WEDNESDAY, 29 JULY 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Does she support a policy which would allow New Zealanders to $20,000 from their KiwiSaver to start a new business?
SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the member to ask the question as per the Order Paper.
1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she support a policy which would allow New Zealanders to access up to $20,000 from their KiwiSaver to start a new business?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): This Government supports increasing support for our small businesses, and that is why we have made consultancy services available to small businesses to the tune of $5,000. It's why we have increased the small asset depreciation threshold from $500 to $5,000. It's why we've introduced a small business cash-flow loan scheme, which has paid out nearly $1.5 billion. It's why we increased the provisional tax threshold, encouraged prompt invoice payment, supported business through the wage subsidy scheme, and, of course, have introduced e-commerce initiatives. I do have concerns, however, around the proposal that the member has mentioned, which will undermine New Zealanders' retirement savings, and I also have to say I have concerns that the policy the member has put forward is as yet uncosted.
SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I wish to apologise to her. I, unfortunately, had a sheet with a slightly different question on it.
Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is there anything wrong with a builder who has lost his job because of COVID-19 being able to use up to $20,000 of his own KiwiSaver to put towards a van and some new tools so he can start his own building business?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My advice would be, to anyone who finds themselves currently unemployed and wishes to start their own business, don't for a moment think that you need to gamble with your retirement savings when instead, through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Including Mr Tabuteau.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —someone can access the Flexi-wage subsidy to start their own business and to support themselves as a self-employed person. They can also access through MSD a business start-up fund that can give them up to $10,000 to start up their own business. When, unfortunately, roughly two-thirds of small businesses that start up in a two-year period will be unsuccessful, I do not want to see those people currently unemployed who may wish to start their own business risk their KiwiSaver when they don't have to.
Hon Judith Collins: Is she saying she would rather have someone on the jobseeker benefit than let them use their own money to start their own business?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I'm saying that KiwiSaver is for people's retirement. We should not be depleting that important resource for them. As some KiwiSaver providers themselves have pointed out, actually, what the member is proposing, from someone at the age of, say, 40, through to their retirement, actually represents more than a $60,000 loss. What I am saying is there are already forms of Government support that help people with start-ups—the cost of starting up, the cost of paying themselves and surviving while they start up, and the cost of advisory services. The member obviously hasn't looked at some of those packages that already exist.
Hon Judith Collins: Why is it OK for someone to access their KiwiSaver to buy a new house but not to start a new business?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There are three reasons at the moment that someone can access KiwiSaver outside of their retirement: firstly, sadly, if they have a terminal illness; if they have hardship needs that are identified as being genuine hardship; and if they are purchasing a house. I think on both sides of the House we agree that a house is an asset that carries far less risk than a start-up, which—based on normal circumstances, two-thirds of our business start-ups in New Zealand in a two-year period will not succeed. In this current environment it's likely to be even more difficult. Again, I conclude by saying there are alternatives already there which don't have to draw on someone's retirement savings. I know that member's party has a tradition of tinkering with KiwiSaver. We do not agree with that.
Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Prime Minister agree with the proposition that KiwiSaver is "money put aside for a rainy day", or does she believe that it is money for security in retirement?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: KiwiSaver is not for the purposes of being able to draw down at any time. We must support New Zealanders to have a good standard of living in their retirement. That means supporting them to hang on to their KiwiSaver for their retirement, and we see it as our role to provide other ways, through other mechanisms, like the Flexi-wage, like business start-up support, and that already exists.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister: in the construction of the Government's policy on KiwiSaver, has she received any reports from any conservative party anywhere in the world arguing against the wisdom of savings?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There is certainly a consistency around the need for consumers to save for their retirement. The last thing we want to see is a repeat of what we saw under the last National Government, which was constant changes and uncertainty to KiwiSaver settings.
Hon Judith Collins: Does the Prime Minister consider that losing one's job or being made redundant is hardship?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, which is why we have the income support payment, which is why we have provided $5,000 worth of advisory services through the business partnership network, which is why MSD has the Flexi-wage scheme, which is why we have the $10,000 in support of people who wish to create a start-up. Yes, unemployment is hardship, but we do not want to create double hardship by having someone potentially lose their KiwiSaver.
Hon Judith Collins: Why does the Prime Minister have so little faith in entrepreneurial and hard-working New Zealanders who have experience, in many cases, of running businesses—that they can't actually—
SPEAKER: Order! The member is making a series of assertions. She will ask a question.
Hon Judith Collins: Does the Prime Minister have any confidence in entrepreneurial New Zealanders who have experience in running businesses who can verify that they understand how to run one?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely, which is why we have a scheme already in place to back those businesses, through the Ministry of Social Development. I'd like to think that that is an endorsement of the fact that that entrepreneurialism exists in New Zealand and is supported by us. Other examples, of course, include the fact that we have established a venture capital fund to support those start-ups as well.




Question No. 2—Regional Economic Development
2. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How is the Provincial Growth Fund helping tackle long-term issues in our regional communities?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Over the last three years, the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) has addressed the long-term deficits in both infrastructure and social investment, to the tune of $1.1 billion to infrastructure projects up and down the country; $100 million to skills. On top of that we've seen 11,000 people enrol in PGF-funded skills and training initiatives, and we have addressed the degradation of rail, the state of the roads in Tai Rāwhiti, and boosted digital connectivity up and down our regional communities.
Jenny Marcroft: What recent announcements have been made relating to addressing long-term social issues in our regions?
Hon SHANE JONES: I'm sure all members of the House have had the awful experience of encountering the social negative consequences of the P drug. The Minister of Police, Stuart Nash, and I announced an investment of up to $20 million in regional programmes to help reduce the damage that P causes to whānau and businesses. This particular initiative was driven by identities associated with business associations, employers who are at their wits' end in our small provincial areas. We are working with the police and the health department to identify additional providers who have a proven track record, and we are keen to scale up their programmes to enable more Kiwis to move on from this demon drug and take jobs in enterprises. 
Jenny Marcroft: Was this investment part of the recent reprioritisation of the Provincial Growth Fund, and, if so, why?
Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, it was. Our Cabinet agreed to allocate up to $20 million to meth prevention in the regions. This is reflective of the fact that we do want Kiwis taking jobs in enterprises near their place of residence. We cannot rely, as historically we have, on unfettered access to pools of migrant labour. Small communities are under considerable stress in the post-COVID lockdown, and there is the threat of economic uncertainty. For those reasons, we believe this is an overdue investment in employee health and employer resilience. 
Jenny Marcroft: Which regions will benefit from this funding allocation?
Hon SHANE JONES: For meth prevention, we've identified nine community-based providers: Otago, Tai Rāwhiti, Hawke's Bay, Bay of Plenty, and—strangely enough—Northland. 
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon SHANE JONES: A number of the programmes will target gangs, but—there may be a bit of raucousness in the House—sadly, the projects will need to give support to children, whānau, and grandparents dealing with the reality of raising mokopuna, or grandchildren, because of the blighted lives of their parents as a consequence of excessive addiction to meth.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What are the latest projections he has received on the number of job losses this calendar year and the increase in Government debt over the same period?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury have forecast the net change in employment. In its latest Budget forecasts, they have forecast employment of 2.642 million people in the first quarter of the year and employment of 2.523 million in the fourth quarter, a difference of 119,000 in net employment, due to the impact of the one-in-100-year economic shock created by the global COVID-19 pandemic. It is worth comparing this to Treasury's earlier scenarios, released in April, which did not incorporate the extra investment announced by the Government at Budget 2020. Scenario of these showed employment dropping by 177,000 over the year and by as much as 260,000 during the year, indicating the difference made by the investments announced in the Budget. In answer to the second part of the member's question, net core Crown debt was 21 percent of GDP at the start of the year, and I'm advised by Treasury that they expect this to be around 39 percent of GDP at the end of the year. Obviously, the pre-election fiscal update will finalise these forecasts.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree that it's the tens of thousands of business owners, large and small, deciding to invest that will create most of the sustainable new jobs that we'll need to re-employ those New Zealanders that have lost their jobs?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We in New Zealand are blessed with a range of entrepreneurial businesses who do indeed create many jobs. What they're appreciating from this Government is that they have a partner in the Government who will back them.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree that allowing New Zealanders who have lost their job to use up to $20,000 from their own KiwiSaver fund to start a new business will help some of them get back on their feet?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we've discussed with the Prime Minister just recently, no. I would also point to a number of comments that have come in response to this proposal, including describing it as scary and dangerous.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that we have a jobs emergency now and we need to try different things?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have a crisis that is a one-in-100-year shock to the New Zealand economy. That is why on this side of the House we have committed such significant resources to supporting growth in jobs right across the economy.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Prime Minister just now that starting a business is gambling?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That's not what the Prime Minister said. That's not what the Prime Minister said at all. What the Prime Minister said was that we do not endorse the view that somehow or other KiwiSaver is some kind of rainy-day fund. It's not. It's a fund for people to have security in retirement. What I've seen from the member opposite is a constant undermining of that security. Not only do we have today's policy but we also have his view that there will be no contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The New Zealand super fund suffered enough from that in the last nine years before this Government came in.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he trust New Zealanders to assess for themselves their appetite for risk, acknowledging that starting a business is riskier than leaving funds in a conservative KiwiSaver fund?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is quite clear that the member on the other side of the House doesn't want New Zealanders to have security in their retirement. He's undermining the New Zealand super fund. Now he wants to undermine KiwiSaver. It's a fund for security in retirement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not the questioner has shared with him his extensive business experience?
SPEAKER: Order! That doesn't quite relate to the question.




Question No. 4—Finance
4. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In a report released on Monday, Kiwibank economists released a 90-day performance review report looking at how the New Zealand economy has performed since lockdown restrictions lifted. Kiwibank said, "The high frequency data we're monitoring has been encouraging. Transactional spending data shows households are still swiping their cards, and manufacturing data shows the sector is back in expansion. Our economic recovery is well and truly under way. Compared to the rest of the world, we look good." Similarly, ASB economists said in their economic weekly report that "the quick recovery from extreme depths of pessimism is a ray of light amid the doom and gloom and clear challenges that the [New Zealand] economy faces in rebuilding and reshaping itself." We have always been clear that the path ahead will be difficult for many New Zealanders, but it is pleasing to see that the economy is performing better than expected since lockdown, giving us a strong platform from which to navigate the challenges ahead.
Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on challenges to New Zealand's economic recovery?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: ASB said in its report, "there are still many challenges ahead given [New Zealand's] borders are likely to be heavily restricted for some time and [that] the rest of the world is having a tougher time than [New Zealand] in dealing with the pandemic." The problems other countries are having in keeping COVID-19 under control and the associated economic costs of reinstating restrictions there underscore the importance of the Government's decision to go hard and early against the virus. They also inevitably will have an impact on the New Zealand economy as an open trading nation.
Dr Deborah Russell: What actions has the Government taken to ensure it is able to respond if any of these risks intensify?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week, I announced that the remaining $14 billion of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund is being set aside to make sure New Zealand is in a strong position to fight whatever COVID-19 throws at the economy. This is a move that Westpac economists described this week as "a sensible move". It is the responsible thing to do at a time when global infections are increasing dramatically and many countries reinstitute restrictions. Kiwi firms and workers can have confidence that we'll continue to act swiftly and decisively in our ongoing fight against this virus in these uncertain times.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think that the only solution can be more Government spending and more debt, rather than allowing Kiwis who have lost their jobs to access their KiwiSaver funds to start their own business and create their own jobs and opportunities?
SPEAKER: No, no—that didn't start with a question.




Question No. 5—Housing
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): My question is to the Minister of Housing and asks: does she stand by her statement on 19 July—
SPEAKER: Now, sorry—can we just check. I think it's the Minister of Housing.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yeah.
SPEAKER: All right, OK.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That's what I said.
SPEAKER: OK, I'm sorry. I misheard the member—not having a good day.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It might be the tide or the moon. Can I start again?
SPEAKER: Well, I'm pretty tempted to say no.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yeah, but you wouldn't do that.
SPEAKER: No, I'm being very generous to the member. The member will start again.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: OK, thank you. I do appreciate that, Mr Speaker.
5. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by her statement on 19 July, "people returning to New Zealand should assist with the considerable expense of accommodating them in managed isolation facilities"; if so, how much of the $479 million budgeted for managed isolation does the Government expect to recoup from people returning to this country?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes, and I have been clear from the outset that the implementation of a cost recovery system is complex. We have carefully considered how to design a system that is fair and not a barrier for returning New Zealanders. Indicative modelling shows that the scheme would generate between $2.2 million and $8.8 million a year at a cost of recouping that of $600,000. The Government's proposal has struck an appropriate balance to ensure taxpayers aren't forking out for people who want to come or go for holidays or business, while returning New Zealanders who want to come home to live are able to do so without an unreasonable limitation. There have been calls to apply a charge to all returning New Zealanders. The most realistic scenario for such a blanket approach with the legally required fee waivers and exemptions would see $126 million generated at a cost of $33 million to recoup it. We need to put the counterfactual in context. The managed isolation and quarantine system is going to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars regardless.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister telling the House that the charging regime brought in today may bring in something less than $10 million, but the taxpayer is still going to be left with $469 million worth of costs for managed isolation?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is what I said in the answer to the primary question, but what I also said in the answer to the primary question is that the counterfactual of doing universal charging with all the required legal waivers and exemptions for those charges would only bring in net $93 million. So regardless of the regime, the taxpayer is going to be left with a bill of several hundred million dollars to provide this strong line of defence at our borders.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister accept that the counterfactual, as she put it to the House today, is simply a contrivance to try and cover up an appalling joke-based system for charging people coming into New Zealand?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This Government takes very seriously the presence of managed isolation and quarantine facilities and would never describe them as a joke. We think they are an important line of defence and we also think that it is important that we work through the policy around these facilities in a measured and methodical way. What we have worked through is what the legal risks and challengability in the courts would be around different kinds of charging regimes that could be stood up. What we as a Government accept is that we need to put the appropriate appropriations in place, long-term hotel contracts need to be entered into, and we are not putting the system at risk with a legally challengeable regime.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: What is legally challenging about saying to New Zealanders who are coming back to this country, having been away for quite some time, that the costs of their managed isolation, the cost of their re-joining the team of 5 million, is a charge that they need to meet?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is a complex legal area and, I know, an easy political sound bite, but the advice that we have worked through in a lot of detail with Crown Law is about whether any charge to enter a public health managed isolation facility, a requirement of entry to your own country, that is placed on all New Zealanders, constitutes a barrier of entry to your country. There are some mitigations that can be put in place to reduce that. Some of that is around making sure you have financial hardship schemes in place. By the time you put all of those mitigations in place that means this simply will not be overturned by the courts, you're only looking at a net contribution for returnees of around $93 million.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why has the Government not come to Parliament to introduce a law that would make legal the charges that she apparently says cannot be applied, so that the taxpayers of New Zealand can be relieved of some of this extraordinary burden for people who want to come back and join the team of 5 million? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because this Government has come to this Parliament with a law that is not going to be legally overturned by the courts. What it does is it puts in place a regime that does not trample on the bill of rights and the rights of New Zealanders to return to their country. The member may like to look at the legislation that has been tabled this afternoon.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where does the Minister think a law passed by the Parliament of New Zealand would be overturned by the courts?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A thing called the bill of rights.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: So does her policy mean that a business person travelling offshore to gain new markets for New Zealand will pay for their managed quarantine when they come back but someone who had chosen to make a life offshore, perhaps for many years, will come back into this country to join the team of 5 million paying nothing?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The regime that we have outlined today would see anyone that was leaving for a holiday or for business pay for their isolation and factor that into the cost of their trip overseas. What we are saying is if a New Zealander is seeking to return to their home, to make their life here, to work here, to pay tax here, to send their children to school here, they will not be required to pay. But if I choose to go on holiday, I am quite happy to factor in the cost of my own managed isolation and not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: So does that mean that someone who is travelling offshore to expand markets, to expand the New Zealand economy, who's paid tax in this country perhaps for years will pay for their managed isolation after their business trip but someone just coming into the country having been away for years, not paid tax in this country, gets in free?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Anyone who is returning to live home permanently will not pay those. If someone is returning for a period of less than 90 days, then, yes, they will be required to pay. But if someone is leaving the country in order to expand their markets and there is a commercial element to it, I think that, on the fair and balanced approach, New Zealand taxpayers should expect some of the cost of that to be borne.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: So, one more time, if I may, does that mean that someone who is trying to expand their markets out of New Zealand, presumably to retain and keep jobs in New Zealand, pays for their quarantine but someone who just comes in having lived away for perhaps years, paid tax in other jurisdictions—
SPEAKER: Order! Question.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: —comes in free?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I've already answered this question twice, but if that member requires something to be repeated three times in order to understand it, then there's the answer: a New Zealander who is seeking refuge in their own country, who wants to return to make their life here, will not be paying, but, yes, again, for the third time, if someone is going overseas on business, just as someone is going overseas on a holiday, we are asking them to make a contribution.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why is it unfair to charge New Zealanders who are returning—no question about their ability to come back into the country, but why is it unfair to charge them for quarantine when those people who stay here but might leave for a business purpose have to pay for their quarantine?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think what the member needs to do is look at what is actually a very fair and balanced system. What we have here is a system where those who are choosing to be holidaymakers or go away on business are going to be asked to contribute to the cost of their quarantine. Those who are seeking to come back and make their life in this country and are going to contribute to this country are not being asked to pay.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that in drawing together this policy, the Government has created a distinction between those who are currently in their legal place of residence, New Zealand, and who have a choice around travel contributing to their quarantine versus those who are offshore, may not have long-term stability of residence, may not have long-term stability around income, who are caught in a one-in-100-year event through no fault of their own, having the ability to return home to their place of residence?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, that was certainly a critical part of our decision making. So was the very practical evidence that even if you were to look at standing up the kind of universal regime that the Opposition is talking about, you'd only be talking about a net contribution of $93 million. We take the managed isolation facilities incredibly seriously, and having the stability funding sorted out and the ability for long-term contracting is absolutely critical to having safe and managed isolation facilities.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why has the Government not been able to accept that people can come into New Zealand if they have a right to but still should pay for the quarantine that falls as a burden currently, and for the foreseeable future, on the general taxpayer?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I have outlined several times to that member, regardless of the regime that is stood up, the taxpayers of New Zealand are going to be left with a bill of several hundred million dollars to provide this public health strong line of defence against COVID coming back into our communities. I think New Zealanders will be somewhat alarmed to see the attitude that the Opposition has around their commitment to providing this strong line of defence. We see it as a responsibility of our Government and exactly why we are in the unique position we are in in the world. The taste of what would come from the Opposition is on clear display.




Question No. 6—Social Development
6. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she stand by her statement that "New Zealanders need to be supported, where able, into work and that employment needs to be a focus for us."?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, yes.
Hon Louise Upston: What does she say to the owner of SteamCleanz in Blenheim, who has, since February, been trying to fill three vacancies for cleaners, and that last week the Ministry of Social Development have said to them, despite 874 job seekers, that they don't have anyone who can fill these jobs?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, while I can't confirm or verify what that member claims, what I can confirm is that we are continuing to perform better than economists predicted. For example, the exits from benefits into work for June was around 7,500, compared to 5,200 the same time last year. We're helping people get into jobs. The recent infrastructure announcement helped kick-start the post-COVID rebuild, creating more than 20,000 jobs and unlocking more than $5 billion worth of projects up and down New Zealand.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree that, with 210,000 New Zealanders currently receiving unemployment benefits, a job is better than no job, and, if not, why not?
Hon Grant Robertson: It's factually incorrect.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister—
Hon Grant Robertson: Factually incorrect. Making it up.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: —what I can confirm is that this Government does have a plan. We are lucky enough to have a Minister of Employment who's developed a strategy that—
Hon Grant Robertson: 210,000 on unemployment benefits? Making it up.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: —outlines what we plan on doing—
SPEAKER: Order! The Minister of Finance will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you. As I was saying, we have a Minister of Employment that has developed a strategy that outlines what we plan on doing over the next four years—for example, building a strong workforce that meets business needs and engages lifelong learning and supports provincial New Zealand and industries to be successful. We are a Government that is acting now to prepare for the future.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she stand by her statement that—and I quote—"employers are looking for a level of skill that our Ministry of Social Development clients aren't always equipped with. That is why this Government is focused on upskilling and training, so that people can get into meaningful and sustainable employment,"; if so, is she now saying that cleaners, who during the COVID lockdown were deemed essential workers, are not engaged in meaningful employment?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, to answer the first part of that question, yes.




Question No. 7—Workplace Relations and Safety
7. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding protecting migrant workers from exploitation?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Earlier this week, along with the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, and the Minister of Immigration, Kris Faafoi, I announced changes that would better protect temporary migrant workers by preventing exploitation and improving enforcement of the law. The package we announced will help migrant workers to better understand their rights and responsibilities when working in New Zealand and it will also provide a clear avenue for help should they find themselves in an exploitative situation. The Government is investing $50 million over four years to support the implementation of these changes. As set out in the coalition agreement, protecting migrant workers from exploitation is a priority for the Government, and I'd like to acknowledge the New Zealand First Party for their support and work on this important issue. 
Marja Lubeck: How will the changes be implemented? 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: To make it easier for migrant workers to report and leave exploitative employment, we'll be setting up a new, dedicated freephone number, online reporting, and triaging functions. Exploited migrants whose visas are tied to exploitative employers will be able to be granted another temporary visa which enables them to find alternative employment. We're also investing in additional labour inspectors and immigration investigators to ensure that robust action is taken against exploitative employers, and to develop information and education so that migrant workers better understand their rights and how to report exploitation. 
Marja Lubeck: Why is this important in light of COVID-19? 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Due to the effects of COVID-19, many migrants who are on temporary visas and unable to return home may currently find that they are in a more vulnerable position than before the pandemic arrived in New Zealand. Exploitation is an issue which affects all of us. It causes financial and mental harm to workers. It also harms legitimate businesses, who are undercut by these practices, and it damages New Zealand's reputation as a fair place to work, live, and do business. 




Question No. 8—Finance
8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement yesterday regarding the announcement of the 150 shovel-ready projects, "where there are projects that we have not yet announced publicly, that is because we are still in some cases undertaking due diligence"; if so, how many projects have completed due diligence but are unannounced?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, I always agree with the Prime Minister. On 1 July, we announced that there were more than 150 projects to be funded under the Infrastructure Reference Group (IRG). Of these, we have announced 79 projects, representing more than $1 billion of Crown investment and more than $2 billion of total project value. These announcements have happened because officials have provided assurances of the projects' overall viability, including, but not limited to, due diligence. We have made it very clear that all approvals are in principle, subject to further due diligence and contract negotiations.
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker This is a question on notice, and the second part of the primary question about how many projects have completed due diligence but are unannounced I don't believe was actually addressed by the Minister.
SPEAKER: I think it was addressed. It wasn't answered, but it was addressed.
Chris Bishop: How many projects of the 150-plus shovel-ready projects the Minister has just mentioned have completed due diligence but have not yet been announced?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The reasons that projects have not yet been announced are varied. Some of those are due to due diligence, some of those are due to contract negotiations, and some of those are to do with other verification of the projects, including the financing by partners.
Chris Bishop: How many projects have yet to be announced that have completed due diligence?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are a variety of reasons it's not possible to separate out.
Chris Bishop: For the third time: how many?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've said it's not possible to divide out the different reasons for why projects have not been announced.
Michael Wood: Has he seen a statement from the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) about the announced shovel-ready projects which says "Some of these projects have been on the books in Auckland and elsewhere for a number of years; so finally getting them consented and fast-tracked is a welcome development. This is a Government using its powers in a way that clears regulatory hurdles and gets stuff done—just what we need at the moment."; and does he intend to continue working with organisations like the EMA as more projects are confirmed and announced?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I welcome those comments and indeed I welcome the reaction to the IRG projects right around New Zealand, which has been one of welcoming the fact that, in many cases, these are projects that communities have wanted for years and they now have a Government that's backing them.
Chris Bishop: Is it correct that tomorrow the Government will announce funding for the rebuild of the Naenae pool in Lower Hutt, and, if so, when was due diligence completed on that project?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will just have to wait. [Interruption] 
SPEAKER: I'm not allowed to make a comment on that, am I.




Question No. 9—Health
9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: What are the policies around the flu vaccine this year, and how has supply been managed?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): We started this year's influenza campaign like our COVID-19 response. We wanted to go hard and early, focusing on getting vaccines out earlier than normal, with a particular focus on those eligible to receive a funded vaccine because they're more at risk of hospitalisation, and healthcare workers. This has been a record year for flu vaccines, with more than 1.75 million vaccines already distributed to general practices, pharmacists, and other providers. That's 400,000 more than ever before in a single year, and we still have around 400,000 doses in stock. So to put that in context, in New Zealand we have 800,000 more vaccines in the country than in any previous record year. That's a 60 percent increase. Supply has been managed in the same way as in previous years. Pharmac contracts the supplier to provide funded vaccinations for the New Zealand public. Orders for flu vaccines were placed in October last year, well before there was a global pandemic. If a provider is unable to obtain flu vaccine stock, they should contact their DHB immunisation coordinator.
Dr Shane Reti: Is it correct that after issues with supply, Pharmac ordered unused flu vaccine from the Northern Hemisphere, a vaccine which only matches half of the four recommended flu strains in New Zealand this year?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes.
Dr Shane Reti: How many of the Northern Hemisphere flu vaccines have been given to date, and are New Zealanders getting the rejects from the Northern Hemisphere?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: These aren't rejects. They've been approved by Medsafe. They protect people against the flu. I didn't mention earlier, but we have record low cases of flu, in addition to our record numbers of people who have been vaccinated. If he wants to put down a specific question to me in writing about numbers of flu vaccine, as he often does, I will be happy to answer it.
Dr Shane Reti: When New Zealanders are given the Northern Hemisphere vaccine, are they told that half of the vaccine does not match the recommended best-practice flu strains for this year?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The Northern Hemisphere flu vaccine protects against some strains of flu, and we have a record number of flu vaccines in the country, both for the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. What I would say is that there was record demand because of the COVID-19 global pandemic—and that's great, because we have achieved record numbers of vaccination—and because of that, and the fact that it takes six months to order the vaccines, Pharmac was able to purchase 400,000 additional vaccines to help ensure that everybody was able to receive a flu vaccine who wanted one.




Question No. 10—Food Safety
10. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Food Safety: What steps has the Government taken to increase awareness of the dangers of drinking during pregnancy?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Food Safety): This Government wants to make New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child, and that starts in the womb. That's why we'll be moving to mandatory pregnancy warning labels on alcohol products. This was agreed on 17 July at a meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation. We share a food standard system with Australia, so any decisions like this are made jointly. This label will provide a standard message that is clear and consistent on the importance of not drinking while pregnant. The label will help protect the public health of New Zealanders, and it will bring us in line with other countries that require mandatory pregnancy warning labels, such as the USA and France. It also complements educational and behavioural campaigns that are delivered by the Health Promotion Agency that seek to inform and reduce the risk of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.
Willow-Jean Prime: How does this label balance effectiveness with industry concerns?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The alcohol industry has been voluntarily including warnings on some products since 2011, but there has been no consistency in type, colour, size, and design, which all play a part in reducing effectiveness. Food Standards Australia New Zealand undertook a robust process to develop an effective label that included a full consultation process and cost-benefit analysis. We now have a standard message that is clear and consistent—here it is—on the importance of not drinking while pregnant. I have just signed the food notice to bring this into New Zealand law from this week, from 31 July, with a three-year transitional period. Mandatory labels will be required by 31 July 2023.
Willow-Jean Prime: Why do we need pregnancy warning labels on alcohol products?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The formative months of pregnancy are the foundations for a long, healthy, and happy life. Science has not yet been able to determine a safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. The best advice we have is to refrain. Consumption of alcohol during pregnancy can cause fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which results in a range of problems, such as intellectual and behavioural deficits, as well as irreversible damage to the brain and body. It is a life-long issue which significantly impacts on individuals, families, and the wider community. The Ministry of Health estimates that 1,800 to 3,000 children are born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder each year in this country alone. This Government has taken vital action to reduce that harm.




Question No. 11—Regional Economic Development
11. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What is the total value of projects announced as part of the Provincial Growth Fund, and what is the best estimate of the number of jobs those projects will create?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): I'm advised that the Provincial Growth Fund has approved 796 projects, and contracts are in place for 658 of them. About $2.7 billion has been committed and, roughly, $2.4 billion announced. On the question of the number of jobs, my frustration has been well documented. The Provincial Growth Fund, over the COVID period and after the COVID period are undertaking a stocktake of job numbers. Early in the life of the Provincial Growth Fund, a statement of 10,000 as an estimate over the life of the fund was identified. I look forward to being able to provide that information once additional verification has been undertaken.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that the very purpose of the Provincial Growth Fund is to "create sustainable jobs", does he not think it would be more appropriate to actually know how many jobs are created before those projects are committed to? 
Hon SHANE JONES: As I have said, the number of jobs will be declared at a point in time where the weather is propitious. In addition to that, I would tell the member over 11,000 people have been enrolled in skills and training initiatives, and, obviously, there are many vagaries with the ebb and flow of provincial economies. But, if the member just waits at a point where a propitious wind strikes, he will have the information.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe a cost of nearly $300,000 per job created represents a good investment by the taxpayer?
Hon SHANE JONES: As I said, the member is plucking figures without full information. That may be his stock-in-trade, but I would say to the House: just await the verification process, and, at an auspicious period of time over the next few weeks, a suitable announcement will flow.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has there been any improvement on the level of actual payments made since October 2019, when, for every dollar committed then, just 12.9c had actually been paid out?
Hon SHANE JONES: As I said, the COVID episode enabled the Provincial Growth Fund to drill deeper into the treacle-riddled process. Sadly, that has, unfortunately, slowed down the flow of the cash, and on this I have complained publicly on numerous occasions. But, on one hand, we have the Auditor-General's office looking at the stewardship of the fund; on the other hand, we have members of Parliament demanding that the money go out. A sensible and healthy balance has to be struck.
SPEAKER: Before I go on, I just want to comment to the member around the tone of one of his answers, where he suggested a member was plucking figures from the wind. Actually, all the member did was quote the member's own figures back to him, and, therefore, he should not be greeted with such a pejorative comment—figures that the member gave in his primary answer.




