will do to support New Zealanders through this time of crisis and lead our recovery and rebuilding. We will fight the virus. We will cushion the blow for businesses and workers. We will position for recovery. We have been and we will be swift, decisive, and compassionate. 
The global COVID-19 pandemic is wreaking havoc around the world. The virus's exponential spread has seen whole countries shut down in their attempts to slow and contain the spread. The result has been unprecedented economic and social disruption across the globe, and we are not immune, of course—I cannot and must not sugar-coat this. A recession in New Zealand is now almost certain, with the advice that we are receiving that the shock will be larger than that seen during the global financial crisis. This will affect every part of our economy now and for some time to come. We are going to see many New Zealanders lose their jobs, and some businesses will fail. We will have an extended period of deficits, and our debt as a country will have to substantially increase. Our package announced today and the support that will continue to come—we'll do our best to cushion that blow. 
It is heartening that we face this with our books in good shape. We have kept net debt low, at 19.5 percent of GDP, which is lower than we inherited. We have worked hard to be ready for the rainy day that has now arrived. 
There is no costless decision in this situation. The economic impacts of the spread of COVID-19 were clear before our decision to extend border restrictions. I stand by the wisdom and the courage of that decision. We are taking decisive action to avoid what we have seen overseas and to implement measures that give us a fighting chance of mitigating the worst here, and I make no apologies for that. Whatever costs we are now dealing with pale in comparison to the loss of life and devastation that would come with inaction. 
Clearly, there are tough times ahead. I acknowledge the uncertainty and anxiety many people will be feeling right now. I want to say directly to those people: we will get through this together. 
The Government's economic response package is the largest investment in our lifetimes, designed for the unique nature of the disruption caused by COVID-19. It comes on top of the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme. I want to thank New Zealand First and the Green Party for their help in putting this package together. 
The overall investment in the economic response package is $12.1 billion across the forecast period—one of the largest responses in the world on a per capita basis. To give you an idea of the scale of the package I am announcing today, it represents nearly 4 percent of GDP and more than the total of all of the new operating spending in the three Budgets in this term of Government put together. 
The package has three components: extra support for the health system to enable an increased public health response so New Zealand can slow any potential domestic outbreak, a substantial package to cushion the impact of the economic shock on businesses and workers and to support confidence in the near term, and the first phase of a broader recovery package to support household incomes through the shock and to spur our economic recovery. Obviously, the ultimate recovery package will go well beyond the measures announced today, and this year's Budget will be the second phase of our broader recovery package. 
Our first response is a public health one. It is our fundamental duty. It is also the first and best economic response. The hard work and dedication of our health workforce and the personal responsibility that New Zealanders are showing with regard to protecting themselves and others is a great line of first defence. We must continue that work to smooth the curve of the inevitable increase in infections. Today's package includes a commitment of an additional $500 million to support our "Go hard, Go early, Contain COVID-19" strategy. There will be further support to come. 
Under this plan, the health system is increasing capacity and capability. This will mean scaling up public communications to ensure people have practical advice and support to contain the virus and stay healthy and on how to self-isolate; ensuring continuity of care in the community; strengthening our ability to test and trace cases; and strengthening our ability to treat cases. To achieve this, our actions in the next 30 days will be split into two phases. Immediate actions, including a public information campaign, upscaling testing, boosting Healthline, surging containment and isolation procedures, establishing community-based assessment clinics, and a whole-of-system focus on meeting workforce demand and personal protective equipment needs. Our medium-term actions include further support for hospitals and community providers to deal with a surge of patients, and further advice for caring for people at home.
I want to pay tribute to the health professionals and staff who are working around the clock to protect New Zealanders' wellbeing. We owe you so much. Today's package is a sign of our support for your work.
In addition to the significant boost to the health system I have mentioned, we are also introducing a COVID-19 leave payment scheme. This is to incentivise self-isolation by employees, the self-employed, and contractors. Self-isolation is critical to the success of our public health strategy, and we know that some workers are facing barriers—financial ones—to self-isolation.
The scheme will provide support through employers and to sole traders and the self-employed for those people who are in self-isolation and unable to work, or who are sick or caring for dependants who are in either of those situations. Employers will still be expected to meet all of their sick leave and other employment expectations. The key parameters for the scheme are an entitlement period of 14 days for those self-isolating, and for the entire period of sickness for those who contract COVID-19. Eligibility is open to all firms, the self-employed, and for contractors, but not for those who can work from home.
Full-time workers will receive $585 per week under the scheme. The scheme will be in place for an initial eight-week period, at which point the Government will reassess based on the health situation at the time. Employers will have to sign a declaration confirming that they meet the criteria for receiving this funding. Any false declaration would be committing fraud.
Given the size and speed of the economic shock that we are facing, we recognise the immediate need to support businesses and workers to cushion the economic impact on households and firms. We want to help boost cash flow and confidence in the economy through this uncertain period. It is why we are establishing a wage subsidy scheme. The scheme will help people stay attached to their workplace so that both workers and businesses are in a better position to adjust to the difficult prevailing conditions.
The scheme will be available to all businesses in all sectors nationwide, and will include the self-employed and sole traders. Eligible firms will be provided a lump sum payment of the equivalent of $585 per week per full-time employee and $350 per week per part-time employee for 12 weeks, up to a cap of $150,000. I want to reiterate that will be a lump sum payment.
To qualify, businesses must declare that they have had a 30 percent decline in revenue due to COVID-19, month on month, for any month between January and June this year compared to last year, and that they have talked to their bank about assistance. Employers can make applications for the scheme from today by filling out a simple form on the Work and Income website and making a declaration. The Ministry of Social Development have advised us that they will be able to make payments starting in five days' time.
At this point, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work by the Ministry of Social Development and other public servants in pulling this package together under incredible time constraints. I ask everyone for patience in dealing with public servants at this time. Depending on the uptake, this package could inject up to $5.1 billion into the economy over the next two months.
Where possible, we also want people to stay actively engaged with the labour market, or in training. To support this, we have established a $100 million fund to support worker redeployment and training. The first announcement on this will be a package for the Tai Rāwhiti region in the coming days. The Government is also undertaking work on how to support large and complex employers on a case by case basis, and is working in partnership with banks to understand the impact of COVID-19 on access to working capital.
I do want to say today that the decision of the Reserve Bank to cut the official cash rate and to delay the introduction of new capital requirements for banks frees up banks to further support customers. The Government and the Reserve Bank are coordinating our actions to support the overall stability of the economy.
Today's package also contains an indicative investment for the aviation sector that will be finalised in the coming days. It is essential that we keep air routes open to support returning New Zealanders and to keep vital supply chains open, and that we support essential services at our border.
Today's package also implements a number of tax changes to increase businesses' cash flow and stimulate investment. These changes include the reinstatement of depreciation deductions for commercial and industrial buildings at 2 percent diminishing value applying from the 2021 tax year; increasing the threshold for provisional tax from $2,500 to $5,000, also applying from the 2021 tax year; increasing the threshold for writing off low-value assets to $5,000 for the next tax year before reverting to $1,000 in the long term; and giving a time-limited discretion to Inland Revenue to remit use of money interest—that's the interest on tax debt—if a taxpayer is unable to pay on time due to the impacts of COVID-19.
We also recognise that the Government must provide further support to boost the economy to ensure that a recovery takes hold and that we support our most vulnerable. The first part of this part of the package comprises a $25 across-the-board, permanent increase to main benefits from 1 April 2020; a doubling of the amount paid in 2020 through the winter energy payment; and removing the hours test from the in-work tax credit to assist those who may face variable hours.
The ultimate recovery package will go well beyond these measures, and I intend to re-orientate this year's Budget to be the second phase of a broader recovery package. Today is not the day to go into detail about the recovery and rebuilding phase. But for now, let me say this: in New Zealand, we have been here before, with major economic and social crises. In my lifetime, we have seen Governments respond with austerity—an ideology that has done enormous damage to the fabric of our society. We have also seen other examples, such as the first Labour Government, who responded with investment, pragmatism, optimism, and kindness. It is from them that I take my lesson on how we recover and rebuild in a just, fair, and far-sighted manner.
We are in for a fight—a fight against a virus, an outside force beyond our control that is wreaking havoc around the globe. We are up for that fight. There is no better defensive line than the All Blacks, and it is just the same with our people as we face this virus. We are in as good a position going into this as we can be, with net debt so low. We are taking bold and decisive actions to respond to uncertain and unprecedented times. My message to New Zealanders is simple: look after yourself, look after your family, look after our elderly, and look out for each other. There are tough days ahead, but we will get through this together. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia kaha, tēnā koutou katoa.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): The New Zealand economy is heading into deep recession, and today is the pivotal day in relation to our economy and our health. Today determines how deep and how long this recession is. It determines whether we come out of this sooner and stronger or later and weaker, and whether many businesses and workers—by their thousands—stay in business and whether those workers keep their job. I regret to say that in this package, which I'll come to, for some of those businesses there's not much at all.
Last week, Grant Robertson, in the Budget Policy Statement, wouldn't actually talk about a recession; it was, effectively, in his words, business as usual. I'm glad that Grant Robertson and the Prime Minister now are facing up, with this package, to the seriousness of where we are at today. You go to any business in New Zealand today—from the exporters to the manufacturers to the tourist businesses to the travel agents—and they'd tell you what's happening in the lay-offs and the four-day weeks and the very significant problems they've got with their banks. The same is true—in fact, you talk to any economist, they, like me, have been facing up to this for many, many weeks.
I say to Grant Robertson, in relation to the package—the significant package, $12 billion; $12.1 billion, actually, so they could just be bigger than their infrastructure spend—$12.1 billion is significant. I accept there is, as I have been calling now for weeks, a wage subsidy programme in this. But I say, this shows your confused and your muddled priorities as finance Minister, and I'm going to go through that right now.
You see, Grant Robertson said that it would be the people first. In a $12.1 billion programme—where the Prime Minister has told us we're best in the world and we're doing everything right and we've got this when it comes to coronavirus—how much does health get? Half a billion dollars; by the way, that doesn't cover the current deficits that are in the DHBs today, Grant Robertson. You haven't even done the deficits in the health package in this budget, and the issues that are there right now. It's too little, too late, and that's because you've prioritised other things—and I will come to that very shortly.
We have a situation in New Zealand right now, when the health officials make quite clear that we haven't got the ventilators, we haven't got the overflow, we haven't got the personal protective equipment and the masks, and we haven't got the testing equipment that we want. It seems to me that you haven't put people first in this budget in relation to the crisis that New Zealand and the world has on its hands right now when it comes to health, coronavirus, and testing—as I've said a number of times.
See, half of the money of this $12.1 billion—fully half; actually, I think slightly more—is over four years, right? They are baking in the things that they want to see, and some of them are OK. But, bluntly, what we see in this package today is money flowing faster into the hands of beneficiaries than the workers and the businesses that will lose their businesses and their jobs over coming weeks and months. You know, that to me is a crying tragedy. The Prime Minister told us repeatedly, actually—dare I say it, she swiped my line, but that's OK; it was a good one and it's the right one for the time that we are in and the deep recession that we are facing—her priority, she said, was to keep businesses in business and workers in jobs. But, actually, what we see is being prioritised is the winter energy payment for wealthy, older New Zealanders—not all of them; some of them are doing it tough, and I acknowledge they will welcome that funding. Beneficiaries baked in: $25 more a week. I acknowledge that for beneficiaries on the breadline that will be deeply welcome.
But I look at the business package and the job support package—12 weeks; let's be clear there: that is not going to be long enough for the crisis we face in New Zealand or around the world. Five hundred and eighty five dollars—OK—capped at $150,000. So let me tell you what that means: that only pays for the first 21 workers full time for the first 12 weeks.
So let me tell you, Grant Robertson, about some businesses that I've talked with personally in the last week. There's a tourism business just outside of Tauranga; it runs a great operation. He has 40 staff. He begged me to fight for stopping the minimum wage halt, by the way. He is laying workers off right now—and your package, Grant Robertson, doesn't cover his workers. So they will go on the dole, and I suppose they'll be glad because they'll get $25 more a week. But your package, Grant Robertson—$12 billion you've spent, and you didn't even cover medium sized businesses in New Zealand. 
This is a situation where I got an email from wool exporters, about 30 workers; they've gone to a four-day week. This package does not fully cover them. Now, I acknowledge small businesses and the 12 weeks they'll get, but there are many tens of thousands of medium sized businesses who are not covered by this package in the way that it has been done.
And they will do it tough now. And this package doesn't cover them now. It covers year three and year four and the things ideologically that Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern believe in—and I acknowledge they believe in those things deeply—but this package has confused priorities and it doesn't deal non-ideologically with the issues we face in New Zealand right now today.
Our Prime Minister says she's gone harder, faster. I don't see it, Jacinda Ardern, I just don't see it. I tell you again, and I encourage you: go out, meet any 30-person business anywhere around New Zealand and talk to them about the issues they face and the problems they'll face this week, next week, and the week after—right now. It's today that's critical; not what's coming, not the nice words you'll have in due course. It's right now that matters. I note that this is a package in relation to that $150,000 of best endeavours. Do you know what that means? That means the businesses can take the money and they don't even need to keep the people in employment—right? That's not what we did in Canterbury, Grant Robertson. We made sure when the business who needs the money gets the money they keep the workers in work. Radical, isn't it, but that seems to me what is required. 
We, in this package, had we had our way, would have invested this money. Now is a time for stimulus, not just reaction. It's time for getting on with the job. But we would have been harder and faster for those businesses and keeping them in business, and workers and keeping them in work. And that means more wage subsidy, actually, for more businesses than will get this—those medium sized businesses, and, dare I say it, some of the biggest sized businesses who have existential issues as well. And I note, Grant Robertson, absolutely nothing here in this package today in terms of, again, an existential issue for businesses and workers around this country: working capital and guaranteeing some of those debts and problems and issues and loans that they need right now, that they need right now and that you haven't covered in this budget. 
So I say: is it large enough? Yeah, I suppose—$12 billion—but the priorities just aren't right here. Is it easy to access? That's hugely important and I can't tell, in the 40 or so minutes that I've had, just how easy it will be for those businesses to access. But it certainly isn't, overall—on the most critical day this year for workers and businesses in this country—aspirational and long term enough in its focus in terms of those businesses and making sure they can see that there is a plan, that there is confidence, because this is a confidence game, have no doubt about it, for those businesses. They want to know that Grant Robertson knows what to do, that he has a sense of exactly what needs to happen here—the stimulus, the things that show the light at the end of the tunnel—and I don't see us getting out of this sooner and stronger. I don't see the "faster, harder"—or whatever it was the Prime Minister says. I see the slower, less assured, taking the opportunity to prioritise beneficiaries over businesses and workers in this country and what it is that they need.
Let's be clear about this. Things weren't rosy even before coronavirus. And I say that because if you can't diagnose the problem you've got you sometimes don't get the medicine right. We've been at 1.6 percent growth. I expect that to be confirmed later this week in the official figures. We've got a situation where business confidence, whether it's farmers and the water problems and climate change—things done to them not with them really make them feel under siege. The small businesses, after industrial law changes and minimum wage increase after minimum wage increase after minimum wage increase, feel set upon and unconfident as it is; even the big players right now—the Air New Zealands of this world—are talking about three-some thousand workers being laid off, and nothing here to date says that. 
That's why John Key, Bill English, Steven Joyce, and other colleagues of ours—Gerry Brownlee—they prioritised actually getting us back into black, saving up, making sure we were strong. We were managing the economy well with the team that was competent and had the experience and has the experience to do that. That's how we got through the global financial crisis, the Canterbury earthquakes, Kaikōura earthquakes, and others. Ready for another rainy day—well, the rainy day is here. We're in it. It's pouring. And I don't see from the Government, other than pet priorities, confused priorities, the plan, the stimulus that is stronger and that is bold enough to do the deal for New Zealand right now that we require. 
We know what to do. We've made clear our tax relief programme so that actually those workers, those businesses have that confidence from the stimulus. Infrastructure, the Prime Minister and Grant Robertson—hear this clearly, I say to my friends in the media, here this clearly—they talk about $12 billion of stimulus as if it's happening now. None of it is happening. I for one remember going to Cabinet with a $1 billion road the length of Kaikōura in Stuart Smith's electorate. I remember the special legislation we put in because we knew we had to get it on. We needed to get going. 
I would support that sort of approach today, bringing forward nation-building infrastructure that this country so desperately needs. I would support that sort of legislation and that sort of approach, but we don't see any of that stimulus, confidence, a boldness that I've been calling on for week after week from this Government. There are many other things that need to be in this plan. Job support's there, sick pay's there; the minimum wage help for those businesses that aren't covered—they need that desperately and they need it now. The underwriting of businesses isn't there. 
I could talk at length about health. It is the No. 1 issue. Test, test, test—we haven't been. We haven't been. Not even 600 when Norway's at 8,000. Slovakia's done thousands more than us. We are not getting our response perfectly right in this area. I don't mean to be critical. It was good to see something significant in the weekend. But we need to see more pace, and we need to see that harder, faster, like the Prime Minister has talked about.
You know, some here say that it shouldn't be about politics. I agree—I agree. Frankly, on this side of the House I'm too busy for politics right now. We're talking to businesses, we're talking to doctors on the front line, we're talking to concerned New Zealanders. We've got a constructive and moral duty to ask the hard questions of this Government. I acknowledge this package, but in the deep recession New Zealanders will be left asking of Mr Robertson: "Please can we have some more. We've worked hard as a country for a rainy day. Give us the plan. Give us the stimulus. We need now"—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): There are moments in our history where it's not business as usual, where New Zealanders expect us to come together, when we need unity, not politics as usual. And today, Mr Bridges, is one of those days. And on this side of the House, that is what we'll do.
Saturday was a day when I said that the package we would announce today would be the most significant of my time in this role. Many interpreted that to mean that it was just about the quantum. It was not. It was significant for another reason. The Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, and I, as you can imagine, met over the weekend and spoke many, many times, but on Sunday he gave me a call, and as we were talking about how we were progressing with the work of the package, he stopped to spend a bit of time to talk to me about some of the phone calls he'd had and emails he'd received from businesses, employers, and people who treat their employees like family. That is the reason this package is the scale it is today. It is about people. This entire Government, since the moment we were elected, has been focused on people, and that is why our response right now, in the wake of what is a global pandemic, an economic issue the likes of which we have never seen before, will put people first and foremost.
Now, our response has meant that in unprecedented times you make unprecedented decisions. We had a window as a nation to take some very difficult decisions, to move early and place restrictions at our border in order to protect New Zealanders' health. We took that opportunity, and it was a big decision. There weren't other countries to look to and rely on, because other than Israel, no one like us was making that decision. But we did. And it was the right thing to do.
But these decisions will have an impact, and they will be significant. But a strong health response is our best economic defence. Countless stories, though, do sit behind the impacts of these decisions, and, as I've said, I totally acknowledge that, and that is why, as I said, we went hard on that public health response, but we will go just as hard with the assistance that we are providing. And it is about people.
Today's package is designed to cushion the impact as we look to address the impacts on areas where we have traditionally had a large part of our economy facing. We are a nation that likes to welcome and open our doors to tourists from around the world, show off our beautiful spaces, give our visitors an adrenalin rush and show manaakitanga to everyone who comes, and yet our chance to do that now is on hold, and where does that leave so many of our employers who rely on that? Well, today we have been able to provide this response because we have always been prepared for the fact that a rainy day could befall us. As a nation that is a part of shaky isles, who has volcanoes, who experiences extreme weather events, earthquakes—we are a nation who prepares, and we did. We came in and got ourselves in an economic position where our debt was lower that when we inherited it, and we did that just in case we had a rainy day, and it is here.
This package is significant: $12.1 billion represents, as the Minister of Finance has said, the equivalent of roughly three Budgets' operational allowances. We pulled it together in a short space of time, but we did give it a critique, a lens of people, to give the maximum support we can to try and keep people in work as businesses look to reorientate, to prepare, and to focus on what the future will hold, and what will be a new normal for New Zealand.
We could have done what other countries did: if you wanted to move quickly, in the space of a few days, you could have simply given a bulk payment to business. I know the Leader of the Opposition often looks to our neighbours, Australia, for the kinds of initiatives they adopt. I note with interest that their plan included a business payment of $25,000. It was a cash payment, a bulk payment, a one-off. In our view, that was not going to be sufficient, particularly for the make-up of businesses in New Zealand. We are a nation of 520,000 businesses—70 percent of them have no employees. In fact, we thought about that when we designed our sick leave provisions and our wage subsidies—sole traders. The Uber driver people we're worried about who might have to self-isolate—they are covered by these packages. We have 100,000 businesses—19 percent—who have one to five employees; the next group, six to 19; that makes another 7.5 percent. In total, we are covering 97 percent of our businesses in New Zealand with this package, for all of their employees—for all of their employees. And whilst we've put in a cap at $150,000, that does not stop a larger organisation with more employees accessing this package as well.
What we've also said is we've recognised there will be larger firms that might need specific support, have unique circumstances. We are a nation small enough that we can deal with those on a case by case basis, and that is what the Minister of Finance is focused on. The package includes that wage subsidy I've described. It includes support for those who may be required by health authorities to self-isolate, and may, for instance, be a food truck driver at a festival who operates their own business and cannot afford to sustain their family while they self-isolate and can't work. We have thought about all of that.
It also, of course, includes a considerable boost to our health response. I do want to say that on our health front, we are gearing up every day. Every day that we have this additional time we are utilising to make sure our response is ready for the cases we inevitably continue to receive. Our testing, for instance, by the end of the week will be up around 1,500 per day, and that puts us on an equivalent footing with those nations, on a per head basis, in our capacity, such as the likes of Korea. Now our plea is to clinicians: if you believe you should test, test—if you believe you should test, test. The capacity is there.
We were better placed than most countries in terms of our financial position and in terms of our debt position to weather this storm, and now that means we are better able to respond. I have not seen a nation in the world who has yet put up a package of this quantum, and that is because we recognise our situation is particular. We are an island nation who trades, exports, imports, who relies in many quarters on tourism, and that is why we have gone hard with this assistance package.
But the other point I wish to make, of course, is that we have included three particular parts of this package that are designed for consumer spending. I'd say to the Opposition: they used the in-work tax credit during the global financial crisis, and we have to. I would have thought they would support that change. That helps people whose hours drop and who might have otherwise lost eligibility for the in-work tax credit. We've doubled the winter energy payment because that goes to over-65s, who we must keep well this winter. It is a practical initiative. And finally, on benefits—again, Australia did the same thing. If you want to stimulate an economy, you give extra support to those on the lowest incomes. Because they have a lower income, they spend it, and that is what our economy needs right now. It is a known tool in situations like this. Other nations are using it, and we are too. I will point out, though, that of the $12.1 billion package, $7.9 billion—$7.9 billion—is focused on continuity for business, certainty for business, and stimulus for business.
My final word is for New Zealanders. As the Minister of Finance has said and as I've said many times before, there is huge uncertainty out there right now, but one thing I'm certain of: we are a nation that has been shaped because of our experiences, and they often have been tough, harsh, and unpredictable. That is when New Zealanders are at their best. That is when we rally: when we look after one another, when we care for the most vulnerable. So my final message is this to New Zealanders: be strong but be kind—we will be OK.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker, and I echo the comments of the Prime Minister in terms of the strength of this country during difficult times. We do look out for each other and are conscious of the strength of our communities and our families, and we'll work together to get through what is definitely going to be a difficult period over the next few months. We are facing one of the greatest health and economic challenges we have had in recent times.
We have all, throughout this House, no doubt spent the weekend hearing messages from individuals concerned about their health, about their kids, about going to school, about getting the virus and the implications of that. We've also heard many, many stories from people in business worried desperately about their businesses. I've spoken to a number who are employing over 100 people and looking at massive job cuts over the next few weeks, and they're desperately worried: desperately worried about their businesses but desperately worried about their employees, the people that they have worked with over many years to build up businesses. It's a big family, in those circumstances, and they're desperately worried about them.
So we acknowledge this package in so far as it concentrates on wage subsidies in order to keep those businesses going. We do make the point that about half of the $12 billion is focused in that area, and our fundamental view is that, actually, we should be doing more at that end of the spectrum now. We started off talking about how the package should be swift, substantial, and effective, and what we're seeing here at the moment is that about half of it is swift. We think more of it should have been swift and more of it should have been getting into the hands of those businesses right now.
Now, the best response of all is the health response. That is to make sure that this health crisis that is binding up the whole of the economy has as short a duration as possible. So we have said a number of times—we've encouraged this Government—to be faster and more responsive in the health space. We've heard the Prime Minister saying we've got the toughest border restrictions in the world, and that just doesn't mesh with people's experience. Everybody's heard of people arriving in the last day or two, coming straight out of the airport, getting a pamphlet, and going on their way. So our strong encouragement is to keep absolutely focused on tracing people as they come in, and getting that message through, and more rigour at the border to ensure that people aren't coming through who aren't well and spreading the disease. So that's the critical response that we need to see.
Meantime, the economy: we're facing recession and job losses and many failures. I did want to acknowledge, right here, right now, that the strength of the economy, the strongest part, of course, will continue to be the primary industries that have been the backbone of this economy. Right now, every day, right out there in the rural areas of New Zealand, the farmers are out there making the living that will sustain us through this crisis. I do want to acknowledge them and their hard work. They're a group that have felt set upon over the last few months, and I think it is important to acknowledge that in times of crisis, the New Zealand economy falls back on that rural community and provincial community, which is the backbone of this economy. We acknowledge them and their work today, and we wish them all the best to sustain our living standards as best we can through this difficult time.
Because of the decisions made over the weekend around boundaries, we do have this immediate short-term—what we hope will be short-term, but we don't know how long it will go on for—real economic crisis that we're facing. It is important that we get all the detail around the decisions that were made over the weekend. We need to see all the advice behind Saturday's decision, all the advice behind today's decision, the modelling, and this Government, which is committed to openness and transparency, should release those papers now so that we can understand what the situation is.
And we do rest on the fact that we have come into this crisis—this rainy day—with a strong debt situation, and we do acknowledge that, in the first two years of this Government, debt has continued to decline. It had been on that trajectory for a number of years, and we also acknowledge the work of Bill English—
Hon David Parker: You increased it to 23 percent of GDP.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That's right, and we got through the last global financial crisis, which was a massive expansion of debt, and the Christchurch earthquakes, and we continued to reduce that debt so that we were able to pivot today. Successive Governments have done that—I acknowledge the guardianship of even Michael Cullen and Helen Clark in that period. Over a long period of time, New Zealand has kept debt low so that we can cope in these circumstances.
So what we've got in this package is the $5.1 billion in wage subsidies, and we acknowledge that and we commend that; that is absolutely the right thing to be focusing on, which is keeping people employed in business right now so that they can carry through this period and increase the chances of businesses staying afloat. Not all businesses will; some businesses will fall over, and some people will lose their jobs, but this lessens the chance of that happening in many sectors. The only point we'd note is that this is the critical issue, and when we talk about helping businesses right now, it's over the next month that they really need it. This is going to be the critical time; it's not going to be in four years' time with depreciation rates. They're all worthy—the other $6 billion in this package are all worthy. Taxes around provisional tax thresholds and reinstating the building depreciation and writing off—that's all worthy stuff over four years, but it's not going to help right here, right now. What we needed today in this package right here, right now was a maximum focus on effort in keeping those businesses afloat, and our frustration with this package is that there isn't the maximum focus on that hard goal right here, right now. If I was to ask Mr Robertson exactly how much of this $12 billion will be reaching businesses over the next six weeks, it wouldn't be all that much of it. It would be about somewhere between $3 billion or $4 billion—I don't know; I'd be interested to get the answer for it—and we need more of that money right now to keep those businesses afloat.
We see $126 million put aside for leave isolation to help businesses cope with the costs of that, and we support that; we agree with that. That's an important part. The thing that is missing, though, is the working capital support for small and medium sized businesses, because what the problem is is that, with so many businesses around the country seeing their revenues collapsing over the next few weeks, they see their sales going down, they've got their employees that they're trying to keep in place, and they're immediately going to the bank and saying, "Well, I've run out of cash. How am I going to pay my bills?" and they're having very awkward conversations with the banks. Now, the natural reaction for the banks in a situation like this is that they're feeling the pressure, and they will start calling in on those loans and closing down those businesses. That's the spiral that we want to avoid, and so the wage subsidies will help to a small extent. It's been counteracted by the insistence—and, I think, quite reckless insistence—by this Government to carry on with the minimum wage increase on 1 April, because that money is not coming from the Government, it's not coming from a magical place; it's coming from those very businesses that are struggling to survive.
We all want higher incomes, but we want jobs as well, and so at the same time as they're trying to give assistance to those businesses, they're insisting that they pay substantially more for their wages, and that doesn't make sense, and it's reckless. So they're struggling with their banks in order to keep the cash flow going and the working capital coming through, and we see at the end of this package that the Government has said that officials are meeting with banks to discuss the potential for future working capital support. We think that's too slow and inadequate. The United Kingdom has already made moves in this area around guaranteeing loans for small businesses, and I would have thought that this package right here, right now would have had some answers on that critical area today in order to get people over the line.
The other point, of course, is having that longer-term vision, and we've heard many times the Minister of Finance say that this country went into this crisis with strong momentum. That, of course, is false; we had 1.6 percent growth last year. So those long-term drivers of growth are critical, and that's why a clear plan around infrastructure—not just announcing infrastructure but actually getting on with infrastructure—is the critical thing, and I absolutely agree with what Simon Bridges says: we would support right here today urgent legislation coming in to say, "This project and this project we're going to start next week or the week after. We're going to crack on to it and actually get the infrastructure spending happening right now in this country, not in one year or two years' time."
So, overall, there are a number of other useful things that have been done here and signalled, with smaller business having to pay provisional tax—extending those thresholds, increasing the amount with which businesses can invest in buying capital assets. We agree with all that; that all makes sense. But the critical message that we need to get across is that this is a threat to the New Zealand economy such as we have not seen in a generation, and we need, right now, maximum support to keep people in their jobs. This package announced today goes halfway, and roughly half of the $12 billion package will actually get into their hands immediately. We think that there should be more and it should be more swift and more effective in order to save those jobs. Thank you very much.





Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Prime Minister and colleagues, today the coalition Government took unprecedented steps for an unprecedented challenge. That's the reality—not the greatest challenge in a generation, but maybe since the Second World War. No one understands the dimensions of what we face, but we are certainly getting ready for it. We don't underestimate the challenge in front of us—the health challenge, the economic challenge, and the recovery challenge.
Most nations face an uncertain future under COVID-19, but it's no time for us to be clouded by doubt. It's vital that we demonstrate leadership and clarity, and today you saw exactly that. As the coalition partner, New Zealand First is united in its support. We acknowledge the Prime Minister's leadership and the work of Ministers who have developed and delivered today's package. We have many challenges to overcome. The implications of the global spread of this virus are occurring in real time.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Timid! Timid!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What was that, Mr Brownlee? You want to know where to get a test? In the last few days, we have witnessed rising infection rates, stringent border control measures, cancelled public events, financial markets suffering, plunging visitor numbers, and airline job losses—just to name a few. That's why, today, the $12.1 billion support package is vital, it's essential, it's critical, and it follows a $12 billion package announced only three months ago. This is the biggest injection in recovery any country in the world has seen, when you see it in tandem. The scale of today's package is already greater than the operational spending of the last three Budgets, as Mr Grant Robertson spelt out. This coalition Government is motivated by protecting the health of our people, protecting our vulnerable, protecting our economic livelihood, and ensuring the quickest possible recovery on all fronts. Make no mistake: this is a critical Government response and a challenge to us all. And as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, the economic package is appropriate by international per capita spending comparisons. There is a massive boost in spending for health measures and an equally big spend to build a real buffer around our economy, our businesses, our workers, and our livelihoods—and we have only just begun.
Let me speak directly to one part of our community, and that's the elderly. You are our mothers and fathers, our grandparents, and senior citizens—a respected part of our community. You are amongst the most vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic. Naturally, many of you will be concerned about what COVID-19 means, both as a health and financial risk. Be assured—and be reassured—the Government is here to particularly help you. As part of the economic package, there is a doubling of the winter energy payment. It will double payments to become $1,400 for couples and $900 for single people. It's a one-off, but it's a measure to ensure that the conditions that might worsen this prevalent outside imposter do not prevail in our country. We estimate 850,000 of you will gain from this measure to help you keep warm this winter, and once we include partners of recipients, more than one million are expected to benefit by this measure as well.
All New Zealanders will read the news reports about the Government's actions, but that is only part of the picture. Our greatest weapon is to be found in what each one of us does for all of us. Our individual steps will make the difference in our resistance to this pandemic. Day-to-day, practical health steps are powerful weapons of choice to beat this outbreak. Be careful with hygiene, regularly and thoroughly wash and dry your hands, and follow sound medical advice. Listen to our health officials—they are out there in the thousands, dedicated to helping you. It's important we look after each other, especially the elderly and the vulnerable in our community.
Can I just say, the Government is taking the necessary steps and more measures will be delivered. But I want to refer to the speech we heard from the Leader of the Opposition.
Hon Grant Robertson: Do you have to?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Frankly, I do have to because it was shallow and it was graceless, and the New Zealand people will judge him for it. He talked about health and $800 million. He knows the level of the prior—
Hon Member: $500 million.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: $500 million, sorry—$500 million. I'm certain before too long it'll be $800 million. [Interruption] I'm glad you're listening! He referred to $500 million, but he didn't refer to what we've inherited and how much money in the billions we've already injected into it. And, Mr Bennett, there's no use shaking one's head though there's a good reason why you should. The reality of it all is that this Government is adding a serious top-up right here, right now. And clearly, Mr Bridges, you don't understand the package announced today.
He referred to "baking in"—whatever that phrase means, it sounded like it was half-baked in terms of his analysis. And then he had the audacity to talk about the debt. Well, the global financial crisis found them with $10 billion in Crown debt, and they took it to what? To $82 billion—$82 billion. [Interruption] And the member for Epsom says, "So what?" So you don't understand; that's what. Never had a business, never had a company mortgage, never had a business mortgage—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: That's what happens in a crisis
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, I'm not talking about running an illegal casino; I'm talking about real life, where out there there's going to be a struggle for so many New Zealanders—and this Government's here to help.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: You don't let them sink with—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Brownlee, the Christchurch earthquake still has my colleagues wrestling with the outcome nine years later. That member was the Minister in charge of the Christchurch earthquake, and when that first happened I realised that a disaster was coming. Let's face it: we are facing a crisis here and we have confidence in the personnel, not somebody who jumps up, opens his mouth, and lets the wind blow his tongue around. That's not good enough. Not in this crisis, Mr Brownlee. 
For example, can I ask Mr Bridges, who compared the struggle he had to find money for the Kaikōura road—remember that? Mr Bridges, the road between Tauranga and Katikati, how much did you find for that? Come on—can I hear? How much did he find for that? The road, can I say to Mr Reti, from Whangarei all the way down to Warkworth—the four-lane highway that's seen all these advertisements up there—how many dollars did he and you find for that? Can we hear it now? OK, now, I didn't want to turn this into a petty matter, because this is a response from a Government—
Hon Members: You've done well. You've done very well.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I mean, pointing out hypocrisy has always been important. But I want to make it very, very clear: this Government is facing a massive crisis. I believe it's possibly unprecedented, and we are as hard-nosed—and yet empathetic—to know we have got to get ready for the very worst. And if we do that, we can turn it around faster than any other country. I've got confidence in New Zealanders, I really have, but they don't want naysayers and they don't want people who are critics and who spend all their time trying to drag them down. We're all human, there's going to be mistakes—get past it. In the main, in 99.99 percent of the time people will be doing God's work and turning this around. So I'm saying to every New Zealander today: the Government is aware of the plight, has a grasp of the magnitude of the event we face. One little thing, Mr Bridges, whenever did you make a prediction that came true?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: In 2008, I think.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Just one? No, not once. This is a business, right now, facing a health and economic crisis which requires a resounding quality, and it's called experience—having known what to do, been there before, seen how it has to happen—and this Government's exhibiting that classically in this announcement today. We have a very real public health crisis to overcome in coming months, and we will. We have an economic storm to get through in coming months, and we will.
Hon David Bennett: No, you won't.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Now, there's somebody who's shouted out "No, you won't". So he'd rather, for the political preference of his party, that the Government fail—just for the preference of his party—than hundreds and hundreds and maybe millions of New Zealanders get a turnaround result. That is the ultimate in selfish, egregious behaviour, and it came straight from their back-bench. He doesn't want us to succeed. Not even an offer of hands across the sea—so to speak—so we might have a collegial parliamentary effort. No, it's going to be lousy politics, and I know the Prime Minister hates this—and so do I most of the time. But I want to say, we have set upon a path of recovery. We have set upon a path to utilise the grind, and the grit, and the talent, and commitment of our fellow New Zealanders. We have utmost confidence in them that we will, together, work our way out of this and back to success.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to commence by joining with the Minister of Finance in commending our health professionals for the outstanding job they do for the health of New Zealanders, but most of all for the work that they are going to need to do over the next days, weeks, and months. This virus is going to spread, it is going to hit hard, and the economic package that we are hearing about today, and how long we're going to need to support workers and businesses and those job seekers who are affected by this, is clearly a function of the degree to which our health system can respond nimbly and energetically.
I say more out of sadness than anger that the comments that are made in the ministerial statement about "go hard, go early" are hollow in the context of the things that the Minister said about a public information campaign, upscaling testing, boosting Healthline and so on—the things that I and my colleagues have been talking about since 23 January. And there is a need, I think, to reflect somewhat on that before we look forward, because there is still time. It's pleasing to see the Government responding finally with an energetic package. But is it too late? We will soon find out. 
On that day, Hubei Province, an area of China of 56 million people, closed down on the back of 540 confirmed cases—just 540. The Director-General of Health in his first speech said, "There will be imported cases, but the likelihood of a sustained community outbreak remains very low." Why? Because they had the systems and the resources to deal with this. How many times have we heard the Director-General and the Minister of Health say that the likelihood of a sustained community outbreak was very low? It started as "very, very low", then "very low", then "low", then they stopped saying it at all. But they had a pandemic plan and it was a very good plan, according to the Minister. Yet in his press release today, he admits now, "Staff in our Public Health Units are our first line of defence against infectious diseases, but they don't have the resources … to handle a pandemic." Well, we haven't heard that at all in the last 11 weeks. In fact, we haven't heard much from the Minister of Health at all, who has issued just five press releases since the Ministry of Health first communicated with GPs on 6 January. Weak and late. 
I am very mindful of the Director-General of Health—in fact, the World Health Organization was itself somewhat slow, I think, to declare an international emergency. But he's got it, because his advice at his press conference yesterday was simply this: "This is a serious disease. Although the evidence we have suggests that those over 60 are at highest risk, young people, including children, have died." And his advice? "Once again, our key message is: test, test, test." I have been calling for weeks for a more liberal approach to the testing regime, because it's only when we know who are the cases who have the virus, who could be at risk of spreading it, can we control this outbreak.
We are spending billions because of the effect of the closures of our borders, for the next weeks and months, yet we're nickel and diming the testing regime. Now, the Prime Minister in her intervention did say the capacity has now grown—or will, as a consequence of this package—from 1,000 to 1,500. Very good, but, Prime Minister, there's no point having the capacity if it's not used. We have 9,950 people who are or were in self-isolation since that requirement was put in place, but we've had 540 completed tests. That's only 5 percent of the people in self-isolation, Never mind the people who could have been tested, who wanted to be tested, whose employers told them that until they were tested, they weren't allowed to go back to work.
Why are we nickel and diming that? The Minister and the Prime Minister say it's over to doctors. Well, that's not what doctors are telling us. Doctors are saying they're being stopped from testing and that the criteria are far too narrow—two things: close contact and symptoms. Well, I have said and the Leader of the Opposition has said that close contact is enough, frankly. The fellow that came in from Brisbane at the start of the week, who took a test before he got on a plane, was completely asymptomatic. It gives lie to the question of symptoms. We know that people, from the experience in China, can be spreaders despite having very low or no symptoms, but we refuse to test. Why? We are trying to stop the spread of this virus. So the testing capacity is one thing, but it is the actual test that's going to matter.
Now, the issues at the border remain problematic. Even after 1 a.m. on Monday morning, or Sunday morning—whenever that change came in—we still have reports of travellers coming home, shocked at the lack of questions and information and screening at the border. 
There is the issue of thermal testing. I actually support thermal testing, because despite the fact that we could pick up false positives and false negatives, every single person who's coming across the border with a temperature of 38 degrees or more should be taken away, isolated, questioned, and tested, and it should be suggested that they might go into self-isolation until that test result is back. Do you know that we're actually doing that for people leaving the country? We are now testing people leaving the country to go to the Pacific—very good, happy with that—but why on earth are we not temperature testing people coming into the country? It is inconsistent. It is late. It is weak.
I am pleased there is a $500 million investment in our health services to meet this, but I respectfully point out that while the aviation sector also needs support, more money is going to go in to support the aviation sector than is going in to support our health service. And I do worry, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, that we already have DHBs with combined financial deficits of much greater than this amount. They will be $600 million to $700 million in deficit again this year. How can we be sure that this investment actually goes to net new services to keep New Zealanders safe? I would be pleased to hear from the Minister of Health if he is taking a call on this ministerial statement—because there is much to do. 
I note in the details of the $500 million that there are two stanzas to this support. But in the second stanza—yet to be announced; probably in 30 days' time—we're talking about things like increasing the amount of protective equipment, buying more flu vaccines, and making sure Pharmac brings in more antibiotics. Why is that a next stage thing? We should have been doing that last month, not next month. 
There will be a run on the seasonal flu vaccine. There is no doubt. Why are we not buying it now? The Minister and the Director-General have assured the country that we have enough protective equipment. It's in storage in Taranaki or somewhere. Remember, he said that? Why, then, are we now saying our pandemic plan is going to be overwhelmed by this, our resources are going to be overwhelmed by this? Weren't we ready? And if we're not ready, why are we waiting a month to make those investments? Is that, I ask the House, the actions of a go-hard, go-early plan or a go-hard, go-early Government?
The National Party wants to support the Government in this effort. The National Party stands ready to support, whether it's legislation, emergency appropriation. We certainly support our health professionals right across the country, who could well be overwhelmed by this outbreak. But I worry that despite the rhetoric, this could be too little, too late, 





Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. The job of any Government, including ours, is to be equal to any challenge that we face. Over the last few weeks, the crisis of COVID-19 has continued to grow around the world. The impact that this could have on New Zealand is unlike anything we have seen in our lifetimes, and we have been absolutely clear that we must act accordingly. Our response as a Government, as communities, as New Zealanders needs to meet the scale of this crisis head-on. The health and wellbeing of our families, our friends, and our communities depends on it. 
Over the weekend, we agreed to a number of strong actions that will help to keep the number of people in New Zealand with COVID-19 as low as possible. These decisions will give us the time that we need so that no matter what happens, we are ready. What the Minister of Finance has announced today is a comprehensive and compassionate approach to managing the impact that COVID-19 could have on our daily lives. It's a package of measures designed to help us manage the crisis in a way that makes sense to people and their families, ensuring that whatever happens, people can continue to support their families, pay their bills and put money back into their local businesses and into their communities. It was clear from the Minister of Finance's speech that what he was saying boils down to this: none of us are alone in this. We are all in this together. 
There are thousands of New Zealanders up and down the country who are living pay cheque to pay cheque. And then, of course, there are those who work tirelessly to improve our communities, or put on events that bring our whānau and our friends and our neighbours together. Now, I'm sure that nearly every single one of them has been sitting around the dinner table over the course of the last few days asking themselves what COVID-19 means for them and for their families, wondering what additional support they would get so they can continue to provide for their family, and thinking about what will happen to the great businesses that make their communities such great places to live. 
Every conversation that we have had about how to manage this crisis, every decision, every single dollar allocated is about these people. It has been about making sure that we are doing everything that we can to care for the communities likely to be most affected by the health and economic challenges ahead—those on low incomes, our older friends and whānau, working families with children, and people with disabilities.
The Minister of Finance has made it clear that we have three priorities for doing this: more support for our public healthcare system, extra help for those who need it the most, and assistance for businesses so that they can keep people in work. So first: the public health system. Now, as most would agree, a public health system that can care for us and the people that we know and love, no matter what our income is or where we live, is the foundation of a fairer and a more equal and a more resilient New Zealand. None of us can go about our daily lives or raise a family or stay healthy without it. The additional support that our public health system will receive as a result of this announcement will help to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus and keep the number of infected at any one time at a manageable level.
Money will be spent on making sure that care in the community continues, on testing and tracing any cases that come up, and on communicating more with New Zealanders about what we can all do to help to limit the spread of the virus.
Evidence tells us that Māori, as a population group, are likely to experience significantly worse effects from COVID-19, so we must make sure that our Māori whānau, hapū, and iwi have the information and the support that they need—the same is true for our Pacific friends and neighbours. Wherever we are from, whoever we are, every one of us values similar things: the health and wellbeing of our communities, of those we love; safe, healthy, and secure places to work and to live. Let's make sure that we provide all of that for those people.
Importantly, our public health package also includes a comprehensive leave payment scheme to help people who have to self-isolate, because when people need to go to work in order to take care of their family, the last thing we want is people going to work who are sick and who can spread the virus.
Now, even with those measures in place, we know that if the virus does spread, it will be those on the lowest incomes who will be the worst affected. That is why the second area that we are prioritising is extra support for those who need it the most. We are increasing the rates of all main benefits by $25 a week, changing in-work support, and doubling the winter energy payment, all of which will help more people to pay the bills and to put food on the table, and to stay well.
That brings us to our third priority, which is business. At times like this it is important that people continue to have access to good, stable work that they can count on. A temporary wage subsidy will support businesses to keep people in work, so that no matter what happens, as many New Zealanders as possible can continue to provide for their families and contribute to their local communities through their work. There will also be some support for people who do lose their jobs so that they can access other work or retrain.
Now, there are two other areas that I'd like to touch on, and the first is mental health. We know that some of the social and psychological factors that can lead to poor mental health include hardship, loneliness, and disconnecting from others. So with more people working on their own from home or going into self-isolation, or possibly losing some of their income, it is critical that we keep the mental health of New Zealanders at the forefront of our minds. It'll be all too easy for people to feel like they're all alone in this, but this is a moment where we need each other. So if anyone out there sees someone struggling, please reach out and ask if they're OK. Put them in touch with one of the many incredible organisations that are out there supporting our people. Above all else, we are here today to say to people: "You are not alone." We are always stronger when we have each other's backs and when we're looking out for one another. Let's just make sure that we keep it that way.
The second point that I wanted to raise is a reminder to all of us to treat each other with humanity and respect as we face the challenge. People are understandably concerned about what is happening around the world, but that must never be an excuse to lash out against our neighbours or to engage in xenophobia or racism. Making sure that everyone is aware of the facts so that they understand what COVID-19 is and do not direct their concern at others is critically important. We can all play a part in this, and remember, our kids and our grandkids are watching. How we act in these situations will be a valuable lesson for them to follow.
On behalf of the Green Party in Government, I would like to conclude by making clear our full support for today's announcement. It is the first phase of our Government's plan for managing COVID-19 and its impacts. Further announcements will need to focus on what we can do next to build a better New Zealand from everything that we're going through right now. But managing this isn't just a job for the Government. So to all New Zealanders, I would like to say this: please also show leadership in your homes and in your communities by looking out for each other, by supporting the older people that you know, and please, please, please wash your hands. We will pull through this when we all pull together. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to welcome the Government's initiative today. Humanity is being ravaged by a virus that has three particular characteristics: it is spreading fast, it potentially has a high death rate, and it has an incubation period which is quite long so it can spread undetected. And that is creating enormous uncertainty for people around the world. Every school I've visited in the last few days, every business, every household is facing uncertainty, and COVID-19 is the only topic. But it also creates uncertainty for our Government. I don't know if they've made the right decisions through this crisis, but what I do know is that they've had to make critical, high-stakes decisions with limited information in a fluid situation.
The role of Parliament in these circumstances is to be supportive, to offer constructive criticism and helpful suggestions where applicable, but in that spirit it is also important that the Government does not take political advantage of the situation. I heard the Minister of Finance trying to use this crisis as an opportunity to shout from the rooftops about the Government's economic credentials. He said, "We're in a strong position." Well, actually, the truth is this Government has taken the future forecast from a $6 billion surplus to a $1 billion deficit. It would have been more honest for him to say "Lucky the virus got here in time before we spent all the money.", but we don't actually need to have that kind of political squabbling in these circumstances. I would say—[Interruption] Well, the Government started it and I just responded, and they don't like it up 'em. But the fact of the matter is what this country actually needs is some certainty and some principle, and I would say that this Government, first and foremost, should not introduce permanent policy changes under the guise of a crisis. 
I talk to schoolteachers and principals and I look to the Minister of Education, and I say that it would be wrong to significantly change the curriculum and the NCEA while the education sector is busy bracing for this crisis. That should be delayed. 
I think it would have been helpful for this Government to have put a 12-month moratorium on new regulatory initiatives that add cost to business. I think it would have been helpful to give tax relief to businesses at the same time as the Government is giving money to businesses. I support the relief package—I think that those businesses do need the relief—but it seems illogical to be introducing a minimum wage increase at the exact time that the Government is giving money to businesses to pay wages. 
We could make comments about the requirement for testing. We heard the Prime Minister say to medical professionals that they should test if they want to. If that is the new Government's policy, that is wonderful news. But I hope that the Prime Minister will clarify that that is truly the policy, because what international experience has shown us in the last few weeks is that we need to test more. 
We are going to see the private sector take a hit. We're going to see people go to four-day weeks. I suspect we're going to take pay cuts throughout the private sector, and I don't know if I can become any less popular amongst some of my parliamentary colleagues, but I suggest that we parliamentarians should show solidarity and take one, too. If the private sector's going to do it, I think Parliament should do it for the period of this crisis. I think that would set an example where Ministers can go to their senior executives and say that those civil servants who are earning over $100,000 should also do that, because the private sector, businesses, and households in New Zealand are going to be hurting. The only way we get through this is if we all, as New Zealanders, pull together, and that includes parliamentarians and that includes the public sector. 
As other speakers have said, we are a nation that has faced uncertainty and adversity before. But we are also a nation of people who have travelled further to be here and have a better life for ourselves and our children than any other people on earth, and with that pioneering spirit of entrepreneurship and resourcefulness, I believe we will come through this crisis strongly. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker, thank you. I want to start by recognising the significance of the unfolding events for so many New Zealanders—so many New Zealanders who face uncertainty in the coming weeks and months in respect of their health, so many New Zealanders who are unsure about the longevity of their employment, and so many hard-working New Zealanders who today are still unsure about what this means for their businesses. I also want to start by thanking our health workers and those on the front line, because as information has come slowly to us through the media, these doctors and nurses, health professionals, and front-line staff have been also working in uncertain times, not knowing fully what risk they were exposing themselves to as they were caring for those who maybe had visited New Zealand or New Zealanders who were not well. 
I want to recognise that the Government has decided that it is important to put more money in health, but I think that the $500 million that they've allocated in this package today is just not enough, because, actually, our hospitals have been struggling, and we know that. We know that for many New Zealanders who have faced a growing wait to get to hospitals for operations and so on, actually more resource is needed than this $500 million, particularly when we consider just how significantly this disease, this virus, has escalated in other countries. 
A recession is all but here, and I want to say that I do believe that the response from the Government, until today, has been slow. I think it's important that last week we saw the media and Simon Bridges, the Leader of the Opposition, start to mount quite considerable pressure upon the Government to increase the pace at which they were reacting to what was obviously a growing crisis. It was slow and it should have been faster. There should have been controls at the border greater than the ones that we had seen and they should have been there sooner. There should have been temperature checks of people coming off flights—taken aside and questions asked of them—and testing of visitors to see whether or not they had this disease, rather than actually the assurances we were given not being delivered on. 
This brings me to the issue of self-isolation that the Prime Minister announced just on Saturday night, and I must say quite clearly, from the point of view of the Opposition and so many New Zealanders, it is not clear to us quite how this would work. So we could have had 10,000 people getting off aeroplanes yesterday who had to self-isolate because they had just arrived in New Zealand, and where were they doing this? There are reports of them checking into hotels, and the hotel workers and the owners of the hotels are very uncertain about what that self-isolation means. 
The only way we stop the spread of this disease in the way that the Prime Minister has given assurances and commitments to the public over is actually for there to be clear and precise information given. To say people should self-isolate without clear guidelines or rules, that weren't delivered on Saturday night—
Hon Members: There are. 
Hon TODD McCLAY: They are not. They are not clearly there. Members of the Government may say they are, but up and down New Zealand, on social media and through the media and on talkback radio, New Zealanders are confused. So the point that I am making to members of the Government is rather than saying it's there, what we need to see is much more information being made available more readily and clearly, so that everyday New Zealanders are clear about the implications of how self-isolation will work. 
This is not a political plea; it's actually just a plea to say that New Zealanders are concerned. The concern is growing. Parents won't be sending their children to school this week, and that information about self-isolation needs to be much, much clearer. 
That brings me to the issue of testing. We know there have been around 500 tests done in New Zealand—maybe a few more—but testing, testing, testing is what the World Health Organization said today that other countries are doing. I really would ask the Government to be able to provide information clearly. If we haven't been doing enough testing—the testing we required—how do they know exactly how many of these cases of people with this virus there are out there? I think it's very important that people know the scale and magnitude of this challenge.
As I said earlier, the recession is coming. In fact, for some, it was already here. It will be deeper, and it will be longer. There is a small business package here today, but I think that has been delivered later than it should—almost, for some, too late. Too late for the 200 workers in an engineering workshop in Rotorua who were laid off on Friday because their employer was not able to continue to pay them. Certainty should have been given to those employees and that employer earlier.
Too late for the large tourism business in my home town, who is, in the coming days, about to lay off 50 workers because this support will not go far enough for that employer. I suspect that business will have to close in the coming weeks and, with the exception of a few workers there, every single one of them will lose their job.
Too little for the hotel chains that may have 500 or 600 workers around the country that this package, announced by the Government, doesn't deliver for, who will have to lay so many people off who will actually not be kept in jobs, and will be on the unemployment benefit. Chris Roberts from Tourism Industry Aotearoa said today that after seeing the Government's plan, he expects that of a workforce of around 230,000 New Zealanders who were involved in tourism and accommodation, at least 100,000 of them are likely to lose their jobs—not in the coming year, but in the coming weeks. For those New Zealanders, much more should have been done to give them certainty much sooner.
The first thing the Government should not have done was look to make it easier for people to go on the unemployment benefit. The package we've heard about today that does give some certainty to some businesses should have been delivered at the same time weeks ago—should have been delivered at the same time weeks ago. Because the Government is right when they say that it's easier to keep somebody in a job than it is to get them off a benefit, back into employment.
But I'm saying that the timing of this, the priority of the Government, was wrong. These announcements today should have been there weeks earlier, as the private sector was asking for, as the tourism sector was asking for, as Simon Bridges was asking for and demanding, and have only just arrived today.
That brings me to something else the Government says that they won't do that I actually plead with them to go back and reconsider, because it's a plea that comes from businesses throughout New Zealand, and predominantly smaller businesses. It comes to the heart of the increasing cost that's been placed upon businesses before the magnitude of this virus has hit them. That's around the 1 April increase in the minimum wage. Now, this isn't a debate about those who earn the least and whether a sharp increase in the minimum wage will deliver for them, because in the tourism sector we've had one of the experts, Chris Roberts, say 100,000 New Zealanders, in the coming weeks, are going to lose their jobs.
I ask: how many people are likely to lose their businesses? I asked the Government to reconsider their view last week that they wouldn't put the minimum wage increase of 1 April off by just six months so businesses can adjust. We can see what's going to happen.
There is a cost of $300 million coming to New Zealand businesses on 1 April because of the minimum wage increase. It's something that they could not well afford before the coronavirus arrived in New Zealand. They really cannot afford it today. I fear that many, many more people will lose their jobs more quickly than they might otherwise as a result of this cost being put upon businesses.
Finally, I want to talk about exports and trade, because so many jobs in New Zealand depend upon this. Actually, we're going to see a slowing of the world economy, and we're going to see it more difficult for our exporters than it should be. I'm glad the Government has recognised that it's going to be harder for that supply chain overseas to continue.
I would say to them, as with all of the money they've announced today for small businesses and to keep people in work, or for those who will be on sick leave, as well as the money that's set aside to help keep that supply chain open, it needs to be delivered quickly. It must be there today, it must be there tomorrow, it must be there in the coming weeks. We can't have an overly bureaucratic system where we have businesses and industry and exporters expecting help today, and that help won't arrive for them until weeks' or months' time.
This is a time when this Government needs to step up—the first and only time, actually, in the last 2½ years when it's clear that they absolutely must do so. It's not a time for talk. It's not a time for meetings or working groups. It's a time to deliver the help to everyday New Zealanders who need it, to make sure the money they've committed, that they are borrowing, is spent as quickly as it can be to keep those businesses open and to keep those people in jobs. It gives some certainty to many of our large and small businesses who are involved in the export sector, who continue to face great uncertainty, not only about their job and their prospects but about the depth of the recession and how that will affect them in the coming weeks and months and years. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Government has announced today our commitment to protecting New Zealanders' health through an initial, dedicated $500 million fund. We are backing our health professionals to combat COVID-19. I say this, more in sadness than anger—to borrow a phrase from the Opposition health spokesperson—it is very sad today to hear politicians in this House second-guessing the clinical judgment and scientific advice that has driven the decision making of the Government around this disease.
We have a plan—we have a plan. We are well prepared. We have been working since 6 January off the pandemic plan that was revised in 2017. The members opposite know it well. It has been already tested through exercises under this Government. We are well prepared, and we've been operating off that plan and looking at the stages and phases of that plan.
The early and decisive action—and here I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister for her leadership, and the Minister of Finance also for his. They have been clear from the start that financial resources will not be a constraint here. That was made abundantly clear to me right from the start. As Minister of Health, that has given me the permission to say to the health professionals, the DHBs, the primary care people, to the lot of them, "We must do what we need to do."
We have an $18 billion health budget. We have had the two largest health budgets in New Zealand history under this Government. We can move that money around to prioritise it for COVID-19. This is what we need to do.
I want to thank those outstanding health professionals in our public health service, who have, over many years, worked in stretched environments, for the way they step up in times like this. It gives me the confidence that we are as well prepared as any country in the world for COVID-19. We have health professionals who understand the nature of the task ahead.
Because of the early and decisive action we took as a country—if we think right back to 3 February, when we moved to put restrictions in on people coming in from China; when we took the decisions around Iran and South Korea; and when we took the decisions around north Italy; in those three latter examples we moved ahead of Australia to put in place early and decisive actions that restricted flow from the hot spots around the world on COVID-19—it has given us the time to plan and prepare according to the template laid down in the pandemic plan to adapt it to what we are learning about the virus as the days go by, as the new science emerges, and as the medical experts can advise us on what the best way is to respond.
The health of New Zealanders has been our primary consideration from the start. That is why we have taken those measures. That is why we have ensured, right from the start, that we had health information available. That was the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation: to make sure that people coming through our boundaries early on in this epidemic had the information should they become symptomatic later on, so that they would know what to do. As we saw early cases come in, we saw those people respond—they called the helpline, then they called ahead to the hospital to make sure that people were ready to receive them; they have done things right, and that is because we have supplied that information at the border. We are working to that plan.
I want to cover off just one or two other points raised by the Opposition, before I move on to the more substantive parts of the package. The idea that the flu vaccines were not already in train, that the Opposition spokesperson tried to introduce, is deluded, if he thinks that. We have already secured supply 30 percent above the record amount of flu vaccine that we had last year.
Also, of course, I think Opposition members know that having temperature checks at the airport in the way that they are suggesting is not supported by the evidence. Having nurses there available to take the assessment is the thing that we can do best; not give people a false sense of hope when they may be coming through our borders, yet to develop symptoms. We are taking the advice of medical experts and scientists at every point, and informing our decisions—and that has proven to be the right course of action.
Two hundred and thirty five million dollars of that fund has already been allocated and actions are already under way. The rest of that $500 million is available immediately and as it is required. The Minister of Finance has been clear with me all along that more will be available if that is requested.
Our health response—the response of our health professionals has been world leading. By taking those hard decisions early and acting decisively, we've ensured that we are well placed to combat COVID-19. It is the best protection for New Zealanders and the best protection for our economy. If we take action to keep people safe, that will also be a part of our front-line economic response. Our people are our economy. We've also made those record investments—as I've touched upon—in previous Budgets, to make sure that our health system is preparing and ramping up.
Today is the right day to be spending an additional half a billion dollars on health; it gives the certainty to those who are already taking actions, to ensure that our health system is learning from the latest evidence and making the preparations that we need to make, because we will inevitably see more cases sporadically arrive in this country. I want to congratulate and thank the public health officials, who, to date, have been able to complete 100 percent of contact tracing.
Again, we've heard today from the WHO that testing, tracing, and self-isolation are the priority in those countries that have been successful. That is the strategy we are pursuing.
We're determined to seize the moment. We're determined to act in the window of opportunity that we have to continue our preparedness so that we continue to be one of the best-placed countries in the world to keep COVID-19 at bay. That decisive action has served us well so far and will continue to serve us well into the future.
In global terms, we, of course, know that the economic package announced by the finance Minister is one of the largest. I believe that the finance Minister has got this right, and history will show that this has been a visionary and correct approach to the headwinds in this global situation that we are facing.
Nearly half of the fund—as I've said, the $500 million—is immediately unlocked, and the rest is available as required.
I want to talk a little bit about the public health units. We know that those staff are our first line of defence, and they are the ones who manage the notifications of suspected cases and confirmed cases; they do the contract tracing; for the close contacts, they assess and advise on the public health risks in front of us; they manage the border control operations at airports and seaports. Protecting New Zealanders is their number one priority as it is our number one priority. That is why we are putting more than $40 million immediately—immediately—into public health, with a strong emphasis on contact tracing. That investment nearly doubles our annual budget spending in that area for the current year of $46.7 million on core public health services. Of course, the investment was already being shifted to go in there; this gives them the certainty that we will continue to back them in their efforts that are so vital for containing COVID-19.
We're also strengthening primary care—recognising that our GPs, our nurse practitioners, our nurses, and our iwi and Pacific providers are there at the front line. Primary care is receiving an additional $50 million including for community-based assessment centres, equipment, and logistics. This means that more people will be able to access GP care for testing when required, minimising the impact on those visiting the GP for other issues—because, of course, there will be other issues, and our health system needs to continue while we are managing COVID-19, as well.
More resources will go into Healthline, which has been an important source of advice for the public. They are facing unprecedented levels of demand. They've already boosted staffing by more than 100 and are currently handling more than 5,000 calls per day. The $20 million boost for Healthline will mean more doctors and nurses can be hired to provide clinical advice over the phone to deal with those technical, important issues that members of the public are raising. 
The last component of the fund that I'd like to touch on is the $15 million boost for psychosocial support. We know that the global COVID-19 outbreak has been an anxious time for many people, and this boost will support our psychosocial response and recovery plan to boost the wellbeing of New Zealanders. It will mean easy and immediate access to trained counsellors through the 1737 helpline. We'll also be developing and promoting online resources to help those who have or develop mental illness as we go about facing this global challenge. 
I do want to thank everyone in the health sector, as I close, for the contribution in working to protect New Zealanders in the midst of this global pandemic. I also want to thank those who are in self-isolation who are taking the steps to keep everyone safe, those who are upping their hygiene practices—you are all doing your best to keep COVID-19 at bay.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Foreign Affairs
1. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How is the Government working with other countries in its response to COVID-19?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Among a raft of measures, New Zealand is jointly funding the World Health Organization Pacific-wide regional coronavirus response with Australia. Due to the nature of the virus, when we help the Pacific, we help ourselves in New Zealand. Only by ensuring public health and establishing economic security across our Pacific region can New Zealand overcome its effects. This is because Pacific countries' health systems and economies are expected to be more severely impacted by COVID-19 outbreaks than in our countries. In times like these, it's essential to work with our partners. New Zealand has taken the appropriate measures to protect the health of its own people while maintaining close working relationships with our neighbours.
Jenny Marcroft: What has the international response been to New Zealand's measures to combat COVID-19?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The response from our partners upon hearing of our global travel restrictions announced by the Prime Minister on Saturday has been understanding and positive. This is a testament to the hard work we have put in from the first day that COVID-19 came on to our horizon to keep our friends around the world abreast of our intentions. This was not an easy decision to make, but we are a Government which is not afraid to make those difficult choices. The health and safety of New Zealanders will always be our paramount concern, and that is why we are advising New Zealanders to avoid non-essential overseas travel.
Jenny Marcroft: How does the Government's work with other countries build on its wider efforts to combat the impact of COVID-19?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government's response, both at home and abroad, focuses squarely on those most vulnerable to COVID-19. Older people are disproportionately affected by COVID-19, and that will guide this Government's response to the virus. Naturally, many older people will be concerned about the ramifications of COVID-19 both as a health and economic risk. Rest assured the Government is helping: included in our $12.1 billion economic package announced today is a doubling of the winter energy payments, and this will now equal $1,400 for couples and $900 for single people. We live in unprecedented times, but just as our forefathers triumphed in their own battles, we expect New Zealanders will work together to defeat this virus and move forward to build a better New Zealand. 




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. 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, especially the announcement made by finance Minister Grant Robertson earlier today that we are introducing a $12.1 billion package to cushion the impact of COVID-19 to support Kiwis' jobs and, of course, the domestic economy. Relative to other countries, this is a far greater package, but we also know that the impact, as we have been advised by Treasury, is likely to be greater than the experience New Zealand had through the global financial crisis and therefore our focus must be on getting in front of those impacts: supporting businesses, jobs, and employees against the worst impacts of this pandemic. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Why are people being denied coronavirus tests when they are displaying symptoms?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the assertion they are. I want to read—
Hon Simon Bridges: Well, they are.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would like to read from the case notes provided to doctors. Under the case definition, it says, "Note"—this is for clinicians—"that due to the ongoing changing global and domestic situation, clinical judgement should apply as to whether someone who doesn't quite meet the current case definition should be tested or not." Any person who a clinician thinks needs a test should get a test.
Hon Simon Bridges: So does she deny the email to me from a Wellingtonian and his partner who had all the symptoms and were denied the tests yesterday?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I've just said, that decision sits with doctors. I will read, again: "due to the ongoing changing [environment], clinical judgement should apply as to whether someone who doesn't … meet the … case definition should be tested or not." I cannot be clearer. Any person a doctor believes should be tested can and should be tested. We have the capacity to do up to 1,500 tests a day. My understanding is that we have hundreds of tests currently being processed for which we will have the results tomorrow.
Hon Simon Bridges: Why doesn't she just guarantee that those who show the clear symptoms will get the testing, as Prime Minister of our country?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I've just given you the exact advice that is for doctors. Doctors make those decisions, not politicians, but what they have been told is that anyone who they believe should be tested should be tested. I cannot be clearer than that. I cannot make those judgments, but they can, and they should.
Hon Simon Bridges: Why is she only suggesting ramping up tests now after the World Health Organization has called for countries to test, test, test?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is utterly incorrect. We've had the capacity to test up to a thousand a day for a very long time.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is she concerned that a comparable country like Norway has tested 8,000 people and we've tested less than 600?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member seems to be upset about where our global standing currently is in terms of case profile. We have, currently, a small number of cases, that have been confirmed through testing. But I expect that we will have many hundreds more tests conducted. In fact, I understand we have hundreds currently being processed this very day.
Hon Simon Bridges: Isn't the reason we only have a dozen confirmed cases and not dozens and dozens and dozens because under her Government, since the start of the year, we just haven't done many tests?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is an appalling, appalling statement to make. The implication that tests are being determined by politics is appalling. Doctors are making the call, and they are being told that if they believe they should test, they should. I cannot be clearer about the advice that has been provided by the Ministry of Health; it is in black and white—in fact, it is in bold.
Hon Dr David Clark: Is the Prime Minister aware that Norway currently has 1,200 confirmed cases of the virus, and is in Europe, which has been described as the epicentre of the outbreak?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. In those cases, you would expect, therefore, that the contact tracing and symptoms would therefore lead to the other testing outcomes that they have. It seems extraordinary to me that the suggestion seems to be that there is disappointment about where we are. Hundreds of tests are being processed today. Very unfortunately, we will see—[Interruption] We will see more—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just ask members on both sides—this is a very serious issue, and petty calling back and forth from both sides ill behoves the House.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that the reason, say, Norway has many more confirmed cases is because they have done many, many thousands more tests, and that's where we needed to be weeks ago.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I reject that, and I again confirm I have just been advised there are 500 tests currently being processed. That capacity has always existed, but we have allowed doctors to make that decision, not politicians.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will she apologise to New Zealanders who have been previously denied a test under her Government last month, the month before, and as little ago as yesterday?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No one who a doctor believes should be tested should have been denied a test.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made about the Government's economic response to the impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today, I announced the Government's $12.1 billion economic response package aimed at supporting cash flow and confidence in the economy. This represents around 4 percent of New Zealand's GDP and is larger on a GDP basis than Australia, the UK, Singapore, or Ireland. It also comes on top of the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme announced earlier in the year. The intent of the package announced today is to fight the virus and smooth the curve, cushion the blow on businesses and workers, and position the economy for recovery. It represents the first stage of Government support to New Zealand businesses and workers, and Budget 2020 will be re-orientated to be a recovery Budget. We are taking bold and decisive actions to respond to uncertain and unprecedented times. There are tough days ahead, but we will get through this together.
Kiritapu Allan: What measures has he announced today to support businesses and workers in the near term?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Under our $8.7 billion business and worker support package, we are introducing a wage subsidy scheme to help people stay attached to their workplace so that both workers and businesses are in a better position to adjust to the difficult prevailing economic conditions. We're also introducing a COVID-19 leave payment scheme to incentivise people to undertake self-isolation if they are required to do so, and this applies to employees, the self-employed, and contractors. In addition, we're implementing a significant number of tax changes to increase business cash flow and stimulate investment.
Kiritapu Allan: What measures has he announced today to help New Zealanders' recovery from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We recognise that the Government must provide further support to the economy to ensure that a recovery will take hold. The measures we announced today are aimed at boosting demand and supporting households through the first phase of the recovery. The package comprises a $25 across the board increase to main benefits, scheduled for implementation on 1 April 2020; a doubling of the amount paid through the winter energy payment for 2020; and removing the hours test from the in-work tax credit to assist those who may face variable hours as a result of the virus. Ultimately, the recovery package will go well beyond these measures. These measures represent the first phase of an ongoing commitment from the Government to New Zealanders to support us through this time.




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 our decision to expand our travel measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, so that every person will be required to self-isolate for 14 days, outside of the Pacific. We have also, of course, announced today additional funding to health. As part of our efforts, we are dedicating $500 million directly into combatting COVID-19, nearly doubling the resources for our public health units, who are, of course, key for our contact tracing as part of our response; an extra $50 million in support for GPs, because at this point in time, they are our front line; and $20 million for capacity at Healthline.
Hon Simon Bridges: How many thousands of jobs are expected to be lost this year because of COVID-19?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It is very, very early days in some of the projections that we're receiving from Treasury. As I said yesterday, one of the early predictions from Treasury was that we will experience a greater shock to our economy than we experienced in the global financial crisis. Of course, at that point, my recollection is unemployment hit 6.7 percent; so that gives an order of magnitude.
Hon Simon Bridges: Of the half a million - plus businesses in New Zealand, how many does the Government expect will be eligible for wage subsidies?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: All of them who are being affected by COVID-19. The criteria doesn't set a size limit; it does set, simply, a cap on how much can be claimed. That cap's at $150,000. The other criteria is that it has to have had an effect of 30 percent or more on turnover. We anticipate, though, there will be some companies who won't be able to compare from, say, a year ago; so we've put flexibility on how they can demonstrate those impacts.
Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to the tourism business in my electorate with 40 staff that will now start laying off staff because the $150,000 cap announced today doesn't cover all of his staff?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, it does, though, cover $150,000 worth. Of course, that gives, we hope, some ability for them to retain staff, work through their plans. We also hope that they are having encouraging conversations with their banks as well, also with IRD, and making sure they work through every avenue. That payment of $150,000 will be paid out in bulk. Perhaps they may not be able to retain all of their staff in this difficult time, but we do hope it makes a difference for them.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Prime Minister, in confronting this viral invasion, in what sense will economic recovery be best assured: one of confidence and reassurance to the public, or gloom, doom, and naysaying?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, the former. I would reflect that what we have used to build the framework for the wage subsidy scheme was actually what the member's last Government, the National Government, did for Christchurch and Kaikōura. So those were the frameworks that we used as the starting point—the difference, of course, being that those were region specific; we've had to design something for the entire country.
Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to the hotelier I've talked to today who is going to go to the wall because of the sharp downturn in tourism and, with the $150,000 cap, is going to start laying off workers as early as this week?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, for some large organisations—and I can't speak to specific cases, but some larger organisations—we are saying that we wish to hear from them, because we are looking at some specific circumstances, depending on the organisation. Obviously, though, as a starting point, that wage subsidy is in place, and there are other elements of the package that do provide some relief from tax provision in particular.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will the wage subsidies be backdated, and if not, why not?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: From the day that they're announced. Basically, a business can make an application immediately. We've estimated that it will take five to six days before it will be paid out, but it will be paid out in a lump sum, not on a weekly basis. So backdating becomes irrelevant, because they get it in a bulk payment, 12-week equivalent.
Hon Simon Bridges: If the Government downturn lasts another six months, would the Government look to extend the wage subsidies that long?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have said that this is tranche one of our response. We gave a 12-week payment in order to give businesses some certainty. Of course, we will have to continually assess the economic situation for New Zealanders, and including the health situation for New Zealanders. We've also said the Budget will be the place where we have to also design New Zealand's recovery plan.
Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to businesses who have lost turnover of, say, 25 percent and therefore are ineligible for the job support but nevertheless will struggle in the current environment?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Even if they've only lost 25 percent in existing turnover, if they can demonstrate that their projected turnover will be greater, then they will be eligible.




Question No. 5—Finance
5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to support New Zealand businesses that are struggling with the economic impact of COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): At the risk of some repetition: the Government today announced our $12.1 billion package. It includes an initial $500 million boost for health; $5.1 billion set aside for wage subsidies for affected businesses in all sectors and regions, available from today; $126 million for the COVID-19 leave and self-isolation support; $2.8 billion for an income support package for our most vulnerable and to promote spending, including a permanent $25 per week benefit increase and a doubling of the winter energy payment for 2020; a $100 million redeployment package; $2.8 billion in business tax changes to free up cash flow, including a provisional tax threshold lift, the reinstatement of building depreciation, and the writing off of interest on the late payment of tax. All of this and more is on top of the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme that was announced in January.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How much of today's package will reach businesses in the next four weeks?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: At a conservative estimate, the $5.1 billion is available and will be paid out in that time.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will businesses have to keep employing people to get the wage subsidy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's a wage subsidy, so yes.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, what's in place to ensure that recipients of the subsidy keep employing?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think it's incredibly sad that the member thinks so ill of the small-business people of New Zealand, that they would rort the system like this. As it happens, they have to sign a declaration.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why hasn't working capital support for small to medium sized enterprises been a priority today?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the first instance, for all businesses, their relationship is with their bank. Earlier this week, the Reserve Bank Governor made an important series of decisions, including lowering the official cash rate but also relieving banks of the burden of the bank capital changes that he had put in place. That opens up $47 billion worth of capital for those banks. They're also—the Reserve Bank—putting more liquidity into the market. Banks are the first port of call in terms of working capital. At the same time, Government officials met yesterday with the banks, and had met last week with the banks, to discuss what future potential partnerships there might be for working capital.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the decline in revenue of 30 percent have to relate to coronavirus?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Businesses need to be able to show that they have lost 30 percent of turnover. It will be clear to everybody that coronavirus will be the cause of that in most cases.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How is it clear? How does it work? If a revenue drop is due to a conscious decision of a business owner totally unrelated to coronavirus, are they eligible?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Businesses will need to sign a declaration that indicates that 30 percent drop. Again I repeat: most businesses in New Zealand today are not focused on rorting the system; they're focused on keeping their employees in work, and we're trying to help them.




Question No. 6—Health
6. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: How is the Government supporting public health services in New Zealand to respond to COVID-19?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): COVID-19 is a global challenge. Thanks to early and decisive Government action, we have had comparatively few cases in New Zealand, but we know we will see more and we are prepared. Today, the Government announced an initial $500 million fund to strengthen our health services to fight and contain COVID-19. This package makes sure that health services are there for those who need them the most. This is an initial investment. From the outset, it has been made clear to me by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that financial resources will not be a constraint. The Government will ensure the health sector has the support and resources it needs to fight and contain COVID-19.
Angie Warren-Clark: What services will be boosted as a result of this new $500 million fund?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The COVID-19 health package will boost health services across 11 priorities, but let me draw attention to three of those. Firstly, Healthline will receive an additional $20 million to deal with the more than 5,000 calls they're receiving every day. Secondly, $40 million will be going to public health units. These are the crucial people who are contact tracing every single person who has come into contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19. And, thirdly, $32 million will be set aside for intensive care capacity and equipment.
Angie Warren-Clark: How will primary care clinics, like general practices, be supported by the $500 million fund?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Alongside our contact tracers, our general practitioners, nurse practitioners, nurses, iwi and Pacific providers, and all other primary care workers are on the front line of the fight against COVID-19. That's why we're investing an additional $50 million in primary care, including funding for community-based assessment centres, equipment, and logistics. We're also investing a further $20 million to improve the capacity of general practice and community health providers to use technologies such as video conferencing and Telehealth to conduct consultations.




