WEDNESDAY, 7 APRIL 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: No petitions have been presented. No bills have been introduced.
A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on alterations to the 2020/21 appropriations for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and 2021/22 draft budgets for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—COVID-19 Response
1. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements has the Government made on commencing quarantine-free travel to and from New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): More good news. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced that quarantine-free travel between New Zealand and Australia will commence at 11.59 p.m. on Sunday, 18 April. The opening of a trans-Tasman bubble is an important step forward in our COVID-19 response and represents a world-leading arrangement: safely opening up international travel while continuing to pursue a strategy of elimination and keeping the virus out. It also represents the start of a new chapter in New Zealand's COVID-19 response and recovery, one that all New Zealanders have worked so hard for.
Dr Tracey McLellan: How will New Zealanders benefit from the opening of a trans-Tasman bubble?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There is no doubt that the commencement of quarantine-free travel with Australia will give our economic recovery a welcome boost, particularly for airlines and for businesses affected by border closures. I will defer to the Minister of Tourism to elaborate more on that in due course, but one sacrifice that's been particularly hard for many to bear over the past year has been the separation from friends and family in Australia. Our team's success in managing COVID-19 and keeping it out over the past 12 months now opens up the opportunity for families and friends to reconnect with loved ones more easily.
Dr Tracey McLellan: What will the difference between quarantine-free travel and travel pre - COVID-19 be?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is important to remember that life will not go back to exactly the way it was before COVID-19. Those undertaking travel across the Tasman will need to do so on the basis of flyer beware. People need to plan for the possibility of having travel disrupted if there's an outbreak on either side of the Tasman. Just as we have our alert level system for managing cases in New Zealand, we also now have a framework for managing New Zealanders in the event of an outbreak in Australia, which involves three possible scenarios: continue, pause, and suspend. While we do want to encourage people to travel both ways across the Tasman—we want visitors to come to New Zealand—it is critical that those undertaking travel understand the risks involved.
Dr Tracey McLellan: So what precautions have been taken to manage the risk at the border in light of the opening of that trans-Tasman bubble?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We have been working very hard to ensure that good, strong, robust public health measures are in place. To be eligible to travel to or from New Zealand on quarantine flights, people must not have had a positive COVID-19 test result in the previous 14-day period. They must not be awaiting results from a COVID-19 test taken during that period. Passengers need to provide comprehensive information on how they can be contacted while they are in New Zealand. They need to complete pre-departure health declarations, and they won't be able to travel if they have cold or flu symptoms. When they fly, they'll be required to wear a mask on their flight. They'll also be asked to download and use New Zealand's COVID Tracer app whilst they're in New Zealand. On arrival, they'll be taken through a green zone at the airport, meaning they won't have any contact with those who are arriving from other parts of the world and going into managed isolation or quarantine. We'll also be undertaking random temperature checks of those arriving, as an added precaution.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes—in particular, our announcement yesterday that a trans-Tasman bubble will commence on 19 April. The bubble will give our economic recovery a boost, and represents a unique arrangement of safely opening up international travel while continuing to pursue a strategy of elimination and keeping the virus out of New Zealand. We've all worked hard to ensure travel is safe and that the necessary public health measures are in place, and this opening represents a new chapter in our response and recovery to COVID-19.
Hon Judith Collins: Does the latest report from the Office of the Director of Mental Health and Addiction Services include data on the age-standardised rate of suicide in New Zealand, as it did in previous versions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My understanding from the Ministry of Health—and keeping in mind that the decisions around this report sat entirely with them—is that they have looked at the original intent of the report, which was to report against three pieces of legislation. They also looked at whether or not information that had subsequently been added over successive years to the report was being reported on elsewhere. Suicide data is an example where they made a decision that because that information was reported elsewhere, it was removed from the report, which was originally intended to capture data that they are required to report on under three different pieces of legislation.
Hon Judith Collins: Does the report include data on the percentage of people seen by mental health services within three weeks, as it did in previous versions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That again is another example of where they had data that was already being reported through their Nationwide Service Framework. So the view was, because that data was already reported elsewhere, it wasn't included on the report, which originally always had just included reporting, as I understand, against three pieces of legislation. That's a report that I think's been produced going back to about 2005. Over successive years, additional things have been added. The Ministry of Health made a decision to go back to the core purpose of the report. If I may, there are a couple of other areas, though, that I've been advised were also included in the report that it is not 100 percent clear to me are available elsewhere. I'll note that the reporting on deaths reported under section 132 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act—that is not an area I've yet been able to determine whether or not that is information publicly available. I have spoken to the Minister of Health about whether or not we can ask the ministry to confirm—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I ask the Prime Minister to sit down. This is a matter which is a very serious matter for lots of families in New Zealand. It will be heard in silence.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Just to complete the question, that is an area where I'm not clear that that information is available elsewhere, so I've asked the Minister of Health to work with the ministry around resolving that issue.
Hon Judith Collins: Does the report include data on the proportion of New Zealanders accessing specialised mental health services, as it did in previous versions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, that's information that for the past 20 years has been provided through the Nationwide Service Framework. It's available online, so that information continues to be publicly available. Again, the Ministry of Health has gone back to reporting against those three pieces of legislation—the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, and the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act—and they have removed areas that are available in other public domains and that didn't necessarily relate to those pieces of legislation.
Hon Judith Collins: When she said yesterday that there had been "a change in how information is reported", was she referring to the removal of these key indicators from this report, and does she really think that that's acceptable?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've explained, it was a decision that the ministry made, to go back to the original intent of the reporting and identify information that was otherwise available in other places. Again, as I've said to the member, there are a couple of areas where it is not clear to me that the information necessarily is. That's an issue that the Minister and I have spoken about and, I understand, he'll be working with the ministry on.
Hon Judith Collins: What targets, if any, has her Government set itself for reducing the number of times mental health patients are locked in rooms on their own, and where can the public review progress towards those targets?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The ministry began seclusion reduction policy, actually, in 2009. So that's been something that the ministry—and I think all politicians would agree that having an aspiration to reduce down those numbers is absolutely right. So we've seen that over the course of the last decade, overall we've seen the total number of hours of seclusion for adult inpatients decrease by 47 percent, but in this latest year we have seen an increase in the use of seclusion. Again, this is data that is reported on, so, obviously, it is open for the public to see some of those changes in trends.
Hon Judith Collins: Why was the mental health and addiction report not released until six months after it had been approved by the Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The explanation I have been given from officials—and I don't think anyone would necessarily agree that this is a good outcome. But the explanation that we've been given is that the reporting that was meant to occur on 2018 data—the decision was made, because of delays that occurred with that reporting, to combine the 2018-19 year. The reporting on that was also delayed during COVID-19. Again, I think everyone agrees timely access to information is important. I don't think the Ministry of Health would be particularly happy with the time line in which that data was reported, but that's the explanation we've been given. 
Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with the journalist Jessica McAllen, who said that if the Government wanted accurate reporting on mental health, then they shouldn't hide information that has been published every year for the past decade in the same report?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, this is where we ourselves are looking at: can we assure ourselves that the information that otherwise has always been in the public domain continues to be? Whether or not it's found during the coroner's reporting on suicide statistics or whether or not it's via this report or whether or not it's via the national service framework, we do need to have information available to the public around how we are performing on mental health issues—so, no disagreement there—and that's why we are undertaking a little bit of work to see the changes that the ministry made don't detrimentally affect access to that information.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree that there should be a legal requirement to report clear and transparent mental health data, like there is for child poverty data?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, my understanding, of course, is that that's one of the reasons that this particular report exists, because it is reporting on three different pieces of legislation and those regulated activities. I think one of the things that we would also agree with is, in those really important areas, particularly around things that may contribute to poor mental health outcomes and particularly for our young people—self-harm, whether or not they can access help if they need it. Those are things that we're actually trying to pick up through our youth wellbeing surveys and strategies. So I think we shouldn't just look at the tertiary use of care; we should look at the precursors that may lend itself to children either having a positive or negative experience when it comes to mental health services.
Hon Judith Collins: Does the Prime Minister agree that it makes it a lot easier for the public to be able to access information on mental health where key indicators are actually recorded and available in one report, since they're on websites, rather than to have information spread out over a numerous number of reports?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Just speaking to that, I think part—obviously, when it comes to suicide statistics, I don't think naturally people would go to this report when there has been the practice of going to the annual report—
Nicola Willis: Excuses!
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm simply responding to the question put by your leader around where people seek information. So the Chief Coroner, of course, has tended to be that primary source for that information, and that continues to be the case. Equally, the national service framework is another place where for 20 years, that's where that information has been available, and it's only been in recent times, as I understand, that that's been added to another report. So I think the intent was to try and consolidate the purpose of this report down. I can see why the ministry has done it, but I can equally understand why it's caused concern.




Question No. 3—Health
3. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on new crisis mental health and addiction services in Hawke's Bay?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Last week, I announced a new support service for people in Hawke's Bay who are experiencing, or at risk of, mental health and addiction crisis. The mahi that will be delivered through this service will be life changing and represents an important shift in the way we deliver mental health crisis services. The pilot programme, named Te Tāwharau, will be a hub of community-based services delivered as a collaboration between health, social services, and police, and will include a dedicated peer support team. That is to say, those providing the support will include those people with lived experience.
Anna Lorck: Why is this programme different from the current services?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Te Tāwharau is the first programme of its kind where services will be based at one site in the community 24/7. This makes it easier for whānau to know where to get help, as services are coordinated to support people in the best way possible. Te Tāwharau will include adult respite residential beds, provided by a kaupapa Māori iwi provider, an emergency mental health and home-based treatment team, peer support workers, Ministry of Social Development support, and a police liaison.
Anna Lorck: What role will peer support play in the new service?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Every lived experience of mental health is unique, and the values and depth of understanding that peers—and that includes family members supporting those, with lived experience; every understanding that they bring is important. The intention will be that peer support workers act as a first step in preventing a crisis to ensure those in need can get help early. The peer support workers will be people with their own lived experience or who've supported friends or whānau through mental health or addiction issues.




Question No. 4—Housing (Māori Housing)
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): I'm not sure who this Minister is, sorry. 
SPEAKER: It's the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing).
4. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): Does he, or she, have concerns that homeownership is becoming unattainable for Māori, given that Māori individual homeownership has fallen to 26 percent in the latest census and that European New Zealanders have net worth almost five times higher than Māori?
SPEAKER: Just before the Minister answers, if the member just reads a question as it is, because we would have checked that it was going to the right Minister. Clearly, another Minister is going to answer it.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): Yes, we do have concerns, and that's why our Government is actively responding to falling Māori homeownership. We've made a start but there is much more work to do. In November 2018, Prime Minister Ardern established a targeted Māori housing ministerial portfolio. In July 2019, we established a Māori housing unit specifically to attend to Māori housing issues. In September 2019, we expanded eligibility for first-home products to include multigenerational families, to ensure the scheme reflected Māori aspirations. In August 2020, we launched the Māori and Iwi Housing Innovation (MAIHI) - Framework for Action. Between the MAIHI Partnerships Programme and Te Puni Kōkiri, we've enabled 269 houses in Māori-led developments across the country, and infrastructure on 206 sites. Many of these are affordable houses targeted at homeownership for Māori. In July 2020, we launched the Progressive Home Ownership Fund, which supports a dedicated iwi and Māori pathway to support homeownership through iwi and Māori organisations. And last month, we launched the $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund, which will make funding available for critical infrastructure on iwi and whenua Māori land to enable housing for homeownership.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will the Government recognise the severe disadvantage that Māori face in the housing market, and immediately introduce a Māori housing package that includes specific financial support schemes, such as the old Māori Affairs loan in the past; if not, why?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think I went through, in my primary, a number of initiatives. But over a number of Budgets since we have been in Government, we can point to initiatives that have been targeted and specific to assisting Māori in housing and Māori into homeownership. So in Budget 2020, we had the $40 million for the MAIHI framework. In Budget 2019, we had a $40 million package for Māori housing. In Budget 2019, we also had $56 million specifically for the Whenua Māori Programme. And then, of course, we've had other schemes. I do look to previous schemes that we looked at when we came into Government, such as the Kāinga Whenua Loan Scheme that was run and, I think, probably was replaced when the Māori Party were part of the Government, and they'd only achieved 57 loans across 10 years—and we know we need to do better than that.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Minister have confidence in the Government's recently announced housing package, when it doesn't include any specific policies targeted at increasing Māori homeownership?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I do have confidence. What we have outlined in this House on a number of occasions, now that we have secured the funding and made the arrangement, is that we are now working with partners—and some of those partners are iwi and Māori organisations—to ensure that we can have an infrastructure package that unlocks the potential not only of Māori-owned land but whenua Māori land for housing options as well.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Minister think it's acceptable that more than 11,000 Māori are currently on the social housing register waiting list—49.6 percent of the entire waiting list—and that for many of our w'ānau, housing affordability, let alone homeownership, is currently completely unattainable?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No.




Question No. 5—Health
5. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: What is the current average waiting time in emergency departments, and what proportion of patients are currently seen within six hours?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): In response to the first part of the member's question, DHBs report on the proportion of patients who are seen in and depart emergency departments within six hours and the proportion of those who are there for more than six hours. DHBs have never reported on the average waiting times of patients presenting in emergency departments. In response to the second part of the member's question, for the month of February 2021, 83 percent of patients were seen in and departed emergency departments within six hours. 
Dr Shane Reti: Have emergency department waiting times deteriorated since 2017 when this Government came to power?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It's not possible to say. Some of the problems with emergency departments are not indicative of problems with the emergency departments themselves but the rest of the hospital and the way they manage patient flow, and the challenge for the system as a whole when they perceive there is a bottleneck in the emergency department is to make sure that the decisions about discharge of other patients throughout the rest of the hospital are being made and that space is being freed up for people to move from the emergency department to the rest of the hospital.
Dr Shane Reti: Since he has been Minister, which emergency departments has he visited to observe waiting times?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I've visited a number of hospitals, including their emergency departments.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he name one hospital, and since his visit have waiting times improved?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I visited the Hawke's Bay DHB emergency department last week, and I haven't been in touch to see how their waiting times have changed in that time, except to say that it was a well worthwhile visit and a good discussion with the very hard-working, professional personnel who operate it.
Dr Shane Reti: What is the waiting time at Hawke's Bay emergency department for patients waiting longer than six hours?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don't have that data available, and if the member wants that level of precision of information, he can put that in writing or ask another question.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that last weekend ambulance officers in Christchurch delivered patients to after-hours clinics instead of the emergency department because the wait time of people who could walk was a full day?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, I can't confirm that.
Dr Shane Reti: Which DHBs, if any, have had to treat emergency department patients on beds in hospital corridors this year?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can't answer that question, but what I can say is that the health system that this Government inherited was in an absolutely appalling state, which explains why this Government has put literally billions of dollars more into the health system, last year alone increasing DHB funding by $980 million, adding 3,000 fulltime-equivalent positions throughout the hospital network: because the previous Government underfunded the health system so badly we are still trying to catch up.




Question No. 6—Tourism
6. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister of Tourism: Will quarantine-free travel with Australia provide an economic boost to the New Zealand tourism industry; if so, how?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Yesterday's announcement by our Prime Minister is excellent news for the tourism industry. Tourism New Zealand's insights suggest that opening to Australia could deliver a billion dollars to the economy by the end of the year. Their research shows that over half of Australians surveyed are motivated to have a holiday that includes fun and enjoyment—56 percent—and to relax and refresh—53 percent. This presents a great opportunity for tourism operators and other small businesses to offer an experience that will appeal to Australian visitors. Despite solid domestic tourism over the summer, with many Kiwis trying something new, there is still a significant gap from the loss of international—
SPEAKER: Order! That answer is too long.
Tāmati Coffey: What feedback has the Minister received from the tourism industry on quarantine-free travel with Australia?
Hon STUART NASH: A lot of positive feedback. I've seen messages and reports from the Mayor of Queenstown, from the Christchurch Chamber of Commerce, airports, Ngāi Tahu, the tourism industry, and from small businesses, especially in the South Island, who say they are "over the moon". Mayor Jim Boult said, "I … cannot express … how happy I am at today's announcement. This is a thing that will make a really big difference for th[e] people who have been struggling." Tourism Industry Aotearoa said, "[Travel] operators from around the country are breathing a sigh of relief". They can now take bookings with confidence and scale up their staffing. The timing means that the ski regions, in particular, will receive a boost in the coming months as, in normal times, more than 70 percent of overseas visitors who ski in New Zealand are from Australia. Business—
SPEAKER: Order!
Tāmati Coffey: Final supplementary: what advice has Tourism New Zealand given on the benefits of quarantine-free travel with Australia?
Hon STUART NASH: Tourism New Zealand has previously stated that, combined with New Zealand's domestic tourism market, the return of the Australian market provides the opportunity to bring the tourism industry back to 70 percent of pre-COVID tourism value at a national level. Australians previously made up around 40 percent of international arrivals in 2019, and contributed $2.6 billion to the New Zealand economy. Tourism New Zealand's recent activity in Australia has been designed—
SPEAKER: OK. That is enough. These answers are—[Interruption] The member will resume his seat when I stand up. I am accepting the word of Mr Coffey that that was the last supplementary, but the member needs to get his answers down to a reasonable size. I will say to Mr Bennett that, once again today, I am getting sick of his inane interjections. There are members of the House who are trying to convince me at the moment that this is a serious issue. He is not helping.




Question No. 7—Health
7. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Mental Health Foundation CEO, who said in response to the Director of Mental Health and Addiction Services' annual report, "They are not reporting on the very thing they are trying to improve as a top priority. If the data is there why not continue to publish it in the report where people are used to seeing it? … you are making the whole situation less transparent"; if not, why not?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): No, because it is not correct to say that information previously reported on is not being reported.
Matt Doocey: How is his Government living up to its goal of being open and transparent when mental health service data that is being reported in the same format for over a decade is no longer published in the annual report?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is incorrect on two counts. First of all, all the information that has previously been reported, and has been for 20 years, continues to be publicly available in the Nationwide Service Framework. The second point is that because this Government takes seriously the crisis in our mental health system, largely as a consequence of the neglect of the previous Government, we have invested very heavily in upgrading its services—$1.9 billion alone in 2019. That has led to the establishment of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission as well as the Suicide Prevention Office, both of which will have reporting responsibilities openly, transparently, and accountably.
Matt Doocey: When the Minister just said the information was found elsewhere, how does the Minister's answers align with one ministry official who said, "Some data omitted would not be produced elsewhere", and who doubts it would be available publicly if not retained in this annual report?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not responsible for what another official has said. I'm responsible for the facts of the matter, which is—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Dr Nick Smith will stand, withdraw, and apologise. His late correction didn't help him.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. Point of order, Mr Speaker. The longstanding convention is that a Minister is responsible for his officials. For the Minister to stand up in the House and say it's not his—
SPEAKER: Right, the member will resume his seat. The member is absolutely right and he gets to it by asking a question, not making an out of order interjection.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Mr Speaker, I hadn't concluded that answer. The point I was going to make is that the advice I've received is very clear: that the information that appeared in previous reports by the Office of the Director of Mental Health and Addiction Services is available in other places, but most importantly is available in the Nationwide Service Framework that has been publicly available for 20 years.
Matt Doocey: Is it open and transparent when revealed in ministry official emails that a risk lens was run over the data and removed because it was negative statistics?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The advice I've received is that to the extent there were changes in this year's report by the Office of the Director of Mental Health and Addiction Services for the 2018 and 2019 years, it was because since that data was collected other decisions have been made by this Government, including the establishment of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and the establishment of the Suicide Prevention Office, both of which have reporting responsibilities and will report. But nevertheless, as the bottom line, the place where this data is always reported continues and that is the Nationwide Service Framework.
Matt Doocey: Is the Minister confident that no one in the office of the Minister of Health had any communication with the Ministry of Health officials regarding the decision to remove data in the annual report and/or delay the release of the report?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, absolutely.
Matt Doocey: We'll see.
SPEAKER: Order! Who said that? Who made that last interjection? Someone on my left. Was it you, Mr Doocey?
Matt Doocey: Mr Speaker, I said, "We'll see."
SPEAKER: Yeah, and the member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise. [Interruption]
Matt Doocey: I withdraw and apologise. 
SPEAKER: And—I'm just trying to work out what to do with Nicola Willis at the moment. She will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Member: She didn't say anything.
SPEAKER: Which member was it? If it wasn't Nicola Willis, which female member on my left was it? [Interruption] One female member on my left injected then, which was it? [Interruption] No, it was someone in this group here. It was a three-letter interjection when I instructed Mr Doocey to withdraw. Who said, "Why?"
Hon Todd McClay: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No, it's not a point of order.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Speaker, I said the word "Why".
SPEAKER: Sorry, I apologise for being—Dr Smith will leave the Chamber.
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
SPEAKER: I do apologise for getting the gender mixed up. I apologise in particular to Nicola Willis, who I named. Right, we'll get on to the next question, I think.




Question No. 8—Transport
8. Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Transport: What recent improvements have been made to connect Hamilton and Auckland? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yesterday, the Te Huia commuter rail service officially began, with regular commuter services between Hamilton and Auckland. Te Huia has the potential to replace up to 73,000 return car trips annually, helping to ease congestion and supporting our goal of reducing climate emissions from transport. 
Dr Gaurav Sharma: What has the uptake of Te Huia's service been so far?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Uptake of the service is going well. Excluding VIPs and reporters, of whom there were many, there are about 120 commuters on the first two morning services and 130 on the return journey on its first day. KiwiRail's other inter-regional train, the Capital Connection, started with only a handful of commuters when it began about two decades ago, and it now carries between 250 and 300 people every day from Palmerston North to Wellington. We always expect that it will take time to build passenger numbers from a zero base, but this is a very solid start. 
Dr Gaurav Sharma: What support has there been for the Te Huia service? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, there has been a lot. I've seen reporting that most passengers on the first service said it was an enjoyable and comfortable trip, and I understand that a number of commuters have signalled that this will now be their preferred way of getting from their home in the Waikato to their work in Auckland. The Waikato Regional Council chair, Russ Rimmington, said, "It will help to make roads safer, give people the stress-free travel and reliability they need between Waikato and Auckland", and Hamilton mayor, Paula Southgate, said, "The new rail service will be great for commuters and day-trippers and is a true partnership between local, regional and central government as well as Crown agencies,". 




Question No. 9—Prime Minister
9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement relating to the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out, "Our focus in those early days has been just getting people vaccinated rather than focusing heavily on reporting systems and dashboards"? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I stand by my full statement, which began by noting that "We have to move to more frequent reporting as we scale up the roll-out." As the member is aware, we've announced our sequencing framework and have a plan in place that will ensure all New Zealanders are offered a vaccine by the end of the year. Our initial focus—and rightfully so—has been on protecting those most at risk of being infected with COVID-19 in their workplace, which is why we've focused on vaccinating border and managed isolation and quarantine workers and high-risk front-line workers. We've also begun the next phase and are vaccinating people most at risk. As I said this morning, to give even more certainty, we will shift towards more frequent reporting that provides additional information and builds on the weekly updates provided by Ministers. This is why the Ministry of Health has started producing a weekly dashboard, the first of which has been published today. 
David Seymour: If the focus has been primarily on "getting people vaccinated", why is the most people vaccinated in a day still only 6,000 when this Ministry of Health chart dated 17 March says there should be around 40,000 people vaccinated per day now in order to finish vaccination by December? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So with the roll-out that we're working to, you can see the blue line indicates where our projected plan has us and our vaccination rates; the red demonstrating where we actually are. We're sitting at about 95 percent against our plan. At the moment, it is fair to say our vaccination rates over Easter were low, obviously the public holiday impacting that. We're hoping to see that catch-up occur in the coming weeks. The whole plan, though, has been designed to see an ongoing uptick in daily vaccination rates until you see at its peak, when we get into the wider population, significant numbers on a daily basis. 
David Seymour: If we can't rely on this chart published by the Ministry of Health last month, when can we expect every New Zealander who wishes to be vaccinated to be able to be vaccinated by? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Our projections—and, again, this is going to still be contingent on the arrival of Pfizer vaccine against what they've given us a general indication around. But the indications we have at the moment are that we should be moving into the general population from about the middle of the year—so from about July. What we've been careful to do in sequencing our roll-out—that doesn't mean that we will have enough vaccination for the whole population from July but that we have enough stored and available that we feel confident that anyone who shows up will be able to be vaccinated, and we've taken that approach for the whole roll-out. We don't want a situation where we scale up, and then we have a halt on supply and we have to scale down. We want it to be a continual ramp up in the availability and vaccination of our people. 
David Seymour: Is the Government waiting on a supply of vaccine because it signed its first agreement with a pharmaceutical company in October, compared with the US and UK in May, Japan in July, or Kazakhstan, for example, in August? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The first thing I'd say is that countries of course are working incredibly hard to vaccinate their populations so that they can get normality back in their lives. They are working very hard to get what New Zealanders for the most part already have, so that means that of course when it comes to, not our advanced purchase arrangements, but delivery against them, Australia and New Zealand have very openly acknowledged that the pressures in New Zealand are very different to other countries. People are literally not dying while they wait, so that means delivery has been different. The second point I'd make is our programme is different. We're using a primary vaccination in Pfizer. We will have others available, but that is our primary dose that we're using. The third point I'll make is that we have been making sure, as I said, that we are sequencing our roll-out so that it has a continual upward tick—that we don't open, close, open, close—and so that has been about managing our inventory and the doses we have available on supply. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the New Zealand Government's decision to switch to a predominantly Pfizer-based vaccination campaign—relying on one of the safest and most effective vaccines on the market—is one of the reasons why we're having to wait until the second half of the year to make the vaccine available to the bulk of the New Zealand population? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, that has been part of it—our delivery schedule through that primary vaccine. One thing I would say is other countries have made other choices, and they are perfectly legitimate choices and reasonable choices—you know, all of those vaccines have gone through regulator-approval processes. So whilst New Zealand has made this choice, it doesn't diminish the legitimacy of other countries' vaccination choices, but for us it has a simplicity to it that we're operating in this way. 
David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister telling New Zealanders that we are second to last in the OECD for vaccination rates because that's what this Government actively chose—to be late? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. 
David Seymour: When will the national immunisation solution be ready and fully operational? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We already have our COVID immunisation register. The member might be talking about the national booking system, which is separate. We're expecting that to be nationally available and utilised from about May. 
David Seymour: Is it that late because it was commissioned only in October? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think, just to be fair to our health service, of course it is fair to say that the immunised—we have not had a national well-functioning immunisation register for years. We have that now, and that is an absolutely fantastic legacy project that we now have to make sure we improve all our vaccinations. On the booking system, of course DHBs and our health sector have their own booking systems. We've seen the need for something nationally. We've put in place that solution. But keep in mind we have run immunisation programmes nationally before quite successfully without that in place, but this is a sensible option to enable a smoother roll-out later on down the track. 
David Seymour: By when will vaccine passports recognised by other countries such as Singapore be available to New Zealanders to aid them in international travel? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Just to be clear—because I notice that there's sometimes different characterisations of this—in some countries they're using what they're calling vaccination passports to gain entry to things like large-scale events, like sports games and music events. Obviously, that's not something that we require here. People are able to move around freely. If you're asking about when New Zealanders will be able to carry immunisation information when they travel, of course that's something that the international travel association—the agency IATA—that deals with those globally recognised pieces of data is working on, so it's not a matter that New Zealand somehow owns sole responsibility for this. If it's going to have international recognition, it would need to be designed in that way, and we of course would look to make sure that our population is able to demonstrate internationally when they've been vaccinated. If, however, your question is "When will people be able to come in if they can demonstrate they've been vaccinated?", the issue will be—
David Seymour: Point of order.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm happy to hear the clarification of your question. 
David Seymour: The question was very clearly "When will New Zealanders have passports recognised by other countries that allow them to travel internationally?" The Prime Minister has attempted to answer two questions that clearly weren't asked, and it seems to me it's a superfluous diversion to addressing the question. 
SPEAKER: Well, I think the member knows that judgments as to the quality of the answer are not mine, but I did happen to be listening to the answer and I would have thought that having New Zealanders offshore with vaccine passports coming into New Zealand, as the Prime Minister was describing, might be something that would be of interest to at least some members in the House and very much related to the question that the member asked. He asked about New Zealanders having vaccine passports. 
David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, it was "recognised by other countries" for New Zealand to travel. Most of what the Prime Minister has said is completely and clearly unrelated, and I just put it to you that it's a diversion from answering and addressing the question. 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Point of order. 
SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the right honourable Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm happy to continue to answer the question. I appreciate the clarification from the member, but, as I said, if the member is looking for something internationally recognised carried by New Zealanders, then that would be under IATA. That is being worked on. Our Ministry of Transport is closely following that work because of course we want New Zealanders who have been vaccinated to be able to demonstrate that for the purposes of travel. 




Question No. 10—Youth
10. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Youth: What recent announcements has she made about supporting young people impacted by COVID-19?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Youth): Last week I announced that an additional 4,000 young New Zealanders who have been negatively impacted by COVID-19 will get support to stay engaged, or to re-engage, in their education journey through the Ākonga Youth Development Community Fund, that was set up in November last year as part of the Government's response to COVID-19. This is in addition to the 1,500 rangatahi who are already being supported by this fund.
Naisi Chen: What types of services will this funding deliver?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Through this funding, 28 iwi- and community-based organisations across Aotearoa will deliver wraparound services for young people most at risk of disengaging with their education journey. They will be able to access programmes that offer a range of support, from comprehensive mentoring to mental health and wellbeing services, and career navigation. 
Naisi Chen: Why is this funding important?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We know that rangatahi are facing specific challenges as a result of the pandemic. This fund presents a great opportunity for local organisations to support our youth to stay connected and committed to their education, while also being active members of their whānau and community. These programmes will also equip them with the skills they need to succeed later in life, as we continue to recover from COVID-19.




