Thursday, 3 August 2023 [Volume 769] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker—National): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 15 August. In that week, the Estimates debate will conclude with appearances by Ministers in the local government, justice, and transport portfolios. Legislation to be considered during the week the include the third reading of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill, the committee stage of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3), the second reading of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill and the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill, and the first reading of the Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill. Wednesday is scheduled to be a members' day and there will also be six valedictory statements during the week. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. Amongst the many bills they seek to progress before the House rises for the general election, is it his expectation that the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill will be progressed given the rather strident select committee commentary about that bill? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): As the member indicates, the Government has a busy work programme, with a lot of bills on the list. We will attempt to advance as many of them as we possibly can. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered for presentation. No papers have been delivered for presentation. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the St Peter's Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction Human Rights (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Gender Identity or Expression, and Variations of Sex Characteristics) Amendment Bill, introduction Medicines (Exemption for Authorised Prescribers) Amendment Bill, introduction Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment 1. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. What updates has she seen on the progress of the Apprenticeship Boost scheme? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I'm pleased to advise the House that the Government's Apprenticeship Boost initiative is showing great success. A whopping 60,000 apprentices have been supported, through the scheme, to stay in or take up an apprenticeship since it was introduced in August 2020. The scheme continues to prove its worth, let alone deliver win-win outcomes for Kiwis looking for work, and businesses. Terisa Ngobi: How does this compare to the Government's other employment programmes? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Over 11,000 people have been supported into employment, education, or training through Mana in Mahi and the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs' Community Resilience Programme. That includes 6,123 job seekers supported into work through Mana in Mahi, and 5,085 young people supported through the Mayors Task Force for Jobs' Community Resilience Programme, with over 1,700 supported through the latter in the last financial year alone. These are just two examples of targeted supports that are proving successful in getting more people into jobs and keeping them off-benefit. Terisa Ngobi: How has this scheme helped employers? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Apprenticeship Boost has been paid to nearly 20,000 employers so far, and is a tangible way to build skills and expertise for jobs, as well as fill gaps and shortages in the sector. Apprentices are significant investments for employers, particularly in their first two years. On Tuesday, I visited Done Right Builders Ltd and met their director, Leith Kawana. Leith has employed seven apprentices through Apprenticeship Boost and pays them all above the living wage. He spoke highly of the initiative and asked whether we were keeping it. I said, "Yes.", but we all know that's not guaranteed under the "coalition of cuts". Terisa Ngobi: What other updates has she seen on employment in the construction sector? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I'm also pleased to advise the House that around 308,900 people were employed in the construction sector in the June 2023 quarter, up 13,900 people over the year. This is also a broader reflection of the fact that the employment rate reached 69.8 percent during the June 2023 quarter, the highest rate recorded by the house horse—not house horse—household labour force survey since the series began in 1986. Contrary to what the other side of the House thinks, this is a reflection of the fact that our economic plan is working, managed and led by our trusted Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. Nicola Willis: What does the Prime Minister say to the mother who wrote to me, appalled to learn that Labour voted against my bill to give flexibility in paid parental leave, saying "The difference in having the flexibility around paid parental leave your bill would have allowed during the early months when we were in and out of Starship would without a doubt have been life changing. This bill would have allowed us to both take leave at the same time and handle the incredibly difficult situation we were in together."? SPEAKER: Yeah, the Prime Minister is not responsible for the member's bill, but you can give an opinion. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Do you want me to respond? SPEAKER: If you want to. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No. SPEAKER: Do you have another one? Nicola Willis: What would the Prime Minister say to the parent I have just quoted, who thinks it was wrong for the Prime Minister's Government to vote against a bill which would have given parents flexibility about how they arrange their paid parental leave entitlements? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would ask that parent if she is aware that National did not support paid parental leave when it was introduced back in 2002. I would ask that parent if they were aware that Bill English had used his financial veto to vote down Sue Moroney's bill back in 2015-16 to extend paid parental leave. I would show this House's track record with regards to who supports parents and who has always pushed for paid parental leave. Nicola Willis: So is it the Prime Minister's position that the reason it voted down my bill is that politics is more important to that Government—the politics of talking about National, of talking about Labour, is more important—than making a pragmatic change for parents? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Not at all. In fact, I did say there was some merit to what was proposed by the member who was asking the question. However, it has not been fleshed out enough, and some advice that we received made it unworkable. There is some health evidence that suggests that we should be slightly concerned, including information that we've got from the OECD, the World Health Organization, and the Australian Productivity Commission that is supportive of a parent being at home for the full 26 weeks. So it is not politics at all. I'd also remind that member that many of us have had members' bills in this House, including myself—one of mine was the Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill. It was voted down by the Government of the day— SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member is answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. Shanan Halbert: Do the mahi, get the treats. Nicola Willis: Is it the Government's position— SPEAKER: Yeah, I'm going to say this, and when I'm finished, Shanan Halbert will stand, withdraw, and apologise. Damien Smith: Chuck him out—chuck him out. SPEAKER: Who was that? Whoever it was can stand, withdraw, and apologise after Mr Halbert. Damien Smith: I withdraw and apologise. SPEAKER: OK. As I said yesterday, I'm going to put it down to we're getting close to the election, but that is no excuse for trying to shout down a member who has the right to ask a question. It's the only time, as the case has been for quite some time, that I expect there to be no interjections. Shanan Halbert. Shanan Halbert: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. Nicola Willis: Is it the Government's position that OECD and World Health Organization guidelines know better what a parent should do in their personal circumstances as it relates to parental leave than those parents do? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It's the Government's position that we take informed advice from the experts to actually inform our policies. I know that's not what the other side of the House likes to do, but we certainly do do that. Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister understand that some parents find themselves in circumstances beyond their control, which mean they can't spend 26 weeks at home with their children, or they would prefer to spend some of that time with their partner, and why does the Prime Minister think they know better than the parents do? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We absolutely understand on this side of the House the importance of paid parental leave. That's why we have always been the ones to push for it to occur, and we do not apologise for that. Nicola Willis: When the Prime Minister said today that consistent at-home presence for the first six months of a baby's life is actually really important, did the Prime Minister pause to consider all of those families who, for whatever reason, could not or did not make that choice, and is it the Prime Minister's view that they were not acting in the best interests of their children? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Prime Minister is, of course, mindful of what New Zealand families need. That's why, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I and everyone on this side of the House have always advocated for paid parental leave for families in New Zealand, unlike that side of the House. Question No. 3—Finance 3. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. What reports has he seen on the views of Moody's rating agency about the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In their annual credit analysis released this week, Moody's Investors Service has affirmed their view of the New Zealand economy, which has seen them in the past give a local currency credit rating and foreign currency rating of AAA, with a stable outlook. The report said that the economy has remained resilient in the face of the shocks from the pandemic and then high inflation. It's reflected in the strong institutions and sustained policy effectiveness of New Zealand, including the Government's actions to support New Zealanders and the country's healthy fiscal position compared with that of our peers. We know that many New Zealanders are doing it tough in the face of cost of living pressures and a deteriorating global economic environment. New Zealand is well positioned to face the challenges ahead, with Kiwis in work in record numbers, wages rising, inflation heading in the right direction, and Government debt levels among the lowest in the world. Ingrid Leary: What else did the report say about the economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The agency said it expects the economy to remain resilient to shocks because of its trade openness, diverse and competitive agricultural export base, flexible labour and product markets, high wealth levels, and supported demographics, driven by solid net immigration. The agency said that this is backed by the Government's strong track record of managing shocks through effective fiscal policy while demonstrating fiscal discipline over the long term. Ingrid Leary: What did the report says about the Government's response to economic conditions? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has moved to consolidate spending in response to global economic conditions, and Moody's said it expected this to continue. As I've said previously, we will continue to take the hard decisions that are needed while keeping a balanced approach that delivers the strong public services that New Zealanders deserve. Moody's said the Government's strong fiscal discipline and comparatively low debt levels mean that the country's credit metrics are in a good position to respond to any further negative shocks to the economy. Ingrid Leary: Why is it important to have the endorsement of credit rating agencies? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These ratings are important for ensuring that our cost of borrowing remains as low as is possible. It also gives people more confidence that New Zealand is a good place to invest. Moody's report is a sign of confidence in our recovery and rebuild and the Government's actions that have put us in a strong position to support New Zealanders in the here and now and invest in building a stronger, more resilient, and inclusive economy while carefully managing our resources to ensure the long-term sustainability of the economy. Question No. 4—Finance 4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What update on the fiscal outlook, if any, have Public Service chief executives been informed of at recent meetings reported to have been held with him, and what updated requests for spending restraint, if any, have been directed to those chief executives? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, I met with Public Service chief executives yesterday, as I have done several times in the last three years, as part of the Government's fiscal sustainability and effectiveness programme, which we announced in Budget 2023 in May. Public Service chief executives are aware of the most recent update of the fiscal outlook, as other New Zealanders are, and the Government accounts for the 11 months to May 2023 that were released in July. The next update will be the pre-election fiscal update, in September. In answer to the second part of the question, public sector chief executives are aware of the need to continue to make efforts to meet the Government's fiscal rules and return the Government accounts to a more sustainable fiscal position following the significant investments required to deal with the effects of the global pandemic. Nicola Willis: Is it correct that specific Government agencies, including the New Zealand Transport Agency, were directed to find savings of at least 2 percent? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government's fiscal sustainability and effectiveness programme is an ongoing programme. Any decisions that would affect departmental budgets will be dealt with in the same way that all Budget requests and decisions are made, and will be announced when it is appropriate to do so. Nicola Willis: Is it correct that the finance Minister, at the very last minute, has realised that the pre-election fiscal update will be a complete debacle and so is trying to quickly get decisions into Cabinet minutes to try and paper over the crevasse in the Government accounts? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member clearly wasn't listening to my primary answer. In the Budget in May, we had $4 billion worth of savings that we found, and we announced our fiscal sustainability and effectiveness programme—page 64 of the Budget documents, for the member's reference. It is an ongoing programme of work because we are a responsible Government that seeks to make sure that we manage what is in front of us and seeks to make sure that we get a balance between fiscal sustainability and supporting New Zealanders. The only person who should be worried about a fiscal crevasse, to use the member's words, is the member, who cannot pay for the promises that she is making. Nicola Willis: Why is it, after six years of spraying New Zealanders' money around with wild abandon, that he has, at the midnight hour, worked out that perhaps the bureaucracy should tighten its belt, and only now started issuing those directives? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, I repeat the answers that I have given. In Budget 2023, there were $4 billion worth of savings identified. We have an ongoing sustainability and effectiveness programme. I think what we're seeing here is a member who can see in front of her the fact that she couldn't pay for the promises that have already been made, and if she hasn't been keeping up with where the Government accounts are, that's not our responsibility. She now has to be the one to find some way of repairing the fiscal hole in National's plans. Nicola Willis: How big is his hole, and do—[Interruption] Hon Grant Robertson: That is not in the public interest, I can assure you! Nicola Willis: Apologies, Mr Speaker. How big is the New Zealand Government's financial hole and what credibility will any commitments he makes to fixing it have when in every Budget he has delivered, he has spent more than he said he would six months prior—on average, $600 million more than he promises in his Budget Policy Statements? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated in my primary answer, the latest accounts for the Government were made available to the public in July. They did indicate a softening in the revenue stream for the Government. The finalisation of where that reaches will be in the pre-election fiscal update. But I say to the member: just today, in the questions that I've answered already, we've noted that Moody's, one of the most important rating agencies, have given a tick of approval to the economic management of the Government. When I look at the Budgets that we have produced over the last few years, we have struck that balance between supporting New Zealanders and being fiscally disciplined. That is clear in the outcomes we have seen, with some of the lowest public debt in the world, with an economy 6 percent bigger than it was before COVID, and with record low unemployment. We are proud of our record and make sure we look after New Zealanders and look after the books. Question No. 5—Children 5. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has he made regarding the anniversary of the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Today, I announced the one-year anniversary of the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan. This plan requires the chief executives of Oranga Tamariki, the Police, and the ministries of Education, Social Development, Health, and Justice to work together to achieve better outcomes for the children and young people in care. As well as children's agencies, many others have contributed to the work, including the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. There's still a lot more to do, but it's good to see progress. We know that it's often not just one agency responsible for supporting tamariki, and others need to step up across the system to better meet these young people's needs. Dr Liz Craig: What improvements has this led to for children in the health space? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: A key part of this initiative is ensuring alignment across agencies to make things easier for tamariki and whānau. It's early days, but we're getting some outcomes already. For example, the partnership has led to initiatives such as senior social worker liaison roles being introduced at Starship's acute mental health unit, with the positions to be introduced in Wellington and Canterbury after the successful trial. Te Whatu Ora has also developed a tool to help children in care transition smoothly between healthcare providers. Dr Liz Craig: What improvements are we seeing for children in the housing space? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We are getting real traction and the impact is being seen in the lives of tamariki. For example, Oranga Tamariki and Kāinga Ora are working together to increase the number of homes available for disabled children who require more intensive support. These homes are being purchased in Christchurch, Wellington, and Ōrewa, with more planned across the motu. Oranga Tamariki is also working with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to deliver new Supported Accommodation Service placements for up to 65 young people with higher and more complex needs. Young people moving out of care in residential settings need additional help and support, which these placements provide. Dr Liz Craig: So what's next for the Oranga Tamariki Action plan? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I want to thank my ministerial colleagues and their officials for their commitment to the kaupapa, but the work has only just begun. Oranga Tamariki is continuing to work on its baseline needs assessments, and we will look at how agencies can work together to address these findings. We will continue to look at what needs to be done in housing, education, and health to meet the needs of young people. When I became the Minister for Children, what I would hear almost every time I visited social workers on the front line was that "We can't do this alone." I know we will all continue to work together to support tamariki. Question No. 6—Finance 6. BROOKE van VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: How much money, if any, as a percentage of their departmental budgets, were Public Service chief executives asked to save in meetings this week and last week, and how big is the gap between the forecast OBEGAL for 2023/24 in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2023 and Treasury's current estimates for OBEGAL, if any? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, as I've already indicated in question time today, I met with Public Service chief executives yesterday as part of the Government fiscal sustainability and effectiveness programme, which we announced at Budget 2023 in May. The outcome of work under the programme, in so far as it relates to departmental budgets, is treated the same way as any other Budget meeting and therefore is confidential until such time as it is made public. In answer to the second part of the question, the estimate of the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update remains Treasury's estimate of OBEGAL. The next update will be at the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) in September. Brooke van Velden: Can he rule out the Government's fiscal hole is greater than $10 billion? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the member's assertion in that question. As I indicated in answers to earlier questions, the latest update of the Government accounts to the end of May indicated a softening in revenue and therefore an extension out in what had been forecast for OBEGAL. The final forecast of where that ends up will not come through until PREFU. What I can rule out, though, for the benefit of the member, is the assertion made by the ACT Party yesterday that they believe that there was a fiscal hole of $27 billion on the basis of those May Crown accounts. That's because the ACT Party thought that the $2 billion or so that was softer than the Budget was a monthly number. It's not: it's the annual number. Brooke van Velden: Can he confirm that housing Minister Megan Woods has refused to make any savings in her portfolio, and which other Ministers have reacted badly to being asked to make savings? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, that is not true. All Ministers are on board with the Government's fiscal sustainability and effectiveness programme that we announced in May. However, I would concede this to the member: I'm yet to meet a Minister who's happy when the Minister of Finance comes knocking on the door. Nicola Willis: Is it correct that Public Sector agencies have been directed to find 2 percent to 5 percent savings in the next financial year because, somehow, the Government failed to factor in wage settlements? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The answer to the member's question is no. The member is on pretty thin ice when it comes to that, because I'm not sure that the member has any idea, in her plan, on how she would pay to make sure that we have teachers and nurses and social workers, because the National Party's plan, as currently unfunded, would have no room for that at all. Brooke van Velden: After six years of refusing to listen to ACT's suggestions for reducing wasteful Government spending, has he come around to the fact that it might have been a good idea, just 40 days before the Government's books are due to be opened? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two answers to the question. We had $4 billion worth of savings in this year's Budget and a programme to continue to drive efficiency in the Budget that we announced in May. Secondly, I'm not sure I'm going to take advice from the ACT Party given that they couldn't actually understand the Crown accounts and thought that a figure for 11 months was a figure for one month. I'm not going to take advice from people with that level of economic literacy. Question No. 7—Housing 7. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Housing: What is the current nationwide median rent according to the MBIE rental bond database, and what has been the increase in the nationwide median rent according to the MBIE rental bond database since October 2017? Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: The current nationwide median rent for new tenancies according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment rental bond database, is $570 per week. That's an increase of $170 from the $400 median rent in October 2017. Stats NZ figures, however, show that the national rent rises in the last year are in line with the longer-term average and are also below the general inflation rate. Unsurprisingly, the way you solve a housing crisis is you build more houses. That's what this Government is doing, and congratulations to our Minister of Housing, who, along with our Prime Minister, today opened the Te Mātāwai public housing development on Greys Avenue in Auckland. Te Mātāwai is the largest public housing development delivered to date by the Government, with 276 units in total—another example of this Government's commitment to public housing. Chris Bishop: Does she accept that the Government's war on landlords is hurting tenants by driving rents to record highs, and how can she defend a nationwide rent increase of $170 a week in the last six years? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I reject that totally. In fact, this Government has been so good to the average New Zealander that it's not funny. No longer will renters be thrown out at the whim of a landlord. No longer can landlords just push rental rises on tenants whenever they want to. No longer will they freeze in the cold houses that they froze in in the nine years that the National Party was in Government. Things could never be better for our people at the moment: 13,000 new public houses. In fact, on year, we've delivered the most public homes of a Government since the Nash Government in 1950. Chris Bishop: How does he square his remark just now that things could never be better for average New Zealanders with the fact that the State house waiting list has quintupled under this Government, 6,000 families live in motels, and nearly 500 families are living in cars? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Because we have made huge changes in terms of the housing market. We are building more houses than that previous Government ever did. We are looking after renters. We are looking after our people. We are getting the support of communities. We've got a Māori housing strategy. We've got a Pacific Island strategy. The previous Government that that member was involved with did absolutely nothing. OK, things could get better faster, but—but—we're doing pretty good; a lot better than that member could ever do. Chris Bishop: Has she seen the latest Crockers Tony Alexander Survey that suggests rents will continue to rise over the coming six months as a result of the rising costs associated with being a landlord under this Government, and when will she drop her commitment to the removal of interest deductibility for landlords that she was warned would put pressure on rents? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There's a number of reasons why we have higher rents, and it's not just about what the member is talking about. In terms of the survey, 22 percent of surveyed landlords said they were considering selling their rental property in the next six months. Of those considering selling their rental property, 39 percent cited a less profitable asset now that the mortgage interest costs can't be offset against rental income; 20 percent cited the cost of the new healthy homes standard. The number of rented properties has grown by 3 percent from March '21 to December '22. Investors remain active in the market, with a share of 35 percent of purchases. We're doing pretty well considering what we inherited from that previous Government. Chris Bishop: How does she expect a young family with a mortgage to cope with hundreds of dollars a week more in interest costs because of the cost of living crisis created by this useless Government? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I would expect that young couple to continue to vote for the Labour Government, and we will ensure that they will be looked after, as we have done over the last few years. Hon Gerry Brownlee: How? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, do I have to go through it all again? OK. Over 13,000 public homes added since we came into Government. In fact, year on, we've delivered the most public homes of any Government since the Nash Government in the '50s. Over 700 apprentices and 1,500 public homes by the time we left office. Over 700—1 in 7—of the total public housing stock has been added by this document. Get that through your head, Mr Brownlee. Question No. 8—Health 8. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made about the redevelopment of Nelson Hospital? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Last week, I was proud to announce this Government's next steps in the major redevelopment of Nelson Hospital. We have committed $73 million for the first tranche of redevelopment. The redevelopment will make the hospital more efficient and effective, with an emergency department (ED) which meets Australasian standards, is twice as big, and has medical assessment spaces which allow better patient flow. Enabling works in the redevelopment are due to start mid-next year, and construction in 2026. Rachel Boyack: What will stage one of Project Whakatupuranga look like? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The funding allows Project Whakatupuranga to immediately begin design for the acute services building—the first stage in a six-phase project, estimated at $1.09 billion, to be carried out over 10 years. The initial funding will enable work to progress on plans for a new acute services and in-patient building, projected to include 255 beds, eight theatres, and a larger emergency department. Rachel Boyack: Why has the Government committed funding to Nelson Hospital's redevelopment? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The current hospital is too small, the spaces are poorly configured, and some parts are not up to earthquake standards. The redeveloped hospital will be modern and fit for purpose for patients and their whānau. It will also ensure that Nelson Hospital can provide care should a significant earthquake occur on the Alpine Fault, and will allow us to keep up with the region's growing and ageing population by helping futureproof the centre of Nelson's health network, providing accessible, quality health services for the community. Rachel Boyack: How does the redevelopment of Nelson Hospital fit into the Government's health infrastructure plan? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The development of Nelson's hospital is one of 110 health infrastructure projects—worth a total of $7.7 billion—currently being planned and delivered nationwide as part of the programme to rebuild and strengthen New Zealand's hospitals and health infrastructure. Ensuring our health infrastructure is up to date and fit for purpose means New Zealanders will be able to better access the health services they need. Question No. 9—Health 9. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Yes, in the context they were made. Dr Shane Reti: Does she stand by her recent statement about the health system that "We are actually doing alright.", when on Monday, Waikato Hospital had almost every ambulance in the region parked for up to four hours, waiting to get into the emergency department (ED), leading to St John's declaring a major incident because of the delays? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes, I do. Overall, we have made phenomenal progress with our health system. I would look at the fact that in priority areas of workforce, we have grown our workforce, with 1,000 more nurses in the health system than there were 18 months ago; we are driving waiting lists down; and with respect to winter pressures, despite the challenges of winter, we are continuing to offer services, with surgical wait lists coming down despite those pressures. Dr Shane Reti: Does she stand by her recent statement that the health system is doing all right when Waikato ED was issued with a provisional improvement notice this week because severe staff shortages and unmanageable workloads had made the department critically unsafe? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I take and Te Whatu Ora takes those issues of health and safety incredibly seriously. I understand Te Whatu Ora is responding to that notice. In addition, I would note that the emergency department at Waikato is fully staffed for medical and healthcare assistants and is only four fulltime-equivalents short for nursing, and we continue to make progress on that. Dr Shane Reti: How are we to test the veracity of that answer when she is unable to report workforce shortages in EDs? Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It's a longstanding convention of this House not to call into question the truthfulness of a member. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, Mr Speaker, that was not what Dr Reti did. It's not unusual—and, indeed, you encourage members through supplementary questions to test the veracity of answers. That is not to suggest that the answer was misleading. SPEAKER: I'll check the Hansard when it comes out, but I think Dr Reti said how can he test the veracity. I think that's OK—you know, there's a fine line before suggesting that a previous answer, or the Minister, has said something that was not true. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That is what I have been advised by Te Whatu Ora, but I would also put it to the member that this Government—particularly recently—has done a huge amount to make sure that informative statistics and modelling is available on the issue of the health workforce in a way that it hasn't been before. Dr Shane Reti: If the health system is doing all right, how does she explain a letter sent to her on 25 July from concerned ED staff at Palmerston North Hospital, who wrote, "We are practising under crisis standards of care without public acknowledgment that we are doing so, and the moral injury experienced by our staff is no longer episodic, but is a constant state of existence.", while at the same time communications with union representatives were stating that "National leadership needs to provide us with both the vision and the plan. We don't really need another site visit."? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have visited that emergency department, and will continue to do so, to make them know that the Government is concerned around the status of that hospital. I am concerned to see that Te Whatu Ora responds to the report on the culture at Palmerston North Hospital, because that is very important, and I continue to work regularly with unions on these matters. Question No. 10—Health 10. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does she agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who said yesterday, "I'm not saying that there isn't more to do with regards to dental treatment and access in New Zealand. That can't all come down to the welfare system, though. I think the health system and perhaps even ACC need to take a little responsibility there"? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I do agree with Minister Sepuloni that there is always more to do, and this Government has already shown its commitment to improving the oral health of New Zealanders. That's why in November 2021 it passed the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021 giving the Director-General of Health the power to direct local authorities to fluoridate their water supplies to protect people against tooth decay. That is also why the maximum special needs dental grant for dental treatment increased to $1,000, and it's why free dental care is available to children and young people up to the age of 18 years. Ricardo Menéndez March: What else beyond fluoridation, free tooth brushes, and dental grants is Te Whatu Ora doing to improve access to basic dental treatment, including check-ups and cleaning? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As that member is aware, check-ups, routine preventive dental care, is privately provided in New Zealand in the majority of situations for people over the age of 18. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is oral health part of general health, and, if so, is it equitable for New Zealanders to be expected to pay to access essential healthcare like dental? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Oral health is indeed part of general health. That's why we've taken the steps of making sure that our water is fluoridated and of making sure that in constrained financial circumstances have access to the emergency dental grant. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned about oral health outcomes in Aotearoa when one in three adults experience tooth decay and one in ten root decay? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she acknowledge that with 73 percent of New Zealanders avoiding the dentist due to cost, poor oral health may be leading to more severe health issues and more expensive medical interventions, and, if so, what actions is she taking to alleviate those costs? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Government is very concerned about the impact of cost on people's ability to access care of all sorts. That's why we've removed the $5 co-payment on medicines and why we support free access to dental care for everyone under the age of 18. Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs 11. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What has the Government done to make pricing clearer at supermarkets? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Today, I have announced new rules that will require grocery retailers like Countdown and Pak 'N Save to display pricing consistently and clearly by weight, volume, or number, depending on the nature of the items. This will require these retailers to show the cost per kilogram or litre, or, if the items come in small amounts like spices and essences, then it will be 10 grams or by the millilitre. Hon Phil Twyford: What will be the effect of these new requirements for shoppers? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Kiwis will find it easier to compare product prices at the supermarket. Shoppers will no longer have to scratch their heads and get out their calculators to work out which product is best value for money, and they won't have to get out their magnifying glass either. The unit pricing will need to be shown in a font size of at least 25 percent of the size of the actual price. Hon Phil Twyford: How will this affect competition in the grocery sector? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: With shoppers able to compare prices and products more easily, I expect to see an increase in inter-brand competition and I encourage grocery retailers to compete on best value for money, benefiting customers in the long term. Hon Phil Twyford: When will this take effect? Hon Gerry Brownlee: It's a new programme: "Shopping with Duncan". Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I'm very happy to go shopping with Mr Brownlee any time—I'll take a basket; you can take a trolley. The new requirements are due to come into force at the end of August, but supermarkets will have up to a year to implement the necessary systems. As the major grocery retailers already have the systems in place to display unit pricing, I expect that they will begin following the new rules as soon as they're able. Online-only retailers will have two years to implement these requirements, as we want to encourage such new and innovative ways to compete. Question No. 12—Transport 12. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Is he committed to delivering light rail in Auckland and Wellington? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: The Government is committed to building a light rail connection from Auckland City centre to Māngere. In the case of Wellington, as previously indicated, we're committed to mass rapid transit, with the preferred option being light rail from Wellington Station to Island Bay. This is, of course, subject to further work as part of the ongoing detailed business case. Aucklanders and Wellingtonians want transport networks for their cities that reduce congestion and emissions, and that's what we're committed to delivering. Simeon Brown: Does he agree with Michael Wood, who said in February this year that main works on the Auckland light rail project will begin in 2025, and is he willing to commit to this time frame; if not, why not? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, that is indeed the planned time frame. Simeon Brown: When will the business case for Let's Get Wellington Moving be completed, and how much more money will be spent on consultants between now and then? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That piece of work is under way now, and it will be completed as soon as it possibly can be, because it is important that we plan and design, get the engineering reports, and get the seismic work done—the work of those consultants the member refers to. The alternative would be for the member to make it up on the basis of his reckons, or perhaps outsource it to the Belt and Road Initiative. Simeon Brown: Does he agree with Grant Robertson, who said on 29 June 2022 that he was "as confident as can be" that light rail would go ahead in Wellington, and, if so, on what date, if any, is he "as confident as can be" that construction will begin on this project? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister of Transport, I always find it wise to agree with the Hon Grant Robertson. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree that residents of Wellington and Auckland deserve high-quality low-emissions public transport that is comfortable, quiet, fast, and clean, which light rail would provide, and will that be the priority for his Government's investment? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely agree with the description of what Wellingtonians, Aucklanders, and, indeed, all those who use public transport should expect. What they won't get is that from the National Party, who plan to cut $1.5 billion out of the public transport budget. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill—Correction to Answer Given by Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness) Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct something that I said a couple of nights ago during the committee stage of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill debate. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: A couple of nights ago, I said that "the actual funds have already been devolved out to Te Matapihi and Arohanui ki te Tāngata." as part of He Ara Hiki Mauri. What I meant to say is that the decision-making authority over the funding will be devolved out to the parties. The funds will be paid out in due course through usual contracting processes. SPECIAL DEBATES Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation—Report of the Regulations Review Committee Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Chairperson of the Regulations Review Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation. This is the report of the Regulations Review Committee which has been tabled in Parliament, and that report is into the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation. I'd like to— SPEAKER: Sorry. I'm terribly sorry to interrupt the member, but I would like members to leave quickly and quietly. This is an important debate and I'd like to hear it. I think we'll reset the clock and we will start this again. Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of the report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation. This is the report of the Regulations Review Committee into the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation. First off, I would like to thank all the committee members as are listed on page 40 of the report, and the submitters as listed in the report. Particular thanks to Jason McHerron, the barrister who provided advice and substantial assistance in drafting the report. Finally, I'd like to thank the clerk and the officials and advisers of the Regulations Review Committee. We lean very heavily upon them and we are routinely impressed with their diligence and their expertise. We are fortunate to have them. We would also like to—well, I would certainly like to—acknowledge that this was a very painful time for many people in New Zealand. A very painful time when they felt, in some cases, disunited or excluded. This is time for us to bring people back together, and I believe that the role of the Regulations Review Committee in our report is something that will give people heart. The role of the committee is that we do not review policy, but we do look at the secondary legislation and to see if it is made in accordance with its empowering provision and consistently within constitutional principles. Therefore, it is a very serious report and it is a report that I consider is actually one of the more important reports that we're going to see on COVID-19, bearing in mind we also have a royal commission as well—so put that to one side. So when looking at this, I think one of the things that impressed me the most was how poorly some Government ministries and departments actually took the role of providing good secondary legislation, and then complying with the constitutional arrangements, seriously. Now, I understand and I think we can all acknowledge that, in many cases, the Ministry of Health, the main agency in this, was under an extreme amount of stress; that they were dealing with a situation that they had not seen before—certainly not in the lifetimes of the Director-General or others—and that they were rushing. The problem—and I'm sure that members, when they wish to read the report, will understand—is that if the secondary legislation is being drafted by ministries themselves rather than Parliamentary Counsel Office, there is often not the expertise in the ministry to be able to draft clearly and within the rules that are expected of legal drafting. That was really clear. It was also clear that things seemed to not get better but worse as matters went on. When I think to the criticism of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Act—which was actually introduced on 23 November 2021 and had its first, second, and third readings on the same day—that bill received Royal assent two days later on 25 November, and that was actually really almost two years after the full first brunt of the pandemic had hit us. That bill did not go to a select committee. It did not go to the Regulations Review Committee. It was not given the sort of scrutiny that people should expect. I think it would be wrong to say that there was urgency. It was very unfortunate that this happened. When we look at—commonly known as—the traffic light system that was introduced, it could have taken another week or two or three, or even a month to bring that in. It's not as though we suddenly found in November 2021 that there was a pandemic. We're actually near the end of the worst part of it, and I think many people in this House, like myself, have had COVID a few times because, actually, the virus has moved on. It has become more transmittable and less harmful for many people. The Attorney-General, the Government's own Attorney-General—or Parliament's Attorney-General—criticised it at the time by saying it should have been sent to a select committee. He was right, it should have been. It wasn't. Instead, what we see in that legislation is that it actually referred to—and the regulations coming from it—referred to all sorts of terms that are unknown at law. Terms like "guidance"—that's not a legal term. Terms like "traffic lights". Well, traffic lights are known at law as "traffic lights". It was legislation that might have been drafted by the communications team. It was simply not up to scratch, and nor were the regulations from it. It would have been better, and that's really clear from the review in the inquiry—and I have to say, too, we take a very non-political approach in this: not apolitical, non-political; we work across parties. It would have been much better if people who knew how to draft legislation were drafting it—whether it's that particular Act or if it's the regulations coming from it. It would have been better if it was less focused on communications rather than actually on the law, because there were instances where people could have been imprisoned under this legislation and the regulations without very clear guidance from the legislation. In other words, very clear words. In addition to that, we have made some pretty strong statements about the quality of drafting by the Ministry of Health. That is what's happened: we've, over the years, enabled ministries and departments to draft their own regulations for legislation that this Parliament has passed. There's a big problem with that, apart from the quality of drafting. That big problem is, where does one find it? Because what tends to happen is it's put on the website of that ministry or that department—or not; it might not be put there. Or if it is, it might be unclear. It might have been put up because the people who put up or load up upload the information to the website are not necessarily people who understand constitutional law or even the necessity of having it there. Constitutional lawyers are not normally marketers, comms people, or people who know about those sorts of things. They tend to take things quite seriously for a reason. Then we have, as opposed to that, Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting where its regulations are put on the Legislation website. I would suggest that that is a good idea: that all regulations—all secondary legislation—where people can be subjected to rules should be in one place. We already have a website; we already have a place. It's called legislation.govt.nz. It is freely available to everybody. That's where it should be, in my opinion, and I think that the committee would be of that view. Because that is one place you should go. We should not have to have people wondering what the law is as they're being arrested for breaching it. We know that ignorance of the law is no excuse at law. But if you can't even find the legislation—the law—that you're accused of having breached, how could you possibly be found guilty under it? The answer is, I think we're quite lucky not to have had more court cases on this. Because, frankly, I think if we were not in a pandemic situation, there would have been more cases on this. If the cost of actually bringing cases wasn't so expensive, we would have had more cases. So there's some things that we need to do and we've seen reviews in this. This review has been ongoing, really, for quite some time. But bring ourselves back to this. We should not have regulation without people knowing what it is. Regulation should not be made willy-nilly of whether or not they're authorised by the primary legislation. It has to follow a format, and there's a reason. It's not because we're being pernif—I can't even say it now—it's not because we're being difficult about it. It's actually because this matters. Law matters. Parliament matters. We cannot simply continue down a path of ministries and departments deciding they'll have the law that they'd quite like, and that's really going to spin well. Come back to the law. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): One hour for this House to discuss the work of the Regulations Review Committee—my goodness, I am delighted. But this is of course a serious issue that we're discussing today. I remember in the early days of the lockdown, when one of my sons came up to me and said, "We're going into lockdown. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?" and I said "Yes.", and I think that that is the strange experience that many of us have been through these last few years. It's this collision between what we've achieved as a society—the lives that we've protected and the people who we have saved by the social contract that we upheld—and the legislation that, in my view, we put in to back up that social contract. But at the same time, there were also so many gritty, personal experiences: people feeling fear and isolation and other people feeling reconnection with the people around them, but a lot of people feeling a real sense of uncertainty. So it is crucial that we look back. We look back not only at what happened to people personally, but how the legislation came in around that—to my mind—social contract to ensure that we knew how we were going to pave and navigate the way forward. One of the speeches that I thought best addressed the legal process we went through as we responded to the pandemic was given by the Hon David Parker when he spoke at Victoria University. At the beginning of his address, he put up a PowerPoint slide that showed the comparative mortality rates across countries in the OECD. He said, "It shows us that we've had the best result amongst OECD countries in terms of low mortality."—indeed, also in terms of low hospitalisation rates, and that's the truth. That was the truth of what we were going through, that was the backdrop to our actions, and that slide remains the backdrop to the conversation that we should be having today. It is absolutely clear that this must be a learning exercise, but let's not lose that backdrop image: that slide that Minister Parker put in front of us. In my mind, there is one word that describes what we were doing at the time in addressing the pandemic, and there's one word that describes what the Regulations Review Committee were doing as we assessed compliance with primary legislation and appropriateness, and it is "balance". We were attempting to strike a balance, a balance, essentially, between what Minister Parker called the collective rights versus individual liberties. He did speak to the fact that if taken too far, collective rights can actually be used to suppress minorities and individual liberties, but conversely, extreme use of individual liberties, trumping community rights, beget unjust outcomes, too. It is about balance, and it's also about more than the academic balancing of rights. For us, it was also about the practicality of assessing the capacity of our health system. So before I go into more detailed reflections on the Regulations Review Committee report, I did, like my colleague of the committee, want to thank Jason McHerron, a barrister who did provide his exceptional skills and drafting support to the committee; our sagacious Regulations Review Committee chair, Judith Collins, our prior chair Chris Penk, and members past and present. To say that the COVID orders were a large part of our Regulations Review Committee life, that we were steeped in it in 2020 and 2021, would be an understatement. It was almost everything that we did. There are many wonderful qualities about the Regulations Review Committee. One of them is that we are very self-aware. On the early pages of the report you'll find a section titled, "What does the Regulations Review Committee do?" We didn't want to assume—we didn't want to assume. We know that a lot of people have interest in our fundamental work, but my view is there's a line in the report that sums it up: it "assists Parliament to retain control over the content of laws made under delegated powers." That is it. That's essentially the nub of what we do. So while it is sometimes difficult for our conversations not to bleed into substantive policy, that is not our work. We look at whether things are lawful or not—that is absolutely key—and whether the procedural rules were carried out in terms of getting us to lawful secondary legislation. So, looking at some of the big questions that we addressed, one of the substantive questions was should we have standing legislation that addresses pandemic scenarios such as COVID or should we have bespoke legislation? Now, we weren't the first Regulations Review Committee to consider this; in fact, the 51st Parliament Regulations Review Committee considered that issue and considered that a tailored response was needed. And, indeed, the High Court in Borrowdale echoed that same sentiment. They said that there comes a point when Parliament ought to pass bespoke legislation because of the democratic nature of our constitution. So they thought it was a constitutionally worthy thing to do—that we should be passing bespoke legislation. Now, in reality, what happened is it was a mix of existing legislation and bespoke legislation that we used in response to COVID, and where our committee landed is that that mix, that hybrid response, is really the ideal. You need to have something in place so you can take immediate actions—which we did—but you also then need to develop a bespoke response. The second question we addressed was the pace or the passage of primary legislation. The Hon Judith Collins has spoken to this as well, and I think there was