WEDNESDAY, 1 JULY 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
SPEAKER'S RULINGS
Oral Questions—Transfer
SPEAKER: Members, yesterday when the House reached question No. 4, a member sought leave to transfer the question back to the Minister to whom it had been originally directed. I put the leave to the House. I regret to inform the House that I should not have done that. Previous Speakers have made it clear that the matter of transfer is over to the Government and the Speaker should not put leave to transfer the question back. I direct members to the very good ruling of Mr Speaker Carter at Speaker's ruling 154/5. In future, I will not put leave to transfer questions back, and will reinstitute the view of Speaker Carter that to make such a request is disorderly. We come to oral questions.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Infrastructure
1. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What action is the Government taking to support the construction sector and to progress shovel-ready infrastructure?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Infrastructure): The actions have been dramatic. This morning, the Minister of Finance and myself announced a $2.6 billion package comprised of over 150 projects that will kick-start the rebuild in the post-COVID environment. Cabinet's actual decisions on this allocation cover a range of areas within the economy that are of huge importance to all New Zealanders: urban development and housing, $460 million; environmental, $460 million; community and social development, $670 million; and a range of transport projects, including roads and ports, walkways, and—wait for it—cycleways. The investment benefits the country in a number of ways. There has been huge acclamation, and, indeed, one of those projects has turned around the fortunes of Rotorua: the $55 million housing-enabling announcement.
Mark Patterson: Why have only a small number of projects been announced today?
Hon SHANE JONES: It will not surprise the House to know far more announcements will fill the village halls, the maraes, and a host of other places around New Zealand as the leaders within our various regions wait with bated breath. However, there are a host of very important commercial considerations and various probity considerations to be thoroughly examined by the officials, not the least of which are those located in the Provincial Growth Fund. Kiwis expect public money to be spent wisely. They expect not to be let down and that where the funds are dedicated, jobs will flow, long-term resilience outcomes can be achieved, and they know the level of boldness and the level of willingness to spend money to keep the economy going, to train people, and to upgrade our infrastructure is at a level never seen before in a long period of time.
Mark Patterson: What are the time frames for delivery of these projects?
Tim van de Molen: The never-never.
Hon SHANE JONES: The reference to the never-never reflects their electoral ambitions on the other side of the House. Mr Mark Binns, the redoubtable business leader, during the process that he led on behalf of the Government, identified 12 months as the period where these applicants had to be construction ready. Naturally, there are a range of projects, and as they are rolled out, we will double-check that the necessary statutory consents and a host of other potential barriers are swept away. But I'm aware that some projects will get under way immediately, such as the Auckland City Mission and the Taupō town centre. On the latter, the mayor was so overjoyed to get the news, he virtually burst into tears. It is important to bear in mind that 13 percent of New Zealand's GDP is associated with infrastructure. Over 500,000 New Zealanders derive their livelihood in some manner or form from—
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I think the member's gone slightly beyond time frames.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has one of the first infrastructure projects his Government announced, the Waipapa roundabout down the road from the Minister's house, been completed yet or, indeed, even started?
Hon SHANE JONES: Putting aside all personal and other interests, the fact that said roundabout is currently under construction, and it is near Kerikeri, reflects the need to reform the Public Works Act; accelerate the treatment of resource management issues, which Mr David Parker is delivering on; and, probably after the election, to deliver some purgative to the New Zealand Transport Agency.
Chris Bishop: Why did the Infrastructure Commission not provide any advice regarding the guidelines employed to assess the submissions for the shovel-ready projects he's just announced this morning after the Government went to so much time and energy to establish the commission in the first place?
Hon SHANE JONES: That body is led by Dr Bollard, a substantial New Zealand personality, and he personally was involved, along with the chairman of Crown Infrastructure Partners, in dealing with the criterion and the assessment process. To suggest that so redoubtable a New Zealander as Dr Bollard was not involved or marginalised shows a poor understanding, factually speaking, which is not surprising given the contributions that come from that member of the Opposition.
Chris Bishop: Why does question for written answer No. 8852 (2020) to me from a few weeks ago say exactly that?
Hon SHANE JONES: I repeat again: the reference group that was created to work with the chair of Crown Infrastructure Partners involved Dr Bollard, the chair of the Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga. "Te Waihanga" means to build, and we build on solid foundations.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. TODD MULLER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement from the Speech from the Throne, "There will be a progressive tax system where everyone pays their fair share, according to their means"?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I also stand by all of my statements regarding the COVID recovery plan of this Government, which remains our top priority at this time.
Todd Muller: Is the current tax system as progressive as she would like it to be, and does she believe that everyone pays their fair share?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will note that, in the Speech from the Throne, I was also quoted as stating, "Personal income taxes, taxes on the family home and GST will remain at the same rates as they are today." Now, the point we were making there was that, under a National Government, they wouldn't have; they would have given tax cuts to the top 1 percent of New Zealanders. And a progressive tax system is not just about rates but, of course, tax transfers, and we are a Government who increased the family tax credit, who brought in the winter energy payment, and who added the Best Start payment. All in all, that has meant that, on average, 385 New Zealanders are $75 better off, which, I think, does mean we have a fairer system.
Todd Muller: Are the current personal income tax rates and thresholds fair?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, our belief was that it was not going to be any fairer with that Government's proposed changes under National. The National Government's proposed tax changes would have meant that the top 1 percent were better off. We cancelled those. We kept our existing system. We added additional transfers to try and create greater fairness in the system. I'll also add the fact that we did extend the brightline test. We have closed tax loopholes for property speculators. We added the low-value goods tax, which I know is something that Judith Collins championed but was not introduced by the last Government. Base erosion and profit sharing has also been introduced, and we've continued work on a digital services tax, which we've consulted on. All of that would add greater fairness to our system, as well.
Todd Muller: Does she support policies to make the income tax system more progressive, such as the Green Party's policy of taxing higher incomes at higher tax rates of 37 percent and 42 percent?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have no responsibility for the Green Party's tax policy, and I would remind the member that the 2017 election I think was one of integrity and decent debate, which all New Zealanders deserve, under the leadership of Bill English. I would hope, given the misinformation campaign I have seen led by that Opposition, that they would revert back to what was a standard of care that all New Zealanders deserve in an election, and I hope it is not a sign of the way he chooses to campaign.
Todd Muller: Will she rule out increasing personal income tax rates while she is Prime Minister?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by everything I said in the Speech from the Throne. I stand by everything we have done as a Government—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —and when we release our tax policy—
SPEAKER: Order! Which member was that?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I said, "Answer the question."
SPEAKER: Right, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. He's on his formal warning. That's the fourth time he's been warned in the last two weeks for that interjection.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To complete my answer, I am happy to debate fact and our actual policies with the member, not the misinformation he is currently spreading.
Todd Muller: Will she rule out increasing personal income tax rates while she is Prime Minister?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In this House, I am responsible for every statement and policy we have announced, and I am happy to answer questions on that. I am not responsible for other parties' tax policies, and neither has Labour released its own. When we have, I'm happy to debate it. In the meantime, I urge the member not to continue to spread the blatant misinformation to New Zealanders that he has to date.
Todd Muller: Does she stand by the other statement from the Speech from the Throne that—and I quote—"Building a truly prosperous country means sharing the wealth generated by our economy with a wider range of New Zealanders."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Which is why we cut and cancelled that member's unfair tax cuts, we increased the transfers through the family tax credit, introduced Best Start, increased minimum wages, and made sure that those on the lowest income do have a higher income. Again, I am happy to debate our record, happy to stand by my statements in this House. What I'm not happy to stand by is the misinformation from that member.
Todd Muller: Does she therefore support the Green Party policy of introducing a wealth tax?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am happy to clarify for that member again, because he seems to have missed this in all the advertisements I've seen the National Party put his name and reputation on: that is not our policy; it is another party's policy. Just in the same way that ACT's flat tax rate, I only assume, is not the National Party's policy.
Todd Muller: Will she rule out a wealth tax while she is Prime Minister?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, members only need to look at our reputation in this House. We have not introduced any such tax. I am not responsible for any other party's tax, and in this House I therefore will not be answerable to another party's tax policy.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether she intends to increase public debt eight times whilst giving tax cuts to her mates?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A reflection again on the National Party in Government, who, again—I'm happy to reiterate that we did not believe what they were willing to introduce did equate to a progressive tax system, which is why we cancelled their plans.
Todd Muller: How fair or progressive is it to increase petrol excise taxes by 12c and an 11.5c regional fuel tax since becoming Prime Minister, costing the average household hundreds of dollars extra every year despite getting almost nothing in return?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As fair and progressive as it is to increase it by 17c, which is what that member did when they were in Government.
SPEAKER: I will remind the Prime Minister of the definition of "Government". That member has never been in Government.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements on tax?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile his statement from February last year, "There are elements of the tax system that aren't fair and aren't balanced" with his comments on the AM Show this morning where he talked about "the fair and balanced tax system … That's what we've had in New Zealand for many decades."?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this morning's show, we were talking about the importance of a progressive tax system which, actually, both major parties in this House have been the stewards of over time. The area where I do think more work does need to be done is around multinational tax avoidance, which the previous Government did very little work on. We have produced work on that with base erosion and profit shifting legislation, and there is more to do in that area, including in the work that we've done already around digital services taxes.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is the tax system fair and balanced or unfair and unbalanced?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've said on many occasions, by and large it is fair and balanced but there are always improvements that can be made.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he really given up on his desire for a new tax on capital or wealth, as he expressed it in February?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A lot's happened since February, and in this House the Prime Minister has been extremely clear that we'll not be introducing a capital gains tax.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile his claim in the House yesterday, "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" with yet another fuel tax increase today, which is taking money out of the pockets of New Zealanders?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I was making reference there to a number of changes that have been made to the tax system through the COVID period, including increasing the provisional tax threshold, increasing the small asset depreciation threshold, restoring depreciation on buildings, the changes to loss continuity, the loss carry-back scheme—all of which have been about putting money into the pockets of New Zealanders.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think New Zealanders would be happy to pay their higher fuel taxes if they received more than just announcements of good intentions such as we've heard again today?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think what the member needs to consider there is that it is a hypothecated tax. It goes directly to the transport needs of New Zealand, and if the member is going to campaign around the idea that the tax increases in fuel and road-user charges that have come through today will be removed, he has to find $2 billion to take out of the roading programme. He might like to have that discussion with his colleagues.




Question No. 4—Finance
4. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made about Government investments to support workers and families?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today marks the first day that a host of initiatives come into force as a result of the investments made by this Government. These policies include an extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks and an increase in the amount paid; free apprenticeships; pay boosts for early childhood teachers; the new farm debt mediation scheme; and a cheaper building levy, saving homeowners and businesses money. The Government's plan to recover and rebuild from COVID-19 is focused on creating jobs and supporting households through these difficult times. These policies demonstrate progress on both our economic response for the global pandemic and for the long-term challenges we were tackling before COVID-19 hit. 
Dr Duncan Webb: How will these policies support New Zealand's recovery from COVID-19? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The policies coming into force today will play an important role in our plan to recover and rebuild. Apprentices in any industry or people wanting to train in targeted areas will have between $2,500 and $6,500 in costs per year paid for them, making it easier for New Zealanders who want to train in industries where demand is expected to grow as the country recovers from COVID-19. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders are eligible. From today, Budget 2020 comes fully into effect, which will see investments in New Zealanders staying in work and creating new jobs, including in construction, infrastructure, conservation and nature, small businesses, and sectors like tourism, the arts, and sports. I am proud to be part of a Government that is ensuring that all New Zealanders have a place in our plan to recover and rebuild. We've made the investments necessary to do that and support that plan, and the policies coming into force today represent a key marker on our road to recovery. 
Dr Duncan Webb: What other recent announcements has he made about Government investments to support workers? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This morning, alongside the Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon Shane Jones, I announced a new package of infrastructure investments that will help create jobs right across New Zealand as part of our recovery and rebuild from COVID-19. The infrastructure fund—part of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund—will see $2.6 billion invested in more than 150 projects in sectors including housing and urban development, the environment, transport, community, and social development. The investments are expected to help create more than 20,000 jobs. This package will provide Kiwi workers with the confidence that the Government is backing them in this challenging economic environment and will support the construction industry with certainty. 
Kieran McAnulty: Would it have been possible to increase the—make the investment that you've talked about in your supplementary answers if we—
SPEAKER: Order! 
Kieran McAnulty: Oh, I apologise, Mr Speaker—the Minister—
SPEAKER: Start again. 
Kieran McAnulty: Thank you very much. Would it have been possible to increase paid parental leave and make the investment in infrastructure that the Minister outlined if the Government did not cancel the legislated tax cuts that were made by the previous Government? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is absolutely true to say that if a Government wants to invest in public services, then it needs to make judgments about what is important. Is it important to invest in paid parental leave, or is it important that members of Parliament here get tax cuts? We made the right decision. 




Question No. 5—Health
5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, "If you even have a sniffle or the slightest sore throat, get a test", and is that statement consistent with the case definition for COVID-19 published on 24 June?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Noting that the Prime Minister made that comment more than two months ago when New Zealand was in alert level 4, yes. The Government's position has not changed. If anyone has symptoms of COVID-19, including a sniffle or sore throat, they should seek advice about a test from Healthline or their general practice. Yesterday, 4,530 COVID-19 tests were completed, taking our total number of tests to 402,000.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Would it surprise him to learn that a primary care facility in Auckland reported that of 40 people presenting to the Botany community-based assessment centre with COVID symptoms last Friday, only three were tested and 37 others were turned away?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: If the member has evidence of that, I would like him to front up on it—if I can make that comment. The communication has been very clear to primary care. COVID-19 tests are free. They will be reimbursed by the Government, and I'd note that since the case definition changed—the first day afterwards, we had 9,825 tests, the second-highest ever day of testing. We have a high degree of confidence there's no community transmission because we have a really high level of testing in New Zealand.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer, why were the COVID testing criteria changed last week?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The higher index of suspicion in the test relates not just to testing but to the requirement to self-isolate while awaiting test results. People who have symptoms but are not considered to meet the higher index of suspicion can still be tested but won't automatically be required to self-isolate. I'd say to the member again, because we have the high level of testing we do, we have real confidence there's no evidence of community transmission, so there's not the same need to self-isolate.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he saying, therefore, that the only change to the criteria last week was not who gets a test but what they have to do after they get that test?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Government has been incredibly clear: anyone who needs a test should get a test. I'm not going to second-guess clinical decisions made by individual doctors or nurses, if that's what the member is suggesting.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, if he believes that the new criteria are so clear, why does he think that the chair of General Practice New Zealand picked up the phone to Dr Ashley Bloomfield to ask for clarification on what GPs should do?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I probably read the same article as that member, and I would note in that article that the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners medical director Bryan Betty has written to GPs to ensure the message is understood. We have a very high level of community testing. Last week I announced that this Government has put an additional $89 million aside for testing. This Government has not put in place any barriers to people getting tested if they have symptoms.




Question No. 6—Transport
6. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: How much revenue was raised by the fuel tax increases on 30 September 2018 and 1 July 2019, and how much is forecast to be raised annually by the increase from today?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): From 30 September 2018 through to 30 June 2020, $291.8 million was raised by the two increases. The increase on 1 July 2020 will raise around $100 million per year, which will help fund infrastructure and create jobs across the country.
Chris Bishop: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence in the ability of the Government to deliver on projects that are ostensibly funded by the hundreds of millions of dollars raised in revenue from these fuel tax increases, when his flagship project, the Auckland light rail project, has been cancelled?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because we've made some great progress addressing the years of neglect that we—
Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, and I apologise to my colleague. I'm just looking at the primary question, which is actually very narrow around revenue, and I just wonder how that supplementary—
SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the Minister of Transport to read the last sentence of his reply to the primary question. 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The last bit? The increase on 1 July 2020 will raise around $100 million per year, which will help fund infrastructure and create jobs across the country.
SPEAKER: That's what got it in. Mr Bishop, ask it again.
Chris Bishop: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence in the Government to deliver on the projects that are ostensibly funded from the increase in fuel tax revenue when his flagship project, the Auckland light rail project, has been, essentially, cancelled?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Simply because we've made great progress addressing years of neglect that we inherited. We've already improved 2,500 kilometres of State highways with safety upgrades. And in Auckland, after plugging the $5.9 billion hole that the former Minister of Transport left in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, construction is occurring on the Eastern Busway, State Highway 20B, the Puhinui Interchange, the old Māngere Bridge replacement project, the City Rail Link, the Constellation bus station, just to name a few. And yesterday, Mayor Phil Goff and I kicked off construction on the Matakana link road, which will create 120 jobs. 
Chris Bishop: Will any of the increased revenue from the fuel tax increase be spent on the north-western bus rapid transit project, which has gone nowhere for the last three years? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The member should wait and see.
Chris Bishop: At a time of huge economic uncertainty for many Kiwi families, does he really think it is the right time to put up costs on households?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, because we have a hypothecated funding system for transport in New Zealand that we can thank the Hon Annette King for when she was transport Minister. Every cent raised through the fuel excise duty is spent on transport, infrastructure, and services, and right now that stimulates the economy and boosts jobs. If the member wants to cut the transport budget, he should know he is cutting the jobs of New Zealanders.
Chris Bishop: Why are road-user charges increasing by 5.3 percent today, and what message does this send to our trucking industry that the Prime Minister, himself, and other Ministers have lauded as getting us through the lockdown?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, simply because, as the national road carriers have pointed out, New Zealand roads have been deteriorating due to a lack of proper maintenance. That's no surprise, because under the former National Government, there were real cuts in road maintenance that left the highways in a mess. Under this Government, along with the council, we've put half a billion dollars extra into maintaining our roads in this country, and pre-COVID the New Zealand Transport Agency was on track to deliver a 60 percent increase in road maintenance. That's why we need a transport budget, and if the member wants to cut the budget, that's what he's cutting.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not the evidence of what he's saying is attested to by Mainfreight paying back $10 million of the wage subsidy because they were doing far better than they thought?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It's true that Mainfreight have reported that their business has returned much more quickly than was earlier expected to the freight flows around the country. I will point out also that Mainfreight, who've moved more freight around this country than anyone else, are very strong advocates not only for investing more in transport infrastructure but investing in rail, the very thing that that party wants to cut.




Question No. 7—Education
7. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What changes to support for trades and vocational education come into effect today?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Today, the Government's Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund comes into effect. What that means, in practical terms, is that apprentices will not have to pay fees from today until the end of 2022. It also means that New Zealanders training at a non-degree level in the primary industries will not have to pay fees, nor will those training at that level in construction or manufacturing; mechanical engineering and technology; community support areas like care for the elderly, counselling, and community health; electrical engineering; or road transport. These changes that come into effect today will make a huge difference to those needing to retrain as a result of COVID-19.
Marja Lubeck: What do people need to do to apply for the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund, and is there a risk of people missing out because they don't know about it?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The good news is that people don't need to do anything to qualify and be eligible. For anyone who is signed up as an apprentice, or who enrols as a domestic student in a programme that is fund-eligible, the money will flow automatically and they will have their fees paid. The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) and education providers will manage this all in the back room, so there is no risk of learners doing the wrong thing or not doing enough.
Marja Lubeck: What about learners who started the programme before 1 July and may have already paid their fees?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In many cases, they'll still have part of their fee paid or refunded. The exact entitlement would depend on the structure and timing and the components on the course. But, again, the provider will work out with the TEC what the learner is eligible for, and will pass on any fee reduction without the learner needing to do anything.




Question No. 8—Fisheries
8. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Fisheries: How many Hector's and Māui dolphins will the new Hector's and Māui dolphins Threat Management Plan—Fisheries Measures save annually, if any?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): The member has asked about a very narrow element of the threat management plan (TMP), the fisheries measures, and I will address these. But it's also important to consider the TMP in its entirety, which includes non-fishing measures. These cover threats like the disease toxoplasmosis and the impact of seabed mining and seismic surveys. The fishing measures are well-covered in the documentation we released last week. They are designed to mitigate risks to dolphins as fishing is only one element of the threat to these mammals. Based on our average estimates of fisheries deaths, fisheries officials estimate the new measures will save approximately 40 Hector's dolphins a year and one Māui dolphin every 21 years. Based on our upper estimates of fisheries deaths, they estimate the new measures will save approximately 69 Hector's dolphins a year and one Māui dolphin every 10 years.
Ian McKelvie: Is the Minister aware of any deaths of Māui dolphins from fishing practices in the past 10 years?
Hon STUART NASH: No.
Ian McKelvie: Does he agree we have seen little or no evidence of an increase in the Māui dolphin population, despite there being only one recorded death from fishing practices?
Hon STUART NASH: Well, there are only 63 of the dolphins alive at the moment.
Ian McKelvie: How will the Hector's and Māui dolphins threat management plan affect small businesses of provincial communities, such as Kaikōura, Timaru, New Plymouth, and Raglan, if those fishers are unable to reclaim sufficiently to continue fishing?
Hon STUART NASH: Well, we have put a significant transition process in place to allow fishers to transition from methods that are now not available to other methods. Or, if they would like to exit the fishing industry, they're able to do that as well.
Gareth Hughes: Is it correct, to protect those last 63 Māui dolphins, that this Government has doubled the marine mammal protected area for Māui and Hector's dolphins?
Hon STUART NASH: Yes, and I would say I've worked very constructively with the Minister of Conservation to come up with what I think is a very good threat management plan.
Ian McKelvie: Does he consider the risk of small business going out of business because of new regulations, on top of the economic fallout from COVID-19, proportional to the risk to Māui dolphins? 
Hon STUART NASH: Well, it was never about one or the other; it was about working together, and that's the reason why, as mentioned, we've put in place a transition package, which we believe will allow fishers, if they so desire, to transition from one method of fishing to another method of fishing, or, if they don't wish to transition, then help them exit the industry if they so desire.




Question No. 9—Conservation
9. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Conservation: What issues, if any, have prevented the extension of the Campbell Island Marine Reserve?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): It would be no surprise that, as Minister of Conservation, I supported the extension of the marine reserve in line with the recommendations of an independent review. The Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Act, which was law passed under the former National Government, when National chose to exclude 61 percent of the territorial sea around the islands despite many submissions to the contrary, also requires the consent of the Minister of Fisheries to any extension. The Minister of Fisheries did not agree to the extension because of concerns raised by Treaty partners, particularly Ngāi Tahu and Te Ohu Kaimoana. This Government pays serious attention to Treaty issues and takes Māori rights under the Treaty seriously.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with marine environmental researcher Barry Weeber with regard to the extension of the Campbell Island Marine Reserve when he said, "it seems really, really odd and very disappointing that the minister hasn't approved it."?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The concerns of Ngāi Tahu and Te Ohu Kaimoana were raised with the Minister of Fisheries. They were the reason that the reserve extension was not agreed to, because this Government takes Treaty issues seriously.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with Kevin Hackwell of Forest & Bird that "Campbell Island is a UNESCO World Heritage site and … is a really important place for taonga species"?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes, I agree with that. That is why I supported the recommendations of the independent review.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with Eugenie Sage, who in 2012 said, "The Green Party would see a proper commitment to marine conservation and marine protection by establishing the full extent of the territorial sea around the Campbell Islands as marine reserves."?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member should be aware of the statutory responsibilities of different Ministers. The law that National passed required the consent of two Ministers.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with Eugenie Sage, who in 2014 said about the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, "It does not go far enough because of the big areas that are missing around the Bounty Islands and the Campbell Island group"?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: This Government is looking at real options for a major overhaul of the Marine Reserves Act and marine protection. That work is under way with the Minister of Fisheries, and it will result in a representative network of marine protected areas around Aotearoa. We need to take account of Treaty partners and their views, and that is what we're doing.




Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety
10. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What changes to the parental leave scheme came into effect today?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Parents with children born from today on are eligible for 26 weeks of paid parental leave. This is a full six months of leave to support families in their child's first months of life. Each year, the parental leave payment is adjusted to reflect the rise in the average wage. Today, eligible parents will see an increase in the parental leave payment from $585.80 per week to $606.46 per week before tax.
Willow-Jean Prime: Why did the Government decide to make the changes?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, the Government is committed to making sure that families and parents are supported when they need it. Along with the bump in paid parental leave, we have implemented a wide range of support for parents. This includes boosting the Working for Families payments and the Best Start payment, which provides financial support for all families with a newborn baby. Our goal is to make New Zealand the best place to be a child.
Willow-Jean Prime: How did the changes come about?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, the changes were policy for all three parties of Government, and they are the result of many years of campaigning. I want to acknowledge the work of 26 for Babies, Tick for Kids, unions, parents' groups, La Leche League, Plunket, and UNICEF. I'd also like to make special mention of our former colleague Sue Moroney for her advocacy for the increase to 26 weeks' paid parental leave in previous parliaments, and I know that she is proud that we finally have a Government that made this a priority.




Question No. 11—Police
11. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: How many firearm incidents involving gang members and associates have there been since the end of the Government's firearm amnesty and buy-back, and how does this compare with the number of similar incidents for the two calendar years prior?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): The criminals who hold these guns were warned that police have a renewed focus on gangs and other criminals who unlawfully hold firearms. Almost 2,700 firearms have been seized from gangs and other offenders since March last year during search warrants, vehicle stops, and call-outs to family harm incidents. There have been 369 firearms-related offences since the end of the firearms amnesty and buy-back, of gang members and associates. In 2018-19, there were 643; in 2017-18, there were 642 offences under the Arms Act. That compares to almost 2,000 offences in 2017-18 by non-gang members. That's also why this side of the House voted for substantially harsher penalties for gun crime.
Brett Hudson: What information has he received on why the number of firearms incidents involving gang members and associates has been increasing?
Hon STUART NASH: Probably because we put well over 2,000 new police into our communities and they're doing their job.
Brett Hudson: Is he saying that more police on the street creates gang use of firearms?
Hon STUART NASH: I'm saying more police on the street allows us to solve more crime and go very hard against gangs.
Brett Hudson: Is he concerned at reports that gang members and associates obtained firearms by offering higher prices than the Government buy-back programme?
Hon STUART NASH: People who handed in their firearms during the gun buy-back received substantial compensation for those. Those who didn't face up to five years in jail. If we find anyone who did not hand in a prohibited firearm under the amnesty, they face up to five years in prison, the loss of their licence, and, of course, the loss of their freedom.
Brett Hudson: Will he now support my member's bill to introduce firearms prohibition orders to help curb firearm crime committed by gang members?
Hon STUART NASH: Let me talk about police numbers for one moment. To quote the former police Minister Judith Collins, from page 260 of her new memoir, out today in good bookstores, $37: "In June 2016, I had my first discussion with the PM Key about the need to significantly increase police numbers, eight years after the Australian gangs became established." The former Minister Collins worked incredibly hard in the police portfolio but she met constant roadblocks from her finance Minister and her Prime Minister.
SPEAKER: Order! I'm now going to ask the member to address the question that was put to him. I lived in the vain hope that he might have got to it.
Hon STUART NASH: No.




Question No. 12—Statistics
12. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of Statistics: What recent developments have there been to ensure the 2023 Census includes questions about sexual orientation and gender identity?
Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): I'm delighted to confirm that the rainbow community of Aotearoa New Zealand will be recognised in the next census. Statistics New Zealand has committed to including questions in Census 2023 about sexual orientation and gender identity, something that has never happened before. Tomorrow, Stats NZ will open a consultation to inform exactly how we collect and report on this data on gender identity, but the most important thing to note today is that people in the rainbow community will finally be able to respond to the census in a way that reflects who they are. 
Jan Logie: Why is it important that the census ask questions about sexual orientation and gender identity? 
Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, New Zealanders want to see themselves reflected in our official data and statistics, and policy makers need this information to improve the decisions that they make, not least in areas like health spending. Collecting this data means that we can best describe and understand the diversity that we're lucky enough to have here in Aotearoa New Zealand. People in our rainbow communities have been marginalised and ignored for too long, and we are fixing that. Census 2023 will be the most inclusive census we've ever had. 
Jan Logie: How will data about sexual orientation and gender identity support Government decision-making? 
Hon JAMES SHAW: The census plays a vital role in ensuring that everyone, no matter who they are, receives the services that they need. The changes that we are making will help us to make better decisions about how we deliver those services. The commitment that we have to improve Census 2023 comes after decades of work done by rainbow communities all across New Zealand to ensure that the data that we collect better reflects who we are as a nation. I'd like to take this opportunity to recognise this hard work and to thank the rainbow community for what they have done to make Aotearoa New Zealand a better place. We know that there is more still to do, but the inclusion of these questions is a great step. 
Sarah Dowie: Does this mean that, specifically, people who answer census questions will be able to self-identify as any gender they choose? 
Hon JAMES SHAW: The methodology hasn't been established yet. The consultation that opens tomorrow will help to lead towards the exact nature of those questions. [Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! 
Sarah Dowie: What implications would this gender self-identification have to the protection of lawfully discriminated women's sex-based services? 
Hon JAMES SHAW: I'm sorry, can she repeat the question? 
Sarah Dowie: What implications would gender self—
SPEAKER: Sorry, can the member address me, and then she'll go into the mike. 
Sarah Dowie: OK—all right. What implications would gender self-identification have to the protection of lawfully discriminated women's sex-based services?
Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, the methodology hasn't been established yet. 
Hon Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm that Statistics New Zealand is collecting biological sex as well as including questions with regard to identification of gender? 
Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes, of course. We've collected biological sex information for as long as there's been a census. 
 





