TUESDAY, 30 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 her Government have a strategy for ensuring appropriate standards are in place to detect, track, and trace new cases of COVID-19 so that New Zealand's border can be progressively opened ahead of the development of an effective vaccine; if so, what is it?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I'd like to answer this question in two parts. Firstly, as a Government, we have worked hard to scale up our contact tracing significantly. This has included providing $55 million to support public health units and contact tracing; extended capacity to make 10,000 calls per day; and ensuring public health units are using a national contact tracing system, with the final one now coming on board. However, the suggestion that this should be done as a tool to reopen our borders is wrong. Contact tracing is a tool to keep people safe; border controls are too. At a time when cases are surging globally and the World Health Organization says, "the hard reality is this is not even close to being over", to suggest that we should simply reopen the borders and rely on contact tracing, no matter how good it is, is, frankly, dangerous.
Todd Muller: Does she agree with Kirk Hope of Business New Zealand that working toward some opening of the border needs to be an urgent priority?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My assumption would be, from the many conversations I've had with Kirk Hope, that he would support doing that in a way that is safe. At the moment, when we have 10 million cases reported globally, when we have the potential for South Asia and Africa not even having peaked yet, states in the United States now surging, the suggestion that right now is the time to open the borders and rely on contact tracing is, as I say, frankly, dangerous. When it comes to my conversations with Mr Hope, I've found them to be constructive. The view I've heard from business is: don't put in jeopardy our freedom domestically—the fact our domestic economy is open—by opening up too early and too soon.
Todd Muller: Is she confident New Zealand can open its border to international travellers, without a vaccine?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A vaccine is not the only thing that will make a difference in the globe's fight against COVID-19. Other things that will be game-changers will be, for instance, successful treatment; whether or not we see a change in the way this pandemic is spreading, although we haven't seen it to date; yes, as the member says, a vaccine; but also rapid and accurate testing technology has the potential to change the dynamic globally. Right now, though, the reality is, many countries who have the economic freedoms we do currently are using their borders as a line of defence. That will continue to be the case while we see this pandemic surging.
Todd Muller: What specific conditions would need to be met by other countries for the New Zealand border to be opened to their travellers?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Some of the discussions we've had and continue to have actively, and in just the past weeks and days, with Australia are around preconditions to ensure that we preserve each other's status, because there are, obviously, states in Australia that are in a very similar position to ours. So it is around things like whether or not there is community transmission and how long states have been free of that, whether or not there is adequate contact tracing, testing capacity, and things that indicate a similar system and regime to ours that can give us confidence that if an area is declaring itself free of community transmission that that is the case. We have, however, put in some acknowledgment that many of our Pacific Island neighbours, including Realm countries, are reliant on us for testing, so that may mean there is a slight delay in their testing time frames.
Todd Muller: If there is no community transmission in some states in Australia, does that meet her comfort in terms of opening up the New Zealand border with those individual states if they have no community transmission and have rigorous tracking and tracing regimes, as she just said?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It's actually a question better placed to Prime Minister Scott Morrison. We have been doing the work to make sure that we have—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'll just say that most of the noise is coming from my left, but I'd rather only have one Minister answering the question.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have been doing the work to make sure that when we are in a time and place when that threshold can be met by Australia that we are ready. However, it is ultimately a matter for Australia as to whether or not they choose to open up at a federal level, in which case it may take longer for them to reach that status, or whether or not they move state by state. That is a matter for Australia.
Todd Muller: What conditions and criteria would need to be occurring in this country for a safe reopening of the border with Australia?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously it would be a reciprocal arrangement, so the preconditions I've already just set out around days free of community transmission, the ability to test, contact trace, that's actually based on what we ask of ourselves in the same way we would be asking of anyone that we would be creating a travel bubble with.
Todd Muller: How many days free would New Zealand need to be and what level of accurate, robust track and tracing would need to be met before the Prime Minister would be satisfied that New Zealand would be in a position to meet the equivalent standard in Australia?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We are meeting our own standard already for opening up, but, again, the member is asking me what standards Australia would want to set against us. That is for them to determine. When it comes to Australia, we ultimately want to assure ourselves, quite simply, that, if we open up our borders, we do not import cases. Now, either the member agrees with that criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't, it's for him to answer to New Zealanders.
Todd Muller: What expectations would she have of the Australian Government and their testing regime and their community transmission and their cases, for her to feel comfortable that the New Zealand border could open?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The same expectations we have opening ourselves up in the way we have. I have answered multiple times: the ability to quickly contact trace, the ability to process testing in quick time, the absence of community transmission. If the member is suggesting that when Victoria is declaring 75 cases in one day, and community transmission, that we should be opening up to that state currently, the member is out of step with the New Zealand public. That has not stopped us continuing to do the work, but the member may wish to reflect on whether or not it is good for the economy to have us move up alert levels because of an outbreak brought in over the border.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Prime Minister, should we, despite there being a spike in COVID-19 cases in Beijing, open our borders with China, as Mr Muller from the National Party suggests?
Todd Muller: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apart from knowing me for 30 years and he still can't get my name right, that is not what I have said, and I have never said that directly. 
SPEAKER: The member's word must be taken.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A member's word must be taken, but if that question has been put at least four times in this House—and the Hansard will attest to that—on the fifth time he can't ask us to surely believe his word.
SPEAKER: Well, I'm not sure that the member is correct in that particular area. I think the precedent for a question being asked is indicative, but my feeling is that speed is not necessarily required. The member has given the House an assurance that he did not say that, and we must take his word.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, what are the consequences, if it can be proven, that he did say that?
SPEAKER: You mean that he did say that? Well, the member knows as well I do what the consequences of that are. 
Hon Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we take it from that ruling, therefore, that no longer do members of Parliament have to seek leave of the House to make a personal statement; they can simply take a point of order, refute a comment, and you will accept it as their word and the whole of the House now has to accept it?
SPEAKER: Well, the short answer is yes. That is the long-time precedent here, and that is that all members are honourable members and when they make a statement, especially with regard to something that they have said or they have not said, their word is taken. The consequences for misleading the House in that circumstance, as a number of members should know, is very serious.
Hon Grant Robertson: What is the Prime Minister's response to the statement from National Party leader, Todd Muller, that it was critically important that we considered broadening the bubble beyond Australia: "It's totally appropriate that Australia is our number one priority, but concurrently we need to be thinking around 'so how do we open up to China, what does that look like?' "
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would confirm what I've said many times in this House: regardless of the overseas country we are considering, the criteria needs to be the same—that is, the safety of New Zealanders, the ability to keep our economy open, and our ability to move around domestically freely. Importing cases puts all of that at jeopardy. 
Todd Muller: To the Prime Minister, again, could she please confirm for New Zealand what is the criteria that would meet her satisfaction for the border of New Zealand to be opened to other countries?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For the third or possibly fourth time: a country or state being free of community transmission, the ability to rapidly contact trace along the same criteria that we have in New Zealand, and the ability for rapid turn-around of testing so that we can be assured of the public data for any country being accurate data from which we make our judgments. To come back to the principle of what the member seems to be getting at, the suggestion that somehow New Zealand is standing in the way of opening up a trans-Tasman bubble is simply incorrect. There are two issues at play. One, community transmission in Australia—the idea that we would open up to the entire nation right now, I think, is out of step with where the New Zealand public is, and would threaten our position. Secondly, the possibility of state-by-state openings is not a matter for New Zealand; it is a matter for Prime Minister Morrison and is up to him. If the member takes issue with that, he should contact his counterparts in Australia. 
Todd Muller: Does she foresee some opening of the border, perhaps to certain countries in the first half of 2021?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We are working, as we speak, for arrangements to ensure that if there is a time and place where it is safe to do so, and that it meets our criteria, we will be ready to do that. We've started with trans-Tasman. That work is still under way, but, again, I say to the member: if he believes New Zealanders want us to open up our borders without any concern for their public safety, the member is well out of step with the public sentiment.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister, on the question of opening up the border with China, has she seen the Stuff article of 25 May—that's last month—where Mr Muller said, "How can we move into other countries, like China, in due course"?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to Speakers' ruling 159/5, that states: "It is not reasonable to use questions from the governing party or its support parties to attack other members of the House." It was an original Speaker's ruling by Lockwood Smith, reinforced by—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, as I've said, actually, I would say there are a number of countries that actually have experienced prolonged periods without COVID and where that has then changed. South Korea has been one where we've looked to; Singapore; obviously, Australia. This is a highly uncertain time where this Government has been focused on giving domestic certainty to those who are trying to reopen their businesses, get the economy going, in a globe where there is such uncertainty. That has to be our focus, and that is our priority.




Question No. 2—Finance
2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Late last week, Standard & Poor's (S & P) global ratings released a report on the economic outlook for the Asia-Pacific region. The S & P report said that economies that flattened COVID-19 curves quickly and launched substantial and well-targeted stimulus—like New Zealand—are expected to escape with less permanent economic damage. S & P Asia-Pacific chief economist Shaun Roache said, "New Zealand definitely is one of those economies that has exited the most severe periods of the pandemic first, and that clearly was just because what that allows the economy to do is reopen so those face-to-face service activities that are so important for the labour market, and that hopefully should get jobs restarted and people can go back to work." While our economy continues to face challenges from COVID-19, the S & P forecast shows that our decision to go hard and early with our health response, combined with our significant investments to protect businesses and jobs, will help stimulate the economy and speed up the recovery. 
Dr Deborah Russell: What did the S & P report say about New Zealand's current economic outlook compared with international peers and previous downturns? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to the report, S & P expects the COVID-19 pandemic to leave "lasting scars" on the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand is not immune, and this is reflected in its forecast. S & P expects the New Zealand economy to contract 5 percent in the year to June 2020, reflecting the impact of the lockdown and the global recession, but this is then followed by a strong period of projected expansion: 6 percent in 2021, 3.4 percent in 2022, and 3 percent in 2023. That is a faster rebound than either Australia or Japan are projected. While we've always been clear that the economic fallout from the pandemic would be difficult, it is encouraging that S & P expects the New Zealand economy to rebound relatively strongly, meaning less of an economic hit over the medium and long term. 
Dr Deborah Russell: Has he seen reports of recovery in the New Zealand job market? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday, Stats New Zealand released employment indicators for May, showing some encouraging signs for the job market. The Stats data shows the total number of filled jobs rose a seasonally adjusted 0.8 percent in May, after a 1.6 percent drop during April as a result of the lockdown. The May result is the highest monthly growth rate since January 2019. The data also showed that the overall fall in filled jobs since March has been most significant for those aged 15 to 24, who tend to be doing more part-time and casual work while studying. While the headline increase is encouraging, we are obviously concerned at the impact on younger people, which is why we have already put in place initiatives including training and apprenticeship funding, and, obviously, the continuation of the first year of post-school training free. There will be a long way to go in providing sustainable, skilled employment pathways for people who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19, but the Government is committed to doing that.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: How much of the $62.1 billion of available support in response to COVID-19 has been allocated so far, and, of the amount allocated, how much money has been spent to date?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government has set aside $62 billion for investments to support the economy through this one-in-100-year pandemic. This includes the $50 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund announced in the Budget, and the initial $12 billion economic package on 17 March. To date, about $44.4 billion has been announced and allocated over the forecast period, including for schemes to protect jobs and support businesses, like the wage subsidy scheme and changes to the tax system. At the same time, the Government has committed significant new investment for essential public services like health and education. In answer to the second part of the question, the Crown accounts for the 2020 fiscal year have not yet been finalised, but Treasury forecasts that more than $26 billion will be spent in the current year to 30 June.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What boundaries or rules, if any, has he put on spending the unallocated $18 billion or so during the election period?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The boundaries and rules are that that is the COVID Response and Recovery Fund. It is designed to ensure that New Zealand can continue to respond to COVID-19 in the way that we have, which means that we respond as need arises and support New Zealanders to get through this. We will continue to spend as is needed and as is required.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he assure New Zealanders that his Government won't spend whatever it thinks it might take to keep its poll numbers up until 19 September, before presenting New Zealanders with the bill on the 20th, if they succeed?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The assurance I can give the member is that I don't view the world the way he does.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he believe higher taxes will be necessary to pay back the debt incurred so far from the COVID fund and that forecast over the next three years?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've said in this House before, the way that New Zealand will get through this is to grow our economy sustainably. The long-term projections show that debt will reduce as we do that.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he rule out any increases to income taxes if he has a chance to carry on being the Minister of Finance?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm responsible as the Minister of Finance in this Government. This Government has been very clear, and our record shows over these months, that we're interested in putting money into the pockets of New Zealanders.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he think increasing fuel taxes again tomorrow will help New Zealanders get through the post - COVID-19 recession?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We're going to come to that matter in a moment, but I would say that the member will be well aware that fuel taxes, as they are paid for through the fuel excise duty and the road-user charges, are hypothecated to transport. That is an engine of growth in the economy. And I do note that, in the wake of the global financial crisis, when the previous Government was in power, on 1 October 2009 they increased fuel excise duty by 7 percent.




Question No. 4—Finance
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was submitted to the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Finance. I seek leave to have it transferred back and addressed by the Prime Minister.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is. 
4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Why is the Government planning to increase petrol excise duty, road-user charges, and alcohol excise duty tomorrow, at the same time as New Zealand enters a recession?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The member knows that the petrol excise duty and road-user charges are hypothecated levies, where every cent goes towards investing in transport, which we need right now to help stimulate the economy and to create jobs. As with alcohol excise, these are the subject of regular calculations and changes, as was done by the previous Government.
David Seymour: Why is it that the Government needs to raise road-user charges, petrol excise tax, and alcohol excise tax, but it can afford to give a $10 million package to a millionaire named AJ Hackett?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've heard members on the other side of the House cry foul about the fact that we're not giving enough money to tourism, so it's a confused picture on the other side of the House. What we're doing there is supporting strategic assets in the tourism industry, and I repeat the primary answer: the petrol excise duty and the road-user charges are hypothecated levies. The money goes to transport.
David Seymour: How can the Government stand by the adulation it gave to truckies and the whole logistics sector, when the increase in road-user charges will push up their costs and, by extension, the costs to families of every single good they carry?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those users of our transport network are the very people who want to make sure we have well-maintained roads and that we build new roads and that we build public transport to reduce congestion. These are the very people who want to see us improve those roads.
Hon James Shaw: Once the excise increase of 3.5c takes place tomorrow, will prices at the pump be higher or lower than they were in January?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: They will indeed be lower, because I believe that we've seen a pretty significant drop in tax in the price of fuel over this period of time. But the good news that all motorists know is that money goes directly to improving the roads in the transport network that we all use. 




Question No. 5—Housing
5. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made about managed isolation and quarantine facilities?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): On Sunday, Air Commodore Webb and I released the findings of the end-to-end review of the managed isolation and quarantine system. The review found that the system was under extreme strain and identified that resourcing capacity was not sufficient to carry out planning, there had been insufficient structure and role parity, and there is a need for a clear chain of authority. Communication and coordination of procedures and policies needed improvement. It is important to underscore that we are one of the only countries in the world even attempting managed isolation at the border. We know that there is no playbook for this kind of pandemic. These facilities were stood up in April, and this review recognises that there are some aspects of the system that need to change for it to cope with the increasing demand of returning New Zealanders. Air Commodore Webb and I have been working, and will continue to work, on improving our systems and our managed isolation and quarantine facilities in response to the review to protect the hard-won gains we have collectively won as a nation.
Tamati Coffey: What action is the Government taking in response?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Even before the review concluded, we began swiftly addressing resourcing issues. We've doubled the on-the-ground Defence Force staff, bringing the total number of Defence Force personnel to 168 people across 21 facilities. Resourcing will continue to be a strong focus for the Government as we continue to cope with the increasing demand for returning New Zealanders. The Government announced, yesterday, $150 million for personal protective equipment (PPE) for front-line health workers, including staff at managed isolation and quarantine facilities. We are working closely with Health to ensure PPE guidelines are up to date and consistently applied. Finally, we have improved communications with returnees at all points of the returning process. A comprehensive information pack is provided to all returnees, and, critically, nobody leaves a managed isolation or quarantine facility without returning a negative test.
Tamati Coffey: How is the managed isolation and quarantine system protecting New Zealanders from COVID-19?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We know that our borders are the strongest line of defence in protecting our communities from COVID-19. We also know that around the world the virus is growing, not slowing. With the increase in New Zealanders returning from overseas, we need rigour around our border, and our managed isolation and quarantine system becomes even more important. The system we have in place has worked well up to this point. We have no community transmission, and cases are being picked up at the border. What this review highlights is the strain the system is under. We are working swiftly to implement its recommendations and ensure that the systems in place are able to transition effectively from the immediate response phase to a more permanent solution—and why we are not just rushing out for calls to open up the border further.




Question No. 6—Health
6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Is he responsible for COVID-19 testing; if so, how many of the 2,159 people who left managed isolation between 9 and 16 June were tested prior to leaving and returning to the community?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): As I said when answering a similarly worded question last week, ultimately I have ministerial responsibility for the entire public health system, which includes oversight of the testing regime. In response to the global pandemic, New Zealand has arguably the strictest border measures in the world. More than 20,000 people have completed 14 days of managed isolation and quarantine, and there is no evidence that any have gone on to transmit COVID-19 into the community. As has been publicly reported on the Ministry of Health's website, of those who left managed isolation between 9 and 16 June, 800 had completed a test before leaving the facility, a further 484 have now been tested since they left managed isolation, and all have returned negative tests.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it correct that health staff had to phone those who had left managed isolation, to determine whether they'd had a test before leaving, because the records could not determine who had and had not been tested?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The testing regime was not working as had been intended. That was made very clear at the time—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —and those who have been—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will withdraw and apologise.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: And that is why those phone calls needed to be made.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question referred to the phone calls having been made, but the answer did not address the question of whether that was because records could not establish who had been tested.
SPEAKER: I think the question had been addressed, and I think it had actually been answered.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did Ashley Bloomfield say yesterday "There are still 367 with whom we are having trouble making contact—not for want of trying—with text, where possible, email, and repeated phone calls.", because those records had not been kept?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Obviously, phoning up those people is the quickest way to ascertain all of that detail, and, yes, Dr Bloomfield, I believe, did say those statements, although I don't have them in front of me.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he seen any reports as to whether or not a non-returning homeless person who wandered in off the street has received a test?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No, I have not been made aware of any homeless people receiving a test at a managed isolation or quarantine facility. Claims about breaches of protocol at these facilities would be very serious indeed and anyone making such claims should be taken at their word. I would encourage anyone with information about breaches of protocol to front up with that information.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: How many of those 2,159 people have not been found by the Ministry of Health, and can he confirm that the Ministry of Health will use the finding services referred to by Ashley Bloomfield to locate those who aren't picking up the phone?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can confirm that a number of them have already been handed over to finding services.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not this mystery homeless person, not 2,159 but 2,160—whether his name has been established and was it Pinocchio? 
SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that's ironic.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of his previous answer, would they be the same finding services that, according to written question 5744, failed to find more than half of the 1,800 people they were referred between 6 April and 20 May?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm not sure where the member has got those statistics from, but what I would say is that the most important thing here is that managed isolation is the most secure way we know of in the world. There's no global playbook for this virus. It's spreading faster than ever. And what we see in New Zealand is that that is working. We're one of only two countries, as far as we know, in the world that has managed isolation and quarantine facilities that are Government mandated, and we've got no evidence that any of the over 20,000 people that have been through have gone on to community transmit.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Would he not agree that the finding service would not be required had he been better at testing them while they were actually in managed isolation?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I tend to leave the testing to the clinical experts.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Would he not agree that the finding service has better things to do than look for mythical homeless people?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Hear, hear.




Question No. 7—Social Development
SPEAKER: I'll warn now that I have been informed that the answer to this question is very long. 
7. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she satisfied that she has good financial oversight of her portfolio; if so, how much has been spent on each of the payments listed on Work and Income's A to Z webpage in each of the last three years?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yes, and, as I have previously noted in my response to written parliamentary question No. 10913 (2020), this is a substantial request that requires considerable time to process, notably because it goes beyond the Ministry for Social Development (MSD). There are 61 payments or supports listed in the Work and Income A to Z. Not all of these payments are primarily administered by MSD and not all of them are funded entirely by Vote Social Development. I also note that to answer this question fulsomely would require over 180 different figures to be listed. I can advise the member that for 2019/20, the amount spent for the 11 months ending 31 May 2020 are $5.440 billion on main benefits, $14.336 billion on New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension, and $3.118 billion on supplementary assistance and hardship assistance. In 2018/19, $5.386 billion was spent on main benefits, $14.56 billion was spent on New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension, and $2.978 billion was spent on supplementary assistance and hardship assistance. In 2017/18, $5.088 billion was spent on main benefits, $13.862 billion was spent on New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension, and $2.160 billion was spent on supplementary assistance and hardship assistance. In total, Vote Social Development expenditure was $36.896 billion for the 11 months of 2019/20, $26.174 billion for 2018/19, and $24.067 billion for 2017/18. Can I assure the member that a more fulsome response will be provided as soon as that information is available.
Hon Louise Upston: How much money, if any, has been spent on the employment transition grant over the last three years?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I have said, there are 180 payments to be processed here. I did say to the member, in writing, that we could get that information to her. I actually said, I think, that it would come via the Official Information Act. I've reviewed that, and, actually, we will give it to the member in a written answer to her written question. It does just take some time, for the reasons that I've already outlined.
Hon Louise Upston: How much money, if any, has been spent on the transition to work grant start-up payment over the last three years?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I refer to my previous answer—that I am more than happy to give the information to the member in writing, but I cannot rattle off 181 different payments that were made over three years in this House.
Hon Louise Upston: Is she concerned, with the largest unemployment crisis in decades, that she doesn't have current information on spend, including on key employment support?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I'm not concerned, because I reject the premise of the question asked by that member. I gave the substantive response in my primary answer. There is more information to come. There are reasons why—as I laid out, one being that some of these payments are not made by the Ministry of Social Development and it takes time to collate—it takes a little bit of time, and I will give that information to the member, in writing, as soon as it is available.
Hon Louise Upston: Is it a priority for the Ministry of Social Development to be increasing their support for people getting into work, and, if so, how can she measure this if she doesn't know what's currently being spent?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I reject the premise of that question.
Hon Louise Upston: Does it concern her that taxpayers are funding 111 people in an insights team at MSD, when they can't even provide insight into what her department's spending?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, I reject the premise of the member's question. I think I've laid out very clearly why I can't rattle off the 181 different payments over three years in the House today and it would be more appropriate for me to give that information to the member in writing. I'm actually very proud of the job that the Ministry of Social Development has done during this time, particularly during this COVID period. They have worked incredibly hard to roll-out a wage subsidy that has supported over, I think, 1.6 million New Zealanders during this very uncertain time, as well as rolled out the temporary job loss cover, as well as continued to support New Zealanders who are experiencing hardship and needing Work and Income support. I'm very proud of the job that the Ministry of Social Development has done and, as I've said, I reject the premise of that member's question.
SPEAKER: I'm just going to invite the member to make a slight correction to her answer. I think she said there were 61 areas for three years; that's 183, not 181.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I so correct my answer, Mr Speaker. Apologies for my maths.




Question No. 8—Regional Economic Development
8. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements have been made?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Over the last week or so, the leader Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, under-secretary of regional development, and myself have been incredibly busy in the vineyard of economic development. [Interruption] 
SPEAKER: It's better than the tobacco plantation.
Hon SHANE JONES: Initially, we made announcements in Whakatāne and Rotorua, which reflected the desire of the Government to accelerate developments in association with established leaders from local government, not the least of which is former parliamentarian the Hon Steve Chadwick, who is the mayor, who is driving the redevelopment of Rotorua through a refurbished museum programme and a host of new tourism options for domestic tourism in the Whakarewarewa forest. In addition to that, Whakatāne, an area that has suffered some bad news recently, they also received high-quality political attention through the arrival of the Deputy Prime Minister and the allocation of money to accelerate those projects. And, with a small level of modesty, I announced the kauri dieback sanctuary in the area of Northland, which will get the nephs off the couch and futureproof the existence of kauri in a historic part of New Zealand that has cried out for attention and suffered after the nine years of neglect under the former regime. But, as they—
SPEAKER: Order! That's enough.
Jenny Marcroft: What announcements has he made regarding Taranaki?
Hon SHANE JONES: Following on from the former Treaty of Waitangi settlements Minister, Minister Finlayson, we have allocated some pūtea to Parihaka to add substance to the apology the Crown made under the former Treaty Minister. These announcements were shared between myself and the current Treaty of Waitangi settlements Minister, and it is to futureproof the infrastructure of that iconic site. It has been widely supported—much to my surprise—by every single mayor and civic leader in Taranaki, as they want to see even-handed development, fair development, and they realise that such iconic sites have much to contribute to the future of Taranaki.
Jenny Marcroft: How have these recent announcements been received across the regions?
Hon SHANE JONES: Whakatāne Mayor Judy Turner has identified that these infrastructure projects will develop and create momentum and jobs and will lead to the growth of Whakatāne, an area sadly written out of the script under the last economic model. More importantly, Steve Chadwick has described my announcement as "icing on the cake", aided, no doubt, by the arrival of the Deputy Prime Minister and the man to my left, Fletcher Tabuteau.




