Covid-19 Public Health Response Bill ‘appears to be consistent’ with Bill of Rights Act – MoJ

The Covid-19 Public Health Response Bill is currently progressing through Parliament under urgency.

The Ministry of Health advice is that the Bill ‘appears to be consistent’ with the Bill of Rights Act.

We have considered whether the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill (‘the Bill’) is consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (‘the Bill of Rights Act’).

We have not yet received a final version of the Bill. This advice has been prepared in relation to the latest version of the Bill (PCO 22923/4.2). We will provide you with further advice if the final version includes amendments that affect the conclusions in this advice.

We have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.

It seems that Andrew Little is Acting Attorney General because the Attorney General, David Parker, introduced the Bill and someone else had to advise him on it.

Click to access COVID-19-Public-Health-Response-Bill.pdf

The Covid-19 Public Health Response Bill under urgency in Parliament

The Covid-19 Public Health Response Bill is currently progressing through Parliament under urgency. So far just the National Party has opposed the Bill.

The Bill gives the Police the legal ability to walk into anyone’s home without a warrant, so there are risks to civil rights and liberty.

It is being rushed under urgency to try to make the move to Level 2 tonight legal, but it leaves open the question about whether the first move to Level 2 in March may have been illegal.

David Parker:

“This bill creates a bespoke legal framework to support the Government’s future efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 in New Zealand.

The bill will give police and other authorised enforcement officers clearer powers to enforce the orders, consistent with the graduated approach police have taken to enforcement to date. Those powers sit aside along voluntary measures, public health, and other guidance.

This bill creates a power to enter premises, a power to direct people, to stop activities that are in breach of the order, a power to close roads and public places, and a power to close businesses operating in breach of the rules for 24 hours. Clause 23 allows a constable to enter a private dwelling house without a warrant only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that people have gathered there in contravention of an order and entry is necessary to give a direction to cease the activity.”

Michael Woodhouse:

“I find myself in the situation of going, within an hour and a half, from commendation to condemnation for this piece of legislation—both in its process and in its executive overreach. I would go so far as to compare the Prime Minister to Rob Muldoon. She is Rob Muldoon with slogans and kindness.”

I am, frankly, astounded that a Government that purports to be open and transparent, to be kind, and to give the country, the public, the credit for the amazing work that they have done, still increases further and further into their freedoms and their lives.”


Attorney General David Parker introduced the Covid-19 Public Health Response Bill yesterday:

This bill creates a bespoke legal framework to support the Government’s future efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 in New Zealand. This is designed to last for a maximum of two years although can be brought to an end earlier if the threat passes.

New Zealanders have been on a precarious journey combatting this virus. We’re not at our final destination yet, but together we’ve made extraordinary progress through the largely voluntary efforts of our people, who accepted the need for unprecedented actions to isolate ourselves in bubbles to cut off the chains of infection.

We went hard and we went early to fight a virus for which there is currently no vaccine and no cure. We know it can hide and spread through those with no symptoms, and around the world we’ve seen the devastation and loss of life it can cause, especially in aged care and in dementia units. We’ve negotiated difficult terrain and have broken the chain of community transmission.

In the meantime, we’ve improved our stocks and supply lines for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test kits and reagents as well as personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies and distribution. We’ve ramped up testing and the quality and capacity of track and tracing. We’ve minimised the damage the virus would have otherwise done to our people and to our economy.

To date, restrictions at alert levels 3 and 4 were given legal effect by notices under section 70 of the Health Act, in conjunction with the state of emergency under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and the Economic Preparedness Act. To support alert levels 3 and 4, the Director-General has issued notices to close premises, except those providing essential services, prohibiting congregation in outdoor places, and require people to remain at home in their bubble except to access essentials and to exercise. These orders are lawful under the Health Act, and the restrictions proportionate to the scale of the COVID-19 threat.

I think there’s doubt about that, as pointed out here: New legal framework for Alert Level 2 to be introduced today

That said, some aspects of the Health Act do need to be modernised and adapted, and this is particularly true for the detailed level 2 measures, which are not well suited to the existing Health Act and Civil Defence Emergency Management regime. This bill provides new enforceable measures that don’t depend on a state of emergency being in force.

We went into Level 2 and Level 3 before the State of Emergency was announced in March.

The bill will give police and other authorised enforcement officers clearer powers to enforce the orders, consistent with the graduated approach police have taken to enforcement to date. Those powers sit aside along voluntary measures, public health, and other guidance.

This bill creates a power to enter premises, a power to direct people, to stop activities that are in breach of the order, a power to close roads and public places, and a power to close businesses operating in breach of the rules for 24 hours. Clause 23 allows a constable to enter a private dwelling house without a warrant only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that people have gathered there in contravention of an order and entry is necessary to give a direction to cease the activity.

We acknowledge that it is unusual—though not unprecedented—for a constable to have warrantless power of entry into a private dwelling house. This is due—the fact that it is unusual—to the high expectation of privacy that citizens have in these places.

The extraordinary risk posed by COVID-19—I will cover instances in later speeches; I haven’t got time to detail that now—and the fact that it can be spread readily in large social gatherings, whether in public or in private, justifies the power in these circumstances and the limits it places on rights.

There are safeguards in the bill so that a constable must report every time a warrantless entry power is exercised, summarising the circumstances and the reason why the power needed to be exercised.

This bill will create a new infringement offence regime. Some breaches will be dealt with as an infringement offence, and an intentional breach will be a criminal offence which may result in a fine or imprisonment on conviction. An infringement offence regime gives police another graduated step in their enforcement options where the breach is not serious enough to warrant criminal prosecution.

The bill also amends the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 to ensure a nationally consistent approach to the response and to management of risks arising from COVID-19, and to better deal with concurrent emergencies that are not COVID-19 but which might arise during the period of the COVID-19 response.

We believe this legislation is needed to appropriately continue our response to the unique and unprecedented challenges of COVID-19.

Simon Bridges in reply:

… it’s with regret that I say we have on this side of the House in the National Party, real concerns with this bill. You’ll hear from other members of National about, I am sure, civil liberty concerns—concerns with our freedoms as a people that have been long fought for—in the speeches and contributions. I want to simply place on record my concerns in two areas, really, but four for completeness: funerals, tangi; churches or places of worship; enforcement; and the length of time that this bill—or law, as it will, I think, become—applies for.

…this bill, in coming here, has had very limited scrutiny. There will be, as it becomes law, no select committee. It’s a case of, on this side of the House—I don’t know about the support parties in Government—us having it for less than 24 hours. I think it was Geoffrey Palmer who lamented this Parliament being the fastest lawmaker in the West. Dare I say it, to the members opposite, in recent times we have got it wrong; passing things that we didn’t even know we were passing. So the room for error in this bill, I suggest, is incredibly high, given the legal complexities.

Michael Woodhouse:

I find myself in the situation of going, within an hour and a half, from commendation to condemnation for this piece of legislation—both in its process and in its executive overreach. I would go so far as to compare the Prime Minister to Rob Muldoon. She is Rob Muldoon with slogans and kindness.

I’m old enough to remember carless days, wage and price freezes, reducing the road speed limit from 100 kilometres to 80 kilometres per hour — that’s right: SMPs — by an executive that road roughshod over this parliamentary process. Even they pale into comparison with the influence and executive fiat that is being exerted on this country by this bill.

I am, frankly, astounded that a Government that purports to be open and transparent, to be kind, and to give the country, the public, the credit for the amazing work that they have done, still increases further and further into their freedoms and their lives.

Let’s be very clear. If there was a question about whether the level 4 and level 3 lockdown was legally allowed under section 70 of the Health Act—and that is a question yet to be answered—then there’s no doubt that the sort of influence that the Government wants to have in level 2 is not. So if the Government wants to act in this way, it does need to pass legislation. But, as I said in my previous intervention, that is the very time when this place matters most, when the rule of law matters most, and where changes to that law need to be carefully thought through, well-considered, consulted on, robustly debated, and definitely not rushed through.

Now, the Minister of Health, very clearly says there is haste—understandable. But this Government has had three months. I think this Government did get legal advice that said that there was a question mark over their ability to act at level 3 and 4, and, clearly, they wanted to continue to impose themselves on New Zealanders’ lives under level 2 in a way that was entirely inconsistent given what we heard about what level 2 would look like. And so they’re going to pass that bill.

But not even the Minister of Health knows his own legislation, because he said in his speech that he will have to consult with the Director-General of Health. Actually, the bill doesn’t say that; it says quite the opposite. At subclause (2) of clause 9, on page 5, when making a section 11 order, “Nothing in this section requires the Minister to receive specific advice from the Director-General about the content of a proposed order or proposal to amend, extend, or revoke an order.” So he doesn’t need to consult the director-general, and not even Dr Clark knew that.

 I’m sad that at this stage in the process the National Party cannot support this bill, because we want this to be a team of 5 million, but it’s the Government that is racing off in a direction that we cannot support, curtailing the freedom of New Zealanders without their right to have their say. Unless there are material changes to it, which will be signalled, it will be difficult to support this subsequently.

Ron Mark spoke for NZ First but his speech was mainly an attack on National with little altention given to the Bill.

Julie Ann Genter for the Green Party:

I rise in support of this bill.

This bill, I think, is absolutely necessary to ensure that all New Zealanders will benefit from the period of lockdown that we’ve already been in, and will benefit from being assured that that the rules will be able to be enforced. Because even if the vast majority of New Zealanders embrace these rules and want to stop the spread of COVID-19, it would only take a small number who ignore the rules to cause an outbreak that could quite quickly become very serious and cause us to have to move back to a stricter level.

So, of course, the vast majority of New Zealanders support the actions that have been taken thus far. I think they will absolutely respect the rules in level 2, which are not at all arbitrary, but absolutely informed by what is going to prevent the spread of the illness.

Many people were pushing boundaries if not overstepping them under Level 3 over the last two weeks.

Of course, the Green Party would always prefer that there would be a select committee, even a very short one, and we would’ve liked to have seen that. But we also understand the need for urgency right now, given the move to level 2 at—was it at midnight on Thursday morning or 11:59 Wednesday? So recognising that this is a very, very short period of time and that there was a desire to move back to level 2 sooner rather than later, then we can understand this.

