THURSDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua māfimafi kuo mau taa'i mālie 'i ho'o 'ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuakí hono kotoa. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu'i ange mu'a 'a e Kuiní mo tataki ange 'emau fua fatongia ki he Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto fakae-'Otua, 'ofa moe 'ulungaanga malū, koe'uhí ko e mo'ui mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole atu 'a e ngaahi me'á ni hono kotoa 'i he huafa ho 'alo pē 'e taha ko Sīsū Kalaisi ko homau fakamo'ui, 'Emeni.





BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week is the last sitting week for 2021. Legislation to be considered will include the first readings of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill, and the third reading of the Resource Management Act (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. By the agreement of the Business Committee, the Gambling (Reinstating COVID-19 Modification) Amendment Bill will pass through all of its stages. The special debate to replace the Estimates debate will conclude. On Wednesday, 15 December, after oral questions, the House will consider a motion to approve COVID-19 orders followed by an adjournment debate. The House will next sit on Tuesday, 8 February 2022.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Leader of the House for that update, particularly around the end of the year. Can I ask him whether or not we can take it from the Business Statement that legislation relating to three waters will not be introduced before the end of the year?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): That is correct.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:Petition of Raymond Hellyer requesting that the House investigate the Tasman District Council's Unreasonable Complainant Policypetition of E tū Union requesting that the House pass legislation to require minimum staffing levels in aged residential care facilitiespetition of Ricardo Menéndez March MP requesting that the House urge the Minister of Immigration to expand the 2021 Resident Visa to include all migrants currently in New Zealand and visa holders stuck offshore.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Remuneration Authority Annual Report 2021.
SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2019/20 Annual Review of Te Pūkenga—New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technologyreports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:briefing on the funding arrangements for the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service, and petition of Grant Dixonreports of the Regulations Review Committee on the: COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 15) 2021, andCOVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 13) 2021.
SPEAKER: The Regulations Review Committee reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.
CLERK: Gambling (Reinstating COVID-19 Modification) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Workplace Relations and Safety
1. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Will the Government further progress Fair Pay Agreements; if so, why, given it was not the preferred option of his own officials?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes. Some of the workers who have gotten New Zealand through COVID-19, like our cleaners, our checkout operators, and our bus drivers, are some of the heroes of our country's response over the last two years, and fair pay agreements are about making sure that they get a fairer deal. For 30 years, some of these workers have been left out in the cold in our labour market, and we clearly and transparently campaigned on fair pay agreements to change this. Investing in our people is a key part of our COVID-19 economic recovery plan, and these agreements will help to prevent a race to the bottom in some of these sectors. They'll deliver better employment terms and conditions for workers and help to boost productivity for Kiwi businesses by encouraging competition that is based not on low wages but on better products and services.
Chris Baillie: Does he share the concerns of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials that the proposed system may "Create significant labour market inflexibility and cost when it is used in sectors without a demonstrable labour market issue.", and does he think this could have a negative impact on employees?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, I don't agree with that advice. And I do note that in this country, in the democracy that we live in, Governments listen to the advice of officials, but Governments should follow through on the commitments that they make when they campaign upon them. What the member and the advice also misunderstands and misconstrues is that we do currently have weaknesses in our existing labour market, and I think it's all very well for members of the House on salaries of around about $180,000 to think that we have a well-functioning labour market; it's a little bit different—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Now, I know it's getting close to Christmas and members are getting excited—[Members laughing] Order!—but the level of noise is too much. Members from that quarter of the House, one of their members has asked a question; if they want him to have further supplementaries, they will let the Minister answer without trying to drown him out.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I was saying, I think it's all very well for a member of this House on a salary of around about $180,000 to feel that New Zealand's labour market meets all of their needs. It's a little bit different for someone who might be a cleaner earning $40,000 a year on the minimum wage, raising a family in one of our major cities, with significant job insecurity. On this side of the House, we do believe in backing Kiwi workers. We do believe that it is time to end the 1980s, 1990s deregulated labour model that has led to significant inequality in our country, and that is one of the differences between this side of the House and that one.
Chris Baillie: Is he concerned at MBIE's advice that there is a risk that fair pay agreements may conflict with the United Nations' International Labour Organisation's (ILO) rights to freedom of association and voluntary collective bargaining, and what impact does this have on employees?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I don't expect there to be any impact on employees, and if the member opposite is arguing for strict compliance with all of those ILO conventions, then I look forward to a speech from him in this House in favour of an unrestricted right to strike.
Jan Logie: How will fair pay agreements benefit women, Māori, and Pasifika who are experiencing significant and enduring underpayment in work?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: It is very clear that we have significant inequalities in parts of our labour market, and I'll come back to the comments that I made earlier. Much of the work that is utterly essential in our economy and our society has been devalued for 30 years, during which time we have not had sector-based bargaining, as most other developed countries do have. We know that much of that work—and think about those cleaners who come into these halls and these offices every single night to look after members of this Chamber, those workers who live and have to exist and subsist and support their families on very low wages. We know that across those workforces, we have a preponderance of women, Māori, and Pasifika, and those are inequalities that fair pay agreements will also support us in addressing.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How has he managed a process that has resulted in the chief executive of BusinessNZ writing to him saying, "We simply cannot in good faith take taxpayers' money to help facilitate a workplace relations scheme that is unlawful, unfair, and out of touch with modern ways of working."
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: While I disagree with the tenor of those comments, I would note that we continue to enjoy a very productive and constructive relationship with Mr Hope and BusinessNZ. In fact, I had a very cordial meeting with him this morning about a range of issues. But what I do respond to, to both that member and to Mr Hope, is the contention that the current workplace relations settings that we have are necessarily modern. What that member is defending is an ideology in workplace relations settings that comes from the days of the 1980s and 1990s. On this side of the House, we actually believe in a more collaborative approach, and we believe in giving Kiwi workers a fair go in areas where they are not getting that at the moment.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why doesn't he trust businesses and individuals to sort out pay and conditions for themselves?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, I note that the member's question is very consistent with positions on that side of the House, for example, against the minimum wage, which is one of those areas in which we say that, actually, there should be a decent baseline in terms of the terms and conditions that we have. If we took that position to its logical extent, we wouldn't have statutory sick leave and we wouldn't have statutory annual leave and we wouldn't have statutory health and safety protections. I know that that might be the extremist market ideological approach of that member, but that is not the view that members on this side of the House have.
Chris Baillie: How did he respond to the risks identified by his officials that fair pay agreements could create "non-wage costs from reduced flexibility, potentially impacting innovation, productivity and competition.", and does he think any of these costs flow to employees?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The international evidence here is actually quite to the contrary. As I said, New Zealand is an outlier in terms of not having any kind of sector-based bargaining, as opposed to, for example, the most productive exporting economy in the developed world, Germany, and as opposed to our nearest neighbour, Australia, who has had sector-based bargaining in place for most of the past 40 years, and has higher rates of labour productivity than New Zealand, under the mainly individualised system of wage bargaining that we have.




Question No. 2—Housing
2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by the then Minister of Housing's statement in December 2017 that "home ownership will become more affordable for New Zealand families", and why hasn't the Government delivered on this commitment?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: I do stand by the then Minister's statement, in the context it was given. When we came to Government in 2017, we inherited a housing crisis caused by decades of inaction, and, in particular, a failure of the previous Government to acknowledge the crisis and build enough houses. So while the previous Government refused to even admit there was a crisis, we took action. We banned offshore speculators. We closed tax loops for investors. We began the largest build programme in a generation, established the progressive homeownership scheme, and we're supporting thousands of Kiwis into their first homes through first-home grants. While we have reset the KiwiBuild programme, the lives of more than 1,000 families have been changed by purchasing their first home through this programme. We know there's more work to do and we're starting to see the green shoots, with a record number of houses being built and the highest market share for some homebuyers on record. I'm proud of our record to date, and I would put this against the previous Government's denial and inaction any day of the week.
Nicola Willis: What does the Minister say to all the New Zealanders who feel betrayed by a Government that promised 100,000 affordable KiwiBuild homes but has instead delivered rampant house price inflation, with house prices leaping up, on average—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member finished her question some time ago.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, what I would say is I would balance our record in Government against the National Party's with, under Nick Smith, the delivery of 100 affordable homes under the special housing areas. Already, we have delivered a thousand homes under KiwiBuild.
SPEAKER: Look, as I indicated to the House yesterday, I am receiving a very high level of complaints about the public not being able to hear members when they're speaking. One particular set of complaints related to this member yesterday and what was perceived by the public to be the shouting down of her during the general debate. I'm not prepared to put up with a House in a position whereby Ministers answering questions are not being heard.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order. Mr Speaker, you seem to want us to be in silence all the time.
SPEAKER: In this particular case, I do. The member will resume his seat.
Nicola Willis: When will the Minister admit that her Government's housing policies of changing tax rules, promising KiwiBuild houses, and hiring hundreds of highly paid housing advisers has utterly failed to deliver affordable housing for New Zealand families?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, we are in the middle of a residential housing building boom, as evidenced by 45,000 consents, up by 20 percent in the last year alone. Not only that, but this Government is supporting that build by ensuring that there's sufficient infrastructure, we're building the workforce capacity through our apprenticeship schemes, we've made changes to tax schemes, we're tilting away from speculation to investment, and first-home buyers in the homebuyers' market are increased to 25 percent of the market, signalling very clearly that we are doing much more in this space and building far more homes than that Government ever did.
Nicola Willis: Is the Minister concerned that her Government is at risk of delivering the lowest ever number of First Home Grants this year despite her promise in March to adjust the settings and give more first-home buyers access to the scheme?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, I actually reject the premise of that member's question. The number of first-home buyers continues to grow both in number and proportion of all buyers, just as I've said. The most important thing that we can do to help first-home buyers is to increase the overall supply of new housing, and we have a comprehensive plan to do that and we are delivering on that.
Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was specifically about First Home Grants, which was not addressed in the Minister's reply.
SPEAKER: Yeah, absolutely right; it was, and it wasn't. The member knows if she asks a general primary question, she cannot expect an answer to a specific supplementary.
Nicola Willis: Will the Minister just admit that the Government's policies have made homeownership less affordable than ever, with 19,000 more families waiting for a State house, 4,000 families raising their children in emergency motel rooms, and rents up $90 a week?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, I'd just like to note that the Reserve Bank supports this Government in terms of its strong growth of supply, and with our current low population growth environment, it means that supply is now exceeding growth in demand. This will improve affordability for first-home buyers.
Hon David Parker: Further to that answer, can the Minister confirm that since 2017, the number of houses being built in Auckland per annum has increased 90 percent, from 10,000 a year to 19,000 this year?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, yes, I can confirm that.
Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think the Government's decision to spend $800 million buying houses on the open market in direct competition with first-home buyers has helped make homeownership more affordable for New Zealand families?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, between 1 November 2017 and 31 October 2021, we have increased public homes by 8,683—6,824 of those were new builds. But what we have done is we have taken the total public homes to 74,917.
Nicola Willis: How many KiwiBuild houses has the Government built this year, and does the Minister think that's a number to be proud of?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, I would like to compare our KiwiBuild programme, which has taken a thousand Kiwi families and put them in a home, to the special housing areas of that Government, which delivered 100 affordable homes in nine years.
Nicola Willis: Why does the Minister keep blaming National for New Zealand's housing emergency when she promised to fix it, she failed, and this week National is helping her out with a bill that will do more to reduce the housing shortage than anything that Minister has done for four years?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, when building consents had fallen off the cliff, National did nothing to bring confidence to the market: no underwriting of developments; nothing to encourage new builds and affordable housing; nothing to keep the skilled workforce from leaving New Zealand; nothing to grow the workforce, the builders and tradies; and hardly anything spent on infrastructure. We, on the other hand, we've cracked down on investors, we're encouraging new affordable housing, the house building sector is booming, we've had months of record-breaking new dwelling consents, we have thousands of new apprentices in the building sector, we're rebuilding public housing, and we, the State, have stepped in where the market has failed to develop land and invest in infrastructure for housing.




Question No. 3—Education
SPEAKER: Question number—[Interruption] Look, I'm on my feet. Who interjected? Out. Question No. 3—Ibrahim Omer.
Hon Paul Goldsmith withdrew from the Chamber. 
IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker—
Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I'm just reflecting on the proportionality of the punishment to the crime here.
SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have made a ruling. I have—
Chris Bishop: I know that.
SPEAKER: The member doesn't even know what he's muttering when I'm on my feet, yet again, as he didn't yesterday. I mean, the member should know when he is talking, because otherwise there's a disconnect there somewhere. I have ruled. Ibrahim Omer.
IBRAHIM OMER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education and asks: What new action is the Government taking to support schools to provide learning environments for their students that are "warm, dry—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Right. Which member was that? Who interjected then? 
Tim van de Molen: Me—it was me.
SPEAKER: Well, the member will join his colleague.
Tim van de Molen withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order. It's a fresh point. One thing that concerned me was at the end of that question 4, and I didn't raise a point of order because I thought it was going to be what Chris Bishop would raise, we had all of this section [Gestures towards the Government benches] clapping like performing seals and I found it very disruptive. The point simply is that that did seem to me disorderly and I wondered why you didn't rule on it.
SPEAKER: Well, I think—well, once again, the member's been here for some time—
Hon Todd McClay: Like seals.
SPEAKER: Oh, Todd McClay. I just don't believe it. 
Hon Member: Let's go.
Hon Members: We'll all just go.
SPEAKER: No. Order! 
Hon Todd McClay: The best punishment would be to make me stay.
SPEAKER: No, no, I understand that. You get the same punishment as Mr Bridges used to get on Thursday afternoon: you have to stay. Just a couple of points. First of all, we haven't got to question 4 yet. The second point I'd make is the member knows that if he has a point of order, he should take it at the time or even straight after the member. If he had a different point of order, he could have taken it. He chose not to. We went on to a question and then he interrupted it. It's just—oh, I don't know. I mean—
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
SPEAKER: It's fair to say that we should probably move on, because I'm speechless, because I know the member is better than that. Ibrahim Omer.
3. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What new action is the Government taking to support schools to provide learning environments for their students that are "warm, dry and fit for purpose"?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Today, I announced a further 23 schools that are set to benefit from the Government's investment in short-term role-growth classrooms right the way across New Zealand. Schools around New Zealand are growing, and as our students and young people return to face-to-face learning, we want them to have warm, dry, fit for purpose classrooms to learn in. This investment ensures that almost 1,500 more students will have a place to do that. It's part of the Government's $100 million commitment from Budget 2021 and the Government's plan to provide 100,000 additional student spaces by 2030.
Dr Deborah Russell: How are schools and students in Auckland benefiting from this initiative?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. We're investing $25 million across 17 schools in Auckland to give them additional learning spaces to help them cope with growing student numbers. That includes five classrooms for Green Bay High and two classrooms for Glenavon School in the member's electorate, along with six classrooms for Henderson High School and four classrooms each for Henderson Intermediate, Kaipara College, and Waitakere College.
Ingrid Leary: How are schools and students in other parts of the country benefiting from this initiative?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, considerably. We're investing over $4.5 million in Otago, Southland schools. Taieri College, in the member's own electorate, will get four classrooms. Oamaru Intermediate will get two classrooms. Te Wharekura o Arowhenua will get two classrooms. We're also investing over $6 million in three schools in the Bay of Plenty, and Te Awamutu College will get three classrooms. Pāpāmoa College will be getting four classrooms, and Merivale School in Tauranga will be getting two additional classrooms.
Ibrahim Omer: What progress has been made towards the Government's plan to provide 100,000 additional student places by 2030?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We have already delivered a fifth of those: 20,000 additional student spaces already delivered; 9,300 are currently in construction; and we've got 41,000 more in the planning and design stage.




Question No. 4—Finance
4. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions on inflation?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Is he concerned that with inflation at 4.9 percent currently and wage growth at 2.4 percent, Kiwis' real wages are going backwards, making it tougher for them this Christmas? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm always concerned to make sure that we see New Zealand's wages increase, and I look forward to the member's support for our minimum wage increase. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that, on average, Kiwis will have less money in their back pockets going into Christmas, not more, as he promised in his Budget speech earlier this year? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we've covered already in question time this week, those comments were made on the basis of the Treasury's forecast at the time. What I do know is that New Zealanders are going into Christmas with unemployment at 3.4 percent—historically low—and with job growth happening even in the midst of the restrictions that we've had. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Does he take some responsibility for the very high inflation in New Zealand currently, given, as but one example, the view of ANZ economists just yesterday that more Government spending now "may achieve little else than higher inflation and interest rates than otherwise"? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those same ANZ economists talked about the importance of balance in what we did and talked about the importance of making sure that we continue to provide targeted support. This Government stands by our economic record that has seen New Zealand come through a pandemic in much better shape than many other countries. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Does he take some responsibility for the ongoing interest rate rises we're seeing, given that the 40 percent increase in Government spending since 2017 is having an inflationary effect, which, in turn, moves interest rates higher? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The increase in Government expenditure that we've seen since 2017 was a direct response to the under-investment of the Government that that member was part of. If you don't invest in health, if you don't invest in education, and if you don't invest in building houses, someone has to make up for it. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Can he name one policy of this Government that will help reduce inflationary pressures? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, one of the things will be building some houses, which that previous Government failed completely to do. 




Question No. 5—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
5. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What progress has been made on historical Treaty of Waitangi settlements in 2021?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): While the remaining historical settlements are some of the most complex that we've had to contend with, I'm pleased to report good progress has been made this year in acknowledging the Crown's historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. This year, deeds of settlement have been signed with Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, Te Ākitai Waiōhua, Ngāti Maru, and Maniapoto. We progressed legislation in this House for settlements with Moriori, Ahuriri, Ngāti Rangitihi, and Ngāti Hinerangi. I want to acknowledge the many iwi and hapū and their representatives, who, along with the Crown, have had to accept many adaptations to the way they engage because of COVID-19, including changing kanohi-ki-te-kanohi engagements to digital "Zui", but have none the less continued this important work while supporting their communities. I'd also like to mihi to the Māori Affairs Committee for their mahi in this area.
Shanan Halbert: What mechanisms have been put in place to support negotiations with Ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: At Waitangi this year, I announced Tupu Tonu, their $150 million Ngāpuhi investment fund. Tupu Tonu was set up to acquire land and assets in the rohe that can be offered by the Crown in negotiations with Ngāpuhi. Tupu Tonu has worked to build relationships in Te Tai Tokerau, developing this kaupapa and its investment strategy throughout the year. Tupu Tonu is only one of a number of measures the Government is taking to restore the relationship between the Crown and Ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi.
Shanan Halbert: What progress has been made in land banking for future Treaty of Waitangi settlements?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Treaty settlements land bank allows for the Crown to purchase land which is surplus to requirements by Government departments. The purchased land can be used for cultural or commercial redress in future settlements. A feature of the land banking mechanism is that claimant groups can identify culturally significant sites for the Crown to consider purchasing. It's particularly important in areas where there's little Crown-owned land remaining. This year, the Government agreed to purchase a property in Taipā Bay for the land bank, and I was happy to meet with local members of hapū up there to discuss that last week. But a number of other proposals to add to the land bank are currently being considered.




Question No. 6—House (Public Housing)
6. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does she stand by her statement that the Government is "monitoring what happens with rent rises and will take action if necessary"; if so, does she think action is necessary now?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Yes, the Government has taken action by making a number of changes to support renters by limiting rent increases to once a year, banning rental bidding, banning letting fees, removing no-cause terminations, and increasing the rates for the Accommodation Supplement for the first time since 2005. I would encourage those who have experienced a rent increase to get in touch with the Ministry of Social Development and access the support available, and if they think their rent is too high to seek a rent reduction through the Tenancy Tribunal. We will continue to keep a close eye on rent prices and will take further action if necessary.
Teanau Tuiono: How does she respond to this month's ANZ Insight report regarding inflation, and in particular their statement that "for a poor household whose budget can barely cover the essentials even when inflation is low, the choice quickly becomes: do I have lunch this week or pay the rent?"
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I have sympathy for people who are finding themselves in difficulty. There are a range of opportunities for people to take. If they feel their rents, for example, are too high—to access support through the Tenancy Tribunal and, as I stated in the answer to the primary question, there are also opportunities to seek assistance through the Ministry of Social Development.
Teanau Tuiono: Is she concerned that according to Stats New Zealand's household income and housing costs-statistics: year ended June 2020, one in four tenants in New Zealand spend 40 percent or more of their income on rent?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That does concern this Government which is why we have, as I have already stated, put measures in place to support tenants but also we have done far more in supporting families around their costs.
Teanau Tuiono: Does she think it's fair for the onus to be on tenants to dispute annual rent increases through the Tenancy Tribunal, and why does this responsibility not lie with landlords to justify why rent is increasing?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Because that is the mechanism that is in place. We know that there have been cases taken to the Tenancy Tribunal that have been successful in that regard, and I would also suggest that tenants get the support and advice from Tenancy Services.
Teanau Tuiono: Does she think it is fair that rents in New Zealand have increased by 8 percent in the last year; and, if not, does she think that rental prices should come down?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There are a number of measures for rent prices. We use Stats New Zealand rental price index, which provides the most accurate and complete view of rent prices and changes. What I do want to say is that COVID has had an impact on the current spike that we are experiencing in rental prices because there were restrictions upon people being able to access, view, and get into new tenancies during the current lockdown. We're keeping an eye on that, we're monitoring the situation, and we will act if needed.




Question No. 7—Economic and Regional Development
7. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What decision has the Government recently made about New Zealand securing the Sail Grand Prix competition?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): In tandem with the international Sail GP organisers, yesterday we announced that New Zealand has secured a leg of the competition for the next four seasons. Lyttelton Harbour will be one of 10 international stopovers for season 3 of the competition, which runs across 2022 and 2023, and Auckland and Christchurch will host alternative seasons after that. The Government has secured hosting rights through a partnership with the Economic Development Agencies ChristchurchNZ and Auckland Unlimited. I have approved funding of up to $5.4 million over four years from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's major events fund, and the agencies will co-fund it as well. Sail GP is one of the most exciting sailing races in the international calendar, and the races on Lyttelton Harbour and the Hauraki Gulf will allow spectators to enjoy high-speed action up close.
Helen White: What benefits and opportunities are expected from the Crown investment in Sail GP?
Hon STUART NASH: As well as its importance to the yachting-mad communities of Auckland, I'm particularly pleased we have secured the event for Christchurch. Hosting the event provides new opportunities for Christchurch to promote itself to domestic and international audiences as a destination for visitors and a place to do business from. Sail GP also has the particular focus on the environment and on diversity. It places strong emphasis on reducing carbon emissions and protecting marine ecosystems like those in the Hauraki Gulf, as well as an emphasis on diversity through their pathway for women to be on their teams. These objectives align perfectly with Government priorities.
Helen White: What reports has he seen regarding the importance of New Zealand securing this event?
Hon STUART NASH: Sail GP is a comparatively new event but has strong Kiwi connections. New Zealand's team is headed by Olympic and America's Cup champions Peter Burling and Blair Tuke. America's Cup legend Sir Russell Coutts is also involved in the global competition. Peter Burling said yesterday—and I quote—"There's been a huge amount of hard work that's gone on behind the scenes to bring Sail GP to Aotearoa, and so we're incredibly excited to race on home waters. We've always had fantastic support from Kiwi fans." Blair Tuke has said—and I quote—"These events at home in Aotearoa will be a fantastic opportunity to share the message of ocean restoration and protection through the event's charity partner, Live Ocean, which uses mātauranga Māori principles to enhance scientific knowledge and improve the health of our oceans."
Chris Bishop: Point of order. That was actually a very specific supplementary question, which related to what reports the Minister had received, and I did not hear in that answer—I heard a lot of information about various people, but no reference to reports the Minister had received.
SPEAKER: Well, can I just say the member is suggesting that the Minister got quotes but didn't get them from anywhere. I just don't understand what he's saying.
Chris Bishop: Well, where were the reports? The Minister's answer has to address—
SPEAKER: For goodness' sake. For a supplementary question, the Minister doesn't have to indicate the source of every quote that he makes. The member knows that. He's been around here for a long time. He probably drafted a lot of those patsy supplementaries!




Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response
8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What regions were listed in the preliminary view submitted to the Director-General of Health as being able to enter the COVID-19 Protection Framework at green, and was this preliminary view ever shared with his office?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The preliminary view of the Ministry of Health's COVID-19 Protection Framework assessment committee considered whether the South Island, the Wellington region district health boards (DHBs), and the Hawke's Bay and MidCentral DHBs could enter the COVID-19 Protection Framework at green. However, the assessment committee had specific concerns about the number of areas with lower vaccination status, particularly for Māori and also active cases in several DHBs outside of Auckland, so it advised the director-general that all regions should enter at orange except for Auckland and Northland. In answer to the second part of the question, the advice was provided to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) for incorporation into the final Cabinet paper for consideration by Ministers. I'm advised that it was copied to my office as part of that process.
Chris Bishop: In relation to what he just said about the information being copied to his office, was he made aware by his office of that preliminary view?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My understanding is that the advice was provided to the director-general on the 24th, by the public health officials. It was provided to DPMC and copied to my office on the 25th, which was a Thursday. The first that I can recall having seen that advice was when I received the draft Cabinet paper over that weekend to review and approve for lodging to Cabinet. I do not recall having seen the specific memo that the Ministry of Health provided to DPMC.
Chris Bishop: Was the preliminary view that was submitted to the Director-General of Health included in the draft Cabinet paper that he's just referenced, and did it make it to the final version of the Cabinet paper he submitted to Cabinet on the 29th?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Reference to the memorandum concerned was in the Cabinet paper, including, essentially, the content that I mentioned in my primary answer.
Chris Bishop: Did public health officials arrive at the final recommendation that no region should enter at green without any consultation with him or his office?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I, during the period of time in question, was in regular contact with the Director-General of Health, as I regularly am, including that he would've kept me informed of the advice that he was receiving, as I indicated in the House yesterday.