GENERAL DEBATE
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
Paula Bennett woke up in the weekend to decide that she was the next one to leave the sinking ship and she thought about who to tell first and she scrolled through her address book until she reached the letter "t" and she found her options: Tom, Todd, or Tova. The choice was obvious: a person who had relentlessly been taking the mickey out of her, or Tom Sainsbury. So the call was made to Tom, and as quick as you can say, "A bowl latte and a ham and cheese panini." Tom and Paula were filming a video in their kimonos. Meanwhile, Todd carried on in his blissful ignorance. Paula said Todd would not look good in a kimono.
The problem is when it comes to Todd Muller, the emperor has no kimono, because, time and time again—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: It's a "kimownow".
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —I think you'll find it's "kimono" in the words of Tom Sainsbury and Paula Bennett. Time and time again, we see from Mr Muller a change in position. He has, as someone said, got the consistency of a bored cat—when the border is closed, he wants it open; when the border is open, he wants it closed. Time and time again, we see the flip-flop, the inconsistency, and the different positions. The favourite word of Mr Muller is "shambles". Well, there's only one shambles here; it's over there: 55:34. And the leaker—because I don't think when Paula Bennett scrolled through her phone she actually did push the Tova button; I think that's somebody else—I think that's somebody else. It could be Pulitzer Prize winning author Christopher Penk—that's who it could be. Or—you've got to be careful of the quiet ones as well—Jian Yang. Very quiet, no interview—you've got to be careful of the quiet ones as well. 
So the emperor has no kimono, there is no consistent position, there is no leadership. Whereas, if we contrast that to this side of the House: on 1 July 2020, we deliver 26 weeks' paid parental leave. I've been in this House long enough to know that many members over there, who were very quiet when those questions were being asked today, opposed that. They did not believe that New Zealand parents should be able to spend those first six months with their babies. Well, I am incredibly proud of that. I also want to join with Iain Lees-Galloway in congratulating our former colleague Sue Moroney, but also all of those people who worked so hard for this. We now have two Labour city councillors who were part of that 26 for Babies group, Fleur Fitzsimons and Rebecca Matthews, who are both in those elected positions today who showed leadership in the community in getting that done.
This is also the day on which we see our free apprenticeship programme come in. I want to congratulate my colleague Chris Hipkins on how he has got that up and running today. These are real opportunities for young New Zealanders and older New Zealanders to get the skills that they need. It's not just the construction industry for which we will need many more people after the announcement of $2.6 billion of infrastructure funding today but it is also in areas like community care, healthcare, and mental health care. These are the areas where we know we need more people training and we know that this Government is the Government that can deliver that.
When it comes to those infrastructure projects, if I can briefly channel Shane Jones, there will be a line-up of desperate National MPs trying to get alongside the announcements in the regions. They might criticise the Rugby Park grandstand in Gisborne but I know that those communities, when they see those projects—be it the library in Blenheim, be it the roads and infrastructure in Rotorua, be it the City Mission in Auckland—know that it's this Government on this side of the House that has their back. We had their back all the way through COVID-19, and this Government, led by Jacinda Ardern, has the vision for the future; unlike those on the other side, leaving the sinking ship one by one by one. I don't know who will be next over there, but I can guarantee you this, everyone on that side of the House, make sure "t" is at the top of your list.





TODD MULLER (Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is only one definition of "shambles", and that is that rambunctious group of Government led by—actually, I think he thinks he's the deputy leader, to be honest. What a shambolic performance we've seen from this Government over the last few weeks. And, actually, when we look at their delivery over the last three years, this has been a legacy of non-delivery from the moment they walked in here until right here, right now. You're looking at KiwiRail, great effort there, Winston Peters, I think it's six trains—
Hon Member: No, two.
TODD MULLER: Two trains in six months or something. Light rail, complete failure. We go through the list one after the other, and this party has said, and we will continually prosecute, that this Government, this Labour-led Government, is a party and Government of non-delivery. But I tell you, there is one thing they deliver and that is tax—I tell you, there's one thing they deliver and that is tax. You look at what they've rocked up over the last three years: the three petrol tax increases, the regional road tax underpinning their vision for light rail in Auckland.
Hon Member: Well, how's that working?
TODD MULLER: Well, how's that working? Exactly, that's "gone-burger". Couldn't even imagine it, couldn't even build it. The ring-fencing of loss tax, the tourist tax. This is a Labour Government who just loves tax. And what have we seen in the last 48 hours or so? Well, the Green Party, part of the coalition Government, or at least a part of the mix, has said, look, here's our vision. Well, I tell you what that vision is: anybody who's worked hard, anybody who's saved hard, anyone who's succeeded in any way, we're coming after you—we're coming after anything that you have saved, all your effort, all your ambition, we want a bit of it.
So I turn to the Prime Minister and say to her today, so wealth tax, will you rule it out? No answer. Looks away, looks to the Speaker. Will you rule out wealth tax, again? No answer, won't commit. Say, "I'll talk about that when we get to that campaign." No, Prime Minister, talk about it now because the country wants to know. What about income tax? What about income tax increases? No answer. Looks away—looks away. I think New Zealand knows what's coming. They absolutely know what's coming.
Willie Jackson can't wait for it. On The AM Show last week, he was bubbling in excitement. It wasn't just because he had seen an early copy of Judith Collins' book, it was because he said, and I quote, "I can't wait for it to be the Labour-Greens. It's going to be us. It's the Greens-and-us Government." Well, we all know what that means: tax, tax, tax. And every hard-working New Zealander knows it's coming.
So the question that we put to the Prime Minister, you see, she bats it away. Well, interestingly, roll back three years, in the election campaign we put to her the same question as the media did. What about the Green Party's oil and gas ban? Is that part of your policy? "Oh no, no, no. It's not exactly how we'd do it," she said. She was pushed again: an oil and gas ban, is it your policy? "We'll think about it." What happened? An oil and gas ban, because that's what the Green Party wanted.
Well, New Zealand, you can be assured that, as we go to this election, the issue of who is going to come into your savings, who is going to look at your home, your assets, everything that you have worked for over the last however many years of effort and ambition, that side, the Labour-Greens Government, as they will see it, is coming for it, because they totally, at their core, hold a view that if you are successful, that is something that needs to be attacked. They look at it through the lens of envy because we have succeeded, we have worked, and we have aspired. But we see it as something that needs to be grabbed and captured and reduced. I can tell you, when we are looking at the greatest economic crisis of a generation, 30,000 jobs a month going south, what this country needs is a Government full of ambition and capacity to actually drive results and an economic plan that's going to work, not a Government that sits at its core and says, "What you have earned, we want back; what you have struggled for, we want a share of." No, this party will ever position itself on the side of those who aspire, who work, who work hard for their families and actually want to achieve and not actually hold a view that if you're successful, we want to grab more of it back so we can spray it against the wall and talk to New Zealand and say that's economic management. That's failure; this is success. Bring on 19 September.





Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Meanwhile, while the Leader of the Opposition was delivering that riveting speech—not—Paula Bennett and Simon are in the corner over there, having an intense conversation. We wonder what they're talking about, on this side of the House.
Everything that came out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely unbelievable. And we've been there; we know how much it hurts to be in Opposition, to have the polls right through the ground, to not have the support of the public, to not even have the support of your own caucus, and it hurts. I could see that it hurt, actually, when Grant Robertson was delivering his speech and he was throwing out a few constructive criticisms to the other side of the House and they were not taken well—they were not taken well at all. To point a finger at this side and say that we are not delivering is completely insincere—and that's an understatement.
It's 1 July today and already we've had Minister Robertson stand up and talk about some of the changes that will come in on 1 July, not least of which is the 26 weeks' paid parental leave that so many people across this country worked hard to achieve, and we are finally realising it, despite the opposition from the National Party. Also, the introductions of our apprenticeships policy, and I do acknowledge the Minister of Education and also the Minister for Social Development for their work to implement that very, very, very important scheme. We've been accused of not delivering, and yet we have been able to support New Zealanders through one of the most unprecedented events of our history. We were able to act more quickly than so many other countries with respect to putting supports in place to support businesses, to support people that were out of work, to support people so that they did not fall out of work. And we've seen that through the ministry that I oversee, with the rolling out of the wage subsidy and, more recently, with the job loss cover that we have introduced to support people that have lost jobs because of COVID-19.
We shouldn't underestimate how quick we were as a Government to respond to the needs of New Zealanders. We can see that when we look elsewhere, across to other comparable countries around the world and their response. Even with Australia, who did announce a very comprehensive wage subsidy package early on, they still were not able to roll theirs out until May; we were able to roll ours out in March, within a couple of days of announcing it. So to point fingers at this side of the House and to say that we are not delivering and, at the same time this week, to criticise us for going into urgency with the purpose of trying to get as much legislation through as we can before the election hits us—to say that we're not delivering is completely disingenuous.
We've seen so many flip-flops from that side of the House, so many contradictions with respect to their views on closing the border or opening the border—did the Government do well with its response to COVID or did they not do well? And, on any given day—in fact, in any given interview—we see those flip-flops. Even today, can I say, with a bill that came through the House on superannuation, a bill that all of the House supported, we were criticised, on the one hand, for doing this through urgency, despite the fact that many of the Opposition speakers were saying that, actually, the changes in that bill were long overdue, and then, on the other hand, we were criticised for the fact that we've had to delay the commencement date due to the fact that the Ministry of Social Development has been a little bit busy. So it has been pushed out slightly. So, on the one hand, moving too quickly; on the other hand, moving too slowly. And that was in just one committee stage debate, on a bill that they actually support.
So the contradictions that are coming from that side are incredibly prevalent to not just us but to the general public, and I do say to the Leader of the Opposition that New Zealanders want to know what leaders stand for, and it's very difficult to ascertain that when he contradicts himself—in one sentence, one interview, one day, and many times during the course of the week, as we all have seen since he came into power. And, as we speak, Simon and Paula continue to have a conversation in the corner, a conversation that I am sure entails something along the lines of "Well, I bet our caucus is sad, regrets the decision that they made now." I'll leave it at that. We are delivering—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Mr Speaker, thank you. Look, I want to just reflect on the fact that we are entering into what will be—I think, without doubt, without dispute in this House—the biggest financial and economic crisis of our lifetime. It is at times like that, that the measure of any Government really comes to the fore. When you're in a crisis that the Reserve Bank is telling us will be the biggest in 160 years, people need support, and that support is about having a job and is about managing their cost of living. On those two measures, this Government is proving itself to be an abject failure.
Jobs—let's talk about jobs. Grant Robertson likes to pretend that New Zealand is in a good position because we went into this crisis strong, but here's what he doesn't want you to know: actually, before COVID, the number of jobless in New Zealand was the same as at the peak of the global financial crisis (GFC), more than 150,000. By the way, when this Government took office, that was at just 120,000. So over the economic good times that Grant Robertson and Labour inherited, we saw unemployment climb back up to the same number as the peak of the GFC. Since COVID, that has gone up by another 50,000-plus already, and that number is going to get worse. That's playing out in a very real, a very human way.
Hon Willie Jackson: Negative, negative, negative.
Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, Willie Jackson might like to say this is negative, but I think caring about whether New Zealanders have jobs and can pay their bills matters, Mr Jackson. We are going to talk about the fact that there are record numbers of people now needing food grants, there are record numbers of people now needing emergency assistance, there are a record number of people—in fact, three times as many as when they took office—waiting for State housing under this Government. Despite all of the talk about supporting their people, we heard from the last speaker, Carmel Sepuloni, the reality is there are more people out of work who don't know how they're going to pay the bills, who don't know how they're going to feed their family. And what is the answer from this Government? More tax—more tax and fewer jobs. 
I'm going to come back to taxes, because that is the reality of life for New Zealanders. Can they pay the bills? Well, today, they find that filling up their car to get to work just got more expensive thanks to this Government. So in the time of a record financial crisis, this Government's response: let's put taxes up. Let's make it harder and more expensive to fill the car. Let's make it tougher for businesses to employ people. I want to just quote a letter that I got just today, actually, from a businessman in my part of the world who employs eight staff, has got a business that he's been running for 25 years as an owner-operator. He has had to, so far, put $120,000 of his family's money in just to keep it afloat and he's written today saying that runs out in six weeks. He's also told me that he has written to numerous parts of the Government pleading for help and has not even had a response. So this is a Government that talks a great game—and we know what great talkers they are, but words are hollow. Words don't create jobs. Words don't pay the bills. What we've got is businesses being ignored, jobs being lost, and the response from Government is "Let's put up taxes. Let's make it harder and harder to pay the bills."
We know that post the election, if Labour gets returned, it is going to be a Labour-Green Government because we're seeing New Zealand First really show their true colours in recent days. We're seeing more and learning more and more about who influences that party and when they are gone at this election, as every single poll tells us they will be, it will be a Labour-Greens Government and the Greens have already made their price of power very clear. And that price is even more taxes on any New Zealander who has had the audacity to work hard, to save a bit, and to try and put a bit aside. 
Now, the message will be very clear. It's clear from the Greens—and the Government won't rule it out; the Prime Minister's made that clear again—if you have the audacity to try and get ahead and build something for your family, to build that business that I just talked about, 25 years of slog to employ eight staff, this is a Government that will come after you. They will come after you because they fundamentally believe they can spend your money better than the earner can. 
National doesn't believe it. National believes in hard work. National believes in reward for hard work and success for those who are prepared to work hard. We will be a Government that will stand up for New Zealanders, that will make sure they have jobs, that will make sure they pay their bills, and we won't tax them to death.
SPEAKER: Order! Order!





Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): That was a speech of concession where that South Island member, Amy Adams, has already acknowledged they will not win the upcoming election. Rather, they are continuing a campaign of sleaze—of bare-faced falsehoods about the party that I belong to. I want to set the record straight. This party believes in jobs and industry. This party, in the form of my good self, from time to time has attracted support from figures in industry. Those gestures of support are declared. That is how democracy is expected to work. But no, what do we hear earlier today? We hear during the course of Mr Carter's contribution very defamatory things not only said about elements of the party I belong to but associated with people no less august than Graeme Hart. I challenge that member to go out of this House and repeat what he said in the middle of the debate on the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill. He won't, because he will discover he does not have short hands and long pockets; he will have empty pockets. That gives an indication, and I warn the other side of the House: do not run a campaign, in so far as I am concerned, with that level of taint and that level of stigmatisation. Be careful about the Pandora's box of woe you open yourselves.
Now, let's talk about things far more constructive to the future of the country: $3 billion on top of $12 billion, a perfectly clear long-term pipeline of certainty for this particular sector in the economy that comprises over 13 percent of GDP and touches the lives, in a fiscal sense, of 500,000 New Zealanders. Who has brought that to the fore? It was brought to the fore by a philosophy and a boldness to do what the other side of the House has never done in their political economy model: a willingness to leverage the Crown's balance sheet to ensure we are endowing, post-COVID, the economy with infrastructure, with assets, and with facilities to smooth the path for future investment of a tertiary and secondary nature. 
This party, this Government, has been willing to pour that level of fiscal stimulus through the education system, through the infrastructure spend, through housing, through rail, and through roads, and what do we hear in response? Apocryphal stories about tax rates. Let's not forget about the GST hike back in 2008. Let's not forget about how deeply, grossly at variance that act was with what was campaigned on. We're far too clear-sighted, we're far too four-square in our approach to delve into that level of muck. That is the side that has decided, through Mr Carter, to run a campaign characterised in that fashion. I give him fair warning: do not go outside this House and make those allegations, or you will be returning back to the South Island in a state of penury. 
I am very disappointed that the context of a very simply occupational licensing regime bill, called the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill, was defaced through such contributions. Of course, that bill has itself been catastrophised by the proxies operating on behalf of the foreign owners of the forestry sector—owners, I might say, that have been supported by this side of the House in liberalising and simplifying the overseas investment criteria for forestry purposes; owners and stakeholders in an industry that members on our side of the Government who have deep provincial exposure have been willing to stand up for. Well, I give fair notice—I give fair notice. After the election campaign, all bets are off. If that element and their approach of not only stigmatising but distorting think that there is not a response, we will respond positively to the farmers and the other calls of community leaders in rural New Zealand.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Well, if there was ever a sign of a Government in its first term that is incompetent and out of touch, it was its infrastructure announcements today. For the whole region of Canterbury we got a $15 million nice-to-have cycleway. What this Government did today is, this Labour Government has prioritised a nice-to-have cycleway over a vitally important roading project in my electorate, the Woodend bypass. We have a town of Woodend in Waimakariri that has 20,000 car movements a day. Mums and dads are taking their students across that State highway every day to the Woodend Primary School. We don't even have a pedestrian crossing. Elderly are telling me they don't want to cross the State highway to get to the bus services to go to their medical appointments. The businesses in Woodend are telling me that people no longer stop in their shops because they don't want to head out back into the traffic.
And here we have a vitally needed roading project that that community has petitioned the transport Minister, Phil Twyford, on. They even protested in February. They had the Woodend rally. They packed out Owen Stalker Park. All they're asking for is a vital transport investment that they need for a high-growth area that's causing real safety concerns for that community. This was the time that this Labour Government could have listened to the people on the ground and heard them, and validated their concerns by backing them with vital roading funding. And what do they do? They kick them in the guts and they announce $15 million for a nice-to-have cycleway in another part of Greater Christchurch. What do these people have to do to be heard by this incompetent and out-of-touch Government? 
Let's take ourselves back to when this first happened. The National Government announced the Woodend bypass in 2017. This Labour Government came in in 2018 and changed the Government policy statement, and what that did for transport is it stripped $5.5 billion out of State highway funding and redirected it to Auckland public transport. And now we know they've failed to deliver that. That's been scrapped. Yet people in Canterbury, they're the ones that had $5.5 billion stripped out of State highway funding. The New Zealand Transport Agency turned up at the start of 2018 and they told the Pegasus Residents' Group and they told the Woodend residents group that the Woodend bypass was now off the table because the Government had changed its priorities. Instead of investing into vital roading infrastructure and growing regions like Greater Christchurch and Canterbury, they redirected that money to roading and public transport initiatives in Auckland.
Where does that leave us today? Here we have an incompetent and out-of-touch first-term Labour Government that makes a big song and dance about infrastructure announcements. Those people in my area of Waimakariri and North Canterbury and Canterbury, they were listening this morning because they thought their time had finally come. And what does this Government do? Gives them a kick in the guts by announcing a nice-to-have $15 million cycleway.
You go and tell those parents who are worried about taking their five- and six-year-olds across a State highway with 20,000 thousand car movements a day that you guys prioritised a cycleway. This Labour Government prioritised a cycleway over elderly and disabled people who no longer cross that State highway to get to public transport, the bus stops, to get to the medical appointments because this Labour Government prioritised a cycleway. 
That's why it was great to have Chris Bishop in the Waimakariri last week, who announced at Owen Stalker Park, where the locals had a protest, that when re-elected a National Government will deliver the Belfast to Pegasus motorway, including the Woodend bypass, because what we know how to do, on this side of the House, is deliver. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I suggest that member, Matt Doocey, checks his own internal polls, and then he'll find out how far away he is from Government. This Opposition is a disgrace; it's got the stench of an Opposition rotting from the inside—no doubt about that. I can think of no better example today as we watch the two exceptional former Māori leaders plotting and strategising on the other side of the House. Todd Muller had no control over them, but if you have ever seen a better example than the Paula Bennett resignation, I'd like to hear it or see it. Where else would you have a former Deputy Prime Minister telling her leader to get—I can't go on about it. Just like Mr Sainsbury, I can't go on about it. But who would say that about their leader and their leadership? Paula Bennett. Paula Bennett—what a resignation, what an outro.
I know Dan Bidois agrees with her. He's grabbed his seat today because he knows there's a reshuffle going on in the National Party. They're trying to find a Māori to go to the front bench, and Dan Bidois has promoted himself today. He showed a lot of loyalty to Paula and Simon—none—and, while his mate Shane Reti is away, he's jumped into the middle row. So good luck to Dan Bidois in terms of getting up there in terms of the front bench.
But the National Party's been struggling—struggling—in terms of the reshuffle and finding the right Māori, but I'll say again: well done to Paula Bennett; what a resignation. OK, you know, I take back some of the things I've said about her in the past. She's a mana wahine—she can't dance, sadly, but she outro'd in the right way. 
In terms of Simon Bridges, he's a relation on the Ngāti Maniapoto side, and we watch him on TV every second night, wandering the corridors of Parliament looking for an interview. "Who will interview me?" Simon Bridges says, "Who will interview me? Oh, I'll talk with you, Tova!" It's great what's going on in the National Party. The constant undermining—the constant undermining—and the leaks.
And, of course, then there's my good mate Judith Collins, and she puts her book out. Who puts a book out three months before an election? Judith Collins, she loves playing the game. She doesn't really like Todd; she knows he's going to collapse, given the latest internal polls. We all know the polls. I won't mention ours, because we don't talk out of school, but we all know the National Party's—it's all over the media this morning, and it's a shambles and things are getting worse for poor old Todd Muller. He's giving it a good shot. Every chance he gets, he blames me for all the unemployment in terms of the COVID crisis. It's all Willie Jackson's fault! Yes, OK, I'll take that, Todd Muller. It's all Willie Jackson's fault! Never got a question for six months; then Todd turns up and it's all the Māori fulla's fault who's got the Employment portfolio. It's that Māori's fault! It's Kelvin Davis' fault that no tourists are coming into the country! Great strategy, Todd Muller, great strategy! Pick on the Māori, but here's the challenge, Todd. Will you put Dan Bidois up? Will you put Dan Bidois up—and Shane Reti? Get back to work. Get back to work, because old Mr Bidois' going to cut your throat!
I was meant to be relentlessly positive about this one, and I see the boss down there, Chris Hipkins—I apologise, but Kieran McAnulty put me on the wrong strategy. He said, "Get into them", and I am enjoying this, because the National Party are an absolute shambles and mess. They are a disgrace; they're running a strategy of hysteria at the moment. But here's the thing—no one believes them. They'll have you believe, oh, you're going to get COVID—you're going to get COVID! The only people who get it are at the borders. That's where they're meant to get them. Tell Todd Muller that. They're not getting them in your city, Lawrence. They're not getting them on the North Shore; they get them at the borders. We've got security there, we've got police there; we've got this under control. We've got Megan Woods and we've got Jacinda Ardern. We will lead this crisis. It's manageable. We can organise it. Stop running your stupid campaign of hysteria and maniac allegations. No one cares. Look at your internal polls. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Well, you wouldn't believe that, would you? He's spent four minutes and 45 seconds, as the Minister of Employment at a time when we've got record unemployment, talking about the policies of the Opposition. He's absolutely terrified of both the Opposition and of Dr Shane Reti, who asks him questions every question time he's here. He's just hoping he'll get promoted to something else so he gets rid of him out of employment. I could not believe it. 
Now, the other thing that bemused me a little bit was Minister Jones, and I didn't come here to talk about this at all, but he talked about leveraging the Crown's balance sheet. What he forgot was that the Crown's balance sheet belongs to the people of Helensville, the people of Waimakariri, and the people of Rangitīkei, and they will have to pay that money back as Mr Jones leverages the Crown balance sheet and forks money out all over the country. 
Industries come and go, politicians come and go—as we're about to find out in three months here—but the capture of seafood for human consumption has been around as long as humans have been around, or at least it was before we got a coalition Government running the fishing industry. I want to just talk for a minute about the introduction of the Hector's dolphin and the Māui dolphin threat management plan that's coming into force on 1 October and the impact that's going to have on rural, provincial towns where we have our fishermen and women living. That industry is getting hammered at every turn. Those people are extraordinarily hard-working, and I think it's a tragedy that we continue to put pressure on small businesses—small family businesses—at a time when the country is in a great deal of trouble. 
So we're really looking at the actions of a dysfunctional coalition Government, unable to make decisions to improve the security and safety of our fishing industry. Food is a critical topic for New Zealand, and the provision of food safety, and the safety and the reputation that that food carries with it as it is marketed around the world is hugely important to us, so we need to be sure that we are operating sustainable businesses. To this end, the provision of cameras in part of that industry is absolutely critical to the credence and the viability of the future of that industry as we go forward, and we've got a Minister of Fisheries unable to deliver on that—an issue that will become an essential tool in the provision of efficacy for that industry going forward. Not only that, but we have a Minister who subsequently leaks to the media and undermines the credibility of an industry, and I think that's very unfortunate. 
Then, we have New Zealand First being accused by the Minister of interfering in a process, and Greenpeace also accusing New Zealand First of taking money from industry players to influence policy. It's a shambles, and the challenge of this is that it undermines the credibility of the fishing industry. I don't mind what happens in this Parliament, but it undermines an industry that is hugely valuable to New Zealand, that returns $2 billion worth of benefit to this country, and that employs some 13,000 people—primarily in provincial New Zealand—with 2,500 of them taking great risk at sea. 
The fishing industry has been under fire from environmental groups and so-called green politicians around the world for many years now, and a lot of money is sourced internationally to try and influence policy in communities and fishing businesses like we have in New Zealand, and I think that's very unfortunate. We're quite capable of managing our own fishing industry, and I think we need to be let go and let do it. This Māui dolphin and Hector's dolphin thing is a very interesting piece of policy. But we've seen since 1921 five recorded captures of Māui dolphin, and since, I think, 1991, we've seen some 29 Hector's dolphins caught or entangled in fishing nets, and we're putting a massive structure in place that's going to damage large numbers of fishermen and women around the country in order to save a very small number of dolphins. 
The Minister's estimates of the cost of that policy, and this is the ministry's estimate of it—wait for it—is between $29.3 million and $70 million. I don't know where he got the $0.3 million from, but when you're that far out in your estimates, what's the use of an estimate like that to an industry that's going to be significantly challenged by the change in policy. 
So it's very unfortunate, I think, that this is being dealt to our fishing industry at a time of great challenge for them. I've travelled around New Zealand speaking to fishermen all over the country. They're extremely worried about their futures as the cost is added to their business. They're also worried about the turmoil that's being created for their business as a result of COVID. This Government needs to treat small family businesses with respect—
SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I apologise. I wasn't watching the clock. The member's time has expired. 





MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): There is enough—we know there is enough in our beautiful Aotearoa for everyone to thrive, where everyone can meet their own dreams and their own goals about their life and engage in their communities how they want to. We know that ensuring that everyone can live decent lives is about setting ourselves up for our future generations. We've seen this in the community generosity just recently and right now, through COVID-19, and the response of community, knowing the responsibility of stepping up to make sure that everyone is helped. But we are not quite there yet at the beautiful country and the vision that we can have. We need to move further and faster to realise this, because far too many people are faced with the impossible trade-off of having to choose between the rent and healthy kai and the power bill.
The struggles are not new, and many have struggled for a long time, and through COVID-19 we have realised as a country just how important it is to have a strong social safety net that treats people with dignity. We have an opportunity right now to know that we can fix our current social safety net, which does not always treat people with dignity and does leave far too many people on unlivable incomes and does not give the help that is needed. We need a circuit-breaker to really plan for long-term vision for our country to be strong for good, and the Green Party's Poverty Action Plan will support everyone when they need it, through a guaranteed minimum income that will give a decent life. To fund this healthier, safe future for all of us, those with a lot of wealth will pay it forward so that there is an income for everyone to rely on—because, as I said, we do have enough. The tax will have little impact on those with a lot of wealth but it will make a huge difference to those people who need it.
I really wanted to highlight our Agency for Comprehensive Care and the fact that right now we have a two-tiered discriminatory, unfair, confusing, and unhelpful system of treating people whether they be ill long term, have a disability, or are recently injured from an accident, for example. We would bring all health-related support into one agency focused on prioritising the health needs of everybody, no matter how you got to that situation. The significant disparities between these support systems have been doing harm for far too long, and I am pleased to hear from the people living it every day, that they are welcoming of our Poverty Action Plan so that ACC can actually offer humane support for everybody.
I also wanted to put in a bid for an election that actually upholds the dignity of our campaign and tells people the truthful accurate facts about policies, and I join the Prime Minister in her plea for making sure—either the Opposition cannot count or they are making a decision to put out information that is inaccurate. Our people are worthy of an election campaign that is at least truthful and actually has faith in people to choose politicians based on merit, not on misinformation and purposefully inaccurate information. I have trust in our people to be able to do that.
To close, we can end generations of systemic poverty in this country if we choose to, so that people can be in control of their lives. We know that working hard and getting a free ride is not restricted to any one income level, and I put an end to that narrative in this place, from these representatives who want to confine the way that we give back to our communities to only one group of people. That has never been true of this country. That will never be true of this country. People can be working hard even when they are not in paid employment. That is the value and the contribution that I want to support as the co-leader of the Green Party, and I look forward to putting our Poverty Action Plan in place. Thank you.





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to take a call in this general debate. Today, I specifically want to focus on delivery, or lack of it, of this Government in my own electorate. It's become abundantly clear to me over the last six months, but particularly in the last week, that the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health clearly do not know what's going on with my own electorate and the capital programmes that are meant to be delivered. Equally, housing is woeful, and I'll come to the point of the stats I now have leading up to the election, which are woeful.
In November 2018, the Hawke's Bay District Health Board asked the Government for $10 million to replace the radiology department at Hawke's Bay Hospital. It was a joint investment—$10 million from saved money from the DHB; $10 million from the Government. That money was approved by the Capital Investment Committee in August 2019—August last year. As I was seeking to find out what was happening with these projects, I was provided an answer from the Minister that the money was put in the Budget—Budget 2019. It was put in the Budget and it was funded. Further on in the questions, the Minister said he'd never received any advice from the Capital Investment Committee to support this. Clearly, the two don't line up. So, late last week, an urgent paper was given to the Minister of Health, and, on Monday, he wrote to the Hawke's Bay District Health Board saying that on Friday he'd approved it.
I raise that because the net result is a loss of nearly a year from when that project could have been funded and built, and the people in my electorate could have had an upgraded set of radiology equipment. In my electorate, in the Hawke's Bay Hospital, the radiology equipment is that old that, in many ways, staff are refusing to work on it, and some of the accreditation is gone.
I then also checked on what happened to the surgical services upgrade—basically, another theatre block. Delays in that have pushed the price up by $4 million, and lo and behold, subject to my questions, on Friday that was also put in front of the Ministers and yesterday it was approved. Without me showing what was going on, none of those projects would have happened.
Then I come to the much-awaited concept in Hawke's Bay: the announcement in August 2019 of a new linear accelerator for the region. That means that people in Hawke's Bay do not have to travel to Palmerston North for radiology treatment. Lo and behold, what do we find? No business case has even been started. No money has been set aside, nor even an application made, for the bunker for that facility. This was to be delivered in 2020-2021. Not a single piece of movement had happened, and, when I questioned it, they say that COVID came along. Yes, COVID did come along, but, actually, developing a business case for a linear accelerator and putting a case up to the Government could have been done during that time, but it hasn't been. So once again, the people of Hastings, Napier, Wairoa, and Central Hawke's Bay are denied the opportunity of a linear accelerator for at least a year, in my view—maybe longer—because the ministry and the Minister cannot get their act together to deliver what they promised. They promised in August 2019 that this would be delivered in 2020-21.
Now, I wish to close on housing. Housing is a disgrace in Hastings, and the stats—the latest stats—don't paint a very nice picture. In 2017, there were 163 people on the housing waiting list, when this Government took office. In March of this year, there were 500 people living in temporary accommodation in Hastings, despite the fact that there are 2.5 hectares of vacant land and this Government could have built some houses. The latest report I have back is that 12 houses have been built in Hastings in two years; another 38 are meant to be built by October—that's for the election. But guess what! At the same time they're building 38 houses by October, they're also going to demolish 28. The net result: in three years in Hastings, despite the fact that there is vacant land and despite the fact that the waiting list has gone from 163 to 500, the delivery of houses in Hastings is a net 22. It's a disgrace.





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. So much doom and gloom from the previous speaker who just resumed his seat, Lawrence Yule; although, if he were to just put his mind to it, if the previous Government had actually built houses nationwide at the rate that this Government is, there would be no public housing waiting list. But today's a day for celebration. There is so much that we have to be proud of on this side of the House, and I want to focus on that and not the doom and gloom from the other side. 
Today brings great news for our parents, because, from today onwards, paid parental leave goes up from 22 weeks to 26 weeks, and with a higher maximum payment as well. This allows parents to spend extra time that is precious with their little ones, with their babies, and that is so crucial to the growth and the development of their babies. I want to quote my colleague Willow-Jean Prime, in one of her first speeches in Parliament—because this was, of course, the first bill that our Government passed, way back when. Willow-Jean Prime said, and I quote: " 'Te piko o te Mahuri, tērā te tupu o te rākau.'—the way in which the young sapling is nurtured determines how the tree will grow." And to quote Dame Whina Cooper, "For how the children grow, so will be the shape of Aotearoa." So can I just acknowledge everyone: former MP Sue Moroney, the 26 for Babies coalition, and everyone who worked so incredibly hard—and the Government on this side of the House that actually made it happen at the end of the day. Can I acknowledge them all for this incredibly monumental movement.
Today's also a day of celebration for homeowners, with cheaper building levies and more freedom to make alterations without a building consent. It's also a great day for teachers, with pay increases for qualified early childhood education teachers, as well. This builds on the exceptional work that this Government has done and continues to do in terms of responding, recovering, and rebuilding in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
I just want to touch upon the border, because there's been a lot of talk about the border of late. The border remains our main line of defence against a second wave of COVID-19 here in New Zealand, because it continues to be rampant overseas, and cases continue to increase globally. The border remains our protection against community transmission, and can I say this for the record: we have no community transmission in Aotearoa. The cases that we've seen are at the border, and that is indication that our border regime, which is one of the strictest in the world, is actually working. It would be reckless and it would be risky to reopen our border now, as many have called for, including the Opposition. I just want to take a moment here, though, to acknowledge the fact that it's been tough for many, including migrants here in New Zealand and members of our ethnic communities who have family overseas, because there's a huge amount of anxiety for many. I know that the border closure represents them being cut off from their family, and I just want to acknowledge that. However, we've always said that a strong health response is what we need here. It is also the best economic response for us. 
In the time that I have left, I also want to touch on another change that comes into effect today, and that is specific support for foreign nationals who are here in New Zealand who are facing serious hardship. We know that there are many here in New Zealand who have lost their job. Many of them are on temporary visas with the eligibility to work. There are many who are unable to find that work and find themselves in serious hardship. For them there is a specific fund that is open today, if they are unable to return to their home country because of COVID-19 restrictions, if they were on a temporary visa that was valid as of 23 March 2020, if they are in serious hardship, and if they have exhausted all their means of any other financial help. I just want to make note of that. I also want to thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) for what was the most significant consular exercise, during the lockdown period and now. We've seen 70,000 New Zealanders return, and 70,000 foreign nationals who've been helped to go back to their home countries, as well. I thank MFAT for their considered response any time MPs have contacted them to support individuals, as well. 
I'm incredibly proud of the work that this Government has done under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and our Ministers, and of the work that is ongoing to support the rebuild as we rebuild together in New Zealand. Thank you.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Never in recent times have we witnessed the incompetence of a Government than with this Labour-led Government. They are so incompetent they can barely organise a barbecue, let alone a Government or an economic recovery.
Kieran McAnulty: Oh, nailed that one!
DAN BIDOIS: They have failed to deliver for—yes, that's right, Kieran McAnulty—my community in Northcote, they've failed to deliver for Aucklanders, and they're going to fail, and they have failed, to deliver for our country.
Let me talk about three key areas where they've failed to deliver. The first is transport in Auckland. Need I say more than "light rail"? Two years ago, or three years ago, this Government promised light rail; two years later, they've cancelled it. In the last election, this Government promised the SkyPath and committed $30 million to the SkyPath project; 2½ years later, not a single shovel in the ground has started on this project. What about East-West Link, a really important project for the Auckland community? That was cancelled even though the Government then later committed funding to it, and they've failed again to signal whether they're starting this project or not.
What about workplace relations, my area of expertise? Well, again, this Government talked up a big game on the future of work, which is all around preparing New Zealand for a greater environment of technology and improved economy. They talked up a big game, and the Minister Grant Robertson said that they'd been an active participant on how the future of work would take place. The business sector was excited, and yet what have they delivered on this? Nothing. A Productivity Commission report came out—fantastic recommendations, none adopted by this Government. The Business Advisory Council that was looking after the Prime Minister made some fantastic recommendations in this area, and all but one have been shelved. This Minister, Iain Lees-Galloway, has been sitting on reports and working-group documents—whether it be the Holidays Act review, documents around contractors—and they have failed to deliver in this area.
I ask you: why is this important? Well, it is important because New Zealand is entering a period of deep economic contraction. Treasury figures indicate that over 140,000 people will lose their jobs in New Zealand over the next year, and many from my community of Northcote. Yet this Government has failed to move in any positive direction to signal that they know what they're talking about.
Let's come to workplace health and safety. All of us want to make sure that people come to work and go home safe in this country. This Government again talked up a big game in the area of health and safety. Iain Lees-Galloway said New Zealand can become world leaders for workplace safety if we get our attitudes and practices right, but what has this Minister delivered? A report out this week—an independent report from WorkSafe—has indicated deep challenges and problems with the way WorkSafe conducts its investigations: not enough staff, poor training, and poor practices for investigations. We've seen workplace deaths rise under this Government, even after you take out the sad tragedy of the White Island events. Workplace accidents have increased under this Government, and this Government has failed to do anything about it.
So the bottom line is this: for this election, the choice is clear—if you want a Government who says what they want to do and delivers on that, there's only one choice, and that is a National-led Government. When National says and makes promises around housing, the economy, and the environment, we will deliver for New Zealand in this area. We'll deliver because we've got a fantastic team of people who have come from the business world, who have led financial crisis recoveries before, and we're going to because we've got Todd Muller and the vision that he provides for the National Party and for New Zealand in the future.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.





AUCKLAND REGIONAL AMENITIES FUNDING AMENDMENT BILL
Third Reading
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I move, That the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
As a sponsor of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill, it's my pleasure to take this call to highly commend this bill to the House. This bill was introduced on 12 September 2019, and it's great to see that this bill has come up for its final—that is, the third—reading today, despite us missing so many members' days due to COVID-19.
At the time when I had a discussion with the chair of the Auckland Regional Amenities Board, I did say to him that we will do our best to see that this bill goes through the parliamentary process as soon as possible. So I'm sure all nine amenities that are specified in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 and the Auckland Regional Amenities Board will be quite pleased to see that this bill has come up for its third reading. The Auckland Regional Amenities Board did a great job of lobbying for this bill and it is a great privilege to be the sponsor of this legislation. 
They wrote to all Auckland-based members of Parliament, because I believe members of Parliament from all sides would have something to do with these Auckland regional amenities at some point because they do some really important work in the community. That's how I got in touch with the Stardome Observatory, which was part of Mt Roskill but because of recent boundary changes, now it's in another electorate, a neighbouring electorate.
So other than the Stardome Observatory, the other Auckland regional amenities are Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, which is situated on Queen Street in Auckland; Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, in Mechanics Bay; Auckland Theatre Company, in Mount Eden; Coastguard Northern Region, in Mechanics Bay; New Zealand Opera, in Parnell; Surf Lifesaving Northern Region, in Mechanics Bay; Auckland Arts Festival, in Auckland Central; and WaterSafe Auckland, also known as Drowning Prevention Auckland, in St Marys Bay. So I said that I had this great opportunity to be the sponsor of this legislation because of my relationship with the Stardome Observatory, which is one of the amenities that is based in Royal Oak, which was part of Mount Roskill, where I'm based as a National list member of Parliament. 
After the first reading of this bill, this bill was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee on 25 September 2019, and I had the opportunity to sub on that select committee as I'm not a regular member of that select committee. And I want to thank the chair, Dr Jian Yang, and deputy chair, Ginny Andersen, for their contributions in the select committee process. I also want to thank Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and committee clerks for their help during the discussions on this bill in the select committee. 
The nine amenities that are specified in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 and the Auckland Regional Amenities Board are fully supportive of this legislation going through. Currently, these amenities are technically in breach of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008, because since the change that was made to the Charities Act 2005, these amenities have been preparing their financial statements according to the standard that is required as per the Charities Act 2005, but Audit New Zealand, which audits these amenities for their compliance with the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, has given a waiver on the understanding that this bill will pass.
In very simple terms, what this bill does is it takes away the requirement of preparing financial statements as per the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards, which is required under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, and it replaces them with the standard which is the Public Benefit Entity Financial Reporting Standard in the Charities Act 2005. So it's a very simple change. It is a technical error this bill is going to fix. 
Now, what is important to note is that these two standards are different in the sense—they're not too different, but they are different—that it requires these amenities to support these two pieces of legislation, to prepare two sets of financial statements, which is just unnecessarily adding another layer of work for these amenities. 
So because these amenities are charities, they are registered as charitable organisations; that is, not for profit. And the standard, which is in the Charities Act 2005, is the one that is more suitable, the one which is more fit for purpose. [Interruption] I know that some members are getting really agitated because they didn't have the opportunity to work with this amenity that is based in Mount Roskill, Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker. Sorry, I see the change. But that just reflects on that relationship and the working ethics that you have in the electorate where you're based. And yes, I had the opportunity to work with them and I'm the sponsor of this legislation. 
Coming back to the bill, this legislation is to fix the error that has been there since 2015, because these entities are public charitable entities and the standard that is required under the Charities Act 2005 is more suitable for these entities. Why should we add another layer of work for these entities? So this legislation, by fixing this technical error, will actually remove that extra layer of work that is required of these nine amenities that are specified in the Auckland Regional Amenities Act.
The changes that this bill intends to make would start applying from financial years that are in progress on the date of the Royal assent or the most recently completed financial year, but only if the Royal assent was given before the statutory deadline for entities to lodge their annual report. These deadlines are three months after balance date for the nine specified amenities; five months after balance date for the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board. This is really good because it gives absolute clarity to all entities that are involved. 
On top of these changes, it's important that I mention that there is a retrospective validation in this legislation, but it's important to note that the retrospective validation is not a blanket validation for non-compliance. It's only for entities that have been complying with the Charities Act 2005. They will be getting this retrospective validation. So, yes, the bill is intended to validate matters generally understood to be lawful, but are in fact unlawful, but they are unlawful as a result of a technical error. So it's a bill that fixes this technical error in the principal Act; that is, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008, by changing the standard that is in the Charities Act 2005 for financial reporting for these amenities. All these nine amenities are really looking forward to seeing this bill passed, because they are sitting with this burden of non-compliance at the moment. This legislation was absolutely needed to fix this technical error. Without this legislation, we could not fix this error. 
It is a great pleasure to be the sponsor of this legislation. I had support for this bill from all parties and that's why it has come to this stage, and I am looking forward to that support continuing in this reading as well, to support all nine amenities that are specified in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Look, this has been a real crackerjack debate as this piece of legislation, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill, has wound its way through the House, from its first reading some time ago to its—well, I hope to be—conclusion today. As the local member elected in Mt Roskill and as a member who lives in that electorate as well, it's my real pleasure to see this legislation progressing because it does affect one of the amenities which is situated in my electorate. That's the Stardome. I know it's a long drive over from Bucklands Beach for the sponsoring member, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, but I'd encourage her to visit from time to time. It's a good place to go.
In my second reading speech, I reflected a little bit on the value of that institution to our community. Not only is it an important educational institution which opens the eyes and the minds of our children in an important, educational way but it's an important facility for the community more generally. I don't think I've ever actually had more feedback on a parliamentary speech, which maybe says something about my parliamentary speeches, rather than my recollection of one evening there after a couple of nice glasses of wine, of watching the slightly psychedelic Pink Floyd show that's put on at the Stardome Observatory, where you sort of sit back and as well as listening to the outstandingly good albums of Pink Floyd in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there's a wonderful light show which is projected on to the star dome above you. So I can affirm to the House that this is an amenity that we do wish to see well supported.
But beyond that, there are eight other amenities, nine amenities in total, which are covered by this bill: Stardome, Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, Auckland Rescue Helicopter, Auckland Theatre Company, New Zealand Opera, Surf Life Saving, and the Auckland Arts Festival; two other really important ones are both WaterSafe and Coastguard Northern. Some good news for both of those institutions because, of course, in the Budget last month, there was a really good funding boost for both of those two important institutions, who've often really had to shake the tin around, and the Government is showing its support for them. 
I think it's important for the House to have a little bit of historical perspective on these pieces of legislation when they come forward and to understand why it is that we're doing what we're doing through this process. To do that, you have to go back to 2005 and the Charities Act at that stage. But around the same time as well, the fifth Labour Government under the Hon Judith Tizard—and this is in 2008—established the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act. This was actually a really important piece of legislation for Auckland. This was in the pre super-city days, when we had seven different territorial local authorities (TLAs). We had these amenities around the region, but actually mainly focused in the central part of Auckland, mainly in the Auckland City part of the region. But they were amenities that were enjoyed by all Aucklanders across those seven territorial local authorities. So, effectively, there was an equity question, because the funding for these entities came from one territorial local authority, Auckland City, but the benefits were enjoyed by many. 
So how did you deal with that? The way that that Government dealt with it was through the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, which, effectively, set up a levy system across those seven TLAs so that ratepayers from across the whole region who benefited from them put some money into the kitty to ensure that there was a sustainable funding base. So that was one of the key bits of legislation that gets us to this point. 
The second key bit of legislation was the Charities Act 2005. The key issue that we are reconciling between those two pieces of legislation is that the 2008 Act requires that financial statements are drawn up by the international financial reporting standards, whereas the Charities Act requires them to be drawn up under the generally accepted accounting practice. So that's a significant problem for these entities, that they've got two pieces of legislation which require different accounting standards in the drawing up of their financial statements, something of an oversight. 
The real challenge that that's resulted in is that these entities, to some degree, have possibly not been compliant with at least one of the laws or they've had to draw up two different sets of financial statements and reports in accordance with two different standards, which obviously is a significant amount of additional work for no real benefit. So that's the problem that, fundamentally, this bill seeks to resolve. I'm pleased that it does, and it seems to get us to that point, and I'm pleased that the bill has support from all of the nine amenities, who obviously want a simpler process to go through here. 
The bill did have a little bit of a working over at the Governance and Administration Committee. All of the submissions were in support of the bill, but there were some awkward little issues to work through. We had a great committee stage debate on this bill. It was enjoyed by everyone that was in the Chamber. It went on for over two hours, in fact, but some important issues were traversed, including the fact that there is quite an interesting aspect of this legislation, which is that it does actually have a retrospective component, where it actually goes back in time and, effectively, validates the financial reporting of these amenities, from memory—and I stand to be corrected by any member of the House—I think back to about 2013. 
So it was important that the House did satisfy itself that that was appropriate, but I think the judgment of most members was that it was. There is no suggestion that any of these entities have been doing anything that is inappropriate. We are very clear that all of the entities have been doing their best to comply with the law, but they have simply been caught in the middle of two pieces of legislation which pull in two slightly different directions. So I'm really pleased that we've managed to bridge that. 
The key thing with this piece of legislation is that it gives a sustainable path forward for these entities. I think we're all aware that in the current period that we're in, the funding base for many important public amenities is a little bit uncertain. I think those of us who are based in Auckland have been watching the severe challenges that the Auckland Council is facing at the moment, in terms of how it continues to financially support important programmes, important infrastructure, and important amenities. So the last thing that we want in what will be a challenging period is for any of these important amenities to have any uncertainty in terms of whether they are meeting their requirements and in terms of, therefore, how comfortable Auckland ratepayers feel about continuing to fund them. So I think this is a useful bill, both in reconciling a legislative inconsistency but also setting up these entities to have a stable path forward into the future. 
It is just worth clarifying, within this bill, that what we are dealing with here are the financial statements that the entities have to provide, but they are overseen by a board, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board, which is set up to oversee them, to oversee the distribution, effectively, of the levy which is put on Auckland ratepayers and is then passed through the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board to the entities. So I think that is one point that it was just worth clarifying in this debate—that we're dealing with a board which oversees the nine entities, but then the financial statements of the entities themselves are the ones with which we are concerned. 
The one other thing I want to raise in this contribution is, I guess, going back to the core issue, which is we're dealing with some quite important entities in our largest city, who have had to deal with a question of legislative inconsistency, which has created some problems and which has now had to take a reasonable amount of the House's time to try and rectify. I think it's worth all members of the House just reflecting on how that came to be and all of us reflecting on how we can ensure that we have processes in the House to ensure that in the future we don't end up in a situation like this again. 
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Prisoners voting bill—talk about that.
MICHAEL WOOD: Not about that—well, on this side of the House, Ms Parmar, we are relentlessly focused on the future and on how we improve things in New Zealand. So I would find it extraordinary if in a bill in which we are trying to rectify an issue where something hasn't quite worked out, we don't actually apply our collective minds to thinking about how we can do things better for New Zealand in the future. I kind of feel that perhaps that signifies a little bit about the difference between the two sides of the House at the moment, where one side of the House, which is completely negative, as we just heard from that interjection, is always looking back and one side of the House actually wants to say how do we do things better and make progress for New Zealand. That's the Government that Jacinda Ardern's led. That's what we believe on this side of the House. 
So in a very modest way, I was simply suggesting that given that this bill deals with a legislative inconsistency, as we form legislation for the people of New Zealand into the future, let's make sure that as parliamentarians and as a parliamentary institution, we have good processes and checks and balances to ensure that that doesn't happen in the future. I don't think that's a particularly unreasonable thing to put to the House, but it's causing my colleague from Bucklands Beach a little bit of concern over there. But, look, all I would say is that, yeah, she's had a moment in the sun with this bill. It's possibly been the peak of her career as a legislator to have passed this bill through the House. So I would just encourage her to enjoy the moment and the fact that we're all paying so much attention to this piece of legislation and the fact that it's going to pass the House, I think, quite happily this afternoon. Well done to her. Well done to everyone. And I commend the bill to the House.





Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak briefly on this Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. I want to thank my good friend and colleague, hard-working MP Dr Parmjeet Parmar, who sponsors this particular bill. Now, she's based in Mt Roskill. She's very close to her constituents, and that is why this bill is under her name. She is the sponsor, and we should recognise the hard work and also her contribution to the Governance and Administration Committee, because the committee did consider this bill very thoroughly, and Dr Parmjeet Parmar always came to the committee and listened to submitters and made all sorts of recommendations and decisions—so, good work. I'm very pleased that, finally, we now come to the third reading of this particular bill.
This is a very good bill. It is not a major bill, yet it is very, very important to Aucklanders because it involves some specified amenities which are important to Aucklanders—right? The bill itself helps some specified amenities by allowing them to do financial reporting, or statements, under one particular single set of requirements, and that is, of course, the generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP). At the moment, of course, legally, they have to do both this one, that we call GAAP, and also the other one, that is NZ IFRS—that is, New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards. So, basically, there's a duplication. This is due to a particular error in legislation. That is why this bill, although not a particularly major bill, is very important, because these amenities are so important to Aucklanders.
Now, many of these amenities, of course, the previous two speakers have mentioned. I can still go through some of them. There are nine amenities who are receiving funding from this particular Act—that is, from the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act, this particular Act. Now, when you look at the Auckland Arts Festival—I actually had a look at their website just before I came to the House. They have had many events, largely based on, of course, arts—that's painting, music—and very innovative arts. Also, they do education, so many children could learn from these particular activities organised by this Auckland Arts Festival. Also, the Auckland Arts Festival has a specific focus on ethnic communities, so we could see arts from the Asian community, Pasifika, and Māori communities. So it's very important for these communities.
And, also, look at what we call the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra. Of course, we all understand people listen to music, and every year over 250,000 Aucklanders would go to the concerts. So that's a large number. Also, they have an education programme. Kids, children, would come to these concerts, and they have their own outreach activities to all different schools, just like Stardome Observatory. So they're similar. Similarly, they have these education programmes. Actually, at the moment they are more actively engaging schools. Their staff would go to schools to give them knowledge about the universe and space. So all these amenities, they are not huge amenities yet are very important to Aucklanders. This bill itself will, then, make it easier for these amenities to do the financial reporting.
At the committee stage, of course, we made some changes, including the commencement date. Basically, we could include the financial years when this legislation commenced. Also, we have another amendment, and that is retrospective validation, because they have been doing this financial reporting since the 2014-2015 financial year, and then now, basically, we will say, in past years, it's still fine for them to have one single set of financial reporting. They do not need to go back and do the second one. So this will make the job easier.
So the bill itself—as I said, it's a very good bill and very helpful. I thank Dr Parmjeet Parmar for her work. I thank all the submitters, particularly the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board, for their contribution and various other contributions. I commend the bill to the House.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a brief call on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge the member in charge of this bill, my good friend, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, who has shepherded this bill all the way through from first reading to now. An important piece of legislation, very much a piece of legislation which the National Party would support fully because it's about cutting red tape. The ironic thing about the legislation is that these very important Auckland regional amenities are required to essentially do two sets of financial accounts according to two different financial standards. One, the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards and the second being the generally accepted accounting practice standard. The issue here is that, essentially, the bill provides for them only having to do one set of accounts, according to the GAAP, which is the generally accepted accounting practice, according to the Charities Act.
This is a very sensible change, a very sensible amendment, because it cuts the amount of red tape and it means there'll be less money spent on accountants and more money being spent on the very important regional amenities that Aucklanders, like myself, have come to know and love. And that's always a good idea. It's always a good idea when more money is being spent on the actual activity and the things we're trying to fund, the things we're trying to deliver, rather than bureaucrats and accountants. And accountants do a very important job, and there's some very good accountants in this House. But if we can try and cut some of the cost and the red tape and the bureaucracy, we'll be able to have more music from the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, more opera from the New Zealand Opera, we'll have more theatre from the Auckland Theatre Company, more arts from the Auckland Arts Festival, the Stardome in Dr Parmjeet Parmar's area where she represents as a list MP—
Michael Wood: No, no, she's in the member's area. The member is her member.
SIMEON BROWN: —will be able to do the great work that they do. And I really don't like how the member for Mt Roskill is so critical of Bucklands Beach. It's a beautiful part of Auckland, and I'm very proud to represent it. He knows that area very well, and I understand he was a candidate for that seat and lost a couple of times and I just want to remind him of that. So Bucklands Beach is a beautiful part, but I do remind the member it rejected him twice. I'm very proud to represent that part of Auckland.
Hon Louise Upston: It's got good taste now.
SIMEON BROWN: It's got good taste. That's right, Louise Upston, very good taste, the people of Bucklands Beach. They are good people who live in Bucklands Beach. I'm very proud to represent them and the beautiful beaches and the Coastguard Northern Region which operate from Howick. I mean, they do an amazing job helping save lives out through the Hauraki and particularly all the people in my electorate who love going out on the water and so many other great causes. I will finish there. But thank you, Parmjeet Parmar, for bringing this bill. Thank you to the Auckland regional amenities board for what they do. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to offer some thoughts on this particular member's bill. First, though, I'd like to address the member Simeon Brown's pathway to Parliament. He mentioned our colleague on this side of the House, and I'm curious if that member would like to explain to the House at some point in time his pathway to find himself in here. If I recall correctly, in my first stand, the member was all of a sudden a South Aucklander, now the member is now an east Aucklander, and I'm a little bit confused about the member's pathway. But the beauty about that member's ability to span across Auckland—and I take his point that this particular bill is good for Auckland—I think if that member can offer a perspective from South Auckland and east Auckland, good on him. 
As the member for Tāmaki Makaurau, of course, my electorate spans both south up to the bridge, out to the west in Pīhā, and over to the east—quite a large area of Auckland. This particular bill is one of those bills that—I know it sounds Auckland-centric, and there are a number of members in the House that aren't from Auckland, but if we can toot our own horn and say that the Blues are the best rugby team in the country, and, secondly, that this particular bill will make sure that the amenities in some of those seats—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think you should be very careful in case the Speaker closes down this speech for comments like that.
Hon PEENI HENARE: We'll see when the Blues play the Crusaders coming up. 
But look, you know, the bill talks about, in particular, the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust and the Surf Life Saving Northern Region. As a former Minister of the voluntary sector and the charity sector, I've met with these particular organisations on a number of occasions in the past, and there've been a couple of things that they've raised with us. One of them is the lack of funding and security for those particular organisations. And first, I'd like to point out that this Government in the last Budget made a significant announcement to make sure that we are able to support surf lifesaving in Aotearoa New Zealand, which is a great announcement. Now, this particular bill actually brings in line an anomaly that is clearly defined in the preamble of the bill, which is really important because I recall my discussions with them, and they talked about the opportunity to just tidy up some of the aspects in what are, seemingly across Aotearoa, a number of anomalies within the surf lifesaving area and the water health safety area, more broadly speaking. This particular bill serves to do that. 
One of the other aspects—as the member for Tāmaki Makaurau, I'm really proud because quite a large number of Māori kaupapa are covered by this particular bill: things that will allow the flourishing of Māori Te Reo and arts kaupapa across Tāmaki Makaurau, for different organisations to serve a population which is really keen on those types of events. It is where we can get along and support, namely, over the next couple of weeks, the Matariki festival, which will see a huge number of charitable organisations, Māori and Pacific in particular, across big parts of my electorate, where organisations will be at this very minute practising and getting prepared to make sure that they are able to present themselves, and now they can do that with this anomaly fixed up. It just brings into line a few tricky parts of accounting that will allow those particular organisations to now focus on their performance for Matariki instead of their bookkeeping. 
It was always one of those issues that many of our charities and our organisations in our communities have always asked for—and that's simplifying bureaucracy or stripping it away—and this particular bill we're happy to support and we want to commend the member Parmjeet Parmar, as well as the Government and Administration Committee, for what I hear was a robust debate through this particular bill. But also as I watched it throughout the House, there has been quite a bit of to and fro from all sides of the House with regard to this bill. However, collectively, we can all agree that this particular bill will be a good piece of legislation for the community of Tāmaki Makaurau. So, look, without going on too much further, this is a good bill. There are a number of things that I think, once this bill has passed, where we as a collective, in particular those from Auckland, can sit down and have a look at some of the other pieces of legislation that I think could be amended to make our beautiful city of Tāmaki Makaurau even better and even more culturally diverse and serve the rich communities that live within Auckland. I commend this bill to the House.





MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address this Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. New Zealand First considered this bill carefully, and we did note that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 threw up some inconsistencies in terms of tax treatments and conflicts in terms of the charities involved having to file under different accounting standards. I won't traverse those, because the previous speakers have covered that at some length, but I did note there's a wide and quite eclectic mix of charities in these Auckland amenities: the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, WaterSafe Auckland, Surf Life Saving Northern Region, and something called the Stardome, which I'm not familiar with. We don't have a Stardome in Lawrence; nor do we have a surf lifesaving club or a philharmonic orchestra. We do have a pub, though, so all is not lost. But this bill does make life easier for these charities, and I think that's worthy of the member bringing it forward. Just in passing, we did note that the Hon Paul Goldsmith passed an amendment to the Charities Act that came into force in 2015 without spotting this anomaly, which means that we're here today having to take up the House's time clearing this up. 
I won't take too much longer. I know the House is looking very much forward to Darroch Ball's Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill, and, of course, we'll be building to a crescendo later in the night, when the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill comes before the House under my name. But I will commend the member, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, for bringing this forward. It is a good and important local issue for those nine charities that are affected by this, so I do commend her for bringing it forward and congratulate her for what looks like successfully bringing this forward. I thank the Governance and Administration Committee for the work that they do. This looks like it has been a little bit of a technical bill. I'm glad I didn't have to trawl through the accounting details that would have been involved in that, but New Zealand First, without further ado, will support this bill. Thank you.





ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It is an absolute privilege to stand here to contribute to this very important bill for Auckland. It may have been technically small for everybody else, but it is important for Auckland: the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. 
I just want to take this opportunity to thank the sponsor of this bill, Dr Parmjeet Parmar. I hope to receive the same support that I am offering to her sponsored bill when I have mine in the House, so I look forward to that, and congratulations there. I didn't get it for the language, but I am always looking positively to the future. 
Last week was the National Volunteer Week. I know that we're talking about groups who are mainly made up of volunteers, and I just want to acknowledge all the volunteers out there in New Zealand but, in particular, New Zealand has more than 230,000 volunteers in 27,000 registered charities. The Surf Life Saving Northern Region is part of the amenities group that we are talking about. In that spiel, since I am acknowledging volunteers, I just want to have a shout-out to Rosemary and the team at Sustainable Papakura. I thank you for the acknowledging of local volunteers on Sunday. It was an excellent idea, and I was glad I was there to join volunteers making mosaics. 
In that spiel, I just want to remind people what the principal Act is. So the purpose of the principal Act is, first, to establish the mechanism to provide grants in education, rescue, or community facilities for or services to the Auckland region, and the second purpose is to ensure that the Auckland Council is part of the mechanism and, therefore, contributes to the funding. 
In my other life, I used to be a treasurer for P.A.C.I.F.I.C.A. Inc. That's a Pacific Island women's group established in 1976, and I used to be the treasurer. When that role comes up, nobody puts their hand up. Nobody puts there hand up because the amount of paperwork that charities have to do is just ridiculous. 
So I heard from the member for Mt Roskill, and what I took from his speech—Michael Wood, the MP for Mt Roskill. What I got from his kōrero was that this is about setting up the path going forward and making it easier for organisations in—let me say it again; English is my second language, and I'll try and say it again—the Auckland regional amenities funding group. It will give them an opportunity to make the paperwork fair. 
I heard him talk about the—what is it? The velodrome—what's that name again? 
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: The Stardome. 
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: The Stardome in Mt Roskill, and I heard him talk—
Hon Member: It's in Maungakiekie. 
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: Actually, it's in Maungakiekie. I should know; I only live down the road. I've always admired that Stardome and I want to acknowledge the Stardome for their work. 
But can I just remind everybody of the nine groups that we are talking about today. [Interruption] Those groups—I'm just getting to it. Thank you, Marja Lubeck—just let me get to it. I want to acknowledge in particular the Auckland Theatre Co., the Auckland rescue helicopter. I did speak about the funding that we provided in terms of the work the volunteers do, and I want to acknowledge the $2 million from the Hon Poto Williams that went towards water safety, because WaterSafe Auckland, or Drowning Prevention Auckland, is one of the groups. 
The Auckland Arts Festival, the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra—and I would like to invite them to come to Papakura. I am the Labour list MP based in Papakura, and I would like to invite them to come over to South Auckland, anywhere—Papakura is part of South Auckland—to hold orchestra events in Maraetai, Whitford, Hunua, Karaka, Kingseat, Ramarama, Ararimu, Brookby, or Kawakawa Bay. Come over—come over to Papakura, because we are also part of Auckland. 
As a Tongan New Zealander, I'm very proud to acknowledge Auckland. As the member for Tāmaki Makaurau, the Hon Peeni Henare, spoke fondly of Auckland and of Tāmaki Makaurau, I've been a resident of Tāmaki Makaurau since I arrived here in New Zealand in 1980. Of course, it is the city of love, and we want to acknowledge the groups that I have acknowledged, but I want to continue acknowledging the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, the surf life saving—as I've said before—and, of course, I keep forgetting the Stardome Observatory is in Maungakiekie. It's in Maungakiekie, where our list MP Priyanca Radhakrishnan is based. 
I remember at the second reading that I took an opportunity to contribute to the second reading, and many speakers did say that it's a small, technical bill. Although it is a small, technical bill, I know, like the member for Mt Roskill said, that it makes it a little fairer. It makes it a little fairer and easier for these amenities. It makes changes that require specific groups to prepare financial statements, and I want to acknowledge the role of the board in terms of distributing those funds to the nine amenities that have been clearly, clearly acknowledged by our group here. 
I want to go back to National Volunteer Week last week, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Papakura Marae. As I said, I am the list member of Parliament based in Papakura, and many times Papakura Marae does a lot of volunteer—the majority of the work done at the marae is about volunteering, and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge whāea Anne Kendall and the work of Papakura Marae, especially on Thursdays, when those warm meals are cooked for the community. I want to say that—
Marja Lubeck: During COVID? 
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: Oh, during COVID, Papakura Marae was one of the centres that distributed the emergency food parcels, and also they were from the Takanini Sikh temple. I want to acknowledge them in terms of their leadership, but let me get back to this bill. 
I want to, again, commend the member on her bill, and the—
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: The select committee. 
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: —select committee. Yeah, I'm getting to that, thank you, Priyanca Radhakrishnan. I want to commend the member for this bill and for her leadership on this bill, and, of course, I heard Dr Jian Yang speak on this bill. The members of the Governance and Administration Committee were Ginny Andersen, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, Sarah Dowie, and Paul Eagle was also a member who worked on this bill, and the Hon Peeni Henare, like I said, and I'm still looking for Lawrence Yule—I can't find him. But I just want to take this opportunity to thank—[Interruption] Oh, there he is. There he is. Oh, thank you—thank you. I'm acknowledging your contribution as members on the select committee that deliberated over this bill. 
Marja Lubeck: He should take a call. 
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: Oh, he should take a call—Lawrence Yule. Oh, Marja Lubeck would like you to take a call, Lawrence. 
It is a small technicality, but it will, like I said before, make life easier for these groups. It will make life easier for these groups. 
Just before I end my speech, I want to take this opportunity, again, to commend the Prime Minister for her leadership throughout COVID-19. Everywhere I am in Papakura, when I'm walking around speaking with people in the community, they want to say a couple of things, actually. They want to say to me, "Anahila, when you're in Parliament, could you please say to the Prime Minister that we thank her, as part of a team of 5 million, for her leadership. We thank Dr Ashley Bloomfield for his leadership, and we support the way that the Government has looked after New Zealand—all of the 5 million—keeping us safe." 
Of course, now, we have the strictest regime in—there's no playbook for it. We have the strictest controls at the border, where we test on the third day and we have a second test, and after 14 days of isolation—
Dan Bidois: What does this have to do with the bill? 
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: —with a negative test, you are now able to go home. 
I come back to the bill, and I want to again, for the third time, acknowledge the sponsor, Dr Parmjeet Parmar. I want to commend this bill, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill, to the House. Kia ora. 





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to speak to any bill in this House that has as unanimous support as this one. And others have said the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill is a technical bill, but it is important, and it's especially—of course—important for Auckland, my home.
It is important to stop and acknowledge, of course, our charities and all of the volunteers and people that put in all of the heart and the soul and the blood, sweat, and tears, day in and day out. The previous speaker pointed out the numbers, and it's astounding. We've got 230,000 volunteers that keep our charities going here in New Zealand, and they do that work well. They do it expertly, they are experts in their sectors, they've been doing it for years and years. They work in domestic and sexual violence, in child poverty, in the arts and music, and we owe them a lot in our communities. But that work is made so much harder by all of the accounting and the red tape and all the admin that they also have to do, which none of us are particularly expert at necessarily, and it does take away from their capacity to deliver on the services that they actually do want to deliver on and they have the expertise to deliver on.
So we had Charities Week last week, and the Green Party welcomes anything that celebrates the people that are at the grassroots of our communities, doing that work, that are focused on the level of the community that we, often, as parliamentarians can become alienated from unless we do turn our minds deliberately to it, unless we go down there and we do the work ourselves, of collecting for example—and most of us do that for charities. But it is really important to stop and think about the grassroots in this House.
So we do commend this bill. What it does is it takes away from the nonsensical double-up of accounting regulation and requirements that charities have to do. So it was an important bill to bring, and I do thank the member who has brought it, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, and the select committee for processing it and having it shepherded through this House. It's a tidy-up bill, and we've got a lot more of those to do, but it is important and I think it'll make a significant difference for all of the people who've been spending their time, instead of delivering on the services that they are passionate about, doing extra accounting. So I commend the bill to the House.





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to speak to this bill—another one where there is universal agreement across the House. It's actually a very simple piece of legislation, but it is important, because we sat at select committee and we listened to the double-up of financial reporting standards, the requirement for people to spend extra effort, money, time, and resources in meeting two standards when, fundamentally, only one standard is required. We also heard at the select committee that a number of the filings of returns were technically probably illegal and they needed to be tidied up. So this bill has some sort of retrospective parts to it which make that right.
It's clear that the entities—the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, the New Zealand Opera, Auckland Theatre Company, Auckland Arts Festival, Stardome Observatory, Coastguard Northern Region, Surf Life Saving Northern Region, Watersafe Auckland, and Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust—are all entities that are vitally important to the people of Auckland. I want to congratulate Dr Parmjeet Parmar on bringing this to the House, on showing the initiative, on turning up to the select committee every time you were requested, arguing your case. And I also want to congratulate Dr Parmar on the interactions she had with officials as part of this, because there is a very technical side of two types of accounting standards that are required, but all of us on the select committee could see, through the advocacy of Dr Parmar, that this was a very much needed but relatively simple thing to do, and nobody should stand in its way.
I acknowledge and support the comments of the last speaker, Golriz Ghahraman, who said this is really quite a good piece of legislation, we all agree with it, and it makes common sense. It does sort of surprise me, though, that we can pass some piece of legislation—or perhaps it doesn't surprise me, based on the last month. But, generally, we should be able to see these things, when accounting standards or other things are changed—changes that are made to the Charities Act, changes that are made to different accounting standards.
So, in a nutshell, this is a common-sense solution to a problem. We've taken away a lot of grief and cost and anxiety for the people that run these entities, and we've at last made them legal. These are good entities, much loved by the people of Auckland, important to the people of Auckland, and now we've allowed them to operate in a legal fashion, and, importantly, we've given some retrospective approval—unusual in this place, I know; retrospective approval—to mean that all their actions in the past have now been legal. I commend this bill to the House.





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. As an Auckland-based MP, it has been a privilege to see this bill progress through the House. As other members have done in their contributions today, can I also just acknowledge the member in whose name this bill is, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, for the work that she's put in to shepherd the bill to where it is today. Also, as others have said, this is a bill that makes a pretty small and technical fix, but it is one that will make life fairer for the nine specified amenities who will be impacted by the change that it makes.
So I just wanted to—I'm not going to read out all the names of the amenities, because many others have done that, but I do want to acknowledge them though, because they do provide a huge amount, a significant contribution, to the arts, culture, and heritage space—for example, the Auckland Philharmonia Trust and the Auckland Theatre Company. There's the New Zealand Opera as well. 
There's the Auckland Festival Trust. That's actually a really interesting one that I just want to draw the House's attention to, because we know that Auckland is one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world, both in terms of the ethnic community populations that Auckland houses, in a sense, but also I've heard it being described as the Polynesian capital of the world as well. One of the things I was really interested to discover, when I looked into the Auckland Festival Trust, is that Auckland had the largest festival that, I guess, celebrated the arts in the Asia-Pacific from 1948 to 1982—so really early on. That festival was started so that Auckland could celebrate its unique position in the Pacific and also as Asian communities grew in the city as well. In the year 2000, the Auckland City Council decided to sort of reinvent that festival, and it took on a life of its own from there.
Just very quickly, the other organisation that I wanted to draw some attention to is Drowning Prevention Auckland, which was WaterSafe Auckland. They have stated that in the past five years, of the 93 preventable drownings they've had, 27 percent of that was in the Asian or other category. As someone who engages broadly with our diverse communities in Auckland, I know that many, especially new, migrants and refugees come from countries that are landlocked, and so they haven't had the opportunity to go through water-safety education programmes. That's what Drowning Prevention Auckland does through a specific programme called New to New Zealand. So I just want to commend them for that work as well.
I just want to quickly draw Mark Patterson's attention to the Stardome, because he specifically made a point that he didn't know what it was about. Given that it's in the Maungakiekie electorate, that I'm based in, I just wanted to say to the member that there are some really exciting shows that he should catch the next time he's in Auckland, particularly Music & Lights, which my colleague Michael Wood has talked about already, where, if you're over 18, you get a glass of wine, you sit back and relax in reclining chairs, and you watch psychedelic images on the dome ceiling as they dance to the music of Pink Floyd. What could be better on a Tuesday night? Also, given that it's Matariki coming up, they've got a programme called Ngā Whetū O Matariki, where you've got a live presenter-led Matariki kōrero under the planetarium stars, where you learn about the many stories written in our night skies and passed down from generation to generation. 
So absolutely wonderful work that these nine specified amenities do. What this bill will do is to make changes that require these specified amenities to prepare financial statements just in accordance with one set of reporting standards rather than the two that they have been required to report to since 2015. So it's an anomaly that this bill fixes. These amenities do amazing work across various sectors in Auckland, and I just want to commend that and also to commend everyone who's put in incredibly hard work to get this bill to where it is today. So I commend this bill to the House.





DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much for the chance to speak on this private bill under Dr Parmjeet Parmar's name. Thank you, Dr Parmar, for picking this particular piece of legislation up. We realise that you've had a very special connection with Stardome Observatory and Planetarium, as the list MP based in Mt Roskill. It is now a great privilege that it has come back into the Maungakiekie electorate. 
There's been a few members of the House mention that particular charity, but, of course, there are nine in this bill, and I well remember, as a former city councillor, listening to all nine come in to Auckland Council, as they do on an annual basis, to update us on the work that they were doing, given that Auckland Council is part of the administration of the funding that goes out to them. I'm going to read out their names deliberately, Madam Speaker, not to kill time, I assure you, but because they genuinely deserve the creds, and the saying out loud of who they are and what they do. You only need sit, as I did on an annual basis, and listen to the work that they do. Any one of those organisations deserves incredible recognition for their work: Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, New Zealand Opera, the Auckland Theatre Company, Auckland Arts Festival, Stardome, which I've already mentioned, Coastguard Northern Region, Surf Life Saving Northern Region, Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, and WaterSafe Auckland and Drowning Prevention Auckland—the merger of them. 
What's interesting about this bill is that normally when you're looking at funding regimes, you'll be possibly looking at total operating expenses or total revenue when it comes to funding. But this, of course, is a cap of rates revenue, 2 percent of rates revenue—not all revenue but of rates revenue. And I think it's interesting, the restraint that's shown, because technically these organisations are allowed up to a maximum, if we look at the 2019-20 fiscal year, of $34.3 million, and instead their funding envelope has been $15.5 million. I'm sure they'd like to get their hands on the remainder of that available funding, as per legislation. But what we've seen, as I just mentioned, is a really heart-warming process of all nine incredible charities doing their best to put their best foot forward in terms of funding. And that's exactly what Dr Parmar has done here: put her foot forward for these charities to make sure that their life's a little easier, and a little easier as per regulations and accounting practices. 
We support this on this side of the House. We thank all nine charities for the work that they do, and we look forward to hearing of all their good work in the future. Thank you.





JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've been wanting to give this speech about the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board and the Act for about 10 years. I saw this was on when I was a sitting in my office, so I thought I'd come down and have a small speech on it. I'm going to swim against the tide. I know that that's not like me to not conform with what others in the House are doing, but I'm going to do this on this particular speech. 
See, I listened to the speech from Michael Wood. He gave a good one. He gave good background around the Act. It has its genesis back in the mid-2000s when these amenities used to front up at every city council and every district council around Auckland and beg, cap in hand, for money from the councils. I was on the Manukau City Council for the six years prior to amalgamation, and it's fair to say we were pretty stingy. We all thought, "Well, the Auckland City Council's going to fund the bulk of it. They always have; they always will." So we were pretty careful with how much we would give the particular amenities. 
In the dying days of the Helen Clark Labour Government—you may remember it, Madam Speaker—Judith Tizard came up with the idea of having a piece of legislation to force all the other councils in Auckland to fund these amenities. It was probably a good idea at the time, because these amenities were struggling for funding. The Auckland City Council and Auckland ratepayers were having to front up and fund the bulk of them, when actually these amenities serviced the whole of Auckland. So 2008 comes along. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act is put in place. 
The other councils, of which I was a member, we kicked and screamed and we hated it, because we didn't like Parliament telling us that we had to fund something that we didn't want to. And there were all these mechanisms put in place. There was a funding board and there was an electoral college, and the councils had no choice about how much they would fund. They would just be told what the funding was going to be, and if there was an issue there was arbitration, but we never went through that because what was the point? In fact, no, actually, I remember Peter Salmon acted as an arbitrator once, because we did disagree as an electoral college on how much the amenities should be funded. Even though we had this legislation, we were still too stingy with how much we wanted to fund, and so it ended up going to arbitration. We probably spent, you know, many, many tens of thousands of dollars on the arbitrator, only to end up in exactly the same position. 
But then 2010 came along and the Auckland Council was formed, and it removed all of the city and district councils that sat in Auckland. I thought to myself at the time that it was going to remove the need for this Regional Amenities Funding Board, because rather than having multiple layers between the council and the amenities, there's not going to be those multiple layers needed any more, because the amenities could simply front up straight to the Auckland Council. But what did Parliament do? It was a change of Government by that point. Rodney Hide—I would have thought the man who is against red tape and against bureaucracy would have proposed that this funding board be abolished, but he didn't. The Auckland Council was created. The amenities had the ability to speak directly to the funder, but Parliament decided to keep the funding board in place. 
The funding board does nothing except move money from the council through to the amenities. All it does is meet a couple of times a year to hear how much the amenities want, and then it decides to tell the council how much they have to fund. There's still the arbitration process if the council disagrees, but the people who make the decisions about how much Aucklanders should be rated don't get to decide how much money goes to these amenities, because Parliament still says there has to be a law in place because Parliament doesn't trust the Auckland Council on how much it should fund these important amenities. 
Now, the Auckland festival, the Philharmonia, the rescue helicopter, the theatre company—they're important for Auckland, but we should be trusting the council to fund them directly. We don't need this board any more. There is no need for the board to be in place. There's no need for Parliament to say: Auckland Council, you must fund an amount of money.
Now, I'm sure this amendment bill we have right now is going to make it easy. It's going to remove some of the funding requirements—no, make it easier for the amenities by removing some of the red tape that's in place. They don't have to prepare two sets of statements in line with two different accounting practices. But the easier solution to solve their problem would have been just to repeal the Act entirely and get rid of the funding board. Those members there, there's 10 of them—there's district councils around the country with far bigger budgets, with fewer members. There's 10 members on this funding board. They get paid between $16,000 and $30,000 a year to do nothing but tell the council how much money the council should fund the amenities. It's ridiculous and it's unnecessary. 
So, I say to the House, yes, this legislation does do something good, and I suppose I should praise, in obligatory fashion, Parmjeet Parmar for bringing this bill to the House—good on you, Parmjeet Parmar—but there's no need for this legislation. We should be abolishing the funding board and saying, "Thanks for your service for 10 years or 12 years. You didn't really need to do much for the last 10.", but Parliament does still have this piece of legislation in place. The previous councils weren't funding them properly, and good on Parliament for doing the right thing at the time, but there's no need any more for this funding bill. There's no need any more for the board to sit there and do nothing but shuffle money and drag out $350,000 in admin costs just for the privilege of sitting there.
I know there'll be passionate people, I know they will care deeply about the amenities, but the Auckland councillors that fund them will care about those amenities, too. So I suggest these amenities, which could quite easily front up directly to the council and ask for the money, could do so without having the middleman of the funding board in place. The nice idea of Judith Tizard was a nice idea at the time, but it's now unnecessary. 
I will support the bill, because it does do something good to make it easier for the amenities, but we don't need this bureaucracy. As a former city councillor who didn't entirely like the fact that we were forced, through this funding board, to pay money to the amenities when we could have made our own decisions, I still harbour some of those grievances and I wanted to express them here in this House. They're no longer necessary and we should just be repealing the Act in its entirety.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and take a call at this third and final reading of this bill, the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. I must say, I've never seen so many members of the Government benches give so many full call speeches in the House today. Is something going on or are they trying to filibuster their own members' bills here in the House? But never mind, we digress. 
This is a really good bill, and I do want to take time out to acknowledge my colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar for raising this issue. It is a really important issue, and, in particular, at a time like this when a lot of our community organisations—
Hon Willie Jackson: Put her on the front bench.
DAN BIDOIS: Yes, Willie Jackson—a lot of our community organisations are under pressure in a post-COVID world. They're under pressure financially, and the last thing they need to do is prepare a duplicate set of financial statements just to satisfy the legislative requirements.
So Dr Parmjeet Parmar has found a fantastic way to help relieve them of their pressure—some of their compliance pressure—by removing the need to comply with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) based accounts, and instead you can just go and comply with the GAAP: the general accounting accord practices—
Michael Wood: Generally accepted accounting practice.
DAN BIDOIS: Generally accepted; there you go. Thank you, Michael Wood, for correcting me on that. There's somebody that's knowledgable in this area.
But I do just want to say to you—
Rt Hon David Carter: Be a cynic.
DAN BIDOIS: That's right. I do want to say to you that, look, as I said, this is really important in a post-COVID environment. We've got to make sure we support our many community organisations. There are some fantastic organisations, many of which have been traversed today: the New Zealand Opera, the surf life saving, the rescue helicopter, the water safe and drowning prevention in northern region, and the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra. These are fantastic organisations who employ people and who look after the beating heart of our communities in Auckland. So all I want to say is I commend this bill to the House; it's a fantastic way to streamline unnecessary compliance. And the previous member, Jami-Lee Ross, did raise a good point: there is unnecessary burdens in there and we want to remove those where possible.
So, look, I commend this bill to the House. I want to do a special shout-out to everybody in those organisations in Auckland, whether you're a volunteer or an employee or a staff member: thank you for the fantastic work that you do on behalf of this House, and we salute you from this House. So without further ado, I commend this bill to the Parliament.





MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the significance of this bill to the people of Auckland, I seek leave of the House that other Auckland-based members in the Chamber be afforded a speaking slot on this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Bill read a third time.





PROTECTION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND PRISON OFFICERS BILL
Second Reading
DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I move, That the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill be now read a second time.
Firstly what I'd like to do is just very briefly outline what the bill intends to do. There are two main things. The first is to create a new offence of injuring a first responder or a prison officer with intent, which has a mandatory minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment, and also to include emergency, health, and fire service staff in the offence of assault on police, prison, or traffic officers, currently provided for in the Summary Offences Act. I have tabled already three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that we will be discussing in the next phase of the bill going through the House. The first is to ensure we change the term "prison officers" to "corrections officers". That might sound like a small issue but, to the corrections officers, it is quite a large deal and very important for them. The second SOP deals with, and ensures that, any sentence that is handed out to a prisoner who is found guilty of this charge actually is cumulative and not concurrent. And the third would, basically, include or ensure that nurses and doctors that work in emergency departments are included under this legislation. So that, hopefully, will be discussed in the next phase.
First of all, before I get into some of the submissions from the select committee, I would just like to say that I am utterly disappointed in the Justice Committee and the fact that they, after nearly 6½ months of deliberating this very important piece of legislation—and they know that it's very important legislation, due not only to the number of submissions that we've had but to the backing of the most important ones of those submissions, which were the stakeholders and the victims which this bill tries to protect; the St John paramedics, the Corrections Association, the Police Association, and the nurses and doctors themselves. What I find not only astonishing but utterly disappointing and frustrating is that there is no report from the select committee to be debated here today, and I hope that those organisations are watching and can get some sort of explanation from those members of the Justice Committee.
The only thing that anybody needs to do to understand why we need this legislation, why we need legislation for a minimum mandatory sentence, why we need to create a different law that identifies and protects our first responders, our men and women who put a uniform on every day and who put their life on the line, their safety on the line to protect us and the community—all we have to do to understand why is read and listen to their submissions. Every single one of them—and this is what's quite telling: we had a number of bureaucrats that came in and gave submissions, a number of people who are involved with the creation of laws in this country and give commentary on the creation of laws in this country; we had a number of submissions from victims' advocates and the offenders' advocates—groups that advocate for offenders—and then we had the stakeholders give their submissions, the ones that are the actual victims of the crimes that this legislation aims to protect.
We've had all those bureaucrats on the one side, and most, if not all, submitted against this legislation and gave varying degrees of reasons why. But if you look at all of those, if you look at all of the submissions from St John, from the Corrections Association, from the Police Association, from the nurses and the doctors who work in emergency departments, they all submitted in favour of this bill. And it wasn't just in favour; it was in strong favour of this bill. What that highlighted to me, and it should have highlighted to the entirety of the Justice Committee, was that this not only is a bill that they backed and that they need, that they know that they need right now, but whatever the current law is isn't working, isn't helping them, and isn't protecting them. During the select committee phase and listening to the submissions, it became quite clear to me that there were a number of arguments—and I know that there are some parties in this House today that will vote against this bill moving to the next stage. And those arguments against putting through this legislation simply do not stack up and do not make sense and do not compare to the submissions from our first responders.
I'd like to quickly go through the reasons why, in their own submissions, our first responders want this bill to pass. The submission from St John: every year, approximately 3,000 instances of abuse and assault for our St John paramedics—every single year. And approximately 80 of those physical assaults reported every month—around 10 of them are very serious. We actually had a submission from a paramedic come through who was assaulted and the sentence that that offender got was a fine—was just a fine. We heard issues recently of a paramedic in Warkworth who was pulled from her vehicle, punched until she got to the ground, and stomped on the face until she was unconscious. What we've got here is a current situation and an environment where not only do people think that it's acceptable that our first responders are assaulted but there is no deterrent, and the current law is simply not working, not only to deter but to draw a line in the sand as a society and say that this isn't acceptable, that we do take assaults on our first responders seriously. That's what this legislation is trying to address.
For our corrections officers, between 2016 and 2019, the total number of days lost as a result of assaults on prison staff went from 770 to over 1,500 hours lost. They note that the number of assaults on prison officers increased, from 2013, from just over 300 to over 650 in that time period until 2019—with the same ratio for serious offences. And, as a union, the Corrections Association noticed that there are far more pack attacks on staff and the use of weapons, especially stabbing weapons, focusing on the face, head, and neck area.
The most important submission was actually from our Police Association. These are the guys and girls in uniform that stand in between us and the people that we don't want to deal with, that protect the community and have to deal with the people that we don't want to deal with. The Police Association note in their submission that there is an underestimation of the frequency and seriousness of attacks on our first responders and, while the risks are acknowledged, there should not be an expectation of being assaulted. That's a common theme: that there's an unwritten expectation that our first responders should just have to put up with it; that our corrections officers should just have to put up with it.
I'd note a couple of cases of how this current legislation is not working, how the current sentencing regime is not working. In April 2019, an offender punched a police officer in the head, knocked him to the ground, and got 140 hours' community service. In May 2017, an offender caught in the midst of a burglary threw acidic white powder in the constable's face—first charged with aggravated wounding, with a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment; at trial, it was downgraded to injuring with intent and carried a maximum of seven years, and the offender was finally convicted and sentenced to four months in prison, which served concurrently with a four-month sentence for burglary.
There are countless numbers of examples of our legislation, our current law and the way that it's applied, failing our first responders, our corrections officers, and our nurses and doctors in our emergency departments. We have seen an increase not only in assaults across the board but also, most astonishingly, in serious assaults. Whatever is happening now, whatever legislation we have in place now, whatever sentencing regime we have in place now is not working. We need to draw a line in the sand and say this is unacceptable, and we need to protect our protectors. I commend this bill to the House.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill in this, its second reading. Now, National supports a tough approach on those who cause harm to our first responders. We've all seen, just recently, just how perilous life can be for our first responders, and what harm can mean—in the extreme. There are also so many occasions when our first responders—and indeed, in cases, corrections officers—are placed in harm's way and do suffer less harm, but harm none the less. We do agree that that is wrong. 
We supported this bill at first reading going to the Justice Committee, with some reservations, which I'll touch on in a minute or two. I actually share one view of Mr Ball on this bill, or the Justice Committee, and that is that it's deeply disappointing that the Justice Committee could not reach a position on the bill, driven in part, at least, because Government members on that committee refused an extension of time to properly consider the bill. Why was the extra time required? Well, because of the impact of COVID, the impact of COVID and the impact that that had—quite rightly, actually—on the work that was to be undertaken by parliamentarians. The Leader of the House, going into lockdown, told us that we wouldn't be meeting to take care of non - COVID-19-related legislation. 
In the case of this member's bill, he was true to his word; it wasn't true in the case that the committee's time was spent dealing with prisoner voting. The voting record in the Hansard shows that New Zealand First supported that decision. But a consequence of that was that this bill didn't get consideration over that time. When members on this side sought an extension for the Justice Committee to be able to have the time to seek a resolution on that, the Government members refused. What is more, I understand the member in charge of the bill was invited to present his Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to that select committee and refused that invitation. So, as a result, we have a bill—
Darroch Ball: I'd be very careful about getting the facts straight.
BRETT HUDSON: —in front of the House—now, that member, his party, has voted down every "tough on crime" member's bill that this Opposition has put forward. They have put their closeness to their coalition partner, their cuddling up with them, above "tough on crime" for the public every time this term. So if he thinks we will stand here and worry about how he might vote on a bill later on the Order Paper, he's got another think coming. He may not actually get a chance to speak on that bill when it does come up, because what I heard tonight, what I heard this evening, I think, was a valedictory speech from Mr Ball. It's just a shame there was no public audience to witness it.
But, none the less, on this bill, we do support a tough approach on those that harm our first responders. They do so much good for New Zealanders; they should not be in harm's way. Regrettably, they are. It is a wrong thing that they are put in that position to begin with, and it does warrant a seriousness in the way that those that do assault and injure our first responders should suffer a consequence for that. 
In the first reading, we said that we had reservations around a minimum sentence. Regrettably, that wasn't resolved in select committee. Because of that, the committee of the whole House becomes the stage where such matters should be and would need to be debated and resolved. So we will support this bill making it to that stage at least, because we think it's a matter that needs to be resolved. But we'll reserve our ultimate position to see just how the member in charge, and indeed members opposite, are open to constructive discussion in that stage, and—very possibly—possibly some amendments. We also want the opportunity there to scrutinise the member in charge of the SOPs because, as I say, he refused to present them to the select committee during the period that it was in front of that committee.
So, look, with those reservations, and with much to come yet—should there be enough votes to pass this bill tonight; it looks promising from the member's perspective at the moment—with that in mind, at this stage we will commend the bill to the House. 





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema katoa, tēnā tātou katoa. I'm pleased to take a call on the members' bill, the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill, in the name of the member Darroch Ball. The bill proposes three things. It creates a new offence of injuring a first respondent or prison officer—and I want to acknowledge the Supplementary Order Paper that the member has mentioned in his first contribution tonight—under the Crimes Act 1961. It amends the Sentencing Act 2002 to require a minimum sentence of imprisonment of six months for those convicted of the new offence, unless the court considers that would be manifestly unjust. And thirdly, it expands the existing offence of assaulting a police, prison, or traffic officer in the Summary Offences Act 1981 to apply to first respondents. Can I just, from the outset, recognise the incredible job our first respondents do in this country: our ambulance drivers, our police officers, our prison officers. A day doesn't go by that we don't acknowledge the hard work that they themselves do and the risk to their safety they put themselves and their colleagues at. 
The Justice Committee received 74 submissions on this bill: 53 submissions from individuals, and 21 from groups and organisations. Of those submissions, 41 supported the bill and 30 opposed it. I want to take the time for the House to just highlight some of the submitters that came before the Justice Committee and what they submitted to the Justice Committee. I guess the one I want to reference firstly is the New Zealand Law Society, which came before the Justice Committee and made the following recommendation: that they themselves consider the bill to be unnecessary and recommend that it not proceed, and if it did proceed, "we recommend the select committee seeks advice from officials and drafting assistance to ensure it is fit-for-purpose". So the Law Society, in their submission to the Justice Committee, raised some really important concerns they had around this bill. 
I want to summarise where I've come to in terms of being a Government member on this particular bill. The other submitter I want to draw the House's attention to is the Howard League, who we all know do some amazing work in our prisons with prisoners, to help them in their reintegration. Their written submission to the select committee said, "We do not support this Bill. We believe that New Zealand cannot continue to invest in what may, in practice, amount to systemic vindictiveness. Our prisons are a glaringly dysfunctional foundation to our criminal justice system and continue to be moral and fiscal failures. Passing this bill will be an ill-placed step [forward]." 
Labour won't be supporting this bill for two clear reasons. It does introduce a minimum mandatory sentence, a piece of law that we don't currently have in this land. The member himself also raised the running of the extra sentencing for injuring prison officers or corrections officers over and above, as opposed to concurrent. For Labour, I want to say, on behalf of the Justice Committee, we really took the effort and time to understand the bill and invited the member himself to attend the Justice Committee to seek some clarification around what part of the legislation or law is broken and doesn't address protecting our first respondents, which I believe is at the heart of this bill, and which I totally support. But, unfortunately, this bill introduces, like I said, a mandatory minimum sentence, and there is also the second issue around compulsory cumulative sentences. So on that basis, Labour will not be supporting this bill.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to start by acknowledging all of the first responders across this great nation of ours. These people do wonderful work in very selfless and sacrificial ways, supported often by friends and whānau who themselves make sacrifices and themselves serve through their loved ones being on the front line in the call of duty and, all too often, being injured in that line of service. I'd be remiss if I were not to acknowledge in particular those within my own electorate who do that. It's somewhat an emotional point for those in West Auckland to be considering the subject of first responders and the protection thereof, in the light of the incident of a week or so ago in Massey involving Constable Hunt. 
I'd like to acknowledge, as others have done, those who submitted to the Justice Committee. The chair has acknowledged them, and she's right to do so. We heard from a range of different categories of those who serve us in that way, and it was appropriate for them to be heard in a very respectful manner, and I believe that that is the experience that they will have come away from the select committee with—again, entirely appropriately. The proximity of the word "Protection" and the phrase "First Responders and Prison Officers" in the name of the legislation itself indicates that serious consideration is due to the proposal of Mr Ball. I congratulate him for the intent underlying the bill. I think it's a worthy aim that he brings forward to this House to protect, better than we currently do, those who put themselves in the line of fire, even literally, for the benefit of all fellow Kiwis.
If the question were simply whether we should do everything reasonable and possible within our power to protect first responders, of course the answer would be yes. This is important for a number of reasons. One is, simply, that it is the right thing to do. Another is that we can think about the effect of the danger in which we place first responders and prison officers in terms of recruitment and retention of women and men within those services. Actually, as the member points out in his explanatory note, we also impede the ability of such people to help others if they themselves are injured in the act of violence against them when they're responding.
Of course, there are issues to be worked through in terms of the extent to which a bill such as this will provide effective deterrence or if it's another aim, perhaps, of criminal justice that would be served. Suffice to note at this point, ahead of the committee stage, I think a couple of issues do deserve serious attention. One is the question of who is a first responder. That was a subject of some debate at select committee, and I note that the member has placed at least one Supplementary Order Paper on the Table that will provide a bit more guidance in that. We're talking about particular services that would be affected or, potentially, the principle at stake of what kind of person, what kind of action, might represent first response such that the bill should capture it.
The chair of the select committee, wearing her hat as a Labour Party member of this House, has talked about the difficulties that were raised in relation to mandatory minimum sentences, and that's, again, probably detail that we will look to get into at the committee stage and beyond. Actually, I'd also like to mention in that connection the distinction between concurrent versus consecutive sentences—an important one as well. 
So, with that, I join with others in this House in expressing support for the aims of the bill. I'm looking forward to discussing the detail further. I will leave my contribution at this point, for now, on that note. Thank you.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I stand to speak on this bill as someone who's just completed 41 years' service in the New Zealand Police—the last 20 of it, I was the spokesperson for police officers in the form of the president of the Police Association. During that time, much of my work was concentrated in this area, with ensuring that those who are out there on a daily and nightly basis, protecting their fellow New Zealanders, do get sufficient protection. Of course, I do so standing here very proudly with the Huia pin, which I also proudly say that I was responsible for instituting; I didn't design it, but it became quite apparent that there were various ways in which police officers and members of the public did commemorate fallen colleagues and fallen police officers, and bringing it all together. I see all members of the House proudly wearing this Huia pin over the last few days to commemorate the death of Constable Matthew Hunt and to remember him and just acknowledge his, and that of those who went before him, ultimate contribution made to New Zealand.
I also recall my own experience of, I suppose we'd call it, the best hiding I ever got in the job, just showing how quickly these things can come about. It was actually during an afternoon shift. I was called out from when we were at line-up. Myself and my colleague Constable Ross Lane were called to what was then called a "domestic" on Mount Victoria. When we arrived, there was a very drunk gentleman and two of his friends who had turned up to try and get hold of their child. I was thrown the child, and as I was holding the child, they set about attacking me, and I couldn't do anything because I was standing, holding the child. I do remember lying there and thinking, "I wonder how this is going to end", because I couldn't defend myself. It was just one of those moments that, I suppose, anyone who's been through it will actually understand that there are times when you don't have control.
Relating that to what we're here about today—on that occasion, the offender was arrested, charged, and spent some time in Her Majesty's custody as a result. Generally, in my time, I found that where there were serious assaults on police—and I made a point of following up with the victims in that case—there was generally satisfaction with the sentence that the offender received. So it wasn't something that, I have to say, was necessarily a major issue. Saying that, I echo those sentiments in the New Zealand Police Association's submission that an assault on a police officer is actually an assault on something larger: on society itself.
Of course, this bill goes further than that. This bill goes forward to prison officers—or I see it's going to be corrected to "corrections officers". Also, I understand that there is going to be another Supplementary Order Paper to also include those who are working in hospitals—nurses, etc. This, sort of, really does increase the scope of the bill considerably. I think we need to go back to, I suppose, first principles. Really, what the difference with this bill is is a minimum sentence—it actually introduces a minimum six-month sentence. I think that's what I'd like to focus the rest of my speech on, because minimum sentences have really brought about some of the most unfair decisions in courts. Like all these things, you have to be very careful that you don't end up with a perverse outcome. The more you mess with sentencing, the more perverse an outcome you can get.
There was a member's bill brought by one of the opposite members, Matt King, recently. It was to introduce another sentencing option around, I think it was, the one hit, the single hit, or the king-hit bill. Again, as I spoke then, all that was going to do was going to confuse things more. I reminded that member, Detective Matt King—a very good detective he was—that when he arrived at the Police College, as a young detective constable, having to learn the different sentences for wounding with intent, injuring with intent—there was a whole layer of different offences that, really, didn't mean a great deal; they were, as it turned out, various offences that had been brought in at different times, similar to now, in an attempt to show outrage, usually following an event, and particularly with charges, you could find out what the event was that brought it about.
The reality of it is that the facts do remain the same. What's important is that, when the judge sentencing is doing so, they have all the facts available. That's really what the job of those bringing these cases before the court is; it's to ensure that all the facts are known and the degree of the injury—because the reality of it is that for many of the injuries that are caused as a result of these, in my experience in the police, some of the more long-lasting ones didn't really relate to the severity of the offending or the severity of the beating or the severity of the injury; it was the circumstances, often, around it. For many of my ex-colleagues who were forced to leave the police, often it was relatively minor incidents that actually brought it about. So just taking a simplistic approach to think that we're going to solve it all is actually not the way that we really need to attack this. The important thing is that those making the decisions have all those facts in front of them. This is why I'm quite comfortable that we're not going to support this bill any further.
I compliment the member Darroch Ball, who has brought this bill. I know the member means well. I know he's doing this for all the right reasons. But, again, it may be somewhat a little arrogant to stand here and say that, having seen these things evolve over years, from being a young police officer, where our real protection was the uniform—the fact that we came from a society where people didn't take on not only police officers but any authority figures, whether it be doctors, teachers, or judges. A lot of the protection came from the status of the position that you have. That has certainly changed as society has changed; so we do have to be a little bit more definitive. But the reality of it, again, is that I again commend what the member is trying to achieve with this. We all want to make a difference.
I do commend those members opposite. I think that the two speeches we've heard have been very sensible ones. It shows that they have been considered. I know that, although the Justice Committee didn't report back, there were some very good conversations that did take place, and I think all those conversations came, really, back to that one point, which was that minimum sentence. We do not have minimum sentences anywhere else. I think that, if we're going to cross that barrier, I'd like to see work done by the Law Commission and I'd like to see a lot more thought before this is done. We actually have what is going to be a whole new part of criminal offending. We've seen it happen.
I'll tell you—minimum sentences. I know that our colleagues in the Northern Territory brought in a minimum sentence for any property crime, where you went to, basically, prison if you got convicted of a property crime. What they didn't anticipate was a school teacher who was on her first weekend—she came up from up the south; I think Victoria—went out, got a bit drunk, and stole a bottle of whiskey from a bar. It was as much an act of bravado as it was anything else. As a result, she was going to be forced to spend a minimum amount of time in prison. They slowly revoked that.
So, again, let's focus this on why we're really opposing this. A minimum sentence—it shouldn't be done. If we're going to go down that path, which other countries have, it shouldn't be done through a member's bill; it should be done with far more thought, far more research than is possible in a member's bill. Again, I compliment the member on bringing this, but I'm very comfortable that our party will not be able to support this bill beyond second reading. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's good to speak on this bill. I was a member of the committee for some time on this bill, with the Justice Committee—sadly, no longer a member—and I see that the committee has continued on when I left it in the last few months and has been unable to agree on—
Greg O'Connor: One common denominator, Mr Bishop.
CHRIS BISHOP: Mr O'Connor says, "One common denominator" and I will spare the House my comments and thoughts on that. That's a bit of a shame, but it's a split committee and often the committee engages in some robust, shall we say, debates. So it's good to speak on this bill.
I want to congratulate the member Darroch Ball for advancing it—first drawn in May 2018; so quite some time ago now, just over two years. And as the member's bill process winds on—and, of course, we had that interregnum of a year or so while Parliament was embroiled in—
Chris Penk: Those were the days.
CHRIS BISHOP: Chris Penk says, "Those were the days." Well, I think you sort of get those opportunities for those moral issues maybe once in a parliamentary career, and some of us have gone through about two or three in the space of about three or four years. So it's all very interesting. But we find ourselves just on the cusp of an election, finally considering the second reading of this bill. I want to signal that we think it's a worthy bill and the approach of toughening the penalties for first responders who are quite literally in the front line of our fight against crime and mayhem is worthy of support.
We can't help but comment on the sad death a couple of weeks ago of the constable in West Auckland, Matthew Hunt. I think all of us in the House will be reflecting on him and the police as we consider this bill, and I just want to put that on the record. It is true, of course, that there has been an increase in assaults against first responders, like the police and prison officers, which I know Mr Ball is concerned about, with more serious injuries occurring as a result. I want to signal that I'm supportive of the extension of the bill through Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 487 to insert definitions around emergency services workers and scene of emergency and my understanding, from talking to the member in charge of the bill, is that this SOP will extend the penalties to include our nurses. I've had some correspondence from constituents in the Hutt Valley supporting that extension, and I think it's a worthy idea. I think, you know, so often our nurses are at the front line of dealing with some pretty tricky situations and there's no real distinction, really, between a prison officer and a police officer and a nurse and those who work in our emergency services. So I think that's a good step forward.
Like Mr O'Connor, I want to signal that I'm pretty cautious about the mandatory minimum sentence, which is SOP 219. I think we do need to be cautious about that in Parliament. We do need to be cautious about mandatory minimums. They can produce perverse outcomes. They can produce what we would regard as invidious outcomes in the justice sector. So we will consider that one, but I think we should be a little bit cautious on it.
But generally, it's a shame the committee couldn't agree on the bill with a report because it would have been good, actually, to see the report of the committee and see what the members on the committee thought about it. Because, actually, I know from my time on the committee there are some members with real expertise in the justice system—Ginny Andersen, who has worked for Police; Greg O'Connor, obviously, as well from the former Police Association and former police officer, some way back, to be fair, but still got that experience; and other quite experienced members on the committee. So it would have been quite good to see the report, but we will be backing it at second reading with those cautious notes, as I said, about SOP 219 about mandatory minimums. And we'll wait and see and invigilate those issues in the committee stage of the bill when it comes up. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to begin by acknowledging and congratulating the member Darroch Ball, in whose name this bill comes before us today. I think it's incredibly admirable, as everyone has said in the House today, his care and effort to protect first responders against violence and to protect their safety as they carry out some of the most important work in our communities—whether it's policing, whether it's working in our grossly overpopulated prisons, whether it's as nurses and paramedics. I think we have seen across the House that there's consensus across every political party, every member who's spoken, and I'm sure every member of the apparently hung Justice Committee, that we do care and we do want to protect our first responders. There's no place for violence anywhere, in any of our sectors, but particularly for those in those care industries or professions, rather. So it is it is an admirable job that this bill attempts to do.
But the Green Party, and we've said this before—we've said it so many times—we do want to protect our communities against violence; that is an important kaupapa to us. But we want to do that in a way that works and in a way that the evidence tells us will work. That is to say that deterrents from violent crime via increased sentences of imprisonment do not work. We had the Prime Minister's chief scientist, the previous chief scientist, Dr Gluckman, undertake this as an area of focus and come out with that conclusion: imprisonment has failed. That's what the evidence tells us. 
So if we do care, we do want to take care of our communities, and we do want to take care of our first responders, we have to accept that we can't keep doing what we've been doing while violent crime in particular remains steady. We know reoffending rates remain steady. So we've got to look at the evidence, and, as part of the Green Party, we do want to look at the evidence. We know that the majority of people we lock up in our prisons suffer from previously undiagnosed mental illness, serious mental illness, including a lifetime diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. We know that a vast number of those we lock up in our prisons suffer from head injury with really serious consequences as to the way they process risk, they process stress, and that contributes grossly to the level of violence that a person with that type of injury is likely to undertake in stressful situations like being arrested, like being taken into an ambulance while they're stressed and injured. This is the kind of situation that our first responders are facing. This is what's making them unsafe. 
We know that, for young people who come through our justice system, 90 percent suffer from what's called a serious learning disability. They've fallen through every crack; so they are frustrated. They are also likely to carry some of the mental illness that shows up in the later stats of those in our prisons. 
Knowing those things, we know that we need to invest in the types of solutions that address those causes of offending. We need to invest in drug dependency rehabilitation. We need to invest in mental health care, in healthcare generally. There's no reason for us to have people in our communities suffering serious brain injury that's gone undiagnosed and untreated and for us to rely constantly, persistently, on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, which is imprisonment.
We also know that our justice system is broken in a different way and that it targets disproportionately Māori and Pacific men. We know that that's a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and we know that we need to address that by supporting those communities in all sorts of different ways to prevent them from harm and from crime. That is, in housing, in education that's inclusive, and in investing in jobs that are sustainable and meaningful. 
This Government is committed to addressing crime and to addressing violence. We want to do it in a way that's effective. We want to be brave as leaders of this nation to do things that aren't all about politicians looking tough on crime. And I'm not saying that that's what this member is doing, but we have had a history of that, where successive Governments and politicians have wanted to use the rhetoric of being tough on crime while our stats of actual crime, violence—whether that's drug offending, whether that's sexual assaults, whether that's domestic violence—have remained steady. So we want to invest in rehabilitation. We want to invest in drug treatment. We want to invest in mental health care and in our communities to thrive so that levels of violence do come down, so that we actually protect our first responders. It is for that reason that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill at this reading. Thank you.





GARETH HUGHES (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn't want to interrupt my colleague, but I have a question of order in the House. We're talking about quite a sensitive matter here, and I noticed the member Chris Bishop had his back turned to the Chamber for four minutes, had an incredibly loud conversation, and I found it quite disrespectful and disorderly.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The responsibility for what goes on in the Chamber is the presiding officer's. I did notice the heightened level of conversation on both sides, to be frank. One of the other things that you've pointed out is—gosh, I'm trying to think of the correct word—more tradition than actual rule. However, it's noted, and thank you for waiting until the end of your colleague's speech. But, members, have a bit of respect for other members while they're delivering their speeches, I guess.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill. I just want to acknowledge Darroch Ball for bringing this piece of legislation to this House—a piece of legislation which will create a new offence of injuring a first responder or prison officer with intent which has a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison, including emergency health and fire service staff and the offence of assault on police, prison, or traffic offences.
I just want to acknowledge that the issue that this member is bringing to the House is a very important one and, I think, particularly pertinent as we all remember Constable Matt Hunt, who was tragically killed in the line of duty only a few days ago. It reminds the public, and it reminds members of this House, and it reminds me, as National's spokesperson for corrections, of the work that our first responders do, our corrections officers do, those on the front line in our hospitals, in our ambulance services, and how they go into situations that we would rather not go into and put their lives on the line for our safety and for our health and for our security.
So supporting the intent of this piece of legislation is what the National Party is doing here in saying that we back our first responders, we back our corrections officers, we back them in the work that they do, and when they face these circumstances of being assaulted on the job, that the law is there to support them and to say that there will be an offence. But, as has been highlighted by colleagues of mine and members on the other side of the House, the concern that we have over this piece of legislation is the fact that it puts in place a mandatory minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment. There's something of significant concern over that, due to the fact that this could be used in a variety of circumstances, whereby an assault takes place and the circumstances may not be one which would warrant such a sentence of six months minimum to be given.
There have been many examples of people who may assault somebody in a moment of rage or a moment of frustration, or a moment when they may be in difficult circumstances whereby a six-month sentence would not normally be applied by the courts. I do note that it is an aggravated factor already in sentencing that, where someone does assault a police officer or a corrections officer, that has to be taken into account already at sentencing. So we do have significant concerns over how this could be used and how it could impact on people in those circumstances. I do note the bill does talk about circumstances where, if a sentence of imprisonment would be manifestly unjust, it would not be applied, but that is a very high threshold. So we will be raising questions on this piece of legislation as it goes to the committee of the whole House, but, as I said, we do support the legislation in its intent. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Ginny Andersen—5 minutes.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity for speaking on this member's bill today. I'd like to acknowledge the member Darroch Ball for bringing this bill to the House. I know that in doing that, by bringing this bill, there was the good intent of really representing the best interests of our first responders in New Zealand. That was incredibly apparent to the Justice Committee when he appeared before us and spelt out the reasons why this bill had been drafted. 
I know that there are ongoing issues that our first responders continue to have to deal with, and, in the most simple of ways, I think it riles human feeling and response, because it is someone trying to help another person, who is then, in turn, injured or hurt. That very sense in itself makes us feel that that is unacceptable. So I would like to acknowledge that, yes, there have been significant instances where first responders have been confronted with situations that are horrific and unacceptable. In my own family, I can say that we have had that. My husband, as a former police officer, was stabbed in the line of duty at the time before stab-proof vests were worn by members of police. He had to undergo surgery, and he survived, obviously. But what I would like to say is that, while this is a significant problem for New Zealand, the reservation I have is the method that is being offered to address this problem. I've always, in this House, stood and stated that simply increasing a prison sentence does not address the underlying factors that are causing the problem. In particular, a mandatory minimum sentence for such offending does not address the underlying problems that are causing this type of offending to continue to occur in New Zealand. 
What does address this is increased funding and accessibility to mental health services. We know for a fact, when we look through the statistics, that the vast majority of offending against first responders is tied into mental health and drug and addiction and alcohol issues. It is people who are not receiving the support and help early on enough that are presenting in these situations of violence and harm to our first responders. So, by investing in better quality mental health, drug, and addiction services, not just in our prisons but also at our GPs—by rolling out the services available that David Clark has done—so that when you go and see your doctor there will be someone who you can speak to regarding mental health issues in your life, co-located in every GP, that is a step towards addressing this problem. 
Also, by having better quality mental health facilities—and that is being done right across New Zealand, by increasing funding to DHBs to have better resourced mental health facilities in order for people to get help when they need it. It will also be achieved by increasing the drug and addiction treatment in every single prison right across New Zealand—instead of building a mega-prison, having that downsized to make sure we have specialist drug and addiction services on site that people can access easily and have the opportunity of making life-changing decisions when those opportunities are placed before them.
So I would like to acknowledge the member. I would like to acknowledge the good intent behind this bill and acknowledge all of the daily work that first responders continue to do in New Zealand. However, I cannot support this bill, for the very reason that it is not addressing the underlying issues that we discussed today.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to speak at the second reading of the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill, and we've traversed a lot of issues today, but one thing we can all agree on is the importance of first responders. And, again, on this side of the House, there's been a lot of acknowledgments, and I want to echo that and thank all of our first responders, whether they're front-line police officers, emergency services staff, members of the public, volunteers—whoever you are. First responders do a fantastic job and an important job in our community.
This bill, of course, we're supporting at this stage. We have supported it up until this stage, and I won't take too much of the House's time other than to say that National's position has always been clear, which is, look, if you do a crime, you seek the punishment for that, and all this bill seeks to do is to create a new offence for those that injure or have the intent to injure a first responder.
The specifics of the bill are around, of course, the minimum mandatory sentencing requirements, and that's something that we do have an issue with on this side of the House and will be seeking some amendments, possibly in the committee of the whole House. And then, of course, there's a maximum of up to 10 years' imprisonment based on that offence. As I said, we've supported all the Supplementary Order Papers to this bill—the amendments to this bill—in select committee.
I do want to acknowledge Darroch Ball, the member who has raised this issue. It's an important issue; so thank you to Darroch Ball, but also to the Justice Committee, of course. It's a pretty entertaining select committee to be on, and there's a lot of passion in that select committee. That's it, from my perspective, at this stage. I commend this bill to the House.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon David Bennett: God, the Speaker is as bad as the Labour Party.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Hon David Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon David Bennett: Withdraw and apologise.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Did you do that properly?
Hon David Bennett: Yes.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I don't think so. Stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon David Bennett: Withdraw and apologise.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 65
New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9; Ross.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Bill read a second time.
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64, Noes 56.





SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): In view of the fact that the Hon Nicky Wagner is still on a flight and returning to Wellington, I ask that the House adjourn early for a dinner break so that she can take her call at 7.30. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That's Nikki Kaye? 
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Points of order are—
Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Sorry, I apologise. I meant the Hon Nikki Kaye. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): So leave is sought for that. Is there any objection to that? There is not. 
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.





EDUCATION (STRENGTHENING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING IN PRIMARY AND INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon NIKKI KAYE (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
It is a huge privilege to stand in this House tonight to be speaking on a piece of legislation that, in my view, has a number of people that have contributed to get it to this point. I want to acknowledge people across the House on this piece of legislation, because what I know is that, while we have managed to get this legislation to the House, there are members of Parliament, from different political parties, that have fought hard over the years to support greater second language learning in schools. I want to put on the record tonight my thanks to people like Steve Maharey, who has contributed in terms of my thinking around this legislation; and Sir Don McKinnon, who has done a huge amount in terms of Asian languages in New Zealand. I want to acknowledge people like Jeff Johnstone, who were involved in the development of this bill.
The main reason that I believe in this piece of legislation, but also in this policy, is fourfold. The first is that we are a country that is multicultural. We have huge diversity in New Zealand and, particularly in a city like Auckland, we have a huge number of people that have come to New Zealand to make it their home, and a lot of them want to have the ability to be able to speak to their grandparents, to their parents, and they need access to the particular language that will enable them to do that—whether that is Hindi, whether that is Mandarin, whether that is Korean languages. And the reality is that it's not just about that; it is about the cultural connection. It is also about the future of our nation. It's about recognising that we're a small nation that has traded with the rest of the world, and the reality is, the more young people in New Zealand who have access to those second languages, it will mean that there will be businesses and trade opportunities in the future that we've never had.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. You're required to—
Hon NIKKI KAYE: I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Excellent, thank you.
Hon NIKKI KAYE: Thank you. The reality is, as well, that there is a very important other aspect of this bill. It is around recognising that there are many young people in New Zealand that don't have access to Te Reo, and we want to ensure that we have that universal access in New Zealand. So what the bill does is mean that the Crown must fund this access in schools in New Zealand. That's very, very significant for our nation, and it's very important for the future of the language. There is a fiscal commitment that comes with that, but I've talked to a number of iwi and Māori leaders about the importance of ensuring that every young person in New Zealand can get access to learn Te Reo.
The other part of this is that we have also, in the bill, provided universal access to New Zealand Sign Language, and I do acknowledge that this Government has provided some funding in this area. But what we also know, which is the other benefit of this bill, is that languages are very important, not just for cultural competency, not just to enable Te Reo to survive in New Zealand, but also there is huge cognitive benefit from young people learning a second language. There's a lot of research in this area about the fact that we will be a smarter nation if we have more young people learning second languages. So what the bill does is it enables a system to exist whereby schools will choose priority languages to be taught. What we know is that the difference between the priority languages that might be requested in schools in South Auckland might be very different to other parts of Hamilton, where potentially there will be another mix of languages. But what we're very clear on is that there will be universal access to Te Reo under this bill.
The other thing that we need to understand and respect—and this is what is very unusual for a country like ours—is that New Zealand is one of the most diverse countries in the world, in parts of our country. There are 160 different languages spoken, and what we know is that, in many other education systems in many other countries in the world, there is huge access to languages, and so we are out of step, and that's why I acknowledge people like Steve Maharey and Sir Don McKinnon, who have really pushed this for a long period of time.
I also want to acknowledge at this point what I think is also the other benefit of this. It is what I would call social cohesion, and we had a very good report recently by Sir Peter Gluckman and others from the Informed Futures group, which really puts up an argument, I think, about the fact that we need to continue to work hard to have social cohesion. So we're not only going to get cultural competency, we're not only going to get business and trade links in the future, we're not only going to be a smarter nation, but we're going to potentially have greater social cohesion as a result of this bill.
I do want to acknowledge, as I said before, that there is a fiscal commitment. We've estimated that it's probably $40 million per year. We don't underestimate the challenge that it will take to implement this bill. We do understand that there will need to be different resourcing and a different plan for each of the different languages. There's a very big difference between how we would implement the delivery of additional Hindi in schools to, potentially Mandarin, to potentially Pasifika languages, to strengthening all of the good work that's happening in Te Reo, and we do understand that there will be a different set of resources that may be required. We also need to make the point that what is really important is that, while we may have language assistants, we do invest in our teaching workforce. It's very important that the quality of language provision is there. We know there are some amazing language teachers in New Zealand, but we know that there's going to be a whole training component of this.
The other important point that I would make about the bill is that we are focused on the country having a national language policy, which is incredibly important to ensure that our language infrastructure and ecosystem is not just about schools; there's an important role that we need to have in investing in languages in the community. That means respecting and supporting leaders in this area.
And I think the other thing that I want to acknowledge in this House around the first reading of this bill is that I don't believe this bill is perfect. I do believe—and I've had discussions with other members across the House, and I want to acknowledge the Green Party, the Labour Party, and New Zealand First; we may not agree on every aspect of this bill, and there is a chance at select committee to improve it—that we have this once-in-a-generation opportunity to finally, massively strengthen the opportunity for people to understand, know, their heritage, but also to have those cognitive benefits.
So this is one of the great things that I'm proud of in my career—I acknowledge Marama Davidson; I acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick; I acknowledge Chris Hipkins for the huge generosity and time that he's given me; and others across the House, on this legislation to get it to this point, because, as I understand it, we're going to have multiple political parties supporting it to select committee. So I really want to make that point, which is that there will need to be a whole conversation as to how we implement this. There will need to be a whole conversation as to how we choose priority languages. There will be a whole debate in select committee about the strengthening of Te Reo via this bill, in my view. But I don't believe that this bill is necessarily perfect, and that's why I want to work collaboratively with all members of the House, and the conversations that I have had with other political parties have been that now is the time.
We are a diverse nation, we're a nation that looks out to the world. We have this huge opportunity with this piece of legislation—and the right funding and support—to work with all of those people that have fought hard for this across the House to ensure that every young person has the ability to learn a second language. Many of them will learn multiple languages, and I think that debate about the fact that there may be a year where it's multilingual, where there may be the basics of multiple languages that young people learn—that it's not just about that second language; it could be several languages—is a really important debate to have at select committee.
So I want to finish by again acknowledging that this is a big day in New Zealand's history, that there have been multiple people, from Steve Maharey to Sir Don McKinnon, who have had huge vision around second language learning, and that I'm very proud to have this bill. And I want to acknowledge all of the people that have been involved in this bill, to bring it to the House, and then finally again to acknowledge the huge generosity of spirit, but also collaboration, that has come from members of Parliament across this House to bring this important Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill to the House. Thank you.





JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's truly a pleasure to stand here in speak on this bill. I congratulate the Hon Nikki Kaye on having this bill pulled from the ballot. Just so you don't think that we've gone and done something different, Labour will be supporting this bill through to select committee, and I'm happy to say that right from the outset. It was no surprise to me to see this bill in the ballot in the first place, because I know that when the Hon Nikki Kaye was the Minister of Education, a passion of hers was second language learning and the sector would not be surprised at this bill being here as well. It is something that we've known for a long time and it is a discussion that is worthy to be held.
Research shows second language learning is really important to the development in a child and in a learner the whole way through. And we haven't really had a strategy as such that has been consistent in the New Zealand education system. I think that this is an opportunity to have that conversation, and that's why we are happy to take this through to select committee.
But as the previous speaker, the Hon Nikki Kaye, said, this bill is not perfect and that's why it's important to have this conversation. And while I now might stand here and say where my areas of concern are, I don't want that to be taken that we are not looking at being serious in this discussion. We are looking at being serious in this discussion. But I want it on record now about where I see the discussion needs to go to in the select committee and some of the issues that we need to discuss going forward in this area. 
First and foremost, from my point of view, as someone that has come out of the education sector, I think it is really important to have the discussion with educators. We need to hear the issues that have existed in the schooling sector in the past around why second language learning has, in many schools, not been successful in the uptake. We need to hear how important this is to educators. We need to hear from the educators' perspective about what they need to make second language learning strategy successful across the whole of the sector. Too many times, Governments over many years have not had the sector involved in that conversation. I'd need to say right from the outset that this is, as was pointed out, a massive opportunity, but also a massive opportunity for risk if we don't get it right and bring the sector with us. So it is really important that that discussion is had, and also that we are not putting pressure on the brilliant local curriculum that we have in this country. We have a world-leading curriculum, and the world-leading curriculum has been supported by many different Governments over the years. It has transformed over the years and now we have the New Zealand curricula in that we have the Marautanga and we have The New Zealand Curriculum and we have other Māori-medium curriculum as well. And we can't put pressure on those, that they become too constrained. It is really, really important that that flexibility still remains to develop a strong local curriculum for each individual school, maybe inclusive of this strategy, but we can't put pressure on an already bursting system within those schools. So it is really important that we look at that side of it as well.
On the good sides, on the sides of strength, we do need to investigate that research around why second language learning is important. But at the same time, we need to look at other research around why other areas are just as important, why the arts are just as important, because while second language learning research does show that once this becomes part of a child's life, they become really, really a master in their own language through the second language. The same can be said of music. A child can become a great mathematician, an even better mathematician, when they become strong in music. So we need to investigate—is it just as important to be learning a musical instrument, for example? Those sorts of questions are philosophical questions that need to be posed in this investigation.
Also, I'm really pleased to hear the member talk about Te Reo Māori and, reading the bill, I was really pleased to see the funding that was in this bill to be put into Te Reo Māori because we have a beautiful second language, or first language for many in this country, and we are the only country that can give Te Reo Māori its absolute due respect by using that as a strategy and implementing that strategy incredibly well. But at the same time, we must make certain that no strategy actually takes away from Te Reo Māori. That is incredibly important. I would ask that we make certain that our Māori medium schools are consulted really well within this consultation, because reading the bill—and this might be me—I couldn't see that for those schools who operate under Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, which is the Māori-medium curriculum, English was being given its due respect as a priority language. Because as a former principal of a Māori-medium sector school, I had to ensure that my students were learning te reo Pākehā as their second language. So I think that's a conversation that needs to be had in that space so that we're not undermining Te Marautanga o Aotearoa as well. 
Pacific languages—again, I was really pleased to see that there was an emphasis put on the Pacific languages in there; I am such a strong supporter of first language. I have seen how important that is for children—and that was mentioned by the previous speaker—who come from other countries or whakapapa back to other countries. It is really important that we are giving those opportunities, but we can't do it just as a "let's learn their songs or let's just have a light glance at it." It is really important that we give those languages their due respect for the value of those young people to know their whakapapa and their heritage, because when they know their heritage and their identity—and language is an important part of that—they will become much stronger citizens of New Zealand and they will become much stronger in their own identity. And that's really important. So I was really pleased to see that coming through in the bill.
I did have a question around the likes of specialist schools when I was reading this bill and where they fit into this, because I felt that this could put pressure on specialist schools in a way that was not intended. I think that specialist schools that I know of that do Te Reo Māori really, really well, that there is room in that as their second language, but that will be a question and learning support area that I will be asking a lot of in the select committee process to make sure that we get it right in that particular space.
The previous speaker talked about the stretch on resources. Again, this is where we need to take the sector with us to talk about the different methods of delivery of language. We know now that we can bring technology into play. We've been through a perfect time to look at how technology could be part of that. But we do have a critical shortage of teachers across all sectors. I know that in language learning that is no different to any other sector. So we need to have a strategy in place for training up those teachers, and no matter whether we're using technology in that space or not, the workforce component of this is just as important as the bill itself. So we need to make certain that we're not putting something in place that actually stretches the profession or the resources or the delivery any further than what it already is.
We've talked about the fiscal commitment, the previous speaker talked about the fiscal commitment, and know that we're going to be talking a lot more about that in select committee. That is a really, really important consideration that has to be made. Again, education is an area that is always going to be stretched because there's always going to be areas that are really important. But we need to make certain that this is the best use of that money. So that's where the research really comes into play. I'm looking forward to really looking into that and working, through our officials. In fact, I'm quite excited about delving into this and doing a really, for want of a cliché, deep dive into how important this is to our education sector.
Again, I guess, going back, the other question: is legislation the best answer? Yes, maybe it is, maybe it's not. And again, that is something that will come through the select committee process. I know that, as the previous speaker said, we have this perfect opportunity to have this discussion. I am really looking forward to having that discussion. I am very excited and I'm very pleased that this bill came out of the ballot and that I'm going to be part of those discussions. I commend this bill to the House. 





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a great pleasure to take this call to support the Hon Nikki Kaye's bill, the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill. This bill actually demonstrates the Hon Nikki Kaye's passion for the education sector. I know, as a caucus colleague, she is always passionate about the education sector, but this bill shows how she wants to take this education sector to the next level. This is to equip our future generations to understand who we are. Yes, our foundation is bicultural, but we are a very, very multicultural country. This bill is not just about languages; it's a lot more than that.
As a person who is multilingual, I understand the importance of speaking different languages, and as a person who has children born here in New Zealand, I also understand the importance of retaining those languages within our families—not just for the sake of speaking that language, but for a lot more than that. So my boys went to day care, because I always worked, and slowly what happened—because eight to nine hours they spent in their day care centre—when I used to pick them up they would get the opportunity to spend only two to three hours with us, so, slowly, English became their first language, and our mother tongue became their second language. Then, what happens, with time, in some families I know, is that then English becomes their sole language. They completely forget their own mother tongue. So, as I said before, this is not just for the sake of learning another language, it's a lot more than that, as the Hon Nikki Kaye said. As a scientist myself, I can say this, that this definitely helps with cognitive skills development, and we also know that when children learn a second language, or more languages, from a very young age, they learn them really well. They learn them really well.
So we want to make sure, as the bill says, it is for primary and intermediate school—that is years 1 to 8. That is the perfect age and that's where we want to target this. So for us, it's not just about that. As we have heard from the member in charge of this bill, we are a very, very multicultural country. We speak more than 160 languages. Yes, we talk about this quite often, but what do we want to do with this? We want to make the most of this opportunity that is available to us because of us being so multicultural and so multilingual. We want to retain these languages and we want to go out and use these languages. 
So, yes, at a social level, these languages are important for us; to understand other cultures, these languages are important. But in the long run, this understanding, understanding of these different languages and ability over future generations to speak these different languages, will also bring us economic benefits. We know we are a small nation. We are a trading nation and for us, trade relationships with other countries matter. When people go out and speak in their own language, then definitely that helps a creation of special bonds between people that are communicating. 
These kinds of skills are really important for us, looking at the long-term prospect for us in New Zealand. I personally know a person who is from Christchurch, very much a Kiwi person, who speaks Hindi really well and in a very, very, I would say, articulate manner. I remember my very first meeting with him and I have seen how many Indian friends he has here. This is because he worked for a number of years in India. He learnt that language and he understands the importance of retaining that language to communicate with people and business communities here in New Zealand. Now he is also using that language again—after coming back here to New Zealand—to communicate back with businesses in India. So it's that long-term vision that we need for us, for New Zealand, because we are becoming such a global place, and we need to understand other cultures. We need to have the ability to speak other languages. I think this is a great bill, and I really look forward to working on this bill with other members of the committee in the select committee process. Thank you.





JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd just like to start off my contribution this evening by congratulating the Hon Nikki Kaye for having her member's bill pulled out of the ballot box—and, I think, rightfully so. It's going to be a fantastic bill to be looking at at the Education and Workforce Committee. It's going to be quite an exciting bill to be having the debate and the conversations around, and we do know that it is quite timely. As my colleague Jan Tinetti said before, there hasn't really been a strategy around second languages, as such, within our education sector.
I myself don't have specific experience within the primary education or intermediate school sector, but what I do have knowledge of is what it's like in the early childhood sector, and particularly the area where I work, in Ashburton, where it's very multicultural nowadays. I can recall this little gentleman, a delightful young man; at the age of two, he could speak three languages. He had two parents from different countries, plus English in New Zealand, and I tell you that he was one bright cookie. What is quite fascinating is that when they use language a lot more as they get older, the words from the different languages come through; so it's actually quite difficult as an adult to decipher what it is they're actually saying, because all these different words from different languages are coming through. But what we do know, and what the research has said, and what others have mentioned this evening is that learning a second language is extremely beneficial and really good for cognitive development. When children learn a second language, that is, I think, the prime time for people to be learning a second language. I know, myself, at my age, I would find it extremely difficult to pick up a second language, but when children are young, their minds are just sponges and they soak everything up. I think that's a fantastic time to be introducing second languages.
I'm extremely pleased to see Te Reo and sign language, obviously, front and foremost in this. And whilst I see there are at least ten priority languages, I do have some—not concerns or queries around that, but I know that that will be discussed further in select committee. One of the things that I've been thinking about with this piece of legislation is that, yes, I think it's so important that children and families have, identify, and use their own language. That's really important because it gives them an important sense of self and identity and a greater sense of belonging, but I have concerns, though, that whilst it's going to be consulted on amongst the community—and I'm hoping also, as my colleague Jan Tinetti said, the teaching sector will be involved in this as well—as the Hon Nikki Kaye pointed out, what might be a priority language, let's say, up in Auckland could well be a different priority language somewhere down in the South Island. And my concern is that there might be a child who is hugely passionate and excited about the language they are learning at their school in Auckland and then they shift to the South Island and that language is not an opportunity for them anymore. So that is one of the concerns that I have, and how we can work with that and mitigate those sorts of things happening. Because that is a reality; people shift around quite frequently around the country.
The other concern I have is around our teachers and the skill base that they may have to be able to teach second languages. I mean, we've got teacher shortages, as we know, but how are we going to ensure that we've got the educators that can provide these second languages? That's just something that I think is important to consider.
The other thing I wanted to—I had some other train of thought, but now it's just gone from my head. But I also think—oh yes, that's what it is. Thinking about when children move from primary and intermediate schools to secondary schools, is the ability therefore in respect of that language that they may have learnt and become actually really passionate about going to be lost because it's not available in that secondary sector? And what we do know is that, if we don't continually practise something or speak a language or whatever it might be, we could potentially lose that skill, and what we want to see is some of these skills and these languages learnt at school be able to be continued on into the workforce. There's huge opportunity there. So they're just some of the things that I think are really fantastic, a couple of concerns, but I commend this bill to the House.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill. I find it ironic that New Zealand First is the only party that will stand up for Te Reo and sign language in this country. I absolutely find it ironic.
I'm going to read from this summary, the general policy statement of the bill: "The Bill makes it clear that Te Reo Māori and … Sign Language are, as … official languages … priority languages and will be resourced." There is nothing in this bill that secures resourcing. There are no progressions for sign language. There are progressions for Te Reo Māori, but they have not been implemented, whether it be by a National Government or whether it be by a Labour Government. They have not been resourced to be delivered—they are yet to be resourced to be delivered. With regard to sign language, there are no progressions. There is no requirement inside the New Zealand school system to actually deliver the progressions of an official language, which is New Zealand Sign Language. There is no resourcing, either by a National Government or by a Labour Government. I find that fascinating.
Then it says, in the summary, "The current law requires schools to take reasonable steps to enable children to learn Te Reo and this will not change." "Reasonable steps" does not say that they will. "Reasonable steps" does not say that they will not be superseded by Spanish or French or whatever other of the 10 languages that the Government will decide are the priority languages of this nation. I know, sitting at Mahurangi College, the pressure that came from that community to say, "Why are we learning Te Reo Māori? We should actually be learning French." "Why are we learning Te Reo Māori? We should be learning Mandarin." 
The other thing that this bill doesn't do is it doesn't say what's going to come out of the school day. We already know—I'm fascinated; I'm sorry, my Labour Party colleagues—by the fact that the Labour Party, who knows how stressed and how full the New Zealand Curriculum is and how much our teachers have to deliver, are supporting another thing to put inside our teachers' day—another thing that our teachers will have to deliver, without removing anything else. So I do find it fascinating that both the National Party and the Labour Party decide—and I'm going to make an assumption around the Green Party, but I'm sure the member will stand up and speak for themselves—that they have the numbers to actually get this through to select committee. 
My Labour Party colleagues here have said that this is an opportunity to have a discussion. I respect Jan Tinetti as a representative and as a front-line teacher—probably more than many others I respect—when she speaks on this topic. But by putting this through to select committee, there is a stamp of approval. To then remove ones approval as this goes through the House is a much bigger deal than to stand here and say right now we do not agree.
New Zealand First does not agree. We do not agree that in this moment, at this time, when Te Reo Māori is still not throughout the country in the way that it should be—and the Hon Nikki Kaye can frown as much as she likes and say that we're never going to take away from Te Reo Māori. She's not on the front line at schools where parents are at the door. She's not on the front line in what is the current argument around New Zealand history and making sure that we have the resourcing for Te Reo Māori and making sure that we actually counter those communities inside New Zealand that say, "Why are our children learning that language? It has no point." 
This is not the time for this argument. The time for this argument is when we all can converse in a conversation with English, Te Reo Māori, and sign language. That is the moment to have this argument. That is the moment to bring this sort of a bill to the House. That is not this moment yet. We have a lot of work to do on the official languages of this country. If we want to start early, then let's start at kindergarten. Let's start at early childhood education, like Toru Fetu over here in Wellington. Let's start, actually, with the language that is of those small children and entrench it in them and make them know, from two years old and three years old, that this is part of who you are. Let's not decide that we're going to put it into the compulsory sector. Let's actually have some sort of conviction around our beliefs and say who you are matters, the language that you use inside of your home matters, and, from the moment you are born, we will acknowledge it—not decide that we're going to put something else into the New Zealand school system when we don't have enough days at the moment for what the Government has already put inside the curriculum. We will oppose the bill.





DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): E Te Mana Whakawā, kei te kōrero ahau mō te pānuitanga tuatahi o te pire.
[Madam Speaker, I am speaking about the first reading of the bill.]
Kiritapu Allan: Chur!
DENISE LEE: Tau kē! That was my, I guess, positive attempt to open up with a second language. It's not a full second language, but I, like many others in this country, would have loved the opportunity to have had a second language and to have absorbed that and had a hunger for it as a young person. I am not sure which language that previous speaker from New Zealand First, Tracey Martin, was speaking, but it was the language of negativism—of misery, quite frankly—and not seeing—
Mark Patterson: Common sense.
DENISE LEE: No, there was no sense. It was nonsensical. There was no sense. Another New Zealand First member is saying she was talking sense. No, she wasn't, because clearly she either hasn't read the bill or, even more so, read the intent behind the bill. The fact that we have the Labour Party, and hopefully others, supporting this through to select committee is a testament that there is goodwill behind what the Hon Nikki Kaye is doing with this and the passion that she brings to this particular topic. 
We would like to see second languages for children in this country push boundaries, and open doors, and see opportunities that we haven't yet seen before them. I only need think about my own daughters, my two—they're now upper teenaged—daughters. I've thought about the languages through their State school that they've had a taste of or a touch of, and what that has done for them. I quickly jotted down that they've had Spanish, French, Te Reo Māori, and sign language. I wanted them to pick up Mandarin; they weren't so keen. Mum was a bit disappointed, but the point is, they had opportunities, but at the schools that they attended, there wasn't the resourcing to carry on some of these opportunities. It was sort of a stop and start experience for us as a family. So what this bill is doing is looking at a framework, and a comprehensive framework that we hope will have cross-party parliamentary support—apart from New Zealand First—to have a pathway for children here in New Zealand. The Minister, should this progress, will be required to consult on and gazette a national languages policy, something that we don't have—something that this country needs. 
I'd also like to specifically highlight one section, and that's the fact that school boards will decide which priority languages will be available for learning in each school. Now, the reason why I like this, having been a prior school board chair myself—and I might just quickly add in the reason why we really didn't support the education hubs that were suggested in the Tomorrow's Schools review—is because school boards truly do have—they're made up of parents, right, primarily? And they really do have an eye—they are parents. They have their children in the schools, and I think that schools go through what I'd call life cycles. The primary school that I was the school board chair of when my children were there looks a little bit different now. In fact, being a little bit more specific, there are more Filipino kids right now in Ellerslie School, and I think Tagalog might feature as a priority language—I don't know. Stanhope Road School, in my area, has got a hugely burgeoning Filipino population. So for school boards to have some guidance and direction in how the priority languages would play out for each school is a very good, very localised, and very customised option.
I pick up and I understand from the other side of the House—and, clearly, even in the speeches here tonight—that there will be challenges around the workforce and the implementation, investing in the workforce, and figuring out where some of those pinch points will be. But we should look forward to this, corporately, as a House, taking it to select committee. This, as we know, will not have enough time to make it through in the 52nd Parliament, but, I truly hope that whichever Government of the day will pick this up in the 53rd Parliament. Thank you.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party and add our voice of support for this piece of legislation through to select committee.
I will just go over the intent of the legislation again. The bill aims to ensure that every child in years 1 to 8 has the opportunity to learn a second language, and would require the Minister of Education to set at least 10 national priority languages for schools following public consultation on what those languages would be. A requirement would be placed on the Crown to resource teaching a second language in primary and intermediate schools. Te Reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language will be on the final list of 10 or more languages schools can choose from. New Section 60C, inserted by clause 5, stipulates that every board for each primary school it administers would maintain a priority language programme. This programme would have to identify from the list of languages at least one school priority language. The purpose of this is to ensure all students are provided with the opportunity to learn the school priority language as a second language. A board cannot adopt a priority language without consulting with the school community and having regard to its views.
I think, and what I've been hearing from the speeches, is that there is an understanding of the value, in terms of child development, of having multiple languages. And I echo the last speaker's sense of, I guess, a bit of loss about not having had that opportunity myself as a kid, and how much harder it was for me to learn a second language in my late teens compared to the kids I see running around, lucky, in families with multiple languages. The fact is that language opens up worlds, it opens up opportunities as well as pathways in our brains, and this is something, I think, probably everyone in this House wants for our kids.
The areas that we will be engaging on, in particular, in the select committee, from that foundation, is about the implementation of this, and I also echo the views of previous speakers of needing to really hear from teachers and parents and, hopefully, students themselves about their views on how we could do this.
But also for the Green Party, we've been, for a very long time, an advocate for Te Reo being taught compulsorily through our schools. Because when we talk about language opening up worlds to me there's nothing sadder than the fact that the worlds that exist within the country that I find myself born into are not open to me because I do not have the reo to be able to access them. And that makes me a poorer partner in this country because of that. I am of the generation of activists who didn't learn the reo because we thought we were taking resources away from Māori and their attempts to learn the language. That tension that I experienced in consideration of learning, or not, the language is part of what we hope to address by making it compulsory in our schools—to ensure that that teaching resource is available for everyone, that Māori don't have to fight for that scarce resource, and that as Pākehā we're not taking it up and taking it away from Māori, as it is their birthright to have that language.
So we are pleased to support this bill, and hope to see changes through the select committee that enable the compulsory delivery of Te Reo Māori and the resourcing of that through all of our schools.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I thought I'd take a little bit of a different angle to this speech. My colleague Jan Logie just spoke about the fact that it was so hard for her as an adult to learn a second language, and I can completely appreciate it. Having grown up in Holland, there's no other way that you could have grown up speaking another language, because if you grow up in a country where English is not the first language, you will automatically pick up another one to be able to cope outside of your country. 
So I was born in the Netherlands and my first language is Dutch. But, funnily enough, that wasn't the first language I spoke, because in the Netherlands they don't dub movies and they don't dub TV programmes, and the first programme I watched was Sesame Street, or, as they say in Germany, Sesamstrasse. So I could count to 10 in German before I could even count to 10 in Dutch, and that was the way that you grew up—it was similar. So I didn't learn a lot of the different languages at school. I just picked it up from TV and programmes. Having said that, I did take six languages at school because that was my strength, and I'd like to think that somehow it does boost brain power when you learn a different language. 
My son, Max, grew up bilingual, and I would like to tell a little story about that in Dutch. I will translate it into English afterwards. 
Vanaf het moment dat Max geboren werd, sprak ik Nederlands tegen hem. In feite deed ik dat al voordat hij geboren werd. En hoewel zijn vader een Kiwi is, had hij ook Nederlands geleerd terwijl wij in Nederland woonden. Dus het was heel makkelijk voor ons gezin om samen Nederlands te praten. Maar in het begin dacht ik altijd dat het géén goed idee was. Hij haalde de woorden door elkaar en sprak altijd zijn eigen taaltje. Maar zodra hij 5 jaar oud was, viel het allemaal op zijn plek en sprak hij allebei de talen vloeiend. En dat is hartstikke leuk, want nu kan hij met zijn familie, zijn opa en oma in Nederland, praten. Ik heb ook gemerkt dat hij makkelijk andere talen oppakt—Spaans, Te Reo Māori—en we weten dat uit onderzoek een tweede taal spreken is zeker, heeft zeker, veel voordelen.
So, basically translated, I said that I spoke Dutch to my son, Max, before he was even born, and I continued to do that all through his growing up. It was easy for me to do that because his dad, when we lived in Holland, also learnt to speak Dutch, and the contrast is quite significant, because my son picked it up from being a small child and just learning it very easily—automatically, it just, basically, got into his system—whereas for my husband, it was a much more difficult process as an adult to try and learn this language. 
Actually, I want to say to parents who are bringing up their child bilingual: don't be scared to continue on with it. It may seem for a while that the child seems quite confused. As my colleague Jo Luxton said, they start mixing up the different words, with a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and you think, "Oh my goodness, what have I done? Have I brought this child up the wrong way?", but at some stage it will fall into place. They'll know exactly what to use when, and you'll see that they pick up other languages much more easily. 
So my son picked up some Spanish when they had that at primary school, and Te Reo Māori. It all became really easy for him, and the great advantage for him, of course, is that he has a really good link to his heritage and to his identity, and he can speak to his family in the Netherlands and he makes those connections with his grandparents, for example. 
Now, the fact is that he picks up the other languages quickly because, as they say, speaking one language makes it easier to speak another, but we do know from research that speaking a language can improve brain functions like problem solving, multitasking, and decision making. It could even be said that speaking another language can help you make more rational decisions, but I think I'd leave the door wide open for other people to dispute that, so I won't be going on to that. 
I'm really looking forward to looking into the research and to investigating this matter when it comes to our select committee. It will be great to find out whether or not all this research will add to the benefits that we're hoping it might. 
On a very different note, in the 52nd Parliament, six MPs at the time chose to repeat our Oath of Allegiance in different languages, with them being Hindi, Tongan, Samoan, Dutch, Korean, and Mandarin, and that is a real testament to New Zealand being an inclusive and diverse country. I think having us looking at this particular topic is a really positive thing, and I'm looking forward to it coming to our select committee. 
So I too support the bill and I commend it to the House to go to select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. It's a pleasure to rise this evening to speak to the first reading of the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill. I think this is the most consequential bill that we've discussed today for the future of our people and our nation. I'd like to start off by acknowledging the Hon Nikki Kaye.
This is a fantastic bill and I'm so proud that it is a National Party MP that is bringing this to the House. But I thought I'd just take a step back today and tell you a personal story of a situation, since I've lived overseas, to give you a sense of the importance of languages for New Zealanders when they're abroad and New Zealanders when they're home. This personal story takes me back to the time when I was a young policy analyst at the OECD in Paris. I was sitting down at a meeting. In my team, my head of division was Italian, my direct boss was French, and my colleagues were Russian, Ukrainian, English, French, and German. In the course of this one-hour-long meeting, the conversation shifted between languages, from French to Italian to German to Russian and a small fraction of that was in English. That is an example of the struggles that many Anglophones, or English-only speakers, face when they're overseas.
I learnt very, very little from that conversation over that hour-long period. Over the course of those few years I struggled because I hadn't had a second or third language behind me. I say that because, in fact, many New Zealanders struggle with learning a second language. There were many New Zealanders at the OECD in Paris; few of them knew any other languages other than English. I think that this is quite common in Anglophone countries where we assume that everybody else in the world speaks our own language, and so we have a bit of a—possibly—arrogant attitude when we go out there in the world today.
Research indicates that, actually, learning languages gets better the more you learn; so the marginal effort to learn a language—whether it's a second or third—actually gets easier and easier. So with respect to the conversation we've been having about Te Reo and the importance of Te Reo—and I absolutely acknowledge the importance of Te Reo in this country—we should be agnostic on whatever languages are taught and whatever languages our kids learn, because we know that the marginal effort to learn a third or fourth or fifth language reduces significantly.
So this is just such a fantastic bill. I just want to, again, reiterate the importance—we've talked about domestically, but it's also really important in that we've got a million expatriate New Zealanders travelling the world, doing well in the commercial sectors overseas, and it's extremely important that we arm these Kiwis with the tools they need to succeed in the world today. We've talked about languages like Mandarin, which is extremely important for where we are placed in this geographical context.
So I am really, really excited about this bill and look forward to hearing all the submissions during the Education and Workforce Committee process. Let's not forget about the vision here. The vision is that when kids leave school, they all know a second language. This bill is a part of that, but it's not the only measure that I think we need to take in order to get us down that long-term, strategic path. Another thing that I'd like to see in this debate is the role of things like exchange programmes, because, quite frankly, actually learning languages is best when you're immersed in those languages. I want to do a special shout-out to two schools in my electorate: Birkdale North School in Birkdale, who does French and Māori immersion; and Birkdale Primary School, who do Māori immersion. So we commend this bill to the House—looking forward to select committee.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Ko te mihi tuatahi ki Te Atua, nōna nei ngā mea katoa. Ko te mihi tuarua ki Te Whare e tū nei. Tēnā koe. He mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa. I te taha o tōku matua ko Roy rāua ko Joan ōku tūpuna. Nō Tinimaka rāua ko Irimotu rāua. I te taha o tōku whāea ko Patrick rāua ko Naira ōku tūpuna. Nō Irimotu rāua hoki. Ko John rāua ko Trisha ōku mātua. Ko Patrick tōku tungāne. Ko Ginny Andersen ahau. Tēnā koutou katoa.
[The first acknowledgment goes to the Lord, for he is the creator of all things. The second acknowledgment goes to the House before us. Greetings. On my father's side, Roy and Joan are my grandparents. They are from Tinimaka and Irimotu. On my mother's side, my grandparents are Patrick and Naira. They are also from Irimotu. John and Trisha are my parents. Patrick is my brother. I am Ginny Andersen. Greetings one and all.]
I am a product of our education system, reluctantly taught Māori 30-odd years ago, when it wasn't trendy as it is now. I'm hugely grateful for the fact that I had that opportunity. I'm reminded of when I look at the Māori word for library, matapihi ki te ao, because to me it is a glimpse through a window into another world, and it enables me to understand life from a different perspective. I think that is what this bill does: it provides an opportunity to our young people in New Zealand to have a look through someone else's eyes to understand a culture and a way of being that's different to the one that we know, that we grew up in. 
But, saying that, this bill is only supported to select committee, for the very reasons that Tracey Martin has already raised tonight. They are very real concerns that I share as well. I see the huge strain that our education sector is under, and I see the huge strain that teachers are under to deliver Te Reo Māori alone. I will say that I believe I want my kids and I want others to prioritise Māori. I believe that. I believe that strongly. 
When I was 13 years old and I got to choose, in form 3, what language I chose, I was told that if I chose Te Reo Māori, I wouldn't be in a top stream, because it was not an academic language. I was sent home to choose from German, Latin, Japanese, and French. That's only in 1989—that's not that long ago. We have come an incredibly long way. I didn't do it, by the way. I did Māori, obviously, and I was in the third stream from the top. That was because of the support of my parents, largely, and a home background that didn't accept what was the status quo in the school curriculum at the time. 
But what is important to note is that we have come an incredibly long way, and I would like to acknowledge Kelvin Davis for the massive amount of work that he has put into programmes like Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, that encourage and strengthen the ability for teachers to be able to speak in Māori in the classrooms. That is one of the main obstacles that I see as a parent going into classrooms. You have teachers who are willing and wanting to be able to deliver in Te Reo but haven't had the support and the training to have confidence to get up and speak. That is the area that we need to continue to work on: to encourage our teachers to feel confident, to love the sound of Te Reo Māori, and to be really enjoying teaching it to a classroom of kids, who will only then see the joy of it, by seeing that same confidence and enjoyment. 
So I would like to acknowledge the good work that goes on in terms of encouraging and strengthening Te Reo Māori. I believe that we need to continue to do that to be in a position to continue to grow as a country. It is what makes us different to the rest of the world: the fact that we have Te Reo Māori in New Zealand and no other country does.
So while I think it's incredibly ambitious to have 10 languages, as this bill proposes, it still deserves the attention of submitters, of the education community, of parents, and of others who would be overseeing this, to have their comments brought forward through the course of submissions. I do think that given the state of the education system after National left it, to endeavour to roll out 10 languages for every school is incredibly ambitious. 
Second language learning does make sense, and we know that it makes sense that if someone learns another language it opens up your brain in ways that enable you to be more receptive to learning more things, and that is a good thing. The intention of the bill is to strengthen access to a second language in primary and intermediate schools, and covering all from year 1 to year 8. So I commend the concept. I have questions around the ability to deliver, and I think that we should be speaking Māori much more than we already do. Nō reira, kia ora koutou, and kia ora e Te Māngai.





Hon NIKKI KAYE (Deputy Leader—National): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa, mālō e lelei, talofa lava, namaste, ni hao. This has been a very proud moment in my career, to be standing here and listening to the debate this evening. I want to acknowledge all of the speakers. I didn't agree with everything that all of the speakers said this evening, but I do want to raise a number of points that I think have been very, very well made by a number of speakers. 
The first is, this is more than just our education system. There are many children, as Jo Luxton has mentioned, who are in early learning, who want to have access and their parents want them to have access, to learn from a very young age. We support that. What we're trying to do with this bill is enable us to ensure that in our compulsory sector we get additional resource. We also take the point that was being made by other speakers, around ensuring at secondary school we have good access via NCEA and other language learning support in our secondary schools. 
The other point that I want to make this evening is absolutely around the fact that we do support ensuring that we get greater access to Te Reo Māori in our schools. We see this as an "and/and". As my learned colleague Dan Bidois has said, not only do we know the benefits if a young person at a very young age learns a language, it may mean that it's much easier for them to learn a second and a third language. So we see this as an "and/and". The other point that I want to make, and I do want to correct the Hon Tracey Martin, is that the whole point in the bill is that Te Reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language will finally be funded and guaranteed by the Crown. That is a very important aspect of this bill, and as I travel the country and I meet with iwi, and I meet with leaders in our community, I'll be making that point. 
The other point that I want to make—and it was made, again, well by a number of speakers in this House—is it's more than just learning a second language in school. It's about connecting with family. It's about people being able to speak to their grandparents, who they may never have been able to communicate with before. This is about a wider vision for New Zealand. Many of us are travellers in this country. We travel across the world. We work across the world. The capacity and the opportunities that can be provided for more New Zealanders being able to speak a second language are massive. So many Kiwis—there's more than a million Kiwis in other countries—find themselves in situations where they would love to be able to converse with colleagues, where they don't get the opportunities. For such a diverse nation, it's been well written that it is unusual for us to be more monolingual, and we need to change that. 
I just want to again make the point that many people across the House—and again, it comes to the point made by Tracey Martin—have fought hard for additional investment. I know there are other members across the House, and on this side, that have approached Ministers and argued for language programmes or programmes to support different community organisations. 
The reality is what this bill does is it actually says we need to have a national language policy so that we have the resourcing that is required to follow this legislation, so that, finally, we will be able to have a clear strategy around the numbers of teachers that we need, the way that we invest in different community organisations, the recognition that, for some of our Pasifika friends, the reality is if we don't do something in this country, we may seriously lose the opportunity for generations for those languages to thrive. We heard that at select committee before, particularly around early learning and Pasifika languages. The reality is this is a burning platform. It's a massive opportunity in history, where we've got cross-party support to tackle this issue. 
I'm very, very proud to have brought this bill to the House. It's been worked on by so many different people. But I acknowledge that it cannot be legislation alone. It must have this national language policy and it must have investment with it. We are not naive about the time that it may take to implement this bill to be able to ensure that we have the teachers that we need; that we have the language assistance that we need that, as Jo Luxton has pointed out, we have the online learning provision that we need; that the professional development is there; and that the kaumātua and other community leaders are on board. 
I am confident that this is a massive step for New Zealand to enable second language learning for our people and that there will be many benefits, from a cognitive perspective, a cultural perspective, and a social cohesion perspective. I am very proud to support this bill to the House.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. The question is that the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning—oh, sorry, apologies. 
[Clerk announces bill's first reading] 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Apologies for racing ahead. The question is that the Education—
Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I called for a party vote.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): My apologies; I didn't hear you. A party vote's been called for, but the bill's been read a first time. I've just been advised that because the reading has been announced, I can't just go in reverse, but you can seek leave for a party vote to be taken.
JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): I seek leave for a party vote to be taken. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? I'll ask the Clerk to conduct a party vote, please.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 110
New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.
Noes 10
New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.





VOTING
Correction—Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, before we progress to the next item, we have a correction to a vote. When the House was considering the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill before the dinner break, the result of the vote on the second reading was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 64, Noes 56. The correct result is Ayes 65, Noes 55. The record will be corrected accordingly.





NEW ZEALAND SUPERANNUATION AND RETIREMENT INCOME (FAIR RESIDENCY) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.
It is a great honour to have the opportunity to bring this longstanding New Zealand First policy to the House. In its construct, it is a very simple and narrow bill, but it is a significant one. It seeks to increase the period of residency required to qualify for New Zealand superannuation from 10 years to 20 years between the ages of 20 and 65. At its heart, this bill is about fairness, fairness to New Zealanders who have worked and paid taxes here [Interruption]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, I wonder if members could take their conversations outside or keep a bit quiet. It's hard to hear Mr Patterson; he's got such a quiet voice.
MARK PATTERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is simply unfair for expatriate New Zealanders, those that have been out of the country for extended periods, contributing to other economies, and recent immigrants to be able to receive the same benefits upon turning 65 as those of us that have been here doing the hard yards at home, paying our taxes, and contributing to our economy. 
New Zealanders are by and large a generous people, but on this issue, we have been a soft touch. In many other similar jurisdictions, qualification for equivalent pension schemes ranges between 25 and 30 years. In bringing this bill into law, New Zealand would still be towards the lower end of the qualification period by international standards.
It is interesting to note that the current 10-year threshold came into law in 1938, when life expectancy for men was 65 and for women 68. This bill is long overdue. New Zealand First has always championed the qualification age of receiving superannuation to remain at 65, and projections do show this is a sustainable level. But, of course, affordability for New Zealand super is important to all New Zealanders. It has resulted in having one of the lowest elder poverty rates in the world and added financial security for those who are heading towards retirement age. And I must admit, having turned 50 at the end of last year, I'm taking a lot more interest in the superannuation bills than I used to. Good stewardship of New Zealand superannuation will be important so it is sustainable for our children and generations to come. And while this is longstanding New Zealand First policy, current events make the passing of this bill even more imperative as the Government takes on considerable debt to assist the country to recover from the economic fall-out of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fiscal responsibility in this regard has never been more important. 
Figures commissioned for New Zealand First by Business and Economic Research Ltd have estimated savings of $80 million in the first year and a cumulative total of $4.4 billion over 10 years. Figures done by the last Government suggest a lower figure. But whatever is true of these complex projections, it is a material figure which New Zealand can no longer afford to bear. 
So who will this affect? New Zealand super is very generous for expat Kiwis who have had the benefits of our education system, left for overseas at a young age, and contributed to other economies for potentially 35 years, then returned to retire in New Zealand upon nearing retirement age. The global downturn caused by the current COVID-19 crisis could see us facing a tsunami of expatriate Kiwis repatriating as they look for the safe haven that is New Zealand. 
Secondly, over the last few decades we have opened the doors to a large number of immigrants. The majority of these immigrants will be unaffected by these changes as they generally arrive below the age of 45, which means they have the opportunity to live in New Zealand for 20 years, which is required to qualify for New Zealand super at age 65. However, immigration laws have allowed immigrants to bring their parents under the parent resident visa. After 10 years, these new residents are entitled to full New Zealand super for the rest of their lives. Given the average length of claim for superannuation entitlements is around 20 years, this amounts to around $500,000 per person. This is exceedingly generous. 
It is worth emphasising that those who will have delayed access to New Zealand superannuation as a result of this bill and find that they are unable to support themselves will still be eligible for the full comprehensive backstop that the New Zealand welfare system provides in the interim period before they qualify for New Zealand super.
New Zealand has reciprocal pension portability arrangements with nine countries: Australia, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Malta, Greece, Denmark, Jersey, and Guernsey. Additionally, a reciprocal agreement with South Korea is being negotiated. Immigrants from these countries remain eligible to receive their overseas entitlements within existing qualification thresholds. The special pension portability arrangements with 22 of our Pacific neighbours remain unchanged. 
It is important to clarify that the residency test does not apply to New Zealand tax residents working overseas. This includes staff from the likes of Zespri, Fonterra, foreign affairs and diplomatic staff, the Defence Force personnel, missionaries from New Zealand - based churches, and maritime crew paying tax in New Zealand, who are also not captured by this change. It is also worth noting that the requirement to be a resident for five years after the age of 50 is unchanged by this bill. I stand by the immediate implementation of this bill with a welfare backstop for those who are unable to support themselves at age 65 and who have not reached the 20 years' residency requirement. A phased implementation would be more complicated to enact and not get to the desired endpoint quickly enough.
In the development of this policy, I'd also like to acknowledge the large body of work that's been done by Professor Susan St John and Dr Claire Dale of the retirement policy and research centre at Auckland University, who had advocated for New Zealand's super residency requirements to be extended to 25 years, as did a report by the former Retirement Commissioner Diane Maxwell. New Zealand First has campaigned on 25 years being the threshold, but in the interests of finding cross-party support for this bill I have reached a compromise position. I acknowledge that other political parties who have indicated their support for this bill in more recent times have come around to New Zealand First's sensible, long-term policy position, and I thank the relative spokespeople that I've engaged with for their constructive dialogue. 
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that this bill is about fairness, fairness to those of us who've contributed the most to this country. I emphasise not only in monetary terms around working and paying taxes, but also in being resident here. We have continued the work of generations before us in building the very fabric of this country. We have coached the netball teams, prepared the hangis at the marae, delivered the Meals on Wheels, and served on the school board. In short, we have played a role in building the best country in the world. We built a country that expatriate New Zealanders aspire to return to to live out their golden years, and immigrants from all around the globe are drawn to live here. It is for those Kiwis for whom I bring this bill forward.
I commend this bill to the House. 





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the National Party to support this bill to the select committee stage. It's been the National Party's policy, outlined in our discussion document, to agree with the idea of a longer period of people being in New Zealand before they are eligible for New Zealand super, for the points made by Mark Patterson, the member introducing this bill. It is a very generous superannuation system that we have, and we want it to be sustainable long term. It's only right and proper that people should have the opportunity to contribute to New Zealand society and New Zealand taxes for an extended period before they get such a valuable superannuation. Ten years has been short, and we have proposed extending it to 20 years. So we're broadly in support of it.
It would be fair to say that this is a very lazy piece of legislative work by our friend from New Zealand First—running to one page, and very little in the detail. I think that there is a fair argument to be had at the select committee as to how exactly this is introduced. It would be, I think, quite harsh for somebody who had been in the country for nine years and nine months, and had been in expectation of superannuation on their 10th year, to suddenly discover that they have to wait another 10 years. So there is an argument for some sort of phasing in of this proposal. I think we'd like to discuss that and get a sense of what the options are and what the implications are for that, and so I'd be interested to have that as an ongoing discussion in the select committee.
I was intrigued to hear the member from New Zealand First talking about the long-term sustainability of New Zealand superannuation. Of course, all the parties on the other side of the House are determined to keep the age at 65 for the next 100 years, it seems, or however long; only National has talked about, in 17 or 18 years, increasing the age limit for New Zealand superannuation up to the age of 67, which is something that Diane Maxwell, the former Retirement Commissioner, recommended. The member was happy to refer to her recommendation in this area, but not in that. 
It's always interesting that we had very many long and lengthy articles from a renowned media economist like Shamubeel Eaqub about how John Key used to have his head in the sand over the age limit for New Zealand superannuation, and now the National Party has taken a longer-term view, the Prime Minister has her head in the sand, but we never see those articles any more. So I'd encourage him to start writing them again and recognise the fact that New Zealand superannuation is a wonderful asset, it is available to all New Zealanders, and it is affordable in the long term, but it does make sense that if we all live longer, healthier lives, then perhaps we should be able to recognise that in the distant future.
In terms of the importance of getting on top of debt, I agree wholeheartedly with the member when he says that New Zealand is taking on an enormous amount of debt. Budget 2020 did indicate that, on current patterns, New Zealand's net debt would go from about $60 billion to $200 billion in the next four years. Many people would say that Treasury estimates of revenue are pretty optimistic, and so it could be worse than that. That is a very a huge mountain of debt for New Zealanders to repay. On that score, I think that we need a Government policy that is a little bit more than just debt-fuelled Government spending on a colossal scale and waiting for a vaccine. So we'll be having a discussion, as we get closer to the election, about something a bit more robust than that. Over here—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be good if we could have some discussion sort of focused on the bill.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —on this side of the House, we will—we will, Madam Speaker. I would make the point that the member introducing this bill did point to the debt situation that the country faces as being one of the reasons why this bill was required, and I was just agreeing with him and also noting that when you're facing large amounts of debt, you do need to have policies that are designed to get on top of that debt. One of those—
Hon Stuart Nash: What would you do—increase taxes?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —policies is relying on private sector investment to grow, and not increasing taxes everywhere, like is proposed on that side of the House. I heard that member on tape, and he should be ashamed of himself, and I'm glad that he's apologised to his New Zealand First—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: None of which has anything to do with the bill.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, but it was a response to an interjection from the other side of the House, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It may well have been.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: If we are to be taunted and have such a difficult time, we should be able to respond.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're not going to repeat it for the third time though, are you?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: So, finally, in conclusion, I would like to say that the National Party does support this bill to the select committee. We are concerned about the abruptness of the introduction of the extra 10 years, and we think that there is a discussion to be had about how it is introduced, and that is a discussion that we look forward to having at the select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): For the avoidance of doubt, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill, to select committee.
I just wish to respond to a number of points that have been made—actually, not really respond. The previous speaker, Paul Goldsmith, was concerned about New Zealand's finances and—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we're not going to debate that—no we're not.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: No, I promise I'll get to the point, and it's an issue that we do want to get clarified in select committee. In particular, how much would this policy save? It's not quite clear yet. We'll need to get some good costings on that, and I think we could certainly do with some advice on that.
But beyond that it is, actually, a very, very simple bill. It does go—well, it doesn't even quite go over the page. It's a very simple measure. It is replacing the number 10 with the number 20—that's the only legislative change proposed by this bill. But it does, of course, reflect a big issue, and that is when do we allow someone coming into the country to join the team of 5 million? When do we allow them to join the team of 5 million?
We've been talking about this a lot in the last few weeks—about people who need to, as it were, do their bit to join the team of 5 million. Those of us who went through lockdown are now saying that, actually, if you're coming into the country, there needs to be two weeks of quarantine and a test, and that's what you do to join the team of 5 million. Actually, this bill is about the same issue: when is it appropriate to join the team of 5 million? The team of 5 million who have worked in this country, paid the taxes, built the resources, supported each other, been a team that have worked together as New Zealanders do—looking after each other in good times and in bad. So we're saying to people who arrive in the country: "When is it appropriate for you to join and to receive all the benefits of living and working in New Zealand?"
In the case of New Zealand superannuation, we're saying, "Hmm, we need to have a little bit of a think about that." New Zealand superannuation has a long, long history. It first started way back in 1898—the first version of an old-age pension was the means-tested pension. It was quite revolutionary in world terms at the time. It was means-tested, but the thought that we would support people in old age was a revolutionary concept, and one we should be proud of—that it should be State-supported. It was means-tested. By 1938, it became universal. I think that's something quite distinctive about New Zealand superannuation—it is universal. It doesn't matter what other income a person might earn. If they are age 65 in New Zealand, then they are entitled to New Zealand superannuation, no matter what else their circumstances are, except if you're a recent migrant to New Zealand.
The thought there is that in order to be eligible for New Zealand superannuation, there should have been a contribution that has been made. Now, most of us who grow up here or who arrive here as children, of course, take on jobs here, we live and work here for a long time, and we are, therefore, eligible for super. But the rule for people arriving, and, in fact, the rule for New Zealanders who've grown up here, maybe, but then left before they've actually worked here and then come back, is that a person needs to work here for 10 years or to live here for 10 years, and they will be eligible for New Zealand superannuation. That is an extraordinarily short time, but it's not clear what the appropriate length of time is.
In this bill, the person who is introducing it, Mark Patterson, suggests that 20 years is the appropriate length of time. Who knows? That's actually a discussion that's worth having. At what point does it become reasonable for a person to expect that they too would be entitled to New Zealand superannuation? Actually, 10 years seems like a number just pulled out of the air, and so does 20 years. They could be the right numbers, and that is certainly a discussion we should have. I'd also suggest that perhaps we should look at the number of years that a person should have lived and worked here from age 50. At the moment it's five years. Of those 10 years that you have to have had in the country, five of them must be after age 50. Perhaps we should look at that too. These are all questions that are worth discussing, worth having a good look at, and worth understanding what it would actually save us, because if it turns out to be not much, well, then, what's the problem? But maybe it is still doing something there. So I am looking forward to the discussion and I commend this bill to the House.





Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Speaker, I rise to take a relatively brief call on this legislation to support and congratulate Mark Patterson for bringing this legislation before the House, because I think it is of considerable merit for this to be considered by a select committee. 
If I could make a few opening points about New Zealand superannuation: it is, by comparison with the rest of the world, a very, very generous scheme. It is universal. It's not means tested in any way. I do recall, going back perhaps 30 years, two Governments had a go at thinking about it, with a fair reaction—an electoral reaction—that was suggesting it's dangerous to ever consider means testing superannuation. But when you consider it's available universally at 65 years of age, it is a generous scheme, and frankly—[Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the lobby, please, or seated. Sorry to interrupt.
Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: As I was saying, it is a very generous scheme, and I think it is time that at the age of 65—at some stage it needs to be considered.
But, in regards to this particular legislation, the eligibility for someone who has only been in New Zealand for 10 years, that seems to me over generous. If you think about somebody who spends most of their working life in another country, builds up a substantial nest egg, and then arrives in New Zealand at, say, age 54, completes another 10 years of work here in New Zealand, and then becomes as eligible for superannuation as somebody like myself, who has devoted the whole of my working career to businesses here in New Zealand, that seems unfair to me.
But the point I hope that the select committee will tease out is the sudden nature by which this legislation would transition. The reason I say that is if you set a date by which Royal assent means this suddenly changes and it goes from 10 years to 20 years, then you'll have the very unfair situation where if, say, Royal assent was 1 April on a particular year, somebody who had been here and completed their 10 years on, say, 29 March would suddenly be eligible, and somebody else who completed their 10 years on, say, 4 April would be ineligible and would have to do a further 10 years of work. I think the select committee needs to look very carefully at a transition measure whereby some justice and fairness is delivered if this legislation successfully passed. But I commend the member Mark Patterson for giving this bill to the House—a chance to examine the issue.





JAN LOGIE (Green): That was quicker than I expected! Thank you; I'm happy to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill, and I'll start by acknowledging the member and the good luck to have a bill drawn from the ballot. It's always a moment for celebration in this House, and one that not everyone gets to experience; so, good on you.
With that said, sorry, the Greens will not be voting for this. While I do recognise that the residency requirements in New Zealand are lower than in many other countries, this is one of the issues—superannuation, and the really important role that it plays in our society around keeping levels of poverty really relatively low in our older population—that's really precious to us. We don't want to see changes that risk those low levels of poverty, and we don't want to see a two-tier system for older New Zealanders. And, while we may be open to the conversation, we would like to see—and do believe that New Zealand at some stage should have—a comprehensive conversation as a country about superannuation and whether any changes do need to be made, but that that should be a Government-led process that is fully considered by the country.
I would just note, in terms of the ideas of affordability and the idea that it's not fair that people may not have contributed for so long, that they may be New Zealand - born citizens who have been working overseas, and then they come back in their later years. I think a lot of New Zealanders actually stay in contact now and operate globally. They may be living in the UK and be involved, being on boards even, or providing advice to groups here in New Zealand, or being very active in their whānau on Zoom or whatever other technology. Just because somebody isn't based in this country does not mean they're not contributing or involved. I think the world now is quite different from how it was; in the sense that you have to be here for 20 years before being be able to access superannuation, regardless of your birth or your sense of connection and involvement in our community, doesn't make sense to me on the face of it.
I also want to point out that the core thing around superannuation for the Green Party is not about a return on your investment to this country; it is a policy that ensures we can keep levels of poverty low in our older population, a population that is vulnerable in terms of discrimination as well as marginalisation and isolation. That has been incredibly successful for us, and we wouldn't want to see that eroded.
In terms of the issues that have been raised around that, we need to consider the affordability of superannuation. I would point members to the Retirement Commissioner's statement of earlier this year, which was reversing their position on raising the age for entitlement and saying that, actually, in the worst case scenarios of what percentage of GDP we would have to spend on superannuation, it's 7 percent—that's the worst case scenario. And that would be 7 percent of GDP by 2060, and that's actually a level that's in line with other countries right at the moment providing sustainable superannuation schemes. So I really would challenge that idea that it isn't sustainable at the levels of entitlement that we have at the moment, and I do think there are possibly more pressing issues to be looking at.
So, well done, and I'm sure we'll actually be interested in being involved in the conversation, but we can't support it at this reading.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to be talking on this bill. I just want to acknowledge all the good members in the House tonight, particularly the Rt Hon David Carter here who's stayed on because he knows how important this bill is.
I've got to say that this bill surprises me somewhat because it is put forward in the name of Mark Patterson, and it's actually a remarkably good bill.
Matt Doocey: Oh, that's why he was in the National Party, you see?
ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, I know he was a former member of the National Party; I think that sensible approach and pragmatic approach to superannuation has probably shown up in this bill. We're, of course, supporting it, but what people don't realise, you know, is that superannuation at the moment accounts for about 5 percent of our total Government spend, and it will double over the next few years. But without measures like this, which, by the way, are incredibly well-supported in public polls—this is a way of trying to make sure superannuation is paid to those who are most deserving and appropriately but also meeting the financial needs of future payments, and that will be required to be paid by younger people in New Zealand, and that's why we're supporting it. Well done.





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have been doing a little bit of reading—which is probably a good thing, seeing as I'm taking a call on this bill—into the issue of super and the change to the residency requirement, which, of course, will disproportionately impact some people, and I'll get to that in a minute. But I just wanted to, I suppose, acknowledge right at the outset, as my colleague Dr Deborah Russell did, that New Zealand super, in some form or other—a form of pension—started back in 1898. At that point it was means-tested. And then, fast forward to 2001, the Hon Michael Cullen, who was Minister of Finance at the time, established the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as we know it. As others have mentioned in this House, it is a generous payment. It is universal, for one. And compared to other countries, many of which take different views, I guess, on superannuation payments—for example, some are calculated based on contributions that people make to their own pension—compared to all of that, what we have in New Zealand is generous, and I just want to acknowledge that at the outset.
Now, as we know, if you're legally a resident, if you've lived in New Zealand for 10 years after the age of 20, including five years after you turn 50, you're eligible, regardless of where you've come from or how much you've contributed to New Zealand. And I take the point that others have made, but I do also want to push back a little bit on that, because, as I mentioned, it is universal, and so it's available to everyone here in New Zealand, regardless of how much they've contributed to New Zealand. So that is not the point upon which I'm arguing my support for this bill to select committee; instead, it is on the fact of sustainability. The point that I want to make there is that this Government resumed contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The previous Government's failure to invest in the retirement plans of New Zealanders put those plans at risk, and the opportunity cost of that is $14 billion. So if the previous Government had actually invested at the rate they really should have, perhaps we wouldn't even have to have this debate at this point in time. 
Hon Damien O'Connor: Borrowed $80 billion.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: That's a good point that the Hon Damien O'Connor makes. The previous Government borrowed $80 billion. So when members across are yelling out that this Government's borrowing money, they obviously have no idea what they're talking about. [Interruption] 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Everybody, can we just focus on the bill. 
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Sure, Madam Speaker. There's a fair bit to focus on, as well. Anyway, as others have said as well, on this side of the House we believe in keeping the eligibility rate at 65, because not doing so would actually disproportionately adversely impact certain groups of people who have lower life expectancies. So that's that issue there. 
Now, the point that I made at the start was that this bill will disproportionately affect some people, and that's because immigrants from certain countries we have social security agreements with won't actually be affected by this, but immigrants from countries like China and India will. Is that an argument not to support the bill? Again, I go back to the point on sustainability, and that's the argument that I would make in terms of my support to see this bill go to select committee. But what I will say, though, is that I would like to encourage all those who would be affected by this, and groups that work with those who would be affected, to have their say at select committee and to actually come and tell us. Of course, we have one of the most transparent parliamentary systems in the world, where virtually anybody can come and tell us how a bill will affect them and how it will impact them, and I encourage them to do so. I'm not sure why the member Andrew Bayly's making faces at me from across the House, but that's the whole point of the—
Hon Member: That's just how he looks normally.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: That's just how he looks—ha, ha! But that's the whole point of the select committee. So I would encourage the member to engage widely, as well, because we do want to hear all sides of the story and from people who would be affected in various ways, and I will be helping him with that, as well. I look forward to the discussion.
Andrew Bayly: Are you joining the committee?
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I suspect this is going to come to a select committee that I'm on, and I look forward to the debate on that. I commend this bill to the House.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): This is a bit of a disappointment for me, but I just want to congratulate the member from the deep south and member of the parliamentary cricket team—actually the best batsman in the parliamentary cricket team—on drawing a bill from the ballot. And the other thing I just wanted to say while I was commenting on this bill was I read our speech notes, and one of them says that New Zealand superannuation is paid for an average of 20 years, and I ain't got long to go.





JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): The member took me by surprise there, but I'm delighted to stand and take a call on this bill. I just had a birthday about two days ago.
Hon Member: Oh! Happy birthday.
JAMIE STRANGE: Thank you very much. Obviously turned 21, similar vintage to Simeon Brown and Chlöe Swarbrick, in that sort of range. So after having this birthday, I'm one year closer to receiving superannuation, and it's certainly something that is, at least, in the back of my mind.
A number of discussions have been had in this Parliament over many, many years around superannuation. As one of the earlier speakers mentioned before, superannuation did used to be means tested. It is now universal. And it's wonderful that we do have that way of valuing our seniors for everything that they have contributed over their life. This is a bill here for discussion around how long somebody should be in the country before they receive that universal superannuation. So the proponent of the bill Mark Patterson talks about raising the minimum residency qualification for New Zealand superannuation from 10 years to 20 years after the age of 20.
Now, the Labour Party are supporting this bill to the select committee, and it will be interesting to see what the submitters say. Now, some submitters might agree entirely around 20 years, some might think it should even be longer, 25 years or 30 years. Others may come and tell us that 10 years is about right. Others might settle on the area of 15 years. If this bill passes the first reading, which I expect it does have the numbers to do that, then this will be, effectively, thrashed out in a public setting where people can have their say. I expect that there will be a lot of interest in this because, as I said at the start of my speech, the aspect of superannuation, it affects all New Zealanders, you know, at some point in our life, when we get to the age of 65 of course, but obviously affects current family members of mine who are past that age.
If I could seek to, without wanting to put words in the member's mouth—the sponsor of the bill—to sort of sum up this bill, I think the key point here is around fairness. I'm looking over to the member if there's a bit of a nod, because it's about fairness, what is fair. How long is fair for somebody to have paid taxes into the Government coffers for then the Government to support them in their superannuation? How much tax is a fair amount, and that's basically what the argument is.
I would also like to touch on the super fund. I know a couple of previous speakers have because—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no we won't, because it isn't—
JAMIE STRANGE: We won't go to the super fund?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we won't. It's not in the bill.
JAMIE STRANGE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate your advice there.
So I would like to touch on the fact that globally, 10 years is actually an unusually short time for full entitlement to a universal non – means-tested pension at the age of 65. So maybe we are a little bit out of step with other countries in terms of the OECD and other developed countries. So that's just an example of why it is useful to have a look at this, to have a discussion in select committee. Ten years, 15 years, 20 years, 25 years—what is the appropriate time that New Zealanders want to see? And what is the appropriate amount of time that is fair? So it may be that we are out of step with some countries, and we do have to have a look at it.
Obviously, the fiscal aspects need to be taken into account, in terms of this, if it does change to 20 years, and what that will mean. So we haven't got that specific detail in the bill here, but certainly I'm sure we can get that forecasting from Treasury, which will be very interesting to see. Considering average life expectancy, New Zealand superannuation is paid out for 20 years, which is up to $480,000 per person at current rates. So it certainly is a considerable amount of money. So it's a bill that must be considered very carefully. The Labour Party are certainly supporting it through to the select committee. That discussion will be had at select committee, and we'll see where we land. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I commend the bill to the House.





MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I just would like to take a couple of minutes to thank the members across the House for their constructive engagement and feedback on the bill; from across the whole House, Clayton. I even received some positive comments from the National Party members, which is a new experience for me, although Paul Goldsmith did call the bill "lazy", and that is because it does merely just change one number from "10" to "20". But I'm a farmer, not a lawyer, so it's the sort of bill that suits me! It is a very complex field, though, New Zealand superannuation; so it is very important, within the scope of a member's bill, to keep this as tight as possible. I note some of the points raised, particularly around the implementation, which will, I'm sure, be well prosecuted before the select committee.
Just before I finish, I did make one significant oversight in my bill. I'd like to acknowledge Anita Williams, who's sitting up there in the gallery. Anita has lived and breathed this bill and all things superannuation as an adviser to New Zealand First. So, Anita, I know this is a day you've been looking forward to for a long time. So congratulations. So, without further ado, we look forward to this bill going to the select committee. Thank you.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 112
New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Noes 8
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Bill read a first time.
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 102, Noes 8.
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.





RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF INSANE OFFENDERS BILL
First Reading
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I move, That the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.
Graeme Moyle first contacted my electorate office in Cambridge on 18 October 2010 about unsupervised visits by Matthew Ahlquist. Ahlquist had paranoid schizophrenia and had been discharged early from a mental health facility. Colin Moyle was known as a Good Samaritan. He had been feeding and taking care of the local homeless. He invited Ahlquist to stay in his home. Unfortunately, they'd had a row, as Ahlquist was using meth. Two days later, Ahlquist broke into Colin's home, put the kettle on to boil, retrieved a spade from the outside shed, and waited for his former flatmate to return home. Colin returned home and Ahlquist threw boiling water at him, hit him with the spade, doused him with petrol, and set him alight. Colin died on 11 May 2007. This bill is not about Matthew Ahlquist; this bill is about Colin Moyle, his brother Graeme, their family, and every other family of victims like this. This is a bill about victims' rights.
National believes that victims should be at the heart of our justice system. I want to acknowledge the fierce advocacy of Graeme Moyle and show that MPs can and do change laws based on behalf of constituent visits to their office. Under the current law, the verdict returned would say not guilty on account of insanity. What is clear is the action of Ahlquist caused the death of Colin Moyle. This case is only one of many, in fact, a growing number of cases, where a person is found not guilty on account of insanity. The challenge in these instances is there is absolutely zero doubt about who caused the death, who committed the act. Since 2004, 33 people have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. This bill changes the finding to something that demonstrates that there is no doubt about who committed the act. It's similar to a law in Canada which provides victims with the acknowledgment that a person was proven to have caused death, even if they lacked the intent to be guilty of murder.
A second element of the bill is ensuring that victims are notified if the offender is being released from a secure health facility into the community. This should be in line with what happens when an offender is released from prison into the community. I accept that the process around victim notification isn't perfect, which is why National is proposing to have the victim notification register changed from an opt in to an opt out to make it easier for victims of crime and their families to be kept informed about offenders. This change isn't covered by this bill, but it is something that we are working on.
The third element of this bill is to give victims' families a voice before decisions are made about the release of the offender into the community. In the justice system, we have the Parole Board and the ability for families to have their say. In the health system, there is currently no equivalent way for victims and their families to have their voices heard. There are other high profile cases, and one in Nelson I'm sure my colleague will speak of, Wendy has a petition before the Parliament at the moment to do exactly what my bill is doing. Wendy was the victim of a horrific attempted murder where the offender escaped conviction on the grounds of insanity. To add insult to injury, when the offender was recently relocated to Nelson, she had no input. Under the criminal justice system and the Parole Board, she would have had a say. Her petition is seeking a change so that victims of such crimes will have the same protections as rights of other victims of crime, and this bill is improving the rights of victims and creating consistency for the victims.
It is a complex issue because it amends not one piece of legislation, but four. It amends the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. When a defendant raises a defence of insanity, it must be determined that the defendant committed the acts or omissions that constitute the offence and that the defendant was insane at the time the offence was committed. This bill proposes that the verdict recorded would be the acts or omissions are proven, but the defendant is not criminally responsible, on account of insanity. Originally, we worked on a much simpler verdict, which was proven but insane, but ran into some challenges that could be progressed in a select committee process.
The bill also amends the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 so that when the offender or special patient is released, a certificate must be sent to victims registered under the Victims' Rights Act 2002. Victims will also have an opportunity to make a submission to the review tribunal about whether the patient should continue to be subject to a detention order. This is about giving the victims a voice.
The Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act of 2003 is also amended, as some people are detained as a special care recipient rather than a special patient.
Finally, the fourth piece of legislation that is amended is the Victims' Rights Act 2002. So the Director-General of Health must give victims reasonable notice prior to any unescorted leave of absence or unescorted overnight leave of absence rather than just the first unescorted leave.
I want to thank the Hon Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice, for meeting with me on more than one occasion about this legislation. With his support, I hope that his officials, if we progress to the select committee, can improve this bill. I admit it's not perfect, but I do believe there is an issue of unfairness between victims in this instance. Victims should be at the heart of our justice system and our health system. Violent assaults, attempted murder, or the death of a family member is traumatic. Whether this has occurred by a person sane or insane shouldn't affect the rights of the victims or their families. I commend this bill to the House.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Reading through this bill, it's quite incredible that this hasn't happened before, and I compliment the member for picking this up. I'm only sitting here wondering why it hasn't happened before, and possibly it's because the offenders in these crimes are often close family members of or are known to the victims. 
I know from my personal experience in the police that that's the only reason I can think of why it probably hasn't come into being, but, with that said, it's very much a changing thing. I note the number of cases where people have been found not guilty by way of insanity is on the increase. Again, I can only put that down to the amount of mental illness that's now going to be the result, particularly, of our P epidemic, the results of which appear to show that it, basically, hollows out the brain. There's going to be a much more long-term effect of this, because, certainly, the effect of the crimes of somebody on P are really actually much more horrific than many of the, shall we say, normal offences that, certainly, people like myself, as detectives, have been involved with over the years. 
I know of one personal case where a young man, who actually took up with a gang, ended up giving evidence against his fellow gang members. He did his bit, and would have appeared to have established for himself a normal life. He actually gave up the drink and found a religion, and it looked like he was actually going to be heading to a life perhaps away from that, given he had that fresh start in life. I got a phone call from him on a Monday evening to tell me that he'd changed his life around and he was ready to go. I was driving home on the Friday night, and I heard that someone had killed his two children and his neighbour in Hokianga, and I immediately knew intuitively who it was going to be. I rang the then Detective Inspector Viv Rickard, who was running the inquiry, and told him what I knew, and he was very surprised that I knew. That was the person who then, obviously, was a classic case of a young man who had, basically, gone over the edge—an absolutely horrific crime. 
That person is—I've got to be careful with it, obviously—still in care, but one day, he may well be released. It would be actually a travesty if somehow through the system, if the people who—well, obviously, not the immediate victims, but the families of victims didn't know that this not now young man any more, or this person was actually going to be released into society. I have to say, if the truth be known, I'd probably put myself in that as well. I've often thought that if he did end up out and about, that person—I may well be in his sights. 
So not to personalise this too much, but, again, I'm somewhat shocked that we have got to this stage and no one has ever really thought of this, and this bill hasn't been here. So, again, I commend the member for having, obviously—and I didn't hear all of her speech, so, presumably, there is something that has come about that has brought to her attention the anomaly in this bill. 
My understanding—and, again, I haven't come with research—is there is still the possibility that these people can stand trial again if they have never stood trial. So while there are those who are found not guilty by way of insanity, there are those who actually are unfit to ever stand trial, and that's actually another category of person. I'm just not quite sure—and I see the member has gone now. But I will certainly discuss this later on when we get further into the select committee part of this—which I'm pleased to see will be coming to my select committee—to work out whether that category actually is, as I say, people who have never, because of the mental state they were in at the time, actually stood trial. 
So there is actually never a finding, and it's only if, eventually, those cases end up in the coroner's court, and that's the time when we get a few findings, particularly around anything that does require any subsequent court case or legal processes around findings. That's where you have to go to—to the coroner's court—to actually find the results of that. 
So, again, in looking at the provisions of this bill, I can only commend this bill. As far as the rights of victims go, again, it's pleasing to see, just in my time, the evolving of the criminal justice system. Certainly, we've seen the rights of victims come to the fore, and absolutely rightfully so. It's getting that balance right to make sure that those who are criminals, or those who we bring before the courts, do get the right to have evidence tested. It's actually getting that balance right, and I know, even just in my short time in the House here, I have been involved in several bills that, again, like this bill, do seek to get that balance right. 
There will always be people who, sadly, will commit crimes, horrific crimes, with the evidence clearly showing for any number of reasons that those people aren't responsible for their actions at the time. Of course, that brings us to the discussion about what they've done or what they've been responsible for doing to get themselves into that state in the first place, through lifestyle or various other things. But the reality of it is that it's very much a science. 
Again, I've had involvement with medical specialists, those whose job it has been to assess such people, and, again, it's not that easy because there tends to be—well, one thing I won't say is that I remember as a very young police officer going to the then Lake Alice, and up until then, I'd sort of grown up with hearing that people get off with insanity. Well, let me say one thing that I do assure anyone who is listening now: if you think anyone gets off with insanity, where they end up and the sorts of institutions they end up in are much worse than spending—I've always said that five years in what used to be called, obviously, insane asylums or those mental health units is a place where I would have probably, with my experience, sooner have spent time in Her Majesty's normal custody than in one of those places. 
So one thing I can assure people of is that if there's anyone who thinks somehow that an insanity plea is getting away with it, is that it certainly isn't. It enters offenders into a process that certainly generally means that they won't be in a position to walk freely around the world. Though, as I say, it does happen, and this bill—Madam Speaker, coming right back to the bill; as you know, I want to very rarely stray off the bill in my time on my feet—will ensure that those victims of crime are at the centre, and should always be at the centre, of everything we do with any justice legislation. They're put where they should be, where a terrible situation may have arisen where family members have been victims, and someone may run into someone walking the streets whom they still thought was locked away in some sort of an institution. 
So for that reason, I do commend this bill to the House, and I commend the member for discovering what has clearly been a long-held gap in our system. If she does nothing else in her time in the House and this does go through to its logical conclusion, I think it will be something she'll be, rightly, very proud of having brought to the attention of this House. I commend this bill to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 





VOTING
Correction—New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the member, the vote for the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill was incorrectly recorded as 102 Ayes and 8 Noes. The record will show 112 Ayes and 8 Noes.





RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF INSANE OFFENDERS BILL
First Reading
Debate resumed.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I feel so strongly about the importance of this bill, having seen numerous gross injustices occurring from what my colleague Louise Upston is wanting to address with this bill. What I have seen over the last 20 years is an increase in the number of insanity pleas and, with it, an increasing number of victims that have not had justice from our system.
I want to begin by paying tribute to Wendy Hamer, a nurse in my Nelson constituency, who, in the course of her work, was attacked as a nurse, who suffered horrendous injuries—boiling water and the like thrown on her—in an attempted murder, and the offender said at the time that he would get off on insanity, where that offender subsequently soon came back to our community of Nelson and caused Wendy great distress. Only a few months after hearing that case, I had a further constituent, where a person who was mentally unwell presented at Nelson Accident & Emergency, was not seen for many hours, left that A & E, and said that they were going to go out and rape. Indeed they did. When they committed the horrific assault, they again told the victim that they would get off on an insanity plea. And, again, what was most awful in that case was the ill-treatment of the victim not having access to the same victims' rights if that person was found guilty and was not insane.
And then—and this is all in the term of this Parliament—a third case that's come to my attention this year, where a Nelson man was attacked by a person with a machete. They were attacked so badly they ended up in the intensive care of Nelson Hospital. The doctor said that another millimetre and he would have been dead. And I will, during the select committee process, bring attention to the select committee of the decision of the court, where the person who committed that horrific assault was released from the court without any requirement to go to a psychiatric hospital or any other penalty, in extraordinary circumstances, because of some of the flaws in the law that Louise Upston is attempting to address.
So this bill is very timely. I'm delighted it's come before the House. If we look at the statistics around the increasing use of the insanity plea, this Parliament and this country does need to take a compassionate view of people that are mentally unwell, but equally we must never lose sight of the victims of so many of these horrific crimes. The justice system is failing in this area. The victims of those crimes deserve exactly the same rights as those of others. I also welcome the ambitious step by the sponsor of this bill in changing the misnomer in the law that somehow someone is not guilty and so no one is responsible with the clarification of the language to say that it is proven but the person is not legally culpable, because of being mentally unwell.
This is a sensitive, difficult issue, but it is absolutely timely that Parliament addresses it, and my hope is that Parliament can move with some speed to address this issue, because, actually, every month this flaw in our law remains, there are New Zealanders who are suffering injustice—just three cases in my own Nelson constituency in the last three years. Parliament needs to fix these laws, and this is a very good bill that needs to progress.





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. I've sat through the debate so far, heard the introductory remarks and the other speeches, and if I can just first acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston for her dedication on this issue. In researching for my speech tonight, I see that this is an issue that you have been advocating for since 2013, which had come about from a constituent issue that you're familiar with. It is, as has been acknowledged tonight, wonderful to see that those constituent issues can be brought all the way through here to the House to be debated, and to look at whether we can improve legislation for their experiences. So I, first, just wanted to start by acknowledging the honourable member for her member's bill. 
Also, from the outset, I will say that Labour will be supporting this bill to its first reading, because we think there is merit in what the bill is proposing. I do want to say, and I think the member herself acknowledged, that maybe it's not perfect, and there could be room for improving it. That would be possible through a thorough select committee process, where we hear all views and can thrash out the areas that perhaps could be improved. But, fundamentally, it reflects Labour's values, which are to promote justice, accountability, and transparency while respecting survivors of crime and their communities. I think that it's always a challenge. It's a balancing act between each other's rights that need to be respected in the processes. So I think that this bill has real potential and is worth considering at the select committee, but, like I said, we do have some reservations, and I'll go into those in a little bit more detail. 
If I can just talk to what the intent of the bill is, it's to ensure that victims of legally insane offenders are treated the same as other victims of crime. The bill changes the formal finding of the court to provide victims with the acknowledgment that the offender was proven to have acted grievously, even if they lacked the intent to be guilty of the action. The bill renames the verdict "not guilty on account of insanity" to "the acts or omissions are proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible on account of insanity". The revised language is intended to acknowledge that the offender did, in fact, commit the criminal act, but that the reasons of insanity therefore mean that they are not guilty. That's quite important. I heard in the previous debate some of the discussion around the use of insanity as a defence, and I think it's really important to make it clear here for everybody in the Whare tonight and listening in that it is not the intention of this bill to actually go back and look at insanity as a grounds for defence. That's entirely separate. It is, in fact, how victims of that are treated and how it might be recorded by the courts. So the revised language is intended to acknowledge that, yes, the offender did commit the criminal acts, but in terms of criminal liability the insanity finding is still there.
Now, I did just want to say that I did a little bit of research, and when the member's bill was drawn from the ballot it was welcomed and celebrated by victims' advocates, and so I think that they will be particularly interested in submitting. Equally, there are those like Changing Minds, who shared some of their concerns about what is proposed in the bill, and I think that they, too, will seek an opportunity to maybe question and thoroughly analyse some of the areas where they have concerns, particularly around the access to their medical records and the possible ability to have some influence on somebody's sentence. Sorry, Madam Speaker, I see my time's run out. Kia ora.





DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. We will be supporting this through to select committee. It is a common-sense bill, and most importantly, as every other party has pointed out thus far, at its core the bill puts victims at the heart of the justice system. New Zealand First has core policy of ours, to put the victims at the heart of the justice system, and that's why we will be supporting this bill at its outset. 
It makes a couple of good changes. First, is a change to the formal verdict in the case of someone being found legally insane, shifting to language that reflects the fact that the crime has occurred, which is important, and the victim has been wronged. It also ensures that victims feel that the crimes that are committed on them have been acknowledged by the justice system. So it's a good idea in principle, for similar reasons. It also changes the Victims' Rights Act, ensuring that victims are given notice whenever unescorted leave or leave of absence or unescorted overnight leave of absence is granted, rather than just the first time it is granted. Again, good common sense, and New Zealand First supports common sense always. 
We do want to have the chance to see this thoroughly explored at select committee. It is a very difficult topic in its complexity and it makes the examination of the bill very important. So we commend the member Louise Upston for bringing this forward. It's an important topic to bring forward, and important issue to bring forward in this legislation. We commend the bill to the House. Thank you.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I'm just rising on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of this bill through to first reading. I think that the Hon Louise Upston made some extremely cogent arguments for the bill and why it's necessary. As with the other parties in the House, we're supporting it through to first reading in order to ensure that it gets a good hearing and that it has the best chance of evolving in such a manner to ensure that we have a good piece of law if it then succeeds upon further readings. But I do want to congratulate the honourable member for bringing this bill to the House and for what I thought was one of the strongest first reading speeches for members' bills that I've seen.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start by saying that I really acknowledge the contributions of members in the House, and the first speaker representing the Labour Party asked why an issue like this, that seemed on the surface to be so logical, had taken so long. One of the difficulties is, when you're amending multiple pieces of legislation and you are trying to cross over between the justice system and the health system, actually, it's not's straightforward. And I know my colleagues on both sides of the House will recognise this in the work that's currently being done in family and sexual violence. When you're trying to deal with more than one agency, more than one department, it becomes particularly complicated.
So I do want to also put on record some feedback that was raised by those with mental health challenges, who, I think, in a press release said, "About us, with us"—or words to that effect. And I want to make sure that I put on the record in this first reading that the emphasis of this bill is primarily and predominantly focused on the victim and their family, and I accept it's challenging and I accept that it's difficult, and that's why I'm incredibly grateful for members of Parliament, colleagues, and political parties represented in the House for the willingness to support this through to the select committee so that it can get a really decent working over—that makes it sound as if it's not a great bill; it is a great bill but it absolutely needs improvement. I think that, with the willingness that's been demonstrated in the first reading speeches in the House tonight, that will happen.
I do also want to acknowledge Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First, who was also a list member of Parliament, residing in Cambridge, who also worked with Graeme Moyle, and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge her work as well. So I commend this bill to the House, the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill in the first reading. Thank you.
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.





SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In order to avoid Stuart Smith only getting the opportunity to do part of his speech, in introducing his bill in the first reading, I seek leave for the House to adjourn. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is none.
The House adjourned at 9.51 p.m.