discussion across the committee about when you would put something through urgency. Now, it must be the case that there is a time when urgency is appropriate. It's a process that's part of our Standing Orders, and the question is: when? Now, to my mind, if you have a scenario where you have a pandemic, where the stakes are high, where lives are at risk, this is one of those scenarios. Certainly, there are comments from the Attorney-General that echoed that as well, some of those were given in his speech at Victoria University. Another big area of question for us was: what should sit within primary legislation and what is more appropriate in secondary legislation? This really takes us back to the objectives of the Regulations Review Committee, where we are attempting to help Parliament retain control of the content of legislation. Now, this is really a balancing act, and I think the committee's view was that, for the most part, the balance was set right. Possibly the traffic lights framework was one that we had more of a discussion about. Some people, as I've been speaking to them about this issue, have used the analogy of sort of having to build the train as you're going, or build the plane as you're going. That's not the analogy that I would use; I would see it as expanding the arena for decision making to allow our decision makers to be more nimble as they face the challenges that they need to on the ground. Another question the committee frequently engaged with is: what are the appropriate guard rails that should be put around legislation like this? For the most part, the committee agreed that the guard rails were appropriate. An area of interest for me was the function of the courts, which I see as being fundamental in terms of one of the key guard rails. What we of course found as some of the decisions or the orders were challenged was that they can be invalidated by the senior courts if they are either contrary to the empowering provision—so they're what's called ultra vires, or outside that power—or if they breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I'd note here that there's express requirement in the primary legislation for compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and so that allows the challenging of secondary legislation. The only way you can have secondary legislation which breaches is if within the primary legislation it allowed for that secondary legislation to breach. The Hon Judith Collins also made the point about accessibility, and I certainly think it's an ongoing issue that the committee has raised. I wholeheartedly agree, which is a good place for me to end my remarks, but also just to say that this is a project that's in the works and which the committee gets fairly regular updates on. So we will be shifting to a space that only when the legislation is public in that space is it lawful, and I think that's absolutely as it should be. So thank you once again for the opportunity to take this 10 minutes to speak on the important role of the Regulations Review Committee. I would encourage members of the public to read our report. Thank you. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Mālō e lelei. New Zealanders can sometimes be a bit shy about talking about constitutional matters, seeing them as the preserve of constitutional lawyers and learned university professors and judges. It was only as a member of the Regulations Review Committee this term that I've really fully appreciated its role as a really important constitutional safeguard. It's one of the checks and balances in our parliamentary democracy on the power of the executive. It exercises, as Vanushi Walters has noted, that we are very self-aware, but I just think it is useful to explain what the committee does. So in terms of lawmaking, it scrutinises the powers in bills that are proposed to be given to the executive to make secondary legislation. So what's secondary legislation? Law that is made by someone other than Parliament under a power that Parliament has given. It could be regulations, orders, rules, or notices, and it's often the detail of implementation of legislation. So it scrutinises those powers and draws any that are inappropriate to the attention of the specialist subject select committee which is considering that bill. It also looks in relation to secondary legislation at whether it's in accord with the general objects and intent of the Act under which it's made. The Standing Orders of this House, at Standing Order 327, set out the grounds where a regulation may not be appropriate: because it can trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, or it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of powers which the legislation has conferred. So it ensures, particularly in response to complaints which members of the public can make about particular regulations, that they have been developed and are being implemented appropriately, in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Act. So it is a very significant committee, and I acknowledge the former chair Chris Penk, the current chair, the Hon Judith Collins, and the considerable wisdom of legislative counsel, who provide, along with the committee secretariat, enormous support to the committee's work. This review was important. As others have noted, we had great help from barrister Jason McHerron, and also Professor Dean Knight, Professor Andrew Geddis, and others from Victoria University and Otago University, in terms of their submissions. So far, COVID has led to the deaths of nearly 7 million people—confirmed deaths—worldwide, and the actual numbers are likely to be much higher. I endorse the comments that Vanushi Walters made about the fact that New Zealand's response to the health emergency of COVID was rapid, it was effective, and it was very successful in keeping New Zealanders safe. The Government did rely on the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 and the Health Act 1956, and the powers in those Acts initially. Then, after two months, it passed special legislation like the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. As others have noted, that legislation was passed under urgency. There was no select committee process. There was a need for speed, but the committee in its report differentiated those pieces of legislation where speed was needed with the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) legislation, which was passed in a day and which, potentially, really should have gone to select committee to allow more detailed consideration. One of the other points that the committee made when it was reviewing the orders—and I think we considered over 200 orders—was the constitutional principles that law must be clear and certain and that it must distinguish between what is mandatory and what is merely recommended, and, here, words really matter. The committee has provided advice to Ministers and agencies about the importance of words like "may" and "must". It must be consistent with human rights, the power to make law as opposed to the power to apply it must be authorised, and any exemptions and criteria for them must be precisely described. One of the things that is also recommended in the review report is that as well as the royal commission of inquiry, there should be a separate consideration by Government agencies to look at the specific lessons learnt to assist in future emergencies with the drafting of secondary legislation and these orders and notices, in addition to the royal commission. Thank you, Madam Speaker. TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker—and also on behalf of my fellow Regulations Review Committee members who are here, and past and present members. It was very interesting sitting on the Regulations Review Committee and being one of the non-lawyers on it. It's opened my eyes to a lot of understanding of what goes on behind the scenes. With the Regulations Review Committee being around secondary legislation, which we pass on to our other organisations to write, we would expect them to understand what they are supposed to be doing. Now, I would like to thank Jason McHerron, our barrister, but most of all, I'd like to thank our staff, who were able to help us through all this. But the biggest thing is these policies are being written so that people can follow the rules and regulations that have been set upon them. But if you can't find them, if you can't understand them, what are you going to do? We're very fortunate that most people did abide by these, because they wanted to keep New Zealand safe. But we still created too much pain, and as we were saying in respect of the inquiry, there was no opportunity to scrutinise amendments made to powers to the secondary legislation and the COVID-19 response vaccination legislation prior to its entrenchment. Now, this caused a lot of pain for a lot of people. The thing is, we should have been able to be realistic and have an option for people to choose—vaccination or test. But we didn't; we went down that one avenue, and we could not have free and frank discussion through the select committee process and hear from other people. That is a sad reality. We understand that when there is urgency, we do need to pass it, but we've also got to take into mind that we are doing this for the New Zealand people, and if the New Zealand people feel they are not being heard, then we have upset New Zealand people. Now, when all this came through, and as the Hon Eugenie Sage said, it's around words. Words, I have discovered, can easily be misconstrued, and this is the most important thing. For myself, who is dyslexic, I can easily misconstrue things, can easily mispronounce things, and it might seem funny to some people, but it's not, because if we have the wrong terminology, you have major misunderstandings, and we found this in the law, in terms of what is mandated and what is merely recommended. You know, when we use words such as "must" for matters of mandating, or "may" for matters around permits, or "should", or "shall", or "recommendations"—you know these are the factors when it comes to different walks of life and different people's understandings: it has to be clear and it has to be precise. The thing is, because we weren't clear and precise, this has caused so much pain. We were concerned also, as the ACT Party, around the "Henry VIII" provisions that we bring forward. But we have come up with 11 recommendations, and we hope for the future, in the Regulations Review Committee, that we do not cause this pain that we have through some of this legislation and these misunderstandings. The biggest thing of all is that most New Zealanders wouldn't even know that they can find these rules and regulations, and they wouldn't know how to look them up. But we also stated that we did have a problem around the Ministry of Health, and we also understand they were under a lot of pressure. However, if you were told once, if were told twice, if you were told three times, or more, you should be able to learn from those mistakes, because that is what we hope we would teach our children—that, you know, you get a few chances. We understood the constraints they had, but we could have done better, like everybody else, if we had been able to listen to people through the select committee process that was missed out, so that we didn't cause that pain. And, as we said, we could have had some great ideas, and, included in that, we could have had vaccinations or tests. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this particular inquiry. I want to start my remarks by saying thank you and showing appreciation to the Regulations Review Committee, which is chaired by the Hon Judith Collins, and I thank the previous chair Chris Penk. I know from my colleagues on this side of the House who have been fortunate enough to be on the Regulations Review Committee that it's something they feel very passionate about and it's something that we often hear about from them. On the one hand, it seems like an awfully long time ago that this pandemic broke out, and yet on the other hand, it just seems like yesterday. I think if we cast our mind back to that time in early 2020, when we were—via our television screens, mainly—looking at how the rest of the world was coping with what seemed to be going to turn into a global pandemic. It seemed frightening and just unreal to us on this side of the world, but nevertheless, these were the images and this was the information that we were dealing with. We were watching the spread and the mayhem overseas, and it became very, very clear that a fundamental strategic decision had to be made in relation to our inevitable experience of this pandemic. As we watched every country grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, it was very clear that some responses were not necessarily what we thought would happen. Some responses seemed to be somewhat chaotic. There clearly wasn't an exemplar out there that showed us what a playbook would look like; it was clearly going to be up to us to define our own rules. When the country faces a significant crisis, be it a war or be it any kind of natural disaster—in this case, a pandemic—the Government does have to move very quickly. As my colleague Vanushi Walters previously talked about, those were the circumstances that we found ourselves in. We did do a good job, and I don't think that's something we should lose sight of. We had a fantastic response to COVID-19. We had fewer cases, we had fewer hospitalisations, we certainly had fewer deaths than many other countries in the world, and we maintained economic resilience at the same time. So it was a world-leading response. But that is not to deny the fact that it also had a huge impact on people. One of the reasons why that happened is when we look at population measures and the normal distribution of what we need to do as a population, it often impacts on the individual. That's just what happens, but that's not to minimise it. So although the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was necessarily and properly passed under urgency and, as we've heard, because the stakes were high and because lives were at risk—so it was a scenario worthy of that—there was a social licence that held for some time. But we also adopted a number of suggestions from those legal experts, who have been named today and thanked, and from the Opposition, including to immediately put the Act to a select committee for scrutiny via its inquiry function. But it's now critical that we compile what we learnt so that should this ever happen again, we've taken those lessons and we've made good use of them. What the report found was that there was an appropriate balance, and I think several people have talked about balance, and that clearly was the aim, although the vaccination legislation perhaps should have been stand-alone legislation and the traffic light regime probably should have been primary legislation as well with that precise sort of detail set out in secondary legislation. Parliament, including the Regulations Review Committee, was also found to have capably performed its role in scrutinising that emergency legislation, and the use of an existing select committee rather than setting up a new one was found to be preferable. It's true, as my colleague Toni Severin mentioned, that some of the legislation was difficult to navigate, particularly the protection framework order, and people's tolerance can be tested when things aren't as clear as they possibly can be. So that's an important thing for us to learn. So in summary, I'd just like to again thank the Regulations Review Committee for all the insight they've garnered through this process and through this inquiry. I welcome other speakers to make additional comments. TIM van de MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's important that we're having this debate today because this situation was one unlike we have ever experienced in living memory, and I think it's important to reflect on the unprecedented impositions that were placed on people's lives through this period. Of course, that was in response to a global pandemic that no one knew quite what it was going to be like or how bad it might be. We had some estimates but, of course, a response was needed, and, indeed, the Government did respond. I think most New Zealanders were quite prepared to accept a level of action in that very initial phase just because there was so little certainty around what the situation might evolve to become. But as time progressed, there became an increasingly level of concern, less certainty, and increasing frustration, and I think some of those aspects were noted in this report, where there were a number of challenges identified that could have been managed better. There were some aspects that were done well, and I do want to acknowledge that, but when we look back at this sort of a situation, it's really critical that we take the lessons that can help any potential future situation be handled better, more efficiently, and with less impact upon the New Zealand population. In this situation, there were a number of areas where that impact bore through. Of course, we had a very low death rate initially, a low number of cases initially. As the response progressed and the rules changed, that evolved as well, obviously to the point where now we still see a regular number of cases and deaths as a result of COVID-19. But life is, effectively, back to normal in terms of the impositions that have been brought about. However, throughout that period, those impositions had a massive impact. I think that's one of the key lessons that we need to keep in mind. I note the previous speaker Dr Tracey McLellan's comments that this does seem in one regard a long time ago, but, actually, for many people it is still very fresh in their minds because not only was it the risk of COVID-19 but, in many cases, that risk was outweighed by the reality of the direct impositions they faced in their lives, and that may have manifested in any number of ways. For example, not being able to see family members, ageing family members; the inability to attend funerals—some of those aspects that were highlighted. Of course, then, there was the business impact as well, and we've seen many businesses fail off the back of this. Just one of the aspects I wanted to touch on that I thought really highlighted the lack of clarity was around the issues raised relating to some of the jargon or the terms. I think it's important that the use of the word "jargon" here has been used by the Regulations Review Committee because that does actually reflect better the terms that were outlined. In this example, I'm referring to the contrast between a "close contact" and a "casual contact", where people were left wondering what that actually meant and how that would play out in their daily lives for their families, their communities, their businesses, and, indeed, across the country. It was those sorts of things that led to a level of concern within the community that whilst the initial response had been swift in terms of making some meaningful changes to try and reduce the impact on the country, actually, we ended up in a situation where the potential of that impact was significantly outweighed by the reality of the cost, the toll that it took on communities, families, and businesses across the country. So it is really critical that we look back at how we might have been able to do that better, and some of those questions, as well, which have been alluded to by other speakers, around the speed at which Parliament progressed the primary legislation under urgency, obviously then leading to secondary legislation - making powers being significantly relied upon in terms of the response. That, I think, is an area that we need to look at, and I hope that the Government will consider that in the context of the current process as well, where they continue to push legislation through with very little scrutiny. I think we need to really be mindful of the impact, and this highlights for me that what we do here has such an impact in the real world and we must always try to do it better, so it's encouraging to see recommendations suggesting those improvements that could be made. Thank you, Madam Speaker. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this very serious matter, the special debate on the Regulations Review Committee's report on the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation. Now, I was a member of the Regulations Review Committee and spent a happy six months there—as the report will state—looking into a number of issues in relation to secondary legislation, but also partly the issues raised in this report. So I do know that even though I left the committee in February, they were, even in the last Parliament, looking at the COVID-19 Secondary Legislation to make sure that it was doing the job that it was meant to do. I think just for the record, it's probably worth stating the function of the Regulations Review Committee, because I think even some in the House, and myself before I was a member of that committee, may not be sure of exactly what its function is. But it basically—everything that is a regulation or part of secondary legislation is within the ambit of responsibility of the Regulations Review committee. The Regulations Review Committee does not look at policy; it just looks at the intent. So it's very much a committee that helps to assist the Parliament, really, fulfil its constitutional obligations, that the laws that are passed, and the ambit of secondary legislation is in fact what is enacted by whoever the decision maker is, in relation to the particular piece of secondary legislation. So in many cases that may be a Minister, it may be a Government agency, but it is an important check and balance on our democracy, and it's a very collegial, enjoyable committee to be a part of, and it's nice to see members of the committee here today in the House. The Regulations Review Committee was especially important during periods of emergency, and we've seen the important work that the Regulations Review Committee did during the Christchurch earthquake, and the recommendations that were made following that major emergency and huge event, actually informed the work of this report. We've also seen, of course, the important work that was done during COVID-19. So I want to acknowledge the work that the committee did, and also for New Zealanders that are watching this debate, the huge impact that the pandemic had on our lives. Also, additionally, the huge impact that the response to the pandemic had on all of our lives. No one needs to be convinced of that. We all remember that time and it was immense. So the very good work and this very good report that the Regulations Review Committee has done into those decisions is very helpful in ensuring that when we undoubtedly, and unfortunately, but inevitably face another emergency, that we have the best systems in place possible to ensure that we are responding to them in the best possible way. It is worth, I think, acknowledging that the response, and I think it has been touched on by other members of the House, did save lives. I think—I was looking at the Otago academic Michael Baker, estimating that around 10,000 lives were saved in New Zealand due to the restrictions put in place, and the way that COVID-19 was managed by the Government. I don't underestimate how difficult those decisions were, but they did save lives, and it just shows you that these types of decisions are not easy. They're often complicated. They have to rely on existing powers, and existing legislation, and sometimes create new powers, and new either primary or secondary legislation. It is complex, but it's very important to have that scrutiny of it too. I think it's also important, other members have noted this, there is a Royal Commission that has been announced into COVID-19, which in addition to this report, will hopefully give a more holistic perspective on New Zealand's response to the pandemic. That was announced on 5 December 2022. I think the intention of it is not only to look at the work that was done in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, but also inform future work for future pandemics. Of course, we hope this is a once in a lifetime event, but it would be naive to not prepare for the fact that it—that we may face future pandemics in the future. So that royal commission, I understand, is considering evidence and will conclude mid-2024, which seems a considerable amount of time, but as you can see from this report, there is a considerable amount of stuff to go through. Just in the time I have remaining, I just wanted to touch on a few of the recommendations made by the Regulations Review Committee in this report. There were a number of aspects that were touched on, and a number of recommendations made. When there was improvements that needed to be made, the Regulations Review Committee informed Ministers of that, and hopefully that indeed strengthened practice, and these are all laid out in the reports. In the interest of time I won't go through them all, but I commend the work of the committee to the House. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to this inquiry that the Regulations Review Committee has made into the secondary legislation for COVID-19. This was a huge event for New Zealand and for many New Zealanders, and had a really big impact in different ways on people. It's been really important for this committee to undertake this inquiry and to have a look at the process that was undertaken. I'm going to go through some of the report, but I'll first just briefly outline what it is. So the report was taking a big picture look at the secondary legislation that was made to deal with COVID-19, and asked: was it consistent with principles for good legislative design, were there grounds for the Regulations Review Committee to draw the secondary legislation to the special attention of the House of Representatives under Standing Order 327, how well did the secondary legislation follow the principles that the Regulations Review Committee established in 2016 for emergency legislation, and do those principles need to be updated? So the Regulations Review Committee—just to explain it—scrutinise all secondary legislation, and the powers in bills to make that secondary legislation. It's part of the committee's job to check that those with delegated powers to make legislation use them in the way Parliament has intended. This function is constitutionally significant. It assists Parliament to retain control over the content of laws made under delegated powers. During periods of emergency, such as with COVID-19, secondary legislation is used to manage extraordinary circumstances and may adversely affect the rights and freedoms that we usually enjoy. So it's important that there are safeguards to ensure those rights are kept in balance with the other work that emergency laws need to do. It does not examine the policy behind secondary legislation, but it instead looks at whether that secondary legislation was made in accordance with the empowering provisions, and consistently with constitutional principles. So if I turn to particular concerns that were raised, which was on page 28 of the report, it says identified concerns were: unauthorised sub-delegation of the power to make secondary legislation; unauthorised retrospectivity; legislation that was drafted as guidance rather than rules; instrument titles that did not identify the instrument's COVID-19 purpose; whether "Henry VIII" provisions in empowering legislation were necessary; the quality of drafting of section 70 of the Health Act orders and inadequacies in publication of historical instruments; lack of certainty and clarity in secondary legislation including in relation to the Protection Framework Order; measures being implemented in secondary legislation that would be more suitable for parliamentary enactment, such as the Protection Framework Order; latent/inactive provisions in the Protection Framework Order; the stated purpose of secondary legislation not matching its actual purpose; the need for clarity in identifying whether people are affected by secondary legislation; secondary legislation containing potentially unjustified limits on human rights; vagueness in the framing of infringement offences—for an infringement offence to be appropriate, the offence must be one that involves actions or omissions that can be assessed as a straightforward question of fact—open-ended time frames for legislation that has a significant effect on personal rights and liberties; overly complicated definitions and requirements; impossibility of compliance with requirements. So quite a list there. I'll turn to some of the comments made by some submissions in relation to the Protection Framework Order. Associate Professor Dean Knight of Victoria University of Wellington submitted that the pandemic had sometimes necessitated swift and expedited decisions through delegation of flexible emergency powers. However, he submitted that the vaccinations regime did not justify this approach. The Human Rights Commission submitted that the Protection Framework Order was not easily understood without reference to detailed guidance published by the Government. Moreover, significant aspects of its content were inaccessible under this guidance. Caitlin Rutherford, Gretchen Keer-Keer, and Professor Geddis submitted that measures forcing businesses to close and rules permitting people to go places only if vaccinated were more appropriate for primary legislation, not secondary legislation. They thought that the accountability mechanisms for secondary legislation do not make up for the lack of open debate and scrutiny through the parliamentary law-making process. This undermines the legitimacy and transparency of the law, as New Zealand had been living under the pandemic response for more than two years. After that time, they submitted, there was arguably less need for the legal response to COVID-19 to be quickly decided and imposed by the executive branch. Dr Knight submitted that Parliament failed to feel the heat for legislative design, key policy settings and rights implications, nor was the design of the framework given the necessary time to breathe or evolve in light of feedback and concerns. This was because the key policy settings and details were not available to inform democratic debates about the virtue or otherwise of the regime. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Kia orana. Meitaki maata, Madam Speaker. It is great to take the last call, as the MP for Takanini, in the special debate on the Regulations Review Committee's report on the Inquiry into COVID-19 Secondary Legislation. It's good to see you, Mr Speaker, come into the House. When it comes to COVID-19, first of all I just want to say a huge thankyou to the committee for their inquiry and also their report, and also for laying out what in particular the committee do and the terms of reference for the inquiry itself—a huge thankyou to the committee members there. When it comes to COVID-19, I always like to take the opportunity to again thank you, our awesome primary and community providers—the hard-working nurses, doctors, healthcare assistants, pharmacists, kaiāwhina, secondary care healthcare professionals, and also our essential workers, who risked getting infected when they were out there during this time, taking care of our community at large. So a huge meitaki maata to you all as well. I remember when COVID-19 was spreading throughout the globe, on the TV and through our medical groups we were quite anxious in South Auckland. As a GP during that time, we were coming out of the measles pandemic that happened during the 2018-19 period. When we first heard of the measles case in the South Island, we knew that if that came up to Auckland, it would go straight through to South Auckland and then connect to the Pacific Islands, which was the case. So, when it came to COVID-19, we were also scared, because this was a new virus happening. We knew the vulnerabilities, the areas and pockets of our community that were getting affected largely. So we pushed our local MPs at that time to make sure that the Government was going to put in legislation or some sort of regulation to make it easier for us on the ground to do the work, to do the mahi to protect our community. We wanted the Government to act decisively and early, and that's what we got—was to go hard and to go early from that Government. We all know that, being a new virus that was spreading, we were only learning of what countries were going through themselves. When it comes to grappling with COVID-19, again, we all hear from colleagues across the House, there was no playbook or rulebook on how to manage this. And, again, we were learning from our colleagues across the different countries across the globe. And it was our biggest health challenge. We remember the Spanish flu that happened in the early 1900s. We remember the swine flu; again, that happened just over 10 years ago. I was working at Middlemore Hospital. When you talk to other people, whether it be Dr Reti from Northland, having worked there in Rāwene Hospital, our vulnerable communities across Aotearoa, we just want to make sure that everyone is protected and that there is legislation fit for purpose to do the job. When we look at the Health Act, in many ways it was focused on quarantining. It needed some more work in terms of making sure that the framework was targeted at COVID, hence why we needed this new legislation, and therefore we got the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. We can look back and look at the cases that had COVID-19, the measures that were put in to protect our whānau. I remember our maraes getting on board, the many Pacific-Māori providers, whether it be in Manurewa, Papakura Marae getting their kaiāwhina and workforce involved, making it targeted for people. We can look back and say, "Hey, we did a good job." And we can hold an inquiry to make sure that we can do an even better job if it was to happen again. But it is getting prepared for that. We look at the recommendations from the committee. We've heard, from a few points that have been raised, the balance between primary and secondary legislation. Yes, there was some appropriate balance between that. But we do look at the vaccination Act: that could have had its own legislation and making sure that that was solid. We look at the traffic light regime: that could have been put into primary legislation to make sure that, in the secondary legislation, there was only active orders there—so making primary legislation more substantial in that regard. So, across the House, I'd like to say a huge thankyou to the committee members for their report on this inquiry, and I thank everyone that's been involved. I commend this report to the House. Motion agreed to. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill.