Category: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in opposition to this repeal Act, and I want to talk about why. I have a great deal of time for Mr Bayly as a person—as he knows, we’ve sat on committees together, and I know him well—and I don’t intend to do anything but absolutely speak genuinely to the Government and to the Speaker about what I think about what is going on today.

I was an employment lawyer for 25 years, and I came across this problem quite frequently. And I came across it from people I never really expected to. Often they were quite powerful in their own right—they might be the HR manager at a company—but they were contractors, and they were in situations where they worked for our biggest businesses. And our biggest businesses had a practice which they thought they couldn’t walk away from, because it made sense to them financially, and that was to delay payment. So a business like Fonterra delayed payment to its staff for three months. They were sole traders—three months regularly.

Carl Bates: Staff or suppliers?

HELEN WHITE: Absolutely. Sole traders. Sole traders. So I am talking about people who were contracted into the business, and I am hearing the opposition and the Government say differently, but that’s not right. Those people I know. I can stand on the experience I had. Those sole traders were in no position to argue with our biggest companies; they were dependent on them. So, basically, our biggest companies, our companies with over $100 million of capital, were the companies that were withholding from these small players, these people who were sometimes their suppliers too, who were often small businesses which were dependent on the only capital they had, which in New Zealand actually turns out to be their house. Usually it’s the equity in their house. They were the people waiting. From our biggest companies, they were waiting for payment, because the big companies were using their money, their hard-earned money, their money that they’d earned three months earlier, just to get the interest on it. They were cynically using that money.

And this emerged as an issue, and it got picked up, and it got picked up by the The Spinoff in 2017 by one of the journalists Cormack, who talked about it. And it got picked up by practitioners like me who saw what was going on and thought it was really unfair. So we got to pick it up, but nothing was being done about it. This obviously had happened in Australia too, and they went after it with a law where they did something quite similar, but they had a threshold of $100 million. We went after it in perhaps what I would say is a softer way than I would have liked. I would have liked to see a prohibition on this kind of clause. The reason was, for doing it in this way, was to collaborate with people to really target those big, big businesses against our small ones.

Our small ones are 97 percent of New Zealand businesses, and those people need a champion in this Government, and they haven’t got one. What they’ve got is a Minister who comes from the experience of being a fund manager, and that is all about financial markets. That’s big business. That’s very, very different from the small businesses I’m talking about. I’m talking about the tradies. I’m talking about the people out there who are our contractors who are basically, often, just trying not to work for the man, right? They’re trying to run these businesses, and those are the people that you will hear me, in these speeches, stick up for, because this was nudge legislation which had already started to change the habits of our big companies because it shamed them. It said it shamed them.

So I’m going to put out some amendments today, and I hope that the Minister will listen to them. They are amendments that are all about doing stuff that gives this more teeth, doing stuff that takes us seriously, because I want to see our small businesses thrive in this country, and we should be targeting those big businesses and holding them to account. Instead, what this legislation does is repeal itself and then repeal that repeal so we don’t even know it ever existed. We’ve never even put our toe in the water to standing up to big businesses who act in a way that I consider immoral. I consider it a form of theft from our hard-working New Zealand businesses. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): [Pause] Scott Willis. I just encourage members to keep an eye on the speaking list.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Given that you are new in the Chair this morning, I will just say that my questions from my last contributions last night haven’t actually been responded to by the Minister. The debate was closed down after that—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I was watching.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you. I’m going to start on a different clause, but I still want answers to my previous contribution.

I want to talk to clause 40 in Schedule 1. This is my first contribution on clause 40. I want to talk to clause 40 and to clause 43, but I may not be able to do that in the short five minutes that I’ve got. Clause 40 is about the transfer of employees, and I want to know: did the Minister consult with the unions about this legislation that has been brought under urgency?

I want to refer to a press release put out by the Public Service Association (PSA), who are saying that “The Government’s decision to ram legislation abolishing Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, through the House under urgency is a travesty of democracy and an insult to te Tiriti o Waitangi. PSA Te Kaihautū Māori Janice Panoho says the indecent haste with which the legislation is being pushed through shows how desperate the Government is to avoid scrutiny of [any] divisive decision that has been universally panned by Māori” and public health service experts.