Question No. 9—Justice
9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Is his Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2020, as assented on Monday, good law?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill was good law and had been subject to extensive scrutiny by Cabinet, officials, the Justice Committee, and the public. The substantive change in the bill as passed by this House is clear: prisoners sentenced to three or more years of imprisonment remain disqualified from voting. It remains illegal for those prisoners to cast a vote. However, last week, the National Party voted on three aspects of the bill. First, they voted to not extend voting rights to all prisoners. Secondly—[Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: First, they voted to not extend voting rights to all prisoners. Secondly, they voted for prison managers being required to inform all prisoners, regardless of length of sentence, that they are qualified to be registered as an elector of an electoral district—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: All right. Order! Order! The balance of the answer to this question will be heard in silence, other than from the Minister.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Second, they voted for prison managers to be required to inform all prisoners that they are qualified to be registered as an elector of an electoral district, regardless of their length of sentence, and that those prisoners are required to apply to the Electoral Commission for registration to vote. Thirdly, they voted to abolish the power of the Electoral Commission to remove from the electoral roll the names of people who are disqualified from voting. The amendments that the National Party voted for are clearly inconsistent with each other and with the policy consistency of all elements of the bill. It also puts the Electoral Commission, prison managers, and sentenced prisoners in unworkable situations. And, today, I have introduced an amendment bill that will ensure that the new law functions as Cabinet intended it to do.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: What was wrong with National voting for a Green Party Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that removed eight clauses from his bill when we opposed his bill, or is it now the Government's view that it is the Opposition's job to clean up the mess of warring coalition partners?
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you were to rule that there is ministerial responsibility for the first part of that question, on which the second part hangs, that would certainly open up quite a wide range of questioning possibilities that the Government would welcome.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order, with respect, Mr Speaker, we just listened to a considerable diatribe from the Minister of Justice trying to explain how he managed to get this bill into such a dreadful state, in a way that was entirely designed to make it the fault of the Opposition. The reality is that he did not talk to his coalition partners and could not control his bill in the House.
Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order, I think the question that Minister Hipkins raises is whether the Minister has responsibility for the Opposition's voting, when, clearly, the Opposition isn't responsible for their own voting.
SPEAKER: I think all of us know what the answer to this is. The Minister has no responsibility.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary?
SPEAKER: No, Nick Smith first.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why?
SPEAKER: Because he's only had one crack, you know? You generally get two attempts to get a question right.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Been here continuously longer too, mate!
SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Justice whether he is saying that, as things now stand, as a result of the voting from the members of the House the other night—he knows who they are—that the person charged with the Christchurch massacre is now entitled to be approached by the prison officers and put on the electoral roll of New Zealand?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a consequence of the voting the other night in Parliament and the support given by the National Party to some parts of a Supplementary Order Paper—
Darroch Ball: The National Party voted for that, did they?
SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? The member will leave the Chamber.
Darroch Ball withdrew from the Chamber. 
SPEAKER: I was very, very clear about the answers being heard in silence.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a result of the voting the other night in Parliament and the National Party's support for an obligation on prison officers to advise prisoners sentenced to any length of sentence that they are required to be on the roll, it is correct that—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Government SOP.
SPEAKER: Who was that one? Who interjected then?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, I did. Sorry. My apologies. I withdraw and apologise.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a consequence of the voting last week in Parliament and the National Party's support of an amendment to my bill that required prison officers to tell prisoners of any length of sentence that they are required to enrol and to provide that information to the Electoral Commission, it is correct that, on sentencing, whenever that happens, the person who has admitted guilt for the Christchurch massacre will, under the law as it stands, be required to be advised that he is entitled to enrol on the New Zealand electoral register.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did, at third reading, the Minister commend his bill to the House and vote for it under urgency when it was clear it was flawed law?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The bill sought to overturn the insidious decision of the National Party in 2010—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Parliament's decision!
SPEAKER: Order! Now, who was that one?
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I'm just wondering—[Interruption] No, the member will resume his seat. I'm just contemplating. I have given some leniency to his colleague the shadow Leader of the House—much more leniency than I gave to the junior member from New Zealand First. I'm just contemplating what good reason there is for the rule to continue to be unevenly applied to the detriment of one side of the House and not the other. If the member, by way of point of order, gives me a good reason, I will contemplate it.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two things—firstly, when you ruled silence in the answering of the question, it was interpreted by many, including me, on this side of the House, that that related to the answer to the primary question, which was extended. Secondly, if it is for the entire question, the quid pro quo, surely, is that the Minister, in responding, cannot be as provocative as he has been in every supplementary answer he has given, and expect that—
SPEAKER: OK. I've heard enough. I only need to deal with the first part. The member saw me toss another member out for interjecting on a supplementary answer. [Interruption] Just because it's a member for New Zealand First doesn't mean that the rules change for everyone else.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm not sure I finished answering the previous question. I'm more than happy to complete the answer.
Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are asking for fairness. We accepted your ruling. We are asking for fairness. We accepted it when the shadow Leader of the House was not called out because he is the shadow Leader of the House, but it cannot be that New Zealand First gets penalised when every other backbencher, therefore, or frontbencher, of the National Party can break your rules.
SPEAKER: I'll sort of ignore the fact that that is a reflection on me, and I will say that it has always been my practice to be slightly harder on the parties on my right than the parties on my left. I know that members do not always see it that way, and I know that there has been, every now and again, some public criticism as to that—loudly, on some occasions from my left in public, and, privately, quite loudly in my room from people on my right. I do, however, tend to try and run the Parliament that I used to referee children's sport, and that is I was a little bit harder on the home team than I was on the opponent. That is the way I will run it. But I will give fair warning: if there is any more interjection from my left, those members will go.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for making that clear. Can I just say, sir, though, we are a little bit perplexed that we're being asked to listen to the answer to this question in silence, when the Minister of Justice is doing his very best to blame a difficult or a messy situation on the National Opposition. That has been the theme of his answers so far. What it tends to avoid, though, is the fact that, knowing that there was a problem with the bill, he still had his party vote for it.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I support the law and supported the third reading because the law responded to the overwhelming findings, critical findings, of the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal that the 2010 law that disqualified prisoners—
Hon Clare Curran: That's right.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —serving sentences of less than three years—
SPEAKER: All right. Who was that? Who interjected then? The Hon Clare Curran will leave the House. 
Hon Clare Curran withdrew from the Chamber. 
SPEAKER: And the member has answered the question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Government block National's motion to refer the bill back to the Justice Committee after the committee stage, when it was obvious to everybody in the House that the bill was flawed?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It was very clear from the pattern of voting by the National Party on the night that its voting was the product of a crazed mind. So there was no wisdom in acceding to the request of members opposite to refer the matter to the select committee.
SPEAKER: Order! Now, the Minister will withdraw and apologise for that.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have made no reflection on any individual. I referred to a voting record that has to be explained somehow or another.
SPEAKER: And the member will now withdraw and apologise again.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement by Andrew Little MP in 2015—and I quote—"Electoral law is too important to be rushed under urgency."?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I agree with the proposition that electoral law should be given proper scrutiny. Ideally, it should not be the subject of member's bill, and I don't think New Zealanders should be easily shorn of their right to vote, in the way that that member did with his Canterbury Regional Council legislation some years ago.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that this is the fifth electoral amendment bill to which he has passed under urgency, and that is more than any other justice Minister in the history of New Zealand?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can say that electoral law, like most justice legislation in this Parliament, has gone before a select committee that is equally divided, that is usually not capable of producing a majority decision. But, in any event, there are problems in our electoral law, sometimes identified by the Electoral Commission and other independent bodies, that it is proper for this Parliament to rectify and to correct. In the face of overwhelming findings by our High Court, our Court of Appeal, our Supreme Court, and our Waitangi Tribunal to say a law is manifestly unjust, it is incumbent on myself, as justice Minister, to bring that to the attention of Cabinet and the Government and, ultimately, to Parliament, which is what has happened, and that's where we've got the result we have now on this legislation.
Michael Wood: Does he agree with former Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson, who said that the law that he has amended "appears to be inconsistent with section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act and that it cannot be justified under section 5 of [the] Act.", and also that the objective of that bill was "not rationally linked with [a] blanket ban on prisoner voting."?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. I agree with those comments made by the then Attorney-General, as, indeed, to the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal. I just say, if there's any question of irrationality, something was clearly on display last Wednesday night in this House.




Question No. 10—Education
10. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to bridge the pay gap between teachers working in ECE centres and those working in our kindergartens and schools?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): This year's Budget provided a funding boost for early learning centres up and down the country to help bridge the gap between the pay of early childhood education centre teachers and teachers in schools and kindergartens. As a consequence, pay boosts for up to 17,000 qualified teachers working in education and care services kick in from tomorrow. 
Jo Luxton: Will these changes fully bridge the pay gap? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Unfortunately, no, they won't. While this funding will go some way towards levelling the playing field, fully closing the gap between education and care services and kindergartens will be a challenge to be addressed over a number of Budgets and it requires more than just additional funding. 
Jo Luxton: Why has it been important to start on tackling the pay gap now? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As we respond to the impact of COVID-19 on our economy and on our society, the Government remains committed to fair pay for low-paid workers, especially the workers who have helped to get the country moving again. A significant pay gap had built up over time between these teachers and those in schools and kindergartens, following the decision nearly 10 years ago to stop passing on to education and care services the funding rate increases that kindergartens got to meet the cost of pay settlements. 




Question No. 11—Transport
11. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Will he cancel the increase in fuel excise duty and road-user charges that come into effect tomorrow until after the election, in light of his Auckland light rail process ending; if not, why not?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): No, because the project hasn't ended. Cabinet has directed the Ministry of Transport and Treasury to continue work on Auckland light rail, and if re-elected, we will continue with the project at pace. 
Chris Bishop: God loves a trier.
SPEAKER: Order!
Chris Bishop: Sorry, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I think you withdraw and apologise, so I'm consistent with your senior colleague.
Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker. I thought I was sotto voce. Why will New Zealanders be paying even more at the pump from tomorrow, when the multibillion-dollar light rail project the fuel tax rise was meant to help fund has been canned?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I object to the premise of the member's question. The project hasn't been canned. We are investing billions of dollars in transport infrastructure to boost jobs and grow the economy. That's our focus, and, frankly, I'm surprised that the member is advocating cutting the transport budget, because if he hopes to be elected to Government, how's he going to pay for his ghost roads? 
Hon James Shaw: Can he confirm that once the excise increases 3.5c tomorrow, prices will still be approximately 40c per litre cheaper than they were in January?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I can confirm that petrol prices are currently lower than at any time since 2017. But that's not enough for our Government—that's not enough for our Government. The Hon Megan Woods is about to bring legislation to the House that will introduce a raft of changes to make the fuel market more competitive and lower prices at the pump.
Chris Bishop: What does he say to the road carriers forum, who describe the fuel tax increase as "a kick in the guts", when throughout the lockdown the road freight industry kept the country moving, delivering essential supplies including medicine and food?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it's true that the road freight industry and the rail sector kept the economy moving and moved vital freight throughout the lockdown. That industry is absolutely dependent on us building good quality transport infrastructure to serve the freight supply chain. That's what our transport budget is intended to do, and taking $2 billion out of the transport budget for the next 10 years, which is what that member is proposing, would reverse all of that work.
Chris Bishop: Isn't this the very worst time to be raising fuel tax, with household budgets under huge pressure thanks to the economic effects of COVID-19?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Our Government is very concerned about the impact of growing expenses on household budgets, but many low and middle income households now receive the Government's Families Package, which puts an extra $75 a week into their pockets. Think about the Best Start tax credit, changes to the accommodation supplement, and Working for Families—not to mention nearly $12 billion put into New Zealand businesses and their employees through the wage subsidy scheme. 
Chris Bishop: Why is he raising fuel tax at a time when the New Zealand economy is going to go into a recession the likes of which we haven't seen for a generation?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'm surprised that last week the member was expressing concern about reducing transport revenue and the deflationary effect on the economy and the loss of important transport infrastructure projects. Now he wants to cut transport revenue. He really can't have it both ways.
Ginny Andersen: Has the Minister heard from any stakeholders recently on whether he should halt fuel tax?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I heard yesterday from the Automobile Association. The AA said that they are not calling for fuel excise duty and road-user charges to be deferred as they did previously, because they recognise that current economic conditions have already reduced transport revenue.




Question No. 12—Conservation
12. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Conservation: What is her response, if any, to the comments made by the chairman of the New Zealand Game Animal Council that the Department of Conservation's tahr control plan was "not founded on adequate science and is a departure from plans previously supported by the hunting sector"?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): It is public knowledge that the Department of Conservation's (DOC's) operational plan to control Himalayan tahr is subject to court action in the High Court, with Forest & Bird seeking a declaration, on the one hand, and the Tahr Foundation seeking an urgent injunction against the draft plan being implemented, on the other. I understand the matter has been set down for a hearing next week. As the matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Hon Jacqui Dean: What is the estimated cost of the Department of Conservation's tahr cull for the current period?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: As the matter is before the courts and this goes to the matter before the courts, it is inappropriate for me to comment.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Why should taxpayers have to pay for DOC's tahr control plan, when there is a large group of recreational hunters in New Zealand who have already reduced herd numbers by 1,800 over the last three years and who wish to make a further contribution in this year?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The matter is before the courts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with the New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association, who say that DOC has conducted a rushed process this year with a lack of the usual consultation? 
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The matter is before the courts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Why was the tahr plan implementation liaison group only given two days before feedback was required from them?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The matter is before the courts. This is part of that matter. It's inappropriate for me to comment.
 





MOTIONS
Reserve Bank of New Zealand—Ratification of Funding Agreement
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That, pursuant to section 161(2) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989, the House ratify the funding agreement entered into by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand pursuant to section 159 of that Act on 16 June 2020 and presented to the House on 24 June 2020.
Under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank enter into a five-year funding agreement. This is an important instrument for maintaining the bank's operational autonomy, in that it provides multi-year funding, and specifies—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Quiet for the Minister, please.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's a very important matter, Madam Speaker; that's right. It provides multi-year funding—[Interruption]—you're already short enough—and specifies the amount of revenue the bank may retain to fund its operations. The new funding agreement will apply from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2025. The bank's funding proposal, which underpins this agreement, focuses on addressing critical risks to the bank and the financial system. The bank considers it necessary to respond to areas of past under-investment and address critical risks to its ability to deliver its mandate. Furthermore, the scale of the downturn from COVID-19 means it will be more important than ever that the bank is sufficiently resourced to undertake the full range of activities required of it. 
The new funding agreement will see the bank's core operating expenditure profile—which excludes the cost of issuing bank notes and coins—increased from $69 million in 2019-20 to $111 million in 2021, and $118 million in the final year of 2024-25. The bulk of this increased spending will focus on expanding and enhancing the bank's core activities, particularly investing in financial, supervisory, and enforcement capability, as recommended by the International Monetary Fund's 2017 financial sector assessment programme review. Spending will also be directed towards the bank's day to day operations and investing in the upkeep of its assets. This includes modernising the technology infrastructure and keeping security architecture up to date, designing a suitable vaulting and distribution system for cash, and expanding the bank's reach to stakeholders in Auckland. The spending will also cover preparations for changes to the bank's governing legislation. The bank's future legislation will bring a number of changes to how it operates and significantly enhance the bank's policy frameworks and governance settings. 
The bank is a full-service central bank with a wide range of responsibilities, such as prudential supervision, monetary policy, lender of last resort and liquidity, and liquidity management. Whilst comparisons are not like for like, benchmarking against other central banks the bank's expenses are comparatively low. Expenditure under the new funding agreement would continue to be relatively low compared to other central banks. Compared to its 2019-20 budgeted baseline of $80 million, the average annual uplift of $46 million in operating expenses is split across three areas. For people, $20.7 million: fulltime-equivalent (FTE) numbers are planned to increase from 296 FTE in 2018-19 to 468 FTE in 2024-25. The majority of these staff will be assigned to improving our regulatory policy settings, undertaking additional research, and providing more intensive supervision and enhanced enforcement capabilities of regulated entities, as well as enhancing the bank's information technology capabilities. The second area is operational expenditure of $17.9 million. Investment focuses on modernising the bank's technological infrastructure and investment into banking services such as settlement systems and cash systems. And the third area is $7.4 million on assets. This is driven by depreciation of financial stability data system investments and depreciation of property and security system investments. 
The bank's revenues typically exceed its expenses, with any excess revenue paid back to the Crown through an annual dividend after allowing for the bank's capital requirements. To maintain the effectiveness of the funding agreement framework, I have agreed to the bank's proposal to remove certain operating expenses from the scope of the funding agreement which are difficult to predict or commercial in nature. Excluding these activities is not expected to materially impact the operating expense numbers above. A statement of expenditure under each of these items will be reported in the bank's annual report. It's worth noting that Treasury is supportive of the substantial uplift in the bank's resourcing, and particularly of the bank's intent to increase its financial supervisory capability. In assessing the bank's proposal, the advice given to me by Treasury noted that capacity constraints across the public system exist. The bank has assured me its plans are feasible, that it will draw on a number of recruitment strategies to support its FTE growth, and that it will take an all-of-Government approach to its IT investment strategy. 
The bank's actions can and do materially impact the prosperity and wellbeing of New Zealand. The Government expects the Reserve Bank to use the resources available to the best possible effect and deliver excellent outcomes when exercising its functions, taking into account their statutory objectives and the Government's broader economic objectives. Ratification of this funding agreement will ensure the bank continues to remain operationally independent while also equipping the bank with the resources it needs to maintain its objectives of price stability, maximum sustainable employment, and financial stability. I therefore ask for the House's support in ratifying this funding agreement.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): The National Party will support this motion. We do so, however, with some misgivings, which I'll come to later. But we certainly need a strong Reserve Bank in this country in order to perform the important roles that it has around price stability and, latterly, its focus on employment, and certainly the stability of the financial system at a time when the economy is weak and where we entered the COVID recession already in recession with a slowing economy. We now face an enormous increase in our public debt and the need for households in New Zealand to pay back that debt over the next few years—an extra $80,000 per household of debt has been signalled in Budget 2020. So we have a critical period in the economic life of our country coming up, and it certainly requires good economic management from the elected officials—and we'll be outlining our case for that over the next couple of months—but it also requires strong financial institutions, and the Reserve Bank is one of those. So it should be appropriately funded, as it has here.
One area of concern, though, is it is a very substantial increase in spending. In the 2018-2019 year, the bank spent $76 million. So it's increasing it 50 percent, up to $115 million as outlined in this agreement. A 50 percent increase in your spending is fairly substantial, and if that was the general pattern across the public sector we would be in a terrible financial situation. It worries me somewhat that the Minister of Finance has been so ready to agree to the scale of this increase, and it certainly behoves the Governor of the Reserve Bank to justify that carefully. We've seen significant increases in staff and significant increases in the social media team from five to 14. We've seen a substantial increase in communications, now up to 17; and the overall staff numbers are going from 250 up to 468—a colossal increase in staff numbers in the Reserve Bank. We'd like to hope that all of those are justified, but we worry that there might be an element of elephantiasis emerging.
Certainly, we would normally expect the Reserve Bank to lead by example in the public sector. If we go back to the earlier period, say, when Bill English drew up this agreement from 2010 to 2005, what was envisaged was a 1 percent increase per year. Now we're in an era of 50 percent increases. Well, of course, what does it matter? Money grows on trees, as some people would think. But it doesn't actually grow on trees. So, before you increase things by 50 percent, you have to have very good justifications.
Now, there is some justification in the extended remit of the bank and the further supervisory work that it needs to do. And that, again, is something that needs to be carefully watched. I mean, every year the IMF and other people will say we need to do X, Y, and Z. But it is a concern of ours, on this side of the House, that the greatest growth industry in this country in recent years has not been exports, has not been food produce, it's not been rockets or anything like that, it's actually been compliance. Compliance has been the greatest growth industry in this economy for a long period of time. The Reserve Bank has been very much at the forefront of that. Some of that is justified, but some of it needs to be questioned because, ultimately, it's consumers that pay for all the compliance that is added right across the banking sector in those areas regulated. Some of it absolutely is justified, but we'd be expecting the Reserve Bank to be watching that very closely.
What we've also seen is the extension of the bank's work. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act gave the bank enormous powers in terms of it being independent to conduct monetary policy. So it's unusual and unique across the public sector in that it's given a bunch of money and it is independent and doesn't answer to Ministers in the normal way. The deal was that politicians didn't have a control over monetary policy in the lead-up to elections, which we were worried about. There were some examples where the temptation was for Ministers of Finance to reduce interest rates, to have a short-term boom in the year before the election to get through. Now we have a similar concern around a Minister of Finance having $20 billion in a potential slush fund in an election period—that's equally of concern. But in terms of interest rates, that's why we had an independent Reserve Bank.
Now, the question is, if the mandate starts to expand, it's expanded into employment under this law to focus on not just price stability but also to influence employment—that's OK. But it does seem to be extending further and further into climate change. So this bank has substantially increased its focus on climate change and a bunch of other issues that haven't traditionally been regarded as the core preserve of a Reserve Bank, which has been focused on price stability. I suppose the warning or the concern that I'd like to express is that the further a reserve bank goes away from a very narrow focus on price stability, the more it will start to draw into question the absoluteness of its independence as it goes into more areas where there's much more dispute. If you talk about climate change policy, for example, there is much more dispute—the Greens will have a very strong view, we'll have a strong view, and that's fine. That's appropriate. That's democratic. But it's not necessarily the appropriate preserve of an independent institution such as the Reserve Bank. So I'd signal that warning, and some of the extra funds that have been consumed by the Reserve Bank relate to these areas, such as climate change, which are not necessarily what people would ordinarily associate with the focus of the Reserve Bank. So I'd ask them to bear that in mind and also to focus on the expansion of the overall workforce in the bank.
So look, I'd be very keen to know and will be pressing the Reserve Bank Governor at the next opportunity about what percentage of the increased budget is necessary in terms of the price stability objective, what percentage of it's necessary in terms of the financial regulation objective, and then what percentage relates to climate change and other activities that are not core activities of the bank in the narrow definition that I articulated earlier.
Then, in terms of the $60 billion that the Reserve Bank—of course, the topical element is that it's moved into this quantitative easing. I would be supportive of extra resources being in place for the bank to do rigorous and proper analysis and to release that. There's a lot of material, if you read the material from the bank—a huge amount of material about openness and transparency and the way that they go about doing business. It is important that we have real clarity around their understanding of the costs and benefits and risks of the $60 billion of quantitative easing that it's carrying out at the moment and the bonds that it's buying and what the timeline is and what the process is for returning its balance to pre-COVID levels. What is the plan to get it back? Now, if they put the $60 billion into the system, what is the exact plan to unwind that? If you look around the world, it's not obvious how that works very effectively. And are there any lines in the sand that the bank won't cross in terms of direct funding of Government debt? At the moment, it's purchasing debt on the secondary markets, and there's plenty of international activity of that sort. But does it cross the line further into direct funding of Government spending or, indeed, private sector spending? That is a widespread concern.
All in all, National Party supports this motion. We support a strong and independent Reserve Bank. We are worried that the country is entering a time of economic crisis. We are not confident in the overall political direction that we're seeing. We're seeing a Government which seems to think the economic plan is to spend whatever it takes to get its polling numbers up to the election and spending whatever it takes to get to the election and then sending the bill in terms of higher taxes. They may not necessarily agree with the wealth taxes proposed by the Greens, but we'll wait and see. What we need is a Government that has a focus on growing the economy and enabling private sector investment, which will be the core to getting New Zealand out of the economic jam that we're in. That party hasn't delivered too much on that side, but the National Party will in the next few days. So thank you, Madam Speaker.





FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Congratulations to Paul Goldsmith, the member opposite, on managing to politicise a motion on the Reserve Bank. I just want to make the comment that he made observations about his own skill set, and I challenge the member to put up his CV to the New Zealand electorate, because I will be putting up mine, and I would rate my CV compared to that member's, who wrote a couple of books that we now use as bookends. 
Madam Speaker, I just wanted to talk to one other point that the member made before I get on to the substantive nature of this motion. He spoke about the compliance costs. I just want it noted that the National Party called for a bonfire of compliance, but in the nine years that they were in Government, the quantity of compliance put on business and the cost of that compliance was historically unprecedented. Business have had to deal with that, and this Government is working to make sure that we can bring that down—and I thank you for your patience in letting me make those points, Madam Speaker. 
Just by way of background to this motion, what we're here debating in the House is sections 159 to 161 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act of 1989, in which the Reserve Bank Governor and the Minister of Finance are obliged to come to agreement with one another on the funding of the operations and sundry of the Reserve Bank itself. Obviously, with today being the day, it was five years since this was last done, because that is the formality of the requirement under the legislation, and so the agreements have been arrived at, but we are now required as a House to ratify those agreements between those two persons. 
So what we are trying to do here is ratify a 2020-25 bid by the Reserve Bank Governor, as it were, and it does have to be noted that one point that the member opposite made was a valid one: this is a significant increase in funding for the Reserve Bank—this is a lot of money. He did start and finish his speech by noting that he and his party will support the bill, but he rightly pointed this part out, and there is an element of agreement there—this is nearly a 50 percent increase. But I would note, and I'm sure the member opposite read it, maybe, when he wrote his speech, that, actually, the obligations of the Reserve Bank to actually—well, let me put it another way. The Reserve Bank does not receive appropriations through the Government's budgetary process, so the bank's revenue typically exceeds its expenses. So what we're asking for today is for the bank to be able to retain more of the revenue they receive in order to fund those operations. 
The Reserve Bank funding proposal highlighted that it is an efficient and relatively low-cost central bank. I think even the members opposite will acknowledge that historically, we in New Zealand have had a strong and stable financial system, and that is very much to do with the good performance of the Reserve Bank over its time. Actually, the Minister of Finance did make this point: it's quite fair to compare the cost of the New Zealand Reserve Bank to overseas comparative banks, and one of the points that needs to be repeated for the members and the New Zealand public is that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has actually a much larger mandate than most of the other reserve banks or central banks that we would compare ourselves to—for example, the UK, Japan, and the US. We here take full responsibility through the Reserve Bank for supervising our retail banks and insurance providers, for example. 
What we are trying to do, or what the Reserve Bank Governor is trying to do and what this Government supports, is to make sure that the New Zealand public can have confidence in its operations, so we are undertaking an incredibly focused increase on protecting the wellbeing of Kiwis by stepping up the oversight of the financial sector. The previous member noted that the IMF noted that this particular section was a weakness of the Reserve Bank, and, yes, there is an element of reply to the IMF report, but, actually, it's been duly noted by this Government and the Reserve Bank themselves previously. 
The Reserve Bank has also identified that it needs greater investment in order to address the critical risk to both the bank itself and the New Zealand economy over the coming years. As has been noted, this is a period of unprecedented change in the New Zealand economy, leading to an increase in risk and uncertainty, and—with your forbearance, Madam Speaker—I'd like to quote the Reserve Bank Governor. He said, "it is a substantial and important increase, which means the Bank can address the critical risks to delivering its mandate, respond to areas of past underinvestment, and establish a long-term model to promote the wellbeing of New Zealand. The bulk of this increased spending will focus on expanding and enhancing the Bank's core activities, particularly investing in financial supervisory and enforcement capability, as recommended by the [IMF]." 
So I just close by briefly summarising what we are hoping to achieve with this agreement and what will be achieved with this agreement. It will help the Reserve Bank look into the future as well as secure the present, which is critically important as COVID-19 injects uncertainty into our economic environment, and we absolutely call for certainty as we move forward. New Zealand First believes that our country's banking and insurance systems must work for the benefit of all New Zealanders, so it is pleasing to see greater resources set aside for just this. 
The Reserve Bank is, in the international context, an efficient and well-run institution, and so we support them in their application. The Reserve Bank also focuses on protecting employment by updating its monetary policy settings and making good progress on broader review, so this agreement represents the continuation of this Government's commitment to ensure that the Reserve Bank is a healthy institution that protects and assists all New Zealanders. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. 





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I am standing on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand this afternoon to support this motion and to have our position placed on the record along with other parties in this Parliament. I think it's important, firstly, to respond to some of the commentary stated in closing by the spokesperson for the Opposition on finance, Paul Goldsmith, particularly in regard to a policy announced over the weekend by the Green Party, where he spoke about our taxation policy and kind of held himself out as a fantastic economic manager, but then later went on to himself admit that he had got the maths wrong. 
Of course, what this agreement does, fundamentally, is provide the bank with an annual average of $115 million a year for its operations over the next five years, with a further average of $13 million a year for the issuance of currency. I'd like to join with other members of this House in recognising, fundamentally, the importance of the independence of this institution, of its advice, and of the tools that it utilises. In my contribution today, I would like to highlight the bank's new dual mandate, which was alluded to by the Hon Paul Goldsmith. It is to set monetary policy in a way that maintains, obviously, price stability and supports maximum sustainable employment. Also, it is to bring together climate change and jobs and to say that the best way to fulfil that dual mandate is actually to address the climate crises. 
I think it's important to address the points made, particularly by the Opposition in this, because they hypothesise that, perhaps, speculating on things such as the climate crises or the environment was outside the remit of economic thinking. To that point, I think it's really important that we actually consider, when we speak about the economy, not just in this Chamber, but within people's lives and within society and across the world, that the economy isn't some out there deity which we sacrifice to when it's angry. The economy is, in fact, actually our collective resources and the wealth that all of us together create. It also is the rules that all of us place around it, and in Aotearoa New Zealand I think that we are incredibly fortunate for the price stability that the Reserve Bank plays a role in creating. 
These five-yearly funding agreements sit outside of the political cycle, which helps to protect them from the politics of the day. This means that the Reserve Bank can focus on making sure that the financial system is stable and works for everybody as best as possible. And as I'm sure that most people would agree, a financial system that works is one that responds to the crises that we face. The most significant of those right now is the existential crises of climate change or global warming. 
There are a number of important tools that are available to the Reserve Bank to do this. The first is understanding climate-related risk. There are two types of climate-related risk. The first is one which we're all familiar with: that of extreme weather and its increasing severity and frequency, and it's pretty clear what those risks are. Of course, earlier this year we saw the consequences of climate change exacerbating the bushfires in Australia. But the second and less talked about is transition risk. By this, we mean the risk that occurs when organisations fail to change the way that they do things so that we can move from where we are today to where we need to be to tackle the climate crises. Some people call this the "just transition". In other words, it is the risk that occurs if companies do not change their business models to shift their operations to align with the sorts of change that needs to occur to bring our emissions down, and, in fact, will occur regardless of whether we engage with it. 
The reason that this poses a risk to financial systems is that without the requisite knowledge of how exposed businesses are to climate change, central banks risk lending to organisations that are not changing in ways that they need to. This is what people talk about when they are talking of stranded assets: lending to businesses that are not adjusting to the reality of what we need to do moving into the future. 
This is one of the things that the Reserve Bank has been concerned about recently: making sure that this information is readily available, making sure banks that lend to businesses and to other investors can be sure that the organisations that they are lending to are thinking about our collective future and acting in a way that is consistent with the direction that we in this Chamber have set for the country. 
Typically, the financial system has taken a rather short-term view in its decision making, pushing longer-term problems into the long grass. But proper mandatory disclosure of climate-related risks will help to change that, and it is something that the Reserve Bank has been pushing for. That disclosure will enable risk assessment and mitigation, and incentivise investment in emissions reduction and adaptation. It means that the Reserve Bank—New Zealand's Reserve Bank, our Reserve Bank—can consider climate risks when making decisions that affect the type of country we live in and pass on to future generations. 
It will also serve to constrain the climate-related financial risk taken on by the banking sector. Climate-related financial risk would mean any activity that is not consistent with a 1.5-degree world. One of the reasons that the Reserve Bank has been calling for this mandatory reporting of climate-related risks is they know it is necessary if they are, in fact, to fulfil that dual mandate. One of the questions in all of this—a question banks will be asking themselves—is whether the Government is serious about this transition to a low-carbon economy. Of course, when it comes to this Government, the answer is yes, because we have built an enduring framework for a better future, and, in doing so, set the direction for future investment and innovation. 
So what happens when we confuse price with value? Well, we end up undervaluing the very things that make us who we are, like caring for each other and for our planet. We need to redefine those kinds of concepts of value to take the action that is requisite to make life better for each other and for future generations. Financial investments will, of course, never be a substitute for ambitious climate policy and action by Governments. In fact, of course they shouldn't be, as has been emphasised by multiple speakers so far in this debate, but these financial investments and these instruments can and should amplify those policy decisions. 
Just in closing, given that other speakers have sought to reference others—other academic thinkers, others who have been engaged in economics for a while now—I think that it is most pertinent to reference Herman Daly, who hails from institutions such as the World Bank and Yale University as an economist, who said, "The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around." The Greens support this motion and commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to.





URGENCY
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2); the first reading, referral, and instruction to select committee of the Fuel Industry Bill; the second reading of the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill; the committee stage of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill, the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill, and the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill; and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill.
By way of reasoning, the reasons for the urgency with the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2)—the need to progress that under urgency—were well canvassed during question time today and will be familiar to members of the House. With regard to the Fuel Industry Bill, progressing this under urgency through its first reading and sending it to a select committee will give the select committee additional time than if we waited until Thursday, when it would be above the line and therefore available for first reading through the normal processes of the House. The balance of the legislation that I have put in the urgency motion simply progresses one additional stage of those bills to help compensate for the lost time that Parliament was not sitting during the COVID-19 lockdown.
If the urgency for the first two bills is completed before 10 o'clock tonight, it is the Government's intention to end urgency and to move the extended sitting that we have already notified the Business Committee of. What I did not want to see happen, though, was urgency to run into early tomorrow morning and then finish and thereby lose those additional hours, which is why the other bills have been included in the urgency motion.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Motion agreed to.





ELECTORAL (REGISTRATION OF SENTENCED PRISONERS) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)
First Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
This bill does a small number of things consequent upon the passage and the Royal assent being given to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill last week. What this bill does: whereas the previous bill restored the right of prisoners sentenced to sentences of less than three years to vote, what that bill did not do, following the voting last week, was allow prison officers or prison managers to inform only those who are qualified to go on the roll to be informed of their right to go on the roll. In fact, what happened was Parliament supported the proposition that, even though it had voted for some prisoners previously disqualified from voting now to vote, all prisoners were obliged to be advised of their right to be on the roll even if they're disqualified. So this bill rectifies that and allows prison officers to gather information and provide that to the Electoral Commission.
And then the other thing this bill does is restores the power of the Electoral Commission to remove from the electoral roll those who are disqualified from voting. The voting in Parliament last week took that power that was in the current legislation and removed it, and so we were left, after last week's voting, and in the legislation as it then was at the end of the third reading, with a situation where prisoners serving more than three years were disqualified from voting but those prisoners were obliged to be advised that they could enrol, and prison officers were obliged to do that and to collect their information and to provide it to the Electoral Commission. And then also, as a consequence of last week's voting, the Electoral Commission lost its power to remove from the roll those disqualified from voting.
I think it's salutary to learn how it is that we got here. The Electoral Act was changed in 2010. Let's remember, too, just how important the Electoral Act is. It governs the rules of our elections. It goes to the heart of our democracy. So when this Parliament is dealing with matters of electoral law, it should not act trivially; it should act solemnly and seriously. So the law was changed in 2010—as a consequence, I might add, of a member's bill in the name of a National Party member. No consensus was achieved, but the majority prevailed and the law was changed. 
That law was the subject of scrutiny on a number of occasions, by no lesser institutions than the High Court of New Zealand, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the Supreme Court of New Zealand, and the Waitangi Tribunal—all of whom found that law to breach our international obligations, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the Treaty of Waitangi. It was found to be manifestly unfair and unreasonable. There is a basic principle underpinning the law as it was up to 2010, and that is that if you are a prisoner at the time of an election but you are sentenced to less than three years, you are going to be free before the next election and you should have the right to have a say on those who are leading the country that you're going to be released into. That's the fundamental principle. It wasn't what Parliament decided in 2010, but it had decided this year. So this legislation went through. 
In fact, what is interesting is the fact that the idea of prisoners having the right to vote restored to them was the subject of submissions in the select committee's inquiry into the 2017 general election, as well as previous electoral legislation that went to the Justice Committee. What is also interesting is that, when this legislation came into the House and went to the select committee—when I say this legislation: the bill passed last week—it was the subject of more than 2,500 submissions, 78 percent of which supported the legislation, wanted that change, wanted the manifest unfairness approved in 2010 to be removed and the principle restored that those serving sentences of less than three years be allowed to vote.
Now, one of the things we expect in this House—particularly amongst the two major parties—is that we act and we vote and we conduct ourselves rationally and consistently, in accordance with principle. I know members opposite have said—they said last week, and, in fact, have certainly said since last Wednesday night—that they voted in a way that they have voted before. That is actually not correct, because there is nothing on record to show, for example, that the National Party supports the idea that disqualified prisoners should be required to enrol. The National Party has never voted for that. There is no record in any Parliament in the history of this country of the National Party—at least since 1936—supporting the idea that disqualified voters or disqualified prisoners should be allowed to enrol. And yet they approved a law that said prison officers are obliged to tell prisoners of whatever length of sentence they must enrol, to collect that information, and to pass it to the Electoral Commission. There is no record from any Parliament since 1936 of the National Party supporting the idea of the Electoral Commission not having the power to remove disqualified voters. But last week the National Party voted for it.
You see, the thing is this: when we come to this Parliament as responsible MPs, we do not come here to conduct ourselves as if we are in the junior common room of high school. We come here because we have a responsibility to voters. When we are considering issues of our electoral legislation that goes to the heart of our democracy, is it too much to ask that all members conduct themselves responsibly and properly and in a principled way—because, with all due respect, that did not happen last week?
Who could predict that the grand old party that sits opposite, a party with a great reputation, the party of John Key and Bill English, the party of Dame Jenny Shipley and Jim Bolger, the party of Sir Robert Muldoon, and the party of Doug Graham—great justice Minister—the party of Sir Keith Holyoake and Sir John Marshall—who would have thought that the party of those towering figures of New Zealand politics would conduct themselves in the way they did last week? 
Kieran McAnulty: Me.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I tell you, Mr McAnulty, I think some members opposite embarrassed that great party last week. We might be political opposites, but the great thing about the parties in this House—I can say of the Labour Party and the National Party and New Zealand First and the Greens—is that we come here with respect for the institution of Parliament and we come here to conduct ourselves responsibly and professionally and with a sense of principle. Sadly, that did not happen. 
Now, I expect members opposite—or one, at least—will leap up and defend themselves and say "chaos" and "shambles" and all the rest of it, because they are covering up their own absolute craziness. Anybody looking at that pattern of voting last week will look at that and say no one could possibly explain how you could justify those positions. You would have to be completely and utterly mad to think you could vote that way.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I'm not—and I'm not. So don't bring me into the debate.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Madam Speaker, I apologise for casting any adverse reflection on yourself. I'm still getting to grips with the rules around the use of the word "you". But can I just say this: anybody looking at the voting pattern last week—last Wednesday night—of the National Party would say, on an objective basis, that that voting pattern reflects something that looks like a level of craziness or stupidity that we don't often see in this House. In fact, I struggle to think of an occasion when any party has voted so haphazardly, in such a crazy sort of way, like some sort of, you know, mad mosaic gone completely crazy. I have never seen anything like it. But that's what happened last week, and this House ought to look with considerable embarrassment at what happened. 
I say to members opposite: over the next 10 weeks, you are going to troll around the country and say, "Look at us. We can do a better job." But, actually, what they proved last week is that the state they're in right now they are unfit to govern. They cannot make up their mind what they believe in. They have no principle, and they think that it's OK to muck around and faff around with this Parliament, its procedures, its laws, and our electoral law. That reflects poorly on each and every one of them, because none of them stood up and said, "This is a little bit crazy. Can we just sort of get back to common-sense world?", because they're not in common-sense world; they're in a different world. They're in a world that none of us has ever seen in this House before, because they voted in a way that was just completely—well, I would say deranged. 
So now we have to clean that up. A responsible Government comes in and says, "We've let the children have their say. Now we come in and we clean it up." I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to say to the member that I'm not sure that the word "faff" is quite a parliamentary term.
Hon Andrew Little: I have used it before, but I take the point.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have you? Not when I'm in the Chair, I'm sure.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): National's position on the contentious issue of prisoner voting has been known for a very long time. We have a simple view, and it is that, if someone has offended against the laws of the land to the point where a judge has sentenced them to prison, they should neither be able to stand for this Parliament nor should they be able to vote in a general election.
That's not an unusual position. That is the position in the United Kingdom. That is the position in the majority of liberal democratic countries around the world. It is a position that we have argued for more than a decade. It is the position that has been part of the law of the land of New Zealand for more than 80 percent of our country's history. And it is a total shambles that a law that got the assent of the Governor-General only yesterday is now having to be amended today, and no amount of bluster and rudeness and personal attacks will take away from the Minister of Justice, who took a bill through a third reading of this Parliament, knowing—
Simeon Brown: He voted for it!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and voted for it—it was bad and contradictory law.
Let me firstly deal with the issue of why National opposes prisoners voting. The average number of offences that are committed by a person that is sentenced to prison in New Zealand is 24 convictions. The sort of notion that's presented by the Government—that these are people that have made one little mistake in their life—our corrections law makes plain that the only people that go to prison are those where the judge believes that all other options have been extended and will not work. And, secondly, it's a very practical issue. I've been privileged to be Minister of Corrections and I have talked to many corrections officers, and they would say it is impracticable to run an election in a prison. The nature of prisons is that we limit people's freedom of association; we limit their access to information. We can't have political candidates of all persuasions going through our prisons and campaigning for votes—it's not practicable. And equally, on this side of the House, we think it is a theoretical nonsense for prisoners to be able to stand for Parliament. Parliament is a serious, full-time job. It's something we have to do with a great deal of energy and effort, and the idea that someone who's serving a sentence in prison is able to stand for Parliament is a nonsense.
Now, the Government argues that somehow the mess that has required this bill is somehow the responsibility of the National Party. Let me go through exactly what did happen at the committee stage. The Green Party introduced a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) not just to give those who had served a sentence of less than three years the vote but to give all prisoners the vote. National does not support that position; we voted against that Supplementary Order Paper. At Part 2 of the bill, the Green Party had an SOP that removed six clauses in the Government's bill. We don't support the bill; so we voted for the Green Party SOP to gut Mr Little's bill. Now, somehow Mr Little argues that us voting against his clauses was somehow unprincipled—that somehow it's the responsibility of the National Party, because there's a row going on between Labour and their Government support party, the Greens, and they can't vote together; somehow we on this side of the House should vote for provisions with which we do not agree to patch up a mess of a coalition.
Now, I've seen some amazing speeches in my day, but let me make something very plain to the Government: it is not the Opposition's job to vote for bills or clauses with which we disagree to patch up the chaos in the three-party coalition that makes up the Government. But here's the more extraordinary part: here's the Parliament in urgency, fixing a bill that was botched in urgency. What we did at the third reading of the bill is we said to the Government, "Your bill does not make sense. Your bill—because parts of Mr Little's bill have been lost—creates a legal nonsense." We said, "It's going to make prison officers behave illegally, and so what we should do is refer the bill back to a select committee and fix it." We sought leave of the House for the bill to go back to the Justice Committee so that the fiasco that had been created in the controversy and disagreement between the Labour and Green parties could be fixed. And did the Government admit there was a mistake at third reading? Did the Government allow the bill to be referred back to the select committee? They simply bulldozed on under urgency and rammed it through the House.
There is a rule in this Parliament that says that you do not have the third reading of a bill immediately after the committee stage. That is there for good reason. That is there so that then a Government or Parliament can reflect on a bill after the committee stage, ensure that the way in which the various bill has come together is sensible. The Government chose to overrule that good process, ram the bill through under urgency, and it is solely their responsibility that we now have a nonsense bill on our law book.
But let's just reflect on the process that this bill has been through. The issue of prisoner voting has not suddenly come up in 2020. If anybody looks at Labour's election policy in 2017, they said it was an issue then. Why did they not introduce a bill in 2017? Or 2018? Or 2019? Why is it that the Government only, at the last moment, in the beginning of this year, bring a bill and then shorten the process and try to rush it through the Parliament? And it was worse than that. The Parliament was adjourned with the greatest national emergency that our country has seen in a generation, and when the Parliament was adjourned, the Leader of the House said the only legislation that would be progressed during the suspension of the Parliament would be that which was vital to addressing the COVID-19 emergency—that's what we heard in this House. Then why was it that they insisted that the prisoner voting legislation continue to be rammed through the Parliament while the nation was in an emergency? Can a member opposite explain this to me?
New Zealanders are facing the greatest curtailment of their freedoms in a hundred years. They're not allowed to leave their home, they're not allowed to freely associate, they're not allowed to protest, they're not allowed to do so many things, and what does the Government say the priority is? The priority is getting prisoners the vote. That was an insulting process. We even had the Minister in charge of this bill writing to the Justice Committee, urging us to rush it through and saying to the committee—letter from the Minister to the select committee saying—"We are not going to be able to provide the normal standard of advice to the committee on this bill." Little wonder, then, that we ended up with the hashed, shambolic bill that we now have.
Here is the correct position: we have a shambles in our electoral laws. We have a shambles at the border. We have a shambles in KiwiBuild. We have a shambles with light rail. And if any piece of legislation was going to highlight the incompetence of this Government, it's that, for the very first time that I've seen in 30 years, a law that was only passed last week and received Royal assent yesterday is facing amendment today. And no matter how much spin, no matter how much nastiness oozes from the Government benches, it is the parties of Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens that voted for a shambles of a bill at its third reading. I'm proud that National voted against that bill. It was a mess, and this mess simply illustrates the extent to which the Labour Party will play tricks with the electoral law to try and score a few more hundred—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member's time has expired.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, ōtirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. The only shambles in this House is that contribution by that former Minister—the only shambles in the House is the contribution of that member, Dr Nick Smith, who just resumed his seat. 
Let's come back to the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill means that people sentenced to less than three years in prison will have their voting rights returned. That's the bill. But I don't just agree with that. It was the law in this nation before 2010. It was the law of the nation in 2010, in this country, that every prisoner had the vote under three years. But who changed that? That side changed it. That side changed it despite their own member Christopher Finlayson talking about the breach of human rights. But it also talked about how the High Court, the appeal court, the Supreme Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal really went to task about the law disenfranchising prisoners. So the Minister has brought this bill to the House, and that is what we are debating in this first reading: to return to prisoners sentenced to less than three years the right to vote, as in 2010.
I want to talk just briefly about the select committee, because there have been some allegations in this House around the short process. It couldn't be anything wrong or misleading in terms of the people in Aotearoa New Zealand who submitted on this bill—2,500 written submissions. And not only that; over 17½ hours that we heard in evidence.
I also want to pick up on that former member who made the allegations around the lack of support from the justice ministry. They couldn't be further from the truth. We had a very comprehensive departmental report and officials supported the select committee throughout its deliberation of this bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith: They couldn't give a full report.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Yes, they did—yes, they did. But I want to just, in the time that I have, talk about what the side means in terms of voters and the role of rehabilitating many of our prisoners back into society. Because we heard that submission from many submitters, around the importance of connecting prisoners under three years back into their communities, back into their families. This is what this bill is doing.
But it's also part of a broader suite of electoral reforms, like being able to enrol on election day. Who's done that—who's done that? The coalition Government did that. It was also around putting ballots in supermarkets and making it accessible for many people. This bill should be seen in the wider context that we believe the democratic rights of Kiwis to vote is critical, and that's what we're debating here in this first reading. 
I'm not going to comment about the shenanigans that went down last week. The Minister's ably covered that in his contribution. But I am proud to be on the side of this House, in the coalition Government, that recognises the democratic right of prisoners serving less than three years' prison sentence. 
I want to again acknowledge the 2,500 people that submitted, but particularly want to acknowledge the young people that appeared before our select committee that talked about human rights, that talked about the bill of rights of all New Zealanders, who also talked about the importance of the Waitangi Tribunal. I couldn't be more proud of the younger people coming through this country who take the view around electoral law, around rights of prisoners, that seriously. I commend this bill to the House.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, and I just want to refute a couple of the comments the chair of the Justice Committee, Meka Whaitiri, made. She made out like the Justice Committee was going through a very rigorous process in regards to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. What she didn't tell the House is that legislation regarding sexual violence and first responders was delayed so that this bill could be rammed through during lockdown. Whilst New Zealanders were being locked down in their homes to fight COVID-19, her committee, on the instruction of the Minister, was ramming this piece of legislation—
Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who's just resumed his seat has made an assertion that the select committee acted under my instruction. That reflects poorly on me as a member, and I invite you to take action accordingly.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, the Minister wrote to the committee. In the letter from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, he urged that we pass the bill quickly. He said in his letter that officials would not be able to provide—
Hon Andrew Little: That is just not correct, Dr Smith!
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! This is in silence. [Interruption] Order! Have you finished?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: The letter from the Minister to the select committee urged that the bill be progressed rapidly. It said two other bills should be slowed down. It also said that the officials would not be able to provide the normal standard of departmental report. I think the easiest way to clarify the point would be for me to seek leave to table the justice Minister's letter.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): My ruling on this—[Interruption] Please. My ruling on this is that this is a new bill. The bill that went to select committee was a different bill. We are now in urgency debating the No. 2 bill.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm on my feet. Wait. And we'll go back to Simeon Brown.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We've just heard from Meka Whaitiri. During her contribution, she made absolutely no reference to the bill that's currently before the House. Her entire speech was about the No. 1 bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That's not a point of order. Those are debating points.
SIMEON BROWN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The select committee had a letter sent to the select committee from the Minister urging them to make changes to their work programme during lockdown. The point here is that, during lockdown, the Justice Committee was spending its time focused on giving prisoners the right to vote rather than focusing on far more pressing issues that New Zealanders would want them to be focused on, and during a time when the Leader of the House had said that all non-COVID business would be set aside. And this comes to the process that we are facing with this bill now. The previous bill was rushed and is bad law, and that side voted for the bad law at third reading, and now here we are again voting for another bill, rushing it through under urgency to try to fix up their mistakes, which they supported at the third reading.
The history of this legislation has been rushed, the history of this legislation has been under urgency, the history of this legislation has been to get things through at all costs before the election, because they're hungry for a few more votes on election day. The first reading of the previous bill was done under an extended sitting, the select committee was rushed through during COVID-19, the second reading was done through extended sitting, and the third reading was rushed through with the committee of the whole House during urgency last week. And I want to remind the House what the Supplementary Order Paper did which was passed by the Green Party. It required Corrections to assist all prisoners to enrol to vote if they are sentenced—all prisoners were required to be enrolled to vote, or Corrections was required to assist them—whereas the legislation said that only prisoners who had sentences of less than three years were actually required to be enrolled. So, essentially, the bill which was passed by the Government was an unworkable piece of legislation, and they had the opportunity last week, when Dr Nick Smith gave them the opportunity, to send the bill back to select committee to be able to fix up that mistake and that error.
Essentially, what that bill did, which the New Zealand First Party voted for, was it said to the prison managers that all prisoners had to be told that they should enrol to vote—all prisoners. The New Zealand First Party voted for that piece of legislation. The New Zealand First Party voted for a piece of legislation which says that Brenton Tarrant should be enrolled to vote. That is what the New Zealand First Party voted for last week. They're going to get up in the Parliament soon and try and make all sorts of excuses about the process and try and blame it on the National Party, but the third reading, prior to that piece of legislation going to Royal assent, was voted for by Darroch Ball and the New Zealand First Party. And they should hang their heads in shame as they speak on this piece of legislation. I look forward to him taking a call and trying to explain to the very few New Zealand First voters left in New Zealand why he did that.
The National Party's position is very clear on this issue: people who commit a crime in New Zealand, who commit an offence where they are sentenced to prison, lose their right to vote. It's simple. If you do the crime, you do the time. And that is the simple principle of the matter. The Green Party have a separate principle. They believe that all prisoners should be able to vote, and that's a fair enough principle. But the Government comes at this from a very strange perspective. Well, that is something which is completely untenable, and it doesn't matter how many times the Minister tries to stand in Parliament and say there's a principle around why prisoners who are serving sentences of less than three years is different from prisoners sentenced to longer than three years, there is no principle to the matter. It's just convenience, and he's trying to make it more palatable to New Zealand voters rather than to actually be truthful about what he actually wants.
Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker There's yet again another reflection on me as a member of this House, that what I have said is not truthful, and I take offence at that assertion.
Tim van de Molen: Speaking to the point of order, in terms of the member's aggrieved feelings, I would just draw your attention to Speakers' ruling 53/3. It says: "The cause for a matter to be withdrawn … is not that one member feels aggrieved". Effectively, the member's reaction is, basically, irrelevant according to that. It's whether the House itself is affronted. And that's not the case. The member here being disappointed—
Darroch Ball: It's unparliamentary language.
Tim van de Molen: Well, that's the reality of it. It's a debating point; not a matter to be withdrawn.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member made a statement, which I won't repeat, but in my opinion is out of order, and the member should withdraw and apologise.
SIMEON BROWN: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker. The Government is feeling very precious about this piece of legislation. And the Minister finds it offensive with what's said, but when he calls me "deranged", I also find that offensive, for the way the voting was done. He voted for the bill at the third reading last week. I did not. The National Party did not, but he did, and the New Zealand First Party did. They voted for it at third reading. Knowing that the bill was unworkable, they—and the Green Party; they voted for it too. All three governing parties voted for this piece of legislation at third reading. That's what I call deranged—that's what I call deranged—when they vote for a piece of legislation which they know is unworkable and knowing they have to come back to the House to fix it up and use urgency.
I was talking about our principle on this side of the House. Our principle is very clear: that those who commit offences in New Zealand, those who commit offences in NZ who are sentenced to prison, lose their right to vote. They lose their right to stand for Parliament—
Darroch Ball: When did you find your principle on that?
SIMEON BROWN: And I would like to remind Darroch Ball that he's standing up for people who have committed, on average, 24 offences to get where they got. That's what he's standing up for.
A submission from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, where they noted in 2018, 2019—he used to be the bastion of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, but no longer any more. He's only got 1 percent so far. As noted in my written submission, 2018/19, from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, there were 1,929 serious violent offences sentenced that year to three years or less—for crimes such as manslaughter, sexual assault, abduction, and acts intended to cause injury. That's the type of offenders that the New Zealand First Party is standing up for in Parliament today. This bill, as with the previous bill, has nothing to do for victims of crime. This bill affords more rights to those who are prisoners who have been convicted of serious criminal offences and does nothing for victims of crime. This bill gives a process for prison managers to assist prisoners to get on to the roll. What about victims who want to have some help so that they can have their name put on the hidden roll so that they don't have to be harassed, so that they can have some privacy? Where's the process? And he laughs at me when I talk about harassment. There are people in New Zealand who are afraid for their lives because of what offenders have done to them—the criminal acts that they've done—and he laughs and says, "Oh, that's just a joke." Well, I don't take this as a joke, Mr Darroch Ball. I take this incredibly seriously, and on this side of the House I am not afraid to stand up for those who are victims of crimes.
The question I was asking: where's the support from the Government to help people who have been victims of crime to get on to the secret roll, and who want some support in that? They have to go to organisations who volunteer their time to assist them, voluntary organisations who support the victims of crime. But this bill affords more rights to those who have been sentenced to serious offences, and I remind the member: 1,929 serious violent offenders sentenced to three years or less in the 2018-19 year for crimes such as manslaughter, sexual assault, abduction, and acts intended to cause injury, and I will not stand and vote for a bill which affords those people more rights than victims of crime. The New Zealand First Party should hang their heads in shame—
Darroch Ball: Sit down!
SIMEON BROWN: And I will not sit down. I will continue to stand up for victims of crime. That member should hang his head in shame for what he voted for last Thursday during urgency, and what he is now voting for again today.





DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Simeon Brown said something very strange, and I'm still trying to compute it; I'm trying to figure it out. He said that this was a matter of principle—he said this was a matter of principle. Now, what confuses me, and I'm sure it confuses everybody on this side of the House, is whether or not Mr Brown understands the time line of how we actually got to this point. 
Let me start way back in 1993, when guess who was in Government? It was the National Party. The National Party was in Government and they voted in a law—let me say this again—the National Party voted in a law, and let me say, not only the National Party, but a member that's sitting over there was a part of that National Government, who is standing up today, and last week, speaking vociferously against the very legislation he voted for in 1993. The very same legislation, about giving prisoners the vote, for those who had been in for under three years—it's the very same. Mr Nick Smith stands up in this House today, and last week, saying that it was a matter of principle that they're voting against it. When did you find those principles, Mr Smith? When did Simeon Brown figure out when National Party found those principles? 
Let me keep going down the time line, 2010. Again, the National Party—sorry, 2008—the National Party got into Government. The National Party got into Government in 2008; 2008, 2009, and it wasn't until 2010 that the National Party decided to change the law. Three years. Three years into their first term, in 2008, they decided to figure out what their principles were, apparently, and changed the law then. It wasn't because a member of Cabinet, like Nick Smith was, brought it up to the Prime Minister or to Cabinet—because it was a matter of principle, wasn't it, Mr Smith? This is a matter of principle, right? So why did that member wait three years into the first term to vote for a piece of legislation to change the prisoner voting laws? Why? Answer that question. Riddle me that, Mr Smith. Silence.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because it was a member's bill.
DARROCH BALL: It was a member's bill. Well done! It was a member's bill.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Happy to yield?
DARROCH BALL: It was a member's bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Happy to yield?
DARROCH BALL: It was a member's bill. It was a member's bill that was plucked out. It was a member's bill that was plucked out of the tin by pure luck. The National Party Cabinet that that member was a part of did not want to hear about it. I'm sure Paul Quinn wanted to come and talk to Mr Smith about it—a member of Cabinet—and say, "This is a matter of principle, Mr Smith. We need to have this as a Government bill." Oh no, it wasn't a matter of principle back then, but it is now, apparently. Isn't that right, Mr Smith? So it was a matter of luck, a matter of luck that it was plucked out by the member Paul Quinn; by the member Paul Quinn. A matter of luck. 
Now, let me just say something, also, which is quite surprising to me: that Nick Smith stands up today and speaks of his outrage, and last week again of his outrage, about the constitutional changes being made by such a slim majority—such a slim majority. What was the majority back in 2010, when the National Party changed it, Mr Smith? What was the slim majority back in 2010, when the National Party changed the prisoner voting laws? What was it? Today, we've got a majority of six, I believe. Is that correct? Six. Guess how many you had, Mr Smith? Five. 
Now, the reason why they had five—I hope everybody's watching—is because two parties, two parties in the Government back in 2010, actually voted against it. They voted against it, Mr Smith—the Māori Party, back in 2010, and United Future voted against that member's bill, and the one that was a matter of principle for the Government. You know, call me old-fashioned, but when we've got members like Mr Smith and Mr Brown standing up, waxing lyrical about it being a matter of principle, I just don't believe them, because the evidence is to the contrary, Mr Smith and Mr Brown; it is to the contrary.
I just want to say one last thing before I finish up, that I never thought I'd see the day that the National Party, and especially Nick Smith, would stand up and support a Supplementary Order Paper by the Green Party—by the Green Party—on a law and order issue, on a law and order issue. Let it be minuted—let it be noted in the annals of history—that Nick Smith and the National Party voted for, and agreed with, a law and order policy from the Green Party. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's inappropriate to bring the Governor-General into the debate of this House; so I'll just reflect in general terms on the strange feeling that must have been about to descend on Government House when Her Excellency is asked to sign into law a very similar piece of legislation to that which she would have been asked not that long ago—yesterday, in fact, I understand. It's often been quoted—the original phrase, we understand, of Harold Wilson—that a week is a long time in politics; it's also quite a long time in the context of electoral law legislation. Actually, for the political geeks out there, apparently Harold Wilson originally made a similar comment back in 1960, some four years before that now-famous saying about the week being a long time of politics, that 48 hours is a long time in politics, which is, funnily enough, about the same period of time that the Government now intends to pass this entire new piece of legislation, amending the other one and, no doubt, have that passed into law and be assented again. 
So we've got this situation having arisen because a number of lessons, it seems, needed to be learnt. One is the lesson of managing a legislative programme. Now, I haven't been in the position of being in Government in my time here, either in the general sense of being a member of the party that is in Government or, obviously, being part of the executive—I'm sure it's only a matter of time on both fronts, he said modestly, albeit facetiously, in the case of my own career.
Greg O'Connor: And optimistically. 
CHRIS PENK: I hear the candidate for Ōhāriu adding in his two cents' worth. There have been three years in this. It's many times been said that three years is not long enough for a parliamentary term—I think there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of that debate—but the reason that we're here today, relitigating, so to speak, the legislation that was passed last week, is because it was relatively late within the three-year term that the legislation was even brought to the table, so to speak. One could speculate that that was the result of negotiations that needed to take place between Government parties. I wouldn't know. I wasn't there, but, suffice to say, this is not a new issue; so it does seem strange that we've ended up with this somewhat indecent haste, as it's turned out to be, that the legislation was passed the other day, and it's now being re-passed. 
As I say, one might speculate on the cause of that, but it's probably helpful if I move on to other matters—for example, the fact that the issue that was at the heart of the confusion of last week—let's just call it confusion and move on—was an issue that had been raised and canvassed extensively at the Justice Committee. The principled position that some submitters brought to the table—and in very convincing terms, I'd have to say. If one were of the persuasion to say that some prisoners should be able to vote, the argument went that so all prisoners should be able to vote. That was obviously the position taken by the Green Party, but not by other members of the Government, as in the parties that are, effectively, forming Government as opposed to being the Government support party—I use the term "support" in a reasonably loose kind of way on this occasion. 
And so it was that the Greens put forward an amendment that the other members were not prepared to accept and support, and so we had this bizarre position whereby it was open to the National Party to highlight the principled opposition of many people on the other side of politics, let's just say, who in many cases would have said that it would be right to highlight the inconsistency, the anomaly of the fact that a law was passing through this House that says that some prisoners are able to vote; others are not, and yet the law change has been characterised by its proponents as being a matter of human rights. Well, if it's a matter of human rights and if all prisoners are human, regardless of whether they're serving less than three years or three years or more, surely all prisoners should be allowed to vote. 
Now, just to be clear, on this side of the House, we are not arguing that all prisoners should be allowed to vote, but I'm pointing out that the logical inconsistency of the Government's position, other than the Greens' position, that was on display last week, and as highlighted by the Greens' Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and in turn highlighted by our support of the Greens' SOP in respect of Part 2, has reached its logical conclusion, which is to say that we are coming back to re-debate the issue now. 
Now, the Opposition in a parliamentary democracy has few tools at its disposal. I believe that's fair enough. That's the nature of democracy. We have elections and there is a winner and a loser, roughly speaking. My side of the House did not win the last election in the sense that the Government was able to be formed by a majority of MPs who were on the other side of the argument, roughly speaking. But, while we don't have many tools at our disposal, one that we do have is to make deals with other Opposition parties or members—whether or not they are aware of the deals that are being struck in this case—and so it is that we are able to highlight issues that are important to us and to our voters by any means within the rules that we are able. And let us be clear, the rules of this House were strictly observed by us last week in the sense that we voted "Yea" and then we voted "Nay"—well, actually, the other way round; so it was "Nay" and then "Yea"—in respect of motions that were completely, entirely correctly, from a procedural point of view, put before the House.
So, as an Opposition, we don't have much opportunity to execute our ideas in the sense that we don't control the wider machinery of Government. We don't have much platform to set the agenda in the way that a Government has the moral authority. We don't have access to official advice, at least to the same extent, although I will note that those of us on the Justice Committee, of course, did discuss the issues entailed in this legislation at some length, and we don't have the majority in this House usually. On the rare occasions that we do have the majority in this House because one of the Government parties has thought it would be helpful to show up at its partners, we would be foolish not to use it to the extent that that can be helpful in raising, for the benefit of the nation, a discussion that has to be had about the inconsistency of what has been brought before us—namely, as I said before, the fact that some prisoners are to be given what has been characterised as a human right and others are not. So it is not a matter of opposition that is mindless, as some have characterised, but rather a rare opportunity for the Opposition not to be voiceless.
Let me finish in this, the first reading speech—and I sense I'll have other opportunities as the afternoon and evening wears on—with a little analysis that I have taken the liberty of bringing to the House in relation to what it means to negotiate. Now, Supplementary Order Papers are not normally a good tool for negotiation, but the reason that the Opposition, from time to time, will have the opportunity to negotiate with the Government through SOPs is that there are very few other options, but it is a rare opportunity for the Opposition to say, in the way of a negotiation, that party A has something that party B wants. Party B has, within its power, the power to give to party A that thing. Conversely, party B has something that party A wants. In this context—and the analysis goes that the National Party had the ability to vote for the Green Party's Supplementary Order Paper in both Part 1 and Part 2—the Green Party had something that the National Party wanted, which was the ability to bring to the Table an amendment to the legislation that could help to prove a point about the inconsistency of the law.
And so it was those things that were exchanged: 1) the SOP, on one hand, by the Green Party, and 2) on the other hand, by the National Party, votes to support it. That isn't the basic nature of a negotiation. A negotiation is an exchange of things that are mutually beneficial, and so it was entirely logical and entirely consistent with the National Party's position, as stated consistently throughout this House on the first reading of the No. 1 bill—if I can call it that—that we would take an opportunity that was afforded to us, albeit accidentally no doubt by the Government, to highlight the issues that had been raised throughout the select committee process by those supporters of the bill who said that it didn't go far enough and by opponents of the bill who said it simply didn't make sense. 
So I look forward to speaking further about the inconsistency therein and, in particular, how that relates to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the finding of the Waitangi Tribunal. And so at this, the first reading, without wishing to delay further, we remain opposed to the bill on this side of House.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call on this bill, given its lack of substance and its administrative purpose, this afternoon. The Green Party position is very well-known and it has been traversed by members from across the House this afternoon, even in this very debate. We see the right to vote as a fundamental human right, in agreeance with the New Zealand High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal. We see it as an obligation of Government to ensure that all basic human rights are provided to us across this land, not based on our race, religion, gender identity, marital status, or any other moral judgment of the Government of the day. That has always been our position. That is in my strengthening democracy member's bill, which stands for universal restoration of the voting rights for all people in our prisons, among other things, and we were really happy and proud to see that a part of that member's bill was adopted by the Minister of Justice and the House last week. So that's all been very well traversed. 
There was a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and it's very, very usual in an MMP Government that minor parties and members who are outside of Government—as I am—may put up an SOP to further their party's position on a Government bill and have it be voted upon. Those SOPs are, of course, drafted by the parliamentary drafters and, in this case, it was in two parts and the National Party did vote on one part of that bill. Unfortunately, they didn't vote on the substantive part; they voted on an administrative part, which would have had the effect of requiring prison staff to inform prisoners that they have the right to vote—who don't—and retaining prisoners on the roll who don't have the right to vote, because the substantive part was not voted upon. 
So that is an issue that we needed to tidy up, because the rest of the bill has the effect of creating a vast amount of admin work for the Electoral Commission without, in fact, restoring anybody's right to vote. I had a conversation with the renowned constitutional lawyer and academic Andrew Geddis last week about this, in which he called the effect of this bill the creation of zombie voters, and so we don't want that. We do want to tidy it up, but not because we are giving up on the fight to restore universal voting rights to all New Zealanders; so we will continue to push on. But we do support this bill because we do believe in having law that's consistent and effective. Thank you. 





PAULO GARCIA (National): National believes that voting is a right. It's a fundamental right but a right that is not absolute. The law gives more weight to the moral obligation of persons not to commit a crime, rather than the moral obligation of persons to vote. If we consider all the things that we think of as rights, we do agree that there is never an absolute right when even fundamental ones come with responsibilities. There is a social contract between individuals and the State.
The disqualification of prisoners from voting makes it clear that our democratic rights as citizens include the obligation to obey the law. Prisoners, however, would have opted out of that social contract, and often in quite substantial ways. When people break the law and are sentenced to prison, they have not met their side of that social contract, that obligation to society, and therefore should lose the right to vote when they are in prison. By giving rights to voters, it is giving back that right to criminals, that voice to criminals, when it is these very criminals who have taken that voice away from their victims. If someone is sent to prison because he has committed a serious crime, that comes with consequences, and as my colleague Simeon Brown has mentioned, National believes that if you do the crime, you must do the time. Going to prison is a punishment and should be treated as such.
In New Zealand, it's not easy to be given a prison sentence. You need to have committed serious things to be sentenced to imprisonment, and people who have received sentences of up to three and more years are not small-time criminals. Again, people have committed serious offences—that would mean assaults, violent robberies, family violence offences, and sexual offences. There is a wide spectrum of offences that equates to imprisonment and taking away of a person's rights. This is why National is opposed to the current bill, bill No. 2: Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2). This is why National was opposed to bill No. 1, the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill.
Last week, the Government passed the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act under urgency. The Act intended to reinstate the right to vote to criminals who were sentenced to less than three years' imprisonment, including, possibly, to vote in the coming elections. We are now in urgency again, this time on new legislation, legislation that aims to amend the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act, that was passed just last week. The question that many will ask, the public may ask, is "Why?" Why are we doing this again? Simply because bill No. 1, which we will call bill No. 1, was passed with a problem in its provisions. Despite this, the bill went on to third reading and was voted on to pass under urgency. The problem with the passage of the bill is that corrections officers are now required to tell prisoners that they are entitled to vote but even as not all of the prisoners that they will have to tell they're entitled to vote are actually entitled to that vote. It is an inconsistency that needs to be amended. All prisoners will be enrolled under the Act regardless of the sentence that they are going through, and it is unclear whether or not being allowed to enrol will carry with it that ability or right to vote.
Now, after all that's been said and done, this inconsistency, the problem with the first bill having passed on third reading in urgency—the problem arose from the Green Party's Supplementary Order Paper carrying two amendments, one that extended the right of voting, returning the right of the vote to all prisoners, and the second taking away the Electoral Commission's power to remove disqualified voters from enrolling, essentially resulting in an unworkable law. From the very beginning, the National Party has opposed returning or reinstating that right to vote to prisoners, and what has happened through the process of urgency is that in enforcing, in implementing, that belief in not allowing for prisoners to be reinstated to their voting rights, National has voted on the Supplementary Order Paper of the Greens that did contain that provision of requiring that electoral officers be required to inform the prisoners of their right to vote. Even if it results in an inconsistency in the Act, regardless, that was in keeping with National's position to be against and opposed to reinstating that right.
I think that I would like to finish by saying that, again, we need to be reminded that we have gone through and are going through an extraordinary difficulty in New Zealand, as the world is also undergoing extraordinary difficulty at this time. After the COVID lockdown in New Zealand, and as COVID-19 continues to go through the world, destroying economies because of the lockdowns that countries have needed to get into, because of this extraordinary situation and the time of Parliament coming slowly to an end over the coming recess and the next final three weeks of sessions, one would think that opportunities for urgency and moving bills faster through the process would include bills that address assistance to businesses and possibly anything that would push New Zealand towards economic recovery a little bit faster than it could possibly be. Such a bill that is pushed through urgency allowing for the reinstatement of the right to vote is simply not able to be supported.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—I call Ginny Andersen.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): E Te Māngai, kia ora, thank you. Now, it's interesting that we have had a refresh in the National Party with a pledge not to be opposition for opposition's sake, when that is exactly what has happened with the passage of this piece of legislation. So what this bill now does, this No. 2 bill, is it fixes the mess and the petty politics that the National Party members played last week.
What the National Party did is they voted on three parts of the bill; let's spell that out for those people watching at home. So number one, they voted not to extend voting rights to prisoners. Then, secondly, they voted for prison managers being required to inform all prisoners that they are qualified to be registered as an elector of a district court—[Interruption]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! A couple of things. Mr King, don't bring me into the debate. And both of you, and Mr Greg O'Connor, stop the cross-Chamber conversation. If you want to have a conversation, go outside.
GINNY ANDERSEN: Kia ora. And thirdly, they voted to abolish the power of the Electoral Commission to remove from the electoral roll the names of people who were disqualified from voting. What an utter mess. They had no consistency whatsoever. So if in the beginning you were opposed to the fact that prisoners should be able to vote if they're in prison for three years or longer, come out and say that and stick to it. But the mess that we saw last week is an absolute shambles and it makes a mockery of the democracy that New Zealand has now.
So what we need to be doing here is rectifying what was initially the law, let's remind everyone, and it was a private member's bill under the National Party that changed and removed that right. Subsequent to that, we've had the High Court of New Zealand and the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruling in favour that prisoners have the right to vote. Personally, I believe that is a good idea for people being able to be reintegrated, to have a new chance, and unnecessarily punitive measures that the National Party are advocating have not only been ruled against by the highest courts in New Zealand but the strong majority of people believe that if we are serious about turning around our prison population, we have to have more legislation like this. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon David Bennett, five minutes.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): That member just has made a lot of assumptions about what people want and believe. The reality is, if somebody commits a crime where they're put in imprisonment, they lose some rights, and one of those rights is the ability to vote. It's actually pretty hard to get to prison in New Zealand. Basically, you've got to be a large-scale offender or do a major crime, especially under this Government, where they let everybody out of jail and make sure that people don't get into jail. They've had a whole programme over the last three years of indicating to courts and to parole officials and other people in the criminal justice system that nobody should be in jail, because, in their belief, jails should not exist. The Minister even said that. He said that nobody should be in jail, with the Prime Minister, two years ago. They've followed that through. They do not actually believe—
Hon Andrew Little: The member's a clown. What a clown.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: That is true—that is true. The Minister's disagreeing now with his colleague. He should listen to his colleague the Minister of Corrections, who does not want anybody in jail. So that's the fundamental position Labour starts from: they do not believe that jail is an appropriate sanction for people that commit offences, and they will do anything to get people out of jail. They will go and make sure that people have to—
Hon Willie Jackson: We'll put you in jail.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Is there something wrong, Willie?
Hon Willie Jackson: No. I'm just saying we'll put you in jail.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Oh, yeah. Put me in jail.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Order! Don't bring me into it. I'm not going to jail any time soon.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, Trevor probably should go to jail—ha, ha! I can't say that.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Don't bring the Speaker into the debate.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's interesting that Willie Jackson wants to put people in jail—just me. But I'd still get to vote under the Labour scheme, wouldn't I, Willie?
Hon Willie Jackson: No—we'll stop it.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yeah, stop it—you'll stop it. See, that's the thing. They have all these rules and they can't even control their own political agenda. They're in coalition with the Green Party; they can't work out what's here or there. They go to this political system, and they were warned in the third reading that they should stop, reflect, and retry the committee stage. But, no, that arrogance that is the Labour Party that you see in them day by day, every time they go out and every time where they talk in this House. This was evident again last week. That arrogance led to us here today actually having to do this bill again. 
When the New Zealand economy needs real change, when people are losing jobs, when we've got an economy that's teetering on the edge of recession, this is a time where Parliament should be working for all New Zealanders. It shouldn't be working in the interests of the Labour Party and their failures and the Green Party as well.
I don't see the New Zealand First Party doing much at this time either. Now, they're a party that prides themselves on being a law and order party. Maybe that's why those New Zealand First members that wish to retain a seat in Parliament—which is, basically, all of them, because this is the best thing they're ever going to see in life—should probably start talking to David Seymour about options that they could actually parachute on to his list, because that's their best chance, at the moment, of getting back into this Parliament. The reason they're not going to get back in is because they have not delivered for their voters, who do not want to see this kind of legislation. They do not want to see prisoners given the right to vote. 
Darroch Ball: Urgh.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: That New Zealand First member over there that is lucky to be in the House after his escapades this afternoon—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Don't even go there. Seriously.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: OK. So this bill is one that we should not be debating today. If the Labour Party weren't so arrogant last week, they would have reflected on their failure and said, "Look, we got it wrong. Let's try and sort it out then and there. Let's bring that committee stage back and let's do it." But, no, we have to go through a full process; we have to waste the time of this House when we should be doing genuine things for the sake of this country. The people of this country don't believe that people that have gone to prison should have the entitlement to vote.
Hon Willie Jackson: How do you know that?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: I can tell you, Willie. I win my seat, and the reason I win my seat is because I reflect what the people of my electorate want. My people do not want prisoners to have a vote. They don't want that—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It's not often I agree with that member, the Hon David Bennett, who probably makes some of the most trite speeches in this House, but he did mention on this occasion how we should be here talking about the economy. We should be working on many of the things that need fixing. I came to Parliament to do just that, as did most of us. And what do we end up doing? We end up with games. As a result of the Hon Nick Smith playing games last week, we are back here doing this. 
This bill, the main part of it, was passed last week. Yes, it restores voting rights to those who have less than three years in prison. It prepares them. It's the only chance that those people who are most alienated will ever—the only thing they'll ever do that puts them as part of mainstream society. That did pass, but there was some very childish behaviour led by the Hon Nick Smith now being perpetuated by those members opposite. Hang your heads in shame. This is waste. It will be fixed today, as it should be, but please, please don't treat this place like a playground, like you did recently and force us all into this position, because it is shame on those of you who are endorsing what you did. I commend this bill.
Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, my mistake. I should have called that as a split call. I didn't and so I've got it reversed around the wrong way, but I'll now go to a five-minute call from David Seymour.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you—thank you, Mr Speaker. Just in time. I was sitting in my parliamentary office and I saw that we were up to speech nine on this bill—the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2)—and I have to confess, I had impure thoughts. I thought that perhaps the people of the Parliamentary Service had actually been so negligent that they had actually put up a bill that we debated last week on the ticker tape at the bottom of the TV. I thought, "Surely the good people of the Parliamentary Service would not make such an elementary mistake as to put up last week's bill as being debated this week?" I thought, "What could possibly have gone wrong? Surely it's not possible that Parliament is debating the same bill this week that it debated last week? It can't have been. Surely no one would make a mistake that silly in this Parliament?"
So I ran down to the House to find out what was going on. I asked my good friend Andrew Falloon from Rangitata, a good local MP he is, "Andrew Falloon, what is happening. Why are we debating the same bill that we had last week for registration of prisoners to vote? This can't be right." Then I said, "Andrew Falloon, is this like that time just a few weeks ago when we accidentally passed the wrong bill in Parliament? Because this Government, it makes make some terrible mistakes, some very simple mistakes, and sometimes they actually put the wrong piece of paper on the Table and accidentally pass the wrong legislation, and I think that might have happened here." Well, actually, that's what happened. For the people sitting at home watching—and I recognise that I'm kind of contributing to the problem here, but it needs to be said—their taxes are being wasted, running this Parliament to have a bill passed that was passed last week.
Why are we passing it again this week? Because when they passed it last week, they made such a tactical error in the way the Government tries to pass its legislation that they accidentally made a piece of legislation that said that if a prisoner has been in prison for more than three years, or sentenced to more than three years, they have to be registered to vote. The prison warden has to register them to vote, but they can't actually pass a vote—they can't actually vote. So they're registered, and the warden has to register them, but they can't actually vote. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Surely the clever people in Parliament who earn upwards of $162,000 a year, less the pay cut that it took them three months to organise, surely those good people that represent us in Wellington, especially the ones in the Government, wouldn't make such a silly mistake as to accidentally pass the wrong part of a law? You see, last time they passed a whole wrong law, and this time they just passed part of a wrong law, which—maybe that's progress for this Labour Government. Who knows? Maybe they're just making smaller and smaller mistakes towards the election until they reach perfection, and off in the infinite time horizon.
But the difficulty is, and the courts would have had to work this out, it may have made prison wardens criminals. The problem with that is that prison wardens are there in order to ensure that criminals are kept locked up. But then, if the Government makes the prison warden a criminal, what's going on in our jails? They'd have to lock themselves up. Then the next person who was hired to be a prison warden, every time there was an election, they would break the law and they'd become a criminal, too. So you'd have to get a new prison warden and eventually everybody would be locked in jail because of the logic of this stupid law. So we're here having a full legislative process to fix this ridiculously amateur-hour mistake made by the Government, and I just wanted to stand up and make the New Zealand people aware that that's the kind of competence they are dealing with from this Labour Government. I oppose this silly fix up. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now, recently, we discussed Speakers' ruling 48/3 in relation to the nature of the split calls, where it's an "unusual arrangement" that the second person gets the remainder of the time, and I'd just note that at that time we agreed that—or your ruling was that that wasn't the case in a structured split call agreed between National and Labour. But given the more relaxed or informal nature of this split call, would it be appropriate under that ruling for Mr Seymour to have an additional three minutes that Mr Greg O'Connor did not use? 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It's not a point of order, and I suspect that when you raised it, you may have been aware that that's not a point of order. No, it is not appropriate. You could seek leave for Mr Seymour to have additional time. 
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): Well, yes, I seek leave for Mr Seymour to be given the additional three minutes that—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Is there any objection? There is. 





ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was looking forward to another three minutes from Mr David Seymour, particularly because he does acknowledge the very good work of the member of Parliament for the Rangitata electorate. So thank you to the good member for Epsom as well.
I rise to speak tonight on the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2), and it feels a little bit like Groundhog Day because, of course, we were here in exactly this position last week, passing legislation—again under urgency—to give some additional prisoners the right to vote. The reason we're here again tonight is because of a mistake, a muck-up, a stuff-up, on the Government's part between the three governing parties, and we actually warned them at the time. It shows the perils of passing legislation under urgency—
Chlöe Swarbrick: You didn't, Andrew, come on. Don't be disingenuous.
ANDREW FALLOON: There were plenty of warnings, Ms Swarbrick. In fact, Nick Smith pointed out on several occasions, tried to be helpful, tried to—indeed, he sought leave to send it back to select committee to fix that mistake, Ms Chlöe Swarbrick, and of course it was opposed by the Government parties. But this bill shows the perils of passing legislation under urgency, and of course urgency has its place; we all accept that. There was COVID legislation passed some months ago in response to COVID-19, and of course that's appropriate—we do use urgency from time to time. But it does come with risk, and this bill highlights some of those risks. Because you had Andrew Little putting forward the bill, which then went to the committee of the whole House and various amendments were voted on, some by Golriz Ghahraman, and one of those amendments was passed by the committee; it was passed by Parliament.
And yet now we're here in this House seeking to change that amendment, to reverse those amendments. And we're not alone in doing so, because—I should say, Andrew Little, rather, railed against the use of urgency on occasion; in fact, particularly in relation to electoral law. He said that electoral law should not be subject to urgency; we should not be using urgency to pass electoral law changes. And, of course, the Greens joined him in that. The Greens—I'm old enough to remember—in Opposition used to rail against the use of urgency on many, many occasions, and yet here we are, the three Government parties, led by Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice for this Parliament, who says that electoral law should be passed under urgency and the Greens are joining him in doing so.
We warned them throughout. I said that earlier, Ms Swarbrick. She's quite wrong. They were warned throughout, they were warned during the committee of the whole House stage, they were warned during the third reading, and yet, unfortunately, the Minister pressed on. The Minister pressed on with that process despite those glaring inconsistencies being pointed out to them, and, as my colleague Tim van de Molen said, Nick Smith offered to fix it. He moved a motion in this Parliament—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Excuse me, Mr Falloon; I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you've had three minutes. Would you mind speaking to the bill? Thank you. Starting now.
ANDREW FALLOON: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, absolutely. And so the reason we have this bill, the reason we're voting on this bill—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): No, not the reason why we're here, but what's in the bill.
ANDREW FALLOON: What's in this bill is reversing a change that was passed in this Parliament last week, which could have been fixed, actually, if the original bill, the No. 1 bill as we've referred to it tonight, had been referred back to select committee, as Nick Smith offered to do, yet the Minister pressed on despite that.
Now, what this bill does is it fixes the inconsistencies that were raised in Parliament last week, and the amendment that was put forward by Golriz Ghahraman—there were two parts to it. The first part was to, essentially, give all prisoners the right to vote—that wasn't passed by the House—but then the second part, that was passed by this Parliament, which we're now reversing with this bill, sought to require prison managers to advise and assist, essentially, prisoners to enrol to vote, and this bill gets rid of that. This bill changes that. And yet the Greens, who moved that motion originally, are now voting against the very amendment that they moved.
Across the House, throughout this debate, we've had Andrew Little and other Labour MPs standing up, and what has been their response to that? Their response has been to blame National—to blame National for that change that was made in this House last week. Well, I'll just remind members opposite that, actually, National doesn't have a majority in this Parliament. So how on earth could it be that this devious National Party, this National Opposition, could pass legislation in this Parliament against the wishes of the Government? It's because it absolutely can't happen. We don't have majority in this Parliament. It was the Greens who put forward the amendment, it was the Greens who voted for the amendments, it was the Greens who voted for this change to be made that we are now voting against. It goes to show what a shambles we have in this Government, when you've got three parties all expressing a very different view.
I just want to run through some of those comments that have been raised in the debate—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Are you referring to the bill now, Mr Falloon?
ANDREW FALLOON: I'm referring to the points that have been raised—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Are you referring to the bill now?
ANDREW FALLOON: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, and in doing so—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'll be listening carefully. That's the second opportunity I've given you to refer to the bill; so I'll be listening really carefully.
ANDREW FALLOON: Right, OK, thank you, Madam Speaker. So what this bill does, as I've said, is it changes the amendment that was made in the No. 1 bill last week. It changes the amendment that was made which would have required prison managers to advise and assist prisoners—all prisoners—of the right to vote. And that actually comes from quite a consistent position from the Green Party, that they've put forward, which I have some sympathy for. It says that, rather than just some prisoners having the right to vote, all prisoners should have the right to vote. I, as I say, have some sympathy for that position. And in his contribution to this debate in this House this afternoon, the Minister, Andrew Little, said that one of the reasons for the change, one of the reasons for this piece of legislation, is that there's a fundamental principle that prisoners should have the right to vote on the Government when they're released. And I can understand that position.
The problem with this bill is that this bill doesn't actually do that. This bill doesn't give prisoners the right to vote on who will be in Government when they're released. Because, if that was the consistent position that the Government was going to hold, they'd extend it to all people, all prisoners, who are within three years of release—and this bill doesn't do that. All this bill, and the previous bill, does is give the right to vote to prisoners who have been sentenced to three years or less in prison. It doesn't do what the Minister has claimed it does, which is giving all the prisoners the right to vote in their last three years in prison. And that was—I'll again quote him; he said it was a fundamental principle that prisoners should have the right to vote on the Government that will govern them when they are released. That wasn't his only contribution; he also said that electoral law lies at the heart of our democracy, and again I agree with that point. Of course it does, and yet here we are, under urgency, passing this legislation.
I want to raise a separate point to that matter, which is that Andrew Little, earlier in the debate, described that there was, I think, several thousand submissions on the original piece of legislation, and so later on in this debate, when we come to the committee of the whole House stage, I'll be asking him how many submissions does he think—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Maybe ask him then.
ANDREW FALLOON: I'm happy to; I'm just giving him fair warning. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Just speak to the bill.
ANDREW FALLOON: I'm giving him fair warning: how many submissions does he think there'll be on this bill? And of course there will be none. There will be no submissions on this bill, because it's being rushed through all stages of Parliament under urgency tonight. There'll be no submissions, there will be no opportunity for people to submit on the bill, and unfortunately that's only going to cause more mistakes. As we warned on this side of the House throughout this debate and through the debate last week, the perils of passing legislation under urgency is that mistakes can be made. The committee stage and the select committee is where those mistakes can be identified. Unfortunately, in this case, there won't be a select committee; there won't be an opportunity for members of the public to come forward, put forward their views, identify mistakes, and hopefully pass a better bill. That won't be the process here, and so I unfortunately suspect that there could be additional problems with this bill. There'll be no opportunity to fix those glaring mistakes.
Before I end, I do just want to raise one final point from the Minister's contribution. And in his contribution he made thinly veiled attacks on a member of this House. He referred to craziness several times. He questioned the sanity of members. I find that disgraceful, because at a time—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Falloon, if it was so disgraceful, you should have raised it at the time. Could you use your remaining 35 seconds to address the bill, please?
ANDREW FALLOON: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I think it is disgraceful, I also think it's disgraceful that—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Mr Falloon, you will resume your seat.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is quite appropriate for a member to react to interjections from the other side of the House, and we've heard continuously through this debate Mr Little with his raucous interjections on a range of topics. For Mr Falloon to engage with that is entirely reasonable and within the Standing Orders.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): If that's what he would have been doing, it would have been.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker—a delight to be able to take the last call in this debate. Unlike Mr Seymour, I was in my room watching this debate play out last week and was absolutely astonished to see the disarray and shambles on that side of the House. Normally they pretend to be quite organised, but what I saw play out there was total, total disarray. I sort of think it has an explanation to do with how their party runs in general. But according to the last speaker, Andrew Falloon, he wanted to paint a picture of people on the other side being reasonable. Now, I have to think back only to a comment of Dr Smith last week comparing this House to a Nazi establishment; so don't tell us here that that side of the House is so reasonable. 
I would like to say that we shouldn't be wasting the time of this Parliament. That party continuously trying to undermine the good work that is being done on this side is an absolute waste of taxpayers' money, and I commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a first time.





Second Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
I'm thankful for the benefit of the debate that we've just had as part of the first reading of this bill. This bill does something very important: it reinstates what was in the bill that went before the Justice Committee and was studiously considered and scrutinised by the members of that committee, led by Meka Whaitiri, after receiving more than 2,500 submissions, 78 percent of which were in favour of the law change. 
That law change, in addition to enabling prisoners sentenced to less than three years to vote on the principle that at the time they vote in one election while they are in prison, they will be out before the next election and they should have a say on who's running the country that they're going to be released free into—no member opposite has challenged that principle. Some don't hear the principle—I think that Simeon Brown doesn't understand principles; he certainly didn't understand that one—but even though that principle is very clear, and that principle underpinned the 1993 legislation passed by the then National Government and voted on then by Dr Nick Smith, they still don't understand that principle. But, anyway, that's as it is. 
In any event, that's what the legislation last week did, and Parliament having approved it and the National Party having voted in favour of it, the National Party went on some weird, crazy frolic, like some sort of drunken horse galloping around the paddock, and they then started supporting some really weird things. Having said as a matter of principle that not all crims should be allowed to vote, or, in fact, that no prisoners should be allowed to vote, they then voted for prison officers to be obliged to be required—for it to be compulsory for prison officers—to tell every prisoner, including those disqualified, that they had a right to be on the roll, to collect their information, and to give it to the Electoral Commission. 
Why would you do that? What would possess you to do that? Something hit the air on that side of the Chamber last week. I don't know what it was. I don't know what it was, but that cannot be explained, and the funny thing is that in all of the contributions on the first reading, no member got up to try and explain or reconcile that pattern of voting, not one of them—not one of them. 
Now, here it is: you come here because you care about your electoral law, you care about this Parliament, you care about what it stands for, and you care about the people of New Zealand, and you come here with a good reputation and wanting to keep it, but that that didn't seem to be what happened. Members opposite seemed to think that it's good sport to behave like a sort of primary school debating team: you come in and you pick an argument there and you pick an argument there, and you behave like you really don't have much up top, because that's what they did last week—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I don't think that's a great way of referring to the Speaker, with respect—
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My apologies, Madam Speaker. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): —so you might want to come on to the bill. 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My apologies, Madam Speaker. The point is this: when we have a bill that deals with the serious issue of those who are sentenced to prison and where we have a serious debate about where that line falls, about which rights you lose when you go to prison, it is incumbent on this House to take that seriously, approach it solemnly, and act in a principled way, and there are differences of view. Of course there are differences of view, but you expect that if you are a party that adheres to a set of consistent principles—and that principle might be "We don't believe any prisoner should have the right to vote." But if that's the case, if that's the principle you adopt, then you would also vote to ensure that the Electoral Commission, for example, have the right to remove disqualified voters from voting. But that didn't happen, and so—
Tim van de Molen: Yes, it did. We opposed the third reading—we voted the bill down. 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —this bill now reinstates that. Mr van de Molen, like some of his colleagues, unfortunately, really forgets history. It's not unusual to forget history a wee way back. It's not unusual to forget your history about the Sir Keith Holyoakes and the Sir John Marshalls. It's not unusual to forget the history about the greatness of the National Party under Jim Bolger and Dame Jenny Shipley. It is very unusual to forget the history of just six days ago, but anyway, that happens. 
But, in any event, having had a principle that said "We don't believe any prisoner should have the right to vote.", they then voted to remove the power of the Electoral Commission to remove disqualified voters from the roll. This bill reinstates that—this bill reinstates that. So this is about putting some cohesion and common sense back to this, because we don't come into this House expecting MPs to be erratic and unprincipled and lacking cohesion and inconsistent. 
And here's the sad thing—here's the sad thing. As somebody who grew up in a house where both parents were long-time National Party voters and supporters, and one of whom was a National Party activist—I grew up in that household. I remember the Venn Youngs, the Duncan MacIntyres, and I remember meeting Lance Adams-Schneider—the greats of that generation. I had great respect for them. I had great respect for the National Party—and, in fact, I continue to—but what last week showed was that that party in its current state is not fit to govern, because they think it's OK to muck around with the rules. They think it's OK to vote for one principle over here and another principle over there, and no reconciliation between them. 
So, on that basis, I'm pleased that this bill is making its way through the House. This now puts back into our laws what the select committee looked at, what the select committee sent back to the House, and what was ready to be passed in the House, until the National Party had this sort of little frolic last week and they thought it was good fun. They thought the voters wouldn't see. They thought they could keep it under cover. They thought that no one would notice that they, again, had wasted the time of Parliament, but, now, Parliament has to come up and respond to their disgraceful conduct last week. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. 





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's like déjà vu all over again, as they say. The dividing lines in this bill are really around—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, the question is that the motion be agreed to. I apologise for interrupting.
CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The dividing lines in this bill that are invisible on the page but really, sort of, underline the way we should view this is the difference between principle and politics. This is inherent, for example, in the wording of clause 5, which amends the Electoral Act. Clause 5 concerns the registration of prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment of less than three years. So it's that element of having a restriction according to the number of years that is a matter of politics as opposed to one of principle. That's the genesis of this legislation and, in turn, of course, was the genesis of the equivalent legislation—the "No. 1 bill" so-called—that we were discussing as recently as last week.
Now, fair enough, reading the bill, one might say that, well, politics is the art of the possible, as it was famously said to be. But my message to the Government when I read this No. 2 amendment bill is that they cannot have it both ways. The Government cannot stand on its high horse, and it's not a drunken horse, such as we've just heard referred to in the Minister's speech—no inebriated equines in my contribution. But the Government cannot get on its high horse and say that it is a matter of human rights and consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Treaty of Waitangi and so forth to give prisoners the right to vote if they define, effectively, prisoners as only those prisoners who have a sentence of less than three years. So that's the internal contradiction within the bill, and that is the lesson that we have learnt these past several days regarding the Government—that the line between principle and politics is one that they have grappled with hard but have failed to grasp.
The other lesson that we can take from the bill, looking again at the wording of Part 1 in particular, is the perils of passing such legislation, which is technical in its nature as well as being of an electoral nature, under urgency. I refer to the—how would we call that? Well, it's very familiar—very, very familiar—and the reason this is so familiar, some of this wording, is because we have seen it all before. I don't mean in some sort of general way of being able to predict the future or based on past. I mean, literally, we've seen it all before. All these words had come before us relatively recently, and the reason is because, having attempted to legislate these things into the law of the land on the statute book last week but having failed to do so for reasons that have been reasonably well thrashed out but may yet get a bit more airing today, and so it is that we've come back here to have to have another go. It's more particularly the lack of time between the committee of the whole House stage and the third reading of the previous bill that has led us to look down on our respective desks in front of us today and say that the provisions really are pretty well exactly the same as that which the Government had intended before. 
A bit like a game of snakes and ladders, the Government has rolled a six and raced forward, but only to go all the way down to the bottom of the board. What I mean by that analogy, powerful as it is—it was the best I could come up with; nothing to do with horses, I'm afraid—is that what we've done as a Parliament, and what the Government has done, more particularly, is rushed forward but moved further backwards. So, rather than acknowledging the mistake that was made, the lack of Government management on the benches opposite last week—rather than acknowledge that and move at an appropriate pace to fix up the problem, to put it bluntly, instead, it forged ahead to a third reading to commend to the House a bill that it surely knew was unworkable, indeed, and nonsense. So it is that we've gone further back, because we've gone all the way to the start of the board, to square one. So here it is that we've been debating this bill, and I use the term loosely—but debating the bill in readings one, and two, with the committee of the whole House interlude—for good measure—and the third reading to come later on.
Again, looking at the bill and seeing what lessons we can learn at this, the second reading—not having had much of an opportunity to absorb the lessons of the first reading. But looking at that, it's actually possible to note that given the issues raised in the bill—essentially, the difference between prisoners who are incarcerated for less than three years and those who are incarcerated for three or more years—the lesson from this is that a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to amend the last similar bill was inevitable. 
It was absolutely inevitable that be brought up and, therefore, it was inevitable that this bill would be brought up, provided that one assumes in the first instance that the Greens would be honouring their position that they've held throughout that all prisoners should be able to vote—tick—and that the National Party would maintain its consistency of position, which is to oppose anything that would make the passage of this bill into the law of the land, or, effectively, the law of the land—and I use that word deliberately—as at the next general election. So the Greens have acted consistent with their principles and we've acted consistent with our position throughout. The clue is in the words of the bill that is now before us, and every time that there is a distinction made—whether in explicit terms by the words or perhaps a cross-reference back to the Electoral Act—every time that the bill points out the difference between how prisoners are to be treated according to the length of time that they are incarcerated, every time we can see that there has been a lack of an internal consistency, logical consistency, not just in the bill but in the Government parties opposite. It's that inconsistency, that incoherence, and that disjunction between the parties of Government that has expressed itself in the bill that we have seen before us today.
The other interesting thing that one notes when one looks at the bill is the gap between the rhetoric and the reality. Again, it's a pretty obvious gap if one is prepared to read between the lines and one knows a bit of the history of this legislation, with the history of the legislation being not only its passage through the House today—as I anticipate it will go through—but more particularly the background last week and going back further. 
Gosh, in the House today, we've been canvassing back centuries' worth of tradition, by the sound of it, in various different levels. We've had members' bills brought up. We've had National Party history, really, being brought out on both sides of the House, but more particularly on the part of the Minister of Justice. So just how he views that as a continuation of the long-held National Party principle that we should resist measures that are inconsistent and incoherent, that's not very clear to me at all. 
So my question to the Government benches—and I oppose it only rhetorically now, as Mr Falloon did, and I know I'm on dangerous territory now. But, as Mr Falloon did, foreshadowing a line of questioning at the committee of the whole House stage, my question—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You do know that's a dangerous line, so just back to the bill please.
CHRIS PENK: OK, thank you, Madam Speaker. The bill does not achieve, I think, much other than to put right a problem that the Government created for itself last week. The problem was one of an anomaly, but—
Hon Scott Simpson: Does it achieve for the Greens?
CHRIS PENK: Does it achieve for the Greens? I mean, the interesting question posed by the member for Coromandel is whether the anomaly is fixed—at least that's what I understand he's asking. I'm glad that he's asked it to me, otherwise I might have been tempted to ask it myself. The conclusion that I'd reach is that it fixes an anomaly in one point in sort of a technical drafting sense kind of way, because we'll have a piece of legislation that cross-refers to the Electoral Act and makes that work and so forth, but it doesn't solve the anomaly, just looking at it, in relation to the more substantive point, which is that prisoners are supposedly being allowed the right to vote on the basis that they're being given human rights or civil and political rights. But we're talking only about some prisoners and not others.
Hon Scott Simpson: The Greens will be very disappointed.
CHRIS PENK: The Greens will be very disappointed when they read the clear working of this and realise what's going on. I can only wonder whether they will be unhappy enough with it such that they will put forward another SOP to effectively do the same thing as last week, and then goodness knows how that all may turn out. But that's something, I suppose, that we have to look forward to us perhaps later tonight. In any case, for now, the position on this side of the House remains unchanged.





LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It's my absolute pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill is actually really clear. What it enables is prisoners who are sentenced to less than three years to be supported to (a) enrol and (b) vote. And, if you are sentenced for more than three years, you are supported to enrol on release. It seems that there is public support for this bill. There was a Colmar Brunton poll in October 2019 that had 53 percent support for prisoners voting versus 44 percent against.
The interesting thing—and I just want to delve a little bit on prisoners voting in New Zealand, because the reality of this issue is it goes back to 1852 in the New Zealand Constitution Act, where, in fact, if you were sentenced for—and I quote—"any treason, felony, or infamous offence," you weren't allowed to vote. It was called the civil death, and it goes back to ancient Greece and Rome. And the infamy, of that time, was: have you attempted to kill the king, have you deserted the army, or have you murdered a relative. So you lost your right of citizenship. That's the reality of this bill. Voting is a citizenship right. If you go on the website—the Government website—voting is a privilege but it's a right of citizenship, and a responsibility we all have is to ensure that we're enrolled. 
For me, this goes back to the 1986 royal commission on electoral reform—obviously, led by the Law Commission. There was a report produced called Towards a Better Democracy. That produced the Electoral Act 1993, and, within that context, prisoners who were serving a life sentence, preventative detention, or were sentenced to three years or longer were actually excluded from voting. That was changed in 2010. I won't delve into the history, but, obviously, the National Party, the National Government, supported that. That led in 2013 to five prisoners going to the High Court, and, in fact, the decision of the High Court, which faced appeal in the Court of Appeal and also the Supreme Court. Justice Heath, and I quote, said, the most fundamental aspect of a democracy is "the right of all citizens to elect those who will govern on their behalf." And therein lies the principle behind this. Is it justified that some prisoners should vote? The courts have said yes. Is it therefore justified that some prisoners shouldn't? The courts have said yes, if you serve more than three years.
I do want to acknowledge Golriz Ghahraman and the Greens, because, in fact, her amendment, and their amendment, was addressing the Waitangi Tribunal court decision. The issue about prisoners voting rights is incredibly relevant to Māori. That's why the Waitangi Tribunal took a position that all prisoners should have the right to vote.
Now, the reality is we don't strip away citizenship rights from anybody. In fact, if you look at what we're currently doing, we're allowing all citizens to come home. Fundamentally, from our perspective, we believe that prisoners have the right to reintegrate into society, and that's why every three years—and if you're sentenced to three years—it's all linked into an electoral cycle. So as a citizen of this country, you have a right to vote for who will govern you. Kia ora.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2). I just want to comment about how amusing it is that members opposite are saying is such a pleasure to be here, fixing up their mess from last week, a mess which they created and a mess, which I remind the House, they voted for in the third reading. The Green Party voted for it, the Labour Party voted for it, and the New Zealand First Party voted for it. 
Now, typically at the second reading of a bill, it's an opportunity to talk about what we heard at the select committee. Now, how long have we had in the committee for this bill today? Zero—zero. We're rushing this through under urgency. How many submissions have the public put through? Zero. We've had no opportunity for this to go to a select committee. There's been no opportunity for the public to have a say, and once again—
Hon Scott Simpson: No scrutiny.
SIMEON BROWN: No scrutiny—no scrutiny, exactly. My good friend Scott Simpson says there's been no scrutiny of this piece of legislation. And you have to ask the question: why are we in this situation? The reason we're in this situation is because the Government, in their infinite wisdom, decided last week to ram this piece of legislation through, to have a third reading after the committee of the whole House, where the changes were made, without there being any time for there to be any consideration. And here we are with a bill which seems to correct those so-called mistakes which were made by the committee of the whole House. 
The question has to be asked: why, knowing that, did the Government vote for it? Why did the Government vote for a bill which, essentially, made every prison manager up and down the country a criminal? Why did the Government at third reading vote for a bill which, essentially, makes every prison manager a criminal? That's the question. Either the Government was fully aware of what the bill did and was therefore acting irresponsibly or they just didn't understand the legislation they were putting through, and therefore they were incompetent. There's two things: they were either irresponsible, knowing full well what was in the piece of legislation, or they didn't understand the legislation they were voting for and therefore they were acting incompetently—
Hon Scott Simpson: Or both.
SIMEON BROWN: Or both. And it could well be that some members knew some parts and some members knew otherwise, because I was here, I was watching it. Ministers were pouring down from the Beehive, trying to understand what was happening—
Tim van de Molen: Running around like headless chickens.
SIMEON BROWN: —and running around like headless chickens; that's right, Tim van de Molen. He was here watching the mess unfold. Everyone was here. Then there was a little deal done off to the side with the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party, and they either knew full well what they were voting for down here in the House or they were acting irresponsibly and were acting incompetently. The reality was, whatever it was, it was incompetent because this Government voted for a piece of legislation which, essentially, made prison managers criminals by advising and assisting prisoners to enrol to vote, even though they weren't qualified to do so. 
So one part of the piece of legislation said prisoners could only be enrolled to vote if they were sentenced to less than three years. The second part of the legislation, with the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Green Party, said: actually, we're going to require Corrections to assist all prisoners that are received into the prison to enrol to vote. So it's internally inconsistent and this Government in its shambolic incompetence voted for that piece of legislation.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you move on to the current bill that we're debating now, please? [Interruption] You've had four minutes—sorry, can you resume your seat?
SIMEON BROWN: Oh sorry, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It's not a good idea to respond by an argument. You've had four minutes and I'd really like you to talk about this bill rather than the bill from last week.
SIMEON BROWN: I'm talking about this bill right here, Madam Speaker, because what this bill does—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It's really pushing your luck.
SIMEON BROWN: —is it tries to fix what did happen last week. So this bill requires Corrections to assist prisoners received into prison to enrol to vote if they're sentenced to less than three years' imprisonment.
Hon Scott Simpson: It's a patch-up job. 
SIMEON BROWN: So it's a bit of a patch-up. It's got three parts to it. Firstly, it requires Corrections to assist prisoners received into prison to enrol to vote if they're sentenced to less than three years' imprisonment and are therefore qualified to vote. And I remind the House that the New Zealand First Party is giving prisoners who've committed serious offences the right to vote. 
Matt King: Really?
SIMEON BROWN: It reasserts—absolutely. It reasserts the requirement on Corrections to assist prisoners sentenced to three years or more imprisonment to enrol to vote before they're released. And finally, it requires the Electoral Commission to remove from the electoral roll, when notified by Corrections, the names of prisoners who are disqualified from enrolling to vote. Those are the three things that this bill seeks to achieve. Three simple small changes that this bill seeks to achieve, but this is about giving effect to the principle in the previous piece of legislation, which is prisoners serving less than three years are now entitled to vote.
He's got a smirk on his face. Darroch Ball's got a smirk on his face because he thinks he's so clever. He thinks he's so clever, because he thinks he's going to get away with passing two pieces of legislation over one week under urgency—two pieces of legislation under urgency—and he's going to think that the public won't be aware. He's going to think people out in voter land, the very few left who vote New Zealand First—very few of them, not many of them—won't see that they have had two pieces of legislation rushed through this House without the level of scrutiny which is required. I challenge the member to take a call and to explain to New Zealanders why he believes—I ask him to take a call and explain to Zealanders why he believes that it's OK that people convicted to incredibly serious offences should not only be—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Because it's unconstitutional. 
SIMEON BROWN: I'm asking him to take a call—you can take one too, Chlöe Swarbrick. Take a call and explain to New Zealanders why people who are convicted of serious violent offences such as manslaughter, sexual assault, abduction should be given the right to vote, but also that Corrections officers should essentially be giving them additional help in their enrolment process. 
I ask the question again that I asked in my first reading speech: where is the support and the help given to victims of crime? Where is the support and help given to them when they are hurt by people who commit these serious offences? Where is the support given to them in this process? This bill, essentially, affords additional rights to people who've committed crimes but not to people who've had serious crimes committed against them. Where's the support for them? Where's the support? Where's the support for people who have had serious offences taken against them, who are trying to get help to potentially have their name put on the secret electoral roll? There's none. There's no legislative assistance for them. 
Hon Andrew Little: The member is just plain wrong.
SIMEON BROWN: There's no legislative assistance for them, is there, Minister? No legislative assistance, is there?
Hon Andrew Little: Get your facts right.
SIMEON BROWN: He's getting angry again. That seems to be the modus operandi of the Minister there. 
So the Government parties have had a shambolic week. And now as we come to the second reading, we are again reminded that these changes have not had the opportunity to have the scrutiny which they deserve. They haven't had the scrutiny which they should have. They haven't had a select committee process, which we suggested it have. Nick Smith in the House last week moved that they go to a select committee to ensure that the process has taken place.
Tim van de Molen: Surely the Greens will oppose it.
SIMEON BROWN: And surely the Greens would oppose this sort of rushed urgency. Back in the days, back in the old days, they used to stand in this Parliament and stand on the principle that we shouldn't be rushing all this legislation through under urgency. 
Hon Scott Simpson: Bring back Catherine Delahunty.
SIMEON BROWN: Here they are supporting this to go through under urgency. And I don't know whether I'd agree with you, Scott Simpson, when you say "Bring back Catherine Delahunty."
Hon Scott Simpson: Well, she had principles. 
SIMEON BROWN: Well, she might have had principles, but I'm not sure whether we want more Green MPs in Parliament. I think we'll want less, and we're not too far away from that being a reality, because a Government that continues to pass legislation like this will face the public of New Zealand in only 80 days and they will show their displeasure.





DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I won't take too long. I just want to point out one thing that, actually, Chris Penk said, and I want to reflect on that a little bit. So Chris Penk said that there's a difference between principle and politics. That's what he said. I can't quite compute that with what the National Party has done last week and this week. So I just want to get something straight, and I want to make sure it's on record and that everyone understands why we're here. Last week the National Party voted for a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that gave all prisoners the right to be enrolled to vote. Everyone needs to understand that the National Party last week voted for an SOP that gave all prisoners the right to be enrolled to vote. That includes the Christchurch shooter. They did—the National Party did, right? So that's the first thing. And what they've done is they're standing up—and David Seymour said it too, on that side of the House—and they're saying that it makes the current law unworkable now. 
Tim van de Molen: That's right.
DARROCH BALL: It makes it unworkable now. So we've got a "That's right" from over that side of the House. So the National Party agrees with that. And they get up and they lecture us on how unworkable it is, and what Mr Brown says is what a shambles this legislation is now. That's what he said. Mr Brown said this is a shambles now. So let's get that thing straight. Today we've got an SOP that would correct that—
Tim van de Molen: There's no SOP.
DARROCH BALL: —sorry, legislation that would correct that—and the National Party's voting against it. So not only did the National Party vote for a piece of legislation that gave every single person in prison the right to be enrolled to vote—and they say it's a shambles of a piece of legislation now—but we've got a piece of legislation on the Table now and they're going to vote against that. Now, if that's not the pure definition of disgraceful, petty politics, I don't know what is, and I hope people are watching the level that the National Party are stooping to to make some stupid, idiotic political point. Anyone over that side of the House I dare to stand up and justify why they voted for that SOP last week and are voting against something that's going to fix it this day. I dare any member of the National Party to have the courage to stand up and do that, and they won't, because they don't have it. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am looking forward to the committee stage of this Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2)—the second bill in two weeks, just to be clear—because I would be interested, or one of my colleagues would be very interested, in exploring with the Minister, who will be in the chair, just what Darroch Ball meant when he referred to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) we were debating this afternoon. So about 3½ to 4 minutes into his speech, Darroch Ball, in full flight, referenced the SOP we are debating today. So that's good. That will be one of the questions that we will be rehearsing with the Minister in the committee stage of this House. What SOP? What is in the SOP? What is the Government hiding? Is Darroch Ball foreshadowing that there is an SOP to come to the House? In terms of process how does that even work? So that is something which adds to the glaring lack of credibility surrounding the whole sorry saga of this bill.
If I turn to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2)—which is the second iteration of this bill that has hit the House this week—as a member who did not have an opportunity to speak on this bill on Thursday in urgency last week, and so was not as familiar as to some of the context around this bill. I just thought it might be useful—for me, for me, particularly, because this is an important, significant piece of legislation—just to go through some of the events of last week, which are—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could I just say to the member—the member's had two minutes now, we don't need her to go over the events of last week, we need her to speak to the bill. It's not that hard.
Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, very much for your guidance. So I'm referring to the purpose of the No. 2 bill at this point, where, in the explanatory note, it says, "it [the bill] remedies inconsistencies in its provisions about enrolment of sentenced prisoners." So, in doing so, I would like to speak—as did the Minister in his contribution to the second reading—to and examine some of those inconsistencies that arose last week in the debate to the No. 1 bill, which has led to this House spending more valuable House time putting right, apparently, those inconsistencies. 
So, in continuing to speak to the inconsistencies in its provisions, as referenced in the No. 2 bill, I want to spare a moment in terms of process around this second bill, in that the bill, the No. 1 bill, passed its first reading, and enough on that, under urgency last week. The officials, I'm assuming, were then sent away and given, effectively, three days to write the No. 2 bill. Just a few words on that process, which remedies inconsistency—so that's what these officials were sent away to do over the weekend. Fair enough. Fair enough. Fair enough. It might be said this is a bill that went through under urgency. There are inconsistencies in its provisions, I read from the No. 2 bill here, and so fair enough. Let's send the officials away to put it right and we'll deal with it under urgency again. The question arises, of course: why? Why is it that this bill must be addressed through all stages in urgency, the very next sitting day of this House? But I will leave that aside as a question that can only be answered by the Minister in the committee stage. And I am sure that there will be a number of questions of the Minister in the committee stage on that matter. 
Now, it would not be quite so egregious that officials are sent to correct a mistake purely of the Government's making, purely of the Minister's making in his failure to recognise in the "No. 1" bill that inconsistencies were going to arise in the passage of that bill. All that Minister, Andrew Little, had to do was to swallow his pride just a little bit and acknowledge that the Government had been snookered into a position, embarrassing though it may be—embarrassing though it may be—and exposing absolutely the flaws in this Government in that it passed under urgency the third reading of a bill which has inconsistencies, which this bill, the No. 2 bill, and the SOP, Darroch Ball, which we know is going to accompany it because that has been foreshadowed by Darroch Ball in his magnificent speech where he referred—
Darroch Ball: Oh, sit down.
Hon JACQUI DEAN: Oh, Darroch Ball doesn't like having this pointed out, but, Darroch Ball, I will be watching with great interest for the SOP that that member brings to this House in the committee stage. 
But I want to get back to the officials just for a moment, because not only were they required to work through the weekend, and we're seeing a lot of that at the moment—officials being required to work all through the weekend so that this House can consider pieces of legislation, in this case under urgency; the rationale for which escapes me, but as I say, I wasn't in the House last week. I was not taking part in this debate. But those very officials have been sent away to correct a mistake, not made by them—it wasn't a drafting mistake, it wasn't a policy mistake; the mistake lies fairly and squarely with the Minister, Andrew Little. Where is the responsibility taken for that? No, he has spent much of today under urgency blaming everyone else but himself. Well, I think that members over the other side say the New Zealand public are watching. Yes, the New Zealand public are watching and the New Zealand public are not silly. They can see exactly what's happened. This Government has been well and truly snookered. 
I want to refer to the lack of select committee hearings in terms of process with this No. 2 bill and the assertion, again, by the Minister, Andrew Little, that this anomaly, this inconsistency in provisions about enrolment for sentenced prisoners, is going to be corrected through this No. 2 bill. How do we know that? How do we know that—they didn't get it right the first time? How can this House, how can that New Zealand public who are watching this debate under urgency, be assured that there isn't another mistake contained within this No. 2 bill? Well, there is no way for the public to know. There is no way for this Parliament to know—and there is no way for this Parliament to know because there has been no external scrutiny—
Hon Andrew Little: Yes, there has been.
Hon JACQUI DEAN: —of the provisions in this bill—
Hon Andrew Little: Yes, there has been. The member knows it.
Hon JACQUI DEAN: —which seek to remedy inconsistencies, and when any member over this side of the House begins to make a new point, it fires up the Minister who goes by his well-earned term "Angry Andy". I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker; I should say angry Andrew Little gets fired up. 
The abuse, I'm afraid, is quite extraordinary. There have been two references in the course of this debate to mental health. How can that be from a caring Government? That's another question for the Minister in the committee stage of this bill: how can it be said that Minister of Justice gets up in this House and flippantly makes references to mental health in respect of the Opposition in this Parliament? How can that be from a Government whose cornerstone is kindness? And if we will recall the Speech from the Throne, it put as one of its strongest tenets to address mental illness. Where's the inconsistency in that? Well, it's absolutely glaringly obvious to those of us on this side of the House, and I wonder what Andrew Geddis will think about this bill. What will Andrew Geddis think? He is a well-known legislative observer who gets consulted widely. What will that member of the public think about this bill? Well, we will never know, will we, because there was not a select committee process. The first bill was flawed. The second bill is even worse. We do not support this bill.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Well done, National! You guys won the game of politics. I hope that you feel really stoked about this situation.
Just to make it really clear to members of the general public who are listening to this debate in the House today, how we got here is that the National Party decided that they would vote for half of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). The first half of that SOP would have enfranchised all prisoners. The second half required that prison officers had to enrol and register prisoners, basically, to enable the first half of that Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Golriz Ghahraman. The National Party decided, in the committee of the whole House stage of the first iteration of this bill, that it would be really fun not to vote for that first part but to vote for the second so that they could bring us all back here so that we had to do this second round, under urgency, to remedy that mistake. And well done, well done! This is what you guys wanted. Cool; you won. We're quite happy to say that you won on this point. You played the game, but you played the game with people's lives, and you have wasted time in Parliament, which you are now—
Simeon Brown: That member is a disgrace.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I will not be called a disgrace by members of the Opposition who are happy to tell me what to do with my uterus and take away my right to marry. So the National Party have played the game of politics. They've played it well, but that's all that they can claim today. It's not the moral high ground in any way, shape, or form. And, in fact, I think that most New Zealanders would be gutted, if not disgusted, to see this time in the House wasted right now. We will not waste any more time debating this bill but support it and hope that we manage to get it through, because it's simply common sense. The Green Party supports it.





