TUESDAY, 7 JUNE 2022
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.





MOTIONS
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II—Platinum Jubilee
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the Queen's platinum jubilee.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move, That this House congratulate Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of the celebrations of her platinum jubilee.
On 26 June 1952, Prime Minister Sidney Holland informed the House of his attendance at events in London following the death of King George VI. On 6 February 1952, he said the following, "The Leader of the Opposition and I were privileged to attend the funeral of King Georg VI. Before that we had been present at the Accession Council in the Throne Room at St James's Palace where the Rt Hon Mr Nash and I were placed at the end of the front row of Ministers and other Privy Councillors privileged to be present. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition shared the deep feelings in my heart as our new and beloved Queen took her Oath of Accession, and as she signed her name for the first time: Elizabeth. And then she hesitated and she added for the first time, the letter 'R'. It crossed my mind that I was witnessing, in this company, history being written at that time, and I wondered how often that young hand will sign the same name in the days that lie ahead. I wondered at this historic occasion ushering in the new Elizabethan era. Let us all hope and pray that will come about."
On Friday, 3 June, we gathered in Wellington at the Cathedral of St Paul in a service of celebration to mark the Queen's platinum jubilee. I reflected at that time on the words of Prime Minister Sidney Holland and the fact that they proved to be prophetic. But even he may not have dared assume that he would experience the same sense of comfort and stability through challenge, through tragedy, and through change that has been provided by Her Majesty. This is the first time a British monarch has reached the milestone of 70 years, a platinum jubilee, and we acknowledge and celebrate her service with a sense of awe, reverence, and gratitude.
The Queen has encouraged anyone who wants to mark the jubilee to do so by planting trees. On 6 February this year, the 70th anniversary of the Queen's accession to the Throne, I announced that the Government on behalf of New Zealanders would make a donation of $1 million to Trees That Count, to assist with tree-planting programmes across the country to mark the jubilee. A popular short walk on Rakiura / Stewart Island will also be formally renamed in honour of Her Majesty's long reign. The track to Observation Rock from the settlement of Oban will be renamed the Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Path—also known as the Platinum Path for short.
On Sunday, 5 June in London, the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) and its taua, or warrior party, provided a uniquely New Zealand contribution to the British jubilee pageant when they took part in a parade of 2,000 military personnel near Buckingham Palace. The 40-strong NZDF group, led by six Māori warriors bearing traditional weapons and playing the role of runner scouts, raised, I'm told, a roar from the watching crowd.
Finally, yesterday, 187 New Zealanders were recognised for their service to the country in the Queen's Birthday and Platinum Jubilee honours list 2022. In honour of the jubilee, that list included two additional appointments to the Order of New Zealand, the country's highest honour: Sir Tipene O'Regan and Dame Silvia Cartwright, who were recognised for their extraordinary service to New Zealand.
These are but some of the small acknowledgments New Zealand has made of Her Majesty's incredible reign. Hers has been 70 years of service, for which we say ngā mihi nui ki a koe. Thank you, Your Majesty, Elizabeth R.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, it's a pleasure to join with the Prime Minister in celebrating the remarkable reign of the Queen of New Zealand, Elizabeth II, and join all the Commonwealth nations that celebrated her platinum jubilee this past weekend.
For seven decades, the Queen's unflinching dignity, compassion, and selflessness has given the Commonwealth a sense of security. The strength and stability of Her Majesty's reign has been a reassuring anchor in uncertain and changing times. Through both the tumultuous and the good, the Queen's leadership has embodied the values of duty, commitment, and strength over a lifetime of public service. 
This weekend's celebrations have shown the extraordinary affection for Her Majesty held by millions of people across the globe. A personal highlight for me from the weekend was that at 96 years old, the Queen took part in a light-hearted moment that brought laughter to the world, banging a teaspoon and cup to the beat of "We Will Rock You". 
On behalf of the New Zealand National Party, I congratulate Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand, and I echo the words of Paddington Bear: happy jubilee, ma'am, and thank you for everything.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, I would like to again acknowledge Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for her 70 years of public service. I note that this House has already marked the occasion of Her Majesty's platinum jubilee on 9 February this year, so I won't indulge the House's time and patience by repeating what I said then, other than to wish her all the very best of British.  





NICOLE McKEE (ACT): On behalf of ACT, I rise to also congratulate the Queen on reaching her platinum 70-year jubilee. She is the world's longest reigning monarch and she has brought, with her identity, the expectation that New Zealand will also live in a regime of democracy and freedoms that she has reigned over, over the last 70 years. She is a stalwart who has always given to the people, and at her accession in 1952 she said there is one thing I can give you all and that is my heart, and for that we are very, very grateful. We also note that nearly 86 percent of the people polled in England still support the Queen, and that's because she has given 70 years of her life in industry to help us all achieve betterment for our countries in a free and democratic society. So on behalf of the ACT Party, we too congratulate the Queen on reaching her 70th jubilee and we hope that she reigns for many years more.
Motion agreed to.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. 
CLERK: Petition of Te Paati Māori, requesting that the House change the country's official name to Aotearoa, and begin a process to identify and officially restore the te reo Māori names for all towns, cities, and places by 2026petition of Tara Jackson, requesting that the House pass legislation that provides for scientific institutions to transition from animal-based methods to non - animal-based methods for research, testing, and teaching purposes, wherever possible. 
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Ministers have delivered papers. 
CLERK: Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited Statement of Performance Expectations 2022-2023, and Statement of Intent 2023-2027Lottery Grants Board Annual Report 2020-2021.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. 
CLERK: Report of the Environment Committee on the petition of Karli ThomasReports of the Regulations Review Committee on:the complaint about exemption to Maritime rule 53.4(2)(a), the complaint about the Fisheries (Hector's and Māui Dolphin) Amendment Regulations 2020, and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 4) 2022.
SPEAKER: The reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.
The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. 
CLERK: Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill, introduction. 
SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading. 





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Police
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Welcome back, and I hope you won't mind me saying we all thought that your deputy did such an excellent job in your absence. My question—
SPEAKER: Does the member want supplementaries?
DAVID SEYMOUR: Absolutely.
SPEAKER: Well, get on with the question.
1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Police: I was being kind in the hope of getting more! Does she stand by her statement, "It's easy to use throwaway lines like 'soft on crime' in this space. It's a very gendered statement"; if so, what other statements does she stand by?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Yes, and I stand by the full context of all my statements.
David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement "I applaud the work that the Police are doing" about a Police report that says "Imperialism has instilled a legacy of eurocentrism, neo-liberalism, and white supremacy" and that "that had become a core component of policing delivery in the criminal justice system."; if so, how will that research help people keep safe on the streets and in their homes?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I do stand by my statements, and I also stand by statements by notables such as Jarrod Gilbert, who say, "Any work that is to be done in the policing state and to deal with organised crime must be evidence-based."
David Seymour: What evidence was she relying on when she agreed with that statement?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Can I just say that I refer back to Jarrod Gilbert's comments and statements where he says that "In order to do good policing and to be tough on crime, we should not politicise."
David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement that Te Pae Oranga, a programme which allows offenders to avoid prosecution, strengthens the Government's "commitment to the Crown Māori relationship", and, if so, when will she strengthen her commitment to the victims of crime?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I do stand by that statement. Te Pae Oranga is a fantastic programme which has Kingi Tūheitia as its patron. If it is good enough for Kingi Tūheitia to support a programme that diverts our young people out of the criminal justice system, I think it's pretty damn good.
David Seymour: Does she agree with the Police Commissioner's statement that "The 10 years before the policy change, we killed 60 people through police pursuits.", or does she agree with front-line police officers who say they joined the Police to catch crims, not watch their tail lights disappear into the night?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I agree with my statement, which is that "64 people lost their lives in police pursuits, and since the change in policy, no one has."
David Seymour: Do you believe that New Zealand Police officers are racist and, if not, why does she engage in so much identity politics and wokeism instead of setting them free to actually catch crims—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No. That question's out of order.
Hon Michael Wood: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: Is it a point of order?
Hon Michael Wood: Supplementary. Does she stand by the Government's policy of supporting the operational dependence of the Police and of the Police Commissioner?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Absolutely. One hundred percent.
David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement that "I'm speaking for the Māori and Pacific communities, for whom their interactions with Police over the years have not been that great.", or would she correct herself and say she speaks for all New Zealanders, particularly the victims of crime?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I stand by my statement that Māori and Pasifika are disproportionately impacted, and that's why I support the Police in the work that they are doing to ensure that they understand why they stop, why they charge, and why they arrest Māori and Pasifika numbers that are disproportionate. That is a grown-up response by the Police to look at their practice, and I applaud that.




Question No. 2—Finance
2. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): New Zealand's strong economic and financial position has been recognised by Moody's Investors Service. In its annual credit analysis released yesterday, the credit rating agency notes that New Zealand has very strong institutions, sustained policy effectiveness, and a healthy fiscal position relative to its peers. They say that the New Zealand Government has a strong track record of managing shocks through effective fiscal policy while demonstrating fiscal discipline over the long term, and that they expect this to continue. They also highlight New Zealand's ongoing economic performance relative to its peers, and that the strong economic recovery illustrates New Zealand's resilience to the pandemic shock. While the output remains volatile, New Zealand finds itself in a good position to support New Zealanders as they deal with the challenges arising from the global energy crisis, supply chain disruptions, and the ongoing pandemic. 
Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The construction sector is supporting our recovery. Statistics New Zealand reported on Friday that the volume of building activity rose 3.2 percent in the March quarter, following on from a 9 percent jump in the previous December quarter. Residential construction rose 3.5 percent, while industrial and commercial building activity increased 2.7 percent. Statistics New Zealand also reported last week that annual building consents rose 18.1 percent to 50,583 compared with the previous year, only the second time ever that it has been over the 50,000 mark. Economists are expecting the momentum in the construction sector to continue despite the challenging environment that they are facing. 
Ingrid Leary: What do the reports say about challenges facing the construction sector?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Westpac's economists say that businesses show that continued demand in building activity is happening over 2022, but staff and materials constraints are limiting the extent of the industry to respond further to current elevated levels. The Government has been working together with the construction sector through the construction accord on critical supply chain resilience, working on construction sector product dependencies from off shore, and options to mitigate further disruptions. We've also continued to invest in trade training and apprenticeships, which in the last two years has seen over 190,000 people benefit. We also want to make sure that Kiwis get access to fair price building materials, and that's driven the Government's decision to review the residential building supply market. The Commerce Commission is investigating any factors that might affect competition for supply or acquisition of key building supplies, and that will report back at the end of the year. 




Question No. 3—Prime Minister
3. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Welcome back to both you and the Prime Minister. Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government's work to increase incomes and support New Zealand families, including bringing in a short-term cost of living payment for about 2.1 million Kiwis to help with the impact of rising prices as part of a cost of living package; increased income support and indexed to wages, helping to make more than 100,000 families an average of $175 a week better off since 2017; increasing the minimum wage by over a third; increasing the family tax credit and accommodation supplement; the introduction of the winter energy payment and Best Start payment; the introduction of free, healthy lunches in schools; the removal of school donations; and the expansion of free and low-cost doctors visits. 
David Seymour: Speech. 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have consistently acknowledged that 2022 is going to be a challenging year for New Zealanders as the global energy crisis, supply chain constraints, and the ongoing pandemic push up inflation around the world. However, this work puts us in a strong position to deal with this challenging and uncertain environment, one that will improve. 
SPEAKER: Order! Before I allow the member to have his supplementary question, I just want to make it clear that when members ask about whether someone stands by all of the Government's actions, that's exactly what it means. 
Christopher Luxon: Can she confirm her finance Minister has overspent every operating allowance he has set himself for five Budgets in a row? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I'd reflect on is what you've seen in the way that we have focused on our fiscal responsibility. It's not too different to what you've seen from previous finance Ministers when it comes to operating allowances. What I would also point out is that if you're looking for comparisons in terms of spending as a proportion of GDP, the Labour Government has been very similar to a National Government through the global financial crisis (GFC). In fact, we returned to surplus a year earlier despite what many would argue is the COVID pandemic having a much greater economic impact. 
Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that despite the finance Minister being a particularly modest individual, he has overseen—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! 
Hon Grant Robertson: You can't have irony? 
SPEAKER: No irony here. Any further supplementaries? Question No.—no, it's not. 
Christopher Luxon: Does she expect to overspend next year's operating allowance as well? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, we have already set out the operating allowance, so I would note that Treasury has already also stipulated that, actually, in terms of increasing costs that are likely to be seen by some of our agencies and departments, we're looking at somewhere in the range of $3.5 billion that will be required to continue to operate as we stand. 
Christopher Luxon: What year does she plan to return to surplus? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've said—one year earlier than the National Government did with the GFC—in 2024-25. 
Christopher Luxon: Can she confirm that non-COVID Government spending has increased by almost 10 percent per year since 2020? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, here I reflect on the traditional comparisons we use as a percentage of GDP. We spent less in 2021 and 2020 as a percentage than National did in 2009 and 2010, and that is in spite of what many would argue is a more significant economic crisis. I would also throw this back here, because, of course, what members of the public will be interested in is how the Opposition intends to fulfil all of their promises to the electorate. We have set out that our priority is supporting New Zealanders as we recover from COVID. The cost of—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! It's gone beyond what the Prime Minister is responsible for. 
Christopher Luxon: What does she believe is the relationship between record levels of Government spending and record increases in interest rates? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, right now the focus has been from the Opposition side on whether or not the spending that we have put forward in our Budget—which has both focused on supporting New Zealanders through targeted measures around the cost of living, so as not to have an inflationary impact, and investing in health services. He will have already seen the Governor of the Reserve Bank say that what we have spent in our focus has been "small beer" relative to what we are experiencing in the global environment, and the inflation rates of other countries right now speaks for itself. New Zealand is sitting down closer to the lower quarter with our inflation rates relative to the rest of the world. The OECD is at 9.2 percent. The member cannot argue that this is specifically down to the New Zealand Government's spending. 
Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that record levels of Government spending when inflation is already at a 30-year high means higher interest rates and higher mortgage costs for tens of thousands of Kiwi families, and, if not, why not? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, the member himself has proposed tax cuts for the highest-income earners, which are unquestionably inflationary and do not help the lowest-income earners. As an alternative, we have focused on a cost of living package that, because it is targeted, not only offers higher levels of support for lower and middle income New Zealanders but also is less likely to have an inflationary impact. That is what you do when you're a Government focused on those who need support the most and on not making the problem worse. 
Christopher Luxon: What impact, if any, does she believe consistently spending more than promised and running deficits in an overheated economy will have on the cost of living crisis? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I have referred back time and time again, what the member is arguing does not square with what we are seeing internationally: supply chain constraints, simultaneous COVID recovery, the war in Ukraine. That is why we are having this experience, and I again refer to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, when asked specifically about Government spending: it's "relatively small beer compared to all the other drivers that are going on." The member on the opposite side ignores our international reality; we have not. That is why we are focused on New Zealanders and supporting them to get through the tough international environment we're in. 




Question No. 4—Police
4. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What announcements has she made regarding the roll-out of the Tactical Response Model?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): As part of Budget 2022, I announced the $185 million nationwide roll-out of the tactical response model. This is a vital step forward in the improvement of police front-line safety and builds on the $45 million investment we made into front-line safety last year. The tactical response model will ensure that police are well trained, well equipped, and well supported to keep themselves and communities they serve safer. One of the key parts of the model is that it will give police better access to tactical options when required, while maintaining a routinely unarmed police service.
Ginny Andersen: What does this mean for the front-line capabilities for New Zealand police?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As one front-line police officer put it, "Yesterday was one of the scariest days of my front-line career. But the tactical response model training helped me feel like I had the skills to get through it safely." Budget 2022's investment into rolling out the tactical response model is one of the largest investments in police front-line safety ever. The model will see a significant shift in the front-line capabilities of our police, including more than doubling the current tactical training for front-line staff from 3½ to 7½ days a year, the deployment of tactical prevention teams with advanced armed offenders squad - level training to undertake search warrants in high risk situations, and the double crewing of tactical dog teams.
Ginny Andersen: How has the tactical response model been further developed?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The $45 million investment we made into front-line safety last year allowed the tactical response model to be trialled across four police districts: Northland, Counties Manukau, Waikato, and Central. Police have engaged with staff, iwi, and the wider community to gain feedback to support any refinements which would ensure success of this model in practice. Public feedback was welcomed over a four-week engagement period as we want to make sure this works in our communities. This feedback will help inform police roll out the model across the country.




Question No. 5—Finance
5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with ANZ that "Domestic inflation pressures are likely to last for a considerable time"; and if so, when does he expect domestic inflation to return below 3 percent?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I've said a number of times in recent months, I agree that inflation pressures are persisting in New Zealand, as they are in a number of countries around the world. I note that the quote the member references is in a commentary piece where the ANZ expects New Zealand's Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation rate to peak at 7 percent. For context, the average CPI inflation rate for the OECD hit an annual rate of 8.8 percent in March and 9.2 percent in April. These high global inflation rates are contributing to New Zealand's CPI inflation rate, which was 6.9 percent at the latest reading for the year to March. To answer the second part of the member's question, inflation is measured in New Zealand on the basis of CPI. That is forecast by the Reserve Bank to return to 3 percent in the September 2023 quarter.
Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his May statement that "the short term challenge of inflation is significant"; if so, how does he define the short term?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, it certainly is significant, and New Zealanders are facing that every time they go to the supermarket and every time they go to the petrol pump. The Reserve Bank uses an average over time measure for inflation—over the medium term—but certainly across this year we are seeing significant pressures for New Zealanders from inflation.
Nicola Willis: Is he aware that according to forecasts from the Reserve Bank and the Treasury, non-tradable or domestic inflation is expected to remain above 3 percent until at least 2025; and why does the Minister persist in blaming international inflation solely on global factors?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member would be wise to think about what non-tradable inflation is and what domestic inflation is; we have a thing called CPI which includes tradables and non-tradables. Consistently in New Zealand's history, non-tradables have exceeded tradables. We've had a period where that's been in reverse but it's now going back the other way. The non-tradable inflation is severely influenced by global factors—for example, housing, which is regarded as a non-tradable. One of the biggest components of the increase in housing costs in the last quarter was building materials, which is caused by the supply chain constraints from overseas. 
Nicola Willis: Well, does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor that "scarcity of labour is the number one constraint on economic activity"; and if so, is he concerned that Immigration New Zealand's failures to process visas is adding to New Zealand's cost of living crisis?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has announced our immigration rebalance, we have the borders opening in July, and there is a forecast for net migration to reach 24,000 by the end of next year, so we will see more workers coming in. But this is a result of COVID. And members on the other side of the House might like to forget about COVID or rewrite history, but the truth is that the way we closed our borders has allowed New Zealand to get through COVID better than almost any country in the world, and that is both from a health and economic point of view. 
Nicola Willis: Has he seen the Auckland Business Chamber's recent State of Play Survey, which concludes, "small and medium businesses are reeling, with no alternative but to raise prices to counter the acceleration and overhead costs and a crippling shortage of essential skills needed to keep business moving"; and does he accept that skills shortages are a driver of inflation?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We on this side of the House understand that to get through COVID, small businesses had to work extremely hard, and I'm very proud of the fact that we supported them. In 2020 over 60 percent of jobs were supported by the wage subsidy scheme. In 2021 47 percent of jobs were supported by the wage subsidy scheme. We are working to make sure that businesses can access the skilled staff they need, and through the course of the pandemic we have trained more New Zealanders to be able to work as well. This is a global situation. New Zealand's economic performance is regarded by the likes of Moody's as being very strong compared to our peers. I'll listen to those advisers rather than the member on that matter.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that one of the reasons that New Zealand has a skills shortage is a lack of investment in skills and trade training, and that under this Government we've seen a 55 percent increase in apprentices since the pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I can, and the Government's Apprenticeship Boost initiative that supported employers, particularly small and medium enterprises, to keep their apprentices on stands in contrast to the previous Government, who, after the global financial crisis, abandoned apprentices to the point that many of them lost their job. I'm extremely proud of the fact that our Apprenticeship Boost initiative and our trade training initiative means that 190,000 New Zealanders have benefited from trade training and free apprenticeships. 
Nicola Willis: Does he agree with ANZ senior economist Miles Workman that households are going backwards financially as inflation outpaces income growth, and how does he explain why ANZ's consumer confidence survey shows, despite the Minister's repeated claims of a strong economy, most Kiwis are expecting bad financial times in the next 12 months?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member can't work out what she wants, because, in the House last week, she was criticising the Government for the fact that wages weren't keeping up with inflation. She's now concerned about the fact that wages might actually rise, because the ANZ report that her primary question comes from forecasts that the largest wage rises since 2009 are on their way for New Zealander workers; 2022 is the only year in the forecast where inflation outpaces wage growth.
Nicola Willis: How does the Minister explain why our nearest neighbour, Australia, has inflation far, far lower than New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The two economies are extremely different. But if I can point the member to this chart—[Holds up graph showing various countries' inflation rates]—which actually shows that New Zealand's inflation rate is in the lower quarter of the OECD, and our economy and our recovery from COVID puts New Zealand in one of the strongest positions we can possibly have to support New Zealanders through this. I do note that the member is now campaigning against the wage increases that New Zealanders are expected to have next year. We will remember that.
Chris Bishop: Nice try, clever clogs!
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What—what did you say?
Tangi Utikere: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Associate—
SPEAKER: Sorry. I can see offence has been taken, but unless someone takes a point of order, I didn't hear the comment that was allegedly made. If someone feels that they should apologise and get it over with rather than me having to come back to it, I'd be happy with that. Right. Question No. 6—Tangi Utikere.




Question No. 6—Health (Māori Health)
6. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. What additional support will Budget 2022 provide to help protect Māori and Pacific people from bowel cancer?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Alongside my ministerial colleague the Hon Aupito William Sio, we announced over $36 million across four years to shift the starting age for bowel screening from 60 years old to 50 years old for Māori and Pacific people. We know if cancer is detected early and treated earlier, our people have a better chance of survival, and the current age for screening misses Māori and Pacific people who need it the most. We are proud on this side to introduce bowel screening earlier, which will save lives and continue to rise to the inequities that have been long suffered in the health system.
Tangi Utikere: How significant is this announcement for Māori and Pacific people?
Hon PEENI HENARE: The $36 million investment is significant, but preventing the death of our Māori and Pacific whānau means so much more. A higher proportion of bowel cancer occurs in Māori and Pacific peoples before they reach the age of 60, at approximately 21 percent compared to 10 percent for non-Māori and non-Pacific peoples. This investment will ensure that the screening system reflects these statistics. This announcement will mean about 60,000 more of our whānau will be invited to access screening every year. Our people deserve to live longer and have healthier lives, which is why this Government is committed to making services like bowel screening fairer by lowering the screening age.
Tangi Utikere: What reaction has he seen from health practitioners about providing additional support through Budget 2022 to shift the starting age for bowel screening for Māori and Pacific people?
Hon PEENI HENARE: I've received only positive feedback about this announcement. Medical Director of the New Zealand College of General Practitioners, Dr Bryan Betty, stated on Saturday Morning with Jack Tame that lowering the bowel screening age to 50 for Māori and Pacific peoples levels things out and is the right thing to do. Bowel Cancer New Zealand medical adviser and senior Māori health researcher Professor Sue Crengle stated that extending the age range is really transformational because it means we will have the same opportunity to benefit from that programme as non-Māori and non-Pacific people.




Question No. 7—Police
7. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "There is no doubt that our communities are feeling some incredible distress with the recent activities"; if so, does she believe gang tensions have increased under her watch?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second, on Friday I was briefed by Superintendent Jill Rogers in Auckland on the recent tensions between two gangs. Police have launched a major disruption and suppression operation in response to these tensions, which have so far resulted in 22 search warrants, supported by the armed offenders squad; 22 arrests; 37 charges laid; and 10 firearms seized, along with 300 rounds of ammunition.
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second leg of that question was, "Does she believe gang tensions have increased under her watch?" I do not believe the Minister actually answered that question.
SPEAKER: Well, she certainly addressed it.
Hon Mark Mitchell: How many gang-related shooting incidents have occurred in the last two weeks?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I understand that there have been 22, 23 drive-by shootings.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Would 22 or 23—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! People should not interject when their own member's asking a supplementary.
Hon Mark Mitchell: —drive-by shootings be indicative of a rise in gang tensions?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I've said before, it's incredibly distressing that our communities are facing this, but the Police are working diligently at pace to get on top of this particular issue. I support them, and they are supported by this Government: record investment, record training, and record numbers of police on the beat. Imagine what it would be like if we still had the numbers that the National Party left us.
Hon Mark Mitchell: What does she say to the 68.3 percent of Kiwis that think that she is soft on crime, and does she think that result is reflective of the fact that she won't accept that gang tensions have increased under her watch?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I say, we've had gang tensions as a feature of our community for well over 50 years. I support comments like those of Jarrod Gilbert, who say that you shouldn't politicise the work of the police. Also, I support the fact that whatever you do should be evidence-based. The community has a role to play in these episodes in that if they know they have information, they should be sharing that with the Police. They can do so anonymously—0800 555 111; Crime Stoppers. The Police would welcome any information that the community has.
Hon Stuart Nash: In recognition of the gang and organised crime issue, did the Minister manage to get any support to address these issues in Budget 2022?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, we did: an extra $94 million, on top of the record investment we have made in the Police Force this Budget, but also building on the $450 million that we made in previous Budgets.
Hon Mark Mitchell: In light of the enormous amount of investment the Minister and this Government is making, why have we had 23 drive-by shootings in the last two weeks?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That member may feel that he wants to criticise New Zealand Police and the diligent work that they are doing, but I stand by them every single day of the week. I was in Auckland, talking to the team that is leading the operation, and they are working diligently and they are working hard. They are going into some very dangerous situations. That member should be backing police, like I do.




Question No. 8—Transport
8. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: What recent updates has he received on transport infrastructure projects?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): It's all go in the transport space thanks to our Government's commitment to upgrading crucial transport infrastructure to make it safer and more efficient, now and for future generations, to travel around our communities and regions. For example, I recently joined members of the Franklin community to review the Glenbrook roundabout on State Highway 22, which has just seen the completion of the last major milestone of that project. The roundabout is a futureproofing project and is expected to be used by over 21,000 vehicles a day. It's making State Highway 22 significantly safer by reducing speed and eliminating a dangerous turn that large trucks previously had to navigate on the former intersection, and community members were very pleased.
Shanan Halbert: What progress is being made on green transport infrastructure?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As a Government, we're committed to walking the talk on climate change by making our transport network more sustainable and supporting people to transition to lower carbon-emitting forms of transport. This weekend, I attended the opening of the New Lynn to Avondale shared path in Auckland, which connects communities through shorter links between schools, town centres, and public transport. The shared path links to Auckland's growing and comprehensive network of shared paths, including the Waterview shared path; the Northwestern cycleway; city centre networks; and, of course, the new cycle path over the Tamaki river to the electorate of Pakuranga. As more people travel around on bikes and by walking, we'll see reduced traffic congestion, reduced emissions, and healthier communities.
Shanan Halbert: How will investment in transport infrastructure help secure New Zealand's economic future?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: By delivering on projects such as Penlink, Auckland light rail, the Manawatū-Tararua Highway, the Mount Messenger bypass, the Cromwell State Highway safety improvements, and the ones I've mentioned will help to address New Zealand's current and longstanding infrastructure deficit, will improve road safety outcomes, and will contribute to jobs around the country. When we took office, infrastructure spending stood at $32.5 billion; Budget 2022 lifts it to $61.9 billion from 2022 to 2026. Our Government is committed to plugging the infrastructure deficit and planning for growth in our country while reducing carbon emissions.




Question No. 9—Agriculture
9. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (remote) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does the Government have any plans to regulate winter grazing over this winter, to avoid cows up to their hocks in mud with nowhere comfortable to rest; if not, why not?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture) (remote): [Audio issue].
SPEAKER: Turn your mute off, Damien.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It's up to your staff. I thought your staff were doing that, Mr Speaker. In 2019, I appointed an independent task force to look into this issue, and they made recommendations on what farmers needed to do to improve their winter grazing conditions. Key recommendations included that intensive winter grazing should only be used where it's suited to the land and the stock class, it can be well-managed, winter grazing contracts and farm management plans must be used—
SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr O'Connor. There's a bit of hilarity happening on both sides of the House. There's a suggestion you're in your pyjamas.
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Well—ha, ha! Mr Speaker, we're out in the provinces here. We don't need a suit—we don't need a suit out here, Mr Speaker. Winter grazing is also regulated by the Animal Welfare Act and freshwater farm regulations. In addition to these safeguards that will be in place this winter, we're strengthening the rules for intensive winter grazing from 1 November this year; that will make it more practical for farmers and better protection for both the environmental and animal welfare outcomes.
Teanau Tuiono: Supplementary. Can I also confirm that I'm not in my pyjamas, Mr Speaker, but my supplementary is did the—
SPEAKER: Well, I think it's traditional wear for people who have got COVID, so he's OK.
Teanau Tuiono: All right. OK. Well, I'll remember that next time. Supplementary: did the agriculture sector support further delays of intensive winter grazing regulations over winter 2022, and if so, is he confident our agriculture industry is committed enough to adopt best-practice environmental protection and animal welfare measures in the 21st century?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Absolutely. The delay in implementation of the intensive winter grazing regulations was to ensure that they were practical, that farmers could implement them, and that the outcomes that we sought could be achieved. This timing allows the crop to be planted in the right place to ensure the best winter grazing practice for 2023. On top of that, this Budget allocated $30 million additional for animal welfare compliance, so the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) people will be out on the ground ensuring that best winter grazing practice occurs this winter.
Teanau Tuiono: Will MPI help ensure that technical guidance of the new regulations is available by mid-2022, and if not, does he see a risk that action on winter grazing could be delayed for even longer?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No. Farmers now have to abide by the Animal Welfare Act, which ensures that they must maintain adequate standards of protection, shelter, water, and lie in places that are not muddy—excessively muddy—for animals. So the current law protects those animals. In addition to the advisory services that we have, $50 million on top of the $30 million for animal welfare has been provided in Budget 2022 to ensure that farmers have access to good advice and guidance for best farming practice, which includes winter grazing. 
Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister agree that New Zealand agriculture being viewed as slow on the uptake of modern environmental climate and animal welfare measures is bad for the long-term sustainability of New Zealand's export revenue, and if not, why not?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: If that was indeed the perception, I would agree, but in fact the RSPCA has recently put out a report saying that New Zealand's animal welfare standards surpass those of the UK, which they maintain are the highest in the world. So while there'll always be room for improvement, I would advocate and say that most farm practice maintains the highest animal welfare standards. There are, of course, always exceptions, and for those farms and farming operations that don't meet those high standards, we have to check up on and prosecute where necessary.
Mark Cameron: Does the Minister accept that winter grazing practices are nuanced, and laws should be tailored to acknowledge regulatory practices, given consideration that there are variations like acknowledging local topography, variations in soil aggregate, and seasonal rainfall variations, and if so, will he return such regulatory powers to local councils as per my member's bill? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I absolutely agree that every single farm and every single farm system will be unique—bespoke, I think is the trendy word. We have to ensure that the regulations laid down maintain high animal welfare standards regardless of the farm systems in place, but I think it's quite clear in working with the local councils that we can be sufficiently flexible to ensure that the highest standards of animal welfare and environmental regulations can be maintained while allowing for flexibility. I'm not convinced that it requires a separate piece of legislation; the existing laws provide that flexibility—implementing them is the challenge that we all have. 
Teanau Tuiono: What is his view on academic findings recently published in a journal that "Although it is a widely held belief that New Zealand dairy farming is the most effective and environmentally sustainable in the world, this is not true."
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I'd have to say that our animal welfare standards and our production systems are some of the most natural and regenerative in the world; however, they're not perfect. What we are attempting to do—by support of the new research and development and new support for regenerative discussion groups, ever-improving practices across our farm systems—is become the best farmers for the world. We have a unique farming system in New Zealand. I think it is one of the best in the world; we'll continue to improve it as needed. 
Teanau Tuiono: Can the Minister sympathise with those across Aotearoa who believe that our agriculture sector is not pulling its weight to improve animal welfare outcomes, reduce emissions, clean up our rivers, and restore biodiversity, and if not, why not?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I don't agree that we're not pulling our weight. I think these are complex biological systems and there's a huge amount of capital investment—change does take some time. I think between the Minister for the Environment, between myself, and the Government, we're giving clear signals that we must improve across areas of fresh water quality, animal welfare, and sustainability. So I think we're making good progress and the last Budget gave sufficient resources to assist us more quickly along that path. 