But the Bill didn’t have to be only introduced to Parliament the day before the we go back down to Level 2.

David Seymour (ACT):

I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this bill to its first reading. The reason ACT supports the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill is very simple. It’s about the rule of law, and the rule of law matters because if it means anything to be a New Zealander, it is to live freely under democracy and the rule of law: to be able to send representatives to this House to make laws that are clear, that we can read for ourselves and understand what the law is. Having the rule of law protects the weakest people in our society because they can see it written down and it applies equally to every person.

But, unfortunately, I can only support this bill to the first reading, through this urgent process, because it has some real problems. I can understand the Government going through urgency. I won’t relitigate the issues that got us here, except to say that it has been four months–actually, nearly four and a half months–since it became clear to countries such as Taiwan that there might be an issue.

The idea that this has all suddenly happened and the Government has to rush Parliament through urgency now is a poor reflection on the preparedness of the Government. But, no matter, we’re here, and we have to rush this through urgency so we can get to level 2 lawfully and quickly. Understood.

There was a lot of debate over the severe restrictions on funerals still.

The Bill looks certain to pass, probably today, with the support of Labour, NZ First and the Green Party and possibly ACT.

First and second reading votes were the same:

  • Ayes 64 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
  • Noes 56 New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Hansard (Tuesday): https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20200512_20200512_34

Hansard (Wednesday: Tuesday, 12 May 2020 (continued on Wednesday, 13 May 2020) – Volume 745

 

 

Cross-party committee to scrutinise Government as Parliament adjourns

Parliament was in recess this week but has been recalled today to deal with urgent business related to Covid-19 and the country lockdown, but will then be suspended for 5 weeks. This means the usual scrutiny of Government through Question Time won’t be possible, so  special committee is being set up.

RNZ: Special committee set-up as Parliament is adjourned

The opposition leader Simon Bridges will chair a cross-party committee, that will scrutinise the Government’s response to Covid-19.

Leader of the House Chris Hipkins said all of the Government’s regular legislative programme was now on hold.

Hipkins said tomorrow the house will be focusing on receiving the epidemic notice from the Prime Minister and pass an Imprest Supply Bill, which will allow Government funding to continue to flow as normal.

The epidemic notice would enact the Epidemic Preparedness Act, allowing for actions to be taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19, without having to comply with the usual statuary requirements.

Like last week, Parliamentary business tomorrow will begin with a debate, this time focusing on the epidemic notice and other documents tabled by the Government.

The adjournment will last until April 28, meaning two sitting weeks will be missed.

To enable the politicians to still hold the Government to account, speaker of the House, Trevor Mallard said the cross-party Business Select Committee has put forward a motion to set-up a special Select Committee, which will run for at least the next four-to-five weeks.

He said the committee will meet remotely, be chaired by Opposition leader Simon Bridges with the majority of the sitting MPs being from opposition parties.

The committee will have powers that usually reside with privileges committee, such as the ability to send for people and papers.

“What we think we have got here is a balance of accountability because of a very powerful committee, chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, who can make arrangements to effectively interrogate ministers or public servants on their actions around the pandemic,” he said.

Bridges said it would be a valuable chance for constructive scrutiny of the government, that will make the nation’s response to Covid-19 better and stronger.

Bridges said the committee would be sitting two or three times a week, from next week, to ask the questions New Zealanders want answered.

He said overall, he supported the direction the government has taken, but there are things that can be improved.

However, ACT leader David Seymour called the decision to adjourn Parliament as ‘misguided’.

“We accept that the government has a difficult task ahead, all New Zealanders stand ready to support it, but this is no reason to partially suspend democracy,” he said.

“New Zealanders have just faced the greatest peacetime loss of civil liberties in our history, and it is possible we may not have an election this year.

“ACT believes there should be a Question Time and local electorate offices should remain open,” he said.

From RNZ Live covering an interview of Bridges this morning:

Bridges on the special cross-party committee of scrutiny during the lockdown – says he will have a lot of his front benchers on the committee, National will have a majority in the committee.

He says ultimately he thinks rents need to be paid during this time, says landlords should definitely not be putting up rent at the moment.

He says he’s spoken to some big businesses and what he’s hearing is that the government hasn’t quite hit the mark with the business schemes they’ve introduced.

That’s not surprising. Businesses are facing unprecedented challenges and many will be fighting for survival. The Government is doing what it thinks will help but it must be a work in progress. And they will never be able to ‘hit the mark’ for all businesses.

He doesn’t think benefits should be doubled, like in Australia. Asked whether it would be a good way to pump more money into the economy, Mr Bridges said he didn’t believe NZ’s issue at the moment is an issue of stimulus.

Over the last couple of days Bridges has changed his approach noticeably towards being mostly supportive of Government actions dealing with Covid-19 but with generally sensible sounding questions of some of what is being done. I think this is a good change from him.

Interview with bridges on RNZ: Coronavirus: Simon Bridges to chair scrutiny committee

 

The job of Opposition Leader and “the difference between responsible and political”

The job of Opposition in a democracy such as ours is important, it is a way of holding the Government to account (along with the media who generally do this).

To do Opposition well a good balance needs to be found between criticising the Government and highlighting failings, but not being seen as petty politics or a constant whine of negativity.

The current Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, has had two problems. He has been seen by many to be too negative too often, and his method of delivery either annoys people or turns them off, making his overdoing of negative attacks sound worse. He has been widely criticised, including by what looks like a majority of commenters on the right tending National linked Kiwiblog.

In times of crisis there is some expectation that opposition parties and MPs will put the good of the country before their own re-election ambitions, so the balance should shift towards more cooperation and less nagging and niggling.

Bridges’ speech in response to the Government economic package announcement on Tuesday was widely criticised as negative, petty, tone deaf and inappropriate in the circumstances (although some National supporters praised it). His speech:

A speech by National’s spokesperson on finance, Paul Goldsmith, was praised for a better tone (he said many of the same things), and for praising good aspects of the package while including reasonable criticisms. His speech:

The argument between Opposition negativity versus cooperation flared up in Parliament yesterday between Jacinda Ardern and Bridges.

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, especially the package that was announced yesterday by this Government in response to the global pandemic of COVID-19, including the $12.1 billion package that is split between business certainty and continuity—making sure that consumers have enough money in their back pocket to keep the economy going but also that we look after older citizens; and, obviously, the half-billion – dollar investment directly into health to support the response to COVID-19.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she still stand by her statement in the House yesterday that nobody displaying symptoms has been denied a COVID-19 test when Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, stated in the media yesterday that “There needs to be a reason why people are tested for COVID-19. This means along with symptoms of COVID-19 they should have either a history of travel or close contact with a possible case.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Both the Director-General of Health and myself stand by the case definition for testing of COVID-19, which is exactly both as the director-general described and also as I described yesterday, which adds the ability for a clinician to make that decision. I want to say this again very seriously to the member on the other side of the House: this is a time where New Zealanders need to know that this House—

Hon Simon Bridges: Don’t give me a lecture. I’m doing my job in the interests of New Zealand.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —is united. We are politicians, and it is not for us to determine—

Hon Grant Robertson: They don’t think you’re doing your job.

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —when people are tested. It is for doctors to.

SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister, but the Minister of Finance should not engage, and I understand that the Leader of the Opposition and a couple of the members were also interjecting. But in his engagement, his volume was coming through the Prime Minister’s mike, and, frankly, it is a matter better not discussed in this House during this serious time.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that GPs have received the clear message from Ashley Bloomfield to stick to the case definition for testing symptoms with a history of travel or close contact with a case, given the letter he sent to all GPs on Sunday, which stated, “I ask you to continue to apply the case definition when considering who you should test, and to use testing supplies and personal protective equipment with prudence.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t think anyone would disagree with giving advice that applies some criteria to who is tested, because at a time like this, there will be people who have, for instance, cold symptoms that are unrelated to COVID-19 who simply won’t need a test. It is of course prudent that we allow clinicians—not politicians, not members of the public—to make that decision. My final point is that the best thing we can do is not create an environment where everyone who has a symptom that may be a cold or may be a flu believes they need to be tested for COVID-19. That is not responsible either. Yesterday, 620 tests were undertaken—620 tests. We are testing and, as you’ll see from those tests, those cases continue to be linked to overseas travel.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of that answer, will she simply accept, then, that if it is simply symptoms and no other criteria as set out in the definition for testing, there will not be, automatically, testing in this country today?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There has never been a situation where every single people who asks for a test would receive one, and nor would that be a responsible response. That is not what countries anywhere in the world are doing. That is not the way the World Health Organization is asking countries to respond, and nor should it be the way we are. I am listening to experts, clinicians, and doctors. I ask the member to do the same.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t it quite clear from both her answers and Ashley Bloomfield’s that we have a rationing of testing in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: has there been universal support from the professional medical fraternity with respect to Ashley Bloomfield and the Prime Minister’s criterion on this matter?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve read some of the writing on this by experts in the field, and there is absolute agreement with the approach that is being taken. I again want—

Hon Members: It’s the Prime Minister’s criteria.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is an outrageous suggestion. I again want to make clear to the other side of the House: this is a national issue. There is no politics in testing; there should only be expert clinician advice. I ask the member again: if you would like to receive a briefing on this, I am happy to provide it, but the member is becoming borderline irresponsible.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of that last answer, what does she say to the half a dozen doctors who have contacted me by email and other means in the last 24 hours to express their frustration, given the difference between what she’s saying in this House and what Ashley Bloomfield and the Ministry of Health are quite clearly directing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I ask the member to read for himself the case definition I advised in this House yesterday. Whilst, yes, it does set out specific circumstances, it then makes a note: given the changing global environment, if the clinician believes that they should be testing, then they are able to. But what we do not want to do for doctors is create a pressure environment where every person demands a test, regardless of whether or not there’s any likelihood of their symptoms even being COVID-19, when there isn’t a need for one.