PAULO GARCIA (National): I rise to speak to the second Electoral—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm really sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
PAULO GARCIA: I am happy to be able to speak in reference to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill seeks to remedy inconsistencies that have arisen in the passing of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2020, passed late last week under urgency. The Act was passed by a majority vote—with National voting against on third reading—despite an inconsistency in its provisions. The provisions about the enrolment of sentenced prisoners, which were introduced by the amendments to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, resulted from the Green Party's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 518, which proposed two amendments: one extended reinstating the right to vote to all prisoners, regardless of the crime they've committed or the duration of the sentence that they are serving, and the second was to take away the Electoral Commission's power to stop disqualified voters from enrolling. The first proposed amendment—
Hon Andrew Little: Why did National support that?
PAULO GARCIA: I will address that in a few moments. The first proposed amendment, which would see all prisoners given the right to vote, failed to gain enough support. However, the second proposed amendment, which removes the Electoral Commission's power to stop disqualified voters from enrolling, passed, making the bill inconsistent and thus unworkable, requiring this current legislation to be passed. 
Darroch Ball: Why did National vote for that?
PAULO GARCIA: I'm coming up to that point. As urgency has been called again to pass this second bill, we are now going through all the steps in the legislative process again, in an abbreviated manner, in order to pass this bill. This bill seeks to correct the inconsistencies in the Act by repealing the changes that were made to the Act by SOP 518, so the law is internally coherent and consistent with the intended policy of the Act, which is, essentially, to reinstate a prisoner's right to vote when the prisoner is serving a sentence of less than three years. In particular, clause 5 of this bill, amending section 86A of the Electoral Act, now only requires Corrections to assist prisoners received into prison to enrol to vote if they are sentenced to less than three years' imprisonment, and therefore are considered qualified to vote, and to confirm whether they would like for their details to be passed on to the Electoral Commission. Clause 6 inserts a new section, a section 86AB, which reinserts the requirement for corrections officers to assist prisoners sentenced to three years or more to be enrolled upon their release, and to confirm whether they would like their enrolment details to be sent to the Electoral Commission, as well. 
For clarity, it's just good to review the process for passing legislation in the New Zealand Parliament. A bill is first introduced in the House and progresses into its first reading. After first reading, on another sitting day, the bill is referred to the appropriate select committee for consideration. 
Kieran McAnulty: We know the process.
PAULO GARCIA: Yes, but others do not. The bill is then scheduled for a second reading, followed by consideration by the committee of the whole House. The third reading then follows. That debate will then be held and, once completed, voting will be commenced. The entire process takes approximately six months. The Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill was at the point of consideration by the committee of the whole House when the Green Party SOP 518 was taken up and voted on. The resulting inconsistency would soon become evident. Addressing one of the points of the members on the other side, my National colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith did attempt to have the bill referred back to select committee, but this offer was rejected. There was opportunity and time for the bill to have been corrected at that point. So when there are speeches that tend to show that there was no opportunity for correction after the SOP had been voted on and passed, they are incorrect. There was opportunity. The opportunity was presented; the opportunity was rejected. 
Members opposite have raised three points that I take this opportunity to address. They said that National toyed with the process by voting down the first part of the SOP, the proposed amendment by the Green Party, and voting in favour of the second, which passed. As I am neither a skilled or a fiery interjector myself, I wish to apportion a small portion of my time to speak on this point: firstly, to say that there has been little opportunity for National to win votes in this House, as we're outnumbered by the coalition Government, and so ascribing blame for the second amendment to have passed to National is totally and quite simply pointing the finger for that resulting inconsistency in the wrong direction. Secondly, as previously mentioned, National, through my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, did attempt to have the bill referred back to the Justice Committee to correct the errors, and the Government simply refused to do so. 
Darroch Ball: Come on, you've got two minutes left.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have no time left.
PAULO GARCIA: If they did, we could all be here in urgency on another bill that would have some impact on possibly helping business or improving the economic situation of New Zealand, which we are all deeply mired in. 
The other point that has been raised is that many submissions have been received in support of the Act—because no submissions have been received on this bill, so I assume that the submissions that the other members have spoken about are submitted on the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act. I just would like to express my surprise at the importance and value the members opposite have given to the number of submissions that they have received in support of the Act, when, within the last seven months, two bills received a huge number of submissions—38,000 for one bill, over 25,000 for another bill—and those bills passed without those submissions being given as much importance as the submissions are being given at this time.
National opposed the Act and opposes the amendments, simply because National does not support the reinstatement of voting rights to sentenced prisoners. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki.





ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora, Te Mana Whakawā. Kei te tautoko ahau i tēnei pire ki Te Whare. Kia ora.
[Greetings, Madam Speaker. I support this bill to the House. Thank you.]





ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak tonight on the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2). Now, usually at this stage of the debate we would be discussing and debating some of the issues that were raised at the select committee and some of the views that were expressed, but unfortunately, of course, we've been denied that opportunity in this Parliament because, of course, this bill isn't going to a select committee. We are debating the bill through all stages in urgency with no select committee and, I'm sure, a very truncated committee of the whole House stage as well. And that's a real shame, I think, because, as the Minister expressed earlier in the debate, there were quite a number of submitters on the original bill—I suppose which we call the "No. 1 bill" that was progressed through the House last week—but unfortunately no opportunity for scrutiny by a select committee on this particular bill.
I say that with a real sense of disappointment, I suppose, because it should be enormously obvious to all members in this House that a mistake was made in this legislation, that amendments were put forward by the Green Party, some of which were supported by this Parliament, and that has created an inconsistency in this bill. In fact, the amendment bill that was passed last week has only been in law for a matter of hours; it was, I think, given Royal assent yesterday. And yet here we are debating under urgency a bill that would amend it yet again. But unfortunately, the very inconsistencies that this bill seeks to address were created—well, they were created by way of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which is referred to in the bill, and that is SOP 518.
In the bill, it refers to, as referenced in the bill, the fact that the amendment was agreed to by the Parliament at its committee of the whole House stage. As is detailed in the bill, SOP 518 proposed to repeal section 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993, which would have given all prisoners the right to vote. As I've said a number of occasions, that is a very consistent view to hold, and it's certainly one that the Green Party hold, but not one that is held on this side of the House. Part of that SOP wasn't passed, of course, that would've been the amendment which would have extended the right to vote to all prisoners. But what this Parliament did vote for was an amendment which does require corrections to assist all prisoners, received in to prison, to enrol to vote, and the bill describes that to be, quote, "internally inconsistent", and, of course, it is. So the law, as it currently stands—as I say, it's been on the books for a matter of hours—requires corrections to assist all prisoners to enrol to vote, and yet the Act that was given Royal assent still makes it illegal for prisoners who are given a sentence of greater than three years to enrol to vote.
It is what my colleague Chris Bishop would probably describe as an absolute shemozzle. This bill canvasses that point. It says, quote, "The passage of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill … now places unworkable obligations on the Department of Corrections … and the Electoral Commission."—it goes on to say, "Those obligations are not in line with the intended policy that only prisoners serving sentences of less than 3 years should be able to enrol to vote." And so my question for the Minister, which I do hope he will address in a later contribution later on tonight, is in respect of other inconsistencies in the bill, because as much as this bill tries to remedy the inconsistencies that were created last week, it also creates other ones. So, for example, why is it that the example that was being given by the Government of their position is that prisoners should be allowed to vote on the Government that will be in power when they are released? And yet this bill doesn't actually do that, and nor does the bill that was passed last week. Because all this bill does is extends the right to vote to prisoners—or both bills, in fact, extend the right to vote to prisoners who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than three years. What it doesn't do is what the Minister has described, which is give all prisoners the right to vote in their last three years, as in those prisoners who are going to—
Andrew Bayly: This is a very good speech.
ANDREW FALLOON: —thank you, Mr Bayly—in the Minister's words, vote for the Government that that will be in power when they are released.
Now, I do briefly want to come back to the Supplementary Order Paper that is referred to in the bill, that's Supplementary Order Paper 518, that this bill essentially repeals. That amendment was put forward by the Green Party, so I hope that a Green MP—and we've heard some contributions earlier from Golriz Ghahraman and Chlöe Swarbrick. I do want to hear from them if they plan to put up a similar SOP to SOP 518. Because that would be useful information for members on this side of the House to know. If they're going to hold that consistent view that all prisoners should be allowed to vote, will they in the committee of the whole House stage, put up another SOP, similar to one they put up, last week for the House to consider, perhaps vote on? I'm sure National colleagues on this side of the House would be very, very interested to hear it. I'm sure the Minister on the other side of the House, frankly, would be very, very interested to hear that, because it does go to a pretty fundamental point on this bill.
We do have concerns about the process, and I'll cover that in later contributions. Thank you.





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to take a very short call this evening on this bill and very, very pleased to commend it to the House. However, before I take my seat, I'd just like to say I'm very pleased to be standing and speaking because what you will see from this side of the House is a clear and consistent plan to follow through on what we wanted to do. What you'll see from the Opposition is flip-flopping, and they're constantly doing it. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I won't see anything—I mean, I will see it, but don't bring me into the debate. That's not a good use of "you". I know we've loosened it up, but that's not a good use.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, Madam Speaker, look, one of the ironies of tonight's debates: I am not a flip-flopper at all; it's one of the probably annoying elements to the Labour Party that I'm relatively consistent. But one of the things I also have noted tonight in the contributions is that the Labour Party, Greens, and New Zealand First seem very keen to give, if you will, many voices to prisoners but not exercise any voice themselves, taking remarkably and appallingly short calls. As I say, they themselves on the Government benches are not prepared to speak to this bill, in defence or otherwise, but are more than happy for those who commit criminal offences to have an enormous voice—and, in fact, one of the most important voices of all—which is the vote.
We're here at the second reading—always a remarkable instance to be, first and foremost, doing a second reading literally minutes after the first reading, and not a second after a select committee. And, for those at home who are going, "What on earth is he talking about?"—which in itself may be a common experience—and asking, "What does he mean?", what I mean is that we've had no select committee process. And I understand that fine colleagues on this side, who have chosen to use more of the English vernacular than the other—mainly they've got past the words "the" and "commend"—have pointed out that there's been no committee. I'm not going to drag that out too much, but, again, that's a fairly major affront. I acknowledge this is a small change, and the reasons for it, I think, we will quickly look over, but fundamentally there is a paradox—there is a paradox—at play. We are giving the right to vote to prisoners. And, look, there's good reason for that. I mean, we disagree on this side of the House as a party but there is, if you will, a good, moral argument for prisoners to have a vote, to have a say. Yet the paradox, of course, tonight is that the New Zealand public are given absolutely no right to have a say on this bill. They've been censored, for want of a better word. They've been precluded—
Andrew Bayly: Outrageous.
SIMON O'CONNOR: It is outrageous. Again, the irony is doubly so—if one can double irony, but it's been doubly, doubly so—that, again, prisoners are allowed to speak. They're allowed to exercise their voice and to vote, but the New Zealand public is not being given any chance.
So we've come into a second reading without having, in effect, gone through the right and due processes, which, again, just highlights the problem we're dealing with here: that we're giving rights to prisoners but removing, in effect, the rights of the Parliament, the rights of the New Zealand public. As I said, though, and it's tempting to throw a bouquet at the Government, it is legitimate to argue that prisoners should have the right to vote. There is an element of saying, "Actually, those who are incarcerated should vote for the very system which incarcerates them." It's a valid position. It's one that the National Party, of course, does not share. We are, of course, her Majesty's loyal Opposition, and we're allowed to take that position. Unfortunately, we've had a Government, or an array of governing parties, which are completely confused. And that's why we've ended up at this second reading tonight—under urgency, I might add; under urgency. We've already spent, effectively, two extra days last week considering legislation, including the first draft of this, and, because of, effectively—I'd better not use too much colloquialism tonight—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.
SIMON O'CONNOR: But because the Government has stuffed up the processes, we've got to waste more of the Parliament's time to get this right. And why we're doing this now at the second reading is a clear disparity in understanding between the governing parties. We have the purists, which are the Greens—I'm not sure I really want to use the words "purist" and "Greens" together. I'm not sure whether that's a contradiction in itself. The purists in the Greens say that every prisoner has the right to vote, from the serial offender, the rapist, the murderer, the mass murderer, right through to the person who steals a candy bar. They're purist. New Zealand First—I don't know where they are; they're all over the place. It's funny that they're actually not putting New Zealanders first in this instance. And then Labour, which is taking, again, a more moderate position but saying, "If you're serving over three years …"
We're in this situation consequently because the parties themselves could not agree in principle and the parties themselves could not actually organise themselves sufficiently to progress the bill last week in a way that made coherent form. And, I suppose my major issue, then, in this second reading contribution, is how on earth can we have confidence in a Government to protect the democratic rights of New Zealanders when they cannot even get right the fundamental pieces of law to enable, in this case, criminals to vote? It's a very odd situation, and I think, unfortunately, it just highlights not only the disparity of views on the other side, and particularly between three parties, but it just highlights the absolute fundamental problems of a democratic system that they're applying—and democracy is good, by the way; just to make that clear, but the application of democratic processes are being completely mixed up to achieve an end which is very controversial, very controversial. As I say, a person can take, quite rightly, the moral position that people should vote for the system which incarcerates them. However, I have no doubt—not that I have seen the Labour Party polling. You can all relax; it hasn't been leaked to me—yet. They'll know that this is incredibly unpopular in the New Zealand public; that people—[Interruption] Someone laughs, mainly because they don't actually know what the public opinion is—very unpopular; very, very unpopular.
And so here we are on a Tuesday night—7.30, a quarter to eight at night—pushing this through at speed, at absolute speed. And it's an affront, particularly at the second reading, that the other side, the governmental side, will not take proper calls to defend it. And it takes me back to that aspect of principle: if they actually hold to the principle of voters' rights—and, again, I am happy to take a more moderate position here, to say it's a valid position. I don't agree with it. Or, rather, the National Party doesn't agree with it. Why would they not stand up and defend it rigorously? I've always said, and maybe it's the philosopher in me, but if you're confident in your argument, you can stand confidently and argue the case. And we're not having it here. And what makes it even worse for me is, again, we haven't had a select committee, where normally seven, eight, or nine MPs can robustly discuss elements.
So it brings me to my final point, which will probably be a great relief to the other side—and that's probably a heads-up for the person on that other side who's about to take a two to three second call—and that is, fundamentally, what other mistakes are going to have happened? Well, maybe we'll sort them out in the committee of the whole House stage, and I know this is a relatively simple bill, but we've already had a problem. We've already had a problem that's got us to tonight. It was rushed through, not well thought through. Well, the Government again is rushing this little bit of legislation through. What, I ask rhetorically, will the Government get wrong tonight? Are myself and other colleagues going to have to return in coming days, in a couple of weeks after the recess, to fix that next mess? But the fundamental mess we're going to have is applying elements of democracy to people, if you will, who have lost that right, and I suspect voters at the election will not forget.
But I'll leave a little bit of that to a third reading speech, after, of course, we have robustly discussed this in the committee stage, which I know Kieran McAnulty is going to be absolutely thrilled about. I have no doubt he'll be moving motions very quickly—the only contribution—but we look forward to discussing it further. But, as I say, I am looking forward to the next two- to three- second contribution from the Government.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I'm amazed. I'm amazed at the gall of the other speaker that would dare, tonight of all nights, mention a leaked poll—the night that Newshub published their own leaked poll that had Labour at 55 percent. So I stand here with utter confidence, Mr Simon O'Connor, that this side of the House knows exactly what the public wants. What they do not want is that party playing silly games. There they were standing, last week, patting themselves on the back and giving themselves high-fives because they thought they'd pulled a swifty. Then they looked at the news and no one covered it, because the media realised that they were pathetic—that they thought they were cool but they weren't. It was a reminder of back in the old school days.
But here we are, fixing the mess that they needed—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Talk to the bill.
KIERAN McANULTY: That's right. It's a great bill. We are fixing this mess and having to come back unnecessarily because the National Party wanted to play games. It hasn't worked for them. It's not going to work for them at the election. I have absolutely no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a second time.





In Committee
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I seek leave for all provisions of the bill to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.





Part 1  Amendments relating to registration of sentenced prisoners as electors
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Madam Chair, thank you. I have a succession of questions which, in the spirit of committee stage debates as we run them these days, I'll address in short order on each occasion. My first question to the Minister is whether a report was produced by the Attorney-General in relation to the question of consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, first; whether any of the issues in the bill engaged such rights; and, if so, whether such consistency is achieved? 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, the Hon—
Hon Andrew Little: Andrew Little. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —Andrew Little—yes. 





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair—that's all right. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I was taking a breath—I was taking a breath. 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Madam Chair, this is an answer that will possibly apply to many questions that the members opposite wish to ask tonight, if the second reading debate speeches are anything to go by, and that is this: the provisions of this bill have been before a select committee. The provisions of this bill were in the bill that was in the House last week, that bill was subject to examination and scrutiny by the Justice Committee, and so, in answer to that member's question: the Attorney-General has provided advice in relation to identically equivalent positions in this bill that happened to be in a different bill—the bill passed last week. And that member can be reassured that these provisions are consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which is nothing less than the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal asked for.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): To the Minister, is it not the case that the law requires that a bill that is introduced to the House be subject to consideration, at least, by the New Zealand Attorney-General as to whether its issues engage the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well, I suppose for those of us who live in the common-sense world, in the world of practicality, we don't sort of do things over and over again if we can possibly avoid it. I can't speak for this House of course, or members opposite, but we don't want the Crown Law Office or the Ministry of Justice having to provide identical advice for a bill which is there trying to reinstate what was in a previous bill but for the fact that there was a little bit of, shall we say, bobsy-die at the committee stages thanks to members opposite. So I understand the point the member is making, but the reality is that member has recourse to advice from the Attorney-General that certifies that this bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. So do I understand the Minister correctly that his view of a common-sense approach to lawmaking is more important than the law itself, in terms of the procedure that is to be followed with legislation being introduced in this House?





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I can, in fact, assist the member, and indeed possibly even correct myself, that the Attorney-General has indeed provided advice. I have it in my hands—in relation to this very specific bill; that is, the No. 2 bill—and it confirms that it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is dated 26 June.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister: is that publicly available?





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): It can be made available very shortly. We've just got to crank up the photocopier.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. Does the Minister believe it would be helpful for that to be available to members of Parliament prior to the passage of legislation, or indeed its introduction more particularly?





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I think it would be helpful if all members of the House could proceed on the basis that all members of the House vote in a consistent and principled fashion, but we've got past that part. So, look, the reality is that when events happen like the ones last week and we're called upon in very short order to remediate them, processes don't go as smoothly as they might otherwise do. But, with all due respect, particularly to that member, who commands an enormous amount of respect on the other side of the House because of the thoughtful approach to lawmaking that he takes, the reality is that whatever that member and his colleagues might say about members on this side of the House—whether members from the Green Party, whether me—the truth is that members on that side of the House bear responsibility for what happened last week, too. Do not demand of members on this side of the House perfection that that member and his colleagues have shown they're incapable of demonstrating.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. Taking the Minister at his word, that that will be made available, can I ask, without having had the benefit of reading it, does the advice or the report of the Attorney-General state that the net effect of this legislation will be that the Electoral Act is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes, that is precisely what it does.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. How can that be the case when the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been said to be inconsistent not only by our previous Attorney-General but also senior courts, as the Minister of Justice has referred to, in that it does not afford to all prisoners the right to vote and the net effect of this bill, including in conjunction with the previous bill, tabled last week, was such that some prisoners remain unable to vote.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well, the member will know that what this bill does—this bill does not change the rules about qualification, or, for that matter, disqualification for voting or enrolling. That was last week's bill. What this bill does is deal with the administrative end of it, which, because of the shenanigans that happened last week, means that the administrative provisions—that is to say, the duty or obligation or role of prison officers to give advice to prisoners who might otherwise be eligible to vote, and, indeed, the collection of information that is then forwarded to the Electoral Commission—are what we are correcting.
The other thing that is corrected is the removal in last week's legislation of the power of the Electoral Commission to remove disqualified voters from the electoral roll. To the extent that this bill does those things, it upholds their right to vote in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair—in anticipation—and thank you to the Minister for that answer. But is it not true, then, that this bill fails to fix the problem that has been advertised to which it was supposedly the solution—namely, inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? 





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): No, that wasn't the advertised objective. I'm not sure where that member and his colleague Mr Falloon are getting their advice from. They're watching a different channel or something—I don't know. But the stated objective of this bill was to correct the errors or the oversights or the inconsistencies of last week's legislation. 
So this bill is focused on two principal things, and one is the duties or obligations on prison officers to give advice to prisoners. So whereas last week's legislation required prison officers to give advice to prisoners—all prisoners—regardless of length of sentence, that they were entitled to be on the roll when demonstrably they're not, and to collect information and pass it to the Electoral Commission, that is fixed in this bill. The other thing that is fixed is whereas before—and, indeed, in the legislation passed by the National Government in 1993—the Electoral Commission had the right to remove from the roll disqualified voters, that power is being reinstated in this bill. 
Those are the things that are happening in this bill. Whatever else that member thinks was advertised, he's got the wrong advertisement or the wrong product, or he is watching the wrong channel. But what I said about this bill is what is happening. 





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair, and, again, thank you to the Minister. If it is not relevant to the passage of this particular piece of legislation that prisoners should have the right to vote as determined by various senior courts, why have the Minister and other Government MPs been referring to that numerous times throughout the legislation—throughout the passage of this bill tonight? 





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well, I think it is a matter, ultimately, for the Chair but it has been correct for members on all sides of the Chamber to put some context around the legislation. Most members, I think, have spoken to the legislation, but I can't account for it and it's not my responsibility, particularly for members opposite and the contributions they make. If the member is concerned about what some of his colleagues have said—and I agree with him; he should be concerned about them—that is a matter for him and his caucus.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Is the Electoral Act, which this amendment bill seeks to amend, going to be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi—as in, I suppose if I were to rephrase the question: does the Minister expect that the Waitangi Tribunal would consider that the Electoral Act, which this bill amends, will not represent a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi following the passage of this bill?





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I thank the member for his question about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The truth is the Waitangi Tribunal recommended that the disqualification on any prisoner be removed. That was the Waitangi Tribunal, and it laid out a case for that, and it said that Māori who are deregistered, if you like, or dis-enrolled from the electoral roll are nearly 12 times more likely not to re-enrol, and therefore to vote, than Pākehā who were affected by the legislation. In any event, as the member knows—as, indeed, the Government of the day did in 1993—a judgment gets made about what fits a modern democratic principle. A principle that can be easily defended, because I think New Zealanders understand—which might explain why 78 percent of submitters to the original bill supported it—is that those who were in prison in one election and who, by dint of the fact they were on a sentence of less than three years, are guaranteed to be out of prison by the next election must have a right to have a say on who is leading the country that they are going to be released free into. That is the underlying principle of this bill.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I've listened very carefully to the Minister's answers to those questions from my colleague Chris Penk, and the Minister of Justice tried to assert some sort of shambolic behaviour on behalf of the National Party in his comments. I'd like to ask the Minister: why did he not support the motion by the Hon Nick Smith to put the bill back to select committee after the committee of the whole House last week?





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The member asked a very good question, and the member may or may not know that when the original bill—the one that was passed last week, in its deformed state—went to the select committee, because the select committee was split, was equally divided, it could not make a decision on the bill, including an obvious improvement to it that actually members opposite wanted, and so the bill was returned unchanged. Of course, there was no guarantee or indication that were that bill to be returned to the select committee, the select committee was in any better position to do anything other than what it did before, which was not make a decision and refer the bill back to the House unchanged. On that basis, given the track record of that committee in its handling of this legislation, there was no merit at all in returning the bill to that select committee.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): So why did the Minister then pass the bill and vote for it in the third reading, knowing that it was a flawed bill?





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well, any number of members could take responsibility for the flaws in the bill, but actually a lot of it sits on that side of the Chamber. In any event, the bill was passed and it was very clear that it could be fixed. That undertaking was given that night, because all parties in Government accepted that it needed to be fixed. That was the commitment we made to each other and we have done that. There are no Supplementary Order Papers to pollute or contaminate this process and we are in the process of correcting the flaws in the bill.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I'd like to ask a question around clause 7(5), where it says "If, at any time after a prison manager sends a prisoner's information to the Electoral Commission, the overall length of a prisoner's sentence or sentences of imprisonment changes in a way that results in the prisoner becoming disqualified for registration as an elector under section 80(1)(d), the prison manager must advise the Electoral Commission." I'd like to ask the Minister whether that in effect means that if someone commits an offence whilst they are in prison and they are then given an additional sentence, which puts them above a three-year sentence, which means they would be technically disqualified—does this actually disqualify them from voting or does this provision just simply mean the prison manager must advise the Electoral Commission of that and then the Electoral Commission must do the disqualification?





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I invite the member to read the clause very carefully. There could be any number of reasons why a prisoner's sentence changes, and, therefore, pushes them into disqualification territory. It might be that previous charges, not previously tried or considered by the court and, therefore, not the subject of the sentence that landed that prisoner in prison in the first place, may have been processed and an additional sentence added. It may well be that the Crown appealed the sentence because it considered that the sentence was too short and the prisoner got a longer sentence. So any of those things could apply.
In any event, the clause is very clear: it is the prison manager who must do that at such point that the prisoner's sentence, as amended, pushes them into disqualification territory, and for the benefit of all members of the committee of the whole House, can I just record that. I understand the Attorney-General's advice has now been put on the Table.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you for the answer to the question. So when the prison manager advises the Electoral Commission, what action does the Electoral Commissioner have to do?





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well, I would have thought it stands to reason that because the change in sentence, in accordance with the clause, results in the prisoner becoming disqualified for registration, then upon advice from the prison manager, the Electoral Commission—assuming this bill passes and the Electoral Commission wins back the power to remove disqualified voters from the roll—then that prisoner will be removed from the roll. That would have been the case last week, but the National Party voted against that.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I'd like to turn the attention to the issue of prisoners running for Parliament, and I know that was an issue which has been discussed earlier, because it's a serious issue. It's an issue, and I'd like to ask around whether—and I guess my question is not so much around—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It's not in the bill.
SIMEON BROWN: I know it's not in this part, but the question I would like to ask is whether anything in this part precludes prisoners from standing for Parliament and their registration. So it's an issue which I think is very important, because we're talking about serious offenders.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It's not relevant to this bill.
SIMEON BROWN: I'm asking the question whether anything in this part precludes a prisoner from being able to stand for Parliament, because I think that's a question that people would like to—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, it may well be a question that people would like to know, but it isn't relevant to this—
SIMEON BROWN: Well, does anything in this part preclude—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry, it isn't relevant to the bill before the House. It might be a question of interest, but, actually, the Minister is not required to address issues that are not before the House. This bill has a particular purpose, and it doesn't include that.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I'd just like to record, first of all, that I'm grateful for the circulation of the report from the Crown Law Office in relation to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. The good news is that I have that in my hand; the bad news is that it seems to be a previous version thereof. The more substantive point is that—as the Minister has said, the issues engaged are the same as the bill that was passed last week, so I don't intend to be painful on that point. Although, I do just note for the committee that the date of the letter is 14 February 2020. I note that's St Valentine's Day, so I hope that I'm not embarrassing myself and the Attorney-General by bringing to the public attention that he's perhaps deliberately sent me a note along those lines. Either that, or it's a mere issue of photocopying that the wrong one's gone through. 
But, in any case, I think the Minister makes a fair point that, indeed, the issues were canvassed in this document. Alternatively, of course, someone is very prescient, knowing that all this time later there would be an error such as we witnessed last week, such that this would be required. But in any case, obviously it's essentially the same report, so I don't intend to engage further on that. I would just note, however, moving to one further point in relation to Part 1, I wonder if the Minister would confirm whether the enrolment information to go to the Electoral Commission would affect the position, with regards to prisoners under three years of incarceration voting in DHB elections and alcohol licensing trust elections.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, as I understand it, it will apply to local body elections, such for DHBs and councils.





A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Part 1 agreed to.





Part 2  Amendment relating to the removal of names from the roll
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Part 2 agreed to.





Clauses 1 to 3
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to propose that this bill should be amended in its title, because I think the title does not accurately reflect, actually, what Parliament is doing here today. The proposed title is that this bill is the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2). The "No 2" is something which I think does not accurately reflect the process which this Parliament has gone through to get to that stage, and I think something along the lines of "shambolic process" or something which represents the shambles which this Parliament has gone through to get here would be a far more reflective title than simply just saying this is the second bill. 
The reason there's a second bill is not just that the Government wants to give prisoners the right to vote twice. It's not like last week they wanted to give them the right, and now they want to just reaffirm that right. It's because they came to Parliament last week and they had the Green Party bring a Supplementary Order Paper to this House. There was a shambles on the floor of this House between different parties in this coalition—well, the Greens aren't in the coalition—and they couldn't agree, and they rushed the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill through under urgency. They didn't give them themselves enough time to consider what the effect of that Supplementary Order Paper would be. They didn't give themselves enough time to even have one day between—
Andrew Bayly: They blew it.
SIMEON BROWN: They blew it. They didn't even have one day between the committee of the whole House and the third reading, which is the standard procedure which is required under the Standing Orders. They simply rushed it through under urgency. They didn't take up the opportunity to send it back to committee to be able to fix up the errors of the coalition Government's ways, and they simply continued to ram the bill through Parliament. 
So the reason why we've got a "No 2" is the shambles of a process by which this Government has pushed this issue through all the way. Right from day one, when the first reading of the first bill, the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, was put to Parliament, they put it through in extended hours. They then rushed the submissions through under urgency through COVID-19, while the country was in lockdown. They then put the second reading through under extended hours. They then put the third reading and the committee stage through under urgency. This bill should be titled with something that represents the rushed process and the flawed process that this bill has gone through, and it should be a reminder to the Government as to why they should not be passing electoral law in such a rushed fashion and without having some bipartisan support in putting pieces of legislation through which are to do with our electoral law.
I'd like to remind the Green Party of the principled stance they used to have in relation to urgency. It's no longer the case that they do have it. And so the Minister should be seriously considering amending that title, removing "No 2", and actually replacing it with something which more accurately reflects the shambolic process this bill has gone through.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister of Justice would care to comment on the alternative possibility that the Act be named "Electoral (Registration of Some Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill", as opposed to "(Registration of Sentenced Prisoners)", to reflect the reality that, in fact, it will not be all, but some, sentenced prisoners who will be able to vote as a result of this, in conjunction with the previous legislation.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I follow the rule of statutory interpretation that says that the general entails the particular but not necessarily vice versa.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I thank the Minister for that answer, and just seek his guidance on the commencement date. I wonder if he would agree that the Act should come into force somewhat later than the day after Royal assent, given the turbulent passage of related items of legislation, such that the official website, legislation.govt.nz, the last time that I had a chance to check it, hadn't been able to update and therefore correctly reflect the current law following last week's changes.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'm not sure that's necessary. This Government has invested heavily in new valves for the website that carries the legislation, so they're very fast and efficient. They'll warm up very quickly and they're able to convey the information instantaneously. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) without amendment. 
Report adopted.





Third Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
I'm very thankful to the efforts of the House to give consideration to this bill in all its stages, but particularly in the committee stage. I have to say I thought the committee stage for the second bill was a little more instructive than the first, actually. I thought there were some good questions posed, and I think the right questions were posed. 
We all know the background to this bill, we all know why it is here, and if we're honest with ourselves, we can all share a little bit of responsibility for what happened, but that is everybody in this House: the Green Party, for putting up a Supplementary Order Paper that they sort of lost a bit of control of, and perhaps the members on this side of the House might have acted a little more quickly to prevent that from happening, but members opposite must take some responsibility. You do not turn up to the House on a matter as important as our electoral laws, play ducks and drakes, and vote like some sort of crazed maniac, because that is not the way we should pay respect to either this House or our electoral laws. 
This bill does what the previous bill did. That previous bill, of course, was subject to the full scrutiny of the select committee and was the subject of more than 2,500 submissions, the subject of the 78 percent of those submissions supporting it. That is that in this case now, we are ensuring that in relation to prisoners sentenced to more than three years, they are not obliged to receive advice that they can enrol, because, of course, they are disqualified from enrolling, and there will be no obligation on prison managers to collect information from disqualified prisoners. Their obligation will sit in relation to qualified prisoners—that is to say, those sentenced to a sentence of less than three years. Of course, the other thing this bill does is to restore the power of the Electoral Commission to remove from the electoral roll those who are disqualified from voting. 
That all makes sense. That was a sensible arrangement in the No. 1 bill, and then, because of a crazy pattern of voting exercised last week, that was undermined and changed and removed. We said at the time that we would correct it this week, and because this is a Government that fulfils its promises, we have done exactly that. 
Underlying that, of course, is a very important principle, because this bill supports the No. 1 bill that happened last week. It rounds that out and it completes the law change that we had proposed for the Electoral Commission in relation to prisoners serving sentences of less than three years, and we did that for very good reason, because the 2010 law that this law reverses had been the subject of intense scrutiny by our courts—the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court—and it was also the subject of a very lengthy investigation and inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal. In each case, they found the 2010 law to be unprincipled, unfair, unjustified, and, ultimately, inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and contrary to the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. 
That's how important this is, and that's why it was disappointing. Regardless of how we all feel about it now, and we've all had our fun and all played the games, it was unfortunate that last week, some members thought that issue could be trivialised or should be trivialised in the way that it was. I'm not going to name party names or anything, but it does not reflect well on the House when that happens. 
I'd just invite members opposite, now that we've got to this point, to accept, even though they've disagreed with the fundamental policy—they must do, because their party voted for the 2010 law change. But that law change has been subject to considerable scrutiny, and this Government would not be doing its job—and, indeed, if they were still in Government, they would not be doing their job—in the face of that overwhelming judicial consideration and inquiry consideration by the Waitangi Tribunal if it did not at least consider reversing the law change that it promoted in 2010. Well, that has happened. We've discharged our obligations as responsible parliamentarians, we've discharged our obligations as a responsible Government, we have respected the relationship of comity between the judiciary and this House, and we have come up with this law change and it has been supported, and whatever kinds of games might have been played in the committee stage last week, the reality now is we have a substantial law change, a coherent law change, and a principled law change that many New Zealanders respect. 
Just responding to some of the things that came up in the course of the debate, I know members opposite are very good at talking about "Well, what about the victims in this?" Let's understand what victims need in a criminal justice system. What they need to know is that when they are caused harm, we have a police force—the front line of our criminal justice system—that is equipped and there and staffed to do the job of detecting those who cause harm. We made that change—this Government has made that change. What they also want to know is that they are supported through the system. A system that is alien to anybody is explained, and they are supported through it, and we have very strong commitments to follow through on that. 
But in the end, this bill meets, I think, a very principled objective, which is restoring a democratic right to people. For those who are going to be released into the community between one election and the next, it gives them the right to have that say on who is going to lead that community. 
For those who are fearful that it will lead to prisoners standing for Parliament, that is precluded by other parts of the Electoral Act. You cannot stand for Parliament if you are a serving prisoner. The irony is, of course, that if you're a remand prisoner, you actually do retain rights. You retain the right to vote, and that's nearly 40 percent of the prison population. 
In any event, this bill deals with that very principled position. For those serving less than three years, who will be out between one election and the next, then they must have right to have a say. That is a celebration of democracy, that is a celebration of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the provision in that Act that upholds the right to vote, and it is a celebration of our New Zealandness as we have come to terms with a more just system and a better system for all. That's what this bill does. I commend this bill to the House. 





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we've all learnt something today. In fact, we've learnt a number of things. I'll call them "lessons" rather than "learnings" because, of course, "learnings" is not a word.
I think, first of all, it's instructive that the bill that was passed last week by this House was not called No. 1, but this one is called No. 2, in the same way that when the First World War broke out, it was not called the First World War; it was called the war to end all wars. And, of course, it only became meaningful as the First World War or World War I when there was, of course, a Second World War or World War II.
So, anyway, I'd guess that's as good a clue as any, apart from common sense also being our guide, as ever, in such things, that the Government had not anticipated that we would be here doing this all over again, and, of course, neither did most of the rest of us.
One of the lessons that we've learnt is that the Government now understands clearly, in front of the whole nation, the difference between principle and politics as within its own ranks. We've had the Greens on one side arguing on a principled basis that all prisoners should be allowed to vote, and New Zealand First members and Labour saying that it should be more appropriately the case that prisoners who are incarcerated up to three years should be allowed to vote, and that's fair enough. The result of the coalition discussions and negotiations must have been that they would retain those respective positions but ultimately vote in favour of the bill—fine. That's coalition Government, that's MMP, you know, for better or worse in this particular case and, indeed, in terms of the arrangements of the country.
But I would say to the Government that we have learnt a lesson today, or rather they have: they can't have it both ways. They can't pretend to be principled in this space and making high-flown arguments in favour of all prisoners being able to vote because voting is a human or civil or political right and yet saying on the one hand that human or civil or political rights should apply to some and not all. The thing about being on a high horse is that, of course, you can fall off, and the higher the horse, the harder the fall.
That's one of the lessons, and another is about the perils of legislating under urgency. There's urgency and there's urgency, of course, but the form that sees a piece of legislation subject to the committee of the whole House stage, where Government parties are putting up Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are not supported by other Government papers, immediately to be followed by a third reading, is simply asking for trouble. So that's another lesson.
Yet another lesson is the question of logical consistency. So the substantive issue that underlies the difficulties that the Parliament has had with regard to this bill and its predecessor was the distinction between a three-year threshold, a cut-off, for prisoners being able to vote and not. I have argued in previous stages that it was inevitable, because of this logical inconsistency between the Government parties, therefore, that one of them would put up an SOP that would be resisted by the others, with the result that we have seen so far. In response—I would say refuting, but at least in response—to the point made by the Minister Andrew Little that the National Party has, in his view, been inconsistent in supporting one of those parts of the Green Supplementary Order Paper and not the other, I would say that it's been consistent with our position throughout in relation to the underlying legislation that we oppose it, and that we will do nothing to assist its passage through the House because we do not believe in it. 
And that leads me to another point that I've made, which I'll somewhat—well, I'll call it a lesson. I was just starting to sound a little bit magisterial.
Hon Clare Curran: Truncate.
CHRIS PENK: Truncate. Now there's an interesting word that Hon Clare Curran is well advised to dispense by way of advice.
Well, I was going to say, actually, that one of the lessons was that an Opposition doesn't have many tools available at its disposal, and it can only creep through doors that have been left ajar by a careless Government, and one of those we saw last week. Who can blame an Opposition for wanting to have a rare opportunity to set the agenda, to execute its own ideas in a way that isn't normally afforded to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. Again, as I said earlier, rightly so, the Government has won the Treasury benches. It has the right to control the affairs of the nation to the extent, of course, that it lets itself down and allows the Opposition to do so instead, essentially. So it's not often that we have a majority of the House on this side of the House. But every now and then, with our dear friends of the Green Party, we are able to effect real change for a very short space of time, which is funny, really, because that's normally the way the Greens operate in general as well.
So, turning to some of our other lessons, the difference between rhetoric and reality—that's been an interesting matter to have been exposed. I refer, again, to the underlying point that the bill touches on with regard to prisoners who are incarcerated for less than three years having certain rights, and those who are not, not getting such rights. That's really interesting when it comes to the fundamental justification for this legislative reform taken as a whole, which is that the Government has said that it wants to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As Attorney-General Finlayson, bless his heart, and various senior courts have ruled, it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to have a piece of legislation on the statute book that says that prisoners can't vote. Yet they've done half the job, as usual—although if I say half the job, that's probably pretty generous when it comes to other policy failures to deliver, but anyway, we won't get into those. 
But if we're talking about consistency as well, and again that gap between rhetoric and reality, it's worth noting again that the very valid points that have been made in relation to breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, in relation to the disproportionate effect on Māori of the criminal justice system, I've argued that that an appropriate place to address that is in earlier stages, essentially, of the criminal justice system, and, actually, of course, before that, in terms of the causes of crime. But if the Government's view is that there is a disproportionate effect that can be fixed by the issue of prisoner voting, then they should take that seriously and acknowledge that, actually, the right legislative response was that proposed by the Green Party in its SOP, which they did not support, and that would be to allow all prisoners to vote. 
Now, the opprobrium that has been placed upon us for having the temerity to support some of the Greens' SOP and not others is rather interesting in the context of the other Government parties not supporting it at all. So I think that's the more fundamental issue to be discussed in the Beehive and Bowen House, when they are, no doubt, reflecting upon the lessons that have been learnt over the last 24 hours, and, actually, I suppose, going back to last week and that fateful night when we discovered a difficulty that had arisen in the proceedings of the committee of the whole House.
A couple more lessons in my remaining time. One is that a Government that manages its legislative programmes such that it doesn't introduce electoral law in an election year is one that is acting more wisely than the current one. Others on this side of the House, most notably Hon Dr Nick Smith, have made points about the desirable nature of bipartisanship in relation to electoral law, and he's sort of making it from a constitutional point of view—almost, perhaps, a moral point of view or historical point of view. But my perspective is actually slightly different, which is that I'd emphasise that it's asking for trouble, really just from a pragmatic point of view, a practical point of view, to be having somewhat last minute, and in the context of a three-year term, election year—and, gosh, we're within the regulated period at the moment; that really is last minute, to be putting things through such as this, even without what Blackadder would have described as a "cock-up". So we can see how that, sort of, relates really into other issues as well, other lessons, again, which is essentially about understanding what it means to negotiate. 
So the Government parties have realised that in order to negotiate, they need to understand what will keep their coalition members happy if they are to get across the line. The alternative view is that they had negotiated and the agreed position was that the Greens would put up something that they knew that the other parties wouldn't support and knew very well wouldn't pass, which is, I suppose, firmly in the realm of virtue signalling more so than virtue itself. That's, I suppose, troubling enough, except that we're in an election campaign, effectively, now, certainly that period, and so it is that, you know, again, that's to be expected. It's something that this side of the House expects from Government parties—fair enough; good luck to them—and we respond accordingly. But they should not pretend that they're not doing the same when they put up amendments that will not be supported by their side of the House that highlight the logical inconsistency. The logical inconsistencies, as far as I can go there—he said, checking himself in the last 10 seconds to not say a bad word in parliamentary terms, having already said "cock-up", which is pretty bad. And so for all these reasons—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, last time you put it in parenthesis, which it still is unparliamentary.
CHRIS PENK: It's still unparliamentary, Madam Speaker. Well, in that case I'd better stop by saying we remain opposed to this bill and, indeed, this legislative reform in total.





Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. With respect to my learned colleague across the House Chris Penk, who is, in all respects, a rather gentlemanly chap—considered chap—this is what we would describe as a "fix-it" bill, which fixes an issue created by the National Party playing petty politics during the committee stage of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill last week, after the National Party took us all down the rabbit hole of being opposition for opposition's sake. I would like to commend the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, for doing what he said he would do, which is to act quickly and fix it, to restore the democratic right to people in prison who have been sentenced to less than three years to be able to enrol and vote. It's now being sorted. Thanks. I commend this to the House.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. I just want to start my comments by just reflecting a little bit on the Minister of Justice's attitude that he's taken to this bill through the Parliament. I must say that I have found some of the comments that he has made to be quite offensive. He's called the Opposition to have some sort of crazed mania. He's called us deranged. He said that we have a crazy pattern of voting. There seems to be a pattern of words that he uses which I actually find quite offensive, and wording which I think he should reflect on when talking about members of the House.
The reality is that the National Party and the Government have a different view on this issue—everyone knows that. The National Party comes from a principled perspective that we do not support prisoners, sentenced to jail, having the right to vote. The Government—and they have a range of perspectives—do think that some prisoners, if not all prisoners, should have the right to vote. That's the compromised position of the Government, which is that prisoners serving less than three years should be able to vote and those serving more than three years shouldn't—that's the compromised position. Let's just be honest about it: it's a compromised position. That's what the Government parties have come to. It's not principled, as the Minister of Justice tries to tell the Parliament—it's not a principled position to stand up here and say that this is a human rights issue if you're not going to afford the rights to all prisoners to vote. We on this side of the House come from a very clear perspective that those who do the crime should do the time. That's the perspective that we've approached this issue with all the way through.
I just want to allude to some of the comments that my very learned colleague Chris Penk raised in relation to what happened last week in this Parliament in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper of the Green Party. Clare Curran said, "Well, this is a fix-it bill fixing up the issues put to us by the National Party.", and trying to lay blame. It's not our job to run the show. It's not our job to run this place. It's not our job to make things go nicely and smoothly for the Government. It's not our job to make your job easier; it's our job to hold the Government to account. When the Green Party rocks up to this House with a Supplementary Order Paper which, essentially, basically, pulls apart the legislation and the intent that the Government's trying to bring to this Parliament, there's an opportunity there to point out the inconsistency of the Government's position and the inconsistency and the unprincipled position that this Government comes to this issue with, and that's exactly what the National Party has done, and now the Government is having to come with their tail between their legs and spend all of Tuesday afternoon trying to fix up their own mess.
I ask the question: was this Government acting irresponsibly last Tuesday when they brought a bill to Parliament and they put it through under urgency, through the committee of the whole House, through the third reading, and then continued to support it, knowing that it potentially was flawed? Was that irresponsible or did they do that not fully understanding what they were doing? If they did—if they weren't fully aware because of their rushed process and the urgency and the moving of time and it happening very quickly—then were they acting incompetently and irresponsibly? They have to reflect on that question, because there are many examples that I could point to of incompetence and irresponsible actions by this Government which they have taken. But I would let them reflect on those themselves.
This bill, essentially, has a few small aspects to try and, basically, ensure that none of the Green Party's Supplementary Order Paper actually makes it into law. So, essentially, the Green Party has come to Parliament tonight and they're voting to ensure that none of their Supplementary Order Paper from last week makes it into law. They have agreed to a process to ensure that their changes which they put forward, their diligent, principled Supplementary Order Paper which they put forward to say that all prisoners should have the right to vote—they've come to Parliament today to, essentially, give in and say "We are going to be happy with not one part of our Supplementary Order Paper coming into law." That's just another example of how the Green Party is having to give up—again—something else. They haven't got their light rail, they haven't got anything else, and now they're not even getting anything through under this bill.
I wonder what the deal was that the Minister spoke about in his speech, where he said that there was some sort of deal done where a quick conversation was done between the three parties, where they agreed to this process this week. Where's the transparency around what was agreed by the Green Party?
Hon David Bennett: They probably got a couple of eels; they're slimy enough.
SIMEON BROWN: Maybe a couple of eels, as David Bennett says. But something was agreed. I'd like the Green Party to stand up and take a call and give New Zealanders some openness and transparency from the most open and transparent Government that New Zealand has ever seen—well, hopefully, we'll see that when, you know, the Hon Tracy Martin, she'll soon be taking a call and explaining what the New Zealand First Party got out of this or what the Green Party might have got, because the reality is that there would have been a deal done to make this be brought to the House this week after what happened in the debacle of last week.
So, essentially, this bill fixes up a terrible mistake that the Government opened themselves up to, which was that it made Corrections staff have to assist all prisoners to enrol to vote regardless of how long they'd been sentenced, despite the fact that the same bill they passed said that only prisoners who had been sentenced to less than three years were actually entitled to be enrolled and entitled to vote. Essentially, the bill that Government members passed was to make Corrections officers act illegally. That went to Royal assent yesterday, as we've heard. They passed a piece of legislation to make Corrections officers act illegally. That's something which I think is completely irresponsible and incompetent. They should apologise to Corrections officers for what they have done to them.
The last point that I want to make is around the rights of victims. I raised this point in each of my speeches—in this bill and in the previous bill—because there is nothing in this bill about the rights of victims of crime. We all know on this side of the House how crime affects our communities and how devastating it can be. The story that we're told is that people serving sentences of less than three years are somehow not serving for serious offences; they're going to be released soon, so we have to give them the right to vote.
I want to remind the House what the Justice Committee heard when considering the previous bill—in noting that, there was no select committee under this bill, so there were no submissions that we can refer to. In a submission that was received, there was evidence provided to the committee which showed that during the 2018/19 year, 1,929 serious violent offenders were sentenced to three years or less for crimes such as manslaughter, sexual assault, abduction, and acts intended to cause injury. What, in this bill, gives any rights to those victims of those crimes? I find that shameful—that we've heard this Government talk about the rights of prisoners but do nothing and say nothing about the rights of the victims of those crimes, who are the ones left behind and are the ones who are the elephant in the room from this Government. I find that absolutely shameful.
Lastly, both bills have gone through an absolute shambolic process. We've seen the Government use urgency. We've seen the Government use extended hours. We've seen the Government use COVID-19 to rush this bill through. Whilst New Zealanders were focused on their lives and their livelihoods and their businesses, the Government's priority was giving prisoners the vote. I find that absolutely shameful. They've had three years to do this—three years to do this—
Simon O'Connor: Three long years.
SIMEON BROWN: —but they used—three long years to do this—the last few months before the election to rush this through. I think that's incredibly cynical. I proudly stand opposed to this bill.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. So just in light of the member who resumed his seat, just to the first part of his speech when he talked about how hurt he was, how sad he was around some of the things that the Hon Andrew Little had said, I am reminded of Woody from Toy Story: if the boot fits. Go back and have a look, ladies and gentlemen, at what was the contribution from that member at the beginning.
That member also suggested that I would tell you the truth. That member also suggested that I would stand up and give you some form of transparency, so I will do that. Last week, the Green Party made a mistake. Last week, the Green Party made a mistake. They made a mistake because they believed that the National Party would not play politics with something so important—so important—as the law. That's what the truth is, New Zealand.
Now, New Zealand First did not know that the Green Party was going to put down a Supplementary Order Paper. We did not know that. The Green Party is an independent party in its own right. They're not the coalition partner, by the way, and I'm not surprised that the National Party doesn't understand the difference between coalition partners and supply and confidence partners, because they haven't got any mates, so they actually don't need to consider any one of those variations. But the Green Party is a supply and confidence partner who gives confidence on Budget issues.
So the Green Party—and perhaps the National Party members would like to go away and have a look at the many nuances that the MMP Government can be made up by. The Green Party has every right to come into this House and put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table. Why would they have thought that the National Party was so devoid of respect for not only the law but for this House that they would play games with such a thing? Why would the Green Party have thought that? So yes, the Green Party made a mistake: they gave the National Party more credit than they should have ever given them, and that is what happened last week.
Mr Brown suggests that there are deals done behind closed doors—
Hon David Bennett: They are. Fish—how many fish?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —between the parties in this coalition Government. Now, I'm not surprised that the National Party—and that's Mr Bennett shouting out there, for the ladies and gentlemen at home. I'm not surprised that the National Party thinks that, because that is the way they operate. You project on to others what you yourself are prepared to do. I understand that. We only need to talk to David Seymour and Peter Dunne and the Māori Party to know how shafted they were at times by people that they were supposedly in an agreement with. But one of the things that this MMP Government is proud of is, yes, we disagree on certain things, but, like grown-ups, we sit down and we work it out.
I've just come from Bill Birch's book launch in the Grand Hall. I've just come from there, where Todd Muller and Jim Bolger stood up and talked about that one of the major assets of Bill Birch was his ability to understand compromise, was his ability to understand that you can't come into this place and bang your fist on a table and stomp your feet [Simon O'Connor bangs fists on table] No, Mr O'Connor, you cannot. One of the things that the old National Party knew about was honour and compromise and working with others. Some of those young backbenchers over there need to go and sit down quietly and listen to the Hon Jim Bolger and listen to the Hon Bill Birch.
Simeon Brown: And how did that go when he went into coalition with you?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Don't be flippant, Mr Brown. You should listen to your elders, because they knew how to make sure that they were effective, and they were respectful of the law.
Matt King: When are you going to talk about the bill?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: They didn't play games with the law. Mr King, please be quiet.
Matt King: Four minutes in.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: They didn't play games with the law. This bill is fixing—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr King, when you get to be the Speaker, you can do that. Until then, please don't.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: So this bill is a bill to fix what was a mistake by the Green Party in believing that the National Party wouldn't play games. So ladies and gentlemen, when you're heading to the polls on 19 September, just remember who decides to play games with your laws and this House, which costs you tens of thousands of dollars every time we sit here, for the National Party to decide to score points. We support the bill.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): What a terrible contribution that last one was. I can't actually believe that speaker, Tracey Martin. She wouldn't actually acknowledge and look at anybody across this room, because she knew it was a barefaced lie, everything she was saying in her speech.
Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'll ask the member to withdraw and apologise.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: I'll withdraw and apologise. But it certainly wasn't telling the truth, anyway. And—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member will resume his seat. If he wants to continue with the remaining time of his 10-minute contribution, he will not only not repeat an offence but also be so directly offensive to the Chair. Withdraw and apologise, please, and don't repeat it.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: I withdraw and apologise, Madam Speaker. But that party over there spent the whole five minutes in their speech, didn't once mention the bill, didn't talk about the bill at all, and it just was a verbal attack, trying to present themselves as some virtuous party that is holier than thou, when their whole party is based on deals and shams and all those things that have littered the history of that party for the time that it's been in Parliament. Its leadership has been part of all those high-profile events that have been in the public arena, been in media, for years and years, and even today it's in the media again around fishing and where the cameras are on boats. So to have that member then come into this House and try and present that they are some holier than thou party that actually tried to put a spin on what had actually happened, when they are the party that is the party of shammy deals, that has a history of abuse of the process of Parliament, an abuse of the process of legislation—
Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Sorry, Madam Speaker. I just seek your guidance. I'm not clear on where the point is—where the line is that a member crosses with regard to making accusations about other members or other parties. Can you give me some clarity there?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think there's plenty of guidance in Speakers' rulings and the Standing Orders, and if you feel that he did breach any of those you could raise that. I wasn't aware that he had. We've all got different levels of sensitivities on different issues, and some members can be offended when others aren't. But if you think there was a Standing Order or a Speaker's ruling breached, I'd certainly be keen to hear it.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: We heard some great lines from that last speaker—"the truth", from New Zealand First. Isn't that ironical to have somebody from New Zealand First talk about truth, and—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Mr Bennett. That's the third time.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: I was just quoting what she said. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's the third time. [Interruption] Mr Bennett will resume his seat. I asked you twice. It's now the third time. You're breaching the protocol of this House and I'm of the view that you know you are, because you're a senior member in your caucus. Please don't do it again. Withdraw and apologise for that comment and then resume your speech, thank you.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: I withdraw and apologise. But I'm just taking—I wrote down some direct quotes from that last speech.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Don't push it, please.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: One was "respect for law"—you know, that was another direct quote we had from the New Zealand First Party. I found that deeply ironical as well. "The Green Party simply made a mistake." Those were the comments made from—and "Grown-ups sit down and work it out." Well, that's not the history of the New Zealand First Party, is it? You know, how many times has the New Zealand First Party acted like grown-ups that sit down and work something out? Never. They always throw their toys out. That's the nature of their party. They come to the last six months of a coalition—
Hon Poto Williams: How is this relevant?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, I'm just rebutting the previous speaker's speech. They do that every time. I've never seen that party act as grown-ups and sit down and work it out. I'd love for the member to give us examples of where they have done that, because it just doesn't happen. Every six months before an election, they start throwing their toys out. That's how they work. That's the New Zealand First Party and that's the modus operandi of that party. 
So to have them come into this Parliament and say how great they are is so rich—so, so rich. The reality is what has happened here. It is that the New Zealand First Party and the Labour party made a mistake. They were backing their Green mates and thought, well, this deal would be done and there'd be that amendment to the bill, and then we'd all be good and it'd be all hunky dory—and that's not a reference to fishing, for the New Zealand First members, if they're that sensitive about fish issues today. 
The Green Party were silly enough to actually put two amendments up and didn't realise the implications of their second amendment. There were smarter members in this House, and we've heard from some of our members that spoke on that very day, that took advantage of that opportunity. It's not our role to actually make the Government's life easier, as Simeon Brown said. Our role is to hold them to account and our role is to show the failings of the Government. There are definite failings there, because the Green Party in all their majesty thought they were doing something wonderful, and the New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party were simply asleep, and their whips just sat there and let it happen and didn't really realise what was happening until it was too late. That's the reality of what happened. 
Now we spend a whole day in Parliament doing this again, and then we get sanctimonious speeches from the New Zealand First Party about how wonderful they are and how they represent these values and these beliefs that nobody—nobody—in the public would associate with that party. There's no way that anybody puts that party in the same word as "trust" or "grown-ups that sit around and work something out". That's just not how people think of the New Zealand First Party.
I get great pleasure from seeing the failings of the New Zealand First Party and how their voters are now moving en masse to the ACT Party, because they should not be in Parliament. The New Zealand First Party are a leech on the political system in New Zealand. They always have been, and it will be a good day's work if they are removed from this Parliament. I think that that's something that will happen, because we've got the greatest candidate in Northland that will win that seat, and Jones can go around flirting all the money he likes—nobody's going to vote for him. He's seen as arrogant. They don't like him, so there's no way the New Zealand First Party will get back in. That is a great day for New Zealand politics and a great day for New Zealand, because they don't add anything to this place. They never have and they never will, and that's just the simple reality of it. It will be good to see their failings being exposed and that those people there in their party that aren't there for the best interests of New Zealand but only for their own interests are removed from this Parliament. It's going to be a great day when we see that happen on 20 September.





MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I've got some news for the National Party: nobody cares. Nobody cares about their silly little procedural trick last week. Nobody cares that the House has had to come back today to put the bill to rights. Nobody cares.
There is one useful thing that members and parties and this House can do across their multiplicity of beliefs, and that is to come to this House and to vote for the things that they believe in. And, in respect of this bill, every single party across this House, the New Zealand First Party, the Labour Party, the Green Party, the ACT Party, have at all stages voted for what they believe in in respect of this bill. There is one party that is an exception to that, who thought it was more important to try and play a game, to try and play a trick that, ultimately, will have no meaningful outcome and that absolutely no voter out there will care about this year.
So I stand proudly as a member of a party that's voted for what we believe in with this bill and will do so again tonight, and I'd urge members on the other side of the House to reflect upon whether it was really all worth it given that nobody cares.