Question No. 10—Pacific Peoples
10. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What recent announcement has the Government made about supporting Pacific peoples and home ownership?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Last month, as part of Budget 2022, I announced the Government's Pacific package of $196 million. That includes a housing programme to build up to 300 homes over the next 10 years for Pacific families in Porirua East, with initial funding of $49 million in the forecast period. This Government's commitment to homeownership for Pacific families will see it deliver on more affordable and sustainable housing for Pacific families by partnering with local iwi and Ngati Toa, and a key Pacific housing provider in the Porirua area, by Pacific and for Pacific families. Over the next year, the Central Pacific Collective, Ngati Toa, in consultation with Kāinga Ora, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and Treasury will ensure a comprehensive business case meets the criteria of the Government's Pacific wellbeing approach.
Barbara Edmonds: Is this the first example of iwi and Pasifika working together for Pasifika homeownership?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Yes. This is the first partnership between Pacific peoples and iwi to build affordable homes for Pacific families, but certainly not the last. We know that Pacific communities want to own their own homes, and this is the reason why in Budget 2022 we plan to partner with Ngati Toa and the Central Pacific Collective in Porirua to build these homes dedicated to Pacific families in Porirua East. These 300 homes will be built over the next 10 years through Our Whare Our Fale, an innovative Pasifika housing initiative that will be developed with Ngati Toa and delivered by the Central Pacific Collective and this Government. The chair of the Central Pacific Collective said that "Pasefika people experience inequitable outcomes across nearly every measure. Providing high-quality, affordable housing will improve wellbeing and help Pasefika people to build inter-generational wealth and independence."
Barbara Edmonds: Why is homeownership so important to Pacific families?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: A Salvation Army report in October 2019 called the "Housing Crisis in Aotearoa Facing Pasifika People in Aotearoa" said that more than 70 percent of Pacific people in Auckland were renting. In another report called "Housing in Aotearoa: 2020", it shows that in 2018, Māori and Pacific peoples were less likely to own their own home or hold it in a family trust than any other ethnic group, and were also more likely to live in public housing. That same report concluded that the decline in homeownership has occurred unevenly since the 1990s, with greater falls for Māori and Pacific peoples and in the Auckland region, where the largest number of Pacific people live. Social housing has allowed our families to have a roof over their head, but this generation wants to own that roof and build intergenerational wealth for them and their children, as the generation before them had done. We cannot create intergenerational wealth through social housing, and why this initial project, partnering with Ngati Toa and the Central Pacific Collective, is so critical. We are literally building the template for homeownership for Pacific families for generations to come, by working with iwi and starting in Porirua East. I want to assure everyone in the House that this is just the beginning of a valued partnership between iwi, Pacific peoples, Government, and affordable housing for our families. I also want to acknowledge and thank the arohatanga and the manaakitanga of Ngati Toa for supporting Pacific aspirations.




Question No. 11—Local Government
11. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: Which councils, if any, have expressed opposition to her on the Governments proposed Three Waters reforms?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Periodically throughout the reform process, councils have spoken in favour of and against aspects of the three waters reform. At the heart of councils' concerns have been the issues of governance, representation, ownership, and local voice. That's why I accepted the majority of recommendations made by the independent working group on representation, including a shareholding plan to ensure greater community say. The reality is that 500,000 New Zealanders each year have to boil their drinking water. We're well past the point for change. The status quo is unacceptable, and the Government is working to improve the quality of water, the health of our environment, and a financially sustainable way of funding waters infrastructure.
Simon Watts: Is one of the reasons why councils oppose the reforms because in Entity B they only have seven seats between 22 councils on the regional representative group?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: There have been a number of concerns in relation to the regional representative group, but I can assure you that the working group and the changes that they recommended to strengthen the regional representative group have been taken on board, and what they have highlighted is that that group at a strategic level can guide the work of the water services entities to achieve those regional and sub-regional outcomes and to improve community outcomes in terms of waters infrastructure, safe drinking water, and the like.
Simon Watts: Under the proposed reforms, how can councils affect decision making when decisions require a 75 percent majority and councils only hold 50 percent of the votes on these regional representative groups?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That voting threshold only takes place on questions of a merger or the divestment of assets, and just to recall, the position of the Government is that we will safeguard against privatisation and ensure that we have a public model of water service delivery. I don't think that member can give that guarantee.
Simon Watts: Is one of the reasons why councils oppose these reforms because they have "no right, title or interest, [legal or equitable] in the assets, security, debts, or liabilities of a water services entity"?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That member fails to understand that the model that we are proposing is a public model of water service delivery. So in creating a shareholding interest, it is to ensure there is a threshold that enables councils to have a say on the most significant decision, which will be the question of a merger or the divestment of assets. In fact, that member can't give the same assurances. Our Government's commitment is to safeguard against privatisation.
Simon Watts: So under the proposed three waters reforms, why are water service entities a body corporate?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It's outlined in much of the information that we've got, but we have set up stand-alone water service entities enabled to ensure that they have the right structure and strategic ability to undertake their role and, actually, have balance sheet separation to ensure that they can financially invest in waters infrastructure.




Question No.12—Prime Minister
12. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and policies?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.
David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement on Stephen Colbert in relation to dangerous firearms "so we got rid of them"; if so, is she aware there were about 20 gang shootings—even the Parliamentary Library could not give a precise number—while she was out of the country?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member fails to acknowledge the context in which I made those statements, which were a reference, firstly, to military-style semi-automatic weapons, which I would hope that this House would continue to support the removal of tens of thousands of from circulation, and the continual removal of them, given they are now prohibited. Secondly, I've also acknowledged publicly, multiple times, that New Zealand still has work to do. That is why, in this year alone, over 500 firearms have been seized by the police. In just the last week, they have seized firearms as part of their operations around the recent escalation of gang tensions. It is why we also have a firearms unit now within the Police, and we are working on, of course, the register, which the Police Association themselves have said will make a significant difference. I would welcome the support of that member, given his concern over gun crime. 
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement this morning that she was open to the idea of increasing the civil asset forfeiture regime for gangs using guns; and, if so, why did the Government not adopt ACT's member's bill that would have done just that, just two weeks ago? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be aware that we've already been public about the work that we're doing on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, which is about continuing to put pressure on organised crime, through the seizure of assets, where they're unable to demonstrate they've been obtained through legitimate funds. We are continuing to work through some of the detail on that and any additional measures which, of course, as I said this morning, we'd be looking to put more detail out in the near future. We've also said that we're open-minded and continue to work on other measures that we believe will make a difference. Here, let me be clear: the suggestion in this House that the tension between the Tribesmen and the Killer Beez is somehow to do with a Labour Government is patently wrong. Do we have tensions in our communities right now? Yes, but show me an area where we have watered down law, when we have done the opposite. We've increased police, we've increased the tactical response model, we have seized assets, and we have seized guns. I would prefer a conversation in this House that is pragmatic about doing something that makes a difference, rather than political pot-shots that do nothing to keep our communities safer or support our police. 
David Seymour: Well, to the Prime Minister, if the problem hasn't been caused by the Government's policies, how can she possibly take the credit for her Government's actions then going to solve it?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is somehow claiming that we, for instance, shouldn't have banned military-style semi-automatic weapons, that is for him. If the member doesn't support, for instance, a gun register when the police and Police Association have asked for it for years; if he doesn't support firearm prevention orders—which, I note, the National Party put up twice in 2014 and again, I believe, in 2016 and failed to pass—which we are now putting before this House; if the member supports none of those things, that is for him. Are they going to solve everything? No, but they are all progress in making sure that people are safer. 
David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister tell the House on what date her Government will introduce a new bill to reform civil asset forfeiture laws and take gangs funds; and, if not, can she tell the House how many of gangs' illegally imported forearms will be on her new register? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member made the same argument about banning military-style semi-automatic weapons. I disagreed with him then, and I disagree with him now. If he believes that this country is not safer for having taken 60,000 weapons out of circulation, then that is for the member. I personally believe it has made a difference, as has removing 500 weapons out of the hands of those who would chose to use them for illegal use. The gun register also helps the police track the ownership and movement of guns that are stolen or illegally sold. Now, again, if the Police Association claim that this is going to make a difference, then I would be inclined to believe them. 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before the member asks the next supplementary, I am going to ask the Opposition to be quieter in their response, and I'm going to implore Mr Goldsmith not to repeat his action.  
David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister just try to tell New Zealanders they should be glad the situation is not even worse than 23 drive-by shootings in the last fortnight?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No; what I'm stating is that if the member believes things would be better by not having a gun register, firearm prevention orders, or 60,000 military-style semi-automatic weapons in circulation, that is for him. We have not done anything to encourage, entice, or incentivise what is clearly illegal criminal behaviour by gangs currently in New Zealand. What we have done is increased—
Nicole McKee: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —I haven't finished—the number of Police who are available—
SPEAKER: Now, I'm going to warn the member before she starts her point of order that this must be a real point of order and not a disagreement with an answer. If the member's standing up to disagree with an answer, then she is being disorderly, and, if she does it now, she's being deliberately disorderly. Does the member want to continue?
Nicole McKee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister referred to 60,000 military-style semi-automatics that had been removed, and this House has already corrected that figure. The incorrect figure has been—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. She will now stand and apologise. She is disagreeing with an answer after a specific warning not to. If she was a more experienced member, she would be out of the House. 
Nicole McKee: I apologise, Mr Speaker.
David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that the official cash rate (OCR) rose a further 0.5 percent while she was out of the country, raising the cost of servicing a half-million-dollar mortgage by $250 a week in the past year, and, if she is aware, what—
SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to get the member to start his question again—he'll sit down—and to make sure that it's accurate. The member cannot make assertions as part of a supplementary question.
David Seymour: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I genuinely seek your clarification. Is the problem that I can't give contextual information or that you think I'm giving inaccurate contextual information?
SPEAKER: I think what the member is doing is making a link which is not a link and he's calling it a fact. The member will continue with the supplementary now. If we want to have an economics discussion later, I'll have it in my room; we're not having it here.
David Seymour: Mr Speaker, point of order. 
SPEAKER: I'm going to make it clear to the member: if he argues now, he will be finished his supplementaries for the day.
David Seymour: No, no, Mr Speaker; I'm merely seeking your clarification.
SPEAKER: Mr Seymour, there is no such thing as a point of clarification in this House, and the member knows it. Now, I'm going to implore the member to ask a supplementary question or to give up.
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that increases in the official cash rate tend to be linked to increases in mortgage rates, and, if so, is she aware that mortgage rates have risen by $250 a week if you consider the interest costs on a half-million-dollar mortgage, that increase being over the last year?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In answer to the first part of the member's question, yes, I'm aware of the OCR increases. I'm also aware, of course, that those are decisions for the Reserve Bank.
David Seymour: Point of order. The question was whether the Prime Minister was aware that the OCR is often linked to mortgage rates, not whether she was aware that the OCR had changed.
SPEAKER: Does the member want a further supplementary?
David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'd like the point of order to be addressed. I don't believe the Prime Minister addressed the question.
SPEAKER: Well, yes, and there is no obligation for me to respond to the member, as he knows.
David Seymour: If only! Is the Prime Minister aware that $350 is enough for a taxi to the airport and a one-way ticket to Sydney, and, if that's her response to the cost of living crisis, can she tell young New Zealanders why they shouldn't use it for just that?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would also add, of course, that as a Government we recognise the cost of living impacts for low and middle income earners much beyond the $350—it's why, for instance, we've already had the increases to the family tax credit. It's why we've introduced a reduction in fuel at the pump by 25c and we also extended it. It's why we halved the costs of public transport and why we've extended it for those on a community services card. But it's also why from the moment we came into office we introduced the winter energy payment. It's why we introduced Best Start. It's why we removed school donations and made it free to go to the doctor for under-14s. This entire term in office, and prior, was focused on reducing the day-to-day costs that New Zealanders experience and focus on increasing incomes. This is not something we've come to in 2022; we've been focused on it for a long time. It does so happen that we are in a very acute period for New Zealanders.
David Seymour: Point of order. I seek leave for the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) (Definition of Significant Criminal Activity) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for members' order of the day No. 1 tomorrow.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that action taking place? Yes, there is. That concludes oral questions.
 





APPROPRIATION (2021/22 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILL
First Reading
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2021/22 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2021/22 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 44
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 77, Noes 42.
SPEAKER: Sorry, can we just check the Māori Party vote? Was it for or against?
Chlöe Swarbrick: Against.
SPEAKER: Sorry, I apologise. I misheard it—Ayes 75, Noes 44. 
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.





COVID-19 ORDERS
Approval
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Acting Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020:COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 7) 2022;COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border and Other Matters) Amendment Order 2022;COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 4) 2022.
This is another in the series of motions that ask the House to approve COVID-19 orders to ensure that they are not revoked within certain time frames. Today's motion approves three orders that came into course at various states between 16 April and 15 May. As Minister Hipkins has noted, when moving similar motions in the past couple of months or so, there are a couple of trends in their content.
First, the number of orders to be approved is diminishing as COVID-19 and our response to it evolves. This is to be welcomed as it signals a move away from the use of the extraordinary powers conferred upon the Minister by the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. The second positive trend is that the Regulations Review Committee has once again expressed no concerns about any of the orders covered by this motion. This should not be taken as an indication that the committee has relaxed its vigilance. It has, again, produced comprehensive reports on all three orders and I thank the committee members and their chair, Mr Chris Penk, for their work. It is, instead, a result of the maintenance of the high standards that the scrutiny of the Regulations Review Committee has done so much to create. Thanks are also due to officials at the Ministry of Health and other contributing agencies, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office—which has coped so admirably with the pressured workload that COVID-19 has brought in.
The first order that the House is being asked to approve amends the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Order 2021 to extend medical grade face mask covering requirements to vaccine mandated workers under the orange setting. It also allowed tertiary education providers to deny secondary school students entry to their premises if those students are not vaccinated and would carry out vaccine-mandated work as part of their programme.
The second order represents an important step in the COVID-19 response as it removed the previous isolation and quarantine requirements and replaced them with the self-isolation regime. This aligned the maritime border with settings at the air border at the time it was passed.
Finally, an amendment to the COVID-19 Public Health Vaccinations Order 2021 expanded the range of vaccines a person may have so as to be recognised as having had a booster dose, and provided for a new person conducting a business or undertaking - led exemption process that authorises an affected person to carry out certain work for 100 days without being vaccinated or receiving a booster dose.
It is our intention not to bring too many more of these approved motions to the House. But we should recognise that the system put in place by the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has underpinned our response to COVID-19, allowing the Government to respond quickly as COVID-19 has evolved, supporting New Zealand to emerge with a strong economy and record low levels of unemployment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that motion be agreed to.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to thank the Associate Minister of Health for her excellent introduction for these various orders that we're approving, and I just want to echo what she said in relation to the excellent job that the Regulations Review Committee does. We have the chair of the committee here in the House: Mr Penk. When he took on this venerable task at the start of this Parliament, I suspect he didn't quite know just how many orders would be presented. 
David Seymour: How venerable it might be.
CHRIS BISHOP: David Seymour's mocking the venerable nature of the committee, but it is a very hard-working committee.
David Seymour: I'm mocking the member's diction.
CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, he's mocking the member's diction. Oh, OK, righty-o. Anyway, the committee does a good job and it's very well chaired. It's got some excellent members on it, as I've commented previously.
I want to make a couple of points in relation to the orders that are being sought for approval, and we'll be voting for the orders, on this side of the House. The first is in relation to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Vaccinations Amendment Order No. 4 2022, SL2022 1-31, which is the most recent report of the committee. I just want to signal that we're supportive of what this order does but we are concerned by how long it took to make this order. So, basically, what this does is creates an authorisation for a person who's not been vaccinated, or not received their booster dose, to undertake work that would otherwise require a vaccination or a booster dose, and it's, basically, for people who have tested positive and therefore can't get vaccinated, but they are still caught by the various vaccine mandates. I have had a bit of correspondence in relation to this. Other members around the Parliament may have as well—so people who work in mandated workforces who are, essentially, required to go and get boosted and have been unable to do so because they've tested positive for COVID. So sensible change; concerned by how long it took.
The second thing I want to talk about is the COVID-19 Public Health Response Protection Framework Amendment Order No. 6, which is SL2022 1-07. This moved the whole country from red to orange. I want to signal now that, on this side of the House, certainly for the National Party—and I think I'm right in saying Mr Seymour agrees with me on this—the utility of the traffic light framework, I think, has really been called into question. 
David Seymour: It's a roundabout.
CHRIS BISHOP: "It was irrelevant.", says Mr Seymour. 
David Seymour: It's a roundabout.
CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, it's a roundabout. OK, I thought you said it was irrelevant, which would definitely—definitely—be true. I think the key point is that the traffic light framework was of its time. It reflected a scenario in which we had vaccination rates that were increasing and it reflected it, and it was devised in a time in which Delta was the dominant strain, certainly in New Zealand, if not, worldwide. And, of course, now we have Omicron, and our vaccination rates have now increased to the point where we have widespread coverage in many parts of the country. I was looking at the numbers the other day, the number of—I think I'm right in saying—people who are aged 65 and above who have had a booster is over 90 percent in every DHB. That's fantastic, because those people are the most vulnerable to COVID and they benefit the most from having the booster, so I've kept a track of how we're going on the booster numbers and I think I'm right in saying that almost in every DHB we're over 90 percent, and most DHBs are approaching 95 percent. 
So it's a great credit to the vaccination teams out there, who've done such a fantastic job getting around the country. And once we got the mechanisms right and once we gave a bit of power to the people, so to speak—involved community organisations and Māori and Pasifika health organisations and empowered them a bit more than maybe the officials wanted to at the start—fantastic job. 
But all of that is to say that things have changed. Delta is no longer the dominant variant. We have Omicron—it's milder—and we have very high levels of vaccination coverage. So I think it's time—and we've said this for a while now, but I'm just flagging it up and in this context—to transition away from the traffic light framework. It's not to say that we don't need rules around what happens when you get COVID and what happens if your whānau gets COVID, and it's not to say we don't need rules around mask-wearing, but my personal view, and the view of the National Party as well, is that we're better to have some simple rules in place that everybody can get behind, rather than the confusing nomenclature of the traffic light framework where we're at orange and we've been signalled that we'll be at orange for quite some time to come. So I think that would be very sensible. 
Of course, we've largely now done away with vaccine passes as well. I haven't seen a cafe or bar in the recent past that is actually utilising them. As a strong believer in private property rights, I'm completely comfortable with restaurants or hospitality venues that want to choose to use them—go for gold. But I have yet to come across one that actually is, and that, in and of itself, I think, is quite interesting. I think I've seen some stuff on Twitter that some cafes are, but I don't tend to pay too much attention to that.
The final point I want to make is in relation to vaccine mandates more generally. I want to say to the Government that the time is soon going to arrive when the time line for the phasing out of vaccine mandates across the various professions that are covered by mandates will arrive. We do need some clarity and some certainty from the Government as to when that will be. There are big swathes of our workforce that are covered by the requirement to be vaccinated, and there is considerable unease in various parts of those sectors and from a considerable number of people at the imposition on rights that those mandates provide. And we accepted, on this side of the House, vaccine mandates for the bulk of 2021, because there was a clear nexus between vaccination and the prevention of transmission of COVID-19 and the severity of Delta and the severity of the disease when people did get COVID, and we supported them as time-limited measures that would help get our vaccination rates up and that would have an impact on the flow through of COVID into the New Zealand community. 
But Omicron has changed the circumstances that we're dealing with. We already have a very high level of vaccination, and Omicron is a different type of COVID to Delta, and the wild strain of COVID. And we know, as I've commented previously in the House, Omicron busts through vaccination, double vaccination, even triple vaccination, and so the impact on transmission is far less effective, and, because of that, we have to bear in mind the impact it's having on rights and the ability for people to opt out of medical treatment. What we are saying to people is that if you choose to work in a particular profession—be it Corrections or be it at an allied health workforce, for example—you have to be vaccinated. That is a pretty big thing for the Government to do. It's a pretty big thing for the State to say to somebody. Now, it's not to say that that can never be justified, but it's to say that the Government has to go through a rigorous rights analysis to figure out when the intrusion on rights is justified and whether or not the efficaciousness or the efficacy of what the Government is doing justifies the intrusion on the right. I would put it to the House that we have approached that point when it comes to vaccine mandates more generally. 
So we do need a time line from the Government as to when these mandates will be phased out altogether. We've already seen that in relation to vaccine pass settings—for example, cafes, bars, things like that—but there is a vast part of the New Zealand workforce that are still covered by our vaccine mandates more generally and we do need to see from the Government a time line for the phasing out. That, in and of itself, even the Government publicising exactly how that will work, would actually provide comfort for a lot of people. So we look forward to that. Of course, we do look forward to considering more orders as they come before the House. 
Just a final comment in passing, I think this has been a really good mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny. Clearly, in this back and forth in the House, we're essentially pro-forma going through the motions a little bit when it comes to the actual scrutiny—the scrutiny that happens in the committee process. But that, in and of itself, is a really important process and it's something I think the Standing Orders Committee would like to consider for future issues that we may confront in this House. Thank you, sir.





TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (Remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to pick up what the last speaker, Chris Bishop, said about rights, because I agree. But let's talk about workers' rights. Let's talk about the right for workers—for when they go to work—that they feel safe, that there are processes in place that make sure that they are protected from COVID, that they are protected from other winter illnesses as well. And let's think about that not just purely from an economic perspective as well, because we have had a lot of noise, people banging on the business drums saying, "We need to open up.", and all this kind of stuff. And I get it, you know, we all need a buck to keep the lights on. But there are other voices that we need to keep in mind; the voices of our immunocompromised whānau, our disabled whānau, those communities whose booster rates are not up—that are not near the 90 percent mark as well—and making sure that we keep that on our minds as well. 
But I also want to thank the Regulations Review Committee for the work that they've been doing. It is an important mechanism for them to actually go through the detail and to look at and to get into the weeds of these regulations and for that to make sense for them—and I do want to thank them for doing that. They seem to get on well, and I don't know if they do that just for the pantomime of Parliament, but I do appreciate the thorough work that they do as well. 
But here's the thing: that when you're getting into the weeds and picking the pūhā and making sure you're getting all that nourishing kai, it's important to step back and actually take a look at the garden—the whole garden. And that's a metaphor—it's Greens speak, if you like—about asking, "Where is the plan?"—Where is the plan? 
I appreciate the detail that the Regulations Review Committee went through, and the various orders and motions that were brought up as well, but, in order for those things to make sense, you've actually got to be able to hang it on top of a framework, and I think that we have lost sight of that. I think this Parliament is starting to move away from that. And, yes, the number of orders are drying up and that would be a good thing if the current COVID rules and regulations were keeping the community safe, but here's the thing: the pandemic is not over—it isn't over. Aotearoa currently has one of the highest case rates and death rates in the world; although it's likely other places have much higher rates than reported. Our vaccination rates have stagnated, with only half of five- to 11-year-olds having received a single dose of the vaccine, and only 25 percent have received a second dose. I did hear the numbers about the district health boards and so on and so forth, however, booster levels for adult Māori and Pasifika populations are barely above 50 percent as well. 
We're in the middle of winter. There's a number of us that can't be in Parliament because of having to home isolate and all that—winter and flu and all that kind of stuff—and we face a possible second COVID-19 peak over winter, at the same time as open borders and bringing in new viruses into our communities. And yes, people can—are—getting reinfected with COVID. We need to make sure that these indoor spaces are safe for everyone. It's important that the Government should be subsidising organisations that upgrade their ventilation and air filtration systems as well. I think about this around our schools, and I'm mindful of this as a parent—I'm sure this is true for many of us. Many of us at Parliament are parents or we're grandparents or we're aunties or uncles or we've got relatives who are teachers, or, at the very least, we're at a school where we were taught by a teacher as well—and experts and also school communities have been calling out for a comprehensive plan. We need an expert plan to support children's access to education and to protect children, school staff, and their families from COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.
I wanted to note a bunch of quotes that came across my newsfeed, from RNZ, quotes from teachers. Some teachers are feeling angry and unsafe because of the risk of catching COVID-19 in their classrooms. So let's talk about rights. Let's talk about workers' rights. And here's a quote—and I've got a couple of them—it's from a relief teacher who worked across several schools and said her risk of catching COVID-19 varied from school to school. And this is what she said: "It feels like you're playing Russian roulette with your health because you don't know what you're going to be encountering. Schools are not universally endorsing mask wearing, so I've been in some schools where only a handful of staff and students are wearing masks," she said. "I've been to a school where they've got a pool on which staff member is going to be infected next." Here's another quote: "There's definitely a group of us at my school who are looking at resigning because we don't feel safe going to work. There is a real split between staff and those who feel unsafe in assemblies … where there are not many masks are definitely disadvantaged." 
Another said COVID-19 had made work much harder. This is another quote from the same article on RNZ; I encourage you to check it out: "Long days, lots of relief teachers, meetings being repeatedly bumped, kids missing heaps of school, trying to plan when we don't know what the heck will happen next, and on top of all of this I'm bloody freezing from the state-of-the-art ventilation system"—i.e., open windows and doors. 
We need this plan. It's a plan that should be an expert-led plan from the Government—an action plan for schools which will require mask use in schools in line with red settings, free N95s for students and teachers, urgent steps to improve vaccine uptake against COVID-19 and the flu and other winter illnesses, and a very strong focus on indoor air quality, ventilation, monitoring, and filtration. And we also have to make sure that we support those that are supporting us—those are our teachers—by making sure that they have guaranteed sick leave so if they max out their sick leave the schools actually, themselves, have enough discretionary leave in their back pocket to make sure that they can isolate and look after their families if they have to. 
So we will not be supporting these motions. I appreciate the work that the Regulations Review Committee has been doing, but this needs to be put up on a stronger framework that is simple and easy for people to understand but actually puts the focus back on our tamariki, our immunocompromised whānau, our disabled whānau, and those communities that need to have a stronger uptake in the vaccines. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There used to be an old joke: when the world ends, I want to be in Dargaville. Why? Because they're 20 years behind and I'll live for an extra 20 years before the world ends! Now, I say that out of love and affection for the good people of Dargaville. My family arrived there when my great-great-grandfather was digging gum and cutting down kauri trees at the turn of last century, and my mum was born in Te Kopuru Hospital. But I just thought of it because it feels a bit like that in New Zealand today—20 years behind the rest of the world, which has moved on from COVID-19, and here we are still debating COVID orders. 
For the people watching at home who may wonder why Parliament is still doing this, here's the Coles Notes version. A couple of years ago, Parliament passed a law—the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act—and that law got around a little problem. The little problem was that, in the context of a pandemic the Government—over there; not the whole Parliament—needed to be able to make laws rapidly to respond to changing events: new vaccines, new variants, new technologies, if our Government was inclined to use them. At the same time, we didn't want such sweeping powers over people's lives to be exercised only by the Government. So the deal was that the Government over there could make these orders but only if they were examined by the Regulations Review Committee—of which my colleague Toni Severin is a member—and then debated in this House.
So that was the strategy to get rapid lawmaking but also parliamentary scrutiny, even if after the fact. Now, we've seen a nimble approach to a pandemic, with democracy. ACT, at least at first, supported that initiative because it was far better than what we had had previously, when, for example, the whole country was put under lockdown and we had the then Police Commissioner Mike Bush menacing the public and saying, "You better get a ride around to our place, and maybe we'll be checking where you're going." Back in those days of an illegal lockdown, with illegal coercion of New Zealand citizens, it seemed like the right thing to do to have a legal basis for COVID restrictions. We find ourselves, nearly two years later, still debating COVID-19 Public Health Response Act initiatives, or orders, while the rest of the world has moved on. That's the first point.
What are debating today? Well, for example, we have an order that took New Zealand from the red traffic light to the orange. Now, at the same time, the traffic light system, which used to be a system of crowd size limits, vaccination requirements, masking requirements, and scanning or contact tracing requirements, has been blown to smithereens. Contact tracing: don't have to do it anymore. Vaccine mandates: don't have vaccine passes in public settings anymore. Crowd size limits: we don't have those anymore. So what is the difference between green, orange, and red traffic lights? Well, almost nothing except for a limit of a crowd to 200 and having to wear masks in some places such as shops, but not other places such as nightclubs. There is no longer any rhyme nor reason, because none of the factors that made up the traffic light system remain in place. We shouldn't be debating the traffic light system; we should just dump it. And it would actually be better because the Government says, "Well, maybe we should keep the traffic light system around so we can bring it back in case there's a flu or something." Well, it would be easier if they dropped it intact than gradually dismantled it until the colours were meaningless, because if they do bring it back, no one will know what it means because of the way they've dismantled it. So we should just dump the traffic light system. It's time to move on from that restriction. 
I heard somebody on the screen here, a Green Party member, saying that he knew someone who said it felt like they were playing Russian roulette by teaching at a school where kids might have Omicron. Well, that's a reality. We can talk about the stand-down periods, but I just make the point that I think we've got an obligation in this House not to spread misinformation. I've just been reading the Financial Times of London. It says the infection mortality rate for Omicron in a highly vaccinated population such as the UK is the same as the flu. Now, would we really have said that relief teachers going from school to school were playing Russian roulette with their health during a flu season? Really? And if Omicron is statistically just as dangerous, then is it responsible to say that to people in this House, adding to the fear that there's already too much of? I think that Green Party member should seriously consider what he was saying and what the statistics mean and what he quotes, because we shouldn't be spreading that kind of misinformation.
Back to schools—one thing that's not in these orders and should be is actually an end to unworkable isolation periods. I'm at the time of year where, as the MP for Epsom, I go and visit all the principals of schools in the Epsom electorate—20 square kilometres, 30 schools. That's 1.5 schools per square kilometre. That's why we're called the education electorate. Do you know what they're telling me? Well, many things, which I'd love to get to for some of the members on the other side. One of them is that they're losing a teacher for two weeks. How does that work? Well, the teacher's partner or kid gets COVID, so they've got to isolate with them in the household, and then the teacher gets it, and they're sick for a few days and they recover and they're no longer infectious, but they have to isolate for seven days. So they lose a teacher for two weeks even though the teacher was only infectious for a few days. That's nuts. 
The policy should be as simple as, "You've got to isolate for three days. Negative test and you're out." It's that simple. That's what they do in Singapore. In the United States, it's five days. But, instead, we have a system where schools frequently lose someone for 14 days because of unworkable isolation. If you think about inflation, if you think about too much money chasing after too few goods, if you think about supply chain constraints and there not being stuff to buy in the shops so the price goes up, because the Reserve Bank is printing money like mad, well, all of this stuff adds up. Are we really saying New Zealand's so wealthy that people's budgets are stretching so far that we can afford unworkable isolation laws? Because that's what we've got and that's what we're doing. Ironically, if you're worried about public health, a lot of people who can't afford two weeks off just don't report and then keep spreading it. So it's not even the best public health response. We should get rid of unworkable isolation rules.
Do you know another thing we should get rid of? Three weeks ago, I was at the Health Committee and there was Chris Hipkins, the Minister for COVID-19 Response—there's something we shouldn't have anymore. He accepted that he couldn't tell me how much difference pre-departure testing for people coming to New Zealand was making. But he accepted that it was a negligible difference and it's had its day and we should get rid of it. But here's the question: why are we getting rid of it now? Why haven't we already got rid of it? Why do people continue to be infantilised and forced to do things that make no sense, that the cost-benefit analysis doesn't stack up on, or that the Government hasn't even done cost-benefit analysis for?
I was talking to a constituent. Their daughter was in a foreign city in the US—I guess all US cities are foreign to New Zealand, but she was in one of them—and in order to return to New Zealand, she had to get a pre-departure test. This is why I say we're 20 years behind the rest of the world. It was very difficult to get one, because Americans couldn't believe you had to. And in the end, at 1 a.m., she was so scared of missing her flight—and she couldn't afford another one if she missed it—that she spent US$220 getting a sanctioned pre-departure test to come to New Zealand. Now, you think about it: we made one of our citizens do that—all that stress, all that expense for no reason at all, when the COVID Minister admits it's not making a difference to our public health response whether we have pre-departure testing. So why don't we just dump it?
There are so many restrictions that are infantilising us because we're forced to follow rules while the rest of the world moves on. The sad thing is that young people, in particular, if they see the world moving on from us, might decide that their time is now and off they go.
The ACT Party is not going to vote for these orders. We are sick of the whole deal. We should allow the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act to lapse and let people get on with living their lives, taking responsibility and precautions as they see fit. If you look at it, that's what most people are starting to do anyway. This Government needs to let go of its COVID-19 response and let New Zealanders get on. It should deal with crime and a cost of living crisis and catching up with the rest of the world.