Hon Simon Bridges: Are media reports correct that until Monday, there had been an average of just 11 COVID-19 tests conducted a day?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ll do the same that I did with the journalist who asked that question: that was, I believe, an inaccurate way to display what’s happening with our testing. As you would expect, when New Zealand had no cases, there weren’t many tests. Over time, they have increased. We had 620 tests processed in one day yesterday.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t the reality that it’s not that there weren’t any cases; it’s simply that there wasn’t much, if any, testing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think the member will find that when there are no cases, it’s hard to spread, and therefore there is no rational reason to be testing everybody. Again, I ask the member not to listen to me if he does not choose to but listen to the experts.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to the 76-year-old Wellingtonian woman who got off a cruise ship and had symptoms but wasn’t tested this week because the GP said, “We’ve been told not to test unless we absolutely have to.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: She would’ve fallen within the criteria. Obviously, the doctor believed that there weren’t symptoms there that meant that they should. I am not going to second-guess a doctor, because that person would have fit within the case profile. Again, my final plea is to the member: think about the audience he is speaking to right now. This doesn’t have to be political.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that it is my constitutional duty to ask her questions and try and get answers on the most significant issue this country has faced in many, many years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have been in that seat and I know the difference between responsible and political. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! It ill behoves the Leader of the Opposition to react. As I’ve warned the Minister of Finance earlier, sometimes people have to take a deep breath when people are winding them up.

Abortion Legislation Bill passes final vote

The Abortion Legislation Bill has passed it’s final vote in Parliament by a comfortable but not substantial majority 68-51. abortion will now be removed from the Crimes Act.

Earlier today a vote initiated by NZ First for a referendum to make the final decision was defeated by 19-100 votes.

Tracey Martin voted for the bill, rebelling against the NZ First party vote against the bill due to not getting their referendum.

Good on her for that.

Another NZF MP Jenny Marcroft also voted for the Bill.

I think this is a very good result, tidying up a farcical law. It gives women the right to choose for themselves what happens to their own bodies, up to a point where a new life becomes viable and deserves rights of it’s own.


A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Abortion Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

Adams A Faafoi K (P) Marcroft J Swarbrick C (P)
Allan K (P) Falloon A Martin T (P) Tinetti J
Andersen V Genter J (P) McAnulty K Tolley A
Ardern J Ghahraman G (P) Mitchell M (P) Twyford P (P)
Bennett D Henare P (P) Nash S (P) Wagner N (P)
Bennett P (P) Hipkins C Parker D (P) Wall L
Bidois D Hudson B Prime W (P) Warren-Clark A
Bishop C (P) Hughes G (P) Radhakrishnan P Webb D (P)
Carter D Huo R (P) Robertson G Williams P
Clark D Jackson W Ross J (P) Willis N
Coffey T (P) Kaye N (P) Russell D Wood M
Collins J Kuriger B Sage E Woods M (P)
Craig L (P) Lees-Galloway I (P) Sepuloni C (P) Yang J
Curran C Little A Seymour D
Davidson M Logie J Shaw J (P)
Davis K (P) Lubeck M Simpson S
Doocey M (P) Luxton J (P) Sio A (P) Teller:
Eagle P (P) Mallard T Stanford E Dyson R

Noes 51

Bakshi K (P) Hipango H (P) Ngaro A Smith N
Ball D (P) Jones S (P) O’Connor S Strange J
Barry M (P) Kanongata’a-Suisuiki A (P) O’Connor D Tabuteau F (P)
Bayly A King M O’Connor G Tirikatene R (P)
Bridges S (P) Lee M Parmar P (P) Upston L
Brown S Lee D Patterson M van de Molen T
Brownlee G Macindoe T Penk C Walker H (P)
Dean J (P) Mahuta N (P) Peters W (P) Whaitiri M
Dowie S (P) Mark R (P) Pugh M (P) Woodhouse M
Garcia P McClay T (P) Reti S (P) Young J (P)
Goldsmith P (P) McKelvie I Rurawhe A Yule L
Guy A (P) Mitchell C (P) Salesa J (P) Teller:
Hayes J (P) Muller T (P) Scott A Loheni A

(P is a proxy vote)

Bill read a third time.

Mistake in abortion vote allows safe areas but no way of setting them up

The final stage of the Abortion reform Bill was debated in Parliament yesterday and last night, with Supplementary Order Paper amendments being voted on.  A late night mistake has resulted in an unintended change.

A David Seymour amendment to axe ‘safe areas’ from protests near where abortions are carried out are failed. But a stuff up removed the part of legislation allowing safe areas to be set up.

So safe areas will be allowed, but there is no way to set them up.

Stuff: Last minute mistake changes abortion law as Parliament accidentally passes amendment

A cross-party attempt to reform New Zealand’s abortion laws looked like it would emerge intact from a debate on proposed amendments until a dramatic last minute mistake axed one of its key provisions.

The amendments, known as Supplementary Order Papers or SOPs, were the subject of a lengthy debate that stretched from Tuesday afternoon to the early hours of Wednesday morning.

An attempt by ACT leader David Seymour to axe “safe areas” failed, but a last minute mistake by MPs supporting safe areas meant that safe areas were effectively nixed anyway, despite a definition for safe areas remaining in the bill.

Seymour proposed an amendment to remove safe areas from the bill. The bill initially allowed a safe areas to be established up to 150 metres around a place offering abortion services. It would be illegal to protest against abortions in these areas.

The intention was to prevent American-style protests where people getting abortions are harassed and intimidated before visiting clinics.

The first part of the amendment failed, but by a very tight margin, 59 votes to 56, however later in the night a second part to his amendment passed effectively by accident.

The second part of Seymour’s amendment was to delete parts of the bill that would give effect to the safe areas. It went to a voice vote, where MPs vote by saying “aye” and “no”, which it passed.

MPs then had an opportunity to call a conscience vote on the amendment as they had done for other amendments that night, but supporters of safe areas failed to do this, meaning the amendment passed. A late attempt by Green MP Jan Logie to save the provision failed.

This means that while safe areas remain in the legislation, the parts of the bill relating to establishing safe areas and making them function have been removed – effectively making it impossible to set one up.

This demonstrates a problem with long sittings dealing with a lot of amendments late in the legislative process. It isn’t a good way to form laws.

All the speeches and votes here:

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/drilldown/HansD_20200310_20200310/HansDeb_20200310_20200310_20?Criteria.PageNumber=1

Government and National may cooperate on Covid-19 economic response

Much of what makes the news from Parliament is combative, controversial or the worst of MP behaviour. Here’s an example of how speeches (by Grant Robertson and Paul Goldsmith) can be reasoned and reasonable, with offers of cooperation between the Government and the National opposition.

It’s good to see and important that they actually follow through with their cooperation on dealing with Covid-19.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

COVID-19—Government’s Response to Economic Effects

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance):

I wish to make a ministerial statement on the Government’s response to the economic effects of COVID-19. While there is much uncertainty about the COVID-19 outbreak, it is clear that it is going to impact the world economy, and therefore New Zealand’s economy, for much of 2020. As we know from events like the global financial crisis, New Zealand is not immune to economic shocks that occur offshore and that are beyond our control, but what we can do, alongside our public health response, is to support confidence with a plan to address domestic economic impacts.

Our first responsibility as a Government is the health and wellbeing of our citizens; that is why our response continues to be led by our public health response. This strong public health response will also ultimately be critical to ensuring our economy and our people come through this outbreak in good shape. We have committed to providing the necessary resources to support our health system to protect New Zealanders’ health and wellbeing.

From an economic perspective, the Government has already made a number of immediate interventions, including support for the tourism and seafood industries, funding to increase regional business support programmes, and directing Government departments to pay businesses faster to support cash flow. Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) are supporting businesses and workers on issues like provisional tax readjustments, late payment and filing fees, wage instalment plans, and income support.

MSD’s rapid response teams are in place in regions like Tai Rāwhiti, and we have removed the stand-down period. I met yesterday with the chief executives of New Zealand’s major banks, who told me that they are well-prepared, both in terms of their own operations and in their ability to work with their customers, to get through this. The options they highlighted for customers are reducing or suspending principal payments on loans and temporarily moving to interest-only repayments, helping with restructuring business loans, consolidating loans to help make repayments more manageable, providing access to short-term funding, and referring individual customers to budgeting services. I strongly encourage businesses and banks to talk now and make a plan to get through this challenging situation.

Yesterday, the Government signalled its further steps as the impacts spread across the economy. Decisions on these measures need to balance the risks of poorly targeted spending and moving in time to support affected firms and individuals when they need it. Our business continuity package includes a targeted wage subsidy scheme for workers in the most adversely affected sectors, training and redeployment options for affected employees, and working with banks on the potential for future working capital support for companies that face temporary credit constraints. We will not be able to provide a wage subsidy for all affected firms during the duration of COVID-19. It will have to be temporary. It will also have to be tailor-made. We want to target the subsidies to those who are most affected and least able to adjust. Further details of this package will be announced next week.

These initiatives do not stop us from providing other forms of assistance to people and firms, but they are a sensible place to begin. We have also directed officials to develop longer-term macroeconomic measures that may be required to support the economy, businesses, and workers if there is a major, sustained global downturn. I reiterate that while we are planning for that situation, we are not predicting it, but planning for it is the responsible thing to do.

I want to be clear that this situation is very different to other challenges the New Zealand economy has faced in the past decade. The Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes were events that impacted defined areas, where it was clear which businesses were affected, why, and how. With COVID-19, which is an evolving, global health crisis, we are seeing different businesses in the same industries and in the same regions impacted differently. That is why a tailor-made response is required.

The global financial crisis was caused by the concerns about what financial institutions like banks were experiencing, but that’s not what is happening here. We have a very sound and stable banking system and a sound underlying economy. We have been running surpluses. Our net debt position, at 19.5 percent of GDP, is well below what we inherited and well below other countries. We are already ahead of the curve with the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme, which is supporting the economy.

This is a global problem that New Zealand is well positioned to deal with, and because this Government has the interests of all New Zealanders at heart, if we all work together—Government, businesses, and workers—we will get through this.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):

Video “available shortly”

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party shares the Government’s concern about the economic consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak. Already, these have been significant for the businesses affected. People have lost their jobs, they’ve had their hours reduced, they’ve lost income, and they’ve closed their restaurants without knowing when they’ll open again. Some struggling businesses will fall over, and there’s no longer a sense that the impact will be short and sharp, but only a question of how damaging it will be, and we have seen today that the latest business confidence figures are at their lowest levels since 2009.