I want to say that in their press release they said that ” ‘Māori health workers, who are experts on how to address Māori health inequity, have also been shut out of this discussion … The debate about Te Aka Whai Ora goes to the heart of the wider debate about the relationship between Māori and the Crown and yet Māori, who will be the most impacted, have not even been afforded a conversation,’ Panoho says. ‘For such an important Constitutional issue it is vital that Parliamentary processes are used to allow proper public scrutiny and debate rather than to lock out people with dissenting voices.’ Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi, the Public Service Association represents about 30,000 workers in the health sector. Of the PSA’s 92,000 members more than 10,000 identify as Māori. The PSA views the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora as attack on Mana Motuhake and the ability of Māori to deliver health services for Māori in a way that works for Māori. ‘Te Aka Whai Ora aimed to tackle the well documented barriers Māori face to accessing health care. There is clear evidence of Māori health inequalities that deserves to be addressed by more than empty slogans and a rushed parliamentary process … This Government promised evidence-based decisions, but like its decision to row back smoking reforms, which also impact Māori, it would rather embrace ideology than good public health policy.’ ” —

Mike Butterick: Where’s the question?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The question was right at the beginning: did he meet with the PSA? Has he afforded the employees who are going to be impacted by clause 40, “Transfer of employees of Māori Health Authority to Health New Zealand”? I am reading for the House’s benefit the press release from the PSA, who say they have not even been afforded the opportunity, the decency, to have any consultation about this legislation, which is being rushed through urgency.

So my question to the Minister is: did you talk to the unions? Did you talk to any of the kaimahi? Do you think that it would have been appropriate to talk to your kaimahi Māori who work for Te Aka Whai Ora, who work in the health system, who have the responsibility, the weight, of delivering these health services for our whānau? Did you talk to them about your proposed changes? Not you, Madam Chair—to the Minister. Did the Minister meet with unions? Did he meet with delegates? Did he meet with kaimahi to talk about the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora? Because it would appear from the press release put out by the PSA that that has not happened, and I think that that is disgraceful. I look forward to the answer.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the members for their questions. I want to go back to the last question last night from member Utikere. He was asking again around the date in the future for locality plans, which is 2029, which I’d already said was a placeholder for localities. He was asking how that number came to be. I said it was just a placeholder. Turns out in further discussion with officials that there are certainly clear precedents for the five-year period. I won’t read through a range of legislation which have review periods of five years. One, two, three, four, five, six—probably at least seven. Then it’s also commented to me that it’s also used in international instruments, so a clear figure there.

Again, the question was raised around the transfer arrangements. The transfer arrangements, as I discussed many times last night—indeed, the member who’s just taken her seat has also raised the question—are consistent with the Health Sector (Transfers) Act, which was how people were transferred from the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand into the Māori Health Authority anyway. In fact, member Jackson also asked exactly that same question. So it is the same process, actually in the same legislation, putting those people, repatriating them, back into Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health.

The member also asked about data probity when that information is transferred back into those two organisations. What I’ll say to that is it’s consistent with all of Government data policies—that transfer of information that will accompany the Māori Health Authority.

The member this morning raised the question around subclause 43(2) in Schedule 1, which was also raised by member Willis and others during the debate last night, and that’s around the “reasonable consultation process before introducing any employment policy”. I’ll elaborate further on that, because the reply to that wasn’t just that it’s consistent with the Employment Relations Act, but it’s also been copied across from existing schedules. It already sits there as part of the legislation—that narrative, that wording, is already there—and it just happens to be consistent with the Employment Relations Act as well.

To the member who’s just taken her seat, the question she asked at 2146 last night, questions of timing—already addressed that, thoroughly and multiple times during this debate, so I don’t envisage going there again. The transfers Act, which I’ve just described—that describes a process by which the workforce will transfer back into Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health.

Furthermore, the good discussions I have had with the leadership of the Māori Health Authority give me every faith that they will address the concerns that the member has just raised.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Given that you are new in the Chair this morning, I will just say that my questions from my last contributions last night haven’t actually been responded to by the Minister. The debate was closed down after that—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I was watching.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you. I’m going to start on a different clause, but I still want answers to my previous contribution.

I want to talk to clause 40 in Schedule 1. This is my first contribution on clause 40. I want to talk to clause 40 and to clause 43, but I may not be able to do that in the short five minutes that I’ve got. Clause 40 is about the transfer of employees, and I want to know: did the Minister consult with the unions about this legislation that has been brought under urgency?

