Tuesday, 29 March 2016

TUESDAY, 29 MARCH 2016

TUESDAY, 29 MARCH 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Performance

1. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): On Friday the credit rating agency Moody’s confirmed that New Zealand continues to hold a AAA rating—the strongest rating given by that agency. It highlighted solid growth, the 2014-15 surplus, and relatively low Government debt as factors in its decision. Last week Standard and Poor’s, another credit rating agency, also released its analysis reaffirming New Zealand’s AA foreign currency rating and AA+ local currency rating. This confirms that the economic programme is on track.

Andrew Bayly: What do these reports say about the outlook for economic growth in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Moody’s view is that the New Zealand economy is growing relatively strongly despite the steep fall in dairy prices and that growth is expected to remain relatively robust—that is, at around 2.5 to 3 percent. Standard and Poor’s expects the economy to grow by an average of 2.7 percent over the next 4 years.

Grant Robertson: Has he seen the report from the Prime Minister on 6 August last year saying that a new flag was “gonna be worth billions” to New Zealand; if so, how has the outcome of the referendum been factored into this year’s Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and, of course, they would have been windfall gains, so they do not have to have been factored in.

Andrew Bayly: What risks are there to New Zealand’s economic growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One risk highlighted by Standard and Poor’s is New Zealand’s level of foreign debt. This is something that the Government has been focused on as well. We have made good progress. The current account deficit is currently 3.1 percent, less than half of what it was back at the peak of the last cycle. Net external debt has fallen to 45 percent of GDP, down from 83 percent back in 2008, and is now at its lowest level since 2003, which means that our stock of external debt as a proportion of our economy is falling and is likely to continue to fall.

David Seymour: Has the Minister seen advice from Treasury to the Welfare Working Group suggesting that a guaranteed minimum income might reduce economic growth by as much as 2.8 percent per annum?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will take the member at his word that that may have been its advice in 2012. But he can be reassured that there is no way that the universal benefit income will happen, so we will not have to deal with those sorts of consequences.

Andrew Bayly: What other risks are there to New Zealand’s strong international credit rating?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Standard and Poor’s highlighted New Zealand’s fiscal settings and Reserve Bank credibility as key factors in its decision to reaffirm its strong rating with a stable outlook. Significant risks could, of course, occur if the Government got off track, where, for instance, politicians started setting interest rates or we provided a universal basic income to all New Zealanders over the age of 18 regardless of whether they work. In the long run, those would probably have a negative impact on our credit ratings.

Flag Referendums—Cost

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister responsible for the flag referendum process?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, I do. In fact I have so much confidence that I designated him Acting Prime Minister while I was out of the country.

Andrew Little: In view of the fact that polls during the course of the referendum process repeatedly showed that there was no public appetite for changing the flag, does he now think that spending $26 million on flag referenda was the best use of public money?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, and as the member knows, the Prime Minister is not a poll-driven fruitcake in the way that he is. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I think he would note that, despite the fact that it was Labour’s policy to change the flag, the members all voted against it.

Andrew Little: Why does he think it was better to spend $26 million on a failed flag than on funding a medicine like Keytruda that could save the lives of New Zealanders with advanced melanoma?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That does not make much more sense than asking why it is better to spend money on upgrading the Hercules aircraft for the New Zealand Air Force than it is to spend money on the next most popular drug. The fact is that the Government makes all these decisions in the round, and the Prime Minister makes no apology for the leadership that he showed on this issue, which led to 43 percent of New Zealanders voting for a change in the flag.

Andrew Little: What is more important: $26 million on a failed flag or fixing thousands of State houses that are leaking and mouldy and making our kids sick?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be interested to know that Housing Corporation’s capital expenditure on State houses in the last 12 months was over $590 million, including—

Hon Member: The kids are getting sick; the houses are mouldy.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I would agree with them. It has taken a long time to get on top of the neglect of the previous Labour Government that left us with tens of thousands of damp, unhealthy houses. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, the level of interjection that is coming—and it is coming from both sides of the House—is too loud and disruptive.

Andrew Little: Why was it better to spend $26 million on a failed flag than on solving burglaries, given the disgraceful fact that over 90 percent of burglaries now go unsolved?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said before, with reasonable fiscal management the Government gets to do a whole range of positive things for the community at large and for particular groups. The police have had significant pay increases, they have had a significant rethinking of their activities, and they are doing a very good job of getting crime rates to the lowest they have been in a generation. We can achieve that as well as having a referendum on the flag.

Hon Judith Collins: Lowest crime rates since 1978. Thank you, New Zealand Police.

Andrew Little: That will be about the rising prison—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.