We support the initiatives announced so far. We support the tourism and seafood industries, and faster payments from Government departments. We support the efforts of IRD and the Ministry of Social Development to help with provisional tax adjustments and late payments, we agree that businesses in distress should be talking with their banks, and we acknowledge that the Government is putting together its business continuity package, including a targeted wage subsidy scheme for workers in the most adversely affected areas and industries. We were disappointed that the details weren’t available yesterday. This has been going on for several weeks now, and it’s our belief more urgency is required. Yes, it’s complicated, and, yes, the boundaries have to be clearly defined, but we worry that the window to save jobs may be beginning to close.

We also ask the Government to reconsider its plan to lift the minimum wage again on 1 April. The Government announced several very substantial increases to the minimum wage back in 2017, when the economy was growing strongly—a 27 percent increase over three years. The situation has changed dramatically since then in the past few months. The April change will mean the minimum wage has lifted 20 percent in two years.

It doesn’t make sense to be proposing relief to businesses at the same time as significantly adding to their costs. Saving jobs should be the focus. The economic challenge before us is serious. The Government needs to shift its mind-set from adding costs to business to taking pressure off small and medium sized enterprises so that they can survive and continue to employ New Zealanders. So I urge the Minister to reconsider and postpone the 1 April rise for six months while we assess the situation. Nobody knows how widespread and deep the international slow-down will be. We need to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Thanks to the discipline of successive Governments, the country has relatively low debt and the ability to provide stimulus if required. The ability to borrow, however, should not stop the Minister from taking a hard look at wasteful spending, such as with elements of the Provincial Growth Fund. Some of the money would be far better used in a business continuity package than it is being used now.

We also need to recognise the longer-term economic challenges haven’t gone away. The Minister is wrong when he says that New Zealand entered this crisis with strong momentum. That’s not correct. The latest estimate from the Reserve Bank is that New Zealand grew at 1.6 percent in 2019. So a clear, coherent growth plan is outlined. We believe it should include tax relief, a substantial infrastructure plan that is delivered, relief for small businesses, regulatory reduction such as we outlined yesterday, and policies focused on putting more money in the hands of New Zealand families.

Finally, we thank the Minister for his offer of briefings from Treasury, and we undertake to work constructively to suggest ways forward as we confront this economic challenge together.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance):

I thank the member the Hon Paul Goldsmith for that contribution—in particular his offer to work together. I’m sure he’ll appreciate the briefing that he’s getting—I think this afternoon—from Treasury.

Three quick points in response. The first of those is that this package and the work we have been doing has all been undertaken in consultation with the business community and, indeed, with the union movement. It is important that we continue to work with them. They are the people who are telling us that this package needs to be targeted and needs to ensure that it reaches the people who need it.

I also note in that regard, with reference to the member’s comment about the minimum wage, that is precisely the across-the-board, sweeping, knee-jerk reaction that is not useful at this point. What is useful at this point is ensuring that support gets to businesses who need it via a targeted approach while also ensuring that our lowest income New Zealanders get a fair go. We know that those on the minimum wage tend to spend the increases that they get because that is the nature of being on a low income, and we continue to support those New Zealanders to be able to move forward in that way.

Thirdly, I just want to make reference to the member’s comment about the timeliness of this package. All countries around the world are grappling with an evolving situation. He will not be able to find countries other than those directly in the eye of the storm who have taken actions beyond what this Government has done. In fact, this Government is well ahead of the curve, in part because of a fully funded infrastructure package that we announced at the end of January. The New Zealand Government has ensured that we are in a good position to deal with what is a serious situation, and we will continue to take a measured and active approach.

Obituary speeches in Parliament for Jeanette Fitzsimons

Jeanette Fitzsimons is a rare politician or ex-politician who has been widely praised for what she achieved and the manner in which she conducted herself in politics.

Jeanette died suddenly last week (5 March 2020), aged 75, and most parties and leaders in parliament gave obituary speeches today, which not surprisingly were full of praise from across the House.

Both leaders Marama Davidson and James Shaw spoke for the Green Party. It was obviously emotional for them.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke on behalf of the Labour Party and also “on behalf of our coalition partner, the New Zealand First Party” – no MP for NZ First spoke.

Coromandel MP Scott Simpson spoke on behalf of the National Party and the people of Coromandel – Jeanette was MP for Coromandel in 1999-2002 and lived at the base of the Coromandel Peninsula.

David Seymour spoke on behalf of the ACT Party.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green):

I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the passing of Jeanette Fitzsimons.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: I move, That this House mark the passing of Jeanette Fitzsimons, the Green Party’s first female co-leader, celebrate her contributions to Aotearoa New Zealand, and express deep condolences to her whānau and friends.

[Authorised Te Reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It is my honour to stand with my co-leader, James Shaw, and all of our Green MPs here in this House to celebrate the life and acknowledge the passing of our much beloved first female co-leader of the Green Party of Aotearoa, Jeanette Fitzsimons. I acknowledge and send deep aroha to Harry and her children, Jeremy and Mark, and all of their mokopuna. I am thinking particularly of Rod Donald and family at this time, and especially of our friend Holly Donald, who works here in this House. I know that the loss of Rod while Jeanette was a co-leader had a massive impact on her and indeed on all of us.

I am standing here thinking deeply of all of the past Green MPs and particularly those who served with Jeanette in this House. I am thinking of our founding members of the Green Party movement of our party—those who have had a long association with her. Those people are really feeling the loss at this time very deeply, and I want to acknowledge their mamae. I am thinking of Metiria and Russel, with whom Jeanette had a close impact and working relationship. I am thinking of the Young Greens, who held their summer camp just recently in February, as we do every year on Jeanette and Harry’s farm, and were privileged to spend that weekend with her on her beloved riverbank, on her beloved campsite.

I am thankful for the people who have messaged us their love and their thoughts—the many organisations, the many individuals who have had a long association with her over generations and over decades. This kōrero that I stand with much honour to give now is on behalf of James and I and our Green MPs, and I acknowledge James will also be speaking later.

As I start to talk about her achievements, I note—ironically—that one of the biggest is she is noted for her humility, that people recall that her work was never about her as an individual, that she was very clear she was simply doing a job for the wellbeing of our planet and for our mokopuna and generations to come. She was part of the founding movement of our Green Party, right back from the days of the Values Party, through to The Alliance, and then to become the Green Party that we have today. I wanted to start her achievements by recalling her own words, in that her mokopuna have been the touchstone of much of her work. She, of course, was the only Green to ever win an electorate seat, in 1999—ground breaking and still, to this day, the only Green to win an electorate seat.

She also was the Government’s spokesperson—a quasi-Minister, in her own words—who, in 1998, introduced the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act, establishing energy efficiency and solar water heating frameworks, and the legacy of which we are still working through today, thanks to her pioneering. She, of course, helped to bring the climate change conversation into Parliament. She was a leading voice for a new, compassionate, ecologically sustainable economics that has influenced the Government’s new wellbeing approach to this very day. In her valedictory speech, she called this an economy based on respect for people and for nature—simple, but something that to date had not been called for yet. She expanded legal aid for environmental cases and funding for community conservation groups. She, of course, also chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee for six years, in her words, scrutinising the executive, listening to the people, and knocking the silly corners off bad legislation.

Over the weekend, our councils of the Green Party met for a weekend hui that we had long planned, and we started by having a round and reflection for the impact that she had on all of us. Whether you were someone who knew her for decades and generations or whether you were someone who hadn’t yet had the privilege of meeting her, we talked about the fabric of experiences that all of us hold and the marvel and achievement of the work that she led and the person that she was.

There is very much a grieving sense of loss. As I continue to say, I thought we had her for quite a bit longer. I took for granted that she was going to continue to be around to mentor me as co-leader, to mentor us as Green politicians, and to hold us, as the Green Party, to account. I really did think that we had her for a lot longer.

I want to acknowledge and respect that a beautiful funeral, a small family and community and private affair, was held in Coromandel yesterday and respect and acknowledge the beauty that took place. We will be organising a wider, more public event here in Wellington in the weeks to come; I understand people are waiting for that.

I remember her telling me the time when one of our MPs rang her from this House to tell her that he was voting differently to what had been agreed. It was one of the funny stories when she was sitting me down as I was about to take up the mantle of co-leader and saying there is no job description, there is no expectation for what you might expect in doing this role, Marama, but one thing is for sure: you can expect the unexpected.

I recall Harry talking about her trying so hard but failing—after she left Parliament—to get arrested for protecting our marine environment against fossil fuel exploration and drilling. This is only a testament to her work never stopping long after—and to the very end of her life. She was a champion for a progressive vision that would protect our children, our people, and our planet. And she put herself on the line to exemplify exactly that.

Jeanette’s face keeps flashing up in front of me. I was very privileged, at that young Greens summer camp that I mentioned, to stay the night with her on her farm, to have a political huddle—that sort of time was special then. That sort of time with Jeanette was valuable to me in and of itself then. But right now, it’s feeling even more special than I realised it ever was going to be. It was a huddle that confirmed her clarity of purpose for what we—as humans of this world—need to be taking responsibility for, need to be working together for, need to be seeking the change that is indeed going to protect our future, our planet, and our communities. It was an affirmation that she maintained her commitment to those political visions right through to the very end.

Many people have many personal relationships and stories and reflections on her life. I’ve enjoyed reading through a lot of them and hearing a lot of them over the weekend, and there will be more to come. For my time here in this House today, I simply wanted to signal our deep gratitude for her commitment to a kaupapa that was going to be for the good of all of us. There is grief and loss in the gap that has been created, but there is hope in the legacy and the commitment that she maintained and an added drive for all of us, particularly for us in the Green Party and movement, to continue to be steadfast on our principles and our values and to do good in this world. Once again, I send my love to Harry and her children, all of her friends, and her family. Tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister):

I rise on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party and on behalf of our coalition partner, the New Zealand First Party, to acknowledge the death of former Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons CNZM, who passed away suddenly last Thursday night aged 75.

