WEDNESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 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.
SPEAKER: Members, no select committee reports have been presented—
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: A point of order. Point of order.
SPEAKER: A point of order, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.





OBITUARIES
Wiki Mulholland
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate honouring the passing of cancer drug advocacy movement leader Wiki Mulholland.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: I move, That the House express its sympathy and condolences to the whānau of community and youth development leader, Wiki Mulholland, and pay tribute to the outstanding advocacy she led for better access to cancer drugs in Aotearoa. Kia ora.
Motion agreed to.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: No select committee reports have been presented. No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:Petition of Social Credit, requesting that the House declare the Marsden Point oil refinery a nationally strategic assetpetition of Natalie Horspool, requesting that the House ensure the Te Awakairangi Birthing Centre in Lower Hutt stays openpetition of Ava Simeon, requesting that the House urge the Government to increase the Access Barrier boarding allowancepetition of Ingrid Shaw, requesting that the House urge the Government to stop actioning ideas detailed in the He Puapua report until it has seen full public consultationpetition of Chlöe Swarbrick MP, requesting that the House urge the Minister of Education to provide immediate, direct financial support for all tertiary students.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK: Tertiary Education Commission, Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2021Archives New Zealand, Chief Archivist's Annual Report on the State of Government Record keeping 2020/21.
SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Consulting Matters: Observations on the 2021-31 consultation documents. 
Those papers are published under the authority of the House.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (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.
Christopher Luxon: Why did she ignore advice from Dr Bloomfield that there is "no public health justification to maintain a boundary around Auckland under the [COVID-19 Protection Framework]."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: All the way through the pandemic, of course, we have taken on board the advice of our public health officials, but we've also weighed that against the requirement to consider the best interests of all New Zealand as well. Our view was that over the summer period there would be a large amount of movement across New Zealand and that we could best balance the interest of Aucklanders' need to move with the interest of the rest of New Zealand not having a large increase in COVID cases by simply requiring unvaccinated individuals to be tested before departure and for other Aucklanders to carry proof of vaccine.
Christopher Luxon: What does she say to the thousands of Kiwis who've been kept from seeing family members or saying goodbye to loved ones because of her decision to ignore health advice and instead maintain a hard Auckland border?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I fundamentally disagree with the statement the member's made there. He claims that the director-general has given advice that there should be no boundary around Auckland at all. In fact, in his evidence he talks about the role that it played in preventing the spread of COVID cases throughout the country.
Christopher Luxon: What advice has she had on the number of businesses that have gone under or the additional cost to the economy as a result of her decision to keep the Auckland border closed despite being advised by Dr Bloomfield that there was no public health justification for it?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is misinterpreting, or in fact possibly not even reading, the director-general's statement. He talked about, in their view, there no longer being a need for a hard enforced border from the point—at that point, the COVID-19 Protection Framework came in likely in mid-December. So it is incorrect to claim that we have kept the boundary longer than we were advised to by Health. What it is fair to point out is when we changed that boundary, Health said we could simply lift it. Our view was that the rest of New Zealand would appreciate additional measures to stop the spread of COVID-19. But it would be in keeping with the member's "let it rip" strategy with COVID.
SPEAKER: Before I call David Seymour, I just want to say that I had quite a few complaints yesterday about the level of noise. Some of it was a general complaint about the noise on my left, but there were some very specific complaints about sparring finance people, especially while the Prime Minister's mike was open. That is to stop.
David Seymour: What does the Prime Minister say to shopkeepers like my constituents Dave and Sumi in Mt Eden, who've had their shop robbed multiple times, called the police, and they don't come because they're busy enforcing a border the health advice said wasn't even necessary?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, I would ask them to raise then with their local member why he stands opposed to the idea of additional support for the police checkpoints through the use of the Defence Force, Māori wardens, community wardens, and Pacific wardens, because he seems to object to that.
Christopher Luxon: Why doesn't she simply just make the call and open the Auckland border tonight?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because that boundary—which Aucklanders, and I thank them for allowing this to be the case—has protected the rest of New Zealand from being part of a Delta outbreak, which in many other parts of the world has been devastating. I thank Aucklanders for the work that they've done, and so does the rest of New Zealand, because that is the reason we have not seen an outbreak beyond that border that has been beyond measure, unable to be controlled. So to Aucklanders, again: we all thank you.
Christopher Luxon: How are Kiwis expected to get ahead under a Government that keeps them locked down longer than needed and when the cost of living is rising at 4.9 percent but wages are rising at just 2.4 percent, giving average Kiwis a pay cut?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The only advice that I have seen suggesting that we have kept Auckland locked down longer than needed is from the Leader of the Opposition. The public health advice—again, I point to—reinforced keeping the boundary in place until mid-December, which is exactly what has happened, and that is because it allows us to get vaccination levels up, which allows us to keep our economy open, which allows us to keep people in jobs, and which allows us to be in the position where, relative to other OECD countries, we have continued to perform well.
Rawiri Waititi: Does she stand by her statement in relation to Māori providers seeking access to vaccination data that "we all want to accelerate vaccination rates and access to data will help with that."; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and as I've mentioned in this House before, one of the issues has been, of course, that that data has been provided to hauora providers, but then we've had an additional ask from Whānau Ora to also receive that individual-level data. The Ministry of Health in undertaking consultation with iwi around the release of that encountered some who held the view that it should not be released. The court has now asked Health to finish its work in the next 72 hours to resolve this situation, and the Government supports them to do that.
Rawiri Waititi: What specific actions has her Government taken to release data in response to Whānau Ora winning again in the High Court this week, given that she recognises the need to access data to boost vaccination rates?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The court actually didn't award the release that was being sought by the Whānau Ora commissioning agent for the immediate release of that data. They did ask the ministry to complete its process, and I guess what I would come back to with the member is they originally sought that the ministry try and resolve the issues that were being raised by iwi. That has been done in, my recollection is, two regions, but there have been outstanding issues that the ministry is now expediting. We bring it back, though, to what we're all trying to achieve. Everyone wants Māori vaccination rates to lift, and can I just acknowledge everyone who has worked so hard to get them at 90 percent in Tāmaki-makau-rau, to get them at 84 percent in the rest of the country, and to see our over-60s at well over 90 percent. We just need to keep going.
Christopher Luxon: How much of the record increase in the cost of living does she believe is a result of the 40 percent increase in Government spending she's overseen over the last four years?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, that is a curious question, given the rest of the world is experiencing the same thing and has not directly replicated what New Zealand has done here. As I said yesterday, the US is at 6.2 percent, the UK at 4.2 percent, Canada at 4.7 percent, the eurozone 4.9 percent—the inflation that everyone is experiencing currently we can point strongly to the impacts of COVID. Increasing demand, supply chain constraints, shipping issues, increases in the cost of oil—we are not immune to that. But if the member would like to advocate for cuts in Government spending that have substantively gone towards supporting the business community, then that is his prerogative.
Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by the Government's decision to increase the minimum wage to ensure that the incomes of low-income New Zealanders keep pace with the cost of living? [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Right—OK. The members who interjected then will stand up. They will all apologise and they're all on final warnings for the day.
Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.
Dr Shane Reti: Withdraw and apologise.
Hon Louise Upston: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Member: Three stooges.
SPEAKER: Well, I'm just trying to decide whether to continue with the question. 
Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by the Government's decision to increase the minimum wage to ensure that the incomes of low-income New Zealanders keep up with the cost of living?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely do. This Government has always been mindful of the impact of the cost of living on low to moderate income earners. It is why we have stood by, of course, increases in the minimum wage which the Opposition said would lead to job losses. We now have record low unemployment. It's why we have, of course, increased the family tax credit, made changes to Working for Families, and consistently had an eye to lowering and decreasing child poverty in this country. I know, though, that the member opposite will not agree. He has very openly spoken against the increases on minimum wage.
Christopher Luxon: Isn't it true that with rent up more than 20 percent and food prices up more than 10 percent since she came into office, hard-working Kiwis are actually going backwards under her Government?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I do not agree with the premise of that member's question, because, of course, until the more recent quarters, we did see wage growth outstrip growth in inflation measures. Again, in more recent times, we have seen that increase, but so has the rest of the developed world. It is the impact of COVID. I would seek, then, the views of the member as to what he would do—price controls, perhaps? I would be interested to see his resolution, because, currently, he seems to be advocating for the removal of things like the wage subsidy, resurgence support payments, or perhaps even investment in our Government services.




Question No. 2—Finance
2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): ANZ's latest Quarterly Economic Outlook has reported that economic momentum heading into the Delta outbreak was "nothing short of remarkable", and during the higher alert level restrictions, the wider economy has been performing very well—"better than anyone dared hope". It reports that it is clear that macroeconomic stimulus has done what it can to limit the economic fallout from lockdowns. Domestic demand remains strong, unemployment at record lows, while business confidence is above pre-crisis levels. The growth in goods export prices has outstripped import prices and led to good returns in dairy, meat, and horticulture. Looking ahead, the ANZ expects low unemployment and a robust household sector, which will underpin a sustainable growth path for the economy of 4.2 percent in 2021 and 3.9 percent in 2022.
Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the labour market and its impacts on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the jobs market is supporting our recovery. Stats NZ reported last week that seasonally adjusted filled jobs continue to grow, rising 0.1 percent in October compared with a month earlier to reach a new high of 2.28 million. The number of jobs for men rose by 37,526, and for women by 37,414 on the same period. On an annual basis, the biggest gains have been in healthcare, construction, and professional services. Interestingly, accommodation and food services also rose by 5.3 percent, adding 7,559 jobs. Despite ongoing restrictions, Auckland added more jobs, rising by 3.4 percent for the September year, with gains also in the Waikato, Canterbury, Wellington, and the Bay of Plenty.
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm sorry to do this, but I feel like I have to. There's a prominent member of the House not actually wearing a mask at the moment. [Member puts mask on]
Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to warn the member that his first two answers have been far too long.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Right. So much good news! The OECD Economic Outlook for December—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That's the end of it.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the latest ANZ Quarterly Economic Outlook's assessment that "Government spending remains highly expansionary … The fiscal situation is quite nuanced. Many businesses and households are in desperate need of targeted support, but from a macroeconomic perspective, high government spending in an economy facing severe capacity constraints risks just adding to inflation pressures. That wouldn't be a good return for taxpayers, and also implies the RBNZ will need to hike interest rates more than otherwise"?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for floating up to the macroeconomic level, as his leader suggested! I agree with the ANZ that many businesses and households are in need of targeted support and that the fiscal situation is nuanced. That's why this Government has invested in our businesses and households during this one-in-100-year shock. As the ANZ says, there is a balance to be struck. We will be careful and focused in future spending decisions in order to provide targeted support and address the long-term challenges facing the economy.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that one of the reasons inflation is at its highest level in over 30 years and Kiwis' wages are going backwards in real terms is because his Government has increased Government spending by 40 percent since 2017 and is now overcooking the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do not accept the member's analysis. What I do accept is that in recent months, the Government has had to provide a significant amount of targeted support to businesses, through things like the wage subsidy scheme and the resurgence support payment, and, indeed, I have stood in this House and been called upon by the Opposition to put more money into those areas. The member cannot have it both ways.
Hon Simon Bridges: Has Treasury provided him with a view on whether his Government's decision to run structural Budget deficits for the next five years, at a time of very high inflation and tightening monetary policy, is in line with the principles of the Public Finance Act, which requires Governments to have regard to the interaction between fiscal and monetary policy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we traversed in the select committee this morning, the Public Finance Act foresees a situation where, in the event of a crisis such as what we have experienced with COVID-19, the Government is able to run the books in the way that we are and still meet the Public Finance Act. It is fiscally prudent to make sure that we support people to stay in jobs, and that's what we've done.
Hon Simon Bridges: Why is the Government running structural Budget deficits for the next five years, at a time when monetary policy is having to tighten to offset it, hurting many millions of Kiwis in the process?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member cannot wish away COVID-19, a one-in-100-year economic shock. The Government took the responsible action of supporting businesses, of supporting Kiwis to stay in work, and I stand by those decisions.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that he is turning up the heat on the economy with his increased Government spending so that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has to try and turn down the cooker in terms of interest rates, to dampen inflation more than would otherwise be the case?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is well aware that the inflationary pressures are being seen all around the world. What this Government has done is make sure that we invest in supporting people to stay in work and balance that with a responsible fiscal position. I do note that the member's party's fiscal position wouldn't see a surplus until 2028.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that overcooking the economy quite literally means less for Kiwis to cook this Christmas, with the price of fruit and veggies, for example, having gone up 9 percent this year, well above the 2.4 percent average wage increases?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That's interesting, isn't it, because here we now have the true colours of this particular National Party. I presume that means the member is going to propose a price freeze. Welcome back, Muldoon.




Question No. 4—Education
4. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen about numbers of people undertaking vocational education and training?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I've seen reports about the take-up of the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund, which has been supporting fees-free training for all apprentices and those who have been undertaking vocational education and training in targeted industries where demand for skills will continue to be strong or is expected to grow as we recover from the impacts of COVID-19. Between 1 July last year and 30 November this year, over 175,000 New Zealanders have been supported by that fund. More than 83,000 of these were in apprenticeship programmes, more than 52,000 were trainees in the workplace, and 47,000 were at our polytechs and other vocational education providers. The Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund is attracting learners from across the community: Māori account for 20 percent of all of those being supported, Pacific people around 9 percent, Asian New Zealanders 14 percent, and, encouragingly, around a quarter of the learners being supported are over the age of 40, so are being supported to increase their skills whilst in work.
Marja Lubeck: What support have employers received from the Apprenticeship Boost initiative in relation to vocational learners in their workplaces?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Apprenticeship Boost, which sits alongside the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund, is part of our COVID-19 support initiatives. The increase in spending that we've done as a result of COVID-19 helps employers keep their early-stage apprentices employed and training towards their qualifications. Since it started in August last year, we have paid out support to over 15,500 employers, and that has allowed them to retain in their jobs 38,000 first- and second-year apprentices whilst also taking on new apprentices. As a result of that, we now have record numbers of apprentices, which is in stark contrast to the global financial crisis when apprenticeship numbers fell. To the end of October, we funded support for 70,000 apprentices compared to 52,000 in the same period last year—that's an increase of over 32 percent.
Marja Lubeck: What responses is he aware of regarding numbers in vocational learning and the support provided by Government?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I was recently made aware of the response by the Concave Construction co-chair, Graham Burke, who discussed the 49 percent jump in apprenticeship numbers since August of 2019 with my good friend, Mike Hosking, yesterday. Mr Burke told Mike Hosking that the increase was a direct result of the Government's Apprenticeship Boost policy, and to quote him directly, he said, "It's had amazing results."




Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment
5. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the Government still committed to welfare overhaul; if so, why does the Child Poverty Action Group report released today show not a single key recommendation from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group has been fully implemented nearly three years on?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, and we are making good progress on the overhaul. This progress includes the biggest lift in benefits in decades, reversing the cuts made in 1991. The Child Poverty Action Group do great work, but their report released today does not highlight the extensive policy work under way and it assumes every recommendation has a finish line. We've always been very upfront: these reforms require massive structural change and will take time. Transformation needs to be well thought through and coherent to be effective. Alongside the benefit rise, our progress has included removing the sanctions which impact children the most, investing $5.5 billion through the Families Package, increasing the minimum wage to $20, indexing benefits to average wage increases, raising abatement thresholds, investing heavily in job training, and increasing our public housing supply. There is more to do—I have never shied away from that—but the mahi is getting done.
Jan Logie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has she removed many of the 2020 COVID-19 supports or made them time limited when these were all recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) and supposedly accepted in principle by the Government?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would refute that. I think one of the clear areas of recommendation in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report was around investment in upskilling and training and employment opportunities. COVID and the pandemic in general really did impress on the Government the need to bring forward much of that investment and that work, and that continues to this point and will continue moving forward.
Jan Logie: What is her response to the report, which finds—and I'll quote—"If [the] welfare reform had happened on the [time line] envisaged by WEAG, communities would have had the financial resilience to face the challenges of Covid-19 [pandemic] with … confidence. As it is, the government's slow pace of reform is increasing Covid-19-related inequity and distress, jeopardising public health measures."?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, I'd refute the slow pace. I totally would accept, though, that there is more to do, and we certainly at certain points have been able to outline our time frame and what is in the short-, medium- and long-term time frames with regards to implementation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's recommendations. I won't deny that COVID did throw a bit of a spanner in the works; it meant that some things came forward and other things were pushed back. With regards to responding to the income needs of families experiencing hardship, particularly those in the welfare system, we did move very quickly to index benefits to wages. We did in April last year immediately implement an increase in benefits, and then again this year through the Budget, which saw an immediate implementation in July, and more will come into effect in April next year. That's alongside a suite of other measures. Again, I will not deny that there is more to do, but I will refute the idea that we haven't actioned the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations and that we haven't been consistently overhauling the welfare system since we got into Government.
Terisa Ngobi: What else has this Government done that responds to the WEAG report and is part of the welfare overhaul work programme?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is a range of work under way that responds to the recommendations in the report. This work has been carried out across many Government departments. Examples include establishing a new Ministry for Disabled People, beginning a full reform of the health sector, investing more into out-of-school care and recreation and after-school care programmes, supporting families through more lunches in schools, consenting more new homes than any Government since the 1970s, delivering over a thousand new transitional and 8,000 public housing places, and reforming the culture at the Ministry of Social Development and changing the physical environment to make it more inclusive and accessible. I acknowledge there is more to do, but it is important to take stock and acknowledge what has already been done.
Jan Logie: Will she now accelerate WEAG recommendations to further lift incomes in light of the Child Poverty Monitor report, which shows Māori and Pasifika and disabled tamariki are experiencing up to twice the levels of hardship as their peers?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As announced at Budget, there were benefit increases that really do restore the benefit or incomes to a point that fixes what was done in 1991. There's more to do, but I do want to also state that in terms of addressing child poverty, it's not just about what happens in the welfare system or with the Ministry of Social Development. It is about ensuring that we have programmes like Food in Schools, that we do address issues like access to period products, that we do address issues like access to healthcare. Many of these things have been addressed and continue to be addressed by this Government, and we do need to make sure that alongside our focus on the welfare system we are looking at other spaces to address child poverty as well.
Jan Logie: How can she claim to be honouring the WEAG when modelling shows that if increases to core benefits in the family tax credit had happened in April 2019, as intended, a family with three children would be $18,700 better off in April next year?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think the most recent information I saw highlighted that a sole parent on benefit now is about $175 better off per week than what they were in 2017 when we took office, and that's not including the winter energy payment. There is more to do but we have seen significant improvements with regards to income adequacy since we got into Government.
Jan Logie: Does she agree with the comments of the children's commissioner that an equitable poverty response which prioritises tamariki Māori and disabled children would increase benefits to livable levels and restore dignity to whānau Māori; if not, why not?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are absolutely focused on Māori, Pacific, and disabled children, and do know what the evidence shows us and what we see, and that is that they are disproportionately impacted by poverty. Many of the changes that we have put in place through our welfare overhaul and in other aspects of our Government programme have been completely focused on addressing those inequities and ensuring that those children are lifted out of poverty. We have made some traction but we acknowledge there is more to do.
Jan Logie: When will we see any of the WEAG recommendations fully implemented?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said at the beginning, this is not a simple tick-box exercise. If I only look at, say, increasing our public housing stock, which was clearly indicated in the welfare expert advisory group's report, I can say that we have been able to do that as a Government. But it's not a matter of that job having been completed. We are committed to continuing to build more public housing and continuing to focus on ensuring that we are able to provide the housing for New Zealanders that is needed. But we can't tick that one off; nor can we tick many of the others, because they are about consistently focusing on those recommendations and ensuring that we are committed to continually responding to them.
SPEAKER: Before I call Dr Liz Craig for the next question, I just want to indicate to members, because I saw some disappointment in one quarter of the House, as to the allocation of the timing of supplementary questions then—I refer people to Speakers' rulings 180/5 and 180/6, which indicate, first of all, that no one has a right to a supplementary question at all. But, more importantly, the rulings of Harrison and Wall, not the substantive part but the very first line, or line or two, are that it is the practice to give the member who asked the primary question the first supplementary; actually, it's been my practice to give them the first two, and after that, if other members go for it, I will move around the House. Generally, if members want to have two supplementary questions, I'll give them straight away rather than breaking it up. I just think the flow works a bit better there. But I did feel some evil looks at me at that particular point.
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
SPEAKER: Well, I'll just make it clear: more evil looks than normal.




Question No. 6—Health
6. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What medicines has New Zealand recently secured access to for treating COVID-19?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): It's important that we have a range of medicines to treat those who do get sick with COVID-19. That's why I'm pleased to say that, on Monday, we announced that the national drug funding agency, Pharmac, has secured from Pfizer 60,000 courses of another antiviral medicine, which, like molnupiravir, which we secured in October, can be taken as a tablet. Both medications stop people with mild symptoms from becoming very sick. Alongside vaccinations, our hospital treatments are already reducing the likelihood of people needing ICU care, with the ICU rate in Auckland dropping to 3 percent of hospitalisations, down from 5.7 percent previously. Of course, vaccinations and following the "scan, mask, pass" routine are still the best ways of stopping the spread of COVID-19.
Dr Liz Craig: How do these medicines support those recovering from COVID-19?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Pfizer's antiviral drug, which does not yet have a brand name in New Zealand, inhibits replication but in a different way—by preventing the cleavage of certain proteins necessary to create a fully functioning virus. This means you're less likely to get a fully functioning virus. This is similar to molnupiravir, which works by introducing copying errors during replication, which means you're less likely to get a fully functioning virus.
Chris Bishop: "Chippy" talked about this yesterday. The House knows about all this.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Just trying to assist Mr Bishop with the science of this virology. Both drugs are still subject to approval by Medsafe, but trials look promising, and, by securing access to both, we are doing everything possible to make sure New Zealanders have available medicines that are easy to administer and prevent most people who contract COVID-19 from being so sick that they need to go to hospital.
Dr Liz Craig: When will these drugs be available alongside the broader COVID-19 therapeutics New Zealand has access to?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Pfizer antiviral is expected to be delivered to New Zealand in April, once approved by Medsafe. These medicines will be an important asset as we continue to prepare for winter in 2022 and will work alongside our wider suite of COVID-19 medicines already secured by Pharmac, which includes baricitinib, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and ronapreve. We've made sure Pharmac can continue to secure early access to new and promising COVID medicines as soon as possible, with $175 million allocated for medicines and supply chain costs and another $300 million available for purchasing more COVID-19 therapeutics.




Question No. 7—Prime Minister
7. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in relation to wage growth rising faster than inflation, "Of course, it has, with wage growth being at around 3.5 percent and inflation around 2 percent"; if so, does she agree with Statistics New Zealand that inflation for the year to September 2021 was 4.9 percent and wage growth was only 2.4 percent?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, and yes.
Nicole McKee: Does she accept that house prices have climbed by almost 30 percent in the past year, and what impact is this having on the cost of living for New Zealanders?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, we acknowledge, of course, what we've seen as a result of decades of issues around the housing market, where CoreLogic now are signalling a view that they believe we will start to see a change in the housing market with additional supply. Of course, the pipeline is also likely to improve with the significant increase in consenting that we're seeing, and at the same time we see the percentage of first-home buyers moving from 22 percent to 26 percent. We know that a number of issues have contributed to the housing crisis we've seen, but our view is that by closing tax loopholes, by continuing to tilt the playing field towards first-home buyers and away from investors, through a considerable public housing build programme, and through significant Resource Management Act reform, we are pulling all of the levers available to us.
Simon Court: Does she stand by Kris Faafoi's estimate in 2019 that the Government's fuel market reforms would reduce the price of petrol from between 18c to 32c a litre; and, if so, why are petrol prices now at record levels?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That's because we've seen global oil prices rise sharply from US$17.55 a barrel to now US$78.33 a barrel.
Chris Baillie: Supplementary?
SPEAKER: Chris Baillie. This is a test!
Chris Baillie: Does she accept that skills shortages and therefore business costs could have been alleviated if the Government had allowed the same level of flexibility at the border for business as they did for The Wiggles?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Over 190,000 individuals have entered into New Zealand since we have had border controls. Of course, we all would have liked a scenario where we could have had the best of both worlds—a COVID-free environment and free flow at the border—but that has, of course, not been possible. We made a call that we would put in place measures to protect the community against COVID. That is what has led our economy to perform better than many others, and, of course, now we're in the phase of carefully reopening our borders.
Karen Chhour: Is she concerned that the Government just had a record tax take of $97 billion while families struggled to pay for groceries; if so, does she intend to offer tax relief to Kiwi families?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be aware that we recently passed through this House adjustments to the family tax credit to ensure that families who are in receipt of Working for Families, which represents a large number of middle and low income earners, will see an increase in that tax credit. We see that as critical at this current time in our COVID recovery. That sits alongside the other measures that we have taken to the in-work tax credit, to Government support, to all make sure that we're doing what we can for low and middle income earners.
David Seymour: If the Prime Minister agrees with Statistics New Zealand that prices are rising twice as fast as wages, why did she tell the House it was the other way around yesterday, and what does that lack of awareness say about her compassion for hard-working Kiwis squeezed from every direction right now?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Unfortunately, it says that the member wasn't listening to either his own question at the time or, indeed, to my answer. The member asked me about a statement that was made by the Minister of Finance in May of this year, and he asked about wage growth and inflation at that time. I replied, "Of course, it has, with wage growth being at around 3.5 percent and inflation around 2 percent." And, at that time the member made that statement, that was Treasury's future forecasting. The member has subsequently presented statistics from September. So the reason I can respond yes to both is because May, of course, precedes September.




Question No. 8—Building and Construction
8. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has she seen on the construction sector?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I've seen a report which shows that activity in the construction sector is strong and is playing a key role in supporting our COVID-19 recovery. The National Construction Pipeline Report shows that, despite disruptions from COVID-19, construction activity is forecast to grow to about $48 billion in 2024, driven largely by our residential sector. The report also projects a healthy increase in infrastructure activity, which is expected to grow from $9.2 billion in 2020, to reach $11.2 billion in 2026, reflecting the high levels of Government investment in this area.
Tāmati Coffey: What does this report show for employment opportunities in the construction sector?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Employment opportunities in this sector are on the rise, with the report highlighting that the industry is now the fourth-largest employer in the country, employing over 281,000 people. This has been helped by the Government's ongoing investment in skills and training with the Construction Skills Action Plan, which was launched in October 2018. The action plan has a target of supporting 4,000 people into education and employment opportunities in the sector. I'm pleased to report that it has exceeded the target by more than sevenfold, supporting 29,000 people into education or employment opportunities in the building and construction sector.
Tāmati Coffey: What does the report show for activity in the residential construction sector?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In the year to October, we saw a 26 percent increase in the number of new homes consented. The report shows that this level of growth will continue, with 265,000 new homes projected to be consented across the country in the next six years. The report also notes that the outlook for residential construction in Auckland is positive, with an estimated 11 percent increase in activity by 2026. The growth we are seeing in the sector illustrates the Government's ongoing commitment to enabling more homes to be built and will support the Auckland economy by providing more jobs and apprenticeships.




Question No. 9—COVID-19 Response
9. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Did the Government receive public health advice ahead of the Cabinet meeting on 29 November 2021 that the hard or enforced boundary around Auckland should be removed when Auckland and the rest of the country move to the COVID-19 Protection Framework, and did this same advice also recommend any regions enter the traffic light system at green?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): In answer to the first part of the question, Cabinet decided to remove the Auckland boundary at its meeting on 15 November. We received public health advice ahead of that that suggested that the Auckland boundary be removed once the whole country moved to the traffic light framework, which would be a minimum of two weeks after all of the Auckland DHBs had reached the 90 percent fully vaccinated threshold. In answer to the second part of the question, the final recommendation in the public health advice provided ahead of Cabinet's meeting on 29 November was that Auckland and Northland should be placed at red and the rest of the country at orange. We agreed with the public health advice that Auckland and Northland should go into the new framework at red. However, in keeping with our cautious approach, including considering factors such as vaccination rates, health system capacity, and the need to protect vulnerable communities during an increased period of travel, we decided that a couple of other regions should also enter the new framework at red.
Chris Bishop: Why, when the Prime Minister said as recently as Monday that the Government places "a lot of weight on the public health advice it receives", is there still a hard boundary around Auckland when the public health advice to the Government stated there is no justification to maintain a boundary around Auckland under the COVID protection framework?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't think the member listened to my answer that I gave to the primary question. If we were following public health advice to the letter, the entire country would not yet be in the COVID-19 Protection Framework (CPF); we would still be waiting for Auckland to be, two weeks after hitting the 90 percent fully vaccinated threshold, which Counties Manukau has yet to do. It's likely to do that in the next day or two, but we would still be waiting potentially up till Christmas to move the country into the traffic light framework if we were following their health advice exactly as it was presented.
Chris Bishop: What regions were listed in the preliminary public health advice he received on 24 November as being able to enter the COVID protection framework at green?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the preliminary advice that I received suggested that all of the rest of the country outside of Auckland and Northland enter the framework at red. I'm happy to go back and check that, but I'm pretty certain it was that everything else would be at the orange level.
SPEAKER: I think there might have been an error in the beginning of the answer. I'll get the member to ask the question again.
Chris Bishop: So the question was: what regions were listed in the preliminary public health advice he received on 24 November as being able to enter the protection framework at green?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: None. As I indicated—I might have got the colours mixed up there in my previous answer—but the preliminary advice, if I recall correctly, was for Auckland and Northland to be at red and the rest of the country to be at orange, but I'll have to go back and check. I'm pretty sure the advice he was referring to wasn't advice to me; it was advice from the public health unit to the director-general.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that the statements made by Dr Bloomfield to the Waitangi Tribunal recently were what was then presented in his advice to Cabinet—that, notably, our preliminary view was that the various regions could enter into the CPF on green; however, given our assessment committee's concerns about the number of areas with low vaccination status, particularly for Māori, and current active cases in several DHBs were not just limited to Auckland metro DHB, this preliminary view was adjusted; the final recommendation was that regions should be placed at orange, except for Auckland and Northland, which was then what was presented to Cabinet?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.
Chris Bishop: Isn't it the case that Dr Bloomfield has provided an affidavit to the Waitangi Tribunal that says, "Our preliminary view was that various regions could enter into the COVID protection framework on green.", and what were those regions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member has a—I think the Prime Minister has just quoted directly from the advice that Dr Bloomfield has provided in his affidavit to the Waitangi Tribunal, which made it clear that, in considering the public health position and in considering what advice to provide to Cabinet, the public health officials weighed up a number of factors, and the ultimate advice that was presented to the Cabinet is as I've set out.
Chris Bishop: Is he aware of what the preliminary advice said in relation to what regions could enter at green; and if he is aware, what are those regions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm pretty sure the member is referring to the public health advice that was provided from the public health team to Dr Bloomfield, not advice that was provided to the Cabinet.
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is very specific, and we've just had a back and forth around the fact that there was a preliminary view that was not the final view that went to the Minister, but there was a preliminary view that—and I've asked the Minister whether or not he's aware of what the preliminary view was, and if he is aware, what exactly the details of that are. He's answering about the final recommendation of public health advice. My question is about the preliminary view of the officials.
SPEAKER: I think the Minister made it pretty clear that notwithstanding what that advice was, it wasn't the advice that went to Cabinet.
Chris Bishop: Does he know what the officials' preliminary view was in relation to what regions could enter the protection framework at green?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Advice that the public health teams provided to Dr Bloomfield is, ultimately, a question for the public health officials and for Dr Bloomfield. I'm not privy to all of that advice, but I have had regular conversations with Dr Bloomfield during that time about the advice that he was receiving.
SPEAKER: No—no, it was a very narrow question that time. Is the member aware of the regions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can't recall the exact conversations—
Chris Bishop: Oh, come on.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —that I had with Dr Bloomfield. He was sharing with me—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will sit down. If you're going to yell over the top, that's the end of it.
Chris Bishop: Hang on. Mr Speaker, it was an exclamation of somewhat disbelief—
SPEAKER: And I was assisting the member to get an answer, and he and a number of colleagues didn't want to hear it.




Question No. 10—Diversity, Inclusion, and Ethnic Communities
10. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities: What actions has the Government taken to support our ethnic communities to get the COVID-19 vaccine?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone in New Zealand is supported to access the COVID-19 vaccination. We know that communities access information differently, have varied needs, and that a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works. So, amongst other actions, the Government established two funds that support ethnic communities to both access information and the vaccination itself in ways that are relevant to them. We established the Vaccine Uptake Fund to provide support for activities aimed at increasing vaccination, particularly in our harder to reach ethnic communities, and that has so far been accessed by 51 groups. This is in addition to the ethnic communities communications fund, which supported 71 initiatives aimed at eliminating barriers and countering misinformation faced by our ethnic communities.
Vanushi Walters: Why is this funding important?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Our ethnic communities make up a significant proportion of New Zealand's population—close to 20 percent, to be precise. Since we know that getting vaccinated is the best way to protect ourselves and others, it's important that we support communities to get the information they need to get the vaccination. It's also important that we support communities to lead those efforts, as they are best placed to be able to access harder to reach groups within their own communities. Our ethnic communities have told us that, for example, being able to provide things like transport, interpreters, and collateral in their own languages makes a real difference in order for them to be able to organise vaccine drives that are culturally appropriate. That's why we created those funds, to be able to support community organisations directly with this. I want to acknowledge that vaccination rates are high across ethnic communities as a whole, but that doesn't mean that our work is done. We will continue to support everyone who is eligible to access the vaccine.
SPEAKER: Right, I'm going to allow another supplementary, but the answer must be much shorter than those two.
Vanushi Walters: What other work has been under way to support our ethnic communities to get vaccinated?
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The Ministry for Ethnic Communities has been working closely with key stakeholders in communities, DHBs, and in the public sector to boost vaccination rates. Amongst other things, they've held information sessions and Zui with communities across the country, produced over 40 videos in over 20 languages with specific information, hosted vaccination days for ethnic youth, and also connected communities with relevant DHBs to help them organise over 16 tailored vaccination drives. I'm incredibly proud of a huge amount of work that has gone into this—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, we can tell the Minister's proud, but—No. 11, Simeon Brown.




Question No. 11—Public Service
11. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister for the Public Service: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions regarding pay and workforce expectations for the public sector?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): Yes, in the context in which they occurred.
Simeon Brown: Does the Minister believe the public is getting value for money with a 49 percent increase in taxpayer funding for civil servants in Wellington since 2017 when Kiwis are facing worse outcomes in education, hospital wait times, and police response times?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm going to give the member a chance to rephrase it in two ways. One, to tie it to the primary question—the statements and the actions of the Minister—and secondly, to drop the British term "civil servants". We don't have civil servants in New Zealand.
Simeon Brown: Does the Minister stand by his statement in May regarding pay and workforce expectations and the need for value for money when there has been a 49 percent increase in taxpayer funding for public servants in Wellington since 2017 when Kiwis are facing worse outcomes in education, hospital wait times, and police response times?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: First of all, I think the member confuses where those public servants are based and the nature of the work that they are undertaking. Not all of those public servants are based in Wellington. In fact, a large number of them are spread throughout the country. It includes greater front-line staff for the Ministry of Education, for example, who provide direct support to schools and to children to improve educational outcomes that he has just mentioned. It does include the people working for Ministry of Social Development and the IRD, providing, amongst other things, the wage subsidy, which has kept the economy alive over the last 18 months. It includes extra people working at Oranga Tamariki to provide support and care to some of our most vulnerable children and families. The list of those examples could go on. The members opposite may want to call them bureaucrats; we call them public servants.
Simeon Brown: How many of the 14,000 additional public sector employees that have been employed since 2017 are employed directly as part of the COVID response, and isn't it true that the headcount had already increased by 5,000 before COVID hit?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It depends, ultimately, how you calculate that. Somewhere between 40 percent to half of the overall number accounts for response to COVID. So that includes people working in things like managed isolation and quarantine, it includes extra people working at the border, the people running the vaccination campaign, the people doing contact tracing, the people managing testing, the people delivering the wage subsidy, and all of those other COVID-19 directly related initiatives. There's a mix of permanent and short-term staffing involved in those numbers.
Simeon Brown: Why did the Government hire over 500 new public service managers in the last year but not invest in adding ICU beds until month 21 of the pandemic?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, the latter part of the member's question is absolutely wrong. In terms of the first part of the question, as I've indicated, the increased number of public servants has been very closely connected to many aspects of our overall COVID-19 response. For example, to have managed isolation facilities across the country, we need people to manage them.
Simeon Brown: How does the almost doubling of the number of public service employees earning over $400,000 per year show "pay restraint" as required by the Public Service Commissioner's guidance to Public Service agencies in 2020?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think one of the things we need to do is recognise that the nature of some of the roles being undertaken has changed and that we are ultimately recruiting in a competitive market for those people at senior levels of the Public Service.
Hon Grant Robertson: You don't want to bag someone's success. They've worked hard.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: But I do welcome—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Look, I don't know what, sort of—it's boys' day out or something. Can the pair of you just—
Hon Simon Bridges: He provoked me.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: That was yesterday.
SPEAKER: No, no, no. Well, I don't need the Prime Minister to help either. I could get in trouble if I speculated at what was causing it, and I'll stop, but the finance spokespeople are both to stay silent until the end of question time.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, what the member misses in his question is that the overall rate of pay for chief executives, for example, at the top of the Public Service has actually decreased under this Government.




Question No. 12—Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence
12. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: What is she doing to support the UN's Orange the World campaign?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): I thank the member for the question. Orange the World is an international campaign that represents 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls, and I congratulate members across the House today for wearing orange in support of that day. It started about 30 years ago in 1991, and this struggle, this movement, has been happening for so long, driven by so many women and across so many communities. Yesterday, I was proud to launch Te Aorerekura, our national strategy and action plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. For the first time ever, we are working across Government, communities, and tangata whenua to address violence. This is an important step towards ensuring the wellbeing of all people, including women and girls. We not only have a strategy; we have 40 actions where we have committed as a Government, which will take us through the next two years as a starting point, and, might I say, those are 40 actions on top of business as usual. Te Aorerekura is the biggest breakthrough we have seen in addressing violence because it elevates the Government's accountability all across our agencies and our commitment to do things differently.
Ingrid Leary: What changes does she expect to see from the Te Aorerekura action plan?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Part of the Government being accountable for this work is knowing what this will mean to people in their everyday lives. We heard clearly from the community that we need to achieve both outcomes for people but also changes to the system so that we stop re-traumatising those who need our support. Over time, for example, we expect to see that children and young people understand healthy relationships, how to seek help, and that they can access tailored services. We expect to see that those that use violence are accountable and supported to change their behaviour and address past trauma. Finally, in terms of the system change, we absolutely must see that tangata whenua, Pacific peoples, ethnic peoples, LGBTQIA+ communities, older people, male survivors, and disabled communities can access safe and tailored services that uphold who they are.
Hon Jan Tinetti: How will Te Aorerekura improve the lives of women and girls in New Zealand?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Firstly, I want to be very clear that no wahine or kōtiro should live in fear of gender-based violence. Te Aorerekura completely acknowledges the gendered nature of family violence and sexual violence, and it includes a broad understanding of who is impacted by it and who uses these forms of violence—go to page 10, for anyone who wants to have a look. Violence against women and children is widespread in Aotearoa. It is unacceptable—full stop. Gender inequities and sexism in our society and the upholding of patriarchal systems, men's dominance, entitlement, and physical and sexual aggression mean that more men are more likely to use violence. We must accept and better understand the different ways violence is perpetuated and how it impacts differently across different communities. This is so important. In fact, this is the most important thing when we develop effective responses, healing, and prevention, and that is exactly what Te Aorerekura does. Finally, I want to acknowledge that member, Minister Tinetti, for her leadership and commitment to this work, and to acknowledge the important role the Ministry for Women plays in the Public Service, ensuring women and girls are visible and considered in Government policy.
 





GENERAL DEBATE
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
Last Tuesday, the National Party's Grabaseat sale reached its latest chapter. Chris Luxon took over and upgraded, and I congratulate him on that. But if you're looking for a man of the people, "Get your power tools at Bunnings" kind of vibe, hiring a black Mercedes to drive across the road doesn't really fit it, and, in fact, exhibit A, as I have it here, would show you that Mr Luxon's journey of productivity didn't start well. [Holds up map of the parliamentary precinct with route of travel highlighted] What would have been a quick, two-minute stroll across the road turned into a four-minute drive, not a productive drive. I do note that it required Mr Luxon to travel straight for 43 seconds before turning right for a minute, turning right again, turning left, turning right again—this will be the pattern of his leadership until such time as he comes to turn the page.
We have heard a great deal of corporate life-coach waffle over the last few days from the National Party. It's all about turning the page in the National Party's long-running saga, "Fifty Shades of Beige". But, unfortunately, the corporate life-coach waffling is now catching in the National Party. Yesterday, Simon Bridges went all Zen on us and said, "Yesterday is yesterday. Today is the future.", leaving out the critical final line: "And tomorrow, there'll be another leader."
But it was for former leader Todd Muller, who took this to a new level, as he spoke of taking off the "backpack of grievance", and I say good on Todd Muller. Leave that backpack at the caucus door, because there's heaps of people who want it, and it does beg that question of who will pick up the backpack of grievance and its inbuilt speed dial for the press gallery. Will it be Todd McClay, will it be David Bennett, or will it be Judith Collins from seat 19C, by the aisle, ready to push the call bell? But, unfortunately, she's already heavily laden down with her handbag of hostility.
But there is plenty of baggage to go around in the National Party. There's Simon Bridges' satchel of stolen dreams, Michael Woodhouse's duffle bag of despair, Paul Goldsmith's kete of misgivings, and he was able to hand on to Andrew Bayly the bumbag of bungled fiscals, and all of it is kept inside the caucus threadbare sack of unity, because we know that members on the other side of the House will hold it together just for a moment before it's Grabaseat sale No. 10.
Meanwhile, on this side of the House, we are focused on making sure that New Zealand gets through COVID-19, and I want to acknowledge today the leadership of the Prime Minister in doing so, because throughout the time we've had COVID and the numerous National Party leaders who have come and gone during that period, they've wanted to open up the border and they've wanted to lift restrictions, and all the way through we have had the steady leadership of the Prime Minister. That has led to the lowest mortality rate in the OECD, one of the lowest rates of hospitalisation in the OECD, and an economy that sees one of the lowest unemployment rates, at 3.4 percent—growing in the last quarter at 2.8 percent.
Time and time again in this House, we've heard the call from the Opposition to "Open the border."; "Close the border." It takes consistency, it takes leadership, and that's what the Prime Minister has shown and I want to thank her for that.
But, on top of that, I want to thank those people all around New Zealand who are doing the fantastic work to get our people vaccinated. Today, we stand with just four DHBs not at that 90 percent first dose, and I've told Damien O'Connor to go out and find the eight remaining people on the West Coast who will get them to that. Those vaccinators all around New Zealand are our heroes. They are the people who mean that New Zealanders will be safe over this summer, and I thank and congratulate them for everything they are doing for us.
SPEAKER: Well, if no one else wants to take the call, we'll move along—David Seymour.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This has been an absolutely tremendous year, and I want to thank people from right across New Zealand, from right across the political spectrum, from all walks of life, who have come to support ACT, and they've come to support ACT for a couple of simple reasons. They see politics not working in New Zealand. They see a Government that leads by spin, that dissembles, and that's one party, but the other that vacillates and goes from one jibe to the other, sometimes playing "me too" and sometimes criticising with negativity. That's why people come to ACT. They see that at the end of all this, they have a country that is among the last to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, except maybe China.
The only other country that is trying to maintain an elimination strategy is the Chinese Communist Party - governed People's Republic of China. We nearly ended up in an elimination bloc of countries where one country's a communist dictatorship and the other one is China. But we are leaving the elimination strategy, last in the world with a mountain of debt and rising prices to boot, because we've been sustained through this pandemic by two oceans—the literal oceans that have kept the virus from our shores. Isn't it incredible the way the Prime Minister congratulates herself almost daily for quarantining a remote group of islands in the far stretch of the Pacific?
The other oceans that have sustained New Zealand through are the oceans of printed and borrowed money that they've pumped into the economy. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost, and New Zealanders—hard-working middle New Zealand—are squeezed from every angle as those oceans of cheap money that sustain this Government's COVID response start to overwhelm them with rising prices at the petrol pump, at the supermarket. Hell, we even heard yesterday that it could be $7 for a cup of coffee. Isn't that going to hurt the Labour Party beltway?
We will, as a country, pass through the debt. We will pay it down in a generation. New Zealand has been through this before, but there are so many things we could do to make it easier. And here's one simple example: we are not going to allow our universities, our schools, our colleges to compete in the world for international students until April, or maybe even August, depending on which country they're from. In Canada and Australia, the universities, the education sector, have the welcome mat out and are competing for international students right now for the year 2022.
Then there's the supply of labour for our horticultural industries, for skilled labour, for so many businesses trying to grow—they can't get people, and when there's no one to work, the wages are going up and every price with it.
Now, can the Government explain why it's going to be safe to open up the borders in a month's time for some people, in four months' time for others? It's safe to do it today in New South Wales, but it's not safe to do it in New Zealand. Of course they can't, and they do not understand the cost that they're imposing. But, like I say, we will survive this expensive—you know, the Prime Minister calls it "cautious"; I call it "costly response to COVID-19". But this country is being damaged in much more profound ways.
You just have to ask yourself, if the Director-General of Health says we don't need any roadblocks in Northland, why are the police still operating them? Well, the answer is they are there to babysit a minority of so-called leaders from Northland, such as Hone Harawira, who have said they're going to cause trouble anyway if the police aren't there. That's the truth. And the people I represent in central Auckland, they don't get the cops coming when their stores are robbed and they call them because the police are busy manning borders the public health advice says shouldn't even exist.
That's the real damage this Government is doing. Instead of creating an inclusive society, we don't even know who's running the cops anymore in this country. There is a better way. ACT offers a better way, and we thank so many people who have come to support us as they see it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You know, in the midst of advice and theory and speculation, nobody really knew how this country would respond post COVID lockdowns. One sector that has done extraordinarily well—despite all of the issues that have befallen it—is the construction sector. The construction sector has gone to extraordinary lengths to build houses and to build infrastructure. It's with the proactive support of this Government that our construction sector has thrived in this environment. Those that we expected to be most impacted by COVID have been most impacted by COVID: Māori, Pacific, and women. And yet, in the construction sector with the use of the Construction Skills Action Plan and the partnership with the Construction Sector Accord, those groups in particular have been so well represented that the numbers of those Māori, Pacific, and women in the construction sector have increased.
If I can just share with you some of the fantastic news that has happened in the sector, and I shared a little bit of that earlier today. We have gone from using the Construction Skills Action Plan, which had a target of 4,000 people into education and employment opportunities in the construction sector—that has exceeded the number of people in the sector by seven times to 29,000, and that's just one opportunity that has been taken advantage of. Very early on in the development of the Construction Sector Accord, the partnership between the sector and the Government—when we were plunged into our first lockdown, the relationship that we now have with the construction sector is such that we were able to develop with them a way to safely bring the sector back on board at level 2. So one of the few sectors that opened up after the first lockdown was the construction sector—able to then continue on the massive house build programme that is being undertaken in this country. A record number of consents across the country and an unexpected, really, return to some great work in the sector.
And what else is happening to support the sector? So there is other work that we are doing to support the sector by a legislative reform. One of the pieces of work we have done is to ensure that we can build faster through the changes we have made in the modular construction framework. So we're able to build faster, but not only that, we're now supporting—
Hon Member: Are you the Minister of Police or not?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I am actually the Minister of Police, but I'm also the Minister for Building and Construction and I just want to tell you about the magnificent work that the building and construction sector is doing. And the work that we're doing around Licensed Building Practitioners. We know that in Christchurch, for example, that we a huge issue with the ability to know that our engineers were actually registered and working to their practise. The work that we're doing around supporting the development of some key criteria around Licensed Building Practitioners will give the sector some sense of security that we're able to continue to do—
They are a real rabble today, Mr Speaker. I'm not sure if you're getting this, but they are a little bit of a rabble today.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I'm recording this, sell it as a cure for insomnia!
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Oh, are you falling asleep, Mr Brownlee! Let me help you with more good news then, shall I? The diversity into the—
SPEAKER: Well if he is, the member's sleep talking pretty loudly!
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yeah. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Let me just say that there are some amazing opportunities today—as we celebrate oranging the world for women—in the building and construction sector. The Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation apprentices say that about 5 percent of women apprentices in the BCITO are women. That's up from 3 percent in 2019. [Opposition members applaud] Oh, thank you! What a disgraceful bunch of people.





CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): Well, what a difference a week makes. That's all I can say, is what a difference a week makes, because, finally, Grant Robertson does some work. He puts it into his speech—sadly, not into the economy. "Mr Business Premier" thinks it's all about Business Premier, it's all about the economy, it's all about the people of New Zealand. He goes up and gets stitched up—the Labour Party leadership transition—so he's all ready to go. I think that's a shame, because poor Chris Hipkins doesn't get a go, lovely Michael Wood doesn't get a go. I reckon it would be a lot more fun if Willie Jackson had a shot at it. He'd make it interesting for us. Mr Mallard, maybe?
But what I want to say is that New Zealand—don't you feel New Zealand's a great country? I mean, I've lived and worked all round the world, and I can tell you this is the best place on planet Earth. But what I can tell you is in this place we also have a little bit of straight talk and we say it as it is, right? What we have to say is that New Zealand is losing its way, OK, and I can tell you why—I can tell you why. It's this Government here. You see it in their eyes. They look tired. They're looking forward to Christmas. Kris Faafoi's there—look at him. I mean, he's tired. He's waiting for Christmas. The reindeers are running out of puff. He's running out of puff. He's lost the way. What I want to say—you can just see it. What's happening is this is a Government that does the PR, it likes the spinning but it actually doesn't deliver and it doesn't get things done.
We heard about that today. We heard about the everyday New Zealanders who are out there waking up this morning, going to work, paying their taxes, getting their kids to school, dealing with the congestion, and they can't get ahead. They can't get ahead, because why? Because wages are half the rate of costs. Costs are up twice the rate that they're going. I want to tell you that parents, when you talk to the mums and dads, they're worried about education. They know that they need their kids to have a world-class education. But what's the Government doing here? Absolutely nothing. Sixty percent of our kids make it to school regularly—unbelievable. We're in the bottom in maths, reading, and science in the world. So that doesn't set their kids up for a world-class education, either.
What's very obvious to us is this Government doesn't care about small business. They seem to think that sitting here in Wellington, they get to make everything happen in this economy. They don't realise that it's the punter that wakes up each morning, takes a risk, gets out there, makes something happen, wants to get ahead for themselves and their family—
Hon Member: A battler.
CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The battler—exactly, that's what it is. It's a battling New Zealand that's out there who wants to go make it happen. What we're watching here is a Government that's not supporting them. They think they create the jobs, but it's actually that individual, that small-business person, that actually employs the people, makes it happen. What we've seen here is a great leap backwards to centralisation and control, back to the 1970s, back to centralised Fortress New Zealand. That's essentially what's happening, and that's a shame. It's a shame when you see enterprise taken out of the lifeblood of a country like New Zealand. People lack the confidence to go out there and give it a go, lack the ambition. They say, "Why do I bother?", because of what this Government does in terms of treating economy and small business.
But there's another group that this Government doesn't care about, and it's our rural communities. I'll tell you what: they really don't care about or value our farmers. They're not their people. It's very obvious. I can tell you farmers aren't villains, because, actually, they generate $9,000 on export earnings for each and every New Zealander in this country. They're the people that drive 80 percent of our exports. They employ 350,000 people. But I can tell you they're doing it really tough under this Government, because they don't care about them. They just load them up with costs and regulation. Think about it: significant natural areas, the Water Services Bill, slope rules, wetlands, freshwater regulations, and, literally, the farmer is sitting there on the other side of a tennis net being served 10 tennis balls at a time and they don't know which one to hit. I can tell you that industry is very, very special. The people are strategic. They care deeply. It's an incredible industry to be part of. They synthesize economy, agriculture, sustainability.
But the worst thing is this Government's become arrogant. It's become really arrogant, and it's become arrogant fast. You know, the reality is they had lots of promises, lots of announcements, lots of spin—no delivery. Lots of wasteful spending, lots of bloated bureaucracy, lots of centralisation control, "we know best".
But what I want to tell you is that there is hope. I want to tell New Zealanders that there is hope. Hope is coming to a town near you, and it's in the form of a refreshed new National Party. We've reset. The National Party is back. We know how to put aspiration, ambition, confidence, and mojo back into this country. We're not going to go play a small, fearful, inward-looking game. We're out there in the world going to happen to our future rather than let it happen to us. So, New Zealand, the National Party is back. We're reset, we're united, we're focused, and we're ready to go.





Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): It's the last general debate of the year; so I would like to acknowledge the new Leader of the Opposition and wish him the appropriate amount of luck. The former chief executive of Air New Zealand—my only substantive interaction with him when I was the member of Parliament for Mana was when we was cutting flights to Kāpiti Airport. So the man who just told us that he cares about the regions, about small-town New Zealand, was cutting flights to Kāpiti, cutting flights to Nelson, cutting flights to Gisborne. That is exactly his background in corporate New Zealand. But, again, I wish the new Leader of the Opposition the best of luck. A week is a long time in politics. I look forward to next week in the National Party caucus!
It is the last general debate of the year. So we deserve some acknowledgments. I want to start with my colleague Marama Davidson, the co-leader of the Māori Party, because it is a very special day and we are marking it by wearing orange. I want to acknowledge the work that she has undertaken to get to the point where Te Aorerekura was launched earlier this week in order to make sure we are eliminating sexual and family violence in New Zealand. That hard work over many, many months and years has come to fruition, and it will make a big difference to our families and our partnerships in New Zealand, and I want to acknowledge the hard work to get to the point where we are today.
It has been a difficult year but a year where the leadership of the Government has made a huge difference to the lives that New Zealanders live. The leader of the ACT Party was saying it's been a costly year, and it depends on how you look at cost, because we've got the lowest rate of hospitalisations, the lowest number of cases, and the lowest number of deaths in the developed world, per capita, here in New Zealand. So, if you want to talk about costs, what is cost? Would the ACT Party prefer it if we had more hospitalisations? Would they prefer that we had more cases? Would they prefer that we had more deaths due to the COVID outbreak? Because that is a cost that this Government isn't willing to entertain, and actually I want to acknowledge all the New Zealanders, and especially Aucklanders, who have got us to this stage where we are right now, where, in a week's time, they will be all free and we will be able to enjoy a relatively normal Christmas compared to what we have had over the last six months in those conditions.
I want to acknowledge all the hard work of the people at the front line: the people who are doing vaccinations, the people who are helping us scan, the people who are helping us with our COVID vaccine passes, and the businesses and the organisations who are making sure that they adhere to that. And I acknowledge that, because we've been through nearly a week of life with the COVID vaccine pass, and I'm sure many members around the House and people who may be listening and watching have actually found that most New Zealanders get it. So don't listen to the negativity, and increased negativity, from the other side of the House, because New Zealanders have got this. They realise that the decisions we've been making over the last 20 months have kept us safe, and they want to continue doing it, because everyone has worked hard to make sure we can do it. When you go to a basketball game to watch your kids, and they're over 12, everyone gets it. If you want to go into the gym and you've got your vaccine pass, they scan it and they let you in. New Zealanders get it, and we're transitioning into that new world of making sure that we can keep Delta at bay from our communities, making sure we're keeping New Zealanders safe and New Zealanders healthy, and New Zealanders get it.
I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Aupito William Sio as well, and my Pacific colleagues as well, because, for a community of Pacific Islanders here in New Zealand, we thought there were going to be big challenges to get us vaccinated. We're now at the point where we're 92 percent first-dose vaccinated across the country, and that is huge. But the work is not over. We've got to keep having those discussions, having days like Barbara Edmonds organises in Porirua, to make sure we're getting those second doses, getting those boosters, having those conversations with our families to make sure we're keeping ourselves safe.
So my final message isn't one for the people in this room; it's for the people outside of this place, to make sure we keep doing what we've done for the last 20 months. We got to stay the course, we've got to keep vaccinated, we've got to keep doing the simple things that are keeping our children and our families safe, to make sure that we can have a Christmas, to make sure that our elderly are safe from the ravages of COVID, those who have pre-existing conditions in our communities are safe from the ravages of COVID. We have worked hard to get to this point, and we've got to stay the course.
So I wish you all a very merry Christmas, but, while we're having that merry Christmas, keep our families and our communities safe by making sure you do the right thing, that we've done over the last 20 months because of the leadership of this Government.





RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you. Well, we've heard a lot about changes to do with COVID and the economy, but in actual fact nobody is actually talking about the most racist legislation in this House, which is the electoral law. The electoral law for a long time has locked Māori out from participating in this country's democracy for over eight years at a time. So if I take, for an example, the last time you could change on the electoral roll was 2018. Between 2018 and the 2020 election, 16,000 people got in contact with the Electoral Commission to change rolls. They cannot change rolls until 2024, so they've missed the 2020 election, they will miss the 2023 election, and the next election that they will be able to vote on is 2026.
This has been suppression since 1867, when the four Māori electorates were set up to limit the representation we had in this place. Māori were 47 percent of the total population at that particular time. If it was a democracy then, it would be a different story, but at this particular time, I want to highlight to this House that under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we should have 50 percent representation in this House. Under equity, we should have 25 percent in this House. Under equality, if we are 16 to 18 percent of the population, we should have that percentage in this House. We don't get either one of those—we don't get either one of those.
So what I'm saying today is that I have submitted my member's bill today. That member's bill specifically talks about allowing Māori to change between the Māori and the general electoral rolls at any time; to change the periodic requirement to redraw electoral boundaries from after each census to a set date two years after each general election; to set a legislation requirement that if someone stipulates they are Māori when enrolling but doesn't choose an electoral roll, they are placed on the Māori electoral roll; and change the name of the general electorate district to the non-Māori electorate district. This is the problem: you've got a Māori roll and then a general roll, and then you hold the general elections.
This is why this whole electoral law—[Hon Kris Faafoi enters the Chamber] well, I'm glad Mr Faafoi's walked back in here so he can hear this—needs to be changed, but it needs to be guided by Māori to allow us a greater participation in our democracy, because we do not get it. It is the only law that locks indigenous peoples out for an eight-year period. [Hon Kris Faafoi leaves the Chamber] Where are you going, Mr Faafoi? You're supporting. He gave me a chest pump. I look forward to when he makes those changes within that particular ministry.
The bill would amend the Electoral Act 1993 to enable Māori voters to switch between the Māori and the non-Māori electoral rolls at any time. This is the problem. It is not allowing us to do that at any time. We still have prejudice when we have our tamariki trying to sign up to an electoral roll that has already been predetermined. It is already ticked on there, "I am Māori and choose to go on the general roll." We have evidence of that, because we have people send us those things on a daily basis. As they enrol onto a roll, it's already got a pre-ticked circle on their enrolments. This is the disgrace that our people face every time they go into this electoral process.
So we get this every three years. The problem is, it also determines our participation at local government elections. We all need to take responsibility for this. It's high time that this country and the parties in this House start to take responsibility for the changes of that bill and support it. By not supporting this bill, it will continuously and consciously choose to actively participate against a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa. We need to recognise the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi that our ancestors, both mine, both tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti agreed to. Our ancestors signed this together. If we look at it as a waka hourua—a waka hourua, a double-hulled waka. On one side, you have kāwanatanga; on the other side you have mana motuhake. One side is tangata Tiriti; one side is tangata whenua. The thing that joins that waka hourua, that double-hulled waka, is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We must grow this together. This is not about a difference between us—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. Greetings. Afternoon, everybody. It's really wonderful to have this opportunity in what I think will be my last general debate speech for the year. So in case I run out of time at the end, I want to say it at the beginning: meri Kirihimete to everybody. It has been a really long and challenging year. I'm really looking forward to the Christmas break and some time up North with my family.
But I want to talk about our move to the COVID-19 Protection Framework and the traffic light system. For COVID, there has been no playbook—we've heard this—but I'm so proud of our team of 5 million. To my colleagues who are in Cabinet and to every single one of us who have worked together to protect one another, we've done that by lockdowns, by wearing our masks, by scanning in, by getting vaccinated, to protect not only ourselves but to protect our communities. And thanks to our successful response, we have protected lives and livelihoods. We have the lowest number of cases, hospitalisations, and deaths in the OECD, and we should be really proud of that, because we have worked so hard to protect those lives and to protect livelihoods. Our economy is in good shape. So I want to mihi to all of our teams who have been out there vaccinating.
As I have travelled around Te Tai Tokerau in the last month since my last general debate, I have seen vaccination waka outside Roma Marae in Ahipara, at the Kaeō rest area as I was driving through last Friday, at the Moerewa Christmas vaccination event, at the Taipā Point Reserve Maheatai visit that we had recently, the doctors' surgeries, pharmacies, our DHBs popping up all over the place, as well as our Māori providers. It has been a huge effort. I'm really pleased to say that the Northland DHB advises that we are on the brink of 80 percent double vaxxed in Te Tai Tokerau, and that is a huge achievement for us. We are apparently—hopefully, fingers crossed, continue to do the mahi—going to be 90 percent first dose by the end of December. We only need another 5,500 more. So to anybody in Tai Tokerau listening today, please be one of those 5,500.
I'm really proud and pleased to know that 93 percent of our Pasifika community are single vaxxed so far and 80 percent of Māori. But Delta is here now, and our strategy has had to change. And as the virus adapts, so too must we adapt, and we are doing that. We're doing that by safely reopening, by moving to the COVID-19 Protection Framework, otherwise known as the traffic light system. And being in Northland, there is some concern in our community. We do have the lowest vaccination rate in the country, and we have many small, vulnerable communities.
I was reminded of this just last week during recess when we had the first COVID cases self-isolating in the small community where Dr Shane Reti and I come from. It was difficult for the community. This was a first for us. We had to respond. We had no notice, no warning, but I'm proud of how our community came together to yet again come up with a strategy and a plan to protect one another. What they did was within the same day we had pop-up testing in this small community, and the people turned up to get tested. By the end of that week, we had a vaccination bus returning to vaccinate in our community where there were a number who hadn't yet been vaccinated. We also wrapped awhi and support around that whānau who is self-isolating, and so far we have not had any further spread. So it is a real risk and a real challenge for us in Te Tai Tokerau, and I just want to acknowledge again the hard mahi that everybody is doing to ensure that we continue to save lives and livelihoods.
I do want to use the last 30 seconds to talk about one other highlight from my recess, and that was selecting my youth MP. I am proud to announce my youth MP is miss Tyissa Hape, who comes from Bay of Islands College—my former high school. I'm really proud in being able to select her. I look forward to her getting an opportunity to participate in the Youth Parliament programme. She is looking forward to that opportunity. It also coincides with her final year at Bay of Islands College. Her kaupapa is around kapa haka and how it supports mental health and wellbeing and is also good and transformational. Nō reira e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): New Zealanders are sick of hearing about how good they've got it from a Government who talks the talk but cannot walk the walk. Instead of indulging in self-congratulations about how good their COVID response has been, instead of back-slapping each other over their latest announcement and getting sucked in by their own spin, Ministers and members opposite need to understand what it is really like for struggling Kiwis right now.
I want the members opposite to think about the Aucklanders who have spent more than 100 days in lockdown. Many still don't have their kids back at school full-time, and to learn today that the Director-General of Health said they could've been out of those restrictions. I want members opposite to think of those who are in Auckland and still can't leave for a funeral or a wedding of a loved one. I want members opposite to think about the businesses who are continuing to struggle under restrictions with no certainty about when those restrictions will end. And when they've done thinking about that, I want members opposite to think about what it's like for Kiwis when the cost of living is outstripping wage growth 2:1. How does that feel at the supermarket each week and at the petrol pump each fortnight? I want members opposite to think about what it feels like when rents go up $90 a week under Labour—that makes it tough—and when house prices go up $170,000 on average a year. How does it feel to be someone who wants to buy their own first home in this country? It feels like it's impossible under Labour to climb that mountain.
When members opposite talk about how they've done a great job, I want to remind them of this: they took $50 billion of New Zealanders' hard-earned cash and they said they'd spend it on COVID recovery. So did they spend it on a single extra ICU bed in our hospitals? No, they didn't. Instead, they spent it on a private Green School in the Taranaki, and $27 million for wallaby control. Members opposite need to remember that that is not their money they are spending. That money belongs to hard-working New Zealanders.
All of that is pretty bad—the Government's not getting the basics right, so you ask yourself, "But are they doing what they promised they would do when they were elected?" And this is where the failures are writ so large. Let's talk about housing. Let's talk about the hundred thousand KiwiBuild homes that were promised. How many have been built today? It is a disgrace—the number is 1,230. There should have been 20,000 by now. What a disgrace. There are now 19,000 more people on the State house waiting list. That's the homelessness that the Prime Minister said she was going to solve—19,000 more people waiting for a house.
The Prime Minister said that the real reason she was in politics was because she was concerned about child poverty. Well, I'm concerned about the cycle of dependence that this so-called kind Government is entrenching, where there are 70,000 more people on a jobseeker benefit during a time of high employment. Do you know what the real result of that is? The real result of that is more children growing up in benefit-dependent households, dependent on the State, growing up assigned to material hardship. Thousands more children in those benefit-dependent homes, and there are 5,000 families raising their children in motel rooms—this under the administration that said it was here to solve child poverty.
They also said they were here to solve the climate change emergency, didn't they? Well, since they made that declaration, guess how many tonnes of coal they've imported into this country: 931,000 tonnes of coal. It's a record—and that's their response to the climate change emergency.
What we have opposite us is a Government who have announced announcement after announcement. They have spoken from the podium of truth but have not delivered for the people they are here to serve. We're National, we're back, and we're going to make sure that Kiwis get a much better deal come 2023.





Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa'afetai lava mo le avanoa lau afioga le fofoga fetalai. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this general debate securing our recovery. Just like member Willow-Jean Prime, I would like to also say: manuia le Kerisimasi ma le tausaga fou. Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year to all our colleagues in the House.
I want to use this time to also highlight the wonderful and tremendous work that's been done on the ground at our vaccination stations, but also our testing stations, managed isolation and quarantine, and also now with the workforce with the community again being cared for in isolation. I also want to highlight the milestones that have been recently achieved, with the 85 percent of eligible Māori and 92 percent of eligible Pasifika having received their first dose as well.
Specifically where I'm from, South Auckland, Counties Manukau are at 93 percent of first doses and 89 percent of second doses. So we're almost there, so just a plug for our whānau in Counties Manukau to please come forward to get your first, second, or your booster shots done this week. There are plenty of places to do so. Also, across the motu as well, there are more than 3.7 million people who are fully vaccinated, and that's 88 percent of the eligible population as well.
The wonderful work of not only my colleagues out in the workforce but also the social providers, the youth groups, the churches, the temples that have really done the hard mahi, the hard work, in order to increase our rates across Aotearoa, but especially where I'm from in South Auckland. One of them being South Seas Healthcare's le afioga ia Lemalu Silao, the CEO there, and their crew working tirelessly in Ōtara, with the vaccination centre there at the Manukau Institute of Technology, alongside the testing centre that's next door to the vaccination centre. Also, the Whānau Ora food parcels that are used as well, because it's not only the priority of getting the vaccination; it's also the social wraparound service that's needed.
Our Bubblegum crew, the youth initiative that go and engage with our youth—they've done a tremendous job as well, so I send my aroha to them.
Baderdrive Doctors, who are based in Manurewa, Māngere, who also get around and look after our Pasifika whānau, families. The many Pacific-centred - targeted vaccination stations that they've been helping out—I also want to say thank you to them.
Our local Takanini vaccination centre—a big shout-out to George and Raewyn and the crew there, on Saturday, on the Super Saturday event. Just this past Saturday as well I went and got my booster shot, and I want to say thank you for their work. They provide buses that can help our whānau get to the vaccination centre in the first place, so I thank them for their mahi.
Our local marae that surround Takanini as well—Manurewa and Papakura marae, the tremendous work that they do in reaching out to our whānau has been tremendous. During the lockdown, I had the opportunity to volunteer alongside our medical crew from those marae—Manurewa Marae—and doing the mahi next to them has been a privilege, not only to get our vaccination rates up but also to have that sort of relationship-building with our clinical staff there.
Our vaccination buses that go out—our Shot Cuz bus, that goes out to Randwick Park.
Hon Member: Yay, Randwick Park!
Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: One of the areas—yeah, that's right; Randwick Park. Thank you to the Minister, as part of that community, the Manurewa community, the amount of work that they do in order to supply that. I know our Shot Cuz bus was recently at Alfriston College and engaging our youth there. So I'd like to say thank you to them as well.
Also to our Pacific workforce and our clinical nurses that do the work there as well. I want to do a shout-out to my colleagues from our Pacific peer group that not only are doing business as usual in the clinics but are out there doing the testing and the vaccination but also the online MIQ work that they do to look after—once you do get a positive, to make sure that our whānau are being well looked after and being able to speak your own language; that's been really good in terms of engagement.
Also, lastly, our Takanini Sikh temple in reaching our ethnic community, our Sikh community, the amount of work they do—it's almost like every week they do a food drive in order to support our community and also the vaccine uptake there. So that's why this Government has done so well in this pandemic. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): You know, it's been a relatively amusing debate, I have to say. Grant Robertson gave a good speech; Chris Luxon's was better, I have to say. But I would reflect on this: while Grant Robertson is over there sitting in "comfy class", I think over the next year or two he's going to start getting very, very uncomfortable as interest rates and inflation start prodding him in that seat, and he starts actually hearing about the real pain that New Zealanders are going under.
He's also going to be grumpy, and I'll tell you why. That's because under Chris Luxon's fresh, clear, resolute leadership, we're going to be resolutely focused on the economy and what matters to New Zealanders. Because we know, on this side, we're not complacent. We're not patting ourselves on the back while wage growth is 2.5 percent but inflation is 5 percent, sending New Zealanders backwards. No. We understand what it takes and what you need to have a strong economy in this country.
This austerity nonsense scare tactics from the finance Minister is just that: it's nonsense. We understand the importance of health, of education, of police. I'm delighted to be finance spokesperson for Christopher Luxon's refreshed New Zealand National Party. I know the value of health and education. I said in my maiden speech they are the meal tickets. They were the meal tickets for me; I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't have had an education if it wasn't for the public system in this country. I want to acknowledge what an amazing job Starship Hospital has done for my son Harry in the last week or so.
We get it. But the problem is while $70-odd billion is being pumped like steroids into this country by Grant Robertson—it may have been OK at the start, may have had some COVID purposes at the start—right now it's at the point of ridiculous. Right now it's at the point of Grant Robertson over-cooking the Christmas turkey that is our economy. It's a burnt bird, actually, is what we've got right now. He is turning up the heat on that bird, and poor old Adrian Orr. I haven't always been particularly kind about Adrian Orr. Poor old Adrian Orr—he's vigorously trying to turn it down. You know, we've got fiscal and monetary policy going at each other because of the reckless, wasteful spending by Grant Robertson that's coming to fruition in this country right now—wasteful spending, which is leading, not entirely but in large part, to a good degree of inflation in this country, making New Zealanders poorer and interest rate rises that Adrian Orr actually has to do because Grant Robertson's doing what he's doing. It's fiscal and monetary working against each other.
I actually feel sorry for Adrian Orr, given where we're at on these things. And if you don't believe me, look, the ANZ just today has said how overheated the New Zealand economy is and the spending from Grant Robertson is just going to make inflation worse and make the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) do much more work than it needs to do. The RBNZ have said that "The economy is working above its current potential." Well, you wouldn't want that on a school report, would you—"above its current potential". I wouldn't have thought so, but that's what they say.
Angie Warren-Clark: I would. I'd want that.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Inflation four point—well, the member opposite is at above her current potential, but we won't go there; that's just cruel. Inflation 4.9 percent, wage growth 2.4 percent. That means New Zealanders right now under Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern are doing it tough. Look, forget the Christmas turkey. Actually, as I asked him today, fruit and vegetables are up 9 percent this year, right? That will bite at Christmas. Petrol's up, I think I heard Chris Luxon say, $90 a week; housing 30 percent.
These are the components that with wage growth not nearly as high as it needs to be to combat that fuelling, that injection of fiscal steroids that Grant Robertson's overdoing, that burning of the turkey is making things worse, that fuelling of Government spending. And of course, it's not just inflation, I made the point, but it's the interest rates that are going to rise and rise and rise given what Grant Robertson is doing. That is hundreds of dollars a month for many New Zealanders, for those Aucklanders. Not just Aucklanders; people in Tauranga, people in Wellington, people actually all over New Zealand now with hundreds of thousands of dollars of mortgage.
New Zealand needs Chris Luxon's National Party so we've got a more productive country that invests not wastes and that's going to deal with inflation and interest rates and get them under control.





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): It's a real pleasure to stand and take a call in the last general debate of the year. I want to acknowledge, first and foremost, and congratulate the new leader and deputy leader of the Opposition. I'm also very much looking forward to the members Simon Bridges and Todd Muller turning up to a meeting together.
I would like to acknowledge what a hard year it has been for many this year. Each and every person in this country has struggled in their own way, and we've all worked hard to battle Delta. It hasn't been easy for any of us, and I want to acknowledge the leadership of Jacinda Ardern for holding the ship steady at a very difficult time; in fact, it's been frightening at times. It's been a difficult time for us all and none of us here underestimate the cost of Delta in our community. I want to thank each and every person who has committed to making a change for the better, to getting vaccinated, and to working hard with us all just to try and solve this issue. Ninety percent of our eligible population has been fully vaccinated. This means that we can look forward to a good summer. We have the lowest number of cases, hospitalisations, and deaths per capita in the OECD, that does not deny the fact of how difficult it has been for us all here.
I wanted to just share with you all, very quickly, a wee hack around vaccination passes. I am saying this because I am not an iPhone user; I'm an Android phone user and I have had a little bit of difficulty finding the folder on my phone. So one of the things that I can recommend and suggest to you all is to take a photo of your vaccination and put it on your wallpaper on your phone. It is the easiest way, and I have this week used my vaccination pass a number of times and it works perfectly. So, a recommendation—unlike the Prime Minister who suggests putting it at the back of her phone, I suggest putting it on your wallpaper. It's a helpful hack from me.
As a Zontian, as a feminist, and as a staunch advocate for the elimination of gender-based violence, I have to acknowledge the launch of Te Aorerekura. This is our first National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence. I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Marama Davidson, for her work, but I also want to acknowledge Jan Logie for her work in this area, and I want to acknowledge everyone in the House today who is wearing orange. So we are all wearing orange in the House today—including yourself, Mr Speaker, thank you, we acknowledge and appreciate that—around the Orange the World campaign. The Joint Venture for Family Violence and Sexual Violence has done some outstanding work on Te Aorerekura. We have a 25-year strategy around family violence and a two-year plan around some of those solutions. I'm really looking forward to seeing this roll-out.
As we head towards Christmas—traditionally a very busy and difficult time for family violence services and family violence in this country—I would like to ask each and every member here in the House, and those listening, to be part of the solution to end gender-based violence against women and children. I want us to speak up and I want us to speak out when you hear or see violence. To do this is the best Christmas gift that you could give anyone in your family. I want to acknowledge the work, the hard work that will happen over the Christmas period with the families, with the services who will be working 24/7 to keep families safe. Mr Speaker, Merry Christmas. I wish you the best.





Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a perfect lead-in from my colleague Angie Warren-Clark because I want to stand, in this time, to acknowledge that yesterday was a big day for the work to eliminate family violence and sexual violence for so many, over so long—many, many decades—who have been attempting to do this work for so long. The strategy Te Aorerekura that we launched yesterday is a start of a 25-year plan that we have never had before. Successive Governments, decades and decades of lesser attempts, have failed to reach the vision that I know we all want, which is for everyone to be able to live in their homes and communities in peace and free of violence, to be able to put your hand up when you need help and expect to be believed, to be respected, and to be given the support you need when you need it and for however long you need it. And this strategy is doing things differently because we need to.
I am so proud, as the first Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, to have been able to lead and launch the strategy that was the culmination of the work of so many, including my ministerial colleagues and our MPs, like the member Angie Warren-Clark, who have long-held work, insight, and experience in this work. And there are so many others—the work that was led out by my colleague under-secretary Jan Logie last term, and the sector, the experts, tangata whenua, and community, our agencies working together. That is something that we have never seen before in the work to address family violence. And, yes, this is the start line, but it is a start line that we have never had. I am so proud and pleased because this strategy was created by the sector, by community, with tangata whenua, with our agencies, and so I am proud of the feedback and the hope that it has given to people, to the sector, to ordinary people for their lives and how it is going to improve.
We have not ever had a coordinated approach to eliminating family violence and sexual violence. We have not had leadership and accountability that is clear and collective across our agencies. We have made accountability for our systems to make sure that they do not re-traumatise and cause further harm for victims and survivors. We have put that line in the sand very clear in Te Aorerekura.
I want to also emphasise that, for the first time, we are focusing on one of the big shifts, which includes a prevention focus and a healing and restoration focus. For far too long, we have had a workforce that does not understand trauma-informed approaches, and that is across the board, whether it's education, health, police, Oranga Tamariki, the Ministry of Social Development. All across the board, and in our community and sector, the people were very clear: we must have more trauma-informed approaches, more focus on preventing harm from happening in the first place, and people to be able to help everyone on their journey of healing and restoration.
This strategy also makes it clear that we need to provide support for people who use harm, have used harm, or are having thoughts or inclinations to using harm. People will see, in this strategy, very clearly that people who have attitudes or inclination to use harm want help to stop, want help to not go there, want help to understand where their attitudes and behaviours are coming from, and that requires us to move away from an adversarial approach to justice, because we want people to understand that they can put their hand up without shame and stigmatisation, so that they can stop using and causing harm.
The strategy Te Aorerekura also comes with an action plan of 40 actions. It is not just a strategy, because we also acknowledge that there are service gaps. There have been service gaps for decades. We have not properly served ethnic people, Māori women, Pasifika people, rainbow people, disabled people, trans people, older people. We have not served many well. So I am proud of Te Aorerekura. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.





SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the debate on the Government motion to extend the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, the committee stages of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill, the third reading of the Education and Training Amendment Bill, and the first readings and referral to select committees of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill.
Motion agreed to.





PALMERSTON NORTH RESERVES EMPOWERING AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.
I rise in support of this bill from my local council. I have to say that being a member of Parliament obviously is littered with a number of firsts. Having a bill drawn from the biscuit tin is one, and I can very gladly at this stage tick that box, and now having a local bill as part of the proceedings today is another.
Legislatively, this issue before the House today stems from 1922—some would argue before that when we look at the ownership of the land in question. But specifically the Palmerston North Reserves Act of 1922, historically nearly 100 years in the making, meant that the Palmerston North City Council holds or owns certain lands in the area. That 1922 Act identified that certain specified land could not be sold, and those were identified by way of a list in the Act and by way of a Schedule as well.
The situation that my local council, or the Palmerston North City Council, finds itself in is that if any of that certain specified land becomes surplus to requirements, which I accept can be a subjective consideration, then it needs to go through a legislative process through the Parliament, not simply something that the council can manage and determine itself in order to be able to sell the land or lift the status of the land so that it could be potentially developed or sold. That essentially is the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act of 1966. This local amendment bill seeks to do exactly that.
The land in question here is locally or colloquially known as the Huia Street Reserve. Now, Huia Street is actually the roadway or the street that runs between the local tennis club and Palmerston North Girls' High School. Actually, those that have a look back through the parliamentary record will see that this Act has actually been amended in the past to provide for some land to be transferred over from the Crown to the Palmerston North Girls' High School. The land in question here obviously has a legal description. I'm advised that it's 1.6032 hectares in size, but essentially it is a parcel of land situated on the corner of Fitzherbert Avenue and Park Road. Now, those travelling into Palmerston North from the south-eastern entrance—and yes, we have more than one entrance into our fine city. Actually, you can get there through the north-eastern, the north-western, and the south-western entrance. But those travelling the south-eastern entrance coming across Fitzherbert Bridge, over the Manawatū River, will notice that it's actually parked up on the left-hand side as you enter the city. Actually, it's halfway between the river and the square, Te Marae o Hine. So it is centrally located and an ideal location.
Now, I, along with others, were born in Palmerston North, so I grew up fairly familiar with this piece of land and the use over the years. And I know that others will be familiar with it as well. My colleagues Deborah Russell; Rachel Boyack, who may wish to take a call; Teanau Tuiono; Mr McKelvie, I acknowledge in the House—he is familiar with it as well. But also—
Simeon Brown: I think I drove past once.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!
TANGI UTIKERE: And anyone's happy to have a drive past in Palmerston North to check this bit of land out.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!
TANGI UTIKERE: Madam Speaker?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is also familiar with Palmerston North, please don't leave me out.
TANGI UTIKERE: Oh, my apologies. And can I just acknowledge Madam Speaker, who has a fine history with my former school—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Only born and bred.
TANGI UTIKERE: —Freyberg High School as well. So my list is not an exclusive one; it is one that reflects the fact that there are members in this House who are very, very familiar with this fine city of Palmerston North.
But what I would say is that there has been a lot of chat over the years that this prime site would be developed in particular ways, for a petrol station and the like—there's many there. But it's been known as a bowling club, occupied by the Manawatū Bowling Club, alongside petanque opportunities, and currently it sits vacant. And it actually has been vacant since 2005, so some 16 years. So the local council, via this local bill, wishes to explore future options around residential development of the site in question.
This is not the first time, however, that this piece of land has been subject to the parliamentary process. In 2007, the member for Parliament North at the time, the Hon Steve Maharey, introduced an amendment bill that went through first reading and went to the select committee. Now, the outcome of that select committee process was that the bill, as I understand it, was discharged. It's fair to say that there were a few hiccups along the way. So I've had a look back through the Hansard at the comments from Mr Maharey at the time, because I have been keen to ensure that those hurdles are not hurdles that may, from a process perspective, get in the way of the select committee and its determination if this bill proceeds beyond first reading. So when I have a look at the comments from the Hon Steve Maharey, he says in the Hansard "that it is the parliamentary convention that the local MP sponsors bills of this nature through the House. It provides a mechanism whereby people can make sure that legislation is passed from a local point of view. In this case it is the Palmerston North City Council that wants this legislation to be passed and it is my duty to ensure that it is advanced so it can be discussed."
Now, I go a little bit further than one of my predecessors—Mr Maharey—in that I think before that duty is discharged, it is the responsibility of a local member to satisfy themselves that the relevant processes by a council have actually been followed. So I do want to just acknowledge the Palmerston North City Council—in particular Desiree Harvey, the legal counsel, David Murphy and Michael Duindam—for the preparation that they've undertaken in this particular regard.
In looking at this local bill and back to the issues raised at the time, there were four. The first is concern about the notification process: the lack of a community mandate for any future development back in 2007. The council, in my view, has commenced a process. It has produced for me and for the Clerk a council resolution. It's not a unanimous resolution. It was, as I understand it, a 12 to two vote in favour. I have to say that I was acutely aware of this, because I was the deputy mayor at the time that the consultation process was undertaken. However, as the council's planning and strategy committee considered this position and voted on it three days before the general election, out of an abundance of caution I withdrew from considerations, so there is no conflict of in that particular regard.
The previous Hansard does indicate that the former member for Rangitīkei Simon Power also had some concerns about the process being followed. The council informed me that Mr McKelvie and also the member for Te Tai Hauāuru, Adrian Rurawhe, have also been notified and kept informed of this throughout the entire process. I also note that concerns previously around the tennis club have also been advanced as well.
The second issue was a concern that the select committee had a number of city councillors who fronted up to the select committee, and so the council needed to be very clear that its justification for proceeding was there.
Number three as a concern was about an insufficient amount of reserve land as a result of a potential change in the land's status. Now, I would suggest that there is a significant amount of green space. I'm advised that it's around 80 hectares in the immediate vicinity of that area. When we talk about Ongley Park, Manawaroa Park, Fitzherbert Park, the Victoria Esplanade, which is iconic and a jewel in the city's and region's crown as well, alongside, obviously, the Manawatū River pathways and He Ara Kotahi. So those considerations, I'm sure, will be addressed by the select committee, but, in my view, they need to be balanced alongside the fact that there is around 50 hectares of green space in immediate surrounds of the Huia Reserve land.
And the final concern at the time back in 2007 was raised by the Māori Party, which was concerns around the lack of engagement with local iwi, Rangitāne. I actually want to acknowledge the strong relationship that the Palmerston North City Council has with Rangitāne. It is something that has been worked on and developed over many years. I have to say that I have also been advised that Rangitāne are aware of this and that this will not come as any surprise to them as the bill works its way through the select committee process.
So considering those four hurdles that were fairly clear when this bill came to the Parliament last, I am satisfied that, yes, it is my duty as the local member for Palmerston North to proceed with this bill and, having those four hurdles cleared, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to be able to be in a position today to say, yes, we'll await the next process if this does pass first reading this afternoon, but on that basis I am delighted to be able to commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill and to follow the member Tangi Utikere for the second time on a bill he's introduced to the House in the last few weeks. He's outlined it extremely well, and I was wondering why it hadn't come to the Governance and Administration Committee until he claimed the fact that last time it went to the Governance and Administration Committee, they sent it back. So he won't be sending it there this time, and probably for very good reason. 
It is an interesting piece of legislation, because one of the great frustrations for councils right around the country is the fact that they have these reserves that they've been accumulating, in some cases, over hundreds of years, which, when they sell them, the Government either confiscates half the money and uses it somewhere else, or otherwise they just hold them because they don't want to give the Government half the money, which is very unfortunate. It's interesting in this case. It's a little bit different because Palmerston North has a couple of Acts of its own which enable it, through this mechanism, actually, to get to the point where they can, if they wish to, sell that piece of land and reinvest it in further, I guess, green space, or parks and reserves, for the use of the city. 
Palmerston North's quite an interesting place. It's had a lot of names in my time. It was called the "Rose City" for a while, and, actually, it's got 5,000 roses in its rose garden—imagine trying to prune them. The most famous of them is named after another name that it was called for a while—and, actually, I think it's been rejuvenated now—which is the name of "Palmy", and that's the Pride of Palmy, which is a bright yellow rose. It's very pretty, actually, and that's just been released, I think, last year and planted in the Palmerston North rose garden. 
It's also called the "Student City", and it's had a lot of names, but the most famous name of all was John Cleese's name that he gave it, which I won't repeat in here. But he then had the rubbish dump named after him, so you can imagine it was quite an appropriate name they gave him. He won't be invited back to Palmerston North, I'm quite sure. 
But, as Tangi Utikere explained, there is an enormous number of reserves and very attractive public areas in Palmerston North, and particularly in this part of town because, as he explained, this reserve is adjacent to the Palmerston North Girls' High School, which is, in turn, adjacent to the Esplanade and Ongley Park, which are massively big pieces of reserve land. That, of course, is then adjacent to the Manawatū River, which, aside from in 2004, usually behaves itself, and you can get from Ashhurst all the way to Longburn down the Manawatū River, which is most attractive and has been beautifully tracked by the Palmerston North City Council. So there are plenty of opportunities, in my view, for alternative reserve facilities in Palmerston North. 
Whilst there's always opposition to city councils or to councils of any sort selling off public reserves, and you can understand why to some extent, I think the Palmerston North City Council is particularly cognisant of its reserves. It makes a great effort to make sure that those are available to the public, and there's plenty of space available for that. So I think it's a very good use of this land for it to be redesignated, and if, in fact, the council want to sell it in the future, they can, and if, in fact, they want to redevelop it themselves, they could. They may well do that, I imagine, because it is an ideal place for housing. It's on a main traffic thoroughfare, it's very close to the CBD, and it's ideal for the kind of development that they clearly have in mind for it. 
It's an interesting process, bringing Acts through this Parliament. I, in fact, myself was the mayor of a council that brought an Act through here called the Manfeild Park Act in 2006, which enabled Manfeild Park to be converted. The reason for that was it was taken from being a racecourse and, effectively, transferred into a reserve in the Manawatū District, and that's a very big reserve just adjacent to Feilding. 
So I think the member for Palmerston North has framed the process very well. I think it's worthy of support, this kind of legislation going through the House. I think, in a funny way, it's unfortunate that we have the legislation in the manner it is, because it does, as I said earlier, inhibit councils and communities from doing what they want to do with land. But, at the same time, we have to have a balance and a safeguard from that type of activity, so it is a fine balancing act. But I won't say any more today. As I've said, it's worthy of support, and I wish them all the best as they get this through the select committee process. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 





RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I have a confession to make, and that is that I am from Palmerston North and I am proud to be a Palmy girl. In fact, I went to Palmerston North Girls' High School, which is the fantastic school that has been spoken about, and used to walk and cycle through Huia Street to the back of the school, which was the music department. So it is a real pleasure to take a call on this bill.
As members have noted, local bills are a bit rare. They are a bit unusual. And so I want to commend my colleague Tangi Utikere who went to intermediate school with me at the mighty Ross Intermediate back in the early 1990s. Even then, my colleague was called on to deliver all the thank-you speeches. So he was always bound for leadership. I just want to congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House on behalf of Palmerston North City Council. In fact, the previous version of this bill was introduced when my step father was the deputy mayor of Palmerston North, a role that Tangi Utikere also used to hold, while my colleague Ian McKelvie was the mayor of the neighbouring Manawatū District Council.
So, look, I must admit when this bill came through, I said, "Please, can I speak about this bill?", because it's a great bill to talk about the place where I went to school. This is an ideal place for housing to go. It is right next to the fantastic Fitzherbert Park near the lido swimming pool, the Manawatū rose gardens, the Blue Moon Dairy at the BP station, which gives out fantastic ice creams—
Barbara Edmonds: What's your favourite flavour?
RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, goody goody gum drops. They were great at the Blue Moon Dairy. And look, it is an ideal place for housing and, having had a look through the proposal from the city council that is out for consultation, one of the things I note is that it could potentially build up to 80 apartments, and that will make an enormous difference—an enormous difference—to the housing needs in Palmerston North.
Palmerston North and Nelson, where I am proud to be the MP, they have a lot of things in common. They have a lot of things that aren't in common: it's sunny in Nelson; it's quite rainy and windy in Palmerston North—the rule is that if you're from Palmerston North, you're allowed to dis it, but no one else is. But look, it is a provincial centre that, like many of our provincial centres around New Zealand, has challenges around housing. The council has an opportunity as well to join the legislation that's currently going through the House as a tier 2 council just like Nelson. Earlier this year, along with colleagues, we visited some of the Palmerston North City Council flats that have just been redeveloped, and it was really good to see what the council had been able to do to take that land and actually develop it further and get more units on that bit of land. And it was wonderful to talk to the residents about the impact that had made on their lives.
This is an ideal piece of flat land. Palmerston North is flat. It's actually very easy to find these pockets of flat land and build. In Nelson, unfortunately, we have a different set of circumstances in that in the Nelson City area, it's actually very, very challenging to find flat land. And Nelson City Council has recently gone through a similar process where the council has consulted with the community to potentially sell some inner city land to Kāinga Ora where we may be able to build up to 200 units of both public housing and houses for first-home buyers. Thankfully, because that land wasn't in reserve land, Nelson City Council didn't have to bring an Act of Parliament like this one to the Parliament in order to amend the Reserves Act. So we have been lucky in that regard. But I do want to commend Palmerston North City Council for taking this initiative, for putting an opportunity for housing in one of the best parts of Palmerston North, right next to one of its very best schools, next to local schools, close to public transport, close to the inner city, close to—well, they don't have a beach; they do have a fantastic river in the Manawatū River. I think that this build will present an enormous opportunity for Palmerston North. I congratulate the city council, congratulate my colleague, and I commend this bill to the House.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. The Green Party will be supporting the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I don't have the nostalgic memories that Rachel Boyack does and am not able to describe the area in quite such eloquent detail. So my research was looking at the location of the Huia Street Reserve on Google Earth and Google Maps, and noting that it is only five blocks from the square in Palmerston North and it's on quite a prominent intersection and that it is quite close to quite large areas of open space—Ongley and Manawaroa parks—and, also, the council has noted its proximity to the Victoria Esplanade and the Julia Wallace park. So the council has concluded that there is quite significant public open space within the vicinity that justifies this local bill. It will be, obviously, for the select committee to hear submissions, and I am pleased that it's going to the hard-working Environment Committee.
I would just note, though, that there has been quite a lot of community concern about the potential loss of the reserve. The Railway Land Action Group, Environment Network Manawatū saw there as being value in the reserve remaining as open space and wanted to protect it as green space. I think Environment Network Manawatū sees the potential for it to have things like a plant nursery, demonstrations of renewable energy, an eco-house, and hope that in determining the future of the land and its future uses, that the city council works with those community organisations and their aspirations to have areas where sustainability practices are able to be experienced and shown to the public and to find suitable land for that to happen. 
Yes, the land has been vacant—was formerly the Manawatū bowling club, I understand—and it's been vacant since 2005. The proposals that the council has made for potentially using it for housing noted that there were a range of options; not all of them were promoting the sort of medium- and high-density housing and variety of typologies that would be most suited to this site so close to the central city. So I hope that the council, when it does make a decision, does look to maximise the range of houses there, the range of affordability, and really does do medium- or high-density well and not just allow a developer to buy it and then turn it into something that's not really encouraging urban renewal and urban intensification. But that is a decision for the council; it is not for the Parliament. This bill is simply enabling the Palmerston North City Council to choose to sell it if it wishes to, because at the moment, as Tangi Utikere noted in his speech, it is held as reserve status, and there is not an ability to sell. 
So I look forward to submissions on the bill and all the views that they will bring to bear. The Green Party supports the bill.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. It gives me great pleasure to rise and take this call on this really lovely little bill put forward by my colleague and friend in the class of 2020, Tangi Utikere. I have a confession to make, too: I was not raised in Palmerston North. In fact, I have been trying to dig back into my memories and I thought for a while there I had never been to Palmerston North and I was feeling deeply ashamed, but then I remembered the occasion of my uncle Simon's marriage to my aunty Jenny when I was about 11, which was marked—and I'm sure this is why I otherwise failed to remember the amazing rose garden of Palmerston North and its many beauties and treasures—by the unfortunate fall of my little sister Georgie from a jungle gym in the camping ground we were all staying in for the wedding, when she broke her arm in two places.
But that trauma aside, what we see here is the potential of the healing, the healing of the bones of the community, which is housing. I am—no chuckle for my metaphor? Not a single chuckle for my metaphor?
Angie Warren-Clark: I chuckled.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON: There was a chuckle—thank you. What excites me about this bill is that here we have another town a little bit like mine, a similar size to my Whangārei, in some ways a similar situation in that it's a mix of the agricultural and the business and the innovation. They, of course, have major universities centred there, which we do not. But they do have this reputation for innovation, and I thought it's really interesting to see a council that is prepared to take the initiative in bringing forward land that is otherwise locked away from development for the purpose of housing. It is a difficult thing for a little local council to do, because they are exposed to the intensities of local reaction in a way that sometimes as MPs in this House we are not. So I really do commend the Palmerston North City Council for bringing this matter to this House's attention for, hopefully, a resolution where all aspects of its community will see this as a positive step.
When I look at the possibilities for this bit of land, which, as my colleagues have already described, is surrounded by amenities, is surrounded from the wonderful rose-named Blue Moon Dairy through to parks and the open space that you need around any intensive development, the potential to take this block of land and turn it into a great place to live, but also—and I'm going to echo our colleague Eugenie Sage—to look at using some medium density there so that we can house more of our people.
I spent a period living in the UK where my family of four kids, my husband, and me lived in a little two-up, two-down house in a dense college where you had a little quadrangle of flats full of children and their parents around green space, and it was one of the best ways we've ever lived as a family. The ability to build community connections, to have that support from your neighbours, to have a real sense of place and of each other, it was a marvellous way to support each other as parents. There was no loneliness in a well-designed medium-density villagette. That, I hope, is the sort of thing that our councils up and down the land will look at taking forward, and they can do so now under the housing intensification plans that were brought forward by this House only this week.
So it is with excitement and hope that I look to see what happens with this bill and excitement and hope that I look to see what happens right through our provincial towns like mine, where I hope that our councils and our developers will take leadership and we'll imagine, together with their communities, a new way of housing that will look after our people as they have not been looked after for many years, but will do so in a way that is environmentally sustainable and builds good communities. I commend this to the House.





SIMON COURT (ACT): ACT supports this bill. The Palmerston North council have every right to use their land and their assets as they see fit. After all, they are community assets which the community has purchased and the council has a responsibility to manage them for the best outcome for the community. That's quite different from the way the Government sees three waters assets, which also are owned by communities but the Government has seen fit in that case to propose to take them from communities and install them in some remote corporation with an arcane and inefficient governance system. The benefits of that are not well understood.
The core issue that this bill addresses is that local government really, really struggles to repurpose, re-allocate, and recycle land that was originally dedicated to one purpose, like a reserve—in this case, a bowling club—and forgive me, because I've never been bowling and I've certainly never been bowling at this club. I understand that for decades people enjoyed going bowling but what the Palmerston North council's identified is that this land would be better used for housing, and so because they are the local council and they are best placed to understand local issues, it's good that Parliament is trusting them to know what to do with their land and assets. And, again, it's a huge contrast with the way the Government has persecuted and prosecuted its three waters agenda against local government and their water assets. So I'll just let that one sink in for a moment for the members in the Government over there.
The reason that Palmerston North council wants to repurpose this land is because it has a higher value. They want to potentially re-zone it for housing, and we've heard that up to 80 high-quality housing units may be developed on this site. The council has undergone a process. They've undertaken a process of consultation with their community, and while there were many different proposals for how this land might be used, it's quite likely, given its location and its suitability, that a high-density housing subdivision and development is the best use for it.
ACT supports this bill because it is a locally elected council deciding what to do with its assets. We think that's a good idea and that the Government should leave councils alone to use their assets, as long as they're using them wisely, and support them. But we must ask: is it actually the role of councils, having repurposed the land through zoning, to then develop and build houses, own them and maintain them? The ACT Party would contend that councils don't necessarily have the skills to own and operate and maintain property and to act as landlords, to manage tenants, and to manage the maintenance of housing developments. That is well outside their remit and their core skillset.
So the ACT Party wants to raise the issue of risk. Despite the fact that we support this bill, we would be very, very concerned if councils like Palmerston North council then took it upon themselves to begin to act as property developers, to compete with the private sector for the provision of homes and as property managers, and to engage in activities which, really, they have no business engaging in. They don't have the skills, they don't have the capacity, and while they might like to think they can, it's clear they can't. Community housing associations and community housing providers don't believe this Government can either, which is why they've been asking Kāinga Ora and Housing New Zealand to hand over their assets to community housing providers to deliver housing in regions like the Manawatū. So we would ask that the Government consider that in far more detail and listen to those people in communities who know what their communities need because they're local and they're close to those communities. ACT will support this bill.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and thank you for this opportunity to speak on this local bill. And congratulations, Tangi Utikere, MP for Palmerston North. Who would have thought Palmerston North would get talked about so much in this House on this afternoon, but here we are chatting away.
Now, I've said this before and I'll say it again, my 21 years living in New Plymouth and now being the MP for New Plymouth, Tangi Utikere and I have some similarities. We get confused quite regularly. I know we look very similar. But being MPs, often Palmerston North and New Plymouth do get mixed up, but they're both beautiful, wonderful cities. One has a mountain and a beautiful ocean; the other's Palmerston North. But it is a beautiful place and I really do love it. In fact, trying to sort of connect to Palmerston North, as people have this afternoon, my mother actually is from Foxton, and she used to bus every day to Palmerston North to go to Palmerston North Girls' High School right next to this piece of land. So suddenly I am connected to this place. 
Now, I trust Mr Utikere. I trust him as he was a councillor and deputy mayor of Palmerston North City, so he knows this piece of land. He knows this piece of legislation. He knows what this local bill will do in terms of housing, in terms of development, in terms of easing some of the challenges that face the people of Palmerston North. And just like me as a local MP, we're doing work in New Plymouth around our housing situation, and our council is working hard with local providers, with iwi, and also within their own selves in terms of what land they have that potentially could be available for the development of houses to ensure that our growing beautiful cities continue to be beautiful and cared for. 
Now, the question I do often ask is around green spaces, because the last thing we want is for our cities to become clogged and jammed and too full. So I was encouraged to hear Mr Utikere talk about the fact that around that space, around that green space, there's a mass of hectares of area that is already green space, is already beautiful, and so this will not impact on the beauty of Palmerston North City in its CBD area. I'm also aware that it's been 16 years—16 years since anything happened on that land. So if we talk about green space and the loss of it, it's actually just sitting there. It's actually growing weeds, I'm guessing. I did do the Google search and saw it. It is just sitting there and not being used. So therefore, let's use it and let's get on with it and let's ensure that some houses can be built.
Now, what I like about a progressive council like Palmerston North City Council is that they are looking at all the options. They're not looking at just building what you always build, and they're not just looking at doing what's always been done; they're being innovative. Also, I'm really proud of the Palmerston North City Council to see that the majority of councillors, when I was reading up about this, said that they need to take leadership in this space. They need to provide land for housing and showing how more homes could be provided by moving away from traditional-style subdivisions. So they realise that as a council they have a leadership role to play and they will play that. And this piece of legislation will ensure that that happens. 
I'm also glad that democracy is a wonderful thing in how it works. And back in 2007, when the Hon Steve Maharey did bring this to the House, there were conversations had in the consultation space. There were concerns there hadn't been enough discussion, and so it was put on hold. And here we are again, 15 years, 14 years later, and those conversations have been had and this is ready for development and ready to be done. 
But my final thought around the Palmerston North City Council and, you know, feeling like I need to also encourage my local council as well—but the fact is that this isn't just a fait accompli if this piece of legislation goes through, the plans are drawn, up go the houses; it actually has to go back through council through process. In a public meeting decisions will be made around what happens on this piece of land. So, again, democracy in action. Palmerston North City Council is doing some good things. They'll continue to do more good things. I congratulate Tangi Utikere, MP for Palmerston North, and I commend this bill to the House.





IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to take a call on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. Now, it looks like Palmerston North has a good history of sending fine people to this House—including yourself, Madam Speaker, and my good friend Tangi Utikere. I know that a lot of people have claimed to have something to do with Palmerston North, but the only thing I can claim is that I have visited Palmerston North quite a few times, and the last time being at the invitation of my good friend here, Tangi Utikere. The day that I spent was quite a significant day, and one of the things that we did was visit the bridge that is near to this reserve place called He Ara Kotahi, which is a beautiful bridge that the Government spent millions of dollars on. I thank my friend and the member for Palmerston North for his generous hospitality.
Now, the heart of this bill is the land that has been sitting there and not being able to do anything with, because it's been reserved until the Act of 1922. So, under this Act, this land cannot be sold, cannot be developed—it's just sitting there—and what a waste. So the council has stepped up and is being innovative and trying to do something about it that is, of course, supported from the local community. There are views on both sides, but those views will be neutralised when the bill goes through the select committee process.
My good friend Rachel Boyack mentioned how, if this bill passes, up to 80 apartments can be built on this land, and what a significant difference that's going to make in the Palmerston North community. There is no denying that we have got a housing crisis throughout the country, and Palmerston North might look better than some places, but it still has its own issues, and this is going to make a huge difference. The reserve was originally given to the city in 1876 by the Wellington provisional Government as a public park and recreation grounds. It's no secret that New Zealand has, like I said before, a serious housing crisis, and now, despite residential building consents increasing to levels seen only in 1970, the council plan has been limited by this Act, and the development of opportunities are being denied as a result. Evidence shows that removing overly restrictive planning rules leads to more affordable homes being built, and this is much needed.
I'm going to put my ethnic lens in and talk about the diversity and multiculturalism of Palmerston North. The times that I visited, I visited a lot of communities. It's a vibrant city, it's every day increasing—people coming from different parts of the world as refugees, migrants, skilled migrants—and families want to move to Palmerston North because it's alive, it's beautiful. So the council needs to be equipped with legislative powers to keep enriching the city and commit to diverse population growths. The potential development that would be able to go ahead with this minor amendment would make a dramatic and positive impact on Palmerston North. Whether it's to build houses or community centres or recreational places, this will be in the hands of the local decision makers, and the city will be able to grow and meet its special needs.
So now I commend, like many others did, the Palmerston North City Council for being very innovative and very creative by, I think, going against all odds, I think, because sometimes the land issue can be complex—it can be difficult at times—but the Palmerston North City Council is going above and beyond to resolve this issue. So, finally, I commend Tangi Utikere for again bringing yet another simple and small piece of legislation, but yet very significant and important, which is going to make a difference in his city that we all love to visit. I look forward to more invitations, and maybe even some dinners as a bribe so I can keep coming! I commend this bill to the House.





SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise to talk on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I thank the member Tangi Utikere for bringing this local bill to this House. 
I, unlike many in this House, don't reside or come from Palmerston North, but I did, as part of my deep research for this short call today, do some research and find that it is the home of the Rugby Museum. Obviously, as a keen member of the parliamentary rugby team—and I look across the House and I can see the very light-footed but very fast Kieran McAnulty, who plays on the wing for that team, and the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who's our fly-half and the second row of which I play with Mr O'Connor—I reflect that the Rugby Museum in Palmerston North is a key part of that city. But, of course, this bill is about a lovely reserve related to a part of our local government area and a reserve that is obviously going to be sold for development into housing. 
National supports this bill. National stands up for councils and National stands for keeping the "local" in "local government". National supports local councils and local governments to make their own decisions, and this is an example of a decision that is going to be able to be put into that council's hand to be able to do what will be a positive thing in regards to future housing development. National supports this bill as, obviously, not only will this create housing development but also it will create community facilities in developments for that local community, and that is a good thing. 
We've heard from prior speakers that this land has been vacant for nearly 15 years, so it seems sensible that that will transition back out. It's been through a thorough consultation process, and, again, I thank the member for providing detail around that. Of course, it will go through a select committee process as well to ensure that the issues are dealt through.
I acknowledge there was some feedback that was in opposition to this bill, but as it has been through a reasonable degree, or a higher degree, of consultation, I think most of those issues have been mitigated, and I look forward to seeing this bill pass through. 
I lastly say that, actually, there are a number of examples of these types of bills around the country. I've actually got one in my local electorate. So I look forward to the future when we can bring that to the House. I commend this bill to the House.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on this local bill, the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I commend the member who has sponsored this bill, the local MP for Palmerston North, Tangi Utikere, a good mate of mine and a really hard-working MP. Look, I mean, we're all guilty of saying that about our colleagues from time to time, but in this instance it happens to be true. He is a very hard-working member of Parliament for Palmerston North. I say to the good people of Palmerston North, they are actually very fortunate to have Tangi as their MP.
I really like local bills. Not everybody understands, I don't believe, the difference between a local bill and a member's bill, and why local bills get precedence on a members' day against those bills where members have come up and put it in the ballot and had the luck to get it drawn out of the ballot and then have it debated on a member's bill. So normally you would imagine, considering the situation that we have here, that the council would be able to make this decision for themselves. But because the land in question happens to have been named in the Palmerston North Reserves Act 1922, the council requires an amendment to that or a bill to come through Parliament and be passed in order for them to make the decisions that they wish on this land.
As other members have mentioned, that, of course, this isn't some roundabout way to try and subvert the process. This just allows the process to happen, because at the moment, the Palmerston North City Council can't do what they wish. They can't follow the process that they normally would. This bill and the work of Tangi Utikere—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! With apologies to the member, could members on my left, if they wish to have a conversation, could they be seated? Thank you.
KIERAN McANULTY: I don't blame the members. I'm just as excited about this bill as they are, and we're all very excited to see it passed. Absolutely. I mean, the point being here is that what the council have indicated that they hope to use this land for is housing. At the moment, I couldn't think of a better use for a piece of land. This isn't a controversial proposition. This isn't some reserve that's full of native bush or anything like that. This is a piece of land that currently isn't being used, and it hasn't been used since the local bowling club, I understand, closed down. The use of this land has been heavily restricted because of the situation that they find themselves in.
It is a shame, I think, that some members have tried to use the debate on this bill to try and make some points about other things, such as the ACT member Simon Court raising three waters. I will point out to the member that the Palmerston North City Council actually supports three waters, so thank you for giving us the opportunity to raise that point in the House. 
The point here is that there are many members who have highlighted their love of Palmerston North. As a proud Mastertonian I'm not all that fussed on Palmerston North. The people that live there are lovely, but we have a friendly rivalry. But what we do not want to stop is the opportunity to develop housing. There's been talk of up to 80 dwellings that could go on this site—all different types, including apartments and medium density. Of course, that's exactly what all of us here in Parliament should be striving for—the opportunity to see development, the opportunity to encourage houses being built wherever we have that opportunity.
Indeed, just this week, we had the opportunity as members of Parliament to support a piece of legislation that would allow just that. I note that actually it was the ACT Party was the only party that voted against it. Despite proclaiming to be the party against regulations and against red tape and against Government interfering in things, it would appear that unless it comes to the situation where the voters of Epsom don't like it, then they change their values.
So what we have here is another opportunity for members of Parliament to actually get behind a straightforward, basic, simple piece of legislation.
Hon Member: Well, imagine if Resource Management Act reforms were like that.
KIERAN McANULTY: All that this would do is—I might have struck a nerve. They haven't said much all day and now they're trying to shout it down. But the point remains, I hope that the ACT Party does vote for this bill, because what this bill will do is actually allow the council to start a process, and, I suspect, from what we've heard tonight and from what the local MP Tangi Utikere has said, that the council will get community support to allow these houses to be built, but they can't even seek that support unless this bill gets the support of Parliament. Again, I commend the member for bringing it, working with his council, bringing a local bill forward, and I also commend this bill to the House.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I thank members from right across the House for their unwavering support, it seems, for this local bill. And, Madam Speaker, can I acknowledge you, because I know that you have a connection to Palmerston North, and you'll be pleased to know that I will be visiting your old high school, Freyberg High School, on Friday. Each time I do, your photo hangs on the wall in the reception area as one that they particularly like to reflect upon, so I acknowledge you and your connection to my fine city.
I want to just reflect on the contributions from around the House this afternoon and to thank members. My colleague Rachel Boyack, obviously a local advocate for her former city, Palmerston North, and the connection with Palmerston North Girls' High, which is obviously extremely close to the piece of land that we are referring to, and also reflecting on her comments that the caucus committee around Government and local government were able to visit Palmerston North earlier in the year and were able to see the partnership opportunity that the Palmerston North City Council has in terms of a housing development at Papaioea Place. So that's a very strong connection.
Can I respond to the comments expressed by the Hon Eugenie Sage in that she is right: partnerships are very important, and what the select committee process does allow for is for the community and the council to demonstrate a level of support but also acknowledging that from a process perspective, this is about changing or lifting the designation of a piece of land so that the council will be in a flexible position to be able to do something differently if it so chooses to go down that particular path.
Can I also thank colleagues for their comments—their reflections, I guess—in that this piece of land is in close proximity to a number of amenities, a number of recreational spaces. The member for Rangitīkei referring to the rose garden, the Dugald Mackenzie Rose Garden, which, yes, did, as he suggests, celebrate the Pride of Palmy, which was actually a specific rose that was released recently in recognition of the city's 150th—sesquicentennial—anniversary. I have to say I've got two of them growing in my garden and they're doing very, very well at the moment as well. But this is about an opportunity to support a council that is wishing to be progressive, wishing to be innovative, that is vibrant. Those are three words that I've heard around the Parliament this afternoon. When we step back and have a look at what is proposed, we do need to appreciate that this will be subject to the select committee process.
Just on that point, I know that Mr McKelvie was questioning why this may not be going to the Governance and Administration Committee. I have to say that, to be fair, it probably could go to that or it could go to Environment. I reflected back into 2007, when this bill was last before the Parliament, on where it went. Unfortunately, it's not helpful that it went to the Local Government and Environment Committee. So it did mean that there has to be a separation here, but I do think that the Environment Committee is the appropriate place, given that it's dealing with a reserve status of land. I do in advance, though, apologise to the hard-working members of the Environment Committee for yet another piece of important work that they will undertake, but I'll be with you as part of that.
What I do want to indicate in closing is that this process will be subject to a public process. If this bill does make it through select committee, second reading, committee of the whole House, and then through to third reading, the council will still be required to make a decision at a future date, if they choose to, in a public forum. So this is not effectively indicating that it's a done deal; it's indicating that this is something that the council have approached me as the local member that they wish to pursue this, that the local bill avenue is the way in which local councils and territorial authorities seek to pursue that, and that there is a process that will form part and parcel of all of that.
I repeat that I'm satisfied that many of the hurdles that we have identified in the earlier contribution around, you know, engagement with Rangitāne but also the level of notification, the level of community engagement, and also the proximity to reserves within the area have satisfied me that those are issues that won't hold this up from a procedure or a process point of view. I'm delighted to, if the Parliament is of a mind, effectively approve the first reading, see this through the select committee process. Again, I commend this to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Environment Committee.





CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL (NGĀI TAHU REPRESENTATION) BILL
First Reading
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I move, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.
Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Aoraki maunga te paparahi o Te Wai Pounamu, ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, Ngāi Tahu whānui, aku tini whanaunga, tēnā koutou. Te Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha, nāu i kawe nei i tēnei pire ki te Whare nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings to you all in the House. To Aoraki, the foundation of the South Island, to the tribal authorities, to Ngāi Tahu in general and to my many relatives, greetings to you. To Environment Canterbury, who brought this bill to this House, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]
I am delighted to speak as the support member for this bill, the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. This bill reinstates mana whenua representation on the Canterbury Regional Council in the form of two Ngāi Tahu councillors from the 2022 local body elections. I want to acknowledge the Canterbury Regional Council, also known as Environment Canterbury, for bringing this bill to the House in collaboration with the Papatipu Rūnanga of Ngāi Tahu, who I know are tuning in from HQ there in Ōtautahi, so I mihi to them all.
This arrangement of Ngāi Tahu councillors was first put in place by the National Government in 2010, when it installed commissioners on the council. The introduction of Ngāi Tahu councillors proved truly insightful, and I commend the National Party for its foresight in doing so. This House will recall a similar local bill that was introduced in April 2019, intended to continue the mana whenua representation on council prior to the 2019 local body elections, but unfortunately that was defeated at first reading.
Disappointed, but not discouraged, Environment Canterbury worked with the Papatipu Rūnanga to explore other opportunities, and that led to the appointment of mana whenua Tumu Taiao—mana whenua experts who were appointed in 2020 to advise councillors on the interests of mana whenua. However, the Tumu Taiao do not have the ability to vote at council meetings and, ultimately, legislative change is required to provide for the mana whenua voice at the council table. This bill reflects Environment Canterbury's commitment to securing Ngāi Tahu representation. I commend Environment Canterbury's councillors for recognising the value in mana whenua representation and acknowledge that this benefits all ratepayers, not just Ngāi Tahu.
There are two key differences between this local bill and that previously debated in the House, and these changes relate to Māori constituencies or wards and the issue of remuneration, which I'll briefly address. This bill explicitly provides that Māori wards are not prohibited, meaning that the council may still choose to introduce those in the future. However, Māori wards are not considered to amount to mana whenua representation, hence the promotion of this bill, which is very much a local solution for local issues.
In terms of remuneration, this bill provides for the appointed Ngāi Tahu councillors to be remunerated—including allowances, expenses, and fees—separately from the pool allocated by the Remuneration Authority, but otherwise on the same basis, given that the appointment of Ngāi Tahu councillors will not reduce the workload of the existing elected councillors. As stated previously, this bill is a local solution for local issues and would simply reinstate what has previously worked exceptionally well. It is not a model that will work in all regions of Aotearoa New Zealand, but it reflects a tried and true arrangement in Canterbury that ensures the values and concerns of mana whenua are given full expression. Environment Canterbury is not urging this model be adopted by others, but it does ask this House that it be allowed to have a system that it believes is right for Canterbury.
Environment Canterbury is responsible for not only environmental outcomes, but also social, economic, and cultural outcomes in a 45,000 square kilometre area of the South Island. It is an area that includes many of New Zealand's iconic landscapes and majestic vistas, from north of Kaikōura to Waitaki in the South and inland as far as the Southern Alps, including the spectacular braided rivers and the mighty maunga Aoraki / Mount Cook. Ngāi Tahu, of course, are the original people and kaitiaki of much of that area, having had an intimate connection with it since the ancient migrations of Waitaha, Ngāti Māmoe, and Ngāi Tahu. Generations later, the sense of kaitiaki responsibility that Ngāi Tahu has for the natural environment has not diminished. To the contrary, it remains vital and strong and increasingly relevant. Ngāi Tahu is increasingly recognised as a strategic partner in the Canterbury region.
Indeed, I submit Ngāi Tahu should have a seat at the decision-making table. Opposition to this bill will likely include the apparent concerns that it's not acceptable to give Ngāi Tahu special treatment—and let me say to those people that this bill is not about special treatment; this bill is about ensuring there is enhanced representation in an age where a mana whenua voice is critical, in which Ngāi Tahu councillors have previously demonstrated the value they have added to a range of Environment Canterbury's work. To those who say this is a special privilege for Ngāi Tahu, I say: you're looking through the wrong lens. This bill is about recognising the responsibility that Ngāi Tahu has as kaitiaki of the air, waters, land, and coast of the region and enabling them to perform that duty. That responsibility lies with Ngāi Tahu directly, not with Māori generally. To those who say this bill will adversely impact on representation and democracy, I say this: this bill will ensure that more, not fewer voices will be heard at the council table, and because of that, it provides an enhanced additional level of representation informed by generations of knowledge and environmental awareness. There can only be advantage and value from such inclusiveness and mutual understanding. That is a fundamental element of this bill.
This nation has come a long way, but our journey—of which this bill is now part—is far from complete. Aotearoa New Zealand and the modern progressive nation we wish to be—in our nation, a Te Ao Māori worldview is an essential part of decision making. Ngāi Tahu representation on the council ensures a position of influence for mana whenua values, and it creates a governance structure that reflects the spirit and commitment to work together and is a big step forward toward true collaborative partnership between mana whenua and the council in the work it does. Ngāi Tahu councillors have played a pivotal role in building the social capital and community ownership of solutions that underpin water and land management in Canterbury. They provided confidence to Papatipu Rūnanga and wider tribal members that their voices, their environmental and societal vision and concerns, were heard at the highest level. The practical benefits were not least the greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, reduced costs for both council and consent applicants, and the council's role in earthquake recovery. This representation contributed immeasurably to good outcomes in the region for the council, for its ratepayers, and even those visiting the region.
From a council perspective, Environment Canterbury very clearly understands that mana whenua representation at a governance level is the most effective way to give effect to key statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act, and also as fellow New Zealanders wishing to contribute to a better and more inclusive New Zealand. As the famous Ngāi Tahu saying is:
Mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei.
For us and our children after us.
This bill will ensure that the values and intergenerational perspective of Ngāi Tahu are consistently heard at the council table, creating a more representative and effective local authority. As the member for Te Tai Tonga, covering the vast expanse of the Canterbury region, and a proud whakapapa member of Ngāi Tahu myself, I support this modest request from the Canterbury Regional Council and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party. It will be no surprise to this House that National will oppose this bill. We opposed it the last time this legislation came to the House. 
Can I just acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene, a fantastic member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga. I just acknowledge Ngāi Tahu, a very powerful collective in Canterbury and Ōtautahi, and, as Mr Tirikatene mentioned, a strategic partner who we are very lucky to have, and a cornerstone of our history, a cornerstone of our present, and a cornerstone of our future ahead. 
I'm going to outline some key points about why the National Party does disagree with this bill. The first thing I'd ask, probably procedurally, is why is it a local bill and why is this not a Government bill? I mean, the reason we are here again today with pretty much the same bill is that things have changed from the 52nd Parliament to now, the 53rd Parliament. Democracy has spoken and we are now in a one-party State, and the Labour Party are able to pass this bill without needing the support of any other parties. So that's why it does come back in from the 52nd Parliament to the 53rd Parliament, and it's very clear—it's been introduced by a Labour member of Parliament—that it will pass its first reading today. 
There was the proposition put forward: "Well, has National forgotten its history, because they appointed commissioners to ECan several years ago." Well, that's right. Environment Canterbury (ECan) was an appallingly performing regional council—probably the lowest ranked in league tables in New Zealand—and, quite rightly, the National Government of the day appointed all the commissioners. But I must remind the Labour Party that it was them who screamed black and blue that appointments were to be made, and they asked that democracy be restored. 
What I would say in this bill is that if you do look at the wording—because we are parliamentarians and we need to scrutinise the words in this bill—what I disagree with in this bill is that in the commentary it says, "wishes to reinstate direct Ngāi Tahu representation at Council level." I would argue there is representation at council level. Ngāi Tahu do have observers in the council who will be part of the conversations now and providing input and, no doubt, influencing decisions. The issue here of this bill is that what it changes is it gives those observers voting rights, and there's something ironic there that we're not asking the people who will have a vote to be selected through a voting process. So, on this side of the House, we do stand on the principle of democracy. 
There is no reason why Ngāi Tahu representatives can't be elected on to ECan, and as, actually, Mr Tirikatene pointed out—and I was actually going to point this out as well. It does astound me that in clause 11, it doesn't prevent the council going through the process of setting up Māori wards. So we will end up in a position of having 14 elected councillors plus two appointed from Ngāi Tahu and, potentially, more from Māori wards. Why did it not exclude that in the law? 
Here's another point: why did it not reduce the number of elected councillors on ECan so that it was still capped at 14, reduce it to 12, and add the extra two appointees? There's a lot that doesn't actually add up here legislatively. 
This is actually a radical change to local body electoral laws that have stood the test of time for 150 years. We do have also a quote in the commentary on the bill that says that if ECan does nothing, "it would deprive mana whenua of a voice at the Council table, and continue to deprive the Council of that direct input at the highest level.", but I do come back to the point that we have representation at the moment. This bill is about the ability for those current representatives to actually cast a vote, so they do have representation at the moment. 
This is supposed to be a local bill, and I'd ask some of the Labour members of Parliament who are potentially going to be seeking a call on this local bill from Canterbury: I would like you to talk about the public consultation that has gone on with this bill. Many of you will know that there are a lot of people in Canterbury that are concerned that there was no public consultation, so why was there no public consultation? Even ECan said—and I think it's passing the buck a bit—"Oh well, there'll be an ability to make a submission at the select committee hearing." Well, that's fine at a central government level, but where was the public consultation done at an ECan level? 
It's interesting in the wording, and sometimes wording says a lot where I think people don't realise what they're saying when they write things. It says in the commentary, "For that reason, the Council prefers direct appointment" as the option. Well, what does the public prefer? Well, we don't know, because there was no public consultation. 
So here we have a local bill that is not about representation. It's about enacting voting rights, but it's actually bypassing the democratic rule of being elected to come in to cast that vote on behalf of people, and then there was no consultation. I come back to my original point: why was it not introduced as a Government bill, and what precedent is this going to set? I think it's actually a very confused precedent for the rest of the country, and it actually says that. 
When I asked for and got some advice from the Clerk's Office on why it was a local bill—because my belief was that you can't amend primary legislation with a local bill—in fact, the answer was that the bill doesn't amend the Local Government Act 2002. Instead, it creates a new stand-alone local Act that requires the Local Government Act to be applied in certain ways. So what we're actually creating is a workaround, which I don't believe is fundamentally good law. 
Look, as I've said, this bill was clearly going to be passed at its first reading. It's a bill that is back to the future, because it has been to the House before and it was defeated, and it poses a very good question: are we going to start appointing people at local body level that haven't sought or gone through the electoral process—who haven't been elected? Where is the view of the public and where is the mandate of the public in this bill? 
This is concerning. This will change 150 years of electoral law. We'll hear it today, won't we? We'll be told why and about the basic principle of election and democracy, and that is actually the fundamental point of what we are debating today. I don't think anyone disagrees with representation of Ngāi Tahu on ECan, because they're there now. What we're talking about is: should those representatives have the ability for the right to vote? That poses the question of who, then, is appointing the representatives, and why shouldn't people who haven't been appointed by Ngāi Tahu have the ability to stand up and put their hand up in an election? Why can't they do that? 
These are the questions that I'm looking forward to hearing answers to from the contributions this afternoon, and I'm also looking forward to hearing from people who will make submissions through the select committee process. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): What a sad, sad contribution from that member, Matt Doocey, given the democracy that they talk about. The previous Prime Minister John Key would have supported this. Actually, no, no. After John Key was Bill English—he would have supported this. Chris Finlayson would have supported this. But sadly we've got this new National Party, who all of a sudden have forgotten their history, their background, and now are putting up idiotic questions about why would the Māoris who go to the council want to speak? Why do they want to speak? They could just sit there and observe things. Brilliant question! Wonderful question! Because Māori deserve an opportunity—
Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's unusual to interrupt another member, but I will put the leave, and if the House agrees to it, then you can. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? No you can't.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora. Thank you very much. It's sad. The guilt is getting to the opposite side. See, this is a party who is fooling—along with this useless lot in ACT over here. This is what New Zealanders have to be aware of is what's happening in the National Party with the Luxon takeover. The line is, "Oh, you know, we do support you Māoris, even though you're separatists." That's the new line. "But 'separatists' is not racist", but I looked up the definition of "separatist", and I found South Africa and apartheid. And I think everybody knows that in South Africa that's called racism, but not according to Mr Luxon and the new National Party. This all loving, caring week where Mr Luxon said he doesn't support the Māori Health Authority, but that's not being racist; that's just being separatist. Someone explain to Mr Luxon what racism means. Certainly that previous member won't be able to after that gobbledygook bloody speech. What a disgraceful speech.
Now what Ngāi Tahu—I'm a bit different to my cordial brother behind me, Rino Tirikatene. I want Ngāi Tahu to listen and hang their heads in shame when they hear this lot in National—when they hear this lot in National—because National supported Ngāi Tahu between 2016 and 2019, and it was well-supported by people like John Key and other members in the National Party. I'll be very clear: this reinstatement in terms of rights is a reaffirmation of tino rangatiratanga in terms of Ngāi Tahu. What it does is it acknowledges Ngāi Tahu has mana over their lands and affirms their special association in terms of this particular kaupapa. They have this right, right across the Ngāi Tahu, don't they, Rino, in terms of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the Department of Conservation, all recognise the special relationship that Ngāi Tahu have. So for the Opposition to raise separatism issues is disgraceful. What the National Party does not understand—
Nicola Grigg: Ha, ha!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Don't laugh, whoever you are. What the National Party doesn't understand is that Māori have a special partnership. Māori are the Crown's partner. You need to read that. And when you are the Crown's partner, you get opportunities like this. And this is recognition from the Crown. The National Party used to do this; they used to remember this. Do you remember, who was your—it was Doug Graham. He came in. He'd be ashamed of this National Party lot now—wouldn't have a clue. So as a Crown partner, you get an opportunity to exercise this, and this bill gives us an opportunity.
Can I say finally, in the last 30 or 40 seconds, that democracy is also about recognising indigenous people and an indigenous voice—something that the National Party lot and the right-wing fascists on the right here, the ACT Party, have forgotten and don't understand, because you want to suppress, oppress, and depress Māori. Understand that if you invite Māori into the tent, that's an integral part—
Maureen Pugh: Point of order, Mr Speaker. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —of democracy. Get used to that—.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Point of order here, the Hon Willie Jackson. When I say "Order!", you sit down.
Maureen Pugh: I take offence at being accused of being a right-wing fascist. I request that the member withdraw and apologise.
Hon Willie Jackson: I was talking about ACT. That wasn't for you; it was for ACT.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I was distracted when that happened. The Hon Willie Jackson will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Willie Jackson: No. Point of order, Mr Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I'm not taking a point of order. You either do it or you'll be leaving the Chamber.
Hon Willie Jackson: I won't be doing it, then.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, well you'll be leaving—you must leave the Chamber.
Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, now that the Hon Willie Jackson's speech has concluded—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I'm not continuing until the Hon Willie Jackson leaves.
Hon Willie Jackson: Can't apologise to people I didn't insult.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come back. If you don't come back, I'm going to name you. Come back now. E noho. I have made a ruling that you must obey. There is no discussion, and it's certainly out of order to be interjecting on your way out. You do not want to be named. A Minister of the Government has not been named for a very long time. The Hon Willie Jackson will leave the debating chamber now, and no comments.
Hon Willie Jackson withdrew from the Chamber. 
KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now that the contribution from the Hon Willie Jackson has concluded, if Matt Doocey wished to seek leave to make his personal explanation, that would not be opposed by this side of the House.
MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now that the speech has concluded, you don't need leave for that. You may make that statement.
MATT DOOCEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I was trying to make is Willie Jackson said that I didn't want Māori or Ngāi Tahu representatives to speak. I never said that in my speech. I said the issue was about the ability for those current representatives—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is not a personal—
MATT DOOCEY: Well it is because he—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'm on my feet. That is not a personal explanation; that is a debating point.
MATT DOOCEY: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Labour Minister made a claim that was, if you look at the Hansard, factually incorrect. I did not say that. It was about the voting rights, not the ability for representatives to speak. So I believe I do have the ability, under a personal explanation, to state my case.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have made the ruling.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa. Tuatahi ake, ka tika me mihi ki a koutou a Ngāi Tahu me ngā maunga, ngā awa, ngā whenua o Te Wai Pounamu, kei te mihi.
[Mr Speaker, greetings to you. Greetings, everyone. Firstly, it is appropriate that I acknowledge Ngāi Tahu and the mountains, rivers and land of the South Island of New Zealand, greetings.]
I'm really pleased to take a short call on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. It's somewhat ironic that we have the National Party opposing this bill and talking about democracy, because, of course, it was the National Party that got rid of 14 elected councillors on Environment Canterbury in 2010 and did not return democracy to Canterbury for nine long years. I was one of those councillors that got unceremoniously removed.
The Green Party is supporting this bill because my experience of Canterbury Regional Council was that it had a very long way to go in implementing the Treaty partnership. One of the few good things that came out of the appointment of commissioners in Canterbury was the place of Ngāi Tahu and its two representatives around that council table and the greater recognition that that forced the council to have of things Māori and of Te Tiriti. I can remember, in 2007, having to argue strongly for the first representative who had expertise in tikanga Māori to be appointed to the hearings panel on the Waitaki River and that being opposed by other councillors despite the importance of the Waitaki River to Ngāi Tahu because it rises in the headwaters of Aoraki—their tūpuna.
So councils around this motu have got a long way to go in implementing Te Tiriti. This bill, by ensuring that there is a Ngāi Tahu voice at the table, will help move towards a better Treaty partnership. It will help ensure that there is a strong voice for Ngāi Tahu about the awa, the maunga, the whenua of Te Wai Pounamu, which constitutes much of their takiwā. This bill is ensuring that Ngāi Tahu can choose who those two representatives are. It does not diminish democracy; it improves democracy because, as Rino Tirikatene noted, it is increasing the number of councillors around the table from 14 to 16. It does not affect the remuneration of the existing councillors who are elected. It does not affect their responsibilities. It simply means that there are two representatives that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu will choose that will ensure that there is a loud voice. And our country, and Canterbury, will be better for that in ensuring that that voice is there. 
At the moment, those two Tumu Taiao are only advisers. They do not have the same status as councillors. This bill will ensure that they have that equal status. It will bring Te Tiriti alive, and it will be good for the mahi of the regional council, in ensuring that its management of land, of waters, of the coast, of soils is actually a deeper management, with a deeper recognition of the things that are important in our country of Aotearoa, and that is having Te Tiriti as our founding constitutional document. The Green Party supports this bill. Kia ora.
MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just want to raise with you Speakers' ruling 144/4 and would ask that, at a later date, you might reflect on that ruling. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will indeed. Thank you.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I was surprised when Mr Doocey said we shouldn't change this piece of law because the way local government has worked in Canterbury for the past 150 years has been fine. I could hear some of my Ngāi Tahu friends choke. I think that he should perhaps go and read the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the Crown apology appended to it. It will become pretty readily apparent that things haven't worked fine for many.
But, I mean, I think this bill begs the question of what it means to be mana whenua. Is it just someone who we invite to give a karakia or a pōwhiri from time to time or is it someone we engage in meaningful discussion, who we have actually around the table on an equal footing? And Ngāi Tahu do occupy a very special place in Canterbury and the South Island. Environment Canterbury is in a unique position of Ngāi Tahu being the only iwi. So when they do want to engage with mana whenua, there is only one iwi to do that with. So the fact of actually having them around the table, two members that have not only a voice but the same deliberative powers and voting powers, is really, really important. And it's not for us, if we're going to have those members of Ngāi Tahu around the table, to say how they're selected. That's for Ngāi Tahu. That's why an appointment process is an entirely appropriate mechanism. And Christchurch and Canterbury are in a unique and privileged position to be able to engage in this way with Ngāi Tahu.
So whilst the last 150 years might not have been great in terms of our relationships with Ngāi Tahu, I look forward to a future when this bill will improve it significantly. Kia ora.





SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party opposes this bill. It seeks to add up to two unelected representatives to the Canterbury Regional Council, and it conflicts directly with ACT's principles that only democratically elected representatives should serve on councils and in Parliament. Environment Canterbury—or ECan, Canterbury Regional Council—already has two mana whenua appointees which give advice to council on tikanga to help them with decision making. That appears to be a better way to actually address some of the issues that councils face when they're looking at planning, consenting, long-term plans, and where and how to provide community services for the people that live in that district. That's why this bill won't actually help address any of those issues. What it will do is add two extra individuals to the 14-person council, now 16; it will dilute democratic representation; it will essentially override basic democratic principles; it will result in unelected members having the same voting powers as elected members; and it will increase costs to the Canterbury ratepayers. For the ACT Party, that is sufficient reason to oppose it.
But I want to respond to some of the things that the Hon Willie Jackson said before he departed from the House. Mr Jackson has illustrated the problem with this approach. If the Government proposes to allocate some rights to special classes of people because of who their grandparents were or because of their lineage, that takes us back thousands of years, back to the feudal history that New Zealanders who came here by sailing ship, by steamship, and, more recently, by aeroplane left behind in the countries that they left to come to New Zealand for a better life. And for the benefit of those members who support this bill, I want to bring that back to why we're here. It's to make a better New Zealand. We won't achieve that by allocating special rights to special classes of people. That is a form of feudalism.
Now, we've heard about partnership approaches. That's all well and good. I've been involved in construction project alliances where the client and the stakeholders and people get together and they agree that if you work out a certain course, then more benefits get shared amongst the groups that participate. They all have skin in the game. Those participants in construction alliances are appointed to represent their group's interests. Now, the difference between that and a democratically elected council is that voters get to choose who represents them. This bill removes the right of voters to choose two of what will become 16 members, even though there are already provisions in the law, in a law rushed through under urgency by this Government, to create Māori wards so that individuals who are nominated and qualified can stand to be elected in those Māori wards—and the Canterbury Regional Council has the ability to do that. But instead, they have come and they've asked for this local bill to be proposed, essentially to create two additional seats for individuals.
Now, we can understand why Mr Jackson thinks that's a good idea, because he's an old-school class warrior who believes that the pie is only so big and it should be carved up and reallocated according to his vision and to those in power. The ACT Party fundamentally rejects that approach. We do not believe that that is helpful to New Zealanders. We do not believe that the people of Canterbury would appreciate that approach, and this Government should not allow this bill to proceed because it divides New Zealanders rather than brings them together, allocates special rights and privileges to those that should only be available to elected representatives.





JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on this piece of legislation. In Canterbury we're innovative, we're resourceful, we're good at coming up with local solutions to fix local issues, and that is simply what this piece of legislation does. 
This piece of legislation, or this proposed piece of legislation, is a local bill, a local piece of legislation that Environment Canterbury—we call them ECan—have asked for themselves. It simply puts into permanency something that was put in place under the previous National Government in 2010—something that has actually worked very, very well since then. It simply puts it into permanency so that these people, Ngāi Tahu, the mana whenua, the kaitiaki of the land who have close ties, bonds, and connections with the land, have the ability to have a seat at the table and hence voting rights. They're in addition to the current 14 councillors. They are not replacing any councillors.
I think that this is a fantastic piece of legislation. Local solutions for local issues. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker We stand here this evening to ensure, I hope, with this bill, if it passes, that we have direct Ngāi Tahu representation at the council level because direct representation is not what we currently have at Environment Canterbury. We have two wonderful Tumu Taiao—they are mana whenua experts—but they do not have decision-making powers; they have no vote. 
One of the great joys of being an immigrant to Aotearoa has been learning about Te Tiriti, learning more about and gaining a greater understanding of the ongoing impacts of colonisation, the rights of tangata whenua, and on how we have gradually been moving towards a genuine partnership as outlined in Te Tiriti—a partnership that isn't a "nice-to-have" but an absolute obligation; and you cannot work in partnership with any group that has been given a seat but no vote, no voice. It isn't good enough, it doesn't work for Canterbury, and that's why I commend this bill to the House.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, along with my colleagues, also rise to speak in opposition to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. This is a case of history trying to—I would hazard a guess, unsuccessfully—repeat itself. This House has been here before. As has been well canvassed already, we have a bill here that seeks to reinstate direct Ngāi Tahu representation to the Canterbury Regional Council—or ECan as we call it back home—after the 2016 Act was repealed three years later. In 2019, when this bill first appeared before the House, it didn't pass its first reading, and there is very good reason for that. Thank goodness for the Opposition of New Zealand First, ACT, and National. It was a bad bill back then. It is a bad bill now, setting a bad precedent.
My colleague Gerry Brownlee, who I'm actually—very ably, I might add—stepping in for right now; he was supposed to be taking this call. He said to this House in 2019 that it is a local bill that is trying to make changes that would be included in primary legislation. Despite all of the very emotional rhetoric and mud being slung over the House this afternoon, that is the reason that we are objecting to this. It is a bad bill. The Labour Party actually should have paid attention to Mr Brownlee back then, because it would not have set it on a course to make the same mistake that it's about to make today.
The other issue that we take exception with is that this bill is a result of ECan using its democratically elected powers to undemocratically force a change on weak Canterbury ratepayers without our consent. Not one of us ratepayers have been consulted on this. Using the process outlined in this bill, Ngāi Tahu would confirm two appointees in a process that has not required democratic input. Those two appointees, as we've discussed, would sit alongside a democratically elected council with full voting rights. I ask the Labour Party, the Government, to consider treating Canterbury ratepayers with a little more respect.
While I'm on that subject, the contributions we have heard from all sides of the House this afternoon have been patronising in the extreme—absolutely patronising. Why can the Government not consider that an iwi as successful and as powerful as Ngāi Tahu, who will undoubtedly have people of exceptional experience, skill set, calibre, are able to stand on their own two feet, able to stand for local body election on their own credentials, without having to be hand-held and shepherded into the council chamber on the back of this bill. I think the people of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu deserve more respect from the Government than this bill. It is disrespectful of the vast talent and depth within the organisation.
To be clear, the importance of mana whenua representation at all levels of political decision-making is not lost on us in the National Party. It might pay the Government to remember the advances that Māoridom have made under former National Governments. Might I remind the Government of the 60 Treaty settlements that were negotiated under the National Government. We are very clear that mana whenua have a critical role in decision making and policy making and lawmaking in this country, but it is not through an appointment process such as being put forward in this bill by this Government. The fact of the matter is there is already mana whenua representation at the council table, thanks to the two Tumu Taiao roles which are very ably filled by Iaean Cranwell and Yvette Couch-Lewis.
The National Party opposes this bill again because it is no better than the bill that came before this House in 2019. It is a local bill trying to reform primary legislation. It is being undemocratically forced on the people of Canterbury, and National opposes it.





PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, and thank you for the privilege to speak on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill.
I want to just say it's a good day because this really does set the benchmark for all local councils to look at how they enact the Treaty partnership. Fundamentally, it's good for that reason alone. Obviously, there has been some work done, and that entity has decided that in terms of recognising how to best move forward with Ngāi Tahu, this is the best way forward. I often get asked how is it that local government can have a functioning, truly authentic, and genuine partnership with mana whenua Māori. This is something that people will look at and say, "We want that too." So this is good.
I know in my own patch on Rēkohu, Wharekauri, the Chatham Islands, this very thing where you have imi, iwi, looking at how to enact governance with tauiwi on an island that big, this will be looked at carefully. Too often you have advisers or others that act in a way where they don't have mana whenua authority or authentication to act in a way where they are speaking truly for mana whenua Māori. Then you get confusion because some, like myself, who aren't from Wellington when I was elected on to Wellington city—I'm not from here—but I certainly made it clear that having a Treaty partnership enacted through something like this would have been ideal, solely because they could have spoken as true mana whenua representatives.
This is a good bill. This is a good day, and I commend this bill to the House.





RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the right to reply to conclude this debate. What a debate it has been. We have certainly canvassed a wide range of views around the House. But I am very proud of this bill. I am proud of being a sponsor of this bill and for the work of Environment Canterbury, along with Ngāi Tahu, to put back in place a proven successful arrangement. I am saddened but not surprised at the opposition from the National Party and the ACT Party. However, I do want to respond to just a few points that were raised. Why is this a local bill? Well, as I said in my speech, this is a bespoke arrangement which is unique to Environment Canterbury, cannot really be duplicated anywhere else beyond the South Island, I would imagine, because of the unique arrangement of having a single iwi which is the Treaty partner over such a vast geographic area which encompasses ECan—Environment Canterbury. So that's why it's a local bill. But it seeks to modify those pieces of legislation specifically for that region—that's why it's a local bill.
We opposed the actions of the National Government at the time, but we never opposed the appointment of mana whenua representatives to Environment Canterbury. In fact, I signalled in one of my speeches, I remember, what will happen when the arrangement ends and how can we ensure that this endures, and this is what we're doing right now. We're ensuring that the arrangement of Ngāi Tahu councillors endures through the passage of this local bill.
I don't really want to go into the remarks around feudalism and the likes from the ACT Party, suffice to say that the foundation of Aotearoa is built on a Treaty foundation, built on the bicultural reach between the iwi, between the chiefs, and the Crown. That is the foundation, and that is the guiding beacon which this bill actually represents, because Ngāi Tahu representation—why? Because Ngāi Tahu is the Treaty partner. Ngāi Tahu aren't gaining any great advantage. They are only getting what the Treaty guarantees them, and Environment Canterbury understands that. They have put that into this bill. It's been proven successful in the past, and they're just reactivating it through the passage of this bill.
I acknowledge the passion which the Hon Willie Jackson committed to this debate. He did actually cross the line, and he was admonished for that and disciplined, but I do acknowledge that, you know, he is a powerful advocate as the Minister for Māori Development. You will not take that out of Willie—Mr Jackson, Mr Jackson. 
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: And you will always cross the line!
RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes, te rārangi toa—he stands that front line.
But I want to acknowledge all of the contributions from around the House, in particular Eugenie Sage, an experienced former councillor on Environment Canterbury, and I thank the Green Party for their support of this legislation. I acknowledge them and that they get it—they get it. We get it on this side of the House. Mr Brownlee, yes, I also recall from the last bill that we debated in this House—you know, we didn't have the numbers on that day, but I said to Mr Brownlee that we would be back. I said that like the big mountain Aoraki, it stands tall and it endures. It stands tall in the day and in the night, and we're back again, looming large with this momentous bill, and I'm really looking forward to it going to select committee, getting full consideration and examination from members of the public, who are welcome to submit. I thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who will be ushering the bill through that very important process. So I look forward to contributing into that process as well, and I welcome Mr Doocey to do so as well.
But this is a timely bill that we're looking to reactivate, and I'm thoroughly excited that we can have this first reading and take it to the next step. I'm really looking forward to that, and so I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.





SPEAKER: The House is resumed. I'm going to ask the Government Whips, before I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms, to inquire of where Mr Jackson is and require him to come the House immediately.
Damien Smith: He's over in Huxley's with—
SPEAKER: Sorry?
Damien Smith: He's over in Huxley's. I saw him over in Huxley's.
SPEAKER: I still can't hear him, sorry.
Hon Stuart Nash: Do you want me to give him a call?
SPEAKER: No, we're going to get on with the business of the House while we're waiting for him. I call on members' order of the day No. 1.





RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF INSANE OFFENDERS BILL
Consideration of Report of Justice Committee
Ginny Andersen (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Justice Committee on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill.
Motion agreed to.
SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
SPEAKER: The question is that the bill now proceed.
Motion agreed to.
SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill.





RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF INSANE OFFENDERS BILL
In Committee
Debate resumed from 9 June.
Part 1  Amendments to Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is in committee on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. We come first, members, to the debate on Part 1, this is the debates on clauses 3 to 7B, and Schedule 1—"Amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003". The question is that Part 1 stand part.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. There seems to be a little procedural change that we weren't expecting, so apologies to the committee. I just want to put on record the changes that were made at the Justice Committee, so that there is some context in terms of how this debate will go for the rest of the session.
This bill has had a start of a committee of the whole House. It was on 1 July 2020 referred to the Justice Committee. It had unanimous support from all parties in Parliament, and there was a significant amount of work by the select committee and the determination of the chair that we could have a bill that all parties would continue to support. I want to put on record my thanks to the Justice Committee chair, Ginny Andersen, for the professional and very deliberate way in which she chaired the select committee to ensure that we had time to consider the issues during the select committee.
On 16 April 2021, it was reported back to the House with extensive amendments agreed by the select committee. They were unanimously accepted in the second reading on 12 May. However, on 24 May, the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General raising concerns about the implications of some of the amendments that had been agreed. One of the key areas raised was the amended wording of the proposed verdict. I tabled Supplementary Order Paper 52 at the time, in response to some of the Chief Justice's concerns. However, on 30 June, the bill was referred back to the select committee with the instruction that the committee consider the Chief Justice's advice on the bill.
We requested advice on the original verdict—the verdict the select committee chose and the verdict used in New South Wales. The bill as introduced said, and I quote, "the acts or omissions are proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible on account of insanity". The select committee amended the verdict to "proven but insane". So we sought officials' advice on both the use of either of those options and the New South Wales verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible". Officials provided advice on three other alternatives. We have landed on a compromise, and that is in the bill that we are debating in the committee of the whole House today, and that says "act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity", which meets the needs of all parties: victims, those who are facing charges, the judiciary, and Parliament.
My thanks to officials in the Parliamentary Counsel Office for getting this done so promptly, and for the unanimous cooperation of the members of the select committee, who worked so hard to get to a position that we could all agree with.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the bill. Look, I'd like to, firstly, acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston as the member in charge of the bill for bringing such a weighty issue before this Parliament, one that's taken a considerable amount of work from members from across both sides of the House.
I'd like to also briefly acknowledge the submitters. I think that during the select committee stage of the bill, I heard probably some of the most harrowing and difficult stories from those submitters who came forward to share their stories, and I would like to put it on the record to acknowledge that effort and how difficult that was—for those family members of victims as well. I'd like to also generally acknowledge victims of crime. This is a bill that's very much attempted to give greater justice to the victims of crime and to carve out greater space within the criminal justice system for the rights of victims.
This bill is an ambitious one, as it's taken on two very complex areas that I can see that the debate going forward in the House will cover, and I'd like to outline those two areas. The first being balancing the rights of victims alongside meeting the needs of the legal requirements of the criminal justice system and doing that in a way that meets those needs, but also provides for victims in the courtroom space. Secondly, it also strikes a balance between the mental health needs of the offender and the needs of the victim and their family; improving the interaction between our mental health system and also our criminal justice system, which is no easy feat.
So as we've heard already from the member in charge of the bill, this bill has already received a second reading. An important recap is to recap the legislative process to date as the passage of the bill has not been a typical one. The critical part of this bill has been the verdict that is read out in the courtroom. So the initial attempt was to address the verdict, which was read out as "not guilty on account of insanity" and those words "not guilty" were the words that were so hurtful to victims and families of victims who were having to hear "not guilty". When the committee initially heard those concerns of submitters, we took advice and attempted to strike that balance between the needs of victims and the requirements of law.
After the committee had reported back to the House, as already outlined, the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General highlighting concerns regarding changing to the definition the committee had arrived at, and that was "proven but insane". In particular, there was real concern raised around using that word "proven", and that goes right to the heart of requirements for mens rea and actus reus in order for a crime to be proven. The Chief Justice emphasised the fundamental legal principle underpinning the finding of not guilty on account of insanity, and that is that the defendant by definition is not guilty because of that mental element, that mens rea, and the element of the offence had not, in fact, been proven. On the other hand, the central purpose of the bill outlined by the member is to avoid the victim and their family hearing the words "not guilty". So this was a difficult balancing act, and at this point the bill was referred back to the select committee for a second time to have another crack at striking that balance and getting that right.
So where the committee has arrived at is "act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity". While that's a bit of a mouthful, the committee feels and has had good advice that that lands in terms of meeting those legal requirements for the criminal process, as well as sitting well with victims of crime and those families who will be sitting in the courtroom when the process is heard. While it's been a difficult balancing act, I think we've got there in the end.
I'd like to acknowledge too the role of Simon Bridges, who was the lead spokesperson from National, who actually took his legal background and put it to good use by trying to assist in finding that middle road.
The committee considered a number of options, and what we've really arrived at now is we've completed that consideration and it's really pleasing to see that the committee has reached a unanimous position on the way forward. So this is where we are now.
I'd like to continue on further if possible and continue here. I would like to continue by outlining why Labour supports the bill. I think it's important to have that there—
Debate interrupted.





 KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I apologise for interrupting the debate, but I seek leave to report progress and sit again presently.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill and reports progress.
SPEAKER: The Chair moves accordingly—and that is that the committee has reported progress on the bill and has sought leave to sit again presently.
Motion agreed to.
SPEAKER: The House is resumed. I should have said that earlier.





INTERVENTIONS
Withdrawal of Member—Apology
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Mr Speaker, I was kicked out of the House earlier—
SPEAKER: No, no. The member will take his mask off.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh! Apologies again, Mr Speaker. I was kicked out of the House earlier today, or left the House earlier today, and on reflection I want to offer the House an apology for the unparliamentary language that I used at the time. So I apologise and withdraw for the statement that I made.
SPEAKER: Thank you. I declare the House in committee for consideration, for further consideration, of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill.





RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF INSANE OFFENDERS BILL
In Committee
Part 1  Amendments to Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in Committee on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. The House was considering Part 1, and the question was—
Ginny Andersen: Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ginny Andersen.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In terms of outlining the main, core reasons why we are supporting the bill, which is important to outline in this debate, it reflects the same values that Labour has in those areas of victims' rights. It promotes justice, it promotes transparency, and it also respects survivors of crime and also their communities. I think it's important to note that this legislation cannot undo or even mitigate the things people have experienced and those victims of crime have experienced. However, we do hope that we can alleviate some of the most difficult elements dealing with this complex and challenging area of our legal system for people in the future, and to note that the aim of this bill is to better align the treatment of victims of offenders found legally insane with victims of regular offenders in the justice system, which has been a difficult but worthwhile task that's been done.
This Government supports legislation that respects the rights and the needs of victims of crime and also, at that same time, keeps the public safe. This bill is consistent with our work to improve victims' experience of the justice system. It is also of utmost importance that survivors of crime are not revictimised through the justice process, while the offenders' rights and obligations are also met.
I think it's important to outline some of the key changes in the bill that've been undertaken by its two trips to the select committee and to underline some of the work that's been taken in Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the bill. In terms of Part 1 of the bill, the amendments to criminal procedures, that in particular looks at those around mental health and trying to create that alignment between the criminal justice system and also those needs of people who have mental health concerns. Under Part 1, some of those issues relate to the "Report by the Director of Mental Health on the defendant's continued detention" and also "When victims must be notified of impending decisions under section 31 or 33", and that's covered off under clause 7A in Part 1 of the legislation.
While we've also discussed, already covered, that using the new verdict will assist in doing this, there's also consequences following finding of a new verdict, and one of the Chief Justice's concerns was that the bill would be unclear about what the consequences of a finding of the proposed verdict would actually be. So the committee therefore unanimously recommended adding a new section, which is 20(1)(c), to provide that a judge must acquit a defendant on account of their insanity if this finding was made. This would be consistent with the consequences following the Act's current verdict of "not guilty on account of insanity" and would also reflect the language currently used in describing the consequences of the verdict.
The committee also recommended providing proposed new section 20(1)(b), that in finding that an act was "proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity", a judge is required also to explain that meaning of the finding to the defendant, which is an important change in making our court processes more transparent, more understandable, not only to those who are before the court but those who are supporting a victim through the process. This change is designed to help ensure that the defendant and others in the courtroom understand the verdict.
Also, there's been some really good improvements in terms of what the bill aims to do. The bill, as already stated, aims to ensure the equivalent treatment of victims of a legally insane offender with other victims of crime. It also seeks to develop a more victim-centred approach when the court is considering cases involving defendants found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of insanity. So the key ways under Part 1 that that is done is through renaming the verdict of "not guilty on account of insanity" to "act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity". [Time expired]





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to just refer to the only Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that is now on the table related to this bill. For those who are just watching this debate now, in the prior committee of the whole House there were SOPs—No. 40, which has been withdrawn and that is now replaced by No. 98—and I just wanted to explain a couple of those changes. They are very much cross-referencing changes that are picked up as part of the drafting process. So they're very technical changes, and also in one, with the change to clause 8B, new section 50, it is to ensure consistency with the wording of the Mental Health Act. So I just wanted to put on record to clarify for the House that SOP 42 no longer exists, it's been replaced with 98. What was SOP 52 in the prior committee stage had been incorporated when the bill went back to the select committee, as outlined by the chair Ginny Andersen.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): It's a real joy to stand up and dig in with the Hon Louise Upston, into this bill because this is an awesome little bill. As I understand it, with my very minor experience in this Chamber, it's had a very unusual process, as my colleague Ginny Andersen, the chair of the committee, and the Hon Louise Upston have both begun to describe. I'm sure that that we will have more of this because it's been a fascinating thing.
But I do want to just take this moment because there is real weight and significance to this matter. There is tremendous detail to go through, and it is important that we explain it in that detail that only a committee stage gives us the opportunity to do. But I do want to start by talking about the philosophic significance of this—and the Hon Louise Upston, I want to dig in a little bit to that with you tonight. 
I come from a background in law and, particularly, in the rights of victims and the place of victims in the adversarial court. When I began that work, to my shame, it's—well, to my shame, not to my shame at all. What an awful ageist thing to do. Over 25 years ago, when I started work looking at the plight of victims in our justice system, what was really the case when I dug into that, victims do not have a place in the traditional criminal adversarial system—they simply do not. They are tools of the lawyers and the judges to be used for the evidence that can be got from them and then set aside. That is the fundamental problem with the position of victims in an adversarial system, which is essentially that dialectic discussion between the prosecution and the defence. In that system a victim really has no place except as cannon fodder.
It is very different, if you look across the ditch, from the originator of the adversarial system in England. If you look across to France and you see the inquisitorial system, and you look there, and what you see is a system that is dominated by the State whose interest is in setting right the situation, the imbalance, that has arisen by the commission or the allegation of a crime. For that system the victim actually does have an integral place in the system and a part to play and a role and a right to stand, as we say in this Chamber, and as they say in courthouses across the land. There a victim has a lawyer. A victim has a right to make submissions. A victim has a right to a say in a sentence in a very, very different way to the small and cautious way in which we allow our victims into court to have a say on the disposition of the case. So it seems to me, from the outset, when I got to grips with this bill, that it is actually putting a pou in the sand and advancing one more step along something that I know is very dear to this Government's heart, which is to integrate victims into the criminal justice system to give them the respect and the voice that they have so lacked for so very, very long. 
When I began all those years ago—in fact, I think it's closer to 30 than 25 when I try to do my addition, but my brain may be trying to ignore the fact. When I began as a 21-year-old it was common to hear victims talk about their sense of total disempowerment, their sense of a total lack of voice, and the fact that the trial was a re-victimisation. These things were common parlance, and I was really saddened when I heard those same experiences. And the Hon Louise Upston, you will know this better than I do.
Maureen Pugh: What's the question—what's the question?
Dr EMILY HENDERSON: I'm getting there, but it's really important to set the scene, Ms Pugh.
Maureen Pugh: Very waffly.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Thirty years of academia, give me a chance. I've got a long history here. [Bell rung] Thank you. Thirty years of academia cannot be put to bed in five minutes. I say that to the Opposition. It may put the rest of you to bed, but not me. So my point is, and to quote the great Ellen, "I do have one." When we heard the experiences of those victims, back in the beginning of this process, the same pain that we hear from victims in a rape trial or in a sex trial was coming from them. That intense feeling of disenfranchisement and disempowerment in what was their experience. That intense feeling that they had walked into an arena where it should be, essentially, about their experience and their reality, and it was not. It was about them as tools of a system that was not focused on them at all. Therefore, it really struck me, the title you gave your bill, Ms Upston. Because rights for victims is almost a contradiction in terms in the adversarial system, as it has been traditionally conceived. Yet it is a real mark in the ground as to where you were going with that, and it is something where we see—you know, later this week, I hope we will be considering the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. I see this bill as of a piece with the work that we will be doing on the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. It is again about the place of and the respect given to victims or complainants in the process. It is about moving aside those two bullies, those two domineering people, the prosecutor and the defence, moving them aside and admitting into the frame that third person, the victim or complainant.
When I just go back to the inquisitorial system in France, it is sometimes thought that any mention of an inquisitorial system or the inquisitorial system might have advantages over ours is some intrinsic attack upon the rights of the defendant. When one sees the words "rights of victims" that is often seen by criminal defence or traditional criminal lawyers as an implicit attack on the rights of the defendant. But I think what you're demonstrating here, Ms Upston, and what the work that we have here, that we did so painstakingly and with such passion and nerdy determination, particularly, if I may say so, from some of these slightly newer members of the Justice Committee. That level of nerdy attention was justified because we are doing something significant here.
But when I say that the inquisitorial system is often seen as a threat to the adversarial system, that the idea of inserting victims as players into the system with rights of standing of their own is seen as a threat, I really think that that seriously underestimates the capacity and the elasticity of the adversarial system because—and here comes the serious nerdism—it has been said over the last 20 years in research on the inquisitorial versus the adversarial system that, actually, they're not opposed. They exist on a continuum. So you often see elements of the inquisitorial system creeping into the adversarial system, but also elements of the adversarial system creep the other way too. I think it's really important to put that frame around it. When we talk about rights for victims, which 10 years ago would have been seen as a slap in the face, an existential threat to our criminal justice system—and I am not putting that too highly because I know criminal defence lawyers—when you come from that perspective, I think it is really important to put that debate into context, and say "This is not only a big step forward for our system but it is not a threat to our system." Our system is endlessly elastic provided we stick to those fundamentals of the protection of the defendant's human rights and dignity and the accurate fact finding. Once we know that we are holding those two intrinsic quests that make up a trial, once we know we have given those due respect, I think the trial is virtually, infinitely malleable, whether it is in terms of the procedures you use, whether you use pre-recording or whatever, or whether you allow a victim to have a place in the trial and to state their truth and to give their voice and to have rights. 
So, Ms Upston, I'm inviting you, one very deep nerd to another, to stand and address us on why you named this bill the way you did, because I think it is important, and I think you should say it.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will take up that member's—Emily Henderson's—invitation. My intention, and I've spoken about it in the earlier readings of this bill, but it was the genesis of how this came about, actually, and it's very much a people bill. It was based on a constituent coming into my electorate office in 2010 and raising an issue, raising his experience of the way he found the justice system as a victim when his brother had been killed by someone who was found to be insane at the time, and the clear difference between how he was treated, because the offender became a special patient in the health system as opposed to a criminal in the justice system. Therefore, the experience for him as a victim was so vastly different.
I think some of the frustration of Graeme Moyle and his family was that at that time there was a move to strengthen victims' rights in a number of areas. So as the previous National Government and now the Labour Government have continued the mantle to improve the victims' experience of the justice system, and as Ginny Andersen spoke about, have victims at the heart of the justice system, the expectation grew and the gap became wider in terms of his experience of what happened for him, and the very fact that when you have an offender that is found to be insane, it's a very different pathway and a very unequal pathway. That's very much what we heard from other submitters.
So in terms of Part 1—I know we are wandering a little bit, Madam Chair, if you can indulge me for a moment—the rights for victims of insane offenders was very deliberately chosen based on a very real human experience which I felt, as a member of Parliament, was wrong. I'm immensely grateful for this House for the time and effort that has gone in during a select committee process where we honour those victims and give them greater rights.





VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call in relation to this very important bill. I would like to thank the member, Louise Upston, as a number of my colleagues have done, on her really important work in this area. But also, as a newer—maybe not so new—member of the Justice Committee, I really was extremely impressed with the collegiality across the committee on what was actually quite a difficult and complex area of the law and one that I think we spent the appropriate amount of time on, because these weren't easy decisions at all. They require a balancing of rights, both of the experience of the victims, but also the criminal justice process itself and the rights of the accused, which strays into the mental health space.
My colleague mentioned that she had worked in the criminal justice space; for me, a lot of my work has been on the defence side. And I do think when you've been doing that for a number of years, sometimes it can be difficult to consider the space of victims' rights. It was about two months ago when I met the Chief Victims Advisor at a men's rights activist meeting, and it was really that discussion and then reading her report from 2019, which called for several changes to be made in the space of victims' rights, that I really saw the process we were going through a select committee quite differently. It is something else to sit in that room and listen to the stories we did. So I'd also thank the member not just for the important changes but for giving those families a space to be heard. I think one of the things I learnt early on is that it's not always just the families; it's people who witnessed some of these atrocious acts, including colleagues in employment settings, including members of the public as well.
This is a complex area of the law and one of the changes that we looked at—actually several times; there were three iterations—was the verdict itself. So I just want to spend a bit of time and then perhaps ask a question on that. So as some have traversed, after the bill received its original second reading on 12 May, the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General on behalf of the bench stating that they had concerns and then it was referred back to select committee. So the three iterations that we had—the first one included a reference to "acts and omissions" and also included a reference to the "defendant". The second, when it came back to the House, initially included the words "proven but insane" and where we are now as we've revisited the definition is a unanimous position on the way forward, which I do think is extraordinary, but also does justice to the balance that we need to strike in this place. And that is the wording that the "act [is] proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity".
So what I felt we did in many ways is we actually revisited where the member was initially with that section. To me, it gives that same sense of highlighting the act while making it clear that both elements of the offence hadn't been met. I mean, I would like to just have that assurance—the words from the member in terms of her sense of whether that did bring us back to where she initially saw that piece of the bill, because I do think that that is the most significant change to the bill.
The second question I would ask is there were a number of submitters who questioned whether if we changed the verdict that would also bring a lack of clarity to those in the courtroom. So we're not just talking about the victims and the families and others who might have witnessed the act in this case but we're also really talking about potential jurors and, of course, the accused themselves. So if the member would, I would very much love to hear her thoughts on whether we have landed—not exactly, but, in fact, very close to the intention of where the original verdict clause was.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I move, That the question be now put.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations to the member Louise Upston for getting the bill this far. There's a couple of questions I really invite you to talk to—and I saw her about to get to her feet before—and I guess the first is this, and it's about the kind of importance of the concept of mens rea as an ingredient of guilt. The phraseology chosen of "not criminally responsible" is clearly dispensing with the idea of "not guilty", and it seems to be right there in the nub of this bill that we are putting insane people into a kind of different category. The law's long recognised that the actus reus and the mens rea are critical ingredients of guilt, and that if you don't have either of those components—the intention that's necessary and the critical thinking skills necessary to form that intention—then you are not guilty. I'm really asking whether that undermines the concept of mens rea as an ingredient of guilt itself, of the responsibility from which flows criminal conviction and the sentencing that follows.
I guess the other thing I'd just point out, and it may be for a later part: the bill's called the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill; this is not about offenders at all. It's about insane accuseds. They never become offenders. They didn't commit the offence. They are not criminally responsible. Once again, we've got a person here who is seriously mentally unwell if they don't have the ability to form the intention to commit a crime, and yet the bill tags them as offenders when they are not offenders.
Now, I understand the Justice Committee recommended that in reaching a verdict, as set out in this bill, the judge is to explain what "not criminally responsible by reason of insanity" means and how that interplays. I'd be interested in the thoughts of the member. I think it's really important because, I'm sure, the courts will look at these debates to understand what that might entail. What would, in particular, the victim want to know about the verdict? What kind of equipment do we want to give the judiciary in terms of the intention of this House when they come to say to a victim, "This person isn't going to jail, isn't going to be punished, and the reason is they don't have the mental capacity to have committed this crime. They are not guilty. They are not offenders. They are not criminally responsible. But that does not diminish the fact that you have suffered sometimes some very grievous, you know, acts at the hands of these people." But I do think, in striking this balance—and I know the member's tried desperately hard to strike the right balance—we've got to be cautious that whilst we can say a verdict which is, you know, "not criminally responsible", we steer away from then saying, "The person who is the accused is an offender.", because the verdict itself declares that they're not.
So I'd be interested in your views on mens rea, and also in your views as to whether it's appropriate to identify the accused person as an offender and as to what we might be asking of the courts in explaining the verdict to the court and, in particular, to the victim. Kia ora.





VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, just continuing from where I was, in terms of the focus on court processes, I would very much like to hear from the member about the balancing of rights within the courtroom but also clarity and how the new addition of the new section 20, I believe it is, makes that clear for all parties in the courtroom.
There was another question, I think, for me, that came up as we were hearing submissions, and I'll refer back again to the Chief Victims Advisor report that she wrote back in 2019, where she made some quite broad comments about the rights of victims and that they stemmed from the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. She actually went and interviewed a number of victims and included some really alarming quotes from some of them about their experiences. One thing I was quite interested in was how she defined victims. This is an issue that came up in select committee because of the nature of the submissions that we heard from many families. And I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith was very interested in this particular aspect of the bill as well, because it's a question of scope.
So we heard from some individuals that, where an individual is declared unfit to stand trial in the first place, the individuals who had suffered harm from an act that they had committed would go without justice—whereas, if this bill were to come into force without extending to that group of people individuals who had suffered harm for someone who was declared to have committed the acts but didn't have the actus reus, they would have some space within the courtroom; they would be able to read a victim impact statement. I don't recall whether it was Dr Smith or not, but one of the issues that came up was whether, if you had an individual who was declared unfit to stand trial at the time that they had been charged but subsequently, after receiving an appropriate amount of treatment through mental health services, were deemed to be sufficiently capable—how would they fit into this sort of regime, and are our laws sufficient to ensure that that person is then tried and those individuals do also have the same ability to provide statements in court?
So I'd be curious also, in addition to my earlier question about court processes and clarity, just to hear from the member about whether the intended scope that she started out with when she introduced this bill—whether she considered expanding it at any stage when hearing from those individuals. I thought that was quite a novel argument that was made at select committee. And, if not, why not, and does she see this as a gap in the law or that it's adequately dealt with by current legal processes?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Emily Henderson.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Thank you very much, Madam Chair—
Ginny Andersen: My question for the member—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Apologies.
Ginny Andersen: Oh, I thought you said—Henderson and Andersen almost sound the same.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Emily Henderson.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I won!
I want to really respond to and perhaps riff on what my colleague Professor Duncan Webb was talking about before, because I think, again, this is something that—he's right, lawyers and judges are going to go back and they're going to look at these things and they're going to wonder what the heck we were on about. So I think it is important that we talk about this. When we look at Part 1 and we look at clause 3A, which is amending the interpretation section—that's the first point at which, as you'll remember, Ms Upston, that we introduced our new verdict, which, as all of the previous speakers have alluded to, caused us quite a bit of angst. It caused quite a few people quite a bit of angst because, again, this is something that really goes to the heart of what you were trying to do, I think, but also what the criminal justice system—long-held tenets of the criminal justice system. And, in particular, as my colleague, Mr Webb—Professor Webb, as I'm now going to call him for the rest of the evening—
Dr Duncan Webb: Don't do that.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Don't do that—was saying, it goes to that mens rea / actus reus aspect. I really would like you to spend some time talking to us about your thoughts about how we got to that definition because, as my colleague Vanushi Walters said, it's actually very close to your original. In the end, after all that, we circled back after all that discussion. But for me, "act proven"—and "proven" was the word that became a real hiccup because proven suggests that the crime was committed, and for a crime to be committed, of course, you've got to have both those things: the actus reus, the act, and you've got to have the mental intention. A person who is insane cannot form that mental intention and traditionally, by that very nature, that is it, they are not an offender. They can be accused, but they cannot be convicted of the offence in the traditional way.
But this was of immense emotional importance, as I recall. This was—I remember Ms Upston saying, I remember the submitters saying that once you hear "not guilty", you don't hear anything else. You don't take in insanity, you don't take in the explanations. So our challenge was to craft a verdict which made it both clear to the justice system that we did not consider this person could be convicted of a crime, but also to the victim that we recognise that something was done to them and it was this person who did it. So we had to balance that. We had to balance the validation of that experience—"Yes, this person did this thing to you."—with the criminal law's inability to, I guess, bring that reality home to the person because they don't fit the definition, they don't fit our system. So what we did was to say the act is proven, the actus reus has occurred, but the person is not criminally responsible on account of insanity. Meaning, as we saw it, I think, insanity has rendered them—the mens rea element has gone so they are not criminally responsible, but they still did it, they just don't have the mens rea. Therefore, that is where we came to.
Now, later on, when we get to that part, I would really like to get you to dig into the fact that we did then go and change the definition of "offender" and "offence" to include for the purposes of the Victims Rights Act, in order to do that other very important thing, which was to synchronise the rights of the victim of an ordinary offender and the victim of someone who is insane. In order to be able to synchronise their notice provisions and all of that, we had to change the definition of what an offender is for the purposes of the Victims' Rights Act. So that's, I think, where the title comes from also.
So I wonder if you would be prepared to just talk about that interplay of factors: the need for notice and the need to have that trickle down in the practical sphere.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question to the member is in relation to Part 1, clause 7A, and there's several new sections in there that are really in and around the notification to the victim. This is a part of the bill that hasn't been discussed so much. We focused a lot on that definition and getting that balance between the needs of victims and the needs of the criminal justice system, but what we haven't discussed—and my question to the member of the likely impacts of these changes—is in and around the Justice Committee examining section 50 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, which provides that the Minister of Health may grant leave of absence with a special patient from a hospital into the community, quite often subject to conditions specified in the section. 
So we decided that the bill should require that victims of persons found insane be notified when the special patient is being considered for leave of absence. And I know there were specific examples provided by the member herself and also by submitters to the committee in and around some really negative circumstances where there had been victims of crime who then, without purpose or planning, had bumped into the alleged or the offender in particular instances, and the perverse circumstances and the negative impacts upon the victim that that might have. So we decided the bill should require that victims of persons found insane be notified when a special patient is being considered for leave of absence. This is really important. So this would, in the committee's view, prepare the victim for the possibility of the patient getting greater autonomy or being released into the community. So the need was highlighted, as I said, through several submitters who raised this and who noted that victims felt like they were not even considered to be relevant to this process as it stood, and could even be surprised to find out retroactively that the offender had been, in fact, granted leave, and even granted leave in close proximity to the residence of the victim and their family.
So the fact is that the victim is now provided, through this course of legislation, with the right to submit their view to the Minister when the offender is being considered for a leave of absence. So alongside this amendment in this section, there is also the view that the victim has the right to make a submission when the offender is being considered for leave of absence. And I think this is a really important change that the committee has taken through. So I'm interested to hear the member's views in terms of the impacts upon this for victims' rights. When the committee looked into this area—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Can I just ask the member to come back to Part 1.
GINNY ANDERSEN: Sure, sure. Part 1 is rights for victims under clause 7A, new section 33C: the "Right of victims to make submissions on proposed change of status", and that's on page 1 of the bill in Part 1. So that is covered in Part 1.
So in doing so, the intent is to give victims a voice where they are currently being silenced, and to give them the opportunity to bring to the attention of those making the decision any considerations that might help them apply, where practical, leave conditions that minimise the chances of a person found insane and the victim coming into contact, which could have some quite awful experiences for that victim to be then re-victimised.
So it's important to note that the intent of this change is not to impose on the clinical decision making in this process, but it is really to provide greater transparency in the system and also for those people who have been impacted upon the crime to be kept abreast of what changes are happening. It goes back to that key point made right at the beginning of this debate: that trying to get a good coincidence—the talking points between the criminal justice system and the mental health system to make sure that where there is an overlap there, that there's an ability for those two systems to interact in a way that takes into account the needs of the offender, who may have ongoing mental health treatment needs within the health system, but also the rights of the victim, who needs to be protected through the criminal justice process.
So I'm really interested to hear from the member in charge of the bill how some of those more fundamental changes in terms of victim notification and also giving the victim the right to submit their view to the Minister will impact in the wider ambit of improving the rights of victims through the criminal justice process.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. A number of the contributions from the Labour members that were on the select committee, I think, have answered their own questions, because we did come to agreement around these very difficult balances. So the thing I want to put back on the record is the clear policy intent in the drafting of this bill in my name. That is very simply that in these cases the hearing of the finding "not guilty" is just so appalling for the victims. 
I want to explain why, because it's very connected to why the use of the word "proven" in the finding was so critical. Yes, I accept the select committee tussled with it for quite some time, both the first time and the second time, and the "proven" is really important. I'm not going to traverse the details of the cases, because I know that the victims, some of them, shared their stories for the very first time. So I want to honour them by not going into the detail of what occurred. But the reality is there is zero doubt about who committed the act. Yes, they were found not criminally responsible because they were found to be insane at the time that the act or offence occurred. But the very simple reality is that no one else is being looked for. And in the most harsh examples—and I refer to my constituent, the death of his brother, there was only one person who committed the act that took his brother's life. That's why, in terms of the finding, the removal of "not guilty" was critical from a policy perspective to deliver the intent of the bill, as was the word "proven". 
The other thing that I want to put on record, and it has been referred to by many of my colleagues who worked so diligently with me to get this bill right, was the need to balance the person who had been found to be insane and their needs, as well as the victims' needs. One of the interesting comments that came through this process was how confusing it is both for the victim and for the person that's been found to be insane to have heard "not guilty", because the finding was "not guilty" but then that person was taken into the custody of the Ministry of Health as a special patient. For some of those special patients, hearing the words "not guilty" added to their confusion in terms of why their liberties, as they knew it, were being constrained. I think that we managed that balance of the really important needs of the person with a severe level of mental illness to be found to be insane—I think we very carefully balanced their needs and their rights as well as the rights of the victims.
Coming to the question about the victims' notification of impending leave. There was another item of business that was before the Justice Committee, and that was a petition in the name of Wendy Strawbridge. That petition was dealt with in parallel to my member's bill. And again, I want to acknowledge the Justice Committee for making that decision to handle them in parallel, because Wendy Strawbridge was a community nurse and attempted murder was the charge that the man who attacked her faced in court. He was found to be not guilty on account of insanity. But what was most destructive for her and why she was so motivated to put the petition to Parliament was that without any knowledge, without any information, the special patient who attacked her and very nearly killed her was then released unescorted into the same community that she lived in. Had this been a criminal in the justice system, she would have been notified as a victim. 
So again, very careful consideration was made in terms of balancing the needs of the special patient and making sure there was nothing that we decided in the select committee that would be detrimental to their recovery and their health and that balanced the needs with the victims' to be safe in their own community. At this point I want to also acknowledge the work of the officials from the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health, who grappled with some pretty challenging issues in balancing it out. And I think with the considerable efforts of the select committee members, we struck that balance right.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the question be now put.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.





Part 2  Amendments to Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 2, and this is—
Hon Members: Madam Chair. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ha, ha! I did have some words to say, but Emily Henderson also has. 
Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Madam Chair, this is just a red-letter day for those people whose names end with "son" rather than "sen". 
All right, we've come now to Part 2. I had a few more things to say about Part 1, but I'm pretty sure that because of the way we've had to structure this omnibus bill, we can still discuss them. Isn't that fun? 
The start of Part 2 is really about how we grappled with the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, which is the same year I started work in vulnerable witnesses—oh, my God, I'm old. Anyway, this, of course, comes to the issue that we've already alluded to, which is that this bill has two significances, other than my overarching obsession with the rights of victims. The first one, of course, is that placing of the victim at the changing of a verdict, which we've already discussed in some detail, and I was very pleased to see that I was being joined in my nerdy-ness on this side of the Chamber. 
But the second part of it is about that difficult process of finding an equivalence for the rights of victims of ordinary offenders—non-insane offenders—as opposed to insane persons, who we went on to deem offenders. I would like Ms Upston to talk to that, because it was a very difficult operation. These systems—the mental health system and the criminal law system and the penal system—are not used to talking to each other; in fact, they operate almost oblivious to the other. 
One of the real privileges, I think, of this process was having the Director of Mental Health before us again and again, and he was extraordinarily kind to a bunch of enthusiasts who did not understand the system as we needed to. But he also did us the courtesy of taking our endeavour seriously and of walking us through the balance between the rights and needs of the insane person, who is a patient and who is a sick person in need of protection and treatment, and making sure that in our zeal to ensure the inclusion of the victim, we did not overstep into the rights of the insane person, and that was not easy, particularly when the system has no real compatibility, and, frankly, I didn't think the mental health system really had much interest in the legal system, which, of course, came as a shock to a lawyer. 
When we had that discussion, there were those three different Acts that we needed to marry up in order to create our equivalence, and I would like you to talk us through what they were and why they were. But also, I'd like you to talk through your thoughts about why it was important that we actually grapple with that and intrude on the treatment of patients and try to include this new element in the work of clinicians. 
It was interesting watching them grapple with that, because I remember that, at one point, and it was Ginny Andersen talking about this earlier today who reminded me of this, they talked about how they had never really had the opportunity to learn some of the things that victims could tell them which were, in fact, relevant to treatment—for example, the letting out of the person and the leave provisions, which go across two different Acts for the different stages of the leave. I think Ms Upston would do the community a service if she spent a little bit of time on how it works, and maybe that is where I should stop. I feel that it would do the community a service if Ms Upston would take us through how the process of leave works and how we sought to integrate the victim into that notification process, because it was extremely complicated. 





VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this part of the bill, which I also think raises some really complex issues about rights balancing that we certainly heard a lot of in some of the written submissions, including from some rather significant entities. I do think that it's important that we consider again whether we struck the right balance in the space of victim submissions but also the privacy issues that were raised by a number of organisations.
I think there's a tendency to see particular areas of the law as discrete and each contained in their own boxes, and what this bill highlighted for me was, really, that we were dealing with a complex overlap between the mental health system and the justice system. For me, as a West Auckland MP, over the last few months I've been out to see probations, who had also talked to me about the significant overlap they see fairly regularly in terms of the justice and mental health and wellbeing space. So it's certainly an area that I think we need to become more practised and well versed in in terms of how we respond appropriately, really, across both.
Just going back to the specific tensions that were identified in the submissions we had before us, the first one was really about whether or not it was appropriate for a victim, their family, a member of the public, for their submission, their statement in terms of how the Act had impacted them, to influence a decision about release, whether that was short-term release or longer-term release. I think we did hear that from several of the submitters. So what we were really balancing was the need to be heard, the very valid concern of safety concerns, but also a question about what a decision maker in a health context should take into account as they were making this decision. We heard that, again, from a number of submitters.
The other big argument that was made was about the privacy space. So, once a decision had been made, what information should be provided to victims and their families? In this space, we heard from the Privacy Commissioner, who I believe raised some very valid concerns about privacy rights that we ought to protect. I know the Privacy Commissioner also had concerns about the information on health certificates and precisely what information was shareable and what information wasn't. I think the point that the Privacy Commissioner was trying to make was that we ought to be distinguishing between things that attach to safety and things that really did attach to, you know, very private health information of the individual concerned. I do know that this is a balance, because what we heard from victims on the other side was that what they wanted to know is that the health system was adequately caring for and supporting those people in its care, that some sort of change was happening as they were there. They really wanted to know that progress was being made.
I do think there's a big question about whether the balance is right, and these are very nuanced things in terms of what the influence should be going in but also what the scope of information is that comes out from those decision makers. I'm very aware, of course, that from a number of the submitters, from victims themselves, we heard about that sense of fear of just looking across the street and suddenly being struck by the accused. Interestingly, there's some international literature that also suggests that often the accused don't want to be in that scenario either. So, really, it's finding the balance that protects them both, and for this clause in particular it may be that the same outcome best suits both the victims of the family as well as the accused. Thank you.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Again, I think the Labour members who were on the select committee and were so diligent in working with me on it in some ways are answering the issues they're raising, because that is exactly one of the points. 
I just want to step back a bit, though, in terms of, again, the intent behind this bill, which is, of course, an omnibus bill. And this part is the mental health compulsory assessment and treatment amendments. So when Graeme Moyle came into my electorate office in 2010, his first concern was that a special patient, the special patient that had killed his brother, was out in the community having unsupervised visits. So his primary concern was actually public safety and that an unsupervised visit by a special patient could lead to harm in the community. So then if you think about—one of the other significant policy intents is equivalence between the justice system and the health system. And if you are a victim in the justice system, you have the opportunity to present to the parole board. Although, as we worked through this, we clearly identified significant differences in terms of why that was not appropriate in the mental health system, and the bill was vastly improved in the select committee from where it started. So I want to acknowledge the select committee's effort in that. What was important is that victims wanted to be able to be heard, and they also wanted to be notified. So those are the two key parts of the policy behind the changes that appear in here. 
Obviously, the release of a special patient—there is a significant process, which Dr Crawshaw, who is the Director of Mental Health, outlined, and the process that he goes through in making recommendations to the Minister of Health. So we did a lot of work to strike the balance of ensuring that there was not any inappropriate influence and that the Director of Mental Health and the mental health team are clearly specialists with a wide range of skills that they bring to the table in that decision, and the victim's voice was a component. The point that the member Vanushi Walters finished on was actually for some special patients it would be equally traumatising and damaging to their recovery to be confronted in the community with their victim. So we traversed the very necessary balance of the victim and the special patient. Again, I want to thank the select committee for taking the time to make sure that we had unanimous support and that the report that we brought back to this House was unanimously agreed, because we recognise this is a complex but very important issue to get right.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, in terms of Part 2 of the bill, the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill, which specifically makes amendments to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, there's one area that I just would like to cover. I think there's been a really good discussion already, but there's one part that I think deserves being highlighted, and the member may wish to comment on this as well. What was fascinating for the committee to see was when, as mentioned, Dr Crawshaw, the Director-General of Mental Health, actually described the process. And sometimes, from the health perspective, it was seen as making decisions "with a bit of a black box"—was the term he used to describe that. So I would like to think that, through some of these changes, we're actually making the system far more transparent and providing health professionals with more, I guess, real information from different sources to be able to make those decisions or make those recommendations to the Minister with a bit of a real-world flavour to it as well.
So I think that, in terms of what's been said already to support that, it strikes that balance of making sure that health professionals are still acting within the best interests of the mental health patient—to make sure that their therapy and their journey back into wellness is being supported as appropriately as possible—but, at the same time, if there's pertinent information provided by the victim or the family, that it's being taken into account when that recommendation is being made to the Minister in terms of what to do. I think it was really interesting to see that there is a lot of effort that goes into those decisions, and I think that, for those submitters that were watching and listening and understanding some of that information, it is not a simple decision being made when someone is being released back into the community, and how that is done. There were some instances given by the Director-General of Health that quite specifically said that it would not be in the best interests of the patient if it was just a trip to the dairy or maybe a trip every second week—like, in the initial stages of someone being supported back into the community, that it's not within the best interests of the patient for that information to be provided to the victim of the offence every single step of the way.
So that balance of making sure that the appropriate level of information is made available—I think, and the member may wish to comment, that this has made a considerable improvement to decision-making processes that has really managed to straddle both the criminal justice process and also the reintroduction of someone back into the community and that whole rehabilitative process of the mental health system. And let's remember that New Zealand's history in terms of mental health, of the way that we have treated mental health patients in the past, is a shocking and abysmal history of how people have, essentially, been incarcerated for what is a health issue. So to be able to make such improvements to our system that still guarantees victims and their families that ability to feel that their views have been taken into account whilst still providing the patient the ability to build back their life is there. So, I guess, that was just my view—that that was a really special point in the bill for me—and I invite further comment in that space.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the question be now put.





CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you. I appreciate very much the opportunity to take part in this committee stage of this bill, the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. Unlike some of my colleagues, I wasn't on the select committee that looked into this bill, but I did approach looking at this bill with a great degree of interest. So I do have some questions, and I apologise—I don't have the expertise that some of my colleagues have, or, obviously, the member whose name the bill is in, Louise Upston, has in this area. So I would be quite interested to hear the answers to some of these questions—and also to just commend the Justice Committee for their work on this area. It seems to me that there's been a lot of collaboration, which has been apparent since the second reading. I was in the House for the second reading, and I commend the member and the select committee for working together to create this bill.
The areas of the bill that I wanted to draw to the member's attention are mainly in four areas. The first area, as someone who previously practised law and studied law, was the removal of the mens rea component of the offence. When I studied law, it was very much a necessary component to have that particular element of it, and it's very novel and different to have this bill put forward without that component necessary as part of the conclusion of finding and the ultimate determination in this particular area. So that's one thing that I found particularly interesting, but I do understand why the member has proposed that.
I was very moved by the way that the member has spoken about her constituent and how she came to put this bill forward. I think it's in many ways the way that we should bring members' bills—you see, myself being a backbencher MP—as non-ministerial members of Parliament: to listen to the concerns of our constituents and then bring these forward. I do think that she has spoken about the victims of the crimes that have been committed, and their families, in a very respectful and appropriate way, and so I think that's really added to the quality of this debate—and also by other committee members who have spoken to this too. So I just wanted to commend the member for that. And so I do understand the reason that we have moved away from that element of mens rea.
The second element that I would be interested in is the role of the Minister is unusual—as someone who hasn't been involved in the deliberations—and it might have seemed quite usual and it is probably a very good way of solving some very immediate issues under this Act. So the role of the Minister of Justice in, essentially, approving leave—that is a very novel element of criminal law that I had not often been familiar with. I hadn't practised criminal law very much at all—a very short amount of time as a very, very junior lawyer. So that is one element of the bill, and specifically within this part that we discussing, and a part to which I wanted to bring to the attention of the member.
The third part, which is discussed in detail in this particular section in Part 2, was the interrelationship between the criminal law and our health system. Now, this is something that as a student of law you might not often consider to be particularly apparent, but it is clear from the experience of people that it is absolutely necessary that the criminal law, especially when dealing with insane offenders, interrelates and works properly and seamlessly with the health system. And so I commend the member for putting forward a system which looks at these two very important elements of our society and brings them together, and I wanted to give her the opportunity to explain how that works.
The last thing I had is really a genuine question, which—I hadn't read all the submissions and been present at the select committee to hear a lot of the comments, but one thing I would be interested in and I haven't actually heard it mentioned by any of my other colleagues yet either, is: has she heard from any families of insane offenders of their view of this particular bill? Because it became apparent to me in reading it that it might be that they too would appreciate this change, in terms of the clarity of the decision that ends up being put forward. So I just wondered if she had heard from any of the families of insane offenders—obviously, for them, a very difficult position to be in. And it is appropriate that we have clarity in our law. So I just wanted to ask her if she had heard that and if she could share that with the House. Thank you.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to quickly address a couple of the matters raised by the member who has just resumed her seat, Camilla Belich. The first thing is just to actually correct—it is the Minister of Health who grants the leave to the special patients, not the Minister of Justice.
The other thing is, from the public's perspective, they just expect that the systems of Government work together, and they're quite shocked when they don't. So we have to move more into the world of the New Zealanders who access Government services and support, as opposed to living in the world of the system for the system's sake. That is exactly what's happening with this bill. It is from the world of the victim and the world of the special patient, and the collective efforts of the Justice Committee and the officials who nutted out things in the background have meant this is a piece of legislation that is for the New Zealanders who this bill should serve, as opposed to the systems themselves.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I move, That the question be now put.
Motion agreed to.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Part 2 as amended agreed to.





Part 3  Amendments to Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 12 to 13A and Schedule 3, amendments to the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. The question is that Part 3 stand part. 
The question is that the Hon Louise Upston's amendments to Part 3, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98, be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Part 3, as amended, agreed to.





Part 4  Amendments to the Victims' Rights Act 2002
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to Part 4, which is the debate on clauses 14 to 15A and Schedule 4, amendments to the Victims' Rights Act 2002. The question is that Part 4 stand part.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to seek clarity—under Part 4, there's also Part 2A. Is that taken as a separate part, or is it able to raise a question to the member in charge of the bill in relation to Part 2A?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, I see. My understanding is that it is only Part 4 that is being amended.
GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The point I wish to reach is under the next section, so under Part 2A.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): All right. So Part 2A is part of the bill which is being inserted by the passing of Part 4.
GINNY ANDERSEN: Right. I understand. Great. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a brief contribution, and interested in the member in the chair's views, because I think one of the most important changes to the bill is contained within that section, which relates to victim impact statements. So the Justice Committee has recommended amending the Victims' Rights Act to allow victims of insane offenders the opportunity to make victim impact statements. In some ways, I guess, it's unbelievable that this has not been made available in the past, that that right has not been taking place when there have been people who are accused who are unfit to stand trial or insane without having the requisite mens rea for the crime that's been alleged.
So these statements will be parallel to those that already exist for victims of sane offenders, and will accordingly take place at the disposition hearing, which will take place after the offender has been found guilty or, in this case, proven to have committed the offence. I think it's really important to note in this space that the victim impact statement will not be used to inform any clinical or judicial decision about the fitness of a person to stand trial. So just as it operates for those victims of offenders who are sane, this gives that right to the victim to be able to have their voice heard in the courtroom, to tell their part of the story, and for that voice to be conveyed clearly. That's incredibly important in restoring the rights of victims in this space.
This change specifically reflects the submissions of 13 submitters who came before the committee and provided their views, including individual victims, and also a submission that was an excellent one from the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups. So I'm just interested to know from the member where this idea generated from. I think it's been something that's very, very loudly spoken through the submissions process, and it's good to be able to see that right from the outset that this bill has attempted to provide a parallel process or a parallel ability for those victims of insane offenders to have the same rights and voice as anybody else going through the criminal justice system.
Dr Emily Henderson: Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Chair.
Dr Emily Henderson: Mr Chair—Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Emily Henderson.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I thank you for your forbearance in the matter of gender pronouns. I know these things are very important these days. I often think with my teenagers that, you know, we were brought up to believe it didn't matter who you were and whether you were a man or woman or gay, straight, or whatever. But for the generation today, it really matters, so you get told off when you get the wrong pronouns now, and I am having to learn it is important. We have evolved. 
Right, I do want to just pick up on what Ginny Andersen's just been saying, because I do think that this is something where it's really important for those who will want to dig into this bill and want to investigate it because it is actually very significant philosophically to dig into that victim impact statement further. So I just want to go back: the Victims' Rights Act, which introduced victim impact statements back in, I think, 2003, possibly 2002. I'll just double check that—it's 2002. That was a step change for the criminal system. 
It brings with it—for those who don't know, a victim impact statement, the traditional process or the normal process is that once the person is found guilty, when I was a prosecutor many years ago in Whangārei, the victim's advisor would then work with the victim, who had now gone from being a complainant to a victim, and they would come up with a statement, and the statement had to be quite carefully worded. You weren't allowed invective. You weren't allowed to be needlessly abusive. You had to keep your submission within bounds. And if the person did not do that, then the judge was directed to pay no attention to those parts of that statement. There were then a series of processes for the delivery of that statement where the person could appear in court. But some victims are not capable of standing and addressing a courtroom. We did allow some victims to speak via CCTV, and all of those sorts of provisions were quite crucial. But we also allowed other people to read them, and when you read the newspaper. you'll often see the victim's advisor delivered so-and-so's statement. 
So that's what we invented back in 2002, but when we brought it in today, when we were looking for it, and Ms Upston will remember—when we were looking at this quite vital part of the rights of personhood of a victim in this context, because that's what it is, it's not just about the usefulness of the statement, because that is the cloak we've kind of put over it, but really; it's an assertion of the rights of personhood of the victim. It was difficult to find where we would put it, because the excuse for getting a victim in to give a statement normally is that it's going to be useful to the sentencing process. We don't have a sentencing process here. We had no room to play with. We had to, essentially, invent an option that the victim would be there at the disposition hearing when the decision is made that the person be committed for treatment. And that in itself has always seemed to me really quite significant and a bold move by the member in writing this bill. It recognised that final piece of the puzzle or that—it's not the final piece of the puzzle; the middle piece of the puzzle, which is allowing them the right to stand and have their say in a courtroom that they otherwise do not have, pretty much unmediated provided they stayed within those bounds of civility. I would like the member to discuss why that was important to her from the beginning and to people who were the victims who came to her for representation in this matter.
That would be one thing I would really appreciate hearing on, and I think we all would. I think this is going to be something where academics are going to drill. Academics are going to have a field day with this bill because it is that significant. I certainly would, were I still in the ivory towers rather than the wooden building with the faux Grecian—lovely Grecian!—columns.





VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Chair, for an opportunity to speak to this fourth part on victim impacts statements. I think, for those members who aren't fortunate enough to be on the Justice Committee, you're getting a taste today of the level of detail with which we went through this bill but also how seriously we took this issue. And I spoke earlier tonight about the overlap between the justice and the health policy space, which I think is also a question about this part of the bill. But that conflict or that overlap was also present when we considered operational matters as well. 
I didn't take a second call on the last section, but one of the interesting questions that was raised there was procedurally, operationally what happens when a patient commits an offence while they're out on leave? And what are the operational connections between justice and health that ensure that that data is captured and quick steps are taken? So, again, I would make the point that we need to be actively considering the interaction between the health and the justice space. 
So in relation to the changes that are made here, this absolutely sits in that point of tension space in terms of giving victims a right to have their say, but also questioning, really, the impact that has on a relevant decision-maker, particularly in the health space, and what impact it should have. But this part of the bill isn't just about the provision of the victim's views, which we do have at clauses 14I and 14J; it's also direction to judicial officers not to take into account withheld parts. So, again, you see that really fine approach to balancing of rights. 
I would also point out a significant section, which I know is important for many of those who we heard from. And that is 13A, which is, really, the notice for victims or persons or offenders subject to mental health or intellectual disability of care. It's the right to be notified of a person or offender's designation. What we heard from a number of people who submitted to the select committee was a sense of fear about offenders being out in public. But I would also say, equally—as much a sense of anxiety about not knowing what was happening. And, again, the Chief Victims Advisor puts this really well when she describes interviewing victims, and she says they describe this feeling of being sort of in limbo and really being unheard and unseen. And so I do think that this is a really significant piece of the bill. 
Then, perhaps, my question—as we're nearing the ends of the parts of the bill—as well for the member is just reflecting on pace of change. I think there are a number of pieces of legislation that are upcoming in the House, including the safe areas bill at some stage, where we've seen moves from the likes of Australia in those areas before New Zealand has gone into those areas ourselves. I know that there have been moves in New South Wales to review their legislation in this space. I also know that Canada have made an attempt to change the verdict requirements. And the question is really: have the changes that have been made across all parts of this bill done justice to the pace of change internationally? Are we keeping up with our neighbours across the Ditch? Are we keeping up with like jurisdictions—for example, Canada—but also the most recent research in terms of the experience of victims and the experience and also the rights of patients who are in the care of mental health facilities as well?





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. For many people listening to this committee of the whole House, they will realise that the amendments to the Victims' Rights Act are probably the most critical in terms of achieving the policy intent of this bill.
One of the questions that was asked before, about the introduction of the victim impact statements—and, again, standing in the shoes of a victim: that they are a victim of a crime through no fault of their own, and so many of them have no or very little understanding of the justice system, and definitely, probably, less of the health system around mental health. As we as a country have progressed the rights of victims, one of the areas that has become more and more important for—and "closure", in this instance, just sounds trite, but I can't think of a better word. The ability of the victim to give a victim impact statement in court is a really important part of the process for them to resolve some of the trauma that they have dealt with by the very nature of being a victim. That trauma exists whether you are a victim of a sane person or an insane person. So these amendments in Part 4 provide more of that equivalence between the health and justice system that we talked about before, but very much in the ability of a victim to get some form of closure or to get to the next stage of their grief and trauma.
But the other part, when the member refers to new section 30A, inserted by clause 14O, that, I think, is important to put on record—because in the submissions from victims, there was not one that had ill-feeling or blame or hatred or anything for the special patient. In fact, it was in many cases quite the opposite. There was deep concern by the victim about the ability of the special patient to recover. And I think that's a really important part of this particular clause with new section 30A, because the victim wants to know: is that special patient getting treatment? Are they being supported on their journey back to their community and their family? Because to many of them, it felt like a black box: there was a special patient, they were found not guilty on account of insanity, and then the victim heard zero about what happened to that special patient. I was really moved by the submitters and their very generosity and need for them to understand and be kept informed in some way, shape, or form of what happened to the special patient.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That the question be now put.





CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston's amendment to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 4, as amended, stand part.
Part 4 as amended agreed to.





Part 5  Consequential amendments to other enactments
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to Part 5. This is the debate on clause 16 and Schedule 5, consequential amendments to other enactments. The question is that Part 5 stand part.
The question is that the Hon Louise Upston's amendment to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Part 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston's amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston's amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston's amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.





Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We now come to the debate on clauses 1 and 2, title and commencement. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, I just wanted to make a short contribution in relation to the commencement date. I think it was really important to highlight that it was further extended for a whole year. So, initially, the view of the commencement date was—I think we had it down as July, but through consideration with the committee that there were so many significant changes, and that this bill made such, I guess, a leap in terms of trying to take into account criminal justice procedures as well as mental health processes, that the necessary changes that would have to be done would require significantly longer than what a typical passage of legislation would need. So, for those reasons, we heard from officials and took advice from both Health and Justice that a longer period for the commencement date for this bill would be required in order to do that. Look, I just think that it reflects in general the high level of cooperation from both sides of the House to take into account and try and have the best passage forward for these changes to be able to be bedded in and to take a long-term improvement not only to our mental health services but also to those rights of victims who have had an offence committed by someone who has been stated as being insane or unfit to stand trial.
So I welcome any comments from the member, but I think it was important to highlight to the committee the level of cooperation that enabled a longer commencement date in order for the substantive changes that will be required, and the coordination required as well between two quite different worlds, to make sure that these are bedded in appropriately to make those changes lasting.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.





RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF INSANE OFFENDERS BILL
Third Reading
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I move, That the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill be now read a third time.
In October 2010, Graeme Moyle contacted me as his local member of Parliament, concerned about unsupervised visits by a special patient who was in the care of the Ministry of Health. This man, Matthew Ahlquist, was a special patient because he killed his flatmate Colin Moyle, Graeme's brother. Graeme has spent years working to change the law based on his experience of the system, which didn't treat him and his family the way he expected victims should be treated. Victims of crime, loved ones who have been affected by the taking of a life, are innocent, they are blameless, and they experience traumatic events through no fault of their own. It shouldn't matter if the person who committed the act was insane at the time or not. We have balanced very carefully the needs of the people who carried out these acts who were insane, who also need the protection and support and care of the system.
On 4 April 2019, I put this member's bill into the biscuit tin. It was pulled from the ballot on the very same day. I'm not sure that that's ever happened before, but I'm very pleased that it did. It was over a year later, on 1 July 2020, that we had its first reading. I outlined the horrendous circumstances of Colin's death, and I don't intend to repeat that today. There was no doubt that Matthew Ahlquist took the life of a Good Samaritan, his flatmate Colin.
There are special days in Parliament, and this is one. Too often you see the disagreements, the debates, and sometimes behaviour that is not becoming, and tonight you see the unanimous agreement, where the co-operation of members across the House and every party in Parliament agrees not only on a problem but, more importantly, the solution to that problem. Normally, members' bills are pretty straight forward—you know, we're told, as a new beginner, as a new MP, if you want a member's bill, pick something small and tight. This hasn't been one of those.
The Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill does three things: it changes the verdict so that victims don't hear the words "not guilty", it gives victims a voice, and it provides victims with information. This is an omnibus bill, which amends the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, and the Victims' Rights Act 2002. It is far more complex than what would normally be tackled in a member's bill, and so I have some people to thank.
Firstly, to Graeme, for your sheer perseverance. I think you've figured out now that I can also be pretty bloody-minded, and it's a good thing that the pair of us are determined. I want to thank your wider family, in particular Liz, who have supported you in every step of this journey.
To the many victims that courageously shared their stories, their experiences, and their pain, I do have to say, as other select committee members no doubt will, some of the stories were absolutely harrowing, and some of those stories were heard in public for the very first time. So I want to commend you for your courage. This bill supports those who, through no action of their own and no fault of their own, have had their lives permanently altered—trauma through no action of their own—and this Parliament supports them.
I want to thank Wendy Strawbridge, who presented her petition to Parliament, which sought to amend the law to extend to the victims of crime committed by people found to be insane the very same protections and rights as other victims of crime. She presented her petition in March 2019. Wendy was the victim of an attempted murder in Nelson while she was working as a registered nurse in the community. She discovered that the person found not guilty of her attempted murder by reason of insanity was back in the community, in her community, on unescorted leave. She had no input, no consent, no notification, which, of course, was devastating for her. I want to give my thanks to Nick Smith, who was her MP for all of this journey and who has worked tirelessly on this cause with me. This bill addresses the very issues that she raised; so it made sense for the select committee to deal with both items at once.
To Victim Support, who have recently celebrated 35 years. They were also at the table, giving evidence, and behind the scenes, providing support to the victims that had presented, along with other victims' advocates, like the tireless Ruth Money.
I want to thank the members of this House for keeping the focus on victims. It was a complex balance. It was a very difficult and awkward balance at times, but we landed in a place where we balanced the needs of the victims and also those of the special patients. I want to thank each of the party leads on this bill for taking the time, the meetings, the discussions, the late night texts, and really deeply considering the issues.
The Justice Committee, who, on multiple occasions, could have easily said, "It's too hard; go home."—and I'm sure they were tempted to! Thank you for your perseverance. I think this piece of legislation—the omnibus bill of four complex pieces of legislation that are being amended—really is due to the significant work that the select committee members put in. By keeping an open mind, by keeping a focus on the policy intent of the bill, we traversed this very tricky issue, at times pushing the boundaries. And special thanks goes to the chair, Ginny Andersen, for diligently and carefully navigating our way through this process to ensure that we kept support for the bill unanimous. And I want to repeat that because that is really unusual. It is very unusual in the select committee on any bill, and it's incredibly rare on a member's bill. So I do want to pay special tribute to Ginny for the professional way and the very diligent way you drove to ensure we got an outcome that we all agreed with. And I know, at times, I can push the boundaries myself, perhaps showing that bloody-mindedness, that determination, or at times I've been referred to as being unreasonable.
To Andrew Little, who now is the Minister of Health but formerly the Minister of Justice, who agreed quite some time ago that the verdict must be changed and gave officials full remit to work on this bill. Again, that's very unusual, and without the Minister's remit, we wouldn't have been able to do the sorts of work that we needed to, to end up with this bill.
To the justice and health officials, and in particular Dr Crawshaw, who worked so well together despite coming up against issues that needed careful consideration and were often in conflict with each other. As I said before, in the committee stage, usually our systems of Government are very separate, and it's quite hard to mesh them together.
To the select committee staff, who kept us incredibly supported through our work, who worked so professionally, and the officials, as I said, who navigated some pretty tricky waters.
Last, but not least, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who helped interpret my very first policy intent into a member's bill after many, many, many months of work and then crafted the select committee decisions into a workable solution that we will pass the bill today.
Today, I want to give confidence to every New Zealander that this is your House and, as MPs, we work for you. We work to make New Zealand a better place. You can meet with your MP, like Graeme did, and you can change the law. To paraphrase another New Zealander, while it might not happen overnight, it can happen. Tonight is proof of that, and I think it's a wonderful way to end this parliamentary year, for the members' day, where victims will have more rights with the unanimous passing of this bill. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Thank you very much. That was a great speech from the member in charge of the bill, Louise Upston. It's not often that we have nice things going back and forwards across this House, so it's good to be able to take time to enjoy rare and exceptional circumstances. I think it's the content of this bill that has caused the unanimous agreement from both major parties in relation to an issue that's incredibly important.
First and foremost, I think Louise Upston needs to be acknowledged for not shying away from a tough issue. We've had many members' bills in this House that have significant issues that have been brought before and managed to change the law for the better, and this one is exactly in that camp. Some of the best members' bills I've seen during my time in this House have come through the office door of an electorate office, just as this one does. Real issues that come from the real day-to-day lives of New Zealanders—when the law is not working right, they bring those to their local member of Parliament, who is able to champion those issues and change the law for the better. So I would like to acknowledge the fact that we have a great democratic system that works well enough, that we have that ability to have a one-on-one conversation with another human being and be able to take that forward and change the law to improve it for other human beings. I think it's testimony to the great democratic system we have.
I would like to acknowledge those submitters. I've already mentioned in the previous stages of this bill that some of those submissions that we heard from, sometimes the victims of those crimes themselves, first-hand experience—we heard accounts of a harrowing rape, a brutal rape within a woman's own home, from a complete stranger, who managed to break into her house. We also heard of the subsequent days, weeks, months, and years of her process, not only through the justice system but through her own rehabilitation, her own rebuilding of her life after such a horrendous crime. No one can imagine how difficult it must be to be in a courtroom and to hear the words "not guilty" after being the victim of such a brutal attack.
So the fact that we have been able to traverse long, long hours and long time at the Justice Committee, to be able to provide a better way forward for victims of crime when the person who has been put before the court is declared to be insane or unable to be found guilty on account of insanity—to how we take into account the needs of a person who is within our mental health system and, at the same time, take into account the needs of the victim of that crime—is no easy feat. So I would like to say that it's been a big learning process for me to see how we can work together more effectively to make sure that we drive change that's lasting and that improves the processes that we have in place already in both health and in the justice system.
As part of that, I've been fascinated in the two key areas, and that's, first of all, coming up against, you know, the legal requirements of mens rea and actus reus—the very fundaments of what it is in a guilty verdict and how we break that down in a way that meets the needs for the courtroom and the criminal justice system. How those very words, which seem so basic to lawyers, can be so offensive to the ears of victims and their family, and to have a discussion around how that takes place with both lawyers and with mental health and health experts—debating that out, how we take care of those needs. I'd like to see more debates like that in the future for New Zealand. I think it's a great area for us to look at, how two separate worlds intersect and how we can provide more effectively for people in their everyday lives by having conversations that go far beyond just an Act, that go far beyond what the requirements are in a textbook or a statute, and how that filters down into everyday lives. So that's been a fascinating process.
The other part of the process that has been a really intriguing one for me is seeing how the mental health system and how the justice system can work more effectively, and I think we've done a great job at putting that forward.
I'm going to quickly traverse through the stages of the verdict, because I think it's important to keep that on the record, to see where we've been. Where we started at on the spectrum of the verdict definition was, first of all, it started with "not guilty on account of insanity", and, for the reasons I've already specified, that was the whole purpose of the bill—that, to the ears of victims and their family in the courtroom, was so offensive. That was the purpose, to try and change that. Where the committee initially landed was "proven but insane", and while we got advice and did a good job in that space of trying to balance, we had the Chief Justice not agreeing with that. So after the bill had been reported back to the House, we found ourselves in the unusual position of it being referred back to select committee for the Justice Committee to once again take into account that advice from the Chief Justice, and see how we can provide for, particularly, that word "proven" that we were using and the fact that it could not be "proven" if there was no mental element or mens rea due to the mental health or a specified insanity of the person standing on trial. The Chief Justice emphasised the fundamental principle underpinning the finding of "not guilty on account of insanity", and that is that the defendant, by definition, is not guilty because the mental element of the offence has not been proven. As my learned colleague Duncan Webb was attempting to do earlier, even changing the title of the bill in order for "offenders" to be removed and change that for "persons", because, technically, they are not an offender if they have not been found guilty—but I think we'd had enough time debating the infinite details of this bill, and I encouraged him that we should just let the bill pass. I'm sorry, but you know never to let an academic hold things up.
So I think that the place where we've ended up is the right place, and that was when there was consistent agreement from all the different corners of the world: legal, mental health, policy. Having a clear view that the act was proven—so by separating out actus reus and mens rea by just speaking about the act, the act is "proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity". So I just guess I would like to note that this is a sensitive and incredibly important area of the law, which requires a delicate and accurate legislative approach, and I think that we've managed to do that, even though it took two turns. It is good that the committee has had the opportunity to consider it fully and ensure that it will work as intended—as already spoken earlier, to have that longer enactment date to make sure that we do have those alignments in place for when this law comes into force.
I'd like to acknowledge those not here tonight. Simon Bridges—when in those long hours of debating on which of the several proposed definitions that we would adopt, it was actually some of Simon's words, to separate out "act proven", and having a hand in crafting that to achieve agreement. As the honourable member, Louise Upston, has already referenced, there were many points along the winding pathway of this piece of legislation where we could have thrown our hands up and said it's too hard and walked away, but we felt committed. I think, for me, I felt committed once hearing the stories of those victims, hearing the trauma and the pathway to rehabilitation and having their lives back on track. We felt committed to finding an outcome that served victims and made our criminal justice system fairer to those victims. I'm really pleased to be seeing this law passed tonight, so that we can stand by the fact that we've seen this done. I think we all put our political colours aside because it's been seen as a good way forward that provides an improvement to the existing circumstances. To be able to put that aside and move ahead with the best course, I think, is a good day for New Zealand democracy.
Look, I'd like to sum up by saying that we support this bill as the Labour Party because it sits well with our values. We have put in the time because we see it as promoting justice, promoting transparency, and also respecting survivors of crime and also their communities. I'd like to note that while this bill cannot undo or mitigate the things that people have experienced, we really hope that it can alleviate some of the most difficult elements of dealing with an incredibly complex and challenging area of our legal system for people in the future. I'm proud and happy that the hours have paid off and that we can happily commend this bill to the House.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill, which is at its third reading.
Let me just start by acknowledging my colleague the Hon Louise Upston, who has brought this piece of legislation to Parliament, not only as someone who's been a local MP listening to her constituents, but someone who has a deep respect for the law, but also a deep appreciation and understanding for victims of crime. I just want to acknowledge the heart and the passion that she has brought to this Parliament when it comes to making sure that at the heart of our criminal justice system, we put victims first. I think that's the message that Parliament is sending tonight to the criminal justice system: that we want to see victims put at the heart of our criminal justice system.
We've heard from the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, and we've heard from Louise Upston about the many challenges this bill has faced to get to where it has got to. One point I just want to make to all of those victims who are listening tonight is that we hear you, that we see you, that we are listening, and that we are making sure that Parliament puts its stamp on the law and on the criminal justice system.
It is ultimately Parliament who sets the law in this country. It is ultimately Parliament that gets to decide what the law says, and that is what we are doing tonight by changing the verdict in these cases from "not guilty on account of insanity" to "act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity". Whilst some may say it's only words, when we here heard from those victims who came and who shared their tears in front of us at the select committee, who shared their stories and their anguish, the pain and their suffering; not just in the courtroom on that day, but in the years following, we realise that, actually, these words deeply—deeply—matter. And not just the words, but also the other parts in this bill which make a real difference to those victims and their lives.
I'm very pleased that we've been able to have agreement across the House. I want to acknowledge the Labour Party; the chair, in particular, of the Justice Committee, Ginny Andersen—it's been great working with them. And I want to acknowledge the contribution that everyone on the Justice Committee has made. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to continuing to see more legislation brought to this Parliament which puts victims first in our criminal justice system.





VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you for an opportunity to take a call. I also want to begin by acknowledging the member Louise Upston, not only for raising an important issue but for also allowing victims to be heard at the select committee and giving them a voice there, but also for her thoughtfulness, for her care, and for her patience as we asked questions during the committee stage. That was very much appreciated. 
I referred in a number of my statements at the committee stage to the Chief Victims Advisor's report in 2019, which is called Te Tangi o te Manawanui. It was recommendations for reform in the victims' rights space, and that made a significant impact on me, partially because it quoted victims themselves. One of those quotes talked about justice for victims being "Basically, a safety net for people who have been wronged. And whether or not that net has holes in it you don't know until you've got on the journey." 
As a member of the Justice Committee, a large part of our process was about listening to people and to families who had been on that journey and had experienced some really horrific instances of crime and offending. The challenge for us, I think, as a committee was really putting victims first and keeping them front of mind—which they absolutely were—but also balancing the rights at play with the principles of our criminal justice system, which are equally important to maintaining a fair justice system. 
So I would thank, again, the member but also those who came in to submit. I think it was incredibly courageous for a lot of them to provide those submissions to us, but, as the member herself also referenced, I think there was a lot of integrity in the way that they approached submitting to the select committee. There was a lot of respect for the mental health system and a recognition of its inherent value, and this was from people who have suffered a whole lot in terms of instances that have happened to them. As my colleague Ginny Andersen said, this bill won't be able to undo the harm that those individuals have suffered, but I do believe that the bill in the form that it's been amended to and that it's been reported back from select committee goes some way to acknowledging the rights of victims while also remaining true to the principles of our justice system. 
It is a bill that does aim to ensure that victims in this space are given equivalent treatment. We've traversed through the committee stage the number of different changes that are included within this bill, including notification to a victim when an offender is released, including victim impact statements, and also, of course, the verdict, which I think has been really, for me, that real pivot point in terms of finding the right balance between all of the rights at play here. A number of us spoke about the fact that this hasn't been an easy process. It has been about balancing interests and rights, but I do think that these are timely changes and changes that also mirror those made in other like jurisdictions to strike an appropriate balance. 
I also do want to acknowledge some of the submitters. I do recall vividly the submission of Victim Support, whose submissions referenced Glen Collins, a much-loved man. He was a 45-year-old father of two who was stabbed to death without any warning, and there were many, many horrific stories that we heard over the course of that select committee. 
I also wanted to reflect very briefly again on the changes to the verdict. Our chairperson, Ginny Andersen, stepped us through a number of those changes, and there were actually three iterations of change to what the current law is. I'd again point to the member's bill when it first came into select committee, and the verdict in that bill referenced "acts or omissions" and also included a reference to "the defendant". The select committee then shifted to "proven but insane", and where we landed—the "act proven, but not criminally responsible on account of insanity"—is actually, in my view, very akin to the member's initial proposal. That says two things to me. Firstly, it shows the integrity and the balance that the member brought to the initial version of the bill, which was intended to bring a balanced approach, but it also shows the rigour with which the committee approached its task. 
I think it's also useful to consider the pace of change. I asked a question during committee stage about comparability with like-jurisdictions. There have been a number of other changes in Australia and in Canada in this regard. In New South Wales, they conducted a review into the experience of victims and the system and, as a result of the review, there were a number of changes that were made, including that the victim had the right to make a statement in court and also that the court may consider the statement in deciding the conditions that were going to be imposed. This really does, in New South Wales, give that victim comparable treatment. In Canada, for circumstances akin to these, the law has removed the words "not guilty" from the insanity verdict, replacing them with "not criminally responsible". So you can see a very similar trend in like-jurisdictions, so we are not out of step with what's happening internationally.
In considering some of the changes that we did, we didn't just look to statements from victims—although their submissions weighed heavily on us—we also considered the views of academics and practitioners in the area, including the mental health law expert Dr Warren Brookbanks and forensic psychiatrist Dr Jeremy Skipworth, both of whom have argued the benefits of allowing victims to make submissions concerning patients' leave and release as well. So these are views that are shared by academics and specialists alike. But the tensions were very real. We touched on a number of them during committee stage, including the broad overlap between the justice space and the health space, and, again, I think we touched on that in a policy sense, but we also saw it as a space where operationally there was a lot of overlap. I think the clear message for us was to recognise that the law doesn't exist in those discrete boxes, but that we need to actively consider the mental health space and the health and wellbeing space as we're making changes to our justice legal framework.
The other big tension that I spoke about at committee stage was the issue of privacy and disclosure, and I did pay particular heed to the submission of the Privacy Commissioner as well as the Human Rights Commission in this regard. I said, again at committee stage, that, in my view, there were some very valid questions raised about the balance and whether we were getting the balance right. We were balancing those submissions against what we heard from victims themselves who talked about a need to be informed. They talked about the anxiety of walking the streets and just not knowing whether someone would present or note. I do note that at committee stage the member responded very well to this question as well, citing the fact that for many mental health patients, it's not in their best interests either to be in a situation where victims aren't made aware of their temporary release.
Finally, I would just like to say again that I commend the member for raising this issue. I think we've worked extremely collegially cross-party to achieve a balance that will work both for victims' rights as well as for the rights that we uphold in our justice system. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. I am speaking on behalf of the Green Party, but I also just wanted to mention that I'm also, in particular, speaking on behalf of our justice spokesperson, Golriz Ghahraman, who I know would have wanted to have been here to speak in support of this bill, having worked alongside the Hon Louise Upston and the select committee over a very long time to get this bill into its current form. Unfortunately, she's not able to. She would be able to make the case much more competently than I'm about to.
I do want to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston for her work on this bill. It's often said in this Chamber that there are two kinds of member's bill: one being a sort of a political statement, which probably has no chance of getting anywhere but is used to lay out a position; the other is a genuine attempt to solve a very real challenge. This bill falls into that category. It is a complex and a sensitive area, as a number of speakers before me have mentioned tonight, and recognising it has taken quite a long time from first reading to make its way through to here. It is one of those bills that is truly worth taking the time to do properly. So I do want to acknowledge the member who brought the bill and I do want to acknowledge the work that Ginny Andersen and the select committee have done and that the officials have done over a number of years, over what is quite a narrow but important and difficult and challenging area, where issues of mental health and criminal justice are conflated and not easily picked apart. I think that the bill has landed in a very good place, having taken quite a journey to get there.
The gap, of course, is in the justice system, where, currently, until probably about 30 minutes from now, there is no mechanism by which victims of criminal acts that are committed by insane persons—to provide any form of victim impact statement. That is a gap in the sense of being able to create justice, to provide a justice system that actually lives up to its name. The Green Party, of course, has always strongly supported the inclusion of victims' views in the justice process. We do believe that victims must be supported at every stage of the justice process, and that includes by having their views and their experiences safely and affirmatively given in the context of the proceedings.
As with a number of others, of course, we did have a problem with the wording in the original bill. Where, as a number of other speakers have said, the original language around "proven but insane" implied criminal responsibility. So I think that there was an amendment that was put up quite early in Golriz's name but actually events then overtook it. The Chief Justice made the submission by writing to Parliament, asking that that issue get addressed, and, you know, the work was done. It's landed in a very, very good place as a result. So, in that sense, I think that the kind of key issue that we were anxious about has been very well resolved to the satisfaction of everybody, has been noted as well.
I also just wanted to mention there were some other organisations that engaged with this bill, including JustSpeak and the Mental Health Foundation, who were, at least initially, opposed to this. They had some concerns about the risk of non-judicial and non-clinical input into the decision-making process that concerns about how there might be a risk of longer sentences being conferred, which would harm rehabilitation—which, of course, then errs back into the issues around mental health and criminal responsibility, and so on—and that context of it being about mental health rather than being about holding the offender accountable, which is, of course, what normal sentencing is about. So the committee has clearly engaged deeply in all of those very thorny issues. Those changes that have been made to the bill have kind of addressed those risks. So we're very pleased or we're assured that victims' statements aren't going to be able to be politicised, that those decisions will be contained within the process in a way that is safe for victims and actually for the people who have committed those acts.
I think some of the concerns about the bill speak to wider concerns about the justice system. It is an imperfect system. There are gaps in it, but they aren't going to be resolved within this bill, which does have a very narrow focus. I think that we need to continue always to ensure that we are seeking to improve the justice system so that those kinds of concerns, when they do come up through bills like this, are able to be addressed. We do hope that this bill does signal future legislative improvements to further our approach to restorative justice for insane offenders in the future.
So, in conclusion, I just want to come back to the beginning in acknowledging the work of everybody involved, but particularly the member who brought the bill. It's a very good piece of work, and I think this is one of those moments tonight where you can see Parliament at its absolute best; a rare and beautiful thing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I'm almost afraid, as I stand here tonight, of what we've done. My colleague, the Hon Mr Shaw has just referred to this as being a narrow bill. I do get his point, in one sense there's not that many offenders who get classified as insane in this country. That's right. Compared to other sorts of offenders, they're quite a small subclass. But in another sense, I think it's one of the biggest things we've done this year when it comes to the criminal justice system. And that is frightening.
It's big in two senses. First, what happens at the top of the system when you get to criminal trial, right up here [Lifts hand above head] influences everything in all the decisions that prosecutions and police make down here at the bottom. It becomes a bottleneck if you don't keep that space wide enough so that people can see the prospect of success. We all know that we have victims in this country who do not come forward or who give up because they look up at that top and they see only a bottleneck and they drop out and we lose their voices. This bill sends a message that the voices and the reality of victims are valued at that top point, at that apex of the criminal system. And that's significant. It's significant in another way. And as we've discussed during the committee stage, which was so thoroughly enjoyable, this is a really significant bill because it puts the victim into the adversarial system in a way they have rarely been put at the centre of the adversarial system. The adversarial system is conceived as a two-party thing, a little bit like the traditional version of this House before we had the wonder and panoply that we see before us, of MMP. It was a two-party system that admits of no other and, for that, they recognise the reality and the significance and the dignity of two sides only: the Crown and the defendant.
This bill, for perhaps the first time, gives victims an independent right of standing where they are not just tools, one way or another, to get evidence from for the purposes of those two important people: the Crown and the accused. That's incredibly significant. But it is nerve-racking. I found it so exciting, but it is frightening, and it should be frightening because the criminal justice system is right, criminal lawyers are right to be protective of our system. Because the criminal justice system is about the protection of some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
One of those two parties, the defendants, they are so often so powerless. And if we don't have a system that enshrines their dignity as a matter of absolute importance in our system, then we do not deserve to call ourselves a civilised society. We have to protect the rights, the dignities of defendants. We have to do that. We also, though, have to look at the truth, and the trial has to be an effective mechanism for the discovery and the investigation of truth—in balance with the dignity and the rights of the defendant. Hence, we get our evidence laws. Hence, we get things like the American version, no allowing of the "Fruit of the poison tree." These are important things, there might be evidence but if you've got it through the destruction of the defendant's rights, then that is enough of a block. We give up on truth when it affects the dignity of the defendant to that degree. It is a system of checks and balances, and when we interrupt something as crucial as that, then we should be nervous and we should be mindful, and by God we were throughout this process. It has been a careful, arduous, often circular, often spiralling back upon itself process, and so it should, because it's important.
As we do it, however, and as I think about what my dad, the criminal lawyer, is going to say when he gets a load of this one, when I think about the unconstitutional—but nonetheless they're going to happen—sideways glances I'm going to get from judge friends when they get a load of this—
Chris Bishop: Oh, just a bit of big-noting while we pass it.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON: —those doubts I have, those uncertainties about what we've done, they are worth it. Oh, bring it on, Mr Bridges. You're all good—I've got teenagers.
Hon Simon Bridges: Hey, I didn't say anything! I appreciate, you know, that it's easy to confuse the boyish good looks, but…
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Any time now you'd like to carry on, do so.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON: One teenager or another; it doesn't really make much difference to me.
So what we're doing is really, really significant. It's going to be something that's going to be picked over not only by my criminal practitioner colleagues but also by my criminal academic colleagues, because the other way in which this is incredibly significant is, as my colleague Vanushi Walters was talking about, in terms of an ongoing process of the reform of the criminal trial, which has been advocated for by academics over the last 30 years. The victims' rights movement, as it's known within academia, has been gathering pace, mainly as a result of the growing awareness in the early 1980s of the trauma inflicted on victims in the trial when they were victims of sexual assault. The victims that we saw, as I said earlier, echo the pain that has been talked about and found for the last 30 years. It is extremely significant, I think, in the development of the criminal law in this country that we are bringing this in. I think in the years to come this is going to be seen as a point at which Parliament shifted the goalposts and encouraged the adversarial trial to evolve. It is a scary thing we've done, but it was the right thing.
The fact that the victims we saw, as Ms Upston brought up earlier, were not vengeful, that they weren't out to grind down the person who had hurt them, speaks also to what we're doing here. It's not about law and order and "lock 'em up". It's not about making sure the person gets punished for what they did. That's all taken care of. What it's about is the giving of due respect to the victim. It's not about the destruction of one person in order to elevate the victim; it is about the elevation of all of them as key pieces in our criminal justice puzzle. That is significant and that is right and that is important work. I wish I could see some of my academic colleagues when they get a load of this one. Boundaries are difficult places. Boundaries are going to be difficult, difficult places to be at, but they're worthwhile places to be at, because otherwise what on earth are we doing here in this space?
Also, in terms of our process, I think I do need to stop at this point and thank those officials who worked so incredibly hard and had to put up with nonsense the likes of which even Simon Bridges can't produce. We want to thank Dr Crawshaw, who again guided a bunch of know-nothing parliamentarians through the complex process of the mental health system and got us out the other side, I think, with everyone intact. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for all of the help that we gave each other and all of the forbearance, particularly our chair Ginny Andersen and, most of all, the lady of the hour herself, Louise Upston—absolutely remarkable bill. Given how much work it cost, I think maybe you could not put another one in the ballot box just—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.





CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a very short call on the final reading of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. Unfortunately, Nicole McKee, who sat on the select committee, can't be here tonight, as she would have wanted to have been. I'm sure she's a passionate member of the select committee.
I was a policeman in Nelson in 2009 when Wendy Hamer was viciously attacked. And while I wasn't directly involved in the inquiry and the investigation, the effect it had on the police and the community was huge. Wendy's strength to not only survive but to launch a petition for victims' rights was a major influence in this bill, I believe, and it shows an amazing courage and determination. I'd have to acknowledge Nick Smith for his advocacy for Wendy over the years too.
The bill gives victims of insane offenders the same rights as other victims of crime. It allows the victims to be recognised as victims and get fair access to services and entitlements. The rewording of the verdict now accurately reflects the offence, and words do matter. I sat in on a select committee yesterday, and the Police Commissioner stated that mental health call-outs have increased 60 percent in the last five years. Unfortunately, this issue isn't going to go away. We must continue to put victims first, and we must start looking at the social fabric of our society. I was disappointed to read today the death of a 16-year-old girl in a car accident and a 20-year-old driver who was speeding, texting, over the drink-drive limit, and driving on the wrong side of the road, who was given a four-month and two-week home detention plus a fine. We've got a lot of work to do.
It's obvious everyone in the Justice Committee worked really hard on this bill, with cross-party support, and special thanks to Louise Upston and Ginny Andersen and the officials from the Ministry of Justice for their advice and their assistance. I understand the bill went back and forth a couple of times to get things right. And a good example that good process produces good law and that laws should not be rushed. A huge thanks to the victims for their perseverance and for submitting and sharing their stories. This outcome is yours and your strength will always be appreciated. Thank you.





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This evening I rise to give my grateful thanks to the Hon Louise Upston for bringing this bill to us in the House. I'm not on the Justice Committee, but I was privileged to be able to sit in, substituting in for one of my colleagues on some of the submissions that were profoundly moving. I don't mind sharing that some of them brought members of the committee to tears, myself included, and the bravery of these submitters was profound.
It was really clear that what had been done to these people was profoundly wrong. By that, I don't simply mean the acts committed against them, but what the law had done unintentionally. I'm very, very pleased to be able to see those changes come before us this evening. The words "act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity" are significant, as are the rights of victims. For that reason, I heartily commend this bill to the House.





Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): I'll be very brief. I want to acknowledge my colleague Louise Upston. At the end of the day, if a family member is assaulted, is badly injured, or is even killed, and they turn up to court and they hear a verdict "Not guilty on account of insanity", all they hear is not guilty. That's all that they hear. There's no one that's actually been held to account. Louise Upston recognised that, she realised there needed to be a change, the committee's worked on it, there's been a very good change now where it is now "Act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity". It means that there is accountability and it means that victims get treated properly inside our criminal justice system and that families feel like they get the justice that they deserve. Thank you.





IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. This is the second time that this House is coming together to pass bills tonight. I've had the privilege of speaking on both bills.
Can I first start with acknowledging and congratulating the Hon Louise Upston for bringing this important bill to this House, and the contribution from the members across the House. The heart of this bill adjusts for the victims and their families who will go through a lot, and their only mistakes are that they are just the victims.
This bill aims to better align the treatment of victims of offenders found guilty-insane with the victims of regular offenders of our justice system. It simply addresses an inconsistency. Labour supports this bill because it aligns with our values, because it simply promotes justice and transparency, while also protecting survivors of crime and their community. Tonight is a good night; it's good to see that at the forefront of our politics is the people and victims, and that when we do that, we do things well. So I commend this bill to the House.





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I'm really conscious of the time so my contribution will be very short. I just want to acknowledge the member, the Hon Louise Upston, for ushering this bill through the House. I want to acknowledge your constituent who brought the issue in the first place and also that of the Hon Nick Smith who was the petitioner that we also dealt with, the two together. I really want to thank all sides of the House. We really did work hard on this. It's been well described by all the speakers before me. It has been an absolute honour and privilege to be part of this piece of legislation and I really do hope that it brings something forward for those families, for those victims. I hope that it has been a worthwhile process for them and I hope that the courts are able to work with this in the future. So, with that, I commend the bill to the House.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I support this bill. It was good to be on the Justice Committee. I know that the member in charge of the bill's wish is that it passes so that it has a maximum effect, and that in the rare cases that it does pertain to those people involved and the victims, particularly, get the effect of this bill. So I'm not going to speak at all long. I do normally speak to the substance of the bill and things about this bill that are why I support it, but I'm not going to do that.
I do, just like other members, though, want to acknowledge Louise Upston. She's a fine MP. She's done a great job here. There are member's bills and then there are member's bills—those that are sort of passed to someone and they don't necessarily have a passion for it, but she has had a huge passion for it. She's, dare I say it, been very protective of it, in fact, and wanted to ensure that at every stage—it's had twists and turns, and this bill has had a lot of twists and turns—that the right thing was done. So I do pay tribute to you, Louise. You've done a great job here, and this will be, among many other things, a lasting legacy of your contribution in this Parliament—not that you're going anywhere any time soon at all. But it's a good bill. I support it. It was great to be a small part of it.





CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to take a very short call on this Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill, and again I want to commend the member for bringing this bill to the House. This is an important issue that she's addressed with dignity and respect. It's shown the best side of Parliament, really, with the collaboration that parliamentarians have shown on the select committee. The bill as it stands is well thought through. It's not a simple change, it is a thorough change that allows what I see as a very well thought-out and thorough law to be put into place.
Just to reiterate some of the points that my colleagues have said, the reason that Labour supports this is that we do think that this bill does look towards increasing justice for victims and for their families, increases transparency. It also increases and really focuses on a victim-centred approach. So I think that's really important. So, in conclusion, we support this bill. We commend the committee for their incredibly hard work, and you would have seen the amount of expertise and knowledge that members both on the Government side and on the Opposition side have in relation to this bill.
Also, just to finish off by acknowledging the victims of insane offenders. This is why we're here debating this bill today. It's for them. It's to focus on them, and it's to make their journey a little bit easier. Nothing can take away the trauma that people suffer when they're victims of insane offenders. What we can do is make sure that the laws we put in place when these people are facing the criminal justice system are sensitive to the needs of families and look towards making the best of a really terrible situation.
That's why I personally support this bill. I think that it will make the journey much, much easier for many people as they go through what has obviously been a very, very difficult time. And so, in conclusion, I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. Pō marie.
Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)