Andrew Little: Is he honestly telling New Zealanders that the Prime Minister’s failed legacy project was more important than saving Kiwi lives, making our homes fit to live in, and making sure our families are safe from criminals?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As we have said earlier, when the Government has sound fiscal management it can spend money on a whole range of desirable activities. In fact, the debate about the flag has proven to be the most engaging debate about national identity that New Zealand has enjoyed in a long time, and it is just a pity that the Labour Party took such a partisan political view of it.

Immigration—Trends and Low-skilled Migration

3. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement from September 2015, “But now we are moving into a bit of the cycle where it’s likely that migration must flatten out sometime.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. The pattern of migration in New Zealand is that net migration numbers have been fairly predictable up until recently, and that is that they have peaked at around 50,000 and then dropped off. However, this time they seem to be going up, for longer, and staying up.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it acceptable for a front-bench Cabinet Minister to refer to another member as a member of a redneck party in this Chamber? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is certainly not acceptable. I did not hear any such comment being yelled from the front bench of the National Party, but if I had I would have acted on it. I did not hear it, but it is completely unacceptable. [Interruption] Order! Ron Mark will resume his seat immediately. I realise you were probably responding to an interjection, but when I call you to ask a supplementary question, do so, without also interjecting.

Ron Mark: How can New Zealanders have faith in this Government, when on 9 December 2015 Immigration New Zealand said that migration would peak at around 63,000 this June, but it has soared well past that figure in December and January, and now, in February 2016, it is at 67,400 people and rising?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the significant drivers of that number is the number of New Zealanders staying home and the number of New Zealanders who are returning. In the Government’s view, that is a positive problem. If the Public Service, like the member, underestimated the enthusiasm of New Zealanders for staying here and for coming home, then we do not see that as a big difficulty either.

Ron Mark: In light of that answer can I seek leave to table two documents please, obtained under the Official Information Act. The first is from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, dated 9 December 2015, entitled Briefing Amendments to the Essential Skills in Demand List. The second is a joint Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Treasury briefing, dated 10 December 2015, entitled Improving the Long-term Contribution of Immigration to the Labour Market.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave for both of those documents. Leave is sought to table both of those documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Ron Mark: Is the Minister unconcerned that these two papers set out concerns about low-skilled immigration and his intention to go on driving down wages in our economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure what pieces of paper the member is referring to, but I certainly would not agree with his assertions. But I am a bit disappointed that a party that calls itself New Zealand First does not seem to think it is a good thing when New Zealanders are so enthusiastic about staying in their own country or coming home.

Ron Mark: If record migration is so good for the economy, then how come a joint Treasury and Immigration New Zealand briefing said: “Migrants are meeting firm demands for labour and skills, but increasingly in low-productivity, low-growth industries, and low-wage skilled jobs.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not quite sure of the connection between those two statements, but we do need a flow of skilled migrants coming into New Zealand to fill those jobs where we are unable to fill them domestically. Some of our industries, which are lower skilled, do need the same kind of supply of labour. But the important thing is that our labour supply has been flexible, particularly through the Canterbury earthquake, and it is not the Government’s intention to make major changes to the policy setting.

Ron Mark: Given that these papers show low-skilled migration with a significant number of low-skilled migrants, why is the Government providing competition for low-skilled New Zealand workers by artificially inflating the numbers from offshore?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is generalising from the analysis. We have quite a complex—

Hon Member: You just quoted from it.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The inflow of migrants is driven by students, which is a fast-growing business of international education that requires high levels of skill to grow that business, and we have a flow of skilled migrants who have to meet pretty precise criteria in order to get in. So if the member is saying that the flow in migration is all about more low-skilled people, then he is not correct.

Tax Avoidance—Multinational Enterprises

4. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Revenue: What estimates, if any, does he have for the total amount of tax multinational enterprises operating in New Zealand may have avoided paying in the last tax year through incorrect transfer pricing practices?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): The Inland Revenue Department does not distinguish between companies based on whether they are multinational or not. This is because we expect all companies to pay the correct amount of tax, regardless of where they are owned. But to the extent that incorrect transfer pricing practices are identified by the Inland Revenue Department, they would be disallowed.

James Shaw: Is New Zealand Herald investigative journalist Matt Nippert’s figure of $500 million of lost tax revenue from multinationals in the last financial year about right, or is tax expert Professor Craig Elliffe’s estimate of $1 billion more accurate?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, both estimates are speculative, based on their value judgments about what companies with that level of turnover should pay. It is not the Inland Revenue Department’s job to estimate based on gross turnover. As I am sure the member is aware, the amount of tax paid is assessed on the taxable profit, and that is what they pay.