Jeanette will be remembered as a ground breaker, the first female co-leader of the Greens, the first Green MP to ever speak in this House, the first Green MP to win an electorate seat, and the first Green MP to hold an official Government position as spokesperson on energy efficiency. But this official record of impressive firsts only tells half the story. Her true parliamentary legacy will be the paths she laid on important environmental and conservation issues and the shift that she helped lead in our entire country’s thinking, especially on climate change.

In many ways Jeanette was by necessity a politician ahead of her time. Her job here was to agitate, to educate, to force change from those reluctant to make it. It seems strange now, but when Jeanette was first talking and writing about climate change, or global warming as it was often referred to then, she was an outlier, a bearer of an inconvenient truth. She was mocked and she was ridiculed for her earnest and persistent call for political action on the state of the planet.

I entered Parliament some time after Jeanette and even I recall that the response to climate change at that time was not what it is today, and it’s easy to forget that she was the champion of an issue that was not popular, that was not spoken of, and that was often rejected outright. I believe it is in large part to her tenacity that we are now taking this issue seriously, and that the paths she laid meant this House could vote unanimously for the zero carbon Act—a parliamentary consensus that would have been unimaginable when Jeanette was the lone voice when she first entered Parliament in 1996.

Jeanette was a true steward of the New Zealand environmental political movement. Starting out in the Values Party in the 1970s through to bringing the Greens into Parliament in their own right, Jeanette played a pivotal role over decades in building Green political representation in New Zealand and ensuring continuous representation in Parliament for the Greens since the first MMP election in 1996. She did that the old-fashioned way: holding public meetings, getting up media stories, writing op-eds, organising petitions, rallying, recruiting, and training new people. The bread-and-butter work of a political movement was never ever beneath her; in fact, I suspect that’s where she found her joy.

In fact, her commitment to the new generation could be seen in—as the co-leader of the Greens, Marama, has referenced—the hosting of the Young Greens camp each year on her farm in Thames. Passing the baton on and supporting the next generation of environmentalists was so core to who she was.

Jeanette once polled as the most trustworthy party leader in New Zealand; a fitting endorsement of her kind, caring, and passionate brand of politics. I think that she would be proud of the New Zealand Green Party today in that they keep those values in this House till this day.

I recall her presence in this House. I recall her quiet dignity. I recall her intelligence, her respect for others—even when she wasn’t offered that same respect in return. She was completely and utterly how she came across: a different type of politician and leader.

Her post-parliamentary career was not an opportunity for Jeanette to put her feet up and take some well-earned rest; she continued to campaign, to protest, to try and get arrested from time to time, to make presentations to select committee, and to train and support others.

Her final words spoken in this House were to the younger generation hungry for change. “Kia kaha—you are the hope of the future. Haere ra.”, she said. Now it’s time to say “Haera rā” to you, Jeanette. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your determined optimism. Thank you for laying the path that ultimately has meant that you left this place better than you found it. Haere rā.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Jeanette Fitzsimons has left us far too early. I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party and the people of Coromandel. Jeanette Fitzsimons was a character and a personality larger than her sometimes diminutive stature might have foretold. She was always passionate, energetic, and articulate in her advocacy for the policies and principles that she held so dear and lived by every day of her life—those were primarily the environment, conservation, and humanity. She was staunch always with gritty and determined but often humble focus on achieving the goals that she wanted to. She never did it in a personal way; it was always about the policy, about the argument, about the debate, and about the issue rather than the person—something that we sometimes have too little of in this place.

In the Coromandel, she was always an active, articulate, and vocal presence in local communities, even after her time as the member of Parliament. She was never short of a well-considered, well-thought-out, and well-constructed contribution to any conversation or debate on any particular matter. She represented the Coromandel for just three years of her parliamentary career, from 1999-2002, but she left a local legacy that is much greater than often three years in this place might imply from an ordinary constituency MP.

Jeanette was well regarded, well admired, and well respected locally, nationally, and internationally for her views and for the way that she expressed them and presented them not only to those that supported her but those who were opposed or had a different view. No matter what our personal view might have been of those policies and thoughts and ideas that she had, one could never ever underestimate the sincerity or the level of conviction of those principles that she held dear and espoused at every opportunity. She lived, as others have said, by those principles every day of her life.

I had an opportunity to spend a couple of hours yesterday in the Kauaeranga Valley, near the farm, with Harry and the extended whānau and friends at a very beautiful and typically Green-type affair—if I might say—in a pleasing way. It was a very genuine, sincere, and pleasant afternoon beside the river, in the valley that she loved, with the people that she loved and who cared for her.

Towards the end of last winter, the Environment Committee was hearing submissions on the zero carbon bill. It was winter and a sub-committee had been meeting in Auckland for nearly two days in a rather drab Auckland City cold, colourless community hall—in Freemans Bay, from memory. Jeanette Fitzsimons arrived to make her submission on the zero carbon bill but before she started to speak, she presented on the submissions table a posy of bright yellow daffodils taken from her garden in the Thames Valley that very morning. They sat there, a bright beacon of hope and inspiration, while she gave her considered submission in that otherwise drab room. Then, when she’d finished her submission, the flowers stayed and they remained, and for the rest of the day those flowers stood on that table as a beacon of her contribution not only to the debate but as a measure of her views about the issues that we were talking. And they stayed there long after her submission had finished.

I want to extend condolences on behalf of the National Party and on behalf of the people of Coromandel to Harry, her children, and her wider whānau. A bright, green light has gone out on the Coromandel and across Aotearoa New Zealand too soon.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):

I wish to join with other party leaders, on behalf of ACT, in condolence to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ family and in commemoration of her life and her contribution to New Zealand politics and this House. I’m sure that as a lifelong proponent of, and campaigner for the mixed member proportional system, she would want it to be so.

I did not coincide with Jeanette Fitzsimons in this Parliament, nor, unfortunately, was I able to know her, but in a way, the fact that what I know of her has been learnt by osmosis, has bled out through society and through secondary connections, speaks all the more strongly to those values that I know she had. There are politicians who believe it is an achievement to hold a particular office. There are politicians who believe that it is about what she might have called the “he said, she said” BS; Jeanette Fitzsimons was clearly a politician who believed that being in office was not an achievement but presented the opportunity to achieve not on the personality, but on the issues. That’s why we hear so frequently in the last few days, as people up and down New Zealand have come to terms with her passing, words like “principled”, “kind”, “dogmatic”, “humble”, “achieving”: values that I think all of us should aspire to and values for which all of us can have a great admiration for Jeanette Fitzsimons.

I want to extend, again, condolences to her Green Party colleagues and the wider Green Party whānau, and to those in her real biological whānau—they must be feeling such a sense of loss, and our thoughts are with them—and of course, to her, our commemoration of a great life, well lived. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green):

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge and thank the members who have spoken and the memories that they’ve shared. Those tributes, I think, reflect the extraordinary woman that Janette was. As others have said, Jeanette’s approach to politics was to treat everyone with dignity and with respect. Her belief in the practice of non-violent social change always led her to seek to build consensus and common ground, particularly with those with whom she disagreed most strongly. There’s a saying: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

I think, in the long run, Jeanette’s greatest success will be seen to be in the area where people ridiculed her the most: in economics. In her own words she said, “GDP is both too narrow and too generalised to measure anything useful. It does not tell us whether the poor are getting poorer, and if most of society’s wealth is held by a few. It does not tell us if we are paying more and more to control pollution and crime, rather than for real goods and services. It does not tell us if we are plundering the environment to [take] short-term monetary returns.”

Jeanette’s greatest regret was that she was unable to move the establishment on this point. Yet 10 years later the current Minister of Finance had this to say: “if we’ve got this so-called rockstar economy, how is it that we have the worst homelessness in the OECD? How is it that you can’t swim in most of New Zealand’s rivers and lakes? How is it that child poverty [has] grown to the extent [that] it has? The answer, in my view, was because the government wasn’t sufficiently valuing those things. And [because] it wasn’t being valued properly, it wasn’t being measured, and [because] it wasn’t being measured, it wasn’t being done.”

Now, I acknowledge that the other side of the House is, at best, sceptical about this Government’s wellbeing approach, and I also acknowledge that we are still a very long way from the holistic, social, environmental, and economic guidance system for the country that Jeanette envisaged, but we have gotten started. I hope that she knew, in the end, that she had won.

Jeanette had already had a political career spanning two decades with the Values Party when I met her some time after the 1990 general election campaign. I was 18 or 19 or so, and I will never forget it. There was a hui at a lodge in Ōhākune to make some choices about the future of this emerging political party, the Greens. There were some heated debates about whether to be a political party or an outside pressure group, trying to reach consensus on how consensus-based decision-making should work, whether to have leaders or not and, if so, whether there should be one or two, or some other model entirely.

Now, despite there being no clear consensus on that question at the time, it was clear to me that Jeanette was a beacon by which others navigated. The debates continued through dinner and through drinks and on into the lodge’s sauna, where I was a little bit startled to find that not only were the policy prescriptions very northern European, so was the dress code. That’s where I first learned to focus on the policy, rather than the person.

Now, thousands of people around the country will have their own stories of Jeanette: inspiring, challenging, humorous, poignant—endless stories of a life so rich, and which touched so many. Each and every member of this Green Party caucus here has their own, which Marama and I cannot hope to do any justice to today. She mentored and guided each of us, and all of us.

But none of us here served alongside her in Parliament. Gareth Hughes, today our longest-serving MP, entered Parliament when Jeanette vacated it, 10 years ago last month. Gareth himself will retire at the coming election, and someone else will take up the mantle. That is Jeanette’s legacy. She built a political party. She led it out of the wilderness and into Parliament. She helped to midwife it into Government, and it succeeds her.

Her leadership was so profound that it has continued to guide the choices and shape the endeavours of a generation who only entered this place when she left it, and who remain even though she has passed beyond the veil. There are very few people in our history who can make that claim. She was not just a parliamentarian and a leader; she was a mother, a musician, a thinker, a writer, a wife, a friend, a farmer, an academic, an investor, a philanthropist, and a protester.

She wanted a world where we could be counted—as she said—not by the size of our GDP and our incomes, but by the warmth of our relationships with each other and with nature, by the health of our children and our elders and our rivers and our land. We want more people to share the secret of real happiness and satisfaction in life, which comes not from having more but from being more, and from being part of a society that values all its members and values the land, the water, and the other species with which we share them. Farewell Jeanette and thank you, and please give our love to Rod.

Motion agreed to.

Waiata

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Jami-Lee Ross claims National received foreign donations

In Parliament yesterday Independent MPs Jami-Lee Ross claimed that he had information showing that up to $150,000 dollars in donations paid to the National party had come via conduits from China. He said that he wasn’t aware of this when he was a National MP (and senior whip), and the party probably wasn’t aware of the source of the donations either. He called on National to pay the donations back.

Ross appears to have got the information from the Serious Fraud Office, so it is probable he has his own legal defence in mind in how he has worded his claims.

Before making the claims in a speech in Parliament Ross appeared to collude with Winston Peters in Question Time, in questions directed at Peters as the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Question No. 4—Foreign Affairs

4. JAMI-LEE ROSS (MP—Botany) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has he received any reports of foreign interference activities in New Zealand from foreign State actors of the type described by Canterbury University Professor Anne-Marie Brady in her paper “Magic Weapons” as united front work carried out by the Chinese Communist Party; if so, what efforts is the Government making to protect New Zealand’s interests?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Foreign interference is not a new threat and New Zealand isn’t immune to such attempts. Yes, I have seen reports to that effect, but I can’t discuss specific countries, operational details, targets or methods, or systems of surveillance. But I can assure the member that this Government takes the threat very seriously and has robust measures in place to protect our democratic values, institutions, and our economy.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does he share the concerns of Professor Brady that foreign State actors make efforts to “control diaspora communities, to utilise them as agents of foreign policy, suppress any hints of dissidents as well.”, and if so, what resilience strategy will New Zealand implement to protect against this foreign interference?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I tell that member we do share a series of concerns. If that member or, indeed, any member of the public has information that relates to foreign interference from any country, they should report it to the relevant authorities. This is a serious issue that this Government is dedicated to addressing, and appropriate processes should be followed. But let me say this: this is the first time in New Zealand’s history that a political party has announced its candidate list in China, and you have to ask yourself why.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does he share the view of SIS director Rebecca Kitteridge that one vector of foreign interference in elections is “Building covert influence and leverage, including through electoral financing;”, and if so, what advice does he have for New Zealanders concerned about this foreign interference?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member will, I’m sure, appreciate the fact that we cannot single out any one specific country. The important thing is that we have flexible and adequate mechanisms, we believe, in place to protect our democratic values, institutions, and the economy. The witness and evidence that he has recited in his question is some testimony to that, but the reality is we have open channels to raise issues with countries if and when we ever need to do so. But it behoves political parties not to be undermining this Government’s serious purpose to protect our democratic institutions.

Both Ross and Peters have demonstrated having obvious grudges against National leader Simon Bridges and the National Party, so that context could be important.

Ross, Peters and NZ First have had links to and have been promoted by the Whale Oil and The BFD blogs and Cameron Slater et al.

From the Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement following Question Time:

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany):

…In the Prime Minister’s statement, that we are debating, the Prime Minister lists as one of her Government’s achievements the banning of foreign political donations. It’s true that the new $50 threshold for overseas donations is an improvement. But, as I’ve said previously in the House, I doubt it will do very little to deter those determined to find other ways around the ban, including—

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Jackson leave the House.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: —using the wide open gap we still have where foreign State actors can funnel funds through New Zealand registered companies.

The foreign donation ban is one of the few recommendations that has spun out of the Justice Committee’s inquiry into foreign interference activities in New Zealand elections. That has been picked up. Probably the most important submissions that we received through that inquiry were those from Professor Anne-Marie Brady of Canterbury University and what we heard from the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) director, Rebecca Kitteridge. It was all eye-watering and eye-opening stuff and sobering for us to hear and read their evidence. We have not, and I think we still do not, take seriously enough the risk of foreign interference activities that we’ve been subjected to as a country. Ms Kitteridge rightly pointed out in her evidence that the challenge of foreign interference to our democracy is not just about what occurs around the election itself. Motivated State actors will work assiduously over many years, including in New Zealand, to covertly garner influence, access, and leverage.

She also specifically pointed out the risks we face from foreign State actors through the exertion of pressure or control of diaspora communities and the building of covert influence and leverage, including through electoral financing. After Pansy Wong resigned from Parliament, I was selected as the National Party candidate for the 5 March by-election nine years ago. It was made very clear to me at the time that I had to put a big emphasis on getting to know the Chinese community. It was also pointed out to me very early on that I must make good connections with the Chinese consul-general. Madam Liao at the time was very influential with Chinese New Zealanders, and important to my own success as well. In hindsight, it was naive of me to not think carefully about the pull that a foreign diplomat had on a large section of the population in my electorate.

The consul-general in Auckland is treated like a God, more so than any New Zealand politician, except probably the Prime Minister of the day. Each successive consul-general seemed to be better and more effective at holding New Zealand residents and citizens of Chinese descent in their grasp. Consul-generals Niu Qingbao and Xu Erwen were also treating us, as MPs—not just myself, others—as long-lost friends. All this effort, if you read Professor Brady’s paper called Magic Weapons, is a core plank of the Chinese Communist Party’s deliberate and targeted efforts to expand political influence activities worldwide. It’s also the very risk that Rebecca Kitteridge warned the Justice Committee about. Professor Brady’s paper is a 50-page academic work. I can’t do it justice here, but I recommend all MPs read it.

The activities of the Chinese Communist Party here domestically, where Chinese New Zealanders have been targeted, should be concerning enough for all of us. But the efforts that Chinese Communist Party – connected individuals have been making over the years to target us as politicians, and New Zealand political parties, also needs to be taken seriously. Every time we as MPs are showered with praise or dinners or hospitality by Chinese diplomats, we’re being subjected to what Professor Brady calls “united front work”. Every time we see our constituents bow and scrape to foreign diplomats, it’s a result of their long-running efforts to exert influence and control over our fellow Kiwis.

Both Professor Brady and director Kitteridge have warned about the risk of foreign interference activity where funding of political parties is used as a tool. This isn’t necessarily unlawful provided the donations meet the requirements of the Electoral Act. In 2018, I very publicly made some allegations relating to donations. I have said publicly already that the donations I called out were offered directly to the leader of the National Party at an event I was not in attendance at. I did not know at the time that those donations were made that they were in any way unlawful. I never had any control over those donations and I have never been a signatory of any National Party bank account in the time that I’ve been an MP. I never benefited personally from those donations. I was never a part of any conspiracy to defeat the Electoral Act. And the point at which I blew the whistle on these donations—first internally, then very publicly—that point came after I learned new information that led me to question the legality of the donations.

While making the accusations Ross has been careful to try to distance himself from what he claims has happened.

After raising these issues publicly, they were duly investigated first by the police and then the Serious Fraud Office. The result of those allegations is already public and I can’t traverse much detail here, but I will say that I refuse to be silenced and I will keep speaking out about what I know, and have seen, goes on inside political parties. I refuse to be quiet about the corroding influence of money in New Zealand politics.

Last year, I learnt, off the back of concerns I myself took to the proper authorities, that the National Party had been the beneficiary of large amounts of foreign donations. These donations are linked back to China and linked to the Chinese Communist Party, and with ease entered New Zealand. I didn’t go searching for this information. I was asked if I knew anything of the origins of the donations. I didn’t know. It was all new information to me, and I was surprised by what I learnt.

What I learnt was that large sums of money adding up to around $150,000 coming directly out of China in Chinese yuan over successive years ended up as political party donations. Two individuals, _________, were used as conduits for the donations.

These funds eventually made their way to the New Zealand National Party. The New Zealand National Party still holds those funds. The National Party is still holding at least $150,000 of foreign donations received in two successive years. I call on the National Party to return those foreign donations that it holds or transfer the money to the Electoral Commission. I doubt the National Party knew at the time that the money was foreign—I certainly didn’t either—but now that they will have that information to hand, they need to show leadership and do the right thing.

How does Ross know that the national party still holds the donations?

To avoid doubt, this $150,000 dollars’ worth of foreign donations is not the same as the $150,000 from the Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry company that they raised last year.

The warnings sounded from academics and spy agencies are not without reason. These two examples I give are very real examples of foreign money that has entered New Zealand politics. Professor Brady, with reference to the list of overseas members of the overseas Chinese federation, which is part of the Communist Party’s infrastructure, listed three top united front representatives in New Zealand:

_____, _____, and Zhang Yikun. All three are well known to political parties.

In a recent press statement from a PR agency, representatives of Zhang Yikun highlighted the philanthropic approach that he takes in New Zealand. The press statement on 19 February specifically said that he has been “donating to many political parties and campaigns.”, except his name has never appeared in any political party return. When asked by the media if political parties had any record of donations from this individual, all said no. But a quick search online will find dozens and dozens of photos of Zhang Yikun dining with mayors and MPs over the time, inviting them to his home, and his recent 20th convention of Teochew International Federation had a who’s who list of politicians turning up, including a former Prime Minister.

The foreign donations I mentioned earlier all have connections to the Chao Shan General Association. The founder and chairman of Chao Shan General Association is Zhang Yikun. To summarise these two bits of information, the largest party in this Parliament has been the beneficiary of large sums of foreign money. That money is linked to an individual who was listed as one of the top three Chinese Communist Party united front representatives in New Zealand. That individual’s PR agents say he has donated to many political parties and campaigns, yet he’s never showing up in any donation returns in the past.

One of Professor Brady’s concluding remarks in her submission to the Justice Committee was that foreign interference activities can only thrive if public opinion in the affected nation tolerates or condones it. We must not tolerate or condone any foreign interference activities. We must also not stay silent when we see problems right under our nose. It’s time for the political parties in this Parliament to address seriously the political party donation regime that we have.

I realise that both the two main parties in this Parliament often have to agree, but perhaps it’s time to put that out to an independent body. It’s too important for us to ignore, and it’s not right that we should allow these things to go on under our nose.

I seek leave to table two charts that show a flow of money from China into New Zealand and to the New Zealand National Party.

SPEAKER: I seek an assurance from the member that these charts are not integral to any matter currently before the courts.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: These charts have been prepared by the Serious Fraud Office and I cannot give you that assurance.

SPEAKER: You cannot give me that assurance. Well, I’m not going to put the question.

MPs involved in court processes usually refuse to discuss or answer questions about the case, claiming the sub judice rule requires this, so Ross using information he has obtained as a part of being prosecuted may raise some legal eyebrows. Also political eyebrows.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The sub judice rule is not as to the fact; it’s as to the argument of the merit of the case, and I think a far too rigid rule is being applied here. If a flow chart, without any other comment, is to be ruled out from being tabled because you say it is sub judice; it is not arguing anything but the fact. It is not arguing for the merits, it’s not taking sides, it’s not trying to be persuasive, and I think it should be allowed in.

It seems quite ironic that Peters is arguing against the sub judice rule. He has claimed his right to silence on an issue because of the rule multiple times in the past.

SPEAKER: Well, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comments. This is clearly a matter on which I’ve thought long and hard. I think in the last Standing Orders review or possibly the one before that, the sub judice rules were significantly tightened. I think it’s fair to say that those changes were not unanimous. There was one member who stood out against the tightening of those rules, and it was me. But having said that, as Speaker, I am obliged to apply the rules as they exist, and the member has not been able to give me an assurance that the information contained in the chart is not central to a case currently before the court.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The problem with that is you’ve got a serious legal concept that’s been handed down through the decades, indeed the centuries, now being interpreted by parliamentarians as though they are a court of law in this context. The sub judice rule applies to any court of law—any document associated with a court of law—across our legal jurisdiction. But no parliamentarian should be given—sorry, I’m not making an attack on the parliamentarians, but I think it’s improper for parliamentarians to say, “Well, we’ve got a better interpretation of that, and this is what it is.”

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, for me, the question is how Mr Ross came to hold the documents: whether in fact he is holding the documents because of his involvement in a case that may be before a judicial body, or whether he came to hold them through some other means.

SPEAKER: Well, I think I’m able to deal with that question on the matter of the briefings that I have received. Jami-Lee Ross has made it clear to me that the chart to which he refers or the information to which he refers is something which has come into his possession as a matter leading up to this and containing information relevant to this case.

Hon Aupito William Sio: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting the seriousness and the magnitude of the issues that have been raised with Mr Jami-Lee Ross, and noting also that his time is up, is it appropriate for me to seek leave that he be given extended time to complete his statements?

SPEAKER: The answer to that is that it’s not appropriate for that member to seek leave for another member in that way.

This could add to National’s embarrassment over donations.

But it also shows that Ross seems to be working with Peters in trying to damage National, and Ross will have his defence (of the SFO prosecution) in mind with what he says here – but using court information to do this may cause him some problems.

It will be interesting to see what The BFD runs on this today.


Sources:

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/HansS_20200305_051450000/4-question-no-4-foreign-affairs

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/HansS_20200305_054225000/ross-jami-lee

Abortion Legislation Bill passes Second Reading 81-39

The Abortion Legislation Bill had it’s Second Reading debate last night and passed on a personal (conscience) vote easily, 81-39. The bill is a much better approach to abortion than the current law that is not followed in practice, making abortion health issue rather than a legal issue.

From Abortion Legislation Bill — Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice):
(Edited)

This bill was introduced on 5 August last year and was referred to the Abortion Legislation Committee, a special committee set up specifically for consideration of this bill. The committee was established by the House precisely for that purpose. I want to thank members of the committee, in particular the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and the deputy chair, the Hon Amy Adams, for the work they did. They received more than 25,000 submissions. They heard from more than 130 people during 30 hours of oral evidence.

This bill and this topic are a very sensitive topic. It’s a very difficult topic for many citizens and many, many members of this House to discuss and debate, but debate it we must, because this legislation that we’re now considering—the changes to which we are considering—are more than 40 years old and it is timely and appropriate to consider it.

I have previously spoken about the reasons why I believe the law governing abortion needs to be changed, not the least of which is that the legislation is so old, but also the fact that the framework for abortion in New Zealand right now is set out in both the Crimes Act 1961 and the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, and a woman seeking an abortion should not have her actions stigmatised as if she were committing a criminal act—she is not; she is making a decision about herself and her body.

Following the select committee process, the Abortion Legislation Committee has recommended changes to improve access to abortion services which it considers are in the best interests of women.

There has been scaremongering about abortions up to birth, which is a distortion of what will be allowed for the good of the health of the mother and the unborn child. The vast majority of abortions are in the first 20 weeks.

In relation to abortion after 20 weeks, in response to submissions received, the revised bill changes the test that a qualified health practitioner must follow if providing abortion services to a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant.

The revised test expands some of the wording from the original bill. In fact, the requirements now include a requirement that the health practitioner regards the abortion as clinically appropriate, the health practitioner has to consult another health practitioner—so it’s not just one but two—and, of course, that reflects current practice anyway.

We have to remember that for women seeking an abortion at 20 weeks, generally speaking that is a wanted pregnancy but there is something seriously wrong either with the foetus or with the woman’s health. This is a very difficult point at which to make this decision, and I hope that people embarking on this debate will recognise that. That is now reflected in the changes that the committee has proposed.

Abortions for ‘sex selection’ was an issue raised.

They add in a requirement that the medical professional has to have regard to his or her relevant legal, professional and ethical standards to which they are subject, and also consider the woman’s physical health, mental health, and overall wellbeing, and, of course, the gestational age of the foetus.

The committee was concerned about submissions made that some might consider an abortion on the grounds of gender biased sex selection, and they point to evidence overseas. The committee concluded that there was no evidence of this happening in New Zealand but they wanted a statement in the bill that reflected the, generally, New Zealand view on this, which is that we don’t tolerate sex selection as a reason for an abortion.

On ‘safe areas’ (from opponents and protesters)  in the vicinity of places where abortions are done:

I turn briefly to safe areas because I know this is an area to test those who are vigilant about and are champions of freedom of speech in this country, and that’s very important and we need those voices—they’re absolutely vital. The truth is that there are women who are seeking abortions and going to facilities where they are prevailed upon in an unseemly and entirely inappropriate way, and they should not be subject to that sort of behaviour.

Now, the changes that the committee have recommended in this regard are to shift the offence from a reckless sort of standard to an objective test; it’s now expressed as an ordinary reasonable person test. That is it’s an offence to intimidate, interfere, or obstruct a person in a safe area in a manner that the ordinary reasonable person would know would cause emotional distress to a protected person. Protected person is defined as either a medical practitioner going to a facility from which an abortion might be carried out, or a person who is seeking an abortion.

The committee has also inserted a requirement that each safe area is reviewed within five years of the area’s establishment. There is a process to go through to establish a safe area, it’s done by the Minister of Health in consultation with the Minister of Justice, there has to be good reasons for it, it has to be done by Order in Council, and it is reviewed on a periodic basis.

Contentious objection:

This is another sensitive area too, particularly for health practitioners who do not support the idea of an abortion. For contraception and sterilisation services, the person with an objection to dispensing advice to a patient had to tell the patient how to access the contact details of another provider of the services; for abortion services, the person objecting would have to tell the patient how to access a list of service providers.

The committee has simplified this process for someone with a contentious objection to ensure timely access for the person seeking services. The revised process is that the contentious objector must tell the person seeking an abortion or sterilisation or contraception services how to access the contact details of another person who is a provider of the service requested.

The committee also picked up on an existing provision in the current Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act related to contentious objection that had not been amended in the bill as it was introduced. This section regards supply of contraception to victims of sexual violation. The committee has aligned the requirements for practitioners with conscientious objections in these instances to the process set out in the bill.

Closing:

We need a law where a pregnant woman can and should be trusted to make the decision for themselves about an abortion in consultation with their health practitioner. This bill does that, and on that basis I commend this bill to the House.

Other speakers:

AGNES LOHENI (National):

As a member of the Abortion Legislation Committee, I was not able to effect any meaningful change to this bill despite an overwhelming number of submissions against it. As a consequence, I wrote a minority view to ensure those views that opposed were heard.

I have outlined a lot to be alarmed about in this bill. I am deeply saddened at this bill’s blatant attack on the right to life and recognition for our unborn babies. If we can discard the life of an unborn baby—if we can diminish their value and their humanity to the point that we no longer call them babies, then we have lost our own humanity, because they are the smallest versions of us. Late-term surgical abortions are nothing short of barbaric; there is nothing kind in it. A truly progressive society protects the rights of all its members down to the smallest and most vulnerable—the unborn child. I take a stand for that unborn child. I oppose this bill.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn):

 I want to begin by stating very clearly in the debate on this bill—which is a conscience issue—where I start from, and my fundamental views in this regard. I have an absolute belief that women have the inalienable right to control their own reproductive systems and to determine, ultimately, whether or not they have a child.

I think there is no place for a Parliament to be specifying and legislating what the appropriate medical treatment is in any given case. We are not medical professionals; we are lawmakers, and we have to respect that. I trust women and doctors to make these decisions carefully, gravely, and appropriately.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu):

I stand in opposition to this bill. I voted for it at the first reading because I felt that the bill needed to go through a select committee to see if it could be made palatable.

Taking the legislation out of the Crimes Act, as I said, I agree with. That is something that I think there are sufficient safeguards in there now to keep it outside the Crimes Act. It does belong as a health issue, as some of the other speakers mentioned. But post – 20 weeks, there is just simply not enough safeguard to ensure that those—

PAULO GARCIA (National):

 I stand with sadness, with a heart filled with tribulation and pain because, once again, I stand to argue against a bill that seeks to enable the ending—the taking—of a human life by another human being.

The bill opens the door for the abortion of babies with not just severe abnormalities but also moderate ones, making disabled unborn children very vulnerable under the proposed law. That the current law explicitly prevents abortions on the basis of foetal abnormality up to 20 weeks, but the proposed law does not do the same represents a major step backwards in terms of disability rights.

I finish with a quote from the New York Times, quoting a Harvard medical professor who said that we pass through different stages as we grow, and that a “baby of five weeks in the womb differs from the newborn, but so does the toddler differ from the teen. … but we don’t pass from person to non-person, or vice versa.”

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central):

I have extraordinary respect for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But I support this bill for a few very fundamental and simple reasons. The first is I believe that every woman in New Zealand has the right to control her body. It’s very simple. It’s very simple; in fact, it’s so simple that we are one of the most archaic countries in the world—even Catholic Ireland has more liberal abortion laws than New Zealand.

Fundamentally, there are a couple of other reasons why it is crucial, in my view, that we have this law change. Again, I want to quote Dame Margaret Sparrow, who really, effectively, said a number of years ago that it is an absolute farce in this country that 98 percent—I think it was at the time—of the abortions were on the grounds of mental health. That is a farce, that is wrong, that is archaic, and it is time that, as a country, we changed that and we faced up to the fact that it is archaic and outdated and wrong to have a law on the books that, effectively, says that.

I do believe, as well, that many women in New Zealand, basically, fundamentally, want equality. They want the ability to have control over their body. They don’t want to have to be in these situations, but, if they are, they, ultimately, want respect and equality. I believe that this bill is timely. It’s progressive. It’s important. It will lead to less suffering

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour):

I today stand along the over about 91 percent of submitters that are opposed to this bill. I am acknowledging that 17 percent of submitters are for the bill. My views in opposition to this bill are derived from Tongan culture and as a Christian Tongan. That’s where I formed my view. And I need to say it in this House that I am a Christian and I was raised a Tongan Christian. And I don’t stand here to say that I represent all Christians or all Pasifika. I am representing my views as a Tongan and all the people that have actually spoken to me about those views.

Number of submitters is a part of a process, it is not a measure of public support or opposition.

Like I said in my introduction of my speech, I don’t stand here to represent all Tongans. I don’t stand here to represent all Christians. I stand here to represent what I’ve heard through the select committee and my definition of what this bill does. I accept that it’s trying to reform the legislation, but we must also remember that abortion is legal in New Zealand, but there is an opportunity to differentiate between a child and an adult. And I disagree with the fact that it is an informed decision by a woman who is pregnant at 14 to have an abortion. I disagree with that—that it is informed. And I also disagree with the fact that it’s the woman’s choice, because, at the end of the day, it is the health practitioner that makes the decision for the woman to have an abortion. And in that tone, I oppose this bill to the House.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):

I rise in support of the Abortion Legislation Bill, a piece of legislation whose time has come—decades ago—a piece of legislation that will take abortion out of the Crimes Act because it should never have been a crime. As earlier speakers have made a point of saying, there is no other medical procedure that is legislated the way abortion is.

I want to talk about the moral case behind this bill. I get messages saying, “Do you support abortion?” Of course I don’t. Nobody does. Nobody wakes up one day and thinks, “That’s what I’ll do today.” It is a difficult and harrowing experience to go through.

But that’s not the question. The question before this House tonight is: what should be the role of this Parliament and what should be the role of the State when it comes to abortion law reform? If any member thinks that it is somehow helpful for the State apparatus, for this Parliament, to ask the police and the corrections and the courts in this country to run around and try and compel women to take unwanted pregnancies to term against their will, then I don’t know how else to argue with those people, but I hope they’re in the minority tonight.

NICOLA WILLIS (National):

I support this reform of our abortion laws. Many people I deeply respect and admire do not share my views on this issue. I feel moved to express why I support it. I have carefully studied this bill. I have spoken with medical practitioners, those who perform abortions, those who have had abortions, those who’ve supported those who have had abortions, and my conclusion is that this bill advances the rights of women.

It will improve women’s access to health services. It will enhance our legal autonomy over our own bodies and our own fertility. It brings our law into line with good medical practice. It reduces unnecessary and potentially harmful delays in access to abortions, and it improves reporting on important issues such as equity and timeliness of access, availability of counselling services, and the spectre of gender selection.

This bill will reduce harm. Fundamentally, it improves choice for all of us and, crucially, requires that choice from none of us.

Let us trust women and let us trust medical professionals. I want my children to live in a world that genuinely cherishes the life of every woman, that respects her right to manage her own fertility, her own body, her own future. That is the world I want for my daughters. That is the world I want for my sons.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First):

I rise tonight not on behalf myself to speak on this bill, but on behalf of the party.

As we promised in the first reading of this bill, we will see this bill through to the committee of the whole House where we will table a Supplementary Order Paper requesting a referendum on this issue.

As we promised in the first reading of this bill, we will see this bill through to the committee of the whole House where we will table a Supplementary Order Paper requesting a referendum on this issue.

We believe that this conscience issue, affecting the fabric of human society, should be decided upon by the people of New Zealand, not decided upon by 120 temporarily empowered politicians. We don’t believe that individuals in this House—their life experiences, their beliefs, or their family histories—are any more or less important than anyone outside of this House.

The fact that this House has decided that this vote is a conscience vote and not a party vote is explicit acknowledgment that every single individual Kiwi in this country will have an individual perspective based on their own conscience, not based on anyone’s conscience in this House, and especially not based on temporarily empowered politicians in this House or anything that’s based on party politics.

Going by the second reading vote, if NZ First MPs vote against the final reading if they fail with their amendment to have a referendum it looks still likely to pass.

Personally I don’t support a referendum on this.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville):

I refer to the report of the majority of the Abortion Legislation Committee on this, the Abortion Legislation Bill. The majority report is linguistically elusive, ideologically incoherent, and scientifically unsound.

I wish to also make a note about the select committee majority report claiming that the current legislation contains deeply offensive language in relation to disabled people. The disabled people themselves and the advocacy groups who have contacted me in relation to the bill find much more deeply offensive the notion that their lives will inevitably be deemed to be worth less in many situations, whereby conditions such as, for example, Down’s syndrome can be effectively screened to an even greater extent than is already the case by the fact that this bill does have a liberalising effect—that is, it makes the regime more liberal both in relation to pre-20 weeks and post-20 weeks, until either such time as birth is given or abortion services performed.

JOANNE HAYES (National):

 I stand to take a call opposing the Abortion Legislation Bill tonight. I’ve sat here on purpose to listen to the contributions in the House tonight, and some of the contributions have left me a little bit flummoxed with some of their ideas. I do not support the idea of taking the Abortion Legislation Bill into a referendum. I think this is what our job is here, to make a decision, and I don’t think that it should be anything like inside any referendum like New Zealand First did with the End of Life Choice Bill.

I think one of the speakers tonight from the Government side of the House spoke about this bill being abortion on demand. That’s what this bill is actually working towards. It is about abortion on demand.

Effectively yes, up to 20 weeks only.

This abortion bill is a licence to kill the unborn; that’s what it is. It’s a dangerous piece of legislation. Whilst there will be people in here that are supporting this bill that will say, “No, no, no, that’s not what happens.”, in reality that is what will happen. That’s what concerns me most, is the reality of it hitting the ground, hitting the women out there in the community and the families, that this will be a licence to kill unborn children. It ignores absolutely everybody’s opposition. I’m really, really sad to be standing here on a day, on an evening like this evening, to be able to say to my colleagues who are supporting this bill, it is the wrong thing to do.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):

The opposition to this bill came not from people who oppose this bill but from people who oppose abortion full stop. People who, if they were being given the contraception, sterilisation, and abortion legislation, would oppose it.

There is nothing more offensive than being told that a woman would wake up one morning, 30 weeks pregnant and say, “I’m over this. I’m going to have an abortion.” Then to layer on top of that the accusation that a doctor would then say, “That meets my professional and ethical standards.”, and would go ahead with that termination—I don’t know who the people who say that knows. Who do you know that would do that? Nobody. It’s just a lie. On any topic, I think it’s important to tell the truth, but on a topic as important as this, as sensitive and as contentious as this, we should just tell the truth.

We felt we were taking a needed step, but one which we wanted to take very carefully in in a very considered way, and I think the committee did a very good job of that. We want to see a country where there are very, very few abortions. Our numbers are heading in the right directions now; I want to commend Pharmac for introducing long-acting contraception. We need more education, we need better access to contraception, but we will still need abortion services—the fewer the better, but the earlier, more equitable, and safer the better. That’s what this legislation seeks to deliver and I commend it to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green):

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s a real honour to speak tonight, as a feminist who has been working towards abortion law reform for years and also as a member of the Green Party who committed to decriminalising abortion about six years ago—[Interjection from gallery]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. That man will be removed from the gallery.

JAN LOGIE: This may point to the need for safe areas and the fact that, actually, there is opposition to those of us who support women’s reproductive health rights. And that has resulted, or at least been used as an argument, in the assault against my co-leader.

If you care about women’s health, if you want to see these women accessing abortion care, accessing it earlier if it has to happen, this is the legislation to do it. I do think we should get rid of the 20-week threshold altogether, and that was bounded for me, it came through clearly from those very small numbers of people who are actually involved in providing this care in the country.

When we heard, previously, from a speaker talking about a GP saying, well, how were they to interpret wellbeing, they wouldn’t know what that would mean—it wouldn’t matter if they didn’t understand that, because they wouldn’t be providing them, because there’s only a very small handful of people who are qualified to provide those services. The thing is that it is according to very strict guidelines of care and medical ethics, and it is my belief that the decisions should still remain with the pregnant person.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

  • Ayes 80
  • Noes 28

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Abortion Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

  • Ayes 81
  • Noes 39

So it looks like the Abortion Legislation Bill should pass comfortably, and without a referendum.  That would be good, in my opinion.

The split between the first 20 weeks (choice) and the second 20 weeks (medical decision) is  pragmatic compromise that largely fits with current practice despite the archaic law.

There is strong opposition to changing the law, but the Bill just makes what is currently practiced officially legal with the stigma of ‘breaking the law’ removed.

The Bill won’t change much, apart from the sensible change from a legal to a personal or health issue. The number of abortions has been dropping, that trend may or may not continue but should be largely unaffected by the Bill.