I want to refer to a press release put out by the Public Service Association (PSA), who are saying that “The Government’s decision to ram legislation abolishing Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, through the House under urgency is a travesty of democracy and an insult to te Tiriti o Waitangi. PSA Te Kaihautū Māori Janice Panoho says the indecent haste with which the legislation is being pushed through shows how desperate the Government is to avoid scrutiny of [any] divisive decision that has been universally panned by Māori” and public health service experts.

I want to say that in their press release they said that ” ‘Māori health workers, who are experts on how to address Māori health inequity, have also been shut out of this discussion … The debate about Te Aka Whai Ora goes to the heart of the wider debate about the relationship between Māori and the Crown and yet Māori, who will be the most impacted, have not even been afforded a conversation,’ Panoho says. ‘For such an important Constitutional issue it is vital that Parliamentary processes are used to allow proper public scrutiny and debate rather than to lock out people with dissenting voices.’ Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi, the Public Service Association represents about 30,000 workers in the health sector. Of the PSA’s 92,000 members more than 10,000 identify as Māori. The PSA views the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora as attack on Mana Motuhake and the ability of Māori to deliver health services for Māori in a way that works for Māori. ‘Te Aka Whai Ora aimed to tackle the well documented barriers Māori face to accessing health care. There is clear evidence of Māori health inequalities that deserves to be addressed by more than empty slogans and a rushed parliamentary process … This Government promised evidence-based decisions, but like its decision to row back smoking reforms, which also impact Māori, it would rather embrace ideology than good public health policy.’ ” —

Mike Butterick: Where’s the question?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The question was right at the beginning: did he meet with the PSA? Has he afforded the employees who are going to be impacted by clause 40, “Transfer of employees of Māori Health Authority to Health New Zealand”? I am reading for the House’s benefit the press release from the PSA, who say they have not even been afforded the opportunity, the decency, to have any consultation about this legislation, which is being rushed through urgency.

So my question to the Minister is: did you talk to the unions? Did you talk to any of the kaimahi? Do you think that it would have been appropriate to talk to your kaimahi Māori who work for Te Aka Whai Ora, who work in the health system, who have the responsibility, the weight, of delivering these health services for our whānau? Did you talk to them about your proposed changes? Not you, Madam Chair—to the Minister. Did the Minister meet with unions? Did he meet with delegates? Did he meet with kaimahi to talk about the abolition of Te Aka Whai Ora? Because it would appear from the press release put out by the PSA that that has not happened, and I think that that is disgraceful. I look forward to the answer.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the members for their questions. I want to go back to the last question last night from member Utikere. He was asking again around the date in the future for locality plans, which is 2029, which I’d already said was a placeholder for localities. He was asking how that number came to be. I said it was just a placeholder. Turns out in further discussion with officials that there are certainly clear precedents for the five-year period. I won’t read through a range of legislation which have review periods of five years. One, two, three, four, five, six—probably at least seven. Then it’s also commented to me that it’s also used in international instruments, so a clear figure there.

Again, the question was raised around the transfer arrangements. The transfer arrangements, as I discussed many times last night—indeed, the member who’s just taken her seat has also raised the question—are consistent with the Health Sector (Transfers) Act, which was how people were transferred from the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand into the Māori Health Authority anyway. In fact, member Jackson also asked exactly that same question. So it is the same process, actually in the same legislation, putting those people, repatriating them, back into Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health.

The member also asked about data probity when that information is transferred back into those two organisations. What I’ll say to that is it’s consistent with all of Government data policies—that transfer of information that will accompany the Māori Health Authority.

The member this morning raised the question around subclause 43(2) in Schedule 1, which was also raised by member Willis and others during the debate last night, and that’s around the “reasonable consultation process before introducing any employment policy”. I’ll elaborate further on that, because the reply to that wasn’t just that it’s consistent with the Employment Relations Act, but it’s also been copied across from existing schedules. It already sits there as part of the legislation—that narrative, that wording, is already there—and it just happens to be consistent with the Employment Relations Act as well.

To the member who’s just taken her seat, the question she asked at 2146 last night, questions of timing—already addressed that, thoroughly and multiple times during this debate, so I don’t envisage going there again. The transfers Act, which I’ve just described—that describes a process by which the workforce will transfer back into Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health.

Furthermore, the good discussions I have had with the leadership of the Māori Health Authority give me every faith that they will address the concerns that the member has just raised.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard