WEDNESDAY, 17 JUNE 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. TODD MULLER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Health?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. We are both clear that what has happened was utterly unacceptable. This was a failure of the system, which has not met the expectation of Ministers, including Dr Clark. Minister Clark is working hard to fix the issue and make sure it does not happen again. This needs to be considered within the context of New Zealand's COVID-19 response to date. With Minister Clark as Minister of Health, we have now reached roughly 47 days since the last recorded case of unknown transmission. No other comparable country has achieved the same consistently low case numbers as New Zealand, and there are still over 100,000 new cases of COVID-19 every day globally.
Todd Muller: Is she confident that the Hon David Clark impressed upon the Director-General of Health the significance of ensuring COVID-19 testing and quarantine criteria were followed, with no room for error because of the stakes being so high?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely. In fact, he was given an assurance around the testing regime for those in quarantine and managed isolation.
Todd Muller: How can she have confidence in the Hon David Clark, when two people can leave managed isolation without being tested, as required by the Ministry of Health protocols, putting the entire country at risk?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For the very reason the member has set out: because this did not meet the stated protocols of the Ministry of Health or the expectations of the Minister of Health. This has been a clear failure of the system, one that we are actively seeking to address. For now, that includes suspending the ability to access compassionate leave, and we have called in the Assistant Chief of the Defence Force to make sure that we can have confidence and rigour in the system. [Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order! I just want to say to members that when a Minister is answering a serious question, where I'm sure just about everyone wants to hear the answer, having members from both sides of the House—very senior members—having a separate barracking of each other is not helpful.
Todd Muller: Does she not see the Minister of Health as being responsible and accountable for the performance of his ministry?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We absolutely have to fix what happened here; that is undeniable, of course. But the Minister's job is to make sure that the protocols are in place; that the responsibility and protocols are being fulfilled. He has set down his expectations. They were not met. That is a clear failure of the system.
David Seymour: What message does the Prime Minister have for bereaved and grieving New Zealanders who will now be denied a compassionate exemption because her Government couldn't do simple things right such as testing?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would again point out that we have to make sure that we have a rigorous and robust system at the border because it is our biggest vulnerability. Testing is just one part of that. I know the decision to suspend compassionate leave will not be popular, but it's the right one. We have to be assured that we are keeping New Zealanders safe and that everything is being done within strict protocols.
David Seymour: How can the Prime Minister speak of aspiring to have the world's smartest borders when simple things such as testing travellers before they go driving across the North Island appears to be beyond her Government's Ministry of Health?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I've set out, the protocol was clear. An error has occurred. Our job is to fix that. We brought in the Assistant Chief of the Defence Force to make sure that we have a rigorous, reliable system that New Zealanders can have confidence in. I would also point out that throughout this entire time there has been extraordinary pressure to loosen up border controls. We've had members from the Opposition calling our regime stupid for how rigorous it was. I stand by it. We now have a clear demonstration of why it is so important.
Todd Muller: Has the Hon David Clark told her why the two women who tested positive for COVID-19 weren't tested for the virus upon entering managed isolation?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There is no excuse to be provided. It should never have happened.
Todd Muller: So why doesn't she turn to her Minister and say, "Own it. Step down. I'll put someone in charge who's competent."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because he is the Minister who has overseen over 40 days without us having unknown transmission in New Zealand. We have, as a team of 5 million, produced extraordinary results—[Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister. I'd like to remind the two members quite close to me on my left that I have two mikes that are open, their leader has a mike that is open, and the Clerk has a mike that is open, and when they make noise at that volume, then I can't hear the Prime Minister. It may be that others can, but I can't.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the Minister of Health has been utterly clear that the border has to be rigorous, it has to be robust, and it has to keep New Zealanders safe. There has been a failure that was not within our clear expectations. On the other hand, the member may wish to talk to his own members—member Goldsmith, who claimed that our border controls were fluffing around; member Collins, who called our border restrictions appalling; and member King, who said our restrictions were stupid because they should be opened up.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether a protocol demanding testing on day 1 and then on day 14, as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition on Morning Report yesterday, for a boat demanding to come into Nelson actually worked?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, that would not be the appropriate point in time for testing. The advice we have is that evidence suggests days 3 and 12, which exactly was our expectation.
Todd Muller: Has her health Minister advised her on whether any other people have not been tested when they should have been since the 8 June protocol was established?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Director-General of Health advised us that the expectation was that anyone who had been granted compassionate leave should have been. He is now, with the Ministry of Health, working through whether, indeed, that expectation was met.
Todd Muller: Does she have any advice that suggests that there are more people that should have been tested on arrival in this country and who, now you have been told, have not been tested?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I just answered that question.
Todd Muller: Has the Prime Minister received advice as to whether any incoming passenger into this country has not been tested when they should have been tested?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I advise, again, the Director-General of Health directly advised the Minister and myself this morning that the protocol would have required anyone granted compassionate leave, which those members have lobbied for frequently and often, would be tested before having been granted it. He is now working through individual cases to assure himself that that has happened. I would remind the member that since this protocol has been in place, there are no known cases connected to anyone from managed isolation passing on COVID to anyone else.
Todd Muller: Why, two hours after Dr Ashley Bloomfield updated the nation on the latest COVID developments, was her health Minister unable to answer basic questions on those cases in a radio interview because he hadn't been briefed?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the assertion that the member is making.
SPEAKER: Yes, and I probably should not have allowed the question.
Todd Muller: What does it say about the state of the relationship between the health Minister and her most senior health official that her Minister was not briefed on cases announced two hours before he did a radio interview?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm rejecting the assertion of that statement. What is very clear here is that the Director-General of Health and the Minister of Health are saying exactly the same thing: protocols were in place, they had not been upheld, it is not acceptable, it is being fixed.
Todd Muller: What level of incompetence needs to be served up by her Minister of Health before she finally sacks him?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister of Health isn't the one saying we should open the borders.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Would we be more or less likely to see more of these types of cases if we moved with urgency to reopen the border with countries like China, as she has been urged to do?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: On the day that this issue happened, the Leader of the Opposition criticised the Government for not opening the borders. I stand by the fact that we have taken an incredibly cautious approach at the border—it's the right thing to do. There has been a failure in the system. We will fix it. We are fixing it.




Question No. 2—Finance
2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies in relation to the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context they were made and delivered. In particular, I stand by our policies that have supported more than 1.6 million New Zealanders to stay in work through payments of cash grants for businesses, and our policies that have given us the opportunity for New Zealand to be one of the most open economies in the world at the moment.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement this morning that he "shares the frustration" of the Prime Minister, who was angry at The Warehouse Group when they announced job losses, what would he have had them do?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, what I would have had them do is what I think all businesses in New Zealand are doing: they're looking at every single option that is available to keep workers on board. We know of many small-business owners who have reached into their own pockets to make sure that they keep all of their staff employed—that is an example of New Zealanders coming together in the face of this crisis, and it's what we want everyone to do.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he also frustrated with the employers of the 40,000 New Zealanders who lost their jobs in April?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have a great deal of sympathy for all New Zealanders who've been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. What we are saying is we want everybody to come together and do their bit.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does his frustration or the Prime Minister's anger do anything to help New Zealanders stay in work or find a job?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the last three months, this Government has undertaken the biggest investment in New Zealand's history to support people to stay in work and to support businesses to create new jobs. Every single waking hour of this Government is devoted to making sure we create jobs and support people to stay in jobs.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Shouldn't his and his Prime Minister's focus be on a credible growth plan to save jobs rather than taking cheap shots at companies under stress?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our focus is exactly as I articulated. It is on helping to create jobs. Right across New Zealand, the feedback that we are getting is that businesses and employees appreciate what's been done to put in front of them around $11 billion worth of support for the wage subsidy scheme. The member should get on board with that spirit and actually support New Zealand businesses.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the COVID19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest Westpac McDermott Miller Consumer Confidence Survey released yesterday did show the consumer confidence had fallen by 7 points to 97.2 in June. Westpac said that a drop in sentiment was not surprising given the economic impacts of COVID-19, and that the result was in fact "surprisingly moderate", likely owing to New Zealand's success in limiting the spread of the virus and the earlier than anticipated easing in lockdown restrictions. Westpac further said that this relative resilience in consumer confidence adds to other signs that the COVID recession may not prove quite as severe as initially feared. However, Westpac still expects weak GDP and a big increase in unemployment over the coming few months, something which we have been clear about from several months ago. That's why we are making the significant investments we are through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, to help New Zealanders recover and rebuild from this global pandemic. 
Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the global economic context for the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week, the World Bank released its latest Global Economic Prospects report forecasting the global economy to contract by 5.2 percent in 2020, the deepest recession since World War II. This recession is expected to be particularly acute in advanced economies, which are collectively forecast to contract by 7 percent. Similarly, the IMF Chief Economist said on Monday that the global economic crisis is "unlike anything the world has seen before" and its forecast in April of a 3 percent contraction for the global economy this year will likely be even worse in its June World Economic Outlook. As I've mentioned previously in this House, the OECD has also revised down its forecast for the global economy. All of these reports are useful reminders that despite some recent good economic news in New Zealand, the pandemic is still ongoing and will require a sustained response from the Government.
Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the impact of restrictions as a result of COVID-19 on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to the Oxford University COVID-19 Government Response Stringency Index—a composite measure based on nine indicators—New Zealand has a reading of 22.22, tied with Taiwan for the looseness of the restrictions, below Japan, far below Australia, South Korea, the UK, the US, or China. This shows that our strategy of going hard and early is paying dividends, with a far less restrictive environment for businesses and consumers, allowing New Zealand a head start for kick-starting our economic recovery. 




Question No. 4—Health
4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm Ministry of Health guidelines dated 9 June that people can only apply for compassionate leave from managed isolation after they have completed seven days of managed isolation and had a negative COVID-19 test; if so, how many days of managed isolation did the two confirmed COVID-19 cases announced yesterday complete before they left on 13 June?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question: yes. That's why I am so disappointed that these rules were not applied in the latest case. New Zealanders made real sacrifices during lockdown; they rightly expected our border measures would keep COVID-19 out of the community. I'm advised that the two individuals, who have done everything that was asked of them, left on day seven of their managed isolation—meaning they had completed six days. They were not tested as required by the published guidelines, and there are questions over the thoroughness of the health checks completed prior to departure. That's why yesterday I required the Director-General of Health to suspend compassionate exemptions until the Government is satisfied that not only are the correct policies and protections in place but they are actually being followed.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he asked for confirmation that the 196 other people granted compassionate exemptions from managed isolation were tested before they left the facility, and, if so, what was the response?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is an inquiry that is ongoing. Yes, I have sought that assurance.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Were the two individuals, confirmed with COVID yesterday, accompanied on their drive to Wellington, and, if not, how can he be 100 percent sure that they did not stop during the trip?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They were not accompanied, and I am assured that they have been the kind of people, and have demonstrated that, that have followed the protocols in place with their self-isolation plan.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen reports that the two individuals went the wrong way on their journey to Wellington and came into close contact with the people who gave them directions?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No, I have seen no evidence of that.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, what do you know?
SPEAKER: Order! Dr Nick Smith will withdraw and apologise.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was he aware that the good Samaritans who assisted them were rewarded with a kiss and a cuddle, and would he consider that to be a close contact?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I would be deeply concerned if that were the case. I have been assured that there was no contact on their journey to the place where they visited their relative in the Wellington region.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he been advised of the details and facts behind the allegations in that last question?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have not. I have certainly asked the question about whether there was any contact at all, and I have been assured that there was no contact along the way. So I have certainly not heard that report, and if the member has actually heard that and not passed it on, that would be very deeply concerning.




Question No. 5—Economic Development
5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday that "There is a long, long list of projects in the Government pipeline of infrastructure projects, including housing and roads and schools and health and rail—far too many to take up all the time of the House recounting", and which of these projects, if any, will begin before the general election?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, I do. However, I remind the member again that responsibility for the Government's infrastructure pipeline rests with the Minister for Infrastructure, and individual projects with the relevant portfolio Minister. In terms of the second part of the question, although I do not have ministerial responsibility, I am advised that a number of projects are already under way. For example, the Minister of Education advises me that construction has started on approximately 200 school rebuilds or expansions with a combined value of over $1.4 billion. He also advised me that at the end of May, around 1,200 schools have initiated projects worth an estimated $130 million since the school investment package was announced. I'm advised by the Minister of Housing that there are now 4,600 additional public homes with many more in various stages of construction. I'm advised by the Minister of Transport that construction is under way on around 40 State highway projects across New Zealand.
Hon Judith Collins: Which of the roading projects that he alluded to yesterday as being in the long, long list of projects will start before the election, if any?
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question to the Minister for Economic Development, who may also happen to be the Minister of Transport, but the question is to the Minister for Economic Development and, as he made quite clear in his primary answer, he is not responsible for individual projects in other portfolios. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: No, I don't think I need any help. Having listened very carefully to the primary answer, the Minister for Economic Development did make it clear that he had been receiving advice from the Minister of Transport on transport policies, and therefore it is fair to ask him the extent of that advice.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Minister of Transport advises me that since lockdown alone, we've started construction on State Highway 51 Clive safety improvements in the Hawkes Bay; upgrades to the Northland line—that's $200 million from the Provincial Growth Fund—preparatory works for the Matakana link road; State Highway 16 Huapai to Waimauku safety improvements; the Medallion Drive link road in Auckland; State Highways 10 and 11 Puketona intersection improvements project; and the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. And that's just since the lockdown ended.
Hon Judith Collins: Which of these projects that he's just listed are new projects and which had already been announced before the lockdown?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: They'd all been announced since before the lockdown, but I would say they're not just projects that were put out in a press release, which is what we saw from the former Government. They're projects that have been announced, designated, planned, and funded, and now they're under way.
Hon Judith Collins: Does he agree with the 1 April statement of the infrastructure Minister, "the Government does not wish to see red tape stymy our eventual recovery" and that the Government is seeking projects that would have "an immediate stimulatory effect", and if so, why aren't there more?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I agree completely with the Minister for Infrastructure on that, and there are a lot more coming in the pipeline.
Hon Judith Collins: And when are they coming, then?
SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Judith Collins.
Hon Judith Collins: And when are they coming, then?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: All in good time.




Question No. 6—Education
6. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What measures is the Government putting in place to help employers to keep apprentices earning and learning?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Apprentices are a significant investment for firms, particularly in the early years of their training, and they can be the first to be laid off when companies find that they have to tighten their belts. That's why today I announced that the Government will be providing businesses with up to $16,000 to help pay the cost of each apprentice for their first two years. Through the Apprenticeship Boost, up to an estimated 18,000 employers will be able to apply for funding of up to $12,000 per apprentice for their first 12 months of training, and up to $6,000 per apprentice for their second 12 months of training. The Apprenticeship Boost funding will run from August this year until April 2022. 
Marja Lubeck: Why is it important for this assistance to be provided to employers now? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This investment is key to helping businesses keep people on and give them confidence when they're making decisions about taking on new apprentices. This will be essential as we roll out and fast track infrastructure projects. Without support of this kind after the global financial crisis, apprentices were let go, and when the economy picked up, New Zealand struggled with huge skills shortages and had to pay more to find skilled workers from overseas. As a result, there were 40,000 fewer people in industry training between 2009 and 2017. 
Marja Lubeck: How is Apprenticeship Boost linked to other assistance that this Government is providing? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Apprenticeship Boost is a cornerstone of a wider Government programme to keep apprentices in jobs and to support employers to invest in new ones as we rebuild the economy from the impact of COVID-19. Employers of apprentices will also have targeted financial support available through three related schemes, depending on their circumstances, which includes a beefed-up version of Mana in Mahi which was announced by the Minister of Employment this morning. More broadly, we've also removed the cost for learners and made apprentices and other vocational training in targeted areas fees-free for the next 2½ years. 
Marja Lubeck: What response has he seen to Apprenticeship Boost? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There's been very positive comment. I'm advised that Whangārei's Culham Engineering, one of the country's larger employers of young mechanical engineers, is delighted with the new scheme, saying, "this is a big help. I'm really grateful the Government has come to the party for this, not just for our business but for the kids we employ." Warwick Quinn of the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation has said, "We've got a thousand people in the background looking to sign up, waiting for today's confirmation of the Apprenticeship Boost initiative. This wasn't on our radar at all three weeks ago.", and Business New Zealand has said that Apprenticeship Boost is good for business and "recognises this is not just course fees, but also the wage costs of having staff that need investment and skills to contribute to business productivity." 




Question No. 7—Police
7. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: On what date was he first made aware that the firearm licensing vetting procedure for the Christchurch shooter may have been deficient, and what actions, if any, did he take to ensure that the firearm licence regime's integrity was upheld?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I have received no advice that the process was deficient. I was aware of some speculation in the media by some gun lobbyists less than a week after the shooting about the circumstances, but Police issued a public statement one week after the shooting—that was 22 March 2019—saying that the correct process was followed for the licence application. Three weeks after the shooting, on 8 April 2019, the terms of reference were agreed for a royal commission of inquiry. They explicitly include the question of how the licence, guns, and ammunition were obtained by the terrorist. As the Prime Minister said at the time—and I quote—"We will ensure no stone is left unturned as we examine as quickly as possible how the 15 March attack happened, what we could have done to stop it, and how we can keep New Zealanders safe."
Brett Hudson: Has he requested any additional information from Police following the news reports on 16 June 2020 reporting that the mosque terrorist was wrongly granted a firearms licence due to police mistakes?
Hon STUART NASH: Old story: no, I haven't.
Brett Hudson: Referencing the Ministers reference to the royal commission of inquiry in his primary answer, does the Minister hold the opinion that it is important that the royal commission of inquiry look into the process for granting the firearms licence to that individual?
Hon STUART NASH: I'll quote again a passage out of my primary answer. Three weeks after the shooting—8 April 2019—the terms of reference were agreed for the royal commission of inquiry. They explicitly include the question of how the licence, the guns, and the ammunition were obtained.
Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very directly at the Minister's opinion as to whether or not that was important. I don't believe he addressed that.
SPEAKER: The member can ask for opinions. I think that any reasonable inference from the answer would be that he wouldn't have agreed for it to be in there, as part of the Government, if he didn't think it was a good idea.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to which political party was in power when the set-up for the vetting procedures that that firearms licence was considered under happened?
Hon STUART NASH: Well, we know, Deputy Prime Minister, if it had been ours and yours in coalition, then it wouldn't be how it was today.
Brett Hudson: Will he defer further progress on the Arms Legislation Bill until after the report back of the royal commission of inquiry, given the questions being raised on the licensing regime?
Hon STUART NASH: I will ask that member a question: will he vote for firearms legislation that takes guns off gangs and makes it a lot harder for criminals to get guns and significantly increases the penalties for gun crime?
SPEAKER: Order!
Brett Hudson: If the Minister actually presents some.
SPEAKER: Order! Well, OK—well, I was going to intervene to make him answer the question. The member has used another supplementary on his feet. We'll just go on.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that's an unreasonable interpretation. This is a serious, serious matter. Fifty-one people got killed by a gunman who may have had a licence that he shouldn't have had. He was able to procure guns because he had that licence. It's a serious, serious matter. For the Minister to fail to answer and simply ask the Opposition a question, and then for the Opposition to, in response to his really unacceptable approach, be penalised, I think does not bear fairness to the wider New Zealand public who want an answer.
SPEAKER: Well, I think the member would have had an answer if he didn't stand up and yell at me. It's a matter of learning.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Your sensibility is more important than the public knowing what actually happened—unbelievable.
SPEAKER: The shadow Leader of the House will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take your point, but this is a particularly important matter. It's one that had the whole country gripped with some fear, particularly where I live, for some time. It would seem that while you may have been offended by the reference to you, an apology for that might have been more appropriate than allowing the Minister to skirt off answering the question.
SPEAKER: I'll make it clear: it wasn't even the reference to me; it was the fact that the member stood up and started yelling. I mean, it's just not acceptable behaviour in the House. The member knows that it is not, and, if he wants me to support him to get answers, as I was trying to do, then he needs to learn not to stand up and yell.




Question No. 8—Transport
8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Is he still "reasonably confident", as stated in the House on 12 March 2020, that Cabinet will consider the recommendations from the Ministry of Transport on Auckland light rail before the general election; and has he seen reports from the Rt Hon Winston Peters that it is "clear as daylight" that Auckland light rail will not get Cabinet sign-off before the general election?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes, and yes.
Chris Bishop: Does he stand by his comment to this House two weeks ago, on 3 June, that he expects to take a paper to Cabinet about light rail in the coming weeks? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.
Chris Bishop: Does he think his process around light rail is a good demonstration of the project being "prioritised and delivered on an accelerated schedule", as Cabinet agreed in May 2018?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think it's a good example of a project where the Government is doing something that 91 percent of Automobile Association members have asked for. It's a project that reflects the importance that Aucklanders place on a modern rapid transit system in their city, and it reflects our Government's willingness to consider innovative financing arrangements to deliver that project, and we're determined to take the time to get it right.
Chris Bishop: Has he seen the comments of the leader of the Green Party, "I'm always disappointed in New Zealand First.", and does he agree with those comments? 
SPEAKER: Order! If I thought the member knew that he was deliberately flouting the Standing Orders, there'd be a punishment. I'll go on the basis that he didn't know that he was, which is a very generous interpretation.




Question No. 9—Minister for Climate Change
9. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: What are the Government's next steps for climate change action now that the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill has passed?
Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Now that the emissions trading reform bill has passed, the Government can finally set a cap on emissions under the emissions trading scheme (ETS). That cap will reduce over time as we head towards our goal of net zero emissions by 2050. The independent Climate Change Commission will provide advice about exactly how fast and how much to reduce those caps to ensure that we have both an effective and a just transition. With the legal networks now in place, our focus will start to shift towards practical measures to support Kiwi businesses and industries to upgrade to clean energy technology.
Chlöe Swarbrick: What kinds of actions to reduce Aotearoa's impact on the climate does he expect that we will see incentivised and supported by the emissions trading scheme's new sinking cap on emissions?
Hon JAMES SHAW: The whole point of an emissions price is for businesses to minimise the costs that they have to pay by reducing their impact on the climate. I expect that we'll see factories swapping out coal boilers, transport companies starting to order electric and hydrogen trucks, and the electricity industry getting on with building more wind, solar, and hydrogen generation. Businesses are not alone in this, of course, and I'm sure that the Minister of Energy and Resources will join me in encouraging businesses who want to make changes to get in touch with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to see what Government support is available.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will polluters be able to get away with using so-called hot air credits from dubious overseas sources to meet their ETS requirements?
Hon JAMES SHAW: No, they will not. ETS units need to come from genuine New Zealand forests, and even if future Governments decide to allow the use of some international credits, they would need to be satisfied that their credits are genuine and have environmental integrity. For now, the ETS remains closed to international units.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree that the ETS alone will not be enough and that other policies to reduce the impact that transport, energy, and agriculture have on the climate will be vital?
Hon JAMES SHAW: Absolutely. The ETS is an important tool in the climate change toolbox, but we need to use the whole toolbox. That's why this Government has invested billions of dollars in clean transport options like cycling, buses, trains; required default KiwiSaver providers to stop investing in fossil fuels; banned new oil and gas exploration; started replacing coal boilers in schools and hospitals with clean heating alternatives; put solar panels on 25 schools, with many more to come; and funded electric vehicle charging stations nationwide, including on the Interislander ferry. And we know that there is more to do, and we will do it.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Supplementary.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.
SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters. I think there's trouble.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will hot air providers in New Zealand be able to access the ETS?
Hon JAMES SHAW: I suspect he's making a reference to the Opposition in terms of the output of hot air there, but I think that that would be against the Standing Orders.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the chair of the independent Climate Change Commission that "Now is not the time for postponements or looking the other way"?
Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes, I do. The climate crisis demands an urgent response, and the longer we delay, the harder and more expensive the challenge becomes. Our Government does not believe in kicking the can down the road. We know that in these challenging economic times, a low-emissions economy, creating clean and sustainable jobs in the cities and in the regions, is the best way to see Aotearoa prosper.




Question No. 10—Housing
10. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: How many additional KiwiBuild homes, if any, will be built in the delayed Monark housing development as a result of her decision last week to increase the Government underwrite for that project from $19 million to $40 million, and will she extend taxpayer-backed underwrites to other private housing developments at risk of delay or failure?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, to the first part of the question, 44 KiwiBuild houses will be secured at the Monark development. The underwrite that was approved covers 49 market apartments. I understand that there are only two out of that number that remain unsold. In the event that any homes are unsold at the completion of the development, these homes will be available for KiwiBuild purchases at KiwiBuild prices. To the second part of the question, at this stage, no.
Nicola Willis: Was it prudent and responsible to double the taxpayer underwrite for a private development that has been beset by problems and delays without even requiring any additional KiwiBuild houses get built?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As was referenced by the Minister in an oral question on 28 May in relation to this issue, this is an exceptional circumstance by which current funding of KiwiBuild projects no longer have the same types of issues as were faced by Monark, which led to the underwrite.
Nicola Willis: Will she rule out increasing the taxpayer underwrite for the other KiwiBuild developments that, like Monark, have also had their completion dates delayed?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As far as I can ascertain, based on a briefing I received today, no other KiwiBuild project has the same circumstances as the Monark development, and there has been no request for an underwrite.
Nicola Willis: Is the Government now underwriting non-KiwiBuild homes in the Monark development, and if so, is it now Government policy to provide underwrites to private developers building homes sold on the open market?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I'm not sure what wasn't clear in the first two answers, but what I can say, in addition to the answers that the Minister provided on 28 May, is that 49 market apartments have been underwritten in the current Monark development due to exceptional circumstances.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Rubbish!
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That underwrote provision doesn't apply to any current KiwiBuild projects in front of the Government. What it does allow, however, knowing that the ground has been cleared and the project is ready to be commenced—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Sorting out the donors.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —is that more people will have access to affordable KiwiBuild homes within that project. 
Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think Mr Brownlee's interjection is one that I certainly take objection to.
SPEAKER: One was clearly out of order. The member will withdraw and apologise.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Further supplementary.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Keep an eye on the returns.
Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. 
SPEAKER: I'm just contemplating the member's future in the House today. The allegation that the member has made is a very serious one and it's been taken regularly very seriously by the House when raised in the House. I will require the member to withdraw and apologise but make it absolutely clear that on this matter today he is on his last warning.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.
Nicola Willis: Can other property developers apply to the Government for taxpayer underwrites on at-risk housing developments; and if so, where do they sign up?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I do not have responsibility for how other property developers conduct their business.




Question No. 11—Health
11. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about improving healthcare for South Aucklanders?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): A few days ago, the Prime Minister and I had the pleasure of visiting the Manukau Health Park to bring the good news that the Government will fund improvements to facilities necessary to provide better healthcare for the people of the area. The $211.4 million we are providing will deliver up to four new operating theatres and 20 recovery beds; a new sterile services unit; over 40 new out-patient spaces; a new radiology hub, including a fully integrated breast-screening service; and an expanded renal dialysis hub. All of this will be underpinned by improved supporting infrastructure. Counties Manukau DHB deserve credit for the high-quality care they provide to the vibrant and fast-growing communities of South Auckland. This Government is delivering the modern facilities they need to provide that care into the future.
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What other work to improve Counties Manukau's facilities is under way?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: While at the Health Park last week, I had the opportunity to inspect the soon-to-be-opened Otago University Dental School, which I'm advised is probably the most advanced facility of its kind in the world. I'm also encouraged that work is progressing well on the second stage of the DHB's Tiaho Mai mental health unit so soon after I had the privilege of opening the newly completed stage one of this facility last year. I'm also advised that recladding work is progressing well at Middlemore Hospital's Scott Building. This work is important to me because this is a Government which is serious about making sure that, behind the public-facing exteriors, the vital inner workings of our health services are sound, well maintained, and capable of underpinning the delivery of the high-quality health services New Zealanders expect and deserve.
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How does the investment at Counties Manukau DHB fit into the Government's wider programme of health infrastructure investment?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I became aware of the acute need for investment to fix up Counties Manukau's buildings and infrastructure very soon after becoming health Minister, and acted quickly to provide it. But this is work that should have been started before the need became acute. Clearly, there has been an ongoing failure to properly monitor the state of our hospitals for many, many years, and other health infrastructure too. It has been a priority for me as health Minister to ensure that we, for the first time, have a clear picture of the state of these assets. We now have this in the form of the National Asset Management Plan's stocktake of critical assets which was released last week. This is crucial information to guide the $10 billion in Crown investment in our hospitals that Treasury says we need over the next decade. I am proud of the fact that, in our first term, this Government is on track to deliver this, with $3.5 billion in investment to date, more than three times as much as the last National Government managed in nine years. But, then again, the previous Government could hardly invest much in our hospitals when it chose to ignore their deteriorating condition completely.




Question No. 12—Employment
12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Employment: What groups do his employment programmes target, and against what outcomes will he measure their performance?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I want to thank the member for the opportunity to reinforce what I said yesterday when answering the exact same question, and that is that the employment programmes that I am responsible for primarily focus on young people who are not engaged in education, employment, or training alongside members of our communities who have had historically poor employment outcomes. To answer the second part of the question, last year I launched the Government's employment strategy, which focuses on delivering a productive, sustainable, and inclusive New Zealand. I measured the outcomes of our programmes through the objectives of the strategy, which include building a skilled workforce, supporting thriving industries and sustainable provinces, supporting an inclusive labour market, preparing for a changing nature of work, and building modern workplaces for a modern workforce. For example, through the lens of an inclusive labour market, I'm looking to see if there are improvements for those who have had historically poor outcomes. Over the past 2½ years, we've seen the lowest unemployment rates for Māori in over a decade, a clear indication, when measuring outcomes against the strategy, that our programmes are making a difference.
Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his response to written question No. 10272 this week that Mana in Mahi is available to all ages?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, in fact we've just made some changes today—I'm glad that the member is following my press releases. Today, we announced an expansion of Mana in Mahi funded through Budget 2020, which increases the length of the programme from 12 months up to 24 months, increases the wage subsidy rate up to 16,000 for the first year and up to 8,000 for the second year, supports employers to pay for industry training courses fees, pays for extra education support such as literacy and numeracy training. In terms of the numbers, can I remind the member that Mana in Mahi is one of a suite of Government employment programmes that are happening at the moment, and all the Ministers are delivering: Minister Hipkins here, Minister Sepuloni, Minister Robertson, Minister Twyford, Minister Davis. The employment kaupapa is a team kaupapa, it's not just one Minister, and I'm proud of the work we're doing in the employment area driven by a great group of Ministers—and, of course, Minister Jones. I see Minister Peters looking at me—Minister Jones has done some terrific work in the provinces, provinces that were starved of funding and resourcing—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his—no. I was waiting in vain for the question to be addressed, and I'm going to invite Dr Reti to repeat the question and invite the member, within the first half minute or so, to actually get to the issue he's been asked about rather than a general treatise on employment programmes.
Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his response to written question No. 10272 this week that Mana in Mahi is available to all ages?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, Mana in Mahi is going really well at the moment. As I said, we put a press release out today that covers all areas, and, in terms of the question, yes, I stand by that answer.
Dr Shane Reti: Why, then, when we made a phone call to Work and Income at 11:20 a.m. this morning and checked with a senior person, did staff confirm that people over the age of 24 definitely cannot enrol in Mana in Mahi?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We'll have to follow up on that. As I said, I'm not responsible for people who make mistakes. You have to understand, we've made changes in the last couple of days. I know you find that hard to understand because you keep putting up the same questions, but I'll be—
SPEAKER: Order! When I stand up the member sits down, and I certainly didn't put up any questions.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: In his employment programme's target, how many dollars exactly did Dr Reti get from him for the four projects, beginning with the four-lane highway Whangārei to Warkworth, the floating dock in Marsden, moving the navy to Marsden Point, and moving the Auckland port to Marsden Point, that he claims in a Whangārei advertisement he is doing right now?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I believe he got nothing.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he identify one Government website that states people over age 24 are eligible for Mana in Mahi?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I'll be very clear to that member again. The focus of Mana in Mahi has been on 18- to 24-year-olds. That has been the focus. We are now opening it up and broadening the whole Mana in Mahi site. We will get to the websites—you have to be a little bit patient—but you can ask another question tomorrow, and we'll have an updated answer.
Matt Doocey: Take it up again.
Dr Shane Reti: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: No, whose interjection was that one? Who just interjected then? Stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Matt Doocey: Withdraw and apologise.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he name one of his six employment programmes that is suitable for a non-Māori and unemployed 30-year-old hairdresser living in Northland?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi—there's two for you. These are not Māori-specific programmes.
Marja Lubeck: How does he use the employment strategy to measure the Government's overall approach to employment?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What a wonderful question. The employment strategy encompasses the broad spectrum of employment offerings this Government has. For example, supporting thriving industries and sustainable provinces encompasses the Provincial Growth Fund, and the $1.1 billion investment to create 11,000 environment jobs in the regions. Building a skilled workforce is supported by the $1.4 billion apprenticeship investment this Government is making. Building modern workplaces for a modern workforce is supported by the recent announcements investing into research and development. Supporting an inclusive labour market is supported by the programmes I'm responsible for, such as He Poutama Rangatahi and Mana in Mahi, ensuring we take all New Zealanders with us. The changing nature of work is supported by our recent announcements for the fund, which is being set up to provide incentives and grants to encourage e-commerce and train more digital advisers. So the employment strategy encourages a whole-of-Government approach that provides—
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Marja Lubeck: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: You're not serious! Marja Lubeck.
Marja Lubeck: How are his employment programmes contributing to positive outcomes for New Zealanders?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora. What another great question. Prior to COVID19, New Zealand's labour market had been responding and growing in a positive manner in comparison to our major overseas counterparts. We had experienced the lowest unemployment rate in over a decade, the lowest Māori unemployment rate in over a decade, the highest employment rate for Māori since records began—
SPEAKER: OK, the member will resume his seat. He's had a good start at the question, he didn't get close to addressing it. Time for oral questions is now concluded.
Hon Stuart Nash: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I called the end of it, and, frankly, I think most of us have had enough.





GENERAL DEBATE
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
Today in the House we heard another example of the depth of the programmes that the Government has put forward to support businesses. The Hon Chris Hipkins this morning, along with the Prime Minister and others, announced that 18,000 employers around New Zealand will now have the confidence to keep their apprentices on and to take on new apprentices. On this side of the House, many of us remember what happened after the global financial crisis, when another Government decided that they would let the market rule—they wouldn't support companies to keep apprentices on. What happened? Those apprentices lost their roles. When the recovery came, there was not the skilled workforce that was needed to build the houses and to support the industry of New Zealand. 
Well, this Government will not let that happen, and that is why in that announcement today is some nearly $400 million worth of investment going into businesses to support them to keep young people and, for Mr Reti's benefit, older people on who take up apprenticeships as well. This is part of the $1.6 billion commitment in Budget 2020 to trades training and to apprenticeships. We have free apprenticeships in New Zealand today as a result of what has been done in that Budget.
That commitment, not only to people taking on workers through apprentices but also to investment in the construction sector through our housing programme, through infrastructure—all of it is about jobs. It is about keeping New Zealanders in jobs, and it is about supporting employers to take on new workers and grow jobs in New Zealand. All of this is part of a Government whose resolute focus is on what we can do to support New Zealanders through this one in 100 year shock. It requires a Government who knows how to invest. It requires—if I can speak briefly on behalf of my own party along with our two support parties—the spirit of a Labour Government to do it. 
It was interesting to note Mr Muller in his speech on Sunday found his inspiration about what to do in the face of a crisis from Michael Joseph Savage—from the Labour Party. So Mr Muller, not content—not content—with wanting to join the Labour Party, as he did in the middle of his speech, also acknowledged the very point that we on this side of the House know: it is Labour Governments that build New Zealand, it is Labour Governments that will rebuild New Zealand, and that is what we have learnt.
That wasn't Mr Muller's only problem, because, obviously, the upside-down flag—which we've learnt was perhaps not his direct responsibility—is known as the international signal of distress, and that was placed behind him. It was a sign. It was a message to him. But he didn't really seem to pick it up all that well. We've actually discovered that if you turn the National Party logo upside down, it looks exactly the same as well, so they're in a constant state of distress.
But Mr Muller has struggled for his period of time as a leader to bring his caucus together. He said the Government deserved credit for the way that we'd handled the response phase; today, Melissa Lee said it was luck. So he's struggling to bring that together. Pulitzer Prize - winning author Christopher Penk has been out there putting his words out. He's been advised to, quote, "Shut up." So it's going well, drawing together everybody who's involved.
But, in the political equivalent of your mother being too embarrassed to show up to your rugby game, Mike Hosking has turned—he's turned on Todd Muller. What he has told us today is reasonably extraordinary. I'll just pick out one of many good quotes in the article—respected political commentator Mike Hosking, I might say. And he says—talking about Mr Muller—it's OK if he's got his act together by August, "But the key is, does he have an act to get together?" They're the friends of the National Party, getting right there in behind their leader.
What's needed right now in New Zealand is the kind of strong leadership being offered by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. What we don't want are risky people without experience coming along. This is not the party of John Key or Bill English over there; it's the party of inexperience. It's the party of risk. When we come, in three months' time, to the election, New Zealanders know that they can back a Government that's had their back through COVID-19 and will continue to do so.





TODD MULLER (Leader of the Opposition): What does it take for this Prime Minister to acknowledge incompetence and actually sack a Minister? What does it actually take? Does it take biking in the middle of lockdown not once but twice? Does it take moving your house? Or does it take, actually, in this country, with its borders closed, with the whole country looking towards this ability of this Government to manage the border safely, a Minister that is derelict, a Minister who has overseen the most appalling, shambolic response in this Government over the last 24 hours?
Let me just step through elements of it for you. So two people who arrived in this country, who were supposed to be tested upon arrival, were not tested. They then asked if they could go on bereavement leave; they were not tested. And now they have moved around the country—far beyond the understanding of the Minister—and he is completely unaware of it. He wasn't briefed. When I asked the Prime Minister this afternoon: "Have you got clarity that there is no other New Zealander who should have been tested?", she did not know. She obfuscated. She looked the other way. She has no idea. 
The stakes could not be higher. We need to reflect as a country what we've been through over the last three months, what we have asked of ourselves—people who haven't been at their dear ones' funerals; people who haven't been at their dear one's arrival into this world. We have had an economic impact that is yet to crystallise in this country: 40,000 people have lost their jobs in the month of April; 80,000 are expected to lose their jobs by the election time—as many as 120,000 by Christmas. The level of debt at a level we have never seen before. The economic impact is enormous, and the country looks to the Government to say, "Have you got your borders under control?", and the answer is no. It is shambolic, it is hopeless.
The Minister looks at the floor and says, "It's not my problem; it's the officials' problem. We're going to bring in the army to assure it." Well, why don't you bring in a National Government and get the job done properly? It was our party that said right at the start that you need to test before you arrive, you need to test when you get here, you need to test after 14 days, and you need to check and you need to audit. Every one of our Ministers would be driving that with everything we've got, not a part-time Minister who's more comfortable on his mountain bike as opposed to his Minister's office. Front up, Prime Minister. He should be sacked. You should send a signal. The country is furious, and the Prime Minister knows it.
When you look at what sits in front of this country over the last 24 hours, there's something else that's occurred in this process as well. There's something more than just the anger that has sat at the core of the New Zealand response. We have collectively given so much, and we had some hope that there would be a secure border, and it has been proven today that it is not. It is a deep understanding that is flooding back for this country that when push comes to shove, that is a Government that cannot deliver. What they have reminded, through the last 24 hours, is it's one thing to have a face in front of the camera in a moment of crisis but it's a very different thing when you've got to run a Government in the middle of a recovery. 
That is what has been exposed. The country has seen again that this is not just a single individual that's running this country; it is a Government that is completely out of its depth. Willie Jackson: what a remarkable effort today. He doesn't know who qualifies and who doesn't—18 to 24; oh, suddenly it's more than that—incompetent. Kelvin Davis, tourism: he hasn't met a tourist operator that doesn't think he should resign—incompetent. David Clark: not only his role in this; his mental health contribution is unbelievable—$1.9 billion announced; only $20 million actually spent. That is absolutely outrageous. We can go through one after the other after the other. They are incompetent. They do not have an ability to deliver under pressure—and this side does.
What this side brings is a deep understanding of the communities of this country—a deep understanding of the economy that is based in your community. Your marae, your main street, your business, your family—that is the National Party's lived experience. We understand it, we live it, and we breathe it. We will bring the best of it to this country in September, and this shambolic nonsense can be sent back home.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! It's a general debate.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As the National Party stand on their feet, I just want to say farewell to a few of you. I don't think some of you will be back next term, and it's a real shame. I apologise. Goodbye. Bye. Goodbye. Farewell.
We've come through a difficult period. You know, the word "COVID" has come to mean lots of things to lots of people. I'm actually going to be positive. I'm going to make a positive contribution today. How unusual for the National Party to actually listen to something positive. So during COVID, we came up with a couple of new terms. Some of you may know "COVID kilos"—COVID kilos.
Chris Bishop: Ayesha might take your job.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Mr Bishop, I resisted the first time. I'm not going to be in the Cabinet, and I think the member should stop making those suggestions.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, let's get back to COVID kilos. Do we know what they are? I mean, many of us tried out some recipes during the COVID period. One of my favourite try-out recipes was the pretend KFC recipe. My family really like that. The other term we got used to was the term "lockdown". I always like to mention my lockdown baby, little baby Fletcher, that was born in our family, I think just as we were going into level 2—one of many babies that were born during lockdown. Actually, for some of us it was a difficult time, and for others of us it was actually a really enjoyable time to be with family.
But one of the most positive things, one of the most positive aspects of COVID, was the fact that we were part of the team of 5 million. I felt amazingly positive about that. I actually felt like I was contributing to our elimination of COVID. I felt like the people next door to me were doing that, the people down the road, and the people in other neighbourhoods were contributing to this. You know, when we were out doing our afternoon walks, there would be people who had their phones with them who were listening to the Prime Minister and Ashley Bloomfield doing their 1 o'clock updates. We were engaged in the process of elimination of COVID, and it was powerful because, by and large, we were all doing this together, and we were getting the reassurance from our Government and our local leaders. They were staying in touch—constant, consistent messaging that was powerful; a Government that was nimble, responsive, and comforting. What was the result of that? We had—how many days was it that we had—24 days of no new cases, but 48 days since community transmission. So we had done a fantastic job as the team of 5 million, and all of us need to be proud of that.
There is a crucial part of this that hasn't been celebrated and acknowledged enough, in my view. That is the volunteers who stepped up from day one, actually saw the gaps that were occurring and filled them, and responded in an amazing way. They delivered food. They delivered medications. They supported, they looked after, the kids of essential workers so that they could go to work. They also looked after the children of single parents so they could go and get their shopping done. Simple things that volunteers did up and down this country. I would like to celebrate volunteers because next week is National Volunteer Week, and I'd encourage each and every one of us to thank the volunteer groups in our communities for what they've done. You know, they supported the older people from being isolated in their homes. They made sure that we were fed. They made sure that we were looked after. They made sure that supplies got to us.
There's one woman, in particular, I want to mention: Vicki-Anne Parker from Christchurch. We had one chap who messaged me and said he was living in a caravan and he needed gas canisters for his burner. Of course, during level 4, you couldn't transport those dangerous goods. She actually did a bit of a rally around. Some people looked in their garages and got some gas canisters together, and they were able to deliver sufficient to him so that he was able to cook his food during level 4 until he was able to get out to the shops himself and purchase that. That's the kind of stuff that volunteers do. So I encourage each and every one of us next week to thank a volunteer. Go to your volunteer organisations, tell them what a marvellous job they're doing, and thank them heartily for helping the team of 5 million to get through this.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, wasn't that a lovely contribution from the member who has resumed her seat, Poto Williams. I thought it was lovely. I thought, she's so nice she could be in the National Party. She made some very nice comments and I want to echo them, around some of the things that people did during the lockdown. 
I'd also say to the member and to the House that, actually, other people experienced loss during the lockdown, lost family members. My little dog, Holly, I think many people know, had a massive stroke and ended up having to go to doggy heaven during the lockdown. We had a family member who was found to have cancer during the lockdown and couldn't receive any treatment because it was new treatment, hadn't already been started—found out about his diagnosis of stage 3 cancer on the phone. These are some of the issues that many families went through, and many had even worse situations, with a parent or a family member dying and not being able to be with that family member. That's why to find out that the quarantine of two women was so slack that they were allowed, with this COVID-19 virus, to get into a car and to drive to Wellington from Auckland—we are told from the Minister David Clark, the Minister who was lax and not present during so much of the COVID-19 lockdown, that we are supposed to believe that they didn't stop for petrol or fuel on the way. We are told that they didn't use any toilet facilities on the way. We on this side are told by a member of the public who knows of these people that they got lost on the way, that they called for help for someone they knew to come and get them on the right track, and that they greeted that person with a kiss and a hug.
What is really damning is that these people should have been tested on day three and day 12 of their quarantine, and they weren't. They were setting off in a car, a borrowed car, to go all the way from Auckland to Wellington. Now, if we think about the fact that one of them is reported to have had COVID-19 symptoms and was allowed to do all of this, we'd have to say, "Well, what's happened to the rest of the quarantine?" So these people who we are now told today in the media, not from the Minister but in the media, have had 320—320—close contacts.
This virus that the rest of us have followed all the rules about, have gone without for, have missed family situations for, events, have dealt with all sorts of difficulties, and the rest of the country has followed the rules—it now turns out that the Ministry of Health—the Ministry of Health—overseeing this quarantine couldn't get it right. I've got no problem with compassionate leave if the rules are followed and people are kept safe. The purpose of these rules is to keep the public safe. It doesn't really matter what the rules are, as long as they work. In this case, the rules were there, they weren't followed, and the public is now not safe.
So these women were allowed to attend an event in Wellington—320 close contacts, all of whom now have to be found, all of whom now have to be checked. Presumably, all will have to be in a form of isolation. And who is going to come to the rescue of the Ministry of Health? The army, and I don't even know whether or not they're going to have any masks or gloves or testing themselves. This Minister of Health has let the country down. He's let every family down. He's let everyone down who's had to endure anything during that COVID-19 lockdown that stopped them earning a living, that stopped them being with a family member who was dying, and that stopped them getting their cancer treatment. He's let down all these people because he didn't make sure that the job was done. He should go. If he can't make it work, if he can't keep two people quarantined, what hope for anyone?





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. One of the most humbling and, I think, good things about such a difficult time in our country's history is how well the community has come together and how much strength they've shown. I'm really proud to have been part of a Government that works so closely with community at a time when they've needed it the most. I've seen so many local examples where Government has provided extra support, whether that be through trade training, whether that be through the wage subsidy in round one or round two, or whether that be through providing interest-free loans for those small businesses that need that extra help. I have seen so many examples of Government and community working hand in hand to be able to make sure our people are well looked after. I'm proud of that, because it's underpinned by the Prime Minister's message of being kind, and that is what drives me to be in this place today. That is what drives me to make sure that we have a country where people look after each other. 
What we've seen locally is food banks working together with the extra support provided through Government to enable those meals to be delivered during lockdown. One example in particular is we have a place out in Waiwhetū called the ReMakery, or Common Unity Project. They delivered 13,000 meals over lockdown to our community to make sure people were fed who were either in short-term accommodation or in situations where they were unable to be able to provide for themselves. They worked, they utilised funding, and they were able to feed those people who needed it. 
Another one: in Wainuiōmata we have Kōkiri Marae, who worked to feed over 11,600 families, and they worked hand in hand with a range of different agencies. I went in there to see them loading up their van and being able to deliver it round to each house and each family. Apart from the fact that they did that, they also talked about how they connected into those families that previously they wouldn't understand—some of the problems and issues. So by having a social worker along with them that was funded to go inside and deliver the food, they got a closer understanding of some of those issues that we strive to make sure New Zealand becomes stronger through fixing.
We have responded to COVID-19, and now is the time to recover and rebuild, and that's exactly what we've seen today with today's announcement to make sure that the Government is providing businesses up to $16,000 to help pay the cost of each apprentice for the first two years. That's jobs. That's young people in training, and that's also people who may have lost their jobs to continue to retrain and make sure we are utilising the strength of our country, which is our people. Those people will be utilised in jobs through the rebuild project, through the funding that we've seen right across New Zealand and the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme. 
Just in my space, we've seen the funding of Melling Interchange to make sure that there will be opportunities for local businesses and apprentices and workers—to make sure that's fully funded and going ahead. Only earlier in the week, we saw also the announcement of a very popular cycleway and walkway between Pētone and Ngauranga, which will enable electric bikes, bikes, and walkers to make use of a really good space, to be fit and to get outside of your car and to reduce emissions and to be healthy. Again, that will be fast tracked under this Government, and it will provide more jobs and more opportunities for local people to be able to continue to be employed. 
Because what we want is our local businesses to feel strong and supported at a time when we know it is difficult. I've spent time over the last month to walk around every single shop in Lower Hutt and meet each of the businesses and talk to them about the experiences they're going through. And yes, there are some tough stories out there, but every single one I spoke to had taken the wage subsidy. Every single one of them said, "Thank you so much for being able to pay my staff, to pay myself, to be able to keep living.", at a time when previously they thought it was not possible. For many of those hard-working people, it was the first time they'd actually had help from the Government in their lives, and they were appreciative to be able to keep their door open once we moved into level 3 and to continue trading. 
I'm proud to see that we keep supporting people, whether they be in trade training or in businesses, to make sure our economy and our wheels keep turning; that people have money in their pockets to feed their families but also to spend at their local shops. This has been a very hard time, but I am proud to be part of a team that is dedicated to not only responding to COVID-19 but recovering and rebuilding.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): I am deeply concerned by what we are starting to see in our communities and in our families. The economic wave of COVID-19 is starting to hit New Zealanders up and down this country. We all justifiably feel pride in how this country came through the immediate health crisis, how we came together and locked down and were able to prevent deaths on the scale, and illness on the scale, that was seen in some other countries. But we have not escaped COVID-19, because today we are experiencing unemployment at incredibly high levels. 
Forty thousand jobs were lost in April. That's 40,000 people: their families, their hopes, their purpose taken, their incomes reduced, their lives altered for ever. Tens of thousands more New Zealanders are predicted to lose their jobs in the coming months—tens of thousands more. Billions are predicted to be wiped from our economy. Those billions represent the hopes and aspirations of entrepreneurs, of small-business people, of young people entering the workforce for the first time, of families who may have wanted to do something extra—take on a mortgage, buy a first home—but will no longer be able to do it.
More than half of the building projects that were planned pre - COVID-19 are now in jeopardy. We are seeing literally billions of dollars' worth of construction and development facing delay or at risk of stopping completely. The Government's answer to that today is that they're going to run an apprenticeship programme. We here in the National side say, well, we absolutely support apprenticeship programmes, but we'd suggest to you that you have a major problem in front of you if half the construction industry is at risk of failure. Who is going to hire the apprentices in the face of that reality? 
It's not just the big businesses. It's the local butcher here in Kelburn, who just couldn't make it through COVID-19 and will shut his doors after nine years. It's the bubble tea cafe in inner city Wellington who relied on the students who came for international education, who no longer darken the doors. It's the shoe repair shop that has succeeded through generations of a family business that's now at risk. The realities of the COVID-19 economic crisis are really biting in our communities. So what we need is a Government that can give people certainty, confidence that it has the ability to deliver, that it can manage well, and that it can deliver.
Instead, what do we have? Today, we have the ridiculous situation where a Government that promised us it could manage the border well, it could manage quarantine well, that it would ensure that it kept COVID-19 out, instead has broken every one of its own rules. In fact, it appears it didn't even know what the rules were. Instead of a Prime Minister who's prepared to stand up and say, "Not on my watch—that Minister must go.", we have the spectre of her defending him in this House. And I'll tell you why it matters. It matters not just because of the health crisis that we face and New Zealanders' ready expectation that this be managed well, but it also speaks to this Government's ability to get us through what are going to be some very tough months and years ahead. We need a Government that has attention to detail and that can deliver. 
Instead, we have a Government that built 395 KiwiBuild houses when it promised 10,000; that when it said it would provide shovel-ready projects to get us out of this crisis, instead released a list of reheated press releases of projects they promised two or three years ago—like the Unitec housing development that Phil Twyford first announced more than 800 days ago, and that when asked in this House about it, the Prime Minister said it couldn't happen because of Resource Management Act (RMA) delays. Well, Prime Minister, we offered you the chance to work with us on RMA reform, and you didn't. This is a clumsy, incompetent Government that does not have what it takes to give New Zealanders the confidence and certainty we need to rebuild our economy. It's time the adults took charge again. It's time for a National-led Government that can deliver.
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Normally, when I get up to do a general debate speech, I always, always have a specific topic in mind, and then—and then. So what I want to say to the New Zealanders that are listening is you already know what a National Government would do in a crisis not quite as bad as this one. You already know. Go back and have a look at what a National Government did after the global financial crisis. Go back and have a look at how they stripped out money from the public services that the New Zealand public needed to ride through the global financial crisis. Go and have a look, because that is what you would be looking at again with a National Government.
But go back somewhere else. Go back to the 1990s and have a look what a National Government did in the 1990s. Remember what it was like, New Zealand. Remember what it was like, because that is what a National Government will give you. The very reason there is a coalition Government sitting on this side of the House today, which everybody should be incredibly grateful for after a terrorist attack, a volcanic eruption, and a pandemic, is because New Zealand First refused to have the solutions provided by a previous National Government put into place for this nation. We knew we would have to invest in this nation. We did not know at the time we created the coalition Government that it would be on this level. Certainly, we could not have predicted a pandemic. But what I can tell you, New Zealand, is go to history and have a look at what you will get if you get a National Government. And I can tell you: you do not want it, because it is not a pretty picture. If you have to have one, you need New Zealand First there. If you have to have a Labour Government, you need New Zealand First there. Because only New Zealand First continues to remember how both those major parties decided to strip out investment from their citizens to try and make the books balance while at the same time opening the borders to try and bring back some income, rather than truly setting the foundations for a future by investing in the education of their people.
We just heard Ms Willis argue that, oh, it's all very good and, yes, of course the National Party supports apprentices but we would rather you took that money and put it into business. Again, a National Party MP stands up and says, "Don't invest in your citizens. What are you doing?" Why would you be giving money to your citizens so that they could find employment? And, strangely enough, they seem to miss the whole point around small and medium sized enterprises that need that exact investment so that they can employ their neighbour's son or daughter as an apprentice, so that they can expand their business, so that they can recover from COVID. This is a tired message, New Zealand. This is a National Party grasping at straws, with a new leader who's come out of the gate somewhat faulted, and they are trying to convince you to not look back at history—but look at history.
Now, I was going to talk about pornography. 
Brett Hudson: Really? Whatever turns you on, Tracey!
Hon David Bennett: Leave that speech to Shane, he'll do it! Shane'll tell you all about it!
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Whatever floats your boat! Mark Patterson doesn't know where to look!
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: And now we can hear male members of the Opposition shouting out about a topic that is incredibly serious, that is affecting our young people in this country—
Hon David Bennett: Give Jonesy a go!
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That is David Bennett. Just so you know that's David Bennett, because I want that on the record. Our young people are being bombarded by pornography, but one of the things that the Department of Internal Affairs has put into play, because we notice both the addiction to gambling and the addiction to pornography rising—
Brett Hudson: It's Patricia Bartlett! I thought Patricia Bartlett had died!
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: And that's Brett Hudson, everybody, just so you know. The two guys over there making fun of this topic that is affecting your children and your young people—
Brett Hudson: We're making fun of you, Tracey!
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —are David Bennett and Brett Hudson, just so you know. So I want to point out to the parents out there about the Keep It Real Online safety campaign. Please go to —it's trending across the world—so that you can have a look at how you can sit down and talk to your children about the effects of cyber-bullying and the effects of pornography on children and young people in New Zealand. Kia ora.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When the news of two further COVID-19 cases broke yesterday, I was reasonably concerned, obviously, but not alarmed, because we were told by the Director-General of Health that we could expect further cases and they would come across the border and that they would sprout up like weeds on a lawn. Well, the more we found out about this, the more alarmed I got, and I have been overwhelmed with messages of absolute horror, anger, and frustration at the fact that the team of 5 million have done their bit and the Government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to keeping this virus out. 
Late last night, I received a message from a reliable but confidential source that informed me that the story of the non-stop trip by this pair from Auckland to Wellington was not all as it seems, and that is that they did become disoriented and lost their way coming out of Auckland and needed help to get on to the right road. They called on acquaintances who they were in close contact with, and that was rewarded with even more close contact: a kiss and a cuddle. 
Now, the car was borrowed, and my question is how was that obtained—how did they pick it up? They don't live in Auckland. Therefore, it must have been through another exchange of contact with somebody in order to commence the journey, and, of course, did they stop at all along the way for petrol, comfort, or food? Plausible questions for an implausible scenario. 
Now, I'm not getting at them, but I do think the director-general—and the Minister must call on the director-general to further explain and inquire about whether or not we know all there is to know about this case, because the public need to know. They have done their bit. They are aghast that this could happen in the ham-fisted manner that it has. 
I'd like to be able to say that it's an isolated case. Unfortunately, many more correspondences have been received into my office in the last 24 hours, and I'll remind members about what the director-general did say about testing for people in managed isolation. He said a few days ago—I think it was on 9 June—"everyone in managed isolation will be tested twice" during that period, whether they have symptoms or not, at "around day three and around day 12". 
Well, I'll give you just a sample of the messages that have come into my office that say that that is not happening. From Grant—a friend—"Four days after flying in from Dubai, no COVID test yet. Today asked to fill in a form for a test, but found that it was purely voluntary." 
Another one: on day four in isolation at Rydges in Auckland, she is saying, "There is no effort by the staff to separate people from the first week of isolation into the second week, thereby making it ineffective." When she raised concerns to the nurse about the people coughing on the bus—no one was wearing masks—she was asked to provide names, but, obviously, how would she know their names? 
"Testing is optional at day three and day 12 and encouraged, but not mandatory.", and I go back to Dr Bloomfield's comment that everyone in isolation will be tested. Well, that is not happening, and, in fact, what's happening in these managed isolation facilities is that they could well become the very vector that we're trying to avoid, because the Government—remember—could not manage self-isolation. They could not contact the people who decided to self-isolate, so they put them all under quarantine. They can't manage quarantine. What do they do? They call in the army. I mean, this is as ham-fisted as it gets, led by a Minister of Health that is completely disinterested in his portfolio and completely overwhelmed by it, but out of his depth. 
I must say that when a very measured and somewhat mild-mannered reporter in the form of Collette Devlin from the Dominion Post writes what she wrote yesterday, we know we've got a problem. She said, "Incompetence was shining through. He was unable to answer questions"—this was at a release which he was meant to control, on Sunday, and he should have been across the issues. He shifted questions on the announcement to a hospital staffer, and "To top it all off he managed to misquote the budget allocation" which the funds were coming from. 
The Leader of the Opposition said it in his call: how much incompetence does there need to be in order for this Prime Minister to fire a Minister? Well, clearly, a heap, because it cannot get more incompetent than the Minister of Health. He should go. 





TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a time. What a time to be in the New Zealand Government. What a time to be a New Zealander. All eyes are on us from all around the world because of this pandemic that we've been struck with. Not only has this Government had to, as my colleague Tracey Martin said, deal with the fallout from an eruption, Whakaari / White Island, but also the terrible, tragic incident that happened in Christchurch—that was also something this Government's had to deal with, not least the pandemic. All eyes are on us, and how we've behaved is actually something that gives me heart. 
I was out and about in my electorate last week, and I was constantly having conversations with the Māori constituents that I represent, and what they were talking to me about was the partnerships that happened during the COVID crisis. They talked about the partnerships between the DHBs and our iwi and Māori health providers. They talked about the partnerships between the police and some of our local community iwi—community safety checks that were happening all around New Zealand. They were also talking to me about Whānau Ora and about the funding that the Government had given to Whānau Ora to be able to do the community outreach into really hard-to-reach communities to make sure that they were looked after. The partnership between our Māori communities, our remote Māori communities, and also our civil defence—who, basically, had their phone line open, and people that were struggling were able to call the phone line and get help pretty quickly. So I commend this Government for the work that we did in making sure that we honoured our Treaty partnership and worked together with our Māori communities during the COVID crisis. 
But, actually, the biggest partnership was our team of 5 million, because it was our team of 5 million that all took some personal responsibility. We all stayed home. We all stayed safe. We kept in our bubbles. We looked after ourselves to make sure that, actually, we're now in a stage where we're at level 1. There were a lot of jubilant people that I was talking to saying how great that we are at level 1. 
I want to acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister in this, because she said, and she has said all throughout this—since we've been in level 1—she said we will have new cases. This will not be the end for New Zealand. There will be new cases. She was honest about that, and she owned that, just like today, as she took her press conference and stood up there and owned this conversation. The Director-General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, he owned his part in this as well. It's a tragic thing to happen to our country, but, actually, it was the Opposition who were saying, "Let's get those borders open—let's get them open. Let's start the planes coming in from overseas." So, actually, there's a couple of stories going on here, and, actually, I want to, again, acknowledge the Prime Minister. She said from the start that we will have new cases here in New Zealand.
The system that we've got is as good as we can be, but we're human, and, actually, humans make mistakes. The Opposition saying that they are infallible and they never make mistakes—well, actually, they're wrong. They're wrong, because we know from the last nine years that they had in Government that, actually, they did lots wrong. They dropped the ball on so many issues that this Government has had to pick up. So I want to acknowledge that.
Our country is in a state of responding to the crisis, recovering and also rebuilding, and it's going to take a while. This isn't a silver bullet that's going to fix all of this. There's going to have to be a range of initiatives, and a few of the things that give me heart—because when I think about the fallout from this, I think about unemployment. I think about my Māori communities that I represent. I think about how the Māori unemployment rate is generally twice what the general unemployment rate is. So I fear for those communities and for those whānau where they're going to have people that have lost their jobs and the impact that they're going to have. 
But I'm heartened at some of the stuff that our Government is doing—not least, actually, apprenticeships: making sure that if we want to take some of our workers who have found themselves unemployed and redirect them back into an apprenticeship to get themselves a trade, to get back on to the employment ladder, then let that be so. It's our Government that have scrapped fees from 1 July so that that can happen.
The investment in Budget 2020 for Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi are things to make sure that we've got transitions for our people that have found themselves without work, but not least in tourism. I represent a significant amount of tourism operators in my electorate, and they are hurting right now. But we've got some plans in place. We've got the tourism strategic partnership, the strategic assets partnership, and we've already had some information dropped on that. It's going to be a long road, but we're getting there. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I sought to raise questions with the police Minister, on behalf of law-abiding firearms owners across New Zealand. That isn't a throwaway term. Actually, I'd like to pay some credit to the police officials and officers over both of the firearms bills—the one back in April of last year and the Arms Legislation Bill, which is still progressing through Parliament. They were at great pains to tell us that the vast majority of firearms owners are law abiding. We're not talking, as I said, about a simple throwaway term. These are people who willingly comply with the laws that Parliament has made, and may yet make, that govern and regulate their recreation, their sport, and, to many of them, their way of life. They do so willingly—not always without question and not always without concern, but these are people who know what it is to obey the law and to do the right thing. 
The police Minister on occasion has spoken words similarly, but today gives me and, I think, the firearms community reason for great pause, because I asked him about a report which comes from, I believe, a former member of police, that there may have been or believed to have been discrepancies against the standard procedure in how the Christchurch terrorist's firearms application was handled. The Minister, instead of addressing that with the seriousness it deserves, sought to blame the firearms community for making up a story. Well, that's deeply offensive to them, and it should be deeply offensive to members in this House. 
This latest report is not the only one. A very well respected former member of police, Joe Green—a very senior member of the unit that control firearms administration in the police, he used to be; very, very well respected across the firearms community—raised similar issues last year, particularly as the Arms Legislation Bill was going through its submission process. Concerns like this deserve to be heard and treated with respect. Well, I don't believe that's what the Minister showed today. He did at least reference that the royal commission of inquiry is looking into matters that should, and we all believe do, include how the shooter may have obtained that firearms licence. That's why I asked him if, in his opinion, it was important that they do that, because if he truly believes it's important, then the right action for him to be advocating and for the Government to be taking is to pause that Arms Legislation Bill, which makes quite substantial changes to firearms licences for law-abiding people, until the report from the royal commission is released, which may well include findings which warrant amendment in that bill, which is before Parliament, to ensure that we get not only our vetting process but our entire licensing process and regime correct. 
Instead, my view is that he was extremely dismissive. Now, we're all strong enough in this House to take that. It's like water off a duck's back. But we stand here as—sorry, Mr Speaker; it's no personal reflection. We stand here as representatives of New Zealanders and, in this case, the firearms community, and they deserve to be heard and to have their concerns treated with more respect. Because what are they weathering still? A bill before the House that in their view, and a view that I share, is focused almost exclusively on more rules, regulation, and costs on those people that already follow the law, and virtually nothing on genuine criminals and gangs.
The police Minister tried last night to defend it, saying—
SPEAKER: Order! I've been quite lenient with the member, but the member is anticipating a debate. It's a matter which was up today, and if the normal procedures for the Order Papers occur will be up tomorrow, and, therefore, one is not meant to be debating a bill which is currently otherwise being debated in the House as part of a further debate, including this one. So I think the member can properly talk about the questions, but not start arguing about the bill.
BRETT HUDSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wasn't intending to talk about what might happen but rather to reflect on what was debated last night, because there were positions put such as that it would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It won't. Why? Because criminals don't have licences. They certainly don't have licences for the sorts of firearms they use. So we have the firearms community wanting to do the right thing, who traditionally have done the right thing, but who feel that the Government, and particularly their old friends New Zealand First, have simply abandoned them. They deserve to be treated with more respect—more respect, in my view, than the Minister showed today in question time.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I worry about my family on the other side of the world. Like in many other countries, the Netherlands still sees many new COVID-19 cases every day—143 yesterday. They've also had more than 6,000 people die in the Netherlands. My parents are elderly and vulnerable and, like many others, they are stuck in their homes—they can't go out; they don't feel safe to go anywhere else. 
Now, contrast that with New Zealand's low infection and mortality rates. I get messages from my family all the time, full of admiration of how our Prime Minister has led our team of 5 million to go hard and go early and have a response that, basically, saw us in a place where we can now start to reboot and get our economy moving again, much faster than many other countries have managed to do. So I get up every morning, relentlessly positive because it is such a privilege to be living in a country like Aotearoa New Zealand, where we have had a response to COVID-19 that is, basically, the envy of the whole world.
We said from the start that the best economic response would be a strong health response. So we went hard to cushion that economic blow, started with the wage subsidy that saved tens of thousands of jobs and helped businesses grow. Budget 2020 built further on that, focusing on jobs and on growth. We've heard from a couple of my colleagues earlier in their speeches that as recent as this morning the Government has announced schemes that will support that. 
The Apprenticeship Boost—an apprenticeship support scheme that will give confidence to businesses to keep their apprentices but also to take new ones on, because we are paying $16,000 for every apprenticeship for the first two years. So that will provide New Zealand with the skills that we need to be rebuilding our country.
The other thing we announced is the Mana in Mahi - Strength in Work programme, so it's a boost that will provide opportunities for our vulnerable, at-risk rangatahi so they can get into secure and rewarding employment.
We've already heard from the other side of the House—Nicola Willis was one of them—with criticism about these programmes. It is unfortunate to see, because there was a promise that they wouldn't do opposition for the sake of opposition, but that is what we are seeing. 
Another clear example of that was then they voted against a bill that provided temporary support for people who lost their jobs. It was a 12-week temporary payment so that people can job search, can retrain, and, basically, get back on their feet after they had the significant blow of losing their jobs. Now, the fact that National voted against such a bill—a temporary support for people losing their jobs—shows again their disdain for working people and for families that have lost their breadwinners. It's exactly the same as what we've seen over three consecutive National Governments, basically, putting the boot into working people and undermining working people and their families. 
It's their criticism of the wage subsidy scheme, again, that, basically, shows they don't care about workers. The comment that they made where they said "Oh, the wage subsidy is something that went to businesses and not to workers" clearly shows that the National Party sees workers as some kind of a liability. They couldn't care less if those workers had lost their jobs. But our Government took immediate action, put the wage subsidy scheme in place, and has now supported more than 1.7 million workers, up to $11 billion paid out to see them through and get businesses to work through their options to see how they can remain viable and keep workers in business.
In the Budget, our Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, mentioned the glimmer of silver lining on the darkest of clouds. I thought that was very beautiful, because it actually tells us that we can rebuild better, and it is so important, because we certainly didn't have an equitable pre-COVID economy. So, whatever we do, we're going to make sure we're coming out of this on top and in a better place. The legacy that the National Government left us after three consecutive terms is, basically, social deficits in health, housing, and education. We have started to make significant improvements in all of those areas. 
So we would like to celebrate Budget 2020, which is all about rebuilding together. We are creating new jobs. We are training people for the jobs that we have available and so that they can all together, as a team, help us rebuild New Zealand. I am very proud of a Government that cares and a Prime Minister who unites and leads our country time after time through crisis, through rough times, showing kindness and compassion. Thank you very much.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to start by telling the tale of a former Opposition health spokesperson—and many an MP in this Chamber who was here in the 51st Parliament will remember one Dr David Clark as the Opposition health spokesperson, who used to sit on the Opposition front bench. He was known for shouting out one phrase every question time, what he used to say to the former health Minister: "The worst health Minister in 50 years." Well, how ironic. That phrase now will be becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, because this health Minister is incompetent, and today I'm going to outline clearly one area of his portfolio that he has failed to deliver on, one of the most important areas of health: mental health.
This was a quote from the health Minister last sitting week in question time, when he was questioned about the flagship $455 million new front-line mental health service. The health Minister said, "It's quite impressive how quickly these things have rolled out."—in reference to where the roll-out is for that new front-line health service. It's interesting he uses the words "quite impressive how quickly", because, let's remind ourselves, out of $455 million that was allocated to that service in Budget 2019, $20 million has been spent on that to date. The allocation for the first-year roll-out was $48 million, and the Minister has managed to spend only $20 million of that. And he thinks that's impressive and quick! Currently that new flagship front-line mental health service is operating from 40 sites. What's interesting about those 40 sites is that 22 of them were existing before the Government's announcement in Budget 2019. So that means, to date, the health Minister has delivered only 18 new sites. OK, let's give him the 22 pilot sites; add the 18 new sites. That's 40 sites this new front-line mental health service is operating from. And it's interesting he used the words "quickly" and "impressive" when 40 sites is less than 2 percent of general practices.
So you have a flagship policy that's spent only $20 million out of the $455 million, you've got only 40 sites of delivery in the first year, which is 2 percent of general practices—because, of course, this new service is meant to be rolled out in general practices—and this Minister is calling it "quite impressive" and a "quick" roll-out. This Government talked a big game for mental health, in Opposition. They have come in, they had an inquiry, kicked the can down the road for another 12 months, and here we land, three years in, and they have made no real change in mental health. Their own inquiry clearly outlined that, currently, New Zealand provides mental health services to 7 percent of the population. We need to increase that to 20 percent to capture the mild to moderate. You add on top of that the increased demand as a result of COVID-19. The Epidemic Response Committee heard from a range of experts, who clearly outlined they are concerned at the wave of mental distress cause by COVID-19 that's going to pitch up to our GP practices. Sir Peter Gluckman forecasted 10 percent of those who lose their jobs or incomes will develop post-traumatic stress disorder. If that number is 200,000 to 300,000 in that cohort, that's tens of thousands of New Zealanders that will develop serious mental illness.
So, in a time when New Zealanders needed the Government the most in the area of mental health, we have a Minister that seems disinterested, not over his brief, and incompetent. Because here we are, one year in, and the Minister is struggling to spend the money allocated—$20 million out of the $455 million. He's rolled the service out to less than 2 percent of general practices. Clearly, this Minister has failed mental health and has failed New Zealand.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.





AUCKLAND REGIONAL AMENITIES FUNDING AMENDMENT BILL
In Committee
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.





Preamble
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): So thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to talk about the preamble of this legislation. This legislation, actually, is quite straightforward legislation. It provides a technical fix to, I would say, a technical error that exists in legislation. It's not entirely an error, but there is a difference in two pieces of legislation about how the Auckland regional amenities should be complying when it comes to their financial reporting. 
So as we know, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 requires them to provide financial statements, and the standard that is prescribed in that legislation is called the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards. But, now, these amenities are also charitable entities, so they comply with the Charities Act 2005 as well, and if we look at the standard which is required according to the Charities Act 2005, it's different—that is the generally accepted accounting practice standard. 
So the difference here is that the standard which is required according to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 is not applicable for not-for-profit entities, and all these Auckland region amenities are not-for-profit entities. The standard which is prescribed in the Charities Act 2005 is more applicable to them, and so it makes sense that they are providing their financial statements and they are preparing their financial statements according to the standard which is in the Charities Act 2005. 
Now, because of the change which was made a while ago—that was the 2014, 2015 time—what happened was that the standard now that is required according to these two pieces of legislation is different, and these entities have to prepare two financial statements according to these two standards, which makes no sense because it's not like they're trying to hide any information or provide any misinformation, or information that they don't want to provide is hidden. So there is no misuse of a system, misuse of any resource. This is purely technical—purely technical. So this bill is about fixing it, changing the requirement in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act to the requirement which is in the Charities Act 2005. 
So this will give them a big relief, because at the moment it's just duplicating their work. We don't want them to do that. We want them to deliver the services they deliver to various communities. There are nine Auckland regional amenities, and these Auckland regional amenities are Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board, Auckland Philharmonia Trust, Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, Auckland Theatre Company Ltd, Coastguard Northern Region Incorporated, New Zealand Opera Limited, Surf Life Saving Northern Region, the Auckland Festival Trust, and WaterSafe Auckland Incorporated. I'm sure that members, especially members that are based in Auckland, will know these entities. They do a great job in the community. 
I'm based in Mt Roskill, and I would say that according to the previous boundary of the electorate, the Stardome Observatory was part of that electorate, and they do a lot of work with spreading awareness about the knowledge of space and the universe. They run several programmes not only for children but grown-ups can also go and enjoy that kind of observatory and planetarium atmosphere they provide there, raising awareness about space and the universe and how it works.
So these amenities, as I said, they'd like to hold on to their charitable status, and for them, it's really important that they're complying with the Charities Act 2005. So it will be really useful if we make this change to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, through this amendment legislation, to allow them to prepare just one set of financial statements. 
So overall, it's great legislation, I would say, and there is a lot of support from all, of course, amenities. They wanted it. When I was talking to director David Houldsworth, I had a discussion and straight away I agreed to sponsor this bill because I could see that this is a simple fix, a technical fix, which is not going to do any harm to anybody and actually is going to bring some benefits to all these amenities.
So this legislation actually is something that will help all these amenities. I know that they did write to all Auckland-based members of Parliament, and I don't know if all MPs responded to their letter, but I was really grateful to pick it up as a bill here. I'm really grateful to sponsor this bill, and I really look forward to seeing support, especially from Auckland-based MPs, for this legislation. Thank you, Mr Chairman.





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call at the committee stage of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. Can I just also begin by acknowledging the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, for the work that she has done on this bill and to bring this bill to Parliament alongside, of course, officials; the Governance and Administration Committee; submitters; and the specified amenities who, at the end of the day, are at the heart of this bill. As the member mentioned, this is a small and technical bill, but it is one that will make life a little bit fairer and a little bit easier for the specified amenities.
Now, the member has gone into a fair bit of detail in terms of who those nine specified amenities are. So I won't traverse that ground, but suffice it to say that two in particular—and can I also just acknowledge their work because, you know, it's work that they do across the Auckland region. As a member of Parliament based in Auckland, I see that work across various sectors: the arts, safety, and education as well. So just two, particularly: the Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust, or Stardome, as it's colloquially known, and the member has pointed out, has actually moved into the Maungakiekie electorate that I'm based in now and very familiar with the good work they do. The other one that's been mentioned in the House a few times before, the one that I want to draw a little bit of attention to, is WaterSafe Auckland, which was previously known as Drowning Prevention Auckland. One of the programmes that they offer is called the New to NZ programme—incredibly important to some of the groups that I specifically work with. Auckland is one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world, I understand now, and there are specific challenges for our migrant and refugee communities in Auckland, many who come from countries that are landlocked and therefore haven't been privy to water safety education programmes. This specified amenity, WaterSafe Auckland, does a huge amount of work to address that. In the past five years, 93 preventable drownings, they have stated, and 27 percent of these were in the Asian/other category—the second highest preventable drowning group in Auckland. So just a just a quick nod to them.
Now, this bill fixes an anomaly in the financial reporting requirements that apply to those nine specified amenities that we have discussed already. Now, all those amenities are also registered charities and therein lies the issue that this bill seeks to address. So this bill would replace the requirement—so as the member pointed out, and I won't go into huge amount of detail here either, but basically what has happened since 2015 is that these amenities have had to, strictly speaking, provide two sets of accounting reports, as I understand it, to adhere to two different standards. One is actually a subset of the other, but anyway. One is a standard for for-profit entities, the other one for not-for-profit entities, which is, of course, more applicable to these registered charities.
So anyway, what I wanted to discuss in my call as well is I know that we're specifically talking about the preamble here, and that is the bit that lays out the two different standards that are required. Now, what it comes to is that in 2015, the Charities Act 2005 was amended to require that certain charitable entities—specifically those whose total operating payments are $125,000 or more—prepare financial statements in accordance with what's known as GAAP, the generally accepted accounting practice. Now, the main problem, I guess, is that then that piece of legislation and the requirements stated there conflict with the reporting standard that they were previously using.
What I would like to ask the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, in the 30 seconds that I have left is whether there's been any consideration as to whether the changes in this bill contradict any other piece of legislation, has there been consideration to make sure that we're not going to be coming back here five years, six years down the track to correct something else, to correct another anomaly? So I'd really appreciate it if she could go into a little bit of detail to set our minds at rest, I guess, and to make sure that all anomalies have been fixed. Thank you, Mr Chair.





Dr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak briefly on this bill. In particular, I want to thank Dr Parmjeet Parmar for sponsoring the bill. It's a very good bill, and, of course, we had unanimous support at the Governance and Administration Committee. Also, I would like to thank all the submitters for their contribution—we had 15 submissions, and they made a great contribution to this particular bill—and, of course, all committee members for their contribution. 
Now, most importantly, of course, as the previous two speakers, Dr Parmjeet Parmar and Priyanca Radhakrishnan, have mentioned, this bill is trying to correct an anomaly. Now, it's very clear that these amenities need to have two sets of financial reports, which, of course, we believe is unnecessary. 
In terms of the submissions, I would like to mention particularly the amenities board, which was established under the principal Act. The amenities board itself has been a promoter of this particular bill. I look at his submission. It's a very substantive submission, with all the details of process and the reasons why we need this particular bill. Before the bill was submitted, they did a lot of consultation with the stakeholders and also with Government agencies. Therefore, this bill, as it came to the House and the committee, is actually a very good bill; although, later on we made some changes, amendments. We'll come to these amendments later on when we come to the different parts. The amenities board actually engaged with a number of stakeholders—and then, in terms of reporting requirements of a funding board, and also this process for drafting this particular bill, the Parliamentary Counsel Office made good suggestions—and consulted with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and other agencies. So the bill itself, in that sense, has been quite comprehensive. Also, there are various—what we call—pre-legislative procedures. Now, they did go through the normal pre-legislative procedures and consulted with all the amenities. 
These amenities themselves, we are quite familiar with. We are from Auckland, so we are quite familiar with these amenities. For example—people mentioned the Auckland Festival Trust and also Auckland Philharmonia and also Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust. All these are quite familiar to us and also quite important to our daily life. As a matter of fact, I myself encourage some people to donate to the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust. I also remember I took my children to the observatory. These amenities are important to us, not only for just our own life but also to our younger generation.
To help these amenities, of course, I believe is a common interest—a common intention. That is why the bill enjoys support from different parties. To make it even better, of course, we made some other changes later on. Now, as I said, we'll come to these amendments later. 
Overall, I think this is a very good bill, and I again thank Dr Parmjeet Parmar, I thank all the submitters, and I thank all the members of the committee. Of course, we'll talk to other points later on. Thanks.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm quite interested in this bill because, of course, it affects amenities in my own area, up in Auckland; so that matters. But what I actually want to hear from the member in the chair today—actually, just a point of clarification: how actually do I refer to the member who is in charge of a bill? Is that the—anyway, from Dr Parmar I'd like to hear some of the detail of this bill. And, in particular, Dr Parmar has said this is quite a technical bill, and I would like some technical explanations from her, partly because, actually, I need to understand the difference myself but also I think that people at home need to understand what the technical differences are, and they need to be confident that the member who has sponsored the bill actually understands what the technical details are otherwise. And I'm sure Dr Parmar will be able to do that. So the area in which—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, I'm just going to interrupt the member. We're debating the preamble—the overview of the bill. The technical parts of it will actually be debated later on, clause by clause. The member can actually ask those technical questions at that stage. So we're looking at an overview—what the bill is all about and what it does. So I will hand back to the member to carry on.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am getting to the technical questions I need to understand, that are in the preamble, and that is the difference between generally accepted accounting practice—you'll see that's referred to in recital 4 of the preamble, and also in recital 7 of the preamble, and in recital 8 of the preamble, and in recital 9 of the preamble, and in recital 10 of the preamble. Oh, did I miss recital 5? And in recital 5 of the preamble as well. So I'd like to understand the difference between GAAP—generally accepted accounting practice—and the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards. They're integral to this bill, and they're specifically covered in the preamble as the justification—as the justification—for this bill. So I think it really is important for the member in the chair to be able to understand and explain to us the difference between those standards.
It does seem odd that there are two sets of standards around for accounting. And, of course, one set of these standards applies to, as we're told in the early parts, not-for-profit entities, and the other set of standards there—the International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS—applies to for-profit standards. And that's a clear difference between the two. But it's the detail in there that makes the difference. Why does it mean that there is such a difference between these two sets of accounting standards that there needs to be two sets of financial statements prepared? Now, it's all sitting in that preamble in terms of the justification for it. And, of course, as an accountant myself by training, I do understand generally accepted accounting practice, and I do understand that there is a set of international financial reporting standards, but what is the difference between the two that makes it necessary to prepare two different sets of financial statements? What exactly is the detail that is required? How do the standards apply differently? Why is generally accepted accounting practice so different from the IFRS ones? And, even if it is the New Zealand IFRS statements, what is the difference there?
Now, as I said, this particular bill has been sponsored by the member, and I do trust that the member actually does understand those differences there, but at the moment it just exists as an assertion that, because one was for profit and one was not for profit, it makes a difference to the way that the entities have to prepare their financial difference. And, more to the point, it makes a substantive financial difference. So it really is important to understand why it makes a difference—not just that it makes a difference but why it makes a difference. Is it in the way that revenue is recognised? Is it in the way that assets are depreciated? Is it in the way that expenses are recognised? Is it in the way that, say, the members have ownership of the capital in the organisation? So what kinds of things actually make a difference between IFRS and GAAP that actually applies with respect to these Auckland regional amenities that are covered by this particular bill?
So, as I said, it is a very, very technical question, but it is a technical question that specifically relates to the justification for this bill, and it's one that falls straightforwardly out of the preamble to the bill. So we support the bill and we understand that it's necessary. We can see the reason for reducing compliance costs for these entities, but what exactly are we trying to achieve here? Why is it that these accounting standards, which are pretty good but, nevertheless, got us into this sort of tangle, need to be fixed by legislation? So I look forward to the member explaining that to us.





DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the chance to take a call. I want to congratulate—again, as I did in an earlier reading—Dr Parmjeet Parmar for picking the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill up and for shepherding it through. She's correct when she said earlier that she is currently the list MP for the Stardome Observatory, but, with boundary changes, I hope to be the MP again for Maungakiekie, which will take back in Stardome Observatory. I was, prior to becoming a member of Parliament, an Auckland City councillor where Stardome was. I've been in, out, in, out, and, hopefully, in again.
Hon Member: Back in again—that's right.
DENISE LEE: That's right. Of course, Stardome is one of the amenities that has the privilege of being a beneficiary of the amenity funding regime. It's been going for 10 years. I note that when the bill refers to the principal Act not being amended, there is a maximum finding regime of 2 percent of rates revenue. That's interesting. Normally, in scenarios where funding is allowed for via Parliament or other entities—local government entities—it's normally a total of operating expenses or total revenue, but in this instance it's tagged to rates revenue only, and it's a maximum of 2 percent of rates revenue. That's interesting, again, because we've got a context right now of Auckland Council's emergency budget, where revenue in the rates debate is very much to the fore in Aucklanders' minds.
What I've appreciated about the amenities listed in this legislation is their very reasonable and considered approach—and their privileged approach, I would say, and I'm sure they would say—to gaining this funding. For them to look at the fiscal envelope, the maximum that they're allowed—according to my figures it's about $34.3 million is the maximum that they could be given, according to legislation. But, in reality, in this last financial year it was a $15.5 million envelope. So we see that while there's a maximum, there's actually a reasonable approach that has been taken, and I would like to congratulate all the amenities. Knowing that they could go that far, they've gone to a more reasonable approach, and have adopted what I'd call a great process for how they put their best foot forward.
So again, just referencing when I was an Auckland councillor, we used to have the amenities come before us, one at a time, and put their best foot forward. It was a very mood-boosting experience, I'd say—hearing all the good work that these charities are doing.
I would like to, again, congratulate Dr Parmar for picking this up. We know that the primary reason is to fix up that accounting anomaly. I think the previous speaker, Dr Deborah Russell, said something along the lines of, "What are we doing this for?" It's just simply that. They don't want to do twice the accounting practices and find that the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards regime is not fit for purpose for them anymore. I'd also like to point out in clause 5(b), it talks about those accounting standards and wanting to go towards the generally accepted accounting practice. But in subclause (c), it's talking about the amenities bringing forward "any other information reasonably necessary". That's been a really warming process for me when I have been there in Auckland Council and have seen them bring their best foot forward, and under that clause of "any information reasonably necessary".
So look, with that, Mr Chair and Dr Parmar, we very much support this. We think that it's a way that we can get some clarity and some ease of accounting practice, and I look forward to more contributions here in this committee stage. Thank you.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I probably won't take a very long call, actually, I think we're still under the standing—[Interruption] I know, such a disappointment! Look, I could read all the lists of those who fall under this, but no, I've got a serious question for the member in the chair, Parmjeet Parmar. It's actually always a great honour to take the role to be in the chair as the member sponsoring this private bill—obviously, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill—I think it's actually one of the great challenges to the House that we may need at times to find shorter titles, and that's no disrespect to the particular member. 
Look, at the moment we're talking around the preamble. I suppose my question to the member is very simply: why do we have a preamble? This is highly, highly unusual and I'm not trying to be completely flippant. Sorry, there's always an element of flippancy in my speeches. But why do we have a preamble I think would be helpful to know, because when I do think of preambles I turn my mind to such august documents as the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence. And I'm just wondering whether the member in the seat does see that there's some convergence between those great constitutional documents and this amendment bill. 
But in all seriousness, with a little humour aside, I wouldn't mind understanding why there is a necessity for this preamble to exist. I suspect reading it through it's relatively narrative, it's explanatory, but that's relatively unusual in New Zealand law. We often look towards committee reports and, if you will, the overall Hansard. Well, what's recorded in Hansard, the overall debates—I'd be interested for the member to explain why there is a preamble. In some ways why is—well, we don't appear to have what we will often have; it's not so much the purpose section, but "definitions"; that's the word I'm looking for. In some ways, if she would like to answer that, some of the usual elements we'd see in definitions such as what "GAAP" means, the acronym "GAAP"—has that just been deliberately incorporated into the preamble? So to the extent that she would like to take a call and explain, it would be welcome.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to talk today to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill, and I'd just like to start out by acknowledging the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, for bringing this issue forward. It's an important issue for New Zealand's greatest city, Auckland, and I'm really proud that she's sponsored this bill.
Secondly, I'd just like to acknowledge the organisations that this preamble covers. These are really important organisations, and it's going to be more important now, post-COVID, that we support these organisations. Organisations like the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra—fantastic organisation—the New Zealand Opera—oh, just love it—and I'm not going to give you a demo, but I do want to acknowledge the role that these organisations play in the collective creative industry sector of Auckland.
Now, turning our attention to the preamble, which is what we're discussing today, I would like to acknowledge that the purpose of this bill is laudable. We have now two international standards of accounting practice: the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) on the one hand, which was created kind of more to do with the EU and the rest of the world, and generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), which is very much centred on the United States. And these fantastic organisations unfortunately have to combine and do two sets of audited accounts. So the member's bill that we're discussing today seeks to address that by, essentially, eliminating the need for one audited accounts—that of IFRS—and favouring the generally accepted accounting practices thing.
So why is this important? It's important because, at a time where a lot of these organisations' funding streams are going to be drying up, we need to look at ways in which to reduce their cost base and reduce the burden that they have for operating. I believe that my colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar's bill does that, and it's something that we will be supporting through—
Michael Wood: How does it do that? Tell us more!
DAN BIDOIS: Well, we can tell you more about how it does it; it's pretty simple. Michael Wood wants to know more about it. So how does it do it? Well, to put an audited set of accounts together for IFRS, you've got to go to an accounting firm, right? How much does an accounting firm—well, Deborah Russell can tell you; she's an accountant. Oh no, she's not. She's a lecturer. Professor Deborah Russell has given us a lecture today in accounting, and essentially what we have here is the cost burden of going to an accountant, preparing the statements, that, in fact, perhaps a lot of these organisations are not doing—they're not doing so because they're technically in breach, but they already do it for GAAP. So this law is an important law that we're debating today to seek to address that anomaly, to simplify cost of compliance for these fantastic organisations, and we on this side of the House think that anything that reduces cost of compliance for organisations in a time like this should be rushed through the House.
So I look forward, in the remaining stages of this discussion, to do a deep dive of some of these fantastic organisations and to support this bill further. So, without taking too much more time, we'll wait for further opportunities for a contribution.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have a hard act to follow, I fear. On the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill, I do have a couple of questions for the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, which I'm confident she'll be able to answer, but I think it's worthwhile to go through a couple of them. My ability to ask the questions is probably more in doubt at this stage, but we'll see how we get on. 
I think it's probably worth noting just by way of introduction that the significance of this bill is actually pretty serious for worthy organisations—charitable organisations with a capital "c"—including the Surf Life Saving Northern Region, many of whose members are in my electorate, the wonderful electorate of Helensville, as it currently is, and are soon to be in the New Lynn electorate, in the case of some of those. Now, these people do a wonderful job for the community and I don't want to miss the opportunity to give a shout-out to them, and so my question to the member in the chair, first of all, is whether she anticipates that the effect of this bill will make their life easier or harder. 
If I were to be a little bit—I don't wish to be blasé about such a serious subject, but it occurs to me that for organisations that currently drown in red tape, it would be appropriate for the Surf Life Saving Northern Region to spend a bit more time in the waves, in the whitecaps, and less time in the red tape in terms of the activities that a volunteer organisation is able to undertake. So that's my first question: will this, in practical terms, make a difference for life on the ground or, indeed, in the water for such organisations as that? 
My second question for the member in the chair, again, would be about the retrospective aspect. Obviously, there's a general rule in this House that we don't legislate retrospectively, except that we tend to apply that rule in the criminal law sphere, and this is obviously not a criminal-type matter, and, secondly, we're generally happy to retrospectively validate if that's going to be to the advantage of those who are most directly affected. So can the member please assure us that what's going to happen now isn't that we impose on these organisations a requirement to go back and add extra burden, again, by asking them to redo their calculations, albeit in a more straightforward way. So if there's any comfort that she can give us along those lines, that would be helpful. 
Finally—he said, looking at the clock—my other question to the member at this stage would be whether she's comfortable with the recommendation that the Governance and Administration Committee has made about the transitional arrangements. That's where we're looking at the fact that the bill will come into effect a day after the Royal assent, I believe—he said, checking it—but, obviously, there are pretty complicated arrangements whereby there might be a financial year that's under way at the time that the bill passes into law and becomes an Act. So I'm just wondering if she's happy that this legislation now is going to come in in a way that's pretty clear—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to interrupt the member and just tell him we're debating the preamble. He's asking questions that will be addressed in later clauses. 
CHRIS PENK: Yes, sir. 
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I suggest the member ask those questions at that stage, and my ruling to the member in the chair is not to answer them until then. So, the preamble. 
CHRIS PENK: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I should have been much more explicit that recital (5) within the preamble talks about the amendment to the Charities Act. So, essentially, my question was around the point at which that amendment would become effective. I should have been clearer about that, so I apologise to you and, indeed, the committee for not being more up front about that point. So—
Simon O'Connor: Start again. 
CHRIS PENK: I'll start again—that's the suggestion of the member of Parliament for Tamaki. I don't think I could do that to myself let alone anyone else, so perhaps I'll leave it there. 
But, as I say, I look forward to the feedback on those points from the member in the chair: (a) whether it makes life easier or harder, (b) whether we're going to run into any unanticipated difficulties or unintended consequences, indeed, with the retrospective element, and, finally, just around the transitional arrangements, at least to the extent that they are referred to at recital (5) of the preamble. 





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Some really good questions from members from all sides. I'll go in the order they were raised. So, first, Priyanca Radhakrishnan asked if there was any other legislation we should be looking at. This bill is to amend the Act, which is to provide for funding for these amenities. According to that Act—the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008—there is a requirement for preparing their financial position, their financial statement. Because they have to comply with the Charities Act as well—because they are not for profit—they have to prepare another set of financial standards on top of what they prepare for the Charities Act 2005. So these are the two pieces of legislation. We want to make sure that the standard that is required in these two pieces of legislation is the same. 
The second question, from Dr Deborah Russell—I thought Dr Deborah Russell will understand the technical bits of this legislation. We know that the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standard is part of the generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP), but what happens according to the Charities Act—they are preparing their statement of financial position according to the public benefit entity standard. So we want to make sure that the standard in these two pieces of legislation that they have to comply with is the same so that they are not duplicating their work. 
Then we had a question from Simon O'Connor about the preamble. I think it is just, basically, to explain what the legislation does. That's it. All these terms which are used in this legislation have been already defined in the Act—for example the public benefit entity standard and GAAP—they all are in the Charities Act 2005 and the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards and the Auckland Regional Amenities Act 2008.
Then I go to a question asked by Chris Penk: if this was going to make their lives easier. It definitely is going to make their lives easier, because they will have to just prepare one set of financial statements to comply with both pieces of legislation. I know that the member asked two other questions, which we will address as per Mr Chair's direction later on when we are debating those clauses. Thank you, Mr Chair.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I'm very grateful to the member for answering many of the questions that have been asked this afternoon and which do actually matter in terms of the preamble to this Act. It may only be a small technical bill, but it does have some—I do just want to say that perhaps the member didn't quite get the extent of the question I asked. We all understand that generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) apply better to the Charities Act and to not-for-profit entities, and that the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) apply better to for-profit entities. That's the higher level reason for this bill. But the detail is a little bit underneath that, and it is a detail that I had hoped the member would be able to explain, given it is the motivation for the bill.
What is the difference between GAAP and IFRS such that it creates a difference that the entity is required to prepare two sets of financials? Now, we know that the law says they're required to prepare two sets of financials. We know that the overall reason is because of the differences between GAAP and IFRS. What I want to know is what the actual differences are. Is it a difference in the way that revenue is recognised? Is it a difference in the way that donations are recognised? Is it a difference in the way that depreciation is recorded? Is it a difference in the way that members' equity in the organisation is recognised? Is it a difference in the way that, say, Government grants are recognised? Is it a difference in the way that you have to record something as simple as GST? Is it a difference when it comes to maybe tax treatment of some items? There's a whole series of difference, and I really did hope to understand the exact differences between the IFRS treatment of the entity's financial performance and the GAAP treatment of the entity's financial performance. We know they are different, but what are the differences?
Now, as I said in my first five minutes speaking on this bill, it is a highly technical difference and perhaps it is one that only accountants might understand. Nevertheless, I'd hope that the member who was sponsoring the bill would actually understand the difference, given that they were getting up to talk about this and stating it as a motivation for it. Perhaps, if it's not possible to be explained, it sort makes me wonder as to—I mean, despite all the goodwill towards this bill, as to whether or not we should be engaging it, if even the member who is sponsoring it can't actually explain those technical differences between GAAP and IFRS when it comes down to exactly what is handled in there.
Now, I do know there are a number of people who have an accountancy background in the House. I'm not the only one, though it might seem that way from time to time. But in terms of understanding exactly what goes on, the technical detail of a tax bill or an accounting bill or a financial reporting bill or something like that, I do think it's important that when a member is sponsoring a bill themselves, if it has those implications, they really ought to understand that detail right down at that level. Otherwise, it does become a problem as to why you're supporting the bill in the first place.
Well, perhaps the member could explain to us which expert she relied on to come to that opinion herself that this was a bill that needed to be presented to the House. Because perhaps, you know, I understand the member has real expertise. She, after all, holds a PhD—I believe it's in chemical engineering or something like that—so obviously, a very, very smart lady. I certainly wouldn't be able to claim expertise in that area at all. So perhaps it is something that the member herself doesn't explain the absolute technical detail between GAAP and IFRS and the recognition of income and all those sorts of things. But in that case, I would assume that she had consulted experts who'd be able to explain to her what the difference was and which motivates this on the bill.
So I am looking forward to understanding that. It was a question I raised earlier, and I appreciate the member has talked about the top-level reasons for the differences between GAAP and IFRS and what impact it has on this bill. I appreciate that it's a difference between standards that are more appropriate for not-for-profit entities and standards that are more appropriate for for-profit entities. But what exactly is it in the difference between GAAP and IFRS that makes that difference? I appreciate that the member may not have that detail herself, but, in that case, I would appreciate understanding whose advice she relied on to come to that bill. I'm sure it was good advice, but perhaps if she could provide that detail, because that, after all, is the justification for this bill.
We do all support it across the House—this bill is going to go through—but it would be good if we had that explanation available to us and our understanding of the advice that was given to her available to us, so that as members of this House, we can be absolutely confident that we are supporting this good bill and that we have good reason to support it. So I invite the member to answer those questions. Thank you.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): It's very interesting to see the argument that the member Dr Deborah Russell has put forward. She wants to understand what the difference is between the two accounting standards, because that will become the basis of their support for the legislation.
So, in simple terms, this is just making sure that the standard in both pieces of legislation is the same. If the member wants to understand, it should be clear that in the Charities Act 2005, the standard that is required is for any charities that have operating payments of $125,000 or more in the two preceding years. So that's why they have been complying with the Charities Act 2005, and have been complying with the standard that is required under the Charities Act 2005. But then because their funding is provided through the other Act, they have to comply with that too. 
So this legislation is not splitting the accounting standards; this bill is to make sure that the standard in both pieces of legislation is the same to make their life easier. So this is not an accounting lesson—I'm sure the member is really interested in having an accounting lesson. As I've already said, there is this operating payment of $125,000, or more, in two preceding years, which is the requirement as per the Charities Act 2005. Thank you, Mr Chair.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I would just like to clarify the question another time, if I may, because if we look at recital (4) of the preamble—so I just want to read it. It says, "In 2015, the Charities Act 2005 was amended to require that certain charitable entities (those whose total operating payments are $125,000 or more in each of the 2 preceding accounting periods) prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP)". So that's fine. All that does is specify which charitable entities have to provide financial statements in accordance with GAAP: those whose operating payments are $125,000 or more. That certainly specifies—and as I said before, I agree with this reason. We all understand that some entities have been required to prepare financial statements in accordance both with GAAP and with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), and that for these not-for-profit entities that creates two sets of financial statements that they have to prepare—
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Onerous.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —and that is, of course, onerous. Yes, it's onerous, and it means that the compliance costs are significantly increased.
Now, I'm sorry to repeat this, but what I really do need to repeat is the particular question I'm asking to be answered. It's not the fact that the entities have to prepare two sets of financial statements. It's not the fact that one set of financial statements is required by GAAP and the other is required by IFRS; we all understand that. It's not the fact that that creates the compliance costs. What I'm trying to understand—and it is a technical detail—is how the accounting treatment differs between GAAP and IFRS. So there's the top level overall reason and then there's the—you know, there's the compliance costs. The next reason is what causes those compliance costs is the difference between GAAP and IFRS. But then I want to understand the actual different treatment within GAAP and within IFRS. What is it in generally accepted accounting principles that differs from International Financial Reporting Standards? I believe one of these speakers on the other side suggested that I would not be interested in an accounting lesson. Actually, I'm always interested in accounting lessons. I know that's a bit sad, but it's always interesting to find out how things are recorded.
Now, it is a highly technical thing, the differences between GAAP and IFRS, and the actual financial treatment of some transactions under GAAP as opposed to those same transactions under IFRS, the treatment of the valuation of assets under GAAP, say, as to the treatment of the valuation of assets under IFRS, the valuation of liabilities under GAAP as opposed to the valuation of liabilities under IFRS, and so on, and on and on and on it goes. It can get quite long and tedious. Actually, people do often have to prepare two different sets of financials just because of different accounting treatments. But what actually are those different accounting treatments? And as—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I interrupt the member, because it's becoming a bit—
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: All right. If the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, could answer—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK. Well, I'm still going to say it. I found that rather repetitive. In so far as what the member is saying in terms of the preamble of this bill, this bill doesn't alter those standards or explain those standards. It just changes the current accounting proceedings, so it's not the member in the chair's responsibility, although she did actually address it.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look, in some ways, being a debating chamber—and just, hopefully, the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, if she chooses to reiterate—the Governance and Administration Committee's intentions, and certainly hers, is not to worry about the two different types of standard but to make sure that there is alignment. That's my general understanding. In fact, it seems a rather academic point if this House of all 120 MPs is meant to ascertain the different nature of accounting systems. I assume—and the member may want to speak to this if she chooses—is it's not really the place of this Parliament to worry about the two types of systems. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than two types of systems. But the member was relying on previous legislation, particularly out of the Charities Act 2005, I suspect, to direct where we should go.
So a little bit of clarity around that. I know another member whose speech depreciated each time—that's just a very bad piece of accounting humour there. Fundamentally, it's not the nature of what the systems are but that the singular purpose, as being articulated in the preamble, that we have alignment. I know the member who resumed her chair, Dr Deborah Russell, was very worried about experts who were called, and I would wonder if Dr Parmar, as the sponsor of the bill, could give that member, who has resumed her seat, the confidence that there was a full and proper select committee process where not only officials but people were able to submit.





MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Look, I'm really delighted to be able to take a call on this bill. I followed it very closely during its passage in the House, and spoke on it during its second reading, only in the last session of the House. I have some personal interest in the bill. It's been mentioned that one of the Auckland regional facilities is situated in the electorate of Mt Roskill, which I very proudly represent—that's the Auckland Stardome; wonderful facility, and I recommend that anyone who has the opportunity come and visit it.
The important thing about Auckland regional facilities and its governing piece of legislation is that even though some of those facilities are located in particular parts of the city, the parent legislation creates a regime where people from across the region, who benefit from them, all contribute on an equitable basis. That's really important to understand.
In this contribution, I want to touch on one of the points in the preamble that's referenced in a very, very good submission from one Julia Durkin. I want to come back to this in later contributions, when we really get to the meat of the legislation—there's a lot in there. But I just want to head this up in the preamble, because recital (2) of the preamble—I'll read it out for the benefit of the committee—says that "Section 39 of the principal Act requires that the specified amenities prepare financial statements that contain a statement of financial position prepared in accordance with New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards"—that's the NZ IFRS that we've been hearing about a lot over the last hour or so—"and that contain the other statements and information set out in section 39(2)(b)".
Where I want to come to in this is quite an important point that Julia Durkin made, and I want to spend some time on Julia Durkin's submission in this call, but also in others, and there's an important reason for that. Most of the submissions that were received by the Governance and Administration Committee were of a pro forma nature, and I don't say that to diminish them in any way. Most of them came from some of the specified entities themselves, and they largely said, "We support this legislation." That's fine and well, and we should take note of that. Ms Julia Durkin's was probably the one submission you can identify that was, to some degree, critical of the framework of this piece of legislation and of the parent legislation as well. So I do think, in terms of the scrutiny function of the committee, it is important that we give some weight to her submission.
Here's a point that Julia Durkin makes that relates to recital (2) of the preamble in respect of section 39. Again, I'll read out what she said, just so that I am very, very clear about the intentions of Julia Durkin. She says, "The proposed Bill provides reduction in reporting requirements of the chosen amenity and that of the Funding Board under section 40 must be viewed against the backdrop of perceived lowering the level and layers of reporting and accountability of the chosen organisations, who are the net recipients of $14,602,000 [in] (2018-2019) of Auckland ratepayers money." That's an important point, that last one, actually. The money that funds these entities that this bill is dealing with actually isn't appropriated by this House. There's a levy on Auckland ratepayers that gets funnelled, and it's important that people understand that, and I don't know that everyone necessarily will.
The point that Ms Durkin is making here, and it's relevant to recitals (2) and (3), in fact, of the preamble, is that there are actually some substantive changes, and we'll get to this later on in the debate, when we get to the guts of the bill—there are actually quite significant changes to section 39(2)(b) that do actually change some of the reporting standards. I'm not just talking about the accounting standards themselves; the text of the bill actually changes what must be reported on and publicly disclosed, and that's going to be really important. I'll come back to that.
But what I'm coming to in terms of the preamble is really a question for the member in the chair, Ms Parmar: really, her reflection and response to that point that Julia Durkin has made in her submission, and in relation to recitals (2) and (3) of the preamble. That is just to ensure that she has a level of comfort, as the member who is overseeing this legislation that ultimately provides accountability for over $14 million of public money that's provided by the Auckland ratepayer—that she has confidence that the direction that's set out in this preamble is not, in fact, lowering the reporting standards, and therefore the transparency that applies to quite significant amounts of ratepayers' money.
So I really would like it if before we finish the debate on the preamble, which has been very engaging so far, we could hear from the member in the chair about that point and about whether she's satisfied that recitals (2) and (3) in the preamble don't set us up for a bill and a subsequent piece of legislation that actually lower the reporting standards, when we would all, I know, in this House, want to ensure that the reporting standards are fit for purpose. Thank you, Madam Chair.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't going to take a call on this bill but it occurs to me that there are some questions that I need to ask and have answers to in terms of the relationship to the Charities Act and the work that's currently under way modernising charities legislation.
The questions that I would like to ask the member in the chair, Parmjeet Parmar, if she would be so good as to respond is: we're looking at the Auckland regional amenities; could this equally apply to other parts of the country where there are other frameworks and set-ups that sit outside of the current charities legislation? Is she aware of that? Also, just in terms of the work that is currently under way in my portfolio with modernising the charities legislation—which has had some significant response in submissions from charities and the like, about reporting requirements, working alongside the External Reporting Board: will this piece of legislation, when that work is completed, actually then provide another anomaly? 
Has the member actually worked to align this piece of legislation with forward pieces of work, and has the member considered the framework that the External Reporting Board now requires, because that will likely have an impact on this particular piece of work? So I'm just seeking from the member whether by passing this piece of legislation, at a later point we may need to come back and look at, potentially, an anomaly that's been created by this. Thank you, Madam Chair.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you. I wish to answer some of the questions that have come up since I spoke last time. One is about if there is any other legislation that could be affected, because this legislation is just amending the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. This is confined to only Auckland regional amenities. So that's one part. 
The second part, to the External Reporting Board—so there was a consultation that was done with the External Reporting Board and also with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. After that consultation, the board decided to put forward this as an idea to resolve this issue. So that consultation has happened. That happened in 2016. Thank you, Madam Chair.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I was going to offer a small incentive for anyone who referred to recital (4) in the preamble by saying "Mind the GAAP." That's no longer on offer.
Preamble agreed to.





Clause 1  Title
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): A very quick call to say that the title of this Act—that is, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Act 2019—is the best suited title because it clarifies the principal Act that it amends. We know this is amending the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. So because the amendment actually goes into that Act, the funding Act 2008, it makes sense that the title contains these terms—that is, the "Auckland Regional Amenities Funding" and "Amendment Act 2019"—because 2019 is when the work on this legislation started.
We know that the Auckland regional amenities get funding through the board that is set up through that legislation—I would refer to that to be the principal Act. Then, obviously, they have to report, they have to prepare their financial statements, to declare their financial position because of that funding that is received. So I believe that the amendment, which is going into the principal Act, which is to change the reporting standard to bring it in line with the Charities Act 2005 and also to change the reporting of the Auckland Regional Amenities Board, according to the amenities board Act 2008—changing that, it makes sense that we have the title of this legislation as it is; that is, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Act 2019. Thank you, Madam Chair.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I'm sorry, this hadn't occurred to me until just now, and I'm sure the member has an answer for it. Because I wasn't on the Governance and Administration Committee, I didn't actually get into the detail of this bill. I'm sorry—I might have drifted off. But it's the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Act 2019, but we're now in 2020. I know it's a small point, and I just missed it. I would appreciate it if the member could just clarify that for me. I do understand that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, where it goes back to—was it the 2008 Act which provided that funding for those specified amenities? So I wouldn't have been surprised if that had been in the Act title and things like that. But that 2019 date, I've just gone: oh, what's that 2019 date about? I'm sure it's only a very short and small explanation, but I would just appreciate, given that it's 2020, whether you could explain to me why it says the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Act 2019 instead of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Act 2020. So if the member could explain that. Thank you.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Because the work on this bill started in 2019, and it was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee in September 2019. Officially, it was in, and we started working on this bill in 2019, so that's why the title includes 2019. Thank you, Madam Chair.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a short contribution just wanting to check with the title. A significant component of this bill is actually about the funding mechanism and the preparation of financial statements. Perhaps the title could be broadened to include that kind of aspect of the provisions of this bill—that it's not just about the funding mechanism; that it's also about the financial statements and it's also about the requirement to report. I would see that there would be some value in including that within the title. I'd like to ask the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, if she had considered that. I think that's all I need to make a contribution on for this clause. Thank you.
Clause 1 agreed to.





Clause 2  Commencement
MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): This is quite an interesting little clause in the bill, and it's something that the Governance and Administration Committee—who, obviously, did a really good job of working through this bill, hearing from submitters, and addressing a number of issues—did comment on in its report, actually. What was very, very unusual about the bill that passed its first reading and was sent to the select committee is that it didn't actually have clarity around the commencement date.
I'll just refer here to the select committee report. The committee here notes that "The bill as introduced does not state when the proposed changes would come into effect. We think it is important to make these transitional provisions clear. We propose that the changes would apply for a financial year that was in progress or recently completed when the legislation commenced, as well as for future reporting periods. We therefore recommend adding clause 4A"—which we'll get to later—"which would insert new section 4A, setting out the transitional provisions in Schedule 1AA." I think it is worthwhile, given that we're having a good debate and really getting into the details of this bill, to hear from the member in the chair, Parmjeet Parmar, about what the rationale was in the first instance for there not being a commencement date. It is very unusual.
Generally speaking, when a piece of legislation, whether it's a Government bill, a member's bill, a private bill, or whatever, heads off to a select committee—when it's drafted, in fact—it'll have a commencement date. You want to know that your legislation's actually going to take effect at a point. I do remember one debate in this House, going back to the last Parliament, where there was actually a piece of legislation that I don't think had a clear commencement date, and, as a result, it never took effect and we actually had to remove it off the statute book. Obviously, no one wants their piece of legislation to fall into that trap, so it will be good to know from the member if there was a particular reason at the outset why there wasn't a commencement date put in the legislation that was originally passed and sent off to select committee. I really would appreciate hearing from the member around that. It might be that there was a very good reason, and I think the committee of the whole House would want to satisfy itself—and this isn't to cast aspersions on the select committee and its competence at all—that the member who proposed the legislation in the first instance is happy with what the select committee has done in terms of the change that it's made there.
Secondly, in respect of this issue, I said before it's unusual that there wasn't a commencement date in the initial bill, but, actually, what the select committee itself has done is a little bit unusual as well. Here, again, I'll just go back to the report to remind people. The select committee says this: "We propose that the changes would apply for a financial year that was in progress or recently completed". Now, the "recently completed"—OK. But "We propose that the changes would apply for a financial year that was in progress"—that actually is quite unusual if you know a little bit about how organisations run their financial affairs and the importance of having year-to-year systems in place. So we're actually proposing that for some of the entities that this bill covers, the rules will, effectively, be changed via legislation in the middle of a current financial year within which they're operating. That is unusual. So, again, I'd like to hear from the member in the chair about her views on that, how she sees that operating. I would like to have some assurance that we have received some advice during the passage of this legislation, particularly at select committee—and I know the member herself sat on there, which was good—if we received advice from officials to assure us that that's not going to create any problems in terms of the financial cycles of these organisations and that it's not going to create confusion.
I do note here that the whole purpose of this bill is to ensure that we effectively end a situation in which there was confusion and a bit of a mismatch in terms of how organisations covered by the Auckland regional amenities funding legislation conduct their financial reporting. So let's make sure, as we pass this legislation, that we're not creating another set of confusion by having, as I say, just going back, changes that would apply for a financial year that was in progress coming in. That's what this bill does—very unusual, noted in the select committee report.
So, again, I'll just very briefly repeat those two questions. The first one is just understanding why there wasn't a commencement date put in the original bill that was sent off to select committee; secondly—well, it's actually three questions—the member's comfort that there now has been a change made to that; and, thirdly, comfort and confidence from the member that that quite unusual change to allow these changes to come into effect during a financial year, not when one is completed and before the next one starts, is not going to create any additional problems for these organisations that we're trying to assist. Thank you, Madam Chair.





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't quick enough off my feet earlier but I too had some concerns about this specific clause, which is around the commencement date, of course. Just to firstly, I guess, you know, emphasise the fact that I, too, share some of the concerns of the previous speaker, Michael Wood, in terms of why there wasn't a commencement date at the start. I, too, find that a little bit odd, I guess, and would be keen for some clarity around that.
The second point that was made as well—and I look at this from the point of view of someone who has run a charity previously. If I had been told sort of halfway through the year that I potentially had to change the way I was doing things in terms of accounting, which, you know, is being accountable for huge sums of money that are entrusted to you, and you want to be—one wants to be; not you, Madam Chair—careful and cognisant of these matters when entrusted with such responsibility. So I, too, want a little bit of clarity around that.
But I'd go a step further, just bearing in mind the debate that we've had in this Chamber previously was around the change that this bill will make. That boiled down to, I guess, two different accounting standards. Not being an accountant myself or as well versed in the arts of finance as my colleague Dr Deborah Russell is, from my understanding of this, there are two separate standards. These specified amenities have actually been required, because of an anomaly in legislation and contradictions of various pieces of legislation, to adhere to both. And now that's what this bill fixes, so that's what we're here for. Now, how that relates to my question around the commencement date is just going back to that point made by the Governance and Administration Committee in their report. They've said in their in their report, and I quote, "We propose that the changes would apply for a financial year that was in progress or recently completed when the legislation commenced, as well as for future reporting periods." So my question there is not just the potential to confuse matters or to make things inadvertently more challenging for these amenities but also what change specifically. My understanding is that—this goes on to later clauses so I won't go into too much detail—the retrospective validation then goes back to the fact that these amenities were actually, in fact, adhering only to one standard, and that's what we're also trying to fix, I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, and this is to the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar. But my understanding is we're actually trying to fix things so that we, or this House, don't inadvertently penalise registered charities who are doing some exceptionally good work across Auckland.
Then, to my understanding or my reading of both the bill and the report, that actually means that potentially there's not a huge amount of change, because they were, in reality, adhering to only one set of financial reporting standards, which was the generally accepted accounting practice, and not—or it could have been the other way around: the International Financial Reporting Standards. I'm a little bit confused and would like a little bit of clarification around that as well. But, anyway, they were, in effect, adhering to one. We are changing things so that we're not inadvertently penalising them for doing so because of an anomaly that was created in 2015 when specific changes that should have been made weren't; so just a little bit of clarity.
Just to summarise, I'm looking for clarity around, firstly, the lack of commencement date at the start of the process; secondly, why these changes would apply in a slightly, I would think, convoluted manner—in the way that I'm reading this, in the middle of a year, potentially—and, thirdly, what change specifically was the select committee referring to in that particular paragraph. 
The final point that I'll make is that the last paragraph under that clarity of commencement date part of the report says, "We therefore recommend adding clause 4A, which would insert new section 4A, setting out the transitional provisions in Schedule 1AA." When I look at Schedule 1AA, I'm actually a little bit confused about the specifics in that particular schedule. So, potentially, a little bit of clarification around what that means, because, as we know, we try and make sure in this Chamber that legislation is as clear as possible to people at the grassroots. I suspect if we struggle a little bit to decipher it, they would, potentially, too. So some clarification would be good. Thank you.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll take a very quick call to just answer a couple of questions that came up. One question that came up is, through the changes that we are making through this legislation, just clarifying that we will not be penalising any charities. So this legislation actually is not changing the Charities Act itself; it is changing the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. So it's not changing anything in the Charities Act.
The other question that came up about the commencement date—I see that the members have elaborated on new section 4A, inserted by clause 4A. That was to clarify the transitional provisions that were needed, because, depending on when the legislation goes through, we wanted to make sure that these regional amenities understood from when to apply the changes that will come into effect once this legislation has gone through. So that's why it was clarified that it will apply to the year in progress, the year that would have just finished, and, obviously, to any future period. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Clause 2 agreed to.





Clause 3  Principal Act
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, it was a real pleasure to be on the Governance and Administration Committee and to be able to hear the submissions and also be part of that discussion. But the question I've got for the member, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, in relation to clause 3, the principal Act, revolves around the date. So we know that the Act amends the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008, the principal Act. It goes along to the vein of what's been said today already, and that's the concern around that commencement date. My concern in relation to that area is whether there is sufficient time for those entities affected to have those parts in order. From all accounts, from what we heard, we did. But the fact that the issue around the commencement date isn't overly clear—I would just like a sense of reassurance, in terms of those ones that we've heard about in terms of those charitable entities, if they have the adequate time necessary for that principal Act to be changed. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Clause 3 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Michael Wood—oh, sorry; changed your mind.
Clause 4 agreed to.





Clause 4A  New section 4A inserted (Transitional, savings, and related provisions)
MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I really jumped out of my box there just with a bit too much vim and vigour, but that's the nature of this debate, I think. I do want to come to this section inserted by clause 4A, on the transitional, savings, and related provisions. This is an issue that's been touched on in a couple of contributions so far, but I want to just develop that a little bit further, and I will come to a question for the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, here again, because I don't think we've quite got to the bottom of this. This is that really important issue about the transitional wording in terms of when this bill comes into effect. I just don't think we've quite, as a committee, got to the point where we have absolute clarity about why we've landed where we've landed in terms of this section.
So if we go to Schedule 1AA, and I'll just pull that out here, what we find—sorry, Madam Chair, I've just got my papers a little bit out of order here—if we come back to the report of the Governance and Administration Committee is that we've still got quite an unusual situation going on here in terms of when this bill actually comes into effect. We've had a number of questions here. We haven't quite had them answered in terms of why we've landed where we have with that bill. There's a particular reference—again, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I'm just trying to find the wordings here—to five months. When we actually go to the wording that's in 1AA—yeah, here we go. In Schedule 1AA, Part 1, and I'll just go to it—this is in Part 1, clause 2(2), and it goes, "This Act, as amended by section 6 of the 2019 Amendment Act, applies to the following financial years of the Funding Board: (a) financial years beginning after the commencement date of the 2019 Amendment Act;"—OK—"(b) the financial year beginning—(i) on that commencement date; or (ii) before, and ending on or after, that commencement date; and (c) any financial year ending on, or in the 5-month period before, that commencement date."
I'm really not at all clear why it is and what the advice is that's landed on five months there, and I think this goes to some of the broader issues that have been canvassed by members on this side of the Chamber just about some of the lack of clarity in terms of when entities are actually going to be reporting under the terms of this bill. I've touched on the point before that we've got the slightly unusual situation in which it can kick in during a financial year and not between the end of one and the start of the other, which I would've thought was a more normal and rational and cleaner way of doing it. Then we've got the second point about a five-month period before the commencement date kicking in—so just clarity on that: why that is, where the advice about five months has come from, and, again, coming back to that core point about why we seem to have a slightly more convoluted set of commencement arrangements here than would be normal in a bill like this, which is dealing with important affairs relating to the reporting standards of entities like these ones.
I just make this point again that in terms of the reporting standards that we're applying here through this bill, we're talking about entities that deal with a lot of money that's supplied by the public, and we need to make sure that it's done well. So if the member could address those, I'd be very grateful. Thank you.





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually make another contribution, just to expand on the point that I ended on in my previous contribution. I didn't quite get to expand on that, and that is actually just going to new Schedule 1AA in clause 7. As I mentioned previously, when I spoke a little bit about the need for a little bit more clarity around the commencement date, I ended on the point that the Governance and Administration Committee recommended adding clause 4A, which would then insert new section 4A, setting out the transitional provisions in Schedule 1AA. 
So if I were to then go to clause 4A of the bill, which really just is a marker to send us to Schedule 1AA, that bit then sends us—and this is, I guess, the main question that I'd like to ask the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, around Schedule 1AA, clause 2(1). That then sets out the fact that—so it's the application of the financial reporting amendment, so really the crux of the change that this bill makes. It says—and I quote, because it's quite technical; clause 2(1) says—"This Act, as amended by section 5 of the 2019 Amendment Act, applies to the following financial years of a specified amenity:". This is kind of the clarity I was speaking about in my previous call. Clause 2(1)(a) says, "financial years beginning after the commencement date of the 2019 Amendment Act;". So that bit to me is quite clear. As the member pointed out previously, once this bill comes into force, the change comes into effect after that. Now, clause 2(1)(b) says, "the financial year beginning—(i) on that commencement date; or (ii) before, and ending on or after, that commencement date;"—and I'm a little bit lost by this point already—and paragraph (c) says, "any financial year ending on, or in the three-month period before, that commencement date." So I'd like a little bit of clarity as to why that three-month period specifically. So that's the first part of my question.
The second part of my question—and I won't read the whole of clause 2(2), because most of it is similar. It, basically, says this Act, as amended by section 6 of the 2019 Act, applies to the following financial years of the funding board. So to me then the difference is that subclause (1) is changes that apply to the specified amenities—so the nine different amenities that were stated in the bill—but subclause (2) applies to the funding board specifically. Now, most of those paragraphs are the same, except (c), which says, "any financial year ending on, or in the 5-month period before, that commencement date." 
So, really, I'd like a little bit of clarity, both around the fact that there is a three-month period before the commencement date and that applies to the specified amenity, and then a five-month period that applies to the funding. So why those specific figures, but also why a difference between the two? To my mind, that just complicates matters more to the commencement, which, frankly, I find quite confusing in this particular bill. So, again, I'd like a little bit of clarity as to why all those different parts of Schedule 1AA, the difference between the three-month period and the five-month period, and some advice, I guess, that was sought that has led to these different dates, I suppose, or time periods. Thank you.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. These changes are to section 39 and section 40 of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. Obviously, these amenities have to report, because this Act provides for funding for these amenities. So in new Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 7 of the bill, clause 2(1) is for the amenities. It clarifies—it makes it very clear—what these transitional provisions will look for, these amenities. But then, because that board is also required to prepare their financial statement, the next clause actually specifies transitional provisions for the board, because the board has to prepare their financial statement as well, which is in section 40. So that one applies to section 40. That applies only to the board, not to the specified amenities. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Clause 4A agreed to.





Clause 5  Section 39 amended (Specified amenity does annual report)
MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Look, like a good suspense author, I foreshadowed that I was quite interested in making a contribution on this clause earlier on. That was in the debate on the preamble, which was very engaging, and I spoke about the submission of Julia Durkin that was received at that point and foreshadowed that I'd be keen to get a little bit more into the issues that she raised. 
As I said, Julia Durkin's submission was a very substantial one. I'm not particularly familiar with Ms Durkin, but in her submission she makes it clear that she has significant knowledge about how Auckland's cultural sector works, clearly has a broader perspective about the funding model and is critical of it, but has engaged in a rational and constructive way in terms of her feedback on this particular piece of legislation.
Now, in respect of clause 5, she has quite a bit to say, and there's quite a substantial issue here that I do think the committee needs to examine, and I really, really do want to hear from the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, about this, because what clause 5 does is amend section 39—it, specifically, replaces section 39(2)(b). Now, the critique and the issue that is raised by Julia Durkin—and, you know, I at this point haven't settled on a firm view on this, but I want to hear from the member her views on it—the point that Ms Durkin raises, is that she believes that the changes to section 39(2)(b), effectively, reduce the reporting requirements, and therefore the transparency, that is applied across these organisations—which, as we've said, have taken around about $14 million of public money in Auckland. So we need a high level of transparency. 
The other thing I'll just say on this—and again, it's raised in Ms Durkin's submission—is that this is quite an unusual piece of legislation in which it lists a schedule of organisations, effectively, to whom this publicly appropriated money applies to. This goes to why it's important that the financial reporting standards are appropriate, because these organisations, to some extent, are privileged. I'm not saying that in a pejorative way. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be there. But there are other organisations outside the tent who don't get publicly appropriated money to support their organisation, who do provide regional services. So the point that Ms Durkin raises is that you have to have a high level of probity and transparency about the funding that these organisations are getting and about the decisions that the funding board itself is making, because it's the allocations body, effectively.
So if we actually go to the text here, Ms Durkin points out that the text in the current piece of legislation is bigger and broader. Let me just go through this—I'm reading from section 39(2)(b) here, in the original legislation: there has to be an assessment "of the amenity's application of the funding against the matters specified in the amenity's annual plan for the year under section 23(4); and (b) contains financial statements for the year consisting of—", and this is where the difference kicks in, "(i) a statement of financial position prepared in accordance with the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards; and (ii) an overall operating statement; and (iii) a statement of cash flows; and (iv) any other statements necessary to fairly reflect the amenity's financial position, the resources available to it, and the financial results of its operations; and (v) any other information reasonably necessary to enable the Funding Board to make an informed assessment of the amenity's operations for the financial year as set out in its annual plan."
So that's what we currently have. What Ms Durkin points out to us is that that is replaced with wording which is a bit more limited. We replace section 39(2)(b), which I've just gone through, with this: It must contain financial statements for the year, prepared in accordance with the generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP). So, OK, we understand there that we're shifting from the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) to GAAP. We get that. That's clean; that's done. Secondly, it must contain any other information reasonably necessary to enable the funding board to make an informed assessment of amenity's operation for the year as set out in its annual plan. So that's, effectively, the same as subparagraph (v) in the current legislation.
So what we're missing from the current legislation, transferring across to the new bill, is the second point, which is that it must include an overall operating statement; thirdly, a statement of cash flows; and fourthly—I think this is probably the most important one—any other statements necessary to fairly reflect the amenity's financial position, the resources available to it, and the financial results of its operations.
So that's in the current legislation; it's not in the bill which is being presented by the member. I think we really do need to understand what the rationale is for removing these quite important requirements in terms of the reporting standards, because this goes to the heart of Ms Durkin's concerns in her submission that the reporting standards are actually being lowered. At face value, she's got a point, because we are reducing the number of things that must be reported on. This is really important because of those points that I've made and that Ms Durkin's made about public money involved and about the fact that these organisations to some extent are privileged, so we need to have a high level of probity. 
I've got to say, knowing a little bit and being a bit involved in Auckland politics, that this is not entirely uncontentious. There are organisations who are not included and are not funded through the amenities board who think they should be. There are some people in the cultural sector who think that the way in which funding decisions are made is not quite right and should be done in a different way and different things should be weighted and it's too much this way and not enough that way. Now, I'm not expressing a particular view on those things, but what I am saying is that given it is public money, given that there are those different views out there, the reporting processes that we have when that money is allocated have to be watertight and the public and the sectors that are involved and the people that are missing out need to be able to have confidence in that as well.
So let's just go through those again. An overall operating statement—that has to be reported on at the moment. It's not included in the new legislation, so let's hear about why an overall operating statement has been removed. Now, there might be a really good reason. I do note that my colleague Dr Deborah Russell has asked for some detailed explanation about the differences between the two accounting standards. We haven't yet heard that detail in the committee. Now, it might be that the answer's within that. Perhaps a shift from one accounting standard to another means you get that information anyway. I don't know that; I'm not an expert in these affairs, but I do know that the member—and the chair who's overseeing this legislation, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, she will have read up. She will know the difference between IFRS and GAAP. She'll have the detail at her fingertips. So she'll be able to tell us whether the removal of an overall operating statement as a reporting requirement can be accounted for by the fact that we have moved from one accounting standard to another. Maybe that accounts for it. 
The same goes for a statement of cash flows. There's a point I make here, which is that the reporting statements of large organisations are often exceptionally complicated. Here we have organisations which do take in public money—it's publicly appropriated—and some of these simpler documents, like an operating statement and a statement of cash flows, are far more accessible for the average Auckland ratepayer, who, ultimately, is paying to support these organisations. So I want to have assurance that the average Auckland ratepayer who wants to know how this money is being spent doesn't have to wade through a 150-page document that they can't make head or tail of and that there's some good, simple, transparent information that they can get to—and, at face value, an overall operating statement and a statement of cash flows would really help with that. But we've removed that through this legislation, so we do need to hear from the member in the chair who's overseeing this bill why that is, why that's being removed, and her level of confidence that we're still going to have reporting that's done in a really accessible way, and her response to Julia Durkin's assertion that we're, effectively, lowering the reporting standards here, when, in fact, we should have higher reporting standards.
I've left what I think is the most significant one for last and that's section 39(2)(b)(iv) of the Act. This is the one that's missing, and, again, it says, "any other statements necessary to fairly reflect the amenity's financial position, the resources available to it, and the financial results of its operations;" It seems to me to be quite substantial that that is being removed, because that really goes to the core activities of many of these organisations. So, for example, let's take an organisation like the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust and the resources available to it. It has financial resources. It has resources in terms of a physical base—I've visited it to see the great work of the men and women in that incredible service. They have a volunteer base that's an important resource for them. They have a significant fundraising organisation. They have significant goodwill. They have this wide range of resources available to them. At the moment, that is included in the legislation as something that is reported on, and we are removing the wording that ensures that that continues to be reported on. So we do need to understand why that is, and I hope there's a really good reason. I hope it hasn't just slipped through and that we can have confidence that the people of Auckland, who are paying for this stuff, can continue to have transparency and good oversight of these organisations. 
So I would ask the member in the chair to address those questions and give us some satisfaction that there's a good reason behind these very significant changes that are raised in Julia Durkin's submission. Thank you.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I would like to clarify to the member Michael Wood that the funding board is established exclusively for charitable purposes. So what we are doing here, because these amenities are already complying with the Charities Act, is we want to see that it's the same standard in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, because the main purpose of this board is to support charitable purposes. So I hope that clarifies the question that the member has asked. 
There's a big difference in accounting standards for profit-making entities versus non-profitmaking entities. These entities are not profit-making entities, and it's important for them to comply with the Charities Act. As the funding board's main purpose is to support services that are, basically, charitable kinds of services, it makes no sense to keep this extra layer of compliance on them, which is just adding to their work and not adding any value or efficiency to anybody there. 





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I take the member Dr Parmjeet Parmar's point that the change that this bill proposes would be removing that additional layer of compliance and not, in effect, requiring these specified amenities to report against two separate standards. I think, by this point, all of us in the committee get that that's the difference that this bill seeks to make. However, I don't think, actually, some of the points that Michael Wood raised were addressed.
I too went back to the principal Act to look at the changes that clause 5 proposes, the replacement section 39(2)(b) that is proposed in this bill, and how that compares to section 39(2)(b) that is in the principal Act. My reading of this is that it's really only section 39(2)(b)(i) and (v) that are, in effect, retained in the replacement section. I say "in effect" because section 39(2)(b)(i), of course, relates to "a statement of financial position prepared in accordance with the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards;", and that is, of course, what we're replacing with generally accepted accounting practice. So I get that. I get that the first part that section 39(2)(b)—the first bit deals with the replacement of that, and that's fine. I have no issue with that. I support it.
Section 39(2)(b)(v), though, is exactly the same, as far as I can see, as replacement section 39(2)(c). But the bits in between are the bits that I have some questions about, and I, with due respect, don't think that there was an actual response that would allay our fears that the standard hasn't been lowered, and I think that's the point that the submitter Julia Durkin was making as well, which Michael Wood relayed to the House. That is the removal of those three bits in between, and the requirement for an overall operating statement, a statement of cash flows, and any other statements necessary to fairly reflect the amenity's financial position, the resources available to it, and the financial results of its operation.
Again, I take the member's point that she made that there are different standards that we should require of for-profit entities and not-for-profit perhaps, but, having been in the NGO sector myself for many years and knowing that these organisations are also entrusted with money, I think it's a fair point to raise that people should be confident in the fact that those moneys are being used in a way—and I'm not in any way trying to cast aspersions upon these charities, but I do think it's a fair point that we have a reasonable standard of financial reporting. With due respect, I think that was the point that Michael Wood was trying to make as well. So the response that I would seek from the member in the chair, then, is that those three bits that are now, effectively, removed by replacement section 39(2)(b) still give us confidence that the intent of those three bits will still be kept, in a sense, or, if not, why not. Thank you.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you. I understand what the member Priyanca Radhakrishnan was trying to say, but, by saying that, what the member is saying is that all the charities that are registered according to the Charities Act 2005 should be actually having this extra layer of work to prepare their financial statements, which I don't agree with, because this is one of the legislations where we want to make sure they don't have the duplication of work—continue doing the duplication of financial statements they have been doing until now. Some of them, I know, since 2014-2015 have not been complying. We don't want them to go back and actually comply, which we will talk about later on. But, by saying that, the member is saying that all organisations that have charitable status according to the Charities Act 2005 should also be adding this extra layer of work for their financial statements, which I don't agree with. This is actually to make their life easier, not to make their life difficult. So this is not about the Charities Act; this is about the funding Act 2008. Thank you, Madam Chair.





MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I'm just going to very briefly have one further go at this, because I think possibly members on this side and the member in the chair are talking at cross-purposes. So, for absolute clarity, I would say that members here understand and support the point that the member in the chair has just made—that we want to see this issue fixed whereby these organisations have been told that they, effectively, have to report according to two different sets of financial standards. That's the core purpose of this legislation. We support that. No one wants that extra burden to be placed upon them, which also puts them in a precarious probity position. 
The specific point that both Ms Radhakrishnan and I have been making in respect of section 39(2)(b) is why have we also changed the wording in terms of some of the reporting standards to seemingly lessen what has to be reported on—OK? We could do what the member in the chair, Ms Parmar, has said and not do that, and have a slightly smaller bill. We could simply change it to make sure that they had to report according to the generally accepted accounting standards. Fine—we can do that. But we don't also need to change the wording in section 39(2)(b), which has been pointed out in Julia Durkin's submission and was pointed out in my comments before, and Ms Radhakrishnan has also touched upon it. So that is a specific question and concern that we're coming to. 
To put it really crisply: why have we made those other changes to section 39(2)(b)? If the member could satisfy us on that, then I think we would be very pleased with that, and it will enable us to proceed. 
Clause 5 agreed to.





Clause 6  Section 40 amended (Funding Board does annual report)
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): We are going to need to keep going on this point, and it's a point that's very similar to what has been raised in respect of clause 5 of this bill. I'm afraid it needs to be raised again in respect of clause 6 of this bill. To date, we haven't actually received an answer from the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar. 
Now, my colleague Mr Michael Wood gave a pretty important speech, I thought—
Michael Wood: One of my best.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —one of his best; one of his best—on clause 5 of the bill. He raised the very important point that it seems, at face value, that the reporting required under the amended bill is less than the reporting required under the original bill. Now, he raised that all in respect of clause 5, which is amending section 39 of the Act, and that was applying to the amenities—the specified amenities; the actual individual amenities that are funded through the amenities funding board. We've all said they're all very worthwhile amenities—entities that I think contribute greatly to the life of Auckland in both cultural and sporting and scientific ways. So that was applying to the entities.
But clause 6 of the bill applies not to the amenities themselves but to the funding board—the overall board that collects the funding and distributes it. Like the individual specified amenities, it has a set of reporting standards. 
Now, if we look at clause 6 of this bill, it amends section 40 of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, board—whatever. Sorry, I've just got to look that up exactly, in some ways. Act—thank you. What it does is it takes out section 40(1)(c) of that and replaces it with just section 40(1)(c). In the bill, paragraph (c) says that the annual report of the funding board, in effect, has to contain audited financial statements for the year prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice. 
But, if we go back to the Act—the Act that's being amended, section 40(1)(c)—like section 39(2)(b), or whatever it was—really talks through exactly the financial statements that must be presented by the funding board every year. In section 40(1)(c)(i), it's "a statement of financial position of the Funding Board;"—so lots of people would just call that a balance sheet, really. Section 40(1)(c)(ii) is "an overall operating statement of the Funding Board;". Now, that's, in effect, a profit and loss statement—so pretty simple accounting thing there. Section 40(1)(c)(iii) is "a statement of cash flows of the Funding Board;", and that's just money in, money out—always important to know how much money you've got in your bank account and where it's coming from and where it's going to. Section 40(1)(c)(iv) says—and this is pretty interesting—"any other statements necessary to fairly reflect the Board's financial position, the resources available to it, the financial results of its operations, and the financial results of the specified amenities operations;". Any other statements—that's a pretty interesting one, because we know that the funding for this board comes via the Auckland City Council, in effect. And so there's a whole lot of questions there, particularly in the current environment. 
It's quite a long list of financial statements of various sorts that are in the original Act, and in clause 6 of the bill they are replaced just by "(c) contains audited financial statements for the year prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice;". So that's quite a shift.
As you might do, you sort of think: well, what then are generally accepted accounting practice? They're defined in the definition section of this bill. It's the same meaning as in section 8 of the Financial Reporting Act. So if you go to section 8 of the Financial Reporting Act—if I can just pull it up—the meaning of generally accepted accounting practice, it's financial statements, group financial statements, a report; they comply with generally accepted accounting practice only if they comply with acceptable applicable financial reporting standards. So what are the applicable reporting standards? Well, a financial reporting standard means a financial reporting standard issued by the board under section 12. Section 12 of the Financial Reporting Act really just sets up the functions of the board, and so on.
On the face of it—on the face of it—it looks as though by going from section 40 of the original Act—the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act—the original one which we are now amending really does specify those financial statements. But then, going to the amended bill, it just goes to generally accepted accounting practice. So it looks like quite a reduction in the standards required under section 40 of the original Act versus what we think will become section 40 of the amended Act. 
I think this goes back to some of the questions that I have been asking all along and which, to be honest, have not actually been satisfactorily answered yet. What is contained within generally accepted accounting practice? How do those standards actually differ—actually make a difference—in this case between generally accepted accounting practice and what was in section 40 of the original Act? I think we do all agree with the justification for this bill, but we need to understand that the member who is promoting this bill to us, the member who is supporting this bill, actually understands those differences and that we can rely on that. Certainly, we can rely on the select committee process there, as has been pointed out earlier by Mr Simon O'Connor. But, equally, I would have thought that the member herself would have had some understanding of it going in or, quite reasonably, as we all do, relied on an expert to explain to her why this particular bill was needed and what difference was made in that case. 
So I am inviting the member to stand up and explain to us what assurance she has, or what assurance she can give us—not just that there are different standards for charities and not-for-profits—of what the difference is between section 40(1)(c)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of the original Act and the sorts of financial statements required by generally accepted accounting practice. Now, it may be that, in effect, for the standards required, in fact, there is no difference. But we need to understand—we actually need to hear that, and we need to understand what assurance the member can give us of what she's relied on to get to that opinion and so on. 
I would appreciate the member actually answering this question, which I have asked in several different forms this afternoon. So far, I haven't actually gotten the answer. I've gotten a variety of answers, which I agree with in terms of the differences between charities and not-for-profits, but not this particular answer, and I would really appreciate the member perhaps giving us that particular answer. And, in doing that, of course, it will answer the question that was raised just in respect of clause 5 by my colleague Mr Michael Wood. 
I know we've been persistent on this. I know we've asked it several times. We've tried to ask it in several different ways. We are still looking for that straightforward answer, and, as I said, even if it was just the experts that the member relied on, it would be very, very helpful to know that. So I do invite the member to take a call and to actually answer the question. Thank you.
Clause 6 agreed to.





Clause 7  New Schedule 1AA inserted
MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Well, look, this has been quite a debate, but fireworks really kick off now, I think, because it's in clause 7 that we actually have something pretty extraordinary that's put forward in this piece of legislation that the committee does need to really get to grips with and we do need to understand. Now, what clause 7 does is inserts new Schedule 1AA—we've touched on a number of aspects of Schedule 1AA in previous contributions, but here's the really important one, I think, that we need to examine during the debate on this clause, and that is clause 3 of Schedule 1AA, because what clause 3 does is something that in this House we're generally pretty loathe to do, and that is it's a piece of retrospective legislation.
Look, let's be honest, it does happen from time to time, and we could find speeches from members of both sides of the House which take issue with this. But the reason that we take issue with this on both sides of the House from time to time when retrospective legislation is proposed is for a very good reason, and that is, as a general principle, good legislation is legislation that looks forward, and parliaments generally are loathe to make law that looks backwards—
Barbara Kuriger: This Government's done it—a lot of quick, rushed legislation lately.
MICHAEL WOOD: —and we can understand why that is. The member opposite is right—from time to time, the Government has. So, for example, during the recent events in respect of COVID, when the Government has tried to provide tax relief to small businesses, for example—really important measures to support their cash flow, keep small businesses and jobs going—we did put that through in a retrospective way. It was an emergency legislation; it was debated in the House. The point that Barbara Kuriger made was debated, and it went back and forth, and there was an understanding of why that is. I think members on that side of the House might have supported in the end. But it needs to be debated—that's my point. If you're going to do something extraordinary as a Parliament like make law that goes backwards—and here's the point about it: when you make law that's going backwards, you're covering a period where people didn't know that that law existed. That's the problem. It can be resolved, there can be good reasons for it, but that's the legislative problem that needs to be worked through and explained in this debate.
So what happens in clause 3 of Schedule 1AA is that we, effectively, go back five years—five financial years—and validate financial statements that were actually invalid according to the legislation that was in place at the time. Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that. I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons for doing that, but we need to have a good debate about it. We most certainly need to hear from the member in the chair, Parmjeet Parmar, that she is satisfied with that as well.
I note that the Governance and Administration Committee points to this. Now, the select committee didn't change too much in this legislation, but they address this point in their report. They say, "In practice, none of the specified amenities have been preparing a second set of financial statements in accordance with NZ IFRS. Since 2014-15, when the Charities Act requirements to prepare in accordance with GAAP came into force"—so going back five years there. The questions that I have for the member—and I assume and I hope that she's considered this; I assume and I hope that there has been serious advice provided to the member and to the select committee around this point.
Barbara Kuriger: Very diligent member.
MICHAEL WOOD: We are so diligent on this side of the House, especially when it comes to important legislation.
Hon Member: That member's diligent too.
MICHAEL WOOD: I know she's diligent. The chief Opposition whip makes the point that the member in the chair overseeing this legislation is diligent. I accept that. That's why we need to hear a call from her, to show us how diligent she's been, to demonstrate the advice that she's received in respect of her legislation, which is retrospective. Now, the member opposite made the point that this Government has passed retrospective legislation. Every single time, a Minister who has been putting forward that legislation has stood up in the House and explained why that is and explained why we were doing something as unusual as passing retrospective legislation. That is what we need to hear in this debate. That is what this committee needs to hear.
So here are the questions that I have for the member, that I want her to address in respect of this: in respect of validating financial reporting that would've otherwise been invalid, does that apply to all of the amenities that we're talking about? I think there are 14 amenities in total. I assume that due diligence has been done and we know which ones had invalid statements. Was it all of them, or was it just some of them? Can we understand that? We need to understand if there's any analysis about whether those amenities have made significant financial or investment decisions on the basis of financial statements and reporting that was actually technically invalid. That's a very important thing to understand. If entities have prepared both sets of financial statements—and there's a lack of clarity in the debate about whether these entities have been preparing dual sets of statements or whether some have just been going with generally accepted accounting practice. If entities have been using both sets of financial statements and some sort of question has to be asked about their operations and we have to go backwards and look at them, which is the valid set of financial statements? That's actually a really important—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for the dinner break.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Since my colleague Michael Wood is unable to continue his call, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss clause 7 here, because, of course, the retrospective nature of this clause, I think, needs further investigation—or, certainly, explanation—and I'm sure the member Parmjeet Parmar would like to take the opportunity to do so. It's a very simple question. Just so that we can all better understand what it is that we're about to vote on, could the member please outline why this is retrospective in nature?