James Shaw: So is the Minister of Revenue saying that he has less of an idea about how much revenue is being lost than Matt Nippert and Craig Elliffe?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I should hope so. But, look, if the member is saying that this does not look right or does not look fair, I have some sympathy with that point of view. But what is considered unfair is multinationals not paying tax anywhere in the world, and for that reason this is a global issue that requires a global response. I think the OECD is the best place in which to have that analysis.

James Shaw: Given that the Inland Revenue Department advised his office in 2013 that “We will be closely involved in, and guided by, the OECD work. However, this does not prevent us from addressing potential deficiencies in our own rules, which we have concerns about.”, why is he still to address these deficiencies in our own tax rules?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not accept that they have not been addressed, to the degree that there are robust tax policies already in place for the establishment of rules around permanent establishment and for the unfair transfer pricing for the purpose of avoiding tax. I think we have a really good tax policy framework. The Government invested nearly $20 million in last year’s Budget for the audit and compliance work that needs to go on in those large businesses, and I think we have a good system.

James Shaw: Well, given that answer, how many staff at the Inland Revenue Department currently work on base erosion and profit shifting, to address multinational tax avoidance?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not have that specific number to hand, but I would be very happy to get it to the member if he wanted to put that question down in writing.

James Shaw: Then will he introduce new law, like Australia has recently, to better police multinationals to require greater transparency and to collect a fair share of tax revenue from them?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The member is referring to laws that have been passed in both the UK and Australia on what is known as diverted profits tax, which disallow arrangements where foreign companies exploit permanent establishment rules and contrive tax advantage by having deductions that lack economic substance. I am getting some advice about that, but I am satisfied in the interim that we already have those sorts of rules in the Income Tax Act.

James Shaw: What does he have to say to New Zealanders and domestic businesses that are paying their fair share of taxes while international businesses that are operating in New Zealand can avoid them?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Putting aside that I do not absolutely agree with the second part of the question, I think all New Zealanders would agree that it is appropriate that everybody, regardless of their ownership, pay their fair share of tax on transactions that take place here in New Zealand. I am confident that we have good policies to enable that to occur and good resources deployed to check compliance with them, and where there are improvements that can be made, they will be.

Job Creation—Statistics and Forecasts

5. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent reports has he received on actual and forecast job growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Today the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment released its short-term employment forecast for 2016-19. It predicts 148,000 additional new jobs will be created over the next 3 years, through employment growth of an average of 2.1 percent annually over that period. This is broadly consistent with the recent forecast by the Reserve Bank of 146,000 in the same period. This strong forecast builds off the latest household labour force survey, which showed 175,000 additional jobs were created over the last 3 years. It is encouraging to see robust job growth set to continue across the country. It shows that the work the Government is doing to maintain a strong and stable macroeconomic framework, and develop the microeconomic with the Business Growth Agenda, is delivering growth that will have positive effects.

Jacqui Dean: Where is growth expected?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Job growth is expected to be widespread, with employment growth rates forecast to be highest in the South Island, particularly in Marlborough, the West Coast, and Otago, over the next 3-year period. In terms of net job numbers, Auckland and Canterbury will add the most workers respectively by 2019. Across industries, the strongest job growth over the 3 years is expected in construction, hospitality, wholesale and retail trade, and business services. Although much of the employment growth over the next 3 years will be in highly skilled occupations, opportunities for lower-skilled workers are forecast to account for around 30 percent of that growth.

Jacqui Dean: What reports has he seen on approaches that would halt job growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have recently seen a number of reports that would remove incentives to work by significantly increasing personal tax rates. I have even recently seen some recommendations by various international commentators for some sort of universal basic income in New Zealand. It is a very 1970s approach that would remove the linkages between work and income and encourage people not to work. This would have a negative effect on employment growth. It is also a little ironic to note this recommendation is coming from international experts visiting New Zealand, as New Zealand has the third highest rate of employment and the third highest rate of labour market participation in the OECD, so you would think perhaps they might come here to see what we have actually been doing that could be right.

District Health Boards—Funding Deficits

6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Has the district health boards’ projected deficit for the end of this financial year increased or decreased against what was planned according to advice he received in March?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The projected level of deficit for district health boards for this financial year is now forecast to reduce to $46 million—that is $3 million more than the last forecast. However, do not forget that in 2008 the deficits were $155 million, last year they were $66 million, and this year they will be smaller again. Only National can deliver more services while reducing district health boards’ deficits. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the member yet. I am just waiting for some silence so that the question can be heard.