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I intend to speak only briefly. Like most contributors to this debate, I've had an opportunity to do so on similar occasions. I do note that the Minister, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, took the place of her usual colleague in that role, the Hon Chris Hipkins. I thank the Minister for her gracious comments in relation to the work of the Regulations Review Committee. It does have a number of excellent members—all its members, in fact, are excellent, with the possible exception of its chair. I'm certainly grateful for the hard work that they do. They are much smarter than me. They're smart enough to make points that I'm just smart enough to understand, so we get on just fine. But thanks, as always, to the work of those who support us, namely the legislative counsel and the wonderful clerk committee staff who support the work as well.
I'll just speak briefly because I only want to make one particular point, which is just following that comment that the Minister made that the committee remains diligent in scrutinising these orders. Of course, it does take two to tango, and the fact that there are fewer concerns we're bringing to the House does reflect the fact that the relevant Government Ministers and ministries—ministry perhaps; singular; the Ministry of Health—have been taking heed of concerns that we've brought previously. 
So, just by way of example, briefly, there was in one of the orders that we are considering today—one of those presented in mid-April, essentially—a provision whereby those who were staying at a managed isolation and quarantine facility (MIQF)—as defined: one of those facilities—would be able to stay there longer, and I say "able" deliberately because it would need their consent to be isolating longer in an MIQF than would otherwise be the case. Previously, the committee had advised the Government that we thought that someone who was is in that situation shouldn't be penalised in terms of their rights and liberties, relative to someone who was able to self-isolate at home. So in a situation where a person doesn't have adequate facilities to self-isolate at home safely and consents to be in the MIQF instead, then they are able to do so. So we thought that that probably reflected the policy intent of the Government, and, of course, we consider the way that regulations are made to reflect the policy intent rather than interrogating that policy intent ourselves. So we thought that that was a helpful interplay between the committee and the Government, as such. 
So thanks, as always, for the opportunity to ventilate some of our thinking and some of the process around this. I won't take up any more of the House's time on this one, but, as I say, we have made it, I think, tolerably clear that we support the confirmation of these orders and will continue to examine them diligently throughout.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 97
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32.
Noes 22
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.





PAE ORA (HEALTHY FUTURES) BILL
Third Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill be now read a third time. 
Tēnei tātou katoa e whakarongo ana ki te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire, he kaupapa whakahirahira mō te hauora o Aotearoa whānui.
[Greetings to everyone who is listening to the third reading of this bill, a very important matter for New Zealand - wide health care.]
This is a very important day for the future of the New Zealand health system. The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill sets out now, or charts, a new course for the health system for Aotearoa New Zealand. It starts at the very beginning of the legislation with its fundamental purpose, and that is it is to provide for the public funding and provision of services in order to protect, promote, and improve the health of all New Zealanders. That's the starting point of this legislation. 
This is a once-in-a-generation change for our health system, and there are a number of people I want to thank who have contributed to getting us to this point today. I want to thank my predecessor but one, the Hon Dr David Clark, who started the process of reviewing our health system, and he put in charge of that process Ms Heather Simpson, who chaired the Health and Disability Review group and who reported to the Government once they had completed that review. I want to thank Ms Simpson for her work and the others who were on that review group. 
I also wanted to thank the review group's Māori expert advisory group. They actually put up a dissenting opinion when it came to the final report, arguing for a conception of a Māori health authority that was different to what the review group itself had put forward. I can say that we were persuaded by the compelling arguments that the Māori expert advisory group put up, and that is reflected in the structure of the system that this bill represents today. 
I want to thank the members of the special select committee, who reviewed submissions and reviewed the bill and made some very sensible changes to it. In particular, I want to thank the chair, Dr Deborah Russell, and also the deputy chair, Tāmati Coffey. I think that group did a stunning job. They had hundreds and hundreds of submissions, they heard hundreds of submissions, and they worked tirelessly and produced, I think, an excellent bill when they reported back. 
I want to thank all those who submitted to the select committee as well and who told their stories, not just those who have been through the system as consumers of our health services but also the various experts and medically qualified people who also spoke and brought their insights and expertise to the committee. 
I want to thank the tens of thousands of health workers who work in our public health system for the job they do every day—the job they've been doing for years, in many cases—putting up with a system that has put a lot of pressure on them. It hasn't given them necessarily the best working environment, but we've heard what they have to say. They want change. 
Everywhere I go, everywhere I listen to people, they tell me they want change, and this is the change that people have been asking for. For all those New Zealanders outside the health system but users of it who have also said, "We need to change. What we've got now isn't working for us.": Māori, Pacific, disabled people, women, those in rural communities, the rainbow community—everybody has said that we need to do things differently. If we want to allocate resources and we want to have a system that's consistent, coherent, and fair across the motu, we need to make change, and this is the change we've got. 
There's one other person I want to give a huge thanks to, the person I have worked alongside in terms of these changes, and that's my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare. I could not, as Minister of Health, have worked alone on this bill, and I could not have achieved what we have achieved as a party in Government but also as a House without the cooperation and collaboration with the Hon Peeni Henare. I thank him very much for his insights, his mahi, and his incredible connections through his networks that has enabled us to get where we are today. So I say thank you to everybody. 
There are a number of changes represented in this legislation to the health system. The first and foremost is the principles now that will govern the system. That will govern the entities in the system, that will govern the Minister, and that will govern others in the system, too—those six principles that are set out in the legislation. They set the foundations for the system. 
The first is that the health system should be equitable and that everybody should be treated consistently and fairly, because we don't have that at the moment, and if we want to overcome the postcode lottery, this is the change we need to make. Every New Zealander deserves to be able to have access to the health services that they need when they need them, where they need them. 
The second principle is that the health sector should engage with people to ensure that the services reflect their needs and aspirations, and that will be delivered through the locality planning process that we do in a way that we haven't been able to do before. We will have much rich input from communities across the country into what they expect of our health services. 
The third principle requires the system to provide Māori with the opportunity to make decisions that are important to them. That's nothing less than the commitment that was made by the British Crown under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It's nothing less than the obligation that the Crown owes to Māori under the Treaty, and that's what this legislation will deliver. It will allow Māori to make their decisions to exercise their rangatiratanga on this very important matter of the health of their people, and we saw it amply demonstrated in the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, where we handed over leadership and responsibility to Māori. They took it and they made the difference in the health of their people. Let Māori lead when it comes to health, and this legislation will allow them to do that. 
The fourth principle is that the health sector should provide a choice of quality health services to everybody, and that means culturally safe services in our health services. It means a workforce that is representative of the community and services based on clinical leadership, technology, and lived experience. Those are all principles that are now woven into the way our health services will be led and managed and run. We will have health services operated in a way, as far as communities see, that works for them, and it's about lifting the wellbeing of everybody. We need a health system that is connected with what is happening in housing, with what's happening in employment, and with what's happening in other spheres of people's lives, because these are the determinants of health as well. So it must be well rounded and it must be enriched. 
The fifth principle is that the health sector should protect and promote wellbeing. It's not just about the person who fronts up to a doctor or a nurse practitioner or a health worker and says, "I'm feeling crook.", because we need to know, if we're going to help that person, what sits underneath that. Is it just the physical ailment, or are there other things that need to be attended to? 
So principles alone won't change things, but these principles, this legislation, and the structure that we've got, backed by the investments that this Government has made most recently in the most recent Budget—that is what is going to make the difference. That has been the pathway for this Government as we sought to address a health system that has been under-resourced and underfunded for so long and has needed a Government prepared to lead. 
We saw it when we first took office, and we knew there was a mental health crisis because the mental health system had been so badly neglected for nine years under the previous Government. We did a review and we made the decisions, and we've made investment that has now added more than 900 new roles to the front line of our mental health services. 
We saw that Pharmac did not have the confidence of a lot of people, so we reviewed Pharmac. We've now got that review back and we've now got the opportunity to make a set of changes that will bring in Pharmac as an integral part of our health administration, our health system, so that they can work in collaboration with all those other vital parts to make sure that their decisions are relevant decisions to improving the health needs of all New Zealanders. 
We've seen it in the record investment in health this Government has made, not just in Budget 2022 but in pretty much every other Budget since. This is a Government that is backing the health system, and it's a health system that continues to be under pressure, but we've funded extra positions—thousands of extra roles—in our health system, and we'll continue working with that sector and working with the health system to make the improvements, to grow the workforce, and to make sure that New Zealanders have access to the best possible health system that we can produce. 
In Budget 2022, we've corrected the historical funding shortfall in our system and we've put additional funding in on top of that: in addition to the funding shortfall, another $1.3 billion alone this year and every year thereafter. Then, from next year, another $1.3 billion on top of that and every year thereafter, and we've funded specific areas as well: more money into mental health, more money into ambulances, and more money into workforce development. 
This is what you do when you take health seriously. This is a Government that has gripped up a health system that was in desperate need of attention and support and care, and we've given it. We've funded it and supported it, and we've now got the structure that will make sense. That means that we can make good decisions and treat all our hospitals as part of one health system for a population of 5 million - plus people. 
We have one major piece of reform work to go, and that is the Therapeutic Products Bill. That will take legislation that is more than 40 years old governing our pharmaceuticals and our medicines and all those sorts of things, and we'll modernise that. 
This will be a Government that will go down in history as the health Government of the 21st century. I commend this bill to the House. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. 





Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. History will look back and record 2022 as the time the Ardern Labour Government finally broke health in this country, and the damage they do here will last for years. The 36,000 New Zealanders waiting more than four months to see a specialist do not see their hips, knees, and cataracts being done any time soon. They only see an ideological health reform in the middle of a pandemic and at a time when New Zealanders are still dying from COVID every single day. The timing is terrible. 
The 36,000 New Zealanders on waiting lists see ward closures at Auckland, Christchurch, and Dunedin hospitals. They see people with typhoid fever being told to sleep in a car at Middlemore Hospital, and they see their appointments being pushed further and further away. The timing is terrible. 
The 50,000 women backlogged for breast cancer mammography do not see their appointments any time soon. They don't see the $15 million required to fix that backlog or the backlog for cervical smears. All they see is Andrew Little letting $25 million of vaccines expire last month—enough to fund the backlog for both mammograms and smears. The health reforms have distracted this Government from cancer management, and there is a price to pay. 
While I'm talking about cancer, I will send a warning straight up the middle of this Labour Government right here, right now. Many of us saw the section in the Government response to the Pharmac report last week that suggested changes to free cancer care for children. It read, "Pharmac is currently reviewing suitability of the child cancer treatment pathways". If this Labour Government removes free cancer care for children, the 8lb. exception, I will fight you, the National Party will fight you, New Zealanders will fight you—and you will lose. 
Under these health reforms, the regions and the provinces do not have locally elected voices at the table. Elected voices are removed, and all the regions see is a socialist Labour Government goose-stepping to the cadence of "Wellington knows best, comrades". This could have been all different. If Andrew Little had resourced ICU beds, we might not have had to protect the health system by cancelling so many operations. Maybe lockdowns could have been shorter and the economic impact less damaging if he had built ICU beds instead of doing a premature COVID victory lap. 
This Labour Government voted down my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) demanding a health workforce strategy. The workforce is exhausted, and we are not a welcoming international environment. If Andrew Little had kept his promise to fully implement the safer nursing accord, if he hadn't instituted a pay freeze for nurses, and if he had kept his pay negotiation promises, maybe we would have had more than just three critical care nurses employed to April in his much vaunted and then delayed Kiwi Health Jobs campaign—a sure reflection of our international perception. 
The tsunami of mental health has had no trickle-down benefits from the $1.9 billion for mental health. There is no trickle in mental health—just a river of tears from blighted promises and outcomes that the mental health commission says do not meet the promises. 
This health reform loses its moral imperative by removing health need as the sole arbiter and sole utility in the health system. In its place are inequities and Treaty responses. Neither are the same as health need. An unfair distribution of resources which defines an inequity does not necessarily describe the area of greatest need.
There are two ways to reduce inequities: the rising tide lifting the lows, or pushing down the peaks. Both seek to level the playing field. The belief is that maybe in the middle is where services might actually end up, but myself and others do not believe this Labour Government has any chance of delivering that middle. The Government does not have a track record of delivering in health and even less of raising the base. What they do have is taxpayer money, and, as we have seen, the way they use it in health is more money, more bureaucrats, for worse outcomes. This Labour Government's ideological attempts to reduce inequities in health will simply drive services and outcomes to the lowest common denominator. That is where all will be equal—at the bottom. 
This Labour Government voted down my SOP demanding an older people's health strategy. This Labour Government cancelled a $300 million promise for free GP visits. This Labour Government decided their poorly targeted cost of living sham was not necessary for those on a pension. For these reasons, older people will vote this Government out. 
Where is the place for general practice in these reforms? Not a word in the Minister's speech. It burns his mouth to say general practice. General practice is the safety net that picked up the pieces when COVID couldn't be managed any more in managed isolation and quarantine, the safety net that daily picks up the pieces when hospital beds are full, the safety net that daily sees patients when the emergency department is full. Where is the value acknowledgment for the role of general practice that these reforms hold out as solutions and yet fail to value and fail to fund? 
There were signals of Labour's arrogant posturing towards general practice well before they offered 3 percent in recent cost pressure negotiations when they knew that 12 percent is the real cost of their bungled management of the economy and inflation. A further signal of general practice being dismissed was in the recent request to primary care the week before that they stop work and help this Government design the health system and to take time off and to do so without being recompensed. 
There were even earlier signs. The very first signal of general practice being taken for granted by this Government was the appointment of the interim Health New Zealand board without primary care representation. That was the first signal, a signal on a pathway that I believe seeks to break general practice and eventually nationalise GPs like the NHS—something Helen Clark tried to do and probably still is. General practice needs to be urgently supported and funded to be the cornerstone that it is. 
To Māori, I reiterate that you are being thrown under the bus with these health reforms. If inequities and Treaty responses—anything other than health need—are the foundation to these reforms, then tomorrow it will be the depth of your pocket, and the next day it will be your value to society, and Māori will do poorly. It is the principle of health need that arbitrates fairness, and anything else condemns to the politics of the day. We support a strong Māori health directorate, not a standalone third system Māori Health Authority. 
To Māori, look at these health reforms and ask yourself this. Where has the much vaunted Māori health veto gone? Why were iwi-Māori partnership boards deleted from Schedule 3? And why is the only redaction in all of the Government's key health reform documents the section on the Māori Health Authority titled "Financials underpinning the bid"? This aligns with the $40 million for the Māori Health Authority in last month's Budget that has been derided by many commentators as being insufficient. 
National will talk the language of health outcomes for Māori. We will focus on function, not form. We will start with the two big inequities: cancer and cardiovascular disease. We will set targets and hold ourselves accountable. For Māori health, under National, we will get things done. National will talk the language of health outcomes for all New Zealanders. 
There is much in these reforms that we would not do, but there is some we would. The formation of a public health agency, for example, has merit, and there are some things, like a semantic terminology, that simply have to be owned by a central Ministry of Health. 
These reforms have no plan. Everyone is saying, "What is the plan?" There is none. The buzzwords evangelising primary care as the saviour for health are empty and hollow and cold. The buzzwords "looking for excess fat in the system" are fanciful in their naiveté. National has a plan, and over the next year as New Zealanders see that plan they will see that we understand health, that we are pragmatic, and that we get things done. For health, National has a plan. Follow us. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much to take an opportunity to speak on such a significant occasion. Approximately 100 years ago, Sir Māui Pōmare was appointed as the National health Minister. He was the first Māori to be appointed to that role. And, then, of course, we come into more recent times, to the likes of Te Puea Hērangi, who continued to push for Māori health outcomes through the end of World War I, through the depression, and into World War II. And in recent times, again, in 1984, I remember the likes of Dr Pat Ngata, I remember the likes of Irihapeti Ramsden, I remember the likes of Erihapeti Murchie, Dr John Macleod, Eru Pōmare, who fought hard to make sure that Māori health inequities have a voice strong enough to challenge a system that continued to deliver status quo outcomes. And those status quo outcomes were clearly that Māori life expectancy was worse in the country, that Māori access to health services was some of the worst in the country, and that Māori have continued to be underserved by the health system for many, many decades. And when I look back on those times and I think of the likes of my matua Mr Rob Cooper, who fought hard to make sure that we could change the health system to better serve not just Māori but all New Zealanders, I look back and think of those names with great joy on a day like this. 
It's with great pleasure and optimism that I stand to support this bill, and I want to endorse the Minister the Hon Andrew Little's words of thanks to many who work in the health system today, to the many who contributed to making this bill and where we're taking the health-reform work, and to the many who have contributed to make it better. I want to acknowledge the Minister himself. He was brave, he was bold, and he was prepared to work constructively to make sure that we can deliver to New Zealand a health system that they deserve. I want to acknowledge him and, of course, the rest of our colleagues in this Government for the support on this journey to make sure that we can continue to do the hard work, to make sure that off the back of a number of key announcements in the Budget just gone—as well as the Budget of last year—we can continue to deliver the services that our people deserve. 
And in the House today, I took the opportunity to talk about bowel screening. That is a classic example of key decisions that we can make in a system that will allow those deliverables to be achieved, and that can actually make a huge difference for people's wellbeing. Lowering the bowel-screening age is massive, but it can't be massive on its own; it's got to be in part with a sector reform, which is what this Government has undertaken. 
A key part of the bill which drew a lot of attention—in particular during the committee stage—was, of course, the establishment of a Māori Health Authority. Dr Reti just said he would make a stronger Māori policy unit in the health system. Well, that is the status quo; that's what's already been there for the past 20, 30 years, and yet the health outcomes that Māori deserve have not been achieved. That is why we have to be bold. That is why we've made sure that we've established a system embedded in this legislation that will see powers across all levels of the health sector: to make sure that this health service and the future health service can continue to provide equitable outcomes for communities across this country. And I want to be clear. This isn't separatism. No. This is a strong health system that will cater for all. If, at the bottom of that heap, improving equitable health outcomes for Māori will continue to lift health outcomes for all New Zealanders, then I'm disappointed the other side of the House won't be supporting this. I'm proud of this piece of legislation. I don't want to go on too much longer, because as much as we've worked hard to get to this point, there is still much more work to be done. 
In the last minute of my contribution, I want to speak to the future generations. I want to talk to our tamariki and mokopuna. I want to speak to my mokopuna Te Ōmeka; I want to speak to my girls, who are nine and 10; and I want to say to them, "We promised you, and your ancestors promised you, a healthcare system that will deliver equitable health outcomes for you." And I'm proud to say to them that they will look back on this day in the passing of this legislation as setting the record straight. We still have more work to do for all of our grandkids and our tamariki and mokopuna, but I'm proud that this day starts that piece of work off. It makes sure that we have a system that can deliver better equitable outcomes to our people, and I say to them, "We'll continue to fight for you, and we'll continue to fight for better health outcomes for our people." I endorse this bill to the House.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'll be rising on behalf of the National Party this afternoon to oppose the Government's Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. I want to set the scene of where New Zealand is at today with healthcare. Today in the New Zealand Herald, the headline said "Wellington Hospital: Woman claims she sat in urine-soaked clothes for six hours in Wellington ED"—"Capital and Coast DHB says emergency department patients can 'generally expect to be moved to a ward in a timely manner - but ED has been operating at full capacity in recent weeks.'" On Saturday, we had, in Radio New Zealand: "Health system hit hard by winter illness while 'stubborn' Covid-19 numbers persist … Last night, Dunedin Hospital closed all its wards to visitors after patients and staff on several wards were exposed to Covid-19." The Dominion Post last Tuesday had a headline: "Hospital Emergency departments struggling as winter illnesses add to existing pressures"—"The demand for urgent medical attention is so high in some emergency departments they cannot physically fit all the sick people inside." Finally, last week the New Zealand Herald reported: "Patient with typhoid fever slept in car due to lack of beds at Middlemore Hospital … He's warning the South Auckland hospital is 'imploding', and says he's terrified of what could happen if the usual respiratory viruses take hold over winter."
That is the environment we are in. We are dealing with a pandemic, and, on top of that, the winter viruses are starting to occur and are gridlocking our hospitals. And what do we have? A Labour Government with its vanity project of trying to reform the health system in the middle of a pandemic, against all advice, throwing billions of dollars into bureaucrats, into consultants, into looking at things that won't actually deliver better care on the ground tomorrow. Where are the priorities? Because this Government, they'll call a big game; they'll say "Look, you know, we've been looking at this, and we've listened, and we've responded—oh, let's centralise." That's all they've got. The Labour Party playbook is centralising. Whether it be the polytech mergers, whether it be the Water Services Entities Bill that will be debated for the first reading on Thursday, and now the health system restructure, same old record. If there's an issue, it's socialist central planning—you centralise it. Because of course their bureaucrats in Wellington know how to deliver good healthcare out in rural and regional New Zealand. Well, that's what this Government thinks. That's why they're going to throw money—good money after bad—into bureaucrats and consultants. Nothing in this process of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill legislative process in Parliament over the last few months has given me confidence, and I don't think it actually gives New Zealanders confidence as well. 
You look at the issue around mental health—you've got a Government telling us today they're trumpeting record announcements in health. But when you actually look at their track record, they trumpeted $1.9 billion for mental health and then the first report from the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission said, despite the announcement of money for mental health, no material improvements. So here we have mental health—$1.9 billion and no material improvements. Yet this Government says, "Trust us. We're going to pump billions of dollars into an ideological reform."
And they can quote Heather Simpson as much as they want with the health and disability review, but, of course, the recommendation of the Heather Simpson report was to reduce 20 DHBs to eight to 12. Not take a wrecking ball to 20 DHBs in the middle of a pandemic, and in winter. And here we have them saying, "Trust us, we're going to throw money at this. We've actually got a pretty poor record—KiwiBuild, Auckland light rail, the Auckland Harbour Bridge, mental health, the list goes on." 
Because when they say, "Look, we've been travelling the country and the health workforce is asking us for change", I disagree. Because when I talk to the health workforce, what they tell me about the Government's reforms is that they're actually preoccupied, quite rightly, responding to a pandemic. So they are preoccupied. They've actually accepted change—they know no matter what they can't change this; it's coming in like a steam roller so they've just put their hands up and accepted it. 
But what the most concerning thing about this legislation is—and talk to people on the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, talk to submitters, talk to the health workforce—there's actually no detail in the bill. There's no detail. I mean, for example, "locality planning"—no one actually knows what it means. And that's the problem. That's why there is the apathy for these reforms. No one actually knows what's going on. 
Then we had in the committee of the whole House stage, after the Government refused to put in a rural health strategy—they denied it to all the submitters who requested it. They went out into the media—the health Minister, Andrew Little—and said "No, it won't be a priority group for us." Then in the committee of the whole House stage—because the polls are starting to go south and their rural and regional MPs are getting the pinch from three waters and health reforms—they do a flip-flop. The audacity of it, after rural New Zealanders had to go through the heartbreak of thinking they hadn't been listened to. 
But, of course, it gets worse, because there is a group that they should have listened to in this bill and they haven't. The mental health stakeholders turned up to the select committee and made it very clear what they thought about this bill. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission said mental health was invisible. How can we end up today with a Government who promises to transform the mental health system, but the peak stakeholder group says mental health is invisible in this bill and the Government refuses to do anything? The Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand said the lack of mental health, and the reference to it, in this bill is symptomatic of this Government's lack of ownership and leadership in mental health. Because, of course, when the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission came out with its damning report, not only did it say it didn't find any material improvements, it actually said there was a lack of leadership in this Government. It actually said there was no clear, well-managed plan to execute change. 
So for a Government who claims to want to transform the mental health system, they bring in a once-in-a-generation reform of the health restructure and mental health is invisible in the bill. And they won't put in a mental health strategy, yet what they told us—Andrew Little told us today—the first principle of their bill is equity. OK, fair enough. What about the equity with people with mental health issues? People with mental health issues in New Zealand have a shorter life expectancy of 20 years in New Zealand. Yet this Government couldn't even bring themselves to put in a mental health and wellbeing strategy in the bill. Listening? No. This is all about ideological reforms in the middle of a pandemic. 
Dr Shane Reti: Wellington knows best!
MATT DOOCEY: Exactly. Wellington knows best, the bureaucrats know best! They're taking the local out of local people's views. And I take great heart that, in 14 months, we will have a health Minister who actually knows about health: Dr Shane Reti. And he made it very clear today that when National is back in Government, we will bring back local people's views into their health system. Because time and time again, this Government talks a big game, they say they're listening, but then they bring out a pre-prepared solution: centralising. Centralising because they think Wellington knows best, but we know it doesn't.





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): A shocking speech from the Opposition, but we're getting used to it. The Opposition wants to denigrate all our attempts, in terms of finding some equity within the health system, simply because themselves and ACT, they see us as collateral damage in terms of the whole free market. It's just shocking, really.
Matt Doocey: Labour brought in the free-market reforms.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, no, no—we know who brought in the free-market reforms. In terms of the Māori Health Authority—and I want to address my friend Shane Reti here—it was supported by the Cancer Society, the Lung Foundation, Kidney Health New Zealand, the Stroke Foundation, Breast Cancer Aotearoa Coalition, and the Gynaecological Cancer Foundation. Everywhere, right across the spectrum, we saw NGOs supporting the Māori Health Authority. You have to ask yourself: is it acceptable to keep propping up a health system that is failing so many of us, not just at Māori level but rural level, at Pasifika level, and in the disabled area? We should be able to obtain some of the standards of care that everyone in New Zealand enjoys. This bill introduces a set of health system principles that provide common expectations across the health system at all levels for all people and groups, and the principles describe the key aspects of a modern, compassionate, and responsible health system. 
Now, the Opposition and the ACT Party, sadly, have been trying to frame some of the values in terms of Māori as divisive—not just Māori but Pasifika and the disabled—and somehow there's some secret agenda that we don't deserve. But when your people are dying seven years earlier—seven years earlier—than Europeans and when the Waitangi Tribunal says that Māori health is at a catastrophic, catastrophic, state, that demands a change in terms of the system. That's why I'm proud to support this kaupapa. I'm proud of the Labour Party. I never thought in my political lifetime that a mainstream political party would be so brave and so courageous to implement this type of kaupapa. 
So we, particularly in the Māori caucus, thank our colleagues and thank our Prime Minister for being brave, for being courageous, despite the rubbish that comes from the ACT Party, in particular, and others out there who will accuse us of being separatists and racists and having some sort of set-up exclusively for Māori. We have weathered that storm and we have taken into account what has been happening to our people, and we thank our fellow politicians, particularly all our colleagues who have been through different times with Labour over the years, but it takes some courage to do this.
I ask the Māori Party also today to stop their nonsense. We heard some of that nonsense last week, so stop talking rubbish about a Budget and going on about 0.0 percent and 1 percent. This is a Budget where Māori, particularly in health, can have a say right across the spectrum—right across the spectrum. We're talking $1.2 billion over three or four years in terms of the Māori Health Authority, but you're talking about having access to the other $11 billion. For the first time, Māori will have a say, will have an opportunity on everything that concerns them. They will get to work in partnership—partnership; that's something that the National Party used to believe in—with Health New Zealand, and have a say on every area in terms of Māori health.
It's such an opportunity. It is such a historic time. This is a precedent that I never, as I said, would have thought would happen in my lifetime, to see a mainstream party support a Māori Health Authority. That's why I asked Dr Reti to consider some of his kōrero. This establishes an opportunity that we've never ever had before, and it's an opportunity that so many in our community are looking forward to: a by Māori, for Māori strategy, working in collaboration and in partnership with Pākehā New Zealand, mainstream New Zealand.
In finishing: the Opposition merely want to play politics with the health system of New Zealand whereas we in this Labour Government want to do the mahi to fix the inequalities in the system. Labour want to build, but National and ACT only want to destroy the communities this new health system will serve. We will remember that. Kia ora.





Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. 
Nā te mea tuatahi—he tohu aroha ki te wāhine toa Dr Elisa Lavelle Wijohn. Tiwhatiwha te Ao, tiwhatiwha te Pō. E te kotuku rerenga tahi, whatoro mai o parirau kia rongo anō ai mātou i to wairua e topa ana i te whare whakaruruhau mō tō tinana. Rere tu tō tātou kotuku i te hau aroha ō whānau. Whaīa te ara o Hine Tuākirikiri ki Te Toi o ngā Rangi okioko ai. 
[Deep sorrow for passing. Kotuku represents the tūpāpaku returning among her loved ones for the last time. Begin your flight following the trademark coastline of Hine Tuākirikiri to the resting place of your tūpuna in the uppermost heavens.]
Elisa passed away from cancer just yesterday. She was a staunch advocate for Patient Voice Aotearoa, and she was instrumental to the 100,000-strong petition they presented to Parliament in May of last year. They sought to double the funding for Pharmac and to reform that agency. Patient Voice Aotearoa also submitted to the Pae Ora bill, where they asked for a medicines and a rare diseases health strategy. They asked for a broadening of Pharmac's statutory objectives to make it more patient outcome - focused, to give it a fairer form of economic assessment, and to look at the full health picture—good, simple advice. We see the success of that advocacy through the increased funding for Pharmac, the higher levels of compliance required in this legislation, the review report that was released in February, and the Government's response that came out just last week. 
You've fought the good fight, Elisa, and we'll continue that fight in this House. Ka nui te aroha ki a Leon, Josh, Maia me te whānau kātoa i tēnei wā pourinui. 
[I send loving greetings to Leon, Josh, Luke, and Maia and the whole family at this very, very sad time.]
Most of us have lost someone to cancer because in this country it is our single-biggest cause of death. As our population grows and gets older, it will just continue to grow. Many cancers can be cured if they're found and treated in time, and even if those cancers can't be cured, more effective treatment means people can live longer. Part of the success of Pae Ora - Healthy Futures and the Government's response to the review of Pharmac can be directly measured by the reduction of cancer in this country and the longer people can live with it, because they can get access to the medication they need when they need it, where they need it. 
Finally, I mihi to all of those who are living with cancer right now, and the whānau who care for them. Kia kaha koutou. 
It is not often where we see the Government putting its money where its mouth is in such a timely fashion. Budget 2022 allocated eye-watering amounts of funding for Pae Ora, including to establish the Māori Health Authority and create the iwi partnership boards and the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. These are absolute minimums. These are required to address the health disparities for Māori. These existed in our health system long before COVID came along to make it worse. 
We agree with the many submitters who thought that the Government's commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi could be more clearly spelt out—in particular, with the addition of the term "tino rangatiratanga". We raised this in the committee of the whole House, to no effect. But the Greens look forward to a generation of children and young people growing up speaking te reo Māori so that a term used in our so-called founding document 182 years ago is commonly understood and is, unsurprisingly, included in our legislation. 
We—point of order, Madam Speaker. Do I not have 10 minutes? I think we started with five. OK, ka pai, I'll just haere tonu—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Would the member like to take a point of order? The member calls for a point of order.
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Kia ora. It's just that the time appeared to—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I'll try and sort it out, but the way to ask for a point of order is to say "Point of order." Then I acknowledge the member, and then the member raises what they want to. But I think we get it—just a moment.
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Yeah, ka pai. Me haere tonu? Kia ora. Ngā mihi.
[OK. Should I continue? OK, thanks.]
So we applaud the Government for deciding to include strategies for women and rural communities, alongside those dedicated to Māori, Pasifika, and people with disabilities. Although I was able to get the term "takatāpui" added to New Zealand legislation for the first time, we were unsuccessful in getting a rainbow strategy, which so many submitters had advocated for. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Te Paati Māori and the National Party for supporting our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on this. We were very much behind the SOP for a mental health strategy as well. 
I'm not entirely convinced by the Minister's suggestion that what the strategy would do could be met by having a lot of locality plans that address this. I'm not sure how that national consistency can be achieved. However, I am convinced that there are people in this Government and in those Government departments with the heart to want to make this happen, and that's just what we're going to need. So in the absence of such a strategy, we look forward to community organisations having an input into how pae ora can best deliver on gender-affirming services for trans and non-binary people, national guidelines and referral pathways for gender-affirming healthcare, and best practice healthcare for intersex children and young people that enables them to make informed decisions about medical interventions, and then develop all of the training and workforce development that's required to make that happen. 
All of these things, so far, our communities have been advising and advocating to DHBs for, for years, as volunteers. We hope this Budget recognises them for the specialist consultants that they are, because the Government cannot achieve these goals without them. 
Tā Mason Durie first published his Māori health model Te Whare Tapa Wha in 1985. The Māori health strategy He Korowai Oranga was based on it and was released in 2002. It was updated in 2014 to the Pae Ora - Healthy Futures, but still our people have the worst health outcomes because none of the band-aid solutions address the systemic issues that cause it. 
We know that 80 percent of social determinants of health lie outside of the health system. Children need to grow up in warm, dry and affordable homes. Whānau need enough income to live in dignity. People with diverse genders, sexualities, and sex characteristics need to be safe in their own homes, their communities, their schools, and their places of worship. Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers need recognition of their cultural and spiritual needs as much as the practical issues that they face. Nearly 40 years after he created Te Whare Tapa Wha, Tā Mason Durie has helped design Pae Ora - Healthy Futures. 
Māori have waited a long time for a Government that would do what needs to be done, that genuinely acknowledges Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that recognises Māori leadership and mātauranga Māori. We have high hopes and high expectations that it is this Government that will do that. I acknowledge Minister Little, Associate Ministers Verrall and Henare, all of the officials, those who submitted, and my colleagues on the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.





BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today on behalf of the ACT Party to oppose the third reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. That is because of a very basic point: that this bill has nothing to do with better healthcare, it is all to do with co-governance. This bill is an exercise in co-governance rather than putting healthcare at the centre of the healthcare system.
This bill reforms our healthcare sector by taking away 20 district health boards. It replaces them with Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority, and it then carves up New Zealand into localities with separate locality plans. There are up to 80 localities but, as of today, we still have no idea from the Minister whether it will be closer to eight or 80 localities. It also then puts in place the iwi-Māori partnership boards who will be consulted on and who will set in place these localities. But as of today, we don't know who the iwi-Māori partnership boards will be because that's up to the whim of the Māori Health Authority, and we don't know where the localities will be.
So in essence, we are taking away 20 district health boards, adding up to maybe 80 separate localities—maybe more, who would know?—under two separate systems that separately commission health services based on people's race. We fundamentally believe that if we're going to reform the healthcare sector, we should be reforming to simplify the system and not make it more bureaucratic and make it more complicated, because that won't go any way to addressing having better outcomes for New Zealanders; it will simply focus on co-governance and administration rather than on healthcare and people.
The real problem here is that the Minister has focused his attention on co-governance and administration, and not on patients and not on New Zealanders. This reform has been completely flawed from the start. We should keep people and patients at the centre of our healthcare sector. And the Minister, at the introduction of this bill, said that this bill was about meeting our Treaty obligations. It wasn't about better healthcare, it wasn't about all the discrepancies, about access through New Zealand; it was about meeting our Treaty obligations. What the Minister is really saying by that is that this is the Treaty-at-the-heart-of-everything approach that the Government has taken across the board in governance in this term in Parliament.
Hon Meka Whaitiri: That's a good thing.
BROOKE VAN VELDEN: It's got nothing to do—oh, and we have a Minister saying "That's a good thing." The Treaty at the heart of everything, co-governance at the heart of everything—well, the ACT Party believes that we should put New Zealanders at the heart of everything, not co-governance. We should put outcomes in the centre of our healthcare sector.
The Minister, throughout this entire debate, has never addressed the question: how will this reform get better treatments to more New Zealanders faster? That has been missing from this entire debate. And I have spoken to doctors who have simply laughed when I've asked: how will this reform help you in your job? They said it won't—it won't. It won't lead to faster access to treatments for everybody. Patients won't see better, quicker access to more modern medicines—they won't. Rural doctors have no idea how this will make access to rural patients easier. It's all been about co-governance of administration, and the people have been forgotten. And we've forgotten about the outcomes.
Now, I put up three amendments to this reform during the committee of the whole House stage, to say that we needed to make this bill better if it was to pass. And that was to put in place a rural health strategy, to put in place a medicines health strategy, and to remove the Māori Health Authority.
I want to pick up, firstly, on the rural health strategy. We wanted to create a rural health strategy because, for 750 New Zealanders who live rurally or remotely, there is inadequacy of access to care in our rural areas. And this Government often forgets about rural New Zealand. I'm proud of the role that ACT has taken in this Parliament to remind the Government of those discrepancies for the people who work hard up and down New Zealand in our rural and remote areas, who do have worse health outcomes because they live in rural areas. We put up the amendment and, thankfully, the Minister finally listened and adopted the ACT Party's recommendation that we put in place a rural health strategy. I'm proud of the role that ACT has done by listening to New Zealanders and putting their voices in this House, in Parliament. We have changed this law to make sure that rural New Zealand is not being forgotten and that has made access—I hope—in the future, better for rural New Zealand.
It was with this change to the bill—this last minute change to actually acknowledge rural health—that we hoped that the Minister would also adopt two of our other recommendations. That was, firstly, for the medicines strategy and the Māori Health Authority. Now, Pharmac last week—at the time we were debating—they had their Pharmac final report come back from the Pharmac Review. In that review they talked about a lack of transparency, they talked about the problems with medicines access for all New Zealanders, and they said that a medicines strategy was needed—they called it a crucial omission that a medicines strategy was not part of this health reform.
Well, I think it's a shame that the Minister had an amendment ready to go, under the ACT Party, for a medicines strategy that was called for, because you have to think of medicines access if you're trying to reform the healthcare sector. The Pharmac review said it was essential, and the Minister shot it down. So he did not think about patients; he did not think about their wellbeing; he did not think about how do we get better, modern medicines to New Zealanders faster—he forgot about the patients and all he cared about was the co-governance. We should have had a medicines strategy in this bill. He focused too hard on the Māori Health Authority, believing that the Treaty at the heart of everything will solve New Zealanders' problems—and it won't. It will make our society more divided—and divided on the basis of race. Our healthcare sector should focus on the needs of people—not on their race. And that is fundamentally why we cannot support this bill.
We want to have a healthcare sector that has better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. We need to acknowledge that we live in a multi-ethnic society—over 260 different ethnicities in New Zealand. We are no longer white and Māori. We are a diverse society and our laws should reflect that. It should not be one separate system for Māori and one system for everybody else. We should acknowledge the needs of all of our diverse New Zealand populations, and I think it's a shame the way that this bill has been written to divide New Zealanders based on their race.
So, in conclusion, this has been a messy process from start to finish. We, at first, had this not being seen in the Health Committee, as it should have been. It was a separate organisation that was set up, a select committee that had both Māori Affairs Committee and healthcare members of Parliament—I think that was a shame. And it points to the whole reason why we're here in the first place: that this Minister believes that he can set up institutions based on people's race and their identity groups, rather than their needs and on the analysis and debate of good ideas. Everything this Government touches is divisive, and it makes for a worse New Zealand. ACT stands for a better New Zealand that is inclusive of all New Zealanders and that actually puts patients at the heart of the healthcare system.
We don't want to get roped into exercises of politics and exercises of co-governance, and forgetting about the people and health. We want to strengthen the healthcare system, not divide it. Thank you, Madam Speaker





Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Health): My contribution will be brief. I want to just simply respond to the previous speaker from the ACT Party and say that I found that inane contribution appalling. When she said about the need to address the health of all New Zealanders, I did not believe that I was part of the New Zealand she was describing. In fact, what came to mind was very much the rhetoric of the 1970s—the rhetoric of the 1970s—where the authorities of the time did not recognise Cook Islanders, Māori, Niueans, Tokelauan, who are part of the Realm of New Zealand, as New Zealanders; where they questioned their identity in words such as "They don't look like us, therefore they're not part of this country." That's what was coming from them. And to make it worse, they have already declared they will get rid of Te Puni Kōkiri, they will get rid of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, they will get rid of the women's affairs department, youth—they'll get rid of human rights that are so fundamental to the diversity of this country. The fact that she continues to ask "Why the Treaty?" indicates the ignorance of that party, ignorance of where her place is in Aotearoa New Zealand, ignorance of the value of the Treaty as a fundamental pillar of this nation. 
It also reveals the ignorance of why the reform is necessary. It is driven by expert advice. It is driven by the needs that have remained unmet for several decades. There are a number of reports. And can I also say that the fact that she's trying to claim credit for the Government's recognition of the rural—I want to thank our rural sector MPs for their championing and advocating for that strategy. ACT had nothing to do with it, and so I just want to put that on the record. I think it's important that we recognise the value of evidence, and the value of evidence that's driving this reform. 
There are a number of reports and they all highlight the inequities and the barriers that the most vulnerable members of our communities have faced. Māori, definitely; Pasifika, definitely; people with disabilities, definitely; people in isolated rural areas, definitely. And so let me just give you a quote from the Bula Sautu report, which I suspect they've never read. It identifies inequities across a number of factors for Māori and Pasifika. And for Māori and Pacific peoples, I want to say we have continued to live and breathe the inequities that all of these reports outline. But no one—not when National was last in, they didn't take any notice of that at all. And so what this is about is to say we cannot accept as normal the inequities and that we've got to address it. Because for far too long, the health system, guided by certain political views, has just observed the inequities growing and growing and growing. 
In midwifery care, it's inaccessible for our Pacific mothers. Less than half of pregnant Pacific women are involved with a midwife for crucial screening and health checks in their first trimester. This leads to identified complications, blood loss, and, for 10 years, consistently higher rates of mortality for Pacific mums and their babies. Why have the system and past Governments allowed that? Four out of 10 Pacific babies in their first year of life missed out on the five core Well Child / Tamariki Ora health checks for them and their families in 2018. That's a 20 percent equity gap and 700 Pacific babies and their families in total who didn't get checked on. Subsequently, between birth and age four, Pacific babies end up in hospital for serious skin conditions like cellulitis at much higher rates. This pattern is the same for dental issues, asthma, and other issues. 
It's worse for Māori in many respects. You've heard the Minister, Peeni Henare, also address the issue of addressing bowel cancer screening, bringing that in early, and that's about saving lives. So this legislation is groundbreaking. It is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that will change the way health works in New Zealand, and for those most vulnerable it will mean a much fairer and a more equitable system. So we can't rely on political rhetoric such as that. We have to rely on the evidence that has been collecting dust on the shelves year in, year out. This Government is what is going to do something about it. 
So in addition to the Māori inequities, in addition to the inequities faced by people with disabilities, in addition to the inequity faced by people living in isolated rural areas, we also have inequities faced by Pasifika people. And for me, in the way that I've managed to oversee the development of this, I've been wanting to make sure that for our Pasifika people and those who are in need, it would mean a much fairer, much more equitable system, and much more responsive system to those needs. 
I want to see culturally intelligent people at the top of the new health structure and a Pasifika-facing policy at all levels in the new structure. This will fit into a Pacific national health strategy, and this new focus on Pacific health will endure over the decades. So the line of sight is having Pasifika lead the work for Pasifika from the top all the way down. The localities where our Pacific providers are going to be are going to be crucial. We saw how our Pacific providers led the work and protected our communities in the last two years in the roll-out of vaccine. 
So I would say to those listening in: don't listen to the crap that you've heard from the other side; listen to the experts.





SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I wish to stand on behalf of the National Party, as a member of Parliament for North Shore, to oppose the third reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. It is with some disappointment that I do that, having spent nearly half a decade working within the public health system in New Zealand in a variety of roles and continuing to work as a volunteer with our ambulance service. It is very disappointing that we aren't in a position where we've got consensus in terms of how we progress and build and improve our health system going forward. Because importantly, our health system is critical to the success of this country. Our health system is one of those pillars that will serve us all at periods of our lives, and the reality of where we stand today is that we do not have agreement across this House in terms of how that will look in the future. That is a grave shame because this is not an area which we should look to change or continually move from one point to another. But we are here for reasons that have been articulated already before: we need a health system that is based and focused on health outcomes; a system that targets resources based on need. If you do those two elements, you deal with the challenges that have been covered already in the House today. 
New Zealand is out of step in terms of the way in which we are progressing with these reforms. Nearly every other country embarking on large-scale health reform—of which there aren't many during a pandemic of global scale, but those that are progressing are moving to a devolved system, the complete opposite to the centralisation model that has been adopted by this Government. That is a challenge for a number of reasons. Not only is New Zealand out of step in terms of what we are doing, we're actually looking to adopt models that have been tried and failed in the past. And so we are missing the opportunity to use this opportunity to improve and do what could and will bring significant value in the future. 
Our system has a number of challenges, and we all agree that that needs to be improved in different areas. But the workforce element within the health system is probably the most critical and fundamental aspect that is broken today. The aspects around retention of the existing staff who work within our system were pretty much forgotten in regards to the last Budget process articulated by this Government. Yet those are the very individuals across our district health boards, across our primary care sectors, across our front-line ambulance providers, across our allied health areas, across our aged-care sector that need our support. Retention is the single biggest factor—in terms of investment—that will be able to retain people within the system. Once they're gone—and New Zealand's health system leaks like a sieve to other countries, particularly Australia—it is very challenging and very expensive to get them back.
We also need to overlay outcome measures and targeted resources, and reduce the level of bureaucracy. Having worked within the public health system, there is a significant element of bureaucracy within our system, but that will not be enhanced by further centralisation and further bureaucracy for Wellington. We need to remove that bureaucracy. We need to remove that overhead and provide certainty to not only the front-line clinicians that are working very hard day in, day out within our system, but also to those many staff who work in the back offices supporting our front-line health providers.
Ideological change by this Labour Government will not result in better outcomes. Centralisation will result in a loss of local voice. Bureaucracy will not deliver better outcomes. In 2023, a National-led Government will inherit a wasteland of failed reforms. Having worked in the system for many years, the conversations that I hear from past colleagues are that there is no clarity in terms of what and how this reform will be implemented. There is significant fatigue, and many of my past colleagues are looking at options to move offshore, not because they don't care about the health system and want to do everything within their power to improve it, but they are tired. This reform will simply make that situation worse. 
We need a health system that is sustainable—that is not only in regards to the fiscal elements in terms of how we fund it but also in terms of the people that operate within it. National opposes this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—five minutes.





DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak to the third reading of the te Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. As health spokesperson, it's been revealing, following this bill as it has progressed through the House. I want to begin by acknowledging the significance of this day for tangata w'enua in Aotearoa. Our people have never had a place to stand with the health system. Generations of Māori have faced institutional racism and systemic barriers that have led to persistent inequities and entrenched health disparities for tangata w'enua. The real impact of this is devastating. We're dying young from cancers, from third-world diseases, but worst of all from neglect from indifference, from racist policies and racist people, and ignorance. Our people die on average at least seven years younger than non-Māori. 
That is why a new vision for the health system in Māori health was put forward by Tā Mason Durie, a rangatira who has spent his life fighting and advocating fiercely for hauora Māori. That is why Te Paati Māori supported Tā Mason's vision and included the Māori Health Authority in our policy manifesto in the 2020 election. The establishment of the Māori Health Authority and Health New Zealand is the biggest reform to the health system in generations. We have an opportunity to finally address the barriers that hold us back, even though some are in denial. Therefore, this House must not yet again set up Māori to fail under the new system. Tangata w'enua must have our decision-making authority recognised in the legislation. There are rights guaranteed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Let's not forget this isn't our first attempt to own our own health solutions as Māori. We remember well that our tupuna Māui Pōmare achieved many of his health strategies only to be later removed as the Minister of Health as it was considered improper by non-Māori—many like ACT—who didn't believe that natives should hold such an important portfolio. For too long, our people have needed a truly transformational health system—by Māori, for Māori—that truly unapologetically addresses our needs. 
That's why Te Paati Māori will support this but put forward amendments at the committee stage which would have strengthened the bill and made it more compliant with Te Tiriti. The first Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) would have included tino rangatiratanga in the legislation and replaced references to the Treaty preferences with reference to the articles of the Treaty, the actual contractual text that was signed in 1840. The second SOP would have established a Māori Director-General of Health to lead the operational management of the Ministry of Health alongside the Director-General of Health. As we saw during the pandemic, even when Ministers instructed the release of Māori data and the courts backed them up, the Director-General was able to block it from happening. The third SOP would have strengthened the language in the bill so that Health New Zealand would require the agreement of the Māori Health Authority before carrying out its functions. While we challenged all parties to support those SOPs, only the Green Party supported, and we thank them for their support and for being the one party willing to work with us on eliminating these legislative barriers. 
I acknowledge also my tungāne Rawiri, who covered me last week while I was stuck home with COVID. In closing, the Government must not see the passage of this bill as the end but the start of the road to reforming our health system and restoring power to tangata w'enua to look after ourselves. We cannot achieve the health outcomes we want to see with 2 percent of the health Budget for a population that makes up more than 17 percent of the country. We cannot achieve self-determination and self-sufficiency, our tino rangatiratanga, when our resources and decision-making mandate is channelled through a Pākehā bureaucracy in the Ministry of Health. Therefore, we will continue to fight for an Aotearoa hou, a nation where tangata w'enua are free to live as our true selves, a nation where we're trusted to manage ourselves, look after ourselves, and use the wisdom of our tūpuna to create a better future for our tamariki and mokopuna. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Last week, I sat in this House and listened as a member of the Opposition said of this legislation sententiously, "First, do no harm. There should be no change, because first we should do no harm." But a claim like that ignores the harm that is being caused by the status quo. Retaining the status quo does harm in itself. We know this because of the failures with respect to the health of Māori. We know this because of failures with respect to the health of our Pasifika peoples. We know this because the current system is not working. Contrary to claims of the Opposition, decentralisation has not worked for New Zealanders—for all New Zealanders. We all know that the district health board system was no longer working, and, as the status quo, it was doing harm. So change is needed.
This Pae Ora legislation is bold, transformative change brought to us by a Minister with vision and courage and conviction—a Minister who has the guts to set up a separate select committee which drew expertise with the chair of the Health Committee on that committee, with the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee on that specialist committee, with people drawn from all areas of the House to oversee this specialist reform, this transformative reform.
The Opposition opposed it because they do not understand difference. "Everyone should be treated the same" they say. "Everyone should be treated the same." But would they like to be treated the same as Māori? I don't think so. Would they like to be treated the same as Pasifika? I don't think so. What they mean is that everyone should be treated as a middle-aged white man or white woman. But we need to understand and recognise difference in the way we govern ourselves in this country. We need to understand and recognise difference in the way we do health in this country. We need to support different ways of doing health so that we can—as this legislation says right in its purpose statement right at the start—protect, promote, and improve the health of all New Zealanders, so that we can achieve equity in health outcomes among New Zealand's population groups, including by striving to eliminate health disparities in particular for Māori and build towards Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) for all New Zealanders.
That is the purpose of this transformative legislation. It is an excellent goal. I support this from the bottom of my heart.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to join my colleagues in our very strong opposition to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. This is a piece of legislation that's been shaped time and time again by polls and by public pressure, and certainly not by policy. It is a piece of legislation that started out as Labour's answer to a once-in-a-lifetime or generational opportunity to reform the health sector, but it's finishing up as nothing but the shifting of the deck chairs on the Titanic. I think every New Zealander would agree that we have an exceptional health workforce. Our doctors and our nurses and our health practitioners across the spectrum have gone beyond the call of duty over the last couple of years particularly. But they are working in a system that is creaking and groaning and all but sinking, and as much as Andrew Little has been warned by the sector, he is still ploughing ahead—full steam ahead—paying no heed to the warnings or the danger signs. 
What Government in its right mind would force a sector through reforms like this during one of the most deadly pandemics this world has seen in a century, at a time when doctors and nurses are sick; they're suffering extreme exhaustion, burnout; they're working from home; they are following complex home isolation rules; they're managing the health of their own children and families; the borders are closed, and there is no migrant workforce on standby to step in and breach the gap. This bill purported to fix the system, but, as most would rightly predict, we on this side of the House say it is going to fail and fail miserably. 
But there was no need for it to be a failure. In fact, if the Government had listened to their very own person, Heather Simpson, and her recommendations, it might not have. This bill is the so-called answer to the recommendations made by Heather Simpson in her 2020 report, which actually sought to improve healthcare across the country. It proposed to disestablish some health boards. Now, we on this side of the House would agree that not all district health boards (DHBS) have performed to expectation, and there is certainly a case to reduce by potentially merging some. But instead of streamlining the system, the Government, in its infinite wisdom, has chosen instead to bloat it—to inflate it. We would say that DHBs should be reformed, but to keep that locality of them. We would say that the Government's answer, of bloating the system with layers of bureaucracy between we the patients, we the public, and Ministers, is unacceptable. Labour, though, seems to think that you can resolve all issues, that you can achieve better health outcomes, by putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats. But we say it is better in the hands of locals—in the hands of those at the grassroots. 
I think it would be fair to observe that any public policy that is informed by poll results is a recipe for disaster. It should be informed by stakeholders and user groups. For example, this bill started out life without a dedicated women's health strategy. And, as the National Party spokesperson for women, I was very, very pleased to see the response of huge pressure from organisations like the Gender Justice Collective, so women now have at least been identified as a priority population. But it is just another strategy. There are no health plans. There is no wellbeing plan. There are no targets. There is no money tagged to these targets. There are no outcomes. We say the Government needs to immediately respond to the 50,000 women who've missed a mammogram, the 50,000 women who have missed a cervical smear test, the year 13 girls who've missed out on their HPV vaccines, and the 130,000 women and girls who spent almost nine years waiting for an endometriosis diagnosis. Where is the urgent response in this bill to addressing those backlogs? Where is the advocacy for more maternal beds, for more midwifery training, for longer post-natal stays? 
And while we're on the topic of public pressure, how about that eleventh-hour inclusion of a rural health strategy? It is equally as laudable as it is laughable. Thank goodness for the relentless pressure from this side of the House and our colleagues in ACT, and thank goodness for the relentless pressure from organisations like the Rural Health Alliance and the Rural General Practice Network. At least they have recognised the specific needs of 750,000 Kiwis who live rurally or remotely. Both of these organisations have pushed to see rural communities included as a priority group in the legislation. This will mean targeted rural health strategies and specific rural health outcome measures. My message to the Government is: do not squander this opportunity; make it count. It should also mean parts of New Zealand's health system will be held accountable for ensuring outcomes and the equity that has been promised. 
But I return to the Heather Simpson report, which is the driving force behind this bill. The report said that rural services should be specifically planned for, recognising the unique challenges of living rurally—and there are multiple challenges to living rurally. I wouldn't mind betting that the rural people of New Zealand who have the misfortune of being landed with a Labour MP have been hammering on the doors of those MPs and making their views known. And wasn't it a stroke of irony when Andrew Little said to this House during the committee of the whole House last week that he was responding to his rural MPs—and yet he did not respond to the rural health practitioners. 
Unfortunately, though, he's still ignoring the mental health advocates, the aged-care advocates—and let's wait to see how their health outcomes fare under this new regime. He's also ignored Dr Shane Reti's excellent Supplementary Order Paper that would have bedded in workforce planning, and, equally, Erica Stanford's tireless advocacy for overseas health workers. And, as we know, this workforce is burnt out. GPs are ageing and retiring in droves. There is no structure in place to continue this workforce and the workers who are dealing literally with life and death every single day. It is such a crying shame, for a small country that used to punch well above its weight on every social metric, just about, in society, that this Labour Government has reduced our health sector to what some might call just about Third World, and that is not good enough. New Zealanders deserve better. We deserve First World standards and services, no matter who we are, no matter where we live, and no matter how much we earn. The National Party opposes this bill in its entirety.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I call Tangi Utikere—five minutes.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker, thank you. It's my pleasure to rise and take what I understand is the penultimate contribution this evening in support of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill.
In doing so, can I acknowledge the Minister of Health and his wider ministerial team for bringing to the House a bill that will make an absolute difference. Members opposite might not think so, but I know for the constituents of Palmerston North, this will make a huge difference.
Can I also acknowledge the chair of the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, Dr Russell. In my first reading contribution, it was my hope that the committee would hear from submitters and they did that and what we have in front of us is a very good bill.
There are a number of issues that have led to the introduction of this piece of legislation. A significant one is that of equity—or inequity—for some members of our community, and it's unfortunate that we can define those members by a particular cohort: they are our Māori members of the community, they are our Pasifika, they are our disabled members, they are women, and they are members of rural community as well.
Let's make no mistake. For the benefit of those who are listening and watching at home—and for the benefit of the record—a vote against this bill, this afternoon, is a vote or a sense of endorsement for inequity; for a continuation of inequity; an acknowledgment that the system ain't broke. That's what a vote against this bill is tonight: an acknowledgment that the system ain't broke.
Quite frankly, I think it is rather unfortunate that people in this House have that view when we have members of Pasifika, Māori—
Matt Doocey: Don't make things up
TANGI UTIKERE: —and wider community who do suffer from inequity.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Interjections like that, Mr Doocey, are out of order—as you well know. You will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Matt Doocey: Withdraw and apologise.
TANGI UTIKERE: This bill will allow a dedicated, connected health service for all New Zealanders. But we acknowledge that there is some support that's needed for some parts of our community and this bill delivers on that.
It is a proud day to be a member of this Government, a Labour Government that will create change within health, one of the fundamentals of any society. I commend this bill to the House.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): The district health board (DHB) system is broken and it has been for years, and it has not served rural communities well at all. Today, this Parliament has an opportunity to vote for reform that will serve rural communities much better, and actually deliver access to services that they have been deprived of for generations. 
That side of the House are not going to vote for this bill. For all their grandstanding and cheap political points about strategies here and strategies there, they weren't going to vote for it anyway. They can stand there and say that they wanted a strategy here; even if they got it, they weren't going to vote for it. What a crock. 
This bill is necessary, and I want that side of the House—next time they are in Wairarapa—to explain to the people there why they are satisfied with the status quo, why they are satisfied that there are no dialysis services in Wairarapa. I want them to go to Takapau and say that they are satisfied why the Hawke's Bay District Health Board is not funding their community service. I want them to go to Dannevirke and explain why the people there have to pay $120 for an X-ray when those in Palmerston North get it for free. I want them to explain to the people in Eketāhuna why they can't access their closest hospital in Masterton because of some arbitrary DHB boundary in between. They can't. It's broken. But they are not prepared to accept that the Government is going to do something for rural New Zealand. They would rather grandstand and try and present the spurious political argument that is not backed up. At the next election I want to hear how they can justify going back to the status quo that is depriving rural people of access to health. They can't. They know it. It is absolute nonsense. 
I am proud to lend my vote today on behalf of my constituency in Wairarapa, the Tararua district, and Central Hawke's Bay to finally give them the access to health services that they deserve.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.





LOCAL ELECTORAL (ADVERTISING) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, we come now to the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill, which, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, is available for first reading forthwith.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I present a legislative statement on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I move, That the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 22 June 2022, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions; during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. 
This year, we have the local government elections. These are the primary opportunity for communities to determine who will represent them and make key decisions about their local community. I believe a test of a healthy democracy is its ability to effectively represent the diversity of views of its people. The Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill provides a small yet important change to help secure the safety of all candidates, by enabling alternative contact methods to be used on local electoral advertising. This bill provides that instead of providing a physical address, candidates may choose between providing a physical address, an email address, a phone number, a post office box number, or a link to an internet site that contains one of those ways of contacting a candidate.
This is a small bill, of just four clauses. It adjusts the address requirements of authorisation statements for local election advertisements. It responds to concerns about safety risks that I've heard from women and candidates of visible ethnic minorities. This bill balances the need for accountability and transparency in local elections. It is important that the person behind election advertisements can be identified. The authorisation statements will remain, but with more choice about how and where the candidate or promoter can be contacted. This means that if an advertisement doesn't comply with the rules for campaign advertising, enforcement officers can contact the publisher to resolve any issues. As with the status quo, if there are fake details or if the authoriser does not respond in time, enforcement officers can still take the material down. I welcome further feedback from the select committee process about whether we have struck the right balance here.
Here's how the process works at the moment in local elections: when everyone publishes an advertisement promoting a candidate, in any newspaper, periodical, notice, poster, pamphlet, handbill, billboard, or radio or television broadcast, they must include an authorisation statement. That statement must include the true name of the person causing the advertisement to be published—usually the candidate—and the place of his or her residence or place of business. In this House, we are all familiar with billboards and how promoter statements work for parliamentary elections. We all have party structures behind us, which gives us the option of using the address of a party office or our own electoral office on election material. We can ensure that our home addresses aren't shown on billboards or flyers, or listed in a newspaper. Some local electoral candidates don't have that same choice. 
The time has come to acknowledge the harm that the existing law has the potential to cause. Local democracy thrives when a broad range of individuals who bring different perspectives and experiences stand for public office in a contest of ideas. Women are under-represented in local government, with only 40 percent of councillor positions filled by women, and only 30 percent of mayors. Ethnic diversity is also an area of weakness in our local democratic system. Amending the requirement for candidates to disclose personal addresses will create a safer electoral environment for candidates, including women, gender-diverse people, and visible ethnic minority groups standing for local government. 
Many people who stand in local elections are entering the political affray for the very first time. This should be encouraged, as a wider range of candidates provides more choice for voters. For candidates, this experience should be challenging and demanding, but it should not be unsafe. It should not expose them, their families, or their flatmates to personal risk. The chief executive of Local Government New Zealand, Susan Freeman-Greene, wrote a column just over a month ago in which she noted that, and I quote, "People stand for local government because they want to serve their communities. Insidious, scary harassment isn't part of that job description." She also described far too many examples in recent memory of elected members who have experienced harm. For the preservation of our democracy, we owe it to the electoral candidates to feel safe. To her, and to all elected members and candidates who have experienced abuse: I hear you.
The Prime Minister recently reflected on the fragility of democracy, and the collective responsibility those in it have to debate with the passion and fire that conviction brings, but without the vitriol, hate, and violence. Her summary was that "This imperfect but precious way that we organise ourselves, that has been created to give equal voice to the weak and to the strong, that is designed to help drive consensus—it is fragile." We can take a step today to protect our democratic processes. We can take a step to ensure that dialogue and debate are cherished, not open to threats, harassment, and the invasion of privacy. We can take a step to strengthen the voices of those who haven't been heard in forums they haven't been welcomed into. 
This Government has signalled that we will be guided by our virtues and by our commitment to the wellbeing of people, that we look beyond GDP to find our measures of success. Part of this focus on wellbeing, on creating a fairer New Zealand, is that we will continue to strengthen social inclusion in Aotearoa New Zealand. This means supporting our diversity and creating a New Zealand where all people feel safe, have equal access to opportunities, and do not experience discrimination. 
Despite the short time frames, my officials have worked closely with electoral offices, Local Government New Zealand, and Taituarā on ensuring that the bill continues to provide for transparency and accountability. This is a balance that is incredibly important, and I commend these groups for their time and expertise. I am confident that the bill strikes a good balance between campaigning transparency and providing a safe environment for candidates. 
Nominations for local election candidates open on 15 June 2022. To be able to take effect before the intensive campaign phase of this year's local election, the amendment bill needs to be enacted under urgency, with a two-week-long select committee. I acknowledge that the swift pace of these reforms may be disappointing for some; however, this Government knows that this change is the right thing to do, and these amendments will move through this Parliament very quickly. This bill must pass as soon as possible to provide options and certainty to candidates before election material is printed. 
Even though this is a small bill, we have an opportunity now to support diverse candidates and ensure that no one is needlessly subject to harm or discouraged from standing. I commend this bill to the House. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party, as their local government spokesperson, to speak on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill, first reading, a Government bill in the name of Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government. I acknowledge the contribution by Minister Whaitiri in regards to this bill. National will be supporting this bill at first reading.
National do agree around the aspects that have been noted in regards to personal risk to candidates and individuals and are supportive in acknowledging these concerns—that this bill, while a small element, will make changes that will have benefits for candidates. It is critically important that we have a wide range of candidates across our local government sector. Local government is an incredibly important part of our democracy, and any aspect that means some candidates may not put their hand up is an issue for our overall democracy, and as such we are supportive.
I've had the opportunity over the last few months to visit about half of the local councils across this country, from Kaipara to Gore. It's consistent across those visits that the capability of people that work within our local government sector do an amazing job. They do an amazing job under what are often very difficult circumstances, and the scale of impact as a result of COVID and the large-scale of reform that our local government sector is currently dealing with is testament to the qualities of these individuals across this country. To those individuals who will be putting their hand up to represent their local community in October, I look forward to seeing a large degree of increased capability and competence and diversity in that group.
It would be remiss not to note that this bill has come at a time, and is being pushed through the House under urgency, when it would be fair to say this is not a new issue. This is not a new issue that should have just been identified recently; this Government has had five years in Government in order to be able to identify this problem. So it is somewhat interesting that the Government has chosen the opportunity to push through this bill under urgency, and it does demonstrate, potentially, the degree of planning that is under way on the other side. But, nevertheless, as we said, the bill will change a number of elements in regards to the authorisation statements, and that is small in the context. National support this bill.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This is a small change, but a significant one for the upcoming local body elections. This bill removes the requirement to list a physical address on campaign advertising in the upcoming elections for local body. There's been growing concerns that candidates who do publicise their home address may face undue risk to their physical safety, particularly women and also visible minorities in our community. And the fear is that this desire for transparency in our democratic process is, in fact, having a negative impact and discouraging democratic participation. So what has become clear is that the current requirements are, in fact, doing the opposite of what they intended, and we are changing that today by changing the fact that you no longer need a physical address. You can also provide an email address, a post office box number, a phone number, or a link to an internet site. This is a good bill that encourages more people to stand for public office, and I commend it to the House.





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As we've heard from my colleague Simon Watts, the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill will be supported by the National Party at this first reading. But, as we know, the proof is in the pudding and the devil's in the detail, and so we want to make sure that this bill gets off to select committee and has a bit of interrogation at that point. 
As we can see from the timetable of this particular bill, there is going to be a very short report back on this bill. The Hon Meka Whaitiri, when she was speaking to this bill and introducing it, has explained that it needs to be in place in time for the local body elections coming up in October, which means that it needs to meet the cut-off time for nominations. That means the advertising for candidates must also comply. We do understand the need for this particular bill, but we also understand that there are a lot of pieces of legislation that are pushed through this House in a very shortened time frame that do end up biting us at the other end once they have tried to be implemented. So that's why it's always incumbent on us to make sure that those who have an interest in legislation going through this House have adequate time to refer to it and to provide their expertise based on their experience and their roles out there in the community. 
But we have heard that this bill is quite simple in its intention, and that is, to take away the requirement that a candidate's residential address is attached to any advertising. We do understand that a residential address would then implicate those others who may live at that house, and that may attract some negative attention to those residents. There is a convention in this House, even, that families are not involved in any of the politics that goes on in this place. And so, too, we want to protect those in those residential addresses who could be family, who could be flatmates, from any kind of negative pushback. But I'd just like to note that in my experience in local government, it is not the advertising on the campaign material that will insulate you into the future from any criticism from the public; in fact, it's probably a magnet to criticism from the public. So it may be that it is the beginning of the hardening process that you have to go through when you take up a public position—that you are able to withstand some of that criticism. But, as I said, you don't wish that to, then, reflect back on your families or other residents in that residential address that may be provided. 
The Hon Meka Whaitiri mentioned that alternatives to the residential address could be the residential address or a business address; it does not exclude residential addresses if candidates wish to use that. In fact, I used my residential address many times because I live in such a remote area that no one was ever going to come and hassle me at my place—and all power to them if they wanted to take the drive! But alternatives include an email address, a post office box number, phone number, or a link to an internet site. I think that's the secret behind this bill; the intention is that there is a way to contact the candidate, not necessarily go visit them at their home. I think this slight change, this amendment to the Local Government Act section 113 will actually achieve that. So as long as candidates are able to realistically be contacted and provide an opportunity for members of the public to critique their views on things, to explore what they intend to do in their role, I think it's probably a good thing. 
We do want people to take part in our democracy, and part of that must be done in a very safe way. It's tough enough now attracting people to become involved in local democracy, and we want to make that as smooth a pathway as absolutely possible. For many candidates, they don't have the privilege of having the backing of a large party organisation behind them, and so they won't have an alternate address—physical address—that they can apply to any advertising material. So with an individual who is running independently for election in those situations, then, you know, we are providing in this slight amendment to the Local Government Act an alternate way that they can complete their candidacy and participate in the democracy. I think New Zealand can be very proud of the accessibility that we have to local democracy in this country. It's very easy to participate and it's open to everyone, but we do want to maintain security for them so they are not intimidated away from wanting to take part in that. 
We do have concern about the fact that it is now a last-minute introduction into this House, having been discussed for several weeks already. It was only introduced into this House on 7 June. So we do have concerns that it could have been addressed a bit earlier. But here we are today, and we do hope that it will make people feel as though the opportunity to stand for their local council, local boards, etc., will be an easier pathway for them as a result of this bill being introduced and becoming law. So, with that, I commend the bill to the House. 





VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. True democracy requires diversity; it requires systems that ensure that everyone across society feels safe standing for election if they wish to do so. Democracy also requires election ads be transparent, accountable, and traceable. This is a small change, but it is one that meets both of those requirements; it doesn't put them in tension with one another. It's a small change, but it will have a powerful wake in terms of its support for diversity at all levels of leadership in Aotearoa. I commend this bill to the House.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) (remote): [Audio issue] it is and we as the Green Party said is an important step towards making our democracy both safer and more inclusive. In fact, I, on behalf of the party, wrote to the Prime Minister in April, asking for this change to be made both at local and general elections. As others have said, we know that the requirement to provide either a residential or a business address—a physical address—favours those who are associated with an existing political party. For those of us who run in general election campaigns, obviously, and everyone in the House at the moment, we're associated with existing parties that have been around a while and that have been in Parliament a while. We have access to party offices or electorate offices that have the benefit of Parliamentary Service security advice and, of course, are removed from our own personal lives in that interaction that would stop others from being able to provide an address at all, if they're first-time candidates and if they're independent candidates. 
And in the local body elections, it's far, far more the case that—and, you know, we have a diverse range of candidates from all sorts of backgrounds and all sorts of political leanings, even, that won't have their access to political parties. As the Electoral Commission and others have previously made this point, our democracy is not as available and does not engage all groups evenly. So we know that young people are less engaged with our democracy. We know that women, Māori, Pacific candidates, and other marginalised ethnic groups are less likely to be selected by existing prominent political parties if they put themselves forward, and they're far less likely to do so. So to say that once you do put yourself forward, as someone from a gender, race, ethnicity, or background that's less likely to be engaged, who we need to encourage but is also, as we know—and the evidence has shown us over and over again—more likely to then be targeted by the sorts of threats or abuse that make those candidates less safe, is antithetical to the purpose of our democracy. 
So we do see this as a good change, as an overdue change, because, of course, with the advent of email and other digital means of connecting people and verifying people's identity, it makes little sense that we've had the requirement for a physical address for so long on everything—that's including pamphlets that are distributed all over, on billboards, and on things that members of the public interact with constantly. And to have something so intimate on there makes little sense now. But we do see this as a change that needs to be implemented at both local and general elections. The urgency is clear, and so the report back for such a simple and necessary change makes sense to us. But we do hope that the engagement does occur and that that feedback will hasten the change to be led by Government and implemented for next year's general election, as well, so that more candidates are made to feel more safe, and a more diverse range of political beliefs, of backgrounds, and of genders is included in our democracy next year, too. I commend the bill to the House.





SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is not a surprise that this Labour Government brings another bill to the House under urgency, where a problem that's been identified—
Hon Members: We're not under urgency.
SIMON COURT: Well, you want it resolved urgently, with a truncated select committee referral, so that's what you're asking for.
It's not a surprise to the ACT Party or to the New Zealand voters that this Government seeks an urgent response to a piece of legislation to fix a problem that it's known about for a very long time. That is, the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill, which gives candidates in the upcoming local body elections the right to withhold their residential address and, instead, provide an email address or a business address or some other way of being contacted. And that's fair enough.
The reasons that have been given, by both Labour and other parties, is that the Government believes it's important to do this to actually reduce the threshold for candidates who might want to stand but are afraid of sharing their personal information, like their residential address. And I understand why a lot of people might feel like that, because, only a few short months ago, there were many, many people protesting in front of this Parliament who were making threats against elected members. So it's a visceral and emotional issue to many of the members of Parliament here, who understand very clearly what that feels like—the thought that somebody would attack your electoral office or make threats against elected members. So we understand why the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill has been proposed, and that is to give candidates in the local body elections the privacy of withholding their residential address.
But there's one thing I want to point out to the Government members in the Chamber today, and to the Minister who sponsored this bill: anybody who's on the electoral roll has to provide their name and address, and that is available for anybody to look up, right now. So if I was a candidate, standing not for the ACT Party in the local body elections but, say, for the "Cat Party", the party that loves cats—and if you've ever picked up who my candidates are in the local body elections, you would be able to find a candidate who swears that they love cats more than people, and that's why they're campaigning for representation in local government: they're standing up for the cats. So if I was standing for the "Cat Party" and my name was Simon "Miaow-Court", I wouldn't have to give my residential address, I wouldn't have to on my advertising, but anybody who wanted to know where I lived could simply look me up—Simon "Miaow-Court"—on the electoral roll, and they would find my address.
So like so many of the pieces of legislation that this Labour Party has brought to Parliament in the 18 months I've been a member of Parliament, it doesn't really fix the problem of encouraging better quality candidates to stand for office. In fact, it was only a few short weeks ago that another Labour Party member—Tangi Utikere, a former deputy mayor of Palmerston North council—brought his Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill to Parliament, and that was intended so that people who are standing as candidates or who are elected to local government have to list all of their pecuniary interests.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: And that bill has already been through the House.
SIMON COURT: That's right, Mr Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. You come to this bill or your call will be over.
SIMON COURT: So, coming back to the bill, if we want better candidates to stand for office, of course allowing them to preserve the privacy of where they live may be one matter that helps, although there are many, many other things that may encourage better people to stand for local government. If we think what kind of candidates we might want, there are people who employ people, people who run local businesses—landlords, for example; people who house others in their local community. We might want them to stand and to be represented in local government. And I can guarantee to the Labour members in this House this evening that it wouldn't be withholding their residential address that would prevent them from seeking an election in the local body elections. It would be more likely that all of their pecuniary interests would have to be listed and that that might well be a barrier to them wanting to stand.
And we also need to consider that, actually, the objectives that central government has set for local government are so conflicting that if you were to stand for election as a local candidate to a local board, to a community board, or to your city council or district council, you would find on day one, having been elected on a particular platform—unless you were a member of the Labour Party and you had signed up to support every single policy that the Labour Party proposed—in other words, you weren't really a candidate for your local constituents; you were simply a vehicle or a voice for Labour policy, which is what we found out about so many local elected members, mayors, and councillors over the past year or so. They haven't said boo about the policies that this Government has introduced that are wrecking their communities, whether it's the Government policy statement on transport, which is encouraging local councils to take up parking and paint streets blue if you want—better candidates, it's not good to ask them to sign up to stuff like wrecking town centres and wrecking local businesses.
If we want healthy local economies and thriving communities, we actually need to set better policy at a central government level that local people can actually deliver when they're elected. So conflicting objectives, like taking out parking and pursuing climate change goals that are, really, only the preserve of central government through the emissions trading scheme, don't help foster better candidates; they only cause confusion for people voting in local body elections and definitely lead to a whole lot of extremely confused candidates, whether they're supporting cats' rights or claiming that they're going to solve climate change by taking out parking outside local businesses in favour of cycleways, for example.
So, look, the ACT Party will support this bill. We will support this bill because we think it's important that people who are nervous or unsure about campaigning to become a candidate in their local body elections, and didn't realise that their name and address is already available on the electoral roll—if this is the only threshold, the only thing that's going to stand in their way of overcoming their internal emotional concerns about whether they should stand for the "Cat Party" or maybe become a Labour candidate in local government, then, you know, we would say that, look, if this is the one thing that stands in your way, then that's fine, ACT won't oppose it. We'll support it at first reading. But let's be honest, this is yet another piece of legislation that the Labour Government has brought to this House that won't really have much of an effect—except around the margins, if at all; you'll never be able to prove it—but makes them feel good. So we'll let the Labour Party and the Labour Government feel good today. ACT will support this piece of legislation.





ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. On this side of the House, I am proud to stand with a Government that is making it more accessible for more diverse candidates to stand in local government elections. I am proud to stand here and say that we say to women candidates, to Māori candidates, to Pacific candidates, to candidates from ethnic backgrounds that there is a growing body of evidence that you will be targeted in local elections, that you will receive abuse, but this Government will put in place legislation which says you do not have to disclose where your children and your family live.
It's really important that we don't criticise possible local government candidates who want to stand for local election but feel nervousness around that, because this is a serious issue and it is getting worse. That is why the Government is taking action now—because of that evidence that these candidates are facing abuse and are facing persecution from people who wish to do them and their families harm. It's not a simple thing to remove your address from the electoral roll, but it is possible; you can opt out, and it's not a situation where anyone can access your information in the way that we expect candidates—prior to this change that the Government is proposing today—to do on their billboards, on their flyers all around the community.
Finally, I would just say that the comparison with disclosing pecuniary interests, which is only required when local government would be making financial decisions in your interest—as a local board member, once you are elected—is not similar to putting your family's home address on your pamphlets. That is why this Government is changing the law in that area and requiring local government candidates to make those disclosures.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take what will just be a short call on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill first reading.
Only a short call, because I think we've probably traversed the issues enough and have already somewhat descended into the ridiculousness of different-named parties and different-named people. I think it's important to note that we do live in an age, unfortunately, where there is more abuse, more hatred, and more polarisation even in local party politics, and it is very intimidating for local body politicians to have to put their personal address on a billboard.
Just a case in point: my sister stood for the local board at the last elections—Alexis Poppelbaum for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board—and she had to put her home address, which, at the time, was my parents' address, because she was moving cities. That was something that really upset her; it upset me having to put my parents' address, who I thought would possibly be targeted. It is a real threat. It is a real concern. It does put people off. This is a good bill. It's a shame that it couldn't have been brought a little sooner and we have to have such a truncated process.
The National Party will be supporting it through to select committee. I just wanted to say, I do agree with my colleague Maureen Pugh, who said tonight that, "Look, people don't necessarily want to come and visit our homes; they just want to know how to get in touch with people." I think this bill makes sensible changes to the law and, as I say, we will be supporting it through to select committee.





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is not about better candidates, although I think it's a rather spectacular self-own that the ACT member who stood earlier thought that women, gender-diverse communities, and other members of minorities were, in fact, better candidates. This is about traversing the line between safety and transparency, and I'll tell you why. 
On Friday, I put a celebratory tweet up about this bill, because it's important to me. It's important to me for many reasons, most of which members opposite are aware of. But I had a response to the second tweet. It was actually sending me screenshots of comments on a city councillor's page—messages that threatened to head over to my home and protest, quoting "Thank goodness the gun grab was a measly 5 percent." There were comments about gumboots, concrete gumboots, and settling ponds. 
It is not a small risk that some people take by putting their home address up on pamphlets and on billboards, and this bill will give a degree of protection to our local candidates, those great candidates that really deserve it.





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I too shall speak only briefly, partly because the issues have been well covered, and also I'm looking forward to attending the function celebrating the contribution of Professor Stephen Levine. So thanks for allowing me to have a chance to put his contribution on the record. 
I had a note very similar to that of Sarah Pallett, the member who's just resumed her seat. I had "balance, privacy, and transparency". She's characterised it as "safety and transparency", and I think that's actually a better way to put it, not least of all because I acknowledge that the member has had her own brush with unfortunate—actually, I'll go further: a quite despicable interaction with members of the public targeting her and others in that area, after which I think every member in this House should feel deeply disappointed. It's somewhat of a balance between personal rights and the public good, but I think it's worth moving in a direction where we ask people to put themselves, their family, their parents, and others on the line in this way. 
We've had other discussions in other parts of parliamentary process, other bits of legislation, actually, to do with whether public figures or those who are public-facing, including lawyers—everyone's favourite category of New Zealander, but, you know, one's got to stick up for one's own sometimes. Even fellow lawyers are being required to put themselves out there in a way that might not be appropriate, certainly if the response from members of the public is not appropriate in the way that they interact with them. 
There's been talk of better candidates being needed in the local government space. I think some of the speeches in this House at times would indicate that better candidates are needed in the central government space as well—I won't go too long for fear of bringing that to mind for too many people who may still be listening at this late hour. 
We've had a suggestion from the ACT Party that it could be the "CAT Party". I do quite like the anagram involved there. The member was not pussyfooting around, indeed, when he said that it wasn't on the fence—which is a cat reference for anyone who is not so familiar—and he was definitely felinely ambivalent about it. 
So I'll leave my contribution there, such as it was, and say that we look forward to watching the rest of the passage of the bill. 
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee. 
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 22 June 2022 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.
Motion agreed to.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.





MEDICINES AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)
Introduction
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) to be introduced and set down for first reading forthwith and for a legislative statement to be presented on that bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
CLERK: Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2), introduction.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That bill is set down for first reading forthwith.





First Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on Medicines Amendment Bill—
Hon Member: Keep going, bro.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Medicines Amendment—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. Medicines Amendment Bill brackets.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Let me start that again. I present a legislative statement on the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2).
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a first time—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. 2. I move, That the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 20 June 2022 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there's been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Order 193, 195, and 196.
The COVID-19 vaccination programme has been New Zealand's greatest public health tool in the pandemic. It has enabled us to provide ongoing population protection against COVID-19 and to continue to adapt and to respond as the pandemic evolves.
As we know, immunity gained from COVID-19 vaccines developed so far does wane over time and can wane within a matter of months. This means the COVID-19 vaccination programme remains ongoing and has so far included two primary doses for most people as well as a third or "booster" dose; for some severely immunocompromised people, the programme has already provided four doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.
We're now at the stage where further doses are required for our most at-risk groups, including those aged over 65 years. As we head into winter, the usual seasonal respiratory illnesses, alongside ongoing widespread COVID-19 infection, presents significant risk of severe outcomes for the most vulnerable. Winter will also bring increased pressure on a health system already stretched due to COVID-19.
As we continue to adapt our public health measures and response to the pandemic, we also have to adapt our vaccination programme to enable us to keep people protected and to be ready to roll out further doses to those who need them most.
The bill will allow us to do that by creating a new power that enables the Director-General of Health to authorise, by notice, the administration of a consented COVID-19 vaccine. The director-general can specify in the notice who may receive the vaccine, the recommended number and frequency of doses, the recommended manner of administration, and any other circumstances in which the vaccine may be administered. The director-general can only use this power in relation to COVID-19 vaccines that already have consent or provisional consent under section 20 or 23 of the Medicines Act. The director-general must be satisfied the authorisation is an appropriate measure to manage the risks associated with the outbreak or spread of COVID-19. They must also have regard to the likely therapeutic value of the COVID-19 vaccine and its risk to any person.
While the bill empowers the Director-General of Health to authorise the administration of an already consented COVID-19 vaccine, Ministers will be informed of the COVID-19 vaccination options based on the latest scientific and technical advice prior to the director-general's decision.
The bill will provide a permanent and futureproofed solution to meet ongoing COVID-19 vaccine requirements, such as additional doses, changes to dose intervals, or targeting different population groups should the scientific evidence support this.
I anticipate that the new provision will initially be utilised by the director-general to enable fourth doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to be rapidly rolled out to recommended at-risk groups without the need for a prescription in time for winter. This will, of course, be a decision for the director-general once the amendment comes into force.
Previous changes to the COVID-19 vaccine schedule have been enabled through immediate modification orders, or IMOs, under the Epidemic Preparedness Act. Earlier this year, as the highly transmissible Omicron variant reached our shores, the Government used an IMO to make provision for third or "booster" doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to be administered at a reduced dose interval of three months instead of the approved six months; this was done in order to maximise protection at that time.
IMOs are temporary emergency powers that are automatically revoked when the epidemic notice expires or is revoked. It's now necessary to enable enduring changes to the vaccine schedule and, at this stage of the pandemic, move towards a position where emergency powers are not required; therefore, this bill revokes the IMO and it is intended that the reduction of the third or "booster" dose interval will be authorised permanently via the new provision.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted provisions in the Medicines Act that are not fit for purpose to enable a rapid, flexible, and equitable response in emergency situations. In particular, the Act does not facilitate the rapid roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines.
Looking ahead, it's my expectation that the forthcoming therapeutic products bill will enable medicines, including vaccines, to be rolled out in a timely and flexible manner. In the meantime, this bill will help us to manage to the ongoing public health risk of COVID-19. It does this by providing for the ongoing delivery of the third or "booster" doses at the reduced dose interval, providing fourth doses for our most at risk, and ensuring that we can easily roll out further doses should they be required in the future.
I'd like to acknowledge the huge effort of all those who've been involved in the COVID-19 vaccination programme so far, including community health providers and all the vaccinators across the motu. Their collective effort has meant New Zealand has one of the highest rates of COVID-19 vaccination in the world. This has prevented thousands of lives from being lost to COVID-19, allowed greater freedoms for all of us, and enabled us to open our borders to the world once again. We must keep up the good work of the COVID-19 vaccination programme to maintain that crucial population. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I want to start by saying thank you to the Government, particularly the office of the Hon Chris Hipkins and the office of the Hon Andrew Little for their constructive engagement over this tricky issue that the Parliament is now confronting. I think it's a good thing that we are just debating the first reading tonight of this bill and sending it to a committee for ventilation of both the scientific but also the legal issues to do with the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2), the purpose of which is to, essentially, make it easier to provide a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine to many New Zealanders. 
There's a couple of issues I want to canvass in my contribution. The first is in relation to the scientific background and the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group, or CV TAG, as they've become known in the vernacular amongst the panoply of advisory groups that assist the Government in relation to COVID, has recommended that people aged over 65, Māori and Pacific peoples aged over 50 years, people in aged residential care, and the severely immunocompromised should receive a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine, the Comirnaty Pfizer vaccine, before winter 2022, and many other countries have already moved to do that. We support the provision of the fourth dose to the groups that the Minister has outlined and that the regulatory impact statement for this bill provides for, and we support the provision of the money in Budget 2022—it's quite a considerable sum of money—to provide that. 
The issue then becomes how to go about doing that. Up until now, it's all been pretty easy because Pfizer has made an application under the Medicines Act to the New Zealand Government, consent has been given, and we go forward from there. The conundrum that has arisen now is that Pfizer has not made any application for a fourth dose, and—I just might note in passing—that is pretty frustrating, to be honest. I understand Pfizer's point of view is that they won't make any application in any country. And, of course, other countries are going through the process of providing a fourth dose notwithstanding the fact that Pfizer hasn't necessarily applied in those countries, because of course all those countries have their own legislative schema and their own legislative requirements, which differ from country to country. 
In New Zealand, the law is Pfizer has to apply for approval, and they have chosen not to do so. But the New Zealand Government, advised by their experts—the CV TAG, the technical advisory group—has recommended that a whole group of people, about 834,000 give or take, possibly depending on if you use the Stats New Zealand database or the Health Survey User database, access the fourth dose via a GP on an individualised basis. And so the question for the Parliament is—because I think there's broad consensus that the fourth dose should be made available—how to give effect to that. 
Now, one of the issues that we've been canvassing in the discussions between the parties in advance of this legislation coming before the Parliament is whether or not what's called an immediate modification order pursuant to the epidemic preparedness response Act should be essentially used to give effect to the fourth dose being widely available. And it's been pointed out by people that the Immediate Modification Order (IMO) process, as it's known, has, for example, changed the time frames for the third dose from six down to four and then three months. The question is really: should that be able to be used for the provision of the fourth dose? For my part, I think that is an open legal question. 
There is, I think, a strong argument that the IMO process could be used in order to give effect to the fourth dose, and, therefore, we are potentially legislating for no good reason, and that is one of the issues that I think should be explored at the select committee, which is: is the bill absolutely necessary? Because it's a pretty unusual thing that we're doing. We are, essentially, amending the Medicines Act, not under urgency—well, this bill has been taken under urgency, but we will not pass it under urgency. But it's a pretty unusual thing to have a very truncated select committee process to amend a pretty significant piece of legislation in New Zealand—and a very short piece of legislation: five clauses only. And so a pretty unusual situation, but we do find ourselves in pretty unusual times. 
So we will support this bill going to committee, but there's two things we're going to want to investigate at the committee. The first is the scientific rationale for the fourth dose. And I think that's pretty widely understood. But I think it would be worth ventilating the scientific rationale for the fourth dose at the committee. I think that is meritorious, and I expect the Health Committee—where I expect the bill will go—will want to get into the scientific reasoning behind it and potentially get the technical advisory group in. And I see some colleagues who were formerly on the Health Committee with me—Sarah Pallett is giving me the thumbs up over there. She's a very hard-working member of the committee. We're very pleased in the Parliament, actually, that the Health Committee has real health sector expertise on it: Dr Shane Reti, obviously, from our side, but also Sarah Pallett and Tracey McLellan and Liz Craig—I think Liz Craig's moved on from the chair. She's nodding her head. That's a shame because she has considerable medical expertise. But anyway, the Health Committee will get to the details of the science. But then my personal view—and colleagues on this side of the House may wish to explore it further; I know Michael Woodhouse may wish to do so—is that, for me, the real issue is the necessity of legislation to give effect to the fourth dose. Is it correct that we have to legislate in, essentially, a 10- or 11-day process to allow this to happen? From my view—and bear in mind that the Crown's legal advice is privileged, so we haven't had the benefit of the full legal advice—for my part, I think the summary of the advice that I've seen is equivocal. I think there is an argument that an IMO process could give effect to this and we wouldn't have to be legislating through this quite unusual process. 
So I'll leave my remarks there, but we are in a very odd situation, and I do want to close by finishing where I started, which is to say thank you to the Government for the good engagement on this slightly unusual piece of legislation. We appreciate the opportunity. We've had some input into—well, some input; I wouldn't want to take the point too far, but we've had some input. And I know Mr Woodhouse may wish to comment on some of the changes that have been made from the earlier drafts that we've seen, but we've had some input into it. And there is, I think, a genuine desire across the Parliament, I suspect, to get the legislation right or to get the fourth dose provisions right and to make sure that we don't legislate in haste for something that's not actually needed. You know, Parliament passes too much legislation anyway.
At some point, we will have to go back to the Medicines Act 1981 and have a rewrite. The Minister made brief reference to the therapeutic products Act that's coming in. I've heard that before. At some point, we will have to—I see members smiling. That bill has been talked about as being passed for—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: 10 years?
CHRIS BISHOP: 10? I think it's even further. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Maybe longer.
CHRIS BISHOP: It could be longer. I'm not making a political point here, because it didn't make much progress under the last Government either, but it certainly hasn't made much progress under the current Government. I think it goes all the way back to the Clark Government. But, anyway, I digress. At some point we're going to have to have a good look at the Medicines Act, and I'm sure we will consider this in the context of it. But for the moment, let's get the necessity right and let's get the science right and go forward from there. And I'm sure the committee will get into that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call in support of the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2). Following on from the member who's just resumed his seat, Chris Bishop, can I acknowledge his contribution and the bipartisan nature of those contributions that he's made, and, hopefully, as we hear from other speakers, it might be a multipartisan approach for this particular piece of legislation. 
There are many tools in the tool kit, as Minister Little has referred to, in terms of tackling the pandemic. Whether it's around good hygiene practices, whether it's around social distancing and the application of that, whether it's around contact tracing, whether it's around mask use, there is no doubt that the country's vaccination programme is the greatest tool in the tool kit by far. The vaccination roll-out here in Aotearoa New Zealand has effectively delivered on two things. The first is that it has provided initial protection, but also ongoing protection for our communities. And secondly is that it's been able to adapt and modify and respond to what are changing circumstances, and we've all seen that over the last 18 months, and then some.
We all know that winter is indeed upon us, and it's evident in the education settings, in our classroom, with many people indoors, with influenza about to hit. So when we throw respiratory ailments in that mix as well, there is a seasonal risk for vulnerable members of our community. Those members who Minister Little has identified, whether they are those aged in the over-65 demographic or whether they have underlying respiratory or chronic illnesses, they particularly fit that bill. 
So within the mix, it's important that we have available to us an ability to be flexible and adaptable in a way that's easy, consistent, and in line with legislative instruments. And the bill does exactly that. It allows the Director-General of Health to authorise the administration of a vaccine for COVID by consent based on a number of factors. In this sense, the bill is seeking to futureproof the way forward, in terms of the application and availability of the COVID vaccine, many of which—those circumstances—may not be known at the moment. What's important to note is that the decisions that the Director-General of Health will be required to make must be based on scientific evidence. So this is not a matter of a whim, or of a particular day, but on the evidence, that of a scientific nature.
I want to just acknowledge that the bill will also allow for easy and equitable access to the fourth dose, which will make it widely available at many of our vaccination sites. Many of our Māori, Pacific, and other community providers in communities like my own in Palmerston North, in the Manawatū and Horowhenua, have done a great job and this will assist them. It will mean that people are not reliant on their ability to fund a visit to a GP or a medical practitioner to get a prescription in order to receive the fourth dose.
I just want to briefly respond to a suggestive comment that Mr Bishop had referred to in relation to the appropriateness of the IMO—or the immediate modification order—as perhaps being a more appropriate instrument. I guess I would just remind the member that this is not an emergency measure, so it should in the fullness of time come to the Parliament for the Parliament's scrutiny and consideration. This bill would, effectively, replace the current method or mechanism or instrument that lies under the epidemic notice known as the IMO or the immediate modification orders. There is a suggestion from the High Court that that as an instrument should be used infrequently; it should be used or seen as a last resort. And so I encourage members to consider that alongside the tenor of what is a small and short bill, and delivers on the primary focus there. 
Just in terms of my conclusion or concluding comments, I think it's important to know that this is, as I understand it, being referred to the Health Committee. For Mr Bishop's benefit, I am the chair of the Health Committee and I am ably supported by diligent and hard-working professionals from all around the House, so we look forward to receiving the bill and outlining our scrutiny role as part of that. In terms of the first reading, I am delighted to commend this bill to the House. 





Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a bill under urgency looking for unusual measures. In a bullet-pointed fashion initially, here's what we understand with this bill and here is what we need to know.
First of all, there is some evidence from offshore that a fourth dose—a second booster—may be beneficial to those most vulnerable to COVID. This includes particularly the immunocompromised and older people. On 19 May—that's three weeks ago—the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made a recommendation in their document titled CDC Strengthens Recommendations and Expands Eligibility for COVID-19 Booster Shots. In this CDC document, they say: "In addition, today CDC is strengthening its recommendation that those 12 and older who are immunocompromised and those 50 and older should receive a second booster dose at least four months after their first." This is CDC three weeks ago.
On 4 June, in what's called an update, the Singapore Ministry of Health—and a number of jurisdictions referred to Singapore; in fact, initially Australia did—referred to the work; there's a working group out of Singapore that's exploring this. The Singapore Ministry of Health said this: "Local data to date shows protection against severe disease as sustained after the third mRNA booster. However, there can be waning of protection, particularly in the elderly and medically vulnerable. International studies show that vaccine efficiency against hospitalisation declines after the third dose mRNA booster. Persons aged 80 years and above, residents of aged care facilities, and medically vulnerable persons are at increased risk of severe disease and will be most affected by waning vaccine efficiency over time. These persons are therefore recommended to receive a second booster dose—that is, a fourth dose of receiving an mRNA vaccine—from about five months after receiving their first booster dose for personal protection against severe disease."
We tend to follow the Australians somewhat, and on 25 May—so roughly two weeks ago—they put out a recommendation as well. This is what they said: "In this updated advice, an additional winter booster is now also recommended for other people at increased risk, to be given four months after the first booster dose. This applies to people aged 16 to 64 who have (a) a medical condition that increases the risk of severe COVID-19 illness, and (b) people with disability with significant or complex health needs or multiple comorbidities which increase risk of poor outcome from COVID-19."
So Singapore, Australia, CDC, and we know Israel has for a while had the fourth dose or the second booster—all of them making this recommendation in the past two or three weeks. Now, here's the process that every other COVID vaccine to date has gone through. The company, the pharmaceutical company—Pfizer, in this instance—does phase one, phase two, and phase three studies. When they reach a satisfactory phase three, then they've met the threshold for a vaccine generally being acceptable for public distribution. What happens then is they pass the data to Medsafe. Medsafe analyses it, and then the third step is Medsafe makes a recommendation.
What is happening here is Pfizer has not sent any data, and therefore made approval to Medsafe—that is, there is no Medsafe recommendation. Pfizer tells us, however, that they'll have the data in a month or two; in fact, in a meeting we had with the ministry on Friday, they suggested maybe even by the end of the month.
What we know is that immunocompromised people are already getting the fourth dose, the booster, through what's called a "section 25 off-label authorisation", whereby a GP can write a prescription for off-label—have that discussion with the patient, they've got their medical records in front of them. It's a high-level consenting process and people are already getting the fourth booster here in New Zealand.
Of course, what the regulatory impact statement also tells us is that under an Immediate Modification Order we could also potentially distribute the fourth dose. The Government's technical advisory committee is recommending New Zealanders therefore follow Singapore, the US, and Australia—to name but a few—and have a fourth vaccine. So what they're doing here is they're balancing off the need to protect the vulnerable—on evidence provided not by Pfizer to Medsafe in a Pfizer recommendation at this point, but on evidence from other organisations and other studies outside the Pfizer multi-cohort study they started in January—and the evidence there does seem to be suggesting that there's benefits to a fourth dose.
We all need more information. We need to hear more from Medsafe. We need to hear from the technical advisory committee and any legal advice that's being provided to support this bill. That is the benefit of what will be a truncated select committee process, that we can now go through that due diligence.
There's a number of questions that we'll be wanting to ask. What reassurances can the Government give for the vaccine without the Pfizer data? So I've mentioned international studies offshore. What reassurances does the Government have that non-Pfizer data provides efficacy and/or the side effect profiles we might want to know about? How many people will be protected over the month or two before Pfizer does have that data? So let's say it's six weeks, then. Are we sure that the benefits to the vulnerable outweigh waiting for that six weeks and having that data moving through Medsafe? I think it's a good question to ask how many people might be protected.
Is the legislation that we're talking about here tonight confirming COVID vaccines in perpetuity without the normal checks and balances that we'd normally have through Medsafe with Medsafe data, or is it just for this vaccine? So we need to know if it's a for ever—certainly in the immediate future—that we're signing off here.
Is the fourth vaccine that we're talking about here going to be mandated? Are there any ACC implications when vaccines are not approved by Medsafe, but are given out for general distribution in this fashion? What legal opinions have been received, for example, from Crown Law?
I think these are all questions that we'd like to explore in the select committee and hopefully bring back to this House an informed view that we can all agree on. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've listened with great interest to the words of my colleagues, and I'd just like to share some information and thoughts from my perspective. What we do know is that a two-dose primary course and a booster provides very good and lasting protection for most people, but the latest advice we're hearing is that an additional booster is important for the most vulnerable. Vaccination with booster doses now that the prevalent variant is Omicron don't seem to be quite as good as we would like at preventing infection and transmission, but they're extremely good at preventing serious illness, hospitalisation, and death.
Now, my father is a really good example of a vulnerable person in the United Kingdom who was able to receive that fourth dose, in what they called the spring booster programme for the over-75s. At 86, with lungs that were damaged by tuberculosis infection—unfortunately, he wasn't able to be vaccinated against TB due to the war—and asthmatic, you can imagine how I felt when, although he had successfully managed to avoid contracting COVID for two years, he became ill. Having had that fourth dose, my father—and bearing in mind this is anecdata; this not part of a study—did become unwell but not seriously unwell and didn't require hospitalisation, which was a source of great relief to me. This is what we're hoping will be borne out by larger studies, larger than the one that's recently taken place in the UK, recently published in The Lancet, that has shown that my father's experience is pretty similar.
As COVID changes, we have to change too, and this bill allows us to keep people protected by, as we've heard, enabling the Director-General of Health to authorise by notice the administration of a consented—consented—COVID-19 vaccine. I would just encourage those in Canterbury. We have two doses at 98.9 percent, which is awesome, but only 75.8 percent have had those boosters. I'd strongly encourage them to get that done. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to also take a call on the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) as well. And the Greens—we will be supporting this piece of legislation.
I have been listening with interest with the contributions from members from around the House, and I would echo the sentiment around trusting the Health Committee—it's well known that it's got many health professionals on that select committee. I've only been able to sub on there a couple of times. But I also appreciate that with this truncated process and the questions that members have been posing tonight, they will be able to get to the crux of some of those questions—and possibly some of those questions they may already have the answers to. I look at this from the public perspective as well as that when you have those answers, when we kick them around amongst trusted health professionals and amongst science and ask those really specific scientific questions, that gives reassurance to the public. It's that reassurance and that communication which is also a really vital cog in our response to COVID-19. So I look forward to following the select committee's process in that regard.
The purpose of this bill is to allow a second COVID-19 booster to be rolled out from mid-June for people who are high risk from COVID-19. The majority of people will become eligible in July for the second booster, but some will be eligible in mid-June as the booster programmes started in late November. Therefore, there has been a push for this to go through urgency—and I totally get that because of the quickly evolving nature of the COVID pandemic and the need to actually do that. But also—as I was saying previously—it's good to actually get that detail so that the public has that information and it kind of alleviates some of the anxiety out there.
This bill also provides for a long-term solution for the provision of the third booster dose in a three-month dose interval and also provides for any future doses of COVID-19 vaccines to be administered if scientific evidence demonstrates this is recommended—and I know that will be tested at the select committee. The bill meets these objectives by creating a new provision that enables the Director-General of Health to authorise, by notice, the administration of a consented COVID-19 vaccine otherwise done in accordance with the approved data sheet for that vaccine. The director-general must be satisfied that doing so is an appropriate measure to manage the risks associated with the COVID-19 outbreak or spread, in having regard to the likely therapeutic value of the proposed administration of the COVID-19 vaccine and the risk—if there's any—that any proposed administration of the vaccine may injuriously affect the health of any person.
One of the things I think we learnt—and I hope that we all learnt—is that we need to have equitable access to vaccination. And the Green Party wants everyone to feel safe and supported to get vaccinated in a way that is accessible to them—that's really important. We are being particularly focused on ensuring that the vaccine provided is fully accessible and promoted to Māori communities, recognising current uptake is below that for non-Māori—you measure that right across and we can see those numbers.
But what we did learn, I think—and I hope that we all learnt that—was that this includes partnering with community providers and Māori collectives. And I would add Pasifika collectives as well to ensure vaccination is fully available throughout Aotearoa. Because what we see is, when we walk with our communities and—we look at it from a scientific perspective but we've also got to look at it from the community's perspective as well. Trying to translate what that means scientifically for them on the ground is also really, really important. And we saw the huge uptakes with Pasifika communities in South Auckland and, of course, around the country as well, and our Māori health providers as well—that they have the ability to actually make those connections. So it's important that we support community providers in determining their own approach to vaccine incentives. Actually, that's a lesson that should apply to all of our communities as well because they're the best placed people to understand what incentivises and what incentives are appropriate for building trust.
So on that, clear communication wins the day. That needs to be factored into everything that we do with the COVID-19 response. We will be supporting this bill. Thank you.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this legislation to its first reading. We believe the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) should be examined by a select committee, and I want to go through some of the reasoning in why that is, but first I just note the previous member, Teanau Tuiono, said he had great faith in the Health Committee to scrutinise legislation on behalf of the people of New Zealand, scrutinise the Government's response on behalf of the people of New Zealand. This is the committee, dominated by Labour members, that has repeatedly refused to get officials before it in order to examine New Zealand's COVID-19 response. This is the committee that has actually gained infamy for the behaviour of a previous chair in not allowing Opposition members to ask questions on behalf of the public. And bear in mind that the Health Committee was performing that task in the absence of a COVID-19 epidemic response committee, which the Government has repeatedly refused to have re-formed, despite, or perhaps because of, the success that it had in scrutinising the Government's COVID response back in 2020. I think that has to be said when you hear someone say that they've got great faith in the Health Committee, because it's actually been a sore spot for our democracy and for New Zealanders wanting representation to be effective throughout the COVID-19 saga. 
What this bill will do is give the Director-General of Health the ability to approve COVID-19 - related vaccinations to be applied without a GP prescription, without going through the normal Medsafe process. I want to unpack a few of the concerns that people may well have about that. The first concern that I think people might have—and I haven't heard the Minister of Health, or any Government representative, or the regulatory impact statement—prepared hurriedly, I suspect, by the Treasury or the Ministry of Health—explain why it is that the people who manufacture the Comirnaty vaccine, being Pfizer, have not been prepared to make an application for it to be used in New Zealand. 
We're told that there are 834,000 people, vulnerable for a variety of reasons, who would use it. Now, I would have thought that the prospect of selling 834,000 doses at, what is it—we may never know, but let's make it $30 a pop—would have actually motivated Pfizer to submit the data and have it approved. But it seems, for some reason that hasn't been given to us by the Government advancing this bill, that Pfizer are not approaching countries with a rationale for a fourth dose to be allowed under their regulatory systems. I think that's a question that the Government is going to have to provide answers to. Why is it that the Government is keener to get these doses approved than the manufacturer? That is a wrinkle that I don't think has been properly explained. 
A second question that people will ask is: could this somehow lead to a fourth dose not just being available but mandatory? Unfortunately, I think people that ask that question actually have a reason to be sceptical of the Government. This is a Government where the Prime Minister promised that people would suffer no penalty whatsoever if they didn't want to have the original doses of the Pfizer vaccine. Now, I think that was a really foolish promise for the Prime Minister to make, because, actually, all choices in life have consequences. That is cause and effect thinking. It would be naïve to think that you could make a choice and it wouldn't, at the very least, lead to the judgment of your peers and friends, or, perhaps, other people saying that they were setting conditions for their private property that included a requirement to be vaccinated, and perhaps that property owner might be your employer. 
So it was never a promise that the Prime Minister was in a position to keep, but she made it, I would say foolishly, and perhaps the worst thing about that is that she eroded people's trust in the institutions of New Zealand. This Government came in promising wellbeing Budgets off the back of a Living Standards Framework, and the promise was that we'd think about more than just one thing. We wouldn't just think about GDP; we'd think about social and human and environmental capitals, and the wellbeings of New Zealanders in every aspect. Then COVID came along and it was back to focusing on just one thing, and when it comes to our social capital, I think it's been eroded by the distrust fomented by some of the Government's behaviour around the COVID-19 epidemic response. 
So I think people will ask, "Well, you know, we trusted you last time; you changed. Is this somehow a precursor to a fourth dose not only being available but required?" I actually don't think those fears are well founded. I think it's clear that this legislation does not do anything of the sort. But the Government has got itself in a sticky position where it needs to provide that reassurance.
I think the other thing, the third thing, that they're going to have to do, other than reassuring people that it's OK to be approving something the manufacturer doesn't seem that interested in approving and that's not going to become required, is they're going to have to be transparent and open about the benefits so that people can make an individual choice under this framework, which I'm sure will inevitably lead to a fourth dose being permitted in New Zealand. There's no doubt that the evolution of the COVID-19 virus—or, perhaps more properly, viruses—from one variant to the next has changed the underlying epidemiology, and therefore what is desirable policy. 
Omicron, being the latest, and currently the dominant, variant, clearly has greater immune escape properties for people who have had natural infections and for people who have been immunised against COVID-19. It is also far less virulent and milder. In the UK, its infection fatality rate is now comparable to the flu. There was a time when people who made that comparison with earlier variants of COVID—they didn't know what they were talking about and you couldn't be taken seriously. But that infection fatality rate is now comparable to the flu, at least in studies of the UK population. 
Now the question is to what extent is vaccination a factor or necessary. That's a decision that people need to weigh up. I personally probably will get a fourth dose. I don't see why I wouldn't give myself extra reassurance against having a nasty bout of COVID, and a lot of people I know have been having that. But the Government is going to have to be, as it's promised, open and transparent about informing people.
Finally, I think the Government is going to have to explain why at various points in the roll-out of the vaccine it has been highly convenient for the Prime Minister to stand up and say, "We are going to make the vaccine available but we're waiting for Medsafe approval." The ACT Party's made the point that this is nuts. How many times in New Zealand's history has Medsafe rejected the approval of a pharmaceutical, and the rest of the world, who've probably been using it for 20 years, because, sadly, that's the way it is, have said, "Oh my god! New Zealand said it's not safe. We'll stop."? It just doesn't happen. 
The question has to be asked why it is that New Zealand insists on doing its own product regulation—and I'd add to that, we might have a bit less shortage of Gib board if we didn't insist on that. I was going to joke maybe we should start inspecting cars—because, you know, BMW are quite good at making cars, but maybe New Zealand's Government should have someone inspecting that—but I don't want to joke, because the Green Party might hear and make it a policy. But we actually have to ask ourselves why we have such a rigmarole, and whether we shouldn't adopt ACT's policy of saying that if a pharmaceutical is approved by Australia, the UK, the EU, or the US, then maybe New Zealanders should be able to access it as well. We could save a lot of time and a lot of money along the way. 
Nevertheless, we still have that restriction in place, and because we don't think it's a particularly good restriction, we're happy to support, at least for now, a bill that will allow people to bypass nonsensical restrictions, but we will be listening very carefully to the answers to those three questions I posed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 





Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the chance just to say a few brief words in support of the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2). I think it's very clear, as my colleague Tangi Utikere said earlier, that the vaccination programme itself has probably been our best tool in the tool kit during this pandemic. It's certainly given us a chance to provide ongoing population protection, and as we've done, we've been able to adapt our response as the pandemic inevitably evolves. 
So the two-dose initial primary course and the booster, as my colleague Sarah Pallett mentioned, has been really efficacious. It's been a really good and lasting protection for most people, but the latest advice is that an additional booster is going to be really important for our most vulnerable, for the people who need it the most, particularly as we move into this winter peak. 
And this bill allows us to do that. It allows us to adapt our public health measures by enabling the Director-General of Health to authorise, by notice, the administration of consented COVID-19 vaccines to be used without, and to be administered without, a prescription. So in that sense, it's, essentially, making a permanent and a bit more of a futureproofed solution to meet those ongoing vaccine requirements. Some of those requirements include, as we're talking about now, additional doses but, also, changes to the dose intervals, perhaps, or targeting different population groups, should that be required, but always and only should the scientific evidence support doing so. 
So we know that the second boost dose is effective, we know that the second boost dose has no additional safety concerns, according to trials that have been conducted to date, and we also know that Medsafe actively monitors vaccine safety in conjunction with various other partners around the world. So given the need and given the risk to our most vulnerable, I have no hesitation to commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Simon Watts—five minutes.





SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party and as the member of Parliament for North Shore in support of the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2). It's been noted by prior speakers on this side, including Chris Bishop and Dr Reti, National are supporting this bill because it is important for this bill to progress to a select committee process, where a number of questions can be asked in terms of the concerns that have been raised across this House, before this decision is decided upon.
As has been noted before, National do support the principle that a fourth dose, or a booster dose, should be available to Kiwis in New Zealand, and particularly those 800,000 or so individuals who are elderly and immunocompromised. The reality, though, as has been canvassed by Dr Reti, is that the evidence position on this is still evolving and it is important that we do make an informed decision in regards to the availability of this. The select committee process provides a mechanism in which to achieve that. It is also important to note that, actually, Kiwis today can access the fourth dose through a process through their GP, but it is not readily available to everyone and that's why this process is required.
I guess the challenge, really, in terms of what needs to be achieved from the select committee process, is to provide substantiation that, actually, this bill is the necessary mechanism in order to achieve the outcome of providing availability of that fourth dose to Kiwis. Are there other processes or mechanisms existing or otherwise that could be used in order to achieve this outcome, instead of this bill? What is the latest position in regards to the scientific rationale and evidence, taking into account where this is on the global stage as well, in terms of the appropriateness of provision of this dose to Kiwis and the right target audiences for that?
It is acknowledged that National—and I do, again, reflect on Chris Bishop and Dr Reti, who have been able to have input into this process to date, to ensure that we are able to have a conversation this evening around this. I think it is important just to reflect the last speaker, Dr Tracey McLellan—that this legislation doesn't mandate this fourth dose for individuals. I think that is important, as that will be a question by a number of Kiwis out there.
National are happy to support this bill on the basis that necessary questions will be asked at the select committee process, in order to substantiate that this is the right decision.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I'm the wrong sort of doctor to speak on this bill, so it's lucky that I've had my friend Sarah Pallett next door to talk me through this, because I think this is what we're doing here, and it does answer some of the questions coming from across the room. These are not medicines that haven't been approved; they're approved medicines with a new use. 
Normally, they have to have a prescription from a doctor every time you get an off-list use of an approved medicine for a different purpose. This bill streamlines that so that the Director-General of Health, who's no slouch when it comes to these matters, can make the decision to make this medicine, which is normally required on prescription, available across our vulnerable people—85,000 or so of them—in an equitable manner. I commend it to the House. 





Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): It's a pleasure to speak on the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) today in the House. It was really good to hear from the other side some very cordial words, for the most part. I just want to say, first of all, that our vaccination programme has been one of the most leading in the world and has been applauded across the world, apart from by the Opposition on the other side. But the vaccination programme still continues, and, as Dr Reti said, there is emerging evidence that shows that having a fourth dose can make all the difference, especially to our vulnerable population. Studies in Israel and the UK have shown this, which is why Israel and Germany, as well as the UK, have looked into now having the fourth dose rolled out, which is what this bill is all about.
What we're doing here is just making sure that the Director-General of Health is authorised permanently to be able to make such decisions in terms of additional doses, changing the doses interval, as well as what the target population should be. For the fourth dose, this time there'll be 850,000 people who will be affected, and that's a large population, especially in the winter, when we see a lot of people getting respiratory illness from other viruses, which increases hospital admissions. So having that alongside having COVID-19, which is still in high numbers in New Zealand, just means that we need an extra layer of protection, and having a fourth dose can make all the difference.
I do want to say, however, that recently the World Health Organization released its data and said that, since March 2020, we have now the lowest number of COVID-19-related deaths around the world, and a large part of that is obviously related to the vaccinations which scientists have been able to research, invent, and actually roll out. This fourth dose will make a huge difference in that. So I would like to recommend this bill to the select committee. Thank you.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think I heard Dr Henderson say that she was the wrong kind of doctor to be speaking on this bill. I'm not so sure that's the case, because as well as the medical questions, there are a few legal questions as well to be answered in respect of whether we are doing the right thing or in the right way. 
As has been mentioned before, this has had a fairly hasty passage to the House, but a relatively long preamble. The first conversations between the Minister and the National Party spokesperson for COVID took place about six weeks ago, so it was clear to the Government that they intended to do this. It came to our attention a week ago today, where it was the Government's intention, with other parties' support, to sort of let this one go through to the keeper pretty quickly on a morning this week, and that did not find favour with us. 
So I join Mr Bishop in giving credit to the Government for actually engaging in a very meaningful way. I had two meetings with Minister Hipkins' advisers. There was another, broader meeting where National MPs were able to join with officials, and as a consequence there have been a couple of minor changes to the bill as it has been introduced today, and a change in the process. So I want to acknowledge that. I'm not sure that that would have happened had we not raised these concerns quite so emphatically, but to point that out might be a bit trite. You've got to give the Government credit for actually responding in the way that they did. It is a short—a very short—report-back period, but I think it's sufficient to answer some of the quite important questions that we have. 
Now, as the Minister moving the motion pointed out, it's already possible for somebody to get a fourth dose. It's known as an off-label prescription, and the Government is concerned about the equity issues with that for the more than 800,000 people that they would like to have this dose. They want them to be able to have the fourth dose in the manner, at the place, and by the person who gave them the previous three—it could be a pharmacist, it could be a district health nurse, it could be on the marae, it could be in the workplace—without having to go through a booking to the GP, probably paying a fee, and then going to the pharmacy and getting a prescription. So that's all understood. The two questions I have were: is this the right thing to do, and is this the right way to do it? 
Now, we've talked about it, and Dr Reti and Dr Sharma went through some details about that. I'm not quite as enthusiastic as they are. They are medical practitioners. Dr Sharma said that it would make a huge difference, and he cited the World Health Organization (WHO), which took data right back to 2020. Actually, as recently as two weeks ago, the WHO were quite equivocal about whether a fourth COVID vaccine dose was beneficial: "The WHO notes that data on fourth booster doses and beyond only exists for mRNA vaccines; and even then it is still sparse for this vaccine type. … Taken together, these studies [that they reviewed] show some short-term benefit of an additional booster dose [for] those over 60", and data to support an additional dose for healthy younger populations is even more limited. So we don't know how much of a difference it'll make. 
We've heard of the several countries that are doing this—because there are about 190 countries that aren't—and the reality is that Pfizer have not made an application for a fourth dose. Why? I think it's because they're not convinced, either, that it's necessary or beneficial. 
Now, I hate to sound like the accountant in the room, but the regulatory impact statement makes no reference to cost benefit. Let's not beat around the bush: this is going to cost the taxpayer another $50 million or more, and I think they have a reasonable expectation that that's necessary and that that would be money well-spent. We don't have that data, and we're not going to have it by the time the winter is ending, much less when we're going to start administering this. So the most important thing, I think, is whether it's going to be safe, and I don't think there's any reason to believe that a fourth dose will be more harmful than the very incredibly infinitesimally rare complications that we've seen with previous doses. 
So the second question is: is this the right way to do it? Now, the Government in its regulatory impact statement said this about the choice between an immediate modification order (IMO) and changing the legislation. It said, "Consideration was given to replacing the current IMO with one that also allows for the delivery of a fourth dose, but Ministers decided that this was not an option due to its temporary nature and vulnerability of being tied to the temporary Epidemic Notice.", and that raises some fascinating questions. "Ministers decided that this was not an option"—of course it's an option. It's an option they've used in the past, it's an option that's part of the epidemic response Act, and it's an option that they can use in the future. They've just ruled it out. 
Then, we say, "Oh well, OK. It's being tied to the temporary epidemic notice." This is a temporary epidemic—it will pass. Now, the current epidemic notice ends on 17 June. I'll lay wagers that it will be extended for another three months and almost certainly another three months after that, so on 17 December, we'll still have an epidemic response notice in place. The IMO is a perfectly legitimate vehicle for being able to get on with this. We would have been able to do that straight away if it wasn't somehow for the Minister's cold feet on this. 
The regulatory impact statement also says this about doing it under legislation: "Treating a fourth dose as other than a 'new medicine' undermines the scheme and purposes of the Medicines Act and the consent process in the Act", but that's exactly what this bill will do when it is passed. There is a specific clause which says that a COVID-19 vaccine is not a new medicine for the purposes of section 20 by reason only of blah-blah. So they're saying that they don't want to treat it like this, but that's exactly what the bill does. 
Now, kudos to officials for making a change to the bill that I thought was confusing, at new section 34A(1)(a) in clause 4, where it had initially had said that this section applies and the Minister can authorise an off-label administration if the Minister gives consent. Now, one would have thought that that means that the Minister is giving consent to an application, but, as we've heard, Pfizer don't have to make an application. So the bill has been changed—and I think that's an improvement—to say that "(1) This section applies if—(a) the Minister has given consent". It's a past tense situation. So that's only partially easing my concerns. 
The other concern I have is that on my reading of the bill, when passed into law, Pfizer will never have to apply for another vaccine approval for COVID again. The Minister and the Director-General of Health will have the power under the consent already granted to continue to authorise future doses and future doses. 
Now, my questions are—and the select committee really need to drill into this—what happens if the dose changes in its configuration? As the virus changes, the vaccine may need to change. If the vaccine changes, another consent should be sought. My reading of this amendment to the Medicines Act is that that won't be necessary, and if—and I must stress that I don't think there is any material chance that this will happen—a fourth dose was harmful, who is liable? Well, not Pfizer, because Pfizer have made it very clear that they didn't apply for consent for a fourth dose. They weren't sure of the benefits, and I'm quite sure they don't think there's any real risk, but what if there is? What if there is harm—who is responsible? It won't be Pfizer. 
Now, I think that in the Government's attempts to say that, well, they don't want to be vulnerably tied to a temporary epidemic notice, they're actually putting something in place into perpetuity while the COVID epidemic is in place that could let drug companies off the hook, and I think the select committee really needs to dive more deeply into the questions of liability and into whether the bill is even necessary. I'm not convinced. 
I think an IMO, or an immediate modification order, is still the right vehicle, the right tool, to be able to do what the Government wants to do, which we support, which is to protect the 834,000 elderly and immunocompromised—and front-line health workers, I think, might be included in that. I don't believe it's their intention to mandate it, and that would certainly bring strong opposition from not just members of this side of the House but right across the country. 
So there are a number of really important questions. I think the Health Committee is very good. I've been on it a couple of times. I wish those members well in their deliberations, but they're going to need to see the whites of the eyes of the officials and of the people who are researching and the technical advisory group—or the TAG, I think it's called—to make sure that this is the right thing to do in the right way, because I am not yet convinced. 





ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, a debate which I have been privileged to be a part of. It is always great to be in the House on nights where members are deeply engaged in not only the policy detail but the legal and procedural questions, and I thank the members on the other side of the House for that close engagement, including the Hon Michael Woodhouse.
But we find ourselves in a situation where our COVID-19 vaccination programme is ongoing. It is one of the many tools in the tool kit for which this Government has committed to combatting the worst effects of COVID-19. We're now at stage where a second booster is required for those people who are most vulnerable.
These aren't people in an abstract idea; these 85,000 people include people like my dad. He's in his late 80s or early 90s; he lives in South Auckland, which is a community that forms a buffer around the Auckland Airport; and he lives with his young grandchildren who go to kindy every day in a South Auckland kindy. He has underlying conditions. He's also someone who has a mistrust of the medical system and not a regular GP. He is exactly the kind of person who would not have access to a prescription Pfizer vaccine when he needed it, but through taking action in this House tonight, we can make sure that people like him have access to the medicines they need to remain well and to lessen the burden on our public health system and hospitals like Middlemore, which have gotten through so well in this pandemic and have defied all expectations and managed their resources really well to serve the community.
I think the Hon Michael Woodhouse's point around the right way to do it is a good one, but when we look at the ability of the Government to legislate in this way, where there are checks and balances in place, where the director-general must be satisfied that the authorisation is an appropriate measure to manage the risk associated with an outbreak and the spread of COVID-19 within a community but also to individual people and therapeutic value to them must be considered, I think that, overall, this is the best way to undertake this measure, and so that's why I commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Health Committee.





Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 20 June 2022 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on the day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to. [Waits]
Hon Members: Aye, aye.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I haven't put the question.
Hon Members: Oh, sorry.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): It is a debatable motion, so I was giving the House the benefit of a few seconds. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.





OVERSEAS INVESTMENT (FORESTRY) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I present a legislative statement on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I move, That the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House on or before 1 August 2022 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day where there is a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting in the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.
This Government welcomes sustainable, inclusive, and productive overseas investment. This investment improves New Zealanders' living standards and connects us with the world. This is why we have recently simplified the Overseas Investment Act 2005, cut unnecessary red tape, and reduced the number of low-risk transactions being screened. We also want to make sure that overseas investment continues to strongly benefit New Zealand. This bill does just that. It ensures that forestry conversions by overseas investors continue to bring broad benefits to New Zealand. These investments will now be considered under the same rules as other investments in sensitive land known as the "benefit to New Zealand test" rather than under the streamlined special forestry test. This will channel overseas investment into the right forests in the right place for the right reasons. 
This shows, again, that the Government is responsive to New Zealanders' views that overseas investment should be sustainable, inclusive, and productive. These changes build on our earlier action to ban overseas purchase of existing homes so that New Zealanders are not outbid by wealthy overseas investors, to set a high threshold for the acquisition of farmland to reflect its economic and cultural importance, and to provide new tools for better managing investment in strategically important businesses, reducing risks to New Zealand's national interest or national security.
In 2018, we made changes to the Act's forestry provisions. For the first time, we brought into the regime overseas investment in forestry cutting rights. We needed to do that swiftly before the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership came into force, otherwise the opportunity would have been lost. Because we took action when we did, future Governments will have the power to control overseas investment in forestry. At the same time, we introduced the special forestry test. This reflected the country's economic context at the time, where supporting forestry production and forestry investment was desirable for a variety of reasons. 
The economics of the forestry sector have since changed. The sector has become a much more attractive prospect to investors. This is resulting in increasing conversion of land into forestry, some of which is coming from overseas investors. New Zealanders are concerned that forestry is not always being planted in the right places for the right reasons. We've heard these concerns. This bill will ensure overseas investment continues to benefit New Zealand. Forestry will always be a very important sector to our economy. It will make a vital contribution to our climate change goals. The Government recognises that high-quality foreign investment is important, and continues to welcome this. But we need to get the balance right. This bill and a suite of related Government policy work under way—such as changes to the emissions trading scheme—will ensure we do. The bill does this by requiring forestry investments to demonstrate what benefits they will bring to New Zealand, such as environmental and economic benefits. This will help ensure any investment supports our rural communities to thrive and that our overseas investment is productive and sustainable. This Government is confident these changes will not be barriers to productive and sustainable investment to our forestry sector. 
The special forestry test is still available for overseas investment in existing forestry. We are also making a range of minor and technical changes that will provide investors with clarity about the rules to help with their operation and effectiveness. The removal of the special forestry test only means that conversions are now treated the same as any other overseas investment in non-urban land. It's important to note that last year, we made major changes to streamline and simplify the benefit to New Zealand test that will now apply to these forestry conversions. I mention this to assure you that we're not going back to the way things were prior to 2018. Major improvements have been made since then to how the Act works. The benefits of the proposed investment will only need to be compared against those of the current state of the land. Previously, a complex and highly theoretical exercise was required to be undertaken. 
The benefit factors under the benefit to New Zealand test have also been streamlined to seven broad factors rather than 21 specific factors. This is much simpler and allows investors to make a holistic case for their investment. The seven factors are: (1) the economic benefits, (2) the benefits to the natural environment, (3) public access, (4) protection of historic heritage, (5) advancing a significant Government policy, (6) oversight or participation by New Zealanders, and (7) consequential benefits. And finally the benefits to New Zealand will need to be proportionate to the size, scale, and nature of the investment, so conversion of highly productive farmland will be required to demonstrate proportionately higher benefits than conversions on land that is marginal or lower quality. Again, this helps us ensure overseas investment continues to benefit New Zealand. More broadly, we recently made other improvements to the Act, including introducing statutory time frames for decision makers to make decisions where there was previously no time frame, and repeated investors no longer needing to satisfy the investor test each time they apply for consent.
So, in conclusion, the Government supports and welcomes high-quality foreign investment in forestry and will continue to do so. However, as economic and regulatory contexts have changed, we have taken action to make sure overseas investment continues to benefit New Zealand. In summary, this bill ensures the Overseas Investment Act 2005 supports New Zealand with balancing the needs for forestation with the wider needs of local communities, regional economies, and the environment. It means we will have the right forest in the right place for the right reason. I commend the bill to the House.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what goes around, comes around. Anyway, I'll get back to the bill: the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill. I was thinking, what goes round comes around, all right. Anyway, the National Party will support this bill to select committee, and we do it because I think that—and I'll get into the reasons why we're doing it, shortly. But I'll also get into the reasons why the bill came about in the first place, and why it's caused the problems it's caused. 
It effectively amends, as the Minister said, the Overseas Investment Act 2005, to ensure that overseas investment that results in the conversion of farmland or other land to forestry benefits New Zealand and, I guess, that's really key to any foreign investment, or overseas investment in New Zealand—it's important that it benefits New Zealand. And I think that, in this case, we've seen some—as we often do with Government interference in processes and industry and businesses—extraordinary results as a result of that interference. We've had a history of it in this Parliament, of interfering in things—particularly related to land, interestingly. If you go back to a particular Government of some many years ago—only one or two of us will remember it—supplementary minimum prices were introduced, for example, and distorted the land in New Zealand and, in fact, caused a lot of the problems that, interestingly, we're seeing up the East Coast, with respect to forestry.
 And then we saw the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act come along, and it did the same thing: it distorted the land use in New Zealand. We've seen this bill, or the results of what I'll get into in a moment come along and now, to some extent, a potentially distorting land use in New Zealand. And I think that's the real challenge. But we've got to be very careful, as a Parliament, that whenever we introduce things or, I guess, get involved in business—and one could think of the supermarket business, for example—whenever we get involved in those sorts of things, we run a very serious risk of creating situations that we don't envisage at the time.
I want to talk for a minute about a bloke who used to sit over in that corner over there, and espouse the billion tree programme at length in this House, day after day. And when you think about that billion tree programme, and of course this piece of legislation that effectively has now been to some extent repealed evolved from the thought that the Government of the time had that there was a need to encourage overseas investment in New Zealand forestry to get our trees planted. 
Interestingly, right now in New Zealand, nearly 80 percent of our forestry is owned by overseas investors and, actually, if you think about what's going on in the industry right at this moment, it's actually a very good thing, because they have realised their responsibility to New Zealand, on the whole, and I think they're doing an outstanding job. But they also give some stability to the harvesting sector which, if it weren't for those large corporates owning large pieces of forestry in New Zealand, we wouldn't have that stability—or any stability—around harvesting. And we've seen very big changes in price in the forestry sector in the last six months come and go very quickly and, of course, the fuel crisis and the transport crisis right now or—I wouldn't say it's a crisis—the large price hikes are causing significant challenges for the forestry sector right now, with respect to export and the way that we harvest our trees, and the way we operate, with respect to the export of timber. 
And just interesting, while I'm on that topic, the very interesting thing is that if we didn't have that very large export potential or capacity in our log situation, we wouldn't have enough logs harvested to provide New Zealand with its own timber, because only about a third of those trees, effectively, stays in New Zealand; two-thirds gets exported. That's around about how it works. We keep the best logs in New Zealand because they're the ones we need. If it wasn't for that, the forestry industry itself wouldn't be able to continue to harvest. 
Anyway, back to the real point of the bill. You see, the Government at the time thought we had no ability—they thought, at the time, we need to plant a billion trees, and we need to encourage the planting of those trees. What they didn't think of was that we had no ability to grow the seedlings, we had no people to plant the trees, we potentially had no capital to plant the trees with, and we potentially also had no land to plant those trees on. Hence, this Act was changed to allow foreign investment, pretty much willy-nilly, in New Zealand to plant trees. They could buy a large piece of land—weren't allowed to live in the house, interestingly, but they were allowed to buy the land. So they had to subdivide the house off and get rid of it, because they weren't allowed to live there, but they were allowed to own the land and plant the trees. So it was an extraordinary piece of legislation, when you think about the results. 
As I said earlier, it's very easy to think about things in hindsight, because things change very quickly. Of course, I guess you could have anticipated what would happen as a result of this very large investment being made in New Zealand by, potentially, overseas investors—not necessarily for the betterment of the forestry industry in New Zealand, though. Because, effectively, they had the ability to come into New Zealand, plant vast areas of trees, and there was no guarantee—even though the overseas investment rules, the conditions were that they should be for harvest, those trees—long term that would happen. That's the real problem with it. And so what could have happened was they could have come into New Zealand, effectively, purchased the land, planted the trees, taken the income from the carbon, and shoved it into their tax haven, wherever it was around the world, and that would be the last we'd ever see of them. That's the real threat that, I guess, was occurring in New Zealand, and it's the reason the Government has acted, in this respect, to try and tidy that situation up. I very much doubt that it will effectively tidy it up, because I think there will be more action needed to achieve that than has already happened. 
So I just want to talk for a moment about the forestry industry, though, because it is a very important industry to New Zealand and, whatever we do with respect to legislation, it's very important that we don't get involved in, I guess, distorting the way forestry is managed, planted—even owned—in New Zealand. Because it's a hugely important industry to New Zealand, and I think, in my maiden speech to Parliament, I was accused by the industry of saying you can't eat trees. Well, I think we will be eating trees, shortly, and I think it's going to be very interesting, because I think the potential for this industry is massive, and it would be a great tragedy if we ended up with a whole lot of trees locked up because of the carbon situation—if we had trees locked up that weren't harvested in the long term. That would be not at all good for New Zealand and, I guess, to some extent this bill is attempting to address some of that challenge. 
The other thing that intrigues me about the forestry industry and the potential for trees is we've seen massive changes in harvesting methods in New Zealand in the last 10 years, and I think that the next 10 years will see that incrementally grow, and I think we'll be harvesting trees in 20 or 30 years' time that we don't envisage at the moment will ever be harvested. So I think that's another factor that's very important when it comes to who owns these trees, where they're planted, and how they're planted. So I think that improvements in technology and all that sort of stuff are so dramatic in this sector that I think we're going to see a great change in the way those things are used. I think we'll also see a lot of change in the way the complete tree is taken out of the forest, whether it's processed on site or taken away to be processed. I think we'll see a massive change in that respect. 
So back to the bill. I do think that this bill will be interesting as it goes through the discussion of the select committee. I guess just the last thing I want to say about the Overseas Investment Act is that we've listened for a long, long time in this Parliament to members of this Government, or in Opposition, absolutely criticising and attacking this piece of legislation every way they could. It's ironic that they've now got the bill or put the legislation in place where they've got to now start repealing some of the stuff they were totally opposed to 10 years ago, themselves. Really interesting times, but that's what happens when you're, I guess, around here too long. So, Madam Speaker, we commend the bill to the House. 





BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to be able to take a call.
I seek the House's indulgence just for a quick moment to acknowledge Professor Stephen Levine who's just celebrated 50 years—anniversary—at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington. For those members who have not had the pleasure of meeting Professor Levine, you'll see him in Copperfields most days. His stamp will be seen right throughout the walls of Parliament and right throughout the walls of public sector where many of his interns now work. But I have no doubt that some of his interns were probably working for members who ushered both the Overseas Investment Act 2005 or the changes that were made in 2018. It's those changes made in 2018 that this bill revisits.
Under the current legislation, overseas investors who are wishing to acquire an interest in production forestry can seek approval for the investment by a relatively permissive special forestry test. This reflected the need at the time to support the forestry sector and to achieve the Governments goal of stimulating forestry investment. Since then, however, the economics of investing in forestry have changed considerably and it's become more attractive for overseas investors.
This Government does welcome sustainable, inclusive, and productive overseas investment. The changes in 2018 sought to simplify the Overseas Investment Act by cutting unnecessary red tape and reducing the number of low-risk transactions being screened. But we needed to also balance that with the overall purpose of the Act: that our resources here in New Zealand are a taonga and we want to make sure that the overseas investment continues to strongly benefit New Zealand.
So this bill ensures that the forestry conversions by overseas investors continue to bring broad benefits to New Zealand. These investments will now be considered under the same rules as other investments in sensitive land, known as "the benefit to New Zealand test", rather than under the streamlined special forestry test. The removal of the special forestry test only means that conversions are now treated the same as any other overseas investment in non-urban land. This will channel overseas investment into the right forests, in the right place, for the right reasons.
It's fitting that this bill comes to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, as we scrutinised the last bill. One aspect that I'm really keen to look at more closely is the transitional and saving provisions in Part 2 of this bill; as any astute policy maker will be astute to, is that any time you shift tests, the question applies as to what happens to current applications for consent—so that transitioning period. So I'm looking forward to scrutinising the bill further, and I commend this bill to the House.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm very pleased to take a call on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill at its first reading and join my colleague Ian McKelvie in supporting it. I am speaking this evening as the National Party spokesperson for land information—which does include oversight of the Overseas Investment Office—but also with my rural communities hat on, who, I think, more than most have been quite fearful watching the impact of what they determine as the Government's inaction on this issue. At its most basic, the bill aims to address the increasing number of land-use conversions we've seen, particularly in that class 6 to class 8 land, and the ease with which these conversions have occurred under the special forestry test, which is set out in the Overseas Investment Act and is the brainchild of that party formerly known as New Zealand First.
Afforestation has become more and more common in recent years, as the price of carbon has begun to rapidly escalate, and many New Zealanders have watched with horror the largescale conversion of farmland. As a sheep farmer's daughter, it has been a painful discussion around the dinner table on many an occasion. Whereas the price of carbon at the outset of this law was about $30 a unit, in the intervening years it's climbed to about $75, and some would predict it could well end up being at about $200. But, even at the current carbon prices, it's not unheard of for the profitability of forests to be around $2,000 per hectare, and when you look at hill country sheep and beef farming at around $400 a hectare and finishing at about $750 a hectare, you can understand why these largescale land-use conversions are taking place.
Overseas investors have been allowed access to this land, to take advantage of these carbon prices using this more streamlined special forestry test. Under that test, about 23,000 hectares have been acquired by overseas interests for full forestry conversion, and that includes about 8,000 hectares of class 1 to 5 land, which, we all know, is highly productive pastoral land.
There has been particular concern raised by groups, like 50 Shades of Green, that this conversion has come at the expense of local communities and their schools, and land and farm that has been in particular families for generations. And that really does need to be explored at select committee, because, in the absence of any coherent strategy from the Government, which has been working in this space for about—oh, how many years?—four years, since 2018.
Federated Farmers has also expressed concern on behalf of rural communities. I think the Meat & Wool chair William Beetham said it very well when he said—and I quote—"The recent spike in the afforestation of sheep and beef farms is not the result of consumer-driven demand but heavy-handed and short-term Government policies designed to incentivise more trees regardless of whether or not it is the right tree in the right place." He also made the comment, of the current settings that this bill is looking to change, that "Overseas investors can simply plant pine trees, claim the credits, sell them, and take huge profit overseas while New Zealanders carry the consequences now and into the future."
Which brings me to my next point: there has been a total lack of clarity from the Government about a plan, or even who is taking the lead, on dealing with issues like the overseas investment framework. In Budget 2022, which we heard just recently, it appears that Minister Nash had responsibility through his $30-odd million industry transformation plan, but we also have Minister O'Connor, who's the Minister for Land Information and holds that delegation, whom we haven't heard from. We were expecting Minister Parker to bring this legislation to the House tonight; instead, we have Minister Davis. And I think that paints a picture of a very confusing set of circumstances for both industry and farmers and really highlights a lack of ownership from this Government.
The changes that this bill seeks to bring about, we on this side of the House would say are a no-brainer and should not have taken this long to get to this point. Rural communities expect leadership and not haphazard legislation made up on the fly, on the hoof, according to how the polls are reading. On this side of the House, we understand the flow of direct foreign capital and the importance it plays in New Zealand—it is the key to securing sustainable economic growth—but we also understand that it must not come at the detriment of our ability to remain as one of the most efficient primary production sectors in the world.
So we on this side of the House very much look forward to hearing the evidence that will be presented, no doubt, to the select committee, and watching that committee work through these details of this bill, and therefore we do commend this bill to the House.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Before I take a call from Ingrid Leary, as I assume the Chair, I'm conscious that I've already spoken in this debate. You're stuck with me; there are no other presiding officers available. Ha, ha! So I'm just really assuring members that I will try my very best to remain impartial. Ha, ha! Ingrid Leary.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): A timely interjection from you, Mr Speaker; I was just going to say that one of the most sensible things I've heard this evening was from the member Ian McKelvie, who talked about this piece of legislation "getting it right". Certainly the special forestry test at the time—in 2018—was the right test for those circumstances. But all laws need tweaking. Business changes, circumstances change, and what we are doing with this legislation is tweaking to make sure that we get the balance right between getting the benefit for New Zealand from overseas investment as well as managing the risks. 
I remember when I first was elected into Taieri having a really good walk around a couple of farms, both run by Federated Farmers farmers. One was Simon Davies, a former Federated Farmers Otago chair, and then Mark Patterson's land. They were pointing out to me where forestry was becoming increasingly popular and showing me where there was overseas investment happening, and at that point we could already see that there might need to be some tweaks going forward because of the way that the Act was working. 
So what this piece of legislation does is it really just recalibrates. It takes out the special forestry test that was introduced in 2018, which was relatively permissive and was needed at the time to support the sector and was also needed to stimulate the forestry investment. Instead, it has come up with—as the Minister has shown—seven conditions that prove benefit to New Zealand rather than a whole lot more complex ones. It is much more nuanced, and now there is no hypothetical—so it's really looking at the situation at hand rather than trying to do a hypothetical test about what would be of benefit to New Zealand. So this is just about streamlining those regulations and laws worked at the time. Forestry has become increasingly popular; we need to recalibrate, we need to get it right, as Ian McKelvie said. This is a good piece of legislation that I commend to the House.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. The Green Party will be supporting the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill. As others have noted, this bill is in response to the changes to the Overseas Investment Act that New Zealand First promoted in 2018. Those changes created what the Hon Shane Jones, then forestry Minister, described as the "primrose path" for forestry because this special forestry test was much easier for overseas investors wanting to buy land for forestry than if they had wanted to buy land to farm it. Buyers didn't have to prove that their land purchase was going to provide any particular benefit to New Zealand, they simply had to be of good character, they had to commit to replanting the trees if they were harvested, and they had to commit to maintaining any existing arrangements around the supply of logs to domestic suppliers or arrangements around public access.
And so, as with the increase in carbon price now up to nearly $77 a tonne, there was quite a lot of interest from overseas investors in permanent forestry for carbon farming. There has been a major expansion in forestry. It's been valued not just for the fibre it produces but also for carbon credits. But under the Overseas Investment Act, it wasn't possible to use the special forestry test for carbon farming, only for forestry—for plantation pine and harvesting. But since that primrose path was introduced in 2018, there's been some 36,000 hectares of farmland which has been approved for sale to overseas investors for forestry.
Radio New Zealand did a series in 2019 called Green Rush, which really looked at the purchasers, and they highlighted that of the 10 largest private landowners in Aotearoa New Zealand, the top four of those were all overseas-owned forestry companies. They were companies like Tuamata Plantations, which has a big Canadian forestry company as its major shareholder; the Malaysian-based Tiong family, associated with Suharto's regime; the Australasian-based New Forests Asset Management: they amassed some 66,000 hectares of their 77,000 hectare landholdings in less than four years, starting from 2016; and Matariki Forests, number four on that list, is owned largely by the US-based Rayonier forests. So while we've certainly got significant overseas investment in the dairy sector, in processing factories like Westland Dairy, that's less about owning the land. And so this whole primrose path meant that Ministers and the Overseas Investment Office had very little discretion in assessing these applications and weren't able, really, to decline them. It also mean that very little information was collected and there was no assessment of whether there was a benefit to New Zealand.
I acknowledge the work of 50 Shades of Green and also Federated Farmers. 50 Shades of Green were very generous in organising field trips. We took one in the Wairarapa to see the actual land-use change that was happening, to see the areas that were going into forestry that had been formerly farmed. People like Mayor Craig Smith of Wairoa were highlighting the 10,000 hectares of hill country farmland that was going into forestry, and a really genuine concern that this major landscape change would lead to the hollowing out of rural communities because of the fewer jobs involved in forestry—in the planting, some in pruning, but not those ongoing jobs. And that hollowing out, then, of jobs, of people involved in local communities, in voluntary organisations like volunteer fire brigades. Also, there was concern about large-scale exotic forestry, the increasing fire risk with drought in eastern areas, the risk of wilding conifer spread, and just that monoculture of pine because of the lack of diversification into other species, and the increasing prices that this land was going for if it was being sold to forestry companies.
So now the bill puts forestry on the same basis as other land-based investments, but it is still a weaker test than if an overseas investor wanted to buy farmland to farm, because it doesn't include matters like the oversight and participation of New Zealanders being of relatively high importance, which is a factor that Ministers have to consider when there are applications to buy farmland. But it does bring in those seven criteria under the benefit to New Zealand test, things like: is there an economic benefit; will there be jobs created or retained; will there be technology or business skills introduced; will there be environmental benefits, like the protection of significant indigenous vegetation; will there be public access to the coast, the foreshore, lakes, and the like? So that is a more even playing field.
There are also some more minor changes. There have been some issues where if there have been former farmhouses on land bought for forestry conversion, those have only been able to be rented out to people involved in the forestry operation. This allows them to be rented out more widely, but does prevent any overseas owners living in those, so it should make the regime more workable.
The Green Party has a stronger view on overseas investment, wants a threshold that's lower in terms of business investments, but we will be supporting this bill and were heartened by the comments by Barbara Edmonds that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be looking at the transitional provisions. Because I still have a concern around standing consents, which are these consents given to companies if they have complied with our overseas investment laws, enabling them to make a number of transactions to purchase land without having to go back to the Overseas Investment Office for permission each time. And the existing rules, under the bill as I understand it, will apply to these standing consents or to those who applied for standing consents before the bill comes into effect. I have a concern that that may spark a bit of a gold rush in relation to standing consents and applications to purchase, so I would really encourage the Finance and Expenditure Committee to look quite closely at that. But this is a bill which does seek to improve the position and put forestry on a more even foothold with other land-based overseas investment applications.





DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): ACT would like to support this bill at its first reading. It's worth putting in context how important this industry is, forestry, for New Zealand. It accounts for about 1.6 percent of New Zealand's GDP, which equates to about $7 billion in September 2020. It's the third largest export product earner behind dairy and meat. There is a potential target to reach—an extra $3 billion to reach $10 billion. It contributes an annual gross income of around $5 billion and directly employs 38,000 people in production, processing, and commercialisation. It accounts for around 11 percent of the land use in New Zealand.
So a strong forestry industry contributes to many of the Government's priorities, including regional development, employment, and mitigating climate change. The forestry sector is heavily dependent on inward investment, with up to 70 percent of forestry plantations being foreign-owned. This means routes for screening such investments have a particular impact on the sector.
At the moment, the Crown's forest estate is roughly around 31,500 hectares and the total land registered under the emissions trading scheme is 333,000. So the overseas investment, the results, and the conversion of farmland or other land for forestry benefits New Zealand. I like the aspect of the bill that more risks can be managed here. New Zealand has consequently seen an increase in forestry investment since the period of Mr Jones.
But making changes to this overseas investment regime is not without risk. For example, a stricter overseas investment regime may cause a decrease in overseas investment generally. Overseas investors would probably likely see an increase in processing times for applications and increased uncertainties that come with this application.
Overall, any changes perceived as New Zealand tightening its investment regime to reduce overseas investment, and therefore impacting New Zealand's attractiveness for foreign direct investment more generally, would become an issue. Any reduction in overseas investment in New Zealand forestry may cause a decrease in the value of land held by landowners.
There's also a clear risk to the Māori interests. Māori own at least 30 percent of the land containing New Zealand's plantation forests, but not always the trees themselves. They're often partners for overseas forestry investors. So, obviously, at the select committee we must take that into consideration.
It's amazing listening to Mr McKelvie offer a longer-term history, but what has happened since 2018 has been remarkable in this industry. It was made quite easy before the economics changed to lots of farmland being turned into pine. So we've closed the loophole with this bill and subject forestry to the standard overseas investment test, redefining to the benefits to New Zealand test.
The major area of changes that I like, as well, is there's no more promise of special forestry test; it's New Zealanders who don't want foreign investment turning farmland into pine have got a voice. It's happened rather rapidly due to incentives and carbon pricing, and foreign investors lose a permissive loophole into offshore forestry investment in New Zealand.
So there's lots to be accredited here in the bill, but certainly I think more work needs to be done on the economic impacts and not disrupting the industry whilst catering to local communities and satisfying the concerns that are actually in regional New Zealand. And to that effect, ACT will be supporting the bill, and we look forward to working on it in the select committee.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow a speaker from the ACT Party who is talking about the strategic value of keeping land in New Zealand ownership, so I congratulate that speaker, Damien Smith, because I think what this bill shows is that ownership of land is strategic, because, as a country, it is important that we understand that the use of that land and what we produce on it is what makes this country survive and thrive. 
I do want to correct one of the speakers—I think the member from Selwyn—who spoke very eloquently but was really looking at the wrong Act, because this is not about carbon farming. This is actually about production forestry. Now, you're listening to someone here who had his fingers quite badly burnt, excuse the pun, by trees and forestry. In the 1980s there was a rush to get into the new "greenrush", which was forestry, in many farms. I was involved in an enterprise where we stuck some trees on the back of a farm, without giving it any, really, great thought about how difficult and expensive it was going to be to actually harvest them, not to mention the fact they were the wrong tree in the wrong place, because they were too wet, and they weren't even that good for firewood, at the end of the day. So I did have a little experience of understanding how important it is to get the right tree in the right place at the right time—but, of course, pain has no memory, so it will, of course, not stop me from getting involved in such ventures into the future!
But this really is about making sure that we understand that where we put those trees, and the type of trees that we do put in the ground, is all about balancing. It's not about a decision being made in a board room in Vienna or in London, where the sort of investment availability will always ensure that any New Zealand options are dwarfed financially. It means that when we decide, as a country, whether we are going to allow this to happen, there is a test applied: is this going to be good for this country? 
And only that we had made so many of those decisions in the years leading up to this time. If you drive around New Zealand, you look at rural communities, you'll see everywhere you go there'll be skeletons of old sheep yards, skeletons of old cow sheds, where once there were quite thriving communities. Where now we have one dairy farm, there were often about 15, maybe 20. And, of course, now we have that one farm, and it means the local schools—it means the whole local community—has suffered accordingly. And, of course, the way the previous legislation was being administered, it meant that our rural communities were changing the shape of New Zealand. We were changing the shape of our communities. We were changing the shape of our schools. 
So this legislation goes some way towards balancing that, to ensure—and you've, again, heard the previous speaker, and all previous speakers, talk about the value of forestry, the need to ensure that we do have access to trees in the future. I heard one very wise speaker, earlier on, talking about how we just don't know how the science is going to change—whether we're actually going to be simply processing trees in the place they grow. It may well be that things have changed so greatly. So this bill will give us the options to make sure that we can keep to what is, I think, a very central mantra around forestry: ensuring that we have the right tree in the right place at the right time. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This legislation got its genesis in the New Zealand First coalition agreement with the Labour Party, which required an exemption for overseas investors into buying land for the purposes of forestry, and to get the billion trees. It's taken the Government many years to get to the position of tonight—which is a start. But do not be fooled. They will use this, going around the farming communities, saying, "Look what we have done, getting rid of that foreign exemption." But it doesn't actually get rid of the foreign exemption because there are three tests. One is a general benefit test, the second is a farmland test, and the third is the forestry test. Now, they're getting rid of the forestry test, true, but they're putting it into the general benefit test. They're not putting it into this more stringent farmland test.
Now, I can't for the life of me fathom why it isn't treated the same as other farmland. The Labour Party were elected, and the Green Party supported them, on the basis that they were going to stop overseas investment in foreign land. This bill still allows that. It's under a more permissive general test for forestry to buy farmland than for any other purposes to buy farmland in New Zealand. So New Zealand farmers need to be aware of that detail. This is another smoke and mirrors attempt by the Government. It does make a change in that area and we do support it because it is a step in that area. But if the Parliament and the Labour Party were genuine about treating farmland the same, then why isn't it under the farmland test? Why is it under a general test that is more permissive? It's because they still want forestry to go ahead, and they still want people to come in and buy forestry. 
Because the two requirements for a Minister to approve it are that the land is to be, basically, exclusively used for forestry—well those overseas investors are already doing that. The second test is that it has to be for plantation forestry. Well, the 20,000 hectares that my colleagues have talked about satisfy both of those tests. They're for forestry, they're plantation forestry—generally not carbon farming that those overseas investors are coming in to buy. So I want to know why the Labour Party isn't consistent. This should be under the farmland test, if the Labour Party truly believed in what it stood for.
The only reason the Green Party—because I can't believe the Green Party actually agreed with this because they're all for the billion trees, right? The only reason they've agreed for it is because they know it doesn't make a hell of a lot of a difference. They know that those two tests are going to be satisfied to any Minister. Is it going to be 20,000 hectares that's now sold overseas that's going to stop tomorrow? I doubt that very much. It might reduce a little bit. But the Green Party is still clapping because they get what they want. The Labour Party's going to go into those rural seats and say look what we've done, we've actually done something for you—which is not true. Because the test that is actually applied is the general benefit test.
So if the Labour Party wants to be honest with those voters that they're worried about losing, put it in the farmland test. Make it as tough as any other farmland to get. That would be consistent and that would be honourable from the Labour Party.
So we will support this to first reading. It will be a step in the right direction. Personally, I think that all farmland should have the same test. If the Government of New Zealand decides that that is a test that is more stringent, and that doesn't want overseas investors to buy farmland—well so be it. But forestry still will get an exemption. It's just a watered-down exemption, and it's the exemption which Ministers can approve, and that is a result of this legislation.
So I think farmers should be very much aware of what this legislation says. Don't be hoodwinked into thinking that this gets rid of all those foreign buyers that we've talked about in the past and they've been battering on the door of those rural Labour MPs offices. They're still going to be there, they've just got a different regime to go through. And it's all going to be a year later before we see how many of their Ministers approve in all those sort of things after the election. This is just a smoke and mirrors attempt, in some ways, from the Labour Party to do that.
Let's be honest, guys. You know what you're doing here; you haven't really changed. Look, the Green Party's voting for it—that's the guts of it, you know. If you really change, the Greens will be jumping up and down going "Well, where's our trees?" And so we need to see this legislation go through a select committee and actually see what's in the guts of it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): The member the Hon David Bennett has no grounds to be smug. He stands up today and presents himself as someone that's advocating for farm owners at the expense of forestry conversions.
I asked the Parliamentary Library: how many questions have the National Party asked about carbon farming or farm conversions since the last election? I asked the Parliamentary Library how many times a National Party MP has made a general debate contribution about farm conversions to forestry, be it production or carbon forestry. The answer is zero. Not one contribution all of this term—18 months.
They stand here tonight with the gall to pretend that they are worried about this issue. But they have not used a single opportunity in the general debate—and the general debate is a chance for any MP to speak about any issue that they care about. They present themselves to be the party of rural New Zealand, and they have said nothing.
They have also not taken any opportunity to ask a question about this to any Minister. Why? Because they do not care about this issue. There's another reason to amplify why they do not care. At the last election, there was one party and one party alone that presented a policy solution to this issue. It was the Labour Party. The National Party had no policy and you can always tell when you hit a nerve. That's when they start to yell. You know when you're making a point that really hits home and Nicola Grigg stands up and dedicates her entire speech to carbon farming, despite the fact this bill has nothing to do with carbon farming. 
This is entirely dedicated to production farming and it is the right thing to do. But do not stand up and pretend that you are fighting for farming communities and trying to stop farms being converted to carbon forests when you've done nothing about it. No policies, no questions, no general debate contributions. Laugh all you like, but you have done nothing. I wrote the policy for the Labour Party. I put it forward to the Labour Party. They adopted it. They are implementing it.
There are three parts to addressing this issue; this bill is the first part. The second part is the consultation document that this Government put out that said, "How about we actually put in native forests instead of pine forests?" That was a result of this Government and its rural MPs actually listing to their constituencies.
What did the National Party do? Nothing. What was the third part that we're going to do? We are in the process—and soon to be announced—to give local communities the ability that they used to have, but that Government took it away, to actually put this as a consentable activity. Local communities actually say where these conversions can actually happen in their communities. Instead of seeing full-scale conversions of farms to carbon forests, actually indicating that, "These are the areas we want them and these areas we don't." How about we encourage farmers to work together, find a band of land on their farm and a band of land on the other farm?
If we carried on like they're doing—doing absolutely nothing about it—areas in my electorate like Pongaroa and Tīnui, and in other areas like Wairoa, will continue to be converted. Why? Because that is the settings of the emissions trading scheme (ETS).
If David Bennett wants to accuse parties of being honest, how about they be upfront? What we're seeing here in terms of conversions for carbon forestry is the result of the ETS—the ETS that has been in place for many, many years and that Government did nothing about it.
We need to plant trees. The question is: "Where?" The question is not why; we know why. We just need to figure out where we put it. Now, if we carried on like that lot wants us to do, we would see rural communities decimated. The gall, that's what's got me. The gall that they stand up today and pretend that they care when they have genuinely done nothing about it. No press releases, no policy, no speeches, no questions. Laugh all you like; you know it's true. You've done bugger all about it. This is the Government that's actually doing something about forestry, and that's why I'm voting for this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! I'll just remind members on my left that if you hadn't made so much noise, the member wouldn't have had to speak so loudly.





RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Hopefully I can be slightly softer in my volume, Mr Speaker! Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill. As we've heard in previous speeches, in 2018 there was a change to the Overseas Investment Act. The timing in 2018 related to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Hon David Bennett: Do you agree with Kieran? Have you been standing up in caucus on this?
RACHEL BROOKING: There is still quite a lot of noise. I might have to be louder! At that time, in 2018, there was the special test created for plantation forestry. This is the test that the bill doesn't quite remove but does change for most types of plantation forestry.
The amendment does not apply to carbon forests; we've just heard that very articulately said by the previous speaker, Kieran McAnulty—that carbon forests have nothing to do with this legislation at all, before today or after this bill is passed through the House. Carbon forests are regulated quite separately, and as the previous speaker said, there is consultation at the moment on whether or not the emissions trading scheme settings should change so that they don't apply to these exotic forests all the time and instead incentivise indigenous forests. That has the benefit of being better for biodiversity. We've heard also, from the Hon David Bennett there, about the various different tests that are in the Overseas Investment Act that we have currently and how these will apply. He has said that the farm test should apply rather than the normal test, but regardless of which one should apply, the point here is that the permissive test won't apply to new forestry, new plantation forestry. It will still apply to existing forests but not to any conversions.
We know that this permissive test in the Overseas Investment Act has led to a lot of foreign investment into plantation forests in New Zealand. We've heard that today this bill is about rectifying some balance in the system, because we know, as the Hon Eugenie Sage talked about, that there has been a hollowing out of communities with some of the additional plantation forestry both from this international investment but also to acknowledge the carbon farming as well that's happening, which this bill does not address. We've heard from those rural areas that there are concerns. We also know that there is a balance in terms of letting in and enabling benefits to New Zealand from the capital from foreign investment. So that is what this bill is trying to achieve. We've heard also that it's going to go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee; so they will be able to address the concerns raised tonight. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, we've heard from Mr McAnulty, "You can tell when the Opposition's had a raw nerve touched, because they start shouting", and he started shouting—he did, Mr McAnulty. He really got into it. He also said that the Opposition has taken no general debate contributions on the subject. Well, I would ask Mr McAnulty to ask the Parliamentary Library of himself how many general debate contributions he has made on this subject. How many questions has he asked his ministerial colleagues? How much attention has he paid? Well, he's given us a three-part plan. He's told us that he's got an announcement to make tonight. He's told us what the third one will be. He's made the classic announcement about an announcement, in other words, and we can't wait to hear more detail about what they are not going to do.
He's criticised us for issuing no press releases on the subject. Well, ironically, the press releases on the subject are about all that that member has achieved, if even he had done that. If he were to print them off and shred them, he'd be doing more to affect the forestry sector than any ideas he's had that have come into practice so far.
Now, I don't pretend to have great knowledge in the area of forestry. I'm humble, at least, about that. Mr McAnulty would be wise to make a similar confession, rather than pretending to the contrary. But therefore, I do take the opportunity, at first reading, to say that this is an opportunity to ask, from first principles, what it is that the legislation is designed to achieve. What is the context of the legislation? That's the word that it used, and I'm going to come back to that, because it's got much to say about why things are so very different in 2022 than just a couple of years ago, when the same Government, but a previous term of the same Government, had different changes to make in that space, and how much sense it all made then, according to some of the very same people that stand up now and tell us why, of course, it all much change. We're living in a completely different world, in the forestry sense, in 2022, apparently.
So let's be honest: whereas the explanatory note talks about the economic and regulatory context having changed, and, therefore, it's important to consider the environmental, social, economic, and other impacts on investment. The reality is, it's not so much the economic and regulatory context that have changed; it's the political context. Others on this side of the House have noted, quite rightly, that it was the political context. The first term of the Labour Government, propped up by New Zealand First—or vice versa; take your pick—that came up with this sort of bizarre idea that forestry should be treated in the way that they did.
The National Party pointed out the anomalies at that time; we're still pointing out anomalies in the way that the Government handled it. Notwithstanding that, we're saying, "Well, they're going to have a bit more of a sensible approach, no longer shackled to their coalition partner." Some might say it was a coalition of losers—I wouldn't use that term myself—but the three-headed monster, the three-headed beast that was the last term of Parliament—the Government that put together such anomalies as the previous policy in relation to forestry investment. We're apparently moving away from that; so far as it goes, that is to be celebrated.
So the bill says that it aims to ensure that overseas investment in forestry benefits New Zealand. There's a little bit of the "how", but more of that detail will be thrashed out, of course, at select committee, and that's one of the reasons that we have the first readings, so we can flag the things that the select committee process should aim to uncover. Mr Bennett has given a typically thoughtful contribution—
Nicola Grigg: Very thoughtful.
CHRIS PENK: "Very thoughtful", Nicola Grigg points out. Her own contribution was also very thoughtful. So the thoughtfulness, on this side of the House, at least, is aimed to understanding what the issues are, pointing out the kinds of areas that we want to hear from submitters at the select committee, and, of course, these relate to the balance between the New Zealand benefit test, the forestry benefit test, and the farm benefit test, and how those all interact and relate, and, of course, what will be the best outcome overall for New Zealand, not only in terms of the environment but also, of course, the economy, social, and other impacts of investment.
So it's been touched on by almost all speakers—I think probably all, actually, now I think of it. The context of this bill includes the overseas investment regime as a whole. So the Overseas Investment Act—often referred to as the OIA, confusingly, I suppose, for those uninitiated in the area, because it's the same acronym as the Official Information Act, not to be confused. As the bill points out, this is the main way in which overseas investment is regulated or managed in this country.
And I think it's worth noting that foreign investment in itself is not a bad thing, as one might possibly have thought if one arrived from another planet and listened to debates in the last Parliament. Indeed, some of the debates were conducted, I think, by people who had arrived from another planet, or New Zealand First as they were known. Anyway, so they made a case that it was a terribly bad thing for people who don't come from around these parts to do such horrendous activities as planting trees and building houses and so forth, and how dare they! But actually, we've always taken the approach that some degree of foreign investment is a good thing in itself. Of course we need to mitigate any risk that too much of a good thing will have negative effects, and so it's right and proper that we have a regime where we say that if the benefit to New Zealand overall is greater by having a certain activity, notwithstanding that it's done by some of these terrible people known as foreigners—which I hasten to add for the benefit of anyone who might have tuned in at just that moment was heavily ironic in the context of New Zealand First's position on the subject in the last Parliament. 
So we're talking about the conversion of farmland, and this is the really gnarly issue. So colleagues of mine who know more about rural New Zealand than me—and that's most of them—have spoken with eloquence and passion, indeed, about the need to ensure that rural communities are well serviced by the activities that are taking place on the land that surrounds them, and indeed that they live on. Of course, forestry is one such activity; it's a legitimate thing in itself, it has benefits in terms of the environment, but also it comes at something of a cost and the cost is, obviously, not just in dollar terms. And if we're on that subject, cost can go the other way of course—we can actually actively make money from forestry, most obviously from wood products and so forth, but also of course the carbon aspect under the emissions trading scheme and so on. 
But the cost in the more general sense is that if we use the land for forestry, then by definition we cannot use it for other things, which are precluded by the planting of trees. Farming, in the more traditional sense, is of course one of those. In all of this, it's important that we understand that if one-off decisions that are made, such as Greg O'Connor had the grace to acknowledge he'd made some bad decisions in his past—I mean we know that because he's obviously a member of the Labour Party—but also in relation to our forestry investment. And I think he would acknowledge I'm using the term reasonably loosely; by his own telling of the anecdote it was an experiment into which relatively little thought was put, whereby they would sort of whack in a few trees and sort of see what became of it, was a growing problem. Anyway, so the afforestation can take place, and historically I think has taken place, in a reasonably haphazard way—it's been more of a natural process. Obviously, growing a forest is natural to some extent anyway, with photosynthesis and so forth—I'm just really digging into my fourth form science here, Mr Speaker, as you can tell we're getting close to the end of my 10-minute contribution, thankfully.
So the Government's goal of stimulating the forestry investment is said to have been a need at the time that the relatively permissive special forestry test was introduced in 2018. Well it seems to me that what's changed in the last four years is that the Government has taken a different form. You know, you win some, you lose some—the good news is that New Zealand First is no longer with us in the Parliament; the bad news is that Labour sort of filled the gap and then some. So there we have it, you can't win them all, Mr Speaker, but we do intend to win the next one—I was going to say, "As you know", but I don't wish to bring you into the debate. Mind you, you're already wearing a couple of different hats with your sort of spokesperson role, and you've acknowledged that.
Hon David Bennett: Bring him in.
CHRIS PENK: Mr Bennett encourages me to bring him in, but I don't think I would do that. I will just say that a wise man once said that you can't eat trees—or something like that—which, obviously, I suppose, depends what you'd call a tree as opposed to a plant, and I wouldn't know where we draw the line. But in 40 seconds we'll have a good idea where to draw the line. But anyway, that person who made such a profound comment that trees can't be eaten was, I think, alluding to that fundamental tension that we were talking about before—the mutual exclusivity of planting certain types of forest, as compared with farming the land. So I think these are the factors that will go into the test, ultimately, when it becomes an amendment to the law, and at select committee it will be very seriously thrashed out. I'm sure we'll have lots of good discussions there; I welcome the submissions that will come in and the consideration by fellow MPs in that forum. 





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): What a terrible contribution that was. That was awful. I remember in school learning about monologues, and that's exactly what that was. It had no reaction—not even from his colleagues—especially when he went to bust out a few jokes. Nobody was laughing around him. Why? Because he didn't really know what he was talking about. So come over to this side of the House. We know rural communities. Remember, they gave us their votes in the last election, and we're going to make sure that we look after that.
Rotorua is the home of forestry in New Zealand, and I am stoked to be able to stand here and give a better contribution than that, because it was actually our grandfathers, it was our uncles, that grew up working in the mills and in the bushes all around the Waiariki rohe. It was our grandparents and our parents that used to go into the mill and work really long days, and they used to have to go into the forests and do their yards, because that was what they needed to do to support their families. When it comes to forestry, our side of the House know about it a lot more than that side do.
Why do we need to change this? Well, we need to make sure that we are doing right by those of our grandfathers and parents that had to do the long yards in the forestry sector. We want to make sure that we are applying the same rules, so when it comes to overseas investment, we want to make sure that we're continuing to have that benefit to New Zealanders, remembering it was our grandparents and our parents that did the hard works on this. We want to make sure that we've got the right forest in the right place for the right reasons. We've got to make sure that the proposed changes are also going to help manage those increasing concerns that New Zealanders have around the difference between planting out our farms and managing farm to forestry conversions, particularly in relation to pastoral land and land that's otherwise important to local economies and communities, such as my community back home in Rotorua.
As is the case with all other overseas investments in non-urban land, forestry conversions will need to go through the standard benefit to New Zealand test, instead of through the special forestry test. That's what we're talking about. That's what that side tonight is going to agree to, and I commend it to the House.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.





Instruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 August 2022, and that the Committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evenings, on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.
Motion agreed to.





THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 2 June.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Let me start by saying that if we want an effective justice system which treats everyone—and when I say "everyone", I mean victims, Māori, offenders, and families—fairly and with respect, we need to be led by the evidence. A defence of the three-strikes law requires a sort of wilful disinterest in that evidence and how an effective sentencing regime should work, disinterest in the harsh penalties for serious offences that are more effective than the three-strikes regime, and a tolerance for outcomes which are not fair. I use that word "wilful disinterest" because three strikes has not reduced serious offending and victimisation. It does not do what its proponents wanted it to do and still say it does, despite the evidence which is there to be seen.
Three strikes gives us sentences which are plainly disproportionate, and, when it was enacted, its proponents knew that would happen. It gives us sentences for some offenders that without the rule, no judge or even reasonable person on the street would hand out. I see the repeal of three strikes as a sensible change which stands on its own in the wider debate, where claims are drowning out the evidence about its efficacy, because there is urgent need for consensus on justice issues, and we need to agree to be guided by the evidence as we design our justice system. 
The Hon Paul Goldsmith made his contribution to this debate about the way that this repeal of three strikes would affect Labour MPs in marginal seats. That is a worrying insight into the way that justice policy can be used as a gimmick by politicians. It's worrying because we cannot make policy that looks tough in a tweet or in a TV soundbite but does not reduce crime. People deserve better than that. 
Programmes that are proven to reduce reoffending are worth more discussion in this House, and they don't get the same kind of air time. It's things like independent reviews which have shown to be effective in stopping serious crime, or the programmes like the alcohol and other drug treatment courts or the AODT courts. Those provide an evidence-based best practice treatment pathway that includes intensive monitoring, case management, drug testing, and mentoring. And when we assess them at a population-wide level of all of the people who have gone through those programmes or an individual level about the way that the cycle of offending has impacted this particular person's life—on both of those measures, programmes like that are shown to reduce offending, to reduce crime overall, and to, therefore, reduce harm on the communities who suffer the effects of that crime. 
I said a defence of three strikes would require wilful blindness about effective sentencing. So let's talk about how three strikes actually works. If you're sentenced for one of the three-strikes offences, your first strike, you get a warning only on top of a normal sentence for your actions. But if you're then sentenced for another three-strikes offence, that's your second strike, you get a final warning and you serve any jail time for your actions in full. That means you get a normal sentence but no option for parole. In the third strike sentence, you must be given the maximum sentence for your offending and serve it in full. So whatever you've done, you serve the maximum sentence, no matter whether that is completely out of step with any other offenders serving that time for a very similar offence to your own or in very different circumstances to your own. 
So if you have a third strike, irrespective of the nature of offending or anything else, that creates this potentially absurd consequence of such a rigid rule, and that was clear from day one when this legislation was passed. It's not something that we've learnt over time, because sentencing should take into account things like deterrence, whether offenders who are punished are less likely to re-offend and their punishment will deter others. Things like incapacitation—punishment can make it difficult or impossible for offenders to re-offend. That's an important part of the way that we sentence our offenders. 
It should take into account rehabilitation. If crime occurs because of a defect—say psychological, moral, or social—it can be corrected or prevented in future crime. And this is a particularly important part of the system, which three strikes seems to actively act against, because once you are on those three-strike offences, you lose the ability to participate in those programmes which give you a better grounding outside of prison and which enable you to take on a fulfilling and hopeful life, which inevitably leads to less offending from that person in the future. And the underlying logic of three-strikes legislation is that a failure in deterrence can be compensated by increases in incapacitation. There's no evidence that that is the case in the way that it's playing out here in New Zealand or in the United States, where this legislation was borrowed from.
I said that a defence of three strikes requires us to ignore the harsh penalties to serious offenders that are more effective. Other sentencing options in orders already exist in New Zealand law that provide judges the tools to impose the same restrictions as provided by the three-strikes law—in appropriate cases. We have preventative detention for repeat serious offenders, public-protection and extended-supervision orders, minimum periods of imprisonment, and imposing maximum penalties up to life imprisonment. All of these things are tools in the tool kit which judges can use to punish serious offenders and to keep people safe. None of these things is improved by the three-strikes law. 
So this question about whether three strikes is actually more effective than these—well, the answer is no. Three strikes is imported law from a failed US system. It was enacted in 2010 and modelled upon California's 1994 three-strikes law. That Californian law was draconian, and it has been criticised since its enactment as the toughest law in America. It is not serving that population. It is not serving the ideology of that population, where people are becoming more and more polarised around how we should treat offending, given that on one side you have the need for rehabilitation, and on one side you have the need for deterrence. Penalties like three strikes require us to be more and more polarised over time. They don't serve the people of America, and they certainly don't serve us. 
So what is a New Zealand response to crime? Well, it's one that reduces offending. The causes of crime need to be addressed: for example, taking into account programmes like Te Pae Oranga panels, like Hōkai Rangi—the initiatives which are shown to get people out of the system, out of offending. Rangatahi and Pacific courts offer young people who have admitted to their offending or have charges that they are facing the choice of having their family group conference plans monitored in the right kind of setting. These things are early interventions in an offending cycle that make a difference to the way that people interact with the justice system and make a difference for the offender's victims in that they are empowered to participate in the system. Te Ao Mārama, this is a programme that incorporates best practices developed in the District Courts' solution-focused specialist courts into mainstream criminal jurisdictions, and that's to realise the shared vision for the court by improving access to justice as well as enhancing procedural and substantive fairness for all people who are affected by the business of the court. Those things are shown to make a difference. Those things are things that we can all agree around this House are things we should be having more conversations about and are things that we can come to the table and work on where the evidence is showing us that there are gains to be made in our justice system. 
It was difficult to sit through the earlier debate about three strikes because I know that everybody around this House does want a justice system that is more effective, that protects people, that protects victims of crime, and that also reduces offending. I think the way that we do that is by opening ourselves up to having conversations around what works and is by avoiding the debates where we are pulled into polar opposites where one side or the other has to have a win on who's tougher. The answer here is that we have to look for those areas of shared interest in our justice system that allow us to take a more evidence-led approach to justice issues, and I look forward to doing that with members all around this House. That's why I commend this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I call Harete Hipango—five minutes.





HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a five-minute call. I stand not as a member having presided on the Justice Committee but certainly as a member of the National Party that's listened to the debate in the House. It's a given that this three-strikes bill is not going to be struck out. It has the numbers from the Labour Government. It's going to pass into law. The issue is for New Zealanders at this present time, in the climate that we have, not only is there a cost of living crisis, we have a cost of crime crisis in our country and timing is critical. Is this really the time that the Government should be striking hot on this bill to strike out and to repeal the three-strikes legislation Act?
I put it to the House, and I put to New Zealand—it's not. If anything, at best, rather than repealing this law, there should have been an amendment to the law. How many shootings have we had in the last couple of days? How many shootings have we had in the last week? What is this Government doing to be staunch, and firm, and fair on that? I've tired of hearing the debate around soft and tough on crime. My stance is that we need to be smart on crime—not complicit, not complacent. I put it to the House that the repealing of this legislation at this time, where we have a crisis of crime in our country and our country is struggling with the cost of living—why is the Government repealing this law?
I sat and I've listened to the debate last week and I have to say that I was perplexed. There were members on the Government benches—members who are in leadership positions—who, behind the camera, were mocking and belittling the substance of a debate. And that debate was about, really, should this bill be repealed at this time when we have a crisis of crime in our country? I was also perplexed that it's all very well to have this presentation in front of the cameras and make a grand stand on things when behind the cameras—these are different situations and scenarios playing out.
I was also perplexed to hear members from the Government benches saying that there was no sense of discretion that the judges had. I'm going to just remind people what the law says. The law specifically states that when it comes to the three strikes, there is discretion. That discretion is where the court may deem the imposition of a first, a second, and a third strike to be manifestly unjust in terms of a mandatory sentence being imposed. So let's correct the record on that.
Also, in terms of qualifying offences—that's under the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010—there are 40 qualifying offences, and they are the most serious criminal activity. So let's be clear on this: we've got this gun spree, gun shooting-up that's going around the country, and spree on crime. Five of those 40 qualifying offences are specifically firearms-related offences. What message is being sent to those offenders who are on a rampage with their weapons, with their firearms, going around shooting up around the country? This three-strikes legislation repeal is completely striking out a deterrent force and approach by the courts and the law to be firm, not complacent, and not complicit.
I'm not reading notes, as the previous speaker did. I've got a number of notes that I have to refer here—none of which I can see because I need a new prescription with my lenses. But in saying that—not having been on the Justice Committee—the National Party is opposing the repeal of this on the basis that to do so at this time is not the right time to do so. The evidence from the Ministry of Justice is saying that "There's no substantial international or New Zealand evidence on the effect of three strikes laws on crime. The existing evidence is mixed and more robust research is needed to understand the true effects of these laws." On that basis, the National Party opposes this repeal bill.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): It's a pleasure to stand up and take a call in support of the repeal of this really quite detrimental, dangerous, and unworthy piece of legislation, one that my colleagues in the criminal court and the judiciary have long, long despised and wanted rid of. I guess I would answer my colleague across the House—Ms Hipango—by saying: when is the right time to do the right thing? Every time.
Harete Hipango: Right now.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Right now is the right time to do the right thing—which, of course, is always the left thing. 
Having spent most of my adult life working to help vulnerable victims, particularly of sex crimes, to get access to justice, I do understand the desire to find a silver bullet to the problem of crime. But there's a saying in the courts: hard cases make bad law—meaning the facts of a terrible case can make us reach for simplistic solutions that feel good in the moment and go on to leave a trail of havoc when the next case isn't as hard or as straightforward. Now, sure, it feels good to lock 'em up and throw away the key on a terrible offender, except that some of them turn out to be sad people like Mr Fitzgerald in the Court of Appeal case with serious mental health problems, who offend compulsively, and whose crimes consist of still distressing but ultimately low-level offending—not good, not OK, but not worth seven years in jail. And that is exactly what has happened here, and exactly why we are repealing this bit of feel-good, no-good, ineffective legislation. 
And it is ineffective, to the point that no one researching any of the many countries and states who have had these things—so not just New Zealand—has been able to come to a conclusive answer demonstrating this piece of legislation does anything much. We've got stats going up and stats coming down. Over the debate in the last few weeks, a number of combatants on the other side have tried to cherry-pick a study out of the muddle. To cherry-pick one study one way or another is bad science. The overall picture is what we need, and the overall picture is, at best, inconclusive, or, to give it the technical term, "meh". Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that "meh" is not a good enough reason to continue with a law that, as our highest courts have said in the strongest possible terms, is a continual danger to the human rights of defendants—namely, the right to protection from cruel or disproportionately severe punishment. 
Meanwhile, all the time, the court has had the ability to do everything the Opposition might want in terms of throwing the book at serious offenders. They have all the power in the world to impose maximum sentences, or deterrent sentences, or any combination of sentences. The difference is that when a judge does it in anything else than a three-strikes situation they are enabled to do it with a full grasp of the circumstances of the case, in a system where proportionality is the watchword. When it's a three-strikes offence, all sense of proportion, or, indeed, rationality, is out the window in favour of the good old knee-jerk reaction. 
And the really awful bit is that this appeal would have been unnecessary had the ACT-National coalition who produced this unholy mess listened to the experts in the first place. If you turn back to the original advice given to the ACT-National alliance, it was full of warning as to what would happen—which is to say, nothing good. Because, really, all these studies of the three-strikes laws do is demonstrate what multiple other studies have proven before: that the big idea of deterrence doesn't work. It only works when the people you are trying to deter are making rational, calculated decisions, and people in these serious violence offences aren't calculating anything. They act on the spur of the moment, fuelled by rage, revenge, and uncontrolled emotion. Deterrence only works for one sort of person: people who plan their crimes. Just a thought for those across the House, but possibly it's the white-collar criminals who you ought to be targeting with this sort of stuff. 
Deterrence doesn't work. We'd like it to. It would make a lot of people happy if it did. It would make crime so much easier to eradicate. But we can't all live in an ACT-National fantasy. We can, and I do, commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I understand the next call is going to be a split call also, and I call Glen Bennett—five minutes.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Kris Faafoi, the Minister of Justice, who brought this piece of legislation to the House. When he spoke on this last week, he acknowledged that the bill would likely cause and inspire debate both in the House and in the public, and, boy, has it. It's saddened me, because I'm not sure if it's been debate or if it's been mud-slinging or if it's just been crass rhetoric that's been thrown around, but this piece of legislation is actually amending something that should never have been there in the first place. This piece of legislation is, I was going to say, an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, but it's not even that; it's worse than that. For us, on this side of the House, as the Labour Party, we're about not going to the top of the cliff but going beyond the cliff, to right before you even get to the cliff side, to deal with offenders. It's things like restorative justice, it's things like family group conferences, and it's things like social workers in schools that actually is around addressing the issues, not just "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." Because what does that do? That just creates more engrained people who are learning the ways that aren't right.
For myself, I come from a place of restorative justice and spent many years working in this field with both victims and offenders of crime, with communities affected by crime and impacted by crime. It's always interesting, because we often got criticised in restorative justice because it was just a slap over the wrist, or a once over lightly, or a kumbaya and a cup of tea afterwards, but it was far deeper than that. Many times I sat in restorative justice conferences with gang members—with seriously freaky people, to be honest, who I wouldn't want to cross in a light alley, let alone a dark alley—but the difference in the restorative justice process was seeing the fear and the trepidation on the offender's face when they walked into the room, because it was so different to a courthouse; it was so different to standing here and seeing the judge at the other end of the room, with tables and lawyers in the way, whereas, in this situation, you were coming face to face with the person that you hurt, the person that you harmed, and that was far greater and far more impactful than the current justice system and how it operates. In many ways, in this three-strikes system, there is no accountability, but seeing the restoration—and no, not the shaking hands and hugging and walking away and all being friends again, but being in a place where the voice of the victim was heard, where the offender was able to understand the harm that was caused, to understand the ripple effect not only for the victim but for the victim's family, for the victim's community, and it goes on and on and on.
So I am standing in support of repealing this piece of legislation so that we can actually focus more on how we reduce harm. Harete Hipango, who just sat down previously, talked about this crisis on crime and the cost-of-crime crisis and being smart on crime. Well, yeah, we on this side of the House are going to be smart about crime; we're going to continue to lean in. And, boy, we've got more work to do, I know—I know we do—but sticking with what this is and the status quo isn't going to solve things.
I look at my own community in Taranaki and I look at START Taranaki, which is an initiative that serves young people who are at high risk, who have already caused harm, and who have already offended, and it's around intervention in the early days. It's about intervention to not let them end up in prison, to ensure that—yeah, they have to do time for their crime, that's for sure, but what are the causes right here, what are the issues that have allowed for this young person to be in front of a judge? What are the causes of this young person having to be arrested by the police? What are the causes of the hurt that this young person has caused that has meant that they have had to go through the justice system. So we need to figure out ways where people do not offend or, if they're in that space, they need to find ways to reform. I commend this bill to the House.





RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill.
I want to begin just by drawing on some of the comments from my colleague Arena Williams around the politicisation that we've been facing in this House and in the national narrative—and by national, I mean a nationwide narrative—around whether we are being soft on crime or tough on crime; whether we support the victim or whether we support the perpetrator. We look at these matters relating to justice in a black and white way.
I just want to take a short time to speak about the time when I was actually a victim of a serious crime. It's context that I bring in my analysis around justice. Because, when I was in my early twenties living in Auckland, I had what could almost be termed a home invasion of someone entering the property, which I was sleeping in on my own.
It was probably one of the most frightening experiences of my life to open the door of the flat I was staying in in the heart of Parnell and to see a man who I did not recognise standing at the top of the landing stairs in a very large villa, all by myself in the middle of Parnell. I recall running down the stairs and ending up on the main road just outside Auckland cathedral, where I worked, and having to ring the police at that time. They brought dogs to track the offender through the night and because of the rain and the wet night, they weren't able to track him.
Following that period, I had a really difficult period of time—a very difficult period of time. But what I'm also really clear about is that having a lock-up-and-throw-away-the-key approach does nothing to solve those issues. The man was just as scared to see me as I was to see him. He was probably looking for somewhere to shelter, some food, somewhere to get support.
For me, one of the things I bring to this House, and that I spoke about in my maiden speech, is my faith. For me, when I consider people who enact a crime of that nature—and if he'd been caught, he probably would have faced a very serious penalty.
But that's not what I want for that man. What I want for that man—and for all people who are faced with these situations—is a warm, dry home, a decent job, a whānau, and friends who love them, the support to end addictions to drug and alcohol. These are the things that we need to be putting our time and energy into in this House.
It's not about a sound bite for sound bite's sake. People who commit some of the most serious offences: they've often been victims themselves. So when we speak about a victim or a perpetrator scenario, we can only support one side of a crime. We're not looking at the evidence. We're not looking at the reality and the totality of the person's life that has lead them to that place.
So for me, I look at this type of legislation around evidence; around my own lived experience, but also around evidence. What we know is that the three-strikes legislation does nothing to deter people from committing crime. It does nothing to reduce the prison population. It does nothing to limit the impact of crime on victims. It achieves none of those things. It just achieves a meme, a sound bite, a short news story where people can feel good about themselves and beat their chests, that "Here we are, we're doing something. We're being tough on crime."
We need to be tough on the causes of crime. We need to be tough on inequality, on poverty, on poor housing, on all of the things that lead to people being disconnected from society and being put into a place where the only way they know is to commit a crime. That's not what I want for this country. That's not what the Labour Party wants for this country, and I'm so pleased that we are removing what has been a draconian and ill-thought through piece of law that does nothing to actually make our country a better place.
I commend this bill to the House.





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and can I say that I respect the spirit in which the last contribution has been made. I don't have any particular sound bites in this space, but I do want to make a number of points that go to the way that the three-strikes law is often characterised. 
I think we would do well to understand some of the principles for the criminal justice system that we have in New Zealand; for better or worse it is a very complicated beast. There's plenty of opportunity, and, indeed, we should all feel encouraged to take enlightened approaches to criminal justice. I'm pleased that the last National Government did a lot of great work in the space of, for example, establishing alcohol and other drug treatment courts, rangatahi courts, and so on. But that's not to say that there isn't a role for the criminal justice system also in recognising very, very serious harm to very vulnerable members of our community. The vulnerability of those who perpetrate such crime does not take away from the vulnerability of those who are its direct victims. 
A number of different points, in no particular order. Often, we hear that the reason that Parliament should repeal the three-strikes law is that it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. With respect, that is not the strongest argument on the other side of the debate. There are good reasons to and fro in relation to the three-strikes law, but lack of proportionality under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act isn't one of them. This is because the lack of proportionality in the three-strikes law—which is to say the third strike, so to speak, is treated differently from the second and first strike—is a feature of the system, not a bug. It was quite deliberate that Parliament made that law. Proportionality was an aspect of what the Parliament at that time was trying to achieve. Now, of course, that Parliament, in 2010, can't bind the hands of a future Parliament, which is why Parliament, now, can make a different decision, and clearly it will with the majority support not only of Labour but I think some of the other support parties. So it's well within the right of Parliament, collectively, to change the law, but to do so on the basis that there's a perceived inconsistency with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and that can't be reconciled in favour of the legislative branch of Government—is to misunderstand the respective roles of the branches of Government. 
The second point is that the courts—it has rightly been pointed out in the debate so far—apply the law. There's been a criticism from the other side that there isn't real discretion in the case of the three-strikes law because the manifestly unjust safety valve is a threshold that's set too high. But that again misses the point that it's the discretion of the courts being exercised on so many occasions previously that has led to a loss of trust by the general public, rightly or wrongly. You know, we can all make arguments about the need for an enlightened approach to justice, but the fact of the matter is if the people of New Zealand as a whole lose trust in the institution that dispenses justice, then we will see vigilante action whether in an active or reactive sense—which is to say self-defence—and that will take us into an even darker place. That might sound merely as though it's a thing that a person might say in favour of the three-strikes law, but in fact I can tell you it is absolutely real. The fear in the community, the lack of trust in our institutions, and the desire—yes—for revenge; and I don't say that that is a good thing that reflects well on human nature, but it is a real thing, and we cannot be ignorant of that in this House when we are making laws. We should not give in to our basest instincts, but we cannot ignore them because that would be to compound the error. 
Another point I think it's worth making is that in the previous part of the debate—actually, it took place on a day before this one, but the same reading of the bill—talked about the fact that Parliament's proper function is to make laws and the courts to interpret them. 
Therefore, it was said that the three-strikes law was anathema to that because it was Parliament seeking to apply the law in specific cases. There's an element of truth to that, but of course, sentencing law is an aspect of law, and I don't think we can take that argument so far as to say that Parliament should set no guidance whatsoever in sentencing matters. So that point is fine as far as it goes, but to its logical conclusion it doesn't make sense.
So I don't think that Parliament should hesitate to give guidance to the judiciary when it's appropriate, responding to the people—the people, of course, being in democracy for whom the rule of law is intended to benefit. Yes, the courts are a branch of Government so they should be responsive to, in at least a limited sense, the will of the people—if not in relation to a particular case, because we don't want mob justice and so forth, but if we do want a court system that reflects the desire of the people in a democracy, it must be so.
I think we can have a good conversation—I hope that at select committee we will have a good conversation—about anomalies that are sometimes pointed out in the current law. I think it's fair to say that the categorisation of crimes that trigger the three strikes, that are considered strikes, could well be looked at, and it might well be that there are offences that are not appropriate for inclusion in a three-strikes regime; I think that's a fair point to make.
Likewise, there might well be offences that aren't currently subject to the three-strikes regime that, if the regime were to continue, should be included. A colleague across the House made a point in relation to white collar crime, and I think she might have a very good point, indeed. That may be a moot point, however, of course, if the repeal as a whole goes through, but I think it's a conversation worth having nevertheless.
The point has sometimes been made that the three-strikes law, supposedly, has not reduced crime, but, of course, we don't know that because what we know, without the benefit of a parallel universe which is the same in all respects except only that it didn't have such a law—we don't know what the crime rate and what further atrocities would have been perpetrated by those who have been convicted of a third strike were that not available.
This brings me to the point that the criminal justice system does have one of its aims: deterrence. Yes, that's fine; that's good as far as it goes. We can drill a bit more into deterrence, and I think we should in our remaining time tonight, but deterrence is not the sole aim of the criminal law. The criminal law also has aims which are not necessarily mutually exclusive but are different and separate: one is prevention.
Prevention is different from deterrence, because deterrence means that a person who would be committing another crime thinks to themselves, "Well, I won't do that because the penalty is such and such." I agree, that doesn't always hold true, and there are categories of offence to which that is not a realistic expectation.
But prevention, by contrast, is when a person who has committed a crime and we have reason to believe would be likely to commit another crime, another offence—whether that's murder or something less than that—is prevented from committing a further crime because, at least for the time that that person is behind bars. Now, of course, the obvious rejoinder is, "Well, if a person is behind bars, they may merely be delaying their release into the community, at which point they'll continue to commit further crimes or they might learn further bad habits"—at the risk of using a trite phrase.
Well that's fine, as far as it goes, but that assumes that our criminal justice system and the corrections part of that isn't good for anything by way of rehabilitation. We should have more confidence in that. We should, and I mean the Parliament as a whole, both sides of politics—we all need to make the effort to make our prison system better so that we are keeping the community safe; yes, preventing crime for that period of time, but also rehabilitating people who are in there for the time that they are in there before they are released and hopefully can enjoy a better life from there on. I presume that every member of the House is on board with that aim, if not the way in which it can be achieved in relation to three strikes.
So, just going back into that question of deterrence, it's true enough to say that deterrence doesn't occur for crimes that we might call crimes of passion—excuse the shorthand—but, of course, there isn't such a categorisation in the existing law that's sought to be repealed. It's entirely possible that an act is conducted in a cold-blooded, calculating fashion, and that's a three-strike offence. I don't think that we should give up a legitimate tool in the tool box of the legislature for actually stopping such premeditation. Deterrence, the extent that it can be effective, should be used by our jurisdiction.
I do want to acknowledge that, having visited a number of victims of crime recently, and I presume that other members of Parliament do, whether in a deliberate fashion or because they've come to us in our respective electorate and community offices, and their view on the matter is very clear: they often raise it proactively.
So for all these reasons, I think that this House should pause seriously before considering kicking away one of the supports of a criminal justice system that has as its aim not only deterrence—importantly deterrence but not only deterrence—but also prevention and thereby rehabilitation as well. We cannot support the repeal of this bill.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It's great to be able to take the final call on this bill, which strikes out the three-strikes law. It is a clumsy, arbitrary, unfair, and ugly piece of legislation. It is racist in its effect—81 percent of the 23 offenders who have received three strikes are Māori—and it doesn't work. It has not made communities safer and there is no evidence for that, and that is clear in the Ministry of Justice evidence brief in 2018. 
But even if it did work, even if there was evidence that it worked, it does not make it right. We know that torture works—torture somebody long enough and they will give you the information that you're seeking. But that does not make it right, and the three-strikes law is simply not right. It has resulted in absurd sentences that are disproportionate—in one case, somebody going to prison for 10 years for a crime that would normally elicit an 18-month sentence. That belongs in a banana republic—it does not belong in Aotearoa New Zealand. 
The fundamental reason is whatever the Opposition tries to make about the three estates of power—or the four estates, if one includes the media—what the three-strikes law does is it takes power from the judiciary, puts it fairly and squarely into the executive and makes one big and unbridled mass of power that then usurps the role of the courts. That is the sort of thing Trump tried to do when he was in the States, trying to say that he had power that was above the law. That is what this three-strikes law does. It is jurisprudentially flawed, it plays to popular politics, it preys on people's fear, it doesn't make sense, and it diminishes trust in the judicial system and in our democracy. Therefore, I am commending this bill to the House that strikes out the three-strikes law. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. 
The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.