WEDNESDAY, 22 JULY 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that "when we're talking about infrastructure, it's not just about the projects we in the Government are responsible for, we also have the opportunity to partner with communities, with iwi and local government. That's what the $2.6 billion worth of shovel-ready projects we announced earlier this week were all about"?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I also went on to say "Things like Home Ground, a project by the Auckland City Mission that will provide 80 apartments with wrap around support and care, or the Poverty Bay Rugby Park Grandstand … right through to the Invercargill inner city development. Collectively these projects are estimated to create over 20,000 jobs in the next 5 years." These projects demonstrate our commitment to infrastructure that creates jobs, contributes to our communities, and achieves more than roading projects alone. I am very proud to be of the Government of infrastructure.
Hon Judith Collins: Why is the Government not releasing the full list of projects and starting work when it has been reported that 45 percent of engineering consulting firms are now considering cutting staff?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First of all, it would be wrong to assume that the sum of the Government's infrastructure announcements are the COVID response and recovery infrastructure projects. In fact, the New Zealand upgrade, announced in February, is $12 billion worth of infrastructure, which, in education alone, $249 million worth of projects have already been approved for 2,400 projects. Secondly, when the COVID pandemic hit, we moved straight away to generate jobs through infrastructure. On 1 April, we created the Infrastructure Reference Group. On 17 May, we received over 1,900 potential projects; that was then provided to Ministers. We worked through a shortlist of 800. On 29 June, very quickly, they were signed off, and on 1 July they started to be rolled out. We've already had hundreds of millions of dollars' worth announced. Some we continue with due diligence, but we are moving as swiftly as we can.
Hon Judith Collins: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that there are 200,000 construction workers in receipt of the wage subsidy and there is a crying need to get shovel-ready projects under way faster than she says her Government is capable of?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: One of the issues with making sure we have shovel-ready projects is that we had an infrastructure deficit left by the last Government. In health alone, we had projects that we have had to wind up as a Government because DHBs did nothing to prepare for their capital works because they were provided with no support from the last Government to do it. That is why we've had a deficit of shovel-ready projects. Though, to come directly to the answer to the member's question: again, it is wrong to say that, solely, we are reliant on the COVID response projects to provide a pipeline of work. In fact, we are the Government that established the Infrastructure Commission to determine that pipeline as well. We already have $750 million worth of projects announced. We are moving quickly, but we are ensuring due diligence as well.
Hon Judith Collins: Can she explain why her Government's programme has resulted in industry leaders stating "The current situation is incredibly frustrating. We know the work is out there, but unless we know where, what, and, most importantly, when projects will start, contractors are left totally in the dark. They will have no choice but to put workers off or face the risk of companies going under."? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as the Government of infrastructure, this is the investment of this Government in infrastructure, and can I point out that this is actually the generous graph—this is the one that includes the Future Investment Fund, where the last Government sold assets in order to put a paltry amount into infrastructure. This Government is a Government that has acknowledged that we had a deficit, but not only in projects but in skills, and that is why we have invested over $1 billion to make sure that we overcome that deficit and the legacy of that member's Government as well. 
Hon Judith Collins: Is it true that her Government's processes have led to industry leaders stating, "The problem now was that no one could see six to 12 months ahead, so they were taking risks [even] retaining staff on assumptions that work would appear or [else they have to cut back the] hours."? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have read the full context of that exact article the member quotes from, and I'd like to, again, point out, actually, another part of that article. It says, "We've seen this happen before. [In] the early 90s, thousands of jobs were shed, creating a capability crisis lasting a decade,"—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Turn the volume down. 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —"whose ripples remain today. The loss of skill and capacity in engineering and construction meant under-investment". We are still having to repair from the under-investment—significant under-investment—of the last Government. We are doing that: $1 billion into skills, $12 billion into the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, and, in the last Budget alone, $45 billion in infrastructure and an infrastructure commission to create the pipeline of work that that member's last Government did not. 
Hon Judith Collins: Is she concerned that projects are being rolled out over coming weeks by ministerial visits—as confirmed by Shane Jones, who said, when asked, he "wouldn't want to break a habit"—when there are so many jobs dependent on those projects being announced and they could be announced now, not waiting on a ministerial visit? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. 
Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive, Paul Blair, who has said companies are running out of time: "It's very stressful, it's increasing costs and it's completely avoidable. The full list and timing of shovel ready projects"—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to interrupt the member. The quotes that the member is using are getting unreasonably long. We were relatively liberal with the first quote from the Prime Minister, but I think the member does know she's got to summarise. 
Hon Judith Collins: Could I do it again? 
SPEAKER: Yes, the member can start again. 
Hon Judith Collins: Thank you very much—thank you. What is her response to Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Paul Blair, who has said companies are running out of time: "It's very stressful, it's increasing costs and it's completely avoidable."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would correct the member and say that it is incorrect to assume that the bulk of infrastructure investment coming from this Government is solely the $2.6 billion from the Infrastructure Reference Group. In fact, the vast majority, of course, has been announced and has started rolling out prior to now. Finally, though, we are moving simultaneously. We had over 1,900 projects that we have whittled down as quickly as possible. We are simultaneously working through the final details and contract negotiations whilst announcing them as quickly as we can. It would be wrong for us to announce projects without having done due diligence; the member would be the first to point that out if that was the case. 
Hon Judith Collins: Then why are 200,000 construction workers on wage subsidies, which are due to expire very soon? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think you'll find that in the global financial crisis, we saw a downturn as well. We are not going to let that happen on our watch. We are working as quickly as we can to make sure that we do not have an environment where, right when we need these projects, we see people backing away. But the member is oversimplifying. Many developers, for instance, are experiencing tighter criteria and loaning requirements from their banks. There are a range of factors at play. We are trying to counteract that with our investments. 
Hon Judith Collins: When will the Prime Minister release the full list of shovel-ready projects to give certainty to the construction workers relying on her Government? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, for the $2.6 billion which sits within the over $40 billion or more announced from Budget 2020, $750 million has already been announced, and we are moving as quickly as we can to finalise any contractual issues and notify successful applicants as quickly as we can. 




Question No. 2—Finance
2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that the Government's COVID-19-related spending is fully justified and providing industry sectors with the certainty they require?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am confident that the spending is justified, given the one-in-100-year shock to the global and New Zealand economies. The spending has given us the ability to go hard and early against COVID19 to keep New Zealanders safe, to allow our economy to open up sooner, and to support the economic recovery by protecting jobs and investing to create new jobs. I'm also confident that we are providing certainty to industry by ensuring funding is available for the projects that we are announcing. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So why has his Government not announced details of the so-called shovel-ready projects now, to give civil contractors as much certainty as possible?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe the Prime Minister covered this in some depth in the answer to the previous question. One of the issues, for example, is the issue around due diligence, and to reiterate a point that the Prime Minister has made, I am sure that if we announced projects that hadn't been through that, the member would be the first to criticise us for that.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he saying categorically that each project is being announced immediately after due diligence has been completed by Ministers?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is one of the factors that determines when it's announced.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is the Government "trickling out" spending announcements—that's a phrase used by civil contractor industry leaders—over the next few weeks in the lead-up to an election?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, we have covered this ground. We're making sure the contracts are fully finalised. We're making sure due diligence has been done. I reject the pejorative statement that goes with that, but also endorse what the Prime Minister has said: along with the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group projects, we have the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme and we have the massive, record investment in health and education infrastructure, all of which is being rolled out as we speak. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, what's more important: ministerial announcements in high-vis during an election campaign, or providing certainty about jobs as soon as possible?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What's important is actually funding the projects that we promise, making sure that the money's there, not just relying on press releases and ghost roads.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding press releases and ghost roads, there was a big press release about light rail in Auckland. How's that coming along?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, we covered this ground yesterday with the Prime Minister, so I don't think we need to go over that. I did, however, see a press release that said that the first element of a $31 billion infrastructure plan was a four-lane highway with two tunnels, which turned out not to have any funding or any costings at all.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How are the fiscals, the potentials, and the legal work going behind the Transmission Gully stoppage?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Regrettably, the public-private partnership signed up to by the previous Government is not progressing in a way that this Government would be comfortable with, and I think members on the other side may need to take a look in the mirror when it comes to whether or not projects are properly designed and properly funded.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think that having the vision to connect 2.5 million New Zealanders who live between Whangārei, Tauranga, and Hamilton is not a good idea?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If all the Opposition over there have got is a vision, they're going to be over there for a very long time.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think it's appropriate to use scarce scientific funds to send friends of the Deputy Prime Minister to Antarctica?
SPEAKER: Order! That's not related to the question. The member knows it, and will lose a supplementary as a result.
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to test you on that ruling, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Well, better not.
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The primary question was absolutely specific, and it did not relate to Antarctica funding.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Friday, Treasury released the latest New Zealand Activity Index for June. This showed economic activity continued to bounce back in June to just 0.9 percent below the same month last year, after falls of 18 percent and 6 percent in April and May. The continued recovery in June was led by growth in electronic card spending, heavy traffic movements, and manufacturing activity, all of which were up on June 2019 levels. While the index was dragged down a little by an increase in the number of people on income support, other indicators, such as light traffic movements, business confidence, and new job ads posted online, also saw a continuing uptick. While the New Zealand Activity Index does not show the full economic picture, these are encouraging signs that the economy has bounced back after a difficult past few months.
Tāmati Coffey: What reports has he seen on the resilience of New Zealand's economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released a report on the role that land-based industries such as livestock, forestry, and horticulture have played in New Zealand's economic performance under the COVID-19 pandemic. The report said that whatever COVID-19 has done to other parts of world trade, it has reinforced the underlying strength and importance of New Zealand's land-based industries. The NZIER pointed to growth in demand from China and other Asian nations, combined with our flexible and adaptable supply chains and strong and effective institutions as the key reasons for New Zealand's strong trading results through the pandemic so far, with dairy, meat, and horticulture sectors up by nearly $1 billion for the year to date compared with this time last year.
Tāmati Coffey: What did the NZIER report say about the outlook for New Zealand's land-based industries? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The NZIER said that the general picture for exports is one of cautious optimism, based on the continued demand for New Zealand farm products despite COVID-19. However, the report did also point to the continued persistence of COVID-19 around the world, and particularly in the UK and US, as a key concern, and one that has been highlighted in many other commentaries, including the IMF and the World Bank. The Government is keenly aware of the importance of trade to our economic recovery and of the economic risks from worsening outbreaks and associated restrictions in key export markets. That's why we are working alongside and investing in the future of our exporters, including through the Industry Transformation Plan for the agritech sector announced yesterday by Ministers Twyford and O'Connor. The Government is investing $11.4 million in this plan to lift the productivity of the sector, commercialise new products, and establish, for example, a horticultural robotics academy.




Question No. 4—Health
4. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: What percentage of New Zealanders are using the Government's New Zealand COVID Tracer app on a daily basis, and what are its measures of effectiveness?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): A total of 617,200 users have registered for the COVID Tracer app. Official statistics record the number of scans per day, not the number of active users per day. Around 12,000 scans are being made each day on average. It's important to remember that the app is just one of the tools available to us. The work of the public health units and the National Close Contact Service remain the mainstays of our contact tracing system. The measure of the app's effectiveness will be how quickly it can be used to support contact tracing in the event that we have cases of COVID-19 in the community that need to be traced.
Dr Shane Reti: What are the recent trends in uptake and use of the Government's New Zealand COVID Tracer app?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There's been a flurry of activity over the last week or so. We've seen a significant number of additional posters printed, around 350 additional posters being printed per day, which is a good sign. There have been tens of thousands—I think 20,000 or 30,000—of additional users signing up to register for the app over the last week and a bit. We still have a long, long way to go to get everybody using it, but, you know, we'll keep pushing it.
Dr Shane Reti: What are the reasons for more New Zealanders not using the COVID Tracer app and how will he address this?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, one of the big issues is that New Zealanders don't, by and large, feel an immediate sense of threat from COVID-19. That, of course, is a sign of our success as a country and the team of 5 million in stamping out COVID19. But the message from the Government is that there is no room for any of us to be complacent here. We all need to do our bit. I'd encourage all members of Parliament to make sure they are using the app, and I also say to any member of the public: if they want to know why things like the app are important, they could sit down one evening and try and record down everybody that they had come into contact with in the last two weeks. Anybody who has tried to do that exercise will know it's a lot harder than they might think it is.
Dr Shane Reti: Given that reply, does the Minister have the app and does he scan each QR code he comes in contact with, given his recent statements that these numbers are low and we do want to lift our game here?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do. In fact, I even scan in and out of Copperfield's every day when I'm using it here in the building.
Dr Shane Reti: How can he have confidence in the effectiveness of the app, when nearly half of the 1,558 reviews on the Google download site give it a one star with complaints it's too hard to use?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There's no question—[Interruption] There's no question that there's room for improvement in there. The next—[Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm taking this as a serious question and I'd like to hear the answer and not have it shouted down. Some of us think this issue is important to New Zealand.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There's no question that the app was developed at speed during an emergency situation, and of course there is room for improvement. The next update of the app, which will be released before the end of this month, will deal with many of the common complaints from users, including that they can't manually enter in contacts where there isn't a QR code—that will be addressed—and that they can't retrospectively add information into the app; that will be addressed as well. But even if people aren't scanning QR codes, it's merely registering for the app that helps the Ministry of Health where contact tracing is required. Already, people's contact details from registering for the app have been used on multiple occasions as part of legitimate contact tracing exercises. So even signing up for the app and making sure that your contact details are up to date is actually a significant step that all New Zealanders should be taking.
Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm the recently found information that we're up to 3½ stars on Apple and does he credit himself with that?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, popularity is growing on this side of the House on a daily basis.
Dr Shane Reti: What role does an effective coronavirus tracing app have in recovering an economy and could a poorly performing app hinder recovery?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the things that of course could hinder a recovery is another outbreak of COVID-19. That could, of course, be caused by a variety of things, including premature reopening of the border, which is being advocated by some members in this House—not on this side of the House, though. Our first line of defence is our border. The second line of defence is our testing and contact tracing regime, and we need everybody to play their part in ensuring that there is an effective contact tracing regime in place should we need it.




Question No. 5—Small Business
5. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Small Business: Is he concerned with the ANZ report issued yesterday that "a net 48 percent of small businesses feel pessimistic about general business conditions in the year ahead"; if not, why not?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): What I am concerned about is that perhaps the member hasn't realised, but we are in the middle of a global pandemic, and what has been proven is that this Government's decision to go hard and go early with a health response was also the best thing to do from an economic response. I refer to the MYOB report that was highlighted in the House yesterday by the Hon Grant Robertson that shows confidence amongst small to medium sized enterprises is cautiously improving, that more businesses are expecting to see growth in the next 12 months following on from March when the economy was heading into lockdown. I'd also like to draw the member's notice to the June Xero Small Business Insights report, which also showed that 65 percent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that New Zealand has an opportunity to rebuild its economy better than before COVID.
Andrew Bayly: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a great question, but I actually asked him whether he was concerned, and I haven't actually heard that.
Hon Member: It wasn't a great question.
SPEAKER: Well, that's right. It was a very long answer, rather than a question, I think the member was referring to. Have a go via supplementary. The member said it was a great question.
Andrew Bayly: Thank you. So I get a supplementary?
SPEAKER: It may or may not have been.
Andrew Bayly: I get a supplementary—thank you. What policies has he implemented, if any, over the past four months of this economic crisis to cut regulations for small businesses given this is the biggest problem identified by small businesses in the ANZ survey?
Hon STUART NASH: Mr Speaker, you said my last answer was too long. This one may be even longer if the member really wants me to list what we've done for small businesses since COVID lockdown. We have done a substantial amount. There's the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, which was rolled out in two weeks—no personal guarantees, money out the door. There was the wage subsidy scheme, and in fact we were the first Government in the world to get money into the pockets—again, high-trust model, and it kept 1.7 million Kiwis employed. We rolled out a whole lot of tax measures which made it very easy for small businesses to either comply with their obligations or enter into—
Hon Shane Jones: Less red tape.
Hon STUART NASH: —an arrangement with Inland Revenue to meet their obligations. There are a number of things that this Government has done across—
SPEAKER: OK, OK, between the Minister and Mr Jones, I think you've answered it.
Andrew Bayly: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I asked about regulations; I'm not sure I heard anything. I heard about tax changes, but they're not regulations. I asked him specifically: what has he done to cut regulations for small businesses?
SPEAKER: The member can have a go on the very narrow issue, rather than a general rave.
Hon STUART NASH: Well, we make an assumption that cutting regulations means it's easier for businesses to do work. I just have to highlight what we have done with Inland Revenue to make it so much easier for small businesses to comply with their tax obligations. What we did do—
SPEAKER: All right, OK—the member's addressed the question.
Andrew Bayly: What policies has he implemented, if any, over the last four months to support small businesses hiring new people given that a third of businesses now expect to shed jobs over the coming year?
Hon STUART NASH: Minister Hipkins actually released an apprenticeship and training package worth about $450 million. I think that what we have done in terms of allowing New Zealanders to re-engage with business, to retrain, to get back on the horse, so to speak, has been phenomenal. So for that member to suggest that we have done nothing in terms of allowing small businesses to grow, for workers to become engaged in the economy, to retrain, to train, and get back into work—I will note one thing: that member is the fourth small business spokesperson, so I suppose we've got to give him a little bit of latitude.
Andrew Bayly: In view of the report stating that over half of all small businesses now expect their profits to deteriorate, will the Labour-led Government provide meaningful rental support to small businesses, and if not, why not?
Hon STUART NASH: I think the member would know that's not part of my portfolio responsibility.
SPEAKER: Question No. 6, Priyanca Radhakrishnan.
Andrew Bayly: Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: Well, we will go back to Mr Bayly, but it's really important, if the member wants another supplementary, that he stands up.
Andrew Bayly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister for Small Business, did he support the increase in the minimum wage, effective 1 April 2020, at a very time when most small businesses were not receiving any income?
Hon STUART NASH: What we do know is an increase in the minimum wage provides an economic fiscal stimulus package.
Hon Judith Collins: Answer it—answer the question.
Hon STUART NASH: Yes, I did support that, because—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Who was that interjecting then? Well, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Judith Collins: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon STUART NASH: What I was saying is that an increase in the minimum wage provides a level of fiscal stimulus much needed. What we do know is those on the minimum wage tend to spend a lot of their income, and that is exactly what we need at this point in time.
Andrew Bayly: What hope can he offer small-business owners who only see a bleak future, with over half of them pessimistic about business confidence or conditions during the next twelve months?
Hon STUART NASH: I'll go back to my original answer: we are in the middle of a global pandemic. In essence, what we are is we have one of the most open economies in the world at this point in time, because what we did is we went early, we went hard, and, as a consequence, we can all be where we are at the moment, because there has been no community transmission for weeks. What we have done by addressing the health response is allow our economy to open and, therefore, for small businesses to do as well as they possibly can.




Question No. 6—Social Development
6. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about supporting employment initiatives in partnership with local government?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On 9 July, along with Mayor Phil Goff, I announced an extension to our partnership with Auckland Council, the Ngā Puna Pūkenga—Skills for Industry programme. The programme will fund up to 700 placements in Auckland through an investment of $4.34 million, to support people into infrastructure and related environmental jobs. Of the 700 placements, 420 will be for youth in receipt of a benefit; those over 25 with three or more months on benefit; Māori and Pasifika; and our long-term unemployed; as well as people not in education, employment, or training. A further 280 placements are for people made redundant as a direct outcome of COVID-19. This is a key partnership with Ministry of Social Development (MSD) funding to support pre-work training and job matching, Auckland Council providing opportunities for employment through infrastructure projects, and industry partners taking up new recruits and supporting them to gain new skills and remain in the industry.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What other announcements has she made in partnership with local government?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I also recently announced, alongside the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, another extension of a pilot which supports rural councils to implement employment initiatives focused on connecting youth with local small businesses. This extension will see 19 additional rural councils able to access up to $500,000 each to create sustainable employment positions in their regions. The initiative was piloted with four councils—Ōpōtiki, Central Hawke's Bay, Rangitīkei, and South Wairarapa—under alert level 2, and has been highly successful with three of the four councils meeting or exceeding their target of 30 employment outcomes within five weeks. Despite challenging circumstances during this COVID recovery period, we continue to see innovative partnerships like these having a positive effect on employment outcomes, local communities, and small businesses.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why are initiatives like these so important?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Partnerships are crucial in our COVID recovery phase. Local government and the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs have important local insights into the specific needs of their communities and are well placed to work alongside the Government to develop solutions that will work on the ground. Establishing effective partnerships means that we can leverage local government projects, their relationships with both big and small businesses, as well as contribute MSD's expertise of job matching and training and employment support products and services. This Government is committed to investing in jobs, people, and industries, and these initiatives demonstrate this commitment.




Question No. 7—Conservation
7. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in regards to tahr management in New Zealand?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Yes, in the context in which they were made or taken. As Minister of Conservation, I stand by the work that the Department of Conservation is doing to implement the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan to ensure that the tahr population in the iconic Southern Alps is managed in accordance with that statutory plan. Over the last 2½ years there has been extensive consultation with hunting groups and control is now under way to bring tahr numbers down to a more sustainable level.
Hon Jacqui Dean: What is the total value to New Zealand's economy of commercial and recreational tahr hunting in New Zealand?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I have heard estimates of around $14 million, but I would note that the borders are now closed, so the commercial trophy hunting industry does not have a lot of clients. I would also note that the national parks that she and the Tahr Foundation have been worried about, in the last five years there was an average of only 65 bull tahr which were shot as commercial trophy animals, and so 65 tahr in national parks is a niche industry, not a major one.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree that recreational and commercial tahr hunters add economic value to the regions of New Zealand, including the South Island's West Coast?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: If the member read the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan, she would see that it recognises the value of recreational and commercial hunting. However those hunters have failed to get tahr numbers down to the level that the plan provides for—an upper limit of 10,000 animals. That is why official control is needed, and I'm disappointed that the National Party—and that member—is turning its back on national parks as a safe haven for our indigenous plants and wildlife.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she consider that expenditure by commercial and recreational tahr hunters on accommodation, on travel, hospitality, ammunition, and gear supports regional economies?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: What I'm concerned about is the threats that are being made to commercial helicopter operators which are causing those operators to retreat from work they have been doing for decades in controlling tahr in the central Southern Alps. What I'm concerned about is the threats of violence that are being made to the department and to those operators, and they are reported to the police. 
Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific. I was asking whether the Minister considered that expenditure by commercial and recreational tahr hunters supported regional economies. I did not hear the Minister address that question at all.
SPEAKER: I thought she started with a yes, but I'm not—I'll just ask her to confirm that.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: There is regional economic benefit from tahr hunting, but the misinformation that is being put about by the Tahr Foundation and others that there is a plan to eradicate tahr is simply that—misinformation. When these control operations are completed, there will still be thousands of tahr across thousands of hectares which recreational and commercial trophy hunters can go out and hunt.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she believe that tahr control, supported by recreational and commercial hunters, and the revenue they generate to the tune of $17 million per annum, is an important part of our economic recovery post COVID-19?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member may not have noticed, but the borders are closed, which means that a lot of those international trophy hunters cannot come to New Zealand at present. It is open for recreational hunters to go and hunt tahr, and the Department of Conservation has an app on its website which shows where control operations have been undertaken, and there will be thousands of tahr available for recreational and commercial hunters to hunt.
Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question, again, was quite specific. I did ask the Minister—
SPEAKER: And I'm absolutely convinced that it was not only addressed, but answered.




Question No. 8—Health
8. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made about primary maternity services?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Last week, I announced the largest ever increase in funding for primary maternity services and the women and babies they support—$242 million. That includes $85 million for additional modules, indicating a broader range of services under the section 88 notice; $60 million to support community maternity initiatives; $35 million for the maternity action plan; $57 million for cost and volume pressures, which includes a 2.18 percent increase to fees paid to lead maternity carers—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just ask the members down there to be bit quieter. You're coming across through the two mikes which are open down there, and it means that people up this end are having trouble hearing it.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —$5.4 million for a $2,500 payment to eligible lead maternity carer (LMC) midwives to cover extra COVID-19 - related costs. I am proud that independent community midwives under this Government will receive better support for the vital role they play in supporting 60,000 newborns and their parents every year.
Marama Davidson: What specific support will this new funding provide for midwives caring for rural and high-needs women and babies?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Previously, all midwives were paid a standard rate, even though midwives supporting women in rural locations and women with complex pregnancies had extra time and cost associated with caring for these women. The new funding will mean that midwives who travel long distances to care for women or who provide extra attention throughout a complex pregnancy, labour, and birth will finally be able to be compensated for this additional cost and work.
Marama Davidson: How will this extra support better meet the needs of wāhine Māori, their pēpē, and their whānau?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As part of the $35 million maternity action plan, there will be a specific focus on kaupapa Māori approach to maternity care, and this action plan will help reduce avoidable inequities of service by targeting funding and delivering more culturally responsive maternity services. This will be part of the ongoing work undertaken by the Ministry of Health to improve maternity services and working conditions for midwives.
Marama Davidson: How has the Government supported midwives affected by the challenges created by COVID-19?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We all know that during alert levels 4 and 3, many LMC midwives experienced a much higher workload and incurred additional costs due to the need to socially distance. This included taking additional visits to care for expecting mums and newborns during this stressful time. As a result, last month the Government announced that all eligible LMC midwives would receive a one-off $2,500 payment to help cover those additional extra costs incurred during COVID-19. All midwives work extremely hard to care for the women and their babies nationwide, and I'm very proud that they are receiving the support that they deserve.




Question No. 9—Corrections
9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement regarding community sentences, "we expect offenders to complete their hours"?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. My expectation is that people serving community sentences complete them. Currently, 80 percent of community sentences are completed, so there is still room for improvement.
Simeon Brown: How many offenders who had hours remitted from their community service sentence during COVID-19 had failed to report for community service during the two months leading up to level 4 lockdown?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That's a very specific question. At various alert levels, community work was unable to take place—10,745 people were subject to a sentence of community work through the lockdown period, with more than half of these sentences imposed for traffic offences and non-payment of fines. Corrections identified 5,576 people who had demonstrated compliance with their sentences during the month prior to lockdown and remitted, on average, between four to seven hours a week of community work per offender from 23 March to 5 June.
Simeon Brown: Has the Minister's expectation been met that offenders complete their hours, when half of the offenders serving community service sentences had their sentences reduced during COVID-19, and according to the written question No. 13740, which he provided to me, 2,539 offenders failed to report for their sentence in the two months leading up to lockdown?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, like all New Zealanders, we had to stop undertaking a range of activities at different alert levels, and Community Corrections sites were closed to people reporting, and staff worked remotely. Community work was unable to take place. The offenders on other community sentences continued to be monitored by phone, with home visits carried out where a case had been assessed as higher risk or where there were safety concerns. Corrections did a very tough job making sure that people who had community sentences did as much of it as they could. 
Simeon Brown: So is the Minister telling the House that, essentially, he has an expectation that those on community service sentences should complete their hours, but his policies have left 2,539 people who didn't turn up in the months leading up to lockdown essentially having more hours off than before?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.
Simeon Brown: Did Corrections consult with victims of crime prior to the decision being made to reduce court-mandated community sentences?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The offenders who were asked to do community hours—most of them, as I said earlier, were there for traffic offences and non-payment of fines, so I'm not quite sure who we're expected to consult with when he's talking about victims.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, during the COVID lockdown, which option did he prefer: mindlessly and myopically pressing on with enforcement of the law, or protecting the public's health during a crisis?
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm just wondering how that supplementary relates at all to the primary question around community sentences.
SPEAKER: Well, it relates to about five of the supplementaries. Can you ask the question again, or—have you got the question? Ask it again.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: During the COVID lockdown, which option did he prefer: myopically and mindlessly pursuing with the enforcement of the law, or seeking to act in the public health interest?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, of course, the public health interest, because if we had people doing community hours during that time—often they're picked up in vans; they're carted around the country—that would just have been impossible. They would have been in danger of transmitting COVID amongst themselves.




Question No. 10—Biosecurity
10. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What progress has been made in the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis from New Zealand?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): New Zealand's world-first effort to eradicate the cattle disease Mycoplasma bovis has made significant progress. Three years to the day since it was first detected in New Zealand, there have been 250 properties infected by the disease, with all but four now clear of it. As we have with our response to COVID-19, this Government showed leadership, made a tough decision, went hard, and went early. This Government made the decision to put $880 million into eradication, because we back our primary sector. It was estimated that allowing the disease to spread could have caused $1.3 billion in economic losses to the sector in the first 10 years alone. As we have with COVID, we've been guided by the best science and a technical advisory group made up by world experts. Almost 2½ years into the 10-year effort, I'm pleased by the progress we've made. Our farming communities should be really proud of their efforts; this Government is certainly very proud of them. 
Kiritapu Allan: What changes have been made to the programme over the past year?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The eradication effort has not been without substantial challenges. No one in the world has ever attempted this before, so we have been learning as we go. It's not always been perfect, but we have learnt and made changes over time. We are serious about learning and improving. Some of the changes we've made include a greater regional focus, more farmer-focused processes, testing is timelier, research is under way to improve testing further, and compensation processes have improved for affected farmers. There is still work to be done and there will be more infected farms to find. But we're well and truly on track to do what no other country in the world has done to eradicate this disease.
Kiritapu Allan: And what support has there been from industry?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Well, I'm very pleased to say that the key to the success of our programme are the partners DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb New Zealand. They were part of the bold decision to attempt to eradicate this disease and have been part of our efforts since the very beginning. The Government Industry Agreement programme has been established, jointly funded, governed, and delivered by the Ministry for Primary Industries, Biosecurity New Zealand, DairyNZ, and Beef + Lamb New Zealand. Through farmer levies, industry is funding 32 percent of the cost of eradication. There's also been support from volunteers of the rural support trusts around the country—outstanding organisations—as well as Fonterra, Federated Farmers, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, the Meat Industry Association, and the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Everyone is united in our common goal to free our country of Mycoplasma bovis.