Hon Annette King: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: My pleasure.

Hon Annette King: What is driving up district health boards’ deficits month on month, now with a predicted end-of-year deficit of $43 million, against the budgeted $19 million and against his assurances that district health boards have sufficient funding to balance their books?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: A lot of it is to do with personnel costs, but the wider picture is inherited deficits of $156 million, coming down by $20 million compared with last year, and they will be lower again next year.

Hon Annette King: Is he telling seven district health boards—which, according to the latest reports, have deficits driven by more patients requiring services than they are funded for—that they should be turning patients away regardless of pain and disability?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No.

Hon Annette King: Is the reason that the Director-General of Health has been allowed to sit on the final report on the home support package since August last year that there is no funding to implement the report’s recommendations and that it would further drive up district health boards’ deficits?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No.

Hon Annette King: Why is he allowing district health boards to underemploy medical, allied health, and support staff by almost 700 fulltime-equivalents, according to the latest end-of-year results, and will that not affect patient safety?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a report that I received under an Official Information Act request on 1 March, dated 31 January, called “District health board sector financial performance for the year ended 31 January 2016”.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document, sourced under the Official Information Act. Is there any objection? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table a Ministry of Health document dated 29 March showing the district health boards’ deficit blowout under Labour.

Mr SPEAKER: No, if members want that information, it has been given in the answer that the member gave. I do not see any need to table it further.

Benefits—Child Hardship Package

7. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Social Development: How will families in low-income households be better off due to the child hardship package coming into effect on 1 April?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): On 1 April the child hardship package comes into effect, meaning that benefit rates for families with children will increase by $25 a week per family—the first real increase in 43 years. The package will also increase Working for Families rates by $12.50 per week for low-income families and by $24.50 per week for the very lowest-income families. These changes will help more than half a million New Zealand children and will lift incomes for over 100,000 families with children in benefit-dependent homes.

Alfred Ngaro: How will the child hardship package help parents into work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government believes that work is the best route out of poverty, and we are focused on helping those on a benefit into employment. The package will require sole parents on a benefit to be available for part-time work once their youngest child turns 3. Additionally, all sole parents and partners with part-time work obligations will be expected to find work for 20 hours a week, rather than 15 hours as before. To balance the increased work obligations, childcare assistance will also increase from $4 an hour to $5 an hour for very low-income families.

Freshwater Management—Water Quality of Rivers and Lakes

8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Will he support the request made to Parliament today, by over 12,000 New Zealanders, to legislate “swimmable” as the minimum standard for our freshwater lakes, rivers and streams in New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): It is Government policy to improve water quality and to make more areas suitable for swimming, and more often. However, a legislative requirement for all water bodies to be swimmable all of the time is not realistic nor achievable. Most rivers breach swimming standards during high rainfall events because of pollutants introduced during high flows. Preventing this occurring both in urban and rural areas would come at an extraordinary cost when, actually, most people, sensibly, do not swim at those times. We also have water bodies that have significant bird populations, where the only way to make them swimmable would be to cull the birdlife. Communities need to make choices on each water body where they would want those bodies to be swimmable and where they would want to have birds available for birdlife. The third constraint is that of the 425,000 kilometres of rivers and streams, only about 11 percent physically are able to be swum in, and it would cost billions and billions of dollars to make some of those streams swimmable, when nobody ever has swum there or ever would wish to swim there.

Catherine Delahunty: Why is it not possible to regulate a nationwide minimum standard of swimmable rivers by simply exempting fresh water contaminated by natural phenomena such as volcanic ash and birds, or during high flood events?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I would make is this is the first Government in New Zealand history to set down national policy and standards for freshwater bodies across New Zealand, and I do find it a bit rich that members opposite who did nothing for decades now challenge this Government’s very comprehensive programme around fresh water. In respect of freshwater bodies, there are examples where it is birdlife and sometimes it is volcanic issues, but there is also the very practical issue in most of our urban areas where we have small streams that nobody swims in where it literally would cost billions to get the water quality up to that level, and we are not about spending billions of dollars of New Zealand ratepayers’ money in areas where people would not, practically, swim.

Catherine Delahunty: Given the millions we are spending cleaning up Aotearoa’s polluted rivers, does he concede it is cheaper in the long run to establish a minimum swimmable standard for rivers before they get polluted?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely we need to put standards in place to ensure that water quality is both maintained and improved, and that is exactly what the national policy statement that was introduced by my colleague Amy Adams back in 2012 did. Furthermore, what this Government is doing is actually requiring that no funding will be available from the Government unless those regional councils have put in the minimum standards to prevent ongoing pollution. I would finally note that over the last 25 years the amount of pollution from point source—factories, dairy sheds, council municipal systems—has actually reduced by about 90 percent. The more complex challenge we have is how we deal with diffuse pollution, and that is something that tools like OVERSEER, and others that the Government is developing, is where we need to go forward.