PAULO GARCIA (National): I cannot help but comment on the "nobody cares" statement. I know that there are a whole bunch of people out there who are listening and watching—maybe now or maybe later—who care about what is happening with the law of New Zealand. Right now, in this Parliament, we are debating on the second round the same concept that we know, on this side of the House, many members of the public oppose—that is, essentially, that giving back, the reinstating of, the right to vote for prisoners who are imprisoned with sentences having to be served for less than three years.
It's not easy to be imprisoned in New Zealand. Members of the police force will tell us that. The members of the public know that it's not easy to be put in prison. It's not taken lightly by the system nor the public. Once a person goes through the process of disavowing or breaking the social contract that he has with other persons or with the State, that person will go through a process, and part of the results of that breaking away from the social contract of behaving in accordance with law will have consequences. The consequence of imprisonment does come with a loss of civil liberties, which include the right to vote. This is not unique to New Zealand. This is shared by other countries around the world where prisoners who are convicted of crimes and are in prison are relieved of that right to vote. So I believe that people out there do care about what is happening now, and what is happening now, essentially, is giving to these prisoners the opportunity to vote while they are still serving their sentence.
Again, losing the right to vote is a consequence of serious offending—not petty offending; serious offending. There are people who have committed—the level of imprisonment of up to three years and beyond reflects the severity of the offending that the prisoner has done and has been tried and convicted of doing. These include serious assault, violent robberies, family violence offences, and sexual offences. We all react when we hear about these crimes being committed. We all care that these crimes should not be committed. Imprisonment is a deterrent, and the loss of civil liberties, including that special right to be able to vote and choose the members of Parliament, for example, is something that needs to be taken away as a consequence.
National was opposed to the original legislation, called the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. That has now been passed into Act by a process of urgency, where the process, the legislative process, has been shortened, truncated, abbreviated. A lot of the process which normally allows for the public to be heard and to provide their position has not occurred. A great part of the earlier process of the original legislation had carried on through lockdown, where very little opportunity to look at it from the outside was ever given to the public.
Now, in reinstating a convicted prisoner's right to vote, we are, essentially, I believe, re-victimising the victims. We acknowledge that we want to give these prisoners the opportunity to have their say—when they themselves, in committing the offence that they have been tried and convicted for, have actually deprived their victims of their say in what has been done to them. And by allowing prisoners to vote, I believe that every victim throughout New Zealand is again put through that process of losing that voice that they may have as victims in seeing the incarceration and the removal of civil liberties for every prisoner that is in prison for certain crimes.
The current bill seeks to amend, through clauses 5 and 6, the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act—so bill No. 1. Clause 5 and 6 pertain to the requirement for Corrections officers to assist prisoners in prison and assist them to get enrolled to vote if they are serving sentences of less than three years. For many, this reinstatement of their right to vote will be and can be exercised in the coming elections.
I think, when this is mentioned, and considering the serious economic situation that New Zealand finds itself in, and considering that we are undergoing this process of urgency, where we have been here all afternoon, into this night, debating another bill—another bill—that deals with the same reinstatement of rights, I just feel and believe that it is a wasted opportunity. We could very well be in urgency considering a bill that could be addressing assistance to businesses or possibly something that could improve the economy of New Zealand, which is now in grave danger. 
I come to clause 6, where prisoners who are sentenced to three years or more imprisonment will be asked if they would like to be enrolled and they will be helped to enrol and they will be asked if they will agree to their enrolment details to be furnished to the Electoral Commission.
Once a sentence has been served and a prisoner has done his time, then, essentially, as he is released, then that deprivation of civil liberties rightfully is given back to him. This makes absolute sense, and, on this part, I believe National supports that reinstatement and that re-enrolment at that point of release. But that is not the same to say for prisoners who continue to be incarcerated and who continue to be serving the sentences that they have been tried and convicted of and which they wouldn't have been convicted of if they had not broken that social contract with the State and other persons. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The following call's a split call—Gareth Hughes.





GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I want to direct my comments to the previous speaker, David Bennett, because in my career of more than a decade, I don't know if I've heard a more embarrassing and frankly egregious contribution. He got up, and within his first words were insults, were making things up—absolutely egregious. Here we are, and the last member, which was more of a measured, actually slightly substantive, contribution, said, "Well, why aren't we here debating how we can improve people's lives?" The answer, of course, is: we are not here debating the very many things we need to do because that party decided to become legislative saboteurs and waste Parliament's time. We're here literally cleaning up a mess that they decided to play politics with something as fundamental as electoral law to try—and I don't know what they were trying: to prove a point that they were all the clever kids who would try and stymie progress? Because, frankly, it's an embarrassment. Here we are, trying to fix a mess that they caused because they would rather play games.
Around this Chamber are 33 memorials to where Kiwis served to defend our democracy. But instead, National would rather play politics—not just politics, petty politics. It's, frankly, disgusting. Now, I wish we would actually have a substantive debate around principles and values, because that was sadly lacking, entirely lacking, from those contributions—a party that's focused on petty politics rather than principles.
Now, I'm proud to stand here as someone who is proud that we are removing the prohibition against prisoners serving a sentence of three years or less to be able to exercise their human rights. Look, I would go further than the other parties that we're forming a Government with, because we have principles and values, and when the Green Party exercises its votes in this House, we do it with integrity. I just wish you could say the same from that party.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I've just heard from the member who's just sat down, Gareth Hughes. Let me ask the member this: whose Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was it that was passed last week? Was it the Green Party's SOP? Oh, who was it? It was Golriz Ghahraman's SOP 518. 
Let me ask a second question. If the member who put the amendment forward to this House didn't want it passed, why did they put it on the Table in the first place? This is an appalling process. I cannot understand the amount of hours that we've lost to fix a stuff-up from this Government to correct an inconsistency that would have been able to give Corrections officers the ability to enrol voters in prison who can't even have the right to vote. Whose stuff-up was that? It was the Green Party stuff-up, and that is symbolic of the shambles and incompetence of this coalition Government. It is an absolute shambles, this process that we've just been discussing today, but also the bill that we've been discussing over the last few months has been a shambles from this Government.
Let me come back to something that Michael Wood said, around standing up for what you believe in. Well, on this side of the House, we do stand up for what we believe in. We stand up for: if you do a crime, you do the time. We stand up for victims' rights, and we stand up for proper democratic process, which we've failed to see in this bill and in the one that's gone before the House in the last few months. Where is the integrity of this Government? In lockdown, when there are far more important priorities, we were discussing giving prisoners the right to vote. Today, we've lost 4½ hours of House time to fix a stuff-up from this Labour-led coalition Government. Not only that—
Hon Shane Jones: Soft on crime! Soft on crime!
DAN BIDOIS: Ha, ha! That is the member of the North, who's going to get a harsh reality in the next couple of months of just how few people in the North actually support him.
Matt King: He's not the member of the North.
DAN BIDOIS: He's not the member of the North. We've got a great member of the North right down here in Matt King. 
Let me come to the content of the bill that we've been debating—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): That would be good, excellent idea.
DAN BIDOIS: —the last few months. The content of the bill we disagree with fundamentally on this side of the House. When you break the law, you have your rights stripped away from you as a punishment for breaking the law, whether it's your right to freedom of expression, your right to be autonomous and do liberty—you know, go about things on a day-to-day basis—and your right to vote. 
That is why we have opposed this bill. May I say, we also oppose this bill because we care about victims' rights. We heard that in the Justice Committee, loud and clear—the number of victims who still are suffering from the consequences of those who have been put away for those crimes. So we acknowledge them, and that's why we've voted that bill down, and that is why we're continuing to vote this bill down in the House tonight.
But I just want to summarise to the House tonight that we have lost 4½ hours fixing a stuff-up from this Government when we could have been—as my colleague Paulo Garcia said, talking about support for small business—talking about how to get people that are out of work back into work. That is what we care about and what we will stand up for on this side of the House. What we will stand up for is priorities from this House and this Government, and this Government has had a shambolic list of priorities. They would rather focus on giving prisoners the right to vote rather than getting our economy back moving. We condemn this bill in the House.





Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): One of the first things that came out of the National leader's mouth when he became Opposition leader was that he wasn't interested in opposition for opposition's sake. So what is happening here tonight is exactly that. So the question I put is: why aren't you backing your leader—why aren't you backing your leader? And if it's not that, you're completely out of touch, because this is not an issue that the country cares about.
So if you're going to go back to your offices and think you've got a little win tonight, I'd suggest you actually think about what happened in your caucus today and have a bit of reflection about that. Either this caucus isn't backing its leader or it's the same tired old party that it was before the leadership change, or a bit of both, and I suspect I'm right on both cases. It's not the party of English and Key anymore; it's just a sad old skeleton of what it used to be.





ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak tonight on the third reading of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2). But, of course, it feels a bit more like the fifth or sixth time I've risen to speak on this piece of legislation, and that is, of course, because we've passed very similar legislation in this Parliament in recent weeks. 
I do want to begin by commenting on the committee of the whole House process that has just concluded a short time ago, because I was a little bit surprised that the Green Party did not move an amendment or put forward another Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) similar to the one that's mentioned in the bill, which is SOP 518 on the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. When we last debated similar legislation to this, last week, that's exactly what the Greens did. They moved an amendment that would have extended the right to vote to all prisoners rather than just those who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than three years. But there wasn't one tonight, so that principled position that the Greens hold, which I can understand entirely, that led them to put up that amendment in the first place, is, for now, for some reason, no longer in existence. So what we have instead is a bill that will confirm that only prisoners who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years or less will be able to vote, which the Greens have claimed is against their principles—and yet here they are in Parliament tonight, voting the other way, not to extend voting to all prisoners but to instead revoke or repeal the amendment that was put forward and supported by this Parliament last week in the name of Golriz Ghahraman. 
This bill in its explanatory note purports to remove inconsistencies in the Electoral Act as a result of that legislation that we passed last week, but instead all it does is confirm them. It says that prisoners who are sentenced to 35 months in prison will be able to vote in elections but that those who are sentenced to 37 months—perhaps for the same crime—will not be able to vote. That is an inconsistency that Chlöe Swarbrick railed against in this Parliament just a few days ago, but this week the Greens are voting to confirm that position. 
There are other inconsistencies in this bill which I'd like to touch on. The Minister of Justice has given a number of contributions in this debate, in first, second, and third readings, and a couple during the committee of the whole House stage, and in his explanation for why he supports this bill and why he's brought this bill to the House, he's said that his position is that prisoners should be able to vote for the Government and for the Parliament that will represent them when they are released. Again, I can understand that position. It's a relatively coherent position. But this bill, and the changes that are made in it, and the additional changes that we made last week, don't do that. They don't, for example, cater for a prisoner who was sentenced to 10 years who might be due for release next year. That person will not be able to vote in the upcoming election. Nor will they be able to vote in council elections or in district health board elections—for as long as they exist, I suppose, given the other measures that are being proposed by the Government at the moment. So this bill doesn't cater for those people. It prevents them from voting for the Government, for the Parliament, and for councils and DHBs that will represent them upon release. So it doesn't fit with Mr Little's stated goal for this bill at all. 
That brings me back to where I started, which is a point on process, and the process that we've gone through in coming to this bill and to this Parliament and to this vote tonight. The reason we have this bill to begin with, as my colleagues have laid out earlier in the debate, is around a failure of process, and a failure of process by this Government. It's a failure to align the three parties of Government to have a consistent position. We saw that in full show last week, when the Greens moved an SOP. And now, in this bill, they haven't learnt their lesson, because this bill, as well, is a failure of process. What they're doing is they're doubling down on that poor process. 
The original bill that was brought forward to Parliament, the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, was voted on at first reading and went off and had a select committee process—such as it was through the COVID-19 lockdown period. It was then brought back to Parliament last week, and we voted on the committee stage and third reading under urgency. That wasn't an ideal process, and that was shown up with the fact that, of course, there was a mistake in the bill, which we're now tidying up with this legislation. Not content with that poor process, the Government, as I've said, are doubling down with this legislation: going through all stages—not just the later stages; going through all stages—without a select committee process, and, unfortunately, with that, with a truncated process, full stop.
So we're not able to consider this bill in the same detail. We haven't had input from the public. We haven't had input from victims of crime. We haven't had input from our prisoner advocates, and, indeed, even prisoners themselves. There's been none of that input into this bill at all. And, of course, the Greens weren't able to put forward an SOP which aligns with their principles. It would have been useful, I think, if we'd had a select committee process. They could have tabled that SOP alongside the bill to provide additional context to the select committee on what could be voted for—again, aligning with Green Party principles. Yet we haven't had the opportunity to do that, because of the truncated process. 
Equally bad is that this bill is being rushed through all stages in one day. We've had no opportunity for public input at all, and now, with a heavily truncated process, we're pushing this bill through Parliament with less scrutiny than I think electoral law should allow for. Certainly, when it comes to electoral law, Andrew Little has said it's the fundamental part of our democracy, and yet we're ramming through all stages in this House a bill that violates that. That's a shame, because, as Andrew Little pointed out when he was in Opposition, electoral law changes shouldn't be rushed through in a process like this. It shouldn't be going through urgency. It certainly shouldn't be going through urgency in all stages in one day. The Greens themselves have actually said that as well. They consistently in Opposition railed against the use of urgency and said it should be avoided at all costs, and yet here we are. Now that Mr Little and the Greens are both in Government, those ideals seem to have gone out the window, and we see them rushing through electoral law changes—probably amongst the last dozen or so bills that were passed by this Parliament, being rushed through before the election. 
It wasn't like there weren't opportunities to fix the bill last week. Of course, Nick Smith, our colleague, moved, during, I think, the third reading, to refer the bill back to select committee.
Stuart Smith: Did they do that?
ANDREW FALLOON: They absolutely didn't do that, unfortunately. So there was a perfect opportunity to refer that bill back to select committee, which would have completely removed the need for this legislation to be rushed through all stages in one day. It could have been referred back to select committee and the public input invited, and we could have had a far better process to ensure that those inconsistencies that are identified in this bill don't come to pass. So I was very disappointed by that. 
We also had, of course, Mr Little during many speeches seeming to blame the National Party. He seemed to blame all this situation on the National Party and hasn't taken any of the blame for himself. The closest we got to that, actually, was a New Zealand First MP, essentially, blaming the Greens for it. Well, actually, there's a huge amount of blame to be put on the Government, particularly Andrew Little, for presiding over a shambolic process, as my colleague Simeon Brown has pointed out. So the process on this bill has been poor. The bill provides more inconsistencies, unfortunately, than it remedies. The Minister has taken every opportunity that he has had to blame the National Party, never accepting any blame for himself, and, unfortunately, launching a disgraceful attack on another member of this House over mental health. We won't be supporting the bill.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am really pleased to have the last contribution, to say the last few words on this particular bill, to actually tell the National Party why we are here fixing this bill up, and it has got a lot to do with the families of 51 victims in Christchurch. One of the things we are fixing up is the hole that that party made in there by actually supporting the Supplementary Order Paper which means that the man who shot 51 people in Christchurch now has the right to be advised that he can go on the electoral roll. I for one would spend four days fixing that up. That's shambolic and shameful, and if you over there want to protect the rights of victims, you will not play games with the electoral law again. I for one commend this bill to the House and condemn them for their shambolic and shameful games that they played last week.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a third time.





FUEL INDUSTRY BILL
First Reading
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: I move, That the Fuel Industry Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 21 July 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
On 5 December 2019, the Commerce Commission released its final report on the retail fuel market study. The commission's reported indicated that fuel companies have been making persistently higher profits over the past decade than would have been expected in a competitive market, that there is limited competition in wholesale markets, and that this flows through to the retail market, where there is wide variation in retail prices, particularly between different regions. The report confirmed this Government's concern that consumers are paying higher prices for petrol and diesel than could be expected in a competitive market. The changes this bill will make will address that, and we expect those benefits will flow through to motorists. The Government is introducing changes to the fuel industry to improve competition in the wholesale and retail fuel markets, and cumulatively these measures are designed to promote greater competition for the long-term benefit of end users of engine fuel products.
Consumers should be able to expect prompt action on such a significant area of personal expenditure, and taking such action is still a priority for this Government. Even during lockdown, consumers expressed strong concern about price drops in international fuel markets not flowing through to New Zealand retail fuel prices. We appreciate that there has been significant disruption to the fuel industry as a result of the COVID-19 response. However, as the country recovers, we expect the problems identified by the commission to persist, and we believe that intervention to stimulate competition remains appropriate.
The industry was consulted extensively in relation to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Fuel Market Financial Performance Study and in relation to the commission's market study, and given that these issues identified by the commission in their market study seem entrenched and have significant impacts on consumers, we consider that it is important to address these issues quickly through this piece of legislation. While I acknowledge that the changes in the bill will not have an immediate impact on the prices faced by consumers, over time greater competition will deliver benefits to consumers.
The purpose of the bill is to promote competition in the fuel market for the long-term benefit of end users of fuel products. The measures in the bill will increase the ability and incentive for dealers and distributors to make switches more frequently, to increase competition between wages and other importers, and make entry easier at the wholesale level, and support the development of a more competitive fuel market. The bill introduces a number of changes to wholesale market arrangements in the fuel sector to improve transparency of pricing and to provide for rules to ensure that wholesale contracts are transparent and fair. These changes aim to increase wholesale market competition, which should, over time, lead to lower fuel prices for consumers.
The bill introduces a wholesale pricing regime known as "terminal gate pricing", which requires wholesale fuel suppliers at a storage terminal to publicly post a price at which they will sell specified engine fuel to wholesale customers at that storage terminal on a spot basis. This regime will provide for greater transparency of pricing, through requiring posted prices for spots of sales of wholesale fuel, and could provide a source of fuel supply for potential new entrants to the retail fuel market.
This bill provides for a regime governing contract terms between wholesale suppliers and their wholesale customers to ensure that contracts are fair and promote competition. These changes will improve the ability of distributors and dealers to compete and to switch providers. The bill also provides for a disputes resolution scheme to address disputes relating to wholesale market changes in an accessible, independent, and cost-effective manner. The bill introduces requirements for displaying certain prescribed information relating to the price of fuel at retail fuel sites. Requiring better display of information at retail outlets will assist consumers to compare prices, thereby promoting competition in the fuel market. This bill provides requirements for fuel industry participants to collect and disclose certain information to enable monitoring of the fuel market and assist in determining whether competition is being promoted for the long-term benefits of consumers.
The bill also provides powers for the Commerce Commission to enforce the new requirements, including civil pecuniary penalties based on those in the Commerce Act 1986. Regulations will be required to bring the provisions of the bill into operation and will be developed as soon as possible alongside the passage of the bill through the House. The bill provides regulation-making powers to prescribe a significant amount of detail of the bill, including terms and conditions for supply under terminal gate pricing, details for contractual requirements, requirements for consumer information relating to the price of engine fuels, and information disclosure requirements. There will be opportunities for stakeholders to be involved in the development of these regulations.
The Government expects that, taken together, the changes proposed in this bill will increase competition in the wholesale market and, over time, lead to lower fuel prices for consumers. I commend the bill to the House.





JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Look, here's the Government putting through legislation which they think is going to bring the price of petrol down in time. And guess what's going to happen tomorrow? The price of petrol is going up. What marvellous timing—what marvellous timing.
Of course, this bill is going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. And, of course, Deborah Russell will chair that and get it through in quick, sharp time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I forgot to say the question is that the motion be agreed to. Carry on, my apologies.
JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was missing that moment.
Look, at the last election the pump price for a litre of petrol in Auckland was 205c a litre—$2.05 a litre. In January this year, it was over $2.49 a litre. And even after the global depression, with oil prices falling as they have through the floor, a litre of petrol is still more expensive now than under the last National Government. What we've seen, if you live in Auckland, is that your price has gone up under this Government, 25c a litre. All of that's to provide a light rail service to Māngere, and I'm just wondering when that's going to happen.
So here we see a Government in these last weeks of this parliamentary term rushing through a bill—a very complex bill, in fact—that came out of fuel market studies initiated first by the Hon Judith Collins, and then the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, (MBIE), of course, did a report on that. Then, of course, the Commerce Commission looked at that and they ran a conference themselves last year and brought all the fuel participants in to that conference to hear what they said. Of course, you know, they did say a lot. In fact, as the Minister said, the Commerce Commission published its final report on 5 December, 2019, in which they came to the conclusion that the fuel companies had been making higher profits than would be expected in a workably competitive market. I was at that conference and I listened to those fuel market participants, and what many of them had to say to the Commerce Commission and the commissioners there was that this is incredibly complex and, "You're not getting it, you don't understand." So they had individual, one-on-one meetings to go through the complexities of how this market works.
A number of them made, I think, quite striking comments. Z Energy, for instance, said, "Our view is that over time, the continued expansion of low-cost distributors like Waitomo, and others such as NPD, will deliver the much-needed price competition and choice consumers want." And competition is much needed. Competition is very important. Competition is what maintains good service, good prices, and keeps the market honest.
What they reported to this conference, to the Commerce Commission—and BP said this—is that if the wholesale market was broken or if the majors enjoyed a structural advantage which impacted workable competition, we would not have expected to have seen a total of 76 sites, not from just the independent retail brands, being Gull, Waitomo, NPD, and Allied, being built in the last five years alone.
So the Government is saying there is not enough competition. Yet in the last five years, 76 new outlets from independent—not the majors;—fuel companies have been built in New Zealand. They don't build something, they don't invest millions of dollars, unless they can get a share of that market. And they have. We all know about the Gull effect. We all know when they come to town, the effect of competition. Competition is alive and well.
I think what's happened is that this Government has seen an opportunity to charge out there on behalf of the consumer—time is running out, and an election is coming near, the price of petrol is going up tomorrow, and here we are in the House today and they're beating their breast. And they're saying that they're doing the moral right and the moral good, but what they are not listening to is the fact that there are adequate elements of competition that are operating. Look, we all want to pay less, without a doubt. There wouldn't be anybody on this side of the House who wouldn't want to pay less, and that's just the way it is. You know, here's what's happened in the last five years. Allied opened 16 new South Island and 13 new North Island sites. NPD opened 21 new South Island sites. Gull opened 12 new North Island sites. Waitomo opened 14 new North Island sites. 
It's interesting, you know, what we've seen. In fact, I've got to say what Waitomo said, and they made a very strong statement. They said, "Of course, one of the issues in regards to fuel price is excise taxes and regional fuel taxes. Taxes and other levies in New Zealand account for roughly 97c a litre of the pump price." So that's actually over half, if you're buying 91. But what happens when the pressure comes on and prices go up? And it's often because the international exchange rate. It's often because of the price of oil on the international market. It's often because of lots of internal market mechanisms that have to be grappled with. It's usually the fuel suppliers that get attacked. And, you know, they get sent to the principal's office. They come to the Beehive. They're marched upstairs and they are told, "Please explain." So I think what we do need to understand is that this is a particularly complex area, and I do hope that the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee does a thorough job in three weeks in getting the committee's head around the complexities of how fuel markets operate.
So what happens? They get criticised for taking too much margin. Well, BP, they reported—and look, I know I'll probably get some smirks from the other side of the House saying, "Well, of course, they would say that." But these are people who understand the market. They say that when margins were low, between 2000 and 2010, we saw—this is when low margins existed for the fuel suppliers—almost 400 retail sites close and the exit of Shell from the industry. More recently, as margins have restored, we've seen expansion and investment, as we would expect, resulting in consumers now having the benefit of the broadest range of offers ever.
What we need to understand in the competitive market is that unless people can make a margin, they won't enter that market. So it's important to have a degree of profitability. And so what the Minister's saying, "Oh that profitability is far too high."—but when that profitability was squeezed, 400 retail outlets disappeared. Where's the competition? It's gone, and you end up with a monopoly, and then prices do get elevated. So what we've got to understand is market principles. You know, this Government—in my final minute—have been very happy and ready to regulate everywhere over the energy sector, and this is just another example of that. 
So in terms of terminal gate price, you know, I think a lot of people will support that idea, and visibility around that may be helpful. But it's going to be interesting to see what that is going to do to prices, because in the conversations I've had with chief executives in the energy sector, in the liquid fuel energy sector, they have said, "Well, that's happened in Australia, but we haven't seen the effect come through in the market price." So we can tinker, we can change, we can put different mechanisms in place, but the answer to all of this in terms of getting better pricing is having better competition. You've got to find the balance between having the right level of margin in terms of getting people into the market, and you've got to have people going in there who can get their slice of that market, and that's what we've seen with the independents. We've seen a huge increase of those independent retailers over the last five years, so much so that many actually say that we do have a healthy, competitive market.
Look, we're going to support this bill through to select committee, because we want to enable people to come and have a say, and I'm sure that's what's going to happen. I commend this bill, and I do trust that the committee will do a thorough job in the very short three weeks they have to report back with.





MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): The National Party has never found a significant vested commercial interest that it won't stand up and defend against the needs of the people of this country. Sometimes, it goes to a position of high farce, because I remember, actually, at the end of the last Parliament when the former Minister, Judith Collins, who Mr Young quoted—even she had to admit that the fuel market in New Zealand was not competitive, that it was "illogical", and that it was "not functioning properly". That was after, under the limp-wristed competition laws that that Government oversaw, they put in place a study that some of the fuel companies refused to participate in.
So it took this Government, this coalition Government, to actually step up to the plate, put in place a proper market studies regime—and I acknowledge the Minister, Kris Faafoi, who led that work as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—which really lifted the lid on the way in which New Zealand consumers are being fleeced in this market. Unlike previous Governments, which have just kicked this can down the road, which have kissed up to the industry, we're going to do something about that on behalf of Kiwi consumers.
It's not just the Government which is saying these things; it is the Commerce Commission, which took a significant amount of time, which consulted with the industry, which consulted with the community, which engaged in a substantial market study, and which came to conclusions that this market was not functioning properly. So that is why we have this piece of legislation before us, and it's why we will take action with this bill.
I do welcome the fact that the Opposition is supporting this bill to select committee, but I would encourage them to engage seriously in it, because Kiwi consumers out there expect to have functional markets that give them a fair deal and that don't see them being fleeced by very large corporations. That's the approach this Government will take, and I hope it's the approach that the House takes over the course of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.





MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on this side and support my colleagues and our party to support this bill to a select committee. Having actually listened to the speech by my colleague to my left Jonathan Young, who is actually very knowledgable in this area, I have to sort of admit that my contribution will be slightly less about the industry, because it is an industry that I don't know very well. 
But as a consumer and as a person who actually drives in Auckland, as a person who actually tries to find cheap petrol when I drive, often it is actually the boards that I see on petrol stations. Some of those boards are an indication. It is, actually, the way that a lot of consumers decide which petrol station they might go to. Some of them use apps—BP, for example. If you use the BP stations, they have a discount service. If you fuel $40, I think it's like 4c or 5c off, and, if you continue to use it, you can actually build up to huge amounts of discount. I think at one stage I went up to something like 60c per litre discount to fill up petrol. There's also an app called Gaspy, which also provides consumers plenty of opportunity for people to look at what gas stations are providing certain prices on any given day. I think that actually provides options for consumers to decide which petrol stations they might in fact go to at any given time. 
Talking about competition and the availability of information out there, I think it is actually quite rich for the Government to come up with a bill trying to prove that there is actually a need for improving competition. As Jonathan Young said, in the last five years, there have been independent gas stations that have opened up—actually, a total of 76, I think he said. These are not big companies like BP or Shell or Z; these are actually independent ones like Allied Petroleum. Allied opened 16 new South Island gas stations and 13 in the North Island, Nelson Petroleum Distributors actually opened 21 in the South Island, Gull opened 12 on the North Island, and Waitomo opened 14 new ones. Talking about Waitomo, I have to say that some people really, really love the fact that they actually provide competition, and they actually only use independent gas stations, not the big ones. 
Having said that, I have to say that competition is something we actually need. As competition intensifies, pricing will react accordingly. I think we actually support competition. But I think the biggest thing that this Government could potentially do to reduce the cost for consumers—the mums and dads of New Zealand, who actually look at prices and how expensive petrol is for that everyday use. Whether they take their children to sports on Saturdays or take the children to school or go grocery shopping, petrol is one of the high prices that people actually pay. If they actually wanted to reduce the costs for mums and dads of New Zealand, the first thing they should possibly do is axe the tax—axe the tax. 
I thought the tax in the Auckland regional fuel tax was perhaps to support the light rail that they just decided to can.
Hon Member: The what?
MELISSA LEE: The light rail that they've decided to can. The whole idea about taxing Aucklanders more for fuel was to deliver the apparent light rail that was going to go from Dominion Road all the way to the airport, which is never going to happen, because this Government realised that they haven't done the work, they can't deliver on their promises. Phil Twyford, like KiwiBuild, cannot deliver light rail. So what they should really do is axe the tax, because the whole thing was about delivering for Aucklanders in terms of light rail.
Earlier, the Minister the Hon Kris Faafoi talked about the terminal gate price. The terminal gate pricing regime requires wholesale suppliers to post the price at which they will sell fuel to wholesale customers at storage terminals on a spot-price basis. The terminal gate price is quoted for fuel only and includes no added services such as delivery. The sector is actually widely supportive of the introduction of terminal gate pricing.
But, talking about the sector, I just want to raise this whole issue about the process this bill is taking. I guess we should be grateful that this bill—unlike the previous bill that was spoken about, that people debated in this House, the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2), which never got a select committee process—will actually get a three-week select committee process. I suppose we should be grateful for that. I wish the select committee chair and the members of that committee best of luck. 
This bill comes to us as a result of the Commerce Commission taking eight months to review the industry, providing a 400-page report that covered a whole wide range of issues which literally—I don't know what it is about this Government—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm really sorry to interrupt the member. The House is only sitting till 10 p.m. tonight, unfortunately.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)