Question No. 11—Prime Minister
11. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.
David Seymour: How can she have confidence in Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters when Radio New Zealand reports that he arranged for his personal friends Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek to go on a taxpayer-funded trip to Antarctica?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject many of the assertions made in that question. First of all, the Minister has pointed out in a statement that I believe that he has made publicly that, alongside the varied interests that visit Antarctica, including politicians, scientists, musicians, historians, and artists, of course, we also have an interest in redeveloping Scott Base. That was a Cabinet-mandated request of Antarctica New Zealand that they seek extra sponsorship for that redevelopment, and that is the vein in which those individuals visited.
David Seymour: Then can the Prime Minister please outline to the House the open and transparent process her Government went through to select philanthropists who might donate to Scott Base before the friends of the foreign affairs Minister Winston Peters, Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek, were selected to go on that trip at the expense—
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
David Seymour: —of other scientific activity?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer the many parts of that question, firstly, I'm advised that no one lost their spot as a result of—[Interruption]—Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm advised that no one lost their spot as a result of the two individuals attending. Secondly, of course, individuals who visit Antarctica are available or publicly known. Many members on that side of the House will have visited it at some time in their career. Thirdly, it is part of the public record and a proactive Cabinet release that there was a requirement or an expectation that Antarctica New Zealand would start looking at additional ways to supplement the substantial funding that Cabinet was putting forward for the redevelopment of Scott Base.
David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was for the Prime Minister to outline the process used—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The question was addressed.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does she know why an Official Information Act (OIA) response to the National leader's office about the visit of Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek to Antarctica had redactions under section 6(a) of the Official Information Act, which is designed to prevent prejudice against New Zealand security, defence, and international relations, and, if so, what was specifically discussed with them that caused section 6(a) to be used to stop that information being released?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will appreciate, obviously, I don't have that Official Information Act request in front of me, so therefore it is impossible for me to speak to a specific redaction. If there are requests on notice, or, indeed, questions on notice, it makes it more plausible for someone to answer a question of that nature.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: So has the Prime Minister asked the foreign affairs Minister what was discussed with these two people who were selected by him to travel to the Antarctic?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I could not have possibly asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs a question around a redaction which the member has only just asked me about. Secondly, it has been—
David Seymour: Why is the Deputy Prime Minister twitching so much?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Seymour, National are giving you two extra supplementaries, if you missed that signal. Also, the Minister of Foreign Affairs—of course, it has been a longstanding practice that they can support or make suggestions around visits to Antarctica. That is not a new process, and Murray McCully, I'm sure, would have been involved on many occasions in that regard.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an interesting answer from the Prime Minister, but I asked the question if she'd asked the foreign affairs Minister why they were chosen.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I've obviously given that answer in this House—the rationale that has been provided. The member asked me about a redaction in an OIA, which I cannot speak to.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that over the years many Ministers have sought to expand the international understanding of the importance of Antarctica to us, including asking ambassadors from the EU, asking international shipping registers who imperil the fishing resource of Antarctica? This has all been done over the years, but not one of them has been the source or origin of a race attack.
Hon Member: Is there a question for the Prime Minister?
SPEAKER: Well, there is a question there.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm aware—[Interruption]—
SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm aware of a number of different circumstances under which different individuals who have an interest in Antarctica have been part of the visitation programme. As I've already said, it is the prerogative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade to make recommendations from time to time.
David Seymour: Supplementary?
SPEAKER: No, the member knows very well he doesn't have any more supplementaries. Sit down.
David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was responding to the Prime Minister, who said the Labour Party was happy for me to ask more questions.
SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.




Question No. 12—Police
12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: How many incidents were there between 1 January and the end of March in 2020 involving firearms and gang members or associates?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): The crackdown by police on organised crime, which has been made possible by a significant increase in police numbers and a greater mandate by this Government to go hard on gun crime, is having a marked impact. I'm pleased to report that police have detected, disrupted, or attended just under a thousand firearms instances during that period; 88 percent of these instances were by members of the general public. The incidents ranged from selling ammunition without a licence to pointing a firearm at a police officer. For example, of those charged with presenting a firearm at a person, five were gang members but 29 were members of the general public. This is why we needed tougher penalties for gun crime, which that party opposed.
Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister gave a lot of information there about general members of the public in firearms incidents or offences. The question was specifically related to gang members and associates, and it was on notice in writing.
SPEAKER: And I think the member at least addressed the question. Whether he gave all the information that the member wanted, I'm not sure.
Brett Hudson: Is the Minister concerned about the number being 156 incidents between 1 January and 9 March, at least—is he concerned with that number of offences committed by gang members or gang associates?
Hon STUART NASH: What I can tell that member I am concerned about is that when we came to office, police numbers had dropped in the previous five years of the past Government, and, thanks to New Zealand First, we have delivered over 2,250 new front-line officers into our communities. My concerns around the lack of police have been addressed due to this coalition Government. 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now the member will address the question that was asked.
Hon STUART NASH: Whenever there is a firearms incident that has occurred in this country, no matter by whom, I have concerns. It is why we have significantly increased the penalty for gun crime, and if that member was as concerned as I was he would have backed the bill.
Brett Hudson: Has he seen reports of firearms incidents involving gang members or associates resulting in significant physical harm or death to others?
Hon STUART NASH: I have seen reports and concerns of firearms crimes being committed, but, as I mentioned, 88 percent of firearms crimes committed in this country were actually by members of the general public, not by gang members. I think that member needs to widen his scope if he is really concerned about fighting firearms offences.
Brett Hudson: Why, then, did he not support my firearms prohibition orders member's bill to take guns out of the hands of gang members that present the greatest risk to public safety, along with the majority of Parliament this morning?
Hon STUART NASH: I think I made it clear in my primary answer: 88 percent of gun crime was not committed by gang members. That member's member's bill dealt specifically with gangs. The regime we are looking at deals with every single person who poses a threat to our communities—it's not just gangs. The other thing I would say is two Attorneys-General and his previous Prime Minister, Bill English, said that his bill was absolute rubbish.





MEMBER VACANCY
Rangitata Electoral District—Andrew Falloon
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That under section 131(a) of the Electoral Act 1993, a vacancy in the Rangitata Electoral District having arisen in the period of six months prior to the date of the expiration of this Parliament, no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that electoral district to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Andrew Hamilton Falloon.
Motion agreed to.





GENERAL DEBATE
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. 
Well, we've been spending a lot of time talking about MPs' jobs this week, and it's time we started talking about the jobs of people who really matter, and that's the New Zealanders—the 200,000 New Zealanders who are now receiving an unemployment benefit, or what we call now a jobseeker benefit, and the 200,000, as well, construction workers who've had to receive the wage subsidy while they've been waiting for this Government to turn up with their shovel-ready projects list—the list; release the list, Government.
And is this list even ready? Well, according to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, yes, it is. This is what he said to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce yesterday in answer to a question about it: "Well, look, I do appreciate your question. I have the list, the whole lot. Why they are not telling you, I don't know, but I'm going to go back and find out. How can you tender if you don't know?" He's right. That's my answer. How could you tender by region when you have got the whole list, pages of the stuff? "You send me an email today, and I will ask." Did he ask? No, he did not. We have got no list. Release the list, Mr Peters. Release the list, Prime Minister. Release the list.
We've got contractors all over the country waiting, waiting, for this work to begin. We've got councils waiting, waiting. They put together those councils—remember when Phil Twyford and Shane Jones put together a request to the councils: "Come up with your shovel-ready projects, we'll get them going, we'll fund them." Remember that? You've got two weeks to do it all, all just after lockdown; 1 April was the announcement, and what's happened since then? Nothing. Now—nothing. The councils put it all together in two weeks. Three months later, we're still waiting. Even Mr Peters can't produce a list, although apparently he's going to get it one day. He's going to ask for it and he's going to get it. But he is right on this: it's not possible for contractors to plan their work, to employ people, to keep people employed if the Government does not release the list. The Government must release the list. We have got councils all over the country, all these people, these contractors, employees, all waiting for the work to begin.
On a very serious note, the wage subsidy ends just before the election—just before the election. Why wait before just before the election to let people know what is actually happening with these construction projects? Why won't the Government release the list? What is it that they've got to hide?
Instead, we've got a dribble of little projects that the Government wants to announce by ministerial visit.
Hon Member: That's right; Shane Jones is dribbling.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Shane Jones has admitted it. There's a great thing with Shane Jones, he's so used to admitting it, he just keeps admitting it. Now he has admitted that he's the one who's going to announce all these by way of ministerial visit. Actually, the people of New Zealand deserve better than that. They deserve better. They want to know: where are these projects? When are they starting? Where is the money? Why don't they have the work now?
Because, all joking aside, this Parliament is the Parliament of New Zealand—who, by the way, these New Zealanders, are looking at mass unemployment. We already have 200,000 people unemployed—200,000 people unemployed. Another 200,000 construction workers have had to receive a wage subsidy, and they want work. They're skilled people, highly skilled people. They are people who could be picked up anywhere in the world because they're so valuable to us. We all know, as a country that we have to build infrastructure—well, apart from the Greens, because they don't think you do; as long as it's a cycleway, it's all they're interested in.
We know that we can agree in Parliament that we need infrastructure. So where is the list? Release the list, Government. Release the list. Even let the Rt Hon Winston Peters have his list. Where is the list? What is it that they're hiding? Why can't New Zealanders know about this list? Where is the list? Release the list. Release a list of the contractors, release it to the councils, release it so that people can work. Stop this mass unemployment now. Help New Zealanders get back into work. Release the list.





Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): That was a speech 18 years in the making that we've all been waiting for, and what it came down to was "Release the list because people want to know if they have a job." I think this was an echo of the National Party caucus meeting on Tuesday. Where is their party list? Who's left with a job after what we're going to see in only a few weeks' time? "Release the list"—we are only a few weeks out from a general election while New Zealand sits at a crossroads where there are such important issues at stake, and that is what the brand newly minted Leader of the Opposition has to say in her first general debate speech: "Release the list." Was it a blueprint for an alternative vision for this country? No. It was "Release the list."
Well, I've got some news for the Leader of the Opposition. Let's talk about what this Government is getting on and doing. While the party on the other side has been obsessed with itself over the last weeks, we look at just one small part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. Let's have a look at what we're spending in our local communities through our schools: 2,488 projects are under way in our school upgrade programme; $249 million worth of work is under way. When I'm in my local electorate, I talk to local tradies who are talking about the contracts they are getting at their local school and how this is so important to keeping their businesses afloat.
But I think this is a time for reflection. On this side of the House, we are incredibly proud of a Prime Minister that has led a decisive health response that saved lives and set us up for an economic recovery. Our rebuild plan is already in motion, and we are already creating jobs. We are going in the right direction, and it is important that we keep moving in that direction. We are committed to making sure that we are standing up for New Zealanders, just as we did when we put New Zealanders first to make sure that we were protecting their health. Well, we had baying from the opposite side that we were being too extreme, that we should be doing X, we should be doing Y. We stayed a course, and we stayed a course under a Prime Minister who understands what leadership is about, a Prime Minister that understands what her responsibilities are to this country. Not only did she keep us safe in terms of our health but this has set ourselves up as a country with the most economic and social freedoms of any country in the world, and that is a position that we will protect. That is a position that we are protecting through our managed isolation facilities. We are keeping COVID out of our communities. We are keeping it at the border by making sure we are working in systematic and managed ways to ensure the security of those borders.
What we have is an Opposition that is full of rhetoric. What we have is an Opposition that is continuing what they did in Government, releasing an idea in a press release. They are untested, uncosted—ghost roads yet again. When they talk about what the economic plan is, it is very much reverting to type and ghost roads. The first cab off the rank was a road, the second cab off the rank was a road, and the third cab off the rank was another set of roads. But let's have a look at this. They are cutting Auckland Transport's funding by not identifying which projects will go. So how about you release that list, Opposition? How about you tell Aucklanders which projects—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —are going to be cut? The axe is hanging over projects like SkyPath. These are the things that will create jobs. What we have is an Opposition that is assuming that the New Zealand Transport Agency will borrow a billion dollars a year, and they are raiding the COVID fund and putting our futures at risk. On this side of the House, let's keep moving.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): That speech was the most excellently delivered load of self-congratulatory drivel I have ever heard. Unbelievable! Unbelievable! An attack on the Leader of the Opposition for wanting to create jobs for New Zealanders, and then the suggestion that that wasn't the highest priority for any Government at the present time. That is a speech that only had one salient point in it. Release the list because New Zealanders need to know what is in that list of 800 projects that could save jobs. What is in the list of projects that Shane Jones and Winston Peters—maybe—and a number of others, in that Government will be going around the countryside announcing over the next couple of weeks, waiting for their time to use taxpayer money to announce a job that will create jobs just for campaign purposes.
There are 200,000 New Zealanders—plus—on the jobseeker allowance now. There are more who cannot get on the jobseeker allowance, even though they're out of work, because their partner is still in work. There are more still who've lost part-time work, and casual work is all but gone. Then, just in the construction sector, 200,000 New Zealanders are receiving the wage subsidy, but that all comes off very shortly. What happens then? There might have been a chance to retain that skill base, to keep it moving, to keep it working if there was a better plan delivered from the Government, if some of the projects that they are spouting great support for were actually put into place so that they can deliver those jobs. 
What have they done so far out of the 800? Thirty, just 30 projects. And the Prime Minister stands in the House and says, "Oh, that's only just a little bit of it. Look what we did in January. Look what we've done in education. Look what we've done around health." Well, what they've done is make big, big announcements and no action to follow, because if everything was all right, we wouldn't have 200,000 construction workers on the wage subsidy. We wouldn't have the industry leaders—in their entirety—coming out to say that there is a problem, that it's causing stress; that businesses will have to slow down, businesses will have to close down aspects of their business, and businesses will put people off. Meantime, if you've got a bit of spare time, write to the Deputy Prime Minister and tell him that you love nature and are quite interested in the Antarctic. You might get a trip! You might get to post pictures on your social media!
Well, at least it keeps a few people in work trying to find a way to get the Official Information Act responses out that tell you nothing. This idea that there can be a slowness to those shovel-ready projects is a complete disgrace. So many New Zealanders would have gone to work this morning wondering if their job will be there tomorrow, or next week, or the week after, or when the wage subsidy ends.
That's not a country that is going to have a population enthused about its future. It's a country where there is fear—not only for the loss of jobs because of the retraction in the economy—but now, it would appear, well that's how many New Zealand First people will get back if they get anywhere near winning a seat, because that's the only way they'll get back. There is fear, also, that apparently we could have some regional shutdowns in the very near future. How cynical is that? How cynical is that—to be saying to New Zealand, what a great job everyone's done on the COVID-19 stuff, but don't look at the economy. Don't look at that. Look at the tree over there. There's a squirrel running up it. In that squirrel is the possibility of some of the country being locked down again, some regions being shut down, all sorts of other things being done. But then, of course, we're told that if we want to prevent community outbreak, we should have the app in place. We should all be wandering around telling the Government where we are, what we're doing, who we're seeing. 
Well, I think that that is a Government over there that is taking a hugely cynical view of the New Zealand voter. Taking all the time they want to come up with the programmes they say are funded; coming up with just 30 out of 800—800 out of the thousands that were put forward by local bodies, but only 30 of them are out so far. That is not the basis to go to the electorate. This is a country where people—New Zealanders—are not cynics, and they will see through that.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Gerry Brownlee forgot the first job of a deputy leader, which is don't overshadow the leader in her first big speech. Mind you, Judith Collins set the bar pretty low, something that we've of course come to expect from Judith Collins in all of her endeavours in this House.
National's running on the campaign platform of them being the best party to deliver. Of course, they made Gerry Brownlee their deputy leader, and the people of Christchurch know that Gerry Brownlee can't deliver anything. Gerry Brownlee has demonstrated one thing: his commitment to restoring the Canterbury Plains in the middle of the CBD! As far as you can see, from eye to eye, you see flat land in the Canterbury CBD thanks to Gerry Brownlee's rebuild efforts. Years on after the earthquake, the people of Christchurch are still waiting for those big projects; Gerry Brownlee promised them and didn't deliver any of them.
I can tell you, around the Christchurch schools rebuild, this Government, in three years, has put more new money into that than National did in nine. If you take out the insurance money and the money they would have got anyway, we've put more money into rebuilding Christchurch schools than they did. That says everything about their commitment to the people of Christchurch. So if they're going to run on the platform of being the party that delivers, and they're going to have Gerry Brownlee as their deputy leader during that campaign, I say bring it on, because their record speaks for itself.
And then, of course, we had Gerry Brownlee running down the prospect of there being a further outbreak of COVID-19. Now, I know Gerry doesn't read the news, but he should look on the telly at what's happening around the rest of the world and he will see that while we live in tranquillity here in New Zealand because of our collective efforts, around the rest of the world it is a very, very different story. COVID-19 grows by the day around the world. The total number of cases that existed in the world when we went to level 4 is now the number of new cases we see around the world every single day. There is no room for complacency and there is no room to loosen up the very tight control measures we put in place to stop COVID-19 coming into the country.
I say that to everybody who might have heard Shane Reti's first contribution on Radio New Zealand, the day after he became their health spokesperson, where he reiterated their commitment to reopening the borders for—among other things—international students. Now, I want to see international students back in the country when we're able to safely do so, but I'm not going to put the overall health and wellbeing of New Zealanders at risk in the process of doing that. One of the worst things we could do for our country is rush to reopen the border—as the National Party have consistently argued over the last couple of months—and put the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders at risk. The best thing we can do for our economy is lock in the gains that we have made by stamping out COVID-19, and there is one party in Parliament that wants to put all of that at risk. It's the party opposite, it's the National Party, who have been very clear they would throw away the gains that we have made, and that is not something that members on this side of the House are willing to do.
We will bring the same focus to the rebuild of our economy that we brought to fighting the virus in the first place. We'll keep the people in work, as we did through the wage subsidies, but we will invest in our people as well. After the global financial crisis, we saw tens of thousands of apprentices being laid off and for the next decade we suffered the consequences of that as we saw skill shortages that the members opposite, in Government, were more than happy to fill through skilled migrant labour rather than training New Zealanders. We will not make that mistake here. We will invest in our people as we have done with apprenticeship subsidies, with extra investment in vocational education and training, so that we can not only keep Kiwis in work but we can get them back into work quickly when they find themselves out of work, and so that we can, as the economy recovers, ramp up the building and construction projects without the reliance on migrant workers that the last Government were so hooked on. We will make sure that we are putting Kiwis back to work. That is what New Zealanders can expect from this side of the House. 
The same level of focus that we put into the health response, we will put into the rebuild response, and it is clear that New Zealanders are up for that journey. Our team of 5 million has done an incredible job of fighting COVID-19. Now our team of 5 million needs to band together and continue to rebuild New Zealand in the wake of it.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow a caretaker health Minister who replaced a caretaker health Minister. I challenge the Minister: when he said that we need to have no room for complacency, answer the question I asked him in the oral question section, when I said to him, "Are you using the QR app at every single QR stop?" And furthermore, when we're having that discussion, go back through the Official Information Act request that Stuff put to all 20 Cabinet ministers—have you asked them the same question? Is Cabinet using this Government app and are they signing in at every—we'll hold you to that. I can see the Minister nodding his head. We will hold you to that. Every Cabinet Minister is using the New Zealand COVID Tracer app and signing in at every single poster stop. I doubt that, but we shall see. 
I want to talk about the app and I want to put on record, first of all, and say we want to help and we believe there is a health information technology (HIT) component to improving the coronavirus response. We absolutely believe that. We did in the very beginning. The problem has been several-fold. First of all, the development of the app and its very late deployment—way past the time we were at the peak of our infectious cases. We have to ponder back and say, well, why was that? Why was that, when purportedly the Prime Minister was having conversations with Australia and with Singapore? Why was that, when large companies approached me and said, "Dr Reti, we'll give this to the Government"—not small firms—"we'll give this to the Government free of charge?" This was early March, early April, and the Government never took it up. 
They never took that up, but what they did take up—if you look at the copyright to the New Zealand COVID Tracer app, you see two teams, the Ministry of Health and the Privacy Commission, and then two individuals, David Britten, a 24-year-old PhD student who actually did a prototype on the QR scan first of all, and Alan Chew, who built the core app. Both of them were ready in early April. The ministry approached Alan Chew in early April, when he offered it free, and took it up. They heard nothing more from then onwards until about six weeks later, when finally it was deployed. When they saw what their work had turned into, they were aghast. The shape and functions of the app was nothing that they had given to the ministry. I mean no disrespect to the team of developers inside the ministry, but sometimes you need to collaborate with professional expertise outside, and that did not happen. Well, one of the developers who wrote the core of the code said, "I am of the view that the app is entirely insufficient for businesses to meet their contact tracing obligations". What a lost opportunity that was. So we can look backwards and say it was deployed too late—OK, it was. 
Let's then look at here and now. What we need is uptake and we need use. When we posed that to the Minister around the percentage of New Zealanders who have taken up the app—he avoided it here today. It is likely to be less than 10 percent. The target we need to get at is 60 percent of New Zealanders taking up the app—that will give us maximal traceability. There are benefits the lower we get, but we have to be at 50 to 60 percent, and we are way short of that. 
Again, I posed the question as to why that was, and I think there is some argument to say that New Zealanders have lost some of the urgency—I get that. I understand that. But having deployed apps myself, you have to make it user-friendly. You have to say "What's in it for me?" You have to make it easy for people to do the right thing. And it's not clear to me that that's happened. It's not clear to everyone on the Google store who has rated it as one star that it's easy to use. If you read those 1,558 reviews, they've all said it's difficult to use, there were times when you were blocked, and it was hard to download. I take on board that the Prime Minister indicated that, in fact, it was three stars on iPhone. That's only 700 reviews, so half the amount that the Google store—just so we're dealing with facts; just saying. 
When we look at experts in the area, Professor Nick Wilson from the Department of Public Health at the University of Otago, who's been advisory to this Government on coronavirus as well, describes the uptake as being microscopic: "It's just not working."; "It should probably be abandoned." I think that would be a shame. That's not what I'm calling for. What I'm calling for is for the Government to work with us to figure out how we can make it worthwhile for New Zealanders to take up this app, first of all; secondly, how we can look at other HIT additions to this, which is primarily just a QR code. Where's the Bluetooth technology? We've had people talk about smart card technology. Where is all of that? It was great discussions early on, nice to be having gentle chats with Singapore, etc., but in reality, delivering that has not happened. We think there's a place for an HIT component to improve our coronavirus response. It's our role to lift that corrective bar, and that's exactly what we're going to do. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Today, I am going to outline the truth about the leak of my superannuation. There have been news reports about the case. The matter is not sub judice. But a source totally connected to both the ACT Party and the National Party has revealed that the leak was one Rachel Morton. 
Morton heard about the case because she was present when former Minister Anne Tolley told her ministerial colleague Paula Bennett about it—not outside by the lifts, but in a ministerial office. Ms Morton then, thinking it would be kept in confidence, told ACT Party leader David Seymour, but, desperate for any sort of attention, Mr Seymour contacted Jordan Williams of the wage subsidy - receiving Taxpayers' Union fame. Williams—no stranger to dirty politics—told John Bishop, father of National MP Chris Bishop, and the details were then leaked to Newsroom's Tim Murphy. 
Williams also told another dirty politics practitioner, National Party pollster David Farrer. Farrar tried to shut it down, seeing the risk it exposed to the National Party, but then went along anyway, although he later tried to steer the story away from National's guilt, which is his usual modus operandi. 
But Newshub wanted to control the story. Barry Soper and Newshub knew more about the story than Tim Murphy, who nevertheless tweeted about—and I quote him—"the mother of all scandals" about to break a day before the story leaked publicly. Ms Morton used to work for Newshub and Newstalk ZB. Newshub was trying its best to protect her after David Seymour tried to get the story leaked through channels not connected with Morton. Three Newshub journalists—Jenna Lynch, Lloyd Burr, and Patrick Gower—looked collectively stunned when they were told that they had burnt Ms Morton as a source. They knew they'd been tumbled. 
When this was put to the Newshub reporters that it would also expose National and Jordan Williams' dealings with Tim Murphy, one of the Newshub journalists paused and said that National were "distancing themselves" from the story, but it was an ACT-inspired hit job to damage me politically, in collaboration with a senior National Party staffer, Rachel Morton, who was the source of the leak and the source that led to Jordan Williams weaponising the information during the election campaign. Every last one of them—Morton, Seymour, Williams, Bishop, Murphy, Farrar—played dirty politics to breach my inalienable right and the inalienable right of every New Zealander to privacy. 
My source also revealed that National Party members joked amongst themselves about the leak, but realised they couldn't do anything with the "no-surprises disclosure"—their risk was too high. That, of course, didn't prevent Ms Tolley from telling her sister, nor did it prevent 42 people being made aware of my super case. All it took was for that private information to fall into the hands of David Seymour, who craved media attention but couldn't claim the limelight, because that would have placed a spotlight on Rachel Morton, his source. 
This is what dirty politics looks like. That's why I have brought this case on principle, at a huge cost—the principle of privacy. 
The collusion between the National Party, ACT, and these grubby figures in and around politics is what turns people off politics. The characters in the story of my super leak viewed dirty politics as their religion, but it's the worship of jackals by jackasses. 
What I now know, and I didn't know it as I went to court, is that during my court case, there were witnesses who gave evidence who knew the truth, even as they were not speaking it, and journalists—but not Barry Soper—who sat in the court who knew the truth, but printed a tissue of lies. That I now know. Shame on them, but now they've been exposed for what they truly are. 
Maybe Mr Seymour could tell the precise circumstances in which he was told this information. Will he tell them, or will I have to? This has been a disgrace, and Mr Seymour is now outed. 
I have got the witness I never had at the court. The judge said to me, "But you must tell me who did it.", as though—with all their resources—one man against them, paying for his own costs, could be expected to do that. 
Mr Seymour, I am resolved that this is day one of the truth fightback, and he is going to be in my line. 





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
SPEAKER: The member has sought leave to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? Yes, there is. 





CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, that will be the Rt Hon Winston Peters' valedictory. And what a great valedictory it was, going out the same way he has spent his political career: fabricating things, alleging things without foundation. And the classic is always this: will Mr Peters repeat those statements outside this Chamber? And the question will be whether or not he's prepared to walk out on to the black and white tiles and mention all the names—my dad and David Seymour and Rachel Morton and all the rest of them. Will he say it? My pick is he won't, because it's all very well to come in here and talk about the ferries in the 1970s and use privilege. It's all very well to use that, but actually parliamentary privilege is a privilege. It's called a privilege. It's not something that can be used to deflect from real issues. 
We know why it's come about today in the general debate. The tried and true Mr Peters' formula of turning up and reading out a long list of things under privilege and making sure that the media will speculate about it—we all know why it's happened. It's because of the Antarctica New Zealand story that broke this morning on Radio New Zealand (RNZ). It's as clear as day. Forty years he's been doing this and he will continue to do it for as long as he's in this Parliament, and I for one hope that the good voters of New Zealand follow the voters of Tauranga and the voters of Northland at the 2017 election—
Hon Tim Macindoe: And Hunua.
CHRIS BISHOP: —and Hunua all the way before that, as Mr Macindoe reminds me, and cast him into political irrelevance.
That's what we hope they do—and they'll have an opportunity to do it on 19 September—because the Antarctica story that's broken this morning on RNZ is very damaging. Of course it is. "Good friends" in the words of the people who went to Antarctica at the insistence of the Deputy Prime Minister's office—or the Minister of Foreign Affairs—on a trip to Antarctica when there was only one space available and two were insistent on going, and the Prime Minister said today in Parliament they didn't go at anyone's expense. 
I know for a fact there are people lining up around the corridors all the way around the Beehive and up Molesworth Street to go on those trips because it is Antarctica and they are a rare and precious thing and they're extremely expensive. So this idea that, no, they didn't go at anyone's expense is a complete fiction. Of course they did. So that was a wonderful valedictory by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
But I want to talk in my remarks about transport, because what our leader, Judith Collins, announced on Friday was a transformational package for the upper North Island: a 20-year vision for transport in the upper North Island, decongesting our city and building expressways to Northland—that's all the way to Northland and to Tauranga. And Grant Robertson said, "Well, if that's all you've got—if all you've got is a vision, you know, I'd like to see what's coming." Well, it's better to have a 20-year vision than to not have one. And it's deeply ironic when the one criticism that could be levelled at this Government is that they are all about vision and they're all about good intentions. In fact, the one thing the Prime Minister's got going for her is at least she talks about good intentions and talks about good outcomes. So it's richly ironic for Grant Robertson to critique a vision. 
But it's not just a vision. It's a costed 10-year plan, a transformational project for the upper North Island: a four-lane expressway between the Far North and Tauranga. And we now know from Megan Woods' remarks in Parliament this afternoon and Grant Robertson's increasingly incoherent press releases on the weekend—I think there were three of them in response to our statement; not, interestingly, by the actual Minister of Transport, Phil Twyford. He was persona non grata. Like everything else in this Government, it was delegated to the one vaguely competent Minister, Grant Robertson, to respond, albeit incoherently, on the weekend. 
We now know that the Labour Party is opposed to four-laning the road between Whangārei and Tauranga, connecting and bringing together some of our largest cities—2.5 million people, to make it into a dynamic and economically prosperous region. And we're going to complete the Auckland Rapid Transit Network in Auckland. We're going to build busways. We're going to build rail to Auckland Airport, which Mr Peters claims to support. What's their bizarre critique of this? "You're letting the New Zealand Transport Agency borrow against their revenue." You can't do that, apparently, even though the Government's doing that with Kāinga Ora; it's exactly the same model. Then they say, "Oh, you're stealing from the multi-year capital allowances in 2026."—six years away. There's two elections before then. And then they say, "You're stealing from the COVID fund." The COVID fund was set up for economic stimulus into infrastructure over the medium term in order to get jobs and growth going. So it's a very worthwhile use of the money and we stand behind it.





Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He tirohanga Māori tēnei: "Ka ara mai a Puanga ki te rangi". 
[This is a Māori perspective: "Puanga rises to the sky".]
I want to put a very different spin on the debate that's happening here today and I want to talk about, where I come from, Puanga, or to the rest of the country, Matariki. The first star in the Matariki sky are essential workers—essential workers who worked hard during the time of the COVID lockdown; the kaimahi who, in Māori terms, would be classified as ringa rōpā. They did the hard work while people stayed at home to make sure that we have the opportunity to come together again after the lockdown—that's the first star in the sky.
The second star is the health services. Those who work in the health services right across this country: Māori health providers, hospitals, primary health organisations, many of them who got involved to make sure that (1) people were safe, (2) people were tested, and (3) those who were found to have COVID were cared for. Sadly, we lost some whānau during the COVID lockdown, we lost some whānau to COVID-19, but I want to acknowledge the second star of Matariki in the sky, and that is our health services.
The third star—and I'm quite proud of this—is Whānau Ora. Now, the first speaker in the debate today, the Hon Judith Collins, talked about: what have we delivered? I can tell you that Whānau Ora, during the time of COVID-19, this is what they delivered: over 120,000 care packs to whānau right across this country. They delivered services to well over 74,000 families in this country. They delivered those services from the Cape, all the way to the Bluff, and including Wharekauri / the Chatham Islands. That side of the House is asking us: "What has this Government delivered?" The numbers speak for themselves. Whānau Ora did that—Whānau Ora did that. What I can say is on the other side of the House, during the time of the COVID lockdown, all they delivered was 24 committee meetings—that's it. I'm really proud of the third star in the sky, which is Whānau Ora.
The fourth star of Matariki in the sky is, of course, the 5 million New Zealanders—each and every one of us who worked hard to make sure that we stuck to the rules and we stayed home. We gave ourselves every opportunity to make sure that in the future—now we're reaping the benefits—people from far and wide can come together to celebrate, to work hard, and also to plan for the future.
The next star in the sky—and while I know the right honourable Prime Minister will be shy that we heap praise upon her, I do want to acknowledge her. Her ability to communicate with Aotearoa during a very difficult time makes her, at least according to my view, part of the pantheon of stars of Matariki.
The next one is, of course, the infallible Dr Bloomfield, who I understand is going to be strapping on the boots in Wainuiōmata, in your home town, sir, this weekend. I challenge anyone to tackle him. I dare say that when that gentleman touches the ball, he'll have a clear run to the line—
SPEAKER: I wouldn't trust the Weepus.
Hon PEENI HENARE: Ha, ha! The next star in the sky, of course, is small businesses. Small businesses right across this country have done it tough. We've tried our very best to make sure that we can invest in them to make sure that they can continue to look after their staff; that after the lockdown they can come out of it strong and resilient. We acknowledged from the beginning we weren't going to be able to save every business, but I want to acknowledge small businesses right up and down the country.
The next star in the sky, of course—I've already spoken about Whānau Ora. I was about to name them twice. But, of course, the next star in the sky is our future generations. I say that because Matariki gives us a time to strategise and plan for the future, and this is where we find ourselves. We need to create a country that is far more resilient into the future, and this Government knows how to do that. We know we must invest in jobs. We know we must invest in our people. We must start preparing for the future. We've got to start once again continuing a package of support for small businesses. Finally, we've got to position ourselves globally so that we can bounce back after COVID-19.
Just finally with my civil defence hat on, I want to acknowledge the communities of Tai Tokerau and Tai Rāwhiti who have been impacted by the floods of recent days. The community resilience—and I mentioned it yesterday—our matua Mike Butler and the hard work that they do in the communities to make sure that whānau are safe during times like this. I hope that Matariki shines brightly upon them and their futures that they plan progressively for, and I want to acknowledge all of them and the whānau doing it tough during these times. Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, without question, the greatest privilege we have as members of Parliament is the parliamentary privilege afforded to us in this House and in the conducting of parliamentary business, and today we witnessed—I witnessed, I believe for the first time—a member use that privilege, which should be treated with the respect due to the latitude, the vast latitude, it affords us, to make unfounded allegations about a number of people in a forum where they have no ability to respond. None of them can attend this Chamber and respond, with the same protections afforded to Winston Peters, a response to those allegations. I would hope that I would never show such a character to take the opportunity in this House to do such things to others. To me, I believe that would simply debase myself, and I leave it to New Zealanders to interpret the comments from Winston Peters earlier this afternoon.
Now, on to the Government, a Government of misprioritisation. I asked the police Minister today about gun offences and incidents involving gang members and associates. This is against a backdrop of increasing gang violence, particularly with the firearms, and all the Minister wanted to respond with was what non-gang members are doing—completely in line with the misprioritisation in the arms legislation of this Government over the last 12 months. They spent parliamentary effort for 12 months putting more costs, rules, and regulations on people that are fundamentally law-abiding people—certainly people that don't present public safety risks to other New Zealanders. So when faced with a legitimate question about just how serious is the escalating violence, particularly that using firearms across our communities, the Minister just sought to deflect and cast blame on those that are not perpetuating it.
The true backdrop is months—it stretches well back into last year—of extreme violence being perpetrated by gang members and associates: execution-style killings in Auckland; a mother gunned down on her own doorstep because her son, who had gang affiliations, wasn't at home; multiple homicides in Tauranga—a house there, a home, shot up with a semi-automatic firearm. So much gang violence, particularly involving firearms, and this Government doesn't want to deal with the issue. Instead, it wants to focus on those people that don't break the law, because, of course, punishing the innocent is how you reduce crime, or at least they seem to think so.
So when my firearms prohibition orders member's bill came up for debate this morning, a measure that will actually allow a proper crackdown on those people that present the greatest risk to public safety with respect to firearms, they simply would not support that measure. They talked tough all throughout the Arms Legislation Bill. The Minister tried to talk tough about cracking down on criminals and gangs. Well, it does nothing, fundamentally, that bill—nothing in that area. But when presented with a bill that would, he ran from it. Tried to hide behind some advice, hide behind a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment, knowing full well that this Parliament has the authority, the sovereignty, to pass legislation that may impinge on rights—in fact, we did so recently with prisoner voting. He ran from it, instead of standing up for the safety of New Zealanders, showing them that we should and do care for them, and instead sought to deflect from a very real issue, minimalising the trauma and harm that is occurring in our communities. Gangs have grown over 34 percent under this Government. There are 7,166 gang members or associates as of April this year. It is a growing problem. They refuse to do anything about it. It's time for a Government that will.





GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. This week, I had the privilege to speak at the memorial for Jeanette Fitzsimons, a dear friend of mine, my mentor, someone who made a massive contribution to this House, and someone who, in particular, put climate change on the national agenda. Now, my wife once told me to avoid disappointments, you should never meet your heroes. But look, I had the great fortune to actually work up close with mine. In her maiden speech here in 1996, she said the key question was not whether centralised industrial capitalism should be controlled by the State or by private interests, but the unsustainability of centralised industrial capitalism itself. 
Now, when you look around the world, we can see the results of that rampant industrial capitalism and a runaway culture of greed, consumption, and short-term thinking. Now, last month, in the Arctic, we saw consistently above 18 degrees, the hundred-year long-term average. The Arctic Siberia is literally burning. We've seen the World Meteorological Organization two weeks ago put out a report saying the red line that world Governments signed up to, 1.5 degrees of warming, could be passed in four years, something we thought was potentially years and years away. We've seen, since 1990, when Jeanette Fitzsimons and the original group of Green founders formed the Green Party—more emissions have entered the atmosphere in the 30 years since the Greens were founded in 1990, since Captain Planet was on TV, since Seinfeld was first on TV. In the last 30 years, more emissions have entered the atmosphere than the preceding centuries and centuries of human history. But I am proud to say, here, in 2020, we as a Government have done what's needed to avert this urgent danger. We've taken action, we've laid the foundation, we've drawn lines in the sand, and we've set very important goals
This term, we've laid the foundation. We've developed and passed unanimously a zero carbon Act. We've improved the emissions trading scheme. We've set up a Green Investment Fund. We've taken action with climate impact assessments. We've set the foundation for a low-carbon economy. We've drawn lines in the sand, courageous lines in the sand, like stopping offshore oil and gas exploration. We've stopped the tens of millions of dollars of fossil fuel subsidies the previous Government was quite happy to give to oil companies. And we've set goals: a goal of being zero carbon by 2050 and 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035.
But we haven't done everything we need to do. We need to go further; we need to go faster. Our country's response to our generation's nuclear-free moment, the most important issue facing our future and the future of our kids and grandkids, must reflect the urgency and scale of the emergency. So we've laid the foundations, but next term we need to go further; we need to build on that foundation. We need to erect the walls, and those walls have to be solidly insulated. We need to make sure that when we're building the walls, we're putting inside double- or triple-glazed windows. We need to make sure, when we're putting on the roof, that it's covered in solar panels. And that's what I want to talk about today.
This election, we need to help Kiwis and Kiwi businesses reduce their emissions. So with public support, what we're going to do is put solar panels on all 63,000 State houses. We're going to halve the cost for people to install solar panels and batteries in their own homes. We're going to support community energy, and I'm thinking of groups like in Paekākāriki or Waiteti or Ruatōria, Whangārei, who I've met with who want to produce their own energy. They want to do it locally and do it for themselves. So we're going to support them with a $250 million community energy fund. We're going to stop coal use by 2030 and gas use by 2035.
So our slogan this election is "Think ahead", and I ask people to think ahead—what this means—because what it means is thousands and thousands of homes where people can point to their roof knowing they're producing their own clean energy. I'm thinking about the hundreds of thousands of kids in those State houses who are going to be paying cheaper power bills. I think ahead to the national electricity grid that's going to be able to use those 63,000 State houses as a virtual network, be able to time-shift that free, clean solar energy, to time-shift it to the time when we're burning dirty coal and gas, saving everyone money.
I think of those communities who I've worked with and met who have felt they don't have a fair playing field when it comes to the big power companies and those big power stations like Huntly. That's what I'm thinking about—those schools and factories that are not going to have to burn dirty, old, expensive, polluting coal, who can do it themselves with clean wind, solar, and other forms of energy.
So, for me, this is a good example of Jeanette Fitzsimons' thinking in action. It's not about this false trade-off between the cost of the environment to the economy, or thinking of the environment as something totally separate. It's integrating it and knowing that our wealth and our prosperity are dependent on the environment. And, actually, by investing in the environment, we can grow jobs, we can save people money, we can solve other social problems such as inequality and poverty. This is the mahi of Jeanette Fitzsimons that I'm proud to continue, and a whole new generation of Greens will continue it after September. Kia ora.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): We are enormously privileged to stand and speak in this House of Representatives. There are people all around the world who would love to live in a society where they can elect their representatives to come to a House like this and speak for them, and there is a quid pro quo for having the privilege of standing in this House. That is to use parliamentary privilege judiciously, with class, and with discipline, for the public good, as we say in the prayer at the beginning of every day that this House sits—not for our own private interests.
And what did we hear in the disgraceful, sleazy, innuendo-riddled speech from Winston Peters in this general debate today? Well, Winston Peters told the House that the reason his inability to fill out his own superannuation form got into the public domain was because my then partner told me, and I told Jordan Williams. That is categorically untrue. I want to tell the House none of that happened, and the fact that Winston Peters is prepared to say it using the privilege of this House but he's not prepared to say it out there where, if he says it, he'll be helping me finally get that home deposit—he's not prepared to say it at all.
Unfortunately this is the kind of sleazy, base behaviour that people up and down New Zealand have got used to from Winston Peters and New Zealand First. And here's the real issues motivating Winston Peters' behaviour. Well, just today, Winston Peters was found to have been using taxpayer resources at the expense of the taxpayers' objectives of getting research done in Antarctica so his friends could go on coveted tours to the special continent. That was going to be on the news tonight because it was embarrassing for the Prime Minister, who said it was for philanthropy when there's no such policy, and Winston Peters used the old dead cat bounce. Throw something on the table in the hope that it would overshadow the bad news coming his way. 
Here's another reality driving Winston Peters—the polls. What's the latest poll? ACT on 5 percent, New Zealand First on 1.5. That's the real problem with New Zealand First—they are desperate, and you know they're desperate because their plan is for Shane Jones to win an electorate seat. He's never won an electorate seat or any electoral contest in his life. That's the problem.
And here's the other problem Winston Peters has got. He's been hanging around here, letting people down, for 40 years. And because he's done it for himself at every juncture, he's never done it for the people of New Zealand, he's left nothing behind—no lasting achievements that any future historian will ever be able to point to. Today he has plumbed new depths, because we have a politics in this country where we don't attack people for their personal relationships. Winston Peters attacked my relationship with Rachel Morton under parliamentary privilege, when it began in 2016. That's how low and sleazy he is. That is the cavalier approach that he takes to the use of parliamentary privilege, and today, again, he attacked me through a personal relationship because that's as low as he goes.
I want to finish by saying, categorically, I did not receive information from Rachel Morton and I did not pass it on. The real problem Winston Peters has is that if he was a little bit competent and responsible at filling out his own superannuation form like every other superannuitant has to, he wouldn't be in this problem, and if he actually ran his court case properly he wouldn't be paying back 300 grand. Winston Peters, that's your problem; don't lie and make it mine.
SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
David Seymour: For what specifically, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: The member knows exactly what for.
David Seymour: Well, I don't apologise for that speech, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: OK. The member will leave the Chamber.
David Seymour: OK. Fine.
David Seymour withdrew from the Chamber. 





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I came to the House before question time I had a vastly different speech prepared to give in this general debate, and having been part of your presiding officers' team, Mr Speaker, I know that you work extraordinarily hard to ensure the mana of this Chamber and this House. Today, Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: I am going to ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to get Mr Seymour and bring him back to the House. Thank you.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you. Every member of this House is deemed, by the fact they are elected by the people of New Zealand, to be honourable. Today I am feeling a little bit of mamae in my heart because as members of this House we are all stained by the actions of other members, and we are all touched by the hurt and by the anguish that their families feel, and people who are impacted by the actions of members of Parliament as well. 
In my speech today, I just want us to think about what brings us here. As I look across the House, I look at respected colleagues, people who I've actually campaigned against, and people I've campaigned with.
Matt Doocey: And beaten.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That's right, Mr Doocey, but graciously, I hope. I know that most of us come here with good intent and with the knowledge that the people in our home patches want us to do well for them. Every time some rubbish thing happens here, it reflects badly on all of us, and our people back home go, "Come on, guys. What's this about?" I look to what brings me here. The reason I'm here is I want to make sure New Zealand is the safest place for our kids. And having spent a long time working in the area of family violence, I know if we want to break the cycle of violence, we have to create an environment where our kids can be safe, where they thrive, where they reach their potential.
But if they look to us in this House, what is the example they are seeing of their leaders? Are they seeing people who are wanting to create an environment where we can all thrive? It's been a rubbish couple of weeks, right? And we've been throwing stuff around at everybody. But have we been thinking about those people that this stuff impacts—our families, victims, the people in our electorates who are looking to us for hope? We have gone through one of the most difficult times in our country, and I don't say that lightly, coming from Christchurch—we've been through some tough times. COVID impacts all of us, and we know how wonderfully we have done as a team of 5 million to get us to the point where, actually, we are the envy of the world. People want to come here. People want our products. People want to trade with us because they know that, actually, Aotearoa New Zealand is the best little place in the world to be. We should be upholding the mana of that by being the best that we can be as parliamentarians.
And I know we can be. But unfortunately, when we throw stuff around, whether it's true or not, it sticks. And it smells. And it stains. I look up to the gallery at the people who have come to hear the next bill, who have come here with pride and respect and the expectation that they will be served by the people in this Chamber to effect what they want to have happen with their bill. We can only do that if we remember the premise of why we are here. It's a privilege to serve our communities. We are here to honour the wishes of our communities and our people.
Every time I arrive on the forecourt in front of this building, I say to myself, "What a privilege." Every time I go home to my home pitch of Christchurch East and I hear the concerns of my people and they give me a bit of, you know, "You should be doing this and you should be doing that.", I take that all on board because they have given me the privilege of being here to represent them. Every time I look into the faces of my grandchildren, I think, "Your nanny is here to do a good job to leave this country in a better place for you." So I just want to remind all of my fellow parliamentarians: we are all honourable, and I have the greatest respect for this job and this institution. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: As I indicated earlier, I have required David Seymour to return to the House to apologise for the unparliamentary remark he made at the end of his speech. 
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I withdraw and apologise.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.





NEW ZEALAND MĀORI ARTS AND CRAFTS INSTITUTE VESTING BILL
In Committee
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Preamble, Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Whakataka te hau ki te uru, whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura he tio, he huka, he hau. Tīhei mauri ora!
[Be prepared for the westerly, be prepared for the southerly. It will be icy cold inland, it will be cold on the shore. May the dawn rise red-tipped on ice, on snow, on frost. Bring forth the life force!]
It's not usual that I would begin a committee stage of a bill with a karakia, but given the debate that preceded this particular matter, I thought it was apt, because we have a very significant milestone moment. I'm not going to take a long call, because the second reading of the bill highlighted the substantial work that the Māori Affairs Committee did to go thoroughly through the aspects of the bill, and I want to thank them for their work, as well as Te Puni Kōkiri officials who advised and the clerks of the committee. 
However, I want to highlight Supplementary Order Paper 539, which proposes amendments to correct two incorrect references in the bill. The first is to amend an incorrect Native Land Court Minute Book reference in clause 4(1), and the second is to update the commencement date for the final period in clause 4(7) of Schedule 1. It amends the commencement date for the final report of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute from 1 April 2018 to the now applicable date of 1 April 2020. While these amendments are technically non-controversial, they are necessary. It's my recommendation that the House support them and advance with certainty to the third reading of this bill.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 539 and 541 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Preamble, Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report adopted.





Third Reading
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I move, That the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill be now read a third time. 
Me pēhea e tīmata taku kōrero, kia whakatau te waka o Te Arawa me ngā tini āhuatanga kei runga i a koutou. Nō reira, Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa tangata, tēnā koutou. Wāhiao, Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa, Ngāti Whakaue, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[How can I open my speech, welcome on this day, Te Arawa, welcome to you and those dearly departed that you bring with you. Te Arawa the ancestral canoe, Te Arawa the people, greetings to you all. Wāhiao, Tūhourangi of Whakarewarewa, Ngāti Whakaue, greetings to one and all.]
This is a milestone moment in our opportunity to rectify something that should have been done a long time ago. I want to acknowledge those iwi who are gathered here from Te Arawa, who all have a significant leadership role to play going forward. I want to also acknowledge the chair of Te Puia, the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute (NZMACI), Harry Burkhardt and the chief executive of Te Puia, Tim Cossar.
There are so many people to acknowledge that are no longer here with us. I think back to the ilk of those like Te Kura-o-te Marama Waaka, Te Autiti Wikiriwhi, Ngawhare Maika, Te Rangi-puawhe, Kāpiti Hamiora, and Hamuera Mitchell. These are but a few, all of whom had been involved in some way, shape, and form in the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute. That is an institute that has spanned a number of years and made a huge contribution. I acknowledge those koroua and I acknowledge the many kuia who have been selfless in their contribution to advancing the aspirations of Te Arawa but also of te iwi Māori in the work that they're doing in association with this institute. 
The Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute was originally a Department of Tourism concept proposed to take the place of the loss of the Pink and White Terraces in 1886. It was to be the new tourism icon in Rotorua. The Tohunga Suppression Act of 1907 typified the assimilation of Māori and in many ways became a turning point for Māori development and cultural revitalisation. Through the work of Tā Apirana Ngata, the member of Parliament for Eastern Māori then, legislation was passed in Parliament in 1926, which saw the birth of a predecessor organisation to the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute and the original carving school, Te Ao Mārama.
I think back to the time of my own tupuna, Whaea Te Puea, when in the 1930s she sent Koro Piri Poutapu to Te Ao Mārama to refine his carving skills under the senior tutelage of Eramiha Kapua and working alongside Pine and John Taiapa to carve the whare Te Hono ki Rarotonga. He returned home to support a number of the old lady's other projects such as Tūrongo House, the Kāwhia Methodist Church, Ngātokimatawhaorua, and going on to oversee many of our own Waikato master carvers such as Īnia Te Wīata.
Te Ao Mārama has contributed much more broadly to our nation, and this history is not really well understood. But many of the iwi across the motu can link the stories of cultural revitalisation to the role and function that the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute has played.
NZMACI, as it has been known, now will become a legacy institution of Te Puia in the tourism sense. It's become a centre of excellence for Māori arts and crafts, a tradition carried on still today, teaching many of our children. We see it, for example, in the creation of Te Whare Raranga, the first weaving school, in 1969 and in 2009, with the opening of Te Takapū o Rotowhio, the national stone and bone carving school. We also see it in the more recent opening of the waka school, Te Wānanga-a-Kupe Mai Tawhiti.
The institute was established under the New Zealand Maori Arts and Crafts Institute Act 1963, but, as mentioned previously, it has a much longer history spanning back 93 or so years since 1926. Today represents a significant milestone to resolve a longstanding aspiration amongst the people of Te Arawa. The Crown, along with the Whakarewarewa joint trust, initialled a vesting agreement on 1 June 2017. The agreement was signed on 4 August that year. Today is the next step in the process of returning Te Puia to iwi at this third reading.
This is a memorable occasion for the Crown, the Whakaue interests represented by Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust and Hurungaterangi, Taeotū, Ngāti Te Kahu o Ngāti Whakaue, Te Puia Trust, and by Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa. It's been a long journey with both the Crown and iwi having the resolve to see the efforts to return ownership of NZMACI business and assets through to its fruition. I am proud that it is this Government and this Parliament that will have the opportunity to complete the efforts of successive Governments.
I remember when Parekura Horomia was the Minister of Māori Affairs and my ministerial colleague Damien O'Connor was the then Minister of Tourism. I held the humble associate portfolio for tourism and I can remember when those discussions were initiated with them. So I do acknowledge many people who have walked along the path to try and bring forward today. There are too many to acknowledge individually, but I do wish to acknowledge the tireless work of numerous people within the iwi who have worked hard with officials from Te Puni Kōkiri and many more to ensure that the realisation of today can be for the benefit of your mokopuna and the next generation.
The Te Puia New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Limited Partnership will be the kaitiaki of this national treasure on behalf of iwi beneficiaries, and it will continue to see Te Puia succeed as a business. Te Puia, New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, is the only institute of its kind in Aotearoa, in the world. In fact, when we think about the moment that we're in and the role that the institute can play in the recovery of cultural tourism, then it's a significant opportunity that they have to help New Zealand bring forward what is unique and core to the recovery of our tourism sector.
The vesting endorsement process in 2017 was an important opportunity for iwi members to learn about the nature of the vesting agreement, how iwi groups will work together to provide a smooth transition to the new ownership and understand the benefits of the agreement. The partnership approach between Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa, the hapū of Ngāti Hurungaterangi, Ngāi Taeotū, Ngāti Te Kahu o Ngāti Whakaue, and the Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust on behalf of Ngāti Whakaue will ensure that tangata whenua are at the heart of decision making, to ensure the longevity of this kaupapa. 
Iwi have been looking forward to this day for many, many years. I'm pleased the hau kāinga of the Whakarewarewa Valley are finally assuming ownership of Te Puia and the institute. While the vesting is not a Treaty settlement, all of the stresses and strains within iwi and hapū that you might see in a settlement have played out in this process.
The bill dissolves NZMACI, repeals the New Zealand MACI Institute Act of 1963 and makes provision for the smooth transition to the new operating arrangements. It ensures that pan-iwi cultural functions presently provided for by the institute will continue now and into the future. Such statutory functions and responsibilities include encouraging, fostering, and promoting ahuria a toi Māori, providing training for the iwi of New Zealand, including whakairo rākau and raranga, making grants to enable persons to study, train, and gain experience in creating Māori arts and crafts, conferring diplomas or certificates on persons who have undertaken training or gained qualifications in Māori arts and crafts or Māori culture generally, and providing and supporting demonstrations, exhibitions, and tours of toi Māori and toi whakaari Māori. In this regard, we know that the future looks bright. It's a tourism mecca, but it's also a mecca of storytelling, of cultural revival and, dare I say, kapa haka performance—master class!
We wish you well today and we know that the road ahead may not be smooth, especially during this time in a COVID context, but we have every confidence in the governance expertise, the vision, and the master planning that you're undertaking in Te Arawa to ensure that the future within your region happens with you, beside you, and with your aspirations at its heart.
And so today, the opportunity for this House to support the entirety of that aspiration for the benefit of all of New Zealand, I think, is a real milestone moment for Parliament. So without too much more, I want to recognise all the people who have come to support the speeches today and note your ongoing commitment for success and to realise the vision of your people. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.





JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E ngā whānau o ngā iwi o Te Wāhiao, Tūhourangi me Ngāti Whakaue me te iwi o Te Arawa, nau mai haramai ki te rā whakahirahira.
[Mr Speaker, to the families of Wāhiao, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Whakaue, and the tribe of Te Arawa, welcome to this auspicious day.]
It is certainly a pleasure to have you in the House and a privilege for me to be speaking on the third reading of your bill—of your bill—the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. I, too, am privileged to stand here and acknowledge you all and the hard work of those tūpuna who have gone before you, and everybody who stands and sits here today as we go through the final stages of this, your bill.
I want to acknowledge Tā Apirana Ngata, a tupuna of mine, who, in 1926, through his hard work in this House, established the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute (MACI). From there, the whānau have actually grown it and it has become a national, if not an international, place for people to come and train and learn how to do whakairo, raranga, and many other things—as the Minister said, a waka as well.
As I look around and up into the gallery, I remember the day we came for submissions. It was the longest day of submissions I have ever had in the whole time that I've been in Parliament. I want to acknowledge my colleague over here, Tāmati, who drove us and actually worked us through that whole day as a select committee. I just want to say that it was an amazing day. It was a day where we learnt—where I learnt—a lot more than what words on paper could actually ever, ever give us. I want to acknowledge the chair from Ngāti Kurī, Harry Burkhardt, and also the CEO of Te Puia, Tim Cossar, for the work that they have done and for hosting myself and the Hon Nicky Wagner the night before submissions at Te Puia.
This bill has been a long time coming. I just want to say that, for many people in Aotearoa New Zealand, many tourists, I think that the whole establishment of Te Puia does go along without people understanding this. I think that today is a great day to put this down into history, add it to the books, to the history of this Parliament, so that, in years to come, when mokopuna come through our halls, they are able to pull the Hansards and see exactly what whānau have done to get us here today.
As I've said, the institute—MACI—has an amazing reputation, and many master carvers and weavers have gone through the corridors, they have been displayed at Te Puia. Many of us that have gone through Te Puia and gone and had a look at the carving schools and the weaving schools are impressed by what is produced through the institute.
I just want to talk a little bit about the functions of the institute, so that it is recorded in the history of this Parliament. The New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute in 1963 identified seven key functions. The first was to encourage, foster, and promote all types of Māori culture and practise an appreciation of Māori arts and crafts, and that has been done many, many times over. 
To train Māori in the practice of Māori arts and crafts—and it wouldn't surprise me if there were also some non-Māori that snuck in there and also received the training of Māori arts and crafts.
To provide demonstrations or exhibitions of Māori arts and crafts in suitable premises for any such demonstrations—and I too want to acknowledge the Government for some of the tautoko that they have given to the institute over the last few weeks, with the visit there by the Prime Minister. That was really a great token and a gesture and a respect of the people that run Te Puia, the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute. 
To arrange and conduct exhibitions of Māori arts and crafts—the performers are amazing. I've been amongst tourism groups that have gone through Te Puia, and the look on their faces, especially the overseas tourists, who absolutely stand in wonder and awe at what they are receiving. It is credit to the people that sit in this gallery today.
To develop and maintain areas of Rotorua district and elsewhere as scenic or tourism attractions—we must understand that Te Puia is actually 70 hectares in size. It is not a little wee place; it is a huge place. I think that everybody that visits there can take in and appreciate what they are seeing, what they are feeling, what they are smelling, all of those wonderful things that we get from visiting Te Puia. 
To foster and maintain public interest in Māori culture and Māori arts and crafts, and to assist the preservation of Māori culture and Māori arts and crafts—these functions of the institute will carry on mai rā nō, and that is why I am so privileged to be part and parcel of the delivery of a third reading speech.
It goes without saying that, on this side of the House, we support this bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for the tautoko she picked up and carried through to this conclusion. I want to acknowledge my colleagues in the Māori Affairs Committee; yes, we worked hard, and a lot of that work is now paying off. So, without any further ado, as I said, on this side of the House, we support the bill, we commend the bill to the House. Kia ora. Tēnā rā koutou katoa. 





Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. Tuatahi, hei tautoko ake i ngā mihi o Te Minita Whakawhanake Māori, anā, tōku tuahine, Te Hōnore Nanaia Mahuta, ki te tini kua tau mai ki runga i te kaupapa kua karangahia ki tēnā, ki tēnā kia hui. 
E mihi atu ana au ki a koutou kua tāpae ake i ngā mate huhua kua kōrerohia mai nei e Te Minita, e te tāhuhu o tēnei Whare. Kia tangi atu ki a rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō. Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou me tēnei kaupapa mīharo me tēnei kaupapa mīharo. 
Ka hoki wōku mahara e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ki te taima o Te Minita, Tā Apirana Ngata. I te kotahi rau tau o Te Tiriti o Waitangi ko tana ōhāki ki te iwi o Ngāpuhi "he iwi ngaro a Ngāpuhi, korekau he tangata tārai waka, korekau he kaiwhākairo". Nā, kātahi ka rikarika mārika nei a Ngāpuhi. Ka tukuna atu ngā tamaiti, ngā mokopuna ki Te Puia, ki roto i ngā ringaringa atawhai o te hunga e noho mai nei. Mā rātou hei tiaki, hei poipoia, hei ropiropi i ngā tini o Ngāpuhi ka uru atu ki roto i tēnei whare wānanga mārika rawa atu. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a rātou. Ko tētahi o aua tohunga whakairo, anā, tōku pāpā rā, Te Wārahi Hetaraka, nānā tēnei [Inaudible] i poipoia ki roto i ngā tau. 
Ka kimihia anō au i ētahi pānga ki tēnei o ngā wāhi. Nā, ki roto i ngā tau tekau pea, tekau mā rima pea kua pahure ake nei i tonoa e te Karauna, e tōku pāpā, arā, ko Erima tēnā, ki tōku tūpuna, ki a Kevin Prime, hei mea kaitakawaenga mō wētahi o ngā raru ka pā atu ki wēnei iwi. Ka tau atu a Ngāpuhi ki roto i a rātou, kaua ki te whakawā, engari ki te whakakotahi. Kua kite atu ahau i ngā hua kua puta mai, nā, i te rā nei kei konei tātou hei tautoko ake. Ka whakaaro ake ki ngā mahi katoa ka oti i ā rātou, engari ki roto i taku kōrero tuatahi i te rā nei, ko te aronga nui kei Matariki ki te rangi. 
Nō reira, ko tēnei pire hei tūāpapa mō te āpōpōtanga o tēnei whare wānanga o tātou, kia hangaia he whare hōu, kia hangaia i tētahi tirohanga hōu mō ngā uri whakatupu e hāere ake nei. Koinā te pai o tēnei pire, koinā te pai ō tēnei pire. Kia tau ai te puehu, ka taea te kaiwhakairo te patu i te puru, ka taka mai, ka whaohia, ka taka mai, ka whaohia he huarahi hōu mō tēnei kaupapa, he huarahi hōu mō tēnei whare wānanga ō tātou. 
Koinā tāku i tū ai ki te tautoko i te āhuatanga o tēnei pire. Hei tautoko ake i ngā kupu rangatira a Te Minita e noho mai nei. Hei tautoko ake anō i wāna mihi ki Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori, anā, me te mema o te Waiariki, o tēnei me te mea o mua i hāpai ake tēnei kaupapa ki tōnā tutukitanga. 
Engari, e hia nei ngā taima kua tū mai au mō ēnei me te kī atu, ehara tēnei te otinga, he tīmatanga hōu kē. Koinā tāku i tino harikoa nei ki te mihi atu nei ki te hunga kua tae mai, ki te hunga e kōrero mai nei, kāti ki te hunga e haere ake nei.
Nō reira, ka nui tēnei māku, hei tautoko ake ki roto i Te Reo Māori, ngā āhuatanga o tēnei pire, ka tau tēnei i tēnei wā me te kī atu ki te hunga, kei runga rā e āta whakarongo mai ana, anā, mā Matariki koutou e manaaki, e tiaki, kia haumaru ai tā koutou hāerenga hokinga atu ki te wā kāinga. 
Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou e te Māngai o te Whare. Ka tautoko mārika i tēnei Pire.
[Mr Speaker, I will remain in Māori. Firstly, I would like to support the acknowledgments made by the Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, to the many who have arrived on this occasion. I would like to thank those of you who have paid respects to those that have passed on, those who were mentioned by the Minister. We mourn those who have passed to the long night, but let me bring the discussion back to our great occasion.
My thoughts go back to the days of Sir Apirana Ngata. On the 100-year anniversary of the Treaty of Waitangi he left Ngāpuhi with these words: "He iwi ngaro a Ngāpuhi, korekau he tangata tārai waka, korekau he kaiwhākairo". (Ngāpuhi is lost, there is no one who can carve a boat, there is no one to carve ornaments.) That got Ngāpuhi moving. Young people and grandchildren were sent to Te Puia to be nurtured by those who have arrived today. They supported, they looked after, and they upskilled the many of Ngāpuhi who joined our great house of education. Therefore, I would like to thank them. One of those master carvers was a mentor of mine, Te Wārahi Hetaraka, who nurtured [Inaudible] in the years that have passed.
I would like to make another connection to that place. In the last 10 or 15 years, the Crown and my father, Erima, asked my ancestor Kevin Prime to act as a mediator on some issues that these tribes were having. Ngāpuhi arrived amongst them, not to judge but to help unite. I have seen the results of those efforts here today. I think forward to all the great things that they will achieve. However, during my first speech today I mentioned that the big focus is on Matariki in the sky.
So, this bill is the foundation for the future of our house of learning, to help construct a new building, to help build a new vision for the generations to come. That's the true benefit of this bill. When the dust settles, a carver will be able to work the wood, to fell it, to have it carved and with it a new vision and a new way forward for our initiative and our house of learning.
That's why I stand today to support this bill. I stand to support the words of leadership espoused by the Minister. I also support her acknowledgments to the Māori Affairs Committee, including the member for Waiariki, who has supported this bill to its fulfilment.
That being said, I can't remember how many times I have delivered a speech and said that this is not the end, but the beginning. That's why I am so pleased for those who have arrived today, those who have spoken, and those who will follow.
Therefore, I have probably said enough for today. I support, in Māori, the bill, and sit down with these final words to those who are listening: let Matariki protect you, nurture you, and may your journey home be a safe one. Thank you to one and all. I enthusiastically support this bill.]





HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou Te Arawa waka, Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Nau mai whakatau mai ki te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire.
[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Greetings Te Arawa waka, Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Welcome, welcome to the third reading of this bill.]
When I stand in the gallery to address our people who have travelled from afar throughout the motu, and to those who have come from Te Arawa, there's always a sense of trepidation and an immense privilege—but also an immense responsibility—to be able to address and to speak to what, effectively, is the bill of the people who have come from afar, gathered for the passage of this into third reading. I also reference, because this is televised, that members of the public who are listening in, this is part of their learning and lifting and raising of awareness as well, because the nation that we are of today is still being carved out. The threads of the different communities that we come from in Aotearoa New Zealand are still being interwoven into the fabric and shaping the face of our nation today.
So I turn to speak to this third reading of the bill as it passes into law, the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. This is not a Treaty settlement bill, so that members again, for the benefit of those in the public, are aware of the difference. I stand and speak as uri, as a descendant of W'anganui. I am the member of Parliament elected to represent the people from W'anganui. I am a member of the National Party. I also stand to speak with the responsibilities of shadow Attorney-General, of Māori Crown relations, of Treaty negotiations, and Māori tourism. So all of those areas of responsibility that I carry, I carry with a sense of immense regard and a sense of the enormity of responsibility that comes with that. Every single one of those portfolios that I have the privilege and the burden of carrying at the moment are interwoven into this bill in some way or another.
Again, the third reading—for the benefit of members of the public who are listening in, because I know the people who have come from Te Arawa know this—this is the summing up debate on everything that has been canvassed and addressed in relation to the bill. I sat briefly on the Māori Affairs Committee and I had the distinct privilege to be able to sit in and to listen to the kōrero—I am a lawyer in my former life—the evidence of what the people were speaking to and the relationships of the people affected by this bill.
The third reading is a summing up debate. It's been mentioned by previous speakers also, the record from the first and second readings of this bill has been captured in Hansard. Before I came to speak in the House, I reflected by perusing some of the kōrero that has been documented and recorded now into the history of Hansard. A lot of that is about the chronology, the history of how the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute has come to be. It is indicative of the journey that has been carved out, the pathways of all those who have been formative in the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute. This vesting bill is effectively about the Crown recognising and duly doing as it ought to, vesting the assets and the other responsibilities back to the people of Te Arawa.
So in August 2017—I'll come to the chronology around the legal passage of this bill. In August 2017, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell—one of yours—was the Minister for Māori Development, and he, with Whakarewarewa Joint Trust, signed the vesting agreement. After that, it came to be that the bill came before the House—and you'll see that I've got papers spread out before me here—for its first reading on 19 December 2018. From there, it was handed in to the charge and responsibility of the Māori Affairs Committee. That's when the people came to Te Arawa to listen to the kōrero and to listen to some of the concerns. It is always a privilege to be able to be part of the most intimate kōrero and to hear some of raruraru and the problems.
It had been put to the Māori Affairs Committee that we resolve some of that by way of inclusion in the bill. However, we recognise that as Crown agents, there are some things that are just beyond our privilege and our responsibility, and that it is for the people to, ultimately, resolve your differences. The second reading of the bill had come about on 14 November 2019, and I had the opportunity to speak to the House in relation to that. I've talked about the chronology and the pathway of the institution in terms of its legislative passage, but also how it came to be. That was a vision of Sir Apirana Ngata, and that vision has been fulfilled by the people of Te Arawa.
This institution is in the presence on your whenua. It's in the presence in your hearts and minds. It has been carried from your tūpuna and will be carried through you into the future generations. Sir Apirana Ngata had that vision, and that vision has been captured, as we know, in his w'akataukī: "E tipu e rea, mō ngā rā o tōu ao."
For the benefit of members of the public listening in, that w'akataukī, that message from the heart is "Thrive in the days destined for you, your hand to the tools of the Pākehā to provide physical sustenance, your heart to the treasures of your ancestors to adorn your head, your soul to God to whom all things belong.", and I think for many of us in the House today this is to be carried through in days to come. The Institute of the Māori Arts and Crafts encapsulates that—to carry from the past, the present, through into the future.
So it's well known and it's now documented in Hansard, but also in this bill, that the vesting of the assets—and we talk about the structure, but the structure houses everything that we've talked about: the knowledge, the presence of the people who have been there and have gone before, and the presence of those now as a gift to the future. When I spoke at the second reading, I talked about the relationships, and we are very strong in terms of the connections that we have to the areas that we come from and how we interweave and relate in carving out those relationships.
John and Pine Taiapa: Pine Taiapa came to Pūtiki, my area at the mouth of the Whanganui River, and imbued the essence—coming also from Te Arawa, the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, he having graduated there with many others, travelling around the motu—and carved into our w'are karakia, St Paul's Anglican church, and also to the w'are tupuna. When I go home, that is a correlation of the relationship to our people through to Te Arawa because of Pine Taiapa and that association. It's a privilege to stand here to support and commend the third reading of this bill so that it's carried through and made into law. To the people who have travelled from Te Arawa, today will be a celebration, but it just signs off a legislative passage. Kia ora. Tēnā tātou katoa.





FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ko Ngongotahā tōku maunga, ko Rotorua tōku moana, ko Waeteti tōku awa, ko Ngāraranui, ko Rangiwewehi, ko Ngāti Whakaue ōku hapū. Ko Te Arawa tōku iwi. Kia ora whānau. Kia ora. 
[Ngongotahā is my ancestral mountain, Rotorua is my ancestral lake, Waeteti is my ancestral river. Ngāraranui, Rangiwewehi, and Ngāti Whakaue are my subtribes. Te Arawa is my tribe. Hello, family. Hello.]
I think that's the first time I've ever said that in this House, and I'm proud to do so with my whānau and my friends above in the gallery here tonight. 
I want to, firstly, as appropriate, acknowledge the passing of our elders, those who cannot be with us here this afternoon and, in doing so, I acknowledge the 93-year journey that Te Puia, the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, has taken to get to this moment, ināianei. Actually, as I've said before, both to acknowledge Sir Apirana Ngata and to describe the mahi that we have undertaken to get to this point, I quote our venerable elder: "Tēnā, ka hāere tonu. Ā te wā, ka taea, ka mau." [That, will go on. In time, it is possible, hold strong.]
That simply speaks about perseverance and the journey that we undertake to be here today: persevere, and you will get to your destination. Keep at it, keep at it, because I think it was Sir Robert Muldoon who first aired the thought—I think, Minister, you spoke about this in your address. He first aired the thought that "Actually, wouldn't it be a good idea to put this institution back in the hands of the whenua in Te Arawa, our people?" Today, it is my pleasure to stand here as a member of Parliament, a humble, humble Rotorua boy, to speak in this House—[Interruption]—they know it; they know it and they can't deny it—to acknowledge the mahi that those in the gallery have undertaken but also to acknowledge the Minister and to acknowledge my cousin Tāmati Coffey. I said that last time, bro, and we still haven't figured out what the connections are, but I know—I know. 
I just want to give this a bit of context, because it's not all about joy. It wasn't that long ago that I was in Te Puia talking about the struggle facing our whānau, the staff, the management, and the board of Te Puia in response to COVID-19. So we have to acknowledge the timing of this announcement today in our House, in this Parliament. Could we call it an irony? I would say to this House that it is the best time—it is the best time—for this Parliament to be handing back this institution, this taonga, to the people of Te Arawa, because the people in the gallery and the members below know that the future is bright. 
The future is bright not only for the people of Te Arawa but for those who have undertaken the mahi in Te Puia. I don't want to name names, but when I was there on that day, it was actually heartbreaking, because there were people in tears because hard decisions had to be made about our people and "What does this institution do now?" It was heartbreaking to talk to the leadership and to the hapū who were present on that day about "What does the future look like?", but, actually, I'm also proud to say this Government understood what the challenges were and that this taonga of Aotearoa could not be left to fall by the wayside. 
The Government of this day talks about a taonga that is more than the sum of its parts. It talks about spillover benefits. If there was an icon in New Zealand that we could all agree on and that we all do agree on in our kōrero today, it is Te Puia. It is more than the sum of its parts. It is about our Māori culture. It is about our heritage. It is about our learnings. It is about the future of the Reo and our people. But for Rotorua and for New Zealand, it is a taonga and a treasure and that icon that we must celebrate and tautoko, which we have done, so that we can move forward as a nation, not just as a people. 
I have taken foreign Ministers, dignitaries, into the heart of Rotorua and, actually, into the institution, which I only just found out recently was designed as a thought in terms of replacing the destroyed Pink and White Terraces. I didn't know that that was the genesis of the Māori arts and crafts kōrero. 
So can I say to the people of Rotorua and the people of Aotearoa that it has achieved its mandate. It is an attraction that brings actually—I don't think it's an exaggeration to say—millions of people to New Zealand. We know millions of international tourists go through Rotorua, and I know the majority of them go through our Māori Arts and Crafts Institute—through Te Puia. So to be able to stand up here today to acknowledge these difficult times but also to acknowledge the celebration of this hand-over and to acknowledge the tangata whenua, to acknowledge Te Arawa, and to acknowledge the people who have worked so hard to make sure that we can all be here today, on this historic day in this Parliament, is a testimony to everyone in this room and to those who have come before us who couldn't be with us today. 
This is a celebration—I say selfishly—for me, but it is a celebration for this Parliament and for Te Arawa. For that, it is a privilege to be able to stand in this House and support this iconic and important piece of legislation to the House and tautoko what we have achieved here today. Kia ora tātou. Kia ora whānau. 





Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E ngā reo, e ngā mana, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It's with enormous pleasure that I rise to speak on the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill at its third reading. It's been a long time coming, but it's been worth the wait because this institution is absolutely unique. It is the only institution of its kind in Aotearoa New Zealand. It's a taonga institution. It's a national icon for New Zealand, for Māori arts and crafts, and for Māori tourism. It's an enormously successful and vibrant business which highlights the very best of Māori arts and culture.
I, too, would like to recognise the work of Harry Burkhardt and Tim Cossar and all the team at Te Puia for the work that you've done, but also for what you've achieved over the years. Of course, the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute has had a very long history built on the vision of Tā Apirana Ngata—the vision to preserve Māori culture by establishing Te Ao Mārama. That, of course, was the first carving school—which we've heard about today—and we've heard of some of the places where pupils from that school have made contributions to marae right across the country. Wharenui, beautiful wharenui, have been treasured and appreciated for many years, and many years to come. That school, of course, closed only after about 10 years. But in 1963, the new institute opened, and that opened firstly with a carving school; followed quickly by a weaving school; later—in the 21st century—the national stone and bone carving school; and more recently, the canoe school opened. 
Today, in New Zealand, the Māori Arts and Craft Institute has an international reputation for providing excellent training and also the very best master carvers, weavers, and sculptors. Its functions are about promoting Māori culture, teaching skills, and educating and entertaining both local and international tourists. I believe over 500,000 of them go through every year. The business has built up and expanded over many years through the hard work of everyone involved, and through—mostly—the tourism and the training activities. And I'd just like to make a note that it does not receive any financial support from the Crown. 
So back to the bill—it provides for the assets and liabilities of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute to be transferred to Te Puia NZMACI Ltd Partnership and also provides for that partnership to continue to function as business as usual. As the Associate Minister of Tourism, I actually worked with Te Ururoa Flavell when he was the Minister for Māori Development on this bill, and was delighted when, in August 2017, he signed—with the Whakarewarewa Joint Trust—the vesting agreement. 
The legislation before the House today will ultimately transfer the ownership of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Craft Institute from the Crown to iwi. We already know that the land on which the institute stands was returned to iwi in 2009. So this vesting agreement, and this legislation, completes the process of recognising the significant cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual association of Ngāti Whakaue and Wāhiao Tūhourangi and this area and Te Puia. So as I said, it's been a long time coming, but it is absolutely the right thing to do, to return this organisation, this institution, with its land, back to mana whenua. I wish everyone involved with Te Puia a long and very prosperous and worthwhile future. Kia ora.





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tuatahi, e mihi ana ki a koutou, Te Arawa, i tae mai nei i tēnei wā. He hōnore nui ki te tū ki mua i a koutou i tēnei wā. Nō reira, e mihi ana ki a koutou i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Firstly, I would like to acknowledge you, Te Arawa, who are here today. It is an honour to stand before you at this time. Therefore, thank you for honouring us today. Greetings to one and all.]
No doubt iwi have been looking forward to this for generations, and as our Minister for Māori Development said earlier, we're very pleased and proud that mana whenua of the Whakarewarewa Valley are finally assuming ownership of Te Puia and the institute. Of course, while this is not a Treaty settlement, all the stresses and strains of the iwi and hapū negotiation and all the problems have been part of this, and we understand that. I feel I'm equipped to have a bit of a kōrero about it since I have a house just outside—well, in the village, basically. 
Tāmati Coffey: Tania's?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: So—no, it's both of our houses. Being part of the whānau, I feel it's appropriate I have a bit of a kōrero, because, having watched the hapū and iwi politics over the years, it's been quite fascinating, actually—quite fascinating.
But first of all, I want to say thank you to Rino Tirikatene and the Māori Affairs Committee, who tread delicately through all the different problems that were raised through the process. We know how difficult these processes can be, particularly in the Treaty settlement process, where one hapū or one group think that they should have this and they should have that. Our concern is that the whole process should be equitable. I'm not sure if it is, but it was for the majority of people who voted and supported the kaupapa.
I will say, though, having watched those Māori iwi politics through the years, it'd be a good day, one day, if that gate was open and everybody embraced both sides. I've got a key, actually, and I might be able to help out. But I always felt, watching my wife's whanaunga down there, struggling away, that there should've been more support from the Crown in terms of the village, and I hope that we can get there. We've got through COVID, we've got through a lot of things, and everybody are whanaunga, and it would be wonderful if we can get to the point where hapū politics, our own politics, don't affect us in terms of actual common sense. It saddens me, actually, having watched it over the years.
But in terms of the model we have today, I salute everyone who's played a real part in terms of this model in regards to where we are now, because I think back to my whanaunga Pine Taiapa, who played such a major role in Te Arawa in terms of helping and supporting carvers. I remember what made him tick, and it was all about the preservation of our culture, of tikanga, of rangatiratanga. I salute the aspirations of Pine Taiapa and of the kuia Emily Schuster in all the work that she has done in terms of all the weavers and the work that she had done in terms of upholding the culture. I think of Kuru Waaka and all that great kōrero that we all used to hear down there, and his aspirations for young people and for the culture and for the tikanga.
So when I look at Te Puia, I don't look at it as just a tourism attraction. I look at it as an example of Te Arawatanga, tikanga, tino rangatiratanga, and I salute you in terms of your progress in regards to that. But I want us to remember, I suppose, on this day, those great mentors, those great tohunga who played such a role in terms of the preservation of our culture, in terms of the preservation of their culture and their aspirations that we had to retain what we had. If we never had them, we wouldn't have had the carvers we have today. We wouldn't have had the weavers we have today. We wouldn't have the culture we have today. So when we look at Te Puia, it's a wonderful model. We got there. Things are getting better. The gate's going to open one day, and everyone's going to complement each other and support each other and there's going to be resources spread right across the spectrum. But my hope is that we honour the aspirations and the dreams of those tohunga who laid the base not just for Te Arawa but for Te Ao Māori. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā nō tātou katoa.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe, Te Mana Whakawā. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. Ngā reo, ngā mana, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Greetings, Mr Speaker. The House that stands here, greetings. The ground that is before me, greetings. Those who have passed, rest in peace. The spokespeople, the leaders, greetings to you all.]
It's a privilege to rise in the third and final debate here this evening for the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. I'd like to start out by acknowledging my fellow colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, led by the fantastic chair Rino Tirikatene, who, as the previous speaker noted, had to traverse some interesting delicacies and issues throughout this bill and the process of this bill. This is an important day today, and I would like to acknowledge everybody who has come down from the north. The people of Te Arawa, whether you affiliate to the strong, proud group of Wāhiao Tūhourangi or whether you're part of Ngāti Whakaue, thank you for coming down and for honouring this fantastic occasion. 
This is also an important occasion for New Zealand. The Māori Arts and Crafts Institute is one of its kind in New Zealand and it is a fantastic occasion to be able to transfer the ownership and the assets of this important institute to Māori and to see where that takes us in the future, and to grow this important organisation beyond that. 
As I mentioned, I was a part of the select committee process for this bill, so I acknowledge the important kaupapa that this bill seeks to achieve. It was a fantastic privilege to come down, actually—down from Auckland, of course—for the select committee process in Rotorua and to hear some of the concerns with the vesting bill that we've been discussing. I think there was absolute agreement that the kaupapa of this vesting bill was important, and everybody wanted that. I think where the issues lay was around the governance structure and making sure that the hapū and the various groups that are a part of this community have equal say and have a chance to participate and run the organisation that we're talking about. 
I must say, it was the first select committee experience that I've experienced where we've been—and it was a great introduction into Māori culture, and I want to acknowledge Willie Jackson, the member speaking before me, and some of the challenges facing Māoridom. The aspirations that Willie spoke to, I also share those aspirations of working together, of overcoming the various factions and challenges and differences that various hapū and iwi face, to benefit Māori and to ultimately benefit all of New Zealand and Aotearoa. So I think that this is an important occasion where this important institute is transferred back into the hands of the local groups, to see how they get on and to demonstrate a vision for how Māori and iwi and hapū can all work together for the future. And so this is, I think, an important test of just how we can work together to benefit our people in the future. 
I do want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell—fantastic contribution that he made to get it to this stage—and, of course, my colleagues right across the House who have inputted into this important bill, because it is an important occasion. I want to, again, just finish on this idea of self-determination or mana motuhake. I think that this bill provides for this institute to actually be put into the hands of local iwi and local hapū so that they can demonstrate mana motuhake. I think that is an important feature of why we're here today. 
I just want to finish by saying that this is a great occasion for us here in the House. It has been a privilege to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, to go out there and also hear select committee submissions. I commend this bill in the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call; I call Rino Tirikatene.





RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou Te Arawa waka, tēnā koutou Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, ngā hapū maha kua tau mai nei ki Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rangi nui, whakahirahira. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Greetings to the ancestral canoe of Te Arawa, Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao and the many subtribes who have made it here to Parliament on this very important day. Greetings to one and all.]
I'm delighted to be able to make a contribution in this debate. As a son of the South, I just shot away from a meeting to try and protect our fishing rights down there, but I made it back into the House here today and I want to mihi to our illustrious Te Arawa waka whānau, from all of our famous tribes of Te Arawa who are here today. This is a momentous day. I've been delighted to chair the committee, but really my role has been quite small in the scheme of things. I do want to acknowledge one particular member of our committee, and that is Tāmati Coffey, your outstanding member for Waiariki who actually led the way for us in terms of our consideration and our examination of all the issues on this bill. So I want to mihi to you, Tāmati, because I know that this is a milestone piece of legislation for your people, so thank you for your contribution and for your awhi. 
I also want to acknowledge Minister Mahuta, who has carried on the mahi that was laid down by Ministers—and I think of the late Hon Parekura Horomia, I think of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell; all those Ministers of Māori Development who have been involved—and I want to acknowledge our Minister, our tuahine, for her work in seeing this mahi through. Because there were a lot of bumps along the way, a lot of issues that have been sorted through, and I'm pleased that all the kōrero has been said and now we've come to the time when we can finally pass this piece of legislation.
And what does it do? It returns a dear taonga which is right nestled in the heart of Whakarewarewa to the actual rightful owners of the land and the mana whenua, the hau kāinga. I am delighted for Ngāti Whakaue, represented through their three-hapū trust, the Pukeroa Oruawhata commercial powerhouse of Rotorua, and also Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao as well, because that partnership which is represented by all those groups will now be vested in the taonga of Te Puia and the New Zealand Arts and Crafts Institute. I want to acknowledge all of those in the past who have made the institute what it is, and as the saying goes, ka mate kāinga tahi, ka ora kāinga rua [when one option is lost, a second will present itself].
This is a new dawn for the institute, this is a new chapter for Te Puia. It's really exciting. Especially with the $7.6 million we put in through the Budget to support the special work of preserving our cultural legacy which is in Te Puia, and also the surrounding businesses. We know we'll get through this COVID period and the institute is well positioned, well managed by some expert commercial people. I'm so impressed with all of the legal minds that are within Te Arawa who helped design the structures and everything that will be receiving this taonga through the passage of this legislation. 
So I just want to mihi to everyone today, and support and tautoko this bill. Kia ora tātou. 





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora e te iwi. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. It is an unexpected pleasure for me to be taking a call in this debate. I do so as a last-minute replacement for the Hon Todd McClay, who, of course, is the member for Rotorua but also the National Party's tourism spokesperson. So this is a matter of considerable importance to Todd, both in his capacity leading our tourism portfolio area—
Hon Member: Where is he?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Speaker—but also because of his 12 years of dedicated service as the member for Rotorua, and I do wish to convey his greetings and his apology for being unable to take his call this afternoon. But I do so with particular pleasure, because it's not often I get to rise in this House and reflect on my previous history as the chief executive of the Music and Arts Waikato Trust, as it was then known, better known as Arts Waikato, which no longer exists—I don't think because they couldn't cope without me, but they merged into the entity that is now Creative Waikato. And, of course, with our very close links to our neighbouring cousins in Rotorua, this is something that I, personally, welcome.
We have in our area the huge, rich heritage of the artistic history of Tainui. Could I acknowledge, in particular, my colleague, the Minister who has moved the final reading of this bill, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. My small electorate on the western side of Kirikiriroa fits very comfortably inside a very small portion of her much larger electorate, but I do genuinely appreciate the very close working relationship that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and I have always enjoyed. I congratulate her on the achievement of bringing this bill to its conclusion today, because it is a significant measure. It's a matter of considerable significance, well beyond Rotorua, I might point out. So that is something that she, no doubt, celebrates deeply with you.
It was as the chief executive of Arts Waikato that I developed the ability to have regular exposure to arts with which I had previously been unfamiliar and again, as I mentioned, to develop a very keen appreciation of the huge importance of our artistic heritage going back over many centuries in our region. I've also been a regular visitor to the fine city of Rotorua. It's a place that I think all New Zealanders love to go to, and because I'm an MP within the central North Island and my family and I have lived there for many years, Rotorua has always been a very popular destination. So we have a familiarity with the area and an appreciation of what this bill is covering.
The purpose of this bill, of course, has been well articulated by the previous speakers, and I don't wish to go over all of the details that have been conveyed, other than to say that it is a measure of considerable significance that so many iwi representatives are here today to witness this important measure. We honour you and welcome you. It is a privilege to have you here with us and to be playing such an important part in handing back to you something that has been such a long time coming.
I do want to acknowledge the work of the previous Minister, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, who, of course, was also of that region and who did a considerable body of work. And it's nice that in this House we are often able to put individual partisan politics aside and just acknowledge how many people contribute. In this measure, I believe that it has been a real team effort and it's a tremendous thing that we have achieved it. 
Those who've just tuned in may be unaware that the land on which the Māori Arts and Craft Institute operates is in the Whakarewarewa Valley, but anybody who is a visitor to Rotorua will know where that is. That, of course, was returned to iwi in 2009, so the enactment of this vesting agreement and legislation completes the process that has been such a long time coming.
Now, I regret that I have insufficient knowledge of Te Reo to express what I think we're all saying, but I am sure that there's an appropriate whakataukī for it. In English, of course, the saying is: good things take time. It applies to this significant moment in time, which reflects the drive of so many. So I celebrate with you, I wish you well in this achievement. Me whakanuia e tātou. Tēnā koutou katoa. 
[We must celebrate. Greetings to one and all.]





MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. Ōku hoa kaimahi, tēnā koutou. Ngā iwi, Ngāti Whakaue, Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa, ngā iwi, ngā hapū katoa i tēnei rā, nau mai haramai, whakatau mai ki tō Whare ō Pāremata.
[Greetings Mr Speaker. Greetings to everyone. My work colleagues, greetings. The tribes, Ngāti Whakaue, Wāhiao Tūhourangi of Whakarewarewa—the tribes and all of the subtribes who have arrived today, welcome. Welcome to your House, to your Parliament.]
Like my colleagues, and especially those on the Māori Affairs Committee, we are really delighted to be able to stand today to support this, the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. As many have said, so much mahi has gone in to bringing this to fruition today.
It essentially is a return of the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute's assets and liabilities to Te Puia NZMACI, as the limited partnership. That is the core of what we are finalising here today. I remember in my, I think, first and second reading speeches I wanted to very profoundly acknowledge what is at the core of this bill, which is the taonga of our arts and crafts, the whakapapa of our arts and crafts, the ever-evolving nature of our arts and crafts. We are affirming the ongoing, developing, evolving nature of how we bring the beauty and the taonga of our arts and crafts through Te Puia, and can allow for the ongoing operations and the mana motuhake of iwi and hapū presiding over and with Te Puia.
This is a bill about valuing our arts and our culture and valuing the leadership required, and understanding where that leadership is best placed. I mean, I remember the submissions that day in Rotorua, and I remember saying how I needed to draw up a whakapapa piece of paper to try and keep up with, as someone who was not of that whenua, the Game of Thrones sort of—[Interruption] No, this is beautiful, right? This is all part of us—this is all part of us. These come through in all the Māori settlements, the Treaty settlements, and the bills of this nature, and it's a rich, rich discussion. I did have to draw diagrams of all the interactions and the connections between the hapū, iwi, and whānau because that's how we always have been. So this bill, the journey of it, involved a lot of digging into the understanding of whakapapa and the understanding of the wehenga—also the wehenga that were caused by Crown processes and colonisation—and the understanding of how to bring our people back together again in the best way we can.
So those were the main points I wanted to acknowledge at the final reading of this bill. It was reviewing and going back over how important that kōrero is and how challenging that kōrero also is, and finally, realising the transfer of this taonga and of the assets and liabilities back to where they should have always been.
I, too, wanted to join in with my colleagues in acknowledging the role of Tāmati Coffey, because I understand Tāmati Coffey is our final speaker after me, I believe, in this House tonight. I wanted to make sure that we gave precedent and importance particularly to Tāmati Coffey as the electorate MP and as a whakapapa connection to this bill, to that whenua, and to the many hapū, iwi, and whānau involved.
So, I really just wanted to maintain the Green Party's support for—and acknowledge the origins and the Ministers and origins who helped initiate this as well, and arriving today to Minister Mahuta, who has the privilege of finalising this journey, the importance of our political support to doing what is right, and to the responsibility we have to oversee and make sure that we are setting up a strong framework to allow the operations and the relationships to continue in a way that is tika as well, including the Crown and iwi Tiriti relationship.
So, I want to make sure that I leave good time for all of our speeches and particularly for my colleague Tāmati Coffey to be able to bring all of our kōrero together, to acknowledge the importance of what is happening in the House with this bill today, to acknowledge the importance of all of the iwi and hapū who have joined us, and to again stipulate my proud support for this bill passing today. Tēnā koutou.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 
Tērā Matariki ka rewa i te pae
Nau mai, haere mai te hua o te tau hou
Tākiri ko te ata; ka pua te ata
Korihi te manu tino awatea
Tūī, tui, tuituia 
Ko te tangi mai o te kō, ko korimako
I te atatū, tū ka takatū
Koia rā te Rongo whakairihia ake ki runga
Tūturu whakamaua kia tina!
Haumi e
Hui e
Tāiki e
Ngā hapū e toru o Ngāti Whakaue, a Ngāti Hurunga-te-Rangi, Ngāti Te Kahu, Ngāti Taeotū, tēnei te mihi nui ki a koutou katoa kua tae ā-tinana mai ki te taha o Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, te whanaunga anō kua huihui mai nei i tēnei rā i te taha o Te Poari ō Pukeroa Ōruawhata. He mihi nui ki a koutou katoa ki roto i tēnei Whare, Te Whare o te raiona mō tō wā tuatoru mō tēnei kaupapa. Ko te wā whakamutunga pea.
He hōnore ki te kite i ā koutou i tēnei rā whakahirahira mā tātou katoa o Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, o Te Arawa whānui. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Yonder is Matariki, suspended over the horizon
Welcome and come forth the fruits of the New Year
The morning rises, the morning blooms
The bird of the morning chirps
Bind it, bind it together
It is the sound of the korimako I hear
Just after sunrise, I awaken
It is that indeed Rongo, hang it up above, permanently, affirm it
It is 
Secure it. Draw it together
It is indeed, it is secure
To the three tribes of Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Hurunga-te-Rangi, Ngāti Te Kahu, Ngāti Taeotū, I acknowledge you all who have accompanied Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, our relations who are walking as one with the Board of Pukeroa Ōruawhata today. I would like to acknowledge each and every one of you in the House today, the lion's den, for your third reading of this bill. It will hopefully be the final stage.
It is an honour to see you all today on this special day for Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and wider Te Arawa. Therefore, greetings to one and all.]
Whānau, I've got about nine minutes on the clock before I have to wrap it up, so I'm going to keep it nice and short. Mr Speaker, can I declare my conflicts of interest, which is that every organisation, every rōpū that I just listed, I affiliate to, I whakapapa to, and I do it so proudly as well. What you've just heard in the many speeches that have just happened in this House are the main reason that our Māori members of Parliament are so important in these conversations that we have down here in Wellington.
Iwi politics are hard; iwi politics are tough. As my colleague over here from the Green Party said to me after the day of submission hearings that we had in Rotorua, "I need a flowchart. I don't know how it all intersects. There's all of these different hapū and these iwi that are overlapping and I don't know. I don't understand it." I said, "It's OK. Take a breath. We are complex beings, but, you know what, we are beautiful as well." And when we come together on occasions like this, that comes out.
Can I acknowledge you for your patience as well. This has been a very long road for our people. This started a long time ago, and it hasn't been an easy road. There have been ups and there have been downs, and there have been people that haven't been happy with the progress that has been made. But as we move forward, we must move forward together, and we must make sure that we're inclusive of some of those voices that haven't necessarily been on the journey but are on the journey right now.
Can I also acknowledge the previous member for the Waiariki electorate, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, who in August of 2017 initialled the deed which got the ball rolling. As we came into Government, it was my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta that picked up the wero and ran with it. It's taken a little while, whānau, but good things take time and we're in a good place right now.
I want to acknowledge the impact that COVID-19 has had on Te Puia. And I see you there, Tim. I thank you for your work that you do with our whānau on the ground. I acknowledge the wealth of experience that you have and how, during COVID, you were willing to roll up your sleeves and do whatever it took because the people were depending on you. So thank you to you.
I also want to thank all of our whānau that continue to actually do the hard yards. Despite tourism being in one of the worst states in New Zealand's history here in New Zealand, we continue to have an operation. I know that it's probably not making a lot of money at the moment, but the doors are open—the doors are open and the people have come. We've just had school holidays, and hopefully that saw a boost, actually, of people coming through the gate.
I wanted to dedicate my kōrero today to our guides—our many guides on both sides of the gate. I want to acknowledge them both past and present for the work that they do in telling our story, because I hope that one day they will be able to tell another story. I think that my colleague over here: my part-time Whakarewarewa resident Willie Jackson, who comes down and squats at Tania's house—it's not even your house. He comes down and squats at Tania's house every now and then and calls himself a person of the village. I say, hmm! Go slowly on that one. But, actually, one day we will have that conversation. I know personally that that conversation about the gate has already started. And what better time, because, at the moment, with our borders closed, we have an opportunity in front of us, and I hope that we grab that opportunity with both hands.
Can I also thank our Prime Minister and our Minister for Māori Development and our Minister of Tourism, who, post-COVID, allocated $7.6 million to Te Puia to enable our school to keep going, to enable those scholarship students to keep on training. Yes, it's a tourism operation, but at its heart, at its centre, it is actually our arts and crafts institute and the knowledge, the mātauranga, the mōhiotanga that is encapsulated in our institute needs to be preserved at all costs. Thank you to those that came forward with the tono, but also to our Government for realising the taonga that Te Puia is.
I hope that we're able to celebrate this back home, because, of course, it's nice to be here, but you know as well as I do that there are so many people that aren't here at the moment that would like to be celebrating in this moment, because it has been such a big journey. All of those submitters that showed up on the day to pour their hearts out to our select committee, and I'll take this moment to acknowledge our Māori Affairs Committee, led by my colleague Rino Tirikatene. We came down there that day and we listened to all of the kōrero from the whānau, from the iwi, but also from individuals, as well, that felt as though they needed to be heard in that process too. We're in a better place now, and I'm just really happy that so many people have come today to hear the third reading.
No, they haven't come. They don't know. You guys don't know what's happening up here, but we're having a really big thing over on this side. Thanks for being here and the ones above me too. This has been a journey for me as a first-time member of Parliament. Some would call it a baptism of fire, but I'm OK with that; that's what we do in this role. I'm happy to be the member of Parliament for the Waiariki, I'm happy to be Ngāti Whakaue, I'm happy to be Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and I'm happy to look up into the gallery and see all of you today smiling down on this moment. E Te Māngai o tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri rauna i tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. 
[Mr Speaker, greetings one and all throughout the House.]
Bill read a third time.
Waiata





VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS
CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have to declare this: I'm just joking. I'm not actually leaving; I just wanted to have a good leer up with all my friends and family to kick things off. But I'm just going to take a moment while some more come into the gallery and actually just take it all in, really, because six years has gone in a blink, and I can't actually believe I'm here having this moment. I've got 15 minutes to cram in six years of great times and great people that I've met along the way. In fact, I think this is the second time only that I've written a speech for the House. The first one was my maiden speech. And look at that—I'm already off track! I've completely lost my train of thought. I normally just free ball it, but let's give it a go. 
Righty-o, to begin with, I just want to thank Matty, firstly. I'm now affectionately known by my friends as Clayton "I am the law" Mitchell. I've still no idea why my friends affectionately refer to me as that, but I've got Matty to thank for it. 
I have to say, it's been a crazy couple of weeks in politics. In fact, the last 24 hours has been even crazier, so maybe that term needs to be modified slightly. Last week was a bit awkward also and nearly caused further embarrassment for the National Party, when I got a call from one of their caucus members saying that I had their support to run for their leadership. I thought for a moment, "What's this about? How can this be?", and I was taken aback until I realised that they'd called the wrong Mitchell. They hadn't cottoned on quite as quick as I did, and I was quick to say, "You should be calling Winston. He'd be a great leader for you guys." At which point, they went, "Ah. I thought this was Mark Mitchell." Crazy times, and I don't know what's next. I don't think anybody could guess.
Anyway, it just seems like yesterday I was standing in the House for the first time, doing my maiden speech, as I've already said, talking about all the things that matter—and still matter—such as fixing the Resource Management Act (RMA), building roads, pushing for a single standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders, stopping the wholesale selling off of our State assets, building better internal capabilities for manufacturing and processing to add value to our exports to create wealth for Kiwis, and, of course, controlling immigration. I haven't finished with helping out achieve those goals yet. There is much more that needs to be done and much more that we can all still do to make these things happen.
Anyway, six years on and a whole lot of rapid depreciation by way of a receding hairline—which I quite regularly get told about sitting behind the Deputy Prime Minister every day in the House. I get these emails from people saying, "I don't know if you know this, but you're going bald." I don't know what planet they're from that they think that that's an appropriate comment to make to a politician, but we've got feelings too out there, people. There's only seven that watch Parliament TV anyway.
Anyway, I'm off back to the real world. In my time as an MP, I've had some highs—and I think, if the Greens have their way, New Zealand will be having a lot of highs after the referendum at the coming up election—and, of course, I've had some lows, but I haven't had too many of those. I've had some lessons learnt, like the fact that common sense isn't particularly common and that Australians like to fight over toilet paper when there's a pandemic, which really surprised me. I've had plenty of incredible experiences, learnt a whole lot, and met some truly amazing people. 
I've seriously enjoyed being party whip and working on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I've worked on overhauling the RMA. I've brought balance to the labour and industrial relations discussion. I've continued to push for a single standard of citizenship. I've introduced a member's bill to make English an official language—most people don't even know that English is not an official language of New Zealand. I've worked to find a fair solution for small to medium sized enterprise tenants during the COVID lockdown, and people know we've been doing a lot of work behind the scenes on that one. I've worked to get the firearms legislation in a much better place, and I've worked with the racing Minister to ensure the racing industry got the reforms required to ensure it was sustainable long into the future—and that was just last month. 
But now, according to reliable media sources, I'm heading back to the real world to beat up a few gang members, get thrown out of some bars, and toss a few dwarfs. But more of that later—and I don't mean at the function, because I couldn't get hold of any leprechauns, so there is definitely no dwarf-tossing tonight.
Today, I'm here to reflect on my time in Parliament, to thank and acknowledge the wonderful friends and family who have supported me, and to acknowledge the great people I have met and worked with—not only those people in and around Parliament and across the political divide but also throughout the real world, in business and industry spread from Cape Reinga to the Bluff and even internationally. 
I want to take a moment to genuinely thank and acknowledge the many who've made the journey to be here in the gallery today. A big thankyou for taking the time out of your busy lives and giving me your support over the past six years. I truly mean it. You all mean so much to me, and I really do feel quite flattered and honoured that you have taken the time to be here, so thank you, everyone. I'm looking forward to the after-match function, of course, for a couple of beers and some saveloys. That'll be a bit of fun. 
Of course, I particularly want to thank my gorgeous, wonderful family, who have been patient and have shared my time with my job as an MP for the last six years. Particularly, I want to thank my lovely wife, Erika, and my kids, Jazzie, Ollie, and William. Will, when you came here, you were smaller than a grasshopper, and you still have to sit on your hands to see over that rail there. Good to see you growing well, mate. Keep up with those greens. But also, with my mum and dad—my mum and sister Bobbi couldn't be here today, nor could my mother-in-law and father-in-law, Lesley and Neil, or my UK family, due to the travel restrictions. But I know you're watching, along with Adam and Cath, Big Rich, Chris Blockley, Pete, and Nina. Thanks for tuning in. I know the other seven people that watch Parliamentary TV, too—thank you.
What a journey, what a blast, and what a very humbling and privileged time it has been. When I arrived at this place, I was expecting a very hostile and sterile environment and one which I anticipated wouldn't be a particularly good fit with me. But I couldn't have been more wrong.
Although I had never considered being a member of Parliament and anyone that knew me would have said it's not the right fit for me—eh, Gibbo? Where are you? There you are. And partly because I'd never had any formal training, I didn't use big words when I spoke, and I hadn't been part of any debating team growing up—that and, of course, I struggle with bureaucratic nonsense and clipboard-carrying, hard hat - wearing suck-ups who make your life unnecessarily difficult, and the fact that I've got a reputation for not putting up with the woke brigade's politically correct BS. But I couldn't say that, the proper word of that. 
But, all that being considered, I actually found I am a good fit for this place, for all the reasons that I've outlined: because I do speak fluent human, I don't mind standing up and having a good row, and I won't be bullied or capitulated by the metropolitan elite. To that end, I have truly had a great time, and I mean it. Where else can you go for a good dust-up, make some changes, and get paid for it? Now I feel like I've got a Master's in politics, with a far better understanding of how this place works and how to get things done, which has been absolutely fascinating.
I've had some high times, and I've had some low times, as I've already alluded to. Starting with the ups, I have to say the Northland by-election in March of 2015 was a truly incredible time and one that I immensely enjoyed being part of. But every up has its down, and the low point of that three-week campaign was actually hardest felt by my good friend Fletcher Tabu-two-toes, who had to share a room with me every day and put up with me snoring. In fact, after the first night, I woke up with Fletcher saying, "Jesus Christ, mate. Your wife is going to leave you." I replied with, "What? Why?" I thought I might have sleepwalked in the night and given him a nice big spoon. It's true. He said, "Because you snore so bloody loud." In my defence, I just want to add, I was not snoring, I said; I was just dreaming I was a motorbike. But, after three weeks of it, I couldn't claim or justify the reoccurring dream status. So sorry, Fletch. I truly do apologise to you, mate. I digress.
Anyway, what I've learnt—I've learnt a whole lot during my time in Parliament, starting with: you don't need to be in the same party as someone that you are friends with. When I look around this room, I genuinely see people that I've enjoyed working with, people that I honestly respect—and you know who you are. So thank you. Two, I've also learnt you don't need to be smart to be an MP—sorry, Matt King; I couldn't resist. I've also learnt you don't need to be smart or good-looking to be an MP—where is Benno? Sorry, mate—couldn't help it. I've learnt that not all MPs read their paperwork before select committee, but everyone says they have. It's not hard to work out which ones are which. I've been guilty of that a couple of times—"Yeah, yeah—read it, read it, read it." Take it as read, but, yeah, we know who you are—oh, there you are over there, Benno. You've gone a bit redder than normal.
I've learnt that media have their own agenda and will often completely twist the truth to suit their agenda. However, there are a couple of journos I trust—keep up the good work, to you I say. I've also learnt that you can apply an economic term to just about any situation you like by internalising your externalities. Isn't that right, Fletch? Private joke. I've also learnt that even if you're allergic to people, you can be a great politician, Darroch. So maybe there's an ointment or a Lucozade you could take. But, finally, I've learnt that division by multiplication is a term I just couldn't quite work into my speech, so sorry about that, Brent—I tried, bro.
Right—my decision to not stand again was one which I haven't made lightly. Time's flying. Almost a year ago, actually—just after your 40th birthday, Kimbers—I spoke to Winston and Fletcher, letting them know of my plan to not seek nomination in 2020, because I felt that six years was about the right amount of public service time for me, and I was ready to get back to the real world of business. Winston asked me to sleep on it for a while, which, of course, I did. As he said, I might want to change my mind at some point. In fact, during the lockdown, I had plenty of time to think about what I wanted to do, and it became abundantly clear to me that my decision to not do another term was the right one.
To some, COVID was stressful beyond words. It was hard on families, relationships, and particularly business, and I'm very mindful of that. But, to me, it was one of the most amazing times. The world slowed down. Everything was reset, and the norm was no longer the norm. Most importantly, and much to my pleasant surprise, I realised my wife still loved me and I still adored her. We had fun together, and worked on projects, too. During COVID, I connected with my kids in a way that I had never done before either, helping them with homework, going on walks, playing cards, and having family discussions about the world and all its wonders. That was priceless. I'm so proud of my family and how they make me feel. Without them, who am I? Another three years would see Jazzie heading off to uni, would see Ollie borrowing the car keys and not wanting to hang out with the olds, and William would be off to high school. He'd be able to see over the lectern, too—sit on your hands, mate. There he is! Yeah, poke your head up. That's why I'm not re-standing, because you all up there mean so much to me, the absolute world. I love you to bits, more than anything.
Now, everyone wants to know what I'm going to do next. Hopefully, I'll have time at the end to fill you all in. I don't want to do a Tim Macindoe on you—like you did at your maiden speech—ripping through the pages to get through the end of it. I'm already under pressure of time—righty-o, moving on.
I've met some lifelong friends in and outside of Parliament, and I look forward to regular catch-ups with you all in the next weeks and years ahead. I'd like to start by thanking Audrey van Dalen, who has been an incredible office manager and great friend to me. I will truly miss our daily catch-up, Audrey; thank you. I'd like to also thank Talani Meikle for being the best pocket rocket in the business. I'm going to miss working with you too, Talani, wherever you are—there you are. I see you up there. A big thankyou to Mike, Allie, Paul, Louie, Taylor, and all the team on the 13th floor. What a pleasure it has been to work with you. Thank you for your support and help. Also, I'd like to thank the team on the seventh floor, particularly Helen Lahtinen, affectionately known as "Northern Efficiency". It's been great working with you, too. I hope you're in there.
To my electorate, wow—truly, wow. I couldn't have done it without you. Roy Townhill, your blood is worth bottling, mate, and I'll miss you. Giving me my weekly serve of honesty is a great virtue. To my electorate committee, thank you for believing in staying the course, even when the course wasn't always clear—even for me, it wasn't clear sometimes. Thank you also to Chris Lee, who has always been a rock that I could depend on. I want to thank Mary Gear and the Gear family for your constant support, love, and loyalty. Just a quick side note: Tommy Gear was the patriarch of the Gear family, but, sadly, this term he passed away, leaving a massive hole in our New Zealand First family. I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for his tenacity and friendship. Thank you, my friend. We're missing you, mate.
Finally, I want to thank my caucus. It's been a great honour and a huge privilege for me to be working alongside you all. Winston—and, you know, he doesn't like this sort of stuff—you are an inspiration, and I've enjoyed beyond words the time I've had with you on your team. I've particularly loved campaigning with you, but also sitting down at the end of the day over a nice hot cup of tea—aka single malt—discussing New Zealand and world politics, among other things. You put everything into whatever you do, and your wisdom and experience is second to none. Not only have you made politics interesting for me; you've made it fun.
Shane, we didn't know each other very well prior to this term, although, in saying that, both you and Dot always made me very welcome at your home for your annual Waitangi hui. Now, three years on, I can say you're a great friend, someone who I truly enjoy spending time with and always good humour, great advice, and your knowledge and counsel is unparalleled. As a footnote, mate, just so you're tuning in, I have been asked by Dot to say stay off the pies and keep up with your training.
Ron, what a great pleasure it's been working with you, mate, over the past two terms. I'm not sure I can say this without getting cautioned or thrown out, but it'll be the first time I've been thrown out of the House if it doesn't go so well: you're a genuine good bastard. Tracey, thank you for being there for us all when we needed you. Mark, working with you over the past term has been fantastic. You have a great future in politics. You never shy away from a good fight, but you're respectful and diplomatic and a true ambassador for the primary industries. Jenny, you hit the ground running, and working with you has been great.
But, last but not least, two friends that have genuinely become my brothers, Fletcher and Darroch, so completely different—and I couldn't underscore that enough—to each other, but both so loyal, humble, and genuine. I've had so much fun working with you both, laughing so much at times I've had tears coming down my legs. You both work your arses off and give everything to what you do. You are the unsung heroes, and I will truly miss catching up with you guys every day.
In conclusion—oh, crikey, I got it in—finally, I want to thank the system for giving all New Zealanders a chance to represent their communities, their people, their support, and their ideas. Democracy may not be perfect, but it sure beats everything else. This term, I had the chance to go to Uganda, Lesotho, and South Africa, leading a delegation from New Zealand as the executive member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association with the Hon Maggie Barry, who I'll be staying in the House to listen to straight after this—I'm staying with you, ma'am, yeah; great friend—and Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki—did I say it right? I've been practising, girl!—and Wendy Hart. It was there that I realised that at times, politics in New Zealand can seem petty and childish, with MPs being over-pedantic and making unnecessary, snide, and mean comments to one another—and that's just the MPs; don't get me started on the "meania", aka the fourth estate. However, I realised that petty politics was far better than the AK-47 politics that parts of Africa and the world experience on a sometimes daily basis and that a difference of opinion doesn't wind you upside down in a ditch or missing to be never seen again.
To that end, I can say I'm proud to be a New Zealander and proud of our country. I'm proud of our people, and I'm proud of our history. We need Kiwis with passion, with drive, and with experience in this place, so step up and get involved. It will change your life. To New Zealand, I truly thank you. Thank you very much.
[Applause]
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I'm just going to do something slightly unusual and indicate to the House that at the conclusion of the Hon Maggie Barry's valedictory speech, the House will be suspended for the dinner break, which means that we don't need to wait, and we won't automatically finish at 6 o'clock.





Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. E Te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. To the leaders, to the many voices, and to all the diverse people and communities of the four winds, I honour and respect and greet you all. 
I will begin by acknowledging my family and friends here in the public gallery. Many who have come to this Chamber tonight to witness my final speech were also here for my maiden speech. I am grateful for your ongoing love, friendship, and support. It has been my honour to serve the people of the North Shore, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for giving me the opportunity and for having enough confidence in me to elect me three times, for trusting me to represent the interests of their beloved community since 2011. In particular, I thank Gary and Leslie Monk for their ongoing friendship and support. It has meant a lot to me. To the president, Peter Goodfellow, and the board member Alastair Bell, for all their unquestioning help and loyalty, thank you. To Don McKinnon, a mentor and friend, and, of course, Lady Clare McKinnon, thank you. I acknowledge David McKeown, who's been an outstanding North Shore electorate chair, a man of integrity and great fairness. I'm grateful for all he's done for me and for all of North Shore National, and I'm also very glad he'll be there to support the new candidate, Simon Watts, who is here in the gallery tonight.
I wish Simon all the very best for the election as, of course, I do, all my talented and highly competent National Party MPs and colleagues. They will thrive. I am sure, under the competent and dynamic leadership team of Judith Collins and Gerry Brownlee. I'll be campaigning right through until election day to contribute to a National victory. So don't worry, team. I won't be slackening off. 
To be an effective MP, of course, it is vital to have the right people walking and working cooperatively alongside you. I acknowledge at this point my staff who are here in the gallery, Miriam Wiley, Jack Boltar, and the indefatigable Pat Humphries. They have certainly been the three musketeers, and I thank you for your skills, your energy, and your loyalty. Monika Miller was for seven years alongside me as my electorate agent in Takapuna, and Sally Guinness was with me from day one in here in Parliament, and in charge of our Beehive team, Gay and Alex, Scratch, Brent, and Kayla, et al. 
I have always been a hard worker, and I have high standards and expectations of myself, as I do of anyone who works for me. The job of an MP is far too important not to have highly competent and dedicated staff, and I was fortunate to have worked with two of the very best. I thank you, Monika and Sally, wholeheartedly for your loyalty and for always going the extra mile. 
The most constant and significant influence on my political life has been my good friend Peter Kiely. It was indeed serendipitous that I was made member of Parliament for the very electorate where Peter lives. There was an outside chance it might reflect badly on him if I didn't do well. So he's always taken a keen interest in my wellbeing and has kept me safe from harm. Peter, I thank you for your friendship, your support, and your wise advice from the beginning until the end. 
As I said in my maiden speech, this parliamentary precinct is part of my old hood. Thorndon is my tūrangawaewae. Dad was an accountant at the railways, and my mother's florist shop was just a few doors up from here on Molesworth Street. Our family home was around the corner on Tinakori Road, and I went to the primary school next to the church on Hill Street where my parents were married and buried from. Growing up, these leafy grounds of Parliament were part of my everyday childhood landscape, and, having now spent the best part of my 50s here as an MP, you might say I haven't come very far. But today it feels a little bit like I've come full circle as this chapter in my life now comes to an end. 
I had been planning to wear the same frock for my valedictory as I had for my maiden speech, but, alas, it seemed to have shrunk rather a lot, unlike its owner, who should have done a lot less Bellamy's and Copperfields and a lot more nil by mouth and exercised steps. But I have gained so much more than just a couple of kilograms here, in my time in Parliament. Having been in the media, examining politics closely for 30-odd years before stepping up to be an MP, I was well aware of how rare it is for members to be able to choose their time of leaving, as I am doing after six years in Government, three as a backbencher and three as a Minister inside Cabinet, and now a final term in Opposition.
 I've been here through good times and through tragedies—the earthquakes, global financial crisis, mosque shootings, and now the COVID challenge. At its best, I think this Parliament delivered in a way that our team of 5 million New Zealanders can be very proud of. But, at its worst, being in Parliament can be frustrating, dehumanising, and brutal. As we've all been reminded recently, the pressures that come with the privilege of being in the service of the public can take a heavy toll on MPs and on their families. Please don't be too quick to judge. It's a tough life in here, tougher than you might think from the outside, and I think that the long hours and the unrelenting 24/7 scrutiny adds up to the sort of life that doesn't suit everyone.
In this place, you do need a loyal subtribe of your own where you can take shelter from the storms. An essential part of my survival strategy has been the weekly get-together with my class of 2011 intake year group. Thank you all for those hundreds of Wednesday nights in trusted company, trying to make some sense of it all. It's still work in progress, of course. I value the honesty and the camaraderie, if not always the food. Goldie's coleslaw toasted sandwiches—they are not height of the cuisine that I've been used to, but good on you, Goldie. That's how he keeps so thin, I suppose. 
Look, I'm not what you might call a career politician, like the predecessor, perhaps, who spoke before me. I didn't sign on for a 30-year lag with a gold watch at the end, although I am looking forward to getting my souvenir traditional farewell silver tray soon. I have unbridled admiration for those stayers with stamina—my old friend and father of the House with the big brain and the big heart, Dr Nick Smith; our ever ebullient and fast on his feet deputy leader, the nimble Gerry Brownlee—both are National's lifers, and we need their parliamentary debating skills, their institutional knowledge, as well as their strong sense of fairness in this House. 
For my part, I was raised to be a participant, and not so much an observer or a bystander. I was expected to contribute to the community and to try to help those less fortunate. I didn't join the armed forces as my grandfather and father had done in the two world wars. Instead, my contribution to serving my country, when the time was right for me, was to stand for public office. The notion of service might be seen by some as rather quaint and old-fashioned, but to me it has meant trying to be a voice for the vulnerable, for the people who don't have a voice in this House. I've wanted to speak up for our seniors suffering silently with elder abuse, and to strongly advocate as well for the survival of the critically endangered plants and birds that partly define who we are as New Zealanders. 
I acknowledge John Key. Thank you, sir, for believing in me and backing me from the start, and for the trifecta of portfolios you gave me on my birthday in 2014. It was the best present ever—or so far, anyway. The commemorations of World War II coincided with my time as the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. I was privileged to represent my country on many formal occasions, perhaps most memorably, at the Western Front battlefields. It was a moving experience reading the Ode of Remembrance at the Menin Gate in Belgium, where, almost every night since 1929, they have sounded the bugle for The Last Post and recited the ode to express their gratitude and to remember the sacrifices of the fallen, including some 12,500 New Zealand soldiers buried there. 
I will never forget the sadness, standing in the windswept, empty carpark of a Belgian cheese factory in September 2015. There was no marker, nor memorial, to show the significance of that place, which was the battle site of New Zealand's worst ever day of military loss. One year later, I was able to return to Passchendaele and unveil the first of many Ngā Tapuwae plinths, as part of our footsteps in the Anzac Trails, which tell the stories of our courageous soldiers of the Great War. It was also a proud moment for me as the MP for North Shore to dig in the first plant in New Zealand's memorial garden at Passchendaele, part of a project that had been driven by a determined group of my fellow Devonport RSA members, Chris Mullane and Mike Pritchard amongst them. It was a bronze flax, just in case you were wondering.
With my lifelong interest in plants and nature, a highlight of my political life was as the Minister of Conservation responsible for Predator Free 2050. We launched it four years ago this week, and at the heart of National's bold vision to save our precious vulnerable national species, to achieve that goal, we can and must eradicate the unwanted eco-invaders—the rats, the stoats, and the possums—who don't belong here and are eating our songbirds and our taonga plant species to the brink of extinction. 
Sir Paul Callaghan said getting rid of the pests was essential, but it would be our Apollo moon shot, and he was right. The late Sir Rob Fenwick, who I first met on a television garden show 30 years ago, and who had a profound influence on my thinking, was a visionary who made an enormous contribution and helped convert our distant moon shot prospect into something down to earth and well within reach. We are, of course, only the custodians of this land. We are the kaitiaki, the guardians, of our grandchildren's natural heritage. We owe it to them to do better and to try harder to save our kiwis and our other endangered native species. I encourage people to put aside their prejudices about genetic modification and also prejudices about 1080. There is no time to waste. 
I've enjoyed being part of National's most effective policy advisory group, the Bluegreens, and, at the annual forum earlier this year, I was humbled to be given the inaugural Takahē Award for tireless work encouraging all New Zealanders. Thanks to Chris Severne and the Bluegreens for all you have done. I hope that in my time here, I have made a worthwhile contribution to preserving our natural heritage. I acknowledge the Department of Conservation's (DOC's) greatest director-general, Lou Sanson. DOC is in his DNA, and he's been the right man for the times to lead New Zealand's conservation heroes and warriors. 
One of the most sobering realisations as Minister for Seniors for three years was knowing the extent of the abuse and the neglect of our elderly. We would not be the country we are today without their skills and without their hard work and toil and their wisdom. For those people who have come before us, we truly do stand on their shoulders, and yet why is it that 70,000 of them over the age of 65 say they have been the victims of physical, psychological, or financial abuse? 
I don't believe we value our seniors enough, and I don't believe that as a society we are doing enough. We need to do more to keep them safe, and that's often from their own families. 
I know, from my own experience with my mother, Agnes, and her 10-year journey with dementia, how important it is to put the person at the heart of our policy decisions. It's a philosophy I've tried very hard not to ever lose sight of, as an electorate MP for North Shore as well as a Minister. 
My concern for the vulnerable and the elderly is at the heart of my opposition to a proposed law change to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide. For more than 20 years since the death of my father, I have been involved with end of life care as patron of Mary Potter Hospice and, later, of Hospice New Zealand. I chaired 28 days of public hearings into the euthanasia bill, and I've heard and I understand that people want more and different choices at the end of their lives and to have their suffering eased. 
New Zealand has, simply, not done well enough in the care for the dying, and we must do better, which is why I have put together, with the palliative care community, a member's bill to guarantee and enshrine New Zealanders' access to world-class palliative care wherever and whenever they need it. The member's bill is now in the ballot in the name of my friend and colleague Simon O'Connor. 
Properly funded end of life care is what needs to happen before, in my opinion, we push the nuclear button on the option of euthanasia. I acknowledge Sir Bill English, along with Lady Mary English and Professors Sinead Donnelly and Rod McLeod; it's been a great privilege to work with you over a long number of years in our opposition to euthanasia, and I know that we all hope the public will vote against that referendum on assisted suicide at the upcoming election. 
In the 10 years I have been in politics, my son, Joe, has grown from beginning in college to being a university graduate, and, as I said in my maiden speech and reaffirm here tonight, Joe has taught me more about myself and about life than anyone else in the world ever has. I thank him for being him, and how proud I am of the fine young man he has become. I know his father, Paddy—alongside him, here in the gallery tonight—shares that same pride in our son. 
Your life is not your own when you're an MP, and that's as it should be for a role as important as this one. But I've missed, now, enough family events and milestones, and the time is right for me to get together and get stuck into the bucket list with my best friend and my husband, Grant. We first met doing Outward Bound, and I knew then that he was the man I could go into the jungle with—I could trust him implicitly. We've certainly been in the parliamentary jungle together for the best part of 10 years, and he has never once failed nor faltered. He has always had enormous faith in me, and for that I am hugely grateful. In politics, as in life, I am excited about the prospect of walking alongside him in this next chapter of our lives together. 
My time in this place has been short, and yet sometimes it seems an eternity. You don't get everything right every time, and you can't always get everything that you hope for and dream and strive for, but I know that I have worked and fought hard, tried my best, and not given up on the issues that are important to me. Whether I have succeeded or not is up to others to decide. 
I have no regrets. I've done my dash, and I'm leaving Parliament with my integrity intact and in the certain knowledge that being the National Party's MP for North Shore has been a rare privilege and a lifetime's highlight. I thank you. Fare thee well. Haere rā. 
[Applause]
Sitting suspended from 6.05 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.





URGENCY
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded to the remaining stages of the Education and Training Bill; the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill; the Public Service Legislation Bill; the Urban Development Bill; the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill; and the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill; the second reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill; and the remaining stages of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill; the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3); the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill; the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill; the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill; the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill; Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill; and the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill.
Tim van de Molen: Is that all?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yeah, that's it. Ha!
SPEAKER: Don't challenge him!
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This urgency motion continues to reclaim the 60 or so hours of Government time in the House that was lost during the alert levels 3 and 4 of our COVID response. With the House soon to be out of action for a couple of months during the election campaign, there is a need to ensure that significant legislation isn't further delayed and that as much of the programme is passed as possible.
The urgency motion includes 12 bills that will have their committee stages and third readings remaining, two with only third readings, one first reading, and one second reading. No bill will go through more than two stages in the urgency motion, and a common feature of many of the bills in the motion is that they bring about significant change in their sector and a delay in their passing would mean preparations for the implementation would be frustrated.





A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Motion agreed to.





EDUCATION AND TRAINING BILL
In Committee
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Following discussions across the House, I seek leave for debate on all of the provision of this bill to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.





Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 24, and clauses 1 and 2
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I was very prepared to go through each of the parts as we went along and explain each of the provisions in the bill, but perhaps if I could just give a very high-level overview at the beginning of this. I am very happy to engage, so, you know, questions and answers, and if members wish to make speeches then, of course, they're welcome to do that as well.
This is a very substantial piece of work. It draws together all of our significant education legislation in one place for the first time in quite a long time. It repeals the 1964 Act and the 1989 Act. The vast majority of the legislation before us—it's a very thick bill, obviously, but the vast majority of it is simply tidying up the existing statute book. It is bringing all of our existing education law into a more streamlined and coherent form. The Education Act of 1989, I think has been the subject of goodness knows how many amendment bills since then. It's been amended just about every Parliament, I think, has amended it multiple times, and it has become a bit of a mess. If we want people to follow the education law of the land, it would be good to actually get it to a point where people can follow it and understand it, and this bill will certainly do that by creating a new single Education and Training Act.
The structure of the bill follows the process that someone would go through in their journey through the education system, starting in early childhood education, moving through schooling, into tertiary education and beyond. Then there are clauses that relate to the way the system is structured and administered and the central agencies that are in there and their involvement in that.
There are some significant policy changes in the bill, though. It does implement some of the recommendations that arise out of the Tomorrow's Schools task force report and the work that we have done around that. There are some further changes to the issues around restraint and the use of physical restraint in schools—one that I think has exercised members across the House over the last five or six years since that issue was first raised. We still haven't quite got that right yet, and the bill has another go, through the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled, at getting the balance of that right, because I'm not convinced that the balance of that is quite right.
There are plenty of other provisions as we go along, which I'm sure we can discuss. I do want to indicate to members, though, if they've got any questions or if they wish me to comment on any parts of the bill, I'm here for the duration and I'm very happy to do so.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to ask the Minister a few questions, and they principally relate to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 544, because, as you'll appreciate, this introduces new content to the bill that we didn't have the opportunity to analyse at the Education and Workforce Committee. So in this contribution I hope that Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, will be patient. I will ask a couple of questions, and then I'll rise to take another call in future. 
The first question is in relation to the changes around school enrolment zones. Members of the House will be aware that it is this particular part of the bill that National takes particular issue with. We think the current system, whereby communities via their boards of trustees are in charge of consultation, engagement, and the initial setting of school zones, is a good one, and we are concerned and sceptical about what will happen when the Ministry of Education takes over those responsibilities. So with that in mind, it leaps out at me that this SOP pushes out the time line under which the Ministry of Education will take on that responsibility until 1 January 2021. It is described in the SOP that the intent here is "to provide adequate time to transfer responsibility … from … boards to the Ministry of Education." And, Minister, it seems to me that this must be a huge amount of responsibility that the Ministry of Education is getting ready for if it's going to take them this many months to prepare.
We had been led to believe in previous contributions by Labour members that this was just a simple administrative change. This would indicate that there is some preparation that needs to go on at the Ministry of Education that hasn't occurred while this bill has been moving through the stages in the House, and I would like some explanation of what it is that they are going to be doing over the next few months in preparation. 
My second question on the SOP relates particularly to the clauses around "physical restraint", which, of course, is new language, because the bill initially talked about "physical force". I, like the Minister, have been petitioned and engaged by many parents who have real concerns about the way these provisions might have worked, particularly for children with additional needs, and equally I've heard concerns from teachers about what steps will be taken to make sure that they feel that they can operate within the law in a way that does keep other children safe and that keeps themselves safe in their workplace. I appreciate that there is a difficult balance to strike here between ensuring that no child is put at undue risk of physical discipline and equally that teachers are able to keep children safe. So these are detailed changes, and I think it would be useful to the House if the Minister could give us more background on what consultation has led to these changes, whether affected stakeholders will be happy with these changes, and why they are better than what was in the bill that came out of select committee. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Sure. I thank the member for her questions. In terms of the school enrolment zones, the delay to 1 January 2021 is largely a resourcing issue that the Ministry of Education have to work through. Schools do put a lot of time and energy into managing their enrolment zones and into the consultation with their communities, and the Ministry of Education need to gear up to be able to better participate and to better lead that process. 
Schools aren't all of one mind on this. There are some schools that definitely want to keep control of their own enrolment zones, but there are also others who will very happily see the back of having to do that consultation process. They don't enjoy doing it. They do see it as a source of division with their parent communities, and they don't enjoy having to lead that consultation process. So, yes, I absolutely concede there is a divided body of opinion within the schooling community about who should best manage the consultation with their communities around enrolment zones. The delay, though, which I think was the member's question, is really just about making sure the ministry can get the systems in place to be able to do that work, instead of schools doing it. 
With regard to "physical restraint" or "physical force", this has been one of the most difficult issues in the bill, to be frank, and it was a very difficult issue when the last Government grappled with it. I think they had a really good go at trying to get it right—didn't quite land perfectly. I don't think this is absolutely perfect either. If you like, on the continuum of views, you've got the teaching community at one end and the disability community at the other end, and I think what Parliament has been trying to do for the entirety of the time—and I don't think it's a particularly party political matter—is to find the right balance in the middle that says, "Yes, teachers need to be able to exert some control where it is required to keep everybody safe, but then there are very legitimate concerns raised by the disability community about the fact that children with disabilities are often on the receiving end of that—disproportionately so." Very real concerns have been raised about that. 
So we moved away from the use of the words "physical restraint" based on the feedback from the teaching community, because of the feedback that things like, by way of illustration, a teacher hugging a child while their parent left—and anyone who's dropped their kid off to a school or an early childhood centre where the kid doesn't necessarily want to be left behind will understand that this happens every day—that teacher is restraining that child by giving them a forceful hug while their parent leaves. The teaching community read the "physical restraint" provisions as that they couldn't do that, and I don't think anybody would say that that's not something that's a legitimate thing for a teacher to do. They do it every day, and we don't want them to feel that they're being criminals when they do that. They're providing comfort to a child by giving them a good, strong hug while their parents leave. But then, on the other hand, by moving to "force", what we heard from the disability community was that they thought that that was going too far the other way. 
So we've come back more to the middle ground. The teaching community preferred the word "force"; the disability community preferred the word "restraint". What we've tried to do in the middle is actually improve the consultation requirements around the guidelines, because, actually, the guidelines are where the real meat of the issue is resolved, and a better consultation process—taking some time out to do that really well and really thoroughly and get everybody on board—I think will be the key to getting this right. 
The second part of it is, of course, training. It's all very well to say to the teaching community, "Here are some new rules; now you've got to follow them." Actually, if we want to do a better job around restraint and force in schools, then actually really good quality training is the answer to that. There are things around non-violent physical intervention—good training that is available in those circumstances. So we've got to do a better job of making sure that the teaching community can access those. 
So this is by no means the final solution to this problem. This is going to continue to be a challenge for all of us. Whoever is in Government, there's going to continue to be concerns on both sides, and I think we're all going to have to continue to navigate our way through that.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Chair. And thank you to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, for being available to answer our questions. I want to go now to something that I've had a lot of feedback on in my community in Northcote since I was elected just over two years ago. This issue, of course, came out actually while I was consulting them on the Tomorrow's Schools review and what they thought about it, but it's been a consistent theme whenever I've spoken to a principal or a teacher, which is the bureaucracy that they face dealing with your ministry. 
Whether it's property issues, whether it's zoning, whether it's staffing matters, whether it's resource matters, the level of frustration amongst our schools dealing with your ministry is at its all-time high, I think. It's led, quite frankly, to a number of my principals leaving the sector—really good principals. Principals, if you were to rank them, would be certainly in the top quartile of leadership in New Zealand's schools.
So I guess my first question to you, Minister, is that a lot of these changes that you're proposing seem to me like they're actually strengthening the bureaucracy rather than reducing it. So the question that I have is for you to please explain to me—but also to all the principals and the teachers who feel a sense of frustration with dealing with your ministry—apart from just amalgamating several Acts into one simple Act, where does the reduced bureaucracy come from? I would appreciate it if you can address that for the sector. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Sure. I thank the member for his comments. I think this is another one of those intractable challenges that we face in education, because when we are talking about the Ministry of Education, we're talking about the delivery arm for the Government of the day, if you like. So the Ministry of Education are always going to be focused on implementing the policies of the Government of the day, and those policies will change. And then that creates, you know, some interesting challenges for schools when the policies of the Government change and the ministry ultimately has to implement those. So the ministry does, I think, sometimes find itself the meat in the sandwich, frankly, between schools and the Government. 
I think sometimes some of the criticism that's directed to them should better be directed to us, all of us collectively, actually, because we make decisions that the Ministry of Education then have to implement on our behalf. The bureaucracy issue is a challenging one. It's always been thus. I think if you go back to before Tomorrow's Schools, it was a challenge, and looking at it post - Tomorrow's Schools, it's grabbed a whole host of new challenges. 
Through the COVID lockdown period, the Ministry of Education have never communicated—I think, since Tomorrow's Schools—with schools in the way that they did during that lockdown period, and the feedback that we heard from schools was incredibly positive during that time. So I've spent some time just listening to them and saying, "Well, what made the difference? What was different about the way the ministry worked with you during COVID-19 lockdown compared to what they had done before?" I think there are a few key things—one is we gave the Ministry of Education some more discretion, and that's something different that Governments don't generally tend to do to Government departments. We tend to be quite prescriptive about what they can and can't do. 
So we said to the Ministry of Education, "Find out what schools need and make sure they get it during that period of time." So we gave them some more discretion at the front line, and schools really welcomed that, and I think the ministry welcomed that because it helped to strengthen their working relationship with schools. Of course, that comes with risks. But, actually, I think the Ministry of Education handled it incredibly well. The frequency of communications was really, really important. The Ministry of Education was sending out daily updates through the beginning period of that COVID19 lockdown because the information was changing all the time. The schools just wanted one credible source of information where they knew they could trust that as being the truth, and the ministry worked very hard with public health officials to make sure they got that. 
So I think the issue isn't a structural one; it's a relationship one. I think we've still got some work to do to improve the relationship between the Ministry of Education and schools, regardless of what the policies of the Government of the day are. There is some further structural change that Government is considering, and the Opposition have been involved in the discussion around that, around the establishment of an education support agency to put more of that support directly to the front lines. I mean, actually to give that front-line level a bit more discretion in the way they work with schools, so that they can be more flexible and nimble in responding to the needs of individual school communities.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, is about the early childhood education approval process. So through this legislation, the Minister will be actually giving the approval to entities to open an early childhood education centre. This is through allowing them to apply for the licence so the approval actually will come from the Minister. So the criteria that have been set in here for a Minister to provide that approval—when I go through that list most of those things are easy to satisfy for any operator. But there is one criterion which is going to be really difficult for any operator to satisfy if that operator is a new operator and wants to enter into the early childhood education sector, and that is in clause 17(2)(d). This is the licensing history, and it says, "(i) any other early childhood services previously or currently owned, operated, or managed by, or otherwise connected with, the applicant; and (ii) every person involved in the governance of the proposed service."
So there could be some operators. They want to enter into the early childhood education sector. They may not have any history. They may not have operated any early childhood education centres, but they know that there is a need in the community. So I want to know from the Minister if this is intentional to rule out some kind of operators like home-based operators, because it's really important that people, those who are new in the sector, also get the opportunity to enter into the sector, because these people are in the community and they understand what the need is. They do the assessment based on what is needed in that community, and they come up with their plan of a centre, which could be for 40 children, it could be for 100, or it could be for 150 children. But if the Minister sitting here in Wellington makes a decision about that person just based on this criterion, that may not serve the community's best interest. 
So I want to clarify from the Minister why we have this kind of criteria where the history is actually a very significant criterion amongst other things that are listed here, and what the Minister will actually be doing to go out and look for that applicant's ability to provide in this particular sector. Thank you. 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I think that's a very fair question. The way the early childhood education licensing regime works at the moment, we've seen significant and rapid expansion of some very high-quality early childhood education providers—and no one should want that to stop. But we've also seen some expansion of providers who are not providing a high-quality early childhood education. So under the current licensing regime, if a provider has conditions placed on their licence in one service, i.e., there are quality concerns around them, there's nothing to stop them continuing to open new services, even though we know they are not a quality provider. So these provisions are designed to ensure that a service that is not a quality provider—the provisions the member's specifically referenced—can't continue to proliferate the number of services they own. On the other hand, if they are providing a quality service, that should be a factor that's taken into account in the licensing. 
The final point that I would make, though, at the moment, is that there's nothing to stop the proliferation of services in areas where we don't need them—sometimes to the exclusion of growth in areas where we do need it. So we do need to have some better tools to say that it isn't just a matter of saying to someone, "Anyone can set up an early childhood education centre. I mean, as long as you make the licensing criteria, you can go forth and do it." Actually, we don't need the huge amount of proliferation we've got now. But we do want to direct the growth into the areas that are currently underserved.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Tim Macindoe.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): As soon as I heard "the honourable" I thought, "At last, I'm in." I think I might be the only one here. Ha, ha! Thank you for the call, and could I also acknowledge the Minister. I think that this new approach that we have to committee stage is working so much better, and I do acknowledge the Minister for his willingness to engage. We're having a much more useful interaction, I think. While I want to ask him a couple of questions on aspects of the bill that I'm concerned about and that, as he will know, ultimately, have led National to feel we can't support it, nevertheless I do want to put on record that there's much within the bill that we do support. It does make a lot of sense to be bringing aspects of our education infrastructure in legislation together.
I am very glad that common sense has prevailed, Minister, as far as hugs and a degree of restraint, particularly for young children. I think, almost on a daily basis, when I was five and six, I was either stubbing my toe or grazing my knee. I even remember—I was in standard 1. Now, colleagues, that's year 3, but I was in standard 1. I remember going to the front of the classroom and sharpening my pencil into a rubbish bin, standing up and cracking my head on the bottom of the blackboard ledge. Yes, I'm sorry, it was a blackboard, not a whiteboard, but I'm only 94! I cracked my head, bled all over, and the teacher, of course, gave me a great big cuddle. Then she phoned my mother and I had to get taken off to the sick bay, and my mother followed the pool of blood all the way up to the sick bay. Anyway, that is, of course, a very sensible—
Hon Chris Hipkins: So that's where it all started to go wrong.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: That's where it all started, yes. One wouldn't wish to make inappropriate remarks, but yes, Minister, that probably is where it all started.
The other thing is I want to pick up on the comment he made a moment ago about the fact that often the ministry find themselves the meat in the middle of the sandwich. I fully agree with that, not just because I am a former Associate Minister of Education. I saw the Hon Tracey Martin, who succeeded me as Associate Minister, and we have the Minister here as well. In fact, I do want to acknowledge Nicola Willis and congratulate her on taking over the role as the National Party's education spokesperson. One of things you have to look forward to, Nicola, is getting your name on a spade in Christchurch. There's a group of us who had the great privilege, as a result of all the rebuild projects and schools in Christchurch, who have our names forever etched in that spade, which goes round to all the different projects as you turn the sod.
Not only am I a former Associate Minister, I'm going to out myself—because I'm not sure if even the Minister knows this—as a former employee of the central north office of the Ministry of Education in Hamilton, and there aren't many people in the National Party who can lay claim to that. But on either side of an election defeat in 2005, I worked in the student support team there and got to see the work of many of those people who are sometimes dismissively, and, I think, unfairly described as bureaucrats who actually do a huge job for us around the country. So I do want to give them a pat on the back. I know they come in for a lot of criticism, and I know that there's often frustration about the bureaucracy within the system, but nevertheless, most of the people who are in there are in there for thoroughly good reasons and have a lot of expertise to share.
Now, let me get on to the aspects of the bill that—
Jamie Strange: Ha, ha!
Hon TIM MACINDOE: I'm not sure why my Hamilton colleague across there finds that so funny, but perhaps he thinks occasionally I digress. I'm not sure. We are, of course, concerned about the way in which this bill progressed through select committee and the fact that three of the six months allowed for it were in lockdown. Given the significance of it—it is an important measure—it is of concern to us that it didn't have what we would consider to be normal scrutiny in the select committee.
Now, my colleague Nicola Willis has already talked about the way in which the bill strips boards of trustees of their right to develop, consult, and review enrolment schemes, and I echo her concern. I was grateful to the Minister for responding to it, so I won't repeat it. Dr Parmjeet Parmar, the excellent chair of the select committee, has also talked about some of our concerns in relation to the staffing and the vetting of people who work in early childhood education centres. But, having been the shadow Attorney-General at the time that the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill was going through the Parliament, those who are listening may remember that one of the things that particularly concerned us was about the granting of police powers of entry without warrants. Now, while I don't expect that police will be regularly going into the homes where early childhood education is taking place in home-based education, nevertheless, the fact that that even exists is a worry. I would like to think that this Government would give us an assurance that that is going to be removed very, very quickly, because for the life of me, I cannot see how that is justified now, in the post-lockdown period, when we're back at level 1, when it never would have even been contemplated before we commenced going into lockdown and up through the alert levels in March and April of this year.
The other two questions, just in the limited time I have available, are to ask the Minister to explain the minimum eligibility requirements that have been established for principals. Naturally, we want to ensure that we put really good mechanisms and support around principals, but it is a job that is increasingly demanding and difficult to staff, particularly in some of the more remote areas. Could he please just explain the thinking on that? Also, what is the case, other than within Pacific Island countries, for stopping offshore awarding of NCEA? We believe that our export education market is really important—[Time expired]