Question No. 12—Agriculture
12. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Agriculture: What proportion of the $44 billion increase in primary sector export earnings over the next 10 years detailed in the Government's Fit for a Better World roadmap would be generated from the dairy sector?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Over the next 10 years, the dairy sector is expected to generate $4 billion of the total $444 billion targeted by the Government's Fit for a Better World. The $44 billion is a target, indeed, not a limit. 
Hon David Bennett: Will the Fit for a Better World economic road map's requirement of a 24 to 47 percent reduction in biogenic methane emissions over the next 10 years have a negative impact on the proportion of export earnings the dairy industry could provide? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No, not necessarily at all. We project that there are huge opportunities to grow the value. As I say, the $44 billion is a target, not a limit, and I believe that we'll actually surpass that quite easily. I think the value we'll get in the market place from being committed to reduce our emissions from agriculture will give us the kind of lift that we see through market research at the moment, where we see huge premiums for products that are, firstly, organic and then, secondly, that have been labelled at this point regenerative—it's a term that New Zealand has yet to define, but that is connecting with the commitment to better animal welfare, to reduced emissions, and to better systems of production that consumers are prepared to pay for. 
Hon David Bennett: If it is "No", then how can the Minister say the effect will be "No" when Dairy New Zealand estimates that the 24 to 47 percent reduction in emissions will have a cost to the dairy industry of between $5 billion to $12 billion? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I respect the work that Dairy New Zealand do, and they have estimated that. I refer back to, I guess, the 1980s, when, in fact, we had 70 million sheep. We now have half that number, but we produce the same amount of sheep meat. The ability and the potential for New Zealand farmers in agribusiness to innovate and to achieve the targets and the ambitions is unlimited, in my view, and this target that we're setting, or that the Climate Change Commission will set, will take on board all the realities of the effect on local communities and the effect on the industries to achieve all the ambitions that we have of a low-emissions economy but a higher-returning agribusiness sector. 
Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government supporting innovation in the dairy sector, whether that be to achieve climate change targets or otherwise, and across the broader food and fibre sector to achieve the forecasted $44 billion increase in export earnings, as set out in the Fit for a Better World road map? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The three documents that we have produced—that is, the plan making up Fit for a Better World—have a number of core advisory areas. Research and education for our purposes is one, our precious water—ensuring that—and, of course, seeking market game-changers. We have now a Sustainable Food & Fibre Futures fund that we've committed another $84 million to, which is available to anyone in the agribusiness sector with an innovative idea to add value to the production from this country. 
Hon David Bennett: When the Minister talked about organics and regenerative agriculture as leading to that increase in the dairy industry, what evidence has he used to quantify those amounts? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Those are just a couple of the opportunities. Through innovation, through better pastures species, and through better productivity rates, there are a whole range of things that are happening. Last week, with my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, we launched the agritechs strategy. The opportunities there are huge, and I think that that member over there shouldn't discredit his own sector that he represents by lowering the ambitions. I think we have incredible potential, and those two things I mentioned are just a couple of the opportunities available to us. 
Kieran McAnulty: What role will agricultural training play in meeting the Government's goal of a $44 billion increase in primary sector export earnings? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: As I mentioned briefly before, research and education are a core part of achieving the goals. We have been faced with a sector that has not had the proper training facilities in place. Through the good work and the support of that member in particular, we have now got Taratahi back up and running, we have Telford back up and running, and we have some decent training opportunities now in the agribusiness sector. I thank the members on this side of the House for that support. I seek leave to table a couple of documents. 
SPEAKER: Well, what are they? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Three of them are documents: Fit for a Better World, Te Taiao—
SPEAKER: No. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —and one other that that member may not have had. 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Are they publicly available? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: They are. 





GENERAL DEBATE
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
The world has been put to an extraordinary test. Every country in the world has been put to the test and has had to meet a very important challenge. The thing about disease and illness and viruses and bacteria is they don't discriminate. Every country has been faced with COVID-19 and the pandemic, but not every country has responded the same. What that has meant is that the leadership of every country has been put to the test, and we now know who can do it and we now know who cannot.
We are very fortunate that in this country the Government of New Zealand, led by Jacinda Ardern, showed leadership and stewardship unlike any other country in the world. We now have the benefit of being a country where COVID-19 is not in our communities, and we are fighting fiercely to make sure it doesn't cross the border. That's what good leadership does, faced with a worldwide challenge such as we have seen.
This coalition Government, supported by its confidence and supply partner, has kept New Zealanders safe and kept many more New Zealanders alive. You know, I said some time ago that the question on the lips of voters this September—and it still will be this September, because we've managed the issue—is "What did you do to keep us safe?" And the other question they will ask—not just to members of the Government—will be "What did you do to keep us safe?", because then they will be looking at the Opposition, and they will be saying, "Well, what did that lot do? What was their contribution to keeping us safe?", because the reality is that the National Opposition fudged and mudged their way through the entire pandemic—they could not make up their minds on what to do. They wanted to close the borders, and then, just as quickly, they wanted to open the borders. They wanted to borrow heaps, and now they don't want to borrow heaps. Although, if you're Jacqui Dean, you don't borrow; you just get the money offshore. So we know that much.
Now we've seen exposed to this Parliament and this question time today exactly what the National Party stands for. Gerry Brownlee doesn't want the young Kiwi who left last year to go on their OE, experience a bit of the world, and see the great sights, and who now wants to come back home. Gerry Brownlee and the National Party want to charge them $3,000. But the Fonterra executive on $800,000 a year, doing the very important job of making sure the markets are intact, Gerry Brownlee wants that Fonterra executive to come back for free. That's the difference: the party of privilege and elitism is over there; the party that looks after New Zealanders is just over here.
It hasn't just been dealing with the public health challenge that we've had. In the meantime, we've got on with the job of making New Zealand socially and economically better. So just this week alone, we've passed the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, and we're now invested in 50-year-old infrastructure in Auckland Hospital to make that part of our health services better. We've invested $51.6 million in our international education sector so they can deal with the challenges. We've got laws now, and a programme now, to better protect migrants, and we've announced an investment package in new, clean technologies—the work of governing does not stop.
But the reality is this: a new rogue element has been thrown into the election campaign—not the shambles that is the party opposite. We're well used to that. We're well used to the shambles opposite. But a new rogue element has been thrown into this election campaign, and it is something to do with the Leader of the Opposition. You see, the day after she became the leader, every member opposite was dragooned along to be part of a photo shoot with Judith Collins. You know, we've got the evidence of it. Every member had to go and have their photo taken with the Leader of the Opposition. Now, according to Facebook, that photo shoot was accompanied by, I think, a Bach piano concerto—a very nice piece of classical music. I think it was the National Party's attempt to tell the electorate they're actually high-brow.
But it's not the high-brow we have to worry about; it's the eyebrow. We've now got the new measure of election campaigning: the eyebrow—the raised eyebrow. That's why these photos are so important, because you look at the eyebrow—there's poor old Ian McKelvie still wishing he was mayor of whatever he was mayor of, and there's the raised eyebrow saying, "You must be joking. You must be joking." That's what she's saying. Then there's Chris Bishop. He knows the test because his eyebrows are furrowed because he's not joking—he's not joking. But Judith Collins—she's got the raised eyebrow. She's saying, "You've got to be joking."
This side of the House will get into the election campaign, promise safety for New Zealand, knowing we can deliver it, and they're going to measure the eyebrow.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I think it would be fair to describe this Government's economic plan as more spending, more debt, and more tax. We've already seen that this is a Government that loves tax. Tax is love, according to the Greens. Yesterday, we quoted the Dance Exponents when we said you can't get—but no, actually, I think more appropriate is Supergroove: "Can't get enough". They can't get enough of love and they can't get enough of tax, and they will keep going until they've got everything that they need to keep spending and to keep piling on the debt.
Hon Member: Come on—get out of the 90s.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: So we heard today in the House that this Government's increase in debt this year—
SPEAKER: Order! Too modern.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —from 21 percent of GDP to 39 percent is an extra $55 billion, or $1.25 billion a week. Now, if we think about that, that's the equivalent of the annual budget of Pharmac, which is a billion dollars a year. All the cancer drugs to keep us alive and all the drugs that we spend to keep New Zealanders healthy—a billion dollars a year. We've been borrowing that at the rate of—every five days, we've been borrowing that money to keep things ticking over. Everybody knows that somewhere someone has got to pay it back.
We acknowledge that at a time like this, a difficult time when many people are losing their jobs, when people are under pressures, when families are under pressure, the Government needs to spend more and it needs to borrow more. But you've got to do it carefully, and what you spend it on counts, and you really have to focus on growing the economy. So we're going to be talking about three things in this election: about jobs, where they come from; we're going to be talking about taxes and debt; and we're going to be talking about infrastructure.
If I start off with jobs—where do they come from? Where are we going to find the new jobs to fill? Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are losing their jobs right here, right now, and how do we create the jobs to get them back? Well, the Government's got an answer, which is to borrow more money and buy the jobs. There's $1.1 billion to go and plant possums—no, not plant possums; plant flax bushes and shoot possums—shoot possums, plant flax bushes, make pools, and do funny things around the place. Well, that's all good. It's good for the Government to invest, but much more important is for private sector investment to drive jobs in this country, and we trust the tens of thousands of New Zealand business owners, large and small, to make the decisions to invest and hire a person, expand their business, build their businesses, and create opportunities.
Today, we've announced that we're going to help them. So if you lose your job and you're made redundant, we'll give you the money, the tax that you'd be paying on your redundancy, as a tax credit when you start your new business, to get a chance. That will give many New Zealanders who have lost their jobs the opportunity to get started. Then we'll enable them to get into their KiwiSaver. Now, I've heard a lot of complaints from some of the KiwiSaver providers. There was a chap called Rupert, who wasn't at all happy about it. You're not surprised that the KiwiSaver providers want everybody to keep their money with them, but we recognise that we're living in extraordinary times. It's a jobs emergency, and we need to be flexible in this critical period and be prepared to allow New Zealanders to get access to that money to start new businesses if they have lost their jobs. We think that's a sensible approach.
Now, the Prime Minister sneered at question time and said we shouldn't be letting people gamble with their money by starting a new business. Well, if that's their approach to entrepreneurship in this country, we haven't got a hope. The National Party backs New Zealanders to be able to make the judgments about what risk they want to take. If they want to leave their money in KiwiSaver, in a conservative account, that's fine. But if they want to take a chance and use that money to start a business when they've lost their jobs, we'll back them to do it.
Then, on tax and debt—well, we've seen the debt. What we haven't seen from this Government, apart from the Greens—and we can thank the Greens for being honest about their tax policy, which is a rapacious tax policy: if you've got it, we want it. They'll be going to the country saying, "Don't you worry. Vote for us and we'll make somebody else pay some more tax." But the problem with that argument—and this is what all New Zealanders should be remembering: any Government that can't control its spending eventually will come after you, and they'll be coming after you—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: They'll be coming after the ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders who are trying to get ahead and who need that extra money to keep in their pockets in order to feed their families and create their opportunities.
The final area is around infrastructure. We've heard all the wonderful promises from this Government about light rail, how the Prime Minister stood there and said we're going to have a rapid transit to the airport. Then they weren't quite sure. It was actually going to be a slow tram down Dominion Road. In three years, they did nothing else. They cancelled all the other projects because Julie Anne Genter won't give in to the car fascists, Phil Twyford thinks we're over-invested in roads, and Shane Jones only believes in roads that are in Northland.





Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): It's a great pity that Mr Goldsmith didn't share with us his extensive business experience. Mr Goldsmith said that his plan with the National Party is to pay down our debt against GDP to 30 percent over 10 years. You know what that means? $82 billion of cuts. What a nightmare. On the weekend, when an economist was asked—namely, Shamubeel—what he thought, he looked incredulous at the television screen and he said something like, "It's nuts—it's madness." But there you go—that's the National Party's plan.
Now, look, last Friday, I was down at the working men's club in Invercargill to tell the good people of Invercargill that there's one party in this country that understands how Tīwai Point began, its whole history, and that the thousands of workers down there are going to get the backing of a party called New Zealand First right now and into the election—and it ain't going to be closing. You see, I have never seen so frequently in politics so many politicians, including myself, who were told a massive lie, and we all believed it. We were told that Tīwai Point was the beneficiary of subsidised electricity and that the aluminium was therefore the product of the taxpayer rather than the workforce. We were told that the supply agreement was a secret.
Ladies and gentlemen, here are the facts: in 1963, under Keith Holyoake, he set up Manapōuri to supply electricity on the belief, like the movie says, that if you build it, they will come. They didn't have Comalco as a partner at the time, but they knew that if they built this power station using all this reserve water, the big industry would come to Invercargill, and it did. The plan in the 1963 agreement, all laid out there, was that they'd pay all the cost of supply right to Tīwai Point plus a margin of 10 percent. That's a massive dividend.
And what happened? In 1977, a man called Rob Muldoon, a year before I came to Parliament, decided he would ratchet up the taxpayer's benefit off that, not by 10 percent; by a further 350 percent. He threatened to change it by law. It was catastrophe for the people down there at Tīwai, and they've fought ever since to survive. Our message to those people down there is there's one party that understands the facts, the law, the accountancy, and the benefits to this country. We're not going to go with a $100 million plan and that's it—like Helen Clark's $120 million plan for the West Coast and that's it, and they've been suffering ever since. A hundred million and that's it, when they're getting $450 million being made down there right now for Invercargill and our country every year. Ladies and gentlemen, this is truth and tell time, and I'm asking the National Party, that's had that seat all those years—all those years—what are you going to do for the people down there, or do you expect them to vote for you and you're a lamb in Parliament and a lion in the electorate? When are they going to stand up?
I make it very, very clear: it's not a criticism of other parties; it's an exposure of the truth, that all this time we believed that it was secret and that there was a massive subsidy, and it turns out that it's not true. Thousands and thousands of workers down there at Tīwai Point—their families, their children, the whole communities and towns—need the support of this Parliament, and the clear message to them from us in New Zealand First is we're going to make this a point of absolute certainty. We're going to not just save that aluminium smelter; we're going to stand up for the finest aluminium production in the whole world. Out of that place in Tīwai Point, because of the efficiencies and the workforce, they produce the world's finest aluminium—
Andrew Bayly: Only in one pot. There's three of them.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, that's right—that's right. By the time—by the time—
Andrew Bayly: Only out of one.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, look, there's swings and roundabouts, but when we make the great comeback, they'll be all going rather than import junk aluminium from offshore, paid for by the taxpayer and it starts rusting within two years. We're going to give our industry a full and fair go. We're going to stand up for New Zealanders first.
In short, we're saying to them: if you see what has happened to you, it's unnecessary, that you're being offered options that are not sound, that the country has been misled and you're the victims of it. If you understand that, then we're asking you to back your future, because we will. If they see it that way, I know which way they're going to vote come the election day in September 1993—2020. I said 1993 because back then, of course—
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member's well past his time.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah—extension of time, Mr Speaker? Ha, ha!





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The member is indeed well past his time.
SPEAKER: Order! The member knows he doesn't comment on my rulings.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, there are some of us in this Chamber who think that member taking his seat is well past his time. It was interesting to get the history lesson and the mixture of swings and roundabouts, and all that sort of stuff. I guess it came close to being a valedictory speech, but probably we'll wait for that sometime next week.
It's been a bit of a momentous day today. I want to spend a little bit of time in this general debate talking about the Resource Management Act (RMA), and five minutes probably isn't nearly enough to do it. But today we had, finally, after months and months of a document or report sitting on the Minister for the Environment's desk, the publication of the report of the Resource Management Review Panel, headed and chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge Tony Randerson QC. It is one of the myriad of working groups that this Government has had. I have to say, though, that this was, actually, on the face of it, quite a good working group, because they've produced a very extensive report. It runs to over 500 pages—not quite as long as the Resource Management Act itself, but getting close to it. 
I haven't had an opportunity since the document was released just a couple of hours ago to read the full 520-odd pages. But what I have been able to glean from it is, finally, that there is one of the Government working groups that agrees with the National Party position that the Resource Management Act's time has come and gone—it's time has come and gone. It was first passed, I think, in 1991, after years of consultation. The great plan was that it would be a world leader. By integrating our resource management planning legislation in amongst our environmental protection legislation, we were going to be world leaders. And the plan at the time from Geoffrey Palmer and others was that the world would follow us, and, sadly, they didn't. 
In the years that have ensued since the first enactment of the Resource Management Act, nearly 30 years ago, it has been amended something like 80 times, there have been 19 amendment bills passed in this house, and the document that started out as being 300 pages, and kind of understandable and usable, now runs to something in excess of 800 pages. It's a document that is largely the subject of scorn, derision, and ridicule in our country—pretty much everybody has a RMA nightmare story to tell. People don't have to go very far to hear horrendous stories about time delays, cost delays, expense, frustration, endless appeals, endless and sometimes very insincere consultation processes, and all, at the same time, not achieving at all what was originally set out and hoped for in the original Resource Management Act—and that was that the Act should be doing something to maintain, enhance, and protect our natural environment, our natural resources, whilst at the same time providing a platform for planning, development, and development of our economy and our natural desire to build, construct, and grow businesses, and so forth.
So the Randerson report has come out today and made what some were considering was a pretty radical suggestion, when Judith Collins raised it again after having first done so in our very good RMA building reform document, which was released last year when we first started talking about it being time to completely get rid of it and start again. When Judith Collins announced, just a week or two ago, our very good $31 billion infrastructure project and confirmed that a roadblock stopping that kind of development was the existing RMA, she said, "No, it's not going to be tinkered with and reformed any more; it's going to be repealed." People thought that that was a bit radical, but, actually, here we have now the very good report of Tony Randerson QC, and what has he suggested? Exactly the National Party policy, which is to repeal, get rid of, start again, and replace the existing RMA with two separate pieces of legislation. That's exactly what Judith Collins was talking about; it's exactly the policy that the new National-led Government will enact upon election after 19 September.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, we're celebrating some good news for the thousands of stressed, anxious Kiwis stranded overseas since the COVID-19 pandemic hit. The Green Party has said from the very start that we would not leave them stranded, that we would not agree to impose an unexpected, shock $3,000 fee for those who need to come home to live and who were overseas when this once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation—if not even rarer than that—crisis hit. We know that, as a nation, we learnt—with our COVID response—not only to listen to the scientists, not only to put people's health before profit—but those are all great lessons—but we also learnt that unless we take care of all of us, unless all of us are okay and safe and well, none of us are truly safe and well.
Today, we have ensured, with Labour in Government, that that fee will not be imposed on anyone who was overseas before the pandemic hit and the cost of quarantine was made clear, if they wish to come home to live in New Zealand. These are whānau with children, they will be in ever-changing circumstances right now. They've had to decide between keeping their employment overseas, or coming home to face a lengthy period of unemployment, perhaps, and they're only just finding that actually their visas won't be renewed. They are people who found it really difficult to even find flights home and to move children and partners. It's complicated, and it has been changing from day to day, so to cut them off, in situations where their residency is unstable, where they could potentially become Stateless, and to then assume that they can somehow meet this really unexpected fee—that's $3,000 per person—for an entire family, would be quite a shock. 
It would in fact mean that people may not only remain in a situation where they don't have visas—and they are becoming more or less technically without Statehood—but, in fact, they could be facing the threat of the virus itself, while they save and they put together the money it would take for them to come home and start a life here with the rest of us, with this team of 5 million back here. The thing to remember, as well, is that quarantine—which is what we've imposed as part of our public health response—is a public health response. It's not a personal privilege. It's not a choice. And like all things that we put in place to keep all of us—as an entire society, as a community—safe, it's something that we say should well be taken care of from the public purse, because it is in fact to keep us all safe. 
It's just like the types of decisions that we made during lockdown where we stayed home, the types of decisions we made to keep our essential workers safe from this virus. So it does fall within the realm of what we will take care of, as New Zealanders, for each other. So we do say that the balance was met well, by allowing those who wish to come home to live—who were overseas when COVID hit—to not be charged. But those who want to come home for a visit, or for business, will be charged, unless they're facing financial difficulty—in which case they will have access to a payment plan. If not, they will be able to apply for compassionate dispensation, in cases where people are, for example, coming back to look after a sick relative. It may be a funeral, it may be a happy occasion—if it's the birth of a baby—and those cases will be administered on a case by case basis. The fee may, in those cases, still be completely dispensed with. 
Of course, those who leave now—knowing the fee and knowing the cost of returning and quarantine and this extraordinary circumstance that we've all found ourselves in—will be expected to cover that cost and to build it into the cost of the travel when they decide to go. We think that that's a fair balance, and we're proud that we did stand for fairness. We stood for all of the Kiwis overseas whose voices we heard, whose stress they expressed to us, and we're proud to celebrate that win with them today.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Well, I'm glad that member from the Greens, Golriz Ghahraman, is happy that New Zealand taxpayers are going to continue to pay out roughly about a half a billion for the quarantine situation in New Zealand over the foreseeable future. If she thinks that's a good day, I'm not so certain about that. Actually, I think it's been a rather gloomy day. We heard from the Minister of Finance, who finally—finally—confirmed it today that there are 120,000 people who have been and will be made redundant this year. That's the current estimate. That means that we've already got over 200,000 on the unemployment jobseeker benefit. The other really nasty piece of news we heard is that, going into this COVID crisis a mere four months ago, New Zealand was the best placed in the world, with a low debt figure of 20 percent of GDP, roughly $60 billion of debt. He confirmed today that, by the end of this year, that will have doubled to 39 percent. That is a staggering amount of debt.
To put that in context, our debt figure and the servicing costs on the debt will be, for this year, about $3.5 billion, which is the total cost it takes for Mr Stuart Nash, sitting opposite, to pay to run the New Zealand police force. That is even before we talk about paying back some more debt, and we have a Minister who is walking around with $14 billion in his back pocket. But what happens when the wage subsidy stops on 1 September, a mere three weeks before the election? That's the crucial point that New Zealanders need to look and face and think about. That is why we are looking past the current situation and are saying, "What should we be doing as a Government past 1 September? What is the plan for New Zealand?" So the thing that we've announced today is that for all those 120,000 people who have been made redundant this year, particularly since the COVID situation started a mere four months ago—how do we get them into new vocations, new job opportunities?
So when our leader asked the Prime Minister today about the situation of trying to encourage people to set up new businesses, I was somewhat alarmed that the Prime Minister inferred that that was a gamble. I was really concerned how unambitious she was for New Zealanders, and dismissive, because many of these people have been made redundant, not because they're useless, not because they are due it; it is actually because the industries in which they work have been absolutely devastated—highly trained pilots, flight attendants, just to name some; tourism operators who have been so badly affected because of COVID-19. It has nothing to do with their own situation—thrust out on to the job heap—and the Prime Minister's response was, "Well, that's why we've got Jobseeker. Go and get a benefit!" Well, I've got to say to you that that is not a long-term solution to New Zealand's ills. The only way we can ever get out of this ill and pay back that estimated $200 billion of debt that we're going to incur over the next few years—Treasury forecasts, by the way—is that we will have to grow this economy. We can't tax everyone. You can't tax people—you can, but it won't work—because the only way to deal with that huge mountain of debt is to grow the New Zealand economy.
That's why we need to encourage people to start a new business if they feel like it, if they want to—and it's a voluntary thing. The package we announced today is that, if you are in that situation—the redundant airline pilot; lots of skills—if you want to go into business, go and get yourself a proper plan and get it signed off by a chartered accountant or a certified financial planner. If you then decide to get past that gateway, you can then, now, move into a situation where you can first of all get $10,000 from the Government—when we're in Government. You can also get any benefit on the tax that you may have paid on your redundancy. So if you've had a $30,000 redundancy, rather than pay us, the Government, $10,000, you can also keep that and use that as working capital for your business. The third thing we're going to say is: if you like—if you like—it's not required—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Andrew Bayly is a very smart man. In fact, I think he should actually be their finance spokesperson, because he would bring a level of integrity and depth that they haven't got there at the moment, and I suspect there will be. But that's not what I want to talk about. This Government is the Government of law and order. The Rebels became established in New Zealand in 2011. A year later, over the next year, police numbers dropped by 150. In fact, police numbers fell in the last three years of the previous National Government as gangs grew, meth proliferated, and morale within our police service fell. In fact, 60 percent of police in 2017 said they had an undue level of workplace stress, and nearly 60 percent of police in 2017 said they were not meeting the promises they were making to our community. Enter the coalition Government under Jacinda Ardern yet again.
In 2017, the then National Government promised 880 new police over four years. Well, this Government, in three years, has delivered over 2,200 new police, or over 1,250 police over and above attrition, and there's two more graduations before the election. So in three years, we will have delivered over 500 more police than the previous National Government said that they would deliver in four years. That's 500 more police than the Nats would have delivered by this New Zealand First - Labour Government. This is 500 more police than the Nats would have funded to fight gang crime, to help deal with family harm and sexual violence, to confiscate drugs, and to keep our roads safe.
In just the past year alone, the National Organised Crime Group has commenced 31 operations, dismantled four transnational organised crime cells, seized 96 firearms, and charged over 154 offenders. That's 154 bad guys who are no longer peddling harm into our communities, because of the investment this Government has made in policing over the last three years.
In the last 12 months alone, there was Operation Piano: 30 kilograms of meth seized, 318 guns taken, and $4.5 million in cash seized. Operation Mystic: 30 kilograms of meth, 33 kilograms of MDMA, 100 kilograms of ephedrine, and $1 million in cash seized. Operation Abbey: $3 million in cash, including 37 high-performance cars and five properties. Operation Maddale: 21 kilograms of meth, over $500,000, and 10 arrests. Operation Manta: nearly 500 kilograms of meth. Operation Essex and Operation Ali: 193 kilograms of meth. You get the point.
The investment that this Government has made in policing, and certainly into the organised crime space, has meant that we have been able to go incredibly hard against the gangs who are peddling misery into our communities.
Then we increased penalties for gun crime, and the Nats voted against this. We tightened up the fit and proper test for getting a gun licence, including ensuring that gang members could not get guns, and the Nats voted against this. The Hon John Banks, who I don't think you would consider left of anything, said that his greatest regret as the Minister of Police was not being able to get amendments made to the firearms legislation after Aramoana because his provincial MPs blocked it. Well, we have done it. This Government, this New Zealand First - Labour coalition Government under Jacinda Ardern, has not just talked the talk on increasing police numbers, on tackling gun crime, on going after the gangs, on addressing the meth scourge; we've walked the walk.
We are the Government of law and order. These are the facts. The thing that concerns me is that Paul Goldsmith has preached the prophecy of austerity. The Hon Winston Peters highlighted the fact that that's $82 billion they won't be spending. Make no bones about it: if the National Party is returned in Government, you will once again see an erosion of policing in this country.





STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to speak about Behrouz Boochani and how he was granted a visa and asylum in New Zealand and the process. This is not an attack on Mr Boochani. I've never met him. I don't know him and I've never read his book and nor do I have any intention to. But I do note that Mr Boochani has been very quick to criticise anyone who has raised questions about this and labelled people as—their hate speeches, which is a very bad term and I think quite unwarranted. 
On 21 October last year, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) informed the Minister of Immigration that they were processing or in the process of considering a visitor visa for Mr Boochani under the no-surprises policy. So, clearly, they had some concerns about that, and under the instructions to be granted a visitor visa, the person needs to be a bona fide applicant, and that is defined as someone who "genuinely intends a temporary stay in New Zealand for a lawful purpose" and who is not likely "to breach the conditions of any [visa] granted." Mr Boochani's onward travel arrangements—I asked the Minister if INZ had looked into that, but that, apparently, is not in the public interest. The day before Mr Boochani left Port Moresby, he was interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, where he said he would not be returning to Papua New Guinea; he might go to the US where he'd been accepted for asylum or he might stay in New Zealand. That is quite clearly a breach of the instructions and he shouldn't have been able to get into New Zealand.
Under section 15 of the Immigration Act, it states, "(1) No visa or entry permission may be granted, and no visa waiver may apply, to any person … who has …been removed, [or] excluded … from another country."—under the same basis the Australian journalist Mary Ann Jolley was excluded from or prevented from boarding a plane in Australia to come to New Zealand for personal reasons because she'd been deported from Malaysia, yet Mr Boochani got through.
Mr Boochani entered Australia illegally by boat. Under that country's laws, it states—and I quote—"Any person cannot settle in Australia if they attempt to enter Australia illegally by boat." Further, the Minister of Home Affairs in Australia quite clearly stated that Behrouz Boochani would never step foot in that country—again would raise serious questions about whether Mr Boochani had been excluded from Australia. Yet neither the Minister nor INZ checked with the Australian Government. [Interruption] That's right. 
The refugee status branch of Immigration New Zealand in their booklet around immigration quite clearly states: "If a person can obtain effective protection from the authorities of their country or a third country, New Zealand is not obliged to protect them." And, yet, Mr Boochani had an option to settle in Papua New Guinea and he had an option to settle in the United States, so under that instruction, he shouldn't have been granted asylum in New Zealand. 
I've been informed by immigration lawyers that many applications from people from Afghanistan, in particular, and from Iran to come and visit family here—and these people often have very good travel histories; that is, they travel in and out of countries all the time—are not granted visitors visas, and it appears that it's on the grounds that they are likely to be, or potentially, an asylum seeker. Yet, Mr Boochani, a well-known asylum seeker who quite clearly stated before he came to New Zealand that he might not leave the country, quite clearly should never have been granted asylum. He should never have been granted a visa to come into this country. The Minister must look into this and come back to the House and tell us why this behaviour has occurred under his watch.





Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I don't know whether you or members of this House will recall a song of the 1970s that begins with "Have I told you lately". Now, I have no intention of singing that song, nor do I have intention of completing the latter part of that line, but it's often a line that members of our communities would say to me from time to time. In the role of Ministers, we had the opportunity of travelling the length and breadth of our country face-to-face, and now, of course, with online connection. But every now and then somebody would say, "Have I told you lately how glad we are that you guys are in Government?" or "Have I told you lately that it's a blessing to have the leadership that you have in this Government?" That's a fact. It is a blessing to be a member of this side of the House. It is a blessing to be a member of a Government that is strong, that is positive, and that is forward-looking. 
I had the opportunity the other day, with one of our colleagues—Priyanca here—to meet with politicians and trade unionists and other people from Indonesia. They were all asking us about our experience of how we've been able to keep everybody safe, and one of the fundamental factors that I was able to share with them is that we have good, strong, positive leadership in our country. That's a fact. We often forget that, but it is a fact that has to be adhered and acknowledged, and it's always a privilege when people respond to that in our engagements. 
But more importantly, I think you'll find that, by and large, the team of 5 million recognise that this is a Government that is forward-looking, that has a plan, and that is implementing that; we are keeping people safe. For example, the five-point plan that the Prime Minister has spoken often about is about valuing people. It's about our focus on jobs, it's about preparing for the future, it's about supporting businesses, and it's about positioning us globally. 
As Minister for Pacific Peoples, I have to say, when we say "people", that conjures up values of life, values of why it is important to protect our communities right across the whole country. But as a Government, we've provided the wage subsidy to make sure that the day-to-day welfare needs of people are protected and they can have some confidence about the future. But for us as Pacific, as a Minister, it's been a privilege to be a part of a Government that values languages and cultures, and those things combined make up what we would define as Pacific wellbeing. 
This is a Government that has invested. It has demonstrated its commitment by investing significant amounts of money into the Ministry for Pacific Peoples that was never there before, particularly in the last nine years of the previous Government. A couple of weeks ago, we managed to announce that we were providing certainty and confidence to the Pasifika Education Centre, of $3 million over four years so that they can continue providing Pacific community languages, because under the previous Government that money was taken away. 
In terms of jobs, this is a Government that is relentlessly focused on jobs, and it's not just about protecting existing jobs but it's also looking to the future and preparing people with the educational qualifications that they need so that they can have jobs—good, high-paying jobs. We have a saying in Samoa: without a job, you can't support your families and the village. So jobs are so fundamental.
The Ministry for Pacific Peoples, through the investment of this Government, is now able to provide a programme called Tupu Aotearoa that provides support nationwide, and has removed the barriers of age limit there, but provides pastoral care so that Pacific people who lose their jobs or are unsure about the future have support towards better educational pathways or jobs—preparing for the future. 
Today, I'm talking with some of our church leaders. I've said to our church leaders, when we're preparing for the future, we must take advantage of the $400 million that this Government has put aside so that we can progressively move people into homeownership. Homeownership provides confidence and support for the future for all of our communities. 
In terms of supporting business, it goes without saying that the future requires us to embrace all the opportunities of the digital economy. 





Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): As we were on our summer holidays earlier this year, who would have been able to imagine what happened towards February and then March as the wave of fear and uncertainty spread around the world as we watched COVID develop. I could not be prouder of the response of our Government and of our team of 5 million. We did it together, and up till now we've had a huge amount of success, and we should be very proud of ourselves. 
What I was most proud of was the daily sharing of information. I know that following the series of earthquakes in Christchurch what people craved for was information, because information is power. And every day we had our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, with the Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, telling us all the facts, answering the wide range of highly intelligent and probing questions from the media, but sharing their information directly with the public. People were hanging out for 1 o'clock so that they could get their news and feel that empowerment that goes with information. 
The other part of our COVID response that I'm most proud of is that it's been very clear from both the Prime Minister but also the Hon Grant Robertson, our Minister of Finance, that we're not just putting back what we had before; we are taking this opportunity of such terrible circumstances to build back better, and for many New Zealanders, providing them with an opportunity for a better life that they have never had. What a great thing to do out of a terrible situation—build back better—and you can certainly see that in the many initiatives that have been announced since that first response started in the middle of March.
People have been at the heart of our response. I haven't seen any other country with such a people-focused response, a health response and economic response both based on the current and future wellbeing of our people. As my friend and colleague Aupito William Sio just said, it's about jobs, jobs, jobs. There is nothing that gives people not only the ability, as Aupito mentioned, to put food on the table for your family, but to give people the dignity of work. It's one of the first questions that New Zealanders ask each other: what do you do—what's your job? And it actually doesn't matter whether you're the Prime Minister or you clean the Prime Minister's office; you should have the dignity of a job with decent pay, and that's another bit of progress that our Government's making. Preparing New Zealand for a better future; investing in the things that matter; investing in the things that were neglected for nine years under the previous National Government; supporting small business, the backbone of the New Zealand economy. Everywhere throughout New Zealand we have small businesses that just work so hard to get by every day, and we're backing them. 
The ambition and determination of our Government to build back better is just fantastic. Free apprenticeships in specified trades training areas for all those young people and older people who might have lost their jobs to be able to get on the rung of the ladder of being an apprentice; the investment in green jobs, which I've heard the National Party mocking—for me, it's a double benefit. Not only are we putting people in work that they're clearly enjoying, and I've heard media reports quoting them directly, the satisfaction they're getting from those jobs, but we're doing good things for the environment, whether it's getting rid of wilding pines or whether it's planting and protecting our wetlands and our rivers.
I just want to also mention something. Despite being so proud of this Government's response—it's just been extraordinary—there's something that I want to mention that I'm not so proud of, and this is one of my last opportunities to make this contribution. I have seen sustained and systemic attacks on individual members of Parliament, which have destroyed their careers in this place and damaged their families, their children, their wives, or their husbands. I think we can have fundamental differences of opinions in this place, but I think it's within our hands to change our behaviour and not destroy families on the way through to pursuing our ultimate goal. We can do better than that. I think, as part of our COVID response, we should look at the leadership that has been provided by Jacinda Ardern and the better leadership we can provide on that issue in future.





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I roto i te rima meneti kua homai ki ahau i tēnei rā, tēnā pea ko tēnei taku kōrero i roto i tēnei tautohetohe, taku kōrero mutunga mō te nohoanga o tēnei Whare Pāremata mō te toru tau. 
E hiahia ana ahau ki te tīmata wāku kōrero e pā ana ki te waipuke kua pāngia ki Te Tai Tokerau i ngā wiki kua pahure ake nei. E huri ana ahau, e huri ana te titiro ki tōku hoa, tōku whanaunga, Te Minita, a Peeni Henare, Te "Minita mō ngā Kaupapa Aituā", me kī, pērā i te waipuke, te āwhā, wērā mea katoa. I hoki mai ki tō māua hau kāinga, ā, ki te awhi i te iwi. 
Ehara tēnei waipuke i te waipuke tuatahi ki roto i Moerewa, i roto i Te Tai Tokerau, engari, kite ahau i tēnei tū āhuatanga i te tau 2014 i te tau 2011 anō hoki. Nō reira, kua kite ahau i te pōuri o ngā whānau e noho ana i roto i Moerewa kua pāngia i tēnei waipuke, i wērā o ngā tau. 
E hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki Te Rākau Whakamarumaru, arā, ko Te Civil Defence, mō tō rātou kaha ki te tautoko, ki te tiaki i te hapori, ki ngā kaunihera anō hoki, me ngā tāngata whenua. 
Kua mihi kē nei a Peeni, Te hōnore Minister Henare, ki tētahi o ngā tangata whenua, arā, ko tō māua matua, a Mike Butler, e kaha ana ki te tautoko i tana hapori, ngā whānau, kua pāngia e tēnei waipuke, ā, e mihi hoki ana ki a Te Hōnore Kelvin Davis i hāere mai i tērā Rātapu ki te tautoko i ngā whānau. Engari ehara i te tautoko āwhina, manaaki, ā-wairua, ā-tinana, ā-kōrero noa iho, engari i hoatu hoki tētahi pūtea hei whakamāmā ake i tēnei tū āhuatanga kei runga i a rātou i tēnei wā. 
Tētāhi pūtea mai i te tari o Peeni, engari tētahi pūtea mai i te tari o Matua Shane Jones anō hoki, ki te whakatikatika, ki te whakapaipai ake i ngā rori, ngā piriti, me ko te tūmanako, ko te haukoti tēnei tū āhuatanga ā ngā tau e heke mai nei, arā, te 12 miriona tāra mō te waipuke, ki te haukoti i te waipuke, ka tīmata tērā mahi i roto i Moerewa, nō reira e mihi ana. 
I roto i te wā whakatā, me kī, ehara i te recess, engari he whakatā i Te Pāremata, i roto ahau i tōku ake rohe o Te Tai Tokerau. Pau taku hau i te kotiti hāere ki wiwi, ki wawa i roto i Te Tai Tokerau mō te tohatoha pūtea ki ngā kaupapa, ko te waihanga hei oranga mō Te Tai Tokerau. 
Tuatahi, ko Te Kaipara. I hoatu te rima miriona tāra ki Te Kaipara, ono miriona tāra ki Kaikohe, iwa miriona tāra ki Kerikeri, tekau mā whā miriona tāra ki Kaitāia. I mua i tērā, ko te whitu miriona tāra ki Kawakawa anō hoki. 
Ko ngā kaupapa e tautoko ana pērā i te whare pupuri tāonga, ō tātou taonga o te rākau kauri, kei Matakohe. Nō reira, e mihi ana ki a rātou, he moni hei whakarauora anō i tērā ō ngā whare pupuri tāonga. Ko te pūtea i hoatu ki Kaikohe hei hanga i tētahi pā hākinakina, tētahi whare hākinakina mō ngā momo hākinakina i roto i Kaikohe, mē ngā takiwā e pā tata ki Kaikohe. 
I kite ahau i te hekenga o ngā roimata o tētahi wahine nā te kaha harikoa, te rongo i ngā kōrero ō wēnei momo kaupapa e tautokongia ana e tēnei Kāwanatanga. He pūtea anō hoki, hei papa hākinakina ki Kerikeri. Kaitāia, he whakarauora i te tāone o Kaitāia me te hono atu o ngā hapori iti, ngā tāone iti, i tērā o ngā takiwā. 
Nō reira, kua pau kē te wā, kā kore anō kia pau waku kōrero i taku pepa. Kia ora. 
[Greetings, Mr Speaker. In the five minutes I have been allocated today, perhaps my contribution in this debate will be my final speech for this sitting of this Parliament for its three-year term. 
I would like to begin my speech by talking about the floods that have affected the North in recent weeks. I look around and see my friend and my relation Minister Peeni Henare, the "Minister for Responding to Disasters", you could say, for things like floods, storms, and those types of things. He returned home to support the tribe. 
This flood was hardly the first to hit Moerewa, to hit the North. I witnessed this type of thing in 2014 and in 2011. I have, therefore, seen the despair of families that live in Moerewa who were affected by this flood, and by those floods. 
I would like to acknowledge Te Rākau Whakamarumaru, Civil Defence and Emergency Management, for their good work in supporting and helping the community. I would also like to acknowledge the councils and the local people too. 
The honourable Minister Peeni Henare has already thanked one of those locals, our uncle, Mike Butler, who was a pillar of strength in supporting the community and the families that were affected by the flood. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Kelvin Davis, who arrived last Sunday to support families. It was not just support in the form of good feelings and kind words but also funding to ease the burden on those who have been impacted. 
There was funding support from Peeni's office but also Shane Jones' office, as well, to repair and clean up roads and bridges, and, hopefully, to prevent this type of thing from happening in the years ahead. There was $12 million allocated for the prevention of floods, and that work will begin in Moerewa. I would like to thank him for that. 
During the break—not the recess, but the parliamentary break—I was based in my region of the North. I was exhausted from the constant travel to here, there, and everywhere in the North to distribute funding to the various initiatives that will help to revive the North. 
Firstly, the Kaipara: $5 million allocated to the Kaipara, $6 million to Kaikohe, $9 million to Kerikeri, $14 million to Kaitāia. Before that, there was $7 million to Kawakawa. 
The types of initiatives supported were things like the museum, to house our important artefacts related to the kauri tree, in Matakohe. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge them, it is funding to revive that museum. The funding for Kaikohe is to build a sports complex and a sports hall for the types of sports that are played in Kaikohe and its surrounding areas. 
I saw tears run down the face of a woman—tears of joy—when she heard these announcements and heard about the support provided by this Government. There was also funding allocated for a sports field in Kerikeri. It will revive the town of Kaitāia and help it to connect with other small communities and towns in that area. 
Finally, my time is up before I had a chance to finish the talking points on my paper. Kia ora.]





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm going to use my time in the general debate today to talk about the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). It was meant to be about jobs, jobs, jobs, and instead it's turned into announcements, announcements, announcements. This $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund was set up as a coalition deal to get New Zealand First into Cabinet with the Labour Party—$3 billion of taxes from hard-working Kiwis funnelled through one Minister, allocating it as he sees fit. It gave huge licence to the Minister for giving away money, to choose pet projects in his favourite regions—namely Northland, where he hopes to buy his way back into power. But other surge regions identified by the former National Party have seen some attention, too.
Mark Patterson: The West Coast.
MAUREEN PUGH: Places like the West Coast and Tasman have been led a merry dance on their road to achieving their dreams for their infrastructure investment.
So let's have a look at Golden Bay—Port Tarakohe, to be exact. They received approval for $22 million to upgrade the port for recreational and commercial users and to mainly accommodate a growing mussel industry up there. Now, the former mayor Richard Kempthorne was quoted as saying, "Port Tarakohe is a highly valued recreational asset and provides critical community resilience in the event of disruptions to road access in and out of Golden Bay." Then what happens? Cyclone Gita. The barges brought in milk tankers so that the farmers could keep milking, and thanks to Fonterra and Port Tarakohe, no milk had to be dumped. Those road improvements and repairs are still being undertaken today, over 18 months later. It enabled medication and other food to be delivered to the community. It is a critical asset to the Golden Bay community.
But the funding, after COVID, was reprioritised, or repurposed, and that was clawed back because no contract was in place; nothing was committed to, and the Tasman District Council was redirected to other funding sources. So that gave the "Minister for Giving Away Money" more opportunities and yet further major announcements for projects that were reprioritised, with Cabinet deciding that those new projects were to be based around job creation. Well, that was the confusing part, because I thought the PGF was actually supposed to be all along about creating jobs and getting the nephs off the couch—and we were told there were 10,000 of them. But what actually happened? Announcements to local communities of funding support for their local projects, and all we're seeing is the churn of this money going around and around and being reprioritised and repurposed into different projects—a money-go-round with actually very little happening on the ground.
Post-COVID, West Coast councils were approached and they were asked to come up with their list of shovel-ready projects, and given two weeks to deliver that list. On the surface, that was great news, right? But the reality is different. Here's the twist: according to the Minister's own response here in the House last night, he cannot guarantee that contracts will be in place before the election for any of those projects. He also went on to say, and we know this is the case, that no Government can commit a future Government. So there we have it. There is nothing but one announcement after the other. There is no commitment locked in for any of those projects, and it's becoming almost impossible to get a contract on paper. It's just like a wish list that you'd send off to Santa Claus. The likelihood of any of those projects becoming a reality is not great.
Now, they've had their hopes raised and, as usual, this Government has failed to deliver. But, worse than that, it has raised expectations in those communities and in communities across this whole country. So I challenge Minister Jones to ensure that contracts are signed before this election. Give the communities the surety that they need to move forward on the projects that have been approved and break your own cycle of announcements and actually deliver the contracts. The other thing that we'd like to see is, actually, the data around the full-time equivalents. It was asked again today. Back in December, when Chris Bishop asked, it was costing $484,000 per job out of the PGF funding. Apparently, it's now $300,000 a job, but we haven't got any money. Sign the contracts and commit the money.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.





HOLIDAYS (BEREAVEMENT LEAVE FOR MISCARRIAGE) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)
Second Reading
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I move, That the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.
At the moment, New Zealanders are entitled to bereavement leave after the loss of a family member or child, but that does not include loss through miscarriage or through stillbirth. This bill enables a simple change that allows existing bereavement leave to be automatically made available for those families that have been through a miscarriage or a stillbirth. It is important that we allow families time to grieve, and I know for a fact that this is a sensitive topic that affects many families in New Zealand. I believe that it is important that parents know they have the right in law to grieve after a miscarriage or stillbirth.
Currently, the bereavement leave provisions of the Holidays Act 2003 are ambiguous in their application to miscarriage. Employees are entitled to three days' bereavement leave on the death of a child, but it is unclear whether this would also apply when a pregnancy ends in miscarriage or in stillbirth. This ambiguity means that an employee's entitlement is left at the discretion of the employer, and some families have not been able to take much needed time to grieve. My bill makes a very simple change: it allows families certainty that they have a legal right to access bereavement leave following a miscarriage or stillbirth. This bill removes the ambiguity by making it clear that, at the unplanned end of a pregnancy by miscarriage or stillbirth, this constitutes grounds for bereavement leave and that the duration of the leave should be in line with entitlement of other deaths within the immediate family.
Experiencing a miscarriage or stillbirth is an incredibly difficult time for a family, and I believe what this bill represents is showing that we have compassion in allowing families time to grieve, through having the right in law. Not everyone who experiences a miscarriage or stillbirth may feel like they need to access bereavement leave; however, it is important that we give people the option to access that leave should they choose to or wish to need it. There has been significant public support for this bill, with almost 7,000 members of the public signing an online petition to support the advocacy of members. Also, I would like to mention the person who initiated this bill, which was Kathryn van Beek, through being brave enough to tell her own story and to tell that in a public context.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge all of the women and those families and organisations that came through the select committee process and told their stories, and acknowledge that that process was not an easy one for many of those women. Many of the submissions at select committee on this bill spoke about the importance of legislation to provide time for those who have had a miscarriage and to have time to grieve that loss. Submissions spoke about how a miscarriage or stillbirth is a traumatic time for all involved and how arguing with an employer about leave entitlement could potentially create further stress at this time. Submissions mentioned that many women in New Zealand experience miscarriage, with around 20,000 a year, and that there is a significant amount of stigma and discrimination surrounding miscarriage. The committee heard that bereavement leave may help to eliminate some of the stigma, shame, and silence and allow people to get the support they need, including in the workplace.
There were also personal stories amongst the submissions which spoke about the huge toll of having a miscarriage and how that can take a toll not only on the individual but also on the wider whānau. Women stated that having the ability to take time for bereavement leave would make a huge difference to those immediately involved surrounding that loss. They spoke about how this bill is an acknowledgment of those who have suffered miscarriages in the past and that has largely been done in silence, and it would acknowledge that grief.
I'd like to quickly run through some of the submissions, because I think the statements made by some of those people and those organisations were most apt in describing the current situation that can happen in the workplace and the issues which this bill is addressing. I'd like to acknowledge the Council of Trade Unions. They stated that when a baby is lost through miscarriage or stillbirth, it is bereavement leave and not sick leave that is required. Bereavement leave is distinctly different from sick leave. Bereavement leave provides time for a person or people that have had the miscarriage or stillbirth for grieving that needs to be done after a death.
There are many stories of people who have experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth and have had to argue to take that leave. As well as having paid leave and having an entitlement to that paid leave, it's a statutory right that means job losses or job insecurity is not threatened by taking that leave or requesting to take that leave. A miscarriage or a stillbirth is a traumatic time and arguing about leave entitlements creates further stress and high emotion and it should not be at this time. It should be guaranteed as an employment right.
I would like to acknowledge Family Planning for what they contributed, and I think this contributes to the wider debate around what some of these issues are for New Zealand. They state: "Like other areas of sexual and reproductive health, it is important that we work to eliminate stigma, shame and silence surrounding miscarriage. Historically, women have been blamed for and judged because of miscarriage, and, sadly, there are still societal beliefs and attitudes which perpetuate this discrimination, particularly in some areas of the world. Misconceptions about the causes of miscarriage, as well as the ongoing discrimination women face about reproduction and reproductive decision-making contributes to shame and emotional distress experienced by people who have a miscarriage. This needs to change. People deserve support, compassion, and respect no matter what the outcome of a pregnancy and no matter what their decisions around reproduction … We hope this legislation not only provides relief to individuals who experience miscarriage, but helps to eliminate that stigma, shame and silence surrounding miscarriage so that people can more easily reach out for the support they need from friends, family, colleagues and their wider community, where that is helpful."
I would like to conclude by running through some of the key changes that the select committee made when considering this bill, and I would like to acknowledge the excellent work that was done. I believe that these changes strengthen the bill and provide greater clarity. Initially, it has made it clearer around the knowledge of pregnancy. It makes it clear that a mother does not need to have known they were pregnant. It acknowledges that sometimes when someone has a miscarriage they did not know that they were pregnant in the first place, and not having the word "confirmed" makes it clear you are still eligible.
Secondly, around proof of pregnancy, this is a change to clarify the proof that would not be required for an employee to take bereavement leave. The committee considered that removing the term "confirmed" is important because they did not want the term to be misunderstood and lead to an uncomfortable exchange between employee and employer.
Finally, also the definition of miscarriage—amending the definition of miscarriage to clarify that bereavement leave could be sought for the unplanned end of a pregnancy no matter how far along that pregnancy was. The committee recommends changing the definition in order to reflect that. This would ensure that any pregnancy that ends after 20 weeks would still be defined and included.
The fourth change is expanding the definition that would be able to be taking bereavement leave. The committee believes that parents planning to adopt a child and parents having a baby through surrogacy should also be entitled to bereavement leave on the unplanned end of a relevant pregnancy, and that that should be reflected by changing it in the bill.
The final change is the cause of pregnancy ending. It clarifies that employees who experience the end of a pregnancy by way of an abortion would not be eligible for bereavement leave. The committee believed that the intent of this bill is to provide bereavement leave to those who experience a miscarriage or stillbirth, not for abortion. The committee recommended changing and removing the word "unplanned" from the bill.
In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge all of those women who submitted, all of the time that has been given to drive a change that I know will make a real difference in women's and whānau lives around New Zealand. Nō reira, I commend this bill to the House.





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill this afternoon. I was a latecomer to this piece of legislation. I've only been the spokesperson for women for the past two weeks, and so I came into the select committee at the very last moment, when we were adjusting the last few pieces of wording before it came back to the House. But I do want to congratulate, first of all, Ginny Andersen for putting this bill forward. Often, members' bills see somewhere where there's a small gap in a piece of legislation that makes such a huge difference, and this is going to make a big difference in the lives of women who suffer from miscarriage. It seeks to make it clear that employees are eligible for bereavement leave for three days if they do have a miscarriage. At present, the Holidays Act doesn't allow for that, so it's a very, very strong move, in my mind.
It surprises me, actually, when I look through some of the reading that I've done around this, because as the member mentioned before, there remains for some people a secrecy—for some people, a shame—around miscarriage, and yes, society can do better. You know, it's quite surprising when you read that one in four pregnancies end in miscarriage, and yet it's not something that is often noticed. It's not that we want to make a big thing about it for a woman either, but it's just something that seems to go under the radar for the reasons of either shame or secrecy. I know the stories of a number of women who have had a miscarriage and then just picked themselves up and gone back to work, and it's not until, you know, weeks, days, months later that the grief starts to kick in. 
So National supports measures which support women and families, and that's why we're supporting this bill. Miscarriage is an important issue, because it affects around 20,000 women in New Zealand every year, which is not an insignificant number. It's a very large number of people. We also believe that most employers would act in good faith when it comes to leave applications. However, we recognise that there are some who may not. It's even wider than that, because if there is secrecy and shame surrounding this, it's not just that the employers might not grant the leave; it's actually that perhaps the woman is too embarrassed to ask for the leave, too shy to ask for the leave, or doesn't want to bring attention to the fact that she would need leave for a miscarriage. So I think it's really important that we make this clear.
So the bill is removing ambiguity from the law, making it clear that an unplanned end of a pregnancy constitutes grounds for bereavement leave for the mother and her partner or spouse, and that the duration of the bereavement leave should be up to three days. Now, when I came in a couple of weeks ago, at the end of the discussion—and I'm not going to go through all of the particular changes, because there are other people that were there, and we've actually heard from Ginny Andersen herself what those changes were. But the one that I think was really significant in the last moments of preparing for this bill was that we thought about parents who were going to be adoptive parents.
We looked at not just a woman and her partner in the sense that we think about miscarriage but someone who had undertaken to be the primary carer, and so often that is somebody different than the natural birth mother. So we spent quite some time having a look around what the wording of that particular need would be in the bill. Really, it was to support someone who had undertaken to be the primary carer, and so that's described in section 7(1)(c) of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 of a child born as the result of a pregnancy. So if the child had gone to full term and been born, then the person who had undertaken to be the primary carer would then be the primary carer of this baby. Under this Act, if that pregnancy results in a miscarriage and the baby is lost, then it means that there's also some grief that comes upon those people who had undertaken to be the primary carer had that pregnancy resulted in the birth of a live baby.
So I think, from me, that's about all I'm going to say at this point, but I again congratulate the member and I congratulate the committee on the way with which they've worked with this bill and brought it to the House in the way it has been brought to the House, and it's a pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.





JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is truly a pleasure to stand in support of this bill here this afternoon, and I too want to take the time to congratulate my colleague, Ginny Andersen, on firstly bringing this bill to the ballot and then having it drawn from the ballot and then working through it with our Education and Workforce Committee. I say my congratulations here this afternoon because I was away when this bill went through its first reading at the end of last year. I was really disappointed that I was away because I have a personal affinity to this bill, as I have suffered two miscarriages myself, one before my two children were born and one after my two children were born. Both were devastating on my life, and working through this with the select committee at the time brought back a whole lot of personal anxiety as I was working through that, but it also reminded me of just how necessary legislation like this is. 
As the previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger, has said, sometimes there are small changes that are required in our law that seem small to many of us but make the biggest difference to so many people. This piece of legislation, as we heard in our select committee, will make a very, very big difference to so many people, and I will say particularly women. It's not just women; there are a number of men who will benefit from this bill as well, but I think that from my perspective, it really is the women who will benefit greatly from this bill.
As we heard from Ginny Andersen in the first speech here this evening, we heard about the ambiguity that currently exists in the 2003 Holidays Act, where employees are entitled to three days' bereavement leave when there is a death of a child but there is ambiguity over whether that would extend to a miscarriage or a stillbirth. This particular bill does make that clear and tidies that up and makes the line very, very distinct for people who are going through the situation of the miscarriage or stillbirth. As I said, the bill does remove that ambiguity.
During our select committee process, we actually had 37 submitters. Now, sometimes we could say that that doesn't seem a lot, but actually we heard from other people outside of the select committee process right throughout that time, through the media. Everyone—those whole 37 and every other aspect where we heard from—was completely in support of this bill. I'm not sure—I think this actually might be the first bill that I've sat in in select committee that we've had 100 percent agreement from our submitters that everyone was in favour of this particular bill. There were elements that people brought up where we could strengthen the bill, but everyone supported the intent of it, and as a select committee I'd have to say that we did work through this with diligence. We worked very hard on it, and it was great to have such good support across both sides of the select committee in working through this particular bill.
Submissions spoke to the select committee about the importance of this piece of legislation. The submitters spoke about how—we heard personal stories and how much it would mean to them as people that they didn't have to argue for leave. People didn't actually necessarily bring up the aspect that they had to argue for leave, but they said to take that element away, that stress away, was really important. I can distinctly remember in that select committee process where one submitter spoke of the fact of the shame that they felt of having had a miscarriage and the fact that they then had to go to their employer to ask about having leave, and they weren't certain whether they would be entitled to that leave. Now, this bill will take that away, that they know that that entitlement exists because it exists in law.
Now, the previous speaker talked about the fact of being quite amazed at people coming forward and feeling that sense of shame. That is something that I absolutely know from personal experience that those women felt. I know that I had that same sense of dread when I had to go to my employer and tell my employer, who knew that I was pregnant, that I had lost my baby. I didn't even want to have to articulate the words in that first instance, and I think that I'm still feeling that grief today, and that's 27 years later that I still feel that grief. So to say that these are just moments in time or that you will get over it is not correct, and that is what we heard from every single submitter who shared their personal experience during the select committee process.
The select committee also spoke about making certain that there was that importance given for time to grieve in this instance, not just being able to say or ask, "I need sick leave." but actually acknowledging it as grief, and that is a really important distinction. We don't need, when that situation happens, sick leave—that might have to come as well—but we need to acknowledge our grief, and acknowledging that as bereavement leave was really, really important to the people who came to our select committee and shared their experiences with us. There were tears shed from some of those people, and they were women. There were tears that were shed in that time, and I want to thank those people for actually sharing those very, very personal experiences. I know how difficult that would have been for them, and I know that I would've struggled in a similar situation, but the fact that they did come and acknowledge how personal that grief is, and was, and how it would help to have that acknowledged by society by having this bereavement leave for them, how important that was, made this bill so much stronger. I acknowledge them for their strength of character to be able to do that.
As I've said, telling their stories was a big part, and I sometimes, thinking about this bill, wish we had a few more that could've shared those stories, because sometimes in this place we lose the sense of the heart stories to put the picture around the legislation, and yet we need to hear those heart stories to understand just how important it is, the work that we do here. There's no greater bill than this one for being able to tell those heart stories.
So I'd really like to finish with a quote from one of the submitters who has shared their experience of their miscarriage and just what that means to us here and this piece of legislation that we're committing here today: "I have personally had two miscarriages. Both pregnancies, my husband and I got to see our baby on the scan and saw a heartbeat as well. We began to bond with the life that had started to grow inside of me and were both absolutely heartbroken when we lost these pregnancies. While I was fortunate that the companies I worked for were compassionate enough to allow me three days of bereavement leave, my husband was not offered any leave whatsoever for that time he required off not only to care for me but also his own grief, his grief of his own loss. I think that this bill will create equity among employees so that they don't have to hope that their employer is one who will be compassionate enough to offer bereavement leave for miscarriage and instead will know that they are covered by law." That is exactly why we've worked so hard to make a very, very good piece of legislation, and once again, I'd like to acknowledge my colleague here, Ginny Andersen, on the fantastic work that she has done in bringing this bill and shepherding it through the House. I commend this bill to the House.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm taking this call to say that this side is supporting this bill. I want to acknowledge Ginny Andersen for her work on this bill. During the select committee process, I want to give special acknowledgement to Ginny Andersen for her very collaborative manner that she had to work with all members on the select committee on this legislation. So I really want to acknowledge her for that. She wanted to make sure that everybody was happy with the changes that were being made in the select committee process and she's not a regular member of that select committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, but she was always there when we discussed this bill. So I want to thank Ginny Andersen for her commitment on the select committee as well. Can I also acknowledge Jan Tinetti. I want to express my sympathies to Jan Tinetti and I'm really sorry to hear your experience and I fully understand the pain remains for ever. 
This legislation is really important because, as we have heard from other members before, this is something that people don't openly talk about, and maybe through this legislation it will make it easier for people to actually come forward and state the actual reason of going out and seeking that leave.
So in this bill we understand the main purpose is, according to the member in charge of this bill, about clarifying a discrepancy in the Act, which is that bereavement leave is there if somebody's child passes away but there is no bereavement leave for a miscarriage. That is to be clarified, or it can be seen as an extension of bereavement leave. Whichever way we see it, we support this bill and we support the cause and the reason why we have this bill before us.
During the select committee process we received 37 submissions. We had the opportunity to hear from 10 submitters, and I want to thank them. I'm really grateful to them for their courage, for their submissions, and the way submitters actually shared their experiences as well. So I want to acknowledge that too.
In the select committee, we made some changes and the changes were mainly to make sure that this leave is available to all people that are affected. We didn't want to unknowingly exclude anybody who would go through this experience of miscarriage and not be able to access this bereavement leave of three days. So in all other cases, yes, it's three days in the Employment Relations Act, and we wanted to see that it is three days for this one as well. 
There are changes that I would like to highlight. The first one was a mother's knowledge of pregnancy. So here we wanted to make sure the word "confirmed" was not implying that medically it is proven that the mother is pregnant before she experiences a miscarriage. I personally don't know any friends, but I have heard from my friends about their friends, those who have experienced miscarriage—this is without knowing that they were pregnant. So we wanted to make sure people, those who experience miscarriage without knowing that they were pregnant and realise when they had that miscarriage that actually they were pregnant, are covered through this legislation. 
Then the other issue is how you deal with the employer about this issue. So the employer—we know that, yeah, the good faith principle applies here again, according to the Employment Relations Act, where for other kinds of leave employers can ask for proof. But we didn't want to see that that should become a hindrance for this person who is already suffering, already grieving, that the person is also required to produce proof, because in a situation when a person experiences miscarriage without knowing the person was pregnant, it would be really difficult for them to produce proof before they go on leave. 
So the main purpose of this bill is to give this individual and other people that we have extended this leave to, through this legislation, in the select committee, the opportunity to grieve and also deal with the whole process. So that's why we have changed some words. These words which were changed during the select committee, it might look like it's just one word removed or one word changed, but that has changed the whole meaning of the change where it has happened. Like, as I said, "confirmed pregnancy", we were not sure about word "confirmed", so we decided not to have that word "confirmed", and, again, proof of pregnancy that is related to that. 
Then next, we also changed the definition of miscarriage, because we didn't want to exclude anybody. Originally, as the bill was proposed, the definition was taken from the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act, and, according to that, we would have excluded people who were pregnant up to eight weeks. So we didn't want to exclude anybody. We wanted to make sure that anybody who experiences a miscarriage, whether it's a gestation of two weeks or whether it's 36, 38, or 40 weeks—40 weeks is actually the birth time, I would say—any time before the normal birth happens, if it is a miscarriage or stillbirth, that person is actually entitled to this leave. So up to 20 weeks, according to this now, is considered to be a miscarriage and after 20 weeks a stillbirth.
Then, the other thing was: who should be entitled for this leave? Because we know that when bereavement leave is accessed, it can be accessed for a number of relatives, and sometimes as the extended family you can access bereavement leave. Here we wanted to make sure we are extending this leave to people that would be grieving. So parents that possibly were going to adopt, if that was the situation, or if there was a surrogacy arrangement, and also, if some couples or an individual was going to become a primary carer, all those people are covered. So those kinds of changes were made in the select committee. 
And then finally, a very important change was made in the select committee about this word "unplanned", because we wanted to make sure that the end to pregnancy is unplanned. But in some circumstances, as it was discussed in the select committee, an individual could be having some other treatment for another illness, but then the secondary consequence of that is that the person undergoes miscarriage. In that situation, that medical treatment was planned, but the person didn't want to see their pregnancy end. So we wanted to make sure those people are included as well in this leave. But it is quite clear that abortion is not included. So it is actually the secondary consequence of any other treatment if that leads to a miscarriage; that is definitely included in this bill. 
So I would say that this bill is actually something that is quite thoughtful. We know that the number of women that we have—as for the numbers, as we have discussed before, that normally people don't come out and talk about it. So there could be more numbers than we know about, but we would really like people to feel comfortable about it and come forward and seek this leave where it is needed in that good faith relationship with their employer. We want these people to be supported, because their health and wellbeing is really important for us. Obviously, that is important for their employer as well. So, we are quite supportive of this legislation. Thank you.





MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It is a privilege to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to, once again, offer our support to this Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). In doing so, I too would like to join in the congratulations for the member Ginny Andersen for the way she has shepherded this bill through so proactively and for her engagement with the select committee process, of which I was part. 
Members' bills, as Barbara Kuriger pointed out, are often quite technical or are for wee gaps in legislation, but in regard to this one, it is a substantive one. We've got an estimated 20,000 stillbirths or miscarriages every year. This is a huge cross-section of New Zealanders that are affected by these circumstances, and I think this bill will make a real difference to people's lives, so congratulations to Ginny Andersen for bringing this forward. Of course, this looks to amend the Holidays Act of 2003, recognising stillbirth and miscarriage in regard to bereavement leave, and it does clarify the ambiguities that sit within that Act now. 
During the select committee process—it was a good process—there were 37 submissions. The ones—I think it was 10—that submitted in person were very emotional, and they certainly left us in no doubt of how much a need that this piece of legislation will be. 
During that, we made a number of amendments. We removed the need in the amendment to section 69 in clause 4(2) to have had a "confirmed" pregnancy, because it was pointed out by a number of submitters that women don't always know that they are pregnant when a miscarriage occurs, and we did not want to be in any way punitive or to draw a line there where it was making it more difficult for one mother over another to get access to this entitlement. So I think that was a good part of the process that we brought through the Education and Workforce Committee. Of course, as has been pointed out, there's still the duty of good faith within this with section 4 of the Employment Relations Act, and that still applies. 
As has been traversed, this bill applies only to unplanned terminations, miscarriages, and stillbirths. It does not apply to planned terminations or abortions. 
The other thing that we did—and I think New Zealand First absolutely supports—is recognise the breadth of people that are affected within this as well. I too was moved by Jan Tinetti's heartfelt speech before, and I do not wish in any way to minimise the effect on the female within this process, but for fathers too—while we may not be physically carrying the child, we're certainly emotionally involved. It is something of great anticipation to become a parent. So it is great that through the select committee process, we did clarify who would be eligible for such leave, which, of course, includes the partner of a biological parent who may not actually be still in the relationship with the woman concerned, and also caregivers who may have been the parents who were undertaking to be the primary caregiver post-birth and, of course, surrogates as well. So I think that was something that Clayton Mitchell, in his first reading speech, had indicated that we would be looking to see some indication of for the fathers and how they would be treated through this, and I'm not trying to draw equivalence, but there's certainly is an effect there. 
More broadly, I'm pleased to see this has got support across the House, because it does reflect the renewed or the much-increased focus on mental health. You know, across the House, I think we've recognised that we need to do much more in this space. There's a lot of resource going in, but I think this is a practical way that we can deal with this traumatic situation. It allows some time to grieve for a miscarriage or a stillbirth process, and it allows some healing to go back on. We heard through the submission process just how horrific this can be, and to then actually have to get up and have a shower and get dressed and go to work—you know, that's pretty horrendous stuff. 
I know that for the vast majority of cases, employers would be empathetic and would make provision, but this just ensures that there is an entitlement there for the people involved: the woman involved and the tight circle that are eligible within this legislation to take leave. It's actually an entitlement, and they don't have to put themselves through the trauma that Jan Tinetti outlined to us before—and many of the submitters too. 
So, without further ado, New Zealand First absolutely supports this. Once again, I commend you, Ginny Andersen, on the way you've brought this through and for the important impact that it will have on the lives of many New Zealanders. Thank you. 





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I intend to take just a short call on this bill, the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). This is an alteration to the Holidays Act. It's simply a clarification for the death of a child, clarifying that, actually, the death of a child can include unborn children—so up until 20 weeks it is considered a miscarriage, and after 20 weeks it is considered a stillbirth.
We've heard lots of contributions from the Government benches. I congratulate Ginny Andersen on being fortunate enough to have her member's bill drawn in her first term, and as some other women, and especially the submitters, have mentioned, it is something that is significant for some women to experience miscarriages, and my own experience of that, on a couple of occasions, were both quite different. So it's very difficult to determine that you must convince an employer of the pregnancy but also have that entitlement, as the member who just resumed his seat said, for the ability to grieve and recover.
So we have no issues with this bill. It has been through a thorough select committee process. I do note that it has taken the ambiguity out of the language to clarify, but it also shows that laws, as they are passed and embed themselves into society, do require some tweaking over time, and this is simply doing that, and for a very sensitive issue as well. It will allow for leave for up to three days for women who experience the unplanned loss of a child. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too am very pleased to rise on behalf of the Green Party to take a short but very enthusiastic call on the second reading of the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2), which is a member's bill brought forward from Ginny Andersen. I really want to acknowledge her for getting this drawn, as others have, but more, actually, for listening to people in her community, and mostly women in her community, who were telling her of a problem with our existing system. I think this is the best of Parliament, when we are able to hear the concerns of people and come up with solutions and join together in a unanimous voice to make lives easier. 
I too want to acknowledge that the point of this legislation is to ensure easy access and extended access to bereavement leave for pregnant people and their partners who have experienced the unplanned end of a pregnancy. I do just want to note how many times in the community I've met with people that have spoken about points in their life where things went wrong, or started going wrong, and how striking it has been to me—how often that comes back to a point of grief that was unresolved. I think it has, can have, an incredibly profound impact on people and family. I think this piece of legislation is really important in terms of raising the profile of this as an issue, of enabling people to speak about it, and, in acknowledging that, taking time to deal with your grief can pay off in the long term, and that we as a country support people to do that. 
I also would just like to acknowledge the Education and Workforce Committee. I wasn't fortunate enough to be on the select committee, but I think they engaged with the bill really actively, with the 100 percent of support from submitters, and with practical changes that were recommended. They made a small number of changes—but significant—to improve the bill that were supported by the members: so making it clear that the pregnant person didn't need to know that they were pregnant to be able to access this leave, and that proof was not required. This bill is about trying to avoid those conflict conversations in an employment context, and just ensuring that people in the depths of their grief are able to focus on their grief, not having a difficult conversation with their employer in proving the cause of their grief; and refining the definition of miscarriage—that is, that it is an unplanned end of the pregnancy, no matter how far along; and that there's a different time definition, miscarriage pre - 20-weeks versus stillbirth after 20 weeks. This just smoothed that out. 
It expanded the definition of eligibility to include parents planning to adopt, and those involved in surrogacy. It ensured that former spouses or partners of the pregnant person should be entitled to bereavement leave as well, recognising a planned child and the huge investment that many people have in the future for themselves with that child. That's true for the person carrying the pregnancy as well as the partner, or former partners—it is about the whole family. And this legislation is not to apply to abortion, because the point of difficulty around people's mental health that can come up in relation to abortion—it's not actually in relation to abortion, it's about having an unplanned, unexpected pregnancy, and not the ending of it. So we are very pleased to be supporting this. This is an important step in this country around supporting people to grieve and work together as a family to overcome tragedy.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2)—an amendment bill to the Holidays Act—which we're discussing today. I do want to echo the congratulations to the member Ginny Andersen for bringing this issue to the House. It is through members' bills that I think issues like this can be identified and resolved, so I do want to applaud her in the House. Also, to my fellow select committee colleague Jan Tinetti, I didn't know those stories about what you faced, and thank you for giving realism to the bill that we're discussing today and for sharing your story.
Look, the bill that we're discussing, of course, has been through a select committee process. I've come in on the back end of that, in the select committee. I joined the select committee just as we were putting this report together, so I wasn't able to hear the 37 submissions that were discussed or debated, but I was involved in the discussions around some of the intricacies of how we actually make this work from a practical basis—for example, whether we require proof for bereavement leave, and the scope and definition about who this should in fact apply to. I think we've got the balance about right in terms of giving effect to the grieving process.
I do want to call out Jan Logie's statement that this is really about just an acknowledgement that it is OK to grieve. For those of us who have been through this process or lost a loved one, we know that the grieving process takes time—in fact, in most cases, far more than the three days that's under the law. But this is just an acknowledgment that, look, it is OK to in fact grieve for something that has been lost.
So I just want to acknowledge all the work that has gone into this process. I want to acknowledge, of course, the employers out there who have in the past given their staff bereavement leave for this even though they weren't required to under the law. I think on this side of the House, we always respect the employer-employee relationship, and that is one that is built on good faith and trust. I think a lot of employers, had they known in the past that their workers had been through this, would have actually stepped up and said, "Look, just take a couple of days off. Take a breather and come back with fresh eyes." And I do want to acknowledge all the employers who have stepped up to the plate and gone beyond the law and actually extended this.
But this is an important day for Ginny Andersen. It's an important day for the more than 20,000 women out there who go through this process every year, and I want to acknowledge the members of the select committee, the officials, the submitters, and I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan—five minutes.





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2) with great pride, partly, because it's in the name of my friend and colleague Ginny Andersen, one of the "class of 2017" from Labour. I just want to, as many others have done in the House today, commend her on the work that she's done to shepherd this bill through the different stages to where it's at today. I also, just on the outset, want to acknowledge and thank Kathryn van Beek and the other women who have pushed for this legislative change over many years and, really, once again, just thank them for the work and the courage that it's taken for them to speak of their experiences as well, because at the heart of this bill lies the issue of grief, which is an extremely painful process.
When we lose someone we love we experience all sorts of things from insecurity to fear; to anger, sometimes; to shock and disbelief; and even physical symptoms, especially so when it's the loss of a baby through miscarriage or stillbirth. And so that is the last point in time that someone should be expected to go through uncertainty or ambiguity about the leave that they can expect from their employer at that point in time. Acknowledging, as others have, that there are some employers who, of course, would grant that leave willingly, but we know from submitters to this bill that for many people that hasn't been the case, and that's where this bill, changes things. 
So this bill takes the ambiguity out of current legislation and it clarifies the fact that employees who have lost a child through miscarriage or stillbirth are entitled to bereavement leave. That is an important distinction. In some cases, people say, "Why can't they just take sick leave?" Firstly, sick leave entitlements are not infinite, but also, more importantly, they're not for bereavement. This is a specific reason that people need to take leave. Also, my colleague Jan Tinetti pointed out in her speech, her contribution earlier today, that the fact that women can take bereavement leave in itself is an important distinction, because that's part of the healing process and that's what this bill speaks to and allows for as well. 
Other speakers have gone into the various changes that the Education and Workforce Committee has suggested, has recommended, to finesse this bill. And I too just want to point to the fact that what the select committee has done in their consideration of this bill is to actually clarify it further. And I thank members who sat around, who were part of that select committee, and put their heart and soul, from what I've heard, into doing this. 
So the knowledge of pregnancy—I know from others that there are women who haven't actually realised that they're pregnant, but do lose that pregnancy. The effect to them is the same in terms of the grief that they feel of the loss of that child and so one of the select committee recommendations was to amend clause 4(2), making it clear that the mother doesn't need to have known that she was pregnant in order to be able to avail herself of this particular kind of leave, bereavement leave. There's also not a requirement for proof of pregnancy for an employee to take bereavement leave as well. There was a recommendation around the definition of "miscarriage", also the relationship requirement, and I was happy to see that this bill also believes that parents planning to adopt a child or parents having a baby through surrogacy should also be entitled to bereavement leave on the unplanned end of that relevant pregnancy. It also includes the former spouse or partner of the pregnant person if they were the biological parent of that child.
I, just in the time remaining, quickly point to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions' submission around the fact that Family Planning reports that there's also a lot of stigma and discrimination around miscarriage and stillbirth and that, you know, allowing women to take this bereavement leave might actually eliminate some of that stigma and silence that women face. And I say this particularly as the chair of the NZPPD, the New Zealand Parliamentarians' Group on Population and Development, where we work on issues around sexual health, sexual reproductive rights, and health as well. And I'm hugely supportive of this bill, and I commend it to the House.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call Agnes Loheni, can I ask the members of the public that are in the gallery for a little bit of quiet. There's a really important debate happening on the floor of the Chamber, and it would be really helpful for the process of this bill for a little silence.





AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker—a pleasure to be able to make a short contribution to this, the second reading of the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). I'd like to acknowledge the member Ginny Andersen in bringing this bill to the House. We in the National Party support measures that support women and families.
Miscarriage is an important issue, and it's a painful one. It's an issue that affects one in four women in this country every year, and, sadly, I am one of those women. I am truly grateful to be a mother of five children, but I'll never ever forget the baby that I lost, sadly, 16 years ago through a miscarriage. That experience was very traumatic for my husband and I, and so I support the intent of this bill, and as the previous member who sat down said, this is about grief.
I just want to put some thoughts to that, in terms of grief, because I do have some issues with this bill. As I said, I support the bill, but I do have some issues in that we are allowing a grieving process for one part of loss but not for others. We are allowing into this bill grieving to be allowed for women who lose a baby through miscarriage or stillbirth, but, unfortunately, that is not a compassion that will be shown to women that have lost a baby due to abortion.
I would like to acknowledge all those that took the time to make submissions on this bill, and I want to highlight some points raised in a submission by Catherine Gillies, who is a woman that works a lot in the space of post-abortive counselling. In her submission—and I echo the sentiments raised in Catherine's submission about women in post-abortive grief: "They need their grief to be acknowledged. Society does them a grave injustice when it says, 'it was your choice, live with it' and expects them to just pull up their socks, bury their grief and get on with it." So as I said, this bill creates a class of loss, a class of grief, where one is acknowledged and one is not.
So there is an underlying hypocrisy with creating a law which will undoubtedly lead to women having to lie about their abortion so that they can be considered for bereavement leave under this legislation. In my Abortion Legislation Bill speech, I spoke about caring for women who had gone through an abortion. I cared about their mental health and the ongoing effects of grief. It is an intellectual dishonesty by refusing to acknowledge that a woman who has had an abortion has lost a child. They willingly concede that a woman who has had a miscarriage has lost a baby worthy to be grieved over, but if a woman has had an abortion—no regard for that loss. Nothing to see here, folks—move on.
So whilst I support this bill so we can support women who have suffered the loss of a baby due to miscarriage or childbirth, I feel that this bill is incomplete. Thank you.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to take a call on this bill, and also, like many before me, I'd like to congratulate Ginny Andersen for her member's bill. The cross-party support for this bill obviously reflects the importance of this particular issue.
Currently, the provisions of the Holidays Act, as they are written, quite often lead to disputes between employers and employees when it comes to having to take bereavement leave. And that, of course, in the circumstances that that occurs, is absolutely unacceptable and unreasonable, but it happens more frequently than not. Having worked at grassroots levels at a union, I can state for the record that I have frequently represented women who have had to defend themselves for needing to take leave for their miscarriage. Now, there are examples of employers even going through social media to say, "Well, you said you had a miscarriage that day, but at night we saw you at a party.", or "At night, we saw you going out for dinner." What that doesn't recognise is that quite often the women actually put on a brave face and don't admit to their employer or to their friends and family that they are hurting from this particular event. 
No, a miscarriage or a stillbirth is a traumatic time, and arguing to have to take leave during that time is adding to that particular grieving stage. So this bill is a really good opportunity for people to also talk about the issue. I acknowledge Kathryn van Beek as well for her advocacy on this topic, and of course my colleague Clare Curran for all her work that she has done on this bill.
It has been mentioned by our previous speakers that our select committee heard or received 37 submissions on this bill—all supporting either the bill completely or the bill with amendments. As it is evident from the submissions that we received, it is also important that people feel more comfortable talking about pregnancy laws. There was a submission from New Zealand Family Planning, which stated: "it is important that we work to eliminate stigma, shame, and silence surrounding miscarriage.", and it isn't something many people talk openly about. The PSA Women's Network committee said, "Miscarriage is not really talked about so openly … [it's like] an incomplete job or project. Family and friends would say 'Oh, just try again you will have no problem' or 'sorry to hear that, don't worry it will happen' … It is almost as if couples, especially the women, are silently viewed as a failure". In fact, I will add myself to the record as well, and I had a miscarriage at 13 weeks. In a way, even though I didn't feel ashamed of it, I did feel in some way that it was an unfinished project—it was something that I had failed at. So I can very much understand how these women that have submitted to us may have perceived their miscarriage.
So many submitters shared their personal stories with us, and I think they were very brave and forthcoming. It is due to their openly shared stories that we have been able to get this bill across the House, potentially with cross-party support. It is also really important that we acknowledge that it is also important when you look at the growth of people in precarious work situations in Aotearoa New Zealand, higher proportions of Māori and Pacific women are in this casual and seasonal work, and it means that those groups of women will experience greater disadvantage; in particular, these groups of women will need greater protections in employment law, and that is exactly what this bill will do.
So this bill will greatly reduce stress around a time that is already very difficult for women, and it will prevent arguments between employers and employees, and it is a burden off women not having to worry about either their job security or having to take unpaid leave off work, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm really pleased to take just what will be a very short call so that I can leave the last speech before the dinner break, or the other speeches tonight, for the Labour Party. 
Firstly, can I congratulate Ginny Andersen. This is a fantastic example of one of the very, very good members' bills that we have seen. There's obviously a gap in the law, and this is a very, very good way of sorting that out. Obviously, as was evident—and I only joined the select committee at the very end of this process, and I didn't get to see those submitters who came to tell their stories. But it is very clear that there is a gap in the law. If you lose a child, for example, the bereavement leave is available to you, but not if you are to lose a child through either stillbirth or a miscarriage. 
Speakers before me have gone into the changes we made at the Education and Workforce Committee, but I just wanted to talk about one in particular and just talk about a personal experience of mine. In the definition of "miscarriage", the changes that we made in the select committee make it so that at any stage of the pregnancy, the loss of that pregnancy would count in the bill, rather than eight weeks' gestation. 
I have a very, very dear friend of mine who was going through IVF and went through three cycles, and I went on that journey with her. It was an absolute roller coaster of emotion, from being told that she was pregnant to, a number of weeks later, finding out that that pregnancy hadn't lasted and that she had lost her baby. The emotion and the stress and the grief that she went through was a terrible, terrible time for her, and this bill, allowing her and other women like her to take leave to go through that grieving process, is essential, in my view. 
This is a very highly personal issue. I just wanted to say to Jan Tinetti, to Marja Lubeck, and also to my colleague Agnes Loheni, thank you for sharing your stories tonight to give weight to this bill. Again, Ginny Andersen, for bringing to the House, thank you very much, and I commend the bill to the House. 





Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thanks, Mr Speaker. First of all, Ginny Andersen, well done. It's such an exciting thing to get a member's bill drawn, but to have something so powerful to take to this House that gets the support across the House is a big deal. So well done. 
Thank you to you, Erica Stanford, for bringing up IVF, which is another often unspoken experience that so many women have. I am one of those women. Nine cycles I went through over 18 months. You know, I've had a few painful experiences in my life, but that was probably the most in terms of the impact that it has on you psychologically. I am so thankful to have two beautiful boys—twins—as a result of that process, so it was worth it. 
But for so many women—and we know that the stats say one in four suffer a miscarriage, and it may be much higher than that. We in this House today are providing recognition to women who have had that experience that they often suffer in silence and feel that they can't really speak of, and it goes unrecognised. One of the powerful things that was said—and I think Ginny said it right in her speech—was that it's not sickness, but it's bereavement, and, therefore, it's grief that needs to be acknowledged. 
So I want to say thank you to Kathryn van Beek—in fact, a heartfelt thankyou to Kathryn van Beek—who first came to my office in Dunedin at the beginning of 2017 with her idea for a member's bill. She was quite clear about what she wanted to change. I talked it through with her, and I thought it was a good idea. I asked her to go away and to see if she could build some support and to come back to me. It took her quite a few months. By the time she came back to me with that incredible support that she had built up through the Sands website and the Facebook group that she had worked through, the Government had changed and I was a Minister, and I couldn't take a member's bill through for her, but I'm so pleased that Ginny has taken that up. I'm so proud of her tenacious and sensitive approach to this issue that has touched a real nerve around the country and in this House, indeed. 
So well done, and I know that we're not quite there yet. We've still got to go through the committee stage and the third reading, but it feels like a really powerful, powerful moment in our House tonight. So I certainly commend this bill to the House. 
Just quickly, I'll touch on the messages that came out through the Education and Workforce Committee around the distress around miscarriage and stillbirth. They were around the employers requiring workers to use sick leave for miscarriages and stillbirths, and around the stigma around miscarriages, and submitters said that there needs to be more open dialogue. They said that miscarriage impacts those dealing with chronic illness more significantly and that Māori and Pacific women and women from migrant cultures may currently be more likely to avoid discussing pregnancy loss with their employer. All of those issues came out through the 37 oral submissions that we had on the select committee, and they have provided the ability for us to produce a much better bill out of that select committee, which means, now that it's going back through the House, it will be a much more solid piece of legislation. 
Just finally, I do want to give another shout out to Kathryn van Beek, who actually writes children's books now. Her latest book is called Bruce Goes Outside, and I heartily recommend that you go and look it up. So I really commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time.





VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS
SPEAKER: Members, it is my intention to indicate that at the conclusion of the Hon Paula Bennett's valedictory, the House will suspend until 7.30 p.m., so that I don't have to interrupt the celebrations that are occurring at that time. I've also had an indication that the celebrations between the two speeches before that will happen only once, after Sarah Dowie's speech, just in order to progress along. I now call on Alastair Scott to make a valedictory statement.





ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In preparing for this speech, I did some research on other valedictory speeches. Most give thanks to their supporters. Some talk about what they've achieved. Others talk about what they've not achieved and wish they had. Some talk about what should be done in the future. But all of them will talk, at some point, about their favourite subject, and that is themselves, so I will do the same.
It has been a pleasure and a privilege to have been the member of Parliament for the Wairarapa for the past six years. In fact, it is a privilege to give a valedictory speech. Some of us who arrive here don't get that opportunity, so I'm grateful to be able to sign off with this speech today. Six years has flown by. This experience has been like no other. Today marks the end of my parliamentary career. For me, it is a time to move on to the next challenge and adventure. Reflecting on the time I've been here, I realised that I've learnt quite a lot. For example, I'm more convinced now that the democratic process is a good one.
Like all democracies, the system is run by the people. As politicians, we think we run the place, but the system, thankfully, ensures that we do not. I've learnt that it doesn't matter if you have a good idea that might change the world. On their own, good ideas don't count. There must be support with numbers to get the idea across the line. There needs to be a pressure to squeeze that idea towards its destination. Of course, I've had at least 101 very, very good ideas, but don't worry, I won't go through them all. Most of them, unfortunately, did not have the support of the numbers, either in caucus or in the general public. So the idea fails, at least for the moment. This is the nature of democracy—slow moving and frustrating for me at times, but democracy ensures that my crazy ideas are not instituted simply because I sit in this place as a member of Parliament.
So what ideas have I failed to move forward? The elephants, for me at least, that should be addressed but are difficult to change, ideas that I've discussed with various Ministers in the previous Government—that is not a criticism of the previous Government, but more an understanding of the way the system works. In fact, the National Ministers mostly agreed with me, but as one Minister said, "Alastair, you're absolutely right. I agree with you, but in reality, I'm only middle management, and you are a junior's assistant." In fact, middle management or not, a previous Prime Minister said the same thing: "Look, Alastair. I just won't be hard to get this past the kitchen Cabinet."
So what were those elephants that I couldn't get movement on? Remembering these issues are not new; they are just the ones that are important to me. The first is abatement rates and our welfare system. Of course, we need a system to support those that find themselves in difficult situations. My elephant relates to tax credits that support working families but, in fact, penalise those same families when they earn an extra dollar—the abatement rates that are so punitive that it is no wonder that some choose not to work, or restrict themselves, at least. The effective tax rate for some people can be as high as 100 percent. That is, for every dollar earned, the tax man takes the entire dollar. For me, that is not right or fair.
The second elephant is similar but more specific, and that is the Income Related Rent Subsidy. I see in recent weeks the Minister of Finance has discussed the issue with the Wellington City Council. The intention might be good. However, the subsidy is an incentive not to work. The more the tenant earns, the more rent the tenant must pay. Again, this is an abatement issue. The housing allowances also create problems. These subsidies encourage people to stay at home, not to work, not to relocate, and not to get ahead. It is a bad policy. A universal basic income could be part of the solution. After all, we already have a universal basic income for those over 65, without the punitive abatement rates. 
My last elephant is the huge underutilised State-owned asset of 65,000 houses managed by an agency that doesn't know if it's a landlord or a social welfare provider, an asset that could do so much better for the people that live in them, and for the landlord—don't forget, the taxpayer.
What else have I learnt? I think that the bills in the ballot should be given more attention by the Government of the day. There are some good ideas and policies sitting in there that don't get any attention until they're drawn. This, to me, is a wasted opportunity. Of course, there are a couple that I would like to mention today, and, yes, they are my bills.
First, there is my drug driving bill that was drawn and rejected by the Parliament. It is unfortunate that it was not at least sent to a select committee at the time, but that is politics. I am pleased to say that the issue will be dealt with by a National Government as a road safety priority.
Another is the issue of child sex offenders, the ones that are on the Child Sex Offender Register that unfortunately are able to travel overseas without Customs being able to alert police when those registered offenders leave New Zealand for a foreign country. The registered offender is supposed to tell the police of their international travel plans. Yeah, right! As if they're going to do that. There is no automatic check at the border so, unfortunately, the recipient country is unaware of who the nice man from New Zealand is and is unaware of his history. To me, that is a no-brainer that should be combined with Greg O'Connor's member's bill dealing with a similar issue.
The last of my bills in the ballot relates to company directors and when a company may be trading insolvently. This has become more important since COVID-19, and I acknowledge the changes the Government has made in this regard. However, it's a temporary fix, and while it is a complex part of the law, it needs to be clarified to give confidence to directors so that they can continue to act in the best interests of the company, rather than taking the easy, personally safer pathway to resign and liquidate the company. The changes made in Australia two years ago have been positive. I'm sure there are many other good ideas in that ballot box that a Government of the day can pick up and should pick up.
When I arrived, I had been told that a select committee is the place where the Government is held to account, where Ministers are brought in and questioned by the members to satisfy themselves that the Minister is doing his or her job. I had done this sort of thing before, sitting at boardroom tables and questioning the CEO and questioning the status quo. It must have been my first opportunity to question the Minister of Finance. I'd been given a few patsy questions to ask, but I wanted to ask some proper questions, the ones that were really on my mind at the time. So I did, and I thought I'd done a pretty good job. The Minister had to finally answer a couple of tough questions. Later that evening, Todd McClay and then David Bennett pulled me aside. "Mate, what were you doing?", they said. "We're in Government, not Opposition. It's the Opposition's job to rip into the Minister. We're here to make him look good." So that was something else I learnt.
We are certainly living in different times to when I arrived in 2014. Then the economy was strong and Kiwis were returning home, creating higher demand for housing and keeping Aucklanders flocking to provincial New Zealand. Today, we are in an economic crisis. COVID-19 has resulted in greater quantitative easing across the globe. Our own Reserve Bank is starting to print New Zealand dollars. Modern monetary theory is in full swing as deficits balloon to stimulate and try to give confidence to slowing economies. The way we deal with this crisis will have long-term consequences for all of us. It is important that the stimulus packages are not directed to unproductive work schemes that simply postpone the inevitable and waste real money. We cannot simply print money and spend it to solve the problem. Eventually, international markets will judge the management of any economy and ruthlessly punish countries that print and spend where no productive output is created. It is important that we make sound economic judgments for every dollar that we invest.
There are many sensible opportunities that can be taken to catch up on infrastructure spending that has not occurred, to change the funding model of local government so that they might create better value, and to rip up the Resource Management Act (RMA) that puts a handbrake on projects that could and should be delivered by the private sector. It is good to hear Judith Collins announce a rewrite of the RMA so that New Zealanders can be relieved of the colossal burden that the RMA has put across every household and business, while also rewriting the legislation that protects the environment that is so important to us all. If we want the New Zealand waka to travel effectively and efficiently, we should not drag the anchor and anchor rope behind it. We should do everything we can to allow people to operate with the least amount of resistance, the least amount of bureaucracy. We can trust people to build businesses and support their communities themselves, without a nanny State. We do not need the State to own and control so much of the economy. Governments from both sides have proven to be poor landlords, poor property developers, poor farmers, poor IT developers, and poor managers of buildings and infrastructure projects. The less interference a Government has in our lives, the better off we will all be.
One of the pleasures of this job is to meet young people who come to Parliament on school trips. They think we're some sort of special group of people, and of course some of us think we are more special than others, but I let the kids know that we MPs are the same as them. We come from various backgrounds, like them, and we get nervous about certain aspects of our day, like them. And, of course, we have good days and bad days, just like them. I ask them a question. I ask: what is the most important thing you can do to achieve your goals? Some kids say it is to do your best, to work hard, to be determined, to study, to do your homework—all those things that we get told at school. Those things are all fine, but it's not what makes the difference, in my view. I say to them that the most important thing is to take a risk, to consider options and then give it a go—give it a real crack. Go to where it feels uncomfortable, take the risk that you might fail, and then roll the dice. Opportunities are there to be grabbed. Life is short. We need to back ourselves and take those risks.
We're an unusual bunch of people here in Parliament. Although we are here as a House of Representatives, we are not your typical bunch. We are extroverts. We like to hear the sound of our own voices. We love to be heard, and of course we all know what is best for ourselves and for others! We're always right, and we will stand here for days arguing about how right we think we are. We are all here to make a difference and to contribute to this place and to our communities by being here. The flip side, and another reality, and potentially a surprise to some of us, is that we are not indispensable. Parliament will work just fine once we are gone. When we leave, the system's wheels will continue to spin. Usually they spin faster as we learn and progress as a country, and so I am satisfied with my time spent here as a member of Parliament, having an opportunity that most don't get and saying what I've wanted to say in the time that I've been here. 
Some friends said I was mad going into politics—it was a thankless task and I would not have the patience—and they were generally right. However, I would not change a thing. I have had some many, many wonderful experiences and have met some great people along the way. There are many people who have backed me. I know and appreciate that I could not have done or been here without the help and support of those people: my party supporters in the Wairarapa, my staff here and in the electorate, my friends, and especially my family. I thank them all, and to you, the members to Parliament, I wish you all the best for the job you have ahead. Thank you.





SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): When I started my parliamentary career, I would have done anything to make it to the caucus room. The drive was immeasurable. I would have clawed at the windows or walked across hot coals to get in. It was on that premise of motivation that I ran my campaigns and worked with gusto in Parliament and in my community. On leaving, I have the same level of intensity: I could claw at the windows or walk across hot coals to get out.
It's with that amount of passion that I believe one should act and make decisions. Today, I look back on my six years with humility and pride, being so honoured to represent our mighty and southernmost seat of Invercargill. At the heart of all of my work has been the mantra to improve my constituents' lives, from the battle with a doctor who was refusing to offer free medical visits for children, to lobbying for aquaculture expansion and gaining funds for feasibility studies, developing conservation policy and my shark cage diving bill, or leading the charge for Southland DisAbility Enterprises—one of my favourite charities—to win back our local WasteNet contract.
I believe, however, that some of my greatest achievements have been local and private. As the local MP, you are uniquely attached to the people, helping constituents no matter what their political beliefs or backgrounds, from the pregnant mother with a toddler who was unable to find accommodation via Work and Income at 4.55 p.m. on a Friday, to navigating through ACC cases; and the heartbreaking, from those who have experienced severe abuse over their lifetimes, and parents just simply trying to protect their children—countless numbers of cases, never publicised but a significant and important part in our service as MPs.
There's a lot to be said for being in an MMP environment. Equally, there's a lot to be said for being a backbench MP in a stable Rt Hon Sir John Key Government, where discipline was almost a monotheistic religion. In the House, the whips would regularly blow their whistles, and we would head over the metaphorical trenches to present our views in the first, second, and third readings. Sometimes National's position on issues would stick in one's craw, none so much for me as voting against Sue Moroney's paid parental leave member's bill on the basis of fiscal prudency, only to later campaign on it in the 2017 election. I remember being nervous about speaking, because of my views, and, of course, Labour were in full rampage. Their tongues cracked against our skin like electricity.
My speech was a little more moderate than most. Mr Speaker said to me afterward that he couldn't tell whether I was supporting the bill or not. In Copperfield's, the Hon Annette King complimented me on my delivery. I think it's safe to say I've never had a poker-face as a politician, and it's still sad to me, despite understanding why, that major parties can't come together on good policy more often than we do. In saying that, my colleagues still give me gyp about getting a standard operating procedure regarding the extension of keeping-in-touch hours voted in by Labour in 2017, but I'm uniquely proud of it. Paid parental leave, including having workable conditions governing it, resonates. I am, of course, before a politician, first and foremost a mother, and it just goes to show what happens when a bit of common sense gets injected into parliamentary debate. I thank Iain Lees-Galloway for picking it up.
It's easy to get embroiled in domestic politics, but when we go overseas, party colours go out the window. I came to realise this more so in 2017 while travelling with Peeni Henare from Labour on a trip that will forever remain with me: the 100th commemoration of the Battle of Passchendaele. It had extra significance for me. My great-great-uncle died at Passchendaele and was awarded a VC for his efforts. Peeni joined me in visiting his grave, and from there the raw, visceral emotion continued to build. Passchendaele is unreal. I have never felt emotion like it. It wasn't just sorrow or pride; whatever it was sat in your gut for days and manifested in the physical and, of course, tears. The services were so powerful you could literally feel the spirits of the dead rising. That's how intense it was.
From there, we went on to St Petersburg to join the Inter-Parliamentary Union. When you're away from home, it's pretty standard to get your kids some sort of trinket. While sauntering jauntily on my lunch break, I espied a fake Fabergé egg in blue and gold in a shop near my hotel. Expectations were high because I knew that my daughter, Christabel, would be expecting a National Party blue. The surly Russian shopkeep deliberately informed me via "nyet" that the blue was unavailable. I then scrutinised the Labour red and Greens green fake Fabergés. Unable to decide, I tried to explain to the shopkeep that if she knew me, deciding between red and green was an issue. She then warmed and suggested, "You're not choosing a husband. Make a choice." I retorted with "I'm no good at that either." She looked at me with a grave sense of disappointment and despair. I then asked, "Do any of those colours signify anything special in Russia?" And she responded with "Blue is best, but green for hope."
According to the more experienced politician, everyone has an annus horribilis. Mine hit full peak in January 2019, and I didn't think my personal life was too out of the ordinary until my name scrolled across The AM Show's newsreel, bumping Brexit as the lead story. While it's clear I had made some poor choices, the fact that a press gallery reporter was live providing analysis brought the whole sorry affair to a new level. In my eyes, it can only be described as comical. She was maniacal, could hardly get her words out, and she didn't have the nous to work out the difference between a complaint, investigation, charge, and proceedings. What followed was worse: a litany of diatribe from even the so-called reputable outlets. At best, some comments could be called wide of the mark. Others were just downright lies. In hindsight, I question whether I should have sued some publications.
One article claimed I ran on family values in 2014. I absolutely did not. The journalist wrote that story without seeking confirmation of facts. It's irresponsible, lazy, and just downright wrong. A subsequent article on the Politik website suggested I only got promoted because of my alliances—nothing about me holding a law or science degree, having practised and worked for the Department of Conservation. One other paper said I'm not a conservation naive, but for some reason, in 2019, my qualifications and experience were overlooked in favour of the salacious. These stories made taking the high road a very bitter pill to swallow. Nevertheless, I rose above it, continued to front and show up to work.
Compared with recent events where media analysis lasted only a couple of news cycles, the speculation and rubbish continued for me for weeks on end. One woman said to me recently, "Sarah, you were absolutely trashed in the media in 2019, and yet these other MPs experience a couple of media cycles of scrutiny and hide behind mental health issues for their bad behaviour." The antithesis is the hypocrisy of the media calling for a clean-up of politicians. Yes, we are representatives and should take responsibility for poor behaviour, but we are not elected as angels. We too are human and make mistakes, just as journalists do and have. But when a predator is able to manipulate the media for his agenda and the media is directly party to it, it is the media fraternity that needs to audit themselves as to their ethics and their conscious peddling of sexism and patriarchy. If it takes me to be New Zealand's scarlet woman to highlight this, then so be it.
New Zealand has a long way to go with how we view women. Successive Governments have been concerned with eliminating all forms of violence against women. Violence does not stop at the physical and sexual, and from what I've seen and experienced, it seems that unless a woman loses her life, they are afforded very little sympathy for situations or circumstances they find themselves in—ones in which they can't control.
It's that underlying patriarchal view that persists in New Zealand that stimulates this. "She shouldn't have been travelling alone." "She shouldn't have led him on." "She should have seen the signs earlier." "She should not have been wearing that skirt." What about "No, she deserves justice and an environment where she feels safe to report abuse."?
What is surprising and deeply disappointing to me is that in some cases these views are held by women who can be most vicious in their criticisms. You cannot legislate for a women's code, but policy can re-educate. We should encourage everyone to encourage women to contribute to our communities, and we should build a society that enables our daughters to achieve all their hopes and dreams and to do so without judgment or guilt.
Therefore, I am not unchanged from the experience of being an MP. People often say to me, "Why on earth would you want to be an MP?", referring to the endless criticisms—some fair, some not—the hours of work, the arduous travel schedule, endless days away from family and your home, and, even when you are at home or off the clock, eagerly watching for media alerts. Being an MP is all-consuming; it's not like normal employment, where you get to switch off at the end of the day.
But we do not walk alone. We seek out a pack for camaraderie and support, and I have been so fortunate during my lifetime in politics to meet some of the very best men and women in New Zealand, to call them my friends, and I will be eternally thankful for their care. In particular, I mention four colleagues who came in with me in 2014. We have spent countless days and nights in each other's company, experiencing the highs and lows of Parliament and life—Brett Hudson, Stuart Smith, Matt Doocey, and Todd Barclay. We are the self-proclaimed Breakfast Club of misfits, acutely comfortable in our own skin, never actively seeking limelight—[Member hands Dowie a box of tissues] thank you—but quietly going about our jobs, doing them well and with skill. That shouldn't be underestimated or underrated.
I thank them from the bottom of my heart for being there in the dark times, for taking me under their wings like a sister and protecting me. I also thank you for the endless laughter and gibes and the ability not to take ourselves too seriously. These friendships are what restore my trust and faith in people. To the class of '14, a family of alphas, each in our own niche, yet a group that has fitted together like a jigsaw and now withstood two terms without any fallings-out, you are talented, kind, and compassionate, and I value each and every one of you.
To the Simon Bridges administration, including Rachel Morton and Jamie Gray, thank you for your faith in me and being my defenders. To all of the National Party women who circled the wagons and to the National Party men who rallied, and, finally, to my staff, who have helped me day in and day out to be a better MP. To Roger Bridge, Peter Goodfellow, and the rest of our board, including the team behind the scenes at National House, thank you for your words, often received at moments in time that were poignant. To Jon Turnbull, Deborah Turnbull, and Kim Forsythe, the people who have become my Invercargill family. Mary Street has become a haven of solace, a place to let off steam and to, most importantly, celebrate.
To Rachel Bird, my southern sister, rising star of the National Party, our regional chair and board member—I put the regional chair first because, in my mind, it is the most important role. No one can truly quantify how valuable it is to have a strong link between the parliamentary and party wing. It's people like you who galvanise that partnership. Rachel and I once had a conversation about our political legacies, and, while Rachel certainly has goals, it is the unwavering, unconditional, and tireless support that you have shown me and that you show other MPs, some not even in your region—this is your legacy. I am also proud to call you my friend.
Mum and Dad, who, despite being retired, put themselves back into the parenting game to help with the care of my children so that I could continue for as long as I have, and for having the strength to ride a storm of epic proportions with me. Never underestimate a Dowie; we are as tough as nails. To Christabel, my beautiful 10 year old, who is fast going on 16—a classic all-rounder, who is a singer, an actress, a speaker, and an artist. She is an old soul who has walked this earth before. She has compassion for others and is wise beyond her years, and I can't wait to be there to see her develop into the strong, capable woman she can be. And Hunter, the once 18-month-old that hung like a monkey over this balcony of this House, yelling "Mum, Mum!", now 8 years old—a mathematician, a sports nut, a musician, and an ambidextrous Fortnite player with hacker capability. You were just a baby when I arrived, and I am pleased that I will get more time to spend with you to watch you apply your talents to whatever you choose for yourself.
If you were a fatalist, you would believe that my journey has been set from the beginning, and it would make no difference as to the decisions I made, even if I thought I was acting with free will. I believe that the outcome of my tenure is a woman who loves to see the best in people and to help others where she can. A fierce advocate, a mother, a good friend, and a lot of good fun, and a woman who is passionate about conservation and justice. None of that has changed from my maiden speech. 
In conclusion, I refer to the lines of The Breakfast Club, and I tailor them for the context of Parliament. Dear media, we accept that we had to sacrifice part of our lives in your scrutiny for whatever it is we did wrong, but we MPs think you are crazy to make us write a valedictory telling us who you think we are. You see us how you want to see us—in the simplest terms, the most convenient definitions. But what each of us found out is that one of us is a brain, and an athlete, and a basket case, a princess, and a criminal. Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, the Breakfast Club.





SPEAKER: I call on the Hon Paula Bennett to make her valedictory statement.
Hon Paula Bennett: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, could my family be moved in so that they could—
SPEAKER: Oh, certainly. Please can we have a bit of shifting around up there and I'll—
Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry to disturb Parliament.
SPEAKER: Yeah, yeah, no. Absolutely. Part of the deal is that when the other speeches are finished room is made for the families of the member. If people want to, they can come round the other side. [Interruption] Right, can I ask those in the gallery to apply their bottoms to seats, please. There are plenty over on this side, and I'm going to call the Hon Paula Bennett to make her valedictory speech.





Hon PAULA BENNETT (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for your patience of allowing everyone to come in—
SPEAKER: I wouldn't go that far.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: OK. I thought you were very patient for you. Fifteen years ago, nearly to the day, I walked into this building as an MP. I loved walking up the outside library stairs into that incredible building. I would drink it in, take a moment, pinch myself, remember what I was here for, and then head to the smallest office in this precinct. I was last in on the National Party list in 2005. I ran for the experience, not expecting to be an MP that year, but National's result meant I quietly snuck in. Of course, for the next 15 years I didn't do anything quietly, but we'll get to that a little bit later.
The Christmas of 2004—while deciding with my family whether to put my hat in the ring—my uncle Mike sat me down. He said, "Go for it, but promise you won't stay more than three terms—no longer than nine years." In his mind, MPs lost their way after that and got too full of themselves, and anyway, as a farmer, "It's not real work." So last year, as he was sick and dying, I said to him, "I'm sorry I broke our promise." He laughed and, in his straightforward way, said to me, "Let's be honest, Paula, when I made you make that promise, none of us actually expected you'd do so well." It's been a hell of a ride from list MP to Deputy Prime Minister to deputy leader of the National Party. I know how proud my uncle was of me. In fact, I know how proud all my family are of me. 
My Alan has been my rock since I was 19 years old. I often think he is the first feminist I ever met. Even for the couple of decades or so since then that we weren't together, he was still my rock. He believed I could do anything I set my mind to and then has had my back. We married while I was in Parliament. He knew who he was marrying, but I don't think anything could have prepared him for the toll this job takes, but he has unconditionally loved and supported me. The other week he informed me that he feels unshackled, yeah? He no longer has to come under the scrutiny because of my public profile, and he's going to go out there—and I've got to say, it scared me. And then I thought about it and thought, stuff it, I'm joining him on the wild side, honey; although, at our age, that is probably coffee after midday and the odd night at 11 p.m. I can't do justice to my bloke in this speech, and anyway, it's our private lives that speak louder than any speech I give ever will. Oh, and happy birthday, Alan.
My parents are here today. My mum is a woman of grace and dignity. I got the street-fighter from my dad. They have both put up with a lot over the decades. I am so grateful to them and my brothers, and my close family and friends, for always reminding me what is important, and for forgiving me when I missed yet another family event. I am sorry for the intrusion my being an MP has had on their lives at times. One of the major bonuses of marrying Alan—and I remind him of this often—was that his daughter, Willoe, came into my life. I am so lucky to have such a strong, independent, opinionated, and gorgeous woman as you. So go hard, Willoe; I have got your back.
Now, I don't know how to talk about my daughter Ana in a speech like this without getting really emotional. So, holy moly, yep, our journey has been quite something so far. I used to think that you are my biggest accomplishment, and then I realised that that gives me far too much credit. Quite frankly, you are the staunch wahine, the loving, giving, caring, kick-arse woman you are today, because it is simply all of who you are. So when I see you with my three beautiful grandchildren, it just blows me away. To our Tia, and our Nate, and Hunter—all that you and Ray are as awesome parents. I am just so damned proud of you.
So I stood for Waitakere, a Labour seat, in 2005. I didn't win but came back in 2008 and took the seat off Labour, and man I loved that electorate. It was hard work and I never took it for granted. My westies never hold back. They tell you exactly what they think, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I've had to break up fights on the streets, avoid a few punches myself, and been owned by them, in a good way. Notoriously, I won Waitakere on election night 2011, lost it on the specials, and won it by nine votes on a recount. I've got to say, hats off to Carmel, because she fought hard and I've always secretly admired her for it.
I then moved to the new seat of Upper Harbour when Waitakere was no longer. It's an amazing place. It changes daily with its growth and is one of the most interesting and diverse electorates. So many people have helped me. I have had incredible local National volunteers. I can't speak highly enough of the people who've supported and backed the National Party and have played a vital part. You all deserve a special mention, but that's too risky, so can I just call out to my electorate chairs Leone Wyatt, Chris Penk, Don Ryrie, and especially to Leigh Morrow. Leigh, we have made quite a team for the last six years. I'll have the wine ready on 20 September. Those that have worked with me over the years in electorates, I want to sincerely thank you. Constituents have been so incredibly well-served by you. You are professional, understanding, compassionate, and hard working. I thank you all, but make special mention of Jackie Fairweather, who has been with me—she looks terrified at that—for 12 years. She's tried to leave, but she keeps coming back. And, of course, to Vivienne Brumby, who's been with me for nearly 10 years. Thank you both so incredibly much.
I have always believed you have to have a plan, and then you need a back-up plan. That goes both personally and professionally. A back-up plan makes you brave. When I entered Parliament in 2005, I left a job in recruitment that I loved. I really got a buzz out of understanding different businesses and then placing people into that business who would help them achieve their goals and fit their culture. So when I came in in 2005, I knew that if politics didn't work out for me, I could go back to something I loved. The worst thing that could happen is I would end up doing something else that I enjoyed. So I went for it. I gave it everything I had. With the help of some incredible people in those early years, like Murray McCully, Katherine Rich, John Key, Bill English, and a very smart, driven staff in the then leader's office, I took every opportunity that came my way—although help comes in many forms. I remember the first time I got to question a Minister in this House, I was terrified. My knees were shaking, voice was getting quaky. I'm sitting there; I'm literally sweating. The Speaker calls my name. As I'm standing up, McCully leans in and says, "This is big; don't stuff it up."—not that helpful.
In 2008, becoming the Minister for Social Development and Child, Youth and Family was daunting and exciting. Nothing can prepare you for a job like that. I was considered by many as the "weak link". There were bets on around this building as to how many months I would survive—that only emboldened me to prove them wrong.
As we were well into the global financial crisis and many people were losing their jobs, we needed an immediate plan. We quickly implemented the ReStart redundancy support and job support scheme to respond to the recession. These temporary financial packages have been recently put in place in various iterations to help us during the COVID economic crisis. We also introduced the job opportunities and Community Max programmes to specifically assist young people. Even though these were the hardest times that we had seen for a long time, we were able to see many positive results. Nearly 10,000 young people were helped with the Community Max and job support programmes and 73 percent did not go on benefit when they finished. One third of job seekers were being exited into jobs before entering the benefit system, but more had to be done. These short-term measures were important, but our welfare system was part of the reason we were seeing intergenerational welfare dependence and too many people stuck in a cycle of hardship, reliant only on State assistance and a belief they would be there for decades. 
The system seemed to throw people on welfare and then largely ignore them and not offer them a path out. Sole parents were not expected to look for work until their youngest child was 18 years old. We too quickly wrote those with disabilities off, ignoring the huge potential many had and their desire to work. We designed a plan to make significant changes to the system that would look at what people could do—to believe that they had a contribution to society that would improve their lives and also mean that we could reduce the huge welfare bill to taxpayers. I have been truly inspired by sole parents in this country. I understand how difficult it is to raise a child on your own and believe you don't have the experience or skills to enter the workforce. 
Those on welfare don't need sympathy. They need to be backed, encouraged, and supported to plan their future and see a path off welfare dependency. We are currently taking backward steps, and that's before COVID. Sympathy and kindness do not put food on the table or pay your bills. We need to understand dependency. We need to understand decades of despair and marginalisation that in too many people's lives turns to violence, welfare dependency, and a pretty crappy life. But equally we have to be careful that that understanding doesn't turn into an excuse and we lose our belief in people and their ability and their sense of self-responsibility.
We undertook the biggest welfare reforms that the country had seen. The emphasis was on people being available to work and on what they could do instead of what they couldn't. We invested more on those that were at the highest risk of staying on welfare long term. We spent more on job support and training, and worked directly with employers and subsidised employment so they would give people a go so they could prove themselves. We saw over 30,000 fewer people on sole parent support because of these changes. I met remarkable people who are living bigger and better lives because they were in worthwhile work and had a huge sense of self-worth.
Working with and for teen parents was personal for me. I met some of the most incredible young people raising their children, studying in teen parent units, and being supported by amazing people running homes and programmes. We extended support to them. We changed the welfare system so they received more support but weren't just handed hundreds of dollars a week and then ignored like they had been previously. Instead, we paid their rent and utilities, insisted that, where possible, they be in training. We helped look after their babies and supported them to budget and plan a life that wasn't welfare dependent. It's some of the work I am most proud of. And to all those parents, thanks for the baby cuddles. Most days that I was out and about, I insisted that a childcare centre or school be in my diary, as I needed children to remind me why we do what we do and just to make my day a bit better.
I have always believed the answers to long-term dependency, child abuse, neglect, and violence are in our communities. There is no programme that a politician or a bureaucrat can design that will solve these complex issues. Our community and Māori organisations, I believe, are best placed with support from the State to assist those that are living hard lives. We have to set targets and accountabilities, bring in Māori, community leaders, beneficiaries, workers, and the business sector, and know it will take some time but we can improve people's lives. We need to set communities up to succeed. 
Money is currently being thrown around but with no accountability. We have to be bold, brave. How can throwing millions and millions of dollars around and hoping some gets to those that need it most, through Government agencies and community organisations, and yet watching more people in despair be OK? Where is the accountability to the taxpayer, but, more importantly, where is the accountability for those people that so desperately deserve more help? Targets, measures, and accountability have gone. I regret, Bill English, that we didn't get another three years to truly implement social investment into our bureaucracy and into our communities. We had tested and trialled, had seen people's lives changing, and we were ready to scale it up significantly.
Alongside this work we implemented the vulnerable children's action plan. We have to do better for the children who are being traumatised and abused in this country. Much of the work that has happened in the last five years was started under my watch. We travelled up and down the country talking to people who worked with or cared for or had been abused themselves and designed significant changes. Needless to say, there is still much to be done. But can I thank the young people who spoke bluntly about their experiences in the system and the changes needed, the incredible foster parents, grandparents raising their grandchildren, and those that have dedicated their lives to working with the most vulnerable. You have truly humbled me, and I salute you. Can I also acknowledge all of those who work in sexual violence. I learnt a lot from you and about the specialised response that victims need. I watched you getting bounced around between different agencies with no one wanting to take responsibility and had to something. I hope me becoming the first Minister to take on sexual violence made a difference.
One day, on a busy day of ministerial visits, I was meeting a group of young people. As I turned up I could see the teachers and the parents had put a lot of work into organising the event. As I stepped from the car they said to me how excited the kids were that I was there. I thought, "Yeah, they'd be excited at Richie McCaw. They might be excited at a famous singer. I'm not sure they're that excited that a Minister is visiting, but we'll do it, you know." So inside I speak for a bit and I take questions. I see an adult nudge a young person, and this kid kind of reluctantly stands up and he then asks me the question that every politician should dread: "Minister, can I ask you anything?" So I glue a smile on my face and I nod and say yes, and he stands there and he sort of shuffles his feet and he looks at me and he goes, "What did Jesus do as a teenager?" I'm in my head going, crikey, he was a carpenter, he went walkabout for a while, was in a manger—you know. And then it dawned on me—wrong minister!
I have held 14 portfolios and each has challenged me and given me enormous opportunity to change the system to improve New Zealanders' lives. There are remarkable people up and down the country working in our police. I feel for our tourism industry right now but also know how positive they are and have the ability to pull through. Social housing was a difficult portfolio, but we were able to reform our State housing into warmer modern homes better suited to New Zealanders' needs—some of whom are just moving in now. 
I focused a lot on women having equal opportunity and felt we needed to tidy up our own backyard before we lectured others on what to do. Women on State sector boards increased to over 46 percent, and I was privileged to see a number of women succeed in chief executive roles within Government. I like action, so within National I led the charge on us mentoring potential women who could influence National, be they potential candidates or office holders. I turbo-charged our Dame Hilda Ross Foundation, raised money, and financially supported women candidates, and ran seminars. I'd like to acknowledge my fellow women MPs Louise Upston, Jacqui Dean, Nicky Wagner, and board member Pat Seymour for the big part that you actually played as well. Louise, I'm looking at you to keep that going and driving that work.
I signed the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and worked alongside our agriculture, forestry, and business sectors to plan true change in how we live our lives to better look after our planet. I visited some of our remotest and hardest-hit Pacific islands and saw firsthand the vulnerability they are exposed to because of climate change. While on that visit, at a large gathering where New Zealand was acknowledged for the work that they had done, in the Pasifika way they wanted to give gifts to show their respect. So the EU commissioner who was travelling with us was duly—in front of the hundreds that were there—given a framed picture. McCully stood up and he was duly given a carved canoe. And then they looked at me as the most senior Minister on the trip, and the Prime Minister's face just lit up, aglow. He was so pleased and he said to me, literally, "Because you're a woman we've made you a laundry basket." The look on the officials' faces, as they didn't know what to do—like, I swear one almost wanted to dive in front of said laundry basket. I graciously accepted the gift, of course, and I may have, a couple of months later, when Acting PM for a day, actually called those officials and made them stand for an official unveiling ceremony for said laundry basket.
Through State services we implemented the Better Public Services targets. If you don't have a target and measure against them, then really you're just drifting and making decisions based on the best headline and not the best result for New Zealanders. I also worked to make changes to our Government agencies that would see their success measured across all of Government, not in individual agencies. As I heard even in the House this week, people don't live their lives in a tidy little Government box, and I note that that work is continuing.
I managed to upset quite a few people in local government when I was the Minister, and I don't resile from that for a moment. You guys need to change dramatically. It is ridiculous to have as many councils, local bureaucracy, and doubling up in assets as we do in a country of this size. 
Through all of this I have been supported, encouraged, and held to account by some of the best. I have deep admiration for our Public Service. I worked with professionals who were passionate about improving the lives of New Zealanders. I won't name you and stuff up your careers, but know that I truly admire what you do and thank you for your service.
John Key backed me and believed in me. He didn't just open the door. He stuck a wedge in it to stop it whacking me on the backside as I struggled through and occasionally tripped. He kept giving me challenging portfolios and he moved me into his kitchen cabinet. I responded well to his leadership style, it would be fair to say. 
Some of you will remember when the rules changed in the Beehive and you could no longer just go up and down at will; you had to swipe in. Let me explain why. So I was giving one of my very motivational speeches—and listening to Alastair, it's similar. Young people were in Parliament—and they were young people that were in foster care, actually—and they were getting awards and it was really cool. I was doing my best motivational, you know, "Don't let anyone tell you what you can't do. Grab opportunities, take a risk, open doors." One on the autism spectrum took me literally. She then managed to get out of the event that we were at, into the Beehive, and convinced people that she was the Prime Minister's hairdresser. She then managed to go around the building for a good 30 minutes as we'd kind of get sightings and then she would avoid them and managed to scrape through. I thought she was amazing, yeah—I thought she was absolutely cool. She opened doors, man, and that young woman did not take no for an answer. Anyway—sorry, Wayne—and then about half an hour later, the phone goes and it's John Key, and I'm like, "Oh, this ain't gonna be good." He rings and he just sort of says to me, "I've just heard about it. Where is she? I'd love to meet her.", and I thought, yeah, that's the measure of it. 
One of the most intelligent, dedicated, funny, and frustrating—and yes, I mean frustrating, because he wouldn't let me get away with anything. He loved a good debate, and it often took him far too long to realise I was right and we could've skipped all of that—Bill English. Thank you to both Bill and John for their support during my career.
Simon, these last couple of years have been really something. They have been fun and interesting and, yes, at times challenging. Thank you for making me watch another video of your children being children when we needed a light moment. Thank you, actually, for the respect that you and Natalie have shown to me, to our caucus, to the National Party, to the country. I have in many ways learnt more in the last two years than I have in the last 10, and I wouldn't have wanted to do it with anyone else.
National is in my blood. To Judy Kirk, to Peter Goodfellow, presidents—thank you both so much. To present and past board members, especially Andrew and Alastair and Roger and Glenda and Pat, your dedication to this party and support has meant so much. Peter Kiely, I have needed your help far too often. Advice to new MPs: take his advice. To the wonderful National staff, you are a formidable team I have loved working with, but mostly to all the volunteers that stand out in the rain, turn up every time, deliver brochures, give a damn about this country, I have felt so much stronger for your support. Thank you, thank you, thank you. In the words made famous from Journey, don't stop believing. Judith, Gerry, our caucus: you are the best. Many of you have become lifelong friends. Go well—the country needs you, and you have my support. To the media: I haven't always liked it, I have seldom agreed, but I actually respect you and the role you play in our democracy. I hope that continued Budget cuts in your industry don't mean that you don't have time to investigate and challenge.
Lastly, but by no means least, to the many amazing women—and a few men—I have had the privilege of working with and who've worked for me. I'm too nervous to mention you all for fear of missing someone out, but you have been the biggest part of any successes I've had. A smart leader should never be the smartest person in the room, and when I shared a room with you, I was never at risk of that. You have been the most driven, smart, dedicated people that I am humbled to know and have worked with. We have cried and laughed and, yes, occasionally partied, but mostly we have been completely driven by trying to do our best, respecting the incredibly privileged roles that we had. I'm going to roast the hell out of you later.
I'm far from perfect, and I know that, but my intent, my heart, my integrity has meant that I have slept well. This place is brutal. It will pick up the spade and bury you if you let it. It is relentless, but we sign up knowing that. So I went hard and full-on. For me to have not made a difference and not given it everything I've got would've been wasted time. So I end this chapter half the size but twice the woman thanks to this experience. I'm so excited about the future, and I wish you all well. 
[Applause]
Waiata
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.





LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CUSTOMER FOCUS) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Debate resumed from 21 July.
DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Madam Speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to this particular bill in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean. I appreciate her intent, her strong intent, to bring a customer focus—literally, as the title says—to this particular piece of legislation.
What the opening purpose of the bill refers to is the current requirement to not have, under the Local Government Act 2002, local authorities taking a customer-focused approach to all that they do to delivering public services and regulatory functions. It might sound pretty ABC that that is something that they should do, but it is not actually there in plain, simple language and sight for all to see. So I really applaud Jacqui's deliberate, measured approach to make sure that intent translates into action—that there is a culture that requires local government to look at processes and systems to be timely and effective, to have a value-for-money approach. All of that, of course, is wrapped up in the term of "customer-focused", because when we keep our eyes on what people actually need from Government, and in this case local government, it's where we can see quite clearly where the frustrations come, and I want to touch on a couple of those in the short time that I have.
Resource Management Act application processes—I almost need say no more: a shining example of why this bill is necessary. Also, I think, when it comes to talking on legislation, it's always good to have a personal approach, right? I asked my staff in my office, knowing that I'd be speaking on this, "Remind me again what we're seeing through our doors on a regular basis and where the largest set of complaints and frustrations come from." and it's council-related processes. I'm no longer a city councillor, but I still have many, many, many constituent cases that cut across council issues. 
One particular example, and I've had quite a slew of these recently, is not having a case manager or a one-stop shop or a point of contact for something like the consenting process. For many, many people, the consents that they apply for—large or complicated or small—should be straightforward, but when you have something like staff turnover, it's a huge source of frustration, almost mind-blowingly so when you can't have consistency. Yet if we were able to bring a customer focus to what local government does, you'd see things through a different lens: perhaps with a case manager, a consistent case manager, not just in consenting, but in other departments that councils have, we may see a reconnection or a renewal of trust in local government, and we all know that that's lacking. 
I don't particularly like holding up papers in Parliament, but I'll just do a mini hold-up here. I've got in my hands the Citizens Insights Monitor, Auckland Council's own Colmar Brunton regular quarterly survey where they survey themselves on their trust ratings and rankings. I went straight to the back page and highlighted a couple of things here where satisfaction—does council advocate for Aucklanders and do they have examples of good value for ratepayers' money? Shocking results, absolutely shocking. The most recent PR's all about all-time highs. In these categories, an all-time high is 26 percent of satisfaction with the way Auckland Council runs—all-time high. Normally, they're ranking around—and I'm just looking at the last three years—16 and 18 percent. That's our largest council; in fact, Australasia's largest council. So thank you, the Hon Jacqui Dean, for doing something really thoughtful and full of intent, and the right intent, to bring back customer focus. It's what New Zealanders deserve, at the very least, from the world of local government. 
We here at the National Party have over this term being looking at different ways to address this. I ran a "Rate your council" survey for which we received many, many, many respondents who are raising the same thing—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. Her time has expired.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Firstly, just rising to speak to this member's bill, the Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill, I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Jacqui Dean, who I actually sit in postgraduate class with. We have explored in this class lots of approaches to governance, different forms of management, and how we can better deliver services, particularly in the Public Service.
I do, however, want to let the Hon Jacqui Dean know that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. The reason for that is that this Government seeks to amend the Local Government Act 2002. The Local Government Act 2002 actually already sets out how local authorities should serve their communities. I'd note that the former National Party Government, in fact, took away the four wellbeings, which was much to the upset of local governments around this country, because that enabled local governments to change, or rather, to provide services looking at a number of the different variables that are critically important to their local communities.
I also want to say, just really critically, that the Greens' position is that local government across this country is requiring reform at a much larger scale, and it definitely shouldn't be sliding in the direction of a more commercial focus. Because when you start to dive down this rabbit hole of talking about customers as opposed to citizens all of a sudden you start having these questions such as who is this so-called customer? Is it solely those who could be characterised or caricatured, even, as ratepayers? And if that's the case, is it only those who own a home? What about those under the age, for example, of 18, whom historically haven't been particularly well catered for when it comes to the development of infrastructure, of parks, of walkways, of safe cycling, and pedestrian access across this country, its cities, towns, and regions?
So, with only a few moments left, I want to acknowledge the fact that we are tonight in this Chamber debating local government and how we can potentially reform it. It looks as though my colleague across the House, former head of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), Lawrence Yule, is preparing his papers to get up and stand and speak to this bill. I hope that he brings to this contribution, which he seems to imminently be making, the same kind of passion that he brought as the head of LGNZ when he opposed, within LGNZ, the approach of the former National Government and the revocation of the four wellbeings.
We absolutely need to be taking greater focus to local governments across Aotearoa. It is absolutely in need of reform, but this is not the direction that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand believes it should be headed. It is with sadness that I think that we are missing an opportunity to reform this area of governance in Aotearoa. But, again, I applaud the Hon Jacqui Dean for bringing the conversation forward none the less.





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on this bill. First, can I acknowledge the honourable member Jacqui Dean, who was fortunate enough to have her bill drawn from the ballot. I reflect on my time prior to coming to Parliament. I was a local councillor for the Far North District Council for one and a half terms and then I was fortunate to come to Parliament, yeah. So I looked at this bill with interest.
I wasn't here for your first speech and the first debate on it, so I went to the Hansard and had a look at what everybody was saying from all sides of the House. I think, rightly so, in the Minister Nanaia Mahuta's contribution, she raised the point that it isn't actually defined within the bill what is meant by "the customer", and it referred to a whole lot of legislation. That's one of the things that I found interesting when I was on the council—just how much legislation local government is responsible for administering. I tried to find the information, Lawrence Yule; I thought it used to be on Local Government New Zealand, but it's, like, over 70 Acts, I think, that are relevant to local government and they have a role in administering.
So I think that that highlights what the challenge is when we say that we want to insert that it be customer focused, because who is the customer when we're talking about local government and under which piece of legislation might they be performing a particular function? So that is the reason why Labour are not supporting this member's bill—it's because of that ambiguity and because of that challenge.
So if I can just give a couple of examples. Councils have some responsibilities under the Building Act—and I know that the honourable member actually mentioned that one specifically in her speech—but also under the Resource Management Act; so a different customer, again, to those potentially that were referred to under the Building Act. I know that the Dog Control Act was mentioned as to whether the customer is the dog owner, is it the neighbour, or is it somebody of the general public? Civil defence is another Act that local government has a responsibility for, so who is the customer, then, in the civil defence case? Fencing of swimming pools—is the customer simply the pool owner or is it the general public that we are trying to provide safety mechanisms for? There are the Forest and Rural Fires Act, the Gambling Act, the transport Act, the Reserves Act, and the list goes on.
So I hope that that illustrates my point that the problem that we have on this side of the House is that when we want to insert something as fundamental as "the focus of local government needs to be on the customer" and then we see up to 70 pieces of legislation where potentially the customer is a different person in every single one of those, that lack of definition and lack of specific guidance to local councils, I think, will create more of a challenge for local government, and we certainly don't want to be giving them such ambiguity to work with.
If I can come back to what is actually the purpose of local government—it's to enable democratic local decision-making and action by and on behalf of communities and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future. I know that there are several consultative processes that councils must go through to ensure that they are getting the necessary support from the community, from the public, in terms of their annual plans, in terms of their long-term plans, and, on some issues, special consultative processes that are required. So I believe that, in those processes, and from experiencing them myself, they are having to give due consideration to the people who are impacted by the proposals that are being put forward in those documents.
So I believe that this bill doesn't make any substantive change to the functions of local government and the purposes that are set out in it that I just referred to, that it doesn't provide any specific guidance to local authorities, and exactly what is meant by "customers" is not defined and it is not a concept that will fit well within the regulatory roles of councils—like, for example, all of the Acts that I listed. So Labour does not support this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): OK. We have got more speaking slots. We're not taking them?





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It is an absolute delight to be able to speak on this bill, the Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill. Actually, I want to acknowledge the Hon Jacqui Dean for her work in bringing this to the table and to this House tonight. For example, I know that each of us in this role liaise closely with our local body councils, and there's a lot of crossover between the work that we do. For example, where I live, I have five local authorities that come into my electorate, and the presumption is, of course, that the focus is always going to be on the customer and the people before us.
The challenge, I think, that I have with this bill slightly, though, is that there's a presumption that there isn't a focus on the people that they serve, the councils that they serve, and I struggle with that a little bit, because, for example, I'm thinking of my mayor in Ōpōtiki District Council, Lyn Riesterer. They have very minimal resources. Her staff and the CEO, Aileen Lawrie—I mean, they are just incredibly dedicated servants of the Ōpōtiki district community. The rate take there is very, very minimal. I am not sure that legislating to require them to be customer focused would do absolutely anything for these diligent servants.
I'm also a little surprised. I was reading the member's remarks when the bill was pulled, and I read the press statement that she sent, and I agreed: you know, one of the biggest hassles for people with councils is just the unnecessary rigmarole or, kind of, the red tape that I think she was getting to. I couldn't help but turn my mind to the fact that last week, we were sitting in urgency and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government, had brought to this House a very pragmatic bill that was specifically focused on—it was a rates rebates bill, but it was about cutting red tape, making life a little bit simpler. It was about not having to go through the requirements of getting statutory declarations. I sat through quite a few hours in this House listening to that side of the House absolutely rubbish that Minister, absolutely rubbish this Government, for trying to cut red tape, for trying to enable our local citizens in our electorates to be able to access the things that we all need to from our local governments.
The practical reality is I don't know what it's like in big areas, but what I can speak to are the issues in an area like mine—very under-resourced, people that work very, very hard and do everything within their power. What we can do as legislators is that we can enable them. We can lighten the burden slightly. It's like that—you know, is it a stick or a carrot that drives good behaviour? Sometimes, perhaps, it's a little bit of both, but here I see a bit of a stick being imposed on local governments—"You must, must, must do this, focus on customers, and we'll tell you how to do it."—whereas the Minister for local authority, in this House, came with practical solutions about how to remove red tape and the hassles and the barriers that most of us all face in our communities and took away some of those burdens.
It's always interesting on a member's night, because we always have to sort of see—well, actually, the underpinning philosophy of that side is probably that you should've—and you should have voted with us, because you probably agree that it was a good and pragmatic bill that went through to enable folks that couldn't, in that instance, access those statutory declarations, and so we're trying to cut the red tape to make things a little bit easier.
But like others have said in this House, this is a small and technical bill. It amends the Local Government Act 2002. It's going to require, like I've said, what we talked about, the sort of customer focus. As my learned colleague and friend Willow-Jean mentioned before—Willow-Jean Prime—it's nevertheless a little bit empty. There's nothing defined about who the customer is and what this focus might be; it's words and it's more red tape to bind small little councils. I'm sure that my friend Lawrence Yule from across the way will have something very concise to say.





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I've been told I'm speaking now, Madam Chair, so I'm just going to take—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Someone should have told the member in charge of the bill. 
LAWRENCE YULE: —a very short call, because what this bill is about is work that the Hon Jacqui Dean did on the Rules Reduction Taskforce. While we can sit in this House and criticise who are the customers and what does it mean, if you go and ask "Joe Blow Public", particularly in the consenting and business side of council, most of them will tell you that there is a lack of customer focus in the delivery of those services. That's all this bill does, and I wish the members opposite would support it going to select committee as a way of looking at what improvements could be made in the focus of local government. I commend this bill to the House, as I support my colleague the Hon Jacqui Dean. 





Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We didn't make that easy for the Chair, did we, but anyway, I'm on my feet now. Look, thank you to the members who have spoken in the debate, both this evening and at the first part of the first reading. This bill is quite simple, and that has been identified by my colleagues Lawrence Yule and Denise Lee. Lawrence outlined that this bill came as a result of a considerable amount of work that was undertaken in 2015-2016 by a group of New Zealanders who consulted widely about what were the aspects of red tape that could be improved in people's interaction with local government, with their regulatory functions and their public services. So this is the genesis of this bill.
Willow-Jean Prime—thank you for her contribution—who sought to define who the customer is: well, that is exactly the point. The customer in this instance is that person who approaches their local authority for assistance with delivering a public service or in regards to a regulatory function. In order for me to define it any clearer than that would've resulted in a schedule of about 17 or 18 or 19 pages long—quite simply.
I also didn't want to prescribe to the chief executive just how they would enact a public service in their organisation. Further, I am not arguing there should be more consultation, and Willow-Jean Prime again in her contribution to the debate—I wonder whether she was beginning to confuse customer focus with consultation, as did the Minister. Consultation is merely having a discussion and getting people's views, whether that's a statutory requirement or whether councils do that as a matter of course in their public outreach. I'm talking about something completely different. I'm talking about providing excellent service to all those who approach the local authority for assistance with a public service or with a regulatory function. I do commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment be now read a first time.
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Motion not agreed to.





ELECTORAL (INTEGRITY REPEAL) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I move, That the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. 
Madam Assistant Speaker Dyson, having been here for quite some time—not quite as long as yourself—I have put a few bills into the members' ballot system and, finally, with one week to go, have had this bill withdrawn from the ballot. 
Hon Member: There's a God. 
Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: There is a God. I haven't canvassed other political parties, and I acknowledge that Labour advanced the legislation I'm attempting to repeal early in 2018, but I'm certainly hoping all members will give careful consideration to this bill, because this bill attempts to actually put integrity back into our electoral system. It's about improving the integrity of our system. 
To become a member of Parliament isn't easy, and having got here, whether you come as an Independent—which is a very fraught way—or you come as a member of Parliament, you come with a conscience. You come with a responsibility to form an opinion on issues and to speak with your conscience, if you're a list MP, or, if you're an electorate MP, to speak with a conscience that represents the people that elected you to this House. Though this bill is about allowing MPs to exercise that conscience, it's about not coming to this Parliament to simply be—as some members of Parliament have described in the past—cannon fodder, or a puppet to a political party. 
Now, we all know the history of this legislation that I'm attempting to change today. It was the price of the current Government—the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government—doing a deal with New Zealand First, and I know why he needs that sort of control. History tells us. 
I was the junior whip in this Parliament in 1998, when the New Zealand First Party, which at that stage had gone into a coalition arrangement with the National Government, split apart. They had 17 members, and eight members used their conscience over an issue—a single issue—which was the sale of a portion of Wellington Airport. Eight of those members used their conscience and said that they were not prepared to support the command—the command—that came from their leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. So every time he's gone into Government since, he's advanced this sort of legislation, which is simply about his mechanism—his personal mechanism—to control a member of his caucus. 
Now, I have been here long enough and have been part of my caucus, and I think I know how other caucuses work. When you have discussion on policy items and when you have some dissent, you have some argument, and you actually come to a better position within a caucus, but the Rt Hon Winston Peters doesn't believe in that. 
Most of the parties that operate in this place operate in a democratic fashion. You have your caucuses, you come to a position democratically, and you walk out of that caucus, whether or not you supported the position, but you adopt the position. As a member of that caucus, you have the responsibility and, in fact, the privilege of electing your leader and electing your deputy leader and electing your whips, but that's not how the New Zealand First Party wants to operate. So the inability of Mr Peters in the past to control his caucus is what this legislation is about, and I don't think that is right. I think that impinges on the very human right of an elected representative. 
Over the last five years in the time I've spent here—it's been, in fact, over the last eight years—I've been deeply involved with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The Inter-Parliamentary Union—the IPU—has membership from 179 countries. It, effectively, represents about 45,000 elected representatives all around the world, and as a contributor to the IPU, I was privileged—and, in fact, I'm the first New Zealander to be in this position. I was elected by the IPU as one member of a 10-member committee which investigates the abuses of elected representatives around the world. This legislation which I'm attempting to repeal today, which is in cohorts, or did put us in cohorts, with countries like Tanzania, countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, countries like Zimbabwe, and countries like Venezuela, and I say to all members that as we debate this tonight, think about why you are in this Chamber. Come with your conscience. Respect discussion that occurs in your caucus, but, ultimately, come to a view and do not ever—ever—become controlled by your party leader. 
I read through all of the Hansards of the first reading, the second reading, and the third reading as this legislation passed through the House in 2018, and one of the spurious arguments advanced by the Hon Andrew Little and by the New Zealand First representative—I think it was Darroch Ball that spoke in most of the debates—was that this legislation was all about protecting the proportionality that the voters delivered at the start of an electoral term. Well, if you really believe that argument, Winston Peters, why did you then contest the Northland by-election in 2015 and go out of your way—and successfully—to defeat the proportionality that had been delivered by the voters of New Zealand in 2014? And there was no answer to that. 
He did what he was entitled to do to contest a by-election, but in contesting that by-election, he changed quite significantly the proportionality of Parliament that the voters had delivered in 2014. No problem with that—he was entitled to do it. But don't come into this Parliament arguing, as we debate this bill tonight, that it's all about recognising and respecting the decisions that have made by voters on election night, because it's not. It's simply about a disciplinary measure. It's about controlling the MPs, because his own history of controlling people doesn't give credit. 
I want to just, in conclusion, in my last couple of minutes, note for the House the number of times dissension has actually been significant and relevant to the New Zealand parliamentary process. I can think myself, long before I was here, of Marilyn Waring, in 1984. She threatened to cross the floor, and caused the well-known snap election that caused the end of the Muldoon era. Jim Anderton was a loyal member of the Labour Party until he argued that the Labour Party had left him and his principles, so he set up The Alliance. Dame Tariana Turia, one of the most respected members of Parliament I've had the privilege of working with, didn't agree with the Labour Party. She said so, walked out, and started her own party—the Māori Party—which made a significant contribution to New Zealand's democracy. And Mr Peters himself, a member of the National caucus, disagreed with National, walked out, formed his own party, and no one can argue that it hasn't been a significant contributor to New Zealand politics over that time. 
So there will be robust debate around this bill. I certainly hope the Green Party will be careful with its contribution and will deliberate carefully, because I note as I read their contributions last time that they were never comfortable with being forced into the position of supporting this legislation. 





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Let me be first to officially congratulate that member on drawing what he now reveals as his first member's bill after a considerable time here. I have to say, if you're going to do it, do it well, because he probably couldn't have drawn a more significant bill, perhaps, to be leaving on, one that whatever happens will guarantee that it will be discussed some time after his departure, of course, depending what happens later on tonight. Even the significance of it having been drawn, being debated tonight, after we've just sat through three valedictories, three very good valedictories—valedictories by members who, I should say, were going out with their boots on, who were going out under their own steam, having made the decision they would leave here and had the opportunity to do one. As a couple of them mentioned, it is something that many are denied, if they don't go out from here under their own steam. So it's quite ironic that we are now debating the first reading of this bill against that background.
Now, I was fortunate enough to be on the select committee that considered this bill, and, as a new MP arriving here, I have to say—a little bit like the significance of the bill having been drawn by the Rt Hon David Carter—it was actually an excellent introduction to this whole parliamentary process. It had a little bit of everything in it, as it does now as we debate the possible change of the bill and repealing of the Act. Of course, it was really all the debate that took part—we had 21 hours of debate through committee of the whole House, and it did dig deep into the democratic processes, the history of the democratic process. We talked about different parliamentary systems around the world and compared them to our own. So it gave me, again as a new MP, a very good context for what we're actually debating, and I think no one who had listened, been part of this debate, could go away without a much better understanding of the processes, and those same parliamentary process—I know, being on the select committee, we often had to get the Clerk involved at the select committee and later on to actually enlighten us on different aspects of it as well.
Of course, at the basis of all this, if we didn't understand MMP, I'm certain that we did at the end of it—MMP, mixed member proportionality; and of course, underlying all that again, coalition agreements, which we could hardly really understand; and also a history of some of those who went before us. The names that often were mentioned in debates either around the select committee or in this House were: Awatere Huata, Copeland, Kopu, Kirton, and Horan, just to name a few. 
It was quite interesting that those names came up because, again, sitting watching it, before I came into the House, I often in my previous job had occasion to be speaking with politicians. I was often in different offices of different parties. And one thing I found was that whenever anyone had fallen out with their party—and those names that I just mentioned were some examples of what absolute lame duck MPs they became—of course, what you knew was that you never had any problems getting in to see them. They were desperate to see anyone that would go and speak to them, because they were essentially quite powerless in this place. They were occupying seats, generally occupying seats, until the inevitable guillotine came down on their careers on election day, the subsequent election day, and they were cast out into the employment wilderness. I came to understand just really what a disservice we were doing to the taxpayers of New Zealand, those who are paying us, to actually have people like that still sitting here in the House, unable to contribute, a complete inability to contribute. So when this bill came before the select committee I was on and we were able to consider it, it was great to have a context around that. 
Now, look, it was a very passionate debate. Again, the fact that we spent 21 hours debating at the committee whole House will just give you some idea of that. Like so often in these things, and we've had some great debates, similar the debates—whether it be the end of life bill here, the abortion bill—you know, many people here have very polarised views, and that polarised view often leads people to believe that, really, if you were listening, perhaps the world as we know was going to come to an end if that legislation was passed. Well, the world didn't end. This legislation was passed. The world didn't come to an end, and we're now coming to the end of this Parliament.
There have been occasions—I mean, there's a member in this House. In fact, the irony of it is that those members opposite who so vehemently opposed this legislation, there was an irony that they may actually have been the first to use it. As I believe, historically, I think the ACT Party before them, who had again opposed the legislation last time it was actually implemented here—again, took occasion to become the first to use it. There were some High Court findings in that case, although it was never taken to its full length or its full logical end, because there was another intervention. 
So it's good to be standing here debating this bill again relatively soon, because we now have the opportunity as the Rt Hon David Carter has done and as I have done today, to look through some of those debate notes, look through some of those speeches, and look through some of those predictions. Here we are—that was in 2018, September 2018, and here we are. The sun came up this morning, and here we are. We've had some fine members giving their valedictories today. We've had bills going through the House, and—surprise, surprise—having read through those Hansard notes, having read those speeches, actually so much of what's predicted didn't come to pass and didn't come to the fore. 
Look, I'd say to anyone who's watching tonight, I'm looking forward to a contribution from perhaps the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I have no doubt he will dig deeper into some of the arguments he used last time, and I did read that speech, before I came here. We'll just put "ditto", shall we, perhaps, Dr Smith? But again, I'll give credit. Some of the most dire predictions did come from the member from Nelson. And again, I think possibly there may be some more tonight, if this House doesn't move this bill and send it off to select committee. But I'll look forward to that contribution.
So, look, I will not be voting for this bill later tonight. Just for those that are, just to make sure that they do understand the details. There are some quite good safeguards in this bill. Where a parliamentary leader of a political party reasonably believes that the MP concerned has acted in a way that has distorted and is likely to distort the political party proportionality of the House, it really sets out what he or she must do before they can actually remove that person. They've actually got to give that member some written notice. One would think that it's a matter of sort of picking someone up by the scruff of the neck and marching them out of this House. Again, that is something that Dr Smith may like to comment on in his presentation. Also, the political party—of course, two-thirds of that party must also agree. So any suggestion that all of a sudden a party leader can get out of bed in the morning on perhaps the proverbial wrong side of the bed and decide that he or she wants to get rid of one of their MPs on that day—there are certainly sufficient safeguards in here such that anyone that is concerned that the egregious, outrageous breaches of democracy that have been predicted are going to be visited upon this House, visited upon these individuals with wanton abandon, can rest assured that that will not be the case. So unless these safeguards have been disregarded, and even only then, will the actual proportionality then be considered. 
I think that this legislation is unnecessary. Again, the two years that have now passed will show that we can put up with dissent in this House, we can have our ideas, we can learn, as most do, and understand how to use their leverage, how to use their power, and not have to fall out with their leaders. I will not be voting for this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): As I should have said before the member was called, the question is that the motion be agreed to.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the things that makes me just so proud to be a New Zealander and a member of this Parliament is that we are the fourth-oldest continuous democracy in this world, and this Parliament has actually been at the core of so much of New Zealand's success. But democracy is a delicate flower that we must be continuously out to protect and safeguard and I want to congratulate my friend and colleague David Carter as an experienced parliamentarian and as a Speaker caring enough about our democracy to introduce this bill. 
The electoral amendment bill that was passed in 2018 was the worst bill of the 52nd Parliament, and in these closing weeks it's entirely appropriate that we point out the failings of that bill and seek to repeal it. There is a very fundamental point of what makes a country a democracy, and it is this: the people elect its members of Parliament and the people alone are entitled to fire them—the people alone are entitled to fire them—and the moment we give party leaders the power to dismiss a member of Parliament that has been democratically elected, we erode the very fabric of what makes our parliamentary democracy so important.
This law that is being challenged today would be unconscionable in the mother of all Parliaments in the United Kingdom. It would never have even got off first base. MMP was founded in Germany; it would breach the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany should anybody pass such an offensive law. As my colleague David Carter from the Inter-Parliamentary Union said, this law puts New Zealand in the company of Draconian authoritarian States like Zimbabwe or like Venezuela, which not a member of the New Zealand public or member of this House would want to associate ourselves with. It was a further disgrace that this law was the product of simple leveraging from the coalition negotiations. Actually, our electoral law needs greater protection than simply being a plaything of negotiations. Our electoral law, in my view, needs to have greater entrenchment to stop those sorts of rorts.
As Mr Carter said, this law change is the product of the paranoia of one member who simply wants the power to be able to fire his caucus as a consequence of his personal experience in 1996, and never in a democracy should our electoral law be dominated by one particular person's vendetta and experience. When this bill was introduced, it was exposed that every member of New Zealand First was required to sign a contract of $300,000 were they to leave that party, and that is equally unconscionable, as was displayed at that time.
Now, the member Mr Greg O'Connor asked: well, what's happened in the last two years and why does it equally concern me? It is because it is the change in the culture of this place that goes with this law. The moment members of this Parliament know that any one of the party leaders has the power to fire a member means that the courage of our convictions is watered down and the duties that we have as a member of Parliament to represent our people and to stand up for what we believe is eroded. One of the great values that I think is at the core of Kiwi values is a tolerance of dissent—that while we may disagree, we will vigorously defend the right of others to be able to respect their opinions, and in no place is the right of dissent as important as in this Parliament.
I want to conclude by making a tribute to Jeanette Fitzsimons, who we recently memorialised. I would invite all members of the House to reflect on her speech as we make a decision to send this bill to select committee and remove this blight from our electoral laws—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry, the member's time has expired.





Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise to oppose this bill on behalf of the Labour Party. You know, the phrase that always comes to mind when I think about democracy, and in particular in the build up to this year's election, is "Let's keep moving." We're very proud of our record in terms of how we uphold our democracy, how we've made positive changes to our democracy. In the time that I've been here, which is just a minor six years, I've managed and been able to witness the changing of not only democracy but, more importantly, the public mood that sees us actually enforce and change legislation and change policy to make sure that our democracy best reflects our public.
Now, I'm a little concerned at some of the comments made from the other side of the House, which, as I understand it, are bending the truth or are so far from the truth that it's not even funny. The notion put across from the other side of the House is that colleagues are bound to their parties, they're bonded to their parties, and they give up their democratic right simply to be a part of a party. It's not true. It's not true. One of the great things about our democracy, as a member of the public or a citizen of this country, is we have the opportunity and the ability to join a political party. We're not forced into it. We're certainly not grabbed by the scruff of your neck and dragged into any kind of party meeting, nor are you bonded to that party for any particular sum of money—that's been indicated in tonight's debate. But, of course, you sign up to a party because you believe in principles. You believe in what they stand for, and that's why you do that. And by the same right as you having the ability to sign up to a party, you also have just as equal a right to leave that party. If you choose not to stand for their principles, if you believe that their direction isn't in your best interests or the interests of your community, you have the choice to do that.
What this bill sets out to do is repeal some good work. I've heard it this evening in the debate. I also heard it in the valedictory speeches earlier this evening, where they said that only robust debate can make for good policy and good legislation. It's been clear that the bill, this particular bill and its intention to repeal the legislation that's already been passed—it went through significant debate. In fact, I recall hours and hours in this House debating the original amendment bill, and I was confident that through that robust debate, we came to a better place.
Now, it's been mentioned about the Māori Party and how the Hon Dame Tariana Turia crossed the floor and the rest is history. Now, it's clear, and I'm quite confident, that the mechanisms in the legislation actually allow for you to disagree. What it did do was—and Tariana Turia proved it. She went across the floor. She clearly disagreed with the stance of her party, and she did that, and she was able to do that. The Māori Party was formed, and the rest is history. But any kind of inference from that side of the House that says that people can be fired by their leader I think is just absolute rubbish and scaremongering. I'm confident that the mechanisms in the legislation—and Mr Greg O'Connor has already covered this and says "Just because you woke up on the wrong side of the bed doesn't give you the power to sack somebody." It talks about having a caucus. It talks about having agreement, even from that member who is in disagreement with their party.
I'm confident that this particular bill actually takes us backwards. It takes us backwards. As I've mentioned, in the six years of my time here, there have been a number of recommendations from the Electoral Commission that have seen an improvement in our democracy, and I'm proud that on this side of the House, as a Government, we've forced forward on many of those issues. In fact, coming up in the election on 19 September, the fact that early voting, the fact that you can vote in places where people actually go to like supermarkets, the fact that you can actually enrol on the day of voting I think is absolutely fantastic for our democracy and makes sure that our democracy is stronger moving into the future. Any reference of likening us to Third World countries I think is gross scaremongering, and that's why on this bill, I can't support it.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose the bill. What we are seeing, and the New Zealand public needs to understand, is this is a personal vendetta by two members who feel that they have been personally slighted some 20-odd years ago. That is what this is about. And the member's bill ballot has finally provided them with an opportunity to take a dig. 
The New Zealand First Party does not believe that this is how this House should be used, for personal vendettas. The purpose of the original bill—
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: And what you hear, ladies and gentlemen, is the sense of entitlement that wafts away from Mr Carter and Mr Smith. They believe that they are elected and once they are elected, even if they choose to deny the platform upon which they were elected, you must suffer them. They will campaign, as National Party members campaign up and down the country, inside safe National Party seats. That is why there is such a competition amongst the National Party to get a safe seat. It is because you literally could put up a block of cheese with lipstick and a blue ribbon around it and they would win. That is because that is what they know to be true. They know that to be true. 
So what they don't want, New Zealand, is to accept that the New Zealand public votes for the National Party's principles and policies at that time, not for them as individuals. So if they cross the floor, if they decide to go and sit up in the back and stand for something else, they are trying to tell you, "Uh, uh, uh! You elected me because I'm such a fantastic guy—I'm such a fantastic guy. So, therefore, you want me to now not vote on the policies and the principles that I actually campaigned on. You want me to be here and vote on my conscience." That is what those two members are trying to tell you.
The member that put forward this bill, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, actually went out and fought a by-election after he was no longer in the National Party caucus and he sought the mandate of the people again.
That is exactly what this bill is about. I would challenge both of those members to decide that that is the integrity that they have, that if they choose no longer to stand with the party that got them into this place on the policies and the platforms by which they were elected, then go back to the people and seek a mandate. But those two men will not. Those two men will not, because they have a sense of entitlement. Once you vote them here, that's it, New Zealand, unfortunately; you've got them—and you've had them for a hell of a long time, unfortunately.
So what we are talking about here—and it also completely ignores that we're in an MMP environment, where there are list members of Parliament, list members of Parliament that the National Party has, that the Labour Party has, that New Zealand First and the Greens have, list members of Parliament who vote on a party platform. If those list members decide they're now going to be an independent, what have you voted on, New Zealand? What have you voted on: for that person or for the party that they represented? This was a move to shift our democracy forward. To align it with Third World countries minimises the massive experience—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us a country that's got it that you respect. Tell us about the UK.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —that David Carter actually has. He has minimised his experience. That is Nick Smith, who does not like the truth to be told in this House. That is him trying to shout me down, New Zealand.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell me a democracy that you respect that's got it.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: There he goes again. Understand, New Zealand, this is not about your democracy; this is about a personal vendetta by Nick Smith and David Carter. That's what this is about. But New Zealand First will oppose it, because democracies have to grow and live.
I say to the Green Party that there is a time and a place to stand up and keep one's word. There is a time and a place to acknowledge commitments made and stick with them, and I'll be interested to see later tonight whether the Green Party has the integrity to vote their word, as opposed to deciding in the final days of a Parliament that they don't need a relationship any more, going forward, that they don't need to keep an agreement or a word given, and we will see what the Green Party does with regard to their integrity. We do not support the bill.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We've heard some interesting valedictories tonight: Alastair Scott, Sarah Dowie, Paula Bennett, and now Tracey Martin. I've been accused, I suppose, of being part of the category of National Party MPs who are in a traditionally National Party electorate. I don't use the words "safe seat". The member said that you could put up a block of cheese with a blue rosette and it'd win—blue cheese, obviously. Let us just hope it is tasty cheese and that I become better with age, which isn't always the case in this place.
Anyway, the bill that we have before us—and I congratulate the Rt Hon David Carter for bringing it to this House—does a very important thing: it removes that which is no longer needed. We could actually say more accurately that it removes that which was never needed in the first place, and colleagues on this side of the House have made a very eloquent case along exactly those lines. But if the bill were needed, we can say very firmly that it is not any more, because the reason for it having been passed in the first place was clearly an insurance policy against ill discipline of New Zealand First MPs, and I don't think we will be troubled by that spectre haunting our political landscape very much more in some 51 days from now.
I think that one very significant aspect of the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill can be found in the name: electoral. The point about electoral law is not politicians; it is the electors. The word "elector" is in the name of the Act and the amendment bill that is before us. It is for the electors, those who vote—that is to say the citizens of New Zealand. It is their decision making in a democracy, if a democracy is to be the rule of the people, that must count when it comes to appointing representatives in this House of Representatives.
So it is that we examine the principle involved. We've had the example, as outlined, I think, by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, of the Northland by-election in which Mr Peters gained that seat—only briefly, mind; but that's been a pattern over the years too. He gained that seat in contravention of the principle that he would hold and delay the bill that the Government brought to the House. He went against that principle by saying that he wanted to represent the people of that seat despite the electoral result at the previous general election, and yet that's the basis, supposedly, of this whole regime that was brought in by the Government at the start of this term.
We've heard very clearly tonight in the speech by the Hon Tracey Martin the basis on which the governing parties made their decisions in relation to the bill, and her exhortation to the Green Party to keep their word, or some phrase along those lines. So I too will be very interested to see what happens in relation to them. I am quietly confident that the principles of the Green Party will be re-remembered and brought to the fore once more, and I am tempted to cut my own remarks short to bring forward that interesting moment that we will enjoy.
Speaking of interesting moments, I note that the situation of a member of the National Party who departed the National Party caucus, but not Parliament, earlier in this term, I would suggest, is a very instructive one. It is the exception that proves the rule. It is the proof in the pudding of the National Party's principled stance, as articulated at the time by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and others, that we do not believe that the electors of any given electorate should have their wishes disregarded, as expressed at one election. So it is that when the member for Botany decided that he would strike out on his own—to put it kindly—we said, in effect, that the people of Botany would have the chance to choose at the next election who would represent them. So they do have that choice, and that is one for them to make, having made a previous choice along those lines previously.
The fundamental question in relation to this is if a member of Parliament is said to have departed from the party manifesto on which he or she stood, who gets to make that decision: is it the member of Parliament himself or herself, is it their leader, or should it be the people? It is the people, it is the people, it is the people who make that decision. So the platforms on which we are elected will be standing again at the election. The people will decide. That's as it should be. I support this bill.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare.
Everybody has stood up tonight and given pretty high and mighty speeches. There's been a lot of talk about principle, but the fact of the matter is not too many people have actually acknowledged the machinations behind the scenes here tonight, and that is politics. The Parliament of Aotearoa New Zealand is, as I think most in this House would be aware, one of the most whipped in the world. What that means is that even though we have heard some speeches from members of the Opposition about the importance of things like freedom of speech, you've still had a speech from one of your departing members today who spoke to the fact that they had to vote against what they felt was their conscience in coming forward with a caucus position.
There's also the case, as was noted by members on this side of the House, the fact of the matter that we have a very tribalist system. I think all of us have seen just how ugly that can get. That adversarial system has produced some of the worst behaviour in this place. But on top of that, it has resulted in some very archaic first-past-the-post thinking, particularly in what the major parties see and characterise as safe seats. I think that's a great example, actually, of the flaws of our present adversarial system.
There's been a lot of talk about the Greens from speeches of both the Opposition and governing parties tonight. I think that it's really important that we are deeply clear—
Tim van de Molen: Everyone's interested in which values you'll have tonight.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and that the Opposition doesn't heckle me right now, because the Greens will honour our 20-year position on voting on this legislation tonight in much the same way that we honoured the coalition agreements and voting for the legislation that originally put it into place.
I really need to address some of the points that were made, particularly by Hon Dr Nick Smith when he spoke about the sanctity of our electoral law. But simultaneously back when the National Party were in Government, they passed by bare majority legislation which disenfranchised prisoners in this country against advice from their own Attorney-General; that is unconstitutional. I think it's really important that members in here are reflecting on the politics alongside the so-called principle.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Principle—principle.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The other thing, Dr Nick Smith, please, if I can ask you one thing, do not ever again invoke our former co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons when seeking to make a political point.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: She was a friend. You have cross-party friendships.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Because, Dr Nick Smith, the honourable Jeanette Fitzsimons, the late Jeanette Fitzsimons, if anything, was absolutely disgraced by your former environmental track record. It's disrespectful and, quite frankly, disingenuous.
So, maybe politics would be a whole lot better if politicians stop talking about themselves as we are tonight. If politicians want a code of conduct, as we're talking about, and how we treat each other, particularly within our parties, then perhaps we could best start by all signing up to the recommendations of the Francis review. The Greens commend this bill to the House.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): First of all, I want to acknowledge that this bill, both now and in the first iteration when it was introduced into this House—on all sides of the House, there was a palliative energy that has run through, and that's again very evident tonight, so I just want to acknowledge that. I also just was reflecting this afternoon: you know, we spent in this House, on this particular piece of legislation, first the integrity Act and now the integrity repeal—it's going to be in excess of about 28, 29 hours of this House's time. I want to acknowledge the calibre of the contributions that have been made, because this is critical to our electoral law. It strikes at the heart of our constitution—can't run against those particular aspects that the Hon Dr Smith has made.
But I'm hesitant that we start to rewrite history when we reflect on some of the things that have happened in this House. One of the questions that came up from the member just prior—there was a question he asked about whether the actions were right when one of the former members of this House, the Hon Dame Tariana Turia: were her actions right when she (a) crossed the floor and (b) made her decision to leave the Labour caucus as it was then, and so forth? Well, I won't make any comment about the first, but to the latter, what I want to acknowledge is what she did in the aftermath of her decision. She decided to go back to the people. She decided to go back and seek a mandate from her constituents. She decided to go back on a new platform, and she put her principles, her values, to the people, and it was for the people to determine as to whether or not they would support her.
I contrast those actions with many—don't actually want to name them all in this House, but how many members have we seen—we've seen it in this Parliament, the 52nd Parliament. How many members have we seen that sit up on those back, back, back benches, they collect a wage for however long it is that they sit in this House, they purport to advocate and be champions of—
Nicola Willis: They do. Don't be so disrespectful. They work very hard for their constituents.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: —whether it's Botany, whether it's whoever. The member will work—oh, actually, no, I disagree with that. I think they work very hard for their own gain, more often than not, because the reality is, for most of us—look, as much as I think, you know, I got here on my own merit, I certainly did not. There is a party that I belong to, it's its principles and its values, and it's on the back of my party that I stand in this House. Now, if I have some fundamental change of heart in my principles, my values, or, indeed, perhaps the party pivots on me—who knows? I was reflecting earlier with some colleagues just prior—I think, actually, it was the Hon Ruth Dyson. She was a big part of the fourth Labour Government—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we just focus down on the bill.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well, it all goes to the heart of it, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, then make that point—make that point.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: This is the context, and this is what the Hon Nick Smith asked us to look at. It was—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, we have a bill in front of the House we're debating—
KIRITAPU ALLAN: We do, and we've got—Madam Speaker—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't argue with me. Would you please come to the bill.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: Madam Speaker, I will talk to this bill—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: Time and time again, because what this is, it's about whether or not a person who comes into this House under the banner of a political party can at any point of the duration of that term jump off that political party's waka. Why is it important to reflect on the history of our parliamentarians and the political actions of our predecessors in this House? It is critical that we look back and understand our history so that we can debate this particular legislation in an informed manner.
Now, there's been a lot of chat tonight that this is about, perhaps, actions and there's a lot of hurt feelings in this House that go back a lot longer—almost older than I am, I think, particularly between some of the members that have been scrapping it out. Now, look, I don't want to relitigate that history, but what I do know is that as a member of Parliament in this House, we have had 28 hours of debate on this piece of legislation. We have decided as a House—and we are relitigating this again—that a person who enters into this place under the banner, under the principles, under the values of a political party should in fact stay there, and to that end, as we've already discussed, we support this bill.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's been really interesting to follow the debate on this bill tonight. There've been some incredibly defensive comments from the Green members, and the New Zealand First members have come out firing, come out attacking other sides of the House for trying to repeal an incredibly damaging piece of legislation. And we just heard there about "Oh, well, potentially there were some personal things." No, not the case—this bill is a terrible piece of legislation. It should never have come before this House. It should never have been passed. And repealing this waka-jumping bill is an incredibly important part of what needs to happen for our democratic process. 
Now, this particular bill, obviously repealing the waka-jumping bill, is about demonstrating the importance, the independence of members within this House. And I think it was incredibly rich for the Greens to get up and try and take the moral high ground and say that, no, we shouldn't be bringing other members into it. We shouldn't be talking about disrupting proportionality. Actually, we are here as members of Parliament to do what we have been elected for by our constituents, and for the Green Party to get up and say now that maybe they're going to change their values because they changed them last time—we're not quite sure; they're chopping and changing this election year, so I guess perhaps we'll see—it is an absolute disgrace. 
I think for them to have taken that position when they have so strongly opposed this legislation in the past to fall in behind the Government, entirely at the whim of Mr Peters is an absolute disgrace. And I think on that basis it is terribly poor of the Green Party to now decide—election year here; only a couple of months out—actually, they're going to change their stripes. I don't think it's good enough to have one set of morals and values early in a parliamentary term and then close to the election to change those stripes. It's great that we've heard that actually they're looking to support this bill—as they well should, as every party in this House should. Actually, they should never have supported its predecessor that this is repealing. And so I think it is a bit rich for the Greens to say now that they are taking the moral high ground when in reality this bill should never have had to come through in the first place. 
So we will continue to fight for the democratic values that we believe are important. We are all here as members to represent our areas, to represent those constituents around the country that elected us to this Parliament. We need to do that freely. We cannot be under the guise or under the power or control of party leaders who can choose to expel us as members of Parliament if we have varying views. I'm the member of Waikato. I love that electorate. I'm proud to represent it. If there was something happening in the Waikato that was hugely important to that region that I chose to support on their behalf and it was different to the views of my party, then that is a position that I would take to support my electorate. That's what they have asked me to come here to do on their behalf. 
Now, I don't think that would genuinely happen because National understands the needs of Waikato and they put out great policies that align with our constituents. But the reality is that flexibility for members of Parliament is absolutely critical. So this bill is hugely important to unwind a terrible piece of legislation that should never have been passed through this House. And having both New Zealand First and the Greens jump up and give extremely defensive stances just clearly shows that they know they were in the wrong and we must pass this law now. So I commend it to the House. 





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Nineteen thousand was the number of New Zealanders who turned up to the election booth on election day last election who wanted to vote but were not able to because they weren't enrolled. Those members opposite, who we have listened to tonight espousing the values of democracy, voted against a bill that would allow 19,000 New Zealanders to vote on election day this year. So I do not have a strong stomach for your views on strengthening democracy or your deep-founded—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't bring me into it, thank you. Thank you.
GINNY ANDERSEN: —values of New Zealand's views. I believe that this is a bill that has been already thoroughly debated in this House, for the fact that it did not succeed in this House for a number of hours being debated previously, for the very reasons that have been traversed time and time again.
So as already pointed out, I have a very short ability to contemplate arguments based on the values of democracy in New Zealand's political system when those opposite voted against a bill that would enable the franchise to be furthered to more New Zealanders coming up. So enabling New Zealanders to be able to participate in our democracy is exactly where we should be focusing on, and for that reason it's important that we seek a mandate from the people. Whether you be a list MP or—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't bring the Speaker into it, please.
GINNY ANDERSEN: Whether I be a list MP or whether a member of this Parliament be an electorate MP, it is important that they are held accountable to those people who voted them into this House in the first place. It is of vital importance that the public have confidence in our democracy, and they should know that when a vote is placed on a party, that is the principles and the ideology and the values that their vote is going towards, and that is exactly what the primary legislation that this bill attempts to unpick did achieve. That means that if someone has got into Parliament on the basis of free education, of housing that's warm, dry, and affordable, of the fact that people get paid a living wage, on those basic principles—if that is the ticket and the understanding and the principles that you entered Parliament on, then that member of Parliament should be held to account to those same principles on which they were voted in upon. Now, that, I believe, is not a travesty of democracy; that is in fact really sticking to the point in which the underpinning principles of which MMP delivers upon.
So I think the fact that this bill has already been debated for a large amount of hours within this House and members opposite have had yet another crack at trying to revisit this shows that this is exactly the point, that we have got a clear outcome that is important: that New Zealanders get what they vote for. If an individual member of Parliament is able to enter into this House and then embark on a different journey and jump the waka and go upon a different path of different principles, then that in fact is not democratic. That in fact is not giving the average New Zealand voter the reassurance and the ability to know that when they party voted for that particular party and the proportionate representation of this Parliament that delivered upon those ideas that they voted upon did not come true, I believe that that is not true democracy.
So I come back to the principle of my speech: that if those members opposite continue to espouse those true values of democracy, then I would like to have seen them vote for a bill in the past of this Parliament that enabled working New Zealanders, everyday New Zealanders, to turn up to the election booths on election day and enrol and vote. In fact, they did not do that. They voted against it, and that is a shame.





Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): In responding to the contributions made, I want to comment on two particular speeches: the one from Chlöe Swarbrick for the Green Party and the one from the Hon Tracey Martin. In commenting on Chlöe Swarbrick's contribution, I want to acknowledge that she was genuinely upset by the Hon Dr Nick Smith mentioning the late Jeanette Fitzsimons. Can I assure her that Nick Smith did not mention that name in any way to upset Chlöe Swarbrick; he did it for the same reason I would have mentioned it. I knew Rod Donald as well as any member currently in this Parliament, perhaps apart from Ruth Dyson, because we fought in the electorates of Port Hills, Banks Peninsula, etc., on a number of occasions. I also knew Jeanette Fitzsimons well. Those two were some of the most principled members of Parliament that we have seen in my time. So, in Nick Smith's mentioning Jeanette Fitzsimons, can I assure the Green Party it was done because Jeanette Fitzsimons herself phoned Nick Smith as soon as this bill was drawn to make sure that her point of view was well known to Nick Smith.
Can I also acknowledge and thank the Green Party for supporting this legislation tonight. As I read the first reading, the second reading, and the third reading speeches, what was very clear to me was that the Greens were in a difficult position when the Winston Peters bill went through. They had signed a confidence and supply agreement with the Government and, at that early stage of the formation of the Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government, the Green Party was in an unenviable position. It had no choice. But I do acknowledge that, finally, principles have survived. I say, with memories of both Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons, they will be pleased that tonight this legislation will at least pass its first reading and proceed further.
The other speech I want to comment on very briefly is the vitriolic contribution from the Hon Tracey Martin. She suggested that I had this legislation drawn from the ballot, or I put it into the ballot, because of a vendetta I have with the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I have no vendetta with that man. He may well have a vendetta against me, and I think it's worth just rehearsing the history of why he may do so. But I have no animosity, no vendetta against the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I'm doing this tonight because I believe in democracy. 
In 2005, when I was doing my job, I was making comments as a chair of a select committee. Winston Peters didn't like what I said, and he sued me for defamation. He sued TVNZ and he served Radio New Zealand in the same action. TVNZ and Radio New Zealand did nothing about it. I was aggrieved, and I went to court to have my name struck out of that defamation. I won at the High Court. He appealed it to the Court of Appeal. I won again. He re-pleaded it to the High Court, and I won on the third occasion. He ended up owing me over $100,000 in legal fees, and it was Mr Peters who had the vendetta, not me.
In closing, I just want to acknowledge something I alluded to in my earlier speech about my passion for democracy, about my loyalty to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and they wrote a quite substantial report on the influence of political parties and the impact of political party control on the exercise of parliamentary mandate. I just want to briefly read a couple of comments from their final observations and conclusion: "The parliamentary free mandate remains a cornerstone of democracy. An MP represents the nation as a whole and should act in accordance with his/her sense of what is right or wrong … Ties between MPs and the constituencies are of a political and not legal nature … Voters may hold MPs accountable only in the context of elections." 
That's what democracy is about. It is not about a particular party leader taking control of its members and using them as puppets.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 64
New Zealand National 54; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9.
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.





CRIMES (DEFINITION OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): I move, That the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's with a great deal of feeling that I address the House today as we carry out our duty as parliamentarians to protect the most vulnerable in our society.
So it is with great feeling and with a sense of responsibility for the most vulnerable that I approach the second reading of the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill. Its purpose is to update the definition of female genital mutilation (FGM) in the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 to close any loopholes and to reflect the will of the girls, women, and wider communities affected by this harmful practice. It's certainly sobering to think that in a country which was the first in the world to give women the vote that we need to have such a law. However, no matter how rare the practice of female genital mutilation may be in New Zealand, it is our duty to make it very clear from the highest levels of Government that this practice, a practice which is inflicted on those who often have no understanding or choice in it, is completely unacceptable—in fact, utterly rejected—in New Zealand.
The most important people to be acknowledged in this process are those women and girls who are affected by this practice. Thanks also to the groups and individuals who appeared before the select committee. The committee received 28 submissions and heard oral evidence from nine submitters in Wellington. Thanks to FGM Education Programme, Ayan Said, Nikki Denholm, and the Somali community. We heard from the Canterbury District Health Board, the Auckland Women's Health Council, the Humanist Society of New Zealand, Family Planning, the Human Rights Commission, and the Intersex Trust Aotearoa. Acknowledgement too, to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice, who made their contributions and advised the committee. I'd like to thank the Health Committee chair, Louisa Wall, for her advocating this bill. Also, too, it must be noted, the Deputy Speaker, the Hon Anne Tolley, in the Chair tonight, for your work with the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians and helping us to bring this bill to the House.
I'd like to acknowledge also the importance of the bill as evidence of the ability of MPs to actually work well collaboratively from both sides of the House together. Jo Hayes from the National Party, Priyanca Radhakrishnan from Labour, and Golriz Ghahraman from the Greens, joined me in working together as part of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians New Zealand group—or, as we fondly call it, CWP.
I am very proud to be part of the very first cross-party multi-members' bill. This is an historic night for us. This is historically significant for us not just as parliamentarians but as women. What we have in common might be not our minds or our ideologies but our bodies—the female body, which we are setting out to protect from powers who would seek to mutilate it in the name of religious traditional culture. We parliamentarians who were involved in this process do not speak as women with no understanding of culture or tradition. We do not speak just from the perspective of New Zealanders but from what is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Female genital mutilation is recognised as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. The WHO estimates around 200 million of our sisters and their daughters have undergone this violation; these are women and girls that are alive today. For most, it is carried out when they're aged between four years old and eight years old. This is old enough to know, in the hours and minutes before their bodies are cut and mutilated, that something bad is about to happen, old enough to experience immense fear before the excruciating pain and disfiguring act, and old enough for the memory of the mental anguish to be imprinted on their souls and remain with them for life.
I, as a woman, stand here with a voice to speak directly about this violation of our sisters with a voice that many of them around the world and in New Zealand do not have. I can speak about not only the mental damage but also the physical. It's not nice to hear, but it's far, far worse to experience: the recurrent urinary and vaginal infections, the chronic pain, the infertility, the haemorrhaging, the epidermoid cysts, the difficult labour, and the abnormalities in sexual function. These terrible inflictions are why we are here to amend and close those loopholes in the Act.
I feel that it's important to make it known that this anti-women practice is unfortunately not confined to one culture or religion. FGM really came across New Zealand's radar in the early 1990s when we experienced a growing number of refugees and immigrants. The practice was made illegal in 1996. Let me make it clear: it's against the law even if a girl or woman says she wants it done. It's against our law, including arranging for a child to be sent outside of our borders to have it done. This stance against female genital mutilation is greater than the individual; it is our free society in New Zealand which categorically says no to this practice. However, since 1996, we've come to learn more about the practice and the loopholes in the law, and that's why we're here today, to do our utmost to close those loopholes and spare any more girls from being put through this torture.
Firstly, in line with the WHO, the amendment seeks to remove the word "external" when referring to female genitalia. This bill ensures all types of genital mutilation are illegal in New Zealand. We've been specific in our amendments to name them and ban four procedures, as defined by the WHO. The amendment includes specifying what mutilation is, to include the incision, infibulation, or mutilation of a whole or part of the labia majora, labia minora, or clitoris, and also the means by which it is carried out, including pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterising the genital area.
This, of course, brought forward submitters who sought exceptions to the Act, and these will be clear in the amendments. The bill does not seek to change these. This would encompass procedures carried out by a doctor for gender confirmation surgery. It would not affect procedures performed by a doctor or midwife on a woman in labour or immediately after giving birth. The amendment seeks to extend those who can perform some procedures to include a nurse or nurse practitioner, to protect these medical professionals from potential liability if they were carrying out a procedure such as lancing an abscess or injecting a steroid. The bill does not aim to criminalise some cosmetic procedures but will allow for some exceptions. Piercing and tattooing would be covered under existing regulations.
The need for education around female genital mutilation is a message that has come through strongly from the submitters that came to select committee, including from Family Planning. Now we suggest other non-legislative measures to complement the changes to the law. A set of guidelines, national guidelines, is needed for consistency when authorities deal with cases of FGM. This would help determine whether a procedure is for cosmetic or enhancement purposes, and guidelines would help police in their response to cases of FGM and to cover any resulting prosecution.
Education needs to go hand in hand with any amendments to the law. Several submitters recommended this, including the Auckland Women's Health Council. The programme would be for communities where the practice takes place, and also for health professionals, police, social services, and lawyers.
Some submitters to the committee raised concerns about seemingly related issues. This included male circumcision, with submitters saying that this is carried out without consent. Others wanted the bill to include intersex genital mutilation. Their reasoning was that surgery on intersex children was performed without their consent. Now, both of these issues are of great importance; however, it was decided to be outside the scope of this bill, which is deliberately narrow to focus on the one issue of FGM.
The Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill seeks to provide greater protection for women and girls, who deserve to have sovereignty over their own bodies, it seeks to provide clarity for the medical and legal fraternity on what FGM is, and it aims to offer protection for doctors, midwives, nurses, and nurse practitioners when carrying out their own professional duties.
So let us make a strong and loud statement today in this House that we take responsibility for the physical and mental wellbeing of women and girls of all ethnic, religious, and socio-economic backgrounds in New Zealand. We will do our utmost to protect your bodies and your minds from harm. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time.





In Committee
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.





Clauses 1 to 4
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I just begin this contribution by acknowledging the co-sponsors of this bill: Jenny Marcroft from New Zealand First, Jo Hayes from the National Party, and Golriz Ghahraman from the Green Party. As has been mentioned before, this is the first time that we've seen a multi-member bill progress through the House, and it is with great pride that I add my name to this bill. Can I also acknowledge the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group for their leadership on this bill as well. 
This is a bill that will extend the definition of the Crimes Act 1961 to prohibit all forms of female genital mutilation (FGM) in New Zealand. I'll just point to the Human Rights Commission's submission to this bill, because they've laid out quite clearly what the World Health Organization has suggested that member States do, which is what this bill, in effect, does, and that is to classify the four types of female genital mutilation. 
Currently, under New Zealand law, it's largely excision that is criminalised, but there are four different types: type one, which is often referred to as clitoridectomy, which is the partial or total removal of the clitoris; type two, which is often referred to as excision, the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora; type three, which is often referred to as infibulation, which is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal; and type four, which includes all other harmful procedures. It includes pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterising the genital area. And that's what the expansion of the extension of the definition of "female genital mutilation" in the Crimes Act seeks to do. 
This also includes arranging for a child to be sent or taken outside of New Zealand with the intent for FGM to be performed. And it also makes very clear that consent is not a defence to this. By way of a little bit of context to where this bill has come from, it is a global issue, as other speakers before me have said. UNICEF estimates that over 200 million women and girls have undergone it, with 30 million girls under the age of 15 being at risk of FGM between 2016 and 2026.
Just to fast forward to New Zealand, this has been an issue in New Zealand since the 1990s. The FGM programme—and at this point, can I just acknowledge the FGM Education Programme in New Zealand that has been led by Ayan Said and Nikki Denholm, and over years they've done a huge amount of work to raise awareness, to educate various communities, and to bring down the support within communities for FGM. They have undertaken three different surveys across New Zealand from 1997 through to 2017, with one in 2007. What we can see quite clearly is that support for FGM has decreased over the years from within the communities that are affected by FGM themselves. We also see that areas that have received minimal FGM health education activities actually experienced less satisfaction with maternal healthcare, and that speaks to a recommendation by the Health Committee to provide national guidelines, so that this issue can be dealt with by organisations like the police, but also to improve upon and continue education programmes across New Zealand so that we continue to reduce support for FGM.
The select committee worked very well and suggested a number of changes that will strengthen the bill by making the definition fit for purpose, by ensuring that cosmetic and enhancement procedures are not inadvertently included as the bill's definition has expanded, and also by extending the exclusions that are currently provided to doctors and midwives also to nurses and nurse practitioners so that they can perform medical procedures for the benefit of women without accidentally being criminalised by this bill.
This is a bill that was strong at the start and has been strengthened further through the select committee process. Can I thank members of the Health Committee, submitters who have provided their views to strengthen the bill as well, and officials for their work on this bill. It has also been noted by submitters that extensive consultative processes have been undertaken within, for example, the refugee community leaders in New Zealand with strong support from them as well, as well as from those who work within the health sectors of New Zealand also. I commend this bill to the committee.
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. 
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill without amendment.
Report adopted.





Third Reading
GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): I move, That the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
It is truly a pleasure this evening to stand and speak to this historic bill. It's historic in a couple of different aspects, but I will open, really proudly, to acknowledge that this House is coming together not only in consensus but, for the first time, to present and vote on a members' bill that's brought by members from parties across the House. I just want to start by acknowledging my co-sponsors, Priyanca from Labour and Jenny from New Zealand First and Jo from the National Party. I also want to acknowledge the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group and Louisa Wall, who chaired our select committee as we deliberated and also supported us in bringing this bill in this unique way to the House.
It is, I think, a night for celebration, as well, of the communities who came to us and who made this law possible. It is truly, I think, lawmaking for the affected communities, by the affected communities, in that this bill and the definitional change of "female genital mutilation" (FGM) is something that feminists—men and women—from affected communities have been calling for and educating us about for years and years.
This bill amends the Crimes Act 1961 to insert a definition of "female genital mutilation" that is holistic and up to date. Our laws were outdated, in that we only criminalised what, I guess, is now known as the worst kind of female genital mutilation. We've learnt now, through the education and the generosity of the communities that have come to us to speak to us about what this practice truly entails, that there are forms that we would, certainly under standing law, call lesser, less serious, minor, or ceremonial, and we know that the harm is still so immense both on the psyche of the young girls and women who are undergoing this type of harm but also physically. Others have spoken about the intense pain, the scars, and the sense of degradation that stays with women and girls. In fact, we know, with any patriarchal practice, part of the purpose of performing any kind of gender-based mutilation—and in this case there's nothing that can be ceremonial that isn't harmful when it is a cut or a piercing without consent and performed, most often, on very young girls.
This bill, of course, takes away the defence of consent, because we know that in circumstances where female genital mutilation is imposed on a young girl or a woman, coercion is involved in the cultural aspect and in the fact that it's often parents and senior community members that are imposing the practice on a young girl. So the law is updated in that aspect as well, and it also is a criminal offence to take a young girl or woman out of New Zealand for the purpose of performing female genital mutilation on them.
But I do want to come back again to those communities that came to us: the female genital trust, the Somali community, the Eritrean community, the Kurdish community, the Ethiopian community, and Indonesian community leaders. These are all communities that have worked together and separately as part of different groups in the refugee community and have been educating their own within their own communities, and they've been educating us as lawmakers as well.
I think it stands to be noted that whether it's a patriarchal practice that degrades women through family violence or whether it's something like FGM, we all have some form of misogyny, some form of equity that we need to work on, within our genders and our cultures. New Zealand is a place where we have epidemic levels of domestic and sexual violence against women, as well. So while we have this kind of harmful practice in all cultures, we also have voices for equality and for empowerment of women in all of our cultures.
These communities have really taught us that we as lawmakers do have to pay attention to all of the different communities and marginalised women that we serve. Tonight, together, we have come to this House and we're changing New Zealand law to reflect what their cultures truly want and aspire to. So I do thank them, and I commend the bill to the House.





JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tonight, we do make history in New Zealand Parliament with the multi co-sponsors of the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill. I want to thank all the submitters, the Health Committee, and my co-sponsors of this bill. Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians are there to actually support women to stand for office, but we have gone much further this term. We have given a voice to children who were forced to be married; to end this term by protecting children—well, girls—and women from the heinous actions of female genital mutilation. It is my pleasure and my honour to thank everybody for their contributions, for their support of this bill, and I commend it to the House. Thank you very much.





JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll take a very short call now in the third reading of the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill and acknowledge the co-sponsors of this historic multi-members' bill. Congratulations to all those in the House, all those who have worked on this bill, to see it tonight as we're about to pass it into law. I congratulate you, and I thank you that we have together been able to work across the House in unison, sharing our many voices to say, "Do not take the power from women, from young girls, any longer." We will not accept it, and we want to return their power to them so that they can live good and wholesome lives. There are no health benefits to female genital mutilation; therefore, there is no point to it whatsoever other than to control women and to keep them in a place that is not where we expect our young women and girls to be as we move into the 2020s.
So, on that note, I'd like to say thank you to you all. It's been a pleasure to work with you. I commend this bill to the House.





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said just before, it's with great pride that I rise to take a call and a contribution on the third reading of this bill, because, as I mentioned again earlier, female genital mutilation (FGM) is a global issue. There are a number of girls around the world who have been affected by FGM and who are at risk of being affected as well.
This became an issue in New Zealand in the mid-1990s, after the settlement of people from countries where FGM is or was practised. However, it's not an ethnic issue. It's not a cultural or religious issue, per se—and I'll come back to that point in a second. However, I want to pay tribute at this point to the FGM Education Programme, which was established back in 1997 in response to the growing need for intervention, as we saw an increasing number of women being affected potentially by FGM here in New Zealand.
The FGM programme aims to improve the sexual and reproductive health outcomes of women affected by FGM and also to contribute to the prevention of FGM being practised here in New Zealand. They have achieved gains over the years through the implementation of a national FGM community awareness programme, education activities, the development of national FGM resources, guidelines, and recommended best practices as well.
I also want to commend them for the way in which they've done that. The women I've met, the two women who lead the programme in New Zealand, Nikki Denholm and Ayan Said, have worked for years within communities that are affected by FGM—and therein lies the key to addressing issues of violence against women and human rights issues. The key lies in actually working with communities who are affected to support them to stop those practices. And I want to commend them for that.
We see that they have made progress over the years, through the three longitudinal surveys that they have undertaken, in 1997, in 2007, and in 2017. These are surveys that were undertaken with communities affected by FGM here. The aim of the surveys was to assess community attitudes and beliefs towards FGM and how that's changed over time, and the findings from those surveys were then used to inform future strategies around child protection and education initiatives to reduce the incidence of FGM as well.
The 1997 survey indicated strong community support for FGM, a lack of FGM knowledge and skills among health professionals in New Zealand, and poor maternal healthcare experiences. In 2007, the survey indicated a significant decrease in support for FGM and improved healthcare experiences in Auckland. The 2017 survey, though, showed a further decrease in support for FGM more broadly but an increase in support for type four FGM—and therein lies the crux of this bill, because this bill will expand the definition of FGM in the Crimes Act to cover all forms of FGM, including type four. The 2017 survey also showed that there was less satisfaction with maternal healthcare in regions that have received minimal FGM health education activities, which points to the fact that we need to continue the awareness raising and the education function of the FGM education programme. Consultations with communities that are affected by FGM also present a strong argument to support this bill.
Back in 2019, last year, the FGM Education Programme undertook community consultations with key community leaders and educators across the five largest communities that are affected by FGM here in New Zealand, to get a little bit of feedback about this bill. I want to thank them for doing that as well, because here in the House we were incredibly clear that we wanted to get this right and that we wanted to ensure that we did it with the support of the communities that are affected by FGM.
The findings of that consultation were that this bill reflects a global movement towards zero tolerance of FGM and it better aligns New Zealand's legislation with international best practice as well. There was unanimous support for this bill because it will better protect their communities. They highlighted that legislation is incredibly important because it is a strong deterrent and has protected at-risk girls to date. Those consulted expressed a strong support for the proposed bill and the inclusion of the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, which is what this bill does. They also highlighted that FGM has actually been made illegal in many of the countries that they came from and so felt that their wider communities would accept legislative change here in New Zealand as well.
Last year, I travelled to Kenya to attend the Nairobi Summit in my capacity as the chair of NZPPD—the New Zealand Parliamentarians' Group on Population and Development. The year 2019 marked the 25th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, in Cairo, where 179 Governments adopted a landmark programme of action which set out to empower women and girls and to benefit families, communities, and nations. The Nairobi Summit was co-convened by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the Governments of Kenya and Denmark, and it began with a very strong statement by the Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta, who committed to ending FGM in Kenya by 2022. And I just want to acknowledge Minister Poto Williams, who presented New Zealand's statement at the Nairobi Summit last year.
This is a bill that will align our legislation with international best practice and what the WHO has asked member states to do. Some of the changes—very quickly—that were suggested or recommended by the select committee were really to just tighten up some of the wording in the legislation to ensure that the definition was fit for purpose and consistent with other parts of the bill.
There was quite a bit of discussion at the select committee stage around ensuring that this bill didn't inadvertently include cosmetic enhancement procedures and criminalise those. There was a fair bit of discussion there in terms of how we altered the wording to ensure that that didn't happen. So the new section 204A(1)(b)(iii), which prohibits pricking and piercing, scraping, and cauterising—that could actually include genital piercing, tattooing, and labiaplasty, for example—was changed to include a section with a new paragraph that said "does not include a procedure carried out [on female genitalia] for cosmetic or enhancement purposes only."
There were a few other suggestions or recommendations by the Health Committee, including providing national guidelines or recommending to Government that we have national guidelines—for example, for police, so that, if there was a case, there could be prosecution. Oranga Tamariki at the moment has such guidelines to respond to FGM, but, of course, they're not the agency that's responsible for prosecuting FGM as a criminal offence.
There were a few matters that lay outside the scope of this bill that did come up and were raised by submitters, and those were issues around male circumcision and also intersex surgeries that are performed, often on children without their consent. Those were considered by the Health Committee but were considered to lie outside the scope of this bill. There was consideration, I guess, or acknowledgment that these are issues that require some further consideration and, potentially, legislation of their own. But including that in this legislation would be a significant policy change or a step outside of what this bill intended to do.
In the time that I have remaining, I just want to point to the fact that this is a hidden issue, like many other forms of violence against women and girls and many other human rights violations that exist. As I mentioned previously, FGM Education worked with affected communities to look at how societal norms have changed and the fact that some practices that may be carried out with the best intentions of those practising them actually have no health benefits and have actually complications that result from them, and working with communities to change their own societal norms as well.
We need to be very clear, as I said, that this is not a religious or a cultural issue per se; it's a women's rights issue. It's a human rights issue that's often perpetrated under the guise of culture or religion. But there's no justification for it, and as we've seen from the work that FGM Education and others like refugees and survivors have done, we have seen that there are many from within affected groups who stand against it as well. We need to be careful, though, that we don't vilify specific communities, because this causes them to feel further marginalised and further silences women who need support and those who are working within those communities towards change.
I end with an African proverb: "When sleeping women waken, mountains move." Can I acknowledge my co-sponsors, the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, the FGM Education Programme, and women from affected communities who continue to stand against this. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. "We are women, hear us roar, in numbers too big to ignore"—and that's 40 percent. That's what can happen when women across the House join together and collaborate to progress types of legislation that are obviously relevant to women in Aotearoa New Zealand. So I want to say congratulations to Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP); to the members who joined that collective that have enabled us to collaborate, to form an alliance, and, in doing so, to actually give effect to the voice of women in New Zealand, our ethnic women, our migrant women; to the FGM Education Programme; to Ayan and Nikki; and to our immigrant communities, many of you who actually were brave enough to talk about female genital mutilation (FGM) as a heritage practice but also about the relevance of that heritage practice here in New Zealand. We, through your voice, were able to come together and use our position and status here in Parliament to amend section 204A of the Crimes Act.
We have now ensured that all forms of FGM are illegal in New Zealand, and that will mean that we are sending a clear signal that FGM in any form is the subjugation of women. It is sexual violence, it is sexual abuse, and it is sexual exploitation, because fundamental to the practice actually is the labelling of women as sexual things for men. That was the whole intention of it: take away women's sexual pleasure; she only has one role, and that is to be a sexual object for her husband. So we're rejecting that, and, in doing so, we're changing the lives of women and girls.
I'm incredibly proud of our Parliament. I want to thank the Business Committee, who enabled this to happen. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank you for your role as a member of CWP and your voice within that context that has enabled Golriz Ghahraman, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, Jenny Marcroft, and my very good mate Jo Hayes to be part of this multi-member bill. We have created history. I also need to acknowledge David Seymour, who was insistent that his name be on the bill. He was very clear, though, in the end that this was a CWP kaupapa. He's not a member, but he—and I also want to acknowledge Jami-Lee Ross, because they could have objected when we brought this kaupapa to the House for our ability to do it. So without further ado, I really want to commend this process and the alliances that we have formed across the House as women and also, obviously, this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Bill read a third time.





HARMFUL DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS (UNAUTHORISED POSTING OF INTIMATE VISUAL RECORDING) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I move, That the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. 
This bill recognises that non-consensual publications of an intimate visual image is, in and of itself, harmful because it involves a breach of trust and confidence as well as a significant invasion of privacy. Thus, the harm is implicit in the action. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues the Hon Poto Williams and also the Hon Clare Curran—Poto, initially, for starting the process of looking at this particular kaupapa but also the Hon Clare Curran for taking an interest and actually introducing me to Judge Harvey, and I want to acknowledge him because he helped me write that part of my explanatory note. 
So, currently, section 22 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act, which is titled "Causing harm by posting digital communication", requires, firstly, that a person has intended to cause harm when they post these digital images and, secondly, that a harm has actually occurred. So what this bill would clarify is that without consent, such publications are a form of image-based sexual abuse. 
Now this terminology was coined by McGlynn and Rackley in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies in 2017. Their article highlighted how technology has transformed and expanded how sexual violence can be perpetrated, which is manifest in the non-consensual distribution of private sexual images, and it said that the law must respond to combat this form of sexual abuse. 
So why this bill? Why this bill is because there are victims. Those victims are harmed, and I will now communicate the extent of that harm. To individuals, there are physical and mental health issues—not in our jurisdiction but in other jurisdictions, this has led to suicide. There's loss of dignity, privacy, and sexual autonomy. Collectively, this is termed a form of cultural harm. These acts harm society because of how they portray women, and they create an environment that can harm our children if we allow it to become normalised, and this form of sexual abuse and violence is not normal and must be eradicated. 
I also want to acknowledge Netsafe's CEO, Martin Cocker. I have engaged with him, and I also want to acknowledge the publication Image-based sexual abuse: A snapshot of New Zealand's adults' experiences. In the summary of findings, there are 3.4 million - odd adult New Zealanders, and what that survey found was that nearly 5 percent of adult New Zealanders have said they have personally experienced image-based sexual abuse—that's 170,000 adults—and, of those, 3 percent, or 100,000, have had their images shared online. Ninety-five percent of the victims are women. 
The other interesting phenomenon—and there's an article in the New Zealand Herald tonight—is that the 5 percent of men who are tricked by this image-based sexual abuse actually end up in what they call sextortions, where they go online, they have sexual interactions, there's an image of part of their anatomy, and then the people try and extract money from them. So, as I said, go on the New Zealand Herald website, where there's an example of it as we speak. 
It's also a phenomenon—and I want to highlight this—for the LGBT community and also, specifically, for those who identify as Asian. 
What is image-based sexual abuse? I think we should define it. It's "sexting", it's dick pics, it's revenge porn, or, as I categorise it, it's image-based sexual abuse. Dr Claire Meehan, who's an associate professor at the University of Auckland, on 29 February wrote about the "Nudie Project". Essentially, within that context, she defined the urgent need for us to look at the sharing of images within the context of consent. That's, in fact, what this bill does. It's very clear: if you don't have consent, then you can't post these images. It's used to control women. It's used when they're leaving a relationship or when they're pursuing legal action against their abusive partner. There are 3,000 websites dedicated to this image-based sexual abuse. So this distribution is shaping how our children view women and notions such as "she wanted it" and "she deserved it".
I've had to read up a lot on this technological phenomenon. Sexting between partners is a form of foreplay, but obviously they're doing it with each other. The problem we have is when those partnerships break up and how those images are then used as a form of sexual violence.
Finally, I want to highlight that in April 2020, the classification office released a report titled Growing up with Porn: Insights from young New Zealanders. They surveyed 14- to 17-year-olds. Porn in New Zealand is highly accessible. It's normalised, it's used for sexual arousal, and that's how our kids are learning how to have sex. Within those contexts, they're learning about gender roles and how to express sexuality. Sexting is how young people these days tell each other they like each other. It's a phenomenon. It's how they communicate their sexual interest. Young people in that survey said they need and want sex education, and they need and want adults to talk to them. They want comprehensive sexuality education. Our children should not have to access porn to learn about sex, about healthy relationships, about consent, and about mutual pleasure.
So what this bill is doing is trying to address at one end of the spectrum, but, actually, the relevance at the other end of the spectrum I actually think we should connect up. I'm going to take this opportunity to highlight the work of the Hon Tracey Martin, who is very, very concerned about access to porn and how our children are being normalised in terms of gender roles through some of that porn. But I also want to highlight the work of Jan Logie in her Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. The reality is they're both ends of the continuum. If our children are growing up thinking these types of sexual interactions are normal, then there's no wonder we have such high rates of sexual violence in New Zealand. So I, obviously, am pleading with this House for us to have a very mature conversation about the role of consent and about us eliminating this type of sexual violence, sexual abuse, and sexual exploitation, and I very much look forward to the conversation that we will have, hopefully, through this bill with the New Zealand public. Kia ora.





HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker and members of the House this evening. The last 10 minutes are drawing to a close, and so, to my colleague Louisa Wall, I say that the National Party supports your bill, which is a member's bill and, I believe, was drawn recently, early July. So here we are before the House, the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill. This, of course, is an amendment to the Harmful Digital Communications Act of 2015, which was a piece of work that at the time the justice Minister, the Hon Judith Collins, now the National Party leader, introduced that 2015 bill to the House.
As Louisa has shared with us in the House this evening, this bill is significant and it's important because it's an addition to the Harmful Digital Communications Act by way of a proposed amendment, new section 22A, inserted by clause 4, which is to include—before the Justice Committee to consider—posting an intimate visual recording without consent. I don't sit on the Justice Committee—although I may have the good fortune to be substituted in for this bill. However, as lawmakers, as legislators, every single one of us in the House, when these bills come before us, we have a duty of responsibility and care to scrutinise and to look to the black letter of the wording and of the law to make sure that it is accurate and correct in the very intention for which the bill has been put before us as members to decide on. My background as a lawyer—I still look at everything that comes before me with my legal eye and a legal lens to that, and I do so with a duty of care and don't regard it as being a silly thing. I think it's significant and responsible and important.
So the purpose of the Harmful Digital Communications Act is to deter, prevent, and mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications. The amendment that is proposed is in relation to intimate visual recording. What is that? That is defined under section 4 of the 2015 Act. It's not detailed in the proposed amendment, but I do consider it's important for people to be clear as to what an intimate visual recording is. That "means a visual recording (for example, a photograph, a videotape, or digital image) that is made in any medium using any device with or without the knowledge or consent of the individual who is the subject of [that] recording". Then it goes into further detail about the explicit nature of that intimate visual recording. I won't go into the detail of that, but I do draw to the attention of the members who will be scrutinising this that at section 4 it details what an intimate visual recording is.
The other significant thing about this proposed amendment is the tariff, the penalty that is suggested. That tariff and penalty is very different to that which is under the Harmful Digital Communications Act for the use of posting a digital communication. Now, that's section 22 of the 2015 Act, and the sentence there is for a term—if that is to be the actus reus, which is the act, and the mens rea, which is the knowledge and the intent of posting a digital communication. That digital communication penalty is for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $50,000 for an actual person and, in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $200,000.
In relation to an intimate visual recording, it's proposed to reflect the seriousness of that crime that the penalty would be for a period of imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding $50,000 for a natural person, and, again, in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $200,000. So that shows the difference between the seriousness and the severity of the actual offence and the harm that would be caused to the victim. Now, that's something that the Justice Committee will need to decide and determine as to whether or not the proposed seriousness of the offence and the penalty accordingly is appropriate. 
In this day and age, with social media, we are concerned about the accessibility of harmful material, not only the digital communications but the intimate visual recordings. Many of us here in the House are parents. We're not only concerned for the elderly but also for the young. My colleague has talked about the impact of the harm and the impact to the victims and the associated trauma of such exposure that goes with social media and the far-reaching impact of it. 
This is the first reading. It will be thoroughly scrutinised before the Justice Committee, and, in so doing—I anticipate that this is necessary law—those members who are presiding and sitting on the committee will give due diligence scrutinising what the law is meant to achieve. Again, I remind the members in the House and those sitting on the select committee that there is a duty of care—that is not such a silly thing that's to be overlooked—and that that is factored into the decisions that are made when this bill comes before the House for the second and the third reading, should it be passed into law. I commend the first reading of this bill to the House.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a great honour and a privilege to stand in support of the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill and to begin by acknowledging the work of Louisa Wall—the indefatigable Louisa Wall, I think we'd call her; certainly the very lucky Louisa Wall—who has repeatedly had her members' bills plucked from the ballot. We have yet another one—well-drafted, well-crafted, well-thought-out, deeply principled, and for the public good. So I say to my colleague Louisa Wall, thank you for that. 
We know that in this day and age and in the online environment that we are all now part of, and cannot avoid being part of, the posting of personal images in a way intended to cause humiliation or embarrassment is now an unfortunate part of that life. We have the Harmful Digital Communications Act, which the previous Government passed, with the support, I think, of the vast majority of the House. It was the right thing to do. It reflected the needs of the age and of the mediums that many people communicate in. It is those social media now which provide this easy way for people motivated to do harm to others in order to cause embarrassment to do so, by posting intimate images and images that would otherwise be confidential. So it's important that we do have effective remedies for that. 
I think the Harmful Digital Communications Act in its current form is performing very well. It's achieving much of its purpose. But, with the incidence now of what is now dubbed revenge porn—those who deliberately seek and decide, because of some sort of huff or some sort of breakdown of personal respect for others, to cause harm through posting images—the current Act does not provide enough of a remedy. This will do that—this will do that—and it will clarify the elements of the offence that a person who does those activities will be charged with so it is easier for those considering how to achieve a remedy and how to go after the person who's caused harm. It'll be easier for the prosecutors will be easier for the court, and, I would hope—as, indeed, I know Louisa Wall does and indeed Harete Hipango, who's just spoken—will achieve justice for those who have been harmed.
We know the harm this can cause. It's not just excruciating embarrassment and humiliation; it is anxiety, it is depression, and it can cause a person's life to be turned upside down. You know, the reality is, as we go through life and we're forming relationships with others, sometimes we come across people who we just don't know every dimension about. We just don't know who we are actually hooking up with. For some people, they discover they've met somebody who has pathological tendencies, deeply psychologically damaging tendencies, and they can cause harm. Harm caused by posting intimate images online can now be dealt with effectively through the remedies contained in this bill. 
So I would hope that the Justice Committee, if the bill succeeds this first reading, gives it close attention, the attention that it deserves. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, can I just say that there has been a great deal of discussion on this side of the House, especially while the Minister was speaking, and it's very difficult when people are speaking to the House and there's a lot of conversation. I noticed the Minister was looking over there. 
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.