Question No. 11—COVID-19 Response
11. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: How many COVID-19 vaccinations have been administered in New Zealand as at 6 April 2021, and is he satisfied with the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out to date?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): As at midnight last night, 90,286 doses of the vaccine had been administered to date: 71,013 first doses and 19,273 second doses. That's about 95 percent of the allocation plan, so it is slightly behind schedule. I'm broadly satisfied with the roll-out to date, but I do expect the number of daily doses administered to increase significantly over the next week or so. DHBs forecast delivering around 55,000 doses in the next seven days—around 7,500 a day, on average—and we're pushing to see that getting up more towards 10,000 a day, on average, over the next few weeks.
Chris Bishop: Why has New Zealand administered only 90,286 of the 390,413 of the COVID-19 vaccination doses, which is what the ministry said should have been administered by now in this leaked Ministry of Health report from January this year?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, the Ministry of Health put forward in the early part of the year—or late last year and early into this year—a variety of different models for the potential vaccine roll-out. At that point, they didn't have information on when vaccines were going to be arriving throughout the year and, particularly, any indication of when the vaccine arrivals were likely to be in the second part of the year.
One of the challenges around the inventory management is ensuring that we have enough to give people their second dose after they've received their first dose, within the three-week window that we're aiming for to do that—or just past the three-week window—so that they can get those second doses on time.
We are also aiming, as the Prime Minister has just mentioned, to ensure that we don't end up with a peak and trough period, where we scale the vaccine campaign up and then run out of doses and have to scale down again before we start to see the bigger numbers arrive. We have been focused on scaling up sustainably, making sure that the vaccines are delivered to our border workforce and their close contacts—their household contacts—first of all, and then expanding out to our front-line health workers and then beyond that. We have used this early opportunity to test our systems, to make sure that we are doing this in a way that, as we get larger quantities of vaccines arriving, we're able to scale up in order to make sure that we're getting them out the door.
Chris Bishop: In relation to his comment that the information I just disclosed was provided before the Government had confidence around the Pfizer delivery vaccine schedule, is he aware that the report I just mentioned has preceding pages in which it makes mention of the precise Pfizer delivery vaccine as of 15 February 2021, and why is he using that as an excuse as to why the Government has delivered just 23 percent of the 390,000 that were meant to have been delivered this week?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, one of those two questions is clearly incorrect. He can't claim that he has a document from January that has information from February in it. 
Hon David Parker: Genius!
Chris Bishop: Can he give—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That's—well, no, we'll have a withdraw and apologise for whoever made that comment.
Hon David Parker: I withdraw and apologise.
Chris Bishop: Is he aware that the document I have just cited to him is dated 26 January 2021 but outlines the Pfizer delivery schedule from 15 February 2021, and outlines for the Government what that will mean in terms of the delivery schedule for the vaccine programme, and why is the Government so behind on its administration of the vaccine?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We are not. We are tracking at about 95 percent of the allocation schedule that we have been working to. I don't know the document the member is referring to, but I do struggle to see how it could contain information from February if it's dated in January.
Chris Bishop: Can he give a categorical assurance that New Zealand will have a nationwide booking system for COVID-19 vaccinations?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Health team are working to have a nationwide booking system up and running by May—or during May.
Chris Bishop: One or two?
SPEAKER: It's up to the whips. You've got two extras.
Chris Bishop: Why has New Zealand only administered 1.9 COVID-19 vaccine doses per 100 people in our population, the second-lowest in the OECD, and how does he square this number with his comment earlier in the year that we would be at the front of the queue?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a couple of reasons for that. One, of course, is that we made the decision not to rush the vaccine approval process, as many other OECD countries, who have been dealing with widespread outbreaks, chose to do, and New Zealanders ultimately can have good confidence in our vaccine programme because of that. It's been through a very thorough approvals process. And, yes, we have had the opportunity to draw on the clinical and field trials from other countries as a result of our decision to do that. The second is that we did make a decision to switch the way we were viewing our vaccine portfolio, to rely primarily on a Pfizer-based vaccine campaign. We had a variety of reasons for doing that. It did mean that some of the vaccine doses that we expected to arrive in the second quarter we have not taken delivery of, because we are increasing the deliveries of our Pfizer vaccine in the second half of the year.




Question No. 12—Social Development and Employment
12. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What actions, if any, will she take to help the extra 20,000 people under 30 who are not in paid work compared to a year ago?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Government has implemented a number of initiatives to support younger people into employment, including our Apprenticeship Boost programme, which currently has 21,000 people across New Zealand gaining trade qualifications; Mana in Mahi, which has seen 2,546 young people placed into work; He Poutama Rangatahi, which now has 2,275 young people in education, employment, or training; and Flexi-wage, which will be rolled out over the course of the next two years for 40,000 places. These initiatives—like many, if not all, of our opportunities to upskill, train, and take up employment—are targeted towards people who might be disadvantaged in the labour market; that, of course, includes young people.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Do Government employment schemes such as Mana in Mahi guarantee at least a living wage; if not, why not?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No, not necessarily a living wage: some will get paid the living wage; some are on the training wage; some are on the minimum wage.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she further increase core benefit levels to provide livable incomes to young people under 30, who are often disadvantaged in a tight labour market?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We committed in our manifesto coming into the election to ensure that we continued to address income adequacy in the welfare system—and we are committed to doing that. I will say that the vast majority of people who are on benefit do want to work; do want to take up the upskilling and training opportunities to be able to get into the employment that is available. So on top of improving income adequacy in the welfare system, we are committed to ensuring that young people have access to upskilling and training opportunities so that they can get into work.
Hon Louise Upston: Is it still correct that of the four people supported into employment by the $50 million Māori Trades and Training Fund, only two were under 25, and, if not, how many under-25s have now been supported into employment by the $50 million fund?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I just need to point out that the member does not accurately depict the Māori trades training programme. In order to be able to complete qualifications—and trades training does take time—then they need time to be able to complete them. So, also, this has been a programme that we have rolled out that has not been fully rolled out; however, it is not the only programme in place to support Māori young people who may not be in employment at the moment. I need to point out the Apprenticeship Boost—not just Mana in Mahi, as well, He Poutama Rangatahi, and Māori trades training. This Government is taking a very fulsome approach to addressing the needs of Māori young people during a time where there is a bit of a tight labour market.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister think it is fair that young people on jobseeker who are under 25 get less income support than people over 25?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This was highlighted in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, and it's certainly something that I think we need to look at. It was a decision made by the previous Government prior to Labour. I am interested in receiving advice from the Ministry for Social Development on the differential rates. It is in our medium to long term plan to look at that; it is not something that I am addressing right now.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is addressing those changes in the medium and long term urgent enough for people like Randeep in Manurewa, who is currently forced to decide between lunch and electricity?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said earlier, we have committed to, this term, addressing income adequacy within the welfare system, as well as continuing to expand opportunities for people to take up upskilling and training and to get into employment. With regards to young people, as I said earlier, that is in the medium to long term plan, and I look forward to getting the advice. But I will also say that we have lifted benefits, we have indexed them to wages. There is more to do, and we look forward to doing that.
 





URGENT DEBATES
COVID-19—Trans-Tasman Travel Bubble
SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Judith Collins, seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday that the Government will be opening the trans-Tasman travel bubble from 19 April 2021. This is a particular case for which there is ministerial responsibility. The response to COVID-19 and, in particular, the opening of New Zealand's borders to international travellers is a matter that requires the immediate attention of the House. Therefore I call on the Hon Judith Collins to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
It's been 11 months—11 months—from the time that the Prime Minister announced that she was committed to introducing a trans-Tasman bubble, and 11 months until we had yet another announcement to say that in another two weeks it would happen. Eleven months and two weeks. But I am very pleased to know that this trans-Tasman bubble is going to be opened, and I am very pleased on behalf of the National Party that we are going to see some tourism back in Queenstown, in the glacier towns of the South Island, back into Rotorua, into Coromandel, and into Auckland.
It is crucial for New Zealand's economy but also for the wellbeing of all those people in small and medium sized businesses around the country and all of their employees. It's no point saying that everyone gets an extra paid holiday when the business is broke and it's gone under. It's crucial for everybody in New Zealand that this happens.
It's also crucial that our nurses and teachers are able to be reunited with their families, many of whom are overseas. We met yesterday, for the National Party, with people who represent our essential workers who have come in from overseas. In many cases, they left their families overseas waiting for their permanent residency to be granted while they're working on a work permit. Those people have now been separated from their families for over a year. Some of those people have been separated from their families for 500 or even 600 days. It is simply not acceptable.
There are spaces in the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities that could be used to help those people. They're essential to New Zealand. That's how they were able to get here. We should be kind to them and bring their families home to them. It is simply unacceptable that a Government that prides itself on telling everyone else to be kind forgets that they could be kind right now to people who we need for our economy, to drive our economy, and to restore our country.
When we look at what's happened in the Pacific—just think about that. We have heard nothing from the Government about a Pacific bubble. What about Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga? What about the Cook Islands? We know what's happening there. It happens on 1 May. We don't know it from this Government, but we certainly know it from the Cook Islands Government. They're very free with it and very happy to announce it to everybody, and yet New Zealanders are not allowed to know this information, but thankfully the Cook Islands has told us.
We also know that nothing has been done in relation to Samoa and Tonga and Fiji. Why is that important? Is it just about New Zealanders going and having a winter holiday? No, it's not. It is very important to our Pacific neighbours and friends that we support their economies. When we look at some of the losses that they have endured because of COVID, we have to ask ourselves: is there something we could be doing better than what we have? And yes, the answer is yes.
We have 400,000 New Zealanders of Pacific origin, Pacific ethnicity, and they want to be able to visit their families. They want their families to be able to visit them. We've had Fletcher Melvin from the Cook Islands Chamber of Commerce tell New Zealand media recently, "They need to treat us like adults", and that's the plea. I am sick of listening to people of the Labour Party and some in the media who have said to me, "But what if something goes wrong in the Pacific?" Stop treating sovereign nations as though they can't make their own decisions. It is outrageous. It is paternalistic. It is wrong. Just because New Zealand messed up under this Government—messed up the measles vaccine—doesn't mean that Samoa and Tonga and Fiji can't actually make their own decisions. It is crucial.
Have a look at what's happened to the GDP of these neighbours and our friends in the Pacific. The Cook Islands economy has lost 20 percent of its GDP. Fiji has fallen 19 percent and unemployment is now, in Fiji, at a whopping 27 percent. We could help fix that. We could do our best. Samoa's GDP has fallen 8.6 percent.
The other thing that could happen is we could actually bring in Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE) workers, seasonal workers coming in from the Pacific into horticulture and agricultural areas. They could be earning money, which in six months—and this gives you some sense of scale. In six months working as an RSE worker, a Samoan can earn as much money as they can at home in Samoa in seven years. This is how crucial the RSE work scheme is in the Pacific. It is absolutely crucial, and the great thing with it is that the money goes with the person. It goes with that person who's earned it. It goes back to their aiga. It goes back to their village. It goes back to their home. It doesn't go through a Government agency. It doesn't get clipped on the way through by lots of officials who are helping to add value. It actually goes to the people who earn it, and that's what we should be encouraging.
We have a Government who announced yesterday that, yes, we'll have the trans-Tasman bubble, but what are they going to do with all those spots available in the managed isolation and quarantine facilities? They're going to close them—close them. And close them why? Close them because apparently some of them are unsuitable to be used for MIQ for countries where there is a lot of COVID. So why have they been used for countries with a lot of COVID for the last year? Why has that happened?
The National Party raised these issues. We raised these issues and said the Government should be keeping people from COVID-free places separated from places where there's lots of COVID. We said there should be pre-departure testing. We said there should be saliva testing on a daily basis as well as the nasal tests. We said that. And what we've got is, now, a year later, after we've had four lockdowns because of COVID coming through MIQ facilities, or at least three of them, I should say, are from that—at least three. A year later—oh, lo and behold—the Government's worked out that actually it's not a good idea having people from places where there are COVID hotspots in the same corridor as people who come from Australia.
Well, for goodness' sake, COVID has been brought into the community through MIQ. It's taken the Government a year, and instead of saying to those families that we met yesterday, "Here is an opportunity for you to bring your family here.", who turned up from the Labour Party yesterday? Not one of them. Not one of them. Why didn't they want to? No, they don't want to see these hard-working people who have chosen to make New Zealand their home and who want to bring their families here. How can they possibly lecture anyone else about being kind? How can they possibly do that when they're turning around and saying, "No, we don't want to bring those people back now because, actually, we don't have to."?
Hon Scott Simpson: Heartless.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is absolutely heartless. And what's happened to immigration in that time, in COVID-19? Do you think the ministry or the department of immigration would be busy doing what it can to help these families? No—nothing, nothing gone on holiday, apparently working from home. But anyway, what we're seeing is nothing coming from this. 
So, yes, I am very happy for our tourist industry. I'm very happy for our Kiwis who are able to go and visit their families in Australia. And how many times have we heard from the Government, "Something could go wrong."? And do you know what something could be? You can have an extra three days in Sydney. Well it's hardly that bad is it? It's hardly that bad. And yet we've had months and months of being told it was too hard, something might go wrong—and, by the way, someone at some stage in Queensland, they had some COVID a couple of weeks back, and didn't they deal with it very quickly and well, and that's because the Australians have been all over this since October. From October, we had opportunities as Kiwis to visit there; we just couldn't come back, and that was one of the problems. 
Why is it that we can trust a travel bubble with Australia but not with our Pacific neighbours? Why is that? What is it that is behind all of that? What is behind the attitude that we can't have a relationship, a good travel bubble, with Samoa or Tonga or Fiji? And those MPs who are here who have some connections to Samoa or Tonga or Fiji—and some of them claim all of that—why aren't they advocating for their aiga? Why aren't they advocating for their family? Why aren't they advocating for their countries of birth? And the answer is because they don't care. They don't care and they like to think that they are in charge.
So I have seen, over the years, some pretty interesting work from this Labour Government and I've also seen the odd thing—I've thought that ours was quite interesting, too—but I've never seen anything like I've seen on mental health. Never have I seen anything as bad—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. Now, the member has her letter which she wrote to me, which was a very narrow letter. I have been very liberal with her in letting her go way outside what she asked me to debate. Urgent debates are amongst the most narrow that we have. She has gone a long way away from Australia in her discussions, but doing the next jump is just a step too far. I will say, while I'm on my feet, I'll let whoever follows the Leader of the Opposition have about two minutes to respond to anything that was irrelevant and, after that, there will be strict relevancy. This debate is about the Australian bubble.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I'm happy to continue on the Australian bubble, and I'm very happy to talk about the mental health issues around that Australian bubble and the fact that, actually, every Government should take that into account. We have had constituents—I have personally had constituents, I know my colleagues have, and I'm sure other people, other members of Parliament, have had—contact us about a family member dying in New Zealand: a family member, a mother in a hospice situation, unable to get back to New Zealand to visit their mother when they are dying, being told they can come to the funeral. And of course, that's of no use when you can't actually say goodbye to one's own mother. We've had family members say that they've got a child in Australia who is suffering from mental health issues and they should be with their daughter or son. One particular woman I know very well had to leave from New Zealand to go to Australia, taking advantage of the Australians opening the travel bubble with New Zealand from October, to be with her daughter for several months and staying there waiting for this bubble to be opened up because her daughter was undergoing an extremely difficult pregnancy. This is the sort of thing where families have been crying out for some kindness, some decency, some understanding that not everybody who asks for something is entitled. Most people who come to us as members of Parliament asking for our help do so because they have actually lost confidence in the ministries and they don't know where else to turn. 
So this travel bubble with Australia is a good thing. We are delighted to see it finally happen. Yes, we do say thank you to the 45,000-plus people who signed our online petition. Yes, we do think that they made a difference. They made a difference because back in February this year the Government had only just started talking to the states of Australia, having given us all the flannel about how, in fact, they were already discussing all of this. It turned out that wasn't quite correct. So when Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister of Australia, said—pretty much paraphrasing this I am—"Well, the door's open any time New Zealand wants it.", I think he also helped to bring this about. He helped to embarrass the current New Zealand Government into doing something. He helped to do that. But everybody who is now able to travel to their families should understand that the Australians have been able to receive us since October last year. They have been willing to receive us since October last year. The door has been open. The trouble is that the New Zealand Government refused to let the Kiwis back in without going through MIQ. 
I am delighted that we are getting a victory for the people of New Zealand and their families. I am delighted in our work to make this happen and I am delighted—and I'm delighted—to be able to have the opportunity to speak today in support of all those Kiwis, all those Kiwi families who have missed out for the last six months when it could have happened then. So I am very delighted today.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I think the biggest lesson from that contribution is if you're going to ask for an urgent debate, it helps to have something to say when the urgent debate request is accepted. If I was being uncharitable, I could remind Judith Collins of all of the things she said during the election campaign about New Zealand's border—about wanting to charge everybody coming into the country, and talking about the fact that people had had plenty of time to come in prior and therefore we should make it as difficult as possible for people to come back into the country—but of course I'm much more charitable than that.
Today is a good day for New Zealanders, as we look forward to the opening up of free travel between New Zealand and Australia from 19 April—something that we can all look forward to, something that those families that have been separated by our border restrictions will be looking forward to, and something that our tourism industry will be looking forward to as well, as they look forward to welcoming back Australians to New Zealand. To put this into context, before COVID-19, in a typical year, Australians were making up about 40 percent of the arrivals into New Zealand. They brought with them about $2.7 billion in revenue to New Zealand, a lot of that going into our tourism and hospitality sector, and we look forward to welcoming them and their money back into New Zealand in a couple of weeks' time. It will be good for New Zealand, and it will be good for our businesses.
The Government has taken a cautious approach when it comes to opening up the trans-Tasman bubble. What we didn't want to see is the border opening and closing willy-nilly without New Zealanders knowing where they would stand in the event of events happening on either side of the Tasman. We made it clear from the beginning that our preference was for a joint decision-making framework. That was what the Australians indicated they wanted initially. Then, they moved on to one where they indicated that they would prefer to keep a unilateral decision-making framework, where each country made its own decisions about whether the green zone would open or close, depending on how they wanted to respond to events on either side of the Tasman. We adapted to that approach.
We will still be keeping in regular communication, at a Government-to-Government level, at a health system to health system level, to make sure we are sharing the information so that we can continue to keep the green zone open as much as we possibly can, that any ceasing of those green flights is only done if we absolutely need to do that, and that people understand the reasons for any pause in trans-Tasman travel that may occur—why we're doing it, how long we think it might last for—so that people know what to expect and they can plan for that as they consider whether or not they want to travel across the Tasman.
We have been working closely with the airlines, with the airports, to make sure that trans-Tasman travel is safe. To put that into context, at Auckland Airport one of the things that we wanted to see was a physical separation between those coming from known non - green zone countries—so, in this case, Australia—and other countries where they could potentially be bringing COVID-19 with them. Auckland Airport created a plan that allows them to separate those passengers completely. There are still some issues they're working through around how they would handle red zone passengers, to make sure that they're not standing around and potentially spreading COVID-19 amongst themselves. They're still working through that with health officials to provide the reassurance that we are looking for. And we're confident that the infection prevention and control audits that will be happening this week will give us the information, the certainty that we're looking for to be able to sign off on that, and the health teams are working on that at the moment.
In terms of the green zone travel, that will actually be the bulk of the Auckland international airport. In Wellington, it will be the only part of the international terminal. They won't be accepting any red zone flights. And in Christchurch, work is being done again to separate out red zone and green zone travel. Queenstown will only be accepting green zone flights from international destinations—so, in other words, only from Australia at this point. That gives people confidence that one of the key transmission points in international travel at the moment—being in transit in the airports—won't be a risk for green zone travellers coming into New Zealand. 
In terms of the airlines, we've worked with them to ensure that they are using crews that are separate. There are separate crews flying on the green zone flights to those flying on the red zone flights. There is a process in place to ensure that planes that are flying, both green and red zone flights are sanitised thoroughly between flights, again to reduce any risk of unwanted COVID-19 transmission. It's been important that we make sure that all of those arrangements are in place. 
We have released the response framework. It sets out how we would respond to a case whether it was in New Zealand or Australia, whether we would continue in the sorts of cases that would see us continuing with green zone travel or whether we would pause for a period—and when I say a pause, we're talking about maybe up to 72 hours while we gather more information—or whether we would suspend. We would be looking to suspend in the case of widespread community transmission on either side of the Tasman. So we've set out the framework that gives people an idea of what they can expect. But "flyer beware" needs to be one of their watchwords here. They won't be able to get travel insurance for some of the potential scenarios that people will face when they're crossing the Tasman, and we wanted to be clear with them about what to expect.
In terms of the implications of trans-Tasman travel for New Zealand and for managed isolation, we are working our way through that. We have been separating higher-risk and lower-risk passengers in many instances, so we do have some managed isolation facilities that we have only been using for trans-Tasman travellers and those coming from the Pacific. They are less suitable for receiving passengers where the risk profile is higher and where there are likely to be higher concentrations of passengers coming in with COVID-19. So we're working our way through that. That's one of the implications of the trans-Tasman travel zone that we're working our way through.
We do also have to consider the Pacific in these conversations. We're in discussions with the Cook Islands about a safe travel zone between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, and one of the things that they are discussing with us is what our arrangements are with Australia so that they understand what the movement of Australians through New Zealand to the Cook Islands might be. That is one of the things that they want to understand at this point, and early indications are that they would expect anyone coming from Australia to remain in New Zealand for 14 days before being able to travel to the Cook Islands. So that is one of the things that we're working through with them.
When it comes to extending the safe zone to other countries, including places like Samoa and Tonga, the key message here is that they have to want that too. We can't unilaterally make that decision. It has to be a two-way decision. At the moment, some of those countries are not letting their own citizens return, so when we're talking about Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE) workers, for example—and in another contribution that Judith Collins made she was saying we should have more and more RSE workers coming into New Zealand. One of the impediments to that is that some of those countries aren't allowing their RSE workers back into their home countries at the end of their time as RSE workers. So we have to work through that very carefully, otherwise those RSE workers end up being stranded in New Zealand, because some of those countries simply are not accepting people in their country. That is their choice. As Judith Collins says, we should respect the sovereignty of those other countries. We won't impose our will upon them. We have to work with the rules that they are setting for who they will accept and who they won't.
One of the comments from the National Party has been about why we didn't move faster on the trans-Tasman bubble. Let's bear in mind that the National Party, the week before the big Melbourne outbreak, was saying that we should have been allowing people free travel between New Zealand and Australia at that point. Had we been doing that, New Zealand probably would've ended up with an alert level escalation, which we were able to avoid by being cautious and by being careful. Of course, they wanted to open up to just about everybody at that point, including China—something that they don't seem to be talking about any more.
Our caution—making sure that we're doing this well, doing it thoroughly, and doing it safely—is one of the reasons that New Zealand as a country has had some of the fewest restrictions of any country in the world over the last year. We've been cautious for a reason—because we have been freer than everybody else and we have been freer than everybody else because of that caution. Our Government has not been willing to put that at risk.
So as we've been debating the trans-Tasman bubble, we have been making sure that we have been taking care of the details. We've been making sure that we have everything ready so that when this starts, we can continue it. We have been making sure that people will be certain about what they can expect when they're travelling across the Ditch. Either way, we will be welcoming Australians to New Zealand. Australia will be welcoming New Zealanders there. This is good for both of our countries.





Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of the Green Party, and the first thing I'd like to do is congratulate the Government on how well they've handled the COVID-19 crisis and the fact that we've reached this fantastic development of being in a position to be able to have a safe travel bubble with Australia, and even working on it with other countries like the Cook Islands.
I also want to acknowledge all of those who have been in the unfortunate position of being separated from their loved ones and families because of this global pandemic. There's no question that this has been an extremely difficult time. It's been over a year, and people have been separated from their families. My parents are in the United States. They are unable to see their grandsons in person—haven't for over a year—and who knows when we'll be able to see each other in person, because, unfortunately, I don't think the United States is going to be in a position to have a safe travel bubble with New Zealand any time soon, as much as my parents would love to come and see their grandsons. So it is a very difficult situation.
I was quite astounded at the tone from the Leader of the Opposition, who seemed to be blaming the Government for the situation of the global pandemic, whereas I'd say here in New Zealand, and certainly elsewhere in the world, people are looking with envy at New Zealand and looking at what the Government has done and have said, actually, they've done a really good job and have done their best to make sure that people are safe. We haven't had our health system overwhelmed. I think I saw last week, and this is—
SPEAKER: Order! I've let the member run for about a minute and a half, and she is now going to move away from a general discussion of the pandemic, back to the subject of the debate. I thought the Minister did a good job in relating each of his comments back to the Australian bubble.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Mr Speaker, obviously we're very happy to be able to have this travel bubble with Australia, and that would not be possible if we had 5,000 deaths last week, as the United States has. That would not be possible if COVID had run rampant across this country. And, while it has taken over a year to get to this situation of having a safe travel bubble, I think the reason we can be confident now is precisely for the reason that the Government has taken a cautious approach, as the Minister himself said earlier in his speech.
One of the main reasons that the Leader of the Opposition cited as this being good news was for tourism and economic reasons, and that that was the reason why we should open up sooner to a travel bubble with the Pacific. From the Green Party's perspective, I think we would say it is far more important that we focus on the human aspect of this. As the Government had said last year, the best economic response is a public health response. There is no economic benefit when you have people getting sick and unable to go to work, and dying.
So I can certainly understand the hesitation and why it is taking longer than some may like to get a safe travel bubble with some countries in the Pacific, and of course we would like that, but I think that, to be fair, the people of the Pacific are valuable in and of themselves, and our relationship is valuable in and of itself. We're not doing them a favour by letting people come over and pick our fruit for poor wages and conditions. I think that's really an insult. If we really want to take seriously our obligations to the Pacific, as close neighbours and having a close relationship, the way to do that is to take significant action on climate change, not something I've ever heard the Leader of the Opposition refer to, because they're existentially threatened by climate change.
And, as for the tourism benefits—[Interruption] I realise a bunch of people on this side of the House don't believe in climate change. You might want to catch up with the global consensus—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The members were reacting, I think, to something which the member had, not even in a tenuous way, attached to this debate. This is now her second warning to stay narrow. I can also say that sort of reacting to the member's comments probably doesn't help.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry; I thought we had up to two minutes to respond to the off-topic things that the Leader of the Opposition had referred to.
SPEAKER: And the member's now used 4½ minutes.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Mr Speaker, it's less than 4½ minutes that I've been referring to the Leader of the Opposition's speech—anyway.
Tourism may well benefit from this safe travel bubble with Australia, but we do need to ensure that we are protecting our natural environment and getting the very best out of this relationship that we have, because it is entirely possible it could be zero-sum. We might get additional Australians coming over and visiting New Zealand but at higher costs to our infrastructure, higher costs to our environment, and with more New Zealanders going to Australia. So, I mean, in that case, it could be absolutely zero-sum, except with additional carbon emissions.
It's vitally important that we take this opportunity of having had a reset, during the break that we had from general tourism, that, as we open up with the safe travel bubble, we are taking the opportunity to make sure that the jobs that are generated by tourism are sustainable, that they're high-wage, that they are good, safe conditions, that people aren't in a precarious situation, that this is not just a race to the bottom, where we're writing off our environment for the benefit of some supposed tourism dollars, which will make GDP go up. But GDP is not a measure of improving the wellbeing of our society. It's not a measure of the sustainability of our biophysical environment, which we need to sustain us.
So the thing that I think the Green Party would most like to emphasise, the greatest benefit of the safe travel bubble, is the ability for whānau to reunite and see one another, and it really is that human aspect that is most important to our relationship with people in other countries, whether that be Australia or the Pacific or other countries. We must recognise our common humanity, and those human relationships are by far and away the most valuable thing. That is something that I think many of us have realised during this pandemic. It's not about the dollars and cents; it's actually about the human relationships. It's about our health and our wellbeing and our ability to connect, and that, during this great reset of having had a pause to travel, we have an opportunity to reimagine how this could be done in a way that genuinely will benefit people and enhance our wellbeing, enhance our natural environment, our ability to combat climate change, and address inequity in our society and across the world.





Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Yesterday, our Prime Minister announced the implementation of quarantine-free travel with Australia. As a trans-Tasman bubble, that will allow a free flow of travel between our two countries, starting on 19 April. I must admit, never in my time have I seen such an outpouring of love for Australia from Kiwis up and down this country. I am a little bit concerned that when the Wallabies play the All Blacks, it won't start with a haka; it might start with a team cuddle.
But, anyway, it is great news for our tourism industry, and the operators, many of whom have done it hard over the last 12 months. And if there is one industry in particular that has really taken one for the team, it has been the tourism industry. I visited a number of the hotspots that have a significant reliance on international tourism—I'm talking about Queenstown; I'm talking about Te Ānau, the glaciers, Kaikōura, for example. They understand why we've done what we've done in terms of keeping our population safe, and that's what they tell me. They say, "We understand we need to do this." But, goodness me, they have waited for this Australian bubble, and they are very, very pleased we are here.
But the reason we are in a position to be able to open up our international borders is because of the fantastic work that this Government and the people of New Zealand have done in terms of managing the global pandemic. I've got a very good friend in Paris at the moment, and have talked to her a bit. They are in lockdown again, and she has said to me, "Goodness me, I'd love to be in New Zealand." I was on an OECD call recently, and all 38 people from around the world said, "If only we could be in New Zealand." But they can't. We are here, and we live in paradise, and of that there's no doubt. But I do want to thank Kiwis for the way that they have all responded fantastically. In fact, the work that Tourism New Zealand has done in Australia shows that 95 percent of Australians view New Zealand's response positively, and this is only enhancing our brand in Australia when Australians are looking to book a holiday over here.
What will the bubble mean to the New Zealand tourism industry? Well, we have already seen a significant interest from Australians to travel here. Already, for example, over 11,000 Australians have visited newzealand.com, compared to a daily average of 2,000. Of those Australians surveyed by Tourism New Zealand, around 77 percent have said that they will come here for a holiday. That compares to the other quarter who say they're coming to visit friends and family. So Australians want to come here. They want to go on a holiday; they want to spend money in our country. Over half Australians surveyed say they are motivated to have a holiday that includes fun and engagement—56 percent—and to relax and to refresh—
David Seymour: What about the other 44?
Hon STUART NASH: Mr Seymour, maybe you should relax and refresh just a little bit as well—just chill out, which is—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon STUART NASH: I was responding to—anyway.
SPEAKER: Order! It pays not to—it pays not to.
Hon STUART NASH: It's a great opportunity for tourism operators and small businesses that often rely on tourism as well to offer an experience that will appeal to all Australian visitors.
In 2019, Australians spent around $2.7 billion in New Zealand. However, a report released by the Australian Treasury in January of this year showed that Australian businesses and households had saved around $200 billion during the pandemic. That's $200 billion. So I suspect that what we will see when the borders open is a surge in tourism, in the way that New Zealanders travelled when we came out of lockdown, and New Zealanders didn't stop travelling. And let's not forget, however, that domestic tourism has historically made up around 60 percent of the total tourism market. And when we asked New Zealanders to "Try something new, New Zealand.", they did. And Queenstown, for example, experienced over a 70 percent increase in domestic spend in January 2021 compared to January 2020. But I acknowledge that the people of Queenstown have done it tough, and overall spend in Queenstown was down by about 34 percent due to the lack of international visitors, even though there was an increase in domestic spend of over 70 percent. This is why the mayor of Queenstown, Jim Boult, said, upon the announcement of the bubble yesterday, and I quote, "For many, many businesses, this is survival. This is the thing that will keep businesses afloat … I … cannot express … how happy I am at today's announcement. This [is the thing that] will make a really big difference for those people who have been struggling."
Tourism Industry Aotearoa said, and I quote, "Travel operators from around the country are breathing a sigh of relief. … [They] can now take bookings with confidence and scale up their staffing. … The timing means that ski regions in particular will receive a boost in the coming months, [as] in normal times more than 70 percent of the overseas visitors who ski in New Zealand are from Australia." And Business Events Industry Aotearoa New Zealand has said, and I quote, that "This is much-deserved relief for our business events industry … Business events are planned and booked well in advance, and [this] news will give Australian organisers the confidence needed to plan … their events in New Zealand, not just for this year but further ahead."
I have also seen and received a number of messages and reports from the Canterbury chamber of commerce, airports, Ngāi Tahu, all of whom have echoed the sentiment that they are over the moon with this. But the only reason, I would like to reiterate, we are in this is because the Government has taken a health response. We have been conservative in the way that we have responded to COVID, but as a consequence of the health response, it means that we have had very few deaths and we are actually held up as an exemplar globally for the way that we have managed the pandemic.
This will not be all one-way traffic. This is not just about Australians coming to New Zealand. We have to also be aware that there will be New Zealanders who go across to Australia. And whilst Australians spent about $2.7 billion in New Zealand in 2019, New Zealanders also spent about $2.1 billion in Australia. New Zealanders will travel. I take my hat off to the regional tourism organisations (RTOs), who have done an amazing work in attracting New Zealanders to travel domestically, and I would especially like to acknowledge Hamish and the team at Tourism Hawke's Bay, our local RTO, who really did an amazing job of attracting Aucklanders and Wellingtonians into Hawke's Bay, and who will now shift their focus not just from domestic tourism but to Australia. But I also understand that there will be Aucklanders and Wellingtonians—who in the past travelled to Hawke's Bay to experience our fantastic wine, our food, our art deco, our wonderful Hawke's Bay culture—who will now decide to go to Sydney for the weekend, who will take a holiday in Melbourne, who will go to the Gold Coast. So we do recognise that even though Tourism New Zealand believes that this will contribute about a billion dollars—about a billion dollars—to our economy by the end of the year, which is absolutely fantastic, it won't be one-way traffic.
The other thing I will also say is that Tourism New Zealand, over the last 12 months, has been doing a lot of work in terms of keeping our brand alive and priming the Australian market, ready for when the borders are open. They're about to kick off an amazing campaign about "Stop dreaming Australia, and get over here." I've seen it—it's a really clever campaign. In fact, you know, Tourism New Zealand are famous for their campaigns, and I would argue the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign is probably the world's global preeminent tourism campaign. But they're going to get Australians across here in a way that I don't think we have seen before, because, of course, there's a whole lot of pent up demand in Australia; there's only one place to go: it is New Zealand.
But what I would say to tourism operators is that there are things that they can do to make the Australian experience really worthwhile so they head back home and they tell all their mates and cobbers to come back over to this side of the Ditch. First of all, when we start vaccinating the general population, I would urge tourism operators to ensure that, in fact, their workers get the vaccine as well, because they will be front-facing. This will be important. We have to offer an experience that plays into our global brand, and I will admit that I have been critical in the past that some of the operators have been guilty of paying minimum wages, providing no training whatsoever, and not offering the level of experience that I think that New Zealanders should be offering to our overseas guests. Train your staff, get your staff ready, get them prepared, because when these Australians come over, they will be spending money in our economies. They will be supporting New Zealanders, so we need to ensure that the experience that they get—the experience New Zealand delivers—is absolutely 100 percent first-class.
In summing up, I think this Australian bubble announcement will be fantastic for the New Zealand tourism industry. It will get the industry through to the end of the year. It'll get the industry through until the international borders open, and until this time, this will provide a much-needed boost to an industry that has done it incredibly hard. Thank you very much.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to join in this debate. I want to start by saying that the opening of quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from Australia is a great event for so many people in this country. 
It is a great event for our tourism industry, which, in many cases, has been decimated by the lack of tourists. The Minister of Tourism is right when he says that New Zealanders have done a pretty good job of getting out and supporting the tourism industry, but we know it is not enough. That is why you've got hotels closing at Fox and Franz Josef, that's why you've got people going out of business. Because, as any tourism industry operator will tell you quietly, they love Kiwis, but Aussies leave more dollars in the till. So it is a good day for them.
It is a tremendous day for so many of us in New Zealand who have friends and relatives, cousins, and connections in Australia, who will be able to see them for the first time—in some cases—in several years. I've just found out that one of my best friends who's recently had a baby in Sydney is coming for Anzac Day. There are going to be many stories like that. So it is a great day for many of the family and social connections.
And it is a great day for many of those businesses that you might not think were connected with travel, all of those businesses that are importers or exporters or work on projects collaboratively across the Ditch, who will be able to renew relationships and meet face to face, because we all love Zoom, but we know that it is no substitute for meeting people in person. And those relationships in business need to be renewed.
So for all those reasons, it is a great day and we should acknowledge that. But we also need to acknowledge that this has come at least six months too late. We need some honesty and some transparency about what this so-called bubble means. It is not a bubble; it is a bubble illusion. The Ardern bubble takes you straight back to October. It is actually a time-travel bubble. It takes us to where New South Wales was in October 2020. 
And you listen to the Prime Minister yesterday, she said, "We're now going to treat Australia as if it's a region of New Zealand. If there's a hot spot, we won't let people travel out of there to here." Really? She said that there is going to be a traffic light system that we're either going to continue, suspend, or stop travel from Australia—green, orange, or red. And then she said that there are going to be different planes at the airport. We're going to separate out different travellers depending on where they've come from. She said all this as though she was hoping for a Nobel Prize. New South Wales did all those things in October. And when I asked her in the House yesterday, "How is it that they did it then, and we can't do it now?", she said, "Oh, but they're not a country." Well, actually, New South Wales has been dealing with all of the other Australian states as if they were other countries, just as we will be dealing with the Australian states on a case by case basis and, as the Minister for COVID-19 Response said yesterday, managing our border unilaterally. So that is the first thing we need to be clear about: we are doing nothing different from what New South Wales achieved six months ago. 
And the next thing, we say, is that if all of those benefits for our tourism industry, for our personal relationships, for our business connections with our cousins across the Ditch are truly great benefits on 19 April, they would have been greater benefits back on 16 October, when New South Wales opened to New Zealand. They would have been even better benefits when the Prime Minister said on 16 April, last year, that we would have the world's smartest borders. It has taken a year of messing around to get this far. And it doesn't just matter because of all of that lost opportunity that has occurred while this Government has been spinning its wheels and spinning the public on travel from Australia; it matters because it tells us something about this Government's ability to deal with complex tasks in response to COVID-19. 
It matters because the tasks that the Government will have to undertake in responding to COVID-19 are going to become more complex. And the reason for that was set out in ACT's excellent report—I have to say—COVID Response Plan 2.0, which says that we are moving into a different and more complex paradigm. And there are four megatrends that underline that. One of them is vaccination, the second is the variants which may undermine vaccinations, and, finally, new technologies and fatigue with our existing responses. Now, I put it to you that if it takes six months to catch up with what the New South Welsh people of the world were able to do last October, how are we placed to face that world? 
Well, I think, this is a time that we need to be honest with each other, and our Government must be transparent with us and accept that it hasn't done a good job, it hasn't gone hard and early; it has actually been incredibly late at doing incredibly simple things. We introduced a few principles that might be helpful for doing better at these kinds of things in the future. We said that in response to those megatrends of vaccination and variants of new technologies and fatigue, actually, we need better principles that will allow us to do things like we've just done, better and faster. We need more transparency. The Government should be open about what really happened. It had the opportunity to open up to Australia, just as Australian states were opening up to each other and us last October.
It should be faster at adopting new technology. We heard today that there is going to be some use of thermometers to check people's temperature as they come in. That's the kind of thing the Taiwanese were doing last March. We are just too slow in our tech uptake, and when we do get technology, it is stuff that other countries were doing a year ago.
We've got to become more proportionate to risk. We made Australians stay in managed isolation and quarantine next to people from hot spots for six months, when there was no risk. This goes back to transparency. There have been three cases of COVID19 arriving from Australia in the last six months. Will the Ministry of Health tell us where they came from, when they came, or whether they were even Australians or people transiting from Australia? No, they won't. That is the level of transparency we get from this Government. But, actually, what that shows us is that had we had a New South Wales - style hot spot system—opening our border, and closing it when there were risks. I suspect all of those cases would have been stopped from coming to New Zealand because they would have come from places that were identified as a hot spot at the time. But we are not managing risk in the way that we should.
We need a culture of admitting failure. This Government needs to be honest about the fact that it has not done well with this policy of a bubble, that, actually, it needs to do better, and it will need to do much better in a COVID 2.0 world than it has done so far.
And, finally, we're going to need a culture of focusing on the wellbeing of all New Zealanders. There has been far too much harm done by failing to properly balance what the Government describes as the health risks of travel from Australia with all of the other costs that we've suffered over the last six months of being needlessly closed to them. 
That is the kind of intelligent approach that we should be taking to our COVID-19 response. It is the kind of response that is going to be needed as vaccines and variants and new technologies and fatigue with simply locking down and closing the border make the old ways unsustainable. As the rest of the world gets vaccinated and gets moving again, we are going to have to be ready to participate in that new paradigm. And if patting itself on the back and seeking gratitude and congratulations the way this Government has in the last 24 hours reflect the strength and sophistication of our response to COVID-19, New Zealand will be getting left behind in this new paradigm, and the people will finally see that this Government has not been adept; it has not gone hard and early; it has been lucky to govern a country that is very isolated, with a population that is very cooperative.
It's a great day for New Zealanders; it is a terrible day for this Government that must do better. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): What a day, where we can look forward to a future with our Anzac comrades with confidence and optimism about the future. We have confidence in our trans-Tasman bubble and the Australian systems that will keep us safe and in our New Zealand systems, and today I want to talk more about that. But before I do, I want to say welcome to Australian visitors that will come to New Zealand when the trans-Tasman bubble opens.
I'm from the South Island—from Te Ānau—and I know that many there are looking forward to welcoming visitors back to New Zealand. I hope Australians consider visiting Fiordland National Park. Even during what's traditionally been the off season, the national park and its waterfalls are particularly good to see during winter, when there's more rainfall. Also in Queenstown and Wānaka, the ski fields have a commodity that is missing in Australia—or at least in shorter supply—which is snow. I hope Australian colleagues will take the time to visit our ski fields.
But what is it that makes our quarantine-free travel bubble with Australia safe? Well, the overarching consideration is that we have a partner we can trust. We know the Australians have good testing systems and strong reporting of COVID—we can rely on their data. We know they use accurate testing methods. Their response is a very strong one, and it has closely followed ours across the last year. We also have a framework for dealing with outbreaks. This includes how we would respond should there be any cases in Australia, and it mirrors the alert level system we have in New Zealand, so people planning travel can consider that there'll be roughly similar responses to a case in Australia to the types of responses we've mounted to cases here. For example, cases that are clearly linked to the border where reliable contact tracing information is quickly obtained would not necessarily require disruption to travel. However, those that are more complicated, where it's not clear and may reflect community transmission—i.e., the case is unlinked to the border—may require a short pause in the travel bubble. Similarly, travel may be suspended if there is a larger outbreak or multiple unlinked cases and a longer period of time is required to understand what is going on.
What does this mean for travellers? It means that this is not a return to pre - COVID19 travel. It means that in order to make sure that New Zealand is safe from outbreaks of COVID-19, travellers will need to take extra precautions. That means being prepared for disruption in case they are unable to return. It may mean, if they are in Australia in a hot spot, that they may need a pre-departure test before they return to New Zealand. It may also mean that if they have returned to New Zealand from a place that has subsequently been shown to be a site of COVID transmission, they may need to isolate in New Zealand, and that may be self-isolation or in managed isolation, depending on the risk.
That means we have to take the approach of flyer beware, and people need to be prepared for disruption during travel. That means thinking about how you would look after yourself if you were required to shelter in place for a time while there. And people have also been warned that insurance may not cover their travel, so it is not a return to business as usual.
Contact tracing arrangements between our two countries are also a really important way of keeping New Zealand safe during this time. Travellers to Australia from New Zealand must use the local state contact tracing app when they are there. The country's apps are not interoperable. Similarly, visitors to New Zealand will be asked to download the New Zealand contract tracer app and instructed on how to use it. Contact details from travellers are available through a number of sources, and that can be accessed by our finding service should we need to trace back following an outbreak in Australia.
I recently gave a speech to the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases specialists about our COVID-19 response. Of course, in many ways Australia and New Zealand's responses are very similar, and we reflected on that. One of the key things relates to our testing regimes. Both countries have some of the highest rates of COVID-19 negativity in their tests done in the world. That reflects our similar approach to managing COVID19: trying to drive the number of cases down to zero. What that means is that we are looking for a needle in a haystack, so we have high testing rates and low positivity numbers. And what that means is that we can have high confidence in Australia as a partner for this quarantine-free travel.
Finally, you've heard of arrangements for making sure that travel itself doesn't become a vehicle for transmission. We'll be making sure that travellers to New Zealand wear masks on the aeroplanes and that green and red zones are separated at airports, and that airports undergo infection prevention and control reviews. 
The quarantine-free travel zone also gives us the opportunity to reconsider how we use managed isolation. And I think this is important, because the managed isolation system is a very difficult system to run—doing a very important job. It has facilitated the return of over hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders, but there are also risks in running managed isolation facilities, and we have been open about the fact there have been some instances of in-facility transmission that has led to community transmission. It is a risk. And over the course of the response, we've learnt more about the situations in which this has happened—in particular, the evidence for airborne spread of COVID-19 has become more clear over time. That's meant that we have rolled out audits of the ventilation and learnt more about the different facilities that we are using and their suitability as managed isolation facilities. That means, when we think about the capacity in managed isolation that is freed up from having quarantine-free travel with Australia, we can make some decisions that lower the risk profile in managed isolation overall.
Firstly, this means we can keep some reserved capacity in case there are outbreaks that mean we need to isolate travellers from Australia in New Zealand in managed isolation facilities. But secondly, we have some ability to think about the overall risk profile of people in managed isolation. I think it would raise risk in our managed isolation system overall if we filled up the places that are currently used by people from low-risk countries from people visiting from places where there is high transmission intensity. So another positive aspect of this trans-Tasman bubble is the ability to think more strategically about the managed isolation system.
And the managed isolation system has attracted the question: why don't we have purpose-built quarantine facilities?
Chris Bishop: Yeah, good question!
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is a good question, to which one cannot magic up a purpose-built quarantine facility during a pandemic at short notice. But also I ask those who pose that question—I have worked in a hospital that is a purpose-built facility with respiratory isolation wards, and these are wards where we have negative pressure rooms, where the air is sucked out so that bacteria and viruses leave via the HEPA-filtered system—
Simon Court: Yep. I've been a patient there.
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I was not your doctor—and each room has an anteroom, and the staff that work on these respiratory wards are particularly trained in prevention control. And yet, transmission and transmission of COVID happens in these types of facilities. It has happened in New Zealand. It has happened all around the world. So while it is important that we continue to focus on options for improving the facilities in which we quarantine people, we should also understand that there is no easy solution here, and we need to think carefully about how we balance the risk across the system as a whole.
Simon Court: Vaccines!
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We're doing that too. While I don't want to offend the 18,000 people living in Palau, the quarantine-free travel zone between Australia and New Zealand is unique in the world—countries of this size being able to travel freely without risk of COVID. This was reported in Al Jazeera, BBC, and The New York Times because of precisely how unique travel without risk is now. The fact that we have a quarantine-free travel bubble shows confidence in our systems and Australia's systems.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't want to spend too much time talking about the benefits of a trans-Tasman bubble, because they have been well iterated for the House by previous speakers from both sides. The tourism benefits, as the Minister of Tourism explained to the House, are well known, but I actually believe that in time it will be the human benefits that we will look back on when we talk about the events of 2021 and the human cost of not having a bubble in place for the last year. There have been friends and whānau and family separated, in some cases for many months, across this border between New Zealand and Australia—mums who haven't seen their babies, dads who haven't seen their kids, grandparents who haven't seen their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I, for one, am looking forward to going to Australia and seeing one of my best friends who's just given birth to twins in Sydney. People will, I believe, look back on this period and say, "Thank heavens we've got the bubble open now.", and the human hardship has been immense. 
But in my contribution I want to talk about how we got to this point. I want to talk about some of the excuses given by the Government, and I want to talk about the implications of having the bubble in place. Firstly, how did we get here? The idea of a bubble was first talked about in May last year.
Hon Louise Upston: When?
CHRIS BISHOP: After the lockdown, in May. And I think people, rightly, said back then, "It would be great to have the bubble up and running. We don't have to have it straight away, because we've just done the lockdown and we've gone through the various levels.", and, you know, the world was pressing in on New Zealand. But the idea of a bubble was a good one.
Then the negotiations started with the Australians. I want to make the point that the Government's negotiating strategy has been poor. The reason I say that is they went for a joint decision-making framework. My understanding is that what was actually sought by the New Zealand Cabinet was a treaty that would be signed between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia—almost like a Closer Economic Relations, a CER-type arrangement. It would be a formal treaty with all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed around what would happen in the event of an outbreak. It would be a formal treaty. 
It became clear as months went by that that was a mistake. We don't know exactly what happened in the negotiations—and I've lodged an Official Information Act request to the Government and the Prime Minister to find out exactly what happened, and I hope that we will now have that information released because the decision has been made, and to the extent that it's possible, without prejudicing the international relations of New Zealand, I hope that we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened in the negotiations—but we wanted a joint decision-making framework.
Then what happened in October is the Australian Government just said, "Well, New Zealanders can come." It is true that at various points various states put in place restrictions for New Zealanders to come. There was a flare-up in New Zealand and that various states would administer the border. But the general rule was that New Zealanders could go to Australia quarantine-free. And so then in December last year, we had the announcement from the Government right at the very tail end of the parliamentary year that the hope was a bubble would be up and running by the first quarter. So that's the month just gone, the end of March 2021. Professor Baker said actually it was possible then—we're talking about December, remember—but the hope was we'd get one up and running by the end of March. 
But in February this year, the talks broke down after 11 rounds of talks, and I want to tell the House what I think happened. What I think happened is Australia shut its borders temporarily to New Zealand after we had the Valentine's Day cluster. This is the Papatoetoe cluster that everyone got very worried about for a couple of weeks. Australia temporarily closed the border and the Prime Minister criticised the Australian Government and said, "We're not very happy about that. They shouldn't have done that. We're doing a great job managing COVID in New Zealand.", etc., etc. And I think the Australians' point of view at that point was, "Well, hang on a minute. You're sitting in here in the joint decision-making framework with us, arguing that you should retain the ability to close off the New Zealand border when there's a flare-up in Australia, and now here you are, Prime Minister, criticising the Australian Government for doing precisely what you are arguing for in the negotiations." And I think the Australians said, "Well, that doesn't really make a lot of sense, actually.", and they'd be right. So then the talks broke down.
It became very clear at that point that what should happen is what has eventually happened, which is a unilateral decision-making framework, for want of a better phrase, by both countries. In other words, the Australians do what they want to do as their sovereign country, as they've done since October last year. They've said that New Zealanders can come to Australia quarantine-free, and it's incumbent upon you, New Zealand, to sort out what you do with your border because you, New Zealand, are a sovereign country. And that's when Scott Morrison came out and said, "Well, I'm happy for Australians to go to Queenstown and"—and I'm pleased he said "Wellington", my home region, and he listed a few other places. He said, "I'm very happy for Australians, but it's up to New Zealand." And that's what put the pressure, alongside the petition launched by the National Party, for the Government to move. 
I do want to respond to some people who say—[Interruption] Well, members over there laugh, but I can tell you something for free, Miss Boyack. The officials only got their A into G after that petition got launched and members opposite started being flooded with emails from people saying, "Why is the Government not moving on a trans-Tasman bubble?"
Hon Stuart Nash: Oh rubbish!
CHRIS BISHOP: It's absolutely true, Stuart Nash. I know that for a fact. But I do want to respond to some people out there who say: if there's a flare-up and Australia closes the border temporarily, the National Party will be out there saying, "What a disaster. You know, the Government's been terrible. What a disaster and they should never have done it." We will not do that. Even Jimmy Neesham, you know, a great cricketer—
Simon Court: "Little Jimmy Neesham"!
CHRIS BISHOP: —off to the Indian Premier League—did he say, "Who's Jimmy Neesham?" You know who Jimmy Neesham is. He's a great cricketer. We should get him for the parliamentary cricket team; we're going to need him on Friday. But Jimmy Neesham said, "Oh National will criticise it." And I just want to say to Mr Neesham and to others who have illuminated this view or amplified this view: we will not do that. The reason is that we believe both countries, Australia and New Zealand, should manage our borders flexibly. And it may well be that there will be a flare-up in Australia in the same way there may well be a flare-up in New Zealand, and it will take a bit of political nose-holding by both sides of the Tasman, but also both sides of the House in New Zealand, to get through that period. It will do that, and we're not going to criticise—I'd just note the caveat—unless we think there is real culpability on the Government; for example, an avoidable mistake at the border or an avoidable series of events that leads to some culpability. But in the event that there's a minor outbreak in Auckland and the Australians say, "Well, if you come from Auckland to Sydney, you can't come for a week.", we're not going to get stuck into that, and if I do, members opposite should feel free to lay into me.
All these excuses were given by the Government: the airports weren't ready. Well, they were signed off in October. They said, "The airlines need more time." Well, of course they need a bit of time, but if you give them a date, they'll make it happen, and that's what we've now done. I mean, Air New Zealand is selling flights to Sydney and even Hobart, of all places, and I know that Ben McKay from the Australian Associated Press is very excited about people going off to Hobart. Then they said, "Oh, what about the tracer apps?" Well, you know, the logical thing's happened. We'll use the Australian ones while we're over there and Australians will use the New Zealand ones. Then they said, "Well, what happens in the event of an outbreak?" And again, the logical thing has happened, which is that it's flyer beware, caveat emptor—you might get stuck and people will travel with that knowledge. If you treat people as adults, then they will make up their own mind. And then they said, "Oh, well, Australians can't leave.", because the Australians had this rule in place that said Australians basically can't leave without a visa. And we said, "Well, once New Zealand opens its borders, that will go by the wayside.", and actually even before New Zealand opens its borders, Scott Morrison and the Australian Government, as a sign of good faith, I suspect, dropped that. So there have been a whole bunch of excuses. 
Just finally, on the implications: this frees up a lot of space in managed isolation and quarantine. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said, "We've now discovered that a small number of facilities are only suitable for low-risk passengers.", which raises a lot of questions: what are these facilities and why have there been people from high-risk destinations in facilities not suitable for high-risk passengers up to this point, and when will they be closed down? And there's a whole bunch of implications from that. But of course, now we've got choices and optionality around Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers and split migrant families and critical workers that Judith Collins and other members on this side of the House have commented on. 
This is a good day. It should have come sooner. We do welcome it. Let's get on with it and bring the Aussies to New Zealand.





Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): When that last speaker, Chris Bishop, began his speech, I was nodding in agreement, but then he suddenly went into this inane diatribe of abuse and tirade—just the usual pattern of criticism, of whining, of whinging—and it just reveals what's happening on that side. They're living in a bubble. They're living in a bubble of unhappiness, of woeful disconnection from reality.
What people need to be aware of is that, when the announcement was made by our Prime Minister and Mr Hipkins that we will be opening up the border on 19 April, there was joy that swept through from Northland to Invercargill. This morning, businesses from all over New Zealand were celebrating the news that we're now able to have this quarantine-free zone between New Zealand and Australia, something that is a testament to the leadership and the strategy of this Government: that we went hard and early and that we believe strongly the best economic response is a strong, strong health response. That's why we're here.
Chris Bishop: Can't you speak in more than clichés?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: If we had ever followed any of that inane criticism from there, it would be much, much worse. It would have been much, much worse.
Chris Bishop: Why aren't you in Cabinet?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Listen to that—listen to that diatribe. No one—no one—out there in the real world believes anything that they say.
We are safe. We are safe only because of the elimination strategy of this Government, and what a wonderful joy it is to be a member of the Government that prioritises people's lives and their livelihoods. Because, if we had followed their example, our hospitals would be inundated. I suspect the fatalities would have been much, much worse, as we've seen in other nations, who have taken the approach that they advocated for from the beginning, because they did not see people as a priority. Well, the news reveals it on the airwaves, on our social media.
I'm really pleased, also, because there's a family in Fiji—the Johansson family. Elder and Sister Johansson have been living in Fiji for quite some time on a church mission. They will be returning to New Zealand this Thursday, and they have been called on another mission in Australia. They are embracing this news with much delight, because they'll have an opportunity to visit with their families in Māngere, and then they'll be travelling to serve out a period of several years in Australia.
But that's not all. I have heard today how our Pacific communities are relishing the opportunity to be able to visit, like others, family members, sons and daughters, uncles and aunts. I have warned some of our families: flyer beware, and that it will probably be much safer if they're staying with relatives—just in case—because, whilst we're saying we can move with confidence, the virus is still ravaging worldwide. We're still seeing numbers of deaths, numbers of infections spreading internationally, and so we move with confidence, but we've always needed to be alert and to be vigilant.
I want to say I've heard criticism also about why we have not opened it up to the Pacific. We are working apace in order to work with the Pacific to make sure that they are receiving the vaccination that we're able to provide support on. But I think when the Opposition are calling, "Why are we not opening up the borders to the Pacific?", it also reveals their ignorance of where the Pacific are, because the diaspora in New Zealand are very conservative. They have played this role of keeping New Zealand safe in a huge way. They've played their part as members of the team of 5 million New Zealanders, because, if you look at the test rates of Pacific peoples, they had the highest test rate of any other population cohort. That's a significant indication of how much they have valued the leadership and the direction that has come from Dr Ashley Bloomfield, our Prime Minister, and those Ministers responsible for the roll-out of messages around COVID-19.
So, even those countries, Realm Island countries—Niue, for example—they're not wanting to open up their borders; they're wanting to follow the example of New Zealand. And though Samoa, Fiji, Tuvalu, and Tonga have all indicated they want to be able to vaccinate their population, they're not rushing to open up their borders at all, and the diaspora here have also been quite strong in that message: we do not want to be responsible for exporting COVID-19 to the Pacific, which is relatively COVID-19 - free. So I think, again, the opening of the borders in Australia is a signal and a strong testament that the strategy of elimination has worked—that the strategy and the strong leadership that has been advocated strongly by our Prime Minister and this Government actually is working. So I think the result speaks for itself, of what we have seen right throughout yesterday, today, and, I suspect, all week through.
I know that many of my cousins out in Victoria have had a struggling time because of the number of waves and the community transmission that has happened there. Whilst we're looking at Australia as one country, what we've also got to be mindful of is that Australia has its own governance structures in terms of the different states, and so we do need to be vigilant. I'm really pleased at the measures of protection and the layers of protection that our officials have been working really, really hard at to make sure that our borders—the people arriving at the airport, the separation of travellers from other parts of the world—are going to be significant. I'd be keen to travel myself if the whips will allow me a couple of weeks off at some stage to test out the borders. But I am not intending to do that. But it is a good sign. It is a good thing that is happening here, but, whilst we open that up, and whilst businesses are relishing that idea, I think I would just simply say that we need to be cautious.
I think the good thing for New Zealand is we have now rolled out the vaccine to our border workers, our front-line workers, and their families. I know that Minister Hipkins, Minister Little, and my other health Ministers have all been vaccinated to give confidence to that border workforce. I will take the jab tomorrow afternoon. I've always hated needles and am not looking forward to that needle, but I believe it's important to give confidence to what's happening and keeping New Zealand safe. I think it's also important to give confidence to the rest of our population, who constantly ask me, "Is the COVID19 vaccine safe?" I will say, "Absolutely it is safe. Absolutely it is safe." It's the first time ever that you've seen global coordination, global collaboration of our scientists, as well as the United Nations, come together to rapidly produce a set of vaccines that are safe. But, more importantly for us in New Zealand, we have our Medsafe, our regulator of all vaccines, which has also given its approval for Pfizer and is working through the process of giving approval to the other vaccines. That's going to be important for us to continually build our confidence in moving around.
But to the Pacific communities who are looking forward to travelling to Australia, stay safe. Travel with confidence but always remember the mask. This is a different world that we live in, and so the social distancing, the wearing of masks, the washing of hands—that has to be the new pattern of how we conduct our affairs. And, as much as we celebrate our festivals with confidence—and Pasifika is this weekend—again it's a word: remember the mask. If you're sick, stay home, and that means, to my father, you don't need to travel at this time—just simply stay home until you're well.
Anyway, it's a great day. It marks a significant success in our strategy of elimination, but there's still much, much more to do this year. As our Prime Minister said, it's the "year of the vaccine", and we've still got to stay on course.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.





GENERAL DEBATE
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
First of all, I just want to say congratulations to the Hon Aupito William Sio—good on you, mate; he's just left—on having the needle tomorrow, having the injection tomorrow. Andrew Little had his today. I asked him if it hurt and he said he didn't even feel it. Mind you, Andrew has got pretty thick skin, so that's pretty good.
What I would like to do is outline, very briefly, some of the initiatives that we are doing in the micro, small, and medium business space in terms of building resilience and getting businesses building back better in terms of the COVID recovery. Just a little bit of a background: we all know that small businesses are the backbone of our country. They form 97 percent of our companies, about 28 percent of GDP, about 40 percent of employees, and this is where the jobs are growing in our economy at the moment. So I will outline some of the work that will allow a level of resilience to be built that we haven't seen before, through increasing digitisation, thus enabling small businesses to engage with markets and consumers online in a way that was probably not imagined pre-COVID. 
McKinsey, which is an American consultancy, said that in the States they saw five years' worth of digitisation taken up in eight weeks. Now, this was an American study, but from what I have seen, I suspect it's probably the same in New Zealand, and even pre-COVID—but certainly during COVID, and in this time as we recover—I have been saying ever since I've been the Minister for Small Business that I think this is probably the last generation of business owners that will survive, let alone thrive, without being digitally enabled. The reason I say that is nearly every single Government initiative that is targeting the small-business sector involves some form of digital enablement. Whether that's e-invoicing, which will allow small businesses to be paid and to pay within 10 days—in fact, at the moment the Government is paying 95 percent of its invoices within 10 working days, and in terms of cash flow and dealing with the Government, that is huge. 
Hon Dr David Clark: Big step forward!
Hon STUART NASH: It is a really big step forward. The thing is that the 20th of the month following is now an anachronism that no longer needs to be in terms of payment for small businesses—or any business. We have a joint Australasian working party on e-invoicing. We're working as one with the Australians to make it easier—or as easy as possible—for New Zealand businesses to interact with their Australian counterparts when they decide to head offshore. But e-invoicing is going global, and we need to keep up—we are keeping up—and there's some fantastic work being done on that. In fact, I would argue the way e-invoicing is being rolled out across the State sector is that a business will not be able to interact with the Government unless they are e-invoicing enabled.
IRD transformation, GST online, payday filing—what we find is when Inland Revenue rolls out an initiative, there's normally a bit of a spike in terms of, you know, people that are unhappy with Inland Revenue. Then, after these things have become embedded, small-business owners throw up their hands and say, "Goodness me, why weren't we doing this five years ago?" Inland Revenue had a key performance indicator around business transformation that said by 2025 they wanted 82 percent of small businesses to be working on digital platforms. That has already been achieved, five years earlier. 
The topic that I really I want to talk about is Digital Boost—well, I'll outline in the last minute I've got. Digital Boost is really an online digital training network that allows small businesses to learn and to pick up digital tools, to learn digital capacities and competency in their own time. They go online at digitalboost.co.nz and there's a series of videos that they can engage with at any point in time, and it also provides a whole lot of case studies for businesses that have gone through the Digital Boost experience. It is really a fantastic resource for business owners and operators who may actually be a little bit, you know, digitally incompetent—their words—but it's up to them. It's up to them! 
Marja Lubeck: Challenged!
Hon STUART NASH: Digitally challenged! That's the word, thanks, Marja. We all know these—it's the older generation that are incredibly good at what they do, but they really haven't engaged in digital technology in a way that this current generation have. But it is there to help businesses engage in 21st century commerce, engage with the Government, but find a pathway forward on their own terms, in their own time. Keven Mealamu is up there as a digital ambassador. He's transformed his business due to Digital Boost. I visited a business in Franz Josef Glacier that's managed to transform their business to allow them to take advantage of digital opportunities in a way they haven't in the past. Digitalboost.co.nz—visit it!





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to give voice to the many thousands of vulnerable New Zealanders who trusted this Government. They turned up to the mental health inquiry and shared their personal and often traumatic stories about their experience with the mental health system. Those vulnerable New Zealanders trusted this Government. The Labour Party rode into power on the back of many people's pain in 2017. They have promised big, and yet again they have failed to deliver. The gap is galling, between their rhetoric and what they had to deliver. 
The recently released annual report for mental health and addiction services, the first annual report of that mental health inquiry—because it's been delayed for so long—was the Government's first opportunity to prove to those vulnerable New Zealanders that they had listened to their stories, they had responded, and they had made a change to the mental health system, which they claimed they would do. And what did they do? They gave those vulnerable New Zealanders a kick in the guts. Why? The data was missing. Numbers accessing specialist mental health services were gone. Numbers accessing community mental health services were stripped out. Consumer survey satisfaction gone, along with suicide statistics. Here we had a Government that was trusted with stories from vulnerable New Zealanders, telling their desperate, often traumatic stories. This Government promised they would make a difference, and they have failed to deliver.
What do we hear? We hear the Minister of Health, with his head in the sand, with his response that the Government has no legal obligation to produce that report. Well, if they don't have a legal obligation, they have a moral obligation to deliver that report. Many people look at that report every year. Those data sets have been delivered in that format for over a decade, and in the first annual report under this Labour Government, they have stripped out data. Why? Well, Stuff, under the Official Information Act, were able to reveal emails from the Ministry of Health officials who introduced a term into the public sector, called "a risk lens". They did not want negative statistics. That is something we would expect in North Korea, in Zimbabwe, in Myanmar—and here we are in New Zealand. How can New Zealanders have confidence in the public sector?
And not only that, there were some Ministry of Health officials who challenged that and said no—they are accurate statistics and it's not about whether it's negative or positive. That data was accurate and if it did not stay in that report, some officials were worried there were going to be no other opportunities for the public to see that data.
And what do we learn? The director-general, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, signed that first report off in July 2020. Something has changed since he first signed that report off. Here we are—March 2021 and another report was pushed out just before Easter. Remember the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission report that was buried on the day of the tsunami warnings and the COVID level changes? Here we have another report disgracefully pushed out, and what we do know is that Ministry of Health officials fought hard not to report negative statistics. They want to run a risk lens over it to protect the Government. 
This Minister of Health needs to take responsibility. He needs to release the data today to New Zealanders. He not only needs to release the data; he needs to tell New Zealanders whether he knew that data was going to be stripped out of the annual report. And, finally, this Minister needs to assure New Zealanders that no one at the Minister of Health's office instructed Ministry of Health officials to doctor that report. We need to have faith in the New Zealand public sector, and this report doesn't give us faith.





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): E te whetū o te ata whītikina mai, titiro mai ki tou pononga Morehu e noho toimaha nei. Homai te taro o te ora ki runga i to mātou hoa, ki a Kiritapu. E Ihoa o ngā mano, otirā ngā ariki manaakitia i a ia. Piki te ora, piki te kaha, piki te māramatanga. Māngai ae, Pai Mārire.
[Oh, bright morning star, shine down, look down upon your Morehu servant who is currently burdened. Oh, Jehovah of the Multitudes, oh Lord, provide our friend Kiritapu with nourishment. May her health, her energy, and her enlightenment be uplifted. Amen; goodness and peace.]
I wanted to begin with a mihi to Kiritapu. I, alongside many, many others, acknowledge your courage and wish you a speedy recovery, e hoa.
The trans-Tasman travel bubble announced by our Prime Minister yesterday represents a new chapter in our response to, and recovery from, COVID-19. This arrangement with Australia is a world first: a quarantine-free zone between two countries who are both still maintaining an elimination strategy in response to COVID-19. We're doing this as it is safe to do so and are making sure we don't jeopardise the hard work New Zealanders have put in to make sure our response is one that works for all of us.
As foreign affairs Minister, I am supportive of the reopening to the world, starting with Australia, our nearest and closest neighbour, and see this as a great step for foreign relations. We're in a great position to start our rebuild towards a new normal: resetting our economies, our relationships, and our shared aspirations across the Pacific. The opening of the trans-Tasman border will enable kanohi ki te kanohi engagement, and I look forward to seeing my Australian counterpart in person very soon. The Australian relationship is important to New Zealand. We are neighbours. We have whānau who will look forward to reconnecting with each other across the Tasman.
The decision to initiate a quarantine-free travel bubble with Australia was not taken lightly. A health response remains central to our decision, and it wasn't something that could be just rushed or that we could take for granted. It's important to remember that at this moment and until more people are vaccinated, our borders are the first line of defence against this global pandemic. Travel will be a little different to what it has been in the past, and travellers will need to recognise this isn't travel as usual. But this is an important step in reopening our country to the world, starting with Australia.
New Zealand has been internationally recognised for its response to COVID-19, both for our work supporting whānau through initiatives like the wage subsidy business support scheme, lifting the benefit, and coming together in responding to the need across the Pacific in relation to COVID-19, and the seasonal weather events they have been experiencing as well. Our responsibility has been widespread.
At the border, we needed to make sure we could open safely, and there were conditions that needed to be undertaken to address things like establishing our response framework—which is new online—and this will ensure that we are ready if there are outbreaks of COVID-19. We needed to have measures in place to effectively contact trace travellers from Australia to protect New Zealanders. Technical issues needed to be resolved. We needed appropriate regulatory mechanisms in place for border agencies. Airlines, airports, and, agencies needed to be ready. Much work has already been done here, with crew separation and red and green zones at our airports, but they needed time to be in place that meant that we could open safely.
And finally, the Director-General of Health needed to provide advice that he was satisfied we are ready, and we are at that point. I acknowledge the hard work and commitment of all those involved in ensuring our readiness at the border, across the health system, and in the public sector. So we're now in a fortunate position to implement a trans-Tasman bubble. Benefits for whānau, business, and the tourism sector will follow.
There have been a number from the New Zealand tourism sector who see this as a positive-sum game. In fact, Prime Minister Morrison said yesterday that it's great that this can be done in time for Anzac Day, reinforcing how special the relationship is between New Zealand and Australia. Ngāi Tahu Tourism welcomed the announcement and said that this travel bubble "means the chance to showcase once again some of the most beautiful parts of our country".
While we can rightly be optimistic about the borders opening, this will only work if we remain vigilant and aware that our continued focus on a health response means that we can enjoy such travel privileges and an economic recovery that works for our country.





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Madam Speaker, tuatahi e tika ana ki te tautoko i te mihi ki a Kiritapu Allan. Tēnei te mihi ki a ia. Ko te tūmanako ka piki ake tana oranga i tēnei wā.
[Madam Speaker, it is only right that I support the acknowledgment to Kiritapu Allan. I wish to also acknowledge her. The hope is that her health will improve in due course.]
Just a lot of aroha from our team going out to our tuahine Kiritapu Allan, who's going through a tough time at the moment, but she has big support from our Government—and also from the Opposition too. We acknowledge the support from the Opposition in terms of their aroha given to Kiritapu.
I wanted to use this short time to just correct my friend and whanaunga, Rawiri Waititi. He seems a bit confused lately over some of the wins that the Māori Party have had over the last few years, and so I thought I'd take this chance just to correct him over a few things. Doing a good job for his people, no doubt about that, but I watched him on TV claiming victory for kaupapa like the Māori wards: Māori wards was apparently all due to the Māori Party. Rawiri needs to look back a little bit, because the Māori Party wasn't born when we started the fight for the Māori wards. In fact, I recall speaking about the Māori wards here in the House in 2002, and as I remember, the Māori Party started in 2004, so a little bit off there—the whanaunga—but kei te pai, you know, he gets a bit excited and he's had a lot of support from the media, sadly. But never mind. So this is a kaupapa that is very dear to us, driven by Minister Mahuta, and finally giving recognition to Māori in terms of the different councils around the country. Sadly, Hamilton is a bit off target there, but never mind, we have got that firmly entrenched.
Rawiri also claimed success over the Ture Whenua—I think someone needs to remind him that Te Ururoa Flavell probably lost his seat because of his stance on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Māori were enraged with the way that the Māori Party were treating Ture Whenua, and in fact there were protests going up everywhere at the time. The Minister Meka Whaitiri put up a big challenge in that area and talked about Māori having more access to their land, talked about a more friendly Māori Land Court, and Te Ururoa Flavell, in the end, actually put a halt on what was happening in the Ture Whenua area. He wasn't able to save himself though, Tāmati Coffey came through. But I was fascinated that Rawiri would, again, claim success in that area.
He also claimed success, I think, in Ihumātao—I think he forgot, along with his National Party mates, that they were the reason for the debacle in Ihumātao. If it wasn't for the Māori Party and the National Party, Ihumātao would not have happened—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish! What a fib.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —they put them in a special housing area, that's a disgrace. And if Nick Smith could remind his coalition partner that they were in fact responsible for the debacle, and we all know that the National Party would have dragged those Māoris out by the throat, unlike ourselves who set up a wonderful solution, a very pro-Māori, pro-whānau solution that we were very proud of, and it was another success for Māori and the Labour Party. But I just need the National Party to remind Rawiri, before he goes on Marae and all the other shows claiming success, that it wasn't the Māori Party's success—it was the Māori and the Labour Party who drove it. We need some acknowledgment, particularly from Mr Luxon, who is—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, so you drove the campaign?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We drove the campaign, absolutely. I'm sorry we can't drive the campaign to get you on the front bench, but your mate on the side there has probably got more of an opportunity as he sinks the National Party leadership. 
Also, another big win for the Māori and Labour: the procurement process. What a wonderful process there—finally Māori getting more opportunity in terms of business, and that's incredibly important, the 5 percent that we've won. Another success: the Public Service Act now demanding that mainstream agencies deliver for Māori. We've got leadership being recognised, and management being recognised, and an emphasis on Māori leadership happening. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni knows this because she's driving that sort of process through her different agencies at the moment, and doing some great work. Proud of the work that Minister Sepuloni is doing.
But I want to finish by congratulating Rawiri Waititi, because the Māori Party did do one great thing in the last election, in the last campaign: they named "Oranga Tamariki". So congratulations to the Māori Party! They gave Oranga Tamariki their name. Well done, Rawiri and the Māori Party.





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take this short five-minute call this afternoon. There's actually a lot that I want to cover in my five minutes—I'll see how far I can get through my list.
But I just wanted to first start with acknowledging that on 1 April, we saw a whole lot of changes come into effect which benefited over 1.4 million people. I did an interview with Te Hiku Radio about the increase in minimum wage and what that means for our whānau. So over 175,500 people are better off as a result of the increase in our minimum wage, now at $20 per hour. I want to particularly acknowledge those who worked hard during COVID, protecting us and providing essential services, and many of those will be those that are receiving the increase in the minimum wage. They are our supermarket workers. They are our cleaners. They are our security guards. So I think we all believe, in this House, for the fantastic work that they have done to protect us and to continue to provide those essential services, that they deserve an increase in their wages. So to the 175,500 people who are benefiting from that increase: that came in on 1 April.
The next thing I wanted to acknowledge was the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who is in the House this afternoon, and over 830,000 superannuitants who are better off as a result of the indexing of our main benefits and superannuation to wages and also those who are on main benefits. These are substantial increases that people are receiving as of 1 April, and I'm proud to be part of this Government who has brought those changes about.
The second thing I want to talk about is in terms of steps forward in our recovery. This morning, I was reflecting on the fact that this time last year, we were in lockdown. Our borders had just been closed. We were in unprecedented times amongst a global pandemic. And to think a year later, we have people receiving the first roll-out of the vaccinations, and just this week we have announced that we will be opening the border in the trans-Tasman bubble. I didn't think either of those things would happen so quickly. It has felt like an extremely long time—a year. The number of grandmothers who I have met on the streets in Northland who tell me that they miss their mokopuna so dearly are now going to have that opportunity to either travel over there or for them to come to Aotearoa.
So I want to acknowledge the team who have done the work in the background to ensure that it is safe, that we have the best systems in place to be able to do this. Remember: these are unprecedented times; this is uncharted territory. There is no rule book or no playbook; we are designing it. There may be risks. We have tried to put in place all of the things we can do to mitigate that risk. It is a wonderful opportunity, but I'm sure those who will take advantage of it also recognise the responsibility that they have. It comes with a risk that if something should emerge, that they will have to change their plans. But I look forward, particularly as the MP for Northland, to welcome visitors to Te Tai Tokerau to come and enjoy what our tourism has to offer. And I look forward to the Minister of Tourism coming on Friday.
Now, I just wanted to also acknowledge—in the 1½ minutes that I've got left—a few other initiatives that have recently been announced. Te Ara ō Hine—support for Māori and Pasifika midwives in training. This is a significant development and I want to acknowledge all of those who are working or training in this area.
I also want to acknowledge that we announced that there would be free period products in all schools and kura. This is something that is dear to my heart, something I have passionately campaigned on since 2017. It is a wonderful development and I look forward to all of those schools and kura signing up to be part of this initiative. 
Finally—I do only have 45 seconds left—I want to take the opportunity to recognise Kiritapu Allan, a friend and our colleague, who got the devastating news that she is now battling cervical cancer, but her message to all was to take care of your health, to Smear your Mea, wahine mā, and if you notice changes, to see your doctor—don't wait.
Finally, I'll leave the final message as a happy birthday to my auntie Isey Cross, who turned 102. She is the star of the movie James & Isey, which the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage and I had the privilege of attending the premiere of at the Civic with 700 other people in a packed-out theatre. Happy birthday, Auntie. 





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. On a very unusually beautiful day in Wellington yesterday, out here on the forecourt, a protest came to Parliament: the split - migrant families' protest. They came from all over New Zealand. They made the journey yesterday. They held placards. They held photos of the children they hadn't seen in a year. The placards told us how many days they hadn't been able to hold their children for. I said to one man when I looked at his son's picture—I said, "Oh my gosh, he's so young." His boy was the same age as my boy and when I said that he turned away from me in tears. 
They have no voice. They came to Parliament yesterday to call for an urgent select committee inquiry so that they would have a voice—and we heard them yesterday. The National Party MPs that went down there to the forecourt yesterday—we heard them. The Green Party members, to their credit, heard them as well and so did the ACT Party members. In fact, almost every party in this House heard their message. But where were Labour? Where was Priyanca Radhakrishnan, the Minister for ethnic communities, sticking up for ethnic communities? Where was she yesterday? Was she there? No, she wasn't there. What about Ibrahim Omer—a migrant himself who told us this wonderful story in the House during his maiden speech, which brought me to tears. It was a fantastic speech of his struggles in this country as a migrant. Where was he yesterday to stick up for the migrant families who were here yesterday telling us about their struggles? Well, he wasn't there. Where was Marja Lubeck? Where was Vanushi Walters? Where was Naisi Chen? Where was Dr Gaurav Sharma? Not a single Labour MP yesterday came down to care for these split migrant families. Not a single one of them yesterday.
The PM has always heralded her super-diverse caucus—this wonderful UN of a caucus that she has. But where was this wonderful diverse caucus yesterday in probably the first opportunity they've had here in Parliament to stick up for our migrant communities, our ethnic communities—where were they? Well, they weren't there. As usual, all talk and no delivery as yesterday our migrant families were utterly let down by this Government. 
Where was Minister Faafoi—our Minister of Immigration? Actually, I have to say I'm not surprised he wasn't there. Who would want to go down and look in the face of the abject human misery that is a result, a direct result, of his absolute failure in this portfolio? How could he go down there and look in the faces of the people he's been ignoring for nine months? Question time after question time, the Minister hides behind excuses for his inaction. His number one excuse—managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) capacity. Well, not any more—the trans-Tasman bubble's open; 1,800 spots every fortnight are being freed up. Even yesterday, our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, laughed and smiled as she said, "And look, MIQ spaces are not being used at the moment because it's winter and it's getting colder and people don't want to come." You don't think migrant families know that? They look every single day at the number of MIQ spaces that aren't being used and they cry for the children that they have who can't get in through MIQ because this Prime Minister doesn't care about them.
Her second excuse: our borders are closed. Of course our borders are closed. Well, actually, no, they're not. Not if you're a band or a nanny or a comedian or a children's entertainer or a Lion King dancer. Why, Jacinda Ardern, hey presto, quickly found room for the Wiggles to come in. She gets directly contacted by The Amazing Race producers. They've got a direct line to her. Stephen Colbert gets heard by the COVID committee, the highest court in the land when it comes to COVID issues. We let in drag queens, we let in the Queen tribute band, but our split migrant families have no vehicle. They can't pick up the phone to the Prime Minister. They can't tell the Prime Minister about their heartache. They can't go to the COVID committee. 
Another phrase that the immigration Minister uses constantly in question time, as he did yesterday: "We understand their difficulties." He says it every single time. The split migrant families don't want to hear this because, Minister, you don't understand—sorry he doesn't understand. Let me give him some insight. They gave up everything to be here. They are maintaining two homes on separate sides of the world. They've lost all their savings. Their kids have mental health problems. Their relationships are breaking down. They've missed kids' milestones. They have mental anguish at not being able to hold their babies who they haven't seen in a year. And what does he say to them? He says, "Be patient." I would have loved to hear him say that yesterday to the face of the man who left his four-day-old baby in South Africa to come here, whose kid is now 14 months old. I would have loved to hear Minister Faafoi say, "Just be patient."
Every day, the Prime Minister got up at 1 o'clock and told us to be kind. But as it turns out, they were empty words: "Do as I say, but not as I do." Here we have now the choice to do the right thing, manage the risk, reunite migrant families, and do the right thing for once. Be kind.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. After that speech, I do feel the need to bring it up a notch and bring some positivity back into this House. It's actually a real pleasure to take a call today, because it has been a week of some great steps forward in our recovery and rebuild.
Just to start with a couple of headlines: health Minister Andrew Little announced more support for mums and whānau struggling with alcohol and other drugs. Sport and recreation Minister Grant Robertson and economic development Minister Stuart Nash have welcomed confirmation that New Zealand will host the opening ceremony and the opening match of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup.
Then, of course, we had the housing package, and we had the announcement yesterday of the opening of the quarantine-free travel bubble with Australia, giving our economic recovery a further boost. But wait, there's more—of course! On 1 April, we had a raft of changes that will come into force that will raise incomes for more than 1.4 million New Zealanders. It includes a boost to the minimum wage, but also a 3.1 percent increase to main benefits and superannuation. We also are seeing the largest rise in abatement levels in two decades. Basically, that means that people who are on a main benefit and who are also working part-time will now be able to receive more of the money that they earn. So lifting the minimum wage is really about fairness for our workers, and roughly around 175,000 people will receive a pay rise in that time.
So if we look, for example, as a comparison, during their nine years in Government, National increased the minimum wage by $3.25. In comparison, since 2017, when we got into Government, we have already lifted it by $4.25. In real terms, that means that a full-time worker on the minimum wage now earns an extra $170 before tax, thanks to Labour's changes. For a Kiwi working full time on the minimum wage, they will be earning an extra $44 a week before tax, and it's estimated that in the economy, that will mean an extra $216 million going around. And that's not a risk to the economy; that is a responsible and compassionate step to give Kiwis more money in hand and help New Zealand with its economic recovery.
Many of the people who will benefit from this rise are also the same people that we all benefited from in our COVID response. Now, my colleague Willow-Jean, the MP for Northland, already mentioned this, of course, but these are the people that kept us going during COVID, and we can't say this enough, and I, again, would like to take this opportunity to actually mihi our essential workers who kept New Zealand going during those most unprecedented times. These are our supermarket workers, our security guards, our cleaners, our bus drivers, and all the other essential workers that we depended on so heavily when we had this lockdown last year.
The people who will benefit from this pay rise of the minimum wage are exactly the people who will need this, and the minimum is, after all, exactly what it is: it's just a minimum. And the workers who are getting it went above and beyond for us, and they deserve not only our gratitude for what they did, and continued recognition for what they did for the country, but they also deserve this minimum wage increase. 
So there is obviously a lot more to do, and our Government does recognise this, but this is positive progress in the right direction that will see New Zealand better off. And, of course, when compared to some of the rhetoric that we hear from the other side, it is very clear who New Zealanders picked to lead them through the unprecedented times and the challenging times that we've had over the last year—that was our brilliant Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, leading our team of 5 million, all through hard work and sacrifices, to get us on top of this epidemic and make sure that we, compared to other countries, are able to kick-start our economies. So we are united and we are focused and we are getting on with the job of getting Aotearoa New Zealand through an unprecedented time in our history.
We already did this before the pandemic arrived on our shores. We were sowing the seeds of change, we continue to do this, and we have actually only been able to accelerate it due to the fact that we went hard and early when COVID arrived on our shores. We do also know that we won't be able to solve all of our problems overnight—they are longstanding issues—but we have already laid the foundation for change in our first time, and, of course, first term, and we are continuing in the right direction.
I will also express my aroha for Kiritapu Allan.





TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Like the seas rising around the Pacific, I also rise to take this call. It's a reminder for me that Pasifika peoples are on the front lines of climate change. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of our young people who are also rising and mobilising again this Friday for the School Strike 4 Climate. It is they that have been holding our generation to account for kicking the can down the road and also, for some of our generation, denying the very existence of the climate can.
Pacific Island countries have contributed almost nothing to the causes of the climate crisis, yet are being hit first and hardest by its impacts. The severe injustice of the climate crisis in the Pacific has been matched only by the determination of Pacific leaders and peoples to lead the world to a more just and sustainable future. This was front of mind for me when, on the early morning of the autumn equinox, I sat on the Vaka Haunui: a traditional voyaging waka to take part in a climate talanoa, organised by Pacific Vision Aotearoa with the inasi kava club on the water of the Auckland harbour. It is always a dawn ceremony; it's never a morning ceremony or a lunchtime ceremony. So when we gathered in the dark, we could see the golden rays stream across the water, and I could feel the mauri on the water. We talked about climate justice through our connected, Pacific ancestral ways: the sharing of kava, vaka, sailing, and voyaging.
I reflected on the vaka itself being a symbol to help us remember that before there were any borders and territorial lines that carved up the Pacific by colonial powers, it was vaka that helped keep and maintain our connections throughout all of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. It was on vaka that our Pacific ancestors voyaged back and forth across the vast Pacific Ocean, unhindered by the so-called borders and territorial lines as they visited different islands, along with coming here to Aotearoa. Their skill was based on knowledge of the stars, sailing directions, and reading the waves and clouds to determine currents and to predict weather. They were deeply imbedded into their environment. I like to think that we, the descendants of those early navigators, can draw on their prowess and commitment as we navigate the myriad of issues relating to climate change.
We were fortunate to be joined by the Minister for Pacific Peoples, the Hon Aupito William Sio, who, among his many significant comments, said something that actually sat with me for a few days: that while we are rolling out the vaccine for COVID-19 and supporting Pacific countries to do so, unfortunately there is no vaccine for climate change—if it was only that simple.
Yes we are a country that must account for its emissions, but we need to think about that in the context of the region that we live in. We live in the Pacific—not Europe, not the Americas—the place on the planet that is the most vulnerable to climate inaction. Yes we need to commit to climate action in Aotearoa to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, but we also need to ensure our immigration policy is welcoming to Pacific peoples becoming displaced by climate change.
Climate action means we all take a part. He waka eke noa: a waka that we are all on board, but it also means that when we are on that waka, it's important that we are all paddling, and, even more importantly, paddling in the same direction. I also note that He Waka Eke Noa is also the name of the Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership. We have to get to a point where we have to stop giving out hallway passes. Almost half of our emissions come from agriculture. For decades, farms were treated like factories, prioritising quantity over quality and popping out pollution. Many Governments told farmers, "Make more milk powder. Don't worry about the effects on the environment." The tools farmers need to deal with changes in the climate and changes in their market were taken from them. We have to change, and many farmers know it. We have eight harvest cycles left before it's too late and we are hit by our climate change tipping point—this is what the scientists are telling us: eight harvests to change the way we grow our food.
Many farmers are already changing. It is time for the Government to support them to change. We can work with our rural communities to transform our agriculture and horticultural sectors from being one of the biggest causes of climate change into being one of the biggest solutions to climate change. First, we have to stop using nitrogen fertilisers. They pollute our water, they create emissions, and they enable more cows in places where cows have no good reason to be. What dirty coal is to electricity, nitrogen fertilisers are to farming. We can live without it. There are alternatives and we need to use them for the health of our land and air and the health of our ocean.
As a reminder of all this, I am left with the words of Reverend Sumalie, who joined us that day on the vaka, and he spoke about his home island of Tuvalu. And he reminded us that if we save Tuvalu, we save the world. Let's save Tuvalu.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. Can I start by acknowledging my parliamentary colleague the Hon Kiritapu Allan. As a new member of this House, she has been extremely welcoming to this place, and my thoughts are with her and her whānau as she's on her recovery journey.
It's a great day because some 24 hours ago the Government made its trans-Tasman bubble announcement because of our successful management of COVID-19. I do want to acknowledge those who have been working hard on ensuring that that announcement has become a reality and our next step to our recovery. It is a recovery, because we are in the midst of a global pandemic, all around us, all around the world, and I often think that perhaps the Opposition seem to forget that. I am delighted that my colleagues, Mr McAnulty and Mr McKelvie—from across the way there—who are fellow racing enthusiasts, may actually get this analogy, and that is the Opposition seem to have their blinkers on, on the way to the starting gate. The reality is that perhaps they should just be scratched before they even leave the gates, full stop. Why? Because they seem to be focused on knee-jerk reactions without understanding, actually, the full picture and the broader approach as to what is going on around them here in New Zealand. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have made it very clear, and for the benefit of the Opposition, let me reiterate to them. This side of the House actually make no apology for prioritising the health, safety, and wellbeing of New Zealanders during this unprecedented time. I constantly hear thanks from members of my community, and I know that members on this side of the House hear the same thing as they go about their duties as well. There's no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of the community, that we are a Government of action, and we are not prepared to simply put everything at risk.
Can I just paint a picture to provide some context for those in New Zealand right now? We have young people, we have rangatahi, who are able to go to school and engage in education and training. We have people who are in employment. We have people that can go about church and other faith-based opportunities. We have people—individually and collectively—who are able to play sports, whether that's during the week or in the weekends. We have mass gatherings that are enjoyed by many, many people. We're able to travel domestically and, in the matter of a couple of weeks, we will be able to travel internationally. We simply are the envy of the world.
I have to say that last week was a fantastic week. We finished the visit from the first leader of a Government, actually, in over a year, and that's the Cook Islands Prime Minister, Prime Minister Brown. I have to say that I am disappointed, if not I am appalled, at the comments from the Leader of the Opposition this morning, especially when she is the spokesperson for Pacific peoples. She infers, actually, that people on this side of the House who are of Pacific heritage—because us 10 members in the Pasifika caucus here on this side of the House, and my colleague who has just resumed his seat: that's it, 11; over there, I don't see it. Now what I would like to say, actually, is that it is appalling that the Opposition spokesperson adopts that view because, quite simply, the 11 Pasifika members that have heritage here in this Parliament are concerned about the islands, we are concerned about small nations, and we are not prepared to place at risk those very communities by simply allowing us to go there without things being done properly. I reflect back to my last visit to the island of Aitutaki. The hospital there has fewer hospital beds than Palmerston North Hospital would have in one particular wing. So we're not talking about apples with apples; it is quite different.
I guess, though, in reality, the Opposition have a little bit of a dilemma. Because if they are to replace that spokesperson for Pasifika peoples, just look at them, who could they have? Is there an element of choice there? Is there an element of choice? Talofa, talofa, talofa, is what we say on this side of the House. Now, what I would say is that my colleagues have previously spoken about a number of changes that have come in last week, and I'm really proud of that. I'm proud of the fact that people in my community of Palmerston North are going to have an increased minimum wage. I am proud of the fact that, actually, the very people who we talked about as a House around last night's Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill are the very people who will benefit from the decisions that this Government has delivered over the last week. So it's a great time to be a member of a Government that is focused on its community, is focused on delivering, and we look forward to continuing to do that as part of our recovery for all New Zealanders. Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. 





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Public safety is being put at risk under this Government. The Government has lost control of law and order in New Zealand, and is putting New Zealanders' safety at risk. Our streets are becoming less safe. Our police officers are being assaulted more and more often and having firearms presented at them more often. Our corrections officers are being assaulted more often in our prisons. Gangs are taking control of our streets. New Zealanders have had enough and it's time for this Government to take control of law and order in New Zealand.
New Zealanders don't deserve to be put at risk on the streets. Under this Government, we have seen the number of serious assaults in New Zealand double. In 2017, there were 10,681 serious assaults recorded in New Zealand. In 2020, there were 21,252 serious assaults on our streets. This is four years of failure by this Government when it comes to law and order. The number of our police officers who are being assaulted has increased. Last year, 1,348 people were charged with assaulting police officers in New Zealand, something that is unbelievable. And do you know what the saddest fact is? Gang members are recruiting faster than the New Zealand Police. There has been a 48 percent increase in gang membership in New Zealand, and the Police have only recruited 1,300 new police officers, under this Government.
This Government has blinkers on. They're not interested in the facts, they're not interested in the statistics, and they're not interested in New Zealanders' safety, which is becoming incredibly concerning. I was in Paihia on Thursday for a public meeting where locals, business owners, community groups, the community patrol, and wardens in that town turned up saying, "We don't see the police on our streets." The local police station is not even being manned on a regular basis in that community. Kelvin Davis, one of the local members of Parliament up there, decided to decline the event after first saying he was going to be there. Five minutes before it started he said he couldn't make it and didn't show up. That was an absolute disgrace for the people of Paihia.
What is this Government doing about law and order? Well, they promised 1,800 new police over three years. It is now 3½ years since they came into office and we've only got 1,347 new officers on the beat. Of those 1,800, 700 were to be focused on tackling gangs and organised crime, and how many of them have they delivered? Two hundred and thirty-nine new officers focused on tackling gang and organised crime. Police have not got the resources that this Government promised. New Zealanders have not got the resources that this Government promised.
And did you know that at the same time that they haven't delivered on their promise of new police—the 1,800 new police—the police training college is sitting empty? They're not taking a new wing of recruits until May of this year, and they won't be on the beat until September or later this year. That is unbelievable and unacceptable. The excuse that they're giving for not taking new recruits is that the attrition rate is too low. Well, when they started the 1,800 programme they said that the attrition rate was too high so they were not going to be able to meet the programme. Now they're saying it's too low. Well, New Zealanders have had enough of the excuses and are wanting to see action and delivery from this Government.
This Government has an opportunity to take law and order seriously. They need to keep to their word. They need to deliver on their promises. They could bring forward funding to make sure those police are delivered, to make sure those police are trained, to make sure they've got the tools they need to be able to do their job and keep safe. I find it shocking that police officers are becoming afraid of turning up to jobs because they think it's too risky. They're afraid of having a gun pointed at them when they turn up, because they don't have the back-up and the support they need. It's time this Government listened to front-line officers on the street, on the beat, who are doing the hard work but don't feel the support that they've got from this Government. Then they've got policies coming through saying they can't pursue, they can't go and eradicate marijuana, they can't do all these other policies they've being doing for years. This needs leadership from the Government. It has its blinkers on when it comes to law and order, and I'm calling on this Government to take this issue seriously before those statistics get even worse.





STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): As my colleagues have mentioned, yesterday the Prime Minister announced that as of 19 April, Kiwis and Aussies can travel back and forth without needing to book a spot in managed isolation and quarantine. I know that that's going to be a huge relief for many people in my electorate, who, like many across the country, have missed their friends and their family over the last 12 months. It's been a long and, at times, hard year, but the combined effect of our efforts means that friends and families can again be reunited. I've heard from many grandparents in my electorate who have missed the birth of a new grandchild, and I know it will bring them great joy to finally be able to meet their grandchild. That is a good thing. 
So too is the fact that last week we introduced a range of measures that will raise the incomes of 1.4 million New Zealanders, and that's a crucial step to making sure we build back better and further our recovery. Last week, minimum wages went up to $20 an hour. Pensions and benefits, which were indexed to increases in wages, also went up, because, despite the odds, last year wages in New Zealand increased by 3.1 percent. Abatement thresholds were also changed, and what that means is that people receiving a benefit and in part-time work can keep more of what they earn. That is great news for people in my electorate too. You see, a few years ago, when the previous Government was in, Whanganui was called a ghost town by a visiting reporter, and that was at the point where we had a so-called rock star economy. Well, we didn't see that rock star economy in the regions. Instead, what we saw was shops closing, more and more families living in cars, and we didn't see wage growth. Times were tough for families—unnecessarily so—but what a difference a few years makes when you've got a Government that backs the regions, that invests in our regions, that works in partnership with our regions, and we've felt the benefit of that in my electorate, where we feel more hope and more optimism now through a global pandemic than we did when we had a so-called rock star economy. 
COVID has been tough on us all, but together we have come through it, and in Whanganui and Taranaki, we've come through better than most, with tourism numbers up and spending data showing increases too. Instead of a ghost town, we are well on our way to becoming a thriving, vibrant city again. Take our arts community, for example. In the last fortnight, we've had Whanganui Walls, where artists have come to Whanganui and painted beautiful murals on walls across our city. We've had artists open studios, where local artists across the region have opened their studio doors to the public for two weeks, and the changes that were announced last week are going to help more people to be able to afford to come and see that vibrancy and experience it for themselves. I recommend starting at the Whanganui Sarjeant art gallery, in its temporary location, of course, because the iconic Sarjeant art gallery is being restored thanks to investment from this Government, and, yes—credit where credit's due—the previous Government, too. 
But don't just stop in Whanganui. If you've come for the arts scene, take your time, travel up through Taranaki to the amazing small galleries, and make sure you definitely stop at the Percy Thomson in Stratford, too. 
There's so much more to do. Check out the local attractions, travel up the awa on the historic Waimarie paddle steamer. Visit our shops. Check out our cafes. Take the kids to the two best playgrounds in New Zealand: Kowhai Park in Whanganui and King Edward Park in Hāwera. While you're in Taranaki, check out the Taranaki Crossing, with its upgraded tracks and facilities, thanks to help from the Provincial Growth Fund from this Government. Drive up the Forgotten World Highway, which is, at long last, finally in the process of having the last 12 kilometres sealed, thanks, again, to investment from this Government, and that investment is creating local jobs, which is helping us to recover locally. 
Do not underestimate the impact that an increase in income can make to our regional communities. If it allows a few more families to get out and explore our regions, then this is good news for our recovery. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The time for this speech has expired. 





 KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak today in this debate. I often sit and think about all the reasons I came to this place, and what I want to achieve. There are many social issues in this country, and, yes, there is a lot more the Government could be doing in this area, but it is also up to us within our communities to do our bit. MPs hear from many people from all walks of life when we sit on select committees, and get some real insight into what is happening in our communities. What I hear most is the need for more mentorship and support within our communities. When I think about mentorship and support, it reminds me of my time volunteering with St John. Considering it is St John's Heart of Gold Annual Appeal this week, I thought it would be appropriate to speak about the multiple programmes they provide within our communities. 
St John as an organisation has a presence in some sort of way pretty much in every major city and small town in New Zealand, whether it be an ambulance that comes to your aid in your most vulnerable moments or when they are teaching kids life skills in our schools. When we think of St John, many people don't realise that they are a charitable organisation. They receive some funding from Government, and the rest is made up from fund-raising. Government and many community organisations are now recognising and speaking to the fact that we need to put more effort into prevention and support for our most vulnerable. We should not be waiting until families are in crisis mode before they are able to seek help. 
I was lucky enough to be invited to a presentation on a new initiative that St John has started to launch as part of their school programme. Whātuia te Waiora—Weaving Wellbeing—is a wellbeing and resilience programme for year 7 to 8 students. They recognise this is the age where a lot of our young ones are struggling the most. This programme gives children the opportunity to weave positivity into their daily lives. The one thing that stood out for me was their concept that a state of wellbeing is not simply the absence of the negative, but the presence of the positive. Students will learn what character strength is and how these are different from values and skills. Students will discover how to use their strengths and identify opportunities in which they can grow. Students will learn how to call on their strengths in times of challenge and build their resilience. Students will develop awareness around positive and negative emotions, and ways to boost those positive emotions. Students will discover kindness to themselves in learning how to be their own best friends. Students discover the idea of community wellbeing and explore where there is a call to action that they can be involved in. I am proud that I was part of that organisation for many years, and I am proud of the initiatives that they are coming up with. 
St John has many community programmes, mostly staffed by volunteers. Health shuttles which enable patients to get to vital health appointments like chemotherapies that they might not otherwise be able to attend, Friends of the Emergency Department, community carers, ASB St John in Schools, youth groups and cadets, caring callers, and therapy pets—all relying on people within the community to go out and volunteer their time. In addition to that, they have a commercial service that provides first aid, mental health first aid, training courses, and medical alarms, which help build community resilience. So when you are out and about this week and you see the wonderful volunteers with their Heart of Gold badges standing outside the ASB and selling their sausages at the local Bunnings—which is where I would usually be at this time of the year—you can know that your generous donation is making a difference in a community near you. 
The ACT Party recognises there are many organisations in this country that are helping to make New Zealand a better place, and we would like to express our gratitude to them all. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.





ADVERSE WEATHER-AFFECTED TIMBER RECOVERY ON CONSERVATION LANDS BILL
First Reading
Debate resumed from 24 March.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill, and I am grateful to my Labour colleague Rachel Brooking for her very careful legal analysis and dissection of the many failings of this bill from a legal point of view. But I want to focus on why the Green Party is opposing this bill and will be voting against it. 
This bill represents a fundamental attack on conservation values, on nature, on our public protected lands and our indigenous forests, nature's cathedrals: our kauri, rimu, beech, kahikatea, mataī, and podocarp forests. The Green Party opposed the bill on which this is based—the Hon Nick Smith's West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill—in June 2014, which was pushed through the House under urgency with no chance for select committee consideration and no chance for public submissions, even though it affected public land. 
This bill fails to recognise the history of forest clearance in Aotearoa New Zealand. Forest once covered 85 percent of our country, some 23 million hectares, and yet in 25 to 30 generations, we have reduced the extent of that forest cover to around 20 percent of our land area. We've converted it to pasture. We need to protect what remains. We need to protect these magnificent forests on conservation lands and the homes that they provide for our distinctive indigenous plants and wildlife, yet this bill goes back to the 19th century with its desire to see logging on conservation land, authorised by the Director-General of Conservation, which would see the Department of Conservation collect fees for that logging. 
The National Party and the member are grounded in the 19th century, not the 21st century. They fail to recognise the key ecosystem services that these forests provide and their importance as habitat for wildlife. It's opportunistic plundering of conservation land that this bill is promoting rather than safeguarding its indigenous biodiversity. 
The bill also fails to recognise that for over 30 years, there has been strong public support for the prohibition on logging in section 30 of the Conservation Act 1987. That prohibition on logging was put in place for very good reasons, because when Te Papa Atawhai—the Department of Conservation—was established in 1987, it brought all of the "green dots" that were spread throughout the Forest Service, Department of Lands and Survey, and the Wildlife Service together into one agency. We had had the Forest Service, which was trying to be a multiple-use agency. On the one hand, its environmental forestry arm was encouraging recreation on public land, and, on the other, it was napalming indigenous forests, rimu forests, in the Buller and elsewhere and converting those into pine plantation. That was enormously destructive. 
The Labour Government phased out the Forest Service in that restructuring in the 1980s. It created Te Papa Atawhai, which has the Conservation Act, which prohibits logging. This bill also fails to recognise the history of the huge effort that the conservation movement—New Zealanders, iwi; all of us—have made to protect these forests on public land from logging. We had the big campaigns in Orikaka, in Ōkārito, in Waikukupa, Whirinaki, Pureora, and the Longwoods and Rowallan forests in Western Southland to stop logging on public land. The dying days of logging were under the former National Government. A newly elected Labour Government stopped the beech scheme that Timberlands West Coast wanted to proceed with, which would have resulted in pock-marking the forest with a whole lot of clear-cut and saw 120,000 hectares of West Coast forest then added to the conservation estate. 
This bill would take us back to that era of logging, destruction of biodiversity, and destruction of nature. It fails to recognise the key role that wind-blown timber and fallen trees have in recycling nutrients in the forest, that dead trees have in providing nest holes for birds like kākā and kākāriki, and that fallen trees have in providing a seed-bed for regenerating forest and regrowth of the forest. This bill is just opportunistic. It seeks to plunder conservation land and the Green Party is opposing it. 





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I rise to take a call on this, the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill. In doing so, I note that this piece of proposed legislation, essentially, was prompted by the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Act 2014, which I think I will just refer to as the WBT Act, moving forward. But I note actually what's proposed is quite different from that piece of legislation. 
There are two points of difference that I can take from it. The first is that it's not limited to a specific area geographically in its sense, such as the West Coast. 
Maureen Pugh: Weather happens all over the place.
TANGI UTIKERE: And for the benefit of the member whose bill this is, reviewing the Hansard, I noted that she asked my colleague previously what the conservation land had to do with it when she was identifying the list—Rachel Brooking, who did a very good job of doing that in the last call. So for the benefit of the member—I mean, it's her bill. I would have thought she would know, but I will just reiterate that this would, essentially, identify conservation areas under the Conservation Act and also under the Reserves Act. When it looks at the Conservation Act, we are specifically looking, as I understand it, to conservation parks, wilderness areas, sanctuary areas, water course areas, amenity areas, wildlife management areas, and other conservation areas being that of stewardship. But also it would apply to land that falls under the Reserves Act, and four of those sit comfortably: recreation, historic, scenic, and Government purpose reserves. So we are not talking about just a specific locality or locale; it's much broader than that. That's the first thing. 
The second thing is that it's actually not limited to time. The WBT Act does have a time frame of five years; this doesn't. So I think it's really important that we do acknowledge the context within which the proposed bill would lie. 
So what then does the bill seek to do? Well, it would kick in, related to an adverse weather event, and that's not defined, but I accept the member whose bill this is did suggest in her opening remarks in the first introductory speech that the select committee process would be one where that could be sort of looked into. But it does none the less still raise a number of concerns, because when you look at the relevant clauses within it, I turn my mind to issues around the process of removal. So, OK, it's clear in the bill that items must be authorised by the Director-General of the Department of Conservation, and when I have a look at clause 8(4), there are, essentially, four things that the director-general could do in his or her absolute discretion. The first is they could accept an application, the second is they could decline one, the third is they could enter into some sort of private negotiation to try and get some agreement, and the fourth one is to reject all applications. 
But what's interesting is that if we go on further and have a look, the discretion of the director-general seems to be rather loose, because he or she may have regard to the interests, even including the financial interests, of the Crown in relation to the specified piece of land but also any other matters the director-general considers relevant. So, in essence, it is a catch-all, that et al: anything else that he or she may consider relevant. 
When you look at the regulatory impact statement that accompanied the former Act, what it did actually note was that dead, standing, and fallen trees are an essential or favoured habitat and food source for many species, a normal part of nutrient cycling and forests, and beneficial to regeneration. In that sense, the timber component for which this bill is primarily related to does have a purpose. So it really does, I guess, come down to a balancing act, and the concern that the Government has is that there is simply too much uncertainty. It's too loose, and therefore we simply cannot support it. 
There is uncertainty in the provisions that I have just touched on. There is uncertainty in that there is a real risk to local in situ ecology, because there is a biodiversity value proposition at play there. Finally, there really is uncertainty in the long-term impacts of the removal of the timber. So when we look at all of those aspects, the common-sense approach is not to support the bill in its current form because of the huge level of uncertainty, and that's something that we are not prepared to support at this stage. So, obviously, we will be voting against it. 





NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I take this opportunity to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak on the adverse weather-affected timber recovery bill. Adverse weather events in New Zealand are quite common. We certainly do have a few of them occur here, and I commend Maureen Pugh on her foresight to look at how she can look after the area that she resides after we have some of these adverse weather events. 
I mean, the West Coast is quite notorious for getting the brunt of extreme weather, let alone adverse weather. In March 2019, for example, we saw the remnants of Cyclone Trevor wreak havoc on the West Coast. There was the destruction of the Waiho River bridge and the closure of major roads and schools, and people were forced to evacuate. In December 2019, we saw a storm that left a thousand people stranded in Franz Josef. There were slips, there were closed highways, and there were food parcels that needed to be sent into that area, and that's just two events in the one year. 
On the pre-election campaign last year, the ACT Party went down to Hokitika, and after a weather event that occurred there, we actually had a delay in people turning up, with one guy telling us that he had to get the chainsaw out to remove the fallen trees that had come down upon his driveway. In fact, it's so bad that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has actually written a book specifically on the weather events of the West Coast, explaining that it is the wettest region in New Zealand. There's a table within NIWA's book which tells you about the wind gusts that the West Coast experiences, mostly in Greymouth, Westport, and Hokitika. Having the alps situated along the West Coast ridgeline means that a good proportion of the rivers in that area will flow towards the West Coast, and with extreme rainfall and a rising river, it can take with it vegetation as it moves quickly towards the sea, leaving those towns on the Coast with flooding issues. 
But the events themselves are not the issue in this bill. I'm merely pointing out the large number of adverse weather events that occur on the West Coast. It's the clean up after the events, and my colleague from the Greens suggested it's logging. It's not logging; it's rotting, and what we want to do is utilise the by-product and not waste a thing. We want to be able to remove some of these trees so that we can promote new growth in the area. If the trees fall down on your own property, you can get someone to remove them. If they fall on conservation land, you can't. The West Coast region has the largest proportion of land and conservation estate. Contrast that with the 20 percent that's in the North Island, 40 percent of the South Island is legally protected, and 10.7 percent of New Zealand is covered in 3 million hectares of national parks. 
So what happens when we have an adverse weather or extreme event leaving fallen trees? As I said earlier, if it was on your own property, you would have them removed, but, legally, we cannot do that on Crown-managed land. We cannot remove the irreversibly damaged trees. This bill will allow the Department of Conservation to authorise the removal of damaged timber, and the people who want to remove it must be invited to apply to remove it. They can't just rock on up and take it out of the bush. They've got to pay royalties, they've got to pay fees, and they've got to pay any charges that are required, as well. 
Importantly, it also allows for the root system of the tree and the tops of the trees to stay there, which is helping the biodiversity that is occurring in our natural environment. We are only looking at needing to take away the main trunk of the tree, not disrupting the bugs and the insects that are dependent on that coverage. It will not have a major effect on our ecosystem. 
The ACT Party are in support of this bill, and while Labour sit across the room and say they don't support it, Tangi Utikere, the previous speaker across the way there, has just said across the way there that he thought that there would be some good aspects that could be brought up in select committee. I think this bill is worth looking at for what can be done in select committee, but it needs your support to get there. So while ACT support this bill, I hope Labour change their mind and do the same. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I have some sympathy for what the member Maureen Pugh has tried to do with this bill. The intent of it is really about scaling up something that has been shown to work before, and it is trying to get some economic benefit for people where she lives. So while the intention is pure, I'm afraid I can't support it, because the scale-up element of it simply doesn't work, and that's for three reasons: firstly, it's just simply not ecologically working in the same direction that we're going as a Government and that we know that we need to go with climate change; secondly, the economic arguments don't stack up; and, thirdly, it's simply not needed. 
Look, if we go back to what the original Act was, which was alluded to by my colleague Tangi Utikere, the Act that was brought in, the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Act of 2014, came at the tail end of Cyclone Ita, and that was on 17 April 2014. There was wind damage to over 40,000 hectares of indigenous forest. There was severe damage, and there were mature beech trees near Westport, and there was tōtara and mataī in Whataroa. But, as has been pointed out, the Act that worked in that case was very limited. It was confined to the events of Cyclone Ita. It excluded World Heritage areas, national parks, and the white heron sanctuary, and it expired on 1 July 2019. 
It's true that Forest and Bird in Canterbury and the West Coast are opposing—very strongly opposing—the proposed scale-up of that bill because of what it would mean for the protection of conservation forests from logging, which has already been traversed by the Greens. We know that wind-blown trees are some of the most difficult to remove, they're hazardous, they're dangerous, and they provide ecological support for the forests that they fall in. That has all been covered. 
But perhaps looking at the economic case that has been put forward for this, the approved operators spoken to for the report done by the ministry of conservation didn't identify any particular new business opportunities that came from that West Coast scenario. They also pointed out that adverse weather events are unlikely to supply the consistency that would be needed to make the economic case for a scale-up like this. It could also create winners and losers as an effect in the timber industry, benefiting those that have an adverse weather event at a point in time. 
Also, there are risks that aren't present when considering only West Coast forests. There's likely to be pressure and demand for access to other woods in Whirinaki, Warawara, and Trounson Kauri Park, for example, with kauri a particular target. There are biosecurity risks that would be harder to manage or control for potential impact in areas such as these, especially where kauri dieback is concerned. There is also a risk that the bill would support the harvesting of swamp kauri. 
So, in summary, the Government could consider special legislation if a very significant weather event happened, such as what happened in 2014. We could do that in a way where timber recovery was economically and ecologically viable. There is no need for a large scale-up of a piece of legislation that responded to a very specific event. We've traversed the arguments around the ecology, around the economy, and we don't need to take it to a select committee when, in fact, there is a much simpler mechanism which could respond to a severe weather event, which would be to introduce a very specific and focused piece of legislation to deal with that. For all these reasons—while I have some sympathy for what the member is hoping to achieve, and I commend her for working for her constituents to do that—unfortunately, the logic doesn't stack up, and I simply cannot support this bill. 





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I'd just like to start by congratulating the member Maureen Pugh for having this drawn out of the ballot. I know she's from a longstanding West Coast family and this is the type of thing, when one does grow up on the West Coast, as have I—in fact, my family have been involved in, initially, gold, subsequently coalmining, and, ultimately, in timber recovery through the Īnangahua area and through much of the northern part of the Buller. So foresting is very much—like the member—part of my DNA. However, I also grew up as a lad on the West Coast doing a lot of hunting and some of the best hunting areas, of course, were the areas that had been well forested, where you had the access of timber trails going and often where a heck of a lot of forest had been knocked down to get to one very nice-looking rimu or even tōtara in there, and the damage that had been done—as I say, it was great for us as young blokes heading up there with our old World War II three-os looking to get access to some very nice venison. 
But, looking back on it, that very same access—and I think of up around the Ōparara area. When you get to Karamea and someone tells you there's a very good place to go and see about an hour's drive from Karamea, you think, "Where can you drive for an hour from Karamea?", but if you ever get a chance to, go in and see the Ōparara arches, a wonderful area. If you were to have a look in there and see what happens as a result of the afforestation in there, probably you'd say it's a good thing, because you wouldn't get an access there had it not been for those good timber trails in there. That really comes to the point that getting the timber out is not that easy a job, and in doing so, from my experience of what I've seen over the years, there's considerable damage caused. 
This is where I can see where this bill will actually fall down, to a large degree. I know it is not West Coast - specific, and I can see that the bill, looking through it, clearly is designed for weather events throughout New Zealand. Not knowing other parts of New Zealand quite as intimately, although I do have to say I currently live out in the Ōhāriu Valley area of my electorate—a beautiful area. Most of you get to fly over it as you come into Wellington, into a southerly. One thing, if you look out the plane window, you'll see is there are not too many trees out there. Mr Luxon, I see you're smiling there. You will have done that route many times. 
From having grown up on the West Coast, like the member over there, I've grown to understand that we do need trees and I know what trees add to our ambience, add to our lives, and I certainly would like to see a lot more trees around. So, particularly in an area where we do end up with so little land left to actually—there's so much of it we can drive, basically, from Wellington to Auckland, virtually going through several of the many farms owned by the member opposite, and you'll see there's not too many trees left on too many of them.
So as a society and in the time we've come to, we've just really got to come to the stage where we do understand that trees, re-afforestation, is a very, very important part of a legacy which we do want to leave to the next generations. So, again, I'm not standing here, I don't carry—I'm Catholic. I can be guilty about many things, but I don't need to be guilty about my ancestors in the forest and what they did. They did what they do on the West Coast, that extractive industry that's been part of the West Coast for many, many generations. But time does march on and, really, what I would say is that in a time—and I think some of the previous speakers have talked about it. We are in a sort of an era of probably re-afforestation whether it be re-afforestation—just last night, I was listening to a briefing from foresters who are looking at getting that balance right between exotic trees and native trees. So I think we're sort of in an era where re-afforestation is probably the best legacy we'll leave for those that do come after us. 
So when I look at this bill, it probably does sort of go against some of that whole, I suppose, philosophy we have now in our life when our generation will be looked at as a time we sort of reversed that trend of extractive industry and of making sure that we use trees that are going to be an important part of getting our world back in order for our grandkids. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Listening to O'Connor speak is a bit like watching him bowl—you never know what's coming next. 
Before I start, I just want to mention the Hon Kiri Allan. She's one of the toughest people I've ever come across in my life, and if anyone can get through the challenges she's got in front of her, I think Kiri will certainly do that, and I'd just like to wish her all the best because she is a special person. 
This bill is also the product of a special person, from the West Coast, interestingly: Maureen Pugh. I think it's a great credit that she's brought this bill to the House as the previous legislation, which Maureen Pugh agitated for at length and was put through by Nick Smith, has expired. Interestingly, despite what we've heard in the House tonight, in the course of that legislation and actions as a result of that legislation, there was no damage done to the conservation land at all. I think some 30,000 or 40,000 cubic metres of damaged native timber was brought out of those forests with absolutely no damage and no costs, I guess, to the conservation estate. 
I just want to make the point that when you stand in this House, all you can see in here is exactly the sort of timber we're talking about, and timber that if we're not careful will be lost to future generations for them to use other than to recycle. I was privileged enough to live in a house with not one single treated board in it, and nowadays, of course, we use pine trees which entirely have to be treated, and I'm not criticising that. That's the type of forestry sector we've got now. So I want to congratulate Maureen Pugh on bringing this bill to the House. 
I want to comment quickly on a couple of comments, one from Eugenie Sage who thinks it's—in her unfortunate terminology—opportunistic and plundering of the conservation estate. Well, of course, it's not. What happens with this bill is that the conservator has got the sole right to decide whether or not this gets used at all. In fact, it can't be implemented if not for the Director-General of Conservation. I think that's an eminently sound start. 
The other thing that my friend Tangi Utikere from across the boundary—in fact, I'm surrounded in Palmerston North—talked about was the fact that the bill doesn't really stack up at the moment. Well, that's why we have a select committee process, and, of course, this Government has tended to forget the need for a select committee process in most of the legislation they've put through in the last four months. So perhaps they don't realise what a select committee actually does. [Interruption] It fixes things, doesn't it, McAnulty? It fixes things. So I think that to have sent this bill to a select committee, irrespective of what it came out looking like, would've been a great advance for the Parliament and certainly would be worthwhile. 
My interest in the bill, aside from the fact that I think it's a very good bill, is really the result of my role as the Opposition spokesperson for forestry, and subsequently that stretches into the manufacturing sector and all things associated with use of wood in New Zealand. To have the opportunity to bring our wind-damaged or storm-damaged timber for specific use in New Zealand, I think, would've been well worthwhile. It would've added value to that sector, and despite what Ingrid Leary said a minute ago, it won't pick winners and losers. It will give opportunity wherever the opportunity occurs, if in fact it does occur, for that timber, or that wood, to be used and used specifically for special projects in New Zealand. I think it would be quite an exciting opportunity for the sector to be able to do that. 
I do have some sympathy for a lot of the views, and in the north of Rangitīkei, you walk through what once must have been beautiful native bush which no longer is because the best bits are all picked off and the rest was left behind. 
Kieran McAnulty: That's the member's farm! 
IAN McKELVIE: No farmer would ever treat anything like that. So I think there is reason for us to protect our native bush that's left, and protect it as best we can. Certainly, this bill would have added to the protection of it because it would give people the opportunity, provided the director-general agreed with it, to go in and pick the wind-damaged trees out and leave a very clear and much better environment for new plants to regenerate. So I think there is good reason for this bill to have be pushed through, but it wasn't. 
One other point I wanted to make about this is that having altered nature over the last 180 years or 300 years or whatever in New Zealand, we're never going to rectify it without human intervention. One of the very quick examples I'll give you of that is where we've got native wilding pines creeping into all of our North Island national parks—Whanganui National Park is a great example of that—and that's going to have to be removed. It's going to be a very interesting debate in this House when we have to go in there and get them out, because the same thing's going to happen as when we go in and get wind-damaged stuff out. That's my lot. 





ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It's an honour and a privilege to speak on anything to do with conservation here in Aotearoa. I want to acknowledge the member Maureen Pugh and congratulate her on the amount of work that she's done to get her bill to this stage. But before I talk about the reasons why I join my colleagues and our party in opposing this bill, I want to acknowledge the Minister of Conservation. I want to acknowledge the sister the Hon Kiritapu Allan: kia kaha, wahine toa, and much arohanui from us here—all of us here in the Whare. 
I've gone through the pages of this bill, and we're in the 21st century, and there's nowhere—I don't know; maybe I've missed it—that refers to being a Treaty partner. There's nowhere that refers to consulting or working with tangata whenua. We recently had the annual review of the Department of Conservation. They came through, and the thing that I liked about their presentation was about the principles—the principles of conservation, which was about elevating principles of the Treaty and fulfilling Treaty partnership. I looked at the bill; I couldn't find that anywhere. It's about holding wellbeing and safety within conservation—I couldn't find that here, either. 
What I found was a bill that just looked at the tree; it didn't look at the whole forest. It looked at the trees—didn't look at the whole forest. So I'm really concerned—I'm really concerned. I think that this bill is about the slippery slope. I am concerned about the forest—the kauri. I am concerned about the kauri. It's a slippery slope into swamp harvesting—kauri swamp harvesting. This is opening the door to that. 
So I'm really concerned about that, and before the Department of Conservation—let's just say, adverse weather effect, a tree falls on somewhere where humans walk. Part of the conservation is to get rid of that risk, not to go into the forest. So I would say, adverse—what is it? Adverse weather - affected timber recovery—timber recovery. It's just looking at the timber; it's not looking at Papatūānuku and the forest and what we are conserving. It's time that we stop being siloed—that we stop just looking at the West Coast. I hear that the Hon Eugenie Sage in her contribution spoke about that bill that was passed in—I've forgotten what year it was. That Act was passed through urgency of the House. It didn't go to a select committee, didn't have a tangata whenua contribution to it—it didn't, didn't—and here we are. We are here today, in 2021, and we know that in this House, diversity makes it better. It adds value, yet this bill, it is siloed. It is only looking at what's happening in their backyard. 
The reason I am concerned is because we are not just talking about the West Coast. This bill is not just talking about the West Coast. We are talking about all of New Zealand. Our borders are going to open up to Australia. What are they going to come to look at? I bet that some of them will come to look at the forests, who have been conserved by the Department of Conservation. They will be looking at that—they're coming to that. So, financially, that's coming through the border. It is coming through the border because conservation does good work. 
The principle of the Department of Conservation, it's about a healthy nature. We've heard everyone talk about it: healthy nature. Trees would fall and rot, a lot of diversity in the ecology system would feed from that, and that is because we have learnt from years and years of siloed looking at the forest that we are destroying the forest. 
I stand in unison with our deputy chair of our Environment Committee, Rachel Brooking, and the awesome contribution by Tangi Utikere today—oh, Greg O'Connor, too. I stand in unison with them and I oppose this bill. I oppose the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill. 
On that note, I oppose this bill to the House. Mālō. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted. The House is suspended until 7 p.m. this evening. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. When the House rose for the dinner break, we were considering the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it is a real pleasure to rise and speak on this—long name—Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill. I want to acknowledge and congratulate my colleague across the floor—Maureen Pugh—for bringing this bill through the House. I think I'd really like to acknowledge you for the thought and the effort in bringing this bill. However, I think you've probably come now to realise that Labour does not support this bill to select committee.
I do want to acknowledge the advocacy for your community that you have put in place. I guess, for me, that is perhaps one of the faults with the bill, in that you talked about conservation land in the context of the entire country. What I really feel you were focusing on here—perhaps, if I may suggest—is the community of the West Coast of the South Island. 
Now, Maureen Pugh, the member Greg O'Connor has spoken of his community connection and I too will speak of my community connection to the West Coast of the South Island. So my family comes from the West Coast of the South Island, both sides of the family. So we were miners, we were publicans—you'll like that, Kieran McAnulty: we were publicans—and we were millers, so we owned mills. So forestry and the milling of the beautiful beach forests, etc., is something that has a long history in my family. I think the member Greg O'Connor also said this: that we don't need to be ashamed of where we've come from, even if we ourselves would not make those choices going forward now.
So the bill itself is specifically for the entire conservation estate in this country. I've heard lots of arguments—and I particularly want to acknowledge the member the Hon Eugenie Sage for her statements—but I want to talk a little bit about the fact that New Zealand had a really long period of geological isolation. So 80 percent of New Zealand plant species are endemic or only found in New Zealand.
I also want to talk about the ecology of the forest and what happens when a tree falls in the forest, and if no one's there to—no, I'm not going to say that joke—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Go on, just say it!
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha, ha! I'm not going to say that joke. So, essentially, we have heard arguments that talk about trees as being an economic unit, something to be taken from and taken across and made into an economic unit and supporting industry. However, what hasn't been talked about is the flora and fauna that a fallen tree creates and the cycle of life that the trees, when they fall—even in a large adverse weather event—create for the regrowth of the environment. If we take away those systems and those structures, what happens is that we lose the biodiversity, we lose the fungi, the animals, the plants that grow on that rotten log. So the ecology of the environment is so very important. So by taking these logs out of these areas, we cause a change to the environment and the ecology that we are not sure is a positive thing—in fact, science is telling us that it is less and less positive.
There is also the opportunity, should we have a massive adverse weather event—winds, etc.—that we can actually do a small, time-limited, area-specific bill which will enable and support the clearing of some of this land. It really does support a better ecology and a moving forward. 
The Labour Party is trying to fight climate change and the adverse weather events; we're not trying to make money out of those events. So, as a consequence, we won't be supporting this bill. But I do want to acknowledge the member for bringing it up to the House. Thank you.





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to take the final call on the first reading of the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill. Unfortunately, it looks like it will be the last reading—full stop. And I'll talk a little bit about what has been said in some of the other speeches. One of the main issues is around the terminology of "logging". This is a huge mischaracterisation of what actually goes on in one of these weather events—and I will come back to that a little bit later, with some stats around that.
This bill was never proposing anything that hasn't already happened, that hasn't already been tested in both the administration and the practical application, the operations that happen on the ground and within the Department of Conservation (DOC). This bill is simply a continuation of the legislation that was passed back in 2014, and that's been mentioned a lot in this House. But what's also been mentioned is that this is a scale-up. This is not a scale-up. The reality is that this legislation parks the authorisation with the Director-General of Conservation for when, or if, there is another event. Many members on the other side—it must have been in their speech notes—have all said, "We can pass special legislation for specific events." This is exactly what this bill sets out to achieve. It creates the template so that the Director-General of Conservation can, at any time, if there is a scaled event, re-enact this authorisation that he will have to maybe go into the forest and take some of that timber out. It puts a huge amount of methodology into the system that we've already got, because, as I've said, it's been tested over the Cyclone Ita experience that we had.
The members on the other side are also very confused about the types of land that we are talking about. This bill does not go near any of the nature reserves. It doesn't go near the scientific reserves, ecological areas, or national parks. So we are not talking about pristine environments. Mainly what we talk about with this bill is stewardship land or land that has very low conservation values. So it's important to note that during the implementation of the 2014 event, there were no lost time injuries or events for the workers on the ground or the public that was involved in the forest. It was an extremely dangerous situation, and I give full credit to DOC and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) for working together to manage the health and safety aspects of it. But we also saw ecologists and resource managers from Landcare Research, Lincoln University, MPI, and DOC all work closely together to ensure that the timber was removed safely and that there was minimal impact on the environment.
Now, I just want to explain, too, about the scale of the operations. So, for instance, if there were several hectares of windthrow timber, only half of that was able to be used—so, if you had one hectare here, one hectare here had to be preserved. Inside that one hectare, you could salvage only a minimal amount—50 percent of the trees that came down in this one hectare. So we're talking about 50 percent of 50 percent. Then you could take only 10 percent of the biomass of each tree. So there was a minimal amount of extraction that went on in the forest.
I wanted to go back to talking about some of the comments that were made, about the mischaracterisation of what this bill sets out to achieve. It is not plundering. The trees that were flattened in Cyclone Ita covered an area the size of all of Samoa, and out of that we got a minimal amount of material. We got 8,000 cubic metres of timber that came out of there. There were millions of cubic metres of fallen trees that have remained in the forest. This bill talks about giving authority to the Director-General of Conservation. The problem on that side of the House is that none of them can see the wood for the trees. This was a practical solution.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion not agreed to.





ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (NOTICE OF DECISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) on behalf of SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the, a select committee to, oh the Regulations Review Committee to hear the bill. [Assistant Speaker shakes her head] I'm getting a shake of the head—the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to receive the bill. 
Kieran McAnulty: Any of the above.
CHRIS PENK: Or any of the above. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I stand to take a call, the first call, indeed, on a piece of legislation that owes nothing to my own labours. This is a piece of legislation that was introduced into the ballot by my former colleague Paulo Garcia, whom I would love to see again in this Chamber in due course, and has more recently being transferred into the name of Simon Watts, who I'm very pleased has recently joined us in this Chamber.
The bill rectifies an anomaly in the accident compensation regime. It is not a large anomaly in the overall scheme of a framework that is a very helpful and useful part of our public life and indeed private life. A piece of legislation—the establishment of the scheme that's played an important part in the lives of many New Zealanders, mostly for better, occasionally for worse. There are many issues that we can discuss in relation to ACC, and changes that perhaps might be usefully made to the regime, but the changes within the scope of this bill are relatively modest, but important nonetheless.
The ACC scheme is, of course—well, purports to be comprehensive. I would argue that in fact, it's not, but let's, for argument's sake, say that it's designed to be a comprehensive, no-fault personal injury scheme. As such, I think that most people in this country would regard it as a useful mechanism for providing coverage for injuries that might take place to New Zealanders, roughly speaking, through no fault of anyone. Although, again, that's a contestable claim, for the sake of shorthand please allow it for the purpose of this bill. It does provide a large amount of power to the State. That's no bad thing in itself, so long as that power is exercised reasonably and in a manner that is justifiable, including by way of the ability for those who are affected by such decisions to have them reviewed. 
When large powers are involved in relation to an individual—of course, the person who is injured or the person which might be a natural person or a legal person running the workplace in which a person is injured—it's important that the principles of natural justice are observed. I would start by saying at a high level, if I may, that where a person is affected in terms of their rights and also their responsibilities, it is important that they are able to have a say in the exercise of that power and the way that they are affected by that. This is, roughly speaking, known as the right to be heard. Of course, decisions should be knowable in the first place, and also reviewable, at least to some extent. 
I think it's worth noting that one of the generally accepted advantages of the ACC scheme is that we bypass much that would otherwise be required by recourse to the courts. Avoiding expensive litigation is generally a good thing, provided that there is not a gap in the ability of an individual or other person to obtain justice. I would be remiss if I were not to mention a number of constituent cases that have come to me in my capacity as a local member of Parliament—and no doubt every other member of Parliament, whether electorate or list, who in this Chamber now or in the past has received contact from constituents, pointing out difficulties that they've had with the scheme.
I think we should consider ways that treatment injury victims, in particular, can be catered for much better, the way that disincentives do need to be provided where workplaces might otherwise act in a cavalier manner, such that a person be injured. Also we should seriously consider ways that the system can be made much fairer in covering injury that's caused in a way that's difficult to prove, as relating to a particular situation, perhaps a repetitive strain as opposed to an accident or injury. But as I say, that's because that's outside the scope of the bill. 
So I just want to acknowledge some of those themes do receive at least some recognition in the form of this bill. Partly that's because of the fact that, at its heart, it's understanding and acknowledging that a workplace is a place, sadly, that injuries can and do occur. Of course, it's the moral and legal obligation of every employer or workplace to minimise that possibility and, of course, to do everything within the power of such a workplace to play a positive part in the rehabilitation where such injuries do occur. But it does behove the State to provide a mechanism and the ability—indeed the right—for a workplace to understand what is happening when a claim is made by a person about an aggravation or a re-injury of a work-related injury that might have happened previously.
So just briefly, the operative provisions of the bill simply say, at clause 4, that employers must be notified of decisions to accept a claim as an aggravation or a re-injury of a work-related injury. Clause 5 includes employers as among the class of persons able to apply for a review of a decision to accept a claim, again, over an aggravation or injury of a work-related injury. Clause 6 states—and it should be an obvious and logical matter that flows from the other provisions—that employers should be able to be present and be heard at a review hearing, again, when an aggravation or re-injury of a work-related injury takes place. And, similarly, at clause 7, that they would have the ability to appeal such review decisions.
It seems right that if we are to take away the ability of individuals and also workplaces to go to court to seek remedy and to surrender their rights they would otherwise have, to have their matter discussed and their position known, and to be heard, it is only right that we allow at least some sort of reasonable participation in that process. And that's at the heart of what the bill intends to do. It's not a matter of establishing a "them" and "us" dichotomy as between a worker and a workplace. If anything, it should be a matter of understanding that a responsible workplace and a willing worker who abides by the reasonable rules of that workplace to keep himself or herself safe can all be involved in a way that this bill actually encourages, not discourages. And so I hope that it receives support across the House. I say that on behalf of the member whose name the bill is now, namely Simon Watts, who I acknowledge and who, unfortunately, is not able to open the remarks. I don't wish to refer you to any possible absence from the Chamber. Nevertheless, that's where we find ourselves, and a previous member of Parliament for the National Party Paulo Garcia and whose name the bill was placed into the ballot and indeed withdrawn from that. I commend the bill to the House.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, an absolute delight to be able to take a perhaps quite lengthy call on this bill, since it contains a lot of technical detail that Mr Penk just ran us through, so I would like to respond to that with quite a bit of detail myself. This is, in fact, my second call today which is truly strange, because I haven't had much opportunity to take calls this term. As you can see, in this Chamber, there is a variety of new talent on board which—rightfully—have taken most of the slots and pushed us more experienced hands, perhaps, to the second tier. But I have enjoyed everything I've had to say, and I've learnt a lot from this new intake with their many talents and their many skills, so thank you for sharing all of your knowledge every day for me to enjoy. 
Anyway, I digress. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party in opposition to the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill, so my apologies to Chris Penk for having to squash his hopes that he would find support at this side of the Chamber—he does look devastated. So perhaps pass that on to the sponsor of the bill, with a note that I don't believe that this is a bill that comes from a bad place, knowing the person who just spoke on this bill, who I have the pleasure, actually, to encounter quite a bit in the Kaipara ki Mahurangi electorate where we both have established quite a collaborative relationship, although that may not be known to your colleagues. You may want to keep that quiet because maybe collaboration is not really the right thing to do! But hey, I do enjoy the way that we both go around the electorate. But back to the bill.
With regards to this bill, it is not clear on what it tries to achieve, and that's the first point, first of all. What it claims is that employers should have a review right for what is called an "aggravation or re-injury" of a work-related injury. But this particular term doesn't actually feature in either the member's bill nor in the actual Accident Compensation Act, and that is a real problem, because—just to rephrase that—the policy intent is unclear. As an example, there is no definition for "aggravation or re-injury" of a work-related injury in this bill or in the primary Act. That's the first point. Then we get to the second point: because the policy intent is unclear, the member's bill will create confusion and conflict with the Act, and it may in fact—when you talk about unintended consequences—make some unwanted changes. And here's where it gets a little bit detailed, perhaps. I know the previous speaker made it sound quite simple, running us through clauses 1 to 7, but the devil is in the detail, and therefore I will provide that detail.
What the confusion is about is that, as a first point, it will give the employer a review right that they already have. So if there is a new injury and not a re-injury, then that review right is already there. If there is a re-injury, it will, effectively, create a new review right over decisions on entitlements like treatment, and that is very important because it is something that is explicitly barred by the Accident Compensation Act. It will create confusion as to which is the correct empowering provision for employers to be able to challenge work-related cover decisions. It will create potential privacy issues for claimants, and this may actually be one of the more significant issues with this bill, other than creating confusion and conflicting with the original Act, because, of course, privacy issues when it comes to health are hugely important. Decisions on entitlements are made considering a claimant's need for rehabilitation and compensation based on evidence and expert assessment. What this bill would do is it would basically have any current or former employer entitled to ongoing clinical and health information, and that is a real concern. Employers would need to see a claimant's clinical information, information about their health, to challenge an entitlement decision, and that causes significant privacy issues.
Come to my No. 5, it will also drastically increase the number of reviewable decisions, and knowing the system as it is now—already quite over-burdened—that is not a good thing, because it will compromise the effectiveness of the system. We also need to look at existing settings that are already balancing claimant and employer interest for work-related claims in a fair, proportionate way. There really is no compelling argument to extend the rights for employers to have an extension of the right to review, because there is already a balance there. The no-faults nature of the scheme protects employers from the risk of litigation, and they don't need to meet claims costs incurred by the scheme, so this is about the balance there. Experience rating or no-claim discount programmes result in levy-lowering or discount for the employer rather than a liability for claims cost, and this limits the impact that any employer would encounter from any such claim. The experience rating or no-claims discount programmes are also only affected by work-related injury that occurred over a three-year period prior to that levy invoice. That means that costs that occur four or more years after your original injury will actually not affect the employers' individual levy. I know there was a point made about employers' levies, but the fact needs to be made that that won't actually affect those levies.
So then just to recap in my last three minutes, this bill would—as we've heard—seek to rebalance the interests of employers and claimants for work-related claims. That would suggest that somehow the balance is off kilter but, from what I've seen and the points that I've just run everyone through, that argument doesn't actually hold up under pressure. If you look at the details of where the balancing is already taking place, then that is not an argument for new legislation. The existing settings already balance claimant and employer interests for work-related claims, and the current settings ensure that employer interests are reflected in a fair way. The very nature of this scheme actually already protects employers from the risk of litigation because it is operating on a no-fault basis, and the employer doesn't need to meet claim costs incurred by the scheme. There is a lot about this bill that really just isn't clear. I think I've outlined several points that perhaps the next speaker may want to touch on in detail to turn that argument around, but it should be noted that for a bill that refers to circumstances where an employee has an aggravation or a re-injury of a work-related personal injury, there is not a definition to specify that, either in this particular member's bill or in the primary Act, the Accident Compensation Act.
So, then, with my time running out, I will just basically reiterate the significant issues with the bill, which are the lack of clarity—which I have provided five bullet points on—the privacy concerns, the impact on operational issues, and, ultimately, there being no compelling basis to extend employer review rights, because the balance is already there. Now, also, to make the point that this actually an area already subject to an incredible amount of litigation, and I'm sure with the amount of lawyers here in the House, there may be some support for that. Cover decisions are challenged regularly, and I saw that when I was in the union dealing with these decisions. So all the bill will do is create more litigation without any compelling basis to extend employer review rights. Therefore, unfortunately, I will not be able to support this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to add our voice in opposition to the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill. Normally at this point I'd congratulate the member for getting a bill drawn, but, sadly, it wasn't drawn under your name. So congratulations for picking up the work and for acknowledging that in the House.
I would like to commend anybody who's just listening to my speech and missed the last one—if they're wanting a really detailed, rational outline of some of the problems with this bill, listen to the outline of it by the previous speaker, Marja Lubeck, because I thought it was very articulate and very clear and covered off all the key points about this being a bill with an answer searching for a problem and really potentially adding a lot more confusion and barriers in the way of people getting the support in terms of accessing appropriate rehabilitation services. Access to ACC is something that we need people to have, because it helps keep people well and keep people in employment and create a safer society.
I do want to point out, around that, that the member, when he spoke on the introduction of this bill, mentioned some points he would like to see around the extension of the ACC Act. I would love to have seen a member's bill that did that. That would have actually been something we could have engaged with and supported. So maybe next time around, because the Greens want to see an extension of ACC. We recognise that the system at the moment is not working as well as it could be, that it's kind of based on 20th century ideas of industrial health and wellbeing that is really out of date, and we need to get updated on that. We are seeing more and more stories coming through in terms of the inequity around disability through coverage of ACC and our health system, around the lack of treatment and support in relation to birth injuries, around psycho-social injury, which is deeply gendered, as well as the difficulty of getting new diseases on to the schedule, because it's just an outdated model of care in terms of the legislation.
I also want to acknowledge the member in his speech as well for talking about that point, about wanting to see an extension and how he hears those stories coming through from his constituents. I, too, have an experience that relates to this legislation of a very dear friend of mine who had repetitive strain injury (RSI). It was acknowledged by ACC, which was back in the day not necessarily that common, and she was given the rehabilitative support to get better and get back to work. There were conditions applied to be able to keep her healthy and safe in her workplace, but her manager and her workplace did not keep to those obligations and she got another case of RSI. Then her employer refused to acknowledge that they had any fault in that and did not support her claim for ACC. So she was faced with—and this is a very common situation—taking a legal case to challenge their decision when stress exacerbated that injury, and she was not in a position to do that. 
We do not need any more of that within our system, and this legislation would increase that situation right across our workplaces. We don't need that. Our focus needs to be on updating it to be modern, not taking it back into more adversarial late 20th century industrial relations practice. The Greens cannot support this bill.





IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. Can I, first, express my solidarity with my comrade, and also colleague, Kiritapu Allan. The first day I arrived in this House as an elected MP, on the Monday after the election, I could see the media gathered outside, and I literally felt like turning away and going back home, because I was just so scared. Kiri was the one who welcomed me, and I will never forget the hug that she gave me and the few words that she said to me that really eased the pressure and also the stress. So I know that she is a woman of steel spirit and I have no doubt she will come back stronger and healthier to us.
In regard to this bill, the proposed amendment to the Accident Compensation Act 2001 to require ACC to inform the employer and the employee of the decisions in respect of aggravation or re-injury of a work-related injury and provide for a review by the employer of the decision, creates significant issues. This bill seeks unreasonably to overturn a fair process that exists now by extending employer review rights with no compelling basis. The rationale for this is that, although the employers are not liable to pay entitlements to claimants, decisions on entitlements may affect an employer's claim history and the experience rating for ACC levy purposes, and so they should be able to challenge it. This is absurd, to say the least, because the levies are adjusted based on the performance of the employer, and the ability to reduce a work levy by preventing injuries at work and helping injured employees recover and get back to work sooner is an incentivising process to create a more productive work environment.
So the work levy employers pay protects and insures their most value asset, which is their employees. It also goes towards helping prevent these accidents from happening over and over, and in the first place as well. There is no real incentive to support this bill other than unfairly tipping the ACC process towards employers and infringing on claimant rights. We know that the no-fault of the scheme protects employers from the risk of litigation. We know the employers are already notified of and can review covered decisions on a work-related injury. This bill also seeks to reduce the effectiveness of ACC's review system by allowing the employers to apply for a review of a decision and significantly increasing the number of ACC decisions which employers can review.
The other problem with this bill is the policy intent, as my friend Marja Lubeck explained perfectly. There is no consideration for the clear definition for "aggravation or re-injury" of a work-related injury in this bill, which is funny because, by doing that, it actually overlooks the main aspect of this bill. So that lack of clarity creates confusion and conflicts. So this bill seems to make entitlement decisions contestable by employers, which is another issue. The Act excludes employers already from lodging a review against the entitlement decisions, because entitlement decisions are needs based and employers do not have the same interests in a cover. So, to me, this goes to the heart of the rights of workers. On that note, I oppose the continuation of this bill in the House. Thank you.





TONI SEVERIN (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support this bill, the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill. ACC can be confusing for a lot of employees, and this bill here, from what I read, actually may have its problems, but we are only bringing it to go to select committee. But what I see this as being—as a previously small-business owner, we had staff that would come back to us and would re-aggravate or injure—well, injury. All we're asking is that us as employers—to actually help our staff to get an assessment and find out what ACC can do to help them.
It's only a minor change. This bill's not perfect, but this is why we send things off to select committee: so that we can iron out these problems. It's not about who's at fault. It's not. It is making sure that our staff are working safely so that we can make sure that they can continue on. We do not want staff to end up in a major situation down the track, but if an employer can go and seek a review because there has been a re-injury or an aggravation, then we will then understand what we need to do to assist that employee.
I'm very disappointed, looking at Labour over there, when you say that you are here for the employees and you're not supporting this bill. As I said, it's not perfect. Yes, it has its faults. ACC is very confusing legislation, full stop—lots of complaints. However, this is something that I see being such a minute little thing that we could do to help them.
The thing is that we always have injuries happening in our workplace. No matter how safe these workplaces are, no matter what rules and regulations we put into our businesses, accidents happen. Now, we get these lovely staff back to us after they've had their treatment. We nurture them to make sure that they are not re-aggravating, not re-injuring. However, there's always a possibility that they think that they're better than what they are a little bit too soon and they'll do something silly and they re-aggravate it. But by taking this away and not having employers help these employees by having a review, what can we do? You know, that's the sad reality of it. What can we do?
This to me is something that I feel very strongly should be looked at seriously and go to select committee, because we as employers want to make sure we have healthy employees. We want them to be able to feed their families. We want them to be able to work. We don't want them on 80 percent wages; we want them on 100 percent wages. So it's very, very, very sad when you guys constantly oppose bills that aren't perfect. They are members' bills. They are not written with the expertise that the Government has to write these lovely bills, but we can always iron out problems. We can always add things to them. We can send them to select committees, people can submit their ideas, and then, if it doesn't get passed, then we can reassess it and see how we can improve it or come up with a better idea.
Now, it's just so shocking to see the list of what's going on. It's very, very sad as a previous employer that I could not help my staff with this. We already get notifications, so this isn't anything privacy. We know when our staff are injured, and half the time the staff member will come to us and tell us what's going on. So this would not be breaching their privacy, because the majority of the time employees and employers do communicate.
I am very, very sad that the opposition here is not supporting this minor change and sending it to select committee so that anything that needs to be ironed out could be ironed out. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





HELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise to oppose the continuation of this bill for some very sound reasons. I appreciate the work that goes into members' bills, but this is a bill that doesn't help workers whatsoever. I just want to explain what the bill is about and where it is aimed and why it really doesn't help us at all.
First of all, just to let you know, I'm an employment lawyer, so I did a little bit of ACC. It is a complex area and it isn't easy. But what happens when I act for an employer in this area is that if there is an injury at work, I can, on their behalf, review that. So I go through a review process. That is already there. That will decide whether there has been a work injury. And that is the right place for an employer to be involved and it is the right place for the employer to have information about that employee.
What this bill proposes is that if the employee is re-injured—so, for example, they go out mountain biking and they re-injure, and they might do that years later—then all that information about that re-injury would go to the employer at that stage, perhaps even the former employer. It would be private information, and it would be given to an employer for what purpose?
Now, it is actually very clear when you look at the summary what the party who put this forward thinks the purpose is, but I want to explain why that is wrong. So the purpose is supposed to be because the actual acceptance of that claim, the re-injury claim, is going to affect what is called the experience rating. The experience rating is something that sets up the employer for a levy, and it is based on a calculation that involves the last three years of workplace injuries and it's a risk assessment. One of the things that goes into that assessment is how many days the employees have had off work. 
Now, if you really want to help your employer, what you do is you stay involved. You are quite entitled to and you should stay involved and you should rehabilitate. And if you stay involved, the work days off work will go down, and your employee will go back to work sooner, and your rating will be better. That is how you legitimately get your experience rating down. If the employee has a re-injury, or, actually, an aggravation, there is no purpose of the employer being involved in that conversation. That conversation still happens, it still goes to ACC, and the claim still has a review process that involves the employee, who is the right person to involve because they are the impacted person in that situation, and they will be involved in that process right there and then. That is a way we keep our system simple and dignified, and it is a principled way to actually deal with it.
I repeat: if you want to get your experience rating down, get down your holistic risk rating by actually getting that experience rating down by keeping involved, being involved in rehabilitation in a really meaningful way, and those levies will go down. That is a system that works. And I am proud to say that the approach at the present time is one of the better aspects of our legislation in this area. This is a no-fault system, and what this legislation would do is it would invite employers to actually come at this at their worst, which is to look at a situation and think, "I'm going to lose out of this situation because my employee went mountain biking and they re-injured themselves." There is no part of that conversation that is good for the employment relationship, and it should be absolutely something we resist in a no-fault system, because we are streets ahead of the rest of the world in this area. 
We have a very good system and we should support it, and this would erode it. And that is why I oppose this bill. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I want to start, for anyone watching this at home, by giving some brief introductory remarks about the ACC system as a whole. New Zealand's accident compensation scheme is world leading. It is the envy of jurisdictions within the world that have a common law system which has had, over the years, the development of a tort law system where personal injury is something that people can sue someone for, based on a fault system, and claim against them.
What's really interesting and important to note in this debate is that our accident compensation scheme in its no-fault aspect is incredibly important for the employers that it protects. I remind those members in the Opposition that the reason we have the system is so that there is a bar against employees in this situation being able to sue their employers. We are talking about situations where a worker has been injured at work and would otherwise be able to sue their employer for that injury and for their employer's role in that.
This bill seeks to change the balance between how these situations can be reviewed and to give more rights to employers to review those decisions by ACC, with the worry that's been presented by the Opposition members that their levies will go up and, essentially, they will pay more.
It's important to revisit the very core of the accident compensation scheme, about how this protects employers and creates a system where fault is not necessary to be proven and, as my colleague Helen White has said, it's really important that we do not tinker with a system which is world leading in creating and inviting a space where employers are asked to come to this at their worst, where we're inviting employers to go out of their way to prove that they did not have any contributing factor, because the strength of this system is that they do not need to do that and they do not need to establish fault.
I want to turn to this issue of privacy. My concerns with this bill are that it raises serious privacy concerns in an unjustified invasion of workers' rights. This bill in its current form has the potential to cause privacy and operational issues because of the potential of a person who has a review right being entitled to see the basis of the decision that they request a review of. I'm talking here about the principles of natural justice where, if an employer had the right to review a decision with ACC, you would naturally expect them to have the right to inquire as to the basis of the decision that ACC have made, and, potentially, clinical information. That's not a position that we could possibly support on this side of the House. It's a position that gives employers far too much information about workers' health conditions, and information which those workers would not have the ability to oppose or give consent to giving to their employers. It creates a system where employers are asked to delve into the clinical history of their employees, which is not something that we on this side of the House could possibly support.
The concern that any former employer could be entitled to this in an ongoing sense, that there would be a review system that would last for more than the relevant time period which this bill seeks to address, is also a serious concern. And it creates significant operational issues by allowing employers to apply for a review of a decision that would be a significant increase on the number of ACC decisions which employers can review.
I think it's really useful for us to think about how useful our accident compensation scheme is at the moment, the reason why we protect it, the reason why it draws moral lines in the sand that sometimes those in this House do not agree with on any given day. That is not a reason to tinker with it around the edges. It's important to protect the accident compensation scheme for what it is, and it's important to approach any changes very carefully and very mindfully. On this side of the House we don't believe that this bill does that, and that is why we oppose it.





PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): I'm pleased to speak in support of the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill, and I congratulate my colleagues, past and present, for bringing it to the House.
The purpose of the bill, which amends the Accident Compensation Act 2001, is to broaden the range of circumstances that give employers the right to apply for a review of accident compensation decisions related to a claim. As so many of the speakers have said, ACC plays an important part in New Zealanders' lives by providing that comprehensive, no-fault, personal injury cover, and thank goodness it does, so that we don't spend time and money on lawyers.
This bill would increase the range of situations where employers can question or challenge ACC decisions that might affect an employer's claims history and experience rating. This would ensure that employers have the right to a review of decisions that may be determined by ACC regarding re-injury of an employee's initial work-related injury. In a previous life I was an employer of a significant number of employees, and from time to time they would access ACC, so I know how important it is that employers have the right to apply for a review of decisions.
In my Invercargill electorate there are a number of large businesses that are important to New Zealand's economy, businesses like Alliance Group, which exports our wonderful lamb, beef, and venison to 65 different countries; Fonterra's Edendale factory; HWR, that wonderful family, Richardson's group; a number of agricultural contractors, food growers, and processors such as Pyper's Produce, who grow the best carrots in New Zealand, and Southern Cross Produce, who grow the best parsnips in New Zealand; and, of course, our hard-working farmers are also major employers. I want to acknowledge the wonderful, productive work of those employers, creating wealth for their employees, the community, and the New Zealand economy. It is absolutely imperative that these important employers and all our hard-working employers throughout New Zealand have the ability and the right to review decisions that affect their claims history and experience rating, and on the re-injury of an employee to ensure that the liability of those injuries is borne by the appropriate employer.
Look, I acknowledge that the re-injury situation, where an employee might have changed employers, happens very, very rarely, but when it does happen it's incredibly tedious and irksome and costly for those employers. So I see that clauses 5, 6, and 7 of the bill, amending sections 134, 142, and 149 of the Act, will address this to ensure that that liability lies where it should. So I would have thought that those across the House would be very keen to support this bill after all the impositions that the Labour Government have placed on our valuable employers, all the extra costs and extra regulations of additional leave, of additional sick leave, of additional stats, of additional costs with regulations—that they would have wanted to offer this small crumb to our valuable employers across New Zealand to make it a little bit easier for them to be able to challenge some of the decisions that are made by the Accident Compensation Corporation. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Can I begin, firstly, by thanking the chief Government whip for his indulgence in allowing me to take one of the Labour calls in this debate. The reason I asked for that was because, while the bill is in the name of Simon Watts, I actually wrote it, and there's been a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about what are the intent and the purpose of the bill and what the intent behind it is. So I'll take the opportunity to set out the circumstances that led to my drafting the bill and then address some of the issues that have been raised by members.
So there are two scenarios that can affect an employer's experience rating, and both of these have occurred and been brought to my attention. One is where an initial injury has been incurred and there is a change of employer before the exacerbation of that injury. Depending on ACC's decision in respect of whether or not it's a new injury or whether or not it's a re-injury, that can affect the experience rating of the employer that is being asked to carry the can for it, when, in fact, the injury did not occur at his or her workplace. The second scenario is one where a non - work-related injury is exacerbated by an injury that occurs at work, and this was a case that was brought to my attention, where somebody with a relatively minor knee injury, tripping up a step, aggravated an old and longstanding rugby injury. Now, members should understand that the experience rating impact of these sorts of scenarios is not insignificant. In this case, it was over $120,000 for surgery, extended time off work, physiotherapy, and other therapies. That was put on to the employer's experience rating, where the actual cause of the injury was sport-related, not work-related. But by the time that became clear, the ability to appeal the decision to attribute it as a work-related injury had passed, and this bill seeks to remedy that.
Now, Marja Lubeck is right: the law—the Accident Compensation Act—does not refer to the nomenclature that is in this bill, and I'm sure Helen White will be aware of this, as a lawyer who's worked on ACC cases. There is often nomenclature around re-injury that is used, and ACC themselves accept that personal injury caused by an accident can be reactivated after a long period, and that's what we're talking about. That's what the language in the bill was designed to do. Now, the ACT member who's just resumed her seat before, Toni Severin, is right: if the language is wrong, then the select committee can fix it. That's often the case with members' bills because we don't have the vast resources of Government and, therefore, we are limited in our ability to get things right. In fact, frankly, we don't do a worse job than Government. Some of the bills that have been brought by the Government before this House actually are in no better shape than some of the members' bills brought before this House. So that would have been the place where we could have addressed some of those things.
Now, a lot of things were talked about by members that I, frankly, think are not appropriate or attributable to this bill, and my experience on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in my first term in Parliament was that there was a high level of congeniality and collegiality until we got to things like workers' rights and industrial relations, and then the left are up like meerkats. And that included the ACC Act. This is what I think we are seeing today, when actually, and I stress this, the claimant is not negatively affected by this one bit—unless it is a repetition strain injury that did not occur at work, and that is a very rare thing. It might be tennis elbow or something like that, but generally speaking the claimant will never be affected by this bill if it is passed. However, the employer may have the right to challenge not whether the claim should be accepted but whether the experience rating liability should fall on his or her business. That is what this is going to fix, or would have had Labour been a little less like meerkats and actually supported it at first reading. I'm disappointed they won't do that. This will fix a problem that won't harm claimants.





ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to engage in this debate, and I'm proud to stand with my fellow meerkats and stand up for workers' rights. They're very cute. 
I'm confused. People on the other side of the House have been talking about how this is going to simplify things—let's get rid of some red tape—and, actually, what it is doing is it is making things very, very messy. You know, I had this whole "Let's test these ideas." so I'm very grateful for the member who stood before and made it very, very clear that it's the overreach, the unnecessary overreach, that this legislation will enable. 
I have spoken before in this House of my love for the great outdoors and for tramping. When I was a teacher, I would have accompanied the year 12 trampers around our beautiful maunga and I may have—I haven't, thankfully—injured myself at work on a tramping trip. That's fine. It's all really, really clear: the review process and the engagement with the employer at that point. What I'm a little confused about is 10 years later, when I'm working at another school and I take another tramping trip and I re-injure myself, what my previous employer has got to do with helping me to recover, with that overreach. Or maybe I'm tramping on the weekend with my children and I re-injure myself so my re-injury doesn't happen in the workplace. It's not a rugby injury, but a tramping injury. And again, you know, my employer years down the track possibly has this overreach and an ability to challenge something that doesn't actually have an implication for them. Me, my recovery, the costs for that recovery being borne by the system to protect the employer—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: By the employers, not the system.
ANGELA ROBERTS: —to protect the employer. My previous employer doesn't have to pay, and I'm just really confused about that overreach. This is not about simplification. This is about unnecessary overreach and it is not the right solution to what is suggested to be a problem. 
I think some of our previous speakers had been really clear about the unintended consequences—you know, the cost and the complexity of this adversarial approach. We've talked about challenging decisions made by ACC. You know, the ability to review and be involved and engaged is absolutely appropriate, especially when an employer wants to be involved in making sure that rehabilitation—and actually that those accidents don't happen again in the future is absolutely appropriate. But this doesn't enable that. So, again, it's a bit of overreach in saying that that's the appropriate reasoning for this legislation. 
The operational capacity and cost has been raised and that is a concern when we know how challenged ACC is in deploying its resources. And the issue of privacy—again, you know, I move on employers 10, 15 years down the track. They don't necessarily have a right to have a really interesting little look into my future engagement around this. So there is confusion. It is not simple. I still haven't heard the argument yet for this to be a useful piece of legislation. 
One of the other important pieces we need to think about is something that Jan Logie raised. We have a unique system in New Zealand—no-fault—but we can see that we can futureproof it. We have got improvements that we want to make—we've heard it many times in the House—and we should be putting our energy into making those improvements, not on taking this flawed solution off to select committee, to tinker with it and try and make it work when it isn't actually solving a problem. So for that reason, I urge the House to put its energy and its resources into places where it will effect change and will strengthen the protections for not just our workers, but our employers. And so I must say that I will be not supporting this bill going to the next stage. Thank you.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion not agreed to.





SUNSCREEN (PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD) BILL
First Reading
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.
In 1987, I was holidaying in Taupō, when my 18-year-old younger self decided that I'd had enough of being pale and it was time to embrace the sun's rays and be a little more cooler, in my own mind. 
Kieran McAnulty: How'd you go?
TODD MULLER: So I decided—thank you, Kieran McAnulty, I knew it wouldn't take long! I decided to embrace the sun's rays in the elevation of Taupō for most of the day, and woke up the next morning with my face entirely blistered—completely blistered—and my back only marginally less so. I am reminded of this youthful indiscretion every six months when I catch up with Dr Paul Salmon from the Tauranga SkinCentre as he regularly books me in for Mohs surgery to remove basal cell and other skin cancers. Of course, my father had a melanoma himself, but was lucky enough to have it caught, for it runs in my family.
Sunscreen is important for me. It is important for my two red-headed daughters and my son, who, hopefully, won't repeat my mistake. Sunscreen is important to me. What the label says on the sunscreen is important to me—that if it says SPF 50, then I have an expectation that it will be SPF 50. That's why I am so proud to be standing here this evening, presenting for the first reading the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill.
Now, I'm sure most in the House would have been somewhat surprised when they saw this bill, and would have thought, "But surely we have a sunscreen standard in this country.", and we do. It is a shared standard with Australia. It is the Australian New Zealand Sunscreen Standard AS/NZS 2604:2012, which comprehensively prescribes the test methods for both broad spectrum and water resistant sunscreen products and their labelling requirements. But you see, in Australia, the standard is mandatory, meaning a product cannot go on to the shelf without meeting the standard. But in New Zealand, compliance is voluntary. And the result is that many sunscreens do not meet the promise of the label. They say they are broad spectrum, they say they are SPF 50 or a similarly high number, but, actually, when tested, they do not deliver that claim.
In 2019, Consumer New Zealand tested 20 sunscreens, and nine products did not meet the SPF claim on the label. In 2020, they tested a further 10 sunscreens and five failed the SPF claim. Now, it's one thing for me to be lying on a beach in Taupō, trying to be cool, and being accountable, ultimately, for that error—in a blistered face and an ongoing life of removal of skin cancers from my body—but it is quite another thing for New Zealanders to go and buy an SPF 50 on the promise that it will protect them, only for that sunscreen not to be delivering against that standard. Quite frankly, that anomaly needs to be fixed.
So let's talk to the bill itself. It's not particularly complex—it's very, very simple. The bill requires the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the setting of mandatory regulation under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act 1986, prescribing a product safety standard for sunscreen products—that's the first thing it requires. Secondly, the bill expressly states that this is to be the NZS—the New Zealand standard—2604:2012 or any New Zealand standard substituted for that standard. There is work under way—almost being concluded, actually—for that standard to be updated, so that would automatically become the new standard in these regulations. 
That is largely it. If you look at the reference in this bill to section 29, it is very clear: section 29 of the Fair Trading Act states, "Product safety standards (1) The Governor-General may, from time to time, on the recommendation of the Minister, by Order in Council, make regulations in respect of goods of any description or any class or classes of goods, prescribing for the purpose of preventing or reducing the risk of injury to any person, a product safety standard". In the second subsection, "(2) The Governor-General may, from time to time, on the recommendation of the Minister, by Order in Council, make regulations [that sets]: (a) an official standard or an official standard with such additions or variations as are specified in the regulations is a product safety standard:". So the standard that is a voluntary compliance currently will be put in the Fair Trading Act as an obligation on manufacturers. That is, in my view, a way to strengthen consumer protections immediately.
Now, I do have to acknowledge that there has been work under way by this Government in the therapeutic products regime, and also in the natural products regime, with a hope to be able to bring a new, refreshed framework to the House sometime in the next year. Now, it is probable that in time that new regime will reflect on how to treat sunscreen, but we all know that that is likely—the Minister himself has said that that is many months away before it would be presented in the House, and then it would have to run through the obvious select committee process. This small change to the Fair Trading Act means that this summer, New Zealanders can have greater confidence in the efficacy of sunscreens that they buy in New Zealand. Right now, this House, through supporting this bill, can make that change and give effect to it.
I don't just stand here as someone who has a personal interest, and I guess some negative impact of not following the right approach in terms of protecting oneself from the sun. I obviously stand here as a father with children who are particularly fair-skinned and exposed in that context, but I also stand here on behalf of the many New Zealanders who have expressed their deep concern at the fact that sunscreens are simply not delivering the protection that they expected they would deliver when they bought them and applied them not only to themselves but also to their children. I also stand here on behalf of groups who have written to me in support: Cancer Society of New Zealand, Cosmetics New Zealand, Albinism New Zealand, Kylie Findlay and 1,329 others who have a petition in front of the Health Committee at the moment, Melanoma Network of New Zealand, and many other individuals, who I won't read out, over the last few weeks.
This is not a detailed, dense bill; it is a precise, forensic addition to the Fair Trading Act to ensure that the sunscreen that we purchase in this country has greater efficacy and that consumers have greater protection, and I would hope that this is a bill that this whole House can support to select committee to further refine and debate. Thank you very much.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. I'd like to acknowledge the member Todd Muller for bringing this bill to the House. The member mentioned a personal story that he has, and I'm sure that many of us have either had a similar story or know someone very close to us who has had a story around melanoma, because the most common form of cancer in New Zealand is, basically, skin cancers: making up a total of 82,000 per year; all other cancers form a total of 16,000—so skin cancer itself 82; all other cancers 16.
Our skin cancer rates are the highest in the world. The melanoma rate in New Zealand and Australia is four times that of Canada, the US, and the UK. We have a very harsh sun here, and the reality is that we have to be incredibly vigilant around this. 
So I'll talk a little bit about, actually, just to put a bit of context into it in terms of sunscreen, what has brought us to the point that we are now with sunscreens and the SPF rating. Then I'll move on to the Government's position on this bill and then I'll talk a little bit more around various aspects of the bill.
Before I start, I also have a similar story about wanting to be cool. I think we've possibly all been there at some time! For me, it was the 1980s with zinc—I don't know if people remember zinc; I can see some nods, yes, from people who are my age and older. Kieran McAnulty, you are too young for zinc, but it was various colours on the face. I mean, we have a laugh about it because, you know, the colours were fairly vibrant. However, it was an incredibly important campaign, and we had zinc products come out with different colours for the express purpose of encouraging people to wear zinc, which was, obviously, a form of sunscreen—a very good form, actually, as I understand it.
So in terms of what has brought us to this point, in terms of sunscreen, just for the benefit of the House—a little bit of context. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians actually used sunscreen—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No.
JAMIE STRANGE: They used natural products—that's right, Mr Brownlee. Zinc oxide paste was around for thousands of years, even before it was cool in the 1980s. Synthetic sunscreens were first used in 1928, so that's when the mass synthetic production of sunscreen came, in 1928. In fact, in World War II, the US military used sunscreen in the Pacific. In 1974, the sun protection factor, which has been alluded to in the previous member's speech—SPF—was introduced. That's 1974. Water-resistant sunscreens were introduced in 1977. 
Just in terms of the SPF rating, most of the sunscreens in the 1970s were around an SPF rating of two or lower—very, very light. We didn't know much about sunscreens and we didn't know much about skin cancer back then. But, certainly, things have changed. If we move forward to today's society, dermatologists—and I tread carefully because I know we've got three doctors in the row in front of me here—recommend SPF of 30 or above, and an SPF of 30 blocks 90 percent of the sun's UV rays. 
But the point of the SPF and the point of this bill here is that SPF ratings must be accurate. If someone is buying an SPF rating of 15, but the rating isn't 15, then there can be quite severe consequences. Some people for, you know, quite strict medical reasons need 30 or 50 SPF. And if they are picking something off the shelf that says that and it is not, there can be life-threatening consequences, as we've heard outlined in the previous speech.
Just to move on to this Government's position on this bill at the first reading: so the Government are supporting this bill to select committee. We are not guaranteeing any support beyond that, but we are supporting this bill to the select committee. We think it is important for it to go through that process.
This bill requires the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the making of regulations under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act 1986, prescribing a product safety standard for sunscreen products. The Government is supporting this bill to select committee to facilitate additional consideration of the regulations surrounding safety standards for sunscreen products.
We are, however—as the member alluded to—already progressing the regulation of sunscreen products as part of the proposed Therapeutic Products Bill, which we anticipate will be introduced to the House later this year. Now, I acknowledge the member's comments in terms of wanting to move quickly, but that is just to signal to the member that we do intend to bring that bill in towards the end of the year. We are supporting taking a health-based approach to the regulation of sunscreen safety standards.
What the bill does: so it requires the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the making of regulations in the Fair Trading Act. It states that the product safety standard, the New Zealand standard with sunscreen, or any New Zealand standard situated for that standard—it notes that the Minister must make the recommendations as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, but no later than six months after its commencement.
So the reason we are supporting it to select committee is because while we are progressing the regulation of sunscreen products as part of the proposed Therapeutic Products Bill, select committee scrutiny of this particular bill will offer an additional opportunity for consideration of the regulatory settings around the safety of sunscreen products. And, obviously, we will consider our support then again after the select committee process. So we support taking a health-based approach to the regulation of sunscreen safety standards. 
I'd also like to touch on something that the previous speaker highlighted, which was the work done by Consumer New Zealand, because this is quite important work for this piece of legislation. I quote Consumer New Zealand. They say, "The Sunscreen Product Safety Standard Bill … highlights the need for better regulation and could provide an opportunity to make sunscreen testing mandatory,". That's what Consumer New Zealand said, and that, obviously, certainly fits in with the work that we are doing on this side of the House. So there are certainly various streams of work going on in this area because it is important that we do have things right in this space. 
As Consumer New Zealand said, sunscreen is currently classified as a cosmetic, and that is at the root of the issue here: the fact that because it is a cosmetic, manufacturers aren't required to regularly test these products, and the sunscreen standard is voluntary. We heard, previously—and just to highlight it again—at the Consumer New Zealand test, five of the 10 products—which is quite remarkable, actually; Consumer New Zealand took 10 products off the shelf, checked their SPF rating. Five of those 10 products were inaccurate; they didn't meet the SPF label claim, and they weren't over the SPF; they were under the SPF. As I highlighted earlier in my speech, that certainly has potentially fatal ramifications around skin cancer. And, in fact, two of those also failed to meet the requirements for broad spectrum protection. In Australia, sunscreen is subject to a mandatory standard and regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. 
In 2019, Consumer New Zealand wrote to the Minister of Health, urging for priority to be given to a mandatory sunscreen standard. So there is no doubt that the time has come for a mandatory sunscreen standard. In terms of Consumer New Zealand, the chief, Jon Duffy, said, "The results were, unfortunately, not much a of a surprise", which is quite sobering because I'm sure if you walked down to Lambton Quay and spoke to members of the public and held up a bottle of sunscreen—you know, "Do you believe this is SPF 30 or 40?"—most of them would say, "Yeah, I'm sure it is." But the fact that the CEO of Consumer New Zealand said that it wasn't much of a surprise that only five out of 10 were accurate—that is certainly concerning. 
So, basically, just to summarise, people need to be clear on what they are buying, in terms of the SPF rating. The member has brought a bill to the House; we're supporting it at first reading to select committee. Also, from the Government's side of it, we are working on a piece of legislation, as well, which will be ready by the end of the year. So, Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill and we support it at first reading. Thank you.





Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Ngā mihi ki a koe. Ā, tēnā koe e te Whare. Kia ora koutou katoa. I stand in support of this bill. One of the key principles of the Green Party health policy states, and I quote, "All services should be provided to the highest possible level of quality (accessibility, acceptability, effectiveness, efficiency and safety) as determined by service users, peer review, audits, and the community at large." Since sunscreen is a product purchased by people to prevent damage to their health, establishing a product safety and standard certainly is in line with this. 
The Greens have long supported consumer protections that ensure people can trust what they are buying. This bill would increase consumer trust in the claims of sunscreen brands. We also note that Consumer New Zealand, which publishes regular critiques on sunscreen markets, issued a release welcoming any movement to improve regulation. We know that Aotearoa has the highest rate of melanomas in the world. Although Māori and Pasifika are much less likely to get them, when we do we have a higher risk of thick and more advanced melanoma with a poorer prognosis. Whereas for non-Māori it is predominately men who get melanomas, for some reason for Māori it is predominately women. Research is not available on the impact on takatāpui, trans, intersex, and non-binary people. Of course, prevention is better, and we acknowledge agencies such as Te Herenga Hauora, our health promotion agency, for their SunSmart campaign. We're told to "slip, slop, slap" and now "wrap". So slip on a shirt or slip into shade, slop on some sunscreen, slap on a hat, and wrap on some sunglasses. But sometimes even that may not always work. 
Along with my National colleague who proposed this bill, Todd McClay, I also have personal experience in this. Proud as I am of my Māori whakapapa that gave me these brown eyes and this hair, it is my mother's strong Irish blood that gave me this fair skin. So for decades now I have used quality skin care and sunscreen to make sure that I go a lovely brown colour and not bright pink. So it was quite a surprise to me in 2005 to find the tiny lump beside my eye suddenly started growing at an alarming rate. My partner made me go to a doctor and I was diagnosed with skin cancer. I was told that the waiting list was at least six months long but I was likely to keep getting bumped because I would always be low priority. They also told me, though, if I waited too long I would likely go blind. I have sight in both of my eyes because one of my friends loaned me the $2,000 it cost back in 2005 to do a 15-minute procedure in a private hospital. All because the labelling on the products I was using in good faith were not accurate.
Now, that was 16 years ago. How many more people since then have lost their sight, lost function in some part of their body, or just died because of it? People should be able to trust that what they are putting on their skin to protect them will actually help them. Labels on health-related, not cosmetic, products should be accurate. The safety standard for sunscreen should be mandatory. The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs should absolutely recommend the setting of mandatory regulations under the Fair Trading Act to prescribe that standard, and end users should not have to pay extra for their sunscreen because of it.
Nō reira, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.





NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm extremely excited to rise in this House to speak on the sunscreen bill, because I actually have a huge passion, which I don't think my colleagues probably know this about me, but I feel very strongly about SPF. The reason for that is, while we've heard stories from the 1980s and probably earlier from our colleagues across the floor today—OK, probably later—but, Mr Speaker, probably not known to you, but right now SPF is a really, really hot topic in the beauty influencer industry at the moment. SPF has become a really, really, widely talked about topic, no matter whether that's on your YouTube influencing platforms, or on your podcasts—there's literally people who make podcasts just about how to wear their SPF—sunscreen has actually come a long way since, you know, the days of maybe what my colleague Todd here was talking about, in terms of there's so many different ways of protecting yourself against the sun.
So there are now different types of sunscreens; as we know, there's the mineral sunscreens, there's the chemical sunscreens, there's sunscreens that are specifically formulated to sit under your make-up so that it's a matt finish, so that it doesn't have a gleam to it, a white sheen to it. There are specific sunscreens that are formulated for different skin colour as well, so that that white skin doesn't—you know, it's not just for people with fairer skin, so that white, creamy kind of colour doesn't come through your make-up as well. And, of course, now—which I've noticed in this bill doesn't get mentioned—there's also powdered sunscreen as well. So for people who wear make-up on a day-to-day basis, the powdered sunscreen actually makes it easier for you to touch up your sunscreen—because you're supposed to reapply sunscreen every two hours—so that you don't actually ruin your make-up. The matt finish, because of the powder, actually soaks up the excess oil that your skin produces after you've put on your initial dose of sunscreen in the morning. 
So what I'm trying to say here today is that sunscreen is absolutely important and on-trend to talk about right now, in this House, and I think it's extremely important that we have the right legislation to look at what we should be regulating in Aotearoa New Zealand here. I completely recognise my colleague Todd Muller for talking about the outdated ways of how we regulate the sunscreen market, and, actually today, in anticipation of this debate, I actually looked up on the internet what "SPF" actually means. Now we all know that means "sun protection factor", but how is SPF actually tested, and how do we actually come to the conclusion of what product has which number?
Now, it's actually really, really interesting—so in order to get the sun protection factor of any product, what you're supposed to do is on an area of skin, you're supposed to apply 2 milligrams of sunscreen, and, next to it, a control, which means there's no sunscreen on another piece of skin. And this is all done by human, like so that's all done by volunteers in all of these experiments. And then so you expose the same person—usually, I imagine, their back—to a UV lamp, and so when the sun or the UV lamp comes into contact with that volunteer's skin, the speed to which that skin burns divided by—so the one with sunscreen divided by the one without sunscreen becomes your sun protection factor. So, may I say, science has advanced, has come a really long way since we've done things this way, but right now this is still the best way that we have to measure the sun protection factor, which I found actually really, really interesting. So it's still done by a human way, we have to still just time it by sight to see when someone's skin burns—yeah, I found that extremely fascinating.
So I'd be really interested in the select committee stage, which our party supports, to actually hear what people think, not only just about, obviously, the regulations but also about any new advances in technology of how we test the SPF factors; also the different types of sun protection the market now offers, because I see here in the drafting of the bill that in the list here, for example, it only talks about creams, oils, gels, or sprays, and, like I already mentioned at the beginning of my contribution, I would like to see powders to be included in that—and also clothing and fabric as well, because now there is a specific type of jacket that actually protects your skin as well, which is really, really interesting.
And so, with that, I would be really excited to hear all the submissions in the select committee process. Thank you Mr Speaker. 





DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): I had a dream last night about sunscreen. My new friend Kieran McAnulty and I were sitting—it was Easter, we were drinking pints at the Honest Broker, or, sorry, the Honest Lawyer pub in Nelson, and there was extended hours, and it was just like the bills came together. I said to Kieran, "Can we have some more pints? You're looking a bit red, though, in the face, show us your sunscreen." And I said, "Oh, that one's no good. You should stop taking that." And then a flash forward to the summer when Mr Nash and I were standing on the beach in our budgie smugglers welcoming back the Australians to our fine beaches, and I said "Stuart, why have they got better sun cream than us?" And then my mind turned to the law, a very serious piece of work that needs to be done. But I have a solution which will bridge that.
So the bill does require the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the setting of mandatory regulation. And by way of background, Mr Muller's already touched on the standards between Australia and New Zealand, which prescribes product tests and labelling requirements for both broad-based spectrum and water-resistant sunscreen products, and there's now powders. But both countries take a very different approach to how they apply this. In Australia the standard is mandatory, but here New Zealand's compliance is voluntary. This means that a sunscreen product in Australia can't go on to the shelf without meeting the standard but in New Zealand it means that anyone can make a sunscreen and sell it without having to test it provides the claims and protections that it states. There's clearly a market failure here, and even though the ACT Party is light on regulation, I think this is a good case for it.
So the bill requires a sunscreen standard to be set as mandatory in Fair Trading Act regulations. But just to give you a bit of background, I have a 13-year-old daughter who was diagnosed, after a mole check, with an advanced melanoma, which is unheard of, really, at that age. We had to go to the USA for a test because it was actually an adult-type tumour. We were really lucky to catch it at a very early stage, otherwise she mightn't be here today. But now she's confined to covering up from exposure at certain times of the day. There needs to be a complete education programme around the use of sunscreen, and also when you should go out, and how you should plan, and there should be professional advice around that.
So that's when I found out about the variability in sunscreens and standards. So we do need to meet our mothers' and children's and young adults' expectations. As for the law, a mandatory requirement may not be necessary to correct this issue. It is likely governed under the Fair Trading Act, but it is misleading. However, a mandatory requirement would ensure that such misleading advertising can be brought more easily into line.
The ACT Party has a recommendation. This policy is a very worthy one. On this point, ensuring clear standards and accurate information to consumers is vital. It's vitally important to mothers, kids, teenagers, and to give them confidence. Moreover, recent reporting has highlighted the dangers to comply with a gap in the current regime. We do see pictures of sunburnt children in the newspapers and on television but there's nothing worse than seeing them in your own home. But I have lived with that fear and the fear of loss.
However, the method of addressing the policy objective here is peculiar. The bill instructs the Minister to regulate. If the bill has the numbers to pass it will obviously require Labour's support. If Labour supports the bill it could simply pass an Order in Council instead of wasting Parliament's time, and that's no disrespect to the committee stage process. I would plead with them to do that. Arguably, a better medium for this type of policy change would have been through a letter to the Minister.
Given the aforementioned, the ACT Party will be supporting the first reading of this bill while making this point. And if Labour is in support, they should regulate immediately rather than wasting Parliament's time further, and do a sun-loving act to the outdoors people of New Zealand, a great service to all the consumers that use these products. However, if it goes to select committee, we will be supporting that and we will be supporting the first reading. So we'd like that option to be considered. And thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take a call on Todd Muller's bill, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. Now, I want to talk this evening on a couple of points. Firstly, and my colleague Jamie Strange mentioned it earlier, around the changing understanding of the impacts of the sun and our response to that. I also want to talk tonight about why I want to support this bill through to select committee and the opportunity not to waste time but to gain knowledge and understanding around this important issue. And, thirdly, I want to talk about the summer of '99—not '69. I know, for some of you across the other side of the room, that's their favourite song, but we want to talk about the summer of '99. But I'll get to that very shortly. Bryan Adams, thank you very much! I know him well!
Now, I think back to the mid- to late-70s. My mother was a keen sunbather. I remember the coconut oil smells and all the sorts of things where you were pretty much putting stuff on your body to make you look browner and look more beautiful, evidently, which wasn't necessary at all. But we've changed, obviously, with the ozone layer, with our UV radiation issues. I remember when SPF 4 was it. And if you were SPF 8 or more, you were just like this kind of lightweight who obviously had some terrible skin condition! So it's changed a lot, thankfully, and I'm really grateful that SPF 50 is now just quite normal to take home or to take to the beach, and you're not judged whatsoever. But it's changed, and I'm really surprised, to be honest, that Consumer New Zealand had obviously done those studies, and around five out of those 10 sunscreens actually weren't as effective or impactful as they should be. So we've changed; we've come a long way. SPF 4 is long gone, and we need to ensure that SPF 50-plus is just the norm for our society.
Secondly, I support the bill to select committee because I want to hear the views of the public. I want to hear people's lived experiences. I want to hear from professionals, and what's important there. Because I want to listen, and I enjoy listening and understanding and gaining more knowledge in my kete than I already have. And, as Jamie Strange said earlier, we want to progress regulation of sunscreen products as part, obviously, of the Therapeutic Products Bill, but I am really keen that we can critique and listen and understand in this space, which I'm sure everyone in this House wants to do.
Finally, I want to take us back to the summer of 1999. Y2K was on the horizon, but also a beautiful Australian, who I will be able to visit in a few weeks, released a song. His name is Baz Luhrmann, a wonderful opera writer and also, obviously, created some amazing films. Do we remember the sunscreen song? No? Come on!
Hon Members: Sing it!
GLEN BENNETT: I was hoping that we would. Well, it's kind of—it's a spoken word. I'm not sure what the rules of the House are, but it begins—and I'm sure, because it hit the New Zealand charts, and driving around, actually, Todd Muller's electorate in that summer, I remember listening to the song time and time again. The words begin like this: "Wear sunscreen / If I could offer you one piece of advice for your future, sunscreen would be it / The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proven by scientists / Whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now"—drop the beat! OK, people don't remember it, but it's an amazing song. Please go back. But if I could offer you one piece of advice, sunscreen would be it, and this evening I am here to support this piece of legislation going through to select committee so that I can listen, that I can learn more, and I can ensure that people around our nation are protected from the unfortunate impacts the sun has on us, particularly down here in Aotearoa New Zealand.
So, in closing, our world is changing—our understanding of the sun and how we respond to it. I support this bill to select committee, and don't forget that summer of '99. If I could offer you one piece of advice, sunscreen would be it. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.





Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): I rise today in the House to take a call on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. I want to acknowledge in the House Jamie Strange, who just spoke before me as part of our Hamilton contingent. I actually thought it was David Bennett speaking. I didn't realise it was Glen Bennett speaking before. So I was going to acknowledge the other member of Parliament from Hamilton as well.
I was quite impressed to see the passion Jamie showed in talking about this bill. Now, we may not have a beach like Mr Muller's electorate. I do recall that the last time I put on sunscreen it was actually with both Jamie and David. We were at a community parade. We were all dressed up as clowns. I don't remember the SPF rating of the sunscreen we applied, but I gather the point that Mr Todd Muller is trying to make here with the introduction of this bill.
Now, New Zealand and Australia currently have a shared sunscreen standard which comprehensively prescribes test methods for both broad spectrum and water-resistant sunscreen products—labelling requirements, etc. Despite having a shared standard, though, both countries take a very different approach to application. In Australia, I understand that the standard is mandatory, which means that a product cannot go on to a shelf without meeting the standards, whereas in New Zealand it is voluntary, which is a bit surprising because there was recent testing done by Consumer New Zealand where they found 50 percent of the sunscreens that they tested failed to provide the claims that they had on sun protection. So out of the 10 that they tested, five did not meet the requirements. As for Consumer New Zealand, this wasn't the first time: some of the brands actually had tested negatively before that as well. So having brands test two or three times negatively is not good for the consumers—for our patients.
One of the things that the Consumer New Zealand chief mentioned was that regulation has been due for a long time, and I understand that's what Todd is trying to get at. But also, I guess, it's important to remind ourselves how big the burden of skin cancer is in New Zealand. As my colleague Jamie Strange mentioned, we have one of the highest rates of skin cancers in the world. If you look at melanoma: 35 to 40 people per 100,000 per year. That's one of the highest age-standardised rates in the world.
Now, limiting UV radiation exposure through sun smart behaviour is one of the key ways of preventing these cancers. I speak this as a medical professional in my past life. And if we can't ensure that the sunscreens that people are applying have the right SPF that they claim to have, then how do you bring down these numbers? So, in theory, this actually makes really good sense, and I think if we take a health-based approach, we definitely would recommend this going to the Health Committee. But, I guess, the bill requires the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the setting of mandatory regulation under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act 1986, prescribing a product safety standard for sunscreen products.
So I look forward to this bill going through the select committee stages. I also understand that the Ministry of Health themselves have proposed a different bill altogether, which is the Therapeutic Products Bill, which will be a little bit more comprehensive and will be looking at a few more broader issues, not just the sunscreen itself. But until then, we would like to see what the submissions are on this bill and we would like to hear from other members of the community, and especially the medical community and, obviously, the consumers as well, some of whom might have gotten skin cancer because they didn't take the right sunscreen, which made claims that obviously weren't true.
So as far as the bill goes, I would like to support it in terms of a health-based approach to go through the select committee to the next stage to be discussed. I want to thank Todd Muller for bringing this to the House. Thank you.





Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): I rise to strongly support this bill and congratulate my colleague Todd Muller on bringing this bill to the House. I do have some experience in this domain. I completed my postgraduate Diploma in Dermatology in Wales and then practised for 20 years as what's called a "GPSI" GP with a special interest in dermatology. So I have probably seen my fair share of sun-induced and other sorts of cancers and other lesions, and I'm very pleased to see this sort of proposal in front of the House.
I've been intrigued and privileged to manage sun-induced conditions for a number of years, melanomas, which I've heard my colleagues speak about, which are clearly influenced by the sun; and non-melanoma conditions, the ones that most people have. I'd also just mention that there are some conditions that are very photo-sensitive. Lupus erythematosus, for example, is very sensitive to the sun, and you'd be wanting people with that to be using sunblock as well, but the cancers are the main lesions that we want to be attending to. And, of course, these talk to the properties of UVB, and the more ubiquitous rays and then the less defined UVA, and I'll talk about that a little bit further when we get into the sunblocks. 
Sunblocks generally work in two basic categories. They're reflective or absorbent. The reflective ones basically look to bounce the sun's rays away. So that's what the zincs and the titanium oxides do—they're reflective sunblocks. Their trade-off is that they're a bit gluggy. They block the pores on the skin. That's what you see the cricketers wear—you've heard of the zinc and various other things. But that's their mechanism of action—they're reflective. They bounce the sun's rays away. The others are absorptive, and what they do is they absorb the sun and use the energy of the sun to break chemical bonds and form two, three, or four inert chemicals. I know that at one point in time, there was some concern around whether those inert chemicals could themselves be troublesome, but that hasn't proven to be so. I'm talking about things like PABAs, the para-aminobenzoic acids, and those sorts of things. They were very, very common in the early years for sunblocks and even today you'll still see them.
This bill specifically talks to the SPF. We've heard people talk about how that's assessed, and it's quite right. You apply sunblock to skin that is exposed and not exposed, a certain layer—2 milligrams per millimetre as I recall—and then you basically irradiate them and look for where you get minimal redness and compare the time to get minimal redness in an area that is covered and an area that is not, and you do a formulaic division, and that gives you the SPF. This mainly talks to UVB. UVA is not quite so clear, and, in fact, we use something called persistent pigment darkening to determine what the UVA category is. As you'll see, UVA comes into the broad sun spectrum sunblocks—less easy to measure but primarily SPF is talking about UVB, and I'm sure we'll hear more about that in select committee.
The author of this bill notes that when products failed, to quote consumer reports, they failed significantly. A number of them were rated at 50+, and when they were independently tested they turned out to be about 20+, so not even close—actually half of what they were promoting. I think when we focus on the SPF factor in this bill, it strikes me that it's not a bill of science. It's a bill of consumer affairs because it fundamentally says that what we want is for you to be honest with your labelling, honest with your claims, honest with your statements. You do need to have the laboratory certification to back up the statements you're making. 
We've made the comparison with what they do in Australia. We have a voluntary code which is clearly not working. Australia has mandated it. But if we look across the world it's also widespread as to how they regulate sunblock. The European Commission doesn't let you label sunscreens with an SPF less than six, but everything greater than six can be called "broad spectrum." As we commented, between ourselves and Australia we do have some consistent standards; it's just how we apply them that is different. The USA, through the Food and Drug Administration, has a completely different range. The real difference tends to be around the broad-spectrum, which is the UVA component.
I'm sure we'll hear more about all of this and maybe even get to apply some of them in select committee. I'm really looking forward to that coming. This is a really good consumer affairs bill. This is just about honest trading. The science is well known, the science is accepted, and it's very timely for this bill to come to the House.
One recommendation—as everyone is sharing their moments—is that I've said to my daughters for a long time that the cheapest Botox they will ever use is sunblock. Use it during the winter, use it during the summer. I generally say to them, "Choose your favourite moisturiser and then find something with at least SPF15 in it", because I find that cosmetically they don't get concerned about blocking the sun—you know, put your sunblock on and you'll get acne; all that sort of trade-off, and I think they've been pleased. And I used to say to my patients as well that the cheapest Botox they'll ever use is sunblock.
So I'm a strong supporter of sunblock. I look forward to this bill coming to the select committee. It's an excellent bill. Thank you, Todd.





Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to commend the member Mr Todd Muller for bringing this bill to the House, and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to take a call on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill.
I've heard all the stories about sunscreen. I think I have a story, in terms of a brown fulla. What's sunscreen got to do with a brown fulla? Well, actually there is still a risk with getting skin cancers as a dark-skinned guy. I remember my time in Samoa, walking around in the villages, on the beach at Lalomanu or Falelatai, and just putting it on my face. But then, you know, I got my shoulders exposed, my back exposed, and then later that evening I had a really sore shoulder and sore back and then the next following days peeling from the sunburn. It's really important not only for our fair-skinned populations, but also for my Pacific Islanders as well. It's important because there's always a risk to get skin cancers. The three most common being BCCs, basal cell carcinomas, squamous cell carcinomas, or melanomas as well. 
According to the bill—I'll just touch on a few points—the bill requires the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the making of regulations under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act 1986. Also it states that the product safety standard—again, we've heard from other colleagues about making sure that it is up to New Zealand sunscreen standard, NZS 2604:2012.
We are supporting this, like many of my colleagues have said, to select committee. But the huge thing I want to touch on is the health-based approach. The member before me, Dr Shane Reti, being a primary care physician himself—we see a lot of skin conditions coming through the doors. Sometimes it's a bit late. We always say prevention's better than cure, and sometimes we get a lot of our patients turning up, and assessing their skin conditions we may have to do excision biopsies, shave biopsies, or refer on to dermatologists as well. I think this is a good time to acknowledge the work that is done by our primary care colleagues, our dermatologists, our specialists in the health system that do care for skin cancers in the system. But, again, it's all about prevention, and this is what the bill aims to do.
We've heard about the Consumer New Zealand testing, with five out of 10 last year being false, not reaching the SPF factor that they claim to have. Also, when I look at SPF, sun protection factors, the SPF 50+ filters about 98 percent of UVB. I'll just touch on the UVA, ultraviolet A radiation, UVB, and UVC. UVA is 95 percent of radiation that we do get that penetrates the atmosphere and has a low energy compared to UVB, so it doesn't do as much damage compared to UVB, and that's why we see in our sunscreen products that we try to target UVB. When we talk about broad spectrum, it's trying to target both the UVA and UVB. UVC is pretty much absorbed by the atmosphere, so we don't provide products such as that.
That's why this bill is really important, to make sure that what we're giving out, whether it's been clinicians advising patients to put on SPF 30 or SPF 50+, is to make sure that we are protecting our whānau from these skin cancers as mentioned before. Again, SPF 50+ filters 98 percent of UVB compared to the SPF 30, that filters up to 96 percent, 97 percent as well.
When I look at the risk with our patients, whether it be older adults or fair skinned, again, like I said, dark skinned populations as well, those who have a family history, it's really important that we get things right. It's really important that our manufacturers are providing products that do meet the standard, and this bill aims to do that. This is all about protecting our whānau, protecting those who are at risk of getting skin cancers, and making sure that the product is doing what it's claiming to do. So that's why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I rise this evening to speak to the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill that has—and I congratulate Mr Todd "On-trend" Muller for bringing this bill to the House for our discussion. I was really interested to hear my colleague Naisi Chen talking with such enthusiasm and information sharing. I didn't actually realise that you could get sunscreen in powder form but it does sound like a really good opportunity for those of us who actually want to continue to apply it over our make-up. But it is a serious issue, and as you've heard my colleagues on this side of the House say, we are supporting this bill to go forward to select committee.
I was actually genuinely quite shocked to see when the news came forward about five out of 10 products, as we've repeatedly heard, being tested by Consumer NZ not meeting the SPF claims, and rather than mention brands, I just would direct people towards the article by RNZ if people want to get further information on that. Because I do think it's really important that we're aware of what's in the bottles of sunscreen that we all rely upon—and we really do rely on them being accurate. New Zealand, as we've heard, has a really high rate of skin cancer and melanoma, and if this is preventable, it's really important that we're able to prevent that accurately.
Now, looking at me, you correctly guess that, like Mr Muller, I do need to apply effective sunscreen. I'm looking at many of my colleagues across the House who would fall into the same category. My partner would also be on the fair side, and probably burns even more than I do. I know that in my youth, which was not in the 80s, we used to go to the—well, I say "we"; I actually didn't do this—but my friends used to go to the chemist, which was the only place you could buy olive oil, and apply it to themselves in order to actually achieve that desirable tan. I mean, here you wouldn't—I was in the UK, and even though I was in the beautiful and very sunny island of Jersey, the sun didn't carry quite the same strength to it in terms of capacity to burn as it does in New Zealand. My partner, as I said, who is fairer than me, actually was raised in the north of England where I don't believe the sun shines very frequently. But when we came to New Zealand, we found ourselves covering up and scampering from shadow to shadow, and relying really heavily on that sunscreen.
Of course, the sun is almost always shining in Ilam, the electorate that I represent, and it's very important that we are covering up and using good sunscreen. But I did, myself, fall foul of this sunscreen inadequate labelling. Earlier on in my time in New Zealand, I had to spend much of the day outside and couldn't achieve the shade that I would have preferred to achieve, and was really relying on constant application of sunscreen. Unfortunately, I was using one of the brands that was found to be actually delivering a less-than-adequate level of protection, and burnt really badly. Fortunately I haven't ended up with serious consequences so far, that my colleague Elizabeth Kerekere described earlier.
I was interested to find out, too, that SPF—we've heard lots of people talking about it, but I didn't actually realise until this evening that what it actually means is that an SPF 15, for example, would mean that 1/15th of the burning radiation reaches your skin. SPF 50 would mean that 1/50th of the actual burning radiation would reach your skin. So you can see there's a really big difference in the impact on your skin, and it's incredibly important that we are able to achieve an accurate understanding of what we're applying to ourselves. So I do look forward to receiving this in select committee should this bill pass forward, which I hope it will, and certainly we are in support of that.
I'm looking forward to hearing more from the public, and I'm looking forward to hearing more from people like my colleague Naisi Chen, who may be able to share some even more interesting experiences and further products that can mean that we're further on trend. So I do commend this bill to select committee, and thank you again for bringing it forward.





TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Look, thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I, firstly, thank the House for their endorsement of this bill. It's always very exciting, particularly when you're an Opposition MP, to put up a bill that gets the level of support that this does, and I appreciate and thank all of the contributors to the debate. It's been quite an interesting debate, really. It's had moments of high humour, and also underpinning actually everyone's contribution is an acknowledgment of the serious issue that we're trying to address here. I'd have to say there were times through Naisi Chen's contribution that I felt that I'd reached the pinnacle of my political career. I mean, to be described as "on trend". I don't think I'm going to be able to beat that in the time that I—
Matt Doocey: First time ever.
TODD MULLER: It's not only the first time ever—I have teenage children who I'm going to remind of that accolade time and time again, because from their perspective, I'm the opposite of on trend, so this is great to have it confirmed here in this House so publicly, and I really appreciated her enthusiasm, somewhat surprising enthusiasm, actually, for what we are seeking to do.
But I thought if I can, in conclusion, just acknowledge Damien Smith's contribution because, you know, he talked to the seriousness that sits behind this. We are a country that is hugely exposed to skin cancer in terms of incidence across our population. It is one of the cancers that is at a level the easiest to avoid if you are very focused on applying sunscreen and protecting yourself from our sun. And New Zealanders expect that when they put sunscreen on and they are fulfilling their part of the bargain of protecting themselves, they have confidence that the sun protection factor that's on the label is indeed what's in the bottle, and I think it's heartening to hear the collective support around that intent. 
I acknowledge, of course, the Labour Party's support for this. We all appreciate that if they don't see the merit in a bill, however flawed that perspective might be in previous bills, things don't progress. So I do appreciate the fact that they have seen the merit in this bill. Obviously, a lot of focus and repetition of the fact that the support lies to the first reading and we see where we go with the select committee. I do hope that we have significant contribution from people who have been affected, those who are involved in this particular issue in an advocacy perspective, and also that the Government reflects actually very fairly on the time it will take for the therapeutic products bill to be finalised, to have stakeholder engagement, and then to progress through this House. I think, based on our initial approaches on the bill ourselves when we were in Government, it's a very complex bill that only becomes more complex if you're going to integrate the natural health products, which, I understand, the Government are minded to do. So it is likely that that will take time. And in the meantime, we have a bill that has the support of the House, I know has the support of the country, and I think we can progress this in a way that will actually deliver some value to the wider community, regardless of our political persuasion. So thank you. I appreciate the support and I look to forward to participating with others in the Health Committee to debate it. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill be considered by the Health Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Health Committee.





POLICING (KILLING A POLICE DOG) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I move, That the Policing (Killing a Police Dog) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. 
The purpose of this bill that we will be debating tonight is to amend the Policing Act 2008 to increase the penalty for killing a police dog from a maximum of two years, to a maximum of five years' imprisonment. The bill replaces section 53 of the Policing Act 2008 to extend the maximum imprisonment for killing a police dog from the current two-year maximum to a new maximum of five years. The current maximum fine of $15,000 remains unchanged. 
One of the absolute joys of being an elected representative is to take the views of your constituency to Parliament, and I love opening my doors in my electoral office with a range of people coming in with a range of issues and ideas that they want to champion forward, and what I love about my electorate of Waimakariri is they are an electorate that cares. They care very deeply, not only about people, but about animals. In fact, I'd say Waimakariri represents and reflects New Zealand at its best. 
I remember the day when the media covered the tragic death of the police dog Gazza, and I received, like many members of Parliament in this House, a number of emails and phone calls where people were appalled that that would happen in New Zealand. What people ended up being absolutely more exercised about was the lenient punishment that we have in New Zealand for killing a police dog, and I want to take the time to acknowledge one constituent, Thomas Tripp, who I know will be watching this tonight. Thomas is a caring man, and it was his idea for this bill, to increase the penalty, as a tougher penalty, as a tougher way, of supporting our police dogs, and I want to acknowledge his work in getting this bill here today, because what this bill is about is caring for the service dogs that go out and protect us. 
I want to start off by putting it in the words of Chris Cahill, president of the New Zealand Police Association, who supports this bill. To quote the New Zealand Police Association, because I think they put it in a very articulate way: "A police dog is a key part of a police team, and within police, any act of violence towards the police dogs is considered similar to an attack on a police officer. It is a direct attack on law and order and needs to be recognised for the serious offence it is." 
We also note the cost of training a police dog is considerable. I think those words sum it up quite eloquently from me: an attack on a police dog in New Zealand is considered similar to an attack on a police officer. That's the view of the many men and women in blue who serve out country. They go out every day and every night to keep us safe. 
I was actually surprised when I worked with Thomas Tripp about this bill and we looked at the penalties, comparatively, overseas, and it is interesting. We are quite lenient compared to other jurisdictions. In the United States it is up to 10 years' imprisonment; Canada, up to five years; and South Australia up to five years. 
In fact, only through this bill now being pulled out of the ballot, with the Attorney-General's New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report, I've since learnt that there actually is an inequity, currently, in New Zealand statutes, because the Animal Welfare Act puts the penalty as up to five years. However, in the Policing Act, it's capped at up to two years. I would argue there is not one New Zealander who would say that that is fair and that is right. The reason I am confident of that is because many in this House would have seen on my social media that I put up a petition in the last week. That has received thousands of signatures, because what we know in New Zealand is we care about people but also about animals—more so our hard-working police dogs that serve us, to keep our families and to keep our communities safe. 
We have around 132 police dogs in New Zealand, nine in training. It costs over $60,000 to train a police dog, and they are called out over 40,000 times a year. Sadly, in New Zealand, we've lost a number of police dogs; and not only have we lost a number of police dogs in service but a large number of police dogs have been injured in service, as well. Those dogs quite often not only go out on the beat with our hard-working servicemen and women but also they're family pets. They go home to kids at night, and under the current law in New Zealand, it's a two-year penalty. How is that fair? 
I'm not saying this is the biggest bill around—this isn't going to change the fabric of New Zealand—but what I'm doing is bringing the voice of people I represent, and this is the right thing to do for New Zealand's Parliament tonight. Gazza, the dog this bill was based on, was the seventh dog that we've lost in the line of duty since 1972. Twenty-four police dogs have died in the line of duty. 
What I'd like to see tonight is the support of all political parties to send this to select committee, because I actually think we can look at other types of service animals and how we look to protect them, and I'm looking forward to the submissions that we are going to receive. I've also had a suggestion by the New Zealand Police Association, who want to add to proposed new section 53A a provision around reckless disregard for the safety of a police dog: "Because the concept of reckless disregard is consistent with the wording in the Crimes Act, our reasoning for this suggestion is that showing reckless disregard covers a possible loophole for an offender to believe that they were trying to stop the dog biting them, or trying to get away from the dog and didn't intend to kill it." This is the wish of the New Zealand Police force. 
I carry also the wishes of the people of Waimakariri, and the thousands of people that have signed the petition, but what I took the greatest heart from was an email I received yesterday from the police dog handler of Gazza, who had tragically lost his dog. He had heard about this bill through some of his police colleagues. He was stoked. He was stoked that this bill would come forward and would actually recognise the service of the police dogs and the protection they provide our families and our communities. 
So I'm looking forward to full support for this bill tonight. I genuinely think, although a small bill, it is significant. It shows we care and we have full respect for police, and also for the police dogs that serve them well. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. 





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Mr Doocey for his contribution tonight and acknowledge the fact that so many New Zealanders have wholeheartedly contributed to a matter that is dear to all of our hearts. In fact, we respect the duty that is done not only by police officers and the back-up staff of the police service but also police dogs. 
I'm going to be honest: tonight I will speak from the heart to say that my husband served in the New Zealand Police for 25 years, and Mark Mitchell will know that because he served alongside him as a dog handler. My husband was unfortunate enough to lose a dog in the line of duty. So I can say that within our household, we know firsthand the ability of dogs to track offenders where no human can do so, and the ability that they provide to the justice system to make sure that offenders are held accountable and victims receive the justice that they deserve. 
I think it is also important to acknowledge the bond that exists between a dog handler and the dog. That is probably unimaginable for most of us, so to lose a dog, whether that be through accident or through the harm done by an offender, is a huge thing to think about and a huge thing to imagine. I think that is why we have the memorial at the Police College which records the name of every single dog handler who has lost a dog in the line of duty. I always look proudly to see my husband's name there. 
The practicality is that when someone kills a dog in the line of duty, that is not the single motive that they thought about when they woke up that day. They commit a series of offences. Some of those are against police officers, some of those are against property, and some of those are against members of the public, so when a police prosecutor charges someone for killing or hurting a police dog, it is a series of charges that are laid. In those charges it is very interesting to look over the history to see the time served for that particular offence. So the problem that I have is that increasing the current penalty from two years to five years seems to not really understand or even, I guess, identify the problem this piece of legislation is trying to address. 
I would like to know the nature of the problem. I agree—I see that there is a great need for support, for understanding of those on the front line, and for compassion and understanding when we lose a police dog. But I would find it hard to understand in real terms how you would have a specific instance where an offender would be charged alone with killing a police dog. Therefore, that is probably why we have never seen, as far as I can ascertain from looking through the list of police dogs that have been lost in front-line duty, where anyone has ever served that time of two years. Currently, that time is at the discretion of judges and it has never been served currently. So I would question what the merit is of extending that period from two years to five years when I can't see how that is currently, in the history of these instances, being actually administered to someone who's been accused of this offence and held to be accountable for it.
So I would also go back to looking, to try and understand the thinking of the member Mr Doocey, how he came to this. The point was that there was a particular instance, I understand—and I may be enlightened at the end of this debate—where a police dog was injured, and that took action to bring this member's bill to the House. But the problem I have is that the bill that's been put forward by the member leaves the penalty for injuring a police dog unchanged, meaning that it would have no impact, for example, on the person who injured but did not kill the dog. But for the police dog in the case that inspired Mr Doocey, that was exactly what happened. So it is fundamentally unclear that the higher sentence in this bill would provide any significant deterrent against dogs being killed or even, in fact, injured in the line of duty. 
Offenders who kill or injure a police dog are often, as I've said, charged with more serious crimes, and I'd like to provide members with a particular example. Christopher Graham Smith, who killed police dog Gage in 2010, also pled guilty to the attempted murder of Senior Constable Bruce Lamb, and, subsequently, he received 14 years in prison. So the point I'm trying to get to is I'm really keen to understand an instance in New Zealand's history where the particular offence that the member has identified would actually occur. 
What the bill does is increase the maximum penalty from two to five years, and the main point, from what I understand from what the member has unpacked thus far, is that this would be a deterrent. So the person who set out to do a bunch of other offences or who was in the commission of those would somehow be deterred from injuring the police dog in that range of other instances of, potentially, murder, property damage—the person would be deterred from the police dog offence if we increase the penalty from two to five years, and that's kind of where I have the problem. That's the wider kind of problem that sits with the National Party, in that if you just increase the penalty, then that will somehow change how people think or operate. 
We see it time and time again with a range of offences, whether it be failing to stop, whether it be making it illegal to be a gang member. I clearly remember having to advise Judith Collins, who was then the Minister of Police, when she asked how many we convicted of those people who are in a gang because we made it illegal, and the answer, I think, was zero at the time and she was really cross about that. We had to explain that when someone gets charged for being a gang member, they've often done a bunch of other stuff, and so those things are the primary offences. 
So I think what really underlies this is the lack of understanding from those members opposite of how the real world actually works—of how prosecution, how front-line policing, and how the real world actually works. Yep, police dogs are important. Yes, we love them—we would never do a bad thing to them. People would die for them, but the reality is, and how the justice system works, is that people get charged with more than just killing or wounding a dog. That is the truth of the matter. 
So if you want to create a meaningful and good outcome, you would be resourcing and making sure there are better efforts in that space, but merely increasing a penalty from two to five years fails to address what you're trying to fix. I don't even, actually, to be honest, know what the problem is that they're trying to fix indeed, because while they've said some really good things that connect emotionally, I fail to see what the actual problem that this member's bill attempts to fix is, and I think that the member opposite knows that quite clearly. 
I would like to really spend the last part of my speech acknowledging the work that New Zealand Police do on a day-to-day basis, the fact that they put their lives on the line on a daily basis, the fact that they work so hard making sure that people are safe in their homes, no matter where we go along the streets—whether it's Courtenay Place—in terms of family violence, or making sure our roads are safe, they do an amazing job. They go above and beyond. Quite frankly, I think they deserve more than being politicised by trying to increase a penalty on a dog being killed from two to five years, and I think the member opposite knows that as well. 
So I would like to thank the member opposite for his good intent in an area where I think that he's got all the right feelings and emotions in place, and I agree with those. However, I would like to point out that his understanding of practicality and how the real world operates and how people are prosecuted for offences—what he would propose when it's applied in practicality would have an unworkable effect on day-to-day life. That is the primary reason why Labour will not be supporting this bill. 





RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in regards to the Policing (Killing a Police Dog) Amendment Bill, and I believe it's—no pun intended—nothing short of a dog whistle. The purpose of this bill, to increase the penalty for killing a police dog from a maximum of two years to five years of imprisonment under section 53 of the Policing Act 2008, won't result in keeping people safe. It also goes against our Green Party's policy that aims towards a rehabilitative purpose. 
It is highly unlikely that increasing the penalty for killing a police dog will actually reduce instances of this crime. As the member to my left pointed out, addressing the issue of violent crime doesn't come from imprisonment; it actually comes from addressing the determinants that lead people to commit crimes in the first place. So to follow the example of the US or Canada or Australia—who all have mass incarceration problems, who all have issues of inequities within the prison system—is not a model that I would like this House to follow. 
We know—and I'm quoting here a piece from Mark Hanna titled "We need to talk about police dogs", published in Honest Universe—that there's also a wider issue with the use of police dogs in general and the fact that despite being used at only 6.9 percent of incidents in 2018 where police used force, attack dogs actually caused more than half the moderate and serious injuries inflicted by police that year. 
Tim van de Molen: What's an attack dog? 
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It's a police dog that is used to attack. We have to make it clear that the purpose and the use of these dogs ultimately results in harm. 
We also want to bring to attention the data from 2020, in May, "about the high proportion of mental health or emotional distress in incidents where people were hospitalised by [police] dog injuries", and despite the "NZ Police [defending] their use of this extremely dangerous tactical option", we know that ultimately Māori were disproportionately affected by this. 
Tim van de Molen: So they're racist dogs too? 
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, as the members to our right will point out, dogs may not be racist, but our criminal justice system and prison system is, and this bill will just not address any of these issues. If the members to the right are so concerned about keeping people safe, they may as well be supporting issues like increasing benefits, public housing, and preventative approaches to our justice system. The Green Party won't stand by dog-whistle politics that will not keep people safe, and we will not be recommending this bill to the select committee. Kia ora. 





VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call to speak to the Policing (Killing a Police Dog) Amendment Bill, a bill that is really about the maximum sentencing for this offence, which would increase the maximum prison sentence from two to five years. I also do want to acknowledge the intent that's given rise to the bill, which I do believe has come from a really good place and is about recognising the significant and tragic loss of those dogs who have been killed. It is about acknowledging what they meant to those handlers and to the families who have cared for them as well. When I learnt that I was speaking to this bill, I also reflected on the stories of police dogs who had passed not in tragic circumstances but who have been honoured in New Zealand media in some ways, such as the dog Ike who passed over after a long career of service last year, so we, as a New Zealand community, are a community who hugely respect the important role that police dogs play in our police force. 
But I do think we also need to recognise that the intent that this is coming from is really about deterrence. As my colleague Ginny Andersen has already spoken to, there are practical reasons for why we aren't supporting this through to select committee at this stage—the biggest, of course, that we don't believe that this would act as a deterrent; that the provisions in place, therefore, are sufficient; and, because it won't act as a deterrent, then we simply don't think this would be an effective use of our House time to send it through the select committee process.
Because we're talking about maximum penalties, I just wanted to reflect for a bit on what we as lawmakers ought to be considering as we turn our minds to maximum sentences, and the Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria makes some useful observations. In a paper published in 2020, they talk about the fact that maximum penalties should place really some clear, legally defined upper limits on the courts' sentencing power and that they should be reasonable and proportionate. But as reasoned lawmakers, we also need to turn our minds to what I would call the legal principle of parsimony, which is a principle that states the maximum penalty should be set at the lowest level that achieves its intended purpose. So again, here, the intended purpose is deterrence.
I think while we look at the number of times this has occurred in New Zealand's past, there is some evidence that the settings are correct at present. So just reflecting on the scale of the issue, I think when we all hear those stories, like Gazza's story, we're all extremely outraged. But we also have to look at the big picture, which is that almost 40,000 call-outs are made each year and, of those, there are actually very few police dogs who are injured, let alone killed. I think it was 24, 25 dogs who have been killed, many of whom have been killed in accidents, not intentional incidents to kill them. Secondly, I do think we have sufficient provisions at the moment and I looked at a few examples overseas. I did reflect on some of your articles last year—to the MP in the House—and I noted that in the UK there's the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which was amended by the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill. And the penalty there—it's a comparable though not exact comparison—is more or less for one year for unnecessary suffering for an animal. In Queensland, there's a penalty of 40 units or two years of imprisonment for attempting to kill a police dog.
My colleague, again, has reflected on the fact that we don't believe that making this change from two years to five years will be a sufficient measure of prevention or a motivation for people to not engage in this because people often don't walk into a situation intending to do this to an animal. We'd also question whether that act of increasing it by three years does anything to deter whatsoever. My colleague also spoke about the fact that there's no change to the penalty for injuring a police dog so there would be no change of deterrence on that front. So, again, while I would recognise that there is really good intent here, we are unable to support this bill through to select committee because of its practical inefficiencies.





NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, the Policing (Killing a Police Dog) Amendment Bill, on behalf of the ACT Party. I just, before I start, would like to perhaps make some comments on comments that were raised from across the Chamber. I've heard about this law being a deterrent and that not being good enough. Well, you know, I don't have a legal law degree, but what I would have thought is that every law we make is for some form of deterrence. That is why we make the laws.
Further to that, when we talk about or hear about situations where police dogs have been killed and the two-year sentence hasn't been placed on the perpetrator—so why increase it to five? Well, I would have thought, this uneducated person over here, that by increasing it to five, the judges might actually start to use the ability to give a deterrence—oh, I got that wrong; give a sentence to the perpetrator who has killed an animal.
The third point that I would like to make is in regard to all of this good intent that we are hearing that could be fixed—with some of the issues that have been addressed from across the floor there—in a select committee hearing. But what I have heard, bill after bill after bill, is just a flat-out "No, we don't even want to go there. Oh, we like your attempt. We thank you for what it is that you're trying to do, but, no, that's it, we're going to leave it there. We're not going to allow the community to come in and have a say on this."
So getting back to my speech, I'm going to start to repeat some of the stats because I think that they really are quite important: 24 police dogs have died since 1972; four of them have occurred just since the 2000s came in. That is an average of one police dog every two years. And when we have 40,000 callouts, that is, really, pretty good stats, but we've still lost 24 dogs. We had Gazza in an armed incident in 2016, we had Gage who was shot dead in Christchurch in 2010, and then we had the Tangowahine, Dargaville shoot-out in December last year, where, thankfully the animal was not killed. I think what we have here is legislation that has not fixed the problem about criminals with guns, because now they are shooting our police dogs. That falls on your heads, over there, because the Labour Party put through a piece of legislation that has not protected them.
Not only that, I'd also like to address the fact that it is not just police dogs; what we have are guide dogs, hearing dogs, mobility dogs, therapy dogs, epilepsy dogs, assistance dogs, medical alert assistance dogs, service dogs, and police dogs. They are there to do a job, and there are seven organisations in New Zealand who can certify that these dogs are not purely attack dogs but are actually able to complete a task to help their humans and help society.
Blind Low Vision New Zealand have approximately 250 dogs. It takes 18 to 20 months to train them and it costs $75,000 per dog. Now, if that is what it takes for a Blind Low Vision dog, imagine what it takes for a service dog. Imagine what it takes for a police dog to be trained. And then we've got the Ministry for Primary Industries detector dogs. They are not attack dogs; they are dogs that have been trained to go into major airports and ports and look after our communities and make sure there are no bombs in those places. The New Zealand Army have over 100 teams of patrol dogs and detector dogs. So, ideally, I'd like to see a bill where we can protect all of the dogs that help society.
But, at the end of the day, ACT does like to stand up for the minority parties. I believe that a dog specifically trained to help and protect humans deserves respect for the taking of its life. The trainers of all these dogs—whether they are service, disability, detector, or police—deserve closure upon the untimely death of their family friend. This bill is not about all of those dogs; it is about the police dogs—it is about the police dogs in the Policing Act 2008. And if this bill can be amended to include all service dogs, ACT would howl in approval!
But on behalf of Nero, Nick, Thor, Barlow, Jon, Ebba, Panzer, Luke, Sarge, Ozi, Rada, Josh, Lance, Ryka, Rex, Spike, Kone, Jock, Mal, Valour, Duke, Enzo, Gage, and Gazza—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to rise and take a call on the Policing (Killing a Police Dog) Amendment Bill tonight. I know that this debate so far has been a bit emotional, and I know where that emotion comes from. It does come from a good place. We are a nation who loves our dogs. They are our friends. They are loyal. They are a part of our families, police dogs included.
As I've mentioned in this House previously, my parents had a sheep and beef farm in South Taranaki, and to help us out on that farm we had over the years a number of working dogs. You spend hours with your dog, training them, building a relationship, earning their trust, and they your trust. Each dog has its own personality. Dad would always remind us that we weren't to spoil the dogs; they were working dogs and weren't to come inside, but that rule was never strictly followed, and we all knew, at the end of the day, that they were part of our family too and treated with respect. When one of them passed away, we all grieved and we missed them.
I acknowledge that the bond between a police officer and their dog is even more special and unique, and the trust in that relationship is unwavering. I saw as a child, as well, growing up at the prison village, the relationship that police have with their dogs. I recall watching local officers bring their dogs down to the prison to run training drills. In fact, I remember one day—one wintery evening—Mum taking us down to the prison to drop off Dad's dinner when he was working a four to midnight shift, and one of the local officers asking if we would mind the dog sniffing around our car as part of their training. I saw the bond and the trust in that relationship. Police dogs do provide huge value to our communities, and the loss of any police dog's life is tragic. It's tragic for the dog's handler and for the wider police communities.
I was interested to learn, when doing some research to take this call tonight, that the first police dogs came to New Zealand in 1956. Since those first dogs arrived, some 65 years ago, 24 police dogs have tragically lost their lives in the line of duty or in accidents associated with their service. I think that low number shows how well our police officers take care of their dogs, how well they protect them and are devoted to them, and they should be commended for that. Tonight, though, we are debating an amendment proposed to the Policing Act, in particular the current section 53 of the Policing Act, which, as mentioned, makes it an offence to intentionally kill, maim, wound, or otherwise injure a police dog and carries a fine of up to two years in prison or $15,000. The bill before us tonight proposes to increase the penalty for killing a police dog from two years to five years.
At this point, I think it's worth mentioning that, in the past, when someone has been charged with killing a police dog, those charges have also been laid alongside a number of other charges associated with the individual's actions and offending. In fact, as my colleague Ginny mentioned earlier tonight, the individual charged with the murder of police dog Gage in 2010 was actually sentenced to a total of 14 years in prison for the total of his offending, which related to a number of offences.
As I've said, I do acknowledge the value that police dogs provide us. However, I also come from a legal background, and one of the things that we are taught to do is to step back and look at all of the evidence. That means not just to take knee-jerk reactions. The evidence is pretty clear, and that evidence says that, in general, increasing penalties and sanctions does very little, if anything, to deter individuals from committing crimes. What does deter individuals is actually taking steps to address the causes of crime: reducing poverty, making sure that individuals can live with dignity in their communities and participate in a meaningful way.
I would like to finish tonight by acknowledging the incredible work our police force does, and I am proud to stand alongside a Labour Government committed to supporting that work and providing them with the support that they need to keep our communities—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. It's a privilege to be able to speak on this bill, because it is entirely appropriate for harsh penalties to be administered for people who kill police dogs in the line of duty. It is entirely appropriate for harsh penalties to be administered for anyone who hurts an animal and for anyone who abuses an animal. 
What's not appropriate is for the Opposition to propose raising the penalty from two years in prison to five years in prison when the effect of that is, frankly, nothing, and when they know that, and when they are leading public discourse in this area, knowing full well that increasing the penalty will not result in charging offenders who kill police dogs, will result in longer sentences, and it will not result in a deterrent effect in cases of violence against police dogs. 
I thank the member from ACT for her contribution in memorialising those police dogs who have lost their lives in the line of duty. It's useful and it's right for us as parliamentarians to acknowledge the work that police dogs do for us, and our gratitude to them. We are the recipients of selfless, loving service of these dogs, both for their constables who are their handlers and for the public who they protect. It's right for us to acknowledge all of those lives lost of those dogs in service in protecting our communities. But it's not helpful for us to have this discussion on the backdrop of merely looking tough on crime without following an evidence basis about this.
When we talk about the deterrent effect of this, it's useful for us to consider in what cases and in what scenarios these dogs are losing their lives. These are situations where an offender will be facing a raft of serious charges—serious assaults on police officers, evading police officers—the charge that they were going to be charged with in the first place, which may be a serious offence, because they are evading police. These are situations where the people who are apprehended are already facing serious charges, long-term prison sentences, and there is, in fact, no deterrent effect in the heat of the moment where they are injuring and committing violence against a police dog, if we are proposing here to increase the sentence from two years to five years.
What is helpful for us to do is to place more importance on the work of these police dogs, to acknowledge in this House their service by acknowledging their names. And I want to turn to the member Nicole McKee's acknowledgment of the names and just highlight for the House a few of those dogs which have died in the line of service. 
We've made a few references to the first police dog that died in an accident in Napier. His name was Nero, and that accident was the first in this country for what was a very new system where we use police dogs with our police officers in enforcing the prevention of crime. The next dog who lost his life was in 1975 and his name was Nick, and he was shot in Wellington. That was the first incident where it was deliberate harm against a police dog that caused a police dog to lose his life. And it highlights, I think, the importance of acknowledging these crimes. But in those incidents, there would have been no deterrent effect if the penalties had been harsher. It's important for us to remember that this already exists as a penalty in law and that it can be prosecuted. And it is. It is treated as a very serious offence by police and prosecuted to the fullest extent, because police and prosecutors recognise this offence as an offence against police. 
It's also right for us to acknowledge that the safety record of police dogs is very high, that the police officers charged with the care of police dogs take their duties really seriously to what are their partners in work. And considering that they're called out 40,000 times a year, the rate of safety is very good. So we need to be able to acknowledge the important work here and also acknowledge that increasing penalties is simply painting this as a political issue, which makes some parliamentarians look tough on crime and does not address the root cause of this problem. 
I want to, finally, conclude my remarks by saying that 30 years of locking more people up for longer has failed to make our communities safer and has resulted in a reoffending rate of 61 percent. That's why on this side of the House we will continue to do things differently and use evidence-based methods to determine what the penalties in these situations should be in all areas of our law and order system, in order to reduce—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.