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to go back and talk about the zoning issue, and I just wanted to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, some further questions based on the answers that he gave to Nicola Willis' question—the first question this evening.
I note the Minister said that the extra time is for the ministry to "gear up", and I'm just keen to explore that some more. I'm interested to know what "gearing up" means—extra staff, extra resources, systems, IT systems; I'd be really keen to know what the cost of that is. I mean, bearing in mind that you have boards of trustees who give, collectively, thousands of hours of free time, and they're all very, very good people who know their communities, providing that time free of charge, I'm very interested to know what the ministry are doing to gear up, and what the cost of that is. I know that the Minister in his answer said that there are some schools that don't want to have the burden of deciding on school zones. I certainly know from my electorate—I haven't spoken to a single principal or a single board chair who would want to relinquish that task. They feel very strongly about the knowledge of their local communities and their ability to go out and listen to the community and make those decisions themselves.
So I'm really keen to know not just only about what gearing up means in terms of staff, resources, systems, and cost, I'm also very keen to know practically how this would work. I've been through it recently with Albany Primary School in my electorate, which is about to hit a thousand students, and I do note—and I'd like to put on record—that the Minister promised me a new primary school in Albany. I know they haven't purchased any land yet, but, just as an aside, I remind him that that's really important—just get that in there. But I went through that process because they were told they needed to relook at their zone, and so I went through that process with them, and all of the consultation that was undertaken, the public meetings, the feedback—I went through all that with them. I went to all the public meetings and spoke to the board chair and spoke to a lot of the angry parents and watched that process happen. 
So I'm really keen to know practically now how that process will be undertaken by the mother ship, so to speak. Will there still be that same level of community consultation? Will it be lines on a map? Who will be consulted? School board chairs, local boards, for example—they know where all of the infrastructure and housing is going to go, often before the Ministry of Education in many cases I've been involved in—principals; what will that level of engagement with the local community be? Currently, we know that that level of engagement is undertaken with the community by the school board, and I'm really keen to know, will that be completely gone away from, or will there be something that replaces it by the ministry with this gearing up process, I guess.
I have very strong concerns about this, knowing the level of concern from my principals and board chairs about giving up this thing that they've been doing for a very long time and all of that knowledge that they have of their local communities. I've seen it happen where they know their communities so well, and if you draw lines on a map it looks like that would make sense, but when you understand the communities and where they live, work, play, travel, things look very different, and I'm just wanting to know how practically this will now work with the ministry taking care of it, but also to remember I would like to know about what this extra gearing up means as well. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you. I'll just run through the issues raised. But, first, in the jovial spirit in which Tim Macindoe started his contribution, a word about the Christchurch spade.
I was very excited when I became the Minister of Education to go down and do my first sod-turning in Christchurch, and I got handed the Christchurch spade and I looked at the front of it and there were all these dignitaries listed down, and all the schools where they had turned the sod, and there were all these distinguished names, and every now and then one of them would pop up a second time, and then I turned it over to the back, because they'd run out of space, and there were all these distinguished names, and then there was this big block that just said, "Tim Macindoe, Tim Macindoe, Tim Macindoe, Tim Macindoe, Tim Macindoe, Tim Macindoe" and I looked more closely at it and I discovered that it was all on the same day. He must have just gone from one school to the next school to the next school, just sort of a run in, turn the sod, and run out again, because he went through all of these schools on the same day—so I think that's cheating! Anyway, he did raise some important issues. 
In terms of the minimum eligibility requirements for principals, I think what this speaks to—the bill doesn't actually define what the minimum eligibility requirements will be, it puts in place a process by which they can be developed, but I think what it does define is that the difference between a school that thrives and a school that doesn't often comes down to the way that school is led. I think we can probably all agree on that; there's very clear evidence on that, and, actually, you can have schools that are functioning brilliantly, and then after a change of leadership it can change very quickly. Similarly, in a school that's really struggling, a change of leader can change it very quickly the other way. 
So it's a question of trying to remove some of the luck from that equation and say, "Actually, we've got to do a better job of supporting aspiring school leaders so that they can move on to those very important leadership roles better supported." It shouldn't just be pot-luck. You shouldn't just be able to take a great classroom teacher, put them into a principal role without properly supporting them to do that, because, actually, that's the way you lose your brilliant classroom teachers, because they just get overwhelmed and burnt out. This has been a persistent problem since Tomorrow's Schools was introduced. Amazing teachers just get burnt out by the overwhelming demands of being a school principal.
On the other hand, I don't think any of us would want to go back to the old point system that we had before Tomorrow's Schools where you only got a certain principal's job if you had enough points in order to qualify to get that, and school communities ended up having school principals inflicted upon them that they didn't actually want. I don't think any of us want to go back to that, so school boards will still be the people appointing their school principal, but there'll be more of a process around that to support them to make sure they get the right person. I think, by and large, the single biggest decision a school board of trustees makes is who their principal should be. They get it right, the school will go well; they get it wrong, it will be very bad for that school. So it's about getting more support around that.
With regard to NCEA offshore, you'll see that we've changed our position on this. So initially the concern was that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority would have difficulty maintaining the quality standards for NCEA if it was delivered offshore. The reality is, in the COVID period, actually we are delivering NCEA offshore to some of those international students who can't get here because of the travel restrictions. So that will be an opportunity for us all to see how that goes and to make sure that there can be good, robust quality control around that. Then the future Government, whomever that may be, can look at that and say, "Do we want to continue with that, or do we want to keep NCEA just as a New Zealand - based qualification?" So COVID-19 provides us with an opportunity to actually see how that works in terms of the quality controls that can be put in place there.
In terms of Erica Stanford's comments about what is the gearing up involved and why delay the commencement, there's a very practical consideration in here, as well, that shifting that function to the Ministry of Education in the middle of a school year, when schools may be in the middle of consulting already on a process to change their enrolment zone, would potentially get quite messy. So allowing schools to finish any consultation periods for this year that they've already started gives them time to do that and it gives the Ministry of Education time to, effectively, have a good quality hand-over of those processes to the ministry where they're required.
In terms of the resourcing, the Ministry of Education is already very engaged in this process with schools. In terms of consultation, school communities will still be consulted to the same degree that they are now. School boards of trustees—the law, as members who have read through the bill will see that it's very clear school boards of trustees are consulted at least twice in the process leading up to consultation and during consultation as well. So the Ministry of Education won't be putting out draft zoning changes, for example, without consulting with school boards first, and I think that's a really important part of ensuring that there can still be confidence in the robustness of that process.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): I'm going to ask another couple of questions, but before I do so, I do want to note the circumstances in which we're analysing the 637-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 544 that landed on the Table today. Those circumstances are that we have had, on this side of the Chamber, less than a day to look through the entire SOP, and I have to say, the more I look at it in detail, the more questions I have. So this may be one call, but I'm going to pack in a few questions. 
I would ask the Minister first why it is that an SOP of such detail wasn't one that he felt any need to engage with us on. I stand in big footsteps in the form of Nikki Kaye, who was our previous education spokesperson, and I know she had a history of effective engagement with the Minister, and I hope that where we can work together to progress the interests of New Zealand's children and school system, that we will do so. Certainly putting an SOP of this magnitude down on the Table without any engagement prior isn't consistent with that. 
So my question first is about the new powers that are given to the Secretary for Education under new clause 612D to direct education entities. Now, as I read it, these relate to when there is an epidemic notice in force. What I would like to understand is how the Minister sees these provisions operating under alert levels: i.e., what COVID alert levels could these provisions potentially be used under? I do want to note how significant the provisions are. They can be used, for example, for private training establishments—so not simply for State-run institutions but also for privately run institutions—and the powers include operating, controlling, and managing the entity. So in the case of private training establishments, we are talking about the Government taking over the operation, control, and management of a private business. 
So I would very much like to understand the Minister's thinking here in terms of in what circumstances these powers might be used and why it's thought that they're appropriate, noting, of course, we have just come through alert levels that are very serious, and at no point was there a question that I was aware of publicly that the Minister of Education required additional powers to take over the operation of private training establishments, universities, or other educational entities. So these are significant powers. 
The powers also include directing the body of that entity to comply with requirements as to the opening or the closing of that entity for physical attendance or instruction. This is an interesting point for me, because here in Wellington, Victoria University did make a choice that it would restrict the amount of face-to-face instruction that was occurring, and there was some ambiguity about whether that would continue into different alert levels. So I'd ask the Minister again: does he anticipate a situation in which the Government would direct a university or other education entity as to the way it would provide instruction? And what, again, would be the criteria and circumstances in which the Minister would do that? So I have many more questions I could ask about this clause, but I think, given it's only landed in Parliament today—the powers appear very significant—it does bear some addressing. 
The second area that I have questions about relates to new clause 71A and again is in relation to enrolment schemes. Frankly, I'll admit it, I'm a bit confused about what this clause means, and I'd just like the Minister to clear it up for me, because I want to know how subclauses (1) and (2) interact. The way I read subclause (1), it tells me that a Secretary for Education can allow for an enrolment scheme to exist that allows, essentially, siblings to attend the same school as their siblings, even though they no longer live in zone for that school. But what I want to understand is: is that an automatic allowance or is it something that each sibling or each family has to apply to the Secretary for Education for, or is it simply permitted? Because in subclause (2) we have that before granting an authorisation, the Secretary must be satisfied that it's in the best interests of the school and local community and can be managed within the existing school network.
That concerns me because it implies that there will be circumstances in which the secretary would reject the application of a sibling wishing to attend the same school as their siblings. This is a circumstance that occurs fairly regularly in our communities as families move from one neighbourhood to another but wish to keep their children at school together. The idea that every family would have to apply to the Ministry of Education for the right to do that does worry me somewhat. So I'm hoping the Minister can clear it up and tell me I'm wrong. So if the Minister could address those two issues, I'd be most appreciative.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Absolutely. Look, with regard to the 630-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), having been in Opposition, I do understand the concern that the member raises about that. The vast majority of the SOP is basically a reprint of the bill with additional amendments included in it. So it's not 630 pages of new amendments. 
What's been interesting about the process of this legislation is quite a lot's happened since when the bill was first introduced and sent off to select committee. So a big set of the amendments are incorporating the vocational education reforms that Parliament's already passed. Of course, they had not been passed when the bill was first introduced. So it actually updates the bill to reflect changes that Parliament has subsequently already agreed to.
Similarly with the epidemic notice provisions that the member refers to, Parliament has actually already passed those provisions. We did that during that crazy period where Parliament passed a number of laws in response to COVID-19. So the changes in this bill simply bring those provisions that we passed in relation to COVID-19 into the current bill. Although the original set of provisions was specific to the one epidemic notice around COVID-19, this extends that to subsequent epidemic notices that may be issued. The reason for that is just a prudent one: we don't know when an epidemic may happen and we do need to have the ability to respond to those things. 
The most common issue that I think we were concerned about were schools or early childhood services refusing to close when we needed them to close for public health reasons. So the ability to be able to do something about that was the motivation behind putting those in place. Now, of course, what we saw during the COVID-19 alert level escalation, if you like, was a huge degree of cooperation from the entire educational community, and as a result we didn't need to use any of the powers that are there. So these are really just sort of safeguarding for the future in a way that I hope no Minister will ever have to use in the future. I think as long as we see the type of cooperation that we did—bearing in mind, you know, COVID-19 is one epidemic. There's the potential for any number of other public health - related issues where an epidemic notice may be issued, and we do need to be prepared for those.
With regard to enrolment schemes, new clause 71A, that the member raised, this basically codifies existing practice that isn't, strictly speaking, allowed under the law, and it's what's called grandparenting. So where an enrolment scheme changes, if there's one sibling in what would now be an area outside of the zone, the Ministry of Education have always worked with schools to ensure that any siblings could be included in the school's enrolment. Strictly speaking, under current law, that's not allowed. So this basically just brings the law up to align with the current practice. So it is designed to ensure that what we do now and what we have been doing for a very long time—I think since enrolment schemes were first introduced in the late 1990s—it allows for that current practice to continue. 
There was one other issue that got raised earlier on which I neglected to get to, and I think it might have been Tim Macindoe or someone who was raising questions about the entry provisions with regard to home-based early childhood education and the powers to go into a home. I've had my own kids in home-based early childhood education, so I'm well familiar with the model; it's one that I support. They are, of course, places of business. They would only be able to enter into a part of that home where the education was taking place, and it would be for the purposes of welfare check and quality control and so on.
Hon Tim Macindoe: The concern is being able to do it without a warrant.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, the issue is that it's a place of business. If someone is using their home as a place of business where they are being paid by the State to care for a child, then actually we've got a duty around ensuring that the welfare of that child is being maintained and that there are sufficient quality controls in place.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I would like now to come to the issue of workforce development councils. As we know, these development councils replace the industry training organisations or ITOs, and certainly—
Hon Tracey Martin: No, they don't.
Hon Member: Ignore that.
DAN BIDOIS: OK. So as I understand it, these workforce development councils are established to maintain some skills across sectors in our country. Now, what I want to talk to you about, Minister, is something that I think I've raised with you in select committee, which is around how do we expose our kids to alternative careers other than university. I know we've had a discussion about this, and I wanted to know whether you thought that it was appropriate that these workforce development councils had a role to help our children choose apprenticeships, for example. As a guy who's gone down both routes—apprenticeship route first and then the university route—certainly I've seen the drive to get people into universities, and I think that shows in our stats, where actually 50 percent of school leavers go to universities and the rest either drop out or go into industry. So I wanted to get your sense of, in particular, clause 347, and whether it is something that you considered that workforce development councils could have a role to expose our children to private industry, to careers in private industry, to apprenticeships in private industry, and whether that is, I think, a missed opportunity, and whether there's something, actually—you know, whether you'd accept a late Supplementary Order Paper. I don't have one tabled.
I do think it is an issue. It's an issue that schools have talked to me about, that ITOs have talked to me about, that industry has talked to me about—the lack of apprentices. You can throw all your money on it, and you guys—your Government, sorry—is throwing money at it, but if you're not getting into our schools and getting excitement amongst our students to go into industry, to do an apprenticeship, if the best option they have is to go in to do a BA at university rather than do a builder's apprenticeship, then I think we've got a real problem in New Zealand.
Hon Tracey Martin: Don't knock a BA.
Dr Deborah Russell: Don't mock a BA.
DAN BIDOIS: Hey, I've got a BA—I've got a BA.
I think that's that challenge. I think the fact that the member opposite mentions the issue with the BA actually reinforces the stereotypes that we have over university qualifications versus builders versus butchers versus other trade apprentices. So I would like you, Minister, to address, I guess, the function of these workforce development councils, the role that they could have in helping to encourage school leavers to go into trades and other apprenticeships, and where this fits in this legislation. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I thank the member for his contribution. I was just reflecting, actually, as I was listening to the debate, that one of the things I think Parliament struggles with is this a little bit. We have far fewer tradies across the Chamber now than we might have had 30 years or 40 years ago, and that's something that the Parliament probably needs to reflect on. There are far more people around this Chamber with degrees than there would have been 30 years or 40 years ago. I think sometimes, actually, we lack that voice in Parliament, and I think it would be good to have a bit more of that here in the Chamber. I say that as someone with a university degree, but it would be good anyway.
With regard to workforce development councils, I absolutely believe they should have a role in exposing kids in schools to a broader range of career options. We've been doing a lot of work in this space. We start in this in New Zealand far too late. We wait till kids are thinking about what they're going to do when they leave school before we start getting good careers advice to them. Actually, we need to start much earlier in the piece, probably around intermediate school ages; the research is telling us that's where the careers advice should really be starting.
One of the things I've tried to do as Minister of Education is give credit where it's due. The last Government did some good things in this area. I think trades academies were a good innovation. Our Government has expanded them. I do believe that they are doing a good job of exposing kids to a wider range of career opportunities and getting them on a pathway which is leading to future qualifications and good, solid employment.
The Government prior to that—our Government—set up the Gateway programme, which was about getting kids into sort of tasters of on-job learning, and, actually, I think that that's a really positive programme as well.
We've put some money into careers expos and particularly vocational careers expos. Again, coming back to the member's actual question, workforce development councils, I think, can play a really significant role here in getting businesses connected with schools to expose kids to that wide range of different trades and career options that might be available to them.
I have to say, for a long time, the universities have done a far better job of getting into schools than vocational education providers and businesses have done. We need to really do something about that. We're working very hard on doing something about that, because I want to make sure that kids understand the full range of options that are available to them.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I hope the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, will indulge me, because there have, obviously, been a lot of changes made and there's a lot to go through, so if you wouldn't mind. I mean, I also didn't sit on the Education and Workforce Committee for a lot of this, but I was here for the first and second readings, and there was some talk around the police vetting for the home-based early childcare providers.
Some of the comments that were made and some of the feedback that I had early on was that initially it was every person that lived at that house would need to be police vetted, and there were some concerns around that: whether or not people who weren't working or in that house at the time that the operation was being undertaken—would they need to be vetted. There was a lot of pushback around that. 
I'm just wanting to know: have there been any changes made around that? What advice has the Minister had? Is it still the case that every single person who lives in that house—regardless of whether or not they work or are there during the time—are still to be vetted? Yeah, I just wanted him to clarify, because I haven't been able to.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question that I want to ask the Minister in chair, Chris Hipkins, is in Part 3—it's clause 95. This is about physical force at registered schools, because during the select committee process we had a number of submitters that wanted to discuss this change of term. I believe that because of this, this discussion has come up again, because before it was sitting in the legislation as "restraint", but people knew how to operate and how to use that term or how to use physical restraint in schools. But with the "physical force" term coming up, this discussion has come up again, and my fear is that this will imply that, somehow, physical force can be applied in a way which we don't want it to be applied.
I know in clause 95, in subclause 2(c), it says that "the physical force used is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances", and also in the select committee, we did define what physical force actually means, but we know that children have different kinds of strengths, especially children that have special needs. So how will a grown-up understand what reasonable and proportionate force means for that child? We are talking about children that are of a very young age, from year 5 to older ages in schools. So I have a concern about this, because we have anti-smacking legislation in New Zealand, and I know this is not smacking, but parents cannot use force which can be seen as smacking. But here I know that the force is only to be used to stop any—as we have defined in the select committee process—bodily movement that can cause any kind of harm to that student or anyone else, but it's a fine, fine line.
So I want the Minister to clarify to me why, actually, we need physical force. We could have done without physical force in this legislation in our education system. Why do we need this kind of physical force, because, to me, it seems it can be interpreted in a way which we don't want? What kind of training will be there for teachers to understand what physical force actually means? Thank you, Mr Chair.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you. Just running back to the issue around police vetting for home-based early childhood education (ECE)—I think a very legitimate issue there. Why would adults who are not normally present, or young adults, in some cases, who are not normally present in the home require police vetting? That's because they can be present in the home. It is, ultimately, someone's home.
So someone can be home sick, for example, when the children are present in the house, and it is important that children are kept safe—bearing in mind that we could have up to five children under the age of five under the care of one adult in a house. If another adult who is not police-checked is at home, if there was a concern, then that actually significantly increases the risk for those five children who could be in that home. Home-based is the least supervised part of our early childhood education system. As I've indicated before, I believe in it as a part of our ECE system. I believe that home-based environment is a really good one for some kids, but we've just got to have really good, robust quality controls in place to make sure those kids are being kept safe.
With regard to the comments from Parmjeet Parmar, the member was working off the bill as reported back from select committee, not the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and those are provisions that have been changed. So the word "force" is now no longer used; we've gone back to the use of the word "restraint" after some further consultation with the sector. But the key issues I think the member raises are legitimate ones, which are around guidelines and training. So the bill now, with the SOP, puts some pretty rigid consultation requirements in place around the development of the guidelines to ensure that all of these issues can be carefully worked through with everybody involved, from the disability community through to the teaching community and everybody in between, and also that we can then develop and make sure we've got in place good training for teachers. There's no question at all that that's actually the key to making this whole thing work.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Sorry I keep harping back to zoning issues, but we've had so much feedback on this. I wanted to talk to the Minister about a case of a school here, and I know that it's not in my electorate but it's here in Karori—or just over the hill from Karori. A school that has a special—they take a lot of kids with additional learning needs, and they're really well-known for that. Parents want to send their children there, the school is wanting to cater for these children who aren't in a set zone, they're well-known for that, and they've got really good teachers who are capable of looking after those children who have those additional learning needs. So I guess the question is—I've been made aware recently that they've been forced to have a school zone. So, immediately, that excludes all of those families. Now, before the decision was made to put a zone on them, they were sorting themselves out really well, and the communities that they were taking children from were happy—everyone was happy—until this decision was made to come and create a zone.
Now, there will be more schools like that around the country who are well-known for certain things—you know, either it's special needs, additional learning support, dyslexia, dyspraxia—and their ability to take students from a wide range of suburbs that may not necessarily be in their immediate zone is really useful. Just hearing that case that Nicola Willis was talking to me about immediately raised some concerns with me, because I can see, potentially, that—it's already happening, but I can see this happening more—having school zones forced upon schools like this will actually have a detrimental effect to families who have children with, for example, additional learning needs being able to send them to schools who can cater for those needs.
So I'm just wondering if the Minister has come across cases like that, has taken it into consideration, and what he sees as the potential solution to situations like this when there are schools that cater for those needs.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Look, I think, again, the issue the member raises is a really serious one. We've got a challenge, I think, in New Zealand around genuinely inclusive education. Some schools go out of their way to be inclusive, and they become what we colloquially term "magnet schools" where parents, if they've got kids who've got additional needs, seek out the schools who make their kids feel welcome and go to the ends of the earth to cater for those kids, and I take my hat off to those schools. But I think every school should be making that effort, and they don't, and that's the problem. And it's not something that we should tolerate.
There are subtle things that some schools do to make it clear to parents whose kids have additional needs that they are not welcome at their school, and that is not acceptable. It is just wrong. Kids should be allowed to attend their local school, and they should be given all of the support that they need by their local school in order to be able to thrive in their education. I think that it's wrong that that's not happening.
Tying it back to the issue of zoning and where some of this pressure comes from, there are subtle things schools do that are unacceptable and that we have to put a stop to. So a school principal saying, for example, "Oh yes, of course you can enrol your child at my school. We'll look after your child—but, you know that other school down the road, they've got heaps more kids who are like your child, and they'd do a much better job of looking after them." Now, if you're a parent, which school are you going to choose? The one who welcomes you with open arms or the one who sends that kind of signal to you? I've got to say to the schools who are sending those kind of signals to parents: they're wrong. It is not acceptable. Every school should welcome every child in their community and should do everything that they can to make sure that they are properly catered for.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you. Look, I understand the Minister's passion about this, and, yes, they should, and it's all very well to say that, but the point is that there are some schools who just do it better. They cater better for children with additional learning needs. And saying that children can't go to that school because they have to go to the school that's in their local area just doesn't give them the best outcomes for their children.
I understand his sentiment around it shouldn't happen—and it's not even necessarily that schools aren't welcoming; it's just that there are other schools that do a far better job. Giving parents that choice to send their kid who has an additional learning need to a school that can better cater for them—surely that's what we want. So I take your point, but I disagree.
What I would also point out, and I'd like just to take this a step further, is it's not only that they have better teachers or programmes, but actually for an example in my electorate, I've had many parents come to me and say, "I'm in zone for this school. They don't have any single-cell classrooms; they're all open plan. My kid's got an auditory problem, they've got an auditory receiver, or they've got some kind of learning need that means that they don't deal well in the open plan, modern classroom, and my local school doesn't cater for that. Can you help me, as my local MP, get my child into a school out of our zone that will cater for their needs because they've got an audio receiver or some other learning need that means that they need a single-cell classroom or a different configuration of classrooms?" So you've got that issue, as well.
It's not about schools not being welcoming or having the wrong attitude. Often it's the case that the school—the property and the configuration of the classrooms—just doesn't suit that child. I have that again and again and again, and I just think that, yep, there are some schools that do it better, and they've got teachers who are more geared up for learning disabilities and additional learning needs. You've got some schools that have got a better configuration of classrooms, and those parents already are facing such struggles getting their children to learn because of those additional learning needs that surely we should be offering them the very best start by allowing them to choose the school that best caters for their needs rather than forcing them into a school that perhaps doesn't, and I would invite the Minister to respond to that.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I just want to follow the chain of this discussion on the enrolment issues, or the zoning issues in particular—just going back to what Minister Chris Hipkins answered before about how adaptable the schools were during COVID-19 and how the ministry gave the schools more discretion. In relation to zoning, I do have concerns about the way in which the ministry will be taking over the control for zoning and what that means for, again, more bureaucracy that we're giving to schools. 
So, firstly, I've got a couple of schools in my electorate that require school zones, and under the current system, they would be able to go through a process and determine that zone themselves. I've also got other schools in my community that wish to change their zones, and under the current system they would have been able to do that. Under Supplementary Order Paper 544, which you've left with us at the last minute, essentially the ministry overrides that and takes that process on. I just want to, again, challenge the Minister as to how this reduces bureaucracy for our boards and our school principals at a time where—particularly in Auckland—roll growth has been extremely high in some schools and low in others. Therefore, there's going to be a desire for adaptability and nimbleness in our schools, where schools are able to adapt really quickly, given their growth over the next couple of years, and all of a sudden they're going to be hit—bang, smack—with the bureaucracy of this ministry to seek approval for, essentially, making a change to the zone. 
So, again, I wish to push the Minister to answer the question of how does a change in proposed new clause 69A around enrolment schemes actually reduce bureaucracy for our boards and our principals. If he can outline that, that would be very much appreciated.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just to respond to a couple of those issues with regard to some schools having special programmes for kids, there are criteria in here that allow for enrolment zones to give priority to students who are enrolled in a special programme, even if they are not within the school's zone. So there are provisions there that will allow that to continue to happen. 
The grandparenting for enrolment zones is for a school and not for an individual family. If the Secretary for Education approves for grandparenting to be allowed, that's for the whole school and not for each individual family within that school, so I just wanted to clarify that. 
In terms of the issue around the bureaucracy of enrolment schemes, this doesn't really change much with regard to the bureaucracy that's associated with enrolment schemes. It does change the emphasis of where the burden of that rests, and so more of the burden of that will rest with the ministry than with the individual schools. At the moment, basically, the schools have to do all of that work themselves. Now, the Ministry of Education will take a lot of that work, but, of course, the schools will still be very involved in that process. 





NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to ask about the new licensing process for early learning services that is introduced in this bill. The Minister of Education, I understand, has introduced these new provisions, I think, out of a concern that there has been a proliferation in new early learning services. I'm not sure whether that's the case, because it hasn't ever been stated explicitly. I have a concern that we have had times in New Zealand's history—in fact, even just a decade ago—where we actually had a shortage of early learning service places in many parts of the country, and where parents, and, frankly, women in particular, were delayed in their ability to return to work when they had young children because they were unable to find early learning places for them.
It remains the case today that there are still parts of the country where, from time to time, there are real shortages of early learning. In fact, it is the case sometimes here in Wellington City that people will struggle to find an early learning place for their child at the age that they wish them to commence early learning. So it's in that context that I raise with Minister Hipkins my concern that potentially, having this new two-step process, which introduces a far higher degree of uncertainty for early learning providers about whether or not a centre may, in fact, progress, may limit the creation of new early learning services in a way that will constrain parents' access to early childhood education. 
I say that against the backdrop of what the Minister knows is a very complicated process for setting up an early learning service, because first you have to battle the Resource Management Act. That's actually the first bit you have to do. You have to get permission from the local council to put an early learning service in, and that's no easy thing, because there are concerns from neighbours about noise and cars and driveways. Different councils around the country deal with it in different ways, but even then, once the consent's granted—of course it's appropriate that a licensing step occur where the Ministry of Education approve a licence, or not, for a service. My concern is that the new two-step process that the Minister's proposing is, frankly, vague. So I would be interested to hear from the Minister what mitigation he sees to that, and also how much discretion he envisages applying in the application of this new two-step process. 
What are the circumstances in which a new early learning service would have its application for a licence rejected that are different from the current provisions, under which already the Ministry of Education, within the current law as it stands, can reject a licence for an early learning service on the basis that it doesn't think that that early learning service meets the right tests for providing early childhood education? I put to the Minister: what are the additional considerations that he will be able to make in assessing these applications that actually add value, as opposed to simply adding delay and adding uncertainty? Because, as I've said, the end result of delay and uncertainty could be a shortage in early learning places in some parts of the country. I also put to him: what process will there be if people feel that the way that their application has been assessed is unfair? Short of judicial review, obviously—but will there be other ways in which people can interact effectively in this two-step process? 
The second area I wish to ask further questions about relates to the zoning provisions that my colleagues have also been asking many questions about, and when it comes to those zoning provisions, my question relates to the circumstance which actually occurs pretty frequently, which is where the ministry fails to build new classrooms on time. Actually, the ministry—I'm sorry; they're wonderful officials. We enjoy it when they come to the Education and Workforce Committee. They're smart people, but sometimes they are slow at getting things built. Now, in that circumstance, isn't it convenient that the ministry can then decide that a zone is so tight that it doesn't require them to build those classrooms anymore? How does the Minister envisage using ministerial power to ensure that the ministry doesn't just use these new, wider powers it's been given to make its own job easier, at the expense of local communities who wish to be able to send their children to a school that does not have enough capacity because school property hasn't been developed on time? Thank you.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just briefly on those points, I think the main issue around early childhood education licensing, which is one that I canvassed with the member's colleague earlier, where people will notice the difference is the moves that we will be able to put in place to stop the proliferation of low-quality early childhood education providers. I can think of one big early childhood education provider now that's expanding quite significantly—it's one that has a reasonably strong link with the National Party—which provides a very good quality of early childhood education. 
Nicola Willis: I'll tell Tony.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Um, please don't! And, actually, you know, they're expanding. They will almost certainly meet the licensing criteria. There won't be issues with them, because actually they're providing a good quality of early childhood education. We have had examples in recent times, though, of services who maybe have restrictions on their licences continuing to expand by opening more services, and, actually, that's the sort of thing that I think we should all agree we don't want to see happen. We actually want to sort out the issues that you've got with your existing services first, and then, if you can get that sorted, look to expand. I think that that's the main difference. We can't do that at the moment. We can't take that into account in the licensing regime at the moment. So this will allow that to happen, which I think would be welcome. 
The last point the member raised was—
Nicola Willis: Zoning and school property.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —zoning and school property, and I think she raises a very legitimate point. I think that as a country, we've been far too slow, and this is not just—I'm not going to point the finger at any particular Government for this. Over 30 years, we have been far too slow to expand schools to cope with population growth. We actually went through a period in the early 2000s where we saw a downward trend, and there were the school reviews, because, actually, rolls were going down. And then, of course, suddenly they turned back up again, and we were far too slow as a country to start expanding the school property. So I think the Ministry of Education is getting better at that, and I think that they've sped that up. Modular classrooms are part of the solution. Sometimes it's better to bring in modular classrooms, even if it's only as a temporary solution—Tim Macindoe's nodding furiously, because I know he was involved in these discussions—until you can build.
One of the constraints that we've got, of course, is that some of our school sites, particularly in the areas where the population's growing very quickly, are on small sites, and therefore the best way to go is up, rather than out. Those are the ones that we have the challenge with, because you can't always whack a modular classroom on there, because there's not enough room, and so you've got to go up. Those are the ones where we haven't kept up with population growth, because it takes that much longer to plan and to build for that more complex growth. 
One of the things that the Government has done, and we did it in last year's Budget—and I think every Minister of Education who came before me will be envious of this—is we grouped up four years' worth of population growth funding and appropriated it in a single Budget. The reason for doing that is because of the length of time that it takes to plan and execute these programmes. If you're only getting one year's funding at a time, you're not planning far enough ahead, because you haven't got the money to plan far enough ahead. So by doing four years' worth of planning—and each year you add the next year on to the tail end of that—then actually you can speed the whole pipeline of construction work up. And I think that that builds on some of the work that Tim Macindoe, and before him Nikki Kaye, were doing in the school property area, because I think we would all agree we've got to be faster at coping with population growth.





The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 544 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 24, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 24, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the Education and Training Bill with amendment.
Report adopted.





Third Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education and Training Bill be now read a third time.
I'd like to begin by thanking all of the members of the House for a very lively and constructive committee stage for this legislation. It does represent the biggest change in decades for the education sector and an important step towards ensuring success for all of our learners. I think the debate was useful and constructive, and I thank members for that.
I want to acknowledge someone who isn't here tonight, the Hon Nikki Kaye, the National Party spokesperson for education and a previous Minister of Education, for all of the work that she has done over this term of Parliament to ensure that we can have a constructive working relationship on education issues. I want to wish her all the best with her retirement. I suspect that we will see her at some point in a future role, thriving in whatever it is that she chooses to do. I want to acknowledge Nicola Willis and welcome her to the role. Of course, in the next nine weeks or so, I suspect, collegiality and cooperation may go out the window just a little bit, and I hope that after the election, however that lands up, we can continue to work constructively on education issues, because it is incredibly important.
This bill delivers a high-quality public education system for New Zealand. It strengthens quality, the viability, and the support for early learning services up and down the country. It improves the police vetting requirements to increase the protections for our young children. It supports the right of all children to enrol at and attend their local school full-time, and it provides an effective pathway to resolve serious disputes and keep students engaged in education. It incorporates the reforms of vocational education and the introduction of the code of pastoral care for domestic tertiary students that this Parliament has previously passed through other legislation. It also incorporates the epidemic response measures that we passed as a Parliament and makes them available for the use in future epidemics. The bill implements some of the key elements of our education work programme, including some of the first steps to implement the decisions the Government has made as a result of the review of Tomorrow's Schools. Again, I want to thank the Tomorrow's Schools review task force for the hard work that they have done in consulting up and down the country on those changes.
But, significantly, this bill draws together all of the relevant provisions relating to education that are currently spread across several Acts. Currently, most education sector legislation is in the Education Act of 1989. There is, however, an Education Act of 1964, where there are still some provisions there—the Beatles were touring New Zealand, I suspect, at the time that that bill came into force, which shows you how long it's been around for. This bill consolidates that down into one easier to understand, modern piece of legislation that is less prescriptive. It also moves some elements of prescriptive legislation out of legislation and into regulation, where it can be more easily and readily amended to cope with the changing times.
So just touching very briefly on some of the key changes that the bill makes, it allows for more active management of the early childhood education network and changes to the licensing requirements to ensure that quality standards can be met. It means that the Ministry of Education will take into account the needs of children in the community, as well as the applicant's character, licensing history, and financial position, when deciding whether to approve the application for a new early childhood education licence. Police vetting requirements for home-based early childhood education services have been clarified and strengthened.
In the schooling sector, very importantly, this bill clarifies that once a child is enrolled at school, they are entitled to attend that school for all of the hours that that school is open. It is wrong that some schools have been engaging in the practice of rationing the number of hours that children with additional learning needs are allowed to attend their school. Once they are enrolled at school, they are entitled to attend that school for all of the hours that the school is open, and this bill makes that absolutely clear in law. The bill also amends the legal framework around physical restraint, taking on board feedback that we've received from the teaching community and from the disability community, striving once again to get the right balance here. I suspect this is an issue that Parliament will continue to grapple with, because it is incredibly complex and there are very legitimate arguments being raised on both sides of the argument.
The bill enables the establishment of a dispute resolution scheme for the schooling sector—not, actually, for the first time. It was established when the Education Act of 1989 was first passed, and it was repealed almost immediately, but, actually, it was an original part of the model of self-governing schools, that if we are going to have self-governing schools, there does need to be a quality dispute resolution scheme in place to resolve the issues that may flow from that, and this bill puts that in place. So once established, panels will be able to resolve serious rights-based disputes between students and their schools where those disputes have not been able to be resolved at a school level. It makes changes to enrolment schemes to strengthen the enrolment schemes regime, and that's been well canvassed during the committee stage of the bill tonight.
In the tertiary education sector, as I've indicated before, this bill incorporates the reforms of vocational education and training that the House has already canvassed at length when that legislation was passed. Of course, that legislation was passed after this bill was introduced, which is why the bill has now been amended to incorporate those changes. It also incorporates the changes we made to allow for the code of pastoral care for domestic students.
Then, as I mentioned, some of the changes that the Parliament has made around allowing for the Secretary for Education to have greater directive powers in the case of an epidemic—those changes were passed by this House in light of COVID-19, and we have ensured that they are enshrined in the legislation going forward so that if there is a future epidemic, those powers will still be available to the Secretary for Education, so that whoever the Government of the day is is able to respond to that. The export education levy payment obligations for international students are suspended for the next two years, recognising that that part of our community will be suffering as a result of fewer international students coming into the country, and this will ease some of the financial pressure on those education providers.
I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. It's one that has been several years in the making. Successive Ministers of Education have taken steps towards tidying up the Education Act. This completes that work, and I suspect in the next Parliament the process will start all over again and it will only be a matter of time before we have an Education and Training Amendment Bill before the House. But I hope for now at least we've got the education legislation into a point where those who are required to abide by it can at least follow it.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on the Education and Training Bill. I want to first acknowledge Nikki Kaye, because she was the education spokesperson for National who worked on this bill most closely with the Minister of Education, and who has led our education policy development. In doing that role, Nikki Kaye has been a fierce advocate for the interests of parents and communities. That has particular relevance in this bill because without her, this bill would have been a lot worse than it is today. It's still, unfortunately, a bill which National will oppose, but I am absolutely certain that without the advocacy of Nikki Kaye, it would be a far more radical piece of legislation. That's because the context for this bill was the Government's Tomorrow's Schools Review Independent Taskforce.
That task force was commissioned by the Minister with an extraordinarily broad mandate. It came back and it made radical proposals, the shadows of which are still apparent in this bill. I will, in this contribution, take you through where that shadow still lies. When that task force reported back, it proposed centralised bureaucratic hubs that would control schools, instead of parent boards. It proposed absolutely marginalising parental involvement in the governance of schools. It proposed that all school property management would be taken over by the Ministry of Education, that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Education Review Office would be discarded, that intermediate schools would be abolished, and that an education service agency would take over all servicing of schools. This idea was abhorrent to National, and that is why Nikki Kaye embarked on 30 public meetings throughout the country. In those public meetings, she engaged with parents, she engaged with teachers, and she engaged with education experts, and their feedback was resounding. The feedback was that that sort of radical change would take New Zealand's education system backwards, would reduce the achievement of children, would loosen the engagement between parents and their schools, and would, all in all, be bad for our education system. So that was rejected.
I thank Nikki Kaye for working constructively with the Minister to help him see the light and to help him see that these were very bad ideas and were going to get him into a lot of trouble and, frankly, his colleagues into a lot of trouble in their communities up and down the country. She did a good job. But Nikki Kaye was only the Opposition spokesperson, and so she wasn't able to save things completely.
I want to step you through now the aspects of this bill which National remains very concerned about. The first is the significant change which takes away from school boards of trustees, from locally elected parents, the ability to develop, consult on, and review their enrolment schemes. Now, it is bad enough that at the moment, the ministry can come along and say to a school, "Too bad, you're having an enrolment scheme; here it goes." But the saving grace that we have at the moment is that at least when that happens, boards of trustees are the ones that drive the development of that zone, who are the ones who drive the consultation, who are the ones responsible for engaging effectively with the community to discuss where the boundaries for that zone should lie, and they are the ones engaged in reviewing it.
What this bill does is it takes that ability from local boards and it gives it completely over to the Ministry of Education to drive that process entirely. What we heard tonight in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill is that such is the magnitude of that task for the Ministry of Education that they need a few more months to gear up. They need more resources, we are told, in order to take over this function. We on this side of the House are alarmed by that prospect, because we anticipate a future in which local communities are less able to influence which neighbourhoods of children schools take on. We anticipate a future in which ministries will impose enrolment zones that school boards disagree with.
I want to take you through a specific example. The example I want to talk to you about, of how the ministry can get these things wrong, is one that's very current in my colleague Hon Dr Nick Smith's electorate in Nelson, which is Nayland College. Now, Nayland College is a coeducational secondary school, and for many years parents from surrounding communities, including in Nelson, have wanted to send their children there because their local school was a single-sex school. Some parents prefer single-sex schools and some parents prefer co-ed schools, and so they've made the choice to send their children a little bit further away to go to the co-ed school. But in recent years, the Ministry of Education has been particularly slow in replacing classrooms that needed to be fixed, has not done a good job of getting them built, and the result is that that school is now reaching capacity constraints, and the ministry have said they're going to impose a zone. Now, this, I think, is a portent of the future we will see under this bill, because what we can expect is that the Ministry of Education will have far less incentive to manage its development of property well, because, actually, it's going to be the one in charge of setting the zone, engaging on the zone, consulting on the zone, and the power of the local board to influence that will be lessened considerably. So we will see more Nayland College - type situations, where a school community wants it to be able to take additional students but it is unable to. We will see more situations where schools are unable to create the community of interest that they wish for their school. This will diminish parental choice, and it will diminish community involvement.
We also remain concerned about other aspects of this bill, because as the Minister says, what it does is it brings together the operation of early childhood, primary, secondary, and tertiary legislation into one piece of law. In doing so, it involves all of the changes we've seen as part of the Reform of Vocational Education review, which centralised control of our tertiary education system so that the innovation and excellence that we've seen at institutions like Southern Institute of Technology (SIT)—like the wonderful SIT in Southland. Instead, that is swallowed into an amorphous bureaucratic body, and we say that's wrong. Why would you get rid of a wonderful independent institution like SIT?
It then, also, introduces a two-step licensing system for early childhood education that we remain concerned about. In the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, the Minister said that this was about quality. Well, then why is the bill so specific in providing that the Minister can use this for a network management approach? The former Minister sitting in the Chair—the Speaker Hon Anne Tolley—will be aware of what network reviews have meant in the past when Labour have used them. What network reviews have meant is Ministers making arbitrary decisions about what should be closed and what should be opened. We are concerned that giving a Minister considerable discretion in this way will mean that we will see delays in the opening of new early childhood services, and we will see uncertainty and cost added to that process. If an early childhood centre wants to open, we think it's very important there is a clear process that they can go through, and the two-step licensing process proposed here remains vague.
The fourth area of concern I want to highlight is around the changes relating to physical force and restraint. In one sense, actually, on this side of the House, we agree with the need for some change. We have, like all members of Parliament, heard concerns about the way the rules currently work in schools. The previous National Government made a very well-motivated attempt to make changes in this area that would meet the concerns of parents and of teachers. There have been some challenges with those. We then saw a model proposed in the bill that went through a select committee, and National discussed that in some detail. Again, concerns remain, particularly from members of the disability community, who felt that it gave too much discretion to teachers.
But what's happened today is we've had Supplementary Order Paper 544 land on the Table of the House. That proposes a totally different set of rules in this area from those that were considered in depth by the select committee. My concern is simply that we on this side of the House have not had the adequate opportunity to assess what those changes mean, nor to engage with the experts in this area or the members of the community who would have a view on those changes. That is what the select committee process is meant to provide for, but in this instance, these changes haven't gone through that process. So our concern is not whether these are right or wrong but simply that they have been rushed. We are concerned that there could be problems in the implementation because of that.
Finally, what we see in this bill is actually missed opportunity, because in this country, we have an education system that, by and large, does a great job, but we still have one in five children leaving our schools without the literacy and numeracy skills they need to achieve. If the Minister thinks that this bill contains a single thing in it which will really address that challenge, then he is dreaming. We need to do a much better job in education. This bill is not the bill that will deliver that.





JAN TINETTI (Labour): It's a wonderful opportunity to be here and stand to talk on the fantastic bill here, the Education and Training Bill. This bill, of course, is a key part of the broader work plan that this Government has had and has going forward in education. This bill is the key legislation, the key framework, that shapes our system. It brings together many different forms of legislation that have been built up over the years—legislation that, I have to say, has been difficult for the people that work within the sector to actually navigate. So bringing it together, pulling it together, and modernising it into this particular bill is very much overdue and has long been desired by the sector and is a bill that is very much welcomed. 
I'm not going to take much time here this evening, because I think that it's been said in previous speeches and also the Minister of Education's first speech, but there are a couple of areas that I would like to just take some time to comment on. Firstly: enrolment zones. We've heard some opposition around the provisions in this particular bill around enrolment zones and the fact that there is opposition over that side of the House around the Secretary for Education taking over the development and consultation of the enrolment schemes. For those numbers of schools that those people are hearing from that are opposed to this, there are an equal if not more greater amount of schools who are actually welcoming these changes. These changes will make these schemes more equitable for those schools. There are a number of schools that have struggled with the enrolment zones. It is a burdensome process for boards of trustees, and many have stated over a number of years that they wish that there was a more equitable, fairer scheme in place that could actually take that burden away from them, and they could actually then focus on their key governance roles. 
Unfortunately, we heard from the other side during the committee of the whole House that there was concern around the role of the principal. I share those concerns. It is a very, very hectic role that puts a lot of pressure on the individual. In many schools, the board of trustees is actually guided a lot by the principal in that enrolment scheme development, and it's the principal who actually takes on more workloads and takes them away from their key role of leading teaching and learning within their school. So I see this as being something really positive for our education system and really positive for those schools who really struggle—actually, for all schools—because, in effect, it will lead towards a much fairer system and a fairer enrolment scheme within our education system.
I do want to very briefly, in my final couple of minutes, just talk about the changes that have been made in the physical restraint. We've heard that this is one end of the spectrum, which will be the teaching workforce. We've got the disability sector over here, and we're trying to find this place in the middle. I absolutely welcome these changes. It is a really hard space to actually navigate, but I think there are some key pieces in this legislation that will point towards a way in the future. The key changes are around the requirements around training for our teaching workforce. We must see that happen. I like the discussions of some ideas about those ways forward. We've got some fantastic training programmes in that space here in this country at the moment. I am myself trained in non-violent crisis intervention, NVCI. I think it is a fantastic training programme. If our teaching workforce were trained to that level—not necessarily that particular programme, but to that level—then we will go some way to addressing our concerns of our disability sector. 
This is a fantastic bill, and I have absolutely no hesitation in commending this to the House.





Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have been quite clear, since this bill has been reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee, that we will be opposing this legislation, but then we again took the opportunity during the committee of the whole House—which was just before the third reading now—to ask questions. Those questions were based on concerns that we have in this legislation. I have to acknowledge that the Minister did take calls, but he just addressed those questions; he didn't actually answer them. In a way, he just defended the position that he has towards this legislation. So if the Minister had actually, genuinely looked into resolving those issues that we had raised, maybe we would have thought about changing our position.
So I'm saying that we are not fully opposed to this legislation. There are a few things that we like in this legislation. Like Jan Tinetti was saying, this is about putting all those provisions to do with the education sector—this is the early childhood education sector, compulsory, and tertiary education—together into this legislation, making it easier for people to navigate. We support that, but there are provisions in this legislation that are to do with various education sectors that, as early childhood education, compulsory, and tertiary education, we don't agree with.
First, as I have started talking about things that we actually support in this legislation, I would like to give another example of a provision that we support. This is about renewing transitional plans. In my view, this is actually a good change in this legislation, because this is about taking care of people, young children, where their wellbeing is in question. So there is a requirement of attendance—usual attendance—and there is an exception allowed which is fixed in the current legislation for up to six months. Through this legislation, that is going to be flexible.
But what is good about this change is that it has to be initiated by a parent or a guardian of the child. So we don't want to see any child or the family of that child being forced to keep the child away from school. So it is initiated by a parent, and then, of course, the school principal has to be involved, the Secretary for Education has to be involved, and there has to be a medical practitioner involved in this whole process to make sure that this process is not just to keep that child away. When children start school at that very young age of five years, we want to make sure that their experience of attending school is really positive. We don't want to give them a fright. We don't want to, in a way, punish them by making them sit there when their physical or their mental wellbeing doesn't allow them to be in school for that many hours. So that flexibility is something, as I said, we support.
I also want to acknowledge Supplementary Order Paper 544, which was introduced during the committee of the whole House. In that, offering NCEA to offshore students was addressed. That was a concern we had from the start. In the context of COVID-19, we know that we have learnt that there are a lot of things that can be done while being away. You don't have to be learning face to face. Distance learning is very much—that is possible. Now, we know that a lot of students are not able to come to New Zealand. Export education is a very important sector for New Zealand, and we need to see all possible ways to support our economy. Export education is one sector where we definitely need to build on. So this was a concern we had from the start, but that has been addressed through the Supplementary Order Paper.
Then, again, the physical force and physical restraint issue that we talked about before. So now we know that the Minister has said that is being addressed, but, again, there is a question of training of teachers. We don't know exactly what kind of resources are going to be available or what kind of training is going to be available for teachers to understand what it actually means and what it will mean for children that have special needs.
Now, talking about concerns that we have in this legislation, during the committee of the whole House, I wanted the Minister to address the issue of the early childhood education centre licence approval system that is going to be put through this legislation. One issue that didn't get answered was where there is a criteria of checking that entity's history of providing for the early childhood education sector. So there could be a lot of people that are new players in the sector, they want to get into this field, and they may not have a history. So I feel that those people will find it really difficult to get into the sector.
Our population is growing now—the first time we have 5 million. There are a lot of young families that do need childcare centres in their vicinity or close to their workplace. During this recent recess, I, with my colleague Barbara Kuriger, visited an early childhood education centre. Actually, it was the opening of their brand new centre. That was a beautiful centre. This was in the middle of a big workplace, a lot of workplaces around it. So that was providing that convenience that parents need when they have children of that age. They can bring those children close to their work, drop them in their day-care centre, and then while going home, pick them up and go home.
So these people, the providers in the sector, they understand what the need is, and they understand where that need is. So we should give that freedom. We should give that kind of decision-making ability to our community, rather than the Minister having full control, deciding where and when somebody can apply for a licence to start an early childhood education centre. So I'm not in favour of that, and we on this side, as we have said, we have concerns about that.
The other issue is about the process. During the select committee process, three months out of six months of this legislation were when we were in lockdown. Now we are considering this legislation in urgency—the committee of the whole House and third reading. So I fully understand that the Government wants to look like they have done a lot of work in this sector, but this is not the way to push through this legislation, which the Government themselves have acknowledged is very important legislation in the education sector. So we have concerns about the process as well. Maybe if there was more time—as we have seen through a Supplementary Order Paper, the Minister has actually fixed a couple of issues that were raised by us. I believe that if we had more time, maybe there was a possibility to work on this legislation where we could have supported this legislation. But at this stage, it's not possible for us to support this legislation in its current form.
Enrolment zones have been talked about. Yes, that remains a concern in this legislation. After the committee of the whole House, we are concerned. Again, to me, it looks like it's the control being taken away from local schools. The control is going to sit with the Secretary for Education, which we don't support.
Overall, this legislation, as I said, we fully understand that it is consolidating various legislation which have anything to do with various education stages—that is, early childhood education, compulsory, and tertiary. But putting this together, we have expressed our concerns about vocational education reform and political reforms that are now part of this legislation. So that was separate legislation, and now that is consolidated into this legislation as well. So that is another area of concern. We didn't support that reform, and we cannot support those provisions and this legislation just because they have become part of this bigger legislation.
So I have expressed our concerns about this legislation. This is a very important area. Education and training is important, and it becomes even more important now we know so many people will be losing their jobs. They might be looking at upskilling themselves to find a new kind of job. With the advancement of technology, there is a need for people to upskill, so education and training should be given more seriousness than the way the Government has dealt with this issue. So I oppose this bill. Thank you.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Education and Training Bill. If I can just go back to the start of this Government, one of the requirements of the coalition Government was actually to hold a conversation with New Zealand to set in place a 30-year vision for education. It was to establish what New Zealanders thought success looked like for their children. It criss-crossed New Zealand; it had hundreds, thousands of participants. It was a conversation that was required by New Zealand First of their coalition partner, because we had made a commitment to repeal national standards, to repeal charter schools, and to repeal COOLs, or communities of online learning, all of which were unnecessary but were put in place by the previous Government.
They were unnecessary because the Education Act 1989 already had the flexibility inside of it for those things to exist. Strangely enough, we have seen that very fact. So since the disestablishment of charter schools, what we have seen is those that were charter schools have become "schools of special character". It was always the argument that New Zealand First put forward that the special character provisions in the Education Act 1989 could be widened so that more than one special character could remain. I would argue that Hohepa in the Hawke's Bay should be able to take advantage of that broadening of special character recognition so that they too can become a State-integrated school.
We also believed that national standards were not good for children. I remember having conversations with the Rt Hon Bill English during negotiations where he acknowledged that and recognised that, and recognised that, actually, a success was bigger than just a line in the sand. New Zealand resonated with that when we had that 30-year nationwide conversation. COVID has proven that communities of online learning can exist under the current Education Act.
So this piece of legislation builds upon what was that coalition requirement and starts to set into place and connect from early childhood, compulsory sector, tertiary, and moving on through into lifelong learning. One of the things that is the reality of New Zealand's future in a COVID environment—because we're not post-COVID yet—is that many New Zealanders are going to need to take up fresh learning, whether it be micro-credentialing, whether it be using the vocational pathways to recognise their current skill set and how that skill set can be transferred into another opportunity to gain income.
So this piece of legislation starts to cement in some of those changes. There are three particular areas. First of all, after years on boards of trustees, and knowing also, as the Associate Minister of Education with responsibility around bullying, anti-bullying with discrimination, racism, and so on and so forth inside our schools, and for learning support, I can do nothing more but welcome the dispute resolution panels that have been set into place here.
Again, I want to acknowledge Catherine Delahunty, as it comes out of the dyslexia, dyspraxia, and autism spectrum—an inquiry that was initiated by Catherine Delahunty and supported by Chris Hipkins and myself and the current Leader of the Opposition. At that time, it was the disability community that came and said, "We need another mechanism by which to take our concerns when our children are stood down or excluded or expelled from school—we need another body earlier than the Ombudsman, because the Ombudsman takes too long." And the Ombudsman himself came in front of the select committee and said, "My workload is such and my office is such that they are right. They need something else, closer to the ground, closer to community, and that is more a mediating body that is able to rebuild a relationship between the school, the student, and their family."
But one of the things we are seeing is more and more behavioural issues among our children, and they are younger and younger and younger, from three-year-olds and four-year-olds who are being put out of early childhood education, to six-, seven-, and eight-year-olds that are so aggressive and so violent and so unable to moderate their own behaviour that they are being excluded at that age from schools. So not only is it that there is a disputes panel being put into place through this piece of legislation, but other work that this Government is doing to try and pilot like the Managed Moves in Napier and other ways to assist families and children to be able to learn the art of self-moderation that we know will help them for the rest of their lives when they are in situations of anxiety or stress, where they can learn to take a breath and take a moment and manage what is happening with them. But the vision of the dispute resolution panels as articulated through that inquiry is that parents and schools will be able to come together and, through a mediation body rather than an adversarial situation, find the best solution for the student.
I want to go to the physical restraint clause. This was not the clause I would have preferred. I actually put forward a different wording for Supplementary Order Paper 544 that was built around non-violent crisis intervention and my belief that every teacher, as they once were, should be trained in non-violent crisis intervention. That is not just for the children who are on the autism spectrum or those that have been referred to often during the debate on this document; it is also for those children that their behaviours come not from a disability, not from a neurodiversity, but from a circumstance inside their life. We have not empowered our teaching staff with the skills they need to manage before something becomes a crisis. I remember going to Canada, for example, and how the classrooms there had lowered their lighting and put up fairy lights, and there was a tepee in the corner that was available for any student that needed it, not a student stigmatised because they may have a neurodiversity and at times during the day they needed to separate themselves and make themselves safe.
So I would have preferred a wider definition that would have required the Ministry of Education to step in immediately and train not only the teachers in the classroom but initiate, inside initial teacher training, non-violent crisis intervention as a norm for every teacher. However, we're in a coalition Government and this is better than what it was. What was put into place by the National Government was unworkable in the real world.
One of the things that became unworkable was—and I'm going to draw on another parallel. In the context of family violence, we recognised that children are victims of family violence if they are inside a home where there are things being smashed, things are being thrown, and things are being screamed. But apparently, under the previous legislation before this change, that wasn't the situation. No other child was being traumatised if they were in a classroom where another child was throwing things, smashing things, and screaming things. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. So the previous legislation was unworkable for real life. It didn't help students, it didn't deliver for the disability community, and it certainly didn't deliver for the teaching profession, who are attempting to educate every single one of their students at the level and with the resources that allow them to be their best. So it is with great joy that we're able to finally change—perhaps not as much as I would have liked to—and make a practical change to what has been an unworkable situation inside our schools around physical restraint. I hope that the teaching profession will get the support that they need from the Ministry of Education. I know the Minister himself is adamant that they will. So that's something that we will need to keep our eye on.
Finally, however, the last thing I would want to say is around the workforce development councils. The workforce development councils are based on the Ōtorohanga model. It's part of the conversation that New Zealand First brought to the table. It's about knowing what local communities need: where are the opportunities for employment? Are there the appropriate education opportunities for the young people or those in their 30s, 40s, and 50s to be able to gain that education, gain that training, and be able to find employment in their area, regardless of where they are in New Zealand? We commend the bill to the House.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to rise to take a call tonight on the Education and Training Bill. 
It's always a pleasure to follow Tracey Martin. It always allows me to insert a bit of vim and vigour into my speech, because she always says things that make us on this side of the House raise our eyebrows. 
The first thing that I would say is that, obviously, she referred to the Tomorrow's Schools Review Independent Taskforce report that was put out. We all know this Government spent millions and millions of dollars with this review, travelling around the country, spending a great deal of money on fancy lunches and croissants and coming up with a range of new ideas that were going to have a—[Interruption] Yeah, they did. They had croissants. 
Hon Member: What's wrong with croissants? 
ERICA STANFORD: Nothing wrong with croissants, but they are relatively expensive in the grand scheme of things when we're spending taxpayers' money. But, that's right, we always remember that the other side of the House forget that it's not their money; it's taxpayers' money. 
Anyway, the point is that they went around the country and they had what the Hon Tracey Martin said was a conversation that was needed to be had. I don't know what the conversation that was had was, because, as Nicola Willis pointed out in her speech earlier on tonight, we ended up with recommendations that were going back to what we had in the past of education hubs that were this massive centralisation, which no one was happy with. 
I have to acknowledge Nikki Kaye, as Nicola Willis did earlier on this evening, because she went around the country and she spoke to principals, communities, families, teachers, parents, and even children in the 30 meetings that she did, and the pushback on what came out of that review was extraordinary. As Nicola Willis said, a great deal of work was done between her and the Minister of Education to water down some of those changes that were so opposed by the sector and families and parents. 
The Minister went on to talk about the wonderful job that this Government has done in getting rid of those unnecessary charter schools, and he said that they're all doing fine now that they're special character schools and that that was always good enough. I actually have to say that those charter schools have done more for increasing our educational achievement in this country than this bill will ever do. Nicola Willis pointed out that there isn't almost a single thing in this bill that will lead to an increase in educational achievement and outcome, and I have to say that the charter schools and the model that was in place before had some incredible results, and getting rid of those is a massive step backwards. But I won't go on too much about that, because it's not in the bill, and I know that the Speaker will want me to get back to the bill. 
What I want to talk about—and we've alluded to it earlier—is this idea of the taking away of the responsibility around zoning from school boards. As Nicola Willis pointed out, there's sort of this shadow of what was left of the Tomorrow's Schools review. Most of those things were stripped out, but we were left with this problem, and we are still very opposed to this. 
There isn't a single school in my electorate that I have spoken to that's in favour of this. It's really interesting when you're working with schools as a local MP to see the pitfalls of the Ministry of Education when they get involved in things like zoning, and even new classrooms. They've failed miserably so many times in being able to account for growth and in understanding where growth in communities is, and that's just when they're looking at classrooms. That's why we have such a lag of availability of classrooms, because they always get it wrong. It's really interesting that in this case, the Minister, when he was in the chair earlier, said that "Well, the ministry will still be consulting with school boards before and during the consultation process.", but we all know well that the Ministry of Education will pay lip service, at best, to the wants and needs of the community, because it's not as simple as drawing lines on a map. 
Actually, if they're going to consult with the boards and they're going to consult with the schools, why not just leave that process as it is with the boards and the schools, because they know their communities best? There has to be a balance in between numbers of students and where they can go, and communities where people live, work, play, and shop, and where they feel connected to. There has to be a balance, and as Nicola Willis pointed out earlier, this will bring up the possibility of an excuse by the ministry to not put in place builds of new classrooms, because they will simply jimmy round the zoning to make up for not building new classrooms. In fact, we already see it, but that will lead even more to not taking into account communities' wants and needs in terms of their communities and where they feel connected to, and that balance will certainly be swung more in favour of numbers rather than the needs of communities. 
I don't want to go on too much more. The last thing I would say is that we're also very concerned that this bill removes that specific accountability placed on school boards to raise educational achievement by muddying it with three other objectives and giving them all equal weighting. On this side of the House, we don't argue that those three metrics aren't important, but not having educational achievement as the number one top priority of that list, in our opinion, is not a good thing. 
In the dying few seconds that I wanted to take up, I just wanted to say that on this side of the House, we strongly back communities, boards of trustees, families, and local areas. They know what's best for their local schools, and it's not the Ministry of Education coming in and making decisions for those local communities. We will always back those local boards, teachers, parents, and communities above the Ministry of Education, and we will not be supporting this bill. 





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. It's a daunting challenge and a humbling one to hold the education portfolio, and, as everyone who's spoken tonight has acknowledged, this bill touches on some incredibly important aspects of our education system and, thereby, our society. Education is a basic human right. It, in a way, underpins many, many others of our rights—our right to democracy and to engage with it, our right to information, and our ability to thrive and participate in society. So the fact that we are tonight modernising our laws around education, from early childhood education and strengthening that up and down our nation, right to the rights of students with different needs to both attend their local school and to be treated well while they do that, and right through to vocational training, to tertiary education—it is a joy to support the passing of this bill.
But I do want to just focus on a few aspects of it, because it is mammoth and none of us have actually been able to get through every single thing that we like about it. But to me, this is a good bill because it is a human rights - based framework that it adopts, in a lot of ways, and one of those aspects of the bill is around the right to participate and to attend school. I think we were all a little bit shocked when we found that, in fact, some of our most marginalised students, those with needs that should be catered to in our schools, were not in fact being cared for in the ways that they needed but being discouraged from attendance. So this bill makes it clear in law, finally, that once a student is enrolled in a school in New Zealand, they have a right to attend for all the hours that that school is open, they are able to participate, and, if they are going to attend a lower number of hours during the week or during the school day, that programme is established for them with their own input and with the input of their whānau.
So that is a basic child rights principle, and New Zealand is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child—that's one of the most universal and enforceable aspects of human rights law—and we're proud to try as a Government to uphold those rights for our children and young people. So their input in that programme and their right to attend school is really important. 
The next aspect of this, which is a due process right that has been really, really long overdue for students and for parents, is the right to dispute resolution that is fair, that's inclusive, and that will result in a mediated outcome for students and their family where they have been, for example, excluded—where their rights or their wellbeing is touched upon by a decision that's been taken by the school and where that decision is not able to meet the child's needs in the view of that whānau. So that has been missing, even when something as important as exclusion has applied to a child. And we know that that actually will impact on a person's life for a long time. It will change a child's life. It will mean that they have outcomes that we know, at the other end of our due process and rights scheme, as a Government, in the justice system, will result in people coming through the youth justice system. We know that some 90 percent of young people that come into conflict with the criminal justice system experienced what's been diagnosed as serious learning disabilities and have often been excluded from school. So that's how we're impacting their lives, but there was no dispute resolution mechanism at the end where education is concerned, and this bill provides for that.
I do want to thank Youth Law, the Human Rights Commission, and the Children's Commission, who I know—in my previous life working on children's rights—fought really, really hard for this change. As the Hon Tracey Martin noted, this also came about as a result of a Green-initiated inquiry by our MP Catherine Delahunty, who I'm sure has kept a very close eye on this bill as well.
The next rights-based change that this bill makes that we welcome is the prohibition against religious instruction in schools. We would have liked the bill to have gone further and to address the issue of religious practice, which is something else which comes through in a more insidious way that parents often don't know about, so that could mean prayers before assemblies, which isn't a particular class that the child may be excluded from but just part of school life. I know from sitting on the committee that parents and other rights-based organisations came and raised concern about it. We know that the Human Rights Commission has taken this to court. But it is a positive step that in law we now recognise that separation of religion from State schools, and the education system is something that's important and to be protected, and we're upholding that. 
But the last aspect of this bill that I welcome with great joy and has been introduced just tonight is the part that removes the previous wording of the bill that we know caused grave distress to parents, families, and communities of children with cognitive diversity and special needs that were not being addressed by schools and teachers were not supported in addressing. That is the use of the term "use of force" being allowed in our education system. The term was introduced to replace the previous wording that we've now reinstated, which was the "use of restraint". We've now reinstated that, but the framework that's been put around this, instead of use of force, is something that's truly progressive. So we did that through really close communication with parents and with teachers. We know that nobody wanted the use of force and the escalation of what children were already experiencing as being traumatising.
So the terminology has reverted back, but we've also inserted a requirement that use of restraint is restrictive, that it is only used where there is imminent risk of harm, and that, before that, we will expect teachers and others dealing with children to use de-escalation methods that fall far from physical restraint or physical intervention, that are far less traumatising and will require us as a Government—and this will be our commitment—to provide for training and support of teachers and everyone that deals with children in schools to know what de-escalation looks like, to know the behaviours that may escalate to a risk, and to intervene in a non-violent, non-physical way well before that happens and support children to behave appropriately in the classroom.
So we have inserted a requirement as well, and this is truly progressive and this has never existed before in our law, that guidelines be developed in consultation with not just parents but parents of the affected children. So they're a subgroup of parents, and they hadn't been effectively consulted with before. That had been causing them huge stress, and now they are specifically noted as a community that will need to be consulted with, together with teachers, with principals, and with experts and policy makers. So everyone will come to the table for the first time and develop guidelines around what behavioural de-escalation looks like, and that is a commitment by our Government to provide for truly inclusive education, for compassion in our schools, and for equality.
And so I do support this bill. I am so pleased and so grateful to everyone who came together to tell us what was needed, from the ground up, and to share their expertise and their time, and that has resulted in a bill that we can all be proud of. Thank you.





DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and take a contribution at the third and final reading of this Education and Training Bill. I just want to start out by saying that one thing I always try to apply to any legislation that I've been debating in this House is the application of a simple question, which is: does a law address a defined problem? And for us to answer that question, you've got to dive deeper and ask: what is the problem, and then is the legislation that we're considering the appropriate solution to that problem? Now, I applied that same methodology to the Tomorrow's Schools review, and I was actually startled by the lack of a definition of a problem, and the solutions that were provided weren't solutions to any problem at all. And I must say that I wasn't the only one. Most principals, most board of trustee members, most parents I spoke to and consulted with over the Tomorrow's Schools task force review report had the same conclusion: what is the problem this report is trying to solve?
I just want to reflect on some of the feedback that I've had from my area of Northcote from the sector, because those are the problems that I'm getting about our education system. The first is the bureaucracy of the ministry: the sense that in any problem that schools or teachers are having, they're coming up against a brick wall between themselves and the ministry in getting progress. The second is around the lack of adequate resources, whether it's teachers or school classrooms. The third is around support for our most vulnerable: not only people with complex needs but also students with high needs, as well. The fourth is around preparing our kids for success in the modern world, and the fifth is really around the ability of schools to handle the political football. The biggest feedback I actually got on the Tomorrow's Schools review was schools hated being treated like political footballs. Whether it's a National Government pulling them in one way or a Labour Government pulling them in another way, they hated the extremes of the political spectrum, and they wanted us to actually take politics and ideology out of our schools to address some problems.
Now, what I see from the bill that we've been talking about is that it doesn't address any issues that I've just outlined for you today. It is a bill that, quite frankly, is searching for a problem, and it only reinforces the view from our education sector and from our parents out there that this law is all about ideology. It's all about ideology and not about good policy: the ideology of centralisation, the belief that Government knows best for you and your child rather than the school; the ideology of removing power from local communities and the sense that, actually, local communities don't know what's best for their kids; a sense of removing accountability. My colleague Erica Stanford mentioned the lack of accountability now under this new bill for school boards and the accountability they have for students' academic achievement. So this bill really doesn't provide much in the way of improving student outcomes and addressing some of the deep-seated challenges that are facing the sector.
I was actually quite optimistic. I was thinking the Tomorrow's Schools review would address some of these challenges. But then I saw the recommendations—centralised hubs, removing power from boards of trustees, phasing out intermediate schools, and even things like fixing the tenure of principals in our schools—and I thought, what are the problems that they're actually trying to solve? All we have today is a watered-down version of that Tomorrow's Schools review in the form of the Education and Training Bill. And again, as I said, it's the same ideology that is prevalent in this Government of centralisation, of stripping power away from local communities and schools and saying, "Governments know better for you and your child than you and the communities." So we absolutely oppose the ideology that is prevalent in and seeping through each and every part of this legislation.
I want to also talk about the lack of due process that's gone into this bill. Only three months at the select committee, I believe, but also—
Simeon Brown: Six months, but three months in lockdown.
DAN BIDOIS: Sorry?
Simeon Brown: You're right.
DAN BIDOIS: Yeah. It's the three-month select committee process, but also it's the fact that we have had dumped on us at the last moment a Supplementary Order Paper of hundreds of pages that we on this side of the House haven't had time to read and digest. And, again, all that does for the sector, for the boards of trustees, for the parents, for the teachers is reinforce this notion that it is ideologically driven, and we oppose those changes. So I'm proud to stand and oppose this legislation, as somebody who, I must say, the education sector absolutely failed. I stand here proud as a school dropout and also a Harvard graduate, and it's no thanks to our school system that I got there. I think some of the deep-seated challenges are absolutely missing from this legislation, and I'm proud to oppose this bill in the House today.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call; I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan.





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is actually with great pride that I stand to take a call on this bill, because it's a bill that will modernise and strengthen the education system. It makes some significant changes across the system that will support the progress, the achievement, and the wellbeing of every New Zealander. So I commend this bill to the House.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the outset, could I acknowledge the Minister of Education for the way in which he conducted his part of the committee stage debate which immediately preceded this. I think it is one of the great innovations that we've seen of recent times. We didn't necessarily agree with all of his answers, but he engaged regularly, and I think that, as I say, deserves to be acknowledged. And he did make some compelling points.
Now, in this contribution, I'd like to focus on the skills and employment provisions of this Education and Training Bill. Of course, we had a significant debate over the last year or so over the Government's Reform of Vocational Education, which became known as RoVE. It was proposed about a year ago. National strongly opposed it, even though there are aspects of it that we could see some merit in, and all of those aspects are now enshrined in this bill that is receiving its third reading tonight.
It is quite a radical centralisation of tertiary education, skills, and training, and that's the aspect that my colleague Dr Shane Reti raised such concerns about when he held this role. In fact, he was the spokesperson, until very recently, for tertiary education, skills, and training. In our reshuffle last week, my fine colleague Mr Brown has taken over the tertiary education aspect, and I've been given skills and education. While you're a very fine and capable man, Mr Brown, I'm a little concerned to see that it takes two of us to replace Dr Reti. Although I have to acknowledge that, like rust, he never sleeps, and he has done very fine work in producing policy that we are going to be proud to run on in the upcoming election.
One of the major concerns we had, and it does need to be acknowledged again, was the huge cost of this megamerger. It was in the region of $400 million. That's a huge amount of money that has come out of other aspects of education. Just to give you one example, in last year's Budget, industry collaboration projects, scholarships, awards, and university programmes such as the university-led innovation programme were cancelled, and at the time we were wondering why. It became clear very soon after that it was, in part, to fund RoVE. They were helped by the fact that their fees-free policy was a spectacular failure. They'd been estimating about 80,000 people would take it up, but because only 50,000 did, they had quite a few dollars left over from that to pump into it. But that was just one aspect that really did concern us.
In addition to the extraordinary cost of RoVE—and, as I say, this is all enshrined in the current bill—the second major area of our concern, which I do just want to put on record again tonight, was that so many jobs were being lost because of the megamerger that took place. We have effectively now got all 16 polytechnics coming together under one entity called the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. It's a pretty radical restructure. Some of our regional polytechs were very badly hurt. I'm slightly conflicted, in that I have to acknowledge, as the MP for Hamilton West, Wintec is in my electorate. So this new administrative centre is in my electorate. It had to go somewhere, and I'm very glad, considering it had to go somewhere, that it came to Hamilton. I'm very glad that that does result in some extra jobs being created in my electorate. But nevertheless, we still were opposed in principle to this megamerger.
Now, some of them, WelTec and Whitireia, were at least neighbouring polytechnics, so maybe you could say that it was going to be possible for there to be some efficiencies there. But they've had to come together with one chief executive and it does, of course, therefore mean that there were major job losses, and Unitec and Manukau Institute of Technology were also merging with the same consequences. But then you go to the extraordinary, bizarre merger between Tai Poutini on the West Coast of the South Island, which was merging with NorthTec in Whangārei and the Western Institute of Technology in Taranaki. Now, how on earth you could have the West Coast, Northland, and Taranaki all being able to operate effectively and in a way that didn't cause major disruptions in those regions is almost impossible to contemplate. Yet, in February of this year, the Government pushed on with RoVE. Tonight, here they are enacting it into legislation. I think that there are very significant concerns in this area and I am sorry to see it going ahead as it inevitably will do.





Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand in support of this bill. This bill is going to provide the framework for modernising and strengthening the education system and will make a huge difference to learners at all levels. I commend this bill to the House.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): The National Party does not support this bill.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well, I do support this bill, and I commend it to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a third time.
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)