Question No. 7—Finance
7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In the context in which they were made and given.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is it the policy today to limit support to businesses, effectively, to 21 full-time staff?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is a wage subsidy scheme. It is a scheme to support businesses to be able to make adjustments at this time. It is set at a cap which would cover most small businesses in New Zealand.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So what would he say to the owner of a hotel in Queenstown, for example, with 200 staff, whose revenue has dropped by more than 50 percent and is facing very substantial lay-offs, in terms of how this subsidy will help?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say to that business is that they should be talking to their bank in the first instance. I'm sure the member appreciates it is not possible for the Government to fund and run every business in New Zealand. The package contains significant benefits for that business in terms of the tax changes around depreciation and around provisional tax. There also is the possibility for larger businesses to be talking to us as well but in the first instance it is the bank that that business needs to talk to.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So what was the rationale for prioritising roughly half of the $12 billion package to longer-term issues and roughly half the package to short-term focus on subsidising workers?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of that question. I think the member might be putting depreciation issues, for example, into that category in terms of longer term; actually, that's available for people from next month.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What job losses is he expecting in the medium-sized business area?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don't have a specific number available for that, but as the Prime Minister has said earlier today, the advice that we have had is that the effect of this will be greater than the global financial crisis. During that time, unemployment reached 6.7 percent. This will have a significant impact. The good news is that the package we announced today will help cushion the blow.




Question No. 8—Health
8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: What was the average wait-time for Healthline yesterday, and is he confident in the Government's ability to track those who are self-isolating for COVID-19?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, this answer is likely to be slightly longer than usual, and I trust your office has been notified, but it's not terribly long.
SPEAKER: Yes. No, I have been notified—like the wait times. Carry on.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Healthline is delivering an unprecedented level of support to New Zealanders. Yesterday, more than 7,000 contacts were managed by Healthline, which is seven times higher, I'm advised, than the usual volume of calls. That has led to some delays and longer than usual wait times. I appreciate that will have caused some frustration for people looking for advice and support. Healthline has already added significant new capacity. Two hundred additional non-clinical staff have been trained, and 50 additional nurses have been recruited. Today, the Government announced a one-off funding boost of $20 million to allow for further staff to be hired. Yesterday, the average wait time was 44 minutes. Proactive calls to people in self-isolation are now being separately managed by a dedicated call centre with 150 staff. There will be zero tolerance for those who do not follow the rules of self-isolation.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he concerned that people will give up on getting through to Healthline and therefore not self-isolate properly?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: My expectation is that people will continue to observe the requirement around self-isolation. Ten thousand people have been registered with Healthline. They're registered when they come into the country, they're contacted by Healthline, and New Zealanders and our visitors have been taking this seriously. As I have said, there will be zero tolerance for those who do not.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: How exactly is Healthline monitoring those in self-isolation?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They are in contact regularly. We are also going to be doing spot-checks, and the member will also know that, under the Health Act, there is the ability for the medical officer of health to have the police intervene if there is concern that someone is not complying with the requirement for self-isolation.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was Healthline ready for the announcement at the weekend, and, if so, why did the Director-General of Health describe it as facing "huge pressure"?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There's no doubt that right through the COVID-19 experience, and certainly since the World Health Organization declared this a pandemic, there has been a huge demand on services as people have sought advice. I do ask those who are calling in to be patient where they do face some delay, but, as I have said, we've just committed an additional $20 million to ramping up that service, and I know that that is happening already today.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Ministry of Health know exactly where everyone currently self-isolating is, and, if not, why not?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: People who come into New Zealand fill out a form indicating where they will be self-isolating.




Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety
9. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is the Government doing to support people to self-isolate to stop the spread of COVID-19?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): From today, we have introduced the COVID-19 leave payment scheme to provide support for people unable to work because they are in self-isolation, sick with COVID-19, or caring for dependants in either of those situations. The payments will be $585.80 per week for full-time and $350 per week for part-time workers. This is one of the most important tools to prevent community transmission of the virus. We need people to self-isolate appropriately, and we recognise that this burden should be shared between workers, employers, and the Government.
Marja Lubeck: Who does the scheme apply to?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This applies to all people working in New Zealand, including employees, contractors, and the self-employed. We have designed the scheme to be easy to access and use. We've also built safeguards into the scheme. The scheme applies to those acting in accordance with public health guidance and registered with Healthline. People who leave New Zealand now, knowing that they will be required to self-isolate on their return, will not be eligible. Those who are caught intentionally abusing the scheme will have to repay the money.
Marja Lubeck: Why has the Government introduced the scheme?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This is a global issue, and New Zealand is part of the global response. Protecting New Zealanders' health and stopping the spread of the virus is our number one focus. The best protection for the economy is containing the virus. Everyone has a responsibility to help us get through this. We want to ensure that people who do the right thing are taken care of, and that includes helping them meet their essential costs.




Question No. 10—Health
10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that the health system is well prepared for a coronavirus outbreak?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): COVID-19 is putting pressure on even the best-prepared health systems around the world, with Italy and some other countries overwhelmed. In New Zealand, thanks to our early and decisive action, we have so far had relatively few cases. We've been working from our comprehensive pandemic plan since January to flatten the curve, and today we've announced a $500 million health fund to combat COVID-19. But we know we will see more cases here. As I've noted many times in this House, there has been under-investment in health, but our health services are prepared; our doctors, nurses, and other health staff have had time to plan. I have huge confidence in their skills and professionalism and their ability to respond to COVID-19.
Dr Shane Reti: Have robust primary care inventories been undertaken for coronavirus protective equipment in general practice, and, if so, when were they completed?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: General practice has been issued with personal protective equipment (PPE)—of course, much is being held at the centre in order to ensure that it is available for any hot spots. We have 9 million of one type of face mask and 9 million of another, as the member knows, and those are being held to ensure that they are in the right place at the right time.
Dr Shane Reti: How many suspected coronavirus patients a day does an average general practice have protective equipment on hand for?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don't have that exact number in front of me. The member will know that currently we have only very few COVID-19 cases in train, and that PPE is used in those practices best where we have more cases.
Dr Shane Reti: Will Healthline reconnect with people who were told a week ago that close contact was 1 metre face to face, now that the New Zealand definition has been changed to 2 metres, and why did New Zealand not align with the international definition from the very start?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the premise of the member's question.
Dr Shane Reti: Does New Zealand coronavirus testing align with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations to test all older people with symptoms who also have heart conditions; if not, why not?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member will have heard from the Prime Minister earlier in today's House session that all primary care workers who are so qualified are being encouraged to test if they have any clinical suspicion.
Dr Shane Reti: What is the weakest point in the health system for coronavirus management, and how can we help?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It's misinformation, and members of the Opposition can help by making sure that they are pointing people toward the Ministry of Health website, where the most up-to-date and correct information is on hand. They can share that widely, and I would appreciate it. Thank you.




Question No. 11—Small Business
11. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Small Business: Does he stand by all the Government's actions and statements regarding small business?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): Yes, especially the $12.1 billion package to support New Zealanders and their jobs from the domestic and global impact of COVID-19. We are moving quickly to help people stay in work and reduce the hit to businesses. The global economic impact of COVID-19 on New Zealand's economy is going to be significant, so we are acting now to soften that impact. I thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for their leadership, and I'm incredibly proud to be part of a team that has taken the tough calls, but the right calls.
Hon Todd McClay: What advice has he received on the economic cost that COVID-19 will have on New Zealand's small businesses?
Hon STUART NASH: I haven't received any advice on that to date.
Hon Todd McClay: What advice has he received on the number of jobs in small businesses likely to be lost as a result of the economic shock caused by COVID-19?
Hon STUART NASH: I think the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have both answered that question.
Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked what advice he had had, not others.
SPEAKER: I think the member can rephrase his answer to address the question.
Hon STUART NASH: At this stage, we are unaware of how many jobs will be lost. What we do know is that a number of jobs will be lost. We think this is greater than the impact of the global financial crisis and the unemployment then was around about 6.7 percent.
Hon Todd McClay: What advice has he received on the number of small businesses that are likely to close as a result of the economic shock caused by COVID-19?
Hon STUART NASH: I haven't received any advice—it's early days yet—but we have put a substantial package in place to lessen the blow to a lot of small to medium businesses—keeping in mind, businesses with 19 or less employees make up about 97.5 percent of all businesses in this country.
Hon Todd McClay: Does he continue to support the proposed increase to the minimum wage on 1 April, even though it is projected to impose a $300 million cost on businesses?
Hon STUART NASH: Yes.
Hon Todd McClay: Does it concern him that the cost of the 1 April minimum wage increase will put additional unnecessary economic pressure on small businesses because of COVID-19, and that more jobs and businesses will likely be lost as a result?
Hon STUART NASH: I'd just say: ref. Macroeconomic Stabilisers 101. 
Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Will it be important to small businesses that New Zealanders continue to be able to spend in their local economies, and is it true that the people on the lowest incomes are most likely to spend in their local economy? 
Hon STUART NASH: That's a very good point. An increase in the minimum wage will in fact put more money in the back pockets of those who are on, obviously, the lowest wages. What all the research and all the literature and all the case studies show is that, when people on the lowest wages have more money, they actually spend it.




Question No. 12—Revenue
12. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Revenue: What tax measures has he announced to support businesses affected by COVID-19?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): In addition to the wage subsidy announcements today, the Minister of Finance and I announced a number of tax measures that will help support businesses who are affected by COVID-19. These measures are reinstating building depreciation for new and existing industrial and commercial buildings, and this includes hotels and motels; immediate deductions for low-value assets; increasing the provisional tax threshold from $2,500 to $5,000; writing off interest on late payments for tax for those who cannot pay their tax because of COVID-19; and information-sharing agreements with other agencies so they can help administer COVID-19 entitlements. These are tangible signs of action, and we are leading by example in our response to this global issue.
Dr Deborah Russell: How do these tax measures help support businesses affected by COVID-19?
Hon STUART NASH: The measures announced today will help support businesses by stimulating investment in new and existing buildings and increasing cash flows for businesses. Reinstating building depreciation for industrial and commercial buildings was identified as a key priority for improving productivity by the Tax Working Group. It will have a near immediate impact on a business's cash flow as it reduces the provisional tax payments for the income year, which begins next month for most taxpayers. Expensing low-value assets will incentivise taxpayers, especially small businesses, to invest in capital assets for their businesses and, in the long term, will reduce their compliance costs. Waiving interest on late tax payments for those taxpayers affected by COVID-19 will provide similar relief to taxpayers as seen in other adverse events or emergencies, and increasing the threshold for provisional tax means that around 95,000 taxpayers, many of whom are small businesses, will have more cash in hand during the year and it will reduce their compliance costs. We have taken a targeted approach so we can be more—and this is likely to keep more people in work.
Dr Deborah Russell: What responses has he seen in reaction to these tax measures?
Hon STUART NASH: Overall, this package has been positively received. Buy New Zealand Made's Ryan Jennings commented that the package is a positive move for businesses and it is a rescue plan to—and I quote—"save businesses and their employees in the face of significant economic uncertainty." The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions' president, Richard Wagstaff, has said—and I quote—"This package provides an immediate boost to get through these challenging times." And Kirk Hope from Business New Zealand says the package "will substantially help businesses keep operating". The wage subsidy and tax measures were—and I quote again—"well-focused on key areas of need" and "would provide much-needed breathing space and support for all businesses." The rainy day is here and this Government is providing the umbrellas.





SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the committee stage of the Abortion Legislation Bill, the third reading of the Taxation (KiwiSaver, Student Loans, and Remedial Matters) Bill, the instruction to the committee for the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill, the first reading of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, the committee stage of the Privacy Bill, the first reading of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, and the first reading of the Organic Products Bill.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion 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.
Motion agreed to.





APPROPRIATION (2018/19 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILL
First Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time. 





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





ABORTION LEGISLATION BILL
In Committee
Debate resumed from 10 March.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House is in committee on the Abortion Legislation Bill.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you calling for a point of order?
Hon Jacqui Dean: No. I seek to move an instruction to the committee.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry; you're too late.
Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to rule on the first part, OK? It is too late to move an instruction to the committee. That should have been done when we were still in the House. OK? So if you've got a further point of order which is different to that, I'll take the point of order.
Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I have been seeking a call for quite some time, calling out "Mr Chair", and that call has not been answered. That is not my fault.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry; I'm the chair of the committee of the whole House. You should have been seeking that point of order with the Speaker of the House. Also, at the first order of business, I actually read out what we're doing in committee, which I'm trying to do. I'll start again. 
The House is in committee on the Abortion Legislation Bill. Members, when we were last considering this bill we had concluded considering Part 1. We now come to consider Part 2. Members, Jan Logie's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 326 seeks to amend clause 11 of the bill to insert a new amendment to the Crimes Act 1961. That would substantially amend the key elements of the offence of killing an unborn child. This amendment is outside the scope of the bill as the bill only amends this offence for the purposes of clarifying that lawfully provided abortion services do not constitute that offence. This amendment, therefore, cannot be debated and will not be voted on. The other amendments in SOP 326 are in order and will be voted on. The question is that Part 2 stand part.





Part 2  Amendments to other enactments
JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to talk about my Supplementary Order Paper 463. I want to talk about the value of children and what they mean to all families in New Zealand—to grandparents, to aunts and uncles, to brothers and sisters—and I want to talk about the value that children have had and where this Government has been sitting over the rights of children.
My Supplementary Order Paper looks at children accessing abortion, and that is in section 38 of the Care of Children Act 2004. What my Supplementary Order Paper does is insert, after Subpart 3, Subpart 3A to seek to amend the Care of Children Act 2004—to actually have that whole section repealed so that children cannot go off and have an abortion without their parents, their caregiver, or their guardian knowing about it, and so that children and medical specialists have to gain permission from the parents or the guardians of that child to access an abortion. Currently, in the Care of Children Act 2004, in section 38, it is very clear in that children can access abortion, and that is abortion right up to the birth of a child. This is not good legislation.
If this abortion bill is to go ahead, then we need to make sure that we protect our children so that they cannot—cannot—just bowl on up to an abortion clinic and have an abortion. I also want to talk a little bit more in general about children and mothers who may access an abortion because their child has been diagnosed with Down syndrome. Our emails have been flooded with people that are very concerned that this bill will actually end the lives of those unborn children. 
This Abortion Legislation Bill is a very bad bill. It is bad because it is committing the unborn child to death and the unborn child has no right of reply. This bill is also allowing children to go off and have an abortion right up to the birth date of their unborn child, without the parents' knowing about it. How horrified I would be if I had a daughter that went off and had an abortion of my mokopuna that I didn't even know that she was carrying. How shocking would that be to my whānau, how shocking would that be to her brothers and sisters if I had a daughter? I have sons, and they have partners and wives, and those women would not dare to access this service. So I want to ask this House, I want to ask the Government: do you really care for children? Do you really care for the unborn child? Because, with the way that this bill is written, they do not.
As I said in my first speech in Part 1, and also in the first reading, we as Māori—we love our mokopuna. They are our future. This bill, effectively, ends their life before they even get a life, and that's why, in my SOP 463, I'm asking that people support, after Subpart 3, new clause 16A, the "Amendment of the Care of Children Act 2004"—that's by repealing it. They, in new clause 16B, repeal section 38—consent to abortion for children. Let the parents know this. As a parent, I would be devastated, and I know there will be a number of parents out there. This is a bill that, effectively, ends the life, as I have said over and over again in this House, and I cannot say it more. And my colleagues that are against this bill, as I am, will also get up and speak around not supporting this abortion legislation. Let this particular SOP go through. Let's protect our children.





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise and take a call on my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in Part 2: SOP 470. Before I do, I want to acknowledge that it is an emotive subject that many people in our community have been emailing, talking to us—people have been saying karakias and prayers. I want to acknowledge the fact that I was gifted this: this is a model of a 20-week-old fetus. It is to remind us of what we are actually debating about.
I also want to acknowledge from Louise Kapene Green, where she gave a korowai, and this korowai is to acknowledge our pēpēs, our young babies, and the importance of what we are doing in this House. We talk about the vulnerability and the frailty of our children, so I've brought this into the committee on their behalf to remind us what it is that we are doing in this Chamber. On that note, this SOP is about safety and concern.
In this Chamber, many have actually talked about that the bills and the legislation we put through this House should ensure the safety and wellbeing of our community and of our people. If that is so—if that is a principle that many members of this House have followed and adhered to and claim to believe in—then I believe that this SOP is something that they should consider. I know there to be many members who have given their proxy votes over and have allowed the whim and the will of whoever that proxy's given to. May I plead and implore those members in this committee to look at SOP 470?
"This Supplementary Order Paper amends the Abortion Legislation Bill by inserting new clauses 16A and 16B, which give the Health and Disability Commissioner a mandate to investigate contraventions of the regulations that govern the provision of abortion services under the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977 and the Crimes Act 1961. Simply put, this ensures that health practitioners are held to account in relation to their duties under this Bill. Without a means by which infractions of regulations related to abortions can be investigated, the regulations have no power to protect women and ensure that abortion is administered in a safe and appropriate way." Can I repeat that: "in a safe and appropriate way." This may, for example, mean that a medical practitioner did not adhere to those restrictions imposed by the test for post - 20 week abortions.
I want to read from the Law Commission, who state this: " 'Without an enforcement mechanism, there may be less incentive for health practitioners to give proper consideration to the test'. For the Bill to be meaningful in practice, it must include a specific power of enforcement. This must include the power to review a health practitioner's actions in the administration of abortion. The explanatory note of this Bill highlights that the changes to the status quo 'will mean that abortion is, in general, provided like other health services', and that would mean there would exist 'avenues for health consumers to make complaints about their care and for complaints to be independently assessed by the Health and Disability Commissioner'."—from their submission. "The Health and Disability Commissioner is already well equipped to review the actions of … health practitioner[s] for breaches of the Code of Health and Disability Services [under the] Consumers' Rights."
I put it to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little: would he consider this as a precaution, again, from the Law Commission in which he commissioned the scope of the bill to ensure the safety and concern? This was purely from that perspective. Irrespective of how we vote in the Chamber, I genuinely want to put this inside the committee and to the Minister: would he consider this as a precaution to ensure that? How will we hold them to account? How will we ensure that the services that are offered to women in regards to the abortion—and we've talked about the trauma, at times, that they would go through. What happens in the case where there is not only a legal but a breach of that convention to provide the best care possible and, in this case, a traumatic incident?
I would say to the Minister that he should consider this SOP as being appropriate. I would say to the members of this committee, even those that are not here: again, irrespective of how you vote, will you consider this SOP for a safety reason? "The Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 is drafted in such a way that the [Commission] 'may' investigate, but is at no stage required to pursue an investigation. Such a distinction ensures that the Commissioner is not required to investigate spurious claims." I believe that this is a well-considered, well-constructed, appropriate SOP that I would like to put on to the Table for the Minister to consider, but also, more importantly, for the members of the committee to consider this as an appropriate safety measure.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to speak to the excellent Supplementary Order Paper 479 in the name of my colleague Melissa Lee. This Supplementary Order Paper does a number of very important things. First, let me start, however, by explaining that it relates to a person, as defined in this Supplementary Order Paper, who commits an offence if they do certain things in providing abortion services. For the sake of clarity, let me spell out for this committee: the thrust of this amendment in the name of my colleague Melissa Lee is around conduct that is unconscionable by the doctor, essentially, or other health professional, as distinct from the woman who is seeking an abortion.
It highlights the founding fiction of this proposed law change overall that it is about removing the decriminalisation of women seeking abortion services when it is understood and noted that there has never been a single criminal offence prosecuted under the Act successfully in relation to the woman seeking the services, as distinct from the doctor or the health professional conducting them. That is my first point. My second is that we are talking about a situation of disability or possible disability of the unborn child. The precautionary principle is appropriate in matters of life and death. We do not always know as a matter of factual certainty whether a child is disabled or may only possibly be disabled, and so it's appropriate that I acknowledge the drafting by Melissa Lee in relation to the "abnormality", as it might be described—but "disability" in the most straightforward terms—as reflecting the fact of possible disability being the basis under the law as introduced to this House without any such test at this stage.
My next point is that it relates to the status of the unborn child in a similar way that SOP 475 of Parmjeet Parmar does. Dr Parmar stated in an earlier part of the bill that in her preference it would be that sex selection, or gender selection, as it's also known, would be a practice that was explicitly outlawed in New Zealand, namely that—and I relate it to this current proposal on a similar philosophical basis—the personal characteristics, or the demographic characteristics, if you will, of the unborn child should not be determinative of her right to continue to be able to live. 
There is a symbolic element, as well. We are not only talking about the ground of disability under the Human Rights Act 1993 as a basis for discrimination but also, in the way that Ms Lee has drafted her proposal, it would be outlawed to make an offence the abortion of any unborn child—and I use that phrase as it is used in the legislation—on any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993. Those would be such as would apply to the unborn child if they had become a human being. So what we see there is an acknowledgment of the humanity of the unborn child and, therefore, the appropriateness that the Human Rights Act should apply, clearly, in that case. Any members of this committee and anyone who is watching this debate should, surely, realise that the prohibition in the Human Rights Act against discrimination is precisely what this proposal and, again, that of Dr Parmar were directed to seek to avoid. It is that discrimination with which we must concern ourselves and turn our attention to. 
The next point that I would like to make is that the formulation of the amendment by Ms Lee explicitly sets out the underlying tension between leaving in the Crimes Act the offence of killing an unborn child—and I use that phrase deliberately and precisely. It could be with quote marks and, indeed, it is a precise quote from a particular section of the Crimes Act. That will remain in force, unaffected by the legislation as introduced by the Minister of Justice. 
The tension is this. I acknowledge the characterisation of the unborn child by Melissa Lee, and she also goes on to talk about the applicability of the Human Rights Act if that unborn child would go on to "become a human being". So what we have here, highlighted by Melissa Lee's SOP 479, is a situation where we're talking about a potential scenario according to the legal fiction that seems to be holding sway in this case that we can have an unborn child who is not a human being. Indeed, we can have a child who is not a human being, which in semantic terms is an absurdity. It's a logical absurdity that you could have a child being a subset of a human being described as not yet a human being on the basis of a legal fiction that she is not yet at that point able to be described as such. 
For that reason, I feel strongly that other members of this House, whatever their views might be on the legislation overall, should acknowledge and take heed of the words of another colleague and friend, Agnes Loheni, when she said she was simply looking for a semblance of recognition of some kind of balance and acknowledgment of the status—some sort of recognition of the human rights status of the unborn child. Of course, as reflected in this SOP and in the others that she was referring to, the legal status should match the scientific reality, or the physical reality, indeed, that we have an independent entity inside an adult human being—ordinarily an adult, or at least one who is older than the unborn child, of course—who is pregnant, that person who is pregnant. We have an acknowledgment of the independent movement and the fact that in 50 percent of the time, roughly speaking, the unborn child would have the opposite gender from his or her mother and has unique DNA and so forth, not to mention a heartbeat that beats out of time with that of his or her mother, indicating clearly that with that, along with the brain development function, we have indeed what is, in fact, a human being, as quite rightly described at least in passing by the SOP. But the SOP, sadly, is forced to acknowledge the legal fiction that an unborn child is not a human being. For that reason alone, I think it is symbolically important that this committee should pass this Supplementary Order Paper. 
Two more points before I relinquish this opportunity to continue speaking on this SOP: the first is that the proposal is actually, I believe, stated in very reasonable and measured terms. It includes in the section that Melissa Lee is proposing be included an acknowledgment of a scenario where an unborn child may be affected by a condition that is likely to lead to her death either before birth or within 28 days thereof. That's an acknowledgment that the underlying intention is to preserve life. It is not proposed in a mindless fashion or oblivious to the fact that many difficult scenarios do arise, but nevertheless, that is a situation that should be taken into account in the context overall of the fact that we should not discriminate against our most vulnerable citizens most of all. 
Finally, I just wanted to note the context of the debate in relation to this SOP around the concept of the wanted child. We've heard a lot about the status of a child being either wanted or unwanted—their very life depends upon it, it seems. That much is so in the structure of the law as interpreted by the Government sponsoring the bill, stating that the significance of the 20-week threshold at which one regime applies and the other becomes non-applicable, and vice versa—it is said that at 20 weeks a decision has effectively been made that a child is wanted. It might be that a case is determined in such a bright-line fashion, but I doubt it. But the bigger point, surely, is that human life should not be determined in relation to it being wanted or not by other human beings. We have, sadly, far too many examples in this country of human life not valued by others, and therefore the law being taken into the hands of those who do not value it. For the law to perpetuate the idea that there is such a thing as a wanted child who has value and an unwanted child who does not is a very sad thing, to say the least.
My final comment is to acknowledge the wonderful correspondence that many of us have received from the group Downright Discrimination, specifically advocating for the Down syndrome community in this country. Please know that your thoughts are understood, acknowledged, and, in this Supplementary Order Paper of Melissa Lee, recognised. I very much hope we can pass this for you today.





LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. Can I also say, "Lá Fhéile Pádraig Shona Daoibh", which means Happy Saint Patrick's Day, everybody. It's appropriate, in a way, that I begin there, because I actually want to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 292, in the name of Darroch Ball. That SOP essentially wants, if this bill is successful within the context of this Parliament, to force a referendum.
The reason that I say it's appropriate that I'm dressed in green and that we're talking about the Irish is because the fundamental question I think we all have to ask each other is: do we need a referendum to pass this bill? The answer, quite clearly, is no. The reason Ireland had to go down the referendum pathway was because they had to repeal the eighth amendment, which was part of their constitution. That was the only way that they could get abortion law reform in Ireland. We are not in that situation; so do we need a referendum to approve of this bill? The answer is no.
But what I did want to highlight was that what they repealed, in fact, in Ireland, was that the life of the unborn fetus had the same value as that of its mother. That was in the context of a woman who was pregnant who needed an abortion, and she had to endure several days in hospital. They actually didn't help her. The fetus was unviable, but its heart was still beating and, in fact, this particular woman died. That's what created the opportunity for abortion law reform in Ireland.
So I think, fundamentally, we have to think about that, because the pros and cons of having a referendum actually provides what the academics call an opportunity for false actors. These false actors then perpetrate misinformation and disinformation, and they misrepresent these positions to the general public. It is, in fact, like the issue that I've received emails about, in terms of aborting Down syndrome children up until the 40th week, and people saying, for example, that we're going to be aborting babies that are ready to be born. That is not true.
The reality of the testing regime in New Zealand—and I've looked at the 2016 monitoring report on antenatal screening, which includes trisomy-21 and other conditions. Eighty-one percent of people who get pregnant in New Zealand actually choose to have these screenings. We provide them as the State from the 14th week and then the 20th week, which provides parents with information about whether or not there is something wrong with their child. Do they have these abnormalities? So we provide this tool so that parents can make an informed decision.
I use it as an example because we've all received this propaganda saying that we're going to abort children with Down syndrome. But the reality is that 50 to 80 children with Down syndrome are born every year—50 to 80. So we are not aborting all children with Down syndrome. In fact, if you go online to the Health Navigator, we have the New Zealand Down Syndrome Association, we have the Health and Disability Commissioner, and we have IHC New Zealand who are there to support and provide information to parents who, in spite of the screen, want to continue to have their child, and they will support and love their children—as I mentioned last week, with Barry and Colleen Brown and their 40-year-son, Travers. So the disinformation out there that all children with Down syndrome are going to be aborted is incorrect—is absolutely incorrect. At the end of the day, it's the choice of the parents. I would have thought, as a fundamental principle, this Parliament would reinforce that.
The other thing it does is it creates divisions. That's what referendums do: they create divisions, create divisions between the people who are for it—well, I certainly am, as a woman—a lot of women's groups, the National Council of Women, and those who believe in bodily autonomy as a human rights condition: that it's my body, it's my choice. Who are we up against in this debate? You see a lot of them have been the churches and the church leaders, and we've all started to receive correspondence from our churches and church leaders—[Time expired]





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm going to have to take umbrage with a couple of things. Bodily autonomy applies to the child; what's being aborted is a human child. I'd also want to point out, because it's the language of progressives, something called "unconscious bias". The speaker who I respect personally, who just took her seat, said that there's something wrong with the child, referring to Down syndrome—that there's something wrong. I want to say to all those Down syndrome children that I know—I'm thinking of Oscar, and hello to Pip and Dean, his parents, who were on The Project last week—there's nothing wrong with that child; he is an absolutely celebrated gift. I'm not going to stand in this Chamber and continue to have people—and it's more than just the last speaker—continue to dehumanise the human child. I have said it before: we have done this so many times in our history of humanity—the first step is to dehumanise, and then the terrible actions follow.
I also think that we need to point out—and why we're dealing in Part 2 of how we deal with discrimination—is a story that was sent to me by a guy called Jeremy. His daughter, who they managed to hold alive for seven days, had chromosomal problems. His key point was that all the way up to 20 weeks, in particular, there was pressure from the doctors to abort. They had done the tests—and yes, you know, those of us who, I suppose, want to practise between naivety and ignorance, will say, "Oh, well, we'll just make our choices.", but here are the doctors putting pressure on Jeremy and his wife to abort the baby. His fundamental argument is that, actually, they decided—they made the choice—to allow that child to be born. It was only for seven days—only for seven days. They say they were absolutely wonderful days, and I can appreciate that. But their fundamental point is that if we don't pass the likes of Melissa Lee's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), that pressure will continue. So putting it really simply to the Chamber that post - 20 weeks, the doctors who do the testing will continue—and it could be the nurses and other health practitioners—to put pressure down on those parents. It's that naivety, again, of this choice argument—this ethical argument in a cuckoo nest, which pushes out every other ethical considerations—that human beings always act calmly and rationally with full information. We don't, OK? We're terribly flawed individuals who make very, very stupid decisions all the time.
So that's a real story from Jeremy and his family. The pressure will continue. The discrimination will continue. It will continue for the simple reason, as we've already heard in the discussion today, there is something wrong with these people—there is nothing wrong with them. If we listen to disability advocates, they have to suffer every day in a community that, I would argue, fears them and fears their disability. I, for one, want that community to know that I don't fear them; I celebrate them and I see them as just as human as I am.
I also want to note the importance of a number of these Supplementary Order Papers to Part 2 because they're putting some restrictions around what's happening. Why we need to put these restrictions in is that we get laws wrong. I would just point out that we've had yet another attempt today, and it's been cocked up, to bring safe zones back into this bill. Yet another botched attempt to bring safe zones back in—stuffed up as it was last week; stuffed up again today. These things happen because of bad law and bad processes.
Jan Logie: You're making things up, mate.
SIMON O'CONNOR: So, really—and once again, I think it must be Jan Logie who's making things up; no, it's quite real—we've had another stuff-up today. Well, a stuff-up from those who want to put in safe zones, who want to attack freedom of speech, freedom of conscience. But why I'm illustrating this is that that is the reason we need to have the likes of Alfred Ngaro's amendment and why we need the likes of Simeon Brown's amendment: MPs make mistakes—they continually make mistakes.
Looking through the bill—particularly in Part 2—I think we just need to draw attention, and Chris Penk articulated this far, far better around, sort of, one of the false premises of this bill, in replacement section 183(2), inserted by clause 12, which says, "The woman is not guilty of an offence under this section." Well, that's good to know, but why it needs to be highlighted is that the current law in New Zealand has not, never has, never could, and never would criminalise women. It's one of the great falsities. I need to point it out again that our media has been absolutely complicit in pushing these falsities.
I want to draw particular attention, if I might, to Supplementary Order Paper 463, in the name of Joanne Hayes. Hers is referring to an amendment to insert a new Subpart 3A, which is around the amendment to the Care of Children Act 2004. In support of this SOP, I want to note that it's particularly for children—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Simon O'Connor.
SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you very much. What Joanne Hayes is trying to do is give a little bit of surety to those who are minors that their parents need to be informed about an abortion. Now, for pro-death and pro-abortion advocates, this is verboten, we can't go there, which is remarkable because, as a stepparent myself, basically, nobody can give even a Panadol or a piece of advice or even a hug to any of my stepkids, but they—well, not all of them; some of them are boys, just for Jan Logie's sake there—the girls would be whipped out to an abortion clinic just like that under this current legislation; no reference to the parents, caregivers; nobody. But, as I say, if the school that my—well, no, she's left now—stepdaughter attended wanted to give her a Panadol, there would be phone calls, there would be lines of communication; it wouldn't end. Now, look, that's fundamentally—fundamentally—flawed and absolutely ridiculous.
I've said recently, around anything like this, it's all about consistency. One of the ways that you can always find out if a bill is flawed—and I would suggest this one is, legally, but also morally and ethically—is there is no consistency. So, again, I just find it absurd. I mean, again, a teacher can't even give a child a hug but they can take them by the hand and lead them to an abortion clinic. 
One only needs to think of the story of Hillary Kieft—I know the Abortion Legislation Committee dealt with that last year—a woman who had wondered why her daughter was so incredibly depressed and suicidal; in fact, there may have been suicide attempts. The only way she found out was after imploring her daughter and finding out that her daughter had been taken for an abortion. No one knew. The daughter was struggling with it. The mum had no idea, none of the wider whānau support crew knew until that ultimate cry for help, which is suicide. I do wonder—and it's a pure speculation—how many of our young people end their lives and we never know the cause and the decisions that they've made where, actually, we as a community, and certainly as family, would have thrown love and support around that person.
I want to turn my attention now to SOP 479. I'm not going to say too much on it, because she herself is awesome: Melissa Lee, she'll talk to it. But, of course, there should be grounds to stop discrimination. Good God, I almost get bored out of my brain at the amount of times, particularly from the progressive side of the Parliament, but, sadly, it includes some in the National Party, who wax lyrical about discrimination and tolerance and diversity—all good notions—and yet aren't actually prepared to stop discrimination here. There are wet bus ticket words—"Oh, we really shouldn't do sex selection."—well, put it in firmly in the bill: this country, this Parliament does not stand for it.
We should also add that in terms of disability. Some people have, you know, again, talked about, "Well, we still might have some Down syndrome people killed."; again, I just ask the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, if he's prepared to address the question that I put out last week that in the likes of Iceland, for those people who take testing, how many of those Down syndrome kids live? The answer is really, really low. [Phone vibrates] Oh, hold on! This might be Iceland calling now—I doubt it, because they know the answer's pretty shocking, as well. So it's really, really shocking.
I do, like Chris Penk, want to do an absolute shout-out to the likes of Downright Discrimination. You guys are awesome, continuing to voice for your community; it's an absolute shocker and a shame how you are derided by bigoted people in this House. You have the right to put forward your information, you have the right to stand by your information, and you should not—and will never be from people like myself and others who are pro-life—be derided for having a view which is inconvenient, because, at the end of the day, we celebrate your children.
So then let's turn our attention to Alfred Ngaro's SOP to finish it—another awesome guy. I think it's really great that he brought the 20-week-old image out. That's what we're dealing with. I understand, actually, that some in the media, so scared of this topic, have actually banned—would you believe it?—images of children at different stages of development. What is so scary to this House and the media, particularly those, I believe, in The Dominion Post—let's put that on the record again for people who subscribe: The Dominion Post—about a child? Unbelievable. It's an absolute disgrace and borders on corruption. Anyway, Alfred Ngaro, who's definitely not corrupt—a good man—he just wants that the commissioner may have the power to investigate the breaches. If you're going to have a piece of legislation that things shouldn't happen in a certain way, well, you need the power to follow them up; it's nonsensical, I would suggest, to not have this power.
So, look, I'm going to end it there. I'm grateful for two calls. I think the Chamber might just get the sense that I'm a little passionate about this. But, as I say in a video that I released a littler earlier today—here's a bit of self-glorification; doesn't do one great for their humility—actually, if we're about human rights, it applies to all, including the unborn child. 





CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Before I call the Minister, can I ask members of the public in the gallery—this debate is for members of Parliament. They are the only ones that can contribute to this debate. Applause from the gallery is not permitted, actually, and so I'm going to ask members of the public to observe that rule, and I call the Hon Andrew Little.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. I take this opportunity just to respond to some of the points raised in debate so far. Again, as I have previously, I acknowledge this is an issue that is very sensitive to many members and there are members who are participating in this debate who would rather we were abolishing abortion. That is not what this bill is about, and that debate was lost and won—or, in fact, lost—in 1977. We are not having the 1977 debate again. We are talking about taking the 1977 legislation and making it relevant to New Zealand in the 21st century. That's what this debate is about. And it doesn't help, I think, for the reputation of this House, for those, no matter how passionate, like the member Simon O'Connor, to be making assertions and statements that are simply out of step not only with the bill but actually with the current legislation. It does help the debate when we accurately reflect what the current law is, so that we understand what the changes are that are being made, and it's in that spirit I want to respond to some of the points made. 
Now, I know that the member Joanne Hayes is deeply opposed to abortion. She made that very clear and, therefore, I'm not quite sure how helpful some of her argument was. But, in terms of repealing section 38 of the Care of Children Act and not allowing medical practitioners to make the judgment about whether the person in front of them has the capacity to consent to a procedure, that would be taking a giant step back. And here's the problem for Mr O'Connor and Ms Hayes: that is a provision that protects a young woman, even a woman who is under age, from having to get the support of a parent, particularly if the parent, particularly the father of the daughter, is the father of the pregnancy—because that is the reality. 
A young under-age woman should not be forced into the position of having to get the consent of the person who may well be the father of the child if that father of the child is also father of the young woman. That's the situation that Mr O'Connor and Ms Hayes will be putting a young woman in. Now, I know Mr O'Connor used the dramatic language of those who support "death and murder", but I wouldn't want to be a member who supports incest and affords no protection to a young under-age woman for being able to get a medical procedure to protect her from that, because that's the position that Mr O'Connor is putting himself in. 
So that provision, that section 38, is absolutely vital to ensure that that young woman who has capacity can, with the help of the medical practitioner she is talking to, make that decision, and it is often a difficult decision. The reality is most young women in that position will have some sort of family or parental support, but that cannot be guaranteed and we should not be putting young people in that position, which would simply amount to further abuse of that person. 
I now turn to Alfred Ngaro's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 470. I know Alfred Ngaro. I consider myself a political friend of Alfred Ngaro's. He holds his political faith deeply to him and he articulates his faith well, pretty much every time he speaks in Parliament. That's one of the things I admire about Alfred Ngaro. I understand what he wants to achieve with his SOP, which is the obvious, which is that if there is abuse by a medical practitioner of their rights and powers in terms of advice or not giving the right advice or not doing the right things to a woman seeking an abortion there should be not only an investigation but a follow-up. 
But I say to Alfred Ngaro that actually is already contained in the legislation that covers the Health and Disability Commissioner. The Health and Disability Commissioner already has the power to do that, and the references that he made to the Law Commission report were about saying there needs to be an enforceability of this. Medical practitioners are governed by their professional and their ethical standards and all those rules and guidelines they are bound to as professionals, and that is why we have the Health and Disability Commissioner—not only to apply the letter of the law but to ensure that medical and health practitioners are following their professional and moral obligations as well. So that is already provided for, and I think the problem with SOP 470 is it simply replicates what is already there, and it's for that reason that I don't support it. 
I turn to the comments by the member Chris Penk, who argued in favour of SOP 479 about criminalising abortion. The reality is the starting point for abortion is that it is a crime. It is a defence to the crime that you've had an abortion consistently with the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act. That is the legal structure of abortion in New Zealand. That is why this legislation seeks to take abortion out of a criminal framework and to make it a matter for the health system, for health or medical practitioners, and the women who seek the support and assistance and consultation at a time when they are faced with making that decision. That is why that provision, the new section 183, is there. As I said, as I argued when the House was last in committee debating this, I don't go with us legislating for health standards and putting obligations on health practitioners that are already provided for in their professional practice, in their articulated professional obligations, and the things that their various colleges put out for them and require them to abide by and comply with, because that is the basis of complaints not only to the profession themselves but to the Health and Disability Commissioner as well.
Turning to Louisa Wall's comments, I agree with Louisa Wall that this is not legislation that, in my view, meets the test of the need for a referendum. We already have referendums in relation to end of life choice, because we don't have any legal framework. We never have had a legal framework for that, and that is a huge step in terms of social policy to make and it is right that that should be subject to a referendum. Likewise with legalising cannabis: we haven't had legalised cannabis—or it's been absolutely prohibited since 1965; it's had partial prohibition since 1927. So legalising it is a huge step in terms of social policy. It is a matter on which the electorate ought to have the opportunity to express a view, and so they will have the opportunity to do that. 
We have a framework for abortions right now—have had since 1977—and although the number of abortions each year has been declining, there are roughly around 13,000 abortions carried out each year. That is already happening. What we are talking about is the framework under which women will be allowed to make that decision and seek advice and seek support and under which abortions will take place, but we already have a provision for that. This is nothing new; there is no giant leap in terms of social policy, and therefore, in my view, it does not justify a referendum. 
In relation to other comments by Mr O'Connor—and I know he argues that we are dehumanising the child. We are not; abortion is not about, you know, killing children. It is about women who, early in their pregnancy, make a decision they don't want the pregnancy and seek medical assistance accordingly. Women do not, halfway through pregnancy, decide on a whim they no longer want the pregnancy. No one can ever point to a situation where that has happened. That is not how it is, and we do great disrespect, and members in the public gallery do as well, to women in this country if they think that women in this country kind of just at random and spontaneously partway through a pregnancy—20 weeks, 30 weeks, or, as some have argued, at birth—decide they're going to terminate the pregnancy. That doesn't happen. It is a ridiculous assertion to make. It is an insult to the women of New Zealand, and I just hope that people might stop saying it. It doesn't help—people can put all sorts of photos and images up. That does not reflect the reality of the issue we are dealing with. It is simply false to say so, and those images are just plainly ridiculous. 
I go back to the point I made before: Simon O'Connor was concerned about doctors putting pressure on parents. Now, this might be a matter of perception, because I think—in fact, all the evidence I have, and at my age I've consulted a few medical practitioners—they have an obligation to be, and in my experience New Zealand health practitioners are very good at being, very realistic to people about the medical condition that they're facing, and what might to some at a very sensitive, vulnerable moment look like pressure might actually just be some blunt advice about "This is the reality of the situation you're facing. Your health interests are compromised."—or it may be in some cases the health of the fetus is seriously compromised.
That is advice that a health practitioner should be giving to a pregnant woman and, where they're involved, the pregnant woman's partner or the father of the child. That is what a health practitioner should be doing, and it is possible that that could be seen as putting pressure on the parent. Good on those parents who went through with the pregnancy, had the birth, even though the child didn't survive. I know many parents who've been through that experience. It is deeply emotional, and they are deeply vulnerable, and it doesn't help for that to be paraded out as somehow some sort of mistake of the abortion legislation—because it's not, and let's be very clear about what we're talking about in this bill.





AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to make a contribution in this debate, Part 2 of the Abortion Legislation Bill, and I want to support Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 479 in the name of my colleague Melissa Lee. The intention of this SOP is to prevent disability discrimination by ensuring that a person who commits this offence is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years. The person does not commit an offence if the medical practitioner provides a certificate confirming the unborn child is affected by a condition that is likely to lead to the death of the unborn child either before or within 28 days of the birth. It's also important to note that the woman is not guilty of an offence under this section.
This SOP is important because, as I have alluded to prior in this Chamber, section 11 of this bill—and I am talking about this bill because I notice that the Minister has spoken and has said that we are trying to debate abortion. The fact that some members in this House may have a view on abortion does not discount our view on this particular bill, which is liberalising the current laws. And I noticed the Minister has tried a number of times to say, "You members, you don't like abortion. Actually, that's what it's about." That is not what it's about. I have been very clear in this committee, in talking about section 11, specifically the criteria, which is very broad, very vague, very loose. Because of that, it makes those pre-born babies, unborn babies, and I will say that—I will absolutely say that: they are unborn babies. I had six of them inside of me. I know what they are. That makes unborn babies with disabilities or other defects very, very vulnerable.
I noticed that the member Louisa has said that people aren't aborting their babies with Down syndrome, and I would hope for that to be true. You were saying that under our current law, but it is now a different scenario with this bill that is in front of us, which is what we are debating, which we are saying to this House is a totally different picture now. It's a totally different scenario. We're kicking open that door post - 20 weeks. We are lowering the threshold, and it does make those families, those pre-born babies, very, very vulnerable.
They have reached out to us and asked us to advocate and to be their voice, and that's what I'm here to do. So I ask this committee to consider and to support this SOP. And it is needed because of section 11. It is needed because my amendment to tighten up section 11 was not acceptable in this committee—absolutely not accepted. And yet we all want to talk about no discrimination—no discrimination for people with a disability. The disability community in New Zealand already feel vulnerable. They already feel like they are inferior. They already have challenges. And now we're going to put in a law that makes them even less so because of how unborn babies with disabilities will be treated under this bill. They are very, very vulnerable.
I want to bring in, in my remaining time, one of the submissions. Again, I remind the House: there were 25,000 submissions in Opposition to this bill. Over 91 percent oppose this bill. This is just one of the many stories that came through, and this particular one is very relevant to this part. Philippa Barlow: her son, when she was pregnant, was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. She made a very powerful submission, and when she was in the surgery with her husband, there was intense pressure on her from the specialist to have an abortion. Even though they had made their case very strongly to specialists that abortion was not an option, there was immense pressure. And in fact, because it was post - 20 weeks, they suggested that she could fly to Australia to have an abortion. If that was the pressure for those families now, you can imagine the pressure there would be under this new bill. On a positive note, that baby, their son, is 13 years old today, and he is well adjusted. There are some things that he can't do in terms of sport. Thank you.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for an opportunity to speak on the Abortion Legislation Bill in the committee stage. I do just want to start by acknowledging Louisa Wall for her consistency in regards to the issue of referendums, because she is consistent in her advocacy that issues like this should not be put out to a vote, and I acknowledge the fact that she also voted against our referendum on the End of Life Choice Bill. So I do just want to acknowledge you, Louisa Wall, and your contribution on that issue, and I do, in acknowledging her position, also acknowledge the inconsistency of many other colleagues in this House who view this issue and decided that they do not wish to put this to a referendum because they do not feel that this is the type of issue, for whatever reason—whereas the issue of a referendum on the End of Life Choice Bill was, of course, for political convenience.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but I should have pointed out when Louisa Wall was speaking—
SIMEON BROWN: Point of order.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —I'm just making a ruling—that we will debate the referendum under clauses 1 and 2.
SIMEON BROWN: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Yes, I'm speaking to points not only raised by Louisa Wall but also by the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, who actually spoke on that very topic. So I'm simply entering the debate, which I believe has already been opened.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You can have a debating point under clauses 1 and 2, but not under Part 2. So you can mention that, but you need to make it relevant to Part 2, and so far you haven't.
SIMEON BROWN: Right, OK. Well, I'll continue if that's all right, Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes; Simeon Brown.
SIMEON BROWN: Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I'd like to move on to some of the points raised by the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, where he spoke in response to questions around Down syndrome and whether there was pressure being applied to women in these situations. He said that there was no pressure, but there could be perceived to be pressure. I do just want to acknowledge the submission which was raised by my colleague Agnes Loheni, where there is a clear case of someone who came to the committee, who put in a submission, and said, "This is the pressure that I am having. This is the pressure which is being applied by the medical professionals."—and the concern raised by that submitter as to what would happen if this bill is passed.
I challenge Andrew Little, the Minister in the chair, on that point: how can he stand in this Chamber and say no pressure is applied? How can he stand in this Chamber and say that medical professionals are simply just doing their job? The select committee listened to only a very few submitters—160 submitters out of 25,000. The select committee didn't take the time to actually go through the submitters and listen to what is a substantial number of New Zealanders who brought forward concerns, who brought forward their views and their experiences to this issue, and were denied the opportunity to come to Parliament and to be able to speak to those submissions in front of the select committee. So I challenge the Minister on that point where he says that, and I challenge him to provide evidence as to what he bases his claim upon.
I'd like to speak in support of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) put forward by my colleague Melissa Lee, which are SOPs 478 and 479, and in doing so I acknowledge the number of emails that I've received from people across my electorate of Pakuranga, from the Downright Discrimination campaign, and acknowledge their concerns which they are raising over how this bill will operate and discriminate against their community. I know many people in my community who have a very big passion for ensuring that we as Parliament and parliamentarians, and me as their member of Parliament, have a society that is free of discrimination. I implore Parliament to consider these Supplementary Order Papers, which will go somewhat towards being able to make a positive difference in that space.
I find it deeply offensive when language is used such as "Mothers make decisions in spite of what the medical professionals might say." when they talk about a diagnosis around Down syndrome. That language is the discriminatory language which then gets applied in our community against those mothers and those fathers who do have children who are Down syndrome and who pour their hearts and their souls and their lives into raising them. I just say to members in this House to be careful with the language they choose. Choosing language like "in spite of"—"in spite of what the doctor said", "in spite of what the scan said"—I find deeply offensive. I know that the family which Louisa Wall mentioned—and I think that's offensive language to them as well in terms of what she says and the language that she chose when she talked about Down syndrome children and the choices that parents have to make. I implore Parliament to consider these Supplementary Order Papers, which seek to put in place provisions on the issue of not just discrimination on the basis of disability but also discrimination on the basis of sex. I know my colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar brought an SOP on this issue, which was voted down, and I just want to acknowledge Melissa Lee for continuing the advocacy on this issue of sex selection. We know that this is an issue which is seen around the world.
In this bill, the Minister gets up and he says, "Well, we've put a declaration"—and the select committee says, "We've put a declaration"—"in there that Parliament doesn't see this as being something which we approve of." I say good on you. Good on Parliament for putting a declaration into this bill. Then Parliament says, "And we're going to ask the director-general, after five years, to issue a report." Well, there's no ability under this legislation and the sections which have been put in place for the actual data to be collected. I put a Supplementary Order Paper forward when we debated this last week, whereby we would actually be able to look at that issue and actually have the data collected so the Director-General could actually be able to make an assessment as to whether this is something which is taking place in New Zealand. Otherwise, if we don't have the data collection, all we've got is a toothless statement making a declaration—more virtue signalling.
This Parliament's simply virtue signalling its virtues without actually being prepared to put legislation in place which says this is a practice that we will not condone and actually allowing there to be tools to ensure that it doesn't happen. That's what Melissa Lee is trying to do with her Supplementary Order Paper, and I will be supporting it because it's something which needs to be in this legislation, because we should not be condoning discrimination on the basis of the unborn child's sex. We should not be discriminating, and we shouldn't be just happy with simply making a declaration, which is what the Parliament is currently looking to do. 
I do just want to say that this is something which the Parliament should take very seriously, because we talk a lot about discrimination, we talk a lot about these issues of equality, and we aren't prepared to take it seriously here in this bill. So I ask the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, to please tell me how, under this legislation, he will ensure that that declaration is actually given effect to, and how, under this legislation, the Director-General will actually have the information and the knowledge and the evidence to be able to issue a report to say, after five years, whether or not this is an issue which should be brought to this House's attention. Currently, those tools aren't there. I challenge the Minister in the chair to be able to take a call and to explain to the Parliament, explain to New Zealanders, how there will actually be teeth applied to this declaration which has been put into this bill.
In my last couple of minutes, I'd like to touch on the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Joanne Hayes in relation to the amendment of the Care of Children Act. I find it deeply ironic that on one level, we've got a situation where the legislation says that if my daughter goes to school and requires a Panadol, I have to go through a process to give my consent for a Panadol, but if my daughter had an abortion, I as her father wouldn't be told anything. Now, I can understand there may be cases where there should be a court process. I know there's been legislation and proposals brought to this House around the small number of circumstances where there may need to be a process where the parents are not involved, but I don't understand how as a Parliament we can have such a huge inconsistency between a Panadol and abortion when it comes to this issue.
So I ask the Minister in the chair to explain what other options were considered. Was this even considered as an issue to be addressed, or was he simply just satisfied with the status quo when it comes to this substantial issue? I know that it's an issue which many, many parents across New Zealand are very passionate about. Many people want to see the law changed in this regard, but I understand also the circumstances, and the difficult circumstances, where there may need to be some level of other process, whether that's a court process or some other tribunal which can intervene in those exceptional circumstances where there is an issue, as the Minister did, rightly, raise in his contribution. So I look forward to the Minister taking a call and answering my questions, and I do find it deeply ironic, that issue, in terms of where this bill is so inconsistent.





MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'd like to start off by thanking my colleagues who have actually spoken to and in support of my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 479 and also 478. I have actually split my earlier SOP, I think—which was 459, if my memory serves me right—because it actually had two issues joined together in terms of discrimination. But I have actually since separated the issue of gender discrimination and disability discrimination, so that members can actually vote on them separately.
I'd like to start off with the Minister Andrew Little's comments when he actually said that people who oppose this bill are, generally, opposed to abortion, and that we have a particular religious view and hence we are opposed. I find that extremely offensive. I'm a woman, I'm a mother, and he suggests that I can't deal with facts. The fact is we have 13,000 abortions in this country—fact.
When children are raped or are victims of incest, most of us in this House would probably support the idea that she has an abortion. I don't think there's anyone in this room who actually would suggest that "Oh no, that child should not have an abortion." or that it should be made more difficult for that child to deal with that impact of having gone through the process of being raped or the incest that she's actually suffered at the hands of—the example that the Minister actually gave was the father. That is apparently the very reason why the father or the parents are not supposed to have anything to do with the decision of a young child who decides to have an abortion. Parents are not supposed to actually be notified, even though they are not allowed to give Panadol or any kind of medication at school without the parents' consent.
Earlier, when one of my colleagues was actually speaking—I think it was Simon O'Connor—Louisa Wall yelled out certain things about facts: that we need to deal with facts. Yes, facts. In this country, we talk about gender discrimination, pay parity. We talk about all kinds of things that supposedly—we apparently don't like discrimination, and yet in this particular bill, we discriminate. We do not protect people from deciding that they can have an abortion based on gender.
The Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, earlier said that women are not stupid; they do not actually, all of a sudden, after 20 weeks, go to have an abortion—that they actually decide that earlier. Then why does this bill not restrict abortion to earlier times of pregnancy, rather than making it open slather? There's no limitations, after 20 weeks, when a woman could not have an abortion. That is where misinformation happens. It's not us who are spurring the misinformation; it is the bill that is problematic.
The issue is that, when people discover that they're having a particular gender child, they can make a decision whether to abort or not. When a parent finds out that there is an issue with the child in utero—that they might have Down syndrome, they might have spina bifida, they might have any kind of a disability—it is an opportunity for that parent to make that decision to abort. What I am actually saying is that we should not allow that discrimination. I have fought discrimination all my life. As an Asian New Zealander, discrimination is rife out there against people who are of different ethnicities, and yet this bill is allowing people to discriminate on gender and disability in utero. After 20 weeks, when the sex is actually known, they should not be allowed to abort. This is ridiculous.
I would like to read a couple of the emails that I've actually received from people. Chantel Mitchell says—and I quote—"This is becoming more about us making sure we have perfect babies, the gender we want, the baby without a disability, etc., than merely a healthcare issue." And I totally agree with her. Another one, from Evan Clulee, who says—and I quote—"As a person with spina bifida, we literally are a dying breed. Parents now may face extra pressures, and babies diagnosed with spina bifida in utero will be at even greater risk, prevented from even beginning our lives if these proposed abortion reform laws go through." Another one, from Sorbhanya Kim, who actually says—I quote—"We shouldn't be allowed to kill someone weaker than ourselves because they are an inconvenience. We shouldn't be allowed to kill someone weaker than ourselves because they might have a disability. People with disabilities are just as valued as anyone else. They can live a loving and fulfilling life." And I agree with them all.
I think it was Louisa Wall who actually mentioned, I think, in earlier debates that lots of members have actually talked about the right of a woman to control what happens to her body. I am a woman. I have had a child. But the DNA of a child in utero is not part of a woman's body; it is 50 percent the father's. So does the father have a say in this issue? What happens if the abortion is forced upon a woman by an abusive husband? In section—I have actually folded the part—182 of the Crimes Act it contains an offence of killing an unborn child and provides a prison term of up to 14 years. They were particularly concerned if a pregnant woman is abused—let's say kicked—and the child in utero is killed. The abuser can actually go to prison. What is the difference between an unborn child that has been kicked and dies and an unborn child of the same age that is being aborted by a woman who makes a decision to abort based on the gender or the disability of the child?
Sure, I understand, as a mother who has actually gone through the process when I was pregnant, me and my now ex-husband. When we were pregnant—and it was the best thing that happened to us; we were so joyous—at six weeks, before that, you go through the process with the doctor. The doctor actually says—oh, apparently I was a geriatric pregnancy because I had my baby in my thirties.
Simon O'Connor: Oh!
MELISSA LEE: Yes, a geriatric pregnancy! I was given an option to have an amniocentesis, and I wanted to know what kind of danger that might actually put my child in. The reason why that amnio was actually provided, or was offered to me, so easily was because, apparently, as a geriatric mother to a child, in a geriatric pregnancy, they wanted to actually make sure that I didn't have a Down syndrome child, and that I could be provided an abortion. That offer came so quick and so fast.
As a first-time pregnant woman, I just wanted to gather the information and actually sort of read all about it and consider all options. At six weeks, I heard the heartbeat of my child. There was no way—there was no way—regardless of gender, regardless of disability, that I could abort a child that was growing in my body. The DNA—
Marja Lubeck: Then don't have it!
MELISSA LEE: She says, "Don't have it." Well, that's the problem: some people use it as a method of contraception, and I oppose that. The problem with this bill is that we are liberalising abortion in this country—the very fact that we are allowing people, after 20 weeks of pregnancy, to abort—and I want to provide some parameters, I guess, through my Supplementary Order Paper to make sure that we do not discriminate against people on the basis of gender, nor do we discriminate against people on the basis of disability. I think this bill is abhorrent. I do not support it. I hope it doesn't actually go through. But, if we have to, we want to make sure that there are some—some—protections in this bill. That is why I move my Supplementary Order Papers 478 and 479. Thank you.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, while I accidentally throw my glasses away! I do just want to acknowledge the sense of emotion in the room and, again, just how personal and heartfelt this is for everyone engaged in this discussion, because these are deeply human discussions. And I want to also really support the calls around anti-discrimination, around getting rid of sexism in our country. That is something that I spend a lot of my time and effort involved in trying to do, as well as stamping out discrimination against people with disabilities in this country. I want to acknowledge that we have more work to do as a country to do that. I do not believe, however, that this piece of legislation is the place where we can be effective doing that work; except I will note that this piece of legislation enables us to get rid of some really discriminatory concepts and language as it refers to people with disabilities that's in the legislation at the moment.
This is our chance to take off our law books the ability to have an abortion on the grounds of fetal abnormality, which is in our current legislation. This is our chance to change that. So, for people who really care about these issues—which I do; the Green Party has put a huge amount of our political effort around fighting discrimination—this piece of legislation in front of us today is a step forwards towards challenging discrimination on the basis of disability as well as gender. Because we know that control of women's bodies is one of the main tools that's used to oppress women, and that this legislation we have on our books now was founded on a fundamental mistrust of women. For me, one of the really telling examples of that in the debate at the time, that happened forty years ago, in the initial draft legislation then they had rape as a ground for abortion. That was taken out by members of this Parliament, during that debate, because the mostly men in the House at that time said that women would just lie and say they'd been raped to access abortions. We have to start trusting women to make the right decisions for them and their families, and trust them and challenge discrimination in our society—yes—and I hope every single person who's raised their voice in the Chamber tonight will step into every single other initiative that we put up to challenge disablism in our society, as well as supporting this legislation.
I will note people's fears. I want to just give them something in terms of our test about is this increase—changing our threshold at 20 weeks—likely to increase abortions based on any fetal diagnosis. The international evidence is no—that there has not been, when there's been liberalisation, an increase in the proportion of terminations that happen after that time frame. I would also say that some of the statistics that we've been given around Iceland are really misleading and inaccurate. The information I have on that—and remember, Iceland is a bit smaller than Wellington; so when you're hearing that there hasn't been, in a year, anybody born with Down syndrome, that's actually possible in a town the size of Wellington, and when you compare the Icelandic statistics with the European statistics, there is no significant statistical difference. And that is over a 10-year period across jurisdictions. So this legislation is not going to—we have no evidence whatsoever—make that difference.
To speak briefly to the parental notification, I've worked with young people in youth health and I want people to know that, if you do that, young people will not go to the doctor and they will not have the conversation with their parents, which usually happens after they've been to the doctor because they've had the confidence to go.





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I begin, I just want to say that the disrespect that was shown to my colleague here, Melissa Lee, by Marja Lubeck really was uncalled for. She was emotive, she was just sharing from her heart, and I just felt that it was a bit disrespectful in the committee. When people have shared from their hearts, we've just respected their views. We may have been opposite their view, but we've just respected—so I just felt that a bit of respect could have been shown.
I want to stand up and speak to the current Minister in the chair, the Hon Willie Jackson, and hope that he'll take note, especially with the officials. When the Minister the Hon Andrew Little was making some remarks, especially in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) by Joanne Hayes—SOP 463—he used the scenario in regards to the fact of those who had been raped or of incest. I noticed that they often used the most extreme scenario as a way of justifying the position that they had. I want to put on record—and if the Minister had read through the proposed amendments, particularly in the explanatory note on the opposite page, on page 2—it was clearly highlighted by my colleague Joanne Hayes that, in circumstances where there is concern that a minor could be at risk if her parents were notified, the law already provides alternative solutions. Those solutions were in the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989; section 31 of the Care of Children Act. Those provisions are already there. So what this Act was actually speaking to—and I'm sure the current Minister in the chair, the Hon Willie Jackson, will acknowledge the fact—is that there are circumstances, especially with our Māori and our Pacific whānau, in which the cultural construct is actually the importance to engage with the whānau and the family, and the importance of that. That's the reason for the intent of this SOP: that, where there are circumstances where it's quite clear that there isn't a situation of threat or of risk, have they considered that?
I particularly want to say that because, actually, in one of the submissions that came through—this is from the Pasifika Health Alliance—it talked about the number of Māori, Pacific, and Asian births through abortion. From 1998 to 2018, Māori in particular had 76,067 aborted deaths, in comparison to all other causes of death for Māori babies—61,641. That is a significant amount. For Pasifika, it's 39,957. That's the reason why, in regards to this SOP, it's actually giving some due consideration. I don't believe that the example that the Minister gave was actually considerate, when it was quite clear that the member Joanne Hayes had clearly stated, in her explanatory note, there are circumstances where there are actually risk factors that are there, that they can be considered under two particular Acts which provide care and responsibility, discretion that is available to them, and I think that's important.
I want to speak about SOP 470. The Minister talked about the fact that there are already safety measures in place for the Health and Disability Commissioner—that's there. I've looked through these regulations, and the officials may like to give that information through to the Minister, who could then stand up later on tonight and be able to provide that. Because, while he said they were already there, again, I point to the Law Commission, who are quite clear: there is no enforcement mechanism that's currently in place; there's nothing there in the provision to ensure that there's an enforcement. And, again, the safety aspect of what the Minister concerned was sharing about isn't there. I've looked through the regulations. They're very broad, they're not specific, there's nothing there in particular. If the Minister is quite clear that this is important, then what harm is there to include this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the legislation? It just makes it clear, it makes it precise, that if there are issues where there is a breach of convention in regards to the practices of abortion—I don't think that's too hard to ask for. 
I want to talk about SOP 479 in my colleague's name, Melissa Lee. And the reason I do so—and I'm hoping to take an extension to this, Mr Chair—is because I am the current spokesperson for disability for the National Party. So I have a particular interest in this; I've been engaging in the community, and I want to share some of their thoughts and their concerns that they have raised around this. Many have turned around and said, "Well, there's nothing to be found here." I know that Louisa Wall has talked about different people that she's talked about, but I want to state that there have been 1,300 people with Down syndrome and families calling on the Prime Minister to not introduce abortion up to birth. That's part of the 25,000 submissions—out of those submissions, 91 percent opposed this bill. This is more than just one or two people in the sector; this is a significant number of people who have shared their concerns. 
I want to highlight some of those concerns that they have shared with me, in particular in regards to the current proposed changes of the law. Currently, in the current law, there is a 20 week gestational time limit for disability selective abortion. The proposed law—the 20 week gestational time limit for disability sex selective abortion would be removed. We're already considerate of the fact that there shall be no discrimination around sex, and particularly—I'm not sure—around a gender. But, in this case, again, how difficult is it for us to ensure the safety—but, more importantly, the concerns raised by the disability community: 1,300 signed a submission, a letter straight to the Prime Minister. Why? Because of their concerns. 
And here's how they highlight their concerns. People in the House have talked about facts; here are some of the facts. I know that Jan Logie talked about Finland and other places. Let's talk about a bit closer to home; let's take an example from Victoria, in Australia, where there is a similar clause allowing for abortion up to birth. There is a reliable data collection of abortions that have taken place between 20 weeks and birth, which is reported by the Council of Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity's annual reports.
Jan Logie: That's inaccurate.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: This is from the report. The member Jan Logie can read it. This data shows that there have been 1,685 abortions of babies with disability between 20 weeks and birth since the law has changed there in 2008. These are concerns that are being raised by this community. And again, if it is, within this community, the safety and wellbeing of our community, if our disability sector are now—and if parents are—showing their concern, then why is it that this House and this current Government are not listening to their concerns?
In the UK, abortion is available through to birth for disabilities, including Down syndrome, and, in February, the BBC reported that a woman had been offered an abortion at 38 weeks gestation. There is now a large movement among the disability community in the UK to get the law changed. Polling shows that a majority of people in the UK feel that disability should not be grounds for abortion at all, with only one in three people thinking it is acceptable. Our role and responsibility in this House is to ensure that the laws of this land will ensure that in this House we protect the weak and the vulnerable.
In my time that's left, I want to just read a couple of comments, because there's nothing like actually bringing the voice of our community into this House. We know that over 2,500 oral submissions were requested—only over 140. And a number of them actually shared that they would have wanted to be there to share their stories. I share a couple of these stories. Pip Smith, mum to Oscar, who has Down syndrome: "Oscar is one of four boys, along with his other brothers, he brings much joy and love to his family and is living life to the full. His life is no less worthy and is just as beautiful as those of his brothers. Our community has repeatedly called on the Government to change the law to ensure it doesn't introduce abortion up to birth. At every stage of the process, our concerns have been ignored. The Abortion Legislation Committee made it clear in their final report, and they opted to keep this new post - 20 week provision in place in the bill so that it could be used for disability selective abortions." 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: Madam Chair, I'd just like to complete my speech on SOP 479, that I was speaking to. It's in the name of Melissa Lee and, in particular, it's around clause 12, and it's focused on any disability or possible disability of the unborn child. I just want to read from the explanatory note where it's quite clear that the purpose and the intent of this SOP is in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and they note this: "Laws which explicitly allow for abortion on [the] grounds of impairment violate the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Art. 4, 5, 8). Even if the condition is considered fatal, there is still a decision made on the basis of impairment." So that's the intent of this clause here and, in particular, with SOP 479. 
I want to finish off with the words of one of our colleagues. I respect that Greg O'Connor, in his speech last week, actually made these comments. There's nothing like having one of our own who has their own personal experience. He states, "I'm the father of an intellectually handicapped son who's now 27 years old, and what this post - 20 week legislation will mean is that for parents who do find out that they have a child who may not be 'normal', who [may be a child who] isn't what they had hoped the child would be, all of a sudden a whole new set of pressures are going to go on as a result of this legislation." That's at the heart of this SOP 479. It's to take consideration that there would be no discrimination on the grounds of disability. I commend this SOP and support it to the committee.





LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I too want to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 479 and I'd like to acknowledge my colleague Melissa Lee for her advocacy for people with disabilities. I genuinely want to thank her for sharing her experience with us earlier tonight. I mean, this is an incredibly emotional discussion and some of us are sharing things that we probably haven't shared before. We need to think about what we're actually asking for, if we want this SOP to be successful, because essentially the rights of parents to choose whether or not to have a child when they know that child has a particular condition has been something that we have as a country publicly funded since 2004.
We brought in a screening programme that tests for trisomy-21, trisomy-18, and trisomy-13. But what I've neglected to do is actually talk about what those conditions are. And I actually think it's really important people know what we're talking about. So trisomy-13 was discovered by Dr Klaus Patau in 1960, and essentially it means that the fetus has extra genetic material. They have disrupted normal development, causing multiple and complex organ defects. Ninety percent of the children born with Patau syndrome die within the first year. They have intellectual disabilities, they have seizures, and they require surgical intervention. So our publicly funded screening programme at 14 weeks and 20 weeks provides information like this to parents. 
Trisomy-18, which is Edwards syndrome, was discovered by John H Edwards in 1960. Again, babies are born small. They have a small head, they have heart defects, there are severe intellectual disabilities, and 90 to 95 percent die within the first year. I looked at a study that said the average length of life is 12½ days. That does speak to Melissa Lee's Supplementary Order Paper, because she is saying that if a doctor can determine that the likely death of the child is within 28 days of birth, then that's OK. But actually, that's not what happens all the time.
Then trisomy-21—it was actually discovered by John Langdon Down in 1862 and it's an interesting condition, actually, because, people have physical and growth delays. They have mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. They have a mental age—and this is just generally—of a nine to 10-year-old, but they can live for 50 to 60 years. And with good education, care, and support to the parents and to those children, they can actually live amazingly good, productive lives—20 percent of them can go on to employment. And therein lies the distinctions, I think, with some of the groups that have been advocating to us and in the committee tonight. People with Down syndrome can live full, productive lives. 
That's not the point of the testing and the screening, though. The point of the testing and the screening is to give parents information. Firstly, do they want to undergo the testing, the screening? And then, once they do know, how can we help them prepare to deliver a child that may need specialist surgical medical care? They do, necessarily, have to talk about the consideration of termination. And the other thing they have to talk about is palliative care in that newborn period, because babies may be born, but actually they're not going to live very long. And how do we help parents prepare for a life of a child with these trisomy conditions? That's the whole point of having a screening programme.
So if the people opposed to terminating children who have these trisomy conditions really want to get to the nub of the issue, what they're saying is we shouldn't have an antenatal screening programme in the first place, because fundamental to the screening programme is giving parents information so that they can make decisions that best fit with their lives. It's not about anyone judging them. It's about how we can care, support, and help them through what is an incredibly emotional time, which is what everyone has talked about. So I can't support Melissa Lee's Supplementary Order Paper. It's way too restrictive and, also, I believe that it takes away the rights of parents to choose.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd, basically, like to speak to just one Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in this discussion, but I'll preface that, if I may, with a brief discussion of a point that I think is relevant to a number of the SOPs that we've covered this evening. 
The first is in relation to how we divide our attention as a committee of the whole House between that which is a matter of rights—I'd argue human rights, a matter of logic—versus what it is that the general public believe in and how we should view the attitude of our fellow Kiwis to this kind of legislation; the issues that are raised particularly by the SOPs. 
It's worth noting that credible public polling conducted by Curia concluded that 90 percent of New Zealanders opposed sex-selective abortions. Now, that was the subject of an SOP in the name of Dr Parmjeet Parmar in Part 1, but I would argue that, by analogy, I would be surprised if there isn't a similar result in relation to disability selection, which is the subject of an SOP in the name of Melissa Lee relevant to Part 2, on which I have previously spoken and on which I won't dwell now. But suffice to say that, even on that basis, it is worth this committee of the whole House considering the fact that it is obvious to many outside this Chamber, if not to a majority within it, the rights and wrongs of that particular issue. 
Similarly, in terms of parental notification—the subject of another Supplementary Order Paper, of course, tonight—some 79 percent in that same poll thought that parents should be notified if their young daughter was seeking an abortion. So I place that not as a matter of argument definitively, given that it seems to me that in this House we've got a responsibility in matters of life and death that is higher simply than taking the pulse of the nation, but it is worthwhile guidance, I think, to us as legislators: the fact that these issues appear in much clearer view to many outside this place than to those within, it seems, at times. 
I do want to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson; it's number 483. I think she would agree with my characterisation of it as in the freedom of conscience space, also sometimes known as conscientious objection. Of course, the word "conscience" literally means "with knowledge", and, in this case, it seems to me appropriate that a person be allowed to exercise their freedom in a way that reflects their knowledge and understanding of what the act of abortion does entail. From that point of view, it's not a matter of what a person can do or will do; it's a matter of what they are prepared to do, in a sense—in the rawest sense—what they may or may not do according to their conscience. If our attitude in this Parliament remains, as it has been historically, that matters of conscience are practically irreducible, that means that we have to be pretty determined in our consideration of attempts to water that down or erode that right.
So it is that, in Supplementary Order Paper 483, Ms Dyson proposes a regime where someone who is exercising a conscientious freedom not to perform an abortion service would, nevertheless, be required to, basically, undertake research and advice about how the person seeking the abortion services should go about getting that. That seems to me a step too far. I would argue that the first stage, essentially, in the process should activate—namely, that the person would advise the seeker of the abortion services that they do have a conscientious objection, and be allowed to leave it at that, and to walk away.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm just not sure what the SOP number it is.
CHRIS PENK: Supplementary Order Paper 483, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK.
CHRIS PENK: Remains 483, thank you. So that's clause 14. I should actually make it clear to those who are following along that we're talking about amendments to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.
So it would be the case that someone who's exercised their freedom of conscience would be required to make calculations not only, most obviously and easily, about physical distance between a provider who was prepared to conduct the services but also take into account considerations such as the date and time of the original request, the operating hours of the provider of the service that was requested, and so forth. That's a burden that I don't think it's fair to place on a person who wishes to exercise their freedom of conscience, does so in good faith, advises accordingly, and then is required to take extra further active steps against their conscience; that seems to me too far. I will be voting against that Supplementary Order Paper





Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to follow on from Chris Penk and speak in support of my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 483. But before I do, I want to point out to Mr Penk some quite important facts that he omitted to bring into his reign of consideration, and that is that this is not about an abortion service; this is about provision of emergency contraception, which avoids a pregnancy, and, if it's an unwanted pregnancy, it will avoid an abortion. That's what this SOP is about. So it's about reducing unwanted pregnancies so that the option of having an abortion is not necessary for the woman involved; so that's what this is about. When we were debating Part 1, members may recall a very similar, in fact identical, SOP that I put up to Part 1, which changed the contraception, sterilisation, and abortion legislation. This does exactly the same thing, but in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.
This matter wasn't raised at the select committee, and I was quite surprised because we did spend a lot of time on details at the select committee. The reason that it wasn't obvious to us is because, I guess, we had our faith that the system would work until it was pointed out, after we reported back, that a woman could go to a doctor or a chemist in Kaitāia under the current bill and say, "I've got a prescription here for emergency contraception. I need to take it within the next 48 hours for it to be effective." and the chemist might say, "No, I'm not dispensing it. I'm a conscientious objector." Under the current bill, as it's drafted, they would just have to tell them the name of somebody who would, and it could be in Invercargill. That woman would be pregnant by the time she got to Invercargill. So this is trying to avoid something that we don't want to happen and clearly the woman doesn't want to happen. That's why I support the change in this. It's to make the legislation that's outlined in Part 1 line up with the legislation that's outlined in Part 2.
In the brief remaining time that I've got, I just want to further recommend that members try and stick to facts in this debate. It's an important debate. It's a very sensitive one. It is very contentious. I think that it better suits this sort of debate if facts are presented rather than things that somebody might have read on the internet, had emailed to them, or just made it up. One of the examples I've heard during this debate, and certainly in correspondence, is the fact that this will almost require—it just puts such a lot of pressure on parents of a child with Down syndrome to end that pregnancy. We heard exactly the opposite from all the practitioners in this area. We heard from parents who had been through this situation about how supported they felt, how well-informed they felt, and how they had zero pressure to make a decision other than what was right for their families.
I've heard in this debate that there are zero children born with Down syndrome in Iceland. That is just not true. There have been two years in the last 50 years when that has been true: 1989 and 2009. The total population of Iceland is 335,000 people. It's a very small place. Their birth rate of children with Down syndrome is within a margin of error different than the birth rate of children with Down syndrome in the EU. There is no truth to the fact that their abortion laws mean that there are no children with Down syndrome born. Iceland is not New Zealand. We have a different culture. We have different value sets. We have different beliefs. And it is my view that this will not move parents to terminate a pregnancy when they wouldn't in the current situation.
The time pressures that Melissa Lee's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—and I do admire the value behind it—puts on parents, I think, would make for very bad outcomes. They would be pressured into making a decision while it was still theirs, before that decision is taken out of their hands, and that could lead to bad decision-making. I want those parents to be well supported, to be well-informed, and to make the choice that's best for them.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually wasn't going to take a call but I thought I'd have to respond to the member who's taken her seat, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I'd encourage her to go and look up the statistics of Iceland for those who get testing for Down syndrome, not just those who are born without testing. Secondly, she noted that her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) came about because, well, it hadn't been raised in the select committee. So I just sort of posit the argument, rhetorically if you will, that had the committee decided, which she chaired by the way, to actually hear from people who wanted to come in and speak, bar the 120 that they chose, then they might have actually got a broader understanding and would've done their job more fully.
But also in the aspect of facts, and, you know, I'm a great believer in facts as well—very useful. She talked about the emergency contraceptive pill (ECP). I just need to make it really clear for the committee that actually a person can get the ECP without a prescription. The member who took her seat was very quick to have a go at one of my colleagues about the whole having to go to a doctor; you actually don't. That's what they call a medical fact. It's what they call truth. So I just thought I'd just put that out there.
I also might just want to point out this whole—again, it's these faux straw arguments which are put up that the doctor in Kaitāia, or arguably, again, it's sort of a moot point around the ECP because you don't need to go and spend $20, $40, or $60 with the doctor; you can just go to the pharmacy. But for the sake of fact and truth for Ruth Dyson, she'll find that if you went to the pharmacy in Kaitāia and the pharmacist chose to send you to Invercargill, you'd be able to take said pharmacist against the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act and, basically, put them in their place, because that's right against what they are meant to do as a competent person. In other words, the pharmacist who has a conscience problem and sends them to Invercargill from Kaitāia is already doing the wrong thing.
But now we step into the whole philosophical problem with Supplementary Order Paper 483, because I believe those who are for this legislation are all about pro-choice. If you accept that, then it's funny that there's to be no choice for the doctor or the pharmacist to exercise their conscience right. The counter argument that often comes up: "Oh, it's power dynamics. The person who's asking for the ECP"—the emergency contraceptive pill in this case—"they might feel awkward or unsure." If that's the case—if the person's not competent enough to go to the next pharmacy to have a discussion—then that probably begins to, and should, raise questions in members' minds as to just how competent, calm, and rational that person is in making the decision. But, as I said, philosophically, the key point for the pro-choice is they're pro-choice for ECP, they're pro-choice for abortion, but, boy, there's to be no choice for doctors, nurses, and others around these topics.
Finally, Simeon Brown: what a great SOP 480; it's all about data. Not the sexiest topic. I could probably try to up the rhetoric and make statistics sound sexy, but I won't. The great thing about statistics is to help us understand what's going on. SOP 480 is, effectively, making changes to Schedule 2. When anyone looks at Schedule 2, the information that the Director-General of Health has to collect is interesting, it's useful, but just to show why we need SOP 480—and Simeon Brown himself might choose to talk to it—is particularly, but not exclusively, around sex selection. So, as I say, we've got the wet bus ticket approach that we've said in the bill: it's not a good idea.
At the moment, there is no direction in this legislation for data on the sex of a child to be collected. So what difference does that make? Well, if in two, three, five, 10 years we're going to mount an argument, or otherwise, that sex selection is happening, without the info being collected we're going to have the pro-abortion side say, "Well, there's no evidence. There's no evidence of sex selection." Well, of course that's what they're going to say, because we haven't collected the data. So it's pretty simple. Again, the challenge to those who vote for this legislation is, perhaps, let this through, because I'm sure those people can be courageous enough to not be afraid of the data. Find out, as Simeon Brown's SOP is doing, how many previous live births and how many previous abortions. I would say that the sex of the child should be noted.
This is an obligation, importantly, on the doctor or the health practitioner; this is not the woman involved. We're not putting stress on her, but if we are going to accurately report, particularly on sex selection, then we need to have that information, otherwise it makes a mockery of any discussion of what's occurring. So I implore members to vote for SOP 480.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I did let the member go because he had been seeking the call for a while but, actually, that's Schedule 1, which is part of Part 1, and we're on Part 2, Schedule 2.
Simon O'Connor: I think it's a new—is it a new Schedule 2, though, or is that still because it falls in—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No.
Simon O'Connor: Oh, then I do apologise. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It's all right.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I add my support to the two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of Melissa Lee, could I just note that this is the first time I've spoken in this debate, and I want to thank all members, because I believe it's been a very respectful debate. This is a very emotional and challenging issue for all of us, and I'm delighted that we haven't had too much acrimony. Of course it's been highly charged, that's right, but I am glad that it's been a respectful debate.
Although I haven't taken a call, I've been listening carefully to what has been said by all members, and I want to thank them for those very thoughtful contributions. One of the reasons why I haven't sought the call before now is I do believe that this is one issue where the woman's voice should be heard first and foremost. It doesn't mean that men don't have a valid opinion—of course we do—but until such time as men can understand the difficulty of an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, and agonising over a decision that might need to be made, particularly if there's an abnormality in the pregnancy, we do need to respect the fact that our world view is very different, and I do, therefore, respect the views, particularly, of women in this debate.
But I want to turn now to the two SOPs in the name of Melissa Lee. I'm the father of two wonderful daughters. They are talented, they are funny, they're intelligent—
Hon Ruth Dyson: You're biased!
Hon TIM MACINDOE: —they're caring, they're motivated, and yes, Ms Dyson, I am biased, but they are the best. I remember so vividly, even though it's quite a few years ago now, the utter delight, the joy of the night that my first daughter was born. I was the happiest father in the world. Nothing could take away from my absolute pleasure, my joy that evening. Then, just 17 months later, our second daughter was born. I'm going to confess that just for a moment—because I think all men probably do want to have a son—there was a moment of disappointment that I'd had another daughter. Well, I apologise to my second daughter because she is the most beautiful young woman and I love her dearly, and almost within a few minutes, once I'd adjusted to the fact that I was now the father of two daughters, I realised how lucky I was and she has given me nothing but pleasure and pride and joy, and my wife, since then.
So I mention this, Madam Chair, because I think it's relevant. I can see you're telling me to focus on the bill. We are facing the possibility of replicating a situation that we know exists in some countries around the world where sex selection is a reason for an abortion. And while I would never have contemplated that for a moment, I think it is horrific to even contemplate the circumstance where such an abomination could be contemplated. We have to be mindful of the fact that, if we have such liberal amendments to our law as seem to be being proposed under this particular measure, that could be the outcome. So I strongly endorse Ms Lee's SOP. We must ensure that sex selection should never be contemplated as a reason or be made permissible as a reason for an abortion.
The second one, of course, that she is dealing with is the matter of disabilities. One of the great privileges of being a member of Parliament is the opportunity we have to meet with members of the disabled community—and there are so many different types of disability—in our electorates and around the country. Without exception, I have found them the most admirable, impressive, lovely people. I am motivated to speak tonight because so many of them have contacted us, as members of Parliament, urging us, pleading with us to support Melissa's amendment and to resist any possibility that we would liberalise our abortion laws in this country so as to make it more likely that those who are going to be born disabled should be aborted.
I recognise that there are some tragic circumstances where an abortion is often the right outcome, and I say that because we don't want to imperil the life of the mother. I also recognise that for some people, facing the challenge of raising a disabled child is incredibly difficult, and I don't in any way undermine that. I have nothing but admiration for those who are raising disabled children, but they are beautiful people. They are equal people. As a Christian, I believe that they are, as my children are, a gift from God. I want to do everything I can to speak up for them, to protect them, to resist any move in this bill that might threaten them, because we've seen what happens, particularly in Nazi Germany, when that can happen. We must never allow that to happen here.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to respond to some of the points that have been made both before the dinner break and since, and I particularly want to talk about the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in Melissa Lee's name, and also that in the name of Alfred Ngaro. Just on the issue about the concerns that have been expressed about discrimination, in particular in relation to the possibility that a pregnancy or a fetus that may lead to profound disability might be the subject of a decision by a parent to abort. Then there's also the other discrimination, which is sex discrimination, which has been explicitly provided for in the bill in the report back from the select committee.
So, just on the issue of sex selection, there is a very clear statement in the bill that the select committee has put together that says that this is not tolerated in New Zealand. That is important when you consider the medical practitioners' and the health practitioners' professional and moral obligations when they're dealing with the woman in front of them to make sure that the practitioner fulfils their professional obligations, which will include ensuring that, to the extent they discern that the decision is being made on the sex discrimination grounds, that does not happen. The bill is drafted very clearly about the grounds upon which a health practitioner must determine the issue when consulting with a woman about an abortion—certainly post - 20 weeks.
On the issue of broader disabled discrimination, one of the problems with Melissa Lee's SOP 479 and the amendment that she's proposing in that SOP is the fact that the medical practitioner would be required to, effectively, get into the mind of the woman to try to determine whether or not the decision she is making, or what she is consulting that medical practitioner on, is a ground of discrimination. So that's one thing. 
Then, because it is a quite broadly drafted provision that refers to all the grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act, which include, for example, family status—which means that if a young woman who is pregnant because of an act of incest wants to abort that pregnancy and that is disclosed to the health practitioner, under Melissa Lee's SOP, the health practitioner would have to determine if that is an act of discrimination on the grounds of family status. That abortion, simply on the grounds that the pregnancy is the product of incest, would be discriminatory on the grounds of family status. Now, I don't think Melissa Lee, because of the concerns she's expressed about discrimination, would want that, but that is what her provision would allow. That is why I am opposed to it. In relation to the current right under the Care of Children Act for a young woman below the age of consent to, having consulted a medical practitioner, make a decision about an abortion and to repeal that under Alfred Ngaro's SOP—I don't accept that, either.
Now, I've spoken a bit about this before. One of the other things that the current law ensures is that that young woman is not prevailed upon by somebody else to make a decision to have an abortion when she might not want to or, conversely, to not have an abortion where she would otherwise wish to not continue the pregnancy. That provision has been around for some considerable period of time, and, in fact, it's based on the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry from 1977 that was about protecting the integrity of the decision of that young woman. There will be situations where a young woman is in a situation where she does not wish to disclose to her parents because of issues of her own personal safety or family relationships, and she should not be put in a position where there is a mandatory obligation to disclose when that would put her at risk. I don't accept that, and I think that that is wrong. 
This issue was also the subject of a petition in 2014 that was considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee, and they did not recommend changing the current law. So, as recently as 2014, Parliament has considered this issue and said that we do not want to change the current rights of a young person below the, otherwise, age of consent for sexual activity that is there at the moment. For those reasons, I reject both of those SOPs. 





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





MELISSA LEE (National): Earlier, I spoke on my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and it was a rather emotional speech and I'd like to thank some members who have sent me lovely messages. Although we disagree in this Chamber and we may take different positions, we actually support each other; so thank you. We have been rather respectful, as the Hon Tim Macindoe said earlier. I'd like to, once again, thank the gentleman behind me, Mr Tim Macindoe, for supporting my Supplementary Order Papers 478 and 479, and, hopefully, there will be many more members in this Chamber who will vote for my SOPs. 
Earlier, I spoke on the disability area of Supplementary Order Paper 479 a little bit more than on the other; so I'd like to focus more on the gender or sex discrimination in this part. But before I get to that, I just want to quote an email that I got from Krystal Kendon, and it says, "It creates less room for empathy, compassion, understanding, and community support for those that may look, act, or have different needs to the rest of us. The issue that needs to be addressed is how can we better support, equip, and empower those mothers and families to raise their children with disability instead of filling them with fear and providing a seemingly—yet deceptive—easy way out." I just want to quote that for the part on the disability issue that I spoke about earlier, on Supplementary Order Paper 479. 
There have been many people who have talked about the gender issue, and I think, previously, the Minister of Justice has also talked about the potential that, in this legislation, we have made it very clear, apparently, that we do not tolerate gender selection in New Zealand, and yet it is not part of the bill. We do not make it illegal for people to decide to have abortions based on gender selection. I think the Minister had also talked earlier about the very fact that he did not want people to ethnically profile if we have my SOP adopted. I'd like to ask the Minister: there is some ethnic profiling already happening in the health sector. Some ethnic communities are predisposed to certain diseases, so they actually look at that. Perhaps it is the Asian community who are predisposed to certain diseases, or the Pacific community. People are already aware of some things that are already happening; so I do not think that ethnic profiling per se is actually a negative thing, because they can prepare to provide better health services. 
But, in terms of gender selection, the reason why I oppose this, I guess, is that I am an Oriental person and I know for a fact that, in some of our communities, people abort purely based on gender selection. For example, in China, there was a Government policy that allowed only one child per family, which meant the parents had to decide which gender they wanted when they got pregnant. So for the purposes of them wanting to secure their superannuation—so their children could look after them when they were older and they were aged—they wanted a boy child, because boy children were deemed to be the ones who would provide for their elderly parents, and that is the reason why they chose one gender. They wanted boy children; so when they got pregnant with a girl child, they aborted them. Now, it is no longer the policy of the Chinese Government, but 30 million Chinese men do not have wives because they cannot find a partner, because the parents aborted female children when they were deciding which gender they wanted. 
I'm not suggesting that that would happen in New Zealand, but the thing is that the very fact that parents chose, often later in the pregnancy when they find out what gender, what sex, their child is—I think it is actually wrong for them to decide to have an abortion because they want children by design. I mean, the Prime Minister herself has actually said that this is a kind country and this is a country that cares about the most vulnerable. When we are allowing people to abort babies based on their gender or because of the disabilities that they have, I am not so sure what kind of message we are sending to the world. We are no longer the kind country that the Prime Minister seems to be very proud of—we're not. This cannot happen. 





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll try and keep this as a brief contribution. But I did want to address the issue of parental notification and the requirement for that, because somebody raised it with me over the dinner break. I really understand from a parent's perspective, and when you've got a great relationship with your kid and you love your kid, the thought about your child being in distress and going to access healthcare and, potentially, having an abortion without telling you is a really distressing concept. But I want to reassure those members that that is part of the reason why—to protect that relationship and the wellbeing of a kid is one of the reasons we should not change the law to require parental notification. 
The research overseas tells us really clearly that most young people do tell a parent. Of those who are 14 or 15, it's between 74 and 90 percent of them who tell at least one parent, and for most of those who don't, it's because there is a risk. The research also backs up what has been my experience of working in youth health. There are a lot of young women who would come in to the centre—and it was a confidential centre—and discuss and get a pregnancy test on the basis that they knew it was confidential. They would not have come through the door if it was not. They didn't know how to have the conversation with their parents, who they really respected. They didn't want their parents' view of them to be changed. It was only through the consultation with the doctor that they had learnt how they could have that conversation to be able to tell their parents. Unless we protect their confidentiality, those young women—history tells us, research tells us, experience tells us—are not going to tell their parents, and they're going to take it into their own hands, and lives will be lost. So this parental notification, it feels counterintuitive, but it's the best way to actually find out if your kid needs that help at that time, and to protect your relationship.
I'd also just like to speak to some of the other points that have been raised around disability, and also echo the points that were made by the Hon Ruth Dyson, as well as the Minister of Justice previously, in particular. I also just point to the trouble of having the definition in here which is being suggested, because at the moment this is not in the legislation. We are not putting anything to do with the fetus as grounds for abortion.
We've heard some evidence that liberalisation in Victoria led to an increase in post - 20 weeks. That was reported, that fact, but the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology fact-checked that, and it is not the reality. What happened was after their law was liberalised in 2008, for five years there was an increase, but after that time it has gone down below pre-liberalisation levels. So actually, there has not been an increase at all. In fact, there has been a decrease.
People also need to remember that when you're looking at the grounds and what's recorded as the grounds, we know with our legislation the reasons that are recorded match the legislation. They don't match the reality. In New Zealand, almost all of the grounds, the majority of grounds are on mental health reasons because that's the legislative vehicle to be able to access a termination. That's not the reality. We know, and we've heard from women again and again, that they are feeling as if they have to lie to be able to access those essential abortion care services. So do be very careful when you're reading data that shows a change in the reasons after liberalisation, because it probably just reflects a change in the legislation, not the reality.
I think this is important to note, because there is misinformation out there. I want people to know that we've looked at the data that people are raising as concerns and we've checked it and it doesn't hold up. We would not be supporting legislation if we had any evidence whatsoever that it would have an impact against people with disabilities or girls and the status of women.





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





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a second call on the Abortion Legislation Bill. I just want to respond to a couple of those comments which were made by my colleague Jan Logie, where she was discussing the issue around the experience in Victoria in relation to the collection of evidence around—whether it's late-term abortions, sex selection abortion, disability. She referenced different studies, and this study said this, and this study said that. I think that points to the need to actually be collecting the information and actually having the Director-General of Health having the role to collect adequate, proper information so that it can actually be measured appropriately. So I'd just like to respond to that point.
I'd now like to discuss Supplementary Order Paper 470, in the name of my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro. He is making what I think is something which this committee needs to take very serious consideration about, which is putting in place a commissioner to investigate breaches of a health practitioner in relation to the provision of abortion services if the action is, or appears to be, to the commissioner, in breach of the provisions of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act or the Crimes Act 1961.
I'd like to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, to please give the committee some assurances under the legislation as to what actually takes place if there are breaches in this legislation. He might talk about what the responsibilities are under the Health and Disability Commissioner, but I'd like to also ask him in terms of what actual teeth there may be in the legislation to ensure that the provisions of this Act which has been put in place are actually being followed. Because I think that's something which this committee does need to take very seriously, and something which needs to be explained here so that members of Parliament actually have that information here before we vote on this Supplementary Order Paper.
In my view, I think having a commissioner who can specifically investigate these breaches, who can specifically look at whether the legislation is being followed, is something which should be put there in place to monitor it. I think that goes alongside the previous point, which is around the collection of information. There actually needs to be, in this legislation, the bodies with the appropriate ability to make these decisions and to be able to ensure that the legislation is being followed.
So, on a final point, I do just want to say that I think there have been a number of claims made by members on the other side about misinformation and facts being misinterpreted, but I do want to point out once more that the Abortion Legislation Committee listened to only 160 of the submitters. The people who ran the process and who voted to shut people out from having their voices heard meant that there was not the ability for New Zealanders—thousands of New Zealanders who wished to be heard—to be able to come and actually put their evidence on the table, and for that evidence to be taken into consideration in this process. I think that's something which we as a committee and as a Parliament, as we now come to vote shortly on some of these Supplementary Order Papers, are missing out on—that experience and the valuable insights that New Zealanders brought and wished to bring to this Parliament through this process. So I thank you for the contribution, and I look forward to hearing an answer from the Minister to my questions.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm obliged to have the opportunity to respond to Simeon Brown in relation to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 470.
Can I just, before I embark on a direct response to his question that he poses—and, really, in response to, actually, an earlier comment by Alfred Ngaro, which is when Alfred Ngaro quoted from the Law Commission's report. The Law Commission was very clear about specifying, as an alternative, that the Parliament could consider setting up a separate, stand-alone kind of regulatory or disciplinary body or, as they said in paragraph 6.78 on page 118 of their report, "An alternative to creating a new regulatory offence would be to rely on the existing health practitioner disciplinary regime to address any failures by health practitioners to comply with the statutory requirements … The same consequences would then apply to health practitioners who fail to comply with abortion law as for other kinds of professional misconduct … The current grounds for disciplining health practitioners already appear broad enough to capture situations where a practitioner fails to apply the statutory test for abortion. A practitioner may be disciplined for an act or omission that amounts to negligence or is likely to bring discredit to the profession." So the regime, at the moment, doesn't just deal with strict legal issues; it deals with the professional and, you might say, ethical issues as well.
So, to answer specifically Simeon Brown's question, "What is the Health and Disability Commissioner's role or right?", it is, having investigated, to order a number of possible remedies—one is an apology to a person who has been harmed in the provision of medical services; the other is to refer the matter to the director of proceedings. So that's the director of proceedings who looks after provisions under the Human Rights Act and, indeed, under the Health Disciplinary—I'm going to get the term right in a minute—the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, or to refer to the relevant professional body. So it could be to the Medical Association; it could be to the college of "whatever" for that professional body. So all of those provisions are there. That regime is there now that Alfred Ngaro's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 470 would otherwise set out—and if we adopt that SOP, we'd be replicating what is already there.
What can the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal do? They can do a number of things. In terms of penalties, they can cancel or suspend registration. They can impose conditions on practice. They can censure the practitioner or impose a fine. So there is a full range of responses there that the Health and Disability Commissioner can trigger, having investigated somebody who has been mistreated or poorly treated or let down by an abortion service provider. So I hope that answers the question for Mr Brown.





KIERAN McANULTY (Junior 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.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Jan Logie's amendment to clause 11 set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 325 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee in relation to this SOP in Part 1. Jan Logie's amendment to clause 11 in relation to section 182(1), set out on SOP 326, is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.





The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 326 in the name of Jan Logie to new section 182(2) in clause 11 and clause 12 be agreed to.
Amendments not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 478 in the name of Melissa Lee to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 50Bakshi (P)Garcia (P)MullerSmith SBarry (P)Goldsmith (P)NgaroStrangeBaylyGuy (P)O'Connor DTirikatene (P)Bennett DHayes (P)O'Connor GUpston (P)BidoisHipango (P)O'Connor Svan de MolenBridges (P)Kanongata'a-Suisuiki (P)Parmar (P)Walker (P)BrownKing (P)PenkWhaitiri (P)Brownlee (P)Lee DPugh (P)Woodhouse (P)Carter (P)LoheniReti (P)Young (P)DeanMacindoe (P)RurawheYule (P)DooceyMahuta (P)Salesa (P)Dowie (P)McClay (P)Scott (P)Teller:FalloonMitchell M (P)Smith N (P)Lee M
Noes 70AdamsHenare (P)McAnultyStanford (P)Allan (P)Hipkins (P)McKelvieSwarbrick (P)Andersen (P)HudsonMitchell C (P)Tabuteau (P)Ardern (P)Hughes (P)Nash (P)Tinetti (P)BallHuo (P)ParkerTolleyBennett P (P)Jackson (P)Patterson (P)Twyford (P)Bishop (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Wagner (P)Clark (P)Kaye (P)Prime (P)WallCoffey (P)Kuriger (P)Radhakrishnan (P)Warren-ClarkCollins (P)Lees-Galloway (P)Robertson (P)Webb (P)Craig (P)LittleRoss (P)WilliamsCurranLogieRussellWillisDavidson (P)LubeckSage (P)WoodDavis (P)Luxton (P)Sepuloni (P)Woods (P)Eagle (P)Mallard (P)SeymourYang (P)Faafoi (P)MarcroftShaw (P)Genter (P)Mark (P)Simpson (P)Teller:Ghahraman (P)Martin (P)Sio (P)Dyson
Amendments not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 479 in the name of Melissa Lee to Part 2 be agreed to.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 44Bakshi (P)Guy (P)NgaroStrangeBarry (P)Hayes (P)O'Connor DTirikatene (P)BidoisHipango (P)O'Connor GUpston (P)Bridges (P)Kanongata'a-Suisuiki (P)O'Connor SWalker (P)BrownKing (P)Parmar (P)Whaitiri (P)Brownlee (P)Lee DPenkYoung (P)Carter (P)LoheniPugh (P)Yule (P)Dean (P)Macindoe (P)Reti (P)Dowie (P)Mahuta (P)RurawheFalloonMcClay (P)Salesa (P)GarciaMitchell M (P)Scott (P)Teller:Goldsmith (P)MullerSmith N (P)Lee M
Noes 75AdamsGhahraman (P)McKelvieTinetti (P)Allan (P)Henare (P)Mitchell C (P)TolleyAndersen (P)Hipkins (P)Nash (P)Twyford (P)Ardern (P)HudsonParkervan de MolenBallHughes (P)PattersonWagner (P)BaylyHuo (P)Peters (P)WallBennett DJackson (P)Prime (P)Warren-ClarkBennett P (P)Jones (P)Radhakrishnan (P)Webb (P)Bishop (P)Kaye (P)Robertson (P)WilliamsClark (P)Kuriger (P)Ross (P)WillisCoffey (P)Lees-Galloway (P)RussellWoodCollins (P)LittleSage (P)WoodhouseCraig (P)LogieSepuloni (P)Woods (P)CurranLubeckSeymourYang (P)Davidson (P)Luxton (P)Shaw (P)Davis (P)Mallard (P)Simpson (P)DooceyMarcroftSio (P)Eagle (P)Mark (P)Stanford (P)Faafoi (P)Martin (P)Swarbrick (P)Teller:Genter (P)McAnulty (P)Tabuteau (P)Dyson
Amendments not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 483 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 14 be agreed to.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 75AdamsGoldsmith (P)O'Connor D (P)TirikateneAllan (P)Henare (P)O'Connor GTolleyAndersen (P)Hipkins (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Ardern (P)Hughes (P)Prime (P)van de MolenBaylyHuo (P)RadhakrishnanWagner (P)Bennett P (P)Jackson (P)Robertson (P)WallBidoisKanongata'a-Suisuiki (P)Ross (P)Warren-Clark (P)Bishop (P)Kaye (P)RurawheWebb (P)Clark (P)Kuriger (P)RussellWhaitiri (P)Coffey (P)Lee DSage (P)WilliamsCollins (P)Lees-Galloway (P)Salesa (P)WillisCraig (P)LittleSepuloni (P)WoodhouseCurran (P)LogieSeymourWoods (P)Davidson (P)LubeckShaw (P)Yang (P)Davis (P)Luxton (P)Simpson (P)DooceyMahuta (P)Sio (P)Eagle (P)Mallard (P)Smith SFaafoi (P)McAnulty (P)StrangeGenter (P)Mitchell M (P)Swarbrick (P)Teller:Ghahraman (P)Nash (P)Tinetti (P)Dyson
Noes 45Bakshi (P)Guy (P)McKelvieSmith N (P)BallHayes (P)Mitchell C (P)Stanford (P)Barry (P)Hipango (P)Muller (P)Tabuteau (P)Bennett DHudsonNgaroUpston (P)Bridges (P)Jones (P)O'Connor SWalker (P)BrownKing (P)Parmar (P)WoodBrownlee (P)LoheniPattersonYoung (P)Carter (P)Macindoe (P)PenkYule (P)Dean (P)MarcroftPeters (P)Dowie (P)Mark (P)Pugh (P)FalloonMartin (P)Reti (P)Teller:GarciaMcClay (P)Scott (P)Lee M
Amendments agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 470 in the name of the Hon Alfred Ngaro to insert new clauses 16A and 16B be agreed to.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 59AdamsGuy (P)O'Connor D (P)Tolley (P)Bakshi (P)Hayes (P)O'Connor SUpston (P)Barry (P)Hipango (P)Parmar (P)van de MolenBaylyHudsonPenk Wagner (P)Bennett P (P)Kanongata'a-Suisuiki (P)Pugh (P)Walker (P)BidoisKaye (P)Reti (P)Whaitiri (P)Bishop (P)King (P)RurawheWillisBridges (P)Kuriger (P)Salesa (P)Yang (P)BrownLee DScott (P)Young (P)Brownlee (P)Lee MSimpson (P)Yule (P)Collins (P)LoheniSioDean (P)Mahuta (P)Smith N (P)DooceyMcClay (P)Smith SDowie (P)McKelvieStanford (P)GarciaMitchell M (P)StrangeTeller:Goldsmith (P)Muller (P)TirikateneNgaro
Noes 60Allan (P)Ghahraman (P)McAnulty (P)Swarbrick (P)Andersen (P)Henare (P)Mitchell C (P)Tabuteau (P)Ardern (P)Hipkins (P)Nash (P)Tinetti (P)BallHughes (P)O'Connor GTwyford (P)Bennett DHuo (P)Parker (P)WallCarter (P)Jackson (P)PattersonWarren-Clark (P)Clark (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Webb (P)Coffey (P)Lees-Galloway (P)Prime (P)WilliamsCraig (P)LittleRadhakrishnanWoodCurran (P)LogieRobertson (P)WoodhouseDavidson (P)LubeckRoss (P)Woods (P)Davis (P)Luxton (P)RussellEagle (P)Mallard (P)Sage (P)Faafoi (P)MarcroftSepuloni (P)FalloonMark (P)SeymourTeller:Genter (P)Martin (P)Shaw (P)Dyson
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 463 in the name of Joanne Hayes to insert new subpart 3A be agreed to.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 46Bakshi (P)Guy (P)O'Connor D (P)TirikateneBarry (P)Hipango (P)O'Connor S Tolley (P)BaylyKanongata'a-Suisuiki (P)Parmar (P)Upston (P)Bennett DKing (P)Penkvan de MolenBidoisLee DPugh (P)Walker (P)Bridges (P)Lee MReti (P)Whaitiri (P)BrownLoheniRurawheWoodhouseBrownlee (P)Macindoe (P)Salesa (P)Young (P)Dean (P)Mahuta (P)Scott (P)Yule (P)Dowie (P)McClay (P)Smith N (P)GarciaMuller (P)Smith STeller:Goldsmith (P)NgaroStrangeHayes
Noes 74Adams Genter (P)Martin (P)Simpson (P)Allan (P)Ghahraman (P)McAnulty (P)SioAndersen (P)Henare (P)McKelvieStanford (P)Ardern (P)Hipkins (P)Mitchell C (P)Swarbrick (P)BallHudsonMitchell M (P)Tabuteau (P)Bennett P (P)Hughes (P)Nash (P)Tinetti (P)Bishop (P)Huo (P)O'Connor GTwyford (P)Carter (P)Jackson (P)Parker (P)Wagner (P)Clark (P)Jones (P)PattersonWallCoffey (P)Kaye (P)Peters (P)Warren-Clark (P)Collins (P)Kuriger (P)Prime (P)Webb (P)Craig (P)Lees-Galloway (P)RadhakrishnanWilliamsCurran (P)LittleRobertson (P)WillisDavidson (P)LogieRoss (P)WoodDavis (P)LubeckRussell (P)Woods (P)DooceyLuxton (P)Sage (P)Yang (P)Eagle (P)Mallard (P)Sepuloni (P)Faafoi (P)MarcroftSeymourTeller:FalloonMark (P)Shaw (P)Dyson
Amendment not agreed to.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 78AdamsGenter (P)McAnulty (P)Smith SAllan (P)Ghahraman (P)McKelvieStanford (P)Andersen (P)Henare (P)Mitchell C (P)Swarbrick (P)Ardern (P)Hipkins (P)Mitchell M (P)Tabuteau (P)BallHudsonNash (P)Tinetti (P)Bennett DHughes (P)O'Connor GTolley (P)Bennett P (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Bishop (P)Jackson (P)Pattersonvan de MolenCarter (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Wagner (P)Clark (P)Kaye (P)Prime (P)WallCoffey (P)Kuriger (P)RadhakrishnanWarren-Clark (P)Collins (P)Lees-Galloway (P)Robertson (P)Webb (P)Craig (P)LittleRoss (P)WilliamsCurran (P)LogieRussell (P)WillisDavidson (P)LubeckSage (P)WoodDavis (P)Luxton (P)Sepuloni (P)Woods (P)DooceyMallard (P)SeymourYang (P)Eagle (P)MarcroftShaw (P)Faafoi (P)Mark (P)Simpson (P)Teller:FalloonMartin (P)SioDyson
Noes 41Bakshi (P)Guy (P)Muller (P)TirikateneBarry (P)HayesNgaroUpston (P)BaylyHipango (P)O'Connor D (P)Walker (P)BidoisKanongata'a-Suisuiki (P)PenkWhaitiri (P)Bridges (P)King (P)Pugh (P)WoodhouseBrownLee D (P)Reti (P)Young (P)Brownlee (P)Lee M (P)RurawheYule (P)Dean (P)LoheniSalesa (P)Dowie (P)Macindoe (P)Scott (P)GarciaMahuta (P)Smith N (P)Teller:Goldsmith (P)McClay (P)StrangeO'Connor S
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 1
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of Simeon Brown to Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 45Bakshi (P)Guy (P)NgaroTirikatene (P)Barry (P)HayesO'Connor D (P)Upston (P)BaylyHipango (P)Parmar (P)van de MolenBennett DKanongata'a-Suisuiki (P)PenkWalker (P)BidoisKing (P)Pugh (P)Whaitiri (P)Bridges (P)Lee M (P)Reti (P)WoodhouseBrownLee D (P)RurawheYoung (P)Brownlee (P)LoheniSalesa (P)Yule (P)Dean (P)Macindoe (P)Scott (P)Dowie (P)Mahuta (P)Smith N (P)GarciaMcClay (P)Smith STeller:Goldsmith (P)Muller (P)StrangeO'Connor S
Noes 75AdamsGhahraman (P)McKelvieSwarbrick (P)Allan (P)Henare (P)Mitchell M (P)Tabuteau (P)Andersen (P)Hipkins (P)Mitchell C (P)Tinetti (P)Ardern (P)HudsonNash (P)Tolley (P)BallHughes (P)O'Connor GTwyford (P)Bennett P (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Wagner (P)Bishop (P)Jackson (P)PattersonWallCarter (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Warren-Clark (P)Clark (P)Kaye (P)Prime (P)Webb (P)Coffey (P)Kuriger (P)RadhakrishnanWilliamsCollins (P)Lees-Galloway (P)Robertson (P)WillisCraig (P)LittleRoss (P)WoodCurran (P)LogieRussell (P)Woods (P)Davidson (P)LubeckSage (P)Yang (P)Davis (P)Luxton (P)Sepuloni (P)DooceyMallard (P)SeymourEagle (P)MarcroftShaw (P)Faafoi (P)Mark (P)Simpson (P)FalloonMartin (P)SioTeller:Genter (P)McAnulty (P)Stanford (P)Dyson
Amendments not agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.





Clauses 1 and 2
DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair. I don't intend to take a very long call. I just want to reiterate the number of reasons why New Zealand First is tabling a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which is requesting a referendum on this issue.
I'd also like to ask a couple of genuine questions, and we'll see if they can get answered. Because one of the things that I've actually noticed tonight and through the day, as I have been in throughout the entire debate today, is that there's been two quite distinct angles of debate on the same issue. First of all has been, and I think the Minister has said it, the bill itself is not about whether someone is pro-abortion or pro-life, or whether it's based on someone's feelings or points of view on whether abortion is correct or not; this is a piece of legislation that is taking something out of the Crimes Act. But then I hear some suggestions from some other members that this is a very contentious bill or topic, very personal, and very sensitive issue. They let me hear some stories, some personal stories, about their families, their children, and their relatives that give them the ability to form their view on their conscious view and conscience on this issue. So on the one hand we have just a bill that is about taking something out of the Crimes Act and then we've got something quite different, which is based on personal beliefs, personal moral stances, and personal experiences. The question is, that I have for this committee, if it isn't about being pro- or anti-abortion then why isn't this a party vote? Why is this a personal vote?
We've had questions from some members that say, "Why is this a referendum? Why are some people asking for this to be a referendum?" Well, the only question that needs to be answered, really, is the fact of why is this a personal vote to begin with? It's a personal vote because every single individual in this Chamber has a personal point of view on it; whether that be a personal belief system, whether it be a personal family history or personal experience, but it's all formed on personal life experience and moral compass, in some aspects, and belief system, in some aspects. Then you've got some people who are ignoring that altogether and having a look at this as purely something that needs to come out of the Crimes Act, and that's their argument. Now, whether either side is right or wrong, that's not what I'm up here talking about. What I'm up here and talking about is the fact that this is a personal vote, and this House demanded it be a personal vote, and why? Why not a party vote? That's the first question that I've got to ask.
The second point that I want to make is that because it's a personal vote it is an absolute admission by this House that it comes down to the personal individual and the personal individual conscience. What we see here in the last few stages of this bill are people standing up and giving their personal point of view and then suggesting that their personal point of view is worth more or less than any other personal point of view of anyone outside of this House. That's something that New Zealand First disagrees with. We believe that every person and every individual in this country should have a voice on this issue, that their point of view, their personal history, their belief system, their moral compass, or whatever you want to call it, is just as valuable as ours. We have no moral mandate to decide for them. That's why New Zealand First has had a consistent principle for every conscience vote and every conscience issue that this should go to the people. Just like we have two already this year on the marijuana debate and on euthanasia, New Zealand First stands firm on that principle—that's why we're putting forward this SOP. We believe that people of New Zealand deserve a voice in this debate. Thank you, Mr Chair.





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I want to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 292, and Darroch Ball has been speaking on this. Now, he's often made passionate, purposeful speeches in this House, and I've heard him speak about this, and just as he's made his point of view in regards to the personal vote—well, these are personal votes. Why? Because they're conscience votes. But I want to remind the member of the process.
So the member needs to remember that even though it is a conscience—and in this case this is a Government bill, by the way. This is a Government bill; you are part of that Government. You are part of that coalition Government. You cannot resile from that. So as a coalition member of that Government, you are part of this process. This is not a member's bill or a private member's bill that's being introduced: this is a Government bill. I want to go on the record in stating that to Mr Ball as well.
I want to also state to him this: that he's made his passionate plea. He's talked about principle in the House. That the view of this particular issue—and it's a moral and a conscience issue in regards to abortion and the reformation of this Abortion Legislation Bill—is that it should be the voice of the people. Well, Mr Darroch Ball, you need to remember that there was a submission process: 25,000 submitted—that is substantive. Just like you when you quoted the euthanasia bill, End of Life Choice Bill: 39,000—that is substantive. Out of that, 91.6 percent voted no. Now, how much of that is not a voice of the community and of the people? That is significant. Now, if that's not enough to give you an indication as to how you should be directing your votes—on behalf of the party, by the way—then that to me lacks your responsibility in this House on what you have voted. You need to be part of the process. You've seen the submissions: over 25,000 directly telling us what they should be.
So the fact is that you've said that this referendum is part of your SOP. New Zealand First stands on that. So here's the challenge I'm going to put to you: if your SOP is not voted on, you've block voted to vote for this SOP, will you block vote as a party, on principle—that you've come on in the House time and time again—will you block vote the other way then? If you do not get your SOP around the referendum, will you do the same? You've stood in this House and you've declared: "Let the people have their voice; let the people have their say."
Let me just say, this is not just a small amendment that you're making; this SOP is quite substantive. Clause 2 in here states: "(1)(a) means of a referendum held on [a] polling day … (b) includes any fresh referendum required to be held if the High Court, on a petition, declares the referendum under paragraph (a) to be void." You've made it very specific and very clear in your explanatory note: "If the majority of electors voting at a referendum do not agree that the Bill should come into force, this Bill [will be] repealed." You've been very specific, you've been very detailed, so my challenge to you, Mr Darroch Ball and to New Zealand First: if you're going to stand on principle, then be principled the other way. If the SOP does not come through in your direction, then vote against the bill. Why? Because that's the principle that you've spoken in this House on.
You're telling the public, you're telling the nation, and you're even telling your own supporters that that's what you're voting for. So I'm going to be very specific in my speech in regards to your referendum SOP. Let it be heard in this nation that you've made that speech. Let it be heard in this nation, then, because if that SOP fails to go through, and then you have broken-up views on conscience votes, then I'm going to tell you this now, and I can't use that word, but it could be "hypocritical"—it could be. It could be the fact that what you're doing is that your words do not match your actions. So I'm going to put it on you. I'm going to make it really clear: if you do not have your SOP and your SOP fails in the House, then I would challenge you to block vote the opposite way and vote against this. Why? Because, as you've said very clearly, it goes against every single principle that you've voted on in every single conscience vote.
But, in this case, may I remind you that this is a Government bill. This is not a member's bill. It's the same Government that, by the way, you are a coalition member for. So in that case you have more responsibility. You knew that I was going to say this, so I'm going to say it again: vote to your principles. If the SOP fails, then vote to oppose the bill. Why? Because that goes against everything that you stood for.
Can I say this: this SOP here, 292—in our case there were times where there was a referendum; we've had them in our season as a National Party. Why? When we had the flag referendum, we had to stand on that view to put it out to the public. So I'm not opposed to referendums, but what I will challenge are people that stand in this House—a party that would stand in this House and stand on a referendum, and yet, when the proof in the pudding comes, they vote against it.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): In light of that, I move that the question be now put.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Unfortunately, you don't say the beginning bit; you must only move the motion and then I would have—
David Seymour: It was still worth it. I move the question be now put.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no, it's too late now.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. I'm always astounded that proponents of free speech are the ones very quickly to try and shut down debate and discussion, and, ironically, one on a referendum. So I'll start where my honourable colleague Alfred Ngaro finished, which is around the whole question of referendum or, to be probably correct, referenda.
It will probably disappoint some, particularly in the pro-life movement, that I will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper: one, out of principle. I've always—well, I've articulated in the committee this evening, as I have in other weeks: I think consistency is important, and I have, in effect, been opposed to referenda as a mechanism around bills such as this. At the end of the day—and I think, actually, it was one of my colleagues Ian McKelvie who raised it last week or the week before when he was prophetically looking towards this part—we're given the time and resource to put this together. It starts with the Government, and I think it's important to note this is a Government bill.
I don't know—this is obviously not a question for the Minister—how enthusiastically he accepted the ball or not, but it's a Government bill, and it starts with a Government that has the resources of Government to put a bill together that it sees as right and proper. Obviously I disagree with that, but the bill has come in front of a select committee. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders sought to have their voices heard, and so I find it a little bit rich—again, not as a personal comment to Mr Ball but to New Zealand First—that we had a select committee process which actively and deliberately stopped people having their voice.
It remains an outrage to me, having chaired select committees for years, that only 150 select people's stories were allowed to be heard, and yet now this House is discussing the possibility of having a referendum to go and talk to people. To be blunt about it, it's just a crock. There is no intention to really want to engage the people; there's just a desire to get this done. 
But, as I say, we in this House were elected to be representatives. I think I'd be remiss and I think this House would be remiss if it doesn't do its job, and if every time we come across a difficult question we throw it back to the people with some sort of moralising "Referendums are important for people to have their say" approach, I think we'd fail in our duties there. 
I'm also noting that we have had inconsistencies over two life issues at the moment where referenda are being pushed—paddled about, if you will—as conveniences. I don't intend to relitigate the end of life choice, and I've always said there is a distinction around the euthanasia and abortion debates. But a referendum was voted through on euthanasia for the simple reason that it was the only way, it seemed, to get it through, and people compromised their principles left, right, and centre to let that through. Tonight, there's a hint that the referendum is not going to make a difference. People are more than happy to capitulate their views on referenda—"Oh no, no, no, we're not going to have one on this occasion." So I would certainty put out to the people who are watching and listening to look at who voted for the euthanasia referendum and then look at who votes against a referendum here, and note the galling, galling inconsistencies. 
I also need to point out that I just see this as a continual New Zealand First ploy. I think there are many out there in the community who look to New Zealand First as some sort of conservative group, a moderate group, a considered group, but they are not. When it comes to the issues, they are not. If you have a conservative position and if you have a principled position on these moral questions, you stand up. Now, people don't always like your position—people don't like my position. That's fine, but I stand up and I'll take it. I'll take the hits and I'll challenge why. But having a referenda is just a ploy to avoid the tough questions. 
So I really encourage those people who support New Zealand First on the basis—it is to me just a ploy. It's just a ploy, and I think, fundamentally, we've got some problems there. [Interruption] So I think I may have touched a nerve, but I think it needs to be said. When we stick to principles, they must also stick to what we are called on to do in this House. Even if this bill goes, in a sense, against what I'd prefer it to do, I think that we have the confidence of the House, and we should have the confidence of the House, to actually be able to vote on this and to have—[Interruption] Sorry, I'm getting slightly distracted, which is a bit unusual for me. 
We really are MPs with a confidence, if you will. We've had the time. Let's put the select committee process to the side, but we've had the time to consider this, and I suppose my encouragement is for members to vote against having a referendum and to have the courage. 





Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is with some sadness that I have prised myself away from my desk and put my work aside to come down to the Chamber to make a contribution, because I have never ever heard, and I never ever expected to hear, from the Hon Alfred Ngaro such a sanctimonious, condescending contribution in my entire time in this House, and I've been here for a lot longer than that member has. 
It strikes me as somewhat strange, having listened to the wonderful contribution by Darroch Ball on behalf of New Zealand First that, suddenly, the party that stands for principles—I mean, the same party that takes donations from the Communist Party. Many of these members that are here preaching their principles are only here because of donations from the People's Liberation Army—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! 
Hon RON MARK: —but I'm saying on principles—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Ah—
Hon RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Chair. 
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Order! No. Steer clear of that—OK? We are debating clauses 1 and 2, a very narrow debate. It's got nothing to do with donations. Title and commencement and everything around it—that's it. 
Hon RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Chair. The contribution on the Supplementary Order Paper and the specific questioning and the challenging that's come back on New Zealand First's position that we would prefer and want to see a referendum—that is not something new. That has been signalled in New Zealand First's manifesto for a long time. In fact, I think we discussed it in the coalition negotiations with the National Party, who didn't seem to have a problem with it then.
But I'm going to say let's deal with this question of who has the right to have the final say. A hundred and twenty people sit in this Chamber, many of whom will not be here after 20 September. In fact, most MPs who come here do one—one term. In fact, it was the Hon Trevor Mallard who told me, when I was a new MP being inducted, of that very fact—one term. So Mr Alfred Ngaro would say that 4.5 million people should be subjected to the decisions made by a bunch of one-term MPs on such a serious matter of conscience.
This is a serious matter of conscience to the nation, Mr Alfred Ngaro. It is not your preserve to stand up and tell all of New Zealand that you are right and they are wrong. Every New Zealander of voting age has a right to have a say on this matter. We would go so far as to say there is no longer—for all of those National Party MPs I've heard touting the benefits of electronic voting, it totally undermines one's argument, because if one can have electronic voting for a general election, then what is wrong with giving the people of New Zealand a say on conscience matters? Why should it remain the privilege of 120 New Zealanders to determine this once and for all?
Let me be clear about this. I predict—and Mr Alfred Ngaro has rolled out his crystal ball and made a clairvoyant sort of prediction about what New Zealand First might or might not do if this Supplementary Order Paper falls over. Watch and see, Mr Alfred Ngaro. Don't throw your silly little challenges around, pontificating and beating one's chest, and playing Mr Righteous, Mr Sanctimonious in this Chamber, because it didn't cut it on television.
Let me assure that member, for everybody watching it, it didn't cut it, because most New Zealanders say, "Why should we be excluded from the democratic process?" Yes, 30,000 people have had their say—that's good democracy in action—but there's another 4.5 million out there, Mr Ngaro. Every one of those people, every one of those families who has strong feelings on both sides of this argument, has a right to have a say. If anyone denies those New Zealanders of that right, well, I guess they'll answer for it on 19 September, won't they, Mr Ngaro?





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, sir. Like others, I speak against the referendum Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 292 in the name of Darroch Ball of New Zealand First. It was once said, "Isn't it funny how all those in favour of abortion have already been born?" The aphorism of Ronald Reagan—RIP—is appropriate to reflect upon as we consider whether a referendum is a good way of deciding such a fundamental matter as this.
The rights of vulnerable minorities are disproportionately engaged, which is the point that the New Zealand First members who have spoken in favour of the referendum have failed to acknowledge. There's the possibility of a tyranny of the majority. That means that on certain fundamental issues it is right that those who are in a position, yes, of power and, yes, of privilege—that is a position that we 120 do occupy, admittedly temporarily, but that's called a democracy. I presume the Hon Ron Mark would not have it any other way. So it is, and as a matter of consistency with previous stances that I've taken, along with Simon O'Connor, I too resist the call that there should be a referendum on this matter.
It has been said sometimes that males should not have the right to speak on the matter. I think far too many of my fellow males in this country do abrogate their responsibilities in relation to child-rearing, so I think that we have a bigger societal issue—my sex does, in relation to that.
Let me simply note that some of the strongest pro-life advocates that I've heard, and the most compelling, are females who speak from a point of view of connection—literal, physical connection—to the issues involved. I won't repeat the points that others have made in relation to the New Zealand First position. It is a matter of consistency over time, I will acknowledge that much, but in order for that to be true then the third reading vote, if the SOP on the referendum fails, should reflect that; otherwise it will be clearly noticed by those who watch such things, I would say.
The debate has progressed through the House and the committee of the whole House, producing unusual alliances. There have been intersections of issues that have thrown together unlikely political bedfellows, in a sense—a classic example would be that of the free speech or free expression in relation to the so-called safe zones, in which some of us have found ourselves voting together with others whom we're not normally meeting in these lobbies, the Ayes and the Noes, on conscience issues. But, nevertheless, that particular matter I thought was one of a matter of principle, and I applaud those who saw it along similar lines, notwithstanding that they're on the other side of the debate.
My point in relation to the proposal that there be a referendum is that there are complexities that do play out in this House to which ordinary New Zealanders getting on with their lives as best they can in the face of a global pandemic this week, as it happens, are not necessarily concerned with, and should not necessarily have to be concerned with either.
The detail is important, likewise. There is a considerable amount of detail in this bill, and many of us have thrashed that out. Let me just say that I have much more respect for those who have spoken and engaged on the detail—notwithstanding that they have come to different conclusions than me—than those who simply refuse to engage. I do note that if New Zealand First wishes to state some sort of populist but apparently principled stance as lawmakers, then their engagement with SOPs other than those in their own name would be a really good indication of that; sadly, that has been lacking.
Others have made the point around democracy, and the need to respect that in the context of the select committee process rather than simply grandstand at the end of the process in relation to the referendum. I think New Zealand First voters might say to them, such as they are now, that in abrogating their responsibility in the way that they're proposing this committee of the whole House does, "You had one job." That would be the expectation of what I would say to New Zealand First from their voters: "You had one job." You are lawmakers duly elected to this place. You are supposed to spend the time that you have in this place to consider these things, not pass the buck. As such, there is no way that I can support this referendum SOP; I will be voting against it accordingly.





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





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this title and commencement stage of this bill. I'd like to put on record my views in relation to the referendum clause. I won't be supporting this referendum because it's a cop-out clause put forward by the New Zealand First Party to cop out of taking responsibility to make the hard calls, to make the hard decisions, and to actually look into the issues.
I sat here and I listened to Ron Mark get up and give a lecture to this Parliament and talk about this as being a serious issue of conscience for the nation. That is the first call that I've heard Ron Mark get up in Parliament and take on this bill, and it's probably the last call that he'll be taking on this serious issue of conscience. I tell Ron Mark: if this is a serious issue of conscience, it's not just whether the bill goes to a referendum but what does that bill look like and what is the shape of that bill when it goes to referendum? Because there is more to the issue than just simply putting something to a referendum. I just think the New Zealand First Party should be ashamed of themselves for this cop-out position that they continually take on serious issues rather than being part of the debate, taking part in the issue, and actually looking at the issue and engaging in it like every other member of Parliament in this Parliament has. It is an absolute cop-out position from the New Zealand First Party.
I have a lot of respect for those who take a position that a referendum is something which might be needed to be looked at and is a position where the public should have a say. But when the party continues—continues—to ignore the process and continues to not engage in the process, that is something which I consider an absolute cop out. They'll go traveling up and down the country over the next six months, telling all the people that they see: "Oh yes, we voted for a referendum so that you could have your say.", and, "Oh yes, it's such a terrible bill; we voted for a referendum but the rest of the Parliament didn't." They'll try and convince New Zealanders that they're on the conservative side of this issue, but I tell you, New Zealand First, New Zealanders will see through it. I can tell you that, tomorrow afternoon, we're going to be in this House, and can you give this Parliament and your supporters a guarantee that you'll be voting as a block against the bill if the referendum doesn't go through? Alfred Ngaro asked that question, and Ron Mark didn't even give it an answer. He said—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to leave the chair. The committee is suspended and I will resume the chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)