Question No. 9—Transport
9. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he seen on coastal shipping?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Of interest to the House—and particularly, especially, to the shadow Leader of the House—I have seen an excellent report recently on coastal shipping. It's called the Coastal Shipping Investment Approach Report 1 – State-of-Play, and it's an important step towards a more sustainable coastal shipping sector. This Government is committed to strengthening our domestic supply chain by making the blue highway a more viable alternative for moving freight within New Zealand. We are still experiencing the serious consequence of COVID-19 on global supply chains, with unprecedented delays to freight. So it's essential that we increase our resilience against future disruptions of this scale, and coastal shipping has an important role to play.
Naisi Chen: What are the recommendations of the report?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The insights provided in this initial report by independent consultants from Pacific Marine Management, commissioned by Waka Kotahi, will help to decide how best to invest the $30 million of funding that has been earmarked for coastal shipping in the 2021 to 2024 National Land Transport Programme. The key recommendations include enhancing domestic shipping services with new services, increased frequencies, and additional ships for new or existing container and bulk services; reducing shipping emissions through testing emerging technologies; improving efficiency with upgrades to rail or road links to and from ports; and, finally, upgrading maritime infrastructure, including shore power connections at ports, small new regional ports, and expanding existing ports.
Naisi Chen: What reaction has he seen to the report?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There has been widespread interest and support for this development. I note that Doug Paulin, the Sealord CEO, welcomed the report, as has the Maritime Union of New Zealand. The Maritime Union of New Zealand Secretary Craig Harrison said it is good to see core issues being identified, including the need for practical measures to build the coastal shipping mode up to its potential.




Question No. 10—Health (Māori Health)
10. HARETE HIPANGO (National) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): Has he asked the Director-General of Health to release all the data as requested by the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency yet; if not, why not?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): On behalf of the Associate Minister of Health, since I became aware of the issue of access to Māori patient data by the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, I have not asked the director-general to release all the data as requested, but I have made my expectations clear that relevant data should be released in accordance with the Ministry of Health's legal obligations. Following the first High Court decision on this matter, I have been satisfied that the director-general has, as ordered to do so, reconsidered his decision within three days, and has been taking action to release data. Following the second High Court decision this week, the director-general, as ordered to do so, has continued considering his decision on the provision of data in areas where no agreement had yet been reached, and reviewed his decision in relation to Māori in the North Island who have had only one dose. The member should be aware that under the Public Service Act 2020 and the Cabinet Manual, although the director-general is accountable to Ministers for the exercise of statutory powers or duties, as in this case, it is not for Ministers to direct the director-general on how to discharge those powers or duties.
Harete Hipango: Why has the Minister, in stating he has made expectations known, simply not asked the director-general to release all the relevant individual Māori vaccination data requested by the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, with the purpose to drive up Māori vaccination rates?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The director-general, as the head of the ministry in control of data that has been the subject of a request, has a number of statutory duties and obligations to meet, not the least of those under the Privacy Act. These are the issues that have been canvassed in the High Court in two hearings now. The way that the director-general has gone about discharging his obligations both to the requester and to the people about whose information those requests have been about—it is for the director-general to make sure that he is upholding his obligations. It is the director-general and/or the ministry whose decisions are reviewable in court, and it is not for a Minister to direct the director-general on how to make a decision that is reviewable.
Harete Hipango: Why has Healthline, a non-Māori health provider, been given individual Māori vaccination data by the Ministry of Health and the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency has been blocked?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I understand it, on behalf of the Minister, the ministry has an agreement with Whakarongorau, the telehealth service that I think the member is referring to, which allows for the disclosure of data. But the ministry, at least until recently, did not have any agreement with the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, principally because the data that the ministry held was data that was also held by a range of front-line health providers.
Harete Hipango: Has the Minister asked for any legal advice where there's a perhaps misconstrued interpretation of the Public Service Act about the responsibility of the Minister to be able to instruct or direct the Director-General of Health as to his powers for such instruction and direction to release the information on Māori vaccination data to the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, on behalf of the Minister, I have to say that I cannot answer that question because although I stand in the House to answer on behalf of the Minister, I do not stand in his shoes in terms of every piece of information that that Minister has received.
Chris Bishop: Has the Minister seen the judgment in Peters v Attorney-General—specifically, paragraph 134—which relates to the responsibility of Ministers and chief executives, which, basically, says the Minister can direct an agency through its chief executive on the operations and conduct of the agency; and why will he not use that as authority to direct the Director-General of Health to release the data requested by Whānau Ora.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It is one thing to direct a chief executive of an agency about operations and conduct of the agency; it is another when that agency or its chief executive have statutory powers and duties that they have to uphold. When it comes to the taking of decisions, in pursuit of powers and duties, it is the decision maker that is subject to review, and it is for the decision maker to make the decision and stand accountable for that decision, if there is judicial review. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: No, no, the party's run out.




Question No. 11—Health
11. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Associate Minister of Health: How will the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan help achieve the goal of a Smokefree Aotearoa New Zealand?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): This morning, I was thrilled to release the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan, which sets out bold measures to further reduce smoking rates and save thousands of lives in New Zealand. We know the majority of smokers want to quit but they can struggle to do so on their own. This plan builds on the good work of quit programmes by drastically reducing the availability of cigarettes, by making them less addictive, and by introducing a smoke-free generation, which will mean that no one aged older than 14 at the time the planned legislation comes into force will ever be able to legally purchase cigarettes. These are world-leading measures which will put us on track to achieve New Zealand's longstanding goal of being smoke-free by 2025.
Sarah Pallett: Why is it important to reduce the retail availability of cigarettes?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on earth. So having cigarettes to buy in just about every supermarket, petrol station, and convenience store makes it even harder for people trying to quit. Currently, it's estimated there are up to 8,000 retailers selling cigarettes around the country. The smoke-free action plan will see that number reduced to around 500 outlets by 2024. This will give businesses time to plan for their transition away from tobacco. But, ultimately, it means that people who have decided to quit won't be passing half a dozen chances to buy a packet of cigarettes every time they walk to their local shops.
Sarah Pallett: How can cigarettes be made less addictive?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Clinical studies have shown that dramatically reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes makes it far easier for people to quit. So the action plan will see New Zealand transition to low-nicotine cigarettes. This is a major change but it is based on clinical research and it is realistic, because with vapes widely available, there is a far less harmful option available for smokers who are addicted to nicotine. Smoking does incredible damage in our communities, particularly in Māori communities. In fact, on our current course, it will be decades before Māori smoking rates drop below 5 percent. This action plan, backed by targeted support through quit programmes and community engagement, can turn the tide and make sure that smoking is not part of our future.




Question No. 12—Prime Minister
12. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that "This government will foster a more open and democratic society. It will strengthen transparency around official information"; if so, is she confident that the Government has fulfilled this commitment in relation to releasing information about Groundswell NZ?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and yes.
Mark Cameron: Does she believe her decision not to release her media briefing notes on the Groundswell protest, under the Official Information Act, complies with her commitment to "strengthen transparency around official information", and, if so, why?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes.
Mark Cameron: Does she believe it is in the public interest to not release media briefing notes for the Groundswell protest, which have occurred across New Zealand, and, if not, what does this say about the Government's attitude towards openness?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes.






SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL
Second Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I present a legislative statement on the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Please leave quietly. Keep going.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: You have a bit that you have to do, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—they were so loud I missed it. If the member said he presented a statement, I will tell him that it's published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a second time.
It's almost Christmas, and therefore the annual fixture of the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill rolls around on the parliamentary calendar. This is an annual event in the House. The purpose—
Chris Bishop: Yeah, a great day—a banner day.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —exactly—is to confirm by an Act of Parliament regulations that would otherwise lapse at a particular date, and we do that under the Legislation Act of 2019. The second reading debate that we're doing now is the only opportunity that the House as a whole has to scrutinise and debate the provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill. The first reading is done without debate; it then goes to a select committee. The second reading debate happens after the select committee, and then straight after this we will do the third reading, which is also taken without debate. The House does need to pass this bill, as it always does, before we adjourn for the Christmas holidays. Any levies and duties that have been paid under any of the regulations that we are confirming that are not confirmed by the due date would potentially have to be returned to those who had paid them.
The regulations that are confirmed by the bill were created under eight different Acts of Parliament this year. They cover subjects ranging from the levies on foodstuffs to support New Zealand's biosecurity, adjustments to the alcohol and tobacco duties, and increases to benefits. The range of secondary legislation covered by this year's bill is similar, in line with those in previous confirmation bills. The details of each of them are set out in the legislative statement that I just presented to the House.
So, finally, I want to acknowledge the very important work of the Regulations Review Committee, who once again have done a very thorough job of scrutinising this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of National to give a reasonably straightforward response by way of confirmation—well, part of the confirmation thereof. I do also wear the hat that is the chair of the Regulations Review Committee, so please allow me in that capacity to say that the committee has enjoyed its work in relation to this, as well as the other considerable body of work that we've undertaken this year. It would be remiss not to put on record, in case this is my last opportunity before the Christmas break, that I've greatly enjoyed working with fellow committee members: deputy chair Rachel Brooking and her various colleagues of the Labour Party; also the ACT and Green members. Sadly, we don't have a Te Paati Māori representative, but I do want to note the collegial and constructive atmosphere of that committee in making such consideration as we have for this bill, and particularly as well to acknowledge our wonderful clerk's team and also the advisers, the legislative counsel, who have supported us so well in this and our other work in 2021. 
The Leader of the House has given a good summary of the way that the House will treat this legislation and, of course, the overall philosophy behind it. Suffice to say that, you know, we regard it as an important principle that while there is some room to move for the executive to pass certain regulations, notwithstanding that, within a certain period of time, a grace period, if you like, it's appropriate the House has a chance to fail to confirm those if it wishes. But on this occasion, certainly so far as National is concerned, we wouldn't see any need to pull that particular trigger, even to the extent that we in minority would be able to do so. 
So just a brief comment on a couple of the issues just by way of flavour as much as anything. We've said that confirmation is warranted of orders made under the Biosecurity Act, having communicated with the Ministry for Primary Industries. The beekeeping levy—we heard there that notwithstanding that there were some increases to levies there that the majority of those whom the ministry have reached out to and sought feedback from—I think I'm right in saying "apiarists"—had expressed their support for that levy. I suppose there's an aspect of taxation versus representation—not strictly taxation. I'll be honest and say I haven't quite got my head around the difference between taxes and levies. We are still—probably fair to say—grappling with that as a committee. But nevertheless, the general principle is that those who have been required to pay money should have at least some say in the way that those levies are set. 
Under the Commodity Levies Act—similarly milk solids and feijoas orders—we were interested there not only in the levies themselves but such aspects as how they should be paid, how they should be spent, collection of records, and dispute resolution mechanisms as well. Again, a little bit of democracy in action, and we were advised that some 69 percent of those who had voted, who'd been interested parties to participate in that consultation, had agreed with that, and they knew of no reason that they shouldn't be confirmed. So somewhat reminiscent of the good old-fashioned matrimonial procedure, "If anyone knows any reason that these two should not be wed, etc.", and they didn't know of any reason and nor did we, so we have no hesitation therefore in saying that we recommend that the House support that one—or confirm it, rather.
Under the Customs and Excise Act, a couple of items there: tobacco products and alcoholic beverages—perhaps topical for some at this time of year. So we weren't looking at the policy intent behind the imposition of levies, for example, as we've been told to raise revenue but also discourage consumption. That's not within our remit but it was relevant to understand that because it was the view of Customs that that public policy aim was understood, that policy intent wasn't referenced in the order. We thought that was a reasonable point, along with the fact that there had been public consultation when the provision for annual indexation had been considered by Parliament in 2018.
Under the Fisheries Act—an order there for quota management areas for pāua. Of course, without quota management for pāua, there would be absolute pāua and that would tend to corrupt stocks absolutely—
Hon Member: Ha, ha!
CHRIS PENK: I'll move on. There were some other various orders and pieces of legislation on which those were to be made. Perhaps the only one I would just note, the PACER-Plus agreement, so-called—that's the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, so a bit of a foreign affairs - type element there, and really just enabling that agreement that had been made to be reflected in New Zealand's regulations in that amendment order. 
So that's, I think, sufficient detail—perhaps more, but it's too late if that's how you feel, Mr Speaker, or if anyone else does, for that matter. So I'll conclude my remarks on the bill saying that, of course, we do recommend that the rest of the House also join us in confirming those. And, again, thanks to all those involved with the Regulations Review Committee consideration, including, of course, those various Government agencies with whom we interacted to satisfy ourselves that the correct procedures had been followed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.





Third Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a third time. 
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.





BIRTHS, DEATHS, MARRIAGES, AND RELATIONSHIPS REGISTRATION BILL
Third Reading
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon JAN TINETTI: I move, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill be now read a third time.
I am incredibly proud to be standing here in the third reading of this bill. This is a proud day for this Parliament because while this enacts a small change in legislation, it is a big change for many in our community. Today is a day about inclusion: having the right to have a birth certificate that reflects who you know yourself to be. I am talking about the self-ID provisions in this bill, and I will talk more on those shortly, but what has been lost in this debate is that there are actually other provisions in this bill. 
The first reading of this bill happened four years ago—actually, four years ago tomorrow—and while it made important changes to our national record of New Zealand's births, deaths and marriages register, none of the provisions were deemed to be controversial and were accepted as sensible and necessary changes. For those people outside of this environment, this bill was probably seen to be a bit bland, but when it came back from select committee in August 2018, all hints of blandness had gone. In fact, it would be fair to say that it was a little bit more interesting than it was before it went to select committee. 
The then Governance and Administration Committee had listened to the petition of Allyson Hamblett and agreed with the request that the Government introduce a self-identification process for amending registered sex without the requirement for medical treatment and without the need for a court process, and the bill was amended accordingly. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank Allyson, and also thank the then select committee for the work that they did on this bill at that time. 
Groups and individuals, though, were perturbed about this because they were concerned that this new version of the bill had not undergone public scrutiny. The then Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Tracey Martin, set up a working group for reducing barriers to changing registered sex, and even though they came up with a large number of very, very good recommendations, they said in that report that nothing could trump a change in the legislation and that this needed to happen.
So when I became Minister of Internal Affairs just over a year ago, this bill had been sitting back on the Order Paper for two years. I decided to direct my officials to develop a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of the self-identification clauses and send that SOP to an inquiry with the select committee so that it got the scrutiny, and all would have the opportunity to have their say. I would like to thank all of the submitters who had their say in this, and also thank the select committee for their hard work over this time. I also want to thank my officials for the work that they did.
There is one part that has come back today in this bill that does give me a little bit of disquiet, and that is that, unfortunately, today we don't have a solution for overseas-born people who live in New Zealand but want to change their birth certificate. The select committee worked hard to find the solution, but, unfortunately, we just couldn't get to that point because the options would have left members of this community exposed and wouldn't have necessarily been a good option, let alone the best option. However, the select committee did recommend that the Government continue to work on finding a solution, and I agree. So I have already signalled to my officials that we need to continue work in this area. Targeted consultation on finding the solution will begin in 2022, and I am committed to that work.
At the same time as the consultation on the overseas-born solution, there will be consultation occurring on the regulations. These include the sex markers, who is a suitable third party to support 16- and 17-year-olds in their decision to change their gender, and the additional requirements for when a person applies to change their gender more than once to prevent fraud, which is a necessary check and balance. Setting these provisions in regulations is important so that we can futureproof the bill as societal norms change around gender and identity over time.
As I signalled, this bill has had some controversy. It's been a tough journey for our trans and non-binary community, and I want to thank them for the work that they have done in advocating for this. I acknowledge that throughout the journey of this bill, there have been real people who have been hurt when they have been belittled, mocked, or discriminated against—people who, like any one of us, just want to be accepted for who they are and treated with dignity and respect. A lot of the discussion has been aimed at our trans women, who, as a cisgender woman, I am proud to stand alongside and call my sisters. I stand strong against misogyny. Any misogynistic behaviour that aims to keep women down should be rightly challenged. Trans misogyny is still misogyny, so I stand strong in challenging this discrimination.
We continually are moving to be a more inclusive country. One day, all transgender and non-binary individuals will have the freedom to be who they are, no matter what, and they won't have to face discrimination and hurt from society. They will be able to live their lives and be treated and respected like everyone else, and today is a big step towards realising that goal.
A few years ago, a child was enrolled at my school, where I was principal, who was angry, hurt, and confused. At eight years old, they had been excluded from another local school. The world saw them as a boy, but they knew themself to be a girl. We walked a journey together. They shifted and we fell out of touch, but about three years ago, they contacted me over social media—just the once—but this time as a beautiful, confident, and, most importantly, happy young woman. She wanted to let me know where she was at in her journey, and to thank me for always seeing her.
Well, today, we not only see our transgender and non-binary community but we are changing legislation, and that is truly a step closer to an inclusive Aotearoa New Zealand. Again, I thank the rainbow community, who have been staunch advocates for this change for a long, long time. To our trans and non-binary community, kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui—you keep proudly being you. I am absolutely proud and delighted to commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora. The question is that the motion be agreed to. 





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I rise as the National Party's spokesperson for women also to speak in support of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. I think we'd all agree that few bills have had such a complicated passage through this House. I think, though, that we have made it to the third reading with a bill which is in a much better state than the first one that was introduced back in 2017.
While I wasn't in the House for the original select committee consideration in 2018, I did sit on the Governance and Administration Committee for the inquiry of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 59, and I acknowledge my committee members across the House over there. We had a number of core arguments for and against the bill, and they have been widely canvassed during that committee process.
In the second reading of the bill, I committed to the House that so long as I am a member of Parliament, I will work to advance the rights and protections of women, irrespective of the sex marker on their birth certificate. So let me say that I do understand entirely the strong views on both sides of this debate around this bill. 
Throughout the submission process, I've heard from people for whom this legislation is very important, and for them, it is another step in feeling accepted and free to be who they are. We also heard and met with many people concerned about what was being proposed, and I'd like to say that I do understand the fear that some have expressed that allowing people to change their birth certificate according to how they self-identify might somehow diminish the status of women in society and it might also represent a step in the direction of replacing the concept of sex in law and public policy with the concept of gender. Those views are genuinely held by a number of people, and their expression of them is a valid contribution to the conversation that we've had in the debate that has gone on, but we, as parliamentarians, do have an obligation to listen to them and to take them seriously and to respect them.
I have to say I have been concerned that during the passage of this bill, some groups who have wished to hold public meetings, public debate, in public venues have been blocked from doing so. This is wrong. It is a clear overreach by those venues in question. We can't have a situation in New Zealand where the views of others that might be disagreed with are somehow branded as harmful or dangerous or offensive. There is no right in this country to be offended by what other people think or what their opinions might be. If we shut down the full expression on topics such as this in this House, we won't benefit from considering a full range of views as we debate complex policy and ideas, and I do worry about the societal impacts of people feeling that their views are no longer able to be expressed. We really do need to draw a line in the sand on this censorious, restrictive direction of free speech in this country.
On the committee, I listened to all the submissions with as much of an open mind as possible, and I tried to understand where the different submitters were coming from and—importantly—to assess those submissions in light of the legislation and in light of SOP 59. Ultimately, I came to this conclusion: this bill is a small liberalisation of a law that will make life easier for many New Zealanders, and the current law is causing unnecessary distress for people for whom it is a really important matter. I'm not convinced that it sets a broader precedent and that the various policy ramifications on other areas like corrections and health and education are going to be restrictive. They have been worked through and there is a clear pathway forward on all of them.
So Parliament has done what it should do. It's examined a Government proposal at a multiple of stages, considered the implications, improved them, tightened up protections, weighed the views of all those who contributed, and we've decided on a way forward. I understand it's not a way forward that will meet with the approval of everyone who submitted on the bill—far from it—but it is a reasonable and fair outcome. 
I do encourage everyone to continue to contribute to the development of this policy area. There's going to be another year and a half for public submission on regulations, and, as we all know, the legislation will be reviewed five years from now.
My expectation is that as with other societal shifts and liberalisations in policy and law that we've seen in the past, the fears some hold that their freedoms will be removed and that they'll be affected and the rights they hold will be affected—I believe that as we've seen in the past, these fears will be unfounded. Our laws in this country need to reflect the times that we live in, and remembering that this bill—all it is doing is modernising a process that is already in place. It was a dated Act of Parliament. This is a shift in the right direction.
So can I think the Minister for the approach that she's taken to the passage of this bill. I thank my select committee. Thank you again to Minister Tinetti for the open way you've communicated with me. I think that Parliament passes better legislation when we're able to work in such a collegial manner, and may I commend this bill to the House. 





RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It is incredibly humbling, actually, to take a call on the third reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. As the Minister pointed out, this bill began as a straightforward administrative bill, and the previous Parliament's Governance and Administration Committee referred it back, recommending changes to the self-identification process of a person's registered sex on their birth certificate. It was an unusual process to refer it back to select committee for a further inquiry, and—speaking as a member of the committee—we received around 6,900 written submissions and heard around 279 oral submissions. 
I want to pay tribute to the brave members of the transgender and gender-diverse community who told their stories in a public forum. They were moving and powerful. There was one particular submitter who really stuck with me: the parent of a young woman who has significant business acumen and was wanting to set up her own business. When she went to start a bank account in order to do this, she was not able to do it under her preferred gender, and the heartbreak that that caused that young woman.
Some submitters raised concerns about the impact of this bill on women and women's spaces. It was heartening to hear from officials that the bill will have no impact on women's spaces and who can access them. As a woman who has the correct gender on their birth certificate, this bill will have no impact on me.
Some of the submissions from people in opposition to this bill, I just want to note, cause significant hurt to members of our transgender and gender diverse community, particularly our rangitahi. As the Minister pointed out, it was disappointing for the committee that we were unable to reach a solution around people who were being born overseas. I just want to put on the public record that everyone who participated in the committee was committed—absolutely 100 percent committed—to seeking a solution to that particular issue, and we will work tirelessly to do that over the next few months.
I really want to thank the officials who went back, and back and back again, answering our questions as we tried to find solutions for some of the gnarly issues that we faced. They worked incredibly hard. I also want to particularly thank our Green Party member who joined our committee, Elizabeth Kerekere, for her expertise that she brought to the table.
In finishing, I want to acknowledge some amazing young people from my electorate of Nelson. People who are part of Q-Youth, Nelson Pride, and, in particular, two young people who sat in the gallery during my maiden speech and who I have watched grow since before they were at school. I used to call them my adopted nieces and no longer can do that. I just want to acknowledge today Xander and TK—I love you and I am very, very proud of you. 
The message from this Parliament is that for all of our rangitahi who are transgender and gender-diverse, we see you. We acknowledge who you are, and this one's for you. Kia ora. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora. 





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's good to have the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. Other colleagues have noted—quite rightly, of course—that the passage of the legislation has been an unusual one through this House. We've heard about its origins and, actually, going back even before the point that it was in the House, the Law Commission's review of burial and cremation law back in 2015, through a ministerial review, an internal affairs departmental review, the Governance and Administration Committee's amendments following the first reading of the bill. Of course, as others have alluded to, and more than just alluded to—obviously, covered in some detail—a particular Supplementary Order Paper that would have made a change, and indeed will make a change, has been the subject of a lot of discussion and debate. 
I do want to reflect on that within my contribution, but perhaps regarding the rest of the bill, if I can put it that way, I would just note as well, lest it not be recorded at any other point in the third reading, that the bill has actually a really sort of broad ambit. We've got the expectation of New Zealanders to create change, use, and access identity information, so the bill is very much designed to provide a more accessible way for Kiwis to reach their own records, and, where appropriate, those of others. That's sort of the general philosophy, and obviously a lot of the detail of the bill was very much geared towards that. So they are things that we would ordinarily reflect on in Parliament and in select committees, of course—drafting style, definitions of historical information, and relatively straightforward matters such as those. 
I do just want to highlight before I move on to those other aspects—before I go any further, I do want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague and friend Nicola Grigg. I think she set out in very clear fashion the progress of the bill and the process, as well, but if I might just also place it on record, I thought that for a relatively new member of the House and of our caucus, she's handled with great diligence and grace the competing demands from various sectors of New Zealand's community and the various pressures that she and her select committee colleagues have felt in relation to the bill. I think she produced in today's third reading a really good dissertation of the way that she's thought about the bill and the result, ultimately, that we have reached on this side of the House, along with the Government. 
But before I go back into that—and I promise I will get there—greater digital access to information is actually a major theme of the bill, and I think that's a really worthy aim. Oftentimes, we talk in this House about accessibility of law and other contexts. Of course, a key aspect of the rule of law is that we are able to see the law as it applies to us, but also personal records, and that's important. If the State is to hold information about individuals—and there's nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes—then of course it's appropriate that individuals should be able to have a way of interacting and handling and accessing that data in a way that makes sense for them. 
My final note on that is that the privacy protections are always really important in this kind of endeavour. I suppose, arguably, a flipside of accessibility is that it must only be accessible as appropriate. So we see, for example—and I rely here on the legislative statement that's been provided to the House a note about the exception for public sector agencies to be included in the named person rule. That's whereby the registrar-general is able to conduct one-off searches that don't relate to the person's birth, death, and marriage records, but only under specified circumstances. So not a real blank cheque there in terms of officials being able to handle the data of individuals. 
So, then, in terms of the self-identification provisions and amendments that we have made at the committee of the whole House stage, can I say first of all that I think that the House, or perhaps, more accurately, the Government, made a good decision to send that back to select committee. I think there would have been some disquiet if the public had not had a chance to make submissions on a particular aspect of the bill that was very strongly and keenly felt by I suppose I could say, probably fairly, a couple of different sides, and it was somewhat divisive and it's a shame in a way that the debate produced at times more heat than light. But I would like to join others who have thanked those Kiwis who were good enough to spend their time and their energy and—yes—show courage on both sides of the debate to submit to a select committee. I think it's a great thing that we have a democracy in this country, whereby New Zealanders generally feel encouraged and able to make submissions to a select committee and that their views will be heard and respected accordingly. 
So acknowledging that the debate at times, I suppose, had the tendency to be divisive, I think it's worth acknowledging, again, as my colleague and friend Nicola Grigg did, some of the tensions around the free speech aspects. She's framed that, I think, really well, so I won't go there again. But I think at its best, debate—whether that's in Parliament itself or the House itself, or select committee—is where one allows others to speak, in the first instance; second, seeks to understand their point of view; and, third, does not make an effort to misrepresent that other view, and acknowledges the strengths of the other view and addresses those, even if it's ultimately a matter of saying that one may disagree ultimately with the conclusion because there's another factor that's able to outweigh that. 
So with that sort of philosophical discussion about the nature of the debate, I do want to acknowledge that of course there were also discussions in select committee, and certainly amongst the community, regarding practical aspects such as fears and concerns in relation to safety but also, of course, imperatives regarding identity. These things are very important. They go to the heart of what it is to be human, and so we should always take seriously and acknowledge the heartfelt and genuine good-faith positions of others in respect of such matters. 
I think it's right to acknowledge at this point, as others have done, that the process going forward does include, I suppose, a couple of safety valves. One is simply that which exists for any legislation with regulation-making powers. 
So, for those who are less familiar with the way that laws are made in this country, the primary legislation comes through this House. Sometimes it will set up a process whereby other laws can be made under that—we call this secondary legislation for obvious reasons—and sometimes regulations, and, at that point, there's also an opportunity for members of the public to have their say. It's not with the same formal process by way of select committee, although I would just note—and never missing a chance to advertise the great and good work of the Regulations Review Committee—it will be for us, if anyone wishes to bring to our attention those regulations, to consider the way that those have been made and the way that they affect people's lives; not so much from a policy point of view. We're not able to second-guess the decisions of the whole House at the committee of the whole House stage and also, in that more broad sense of the phrase, of Parliament. 
But, nevertheless, there will be opportunities for people to see how the regulations play out, whether there were any unintended consequences, and so forth, and I think I'm right in saying that Ms Grigg indicated that there'd be a five-year review, at which time, I suppose, in or by 2026, the legislation will be—must be reviewed, in fact. So the good old quinquennial review will soon be upon us, and members may decide whether they wish to be in the House at that time or not. That'll be interesting, and whether or not the views that were expressed at the time are the same in five years will be genuinely interesting. 
Of course, society does change. It does make an effort to recognise the views within the community, but I would just, of course, urge that in five years' time, for anyone who may be involved in that review—whether that's me or others currently in the House, and no doubt, of course, others will join us, or join them—I just do hope that such a review is conducted in a spirit of good-faith debate without unnecessary division, allowing all to express their views on the matter. 
With that hope expressed for the future, may I say today that, as Ms Grigg has indicated on behalf of National, we do support this bill, and we note that at the third reading, it is likely to pass into law today. So, again, to thank all those who have worked hard and involved themselves in its passage.





NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm grateful to be able to take a call on this bill in this House, and you'll see this a theme throughout my whole entire speech today is thankyous. First of all, just thank you to all of the submitters, but especially those who have lived experience as a trans person, or their family member. Like my colleague Rachel Boyack mentioned, the ones that stick most permanently in our minds are the ones regarding children: the parents who have bravely made submissions and have conveyed their heartfelt stories to us about their children, and the journey that they had to go on, watching their children get hurt by our community sometimes because of these laws. Those are the stories that stick in our minds.
Can I also, please, thank all of our officials who, like my colleague also mentioned, have gone back and forth and who have done most of the legwork in terms of trying to find solutions for the migrant community, and that's probably where I'd like to make the most of my contribution. It is the refugees, the asylum seekers, and the migrants to our community, who, unfortunately, will not benefit from this bill, but, as the Minister has committed to, we are here to listen and we will commit to finding a solution. It might not be perfect, but we will endeavour to make your life a little bit easier here in New Zealand in the near future. 
I thank, especially, organisations like Rainbow Path for engaging with us on this issue, for being able to say, over and over again, through excruciating detail, to help us understand the journey that you and the people that you represent have gone on so that we can get a better picture. I'll be very honest: I'm actually delivering this speech knowing far more about the trans community, especially in the migrant and refugee space, than I did coming into this bill.
So, on that note, I'd also love to thank all of my rainbow caucus colleagues from the Labour Party who have subbed in—it was during Auckland's lockdown; it was long hours sitting in front of the computer—but also our colleague from the Green Party: Dr Elizabeth Kerekere. Thank you so much, all of you, for being able to impart your own lived experiences and your own experience of working with the trans community and the non-binary community with us. So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.





Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): It is with great pleasure that after generations of systemic discrimination, decades of community activism, and many years of work in this House, we are passing this amendment to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill today. Ngā mihi ki te Minister Jan Tinetti for bringing this bill back into the House and for her staunch ally-ship in working through this. Your willingness to engage with community leaders over the course of this has made it a better bill.
Many thanks to the Governance and Administration Committee, which I joined for the passage of this bill. There is a comradery that builds when you spend hours and hours together hearing submissions of such divergent views.
A shout-out to Rainbow Greens and all of the community organisations who have worked alongside us to encourage people to make submissions and make their voice heard. We acknowledge Gender Minorities Aotearoa, who have been community lead for this for over the last few years; to Rainbow Path, who have specifically worked with the Minister and ministry to advocate for refugees, asylum seekers, and recent migrants. We acknowledge the work of our teams of Tīwhanawhana, Te Ngākau Kahukura, InsideOUT, OutLine, RainbowYOUTH, F'INE, the parents of transgender and gender-diverse children, and the Counting Ourselves and Identify research teams. Ngā mihi aroha, kia koutou katoa, he mahi uaua tēnei. Your job is not done, but we're nearly there.
I offer a quick whaea whakapapa. In 2004, Georgina Beyer's member's bill to specify gender identity in the Human Rights Act was drawn from the biscuit tin, but was later withdrawn. In 2008, the Human Rights Commission produced To Be Who I Am—Report of the Inquiry into Discrimination Experience by Transgender People—a shout-out to Jack Byrne. In 2012, the Department of Internal Affairs offered M, F, and X options for passports. In 2013, the New Zealand Transport Agency offered female, male, and indeterminate options for drivers' licences. In 2013, Green MP and my colleague, the legendary Jan Logie, ran a consultation with the trans community, and met with Allyson Hamblett and supported her to make the petition that led to this bill. In 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018—in pretty much every single year—the IDAHOBIT collection of—collection also, but coalition—coalition of rainbow groups presented to Parliament, to the cross-party network here, and in those submissions every single year was the amendment of the Act. In 2017 the Government and Administration Committee recommended that the Minister of Internal Affairs instruct its officials to review section 28, based on Allyson Hamblett's petition. It was going so well that it was introduced that year, and, in 2018, it was withdrawn by, at that time, the Minister of Internal Affairs. In 2020, PRISM: Human Rights issues relating to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC) in Aotearoa New Zealand was released by the Human Rights Commission—a shout-out to Taine Polkinghorne. 
In 2021, Minister Tinetti brought the bill back to the House, and here we are, at its third reading. In between, that represents thousands and thousands of hours of volunteers out in our community, talking to Ministers, talking to MPs, and talking to agencies.
The hearings were something else. We would have hoped that all submitters presented with accurate information and a genuine care for the humanity of all New Zealanders. Sadly, that was not the case, and we acknowledge that many members of takatāpui, trans, intersex, and non-binary communities and your allies were infuriated and traumatised by the gaslighting, transphobia, and, particularly, transphobic misogyny that was expressed in those hearings. 
On a side note, somebody made a meme of my colleagues Deborah Russell and Rachel Boyack and I on one of the times that we suggested that perhaps they could calm down some of their observations. But, channelling my Catholic mother, I hope that the complete and absolute failure of the anti-trans lobby provides them with an opportunity to sit down and really think about their behaviour. 
The Green Party proudly maintains our long-held stance that trans, intersex, non-binary, and takatapui people with diverse genders and sex characteristics should be able to identify their own gender on their birth certificates in a way that is mana-enhancing, affordable, and accessible in a simple process that can be done without fuss, without serious invasion of privacy, and without proof of surgery, because all people in this country should have documents of identity that reflect who they are, regardless of where they were born or when they arrived in this country. 
The bill means we move from an invasive and demeaning Family Court process to a statutory declaration. This will reduce cost barriers, free up the court's time, and reduce the administrative burden on health professionals, who are required to provide evidence for such applications. But, more importantly, it enhances the mana of takatāpui, trans, intersex, and non-binary people and ensures their birth certificate matches their driver's licence and their passport, if they have one, but ensures young people can produce a birth certificate that matches who they are and not who they were incorrectly assigned as at birth.
Unfortunately, as my colleagues have pointed out, this only applies to people who were born in Aotearoa. It was one of the two main issues that community advocates raised during the submission process. I may or may not have tried the patience of the select committee by my persistent encouragement of the officials to come up with a solution for this, but I wholeheartedly thank those officials for the hard work that they did. I know they're all personally invested in marking this work. We could have come up with a quick fix, but nothing that would have protected the privacy of the people who need this. 
I am very happy that the Minister has stated her commitment of her and her officials to find solutions for people born overseas. I look forward to the Minister specifying that this includes refugees, asylum seekers, and recent migrants who may not yet be residents, but who've come here to make this their home.
The discrimination against people with diverse genders, sexualities, and sex characteristics can easily be traced back to colonisation. This bill signals the continuing shift in New Zealand in our society that reflects that the world is changing—that, actually, LGBTIQ people, people with diverse genders, sexualities, and sex characteristics, are a normal part of our lives, of our whānau.
This bill recognises that those who need to amend their birth certificate can do so and that the courts do not have the right to make that choice for them, that parents do not have that right, and that cisgender people who don't even know them or care about them do not have that right. This bill upholds the mana, the wairua, the mauri of our takatāpui, trans, intersex, and non-binary whānau. It will be the first of many, especially while I'm in this House.
So, to all of you watching in support, to our tupuna, takatāpui who came before us, as a takatāpui cis-lesbian femme ally to our takatāpui, trans, intersex, and non-binary whānau, I am very proud to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora. 





Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As others have stated and we've well covered, this has been a long time coming, this bill. 
It's been through a lot of changes. I'd like to thank the submitters and the select committees for the work that they've done. It's obviously very technical and thorough, and I think, ultimately, this bill is about advancing liberalism and actually reducing Government interference in people's lives by enabling choice and by making things just a bit simpler for those that need it. 
There is also the ancillary stuff. It modernises systems and practices, and people have spoken about the digital access being improved, which is desperately needed. 
I think this shows compassion, the kind of compassion we want in a liberal democracy to show and present on the world stage, especially for those that have been struggling under the current law. It is very meaningful for those that benefit, while for those that don't agree with this law change, it really has no effect on them whatsoever, so people just need to appreciate the role of Government in their lives and how it affects them versus how it affects others, and the benefits that that can provide.
So, in any case, I'm not going to hold this up any more than it needs to—after all, I'm in favour of less Government interference in people's lives. I congratulate the Minister for her work and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): It is an honour to speak on this bill this afternoon. I want to address some of the issues that were raised during the recent Governance and Administration Committee inquiry into the bill, and, in particular, into the Supplementary Order Paper which enabled gender self-ID.
I want to address, first of all, the concerns around the science. We had many submitters who came and told us that male and female gender was a matter of science—XX or XY—and that that was all there was to it. One submitter who was of that view had a quote from Distinguished Professor of genetics, Jenny Graves, who is at La Trobe University and has spent her academic career researching how sex develops. 
I went digging around in the science too, to find out exactly what was going on, and I found some of what Professor Jenny Graves has written about the development of sex in human beings. I want to quote something from The Conversation site—so she's put it into language that ordinary, everyday people can understand. She says, "Mismatch between biological sex and gender identity, culminating in its severest form as gender dysphoria, has been ascribed to mental disease, family dysfunction and childhood trauma. But accumulating evidence now implies biological factors in establishing gender identity, and a role for particular genes. Variants—subtly different versions—of genes linked with gender identity might simply be part of a spectrum of gender and sexuality maintained through … history." Her research shows that there is no simple XX and XY but that development of gender identity in human beings seems to be part of a complex web of about 30 genes that affect the development, and so on it goes.
She carries on to say, "Some young boys show an early preference for dressing and behaving as girls; some young girls are convinced they should be boys. This apparent mismatch of biological sex and gender identity can lead to severe gender dysphoria. Coupled with school bullying and family rejection, it can make lives a torment for young people, and the rate of suicide is frighteningly high. As they move into adulthood, nearly half of these children"—the children who express different genders as children—"continue to feel strongly that they were born in the wrong body." 
Trans identity is real, and the scientific evidence shows that it is real. The scientific evidence goes to show that despite the protestations of those who've done school certificate science that it's all about XX and XY, when we look to what the real experts say, trans identity is real.
The second thing I wish to address is some of the concerns that people came to us with during the bill, and, in particular, people who were opposed to the bill. We listened very carefully, and, in particular, I listened very carefully to people like the Māori Women's Welfare League and the National Council of Women, who've had a long, long history of working for women in this country, and they supported this bill. 
But I also listened carefully to the Feminist Older Women Lobbyists collective, or FOWL, as they call themselves. These were a group of women who were opposed to the bill but have a long history of being involved in women's concerns in New Zealand. Some of the concerns that were raised by FOWL and by other people were things like whether or not allowing gender self-ID would promote men getting involved in women's sports. It is a canard that is an issue for sports federations to deal with. In fact, the big issue around trans people being involved in sports is getting enough of them involved so that they feel sufficiently comfortable to be involved in community sports, and when it comes to elite sports, that's for the elite sporting federations to sort out, not a bill on gender self-ID.
Some were very concerned about men in women's spaces, such as men going into women's refuges. But Women's Refuge has been coping with trans women in women's refuges for decades, and Ang Jury, who heads up Women's Refuge New Zealand, has said in the past that they've had processes in place and it simply is not an issue for them.
The biggest issue that some of the people opposed to the bill suggested was a problem was that men would take on a female gender identity and use it in order to go into women's toilets and attack women. This, frankly, is absurd. First of all, men who wish to do that—predatory men, and there are predatory men who wish to do that—can already do it, and they already do do it. It is not a matter of using gender self-ID as a vehicle to do that.
But it made me curious, and I sort of went hunting. I said, "Well, is there a law on who may use which toilets in New Zealand?", and there are laws around toilets. There are the laws around toilets that employers must provide, but there is no law that says that only women may go into toilets marked "Women" and that only men may go into toilets marked "Men". 
In fact, the way that we go into public toilets in this country is simply a matter of convention, and if we are uncomfortable with someone who is using a space that we don't think they should be in, then perhaps we can ask them about it. But even then, we must be careful. There are many stories from butch lesbians, or butch heterosexuals, even, who have been challenged in toilets when they are in the toilet that is entirely appropriate for their gender, so we must be careful about that convention as well.
The third thing I wish to address from what happened during the hearings was what I would simply call the language of hate, and it was a language of hate that came through from people opposed to this bill. Some people were worried about autogynephilia. I'd never heard the word. I had to go and look it up. It turns out that autogynephilia is used to describe men who get sexually turned on by imagining themselves to be in a woman's body or to have women's body parts. I actually thought we were over shaming people for their sexual preferences.
But, actually, a lot of the language we heard directed at trans people was language that we've heard directed against gay people. It is the language that treats people as non-people—as people who shouldn't be allowed to exist—and we were required to listen to it. But I do not think we are required to listen politely to it. As MPs, of course we must listen to people who come to our select committees, but I will not listen politely to hate, and I think it's important that we don't listen politely to hate. There were young trans people watching those hearings, and if we sat there and listened politely to hate, it would seem we were endorsing that hate. So I say congratulations to the committee members who expressed their disapproval of the language of hate that came through so loudly.
To finish off, I wish to thank my fellow committee members. I noted that many submitters thanked Nicola Grigg for encouraging them to submit. I wish to thank Ian McKelvie for his very gentle chairing of the sessions. It was a master lesson in how to chair a select committee. I wish to thank Minister Jan Tinetti for her courage and her steadfastness in the face of hate mail and hate directed at her for bringing this bill back to the House and for ensuring its passage through the House. Thank you, Minister Jan Tinetti.
Finally, I give this speech today and I give my support for this bill because of Cushla's boy, for Fleur's boy, for Anna's boy, and for Emma's boy, for Roy, for Melissa, for Sarah, for Kate—trans people all; parents of trans people—and we love them. I commend this bill to the House. 





HARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia tau te rangimārie. May things be calm and peaceful. I think after the journey that this bill has been on, from listening to the speeches in the House this afternoon in relaying the journey of others who have been affected and we've deemed have been afflicted by the labelling and the perceptions of their identity, may this Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill give them a sense of rangimārie. 
In speaking about that—I had no idea that I would be speaking to this bill this afternoon, but, at short notice, this is what we do because it is about service. It's also about recognising the importance of who we are as people within a nation, within a community, and our relationships. So when I look at this bill, I just place beside my legal background and the context of that, and I actually look at this bill as one of whakapapa and whakawhanaungatanga—that of identity, connectivity, and relationships. In saying that, as I've tended to do over the course of time when addressing the House, I do reflect and I do connect to relationships and this bill, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. 
Last night, I attended a Zoom hui of my whanaunga, my whānau from throughout the world, as we came together because of the death of a loved one, a grand-uncle. The technology facilitated for those of us who weren't able to be with our whānau in Las Vegas and it drew us together in terms of the recognition of our whakapapa, our identity, and our relationships with the death and the passing of a loved one. 
Before I move to the bill, I also draw from tohu, signs, that present themselves to me in significant incidents or events that occur in life. So as I left the House last night, returning to my place of repose for the evening, and as I was walking up the steps, this white feather was on the ground at the entrance of the place that I was going to and I saw that as a tohu. A white feather is a mark of peace and it is a mark of calm and it is a mark of repose. So that tohu was after I had connected with my whānau from throughout the world, globally, with the death and coming together to celebrate the life of my grand-uncle, and here I am today addressing the House on this Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill and hearing the kōrero about the anguish associated with those who have gone through this journey of recognition of what their identity, their gender identity, is. So this mark of rangimārie, peace—this tohu—is so befitting and appropriate. 
I come to the bill because—it's a brief call, and I've taken most of the call—befittingly, it is about the significance and the relevance of identity, of whakapapa, of whanaungatanga. I acknowledge the members on the Governance and Administration Committee. I acknowledge Minister Jan Tinetti, who has carried this journey on from Minister Tracey Martin when it was first introduced to the House, and I acknowledge our good friend Ian McKelvie, aptly described and acknowledged from across the House as a gentleman, who conducted this committee where at times it was fraught and contentious with that sense of calm in bringing it back to a sense of respectful debate and engagement and relationships.
Looking through the bill—I'm going to have to commend it to the House very shortly—it is fortuitous that I do stand to speak to address it because, looking through it, there are portions of this bill when I have advocated for people in my former life as a lawyer. I also look at the bill when it comes to registration of births. Some of my tūpuna did not have their births registered because, in their day, they were deemed not important and significant enough for that to happen. This bill—it's been a privilege to address the House and I commend it to the House. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Camilla Belich—five minutes.





CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to rise and take a short call on this very important piece of legislation. I wasn't part of the Governance and Administration Committee that considered this bill, but I want to thank the members of the select committee from across the House for the hard work that they did and the tough work that they did. From all reports, I heard that the way that they did that was with dignity and with respect, so thank you very much to those members of the committee. 
Now, the reason I wanted to take a call on this bill is before I was elected into Parliament, I was asked about my position on this bill, and how I responded to that was that I have someone very dear to me who is transgender and is a very young boy. When I was asked whether I would support this bill or not, I said to the person who was asking me that question that I would do whatever I could to make that child's life easier. I think that's a lot of the reason why we are in Parliament: it's to make the lives of children as easy, as happy, and as free as possible. So I responded that I would do whatever I could to help that child have the same easy and free life that we want for all of our tamariki in Aotearoa. So I'm very, very pleased to be here while this bill gets passed into law and to think of that child and to think of all of our tamariki in Aotearoa and know that their lives, no matter who they are and how they're born, will be a little bit easier because of this important piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Nelson Mandela said, "Our freedom cannot be complete while others in the world are not yet free", and, today, this reading is about another step towards freedom for people in our society: freedom to be who you are. 
I had the privilege of being part of the Governance and Administration Committee at different times and heard submissions, and we've heard this whole mention of freedom of speech and free speech, and that's OK when you have the power as the majority. That's OK when those around you are voiceless. But we do want to ensure that the freedoms of our takatāpui, transgender, non-binary, and intersex community are free indeed.
I want to thank this Parliament, a place that often is a place that has been around oppression, but today it is another step to liberation for many of our people. I want to thank the select committee, I want to thank the submitters, and I want to thank our Minister, the Hon Jan Tinetti, but most of all, I want to thank our takatāpui, transgender, non-binary, and intersex community who had to sit, who had to listen, who have been voiceless, and whose freedoms have been ignored for so long. I want to thank you for walking with us, for bearing with us, and for putting up with us, and, hopefully, this step today is one more step in your freedoms and in our freedoms as a society. I commend this bill to the House. 





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Mr Speaker. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ian McKelvie. 
IAN McKELVIE: Yeah, I'm getting there, Mr Speaker. It's a slow process. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill and to be able to support its progress through the House, along with the National Party. I got to join this discussion just after the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee, and I was there in time to listen to the many, many submissions on it and take part in the discussion on the bill, which I thought the officials handled extremely well in difficult circumstances, actually, because we'd put some quite significant demands on them. 
So it's a bit interesting, because the changes recommended by the select committee were then adopted at the committee of the whole House, and while it's very unusual to be discussing work done by a select committee at the third reading, in this case it's necessary because of the unusual process the bill followed as it came back to the House. Therefore, I want to thank the members of the select committee. They put a significant amount of work into this. We heard a lot of submissions over a couple or three weeks, and, of course, it was during the time when Auckland were basically imprisoned and so we had three captive Auckland MPs who couldn't get away from the submission process. They were there for good. But none the less, they persisted and did very well. 
I want to thank the select committee for listening to most of the submissions with courtesy and with sound questions. But I want to apologise to those members of the public who felt uncomfortable with the process, because I've got to say I felt uncomfortable with the process too, and I'm going to explain why right now. I was uncomfortable with the manner in which the live streaming of the select committee proceedings led to some submitters being very unfairly attacked on social media without either the will or, in fact, the ability to reply, or any protection from Parliament. If we're to continue to use live streaming and social media to get our proceedings out there, we're going to have to put suitable protections in place, or we will lose the public's confidence and we will no longer have people willing to submit to Parliament, particularly on difficult pieces of legislation. 
I, frankly, don't believe people should be able to use social media to attack submitters that they don't agree with. Therefore, the only reasonable solution for us is to prevent comment via this medium in the future, and I think that Parliament is going to have to consider that. 
I've never felt the need to doubt who I am, to change my name, to amend my registered sex, nor, indeed, to live for years in fear of who I am and in fear of what people might think of me, worrying that my private information will get out against my will, worrying, in fact, that when I die, I might not be identified correctly, and so on. I'm lucky. What I'm saying is that I've never walked a step in these people's shoes, and who am I to judge them or to not support their case when I'm in a position to have significant influence on it? 
I believe many submitters to the SOP were very like me, but chose to oppose this piece of legislation for many reasons, many of which I respect, but they were not compelling enough reasons for the select committee to accept. Consequently, we unanimously supported the SOP as reported back and, consequently, this bill at third reading.
This is big. We heard from hundreds of people whom all of these issues affect on a regular basis. I must say, having listened to the arguments for and against this SOP and subsequent legislation, it will have very little or no effect on me, but it will have a significant effect on so many people's lives, and that, I think—as has just been said not a few minutes ago by someone in the House—is why we're here. If we can make a little bit of difference to someone's life and have no impact on other people's lives in the course of doing it, I think we should most certainly persevere with that. 
I want to speak for a minute about the fears of some of those who opposed the bill, because I think it's necessary to address it. We heard from submitters afraid that men would use this legislation to impose on women. We heard that prisons would be rife with people misrepresenting their sex for ill-gotten reasons, that schools would have boys in girls' changing rooms, and vice versa. We've noted that the Ministry of Education would have to put some very real investment into resolving these questions, that the prison service would have to—and, actually, it is in the process of adequately addressing and resourcing this issue, and that the current laws are sufficient to manage any threats that women felt might be imposed on them. I hope we are right; in fact, I'm sure we will be right. 
One of the great disappointments of this process was the scant attention paid to the issues facing people born overseas and their opportunity to participate in this process. We were given very good reasons by the officials as to why this was the case. They did also make significant effort to try and resolve this issue for us with quite short notice, and whilst we could have accepted their solutions, those solutions didn't guarantee protection of those people and certainly didn't guarantee that we could actually even access their birth certificates to rectify the problem. So there's a lot of work to be done in that area, and our Minister of Internal Affairs, I think, in her address today said that she'll get on and make sure that that work's done. So, given that that hasn't been resolved, I think the rest of the bill is in as good a shape as we could have got it in, and I hope that it does what it set out to achieve, which is to make so many people's lives much better. 
The provisions and changes listed in the bill have been well traversed by speakers earlier in the debate, and I don't intend to go there other than to say I think that the select committee did a good job. I think that the Minister's done an outstanding job of getting this thing through a pretty tricky process, really, when you think about it, and also the officials did, I think, a pretty special job of trying to sort through a myriad of submissions and some quite challenging issues. So it's with a great deal of pleasure that I support this bill as it goes through the House today. 





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to rise and take the final call on the third reading, and can I just acknowledge my parliamentary neighbour, Ian McKelvie, who has just resumed his seat, for his role with the Governance and Administration Committee, and other colleagues on that particular committee, who have done an outstanding job in terms of progressing this through the process to bring back to the Parliament. 
Can I also acknowledge the leadership and the conscience of Minister Tinetti. Many speakers have acknowledged the fact that this perhaps has not been an easy ride initially, but to have a bill which seems at this stage to have the unanimous support of the Parliament—we'll find out in a moment—is something outstanding.
This bill certainly does address some of those bland issues, as the Minister has earlier indicated, because it seeks to address plenty of important milestones in life: births, deaths, marriages, and civil unions. But I want to focus my brief comments on what has changed as a result of Supplementary Order Paper 59, because this will allow for an administrative change that will actually not have any impact whatsoever for most, but it allows for an administrative change that will make a huge difference to many. For many in our takatāpui, transgender, gender diverse, and wider rainbow community, this will allow them, themselves, to identify how they wish to be identified on a document, a birth certificate—a Government-issued document that carries with it administrative authority—because being able to identify however a person wishes should be an easier process than it currently is. This change will remove the barriers—the medical, the administrative burdens that actually aren't expected of others—simply to allow members of our rainbow community to identify as they wish.
The Minister started by thanking the petitioner who initiated this particular change back in 2017, and I want to conclude my contribution by doing the same. So thank you to Allyson Hamblett for engaging in the democratic process to bring about this change. It's actually proof that the act of petitioning the Parliament does make a difference, even if it can take some time to get there. 
I'm delighted to commend this bill to the House—something that will mean so much to so many people.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.





VOTING
COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, Continuation—Party Vote
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House to conduct a party vote on the Government motion to continue the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act that was agreed this morning.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is continued and that the relevant period under section 3(2)(b) of that Act is the period ending 30 June 2022.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 45
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 75, Noes 43.





Correction—COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, Continuation
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Deputy Musterer—Green): Point of order. I would like to—aroha mai, I realised I made a mistake. We were given proxies for Te Paati Māori to vote on the motion, and I could not find it in time, but I have found it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: So if you seek leave for the record to be adjusted, I'll put that leave.
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: I would like to seek leave for the record to be adjusted to record Te Paati Māori's votes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
CLERK: Te Paati Māori?
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Two votes opposed.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The new amended vote is Ayes 75, Noes 45, and the motion is agreed to.





EDUCATION AND TRAINING AMENDMENT BILL
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 8 December.
PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Education and Training Amendment Bill, although not without some reservations. So this is a fix-up bill, and it's very unfortunate that it's about the fourth time since I have been in Parliament that this Act has had to be fixed up in the past, sort of, 12 or 14 months.
So the bill amends the Education and Training Act 2020 with some relatively minor things, and others that are a little bit more significant. So it clarifies the police vetting, checking, of children's workers and school employees. It extends the ban on charging trainees a compulsory student services fee. It extends that by a year. It emphasises that only people holding teaching positions can use physical restraint, and there are some other minor amendments around powers of intervention by the Secretary for Education.
So clause 4 covers specifying the agencies to which the joint statements of expectation can be issued by the Minister of Education and the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. Clause 5 to 7 is around the use of physical restraint at registered schools, and this is the one that clarifies that only a person holding a teacher's position can use physical restraint. I suppose in that area, having been very familiar with the work of teacher aides, I wonder how on a practical level that is going to play out for teacher aides, many of whom are dealing with students who can be quite physical, and so I do want to acknowledge the amazing work that teacher aides right across our schools do. I hope this doesn't make their life more difficult.
Clause 9 relates to the interventions that may be used by the Secretary for Education. Clause 9 is relating to the regulations around early childhood services, requiring ministerial approval to apply for a licence, and that application has to be granted before an application for a licence can be made.
So I guess two of the more significant parts are around this transitional provision of charging compulsory student fees. That came about in the August 2020 amendment to the Education and Training Act, when the mergers were enabled of industry training providers (ITPs) and industry training organisations (ITOs). I think it is worth noting that that select committee process was a very truncated process, and I really wonder now if some of these matters could have been dealt with much better had that not been such a truncated process.
I hark back to something that I feel quite a grievance over: that submissions at that time to the merger of the ITPs and the ITOs—only 29 percent of the submissions in that process supported it, and yet the Minister called that an overwhelming majority. I think of that very truncated select committee process and those hundreds of submissions, and had that process been a little more fulsome, perhaps we wouldn't be revisiting needing to extend out that period whereby it's prohibited for tertiary providers to charge a compulsory student services fee to students in the workplace. I note that the reason it has to be extended out, from the select committee report, was it hasn't been possible to finish consultation with the learners and providers to confirm arrangements, and so it's having to be pushed out. Charges can't be made until after 31 December next year, 2022, which in essence means that they cannot be charged until 2023. I think that could well have been avoided had the original bill, in 2020, not been rushed through.
Clause 13 is with regard to the police vetting of persons who carry out work with children, and I know in my previous role it became quite difficult to judge which people needed to have that vetting, just how much time they might be spending with children, whether that was their primary role, and so it became quite difficult, and a definition of a children's worker came through. So this enables a person to carry out work with children, but who don't fall within that definition of a children's worker, to be required to provide police vetting. Of course, we agree that we want to see that it is completely covered and we are completely sure of those that are working with our young people that they have gone through the appropriate processes.
We acknowledge that, from time to time, fix-ups like this are needed, but it is incredibly frustrating for us that this piece of legislation is needing so many fix-ups on such a regular basis. While those that are perhaps listening might say, "Well, what is the issue with that?", the issue is that it takes officials, it takes select committee time, it takes MPs' time, and it takes time in this House to go through these amendments. So we would urge the Government to think seriously when they try and truncate these processes. Often, in the long term, it ends up being much more convoluted and takes up much more time for everyone. Of course, National opposed that original legislation, the Education and Training Act 2020, because we were concerned about some of the big changes that were occurring from this in terms of the centralisation, and I would have to say some of the things that we foresaw at that time are now coming to fruition. Again, had the process been less truncated, perhaps they could have been avoided—things like Te Pūkenga, the chief executive not knowing which of his subsidiary companies are viable and which are not.
There are some really serious issues in our education space at the moment that are impacting significantly on not only our students in the education sector but our industries—things like lack of international students, insufficient numbers being admitted into medical schools. That has not been increased since 2015, even though we have a desperate shortage of medical graduates, a desperate shortage also of veterinary science graduates, and, again, insufficient numbers going into our vet school, and insufficient funding for Massey University, which is our only vet school, to be able to provide further places. We also have concerns, obviously, in our compulsory schooling sector around the state of our maths and our reading skills.
So I suppose our message is that while we support this fix-up bill to improve and make up for some of the things that weren't covered earlier, we really wish that our time and the officials' time were being spent on looking at those very, very major issues in our education sector, rather than, once again, dealing with minor fix-ups with a bill that really should have been done in the first place. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill. Despite being the deputy chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, this is the first time I've been able to take a call on this bill: the first reading I was on maternity leave and the second reading I was locked down in Auckland, so it's lovely to get the chance to speak on this bill. Despite not being able to take a call on this bill previously, I was part of the deliberations on this bill and just wanting to clarify from what the member who's just resumed her seat was saying: in this particular bill that we're debating, we only received four submissions, and only one of those submissions was on matters actually contained within the bill and was supportive of this bill, so in fact we had 100 percent support at select committee for this bill going forward—and I understand now across the House as well, so unanimous support across the House as well.
As the Minister has said, it follows on from the substantive reforms to the education system that were brought about in the last term of Parliament and brought about the Education and Training Act 2020. The principal Act was enacted in August 2020 and repealed the former education and training legislation and provided a simpler legislative framework. As the Minister has said, that is a huge undertaking, bringing early learning, schooling, and tertiary education into the same statute. This bill makes a number of small, non-controversial but relatively urgent amendments to the principal Act, and I will just cover a few of those in the short time I have available.
The one change that I think is significant is that it clarifies that education workers who meet the definition of a children's worker in the Children's Act must be safety checked under the Act, rather than police vetted under the principal Act, and that all other early childhood centre or school employees must meet the relevant police and vetting requirements under this principal Act. That's the main change, which I think we can all agree is important to bring to the House.
So, in conclusion, this is a pragmatic bill. It is good lawmaking to ensure any issues—in a substantive reform—that are introduced are remedied quickly and efficiently, and I commend this bill to the House.





SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I wish to talk on the Education and Training Amendment Bill in its third reading. National support this bill. I've heard previously from my good friend and colleague Penny Simmonds that this bill is a clean-up bill, and while we appreciate, in National, and acknowledge that from time to time we will need, to in this House, undertake fix-ups of errors and mistakes or gaps, potentially, that were missed through process, this is another example of a bill where we are here because of failures of actions previously. 
This bill amends the Education and Training Act 2020, an Act that National opposed, and we opposed it for a number of reasons—and that's why it's relevant to this bill today—including because of the fact that that process was a truncated process. As we know, through this House, when you don't provide due time and consideration, you run a much higher risk of making mistakes, and what we are seeing as a result of that today is a process in which we are now consuming this House's time to fix up a bill in which the opportunity cost, I guess, is that we could be doing other stuff. We've seen earlier today and, actually, last night some great examples of bills that should have gone through the House in a bipartisan manner that will make a significant impact. Time is short in this House and it is a reflection that—you know, let's get it right the first time and do due process. 
I wanted to also just refer to the fact that this bill, obviously, will impact a number of elements across our education sector. It will impact a number of the elements that are so important to the fabric of this country I want to—if you will just allow, Mr Speaker—call out to Belmont Primary School in my local electorate of the North Shore. The principal, Bruce Cunningham, does an absolutely amazing job. Yes, that school will be impacted by this bill, but so will all of the teachers and teacher-aides—as my colleague mentioned before—who do an absolutely sterling job in terms of supporting and educating our young people through what has been a very challenging year. 
This bill will have impact on them. I think my colleague mentioned, quite rightly—and I have a number of those schools that work with children with disability within my electorate as well, through teacher-aides, and the impacts around the changes in the clauses around restraint, etc., will impact them. They do a hugely important role and they bring great value, and I've visited those schools before lockdown. Of course, we've been in lockdown for 107 days, so it was a little while ago, but I have visited those schools and seen the amazing work that those teachers and teacher-aides do. I just want to acknowledge them and wish them all a very merry Christmas. 
As we've heard, the select committee—and I acknowledge the deputy chair of the committee that went through the process on this bill—received a massive number of submissions. I think it was four in totality. I'm sure they were all of extreme quality, and it's quality, not quantity, by its sound. But I think what we really want to reflect on is not the select committee process that we're referring to in regards to this bill; it's actually the select committee process that should have been done with a more detailed rigour for the legislation that this bill amends, which is the Education and Training Act 2020. 
The Act is set in a context of an education system in New Zealand which has a significant number of issues and challenges, and this bill will impact that. But it is important to recognise some of the key issues that are not addressed, actually, I guess, in this bill which probably could have likewise been amended through the select committee process, and that is in regards to the fact that 40 percent—or two in five—of children are not attending school regularly. That is a significant issue for our children and for our country, and one in which I know the education system that this bill will impact will reflect on and say that that is not good enough in terms of performance. The reality for our young people is that if they're not at school, they cannot learn, and they can, therefore, not succeed. 
So the importance of using these opportunities in the House when we have such bills as this to make amendments that will improve or mitigate such issues is so important, and it is a great shame that we aren't using this opportunity to deal with some of the more significant issues impacting our education system. That is important, of course, because that education system will help grow a more productive economy and help us get our young people focused in the classroom and able to contribute to society. 
In regards to the clauses changed here, I think there are a number that are reasonably minor in the context in terms of their implications around the system. But, going back to the point that my colleague mentioned around the impact on that teacher-aide portion, it is actually something that I think is very, very important. It is a significant consideration that maybe we should have thought a little bit more about in terms of this process, and I think that's probably just a little bit of a learning as we go forward from here. 
So, as I said, National support this bill. We acknowledge that the process which we're going through is one that we would prefer not to do, but that's where we are, I guess. We are hopeful as we move forward from this point—as are other new colleagues in this House—that we don't have to go through this process very often, unless it is in circumstances which are considered exceptional. We are confident that we can move on, and we hope that this Government starts to reflect on some of the bigger issues that we face in terms of our education sector, such as declining achievement and attendance, which I've mentioned, and bring some of those bills to the House to complement such bills as the bill we are looking at and talking about today. As I said, we support this bill, and I commend it to the House. 





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. It's the second time today that I've had the opportunity to speak in the House about education, as earlier today I was able to ask a question about Taieri College in the Minister's announcement this morning about three new classrooms. I raise that because the Opposition would have people believe that we are not committed to education, but I am so thrilled at that announcement, which is delivering on our commitment to $100 million in Budget 2021 and 100,000 additional spaces for students by the year 2030.
The Opposition have also raised the question of a truncated select committee process, but this bill doesn't actually do any significant policy change. This is an inevitable omnibus bill that occurs after a major legislative piece of work, as we have heard, and it cleans up some small, technical elements that inevitably come out after major reform. Colleagues of mine have referred to those, including around schedules which better belong in primary legislation rather than in regulation, around the physical restraint provisions which are really important. And of course, we need to get this sorted by 22 January next year, and, given that there are no major policy changes—in fact, these are small but urgent technical changes—there is no reason to drag this out any longer. I commend this bill to the House.





TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's great to be able to take a call on this, the Education and Training Amendment Bill. A lot of these education bills, they always have the words "education" and "training" in them. So, often, I've got to kind of sift through to see what it's about—to remember what this one is about. I mean, this would probably be more aptly called the "Fix-it-Up Bill", the "Sometimes You Don't Get it All in There, So We Come Back to it a Bit Later Bill", which this is. But, as I reflected on this bill, I remembered my past contributions to this, I reflected on that whakataukī: ko te manu e kai ana te miro nōna te ngahere. Engari, ko te manu e kai ana te mātauranga nōna te ao. The manu that takes in the berries, their domain is the forest, but the manu that partakes of knowledge, their domain is the world.. 
Just continuing on with that narrative, this bill is about what happens when you drop some of those berries. You drop some of those berries, so you've actually got to go back into the forest and pick those berries up, gather up that knowledge and put it into the kete, put it into the statutory, legislative kete, and that's what we're doing here today as well. I would encourage us, always, that when we're weaving our legislation, like the kete, that we make sure that we get those harakeke connections a lot tighter, you get those regulations tighter, you get those clauses tighter, so that the berries don't fall out. I hope everybody around the House, this Christmas, will be able to eat of the many bountiful berries, the blueberries, the strawberries, and the raspberries with all our whānau this Christmas.
Previous speakers have talked about the small minor technical changes that this bill will enable. There was a whole lot of massive changes that were made, which this bill refers to. So these are just small technical changes. But getting through this bill means that we'll be able to focus on some of those bigger issues; those really big educational issues that our teachers are continuing to face, particularly in the climate of the COVID crisis. 
I do want to mihi to our teachers, who have been doing it tough. They've been carrying our tamariki, teaching them through the COVID crisis, through Zoom calls, and with all the turbulence within this year as well, holding that up. And everybody that knows teachers knows that they don't just do it for the money; they do it because they have a commitment to our tamariki, they have a commitment to our whānau, and they have a commitment to our communities. 
And I was reminded of this just recently when I met some teachers in the mighty metropolis of Palmerston North just last Friday, as well—and I acknowledge the member for Palmerston North, Mr Tangi Utikere, who is a part of that most pristine profession, the teaching profession, and I can attest to his incredible efficiency in the teaching profession as well, as a parent of one of his former students, who will very soon—hopefully she's listening—graduate from university, so that her father can have that university degree on his wall.
Some of the issues that teachers were talking to me about was around the pressures that they feel around learning support—trying to get, you know, dedicated learning support coordinators into every school and early childhood centre, because when you've got those pressures, they exacerbate under these COVID conditions as well. So having that sort of support for our disabled children and tamariki with high needs is very, very important, looking at trying to find ways to expand the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme criteria and increase the funding available so that it's based on need, rather than a fixed amount of funding available. Making that happen would be really, really important; increasing dedicated teacher-aide funding in early childhood centres and schools—and I say that as a former teacher-aide; this is probably going back about 30 years. And I hadn't realised that what I was doing, as I was talking with these other teachers, was helping to support the main teacher to deal with lots of issues around the classroom. She'd give me little jobs and I'd go off and do them as the teacher-aide, and while I was doing that, she would be able to do some of the classroom management as well. So the importance of teacher-aides helping to manage the pressures in the classroom and finding ways to appropriately fund them is also really, really important. Increasing the number of specialists, psychologists, physiotherapists, and resource teachers—that stuff is all very important as well, that helps to alleviate that pressure that a lot of our teachers are facing as well, and also developing greater professional development pathways as well. Some of those professional development pathways lead some of us to Parliament, as I was just talking about earlier in my speech.
So this is a technical bill. It's one of those fix-up bills. The manu went into the forest, grabbed as much berries, but the manu took out of the forest too quickly, left some berries behind, and the manu had to go back and get those berries—get that legislative weave a lot tighter. And that's what this bill does. So the Greens support this bill. Tēnā koe.





CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak to the third reading of the Education and Training Amendment Bill. This bill makes a number of small and non-controversial but relatively important amendments to the Act, such as the education workers and school employees to meet police vetting requirements. I've been a teacher for 22 years and I always thought that was already a requirement, so good job there. The extension of a year of tertiary education providers not charging student services fees, and the clarification of who can use physical restraint on students in a school or an education environment—I still do think it's worth pointing out that under the Crimes Act, section 48, self-defence, anyone can actually use reasonable force to prevent assaults taking place. I'd hate to think that teachers were hamstrung because they didn't have specific permission, or an adult, and were not intervening in a situation that could potentially turn serious.
But there are many other matters in education that require the urgency of this bill, such as—we've got truancy. We've got 67 percent of students who attend school regularly. There's a select committee inquiry going on at the moment. Literacy and numeracy rates are falling when compared with the rest of the world. There doesn't seem to be a plan, and no acknowledgment that there is a problem. Special needs, as mentioned before, is an area that's ever-growing, that needs attention urgently. We've got 6,045 special needs students in Auckland who've gone through lockdown without extra help that their parents desperately need. Students who must have a routine—these students do—and support to get through the day. I was a special educational needs coordinator for the last 10 years, and these kids without clear direction and a plan find it really difficult just to survive.
Behaviour: bullying is getting worse. And if a student can't learn in a class—if the class isn't under control—it's something that really needs to get sorted, especially after COVID. I just recently read a report from South Auckland that behaviour issues are a major concern at the moment as a result of COVID. Teacher training and retention: when we hear teacher trainees receive 90 minutes total learning how to teach reading, we should be worried. We're going to find out soon how many teachers are going to give up just because it's too hard. I'm already aware of classes being taught by teacher aides because there aren't enough teachers to go around, and we really need to plan for this.
The Government abolished successful charter schools and is making it difficult for those wanting to establish designated character schools. We have to start thinking outside the square to cater for those kids that don't fit into mainstream schooling. The pending history curriculum which, in its current form, says that New Zealand started in 1840, it's based on victims and villains, and which won't represent 83 percent of the New Zealand population. We need to put our kids first, not ideological agendas.
Recovering from COVID is going to be difficult in the teaching profession and education, and ACT has a huge concern for both students and teachers. The mental health issues already manifesting themselves with students and with teachers will need to be dealt with—the falling standards, truancy, teacher training will all need to be dealt with. We need a clear plan. It is a shame there won't be any consultation in the plan that will go forward. We must get back to basics, and I hope the Government treats these issues with the urgency it has given this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. Let's get on with this. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
Harete Hipango: Madam Speaker—oh, Mr Speaker!
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ha, ha! I call Harete Hipango—five minutes.





HARETE HIPANGO (National): Aroha mai, my glasses are fogged up with this mask on, and it's coming towards the end of the week for everybody. So, cognisant of time, I think that this bill is worthy of a little bit more time than the previous speaker, Emily Henderson, gave it, bearing in mind that that's probably indicative, too, of how the principal Act got rushed through at haste, and with a sense of responsibility, really. My colleagues Penny Simmonds and Simon Watts have addressed the House this afternoon reiterating that very fact.
This Education and Training Amendment Bill is an amendment bill to the principal Act, the Education and Training Act of 2020, which was rushed through in haste. I do recall being in the House at the time that my National Party colleagues were vehemently and robustly debating this and saying to the Government, "Let's do this properly." Here we are, a fix-it-up job from the hatch-it-up job that was done in the first instance. So the National Party, yes, we do support this bill going through, because it ought to have been done properly in the first instance, and here we are making amends for the fact that the Government botched it.
When I was speaking to the second reading of this bill before the House, I remember making an analogy to a TV ad of two little boys playing in the sandpit. It was an analogy to a fix-it-up Mitre 10 ad. This time, my analogy is to just remind the Government: withdraw the subscription from your botched TV programme, reality TV. Let's make sure that these bills that come before the House are dealt with appropriately, properly, for the benefit of our New Zealand public. The explanatory note to this bill is that this amendment bill is about fixing up what wasn't done properly in terms of the establishment and regulation of the education system under the Education and Training Act 2020.
My colleague Penny Simmonds, who comes from a very extensive background of practice as an educationalist in the education and training sector, as a former chief executive of the Southland institute of technology—23 years' experience. We have a woman in Parliament who is a member of the National Party, who, when it comes to educational issues, I invite the Government to listen in, to tune in—tune out of the botched TV reality series programme; tune in to the reality and lived life experience of those members on this side of the House who know what we're speaking about. The contributions that we make are legitimate and valid contributions, not for the politics of what goes on but for making sure that we get things done properly for New Zealanders. The education of our children is important and it's in a critical crisis situation at the moment, and here we are fixing up a botched-up job.
My colleague has addressed the details of the bill. I am not going to add any further, because I defer to Penny Simmonds, the member of Parliament for Invercargill, who knows this area of education. I invite members of the House, when my colleague speaks and addresses this House on such matters: take heed, listen up, tune in, and get it right. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.





ORANGA TAMARIKI AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister for Children: I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I move that the Oranga Tamariki Bill be now read a first time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, it's the amendment bill.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Amendment bill—apologies. I move, That the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.
This Government is committed to ensuring that Aotearoa New Zealand is the best place in the world to be a child. Recently, I released Hipokingia ki te Kahu Aroha Hipokingia ki te Katoa, the Oranga Tamariki Ministerial Advisory Board's report. I noticed that the system was broken, but that this Government was committed to fixing the care and protection system for children and young people. I also know that the people working inside the system were not broken. They care for the children and young people they protect, and their work should be truly valued. I have been clear that things need to change at Oranga Tamariki. Some of the changes will be big—fundamental, even—and some will be small. Together, these changes will add up to a better path for our most at-risk children and young people.
The Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill makes a number of changes to the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. By far the most important is to partially repeal the subsequent child provisions. The subsequent child provisions were enacted by the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Vulnerable Children) Amendment Act 2014 and came into force on 30 June 2016. The subsequent child provisions were introduced with the aim of improving the safety of the subsequent child. However, the provisions ended up being used in only a small number of cases.
In 2019, Oranga Tamariki reviewed the provisions and found they were not promoting the best interests of children. Rather, the provisions caused harm, particularly for children with an older sibling already in care. This is because the court is required to determine that there is no realistic prospect that an older sibling who has already been removed from the parents' care would be returned to their parents' care, a process that results in additional and potentially traumatic court proceedings for that sibling. The provisions also placed social workers in a difficult position. The provisions created conditions for hostility with parents, families, and whānau, and undermined the ability of social workers to work meaningfully with whānau, with hapū, with iwi, and with communities.
Moreover, as Judge Becroft, the previous Children's Commissioner, indicated, while only a small number of removals were made under the provisions, they have likely significantly influenced Oranga Tamariki practice. The commissioner noticed that the provisions including its underlying assumptions about a mother who had already had a child removed may have created a default starting point for Oranga Tamariki assessments for any subsequent baby, regardless of whether a parent meets the criteria.
The partial repeal will therefore support the new strategic direction for Oranga Tamariki as it will support effective and professional social work practice. Social workers do their best to support our most vulnerable children, young people, and their families and whānau. The partial repeal will support them to use their skills, their experience, and their professional knowledge as appropriate in an area of work that requires significant sensitivity and skill.
Another issue with the subsequent child provisions is that they have been drawn to damage the relationships Oranga Tamariki holds with families, whānau, hapū, and iwi, especially because of the requirement for Family Court oversight. The partial repeal, therefore, is necessary to ensure that when children come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, the agency can make family- and whānau-centred decisions regarding appropriate next steps, and can promote practices that recognise mana tamaiti and the whakapapa of tamariki and rangatahi Māori, and the whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau, hapū, and iwi.
The Waitangi Tribunal recently found that the provisions cause prejudice to Māori and will be a continuing breach of the Treaty until they are partially repealed. The partial repeal therefore will support the rebuilding of relationships with Māori and support the broader work needed to empower communities and Māori to help children and their families and whānau in a way that suits them.
The bill sets out a partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions as they apply to subsequent children where a parent has had the care of a previous child removed and it has been determined that there is no realistic prospect of return to their parent. The provisions will, however, be retained where they relate to parents who have been convicted for the death of a child in their care. This reflects the seriousness of those offences.
The partial repeal of the subsequent child provision signals the start of a change of direction for Oranga Tamariki. What is really important about the future direction of Oranga Tamariki is that it empowers communities, it empowers iwi, and it empowers Māori to help their own, to help the parents, the whānau who live in their communities. We need communities, iwi, and Māori to support families and whānau so that they can be kind, loving, caring parents that every child and young person deserves. I want Oranga Tamariki and Oranga Tamariki social workers to be able to gain the trust of families by being able to exercise their own professional judgment and not be hindered by undue or unhelpful processes that impact on their ability to work more closely with families and whānau, and with officials from other Government agencies providing support to children.
Secondly, the bill repeals a data set of information-sharing provision that is now redundant. The provision, section 66D of the Act, was intended to increase public accountability and transparency in relation to child welfare and protection agencies using information related to a child or young person. At the time the provisions were originally introduced, there were concerns about the use of large amounts of data collected by welfare and health agencies about people and their interactions with them. However, the provisions placed an additional administrative burden on child welfare and protection agencies without achieving the level of public accountability envisaged.
Further, child welfare and protection agencies can now access a growing body of knowledge and evidence to assess wellbeing for strategic policy and operational purposes through the integrated data infrastructure. Most importantly, alternative safeguards and protections exist for when information is shared. These include the Statistics New Zealand and Privacy Commissioner's principles for safe and effective use of data and analytics, as well as the Social Wellbeing Agency's data protection and use policy. These initiatives are less administratively burdensome and allow for safe sharing of information while still ensuring that protections are in place when information is shared. These changes mean that section 66D is no longer needed.
Finally, the bill makes a number of minor and technical changes to the Act. These changes are part of work to tidy up an Act that is over 30 years old and has been subjected to a number of significant legislative amendments. These technical amendments are aimed at improving clarity, addressing omissions and ambiguous language in the Act. This bill is an important step to improve outcomes for children and young people. It signals the change in direction I want Oranga Tamariki to travel, to create a better path for our most at-risk children and young people. 
I wish to acknowledge the work of the former Minister for Children, the Hon Tracey Martin, who began the work on the partial repeal of subsequent child provisions. I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for continuation next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 December 2021.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 4.59 p.m.