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I'll be very quick and to the point. So retrospective validation in this legislation is not a blanket validation of their non-compliance with one legislation, but it is only if they have been compliant with the Charities Act 2005. The change that we are making to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 is to align it with the Charities Act 2005, so it makes full sense. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill without amendment.
Report adopted.





HIGH-POWER LASER POINTER OFFENCES AND PENALTIES BILL
First Reading
Debate resumed from 11 March.
Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I'd just like to say to the member whose bill this is—the High-power Laser Pointer Offences and Penalties Bill—well done. I think, Hamish Walker, you might have had more than one bill released from the ballot, so well done on that—that's probably the extent of the praise I'll give on this piece of legislation. But on members' day, it's always good to acknowledge the work that's gone into a bill that has been pulled from the ballot. Not everybody gets a bill pulled from the ballot, and some members, in fact, can be in the House for—
Hon Meka Whaitiri: Years. 
Hon CLARE CURRAN: —years and not have a bill pulled from the ballot; in fact, I think the Prime Minister might be one of those people, actually. It is the luck of the draw, so well done on that. 
I actually also want to start off my short contribution by acknowledging Darroch Ball from New Zealand First and his speech on this piece of legislation when it was last being discussed—otherwise known as "Daniel Bell". I think the member Hamish Walker might have referred to him as "Daniel Bell", so I wanted to make sure that was in the Hansard again. Darroch Ball said that this bill doesn't address the right part of this issue and the bill demonstrates that the work hasn't been done on this particular issue. 
I want to get serious now, because it is actually a really important issue, and that is the use of lasers to create major distractions and potentially life-threatening and catastrophic effects and incidents of misuse, which have been increasing exponentially since 2014. But when I say that the work hasn't been done, I'm deadly serious. Since there was a bill introduced and passed in this House in 2014 which provided for penalties—and that was under the member's Government; the then National Government—the introduction of penalties for the misuse of high-powered laser pointers has failed to have any effect. Those instances have escalated dramatically and those penalties have not been applied at all, I think, in 2018-19, despite a record number of incidents. 
When I say that the work hasn't been done and that it's addressing the wrong part of the issue—which is reflecting what Darroch Ball said—that's the point. What this bill does, which is double the maximum penalties for the possession and misuse of the high-powered lasers to six months' imprisonment or a fine of $4,000, and it extends the offence to be in possession in a public place to being in any possession of a high-powered laser pointer without reasonable excuse—and I note that there's no definition of "reasonable"—is that, unfortunately, it is just putting forward a piece of legislation that just expands on the penalties and it doesn't address the enforcement, the education, and the monitoring of how these lasers are actually entering the country or address how they're getting into the possession of people. That is actually where the focus needs to be, and that's the reason for the opposition to the bill. I think that's probably the key factor. 
I just wanted to make the point that I'm not just looking at New Zealand, but I'm using the UK as an example, for instance, where the Civil Aviation Authority in 2018, I think, reported more than 1,200 incidents in which lasers were aimed at aircraft making their approach to British airports. We know that this is a really serious issue, but one of the things that the UK Government did was to realise that these couldn't be purchased in the UK. They were being brought in from overseas, so what are they doing? They're putting additional support into local authority port teams and border officials to identify and confiscate them and to tackle the sale of unsafe pointers, including more stringent testing. 
I guess that that's the main point that I would be making tonight. It's that that's where the focus needs to be, rather than just on a simplistic raising of the penalties. 





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to take a call on this bill and to express my wholehearted support for it. Could I acknowledge the bill's sponsor, the fine young man on my right at the moment, the member for Clutha-Southland. I think he's been here for 12 minutes, and he's had two members' bills pulled in that time. I've been here for 12 years, and I'm still waiting. So I must admit I am jealous, but I really want to endorse this bill. I believe it covers a very serious issue, and I'm disappointed to hear the member who's just resumed her seat, Clare Curran, suggest that the reason for opposing it is that the work hasn't been done, and I hope I'll be able to dispel that. In fact, that was an argument that was also raised by the New Zealand First speaker more than three months ago now, this debate having been interrupted because of the COVID lockdown. It's probably a good idea if I do reiterate some of the key points for the bill, because I think it's really important. I'm very sorry that I'm no longer a member of the Justice Committee that would get to hear the bill if it attracted the support of the other parties.
It is dealing with a very serious issue, and that is the menace in our society that is posed when people who are, frankly, very thoughtless, very stupid, and who act in a very dangerous way, use laser pointers to try to get into the eyes of pilots, those who might be operating in control towers at airports, those who could be in the police helicopter, those who could be operating one of the other helicopters that we rely on for our health service, and so forth. The idea that those people who are doing such vital work could be put in danger is abhorrent in itself. But then when you think about the fact that if they're flying a plane, every member of the crew and every passenger on the plane and everybody in the flight path is also put at risk if that particular act of utter stupidity results in a crash is beyond belief. That is why I just cannot understand why members opposite are not prepared to support this bill.
Now, I was here when my very dear friend, the former MP Cam Calder, introduced his member's bill, which was the forerunner to this bill. Of course, what Mr Walker is now doing is seeking to increase the penalties. We've heard from members of the Government that they shouldn't support the bill because it hasn't, so far, worked. Well, I would suggest to you that there's plenty of international evidence that other countries take this issue far more seriously and so should we. The fact that the incidence of these attacks has continued to accelerate at a rapid rate should alarm all of us and should mean that we should thoroughly endorse Mr Walker's call for penalties that set sufficient deterrents to have an impact on those who might think that this is a bit of a joke, just a silly thing that they should do one day.
Mr Ball, the New Zealand First MP, when he spoke more than three months ago, tried to suggest that this is a bill that isn't necessary because the penalties are already in place. Well, I want to remind him that section 270 of the Crimes Act 1961 would be amended by this particular bill to make explicit that interference with a transport facility includes using a high-power laser pointer to reduce the ability of aircraft crew to perform their duties. So his idea that this bill didn't in any way cover that is confounded by the fact that it's in the explanatory note on the first page of the bill. Unfortunately, I haven't got time to go through all of the contributions that other Government speakers made, but I'm really disappointed that Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First have all shown that they are not willing to support this bill.
We had a particularly sarcastic and, frankly, ludicrous contribution from the former secretary of the Police Association, the member for Ōhāriu, who was sarcastic and disparaging. He said, "Oh, [well, if only life was that] simple that we simply could solve a problem by doubling a sentence." He went on to say, "The [statement] was made, 'They're getting away with murder.' Well, I think that, probably to say the least, would be overstating [some] things somewhat.", and other bizarre comments. He failed completely to address the fact that this is about sending a message that this activity is very dangerous, that it is happening at an increasing rate, that we are all at risk, that if you have a laser pointer flashed in your eyes, you're not only momentarily blinded, it can cause headaches, it can have a long-lasting effect, and imagine being a pilot, flying a plane in those conditions.
I commend all of the speeches that were made by National Party members of the House on this bill. I think they are very good. I'd invite people to go back and read the fine speech that Mr Walker made in introducing the bill and that the Hon Mark Mitchell and that the Hon Nick Smith all made. They are very good speeches setting out why this is such an important bill. I have no hesitation in supporting it, and I urge Government members to think again about what damage they potentially will do if they fail to vote for it tonight. Give it a chance to go to select committee, at the very least.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Ngā mema katoa, tēnā tātou katoa. Happy to take a call on the High-power Laser Pointer Offences and Penalties Bill. Despite Labour opposing this bill, can I accord my acknowledgment to the bill's sponsor, Mr Hamish Walker, member of Parliament for Clutha-Southland. We share a common, I guess, acquaintance: a nephew of mine by the name of Sheldon Eden-Whaitiri, who, when I came into this Parliament, told me to make sure that I said hello to his friend across the House, Mr Walker. So, Mr Walker, with that, in part, let's turn to the bill.
My colleague the Hon Clare Curran talked about the—I guess, not enough depth into this bill. I really want to address my comments into increased penalties, which is what this bill is doing. It doesn't necessarily mean that it will be applied. If we just look at the New Zealand context, New Zealand Police reported only one warning—one warning—and no prosecutions for possession of high-powered laser pointers in 2019.
The other point I want to raise in the House is that most of the people that use high-beam laser pointers are, generally, children. There is some legislation—and I reference the House to the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order—which means that the Ministry of Health—you must obtain a consent to import those. So we have currently with our legislation protections around the very issue I believe Mr Walker is trying to raise in this House: keeping New Zealand safe. We have some legislation around that. But we also have both the Sentencing Act, the Summary Offences Act, and, of course, the Health Act, which this bill is attempting to amend.
The other reason why—and I had to look at the use of lasers, I guess—is not all high-power laser equipment is for the purposes that the previous speaker spoke about. Of course we would all speak against the use of those lasers if they cause harm, but we also have lasers in this country for finding faults on fibre optic cables. I mean, they obviously provide a really good use in large-scale sound and light shows, construction, surveying, measuring. So we do have them currently in our society, but the point I believe Mr Walker is saying is in relation—and he says it in his bill—in terms of aircraft crew to perform their duties.
And one of the other questions that I had with this bill was: what about trains? What about buses? What about other forms of transportation that the public are in and someone shows a laser at them and inadvertently has a crash? What happens to those movements? And so that's why I think the bill, in supporting my colleague the Hon Clare Curran, in something as simple as describing what this bill covers, is quite limited in that it's only covering the transportation of aircraft.
So I do add my words of support, despite acknowledging that this member has not had one member's bill—and thank you, the Hon Tim Macindoe, for acknowledging that he's had two and you're still waiting. But it still doesn't address the fact that the bill falls well short on providing some evidence. And one thing in the Justice Committee I've learnt: unless you can provide the evidence of where there is real harm that this is causing in the country, even referencing overseas, and we've got some stats around the UK—only 1.4 perpetrators, or three or four cases of 279 are prosecuted. So there's a stat from overseas that shows that it's not as bad an issue in the UK. But, again, I welcome the member to address the issue of evidence—evidence that requires this legislation; evidence internationally that we always accord ourselves with, be it Australia, be it Canada, be it the UK, and, unfortunately, that hasn't come forward. And yet he will have his right of reply to this bill, but as it stands it won't be supported by Labour, for the reasons that I've outlined. There's not enough work that's been put in it, and it's not a deterrent to stop the actions that it's purporting to do.





HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I just want to say a big thankyou to all the previous speakers on both sides of the House. To my colleague here to my left, Tim Macindoe, you may not have had a member's bill, but good things do take time, and you're like a good fine wine.
Hon Tim Macindoe: I'm like a Clutha-Southland cheese.
HAMISH WALKER: Ha, ha! I just want to address a few of the previous comments from the Government members. We heard from the Hon Clare Curran, who said that the work hasn't been done, and then she went on to reference UK examples. Well, if you look at the UK examples, the fines over there are $5,000; all I'm trying to do here is increase it from $2,000 to $4,000. 
In 2014, a man was convicted and sent to jail for five months for shining a laser at a rescue helicopter. This is what this bill does—this bill is about making New Zealand safer. Put yourself in an aeroplane, hundreds of passengers on board, you've got highly trained pilots coming in to land, what do you think it would be like having some idiot on the ground point a laser at you? We know from listening to pilots that it can cause temporary blindness—some have reported having to lie down in the cockpit. We've heard from eye surgeons that it can burn people's eyes. We heard from more pilots that it can cause headaches; some have had to, coming into land, abort to take off again. 
This is a very serious matter, and it just goes to show how out of touch this Government is with New Zealanders. They're saying penalties and fines don't work. Well, basic Psychology 101: you need to have consequences attached to an action. This Government is soft on crime, they don't want penalties, and they don't want people being sent to prison for putting hundreds of lives at risk. What do they want? What are they focused on? Giving prisoners the right to vote. They would prefer to focus on giving prisoners the right to vote, as opposed to putting the safety of New Zealanders in front of politics. They are now playing politics over the safety of Kiwis, and I think that is absolutely disgraceful. Do you think a Kiwi wants someone who points a laser—a reckless, stupid act—to be punished? 
I'd say most New Zealanders would agree that they don't want to be in an aeroplane when someone on the ground points a laser at a pilot. This bill tries to deter those idiots from doing that. That's what this bill is about. It just goes to show how out of touch this Government is by preferring to give prisoners the right to vote, as opposed to putting safety and putting people before politics. Where is the kind, caring, and compassionate Prime Minister, when she doesn't want to deter people from putting these pilots' lives at risk?
If we look at the overseas examples, like a few of the members have referred to, there is complete prohibition in many of those countries. We're lagging almost at the bottom of the chain because of this soft-on-crime Government.
Let's see what different stakeholder groups say about this bill. The New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association, they totally support it—New Zealand Police, eye surgeons, different medical practitioners—because they know just how bloody dangerous it is having a laser pointed in the eye. There is potential for serious crashes.
So my question to the Government is: if an accident does occur, will you all be carrying on over there like you are the moment, like singing seals? They are soft on crime. They would prefer to give criminals the vote as opposed to actually backing the police who support this bill, and the Air Line Pilots' Association who are heavily behind this bill—and they know it. They're all up in arms because they know they would prefer to focus on giving prisoners the right to vote—and that's a total disgrace.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the High-power Laser Pointer Offences and Penalties Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Motion not agreed to.





CRIMES (COWARD PUNCH CAUSING DEATH) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
MATT KING (National—Northland): I move, That the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider this bill.
Imagine arriving at hospital to find your beautiful son on life support. Imagine being told there was nothing anyone could do to save him. Imagine being told he was brain dead. Imagine being told he was king-hit from behind and never stood a chance. Imagine being told once you turn the life support system off he will die. Imagine that. These words came from a story by Duncan Garner in 2016.
I got given some very good advice by my father, advice very similar to what Duncan Garner received from his father: be careful, there's always someone bigger and tougher than you. Don't go hitting anyone, it could kill them. One punch can kill. This is one of the motivations for me bringing this bill to the House, and to highlight the message that you can kill someone with one punch.
I am honoured to have had a member's bill drawn out of the ballot in my first year in Parliament. I understand that some very good MPs in this House have gone their whole entire career and not had a member's bill pulled, and I know that I have a few around me. So I'm appreciative of that.
This bill creates a new offence that would allow for a specific king-hit, or as I would prefer to call it, a "coward's punch", offence in response to a number of deaths where an individual killed was assaulted and tragically died as a result of their injuries. This offence has a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment, which sits nicely between the offence of causing grievous bodily harm at 14 years', and manslaughter which carries a life sentence. It amends the Crimes Act 1961, being the principle Act, and inserts section 168A "Assault causing death—(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years who—(a) assaults any other person with intent to hit the other person with any part of the person's body or with an object held by the person; and (b) the assault is not authorised or excused by law; and (c) the assault causes the death of the other person. (2) For the purposes of this section, an assault causes the death of a person whether the person is killed as a result of the injuries received directly from the assault or from hitting the ground or an object as a consequence of the assault. (3) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) it is not necessary to prove that the death was reasonably foreseeable.", and that is a key part of this bill. It covers situations where victims are subjected to unprovoked or unexpected assaults and, therefore, cannot defend themselves.
Australia has, in the last few years, created a similar offence. They have an eight-year minimum mandatory sentence, and it includes intoxication or impairment provisions that trigger that mandatory minimum. They've had over 90 deaths over the course of a decade. In our case, as the bill stands now, intoxication or impairment would merely be an aggravating feature for sentencing, not triggering a mandatory sentence like Australia. It's really easy to prove. The two ingredients: you commit an assault, and that assault causes a death or a death results as a result of that assault.
My thinking behind this is that having a specific offence makes it easier for tracking and recording of this type of offence. It creates an alternative offence, previously covered by manslaughter. In the cases of manslaughter there is a degree of mens rea or mental intent that the prosecution has to establish, that a reasonable person, in the offender's position, would realise they were exposing the victim to significant risk of serious injury. In this bill, there is no need to prove that death was reasonably foreseeable. It can be laid as an alternative charge to manslaughter, so there is more opportunity to get a guilty plea as a 20-year maximum versus life imprisonment can be plea bargained out. Now, I know we don't have plea bargaining officially in New Zealand, but it happens all the time. So you have situations where a defence lawyer can negotiate the alternative charge, and, therefore, save the court system the time, the stress, the agony, and the grief that victims' families have to go through. So for that fact alone, it's with bringing this bill in—for that fact alone.
There's anecdotal evidence from overseas and around the country that juries are reluctant to convict for offences like manslaughter. In the case of vehicular manslaughter, they're more likely to convict of dangerous driving causing death, especially if the penalties are less. Guilty pleas can equate to less suffering for the affected parties, as I mentioned, and it negates the need for expensive trials. I've been through numerous High Court and District Court trials, and I can tell you—and my colleague next to me, Harete Hipango, will tell you as well—they are very gruelling for the families and the victims, if they're alive. Anything that can minimise court trials and the experience is worthwhile, in my view. In some cases, I've had rape victims tell me that the rape trial was worse than the actual event, if you could believe that.
I understand that when this bill was drawn from the ballot, the likes of Joseph Parker, the boxer, he and his camp supported the thinking behind the bill. My view is if this gets through to become law I'll hopefully be involved in a public campaign to sort of publicise to people, and specifically targeting young men because they're the high risk area, that you punch someone once and it can kill them.
I was a policeman in Kerikeri. I went to a job at the local Homestead Tavern. There was a man there who was in his late 60s, he was about 50 to 60 kilos dripping wet, a harmless man by the name of Lyle Rapana, and he was hit by a guy close to my size. He hit his head on the bar's leaner as he went down, and he never got up. In that case, the offender was convicted of manslaughter, but in those sorts of cases I think this bill would be specific to those sorts of cases where it's an unprovoked assault, where the victim did not see it coming.
So there's numerous cases I've been involved in in my time. There was another case in Kaikohe where there was a road-rage incident. The middle-aged man was followed home and was subject to a coward punch in his driveway, and he dropped and never got up again. The offender got 10 months' home detention for that. As a result of that, a petition was raised and there were 11,500 signatures over a very short space of time—I think it was two weeks; 11,500 signatures in support of tougher sentences and in support of the coward punch legislation that I propose to introduce.
On one other occasion, I was present during a serious situation where a guy was hit from behind. He didn't die, so this legislation wouldn't be relevant, but it was horrific. He fractured his skull and had major injuries. His life is never going to be the same again. I witnessed it. I gave the man first aid. I was one of the witnesses when it went to trial, but luckily the guy pled guilty, the offender pled guilty, and was sentenced. But if that guy had died, this bill would be perfect for that situation. So I commend this bill to the House.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just acknowledge that member, Matt King, as the sponsor of the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill. I'm not sure if I heard that, but this was his first bill or his second bill drawn—
Hon Member: First.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: First bill—congratulations. But Labour can't support this bill. Clearly anyone—anyone—that king-hits any person should be thrown in jail, absolutely. We abhor the actions where people are struck, but more so if they die through that king-hit. If I may, it may help the member to turn our attention in this House to what the current laws are in this country that concern death resulting from a single hit. Of course, we have murder: culpable homicide where the offender means to cause the death of the person killed, means to cause injury, they know it's likely to cause death, or does an act they know to be likely to cause death.
Then we have manslaughter: culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where there is no intent to cause death. Currently, in our courts, a judge has the discretion to impose any penalty for manslaughter up to and including life imprisonment. Conventions can incur starting points of five to six years' imprisonment. The starting point may consider the extent of violence involved, usually forceful violence with intent to cause serious injury, or incur a higher starting point, for example.
What this bill does—like the member who sponsored it said—is introduce a new offence. It creates a new offence that will allow for a king-hit, or, as he said, a cowards' punch - type offence. Those convicted of the so-called "one punch assault" will receive a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. There is no minimum sentence imposed. It is not necessary to prove that the death was reasonably foreseeable. In effect, a person may be convicted on this offence and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for a single hit they did not know, understand, or realise could result in death. Aggravating and mitigating factors are extremely important, and so removing the requirements to consider whether death was foreseeable, effectively ignoring culpability as a factor in sentencing, undermines the intent of the law to provide a just response to this offence.
This is why this side of the House is opposing this bill, because we believe we have the legislation, we have judges to make the call in these serious, king-hit assaults. I was listening for that member to distinguish between what is wrong with our current laws that lead to murder, and what are the current laws under manslaughter that he is trying to address in this particular bill, and I didn't quite hear what the member was purporting to say.
Of course, like I said in the previous bill, the High-power Laser Pointer Offences and Penalties Bill, around the lack of evidence that's purported to support what this member's bill is intending to present to this House. He mentioned the Australian Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014. Just for the House's attention, the Australian version of that particular bill imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of eight years' imprisonment, and adds five years to the maximum penalty where the offender was intoxicated at the time of the offence. When the New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell was introducing this law, it was intended to attack and address the "thugs". So is the member or members across the House saying that all people who unintentionally cause a death through a single hit are thugs? Is that what they're saying? Because you referenced this bill to the Australian example, and I'm giving you the context in which that Premier put this bill to their House. So that's, essentially, what that bill was addressing. I don't believe that that has been cleared in this particular bill.
In terms of their penalties—the penalties in this bill, it's unclear as I read this bill in terms of penalties. The bill talks about new offences under "New Section 168A Assault causing death", which appears between murder and manslaughter in the Crimes Act 1961. Of course, I've mentioned before, murder carries the sentence of imprisonment for life; unless it would be manifestly unjust, the minimum non-parole term cannot be less than 10 years. Of course, manslaughter also carries the sentence of a life sentence in section 177—
Matt King: Let it go to select committee.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Well, this is the sponsor's bill that I'm actually just sharing in the House, because he didn't cover it in his introduction, but it does not refer to a minimum sentence. So this bill proposes a lesser upper limit for a term of imprisonment than either murder or manslaughter. But like manslaughter, it does not impose a minimum sentence.
I don't think the sponsor of this bill has convinced the House as to the problem that he's addressing. We all agree that king-hits are performed by cowards—we all agree with that, but his remedy in introducing this bill, I believe, falls well short. Labour will be opposing this bill.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in support of the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill, which has been brought to the House by my very good friend and colleague Matt King, the member for Northland.
I've just been listening to the contribution from the member opposite, the Hon Meka Whaitiri, and I really have to wonder what they're doing voting against this bill. The member spoke about some of the issues and problems, she tied in some rhetoric from New South Wales, and said, "Well, because New South Wales called this some bill which has to do with thugs, then this bill's to do with thugs.", and, therefore, they won't be supporting it. But then she said, "Well, there is a problem with coward punches, but this bill is not going to address that."
Well, I really don't understand what the issue is, because I listened to Matt King's speech and I heard, very clearly, some examples which he highlighted of people who have had coward punches put against them. They've died, and there's been no justice. The example here of Ana Iongi, whose partner, Reginald Sharma, died after a single punch at an Auckland party in August 2017, said she was 100 percent behind this bill. In the case in this instance, the man accused of causing his death was charged with manslaughter and found not guilty by a jury in August of that year, and she was absolutely shattered by that outcome.
This bill is about providing a solution for those examples with easy proof where those people who could do a coward punch—the courts are able to find them guilty where the very specific offence which is in this bill has been met. And this is a very specific offence which this bill proposes, in clause 4 inserting new section 168A: (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years who—(a) assaults any other person with intent to hit the other person with any part of the person's body or with an object held by that person; and (b) the assault is not authorised or excused by law; and (c) the assault causes the death of the other person." A very simple offence.
I challenge the members on the other side of the House to say to the family of those who've had family members killed by coward punches that they think it's OK for there not to be an offence and for there to be more cases in New Zealand where people are not able to be charged and where there is no justice for those victims. Because on this side of the House, we believe that where a coward punch which causes death takes place, there must be some justice. There must be some justice for those families. I don't think it's OK to stand up in this House, as the member opposite just did, and simply say, "Well, it's a little bit unclear in this bill and so we don't really think there's an issue, so we'll just vote it down." That doesn't provide justice. That's simple—
Matt King: Politics.
SIMEON BROWN: As Matt King said, that is simple politics. This is a member's bill, and I would encourage members on the other side of the House to put the bill through to select committee so that the public can have their say, so that victims can have their say, so that people can come forward and tell their stories to the select committee. And if there are particular points of law, which they seem to allude to, around minimum sentences and maximum sentences, which seem to be quite complicated for them, well, put it to the committee so the committee can hear the evidence. I say this to New Zealand First: put this bill to select committee so that New Zealanders can have their say on this piece of legislation. Because voting down this piece of legislation is saying to people like Ana, whose partner died after a single punch in August of 2017, that this Parliament doesn't care, that this Parliament is not going to provide justice, that this Parliament is not going to be providing a solution whereby those people can be held to account.
I just want to commend my good friend Matt King for bringing this issue to Parliament: thank you for coming here as a local member of Parliament who brings his experience, his stories—what he's seen on the streets in his policing career—but also coming to this Parliament and standing up for victims of crime, who need a voice in this Parliament and who need people who are going to stand up and fight for them. Because I've seen too often this Government being soft on crime, being soft on the causes of crime, being soft on criminals, and being too focused on wanting to just reduce the prison population, I do not support this bill.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Could I just stand up and speak as someone who knows just a little bit about crime, a little bit about law and order, as, I can see, does the sponsor of this bill, but certainly not that previous speaker, Simeon Brown, who could've just taken that speech from, what, about 15 I've heard him give in this House which actually bear no relationship—stand up here, talk tough, talk about "soft on crime, hard on crime"; completely irrelevant. I just get angry sitting here when I hear that.
I recall that part of my 41 years in the police I spent teaching and training detectives, and as the detectives would come in—these are people that have come in, they have reasonable knowledge of the law, they've spent time on the streets as uniformed police officers, didn't really need the in-depth knowledge of, perhaps, the Crimes Act or some of the serious legislation that they'd subsequently need as detectives. Well, the first thing you'd do when you start testing—they would open up the Crimes Act and start looking at the variety of offences in there. The first thing they would sit and do is they'd go through the assault provisions and the various definitions of them, and they'd sit there and say, "Well, what's the difference between that and that?" Essentially, you're talking about injuring, wounding with intent—a large number of offences. Just about all those offences had been put in there to satisfy, generally, a political requirement at the time, because they didn't make anything safer.
What this House should be about is making sure that anything we pass in this House is going to make things better for people. What we need to do is make sure: is this thing that we're passing, this piece of legislation, actually going to make a difference? Well, I'm afraid, Mr King—good on you for having a look at this, but it's not actually going to make any difference. He, like myself, was a detective, and he will know that when you come to look at a set of facts, when you start doing a criminal liability, the first thing you do is look—was there a death, and you start working backwards from that. Actually, there is ample legislation now to look after this. There is manslaughter and there is murder. There are sentencing regimes around both. There are aggravating factors around both.
This is just simply not necessary. This is just going to be another confuser, and it's not going to make anything—it's going to be another trade-off. It'll be another thing that Crown solicitors will be lambasted with by lawyers who are saying, "Well, if you charge with this, we'll let you off that." It just adds another layer. I can't help but be passionate about this. If you confuse the issue, the only people who will benefit will be the defence lawyers, because where you don't have a clear set of facts, clear law to work on, where you have alternatives, that's what any good lawyer will say: "Right, we've got an alternative here. We've got a trading point here." Once you've got a trading point, you've got a weakening point, and that's what this will do.
In fact, it's quite interesting looking at the background of this. The single-punch bill actually came from New South Wales, and it wasn't designed, actually, to this sort of situation. What it was actually designed for was the incredible number of problems they had around their liquor licensing problems at the time. What was actually happening was they were getting a lot of violence around inner-city Sydney, and, again, it was a piece of legislation that was brought in to highlight what they thought was a part of a package of offences, a package of measures they brought in at the time around that whole trying to stop what was a lot of violence.
In fact, murder wasn't really the issue, death wasn't the issue; it was actually the serious injuries that were caused. If this legislation actually broadened and talked about the effect of the single punch, because, actually, most—and I'm sure, if he's quite honest, Mr King will deal with this—of the factors around offences like the single punch that came up, actually resulted in quite bad injuries. It was actually people who had may have ended up with, sometimes, long-term brain injuries, etc. It wasn't actually death. Death was an easy part of it. So this doesn't even address the real issue of what it copies, which was New South Wales, and New South Wales actually weren't looking at the death part of it. They were looking at serious injuries, and this doesn't even actually address that.
So good on the member for bringing it across. You know, he's come here, he's been a long-time police officer like myself. You come here and you want to, sort of, make a bit of difference, but actually, this simply isn't going to make a difference. The member will remember when he first went on his detective course as a constable on trial. He'll remember sitting down, looking at the legislation—look, he's smiling over there because he knows this. He looked at the legislation. He was tested on this, and he couldn't work out what was a wounding. He couldn't work what was an injury. This is just another layer that's going to confuse those that come after him. It's not necessary. It won't make anyone any safer. It may make him feel a little better, and that may not be such a bad thing, but I cannot recommend this. With my experience of the law, this will just simply add and create a confusion and a gap for the defence lawyers. I do not commend this bill to the House.





DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't actually know where to begin with this bill. I think that the intent with which Matt King wanted to create a piece legislation that targeted king-hits and coward punches New Zealand First actually agrees with, right? So we actually believe that there should be something carved out in the law that deals with these thugs that actually punch and injure without warning innocent people: knock them out, injure them, and even kill them.
The problem with this bill that we've got is it does nothing of the sort. It does nothing of the sort. The only thing in this bill that has got anything to do with coward punching is in the title—it's in the title. 
Matt King: Aargh!
DARROCH BALL: I'll read it out for that member. I know he says that he wrote it, but he didn't, because he just copied and pasted it from Australian legislation directly. I've highlighted it. But here's the first part: assault causing death "with any part of the person's body or with an object held by the person;"—with any part of the person's body or an object held by the person. Does that sound like a punch to you, Mr King? Does that sound like a one-punch to you? You could be holding a baseball bat and crack a guy, kill him, right? You want them, instead of being charged with murder or manslaughter—I hope people are watching, because there's a very good reason why this side of the House is not voting for this bill. This bill does not make any sort of sense at all—not one. But the worst part of it is that they're standing there saying that we're soft on crime. The worst part of it is that what those people are currently charged with and would be charged with is murder or manslaughter. What murder and manslaughter have currently, Mr King, is life imprisonment as the maximum sentence. Now, everyone watching, please understand that what this bill, this individual, and this party have got to try to stand up and convince us of is to change that maximum of life imprisonment to a maximum of—what, Mr King? 20 years?—20 years. So from life imprisonment to 20 years.
Now, those members are going to stand up—and I'm sure Mr Mitchell will—and say that we're soft on crime, we should have one-punch, and these people are cowards. We agree, right? New Zealand First agrees. This bill does not achieve that, and he knows that. In no way does this bill achieve that. It actually weakens the law. 
Matt King: Ha, ha!
DARROCH BALL: Well, it does. You're the only one laughing, Mr King. You're the only one laughing, Mr King. It's quite sad—it's quite sad. Because I know you're a nice guy and you've got the best intentions, but this legislation is actually going backward from what you want to do and what the intent is of the bill.
Not only can you use any part of your body in this legislation—and prove me wrong. Any member of the National Party, stand up after me and prove that I'm wrong. Quote it from the bill. Not only can you use any part of your body—you can use your foot, you could use your knee, you could use your elbow, you could use your head, you could use your punch, right? You could use any object in your hand. But here's the kicker. It doesn't have to be one punch.
Matt King: Yeah. What's the issue?
DARROCH BALL: What's the issue? Do you agree with that? Do you agree with that, Mr King? This has got nothing to do with coward punching. This has got nothing to do with king punches. This has got to with assaulting and killing someone, which we already have in the Crimes Act. Not only do we have this in the Crimes Act but they've got harsher penalties than what this individual wants to come in with this bill. 
Why? Why would we agree with that? Why would we support that? I don't even know why the National Party let it in the ballot in the first place. It's quite embarrassing for them. Do you know what it is? We can rightly stand on this side of the House and say that the National Party is soft on crime because they want to lower the maximum penalty. That's what it is when it boils down to it, Mr King. That's what it is.
So unfortunately—and I'd like to make and reiterate this point—New Zealand First agrees with the concept that there's an issue with coward punches, that they are conducted by thugs, that they are king-hits, and that there should be legislation for it. But one of the things that Mr Greg O'Connor actually brought up was very, very important. This deals with the resulting in death, not resulting in grievous bodily harm or harm or just the assault of one-punch. It doesn't do any of it, Mr Mitchell. Please stand up and talk some sense into your colleague.





Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The first thing I'd say is I'd reach out across the aisle to the previous speaker and I'd say: if you believe in it, if you do believe with the intent around the coward's punch, then vote for the bill—vote for the bill. Let's take it through to select committee. I know that the sponsor of the bill, Matt King, is very happy to work with New Zealand First to make sure that we have a good piece of legislation that comes back into this House. So I would put it to New Zealand First that they actually stand up, live their values, and that they support this bill and they take it to select committee.
Can I acknowledge Matt King. The reason why I like members' days and members' bills is that they often come into this House through real lived experience out in the community. Often, it's experience built up over years. I acknowledge Greg O'Connor and his service and his experience in the police, and I'll come to the issues that he raised, shortly, if I have time.
Matt King brought this bill into the House. I'll tell you why: because in his service as a front-line police officer and a detective, he saw case after case where people's lives were destroyed through coward punches, through someone that struck or punched or assaulted someone.
Greg O'Connor: Not in the legislation—not in the legislation.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: They didn't actually see it coming. No, it actually isn't in the legislation, and can I say to Mr O'Connor: don't worry about the defence lawyers. They're not going to be confused at all. They'll understand exactly what the intent of this legislation is.
I'm sure that Mr O'Connor himself has got many manslaughter cases that he's probably taken to court where, on the night of the assault, it might be a patched gang member that's intoxicated, that's dressed in his gang regalia in the middle of the night, that's overtly vicious and violent—
Hon Member: It's not just gang members.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: —it's not just gang members, but I'm giving an example to Mr O'Connor—who then will turn up to court on a manslaughter charge dressed and clean shaven like I am, sit down, and then have to prove the mens rea. How many cases have you lost, Mr O'Connor, at court because of that?
Greg O'Connor: None.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: And the victim, who's had their life altered forever—I can guarantee that it's happened. So what Matt King has done, and it's a clever bill, is he's come in here and he's said that in that scenario, if someone is struck—and let's not forget the seriousness of this. That person that's struck is losing their life. They're not turning up the next day to see their family. They're not turning up the next day to work. We'll never see them again. They'll never walk in this beautiful country again. They're gone—they're gone.
What this bill has done is recognised that through the assault, a coward's punch, you're removing the mens rea. You're removing the ability for that person to put their suit on and to come into court two months later and say to the judge, "I didn't realise that that was going to be the outcome." Well, I'm sorry; what Matt King is saying is that's not good enough. If you decide to strike someone, if you decide to hit someone with a baseball bat—which is an example that was given by the Government—if you hit someone with an object, if you kick someone, if you kick someone in the head while they're on the ground—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Mitchell, I'm not hitting anyone with anything. Please don't bring the Speaker into the debate.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: OK, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: —then actually you should be held to account for that—you should be held to account. Sorry, Madam Speaker. You shouldn't be held to account—but Mr Ball should be, without a doubt. That's exactly what Matt King has done.
I served on the East Coast of New Zealand. I could give you a dozen examples of people that were hit by someone, unsuspecting, that have fallen and have either lost their life or had parts of their skull removed to allow the brain swelling, who never fully recover, who will never have the quality of life back again. They may get charged with a grievous bodily charge or, if they kill someone, with a manslaughter, and they may go up in front of the court in a suit like mine and they may get off it. Go and ask the public in New Zealand how many times they've seen people with a reduced sentence or get off because they haven't been able to prove the charge. This is saying: if you punch someone or if you hit someone with an object and you kill someone—
Darroch Ball: It's murder.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, it's not. There's no mens rea attached to this. There's no burden of proof. Will defence lawyers like it? No, they won't, because they know that this is a much tougher regime on someone that's cowardly enough to kill someone.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do want to acknowledge the member who has brought this bill to the House and all of the speeches tonight that have spoken about violence and how abhorrent it is that we still, as the small, beautiful island nation that we are, suffer from such high rates of violent crime. And, you know, as members have pointed out, that includes domestic and sexual violence. It includes violence that's drug or alcohol induced. It involves violent crime that causes far more harm than might be foreseeable. We're all in agreement about that, and we're all in agreement that where serious harm, akin to someone being placed in a coma for a length of time, being brain damaged, or losing their life—it's some of the most serious of crimes that we have on our statute book. And as has been repeatedly pointed out, we do have those crimes on our statute book.
People have talked about all of the different degrees of violence, the way that our criminal law defines them based on the level of intent or recklessness; foreseeability of harm; that the offender carries the level of violence in the actions; and also the impact, so whether it's wounding, whether it's injuring, whether it's causing grievous bodily harm, whether it's death. We have those crimes in the statute book.
We also have the Sentencing Act, where the circumstances of the offending are taken into account on a case by case basis. Whether the person was a gang member will be taken into account, whether they were intoxicated, whether it was premeditated, whether it was provoked. All of those things are taken into account when a sentence is set.
A lot has been made of the mens rea, or the mental element, required in our homicide laws. So we have two different types of homicide in our laws—just to clarify this, because I, too, have worked in the criminal justice system for about a decade. There is murder, which can be committed through two types of mens rea: one is through intentional death, and the other is through committing a violent act or an unlawful act where foreseeable, serious harm was taken into account by the offender. Those are the two ways that murder is committed. That's supposed to be recklessness and intent. So the recklessness requirement seems to have been misunderstood by the Opposition as being the mens rea requirement for manslaughter. That's not the case. Both of those types of mens rea mean that the person will be held accountable for murder. So if you foresaw really serious harm or death, that's murder. Manslaughter doesn't require foreseeability of the harm, it only requires that the unlawful act itself was committed intentionally. Any assault counts. You don't have to prove that death or serious harm was foreseeable. So it's covered. It's homicide, and the sentence is life, if needs be.
Those are all covered by our law. So, you know, we stand here, and we've got this new piece of criminal law being proposed, which at best is unnecessary and at best has been brought to the House under a misconception about the current criminal law. At worst—and we see this in the House from time to time—it's a branding exercise for political parties so that they can talk about themselves as being tough on crime. Appealing to the plight of victims, to the fears of our communities so that politicians can look tough on crime is callous. It's abhorrent. On this side of the House, we want to care for victims by providing for mental health care, by providing for hospitals, by providing for rehabilitation, reintegration—under that Government, reoffending of violent crime was at around 50 percent. So the victims that we talk about, that people have talked about tonight, who are laying in comas, in hospital, were laying in hospitals where the walls were rotting—the hospital walls were rotting. That's how much that side of the House cares about victims while we rewrite the criminal law based on what already exists.
Let's actually care for victims instead of giving tax cuts to our mates. Let's get mental health care for them. Let's get actual healthcare. Let's get housing. That's what a compassionate Government would do.





Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Can I start by acknowledging—I'll acknowledge the member Matt King for the bill that you've had pulled from the House. It's important to have the debate. I also want to acknowledge Agnes Loheni, actually, who is in the House tonight, who put out quite a powerful statement this morning—I think it was this morning; it was when I read it anyway—calling for men to stand up against domestic violence after the brutal murder of a Hamilton mum. You know, I don't think anyone could not have read that and felt moved and feel support. You want people to speak up, and I'm speaking up tonight to support your call for more men to stand up and speak out against domestic violence.
At the same time, I'd like to acknowledge that we do not have, as far as I know, a separate crime in the statute book that is called the murder of a woman, and therefore you get held to account in a different way. We have laws—as members have spoken of on this side of the House tonight—and we have a justice system, and we need for that justice system to be exercised well and for there to be the effort put into the causes of crime and to ensure that we have a holistic approach to this, rather than a carve-out for certain crimes that we give names such as coward punch, and somehow that falls into a different category of where there is a different sentence applied to it. Yet there are other murders and manslaughters that occur of other people in our society using different ways of creating those crimes that are somehow different and treated differently.
This is a carve-out. It's, quite frankly, a nutty piece of legislation. It's unfortunate, because if the member had appeared and given a speech in the House tonight that actually talked about overcrowded prisons, backlogs in the courts, making sure that our police were well equipped, making sure that we were ensuring that we were addressing poverty and the reasons why domestic violence occurs, and why people go out and cause these crimes, then the member would have more respect when he got up and spoke in the House about these things. I guess describing this as being tough on crime—it's a subcategorising of manslaughter, a piece of legislation that will complicate the law. It won't work as law. It, basically, I guess—and, you know, it would be useful when the member gets up at the end of this first reading and actually gives his summation of what sits behind it, that he doesn't believe that judges can be trusted to make the right calls and that there's something wrong with the justice system, that we have to subcategorise a crime that should already be dealt with within our existing justice system.
So I, quite frankly, find this really disappointing. Over the last 10 years there have been about 12 cases in New Zealand where a person has been convicted of manslaughter in cases of death caused by a single hit. Wouldn't it have been great for him to get up and talk about domestic violence and about the impact that that's having in our society and where drunken men hit women and kill them? Instead, this is about drunken men hitting other drunken men and somehow that needing to be carved out in our legislation. Can't support it. Think it's a wrong, bad piece of legislation. Commend his attempt, but unfortunately can't support it.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I firstly want to commend Northland MP Matt King—an experienced, practical cop—for bringing this bill to the House. I think he speaks for the vast majority of New Zealanders who look in revulsion at these king-hit murders—deaths of innocent people—that occur around New Zealand, and are delighted there is a member of Parliament like Matt King that's prepared to say, "That's not the sort of New Zealand we want." and for this Parliament to send a very clear signal for people that are out in bars and clubs around New Zealand that this bullish behaviour of king-hits is morally repugnant and wrong. 
Now, I've heard the bleeding hearts from the Labour Party and Green Party who I accept—as part of their DNA—see it as their duty to always speak for victims. And I am proud to be part of a National Party that actually says our criminal justice system is primarily responsible for ensuring that people are held to account for violent acts and for the innocent deaths of people.
But can I tell you this evening, my biggest disappointment is with the New Zealand First Party. I say this because they present themselves to the electorate as a law and order party. They pretend they are a party that puts strong values on holding people to account when they commit atrocious crimes. 
I think we should be honest about what's happening in the Parliament tonight: if any other member of this House proposed this bill, actually New Zealand First would be supporting it. It is simply for the petty politics around Northland—and because Matt King is such an effective member of Parliament for that community—that they will not support this bill, rather than anything of the substance of this legislation. That is a tragedy for this Parliament. It's a tragedy for New Zealand. But it exposes the complete lack of principle and character by the New Zealand First Party and is why they only have a few more weeks in this Parliament. I say to the New Zealand First Party: "Stand up for your values before the country sees through you and gives you the rejection from this Parliament, which is coming very soon."
Can I come to the point that was made by the previous speaker, Clare Curran, who said we should not support the specific identification in our Crimes Act of the crime of a coward punch—that we shouldn't do that, that as a matter of principle that is bad law? Well, I ask this question: why, then, has this Government specifically provided for an offence of strangulation? If the way in which the person dies is completely irrelevant to the Crimes Act, then why would we specifically in the law provide for the particularly ugly crime of strangulation, because if it's good enough for Parliament to put on the law books our abhorrence of the crime of strangulation, it is equally appropriate for this Parliament to say that the particular crime of the coward punch is something that we do not want. 
My last point is this: I look at our close cousins in Australia; actually Labor Parties in Australia in every state have supported a bill of this sort. What is it about the Labour Party in New Zealand that is so out of touch with Main Street towns all over New Zealand—and the threat from coward punches—that the Australian Labor Party understand but the New Zealand Labour Party does not? 
I've actually read the records of judges using the coward-punch law in Australia. It at least seems to me that this is an idea worthy of sending to select committee. I commend Matt King on his advocacy for it. What he proves with this bill is not only he's an experienced cop but he's in touch with New Zealanders, and we need to see an end to the coward punches that are costing the lives of too many New Zealanders.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, the point of being a parliamentarian is to make good law, and, while I commend the member Matt King for having his bill pulled from the ballot, we can't support a bill that is unnecessary. We can't support a bill that won't actually achieve and won't actually be what it says on the packet. The fact is that there have been, over the past 10 years, about 12 cases in New Zealand where the person has been convicted of manslaughter in cases of death caused by a single hit. That shows to me that this barbaric act—nobody is going to defend the act—is treated in law.
Matt King: There's been a lot more than 12. There's been three in the last year.
KIERAN McANULTY: And the member calls out that there were three in the last year. Well, I am very pleased to inform him that that still does not negate the fact that there have been 12 in last 10 years. The fact is that this is yet again a member's bill that actually doesn't achieve what it says.
Now, I note that it has been modelled on the Australian bill. I also note that the law in Australia was passed in a package of law and order measures, and it is actually difficult to ascertain how effective that law is, so we can't go on the member's recommendations that this bill should be brought in on the basis of its success in Australia. Now, if there were facts presented that could convince this side of the House to support it—perhaps the member could have presented to the House examples that this, in Australia, was successful, that this was indeed a deterrent—then perhaps we would have supported it. But those crucial elements are missing, and we can't simply support a bill just because we don't support the crime which it targets—of course we do not.
But we can't also go around and increase penalties, as we've seen in various other examples, and then be accused of being soft on law and order. The fact is that if we want to have effective policies in law and order, then we need to work on fact, and the last thing that we as a Parliament, as parliamentarians, need to do is make laws in regards to law and order on emotion. I simply reject the notion that because this side of the House wants to make laws based on fact, that that makes us soft. We have had that accusation all night. We've had it with the previous bill and we're having it now, and I say to the other side of the House: that accusation does not resonate. Because the fact is, if you apply an evidence-based approach—New Zealanders are not dumb. New Zealanders are a thinking people, and they know a political stunt when they see it and they know a bill that is ineffective when one is presented. This is simply the case now.
We say again: if the member had presented evidence and a compelling case that would suggest that this was needed, there is no doubt that this side of the House would support it. A good example is livestock rustling. Now, if you went out previously, a few years ago—if all of us went out and asked the general public if there is a law against the theft of livestock, then, of course, people would say yes. Now, there are numerous examples to show that this is a serious issue in rural New Zealand, but the sad fact of the matter was that there was no law against the theft of livestock. Ian McKelvie presented a member's bill to this House, and, unfortunately, it wasn't drafted in a way that was workable. But I worked with him and presented a case to the justice Minister—presented fact and presented a compelling case—and the justice Minister included it in one of his bills, and it is now law.
So that is a pathway in which to achieve change when it comes to law and order—not going for emotion, not sidetracking and sidestepping facts, but looking at what is needed, backing it up with the truth, and presenting a compelling case. That has not happened in this case, and, therefore, this side of the House and the Labour Party cannot support it.





MATT KING (National—Northland): It's my right of reply. Look, I've learnt a little bit about politics tonight, and this is all about politics, watching the other side of the House put their arguments forward—some of them, it's unbelievable how wrong they are. I held out some hope. I mean, I didn't really think that Labour would ever support it, mainly because it's a National bill. They spent all of the last nine years opposing everything that we ever did—in fact, they opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and then a 5,000-page document, and then changed a page and a half of minor amendments, called it their own, and then voted for it. I didn't approach the Greens either, because I know that it's a National Party bill so they'll oppose it as well; they opposed the Kermadec sanctuary bill—it's because it's ours, so you're not going to support that.
But what gets me is Darroch Ball and New Zealand First, because he stood there and one of the things he said was—he was ridiculing me about the bill because it's got "coward punch" in the title and the bill includes kicking someone or thumping someone with a bat. It says "assault", right? So his logical thinking, his brain is telling him that because—it says "assault" in the bill so it covers all means—it says "punch" in the title and doesn't say it in the bill anywhere, but it says "assault", then there's something wrong with it. I had to laugh when I heard that—I just had to laugh. The reality is that their leader—their glorious leader—campaigned on this bill two elections ago. This was a New Zealand First bit of legislation.
Darroch Ball: It's not that bill. 
MATT KING: Very close to. Go back and look at the media PR release. It's pretty much cut and dry, but because it's Matt King from Northland, they're opposing it. That is pretty damn sad from these guys—pretty damn sad.
I heard Greg O'Connor. He said he's had 40 years in the police. He argued about his experience with policing. He was saying that this would confuse lawyers and confuse the courts and confuse people; it actually simplifies things. Commits an assault and the person dies—two ingredients; really simple and straight forward. No need to prove anything: they committed an assault, the person died. Very simple. But I've heard Greg O'Connor get up a few times and do a few speeches on a few bills, which I actually doubt whether he's even read them.
Then they said, "Well, we're just creating another bill, another offence, and it's already covered in manslaughter." Well, what about the strangulation bill? I've got figures here. So strangulation is covered in male assault female or, depending on the injuries, its covered in the various Crimes Act assault charges. But they created a bill called "strangulation", and I think it's a great bill. I think there are numerous situations and domestic situations where women have suffered from a bit of non-fatal strangulation, and it is a precursor to more serious offending, so that's a great bill. Between 3 December 2018 and 28 February 2019, there were 416 people charged with strangling or trying to suffocate—that's 33 a week; it's almost five each day. That is a classic case of a bill where it's actually already covered in the Crimes Act, but this is specific for this particular offence.
The other thing is like Darroch Ball—oh, Darroch Ball, oh—he brought in the first responders bill. Everything that's in the first responders bill is assault that is covered in everything else. I agreed with that bill, Darroch Ball—I agreed with it; I thought it was a great bill. When you said before that you're not going to support this because there's nothing in it, why not let it go to first reading? You and I can negotiate directly, man to man, and we can have whatever you want, and I could put it in there—I would put it in there. But you just kicked it into touch because you don't want me—Matt King—to have any publicity in Northland, that's what it's all about—that's what it's all about. So what I'm going to tell you is I've been listening to you talk while this Government, under urgency, is putting through a bill to allow guys like that Tarrant terrorist to vote in prison, and yet you're kicking my bill into touch. What that does is gives me the motivation to campaign hard to beat New Zealand First in Northland.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Motion not agreed to.





SHARK CAGE DIVING (PERMITTING AND SAFETY) BILL
First Reading
SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I move, That the Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.
The purpose of this bill is to regulate commercial shark cage diving operations. The penultimate shark, the great white, inhabits our waters around New Zealand, but, partly due to the prevalence of fur seal breeding colonies, Stewart Island and the Chathams are two places where you're virtually guaranteed an encounter. Shark cage diving is for the intrepid. From the safety of a cage that is lowered into the water, cage diving involves fee-paying divers viewing sharks in their natural habitat. The sharks are drawn to the area, mainly using berley, which is ground so fine that it provides scent but no food. 
The issue of shark cage diving was first brought to my attention in 2014 while hearing submissions on the Health and Safety at Work Bill. PauaMAC5, which represents commercial pāua divers, made representations about shark cage diving and some of the practices that were used to entice sharks to the area for viewing—some of them, allegedly, reckless. There are allegations of measures being used, including tuna bait, heavy metal music, and decoys, which has been attributed to the anxiety and tension between shark cage diving operations and other users—pāua divers and swimmers in the vicinity—and the fear that these activities are changing the behaviour of sharks, making them even more aggressive toward people.
With that in mind, my member's bill acknowledges and addresses those tensions that have developed within the small community of Stewart Island over shark cage diving. It provides much-needed best-practice regulations for the activity.
Shark cage diving began in 2008 off the coast of Stewart Island and quickly grew in popularity. Tourists travelled worldwide for the opportunity to come face to face with great whites. These businesses built an eco-tourism opportunity, instilled an appreciation of nature and, in some cases, adrenaline, and created jobs and opportunities for those in Bluff and Dunedin.
On the flip side, the concern of locals at Stewart Island and divers was that the use of berley and decoys was changing sharks' behaviour, so much so that sharks were allegedly following vessels in expectation of food, putting divers and all those who entered the water at greater risk. In particular—and a concern that is easily understood—is locals at Stewart Island feeling unsafe while they or their children swim at a popular beach within 10 kilometres of the operating area. While there may be no scientific evidence that these operations are changing the behaviour of sharks, it is not difficult to comprehend the concern of those using waters in the vicinity of the activity. As the businesses grew in popularity and tensions rose, an anti - shark cage diving Facebook page was created, and, in June 2015, a petition was even presented to Parliament calling for the activity to be banned. 
Legal challenges, however, also form a backdrop to my member's bill, and, even more so, after the recent Supreme Court ruling, it shows that Parliament needs to step in and provide some much-needed clarity to this grey area in the law.
The reality is that this was an issue that continued to grow. No one really knew how to deal with it, and the same can be said for those who held responsibility for the activity. In brief, Maritime New Zealand handles the regulation of vessels, WorkSafe New Zealand looks after people on the job, the Ministry for Primary Industries is in charge of fisheries, and the Department of Conservation's (DOC's) mandate is to protect sharks. In light of the growing tensions and conflicts, it was the Department of Conservation who eventually stepped in. It released interim guidelines in 2013 as a means of engaging the dive operators and other interested parties. Off the back of this, then conservation Minister Nick Smith announced in February 2014 that tourism businesses viewing great white sharks would be required to have a permit, similar to how they're required for whale, dolphin, and seal watching. A code of practice was introduced under the Wildlife Act 1953, and, in December 2015, tighter permit conditions came after an operator was warned over bait use.
Attempts to regulate the industry ultimately proved unsuccessful. PauaMAC5 first filed proceedings against DOC and the Director-General of Conservation that same month, arguing divers were put in danger and also challenging the director-general's powers to issue authorisations. Contrary to PauaMAC5's position, DOC maintained that public safety matters and issues arising between users competing for space were not relevant considerations under the Act.
In the High Court, Clark J reasoned in June 2017 that shark diving was not an offence under the Wildlife Act, finding therein that the director-general did not have the jurisdiction to control it, but this wasn't the end of the matter. The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision in September 2018. They deemed shark cage diving to be an offence under the Wildlife Act and also stated that the director-general had no power under the act to authorise the activity. In a further twist, the Bluff company Shark Experience successfully appealed the decision in the Supreme Court late last year. 
To cut a 41-page judgment short, shark cage diving is no longer an offence per se, and therefore New Zealanders face once more with the prospect of people swimming with these apex predators unregulated. Yet it would be wrong to say that the Supreme Court's decision puts the matter entirely to bed. This is because while the court ruled on the correct approach to interpreting section 63A of the Wildlife Act, focusing on the definition of "hunt or kill", it declined to make a determination on the limited facts before it. 
The 1953 Wildlife Act is therefore clearly ineffectual. The Acts entanglement with shark cage diving shows it to be out of date and unsuitable for modern wildlife management. In fact, the extension, retraction, and variation via the courts of section 63A of the Wildlife Act, being the definition of hunt or kill, puts in jeopardy the legality of issuing permits for even scientific activities, such as some methods of bird counting and other studies. The Wildlife Act 1953 is an Act that requires modernisation and, with respect to the specialised activity of shark cage diving, separate legislation. Therefore, despite its best intentions and expending time and resources, the Department of Conservation was rendered impotent and does not have the tools to properly resolve the issue. 
My stand-alone bill helps provide clarity for shark cage operators and DOC as well as answering the concerns of local residents. Sending it to select committee would enable the bill to be further honed, allowing local residents to have their voices heard and for operators to have their say. Select committee is also the forum to test the information and resolve this issue, as, once New Zealand moves through the COVID-19 risks, tourism will again thrive and this opportunity will be on offer. In particular, this bill provides an ability for permit conditions, if granted, relating to the geographical area within which an operator can occur, frequency and time frames, and how the activity should be conducted. I again reiterate that at the moment this activity is unregulated.
This is an issue that has dogged Stewart Islanders and operators, one that New Zealand First campaigned on in 2017, and one that has been brought to the attention of Labour and the Greens. The smaller communities, such as Stewart Island and Bluff, that I represent, should not go unnoticed, and, even more so, the threats that they face should be taken seriously. This is a time when parties should come together to send a practical bill which seeks to overcome a conflict to select committee. I am confident that this bill can provide a win for all of those involved. I take this opportunity to thank representatives from PauaMAC5, tourism, and the operators; Stewart Island locals; and department staff for their advocacy relating to this issue. It is one that I have taken seriously in my time as member for Invercargill, and I believe wholeheartedly that this is the best course of action to resolve this issue. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, thank you. Pleased to speak to the Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill and do commend the member for Invercargill, Sarah Dowie, for the serious effort that she has made to address this issue.
So the Wildlife Act is the major mechanism in New Zealand by which we protect wildlife and also by which we regulate hunting. It's part of our responsibilities under an international Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals to prohibit the taking—which includes hunting, fishing, capturing, and harassing—of great white sharks. As Ms Dowie noted, prior to the Supreme Court decision in Shark Experience Limited v PauaMAC5 Inc., which came out on October 2019, Department of Conservation (DOC) sought to manage great white sharks and shark cage diving under the Wildlife Act by requiring operators to abide by a code of practice and also to gain a permit and also to comply with Maritime New Zealand's vessel safety guidelines. But it was a series of court decisions in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and then, finally, the Supreme Court which determined that the provisions in the Wildlife Act don't enable the Department of Conservation to authorise shark cage diving. So the effect of that decision was that there is currently no mechanism under the Wildlife Act to regulate shark cage diving. It's an uncontrolled activity, both in relation to its effects on sharks and to the safety of other users of the sea, including recreational fishers, commercial fishers, pāua divers, and the others. So acknowledge that this is the gap which Ms Dowie's bill seeks to fill.
As the Supreme Court noted and so did the Court of Appeal, the Wildlife Act, which is an Act from 1953, had become difficult to use over time because of piecemeal amendments. These are magnificent animals. They were made famous by Jaws. They're one of the few species which are actually protected in the Wildlife Act in one of the schedules, along with four other shark species, and great white sharks are a threatened species. The population in New Zealand and East Australian waters is estimated at being fewer than 800 animals.
So as Minister of Conservation, I want to protect both sharks and people. I think the most simple and effective way to do this—to manage the risks to public safety and to protect the sharks—is to prohibit shark cage diving, except potentially in defined areas. Because shark cage diving does interfere with the sharks' natural behaviour. As Ms Dowie noted, operators put berley or bait in the water to attract the sharks. Australian researchers have noticed that there are detectable changes in the behaviour of great white sharks where there's shark cage diving. They tend to spend more time at the surface and more time at the dive site than they would otherwise.
What we have now, near Rakiura / Stewart Island is a small—it was originally two operators, but potentially it could expand. Some of the risks to sharks from shark cage diving include them becoming seriously injured if they get entangled in the cage, and there is at least one example in New Zealand where a shark has got caught in a slot in the cage and been injured. They can get entangled in the ropes which are put out. They can collide with the cage or the boat, and there have been instances where they've been seen to have abrasions on their skin from colliding with the cage. So shark cage diving, while it only occurs currently at Rakiura, could also occur around the Three Kings Islands at Kapowairua, Spirits Bay, East Cape, Fiordland, and the Chatham Islands, where operators may seek to target blue sharks and shortfin makos, as well.
So what's the regime overseas? Well, generally, in areas like Australia, South Africa, Mexico, and California, shark cage diving is prohibited except in specific places. In Australia, for example, it's only allowed in the Neptune Islands Group in South Australia at a site more than 30 kilometres from the coast. In Mexico, it's only permitted within the Guadalupe Island Biosphere Reserve that's some 260 kilometres from the mainland coast, and it's restricted to a small area there. In California, it's only permitted at the Farallon Islands and they're 45 kilometres off the coast, and things like chum or baiting and decoys aren't permitted. There's no work that has yet been done in New Zealand to identify areas where shark cage diving could occur without conflict with other users and where it was safe for sharks. So I prefer the approach which has been adopted overseas of a general prohibition and legislation which protects both sharks and people, and the Department of Conservation is developing policy with the intention of introducing legislation to do this.
This legislation—the legislation DOC is developing—would respond to the concerns of the Rakiura / Stewart Island community. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee in 2015 when Helen Cave and 768 others presented their petition to the committee. Ken McAnergney and others spoke of the very real fear that they felt going out in small boats near Oban, of having people swimming there, because they believed that having shark cage diving had acclimatised sharks to boats, had got sharks to associate boats with food, and they were able to cite instances where sharks had followed small boats, and that was creating quite a lot of concern and fear in the community.
So this bill is an effort by Ms Dowie to fill that gap with the Supreme Court decision, but it is not the appropriate bill because it deals largely with human safety. It has no provisions in it which actually protect sharks, it doesn't look at that bigger picture, and it doesn't deal with Treaty issues. There is no Treaty clause in this, and that is really important because sharks are a taonga species and because there was a comprehensive report by the Waitangi Tribunal making significant recommendations about how the Wildlife Act needs to be amended to provide that—no one owns wildlife, to provide for shared management of protected species in line with the principles of Treaty partnership. This Government has determined that we will adopt an integrated approach to the Wai 262 recommendations, and that means that any legislation which deals with sharks has to be based on that Treaty partnership. This bill does not include anything in that regard. It misses out on providing more effective protection for sharks, and that is the reason why the Green Party is not supporting this bill. Instead, as Minister of Conservation, I am working with the department to develop some more comprehensive legislation—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Doing nothing.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: —which will protect both sharks and people. Now I hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith shouting in opposition. The reason this hasn't been done today is because this Government was waiting for the Court of Appeal decision and the Supreme Court decision to rule on the interpretation of the provisions in the Wildlife Act, which the department had previously thought provided a mechanism for permitting. It wasn't until October 2019 that it became quite clear that there wasn't that mechanism under the Act, and the Supreme Court made that ruling. So we are now addressing that gap, but we believe we need more comprehensive legislation that deals with Treaty principles—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: When will your bill come?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: —that protects both sharks and people. When will it come, the member says. It will come when this Government is re-elected, and we will do it after the election.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, what an appalling disgrace the Minister of Conservation is on this bill. There she was this evening in the face of a very good, measured, well-presented, logical, and practical bill presented by my friend and colleague—the member for Invercargill, Sarah Dowie—and the Minister of Conservation can only enhance her already famous reputation for doing nothing by again telling the House that she's going to do nothing yet again. This is a Minister of Conservation who has been Minister for nearly three years, and her reputation falls before her. She is the Minister of Conservation who has done the least in that role of any previous Minister of Conservation to have ever held the role.
Now, here we have a very good, practical, sensible bill that simply regulates shark diving activity in situations where there is a tension between public who are concerned about the potential risks, versus the challenges and tensions of an active tourist adventure business that wants to go about its lawful business. This is a case that has actually gone all the way to the Supreme Court. It's hard to believe that so much litigation could have occurred around something that my friend and colleague Sarah Dowie has found a simple, practical solution for. 
This is a system that would simply require a permit to manage the conflicting local tensions. It's a good idea. It's sensible and it's practical. Unlike the Minister's solution, which is just to defer to textbooks and advisers and actually do nothing, here we have Sarah Dowie, who brings to the House—and I want to congratulate her for bringing this bill to the House—a diligent, hard-working local member of Parliament who is confronted with a local issue that has caused angst and concern in her electorate and for those visiting her electorate. 
She brings a member's bill to the House—that's exactly what a good, hard-working member of Parliament should do. She brings it to the House and the Minister of Conservation swats it away, dismisses it arrogantly—as this Government is so famous for—while offering no practical solution of her own. With literally only a month or two to go of this Government's term in office, she offers no protection to the people who have a problem down around Stewart Island and who want to run a simple business. So I'm very disappointed to hear that the Minister has done this. 
But what's even more disappointing is the role of New Zealand First, who I'm told are going to oppose this piece of legislation. I can see Clayton Mitchell nodding, because it was interesting that he attended a meeting in April 2015 with none other than the Deputy Prime Minister—who wasn't, of course, Deputy Prime Minister at that stage—one Winston Peters. At that public meeting, Winston Peters said, "I don't know how they"—and what he meant was the National-led Government who were in Government at the time—"could have made this decision." And Winston Peters went on to say, "If I saw a hall this size and I was in Government, I would listen to what they have to say." "I would listen to what they have to say." said Mr Peters. Well, it seems now that—like so many things—when he's in Government, he conveniently forgets the promises and assurances that New Zealand First made while they were in Opposition, because New Zealand First find talk to be cheap and action to be slow and non-existent, just like the Minister of Conservation. 
So I'm sorry to hear that the Government are not going to be supporting this bill. It's a good bill presented to the House with a pragmatic, sensible solution by a hard-working member of Parliament representing her electorate in a diligent and thorough way. For the Government just to dismiss it—as they have become so famous for—I think is an appalling tragedy and a disappointment, but that's what we've come to expect from this Government.





LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I want to acknowledge Sarah Dowie. This is a really important piece of legislation, and it will become a legacy piece of legislation for her. Shark cage diving is obviously a business, and she has constituents who have asked her to advocate on their behalf. I want to acknowledge that this bill seeks to provide that the Department of Conservation (DOC) develop standards and, via a permit, enable shark cage diving operators to provide this type of adventure tourism. Why would they want to do that? Well, as we've seen in other jurisdictions, such as South Africa, South Australia, California, and Mexico, it has the potential to bring up to $28 million into that community. So behind what Sarah's been fighting for has been an opportunity for her community, and I want to acknowledge it.
But we do have to contrast that with the pāua industry. I find that interesting, because, really, this is a business-versus-business issue. The value of the pāua industry is $60 million. It's a lot of money, and, actually, a lot of pāua is being consumed not only here but the export market for pāua is huge, and therein lies the issue. These pāua divers are freedivers, they don't use tanks, and it's a health and safety issue which drove the pāua industry to go through the court system.
One of the questions I asked in preparing for my contribution tonight was: can sharks be harmed by shark cage diving? Obviously, the Minister has articulated it, but DOC did commission a report in 2015 by Barry Bruce, who works for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Tasmania, and it's titled A review of cage diving impacts on white shark behaviour and recommendations for research and the industry's management in New Zealand. So the Department of Conservation have been engaged in this issue for a long time, because they actually permitted it. What we have to acknowledge is that the Department of Conservation developed a code of practice in 2013. They started permitting in 2014. Business had been practising since 2008 unregulated. They reviewed the code, and therein became the issues. What's interesting in this report is that great white shark cage diving occurs in areas—and I quote—"where the species naturally aggregates with all current operations focused around … seal/sea lion colonies." That's why the great whites congregate in this particular part of New Zealand.
But what there isn't a comparative analysis about is whether or not there are other seafood-gathering species like pāua, and that, in fact, is the conflict. It's a business conflict, but it's a conflict between the sharks and what happens with the sharks—and if you have a look at that court determination, essentially it said that the department didn't have power, because under the Wildlife Act of 1953, as Minister Sage has articulated, there's proof that sharks suffer physical and mental agitation and there is a risk to the sharks. So I think this bill is before its time, Sarah, and I think there will be an opportunity for a resolution to be sought, but it's not through this bill.
To be honest, I think the Treaty issues are significant. I think that you would want buy-in from mana whenua. I don't know what consultation you did with your bill. And yes, I mean, some would say just send it to select committee, but it would be much better to get all those relationships, all those consultations, in place so when the bill did come, actually it came with an understanding that it would be supported and passed so that we find resolution, because we absolutely need a pathway forward.
I agree that shark cage diving—some people are prepared to pay up to seven hundred bucks for the adventure of staring a shark in the eye. So I think you've started us as a Parliament on a journey. I do have faith in Minister Sage, and I think the legacy of this bill and the work that she's doing and the Department of Conservation's doing will ensure that your community and other communities around Aotearoa New Zealand will have the opportunity to benefit from this type of adventure tourism. Kia ora.





CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand up and speak on this subject. It's not the first time we've stood in this House and gone around the mulberry bush, discussing this very issue. 
In fact, the first time I became a member of Parliament and first heard of the story of what was going on down there in the South Island, it was via a gentleman who came to the select committee that was the same select committee as I was on with Sarah Dowie—a gentleman called Storm Stanley, who's from PauaMAC5. I couldn't believe my ears and what I was actually hearing about the danger that he and his divers were facing every day via this practice of diving with great white sharks, albeit they were diving for their livelihood to support the community and create jobs in the pāua industry. These shark cage divers were, obviously, creating some adventure tourism without the support of their local community, and after talking to Storm Stanley and others at the select committee, I decided to go and investigate the situation and we went down to Stewart Island, not once, not twice, but three times—and, yes, I did go down with the Rt Hon Winston Peters—firsthand, so we could see this problem. 
We were in Opposition at that point in time, and we could not understand how the then Government had let this situation continue to the level that it had gone to with without intervention. Now, the reason why, as Scott Simpson has just asked why didn't we do something about it, was because when we got into Government, through the advocation that the members in this House, from across the House—you know, I'm not calling out anyone in particular. But I can tell you right now that New Zealand First strongly went out in support of the local community on Stewart Island. A legal action was taken against the diving group and, in fact, that went through over 2½ years of backwards and forwards until it went to the Supreme Court, which didn't give us any room, once we got into Government, to change anything. That ruling hasn't been out that long. 
I'm telling you now that what this bill does is it legitimises the act of diving with great white sharks in a situation where you've got a protected species. Now, that would be like me saying to a few friends of mine, "Let's go out and see some kiwis. We'll introduce some kiwis, we'll get a bit of food, we'll get the kiwis to come up to us, and we'll pick them up and we'll pat them." We can't do that—they're a protected species. What makes us think that we can go and do this with an apex predator while they're operating right next door to divers? And it's not just pāua divers. We're talking about salmon divers. It's the salmon divers who are also dealing with this situation, as is the community of Stewart Island. To legitimise the practice of shark cage diving at a time when the community is struggling and they're under siege, where these sharks have been documented to come right up to the pier at Oban—where kids are jumping off the pier and are in rubber dinghies, paddling around in the harbour—is not a good thing to be doing. 
There is a lot that needs to be done. Myself and Minister Eugenie Sage have had a number of discussions on this topic. There is a solution that is on its way, and it's not, unfortunately, in this bill here. Although good intentions you may have, this is not going to fix the problem, and better locations, potentially, need to be looked at around the back of the island. But when you can sit on the shore of Oban and look out and see the boats that are diving with cages and enticing sharks to come into their community and then follow those boats back into the harbour, it is not a good practice, and the small regulations that you are proposing to put forward are not going to make a difference to those people that live on Stewart Island. 
So, with good intentions and congratulations on having your bill pulled out, Ms Dowie, this is a bill that's not going to see the light of day because far more than what you're proposing here needs to be done to amend this situation. If what we're looking at doing is introducing an ad hoc regulatory regime for shark cage diving, and it's not even actually clear how the bill is creating the permitting regime or what it's actually going to entail, who's going to be overseeing that, and how you are actually going to be enforcing it—
Sarah Dowie: It's the director-general. Read it. 
CLAYTON MITCHELL: At one page, it's pretty easy to read, I'd have to say. It didn't take up a lot of my time. But, in actual fact, the point is that the three vested interest groups here are the sharks themselves, because they are a protected species; the community as a priority to the citizens of New Zealand that live on Stewart Island that have been tormented by these operators operating where they're operating, and how that needs to continue; and, of course, the wider environment, to make sure that we are doing our bit to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the public, the public good, the local people, and, of course, the sharks themselves. 
So we won't be supporting this bill. Our apologies for your fine effort in trying to do something, but the National Government did have nine years to sort this out and didn't do anything in that time. We will sort it. 





Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's interesting to hear the debate in the House today because this bill has been introduced by my colleague Sarah Dowie in the face of a community and legal stalemate around commercial shark cage diving—something that is causing a lot of anguish and pain in the area. Now, this bill is designed to regulate—to regulate—shark cage diving and to strike that balance between the needs and the demands of a unique species of shark and that of the people who share its marine environment. It will require commercial shark cage operators to get a permit and to adhere to best-practice regulations. Permits will be managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC), and the regulations would protect both the sharks and the people who live, work, and play in the area. That's exactly what the Minister of Conservation said that she wanted.
There are valid conservation reasons why people should have the opportunity to see and admire great white sharks. They are a protected species. We know that species thrive best when people understand them, empathise with them, and appreciate them. People protect and conserve species that they value. And furthermore, as it's been mentioned, this is a regional development tourist opportunity. It provides jobs in the community. It's another reason for New Zealand and international tourists to come visit and spend time in one of our most beautiful, untouched, and isolated parts of the country.
There's about a hundred sharks that visit Foveaux Strait every year between December and June. There's a stable resident population around the island. We've heard about the beginnings of shark cage diving back in 2008, and how the community was actually polarised from the very beginning, and particular concern from commercial pāua divers. Because of these concerns the Department of Conservation engaged with the community, they discussed the risks, they looked at the intensity of the operations, and they understood the need for rules. They made an attempt to make an evidence-based decision, and they did that by getting an international review about the risks conducted by Barry Bruce from the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. What he concluded was that there was no evidence that shark cage diving increases the risk to water users. So the scientific evidence with an international review said that there was no greater risk with shark cage diving.
As we know that actually back in 2004 it was a request from the pāua community, the pāua divers' community, to DOC to issue permits, which they did under the Wildlife Act of 1953. They did that in line with what they do with whale, seal, and dolphin watching. Through that they commissioned the opportunity for two companies to operate at a site, one site only, about eight kilometres away from Halfmoon Bay at Edwards Island. The conditions of that permit were about banning the feeding of sharks, the use of decoys, and the controls of commercial filming—the things that were concerning people. There was a code of practice introduced, and that code was tightened as well in 2015.
But again, the same pāua people came back and challenged the right for DOC to issue these permits. That ended up with nearly four years of legal activity in the courts trying to understand the legitimacy of this activity. Finally, as we've heard, the Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal declaration that shark cage diving was an offence. The result now is that commercial shark cage diving continues with no regulation at all, nothing to control the activities, no rules to mitigate the risk, and no ways of managing community concerns, or ability to deal with problems. This situation should not be allowed to continue, and this bill is the solution—the solution that the Minister of Conservation has failed to deliver. I commend this bill to the House.





Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to speak on this issue in the House, because this is a really, really important issue for the Rakiura / Stewart Island community. Unfortunately, what this bill does is it provides a very simple solution to a very complex area. I think the issue we've got is that this bill fails to take into account the needs of the local community in terms of pāua divers, in terms of those entering the water for recreational fishing—anybody that actually wants to use the water and at the moment has been talking about being afraid of doing so because of the risk of sharks.
But it also fails to take into account the welfare of sharks themselves, because in the bill it doesn't mention the role of sharks in terms of being absolutely protected under the Wildlife Act, and taking those factors into consideration. The other area it is silent on is the Treaty of Waitangi, and certainly down in Rakiura, the Tītī Islands are incredibly significant culturally for Māori in terms of harvesting muttonbird—tītī—each year. So Minister Sage today has just talked about the fact that while this is an important issue, and thanks Sarah Dowie for bringing this to the House, we also need to do further work on this before we can put in place something that will address all of those issues.
So what I'd like to do is just talk through some of those underlying concerns which suggest that we need further work in this area, because I think what this bill does at present is it jumps to a single solution of setting up, basically, a compliance framework. I think a similar regulatory environment was in operation when Helen Cave brought her petition to the Local Government and Environment Committee saying that her request was that shark cage diving be banned. I think the issues she was talking about there were similar—about wildlife concerns, about behaviour concerns, about concerns of users entering the water. I'm just wanting to tease out some of those in a bit more detail, because, as I've said, great white sharks are absolutely protected under the Wildlife Act. There have been a number of concerns raised about the impacts of shark cage diving on sharks' behaviour and also on the wellbeing—physical wellbeing—of sharks, where they may bump up against the cages, ingest ropes, and come into contact with other sharks in quite a concentrated area.
Basically, down in Rakiura, these pāua divers are talking about increased encounters with sharks since the shark cage diving operations were happening, and also others, recreational users talking about increased encounters and sharks following boats, etc. So there are concerns. I think the Department of Conservation went and did a review to see whether this was indeed founded in terms of this changing the behaviour of sharks. I think what the conclusion they came to is that they couldn't make a call either way on whether it changed the behaviours of sharks in areas that weren't immediately in the vicinity of shark cage diving but were slightly further away. But what they did say is that what shark cage diving did is attract sharks that were in the vicinity to one place. The problem, then, is that you couldn't then undertake other activities in close proximity—so recreational fishing, other commercial fishing activities in that same space—because it increased the chance of encounters. So their view was that then you needed a greater separation between those activities. But in the bill, while you can make a submission, there's no real weighting of the safety impacts of that. So if you've got two groups saying, "OK, we would like to operate in the same space.", there's no consideration that those human safety risks would be taken into account in any other way compared to other operational issues.
Another concern, as Minister Sage has suggested, is there are no clauses there relating to the Treaty of Waitangi, and Rakiura and the Tītī Islands have, basically, incredibly important cultural significance for Māori, and being able to have a say, as of right, in what happens in the issue of shark cage diving, I think is incredibly important. So that would be an important element of any future legislation in this area.
So I think those three main concerns, basically, need to be addressed in any future legislation, because the current legislation, the limitation of it is it's set up so that any particular operator can go to the Department of Conservation and request a permit to do this, and they need to be assessed on a one-to-one basis, whereas what Minister Sage is suggesting is that we do further work to set up a new regime that balances the needs of the local community as well as the wellbeing of sharks, as well as considerations of iwi under the Treaty, and moves forward in that area. So I'm looking forward to further measures in legislation coming to the House in due course, but in the meantime, we're not happy to support this bill in the current form. Thank you.





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker—a real delight to stand tonight and talk about this bill. I'd like to acknowledge you, Sarah Dowie, for bringing this bill to the House. It's going to be, I guess, your swan song, my dear, and it is unfortunate that this bill is not going to proceed. However, I do want to offer a little bit of comfort in that this bill has merit but we will be working on this and it will be picked up and it will be continued on.
So I just wanted to talk a little bit, actually, about sharks—great white sharks. Everyone here has talked about the particular issues, and my colleagues are laughing at me down there, but I wanted to talk about the fact that great white sharks are an endangered species. They're absolutely stunning. They are the apex predator of the sea. In fact, when we change the habitat of a shark, we actually change the whole ecosystem of that sea environment. What actually happens is, when we begin to alter the environment around a shark or shark's habitat, it actually creates a change in the breeding patterns and a whole pile of ecosystem effects. So, having sharks, having them well and clearly defined within where they are able to operate is really important. It allows for the stability and diversity of the ocean.
So, when we have a business that is putting chum—and this apex predator absolutely has this amazing sense of smell—into that environment, what happens is that the behaviour of those sharks completely changes. So the behaviour is that when a boat comes, those sharks know that food is going to be present. As a consequence, they change their migratory patterns, they change their patterns of habitat, and they actually start to congregate. As a consequence, the pāua divers tell us that in that community, we actually are having more aggressive shark behaviour, there are apparently more sharks in the habitat, and this is also affecting the ecosystem. So it's really important that, actually, we look at supporting the long-term integration approach of our marine ecosystems. It's really important that we actually focus on what the marine environment needs.
It's not just about a business, and I do have to acknowledge that one of the things we need to know much more about sharks in this is that we actually don't know a lot about white pointer sharks. We don't know a huge amount, but one of the things that the bill fails to recognise is the ability for those people who are researching to go into shark cages and to look at what's happening. So this bill is purely focused on business and a business model and giving the ability for a business to operate, as opposed to also looking at other opportunities that might happen. As a consequence, this means that we lose an opportunity to find out more about an ecosystem. We don't just throw some chummed up tuna into the water and get these sharks to behave like little puppies. We actually miss the opportunity to find out a little bit more about them.
Now, I understand absolutely that this is an exciting business. I have swum with sharks myself, but the thing with those was that I was not in a cage and those sharks were in their natural habitat and we didn't disturb them. And so, as a consequence, it can be done, but it doesn't necessarily have to be done in the way that this business is operating. So those are some things to think about in terms of the bill moving forward. We can't support this bill, but it is a very interesting attempt. Thank you.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm very happy to speak to this member's bill tonight, the Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill. Firstly, I want to start by congratulating the member Sarah Dowie not only for having her bill drawn but for being an excellent member of Parliament for Invercargill and for being in touch with issues that affect her electorate. She's well connected. She knows the people in her electorate. She knows the tourist operators. She knows the businesses. She knows the locals. She's undertaken extensive consultation. She spent a great deal of time in the area, liaising with locals, with businesses, with power companies, and with these tourist attractions. She saw a need for change. She's got her finger on the pulse of this community, which is why she brought this member's bill and put the bill forward for selection, and was very lucky that it was pulled out. It, frankly, was something that shouldn't have been a member's bill, because this Government should have dealt with this already. But aren't we lucky that we've got a member of Parliament who's got her finger on the pulse, who's in touch with local issues, and who is doing the Minister's job for her?
It was very fortuitous that this bill was drawn, because we are in a situation where we are back to square one, where we have a completely unregulated industry that is happening. We've got locals that are concerned. We've got divers, pāua divers, and swimmers that are all concerned because we are back with a completely unregulated industry—and it's not for lack of trying. We've heard from earlier speakers, including the member herself, Sarah Dowie, that the Department of Conservation tried to intervene, they introduced a permitting system in 2014 to try and forge a path between the locals, the pāua divers, and the shark cage diving industry using section 53 of the Wildlife Act 1953, which we've all heard tonight was unfit for purpose. It was challenged in the High Court and it was found that the Director-General of Conservation didn't have the power to issue permits using this Act. We heard from Sarah Dowie earlier that the Court of Appeal then ruled that shark cage diving was illegal, and then that decision was set aside in the now infamous—we've all spoken about it tonight—2019 decision of the Supreme Court. So again here we are back to square one where we have a completely legal but totally unregulated industry. 
Now, we are known around the world for having these thrill-seeking tourist attractions that bring in tourist dollars, that bring in people to areas like Southland and Stewart Island who, perhaps, wouldn't see as many tourists otherwise. They create jobs and they create an industry that brings in the tourist dollar. 
This bill sees a way forward. As I said earlier, it's doing the job of the Minister. All of the arguments that have been put up tonight are, really, splitting hairs. This bill does everything that our opposition across there, the Government, say that it doesn't.
 Liz Craig spoke tonight, saying that it doesn't take into account the community. There are provisions in the bill that set out consultation requirements—in fact, that's clause 10. So there are already things baked into this bill to make sure that the community are taken into account and their views are taken into account. She also said that the needs of the sharks aren't taken into account either. Well, this bill sets out requirements for the permit for codes of practice; the Minister has to approve the codes of practice. So if they don't like certain activities to entice the sharks because it affects the shark's behaviour in some way—and I am certainly not a shark expert; we've had many shark experts up tonight, I'm not one of them—I'm sure the Director-General of Conservation will take this into account. Even if the Government are concerned that maybe it doesn't take the shark's emotional wellbeing into account, well, we can put that into the bill at select committee.
I'd just like to point out in my last few minutes that we have a bill in front of the Environment Committee at the moment that's by New Zealand First—the forestry regulation bill, which regulates forestry advisers and log traders—which is the worst abomination of a bill that we've ever seen. The reason for this is that, well, it was rushed, we've only had a couple of weeks to look at it, and we've had to extend the bill by a week to make it a good bill. This is a good bill; that bill is horrific, and we've spent time tidying it up. There is no reason why the arguments that have been put forward by the Government tonight, which aren't that great, couldn't be addressed in select committee. All they are doing is purely playing politics, and it's very sad.





SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Oh, great. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was waiting for another speaker on the other side, but thank goodness I didn't, because after hearing all of those contributions, I have to say: Louisa Wall MP for Minister of Conservation. She was the most considered speaker on that side of the House, who actually researched appropriately and put forward considered arguments—more considered than the Minister of Conservation.
I want to address the main points that the opposition have raised for the reasons for declining to put this bill through to select committee. The first that they said is that there was no consultation with iwi. Well, if they knew anything about conservation, they would go back to the Conservation Act in itself, and section 4, which says that with all matters conservation, there will be effect given to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that goes for all subordinate legislation. So that would take care of that. But equally, just like the indigenous fish bill that the Minister put forward with zero consultation with iwi, you would take it to select committee and consult with iwi and other affected parties to make sure that the bill was robust and to make sure that everybody had their say and that the information was presented, documented, and incorporated into a bill.
The second thing is that this activity, technically—albeit we are dealing with a post-COVID economy at the moment—is permitted at the moment, unregulated. So, technically, it can go on, and it is going on with no conditions surrounding it, no protections around the shark, no protection around other users, and this bill seeks to regulate that, and there are provisions in the bill. There are provisions that allow the director-general to consult with affected parties; to look at the information that is presented in the application in an objective way; to make sure that the shark is protected; to look at the geographical area in which the activity occurs; to look at the frequency, the timings—all of those sorts of parameters that protect the sharks—and then look to mitigate the adverse effects on any other users in the ocean near the vicinity of that activity.
So I think it's exactly as speakers on this side of the House have said, in that it is simple that this Government is just playing politics. They don't like it that a National member has provided a solution to an issue that is ongoing, that it strikes a balance between the competing interests of those interested in shark cage diving versus the community, and they're simply going to vote it down.
I note that Minister Sage says that she's going to look at a body of work that will come after the election. Again I reiterate: do they not see the economy recovering after COVID-19? Do they think that we're going into lockdown again, that we won't have our tourism businesses up and running? I say if that's the case, then that's very poor.
I know in my community, down in Southland, Invercargill, Bluff, and Stewart Island, that people want to get moving. They want to continue to generate revenue and wealth for families, to give them jobs, to put food on the table, but oh no, this anti-business Government wants to see tourism operations, with respect to shark cage diving, prohibited. That goes to the philosophy of Minister Eugenie Sage, who doesn't like anything commercial on the conservation estate or with respect to wildlife. We know that there are many eco-tourism businesses that are doing very, very well, that have great respect for the environment, and help educate people that go to the conservation estate and interact with wildlife. They take those messages home, and they spread the word about the environment.
So this bill is about that. It's about celebrating a midway point between the two. I have gone to Stewart Island many, many times, greater than three times. I have liaised with the community. I have liaised with Storm and PauaMAC5. PauaMAC5 are in support of this bill. I have liaised with shark cage operators. I have liaised extensively when it has come to the matters of this bill. The Supreme Court has put a spanner in the works. They have declared that this is activity is legal, and, therefore, we require regulation in the meantime before somebody is hurt.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Shark Cage Diving (Permitting and Safety) Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Motion not agreed to.





SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A members' day is a special day, and speaking to a member's bill is a special moment, and, in that spirit, I do not wish to have the Hon Nikki Kaye deprived of the opportunity to do a speech on the whole. So I therefore seek leave for the House to now adjourn.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.