Joanne Hayes: How does this Government’s investment in freshwater improvements compare with those of previous Governments, and what specific progress has been achieved in improving water quality?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government has spent $115 million specifically on water quality improvements over the last 7 years. Over the previous 7 years $20 million was spent—i.e., we are spending more than five times as much on improving freshwater quality. Some of the results that I would make would be Lake Rotoiti in the North Island. It was so toxic last decade that you could not swim there. You literally had to wear gloves to go fishing in Lake Rotoiti. Water quality in Lake Rotoiti is now better than it has been for decades and it is swimmable. Another example—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answers are just far too long.

Catherine Delahunty: When will he set a national standard for water quality that will make it safe for our mokopuna to put their heads under the water again?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would point out an example like the Manawatū River, which is actually one of our rivers that has real water quality problems, where we have invested over $5 million, where next month I will be opening a new wastewater treatment system that has been partly funded by the Government, and where my colleagues Jono Naylor and Ian McKelvie went for a dip—in an area where for the last 30 years you could not safely swim. It shows the progress that we are making on improving freshwater quality.

Hon David Parker: Does his national policy statement on freshwater quality allow rivers that are currently clean enough to swim in at normal flows to be made dirtier so that New Zealanders cannot swim in them safely, so long as they are still wadeable and boatable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, because the national policy statement requires all freshwater bodies to be at least maintained or improved. What it further requires is that every regional council engage with its community on improving freshwater quality. I challenge Mr Parker and say, actually, that the issue of water quality deteriorating was far worse in the 9 years in which he was a Minister and did nothing, rather than the progress that this Government is positively making.

Economy—Per Capita Growth

9. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Has real gross national disposable income per capita dropped in percentage terms over the last year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No.

Grant Robertson: Why, then, did Mr English, the Minister, admit on Radio New Zealand last week that incomes are dropping despite GDP growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is misrepresenting that discussion. The fact is that in a year where dairy income has dropped a long way, so incomes in a certain portion of the population—that is, dairy farming—dropped a long way, it is possible that across the country, on average, income has dropped a little bit. But that is not wages, and it turns out that if that is what I said, I was wrong.

Grant Robertson: I will give you an easier one, Bill. Is it correct that GDP per capita over the last year has grown at less than half of 1 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not have that information with me. But if the member is trying to imply that households are not getting ahead, he is wrong, because wages and salaries income is rising substantially faster than inflation at 2 to 3 percent when inflation is about 0.1 percent. In the farming community incomes are down sharply.

Grant Robertson: See whether a picture helps, Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need the introduction. When the member rises to his feet to ask the supplementary question, just ask it.

Grant Robertson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is he satisfied with per person growth that is far weaker than Australia, the UK, the US, Japan, and many other countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Part of the key to this Government’s success is relentless dissatisfaction. But the member needs to bear in mind that he has picked the year that has had the biggest drop in national income for decades and the sharpest rise in population. So it is not surprising that per capita incomes in that year may not have risen as fast as in other years.

Grant Robertson: So why is he claiming success for the economy when, actually, the growth comes from just increasing the number of people in New Zealand rather than increasing productivity?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There he goes again. The member is back on the notion that if you take out all the things that are growing, then the economy is not growing. That is true; that would be correct. If you take out the fast growth in immigration—

Hon Steven Joyce: Tourism.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —the fast growth in tourism—

Hon Steven Joyce: Education.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —the fast growth in education—

Hon Steven Joyce: The wine industry.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —the fast growth in the wine industry—

Hon Steven Joyce: ICT.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —the fast growth in ICT—

Hon Steven Joyce: Immigration—

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —well, no, that is enough—then the economy is not growing.

Grant Robertson: Is he aware that per capita growth over the last year was actually 0.3 percent—less than half of 1 percent—and how can he be satisfied with an economy that is not showing substantial productivity growth and is growing only because of population increase?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s view about productivity is pretty straightforward: in the long run, that is what matters the most. The aspect of productivity growth in the economy that we have the most control over is Government services: 70 percent of all modern economies are services. Government is over half of that, and that is why we are working so hard to improve the productivity of Government services. We are getting better results for the same or less money, and in the long run that will certainly boost productivity in the New Zealand economy.

Government Departments—Data Collection

10. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Darroch Ball: How can he have confidence in his Ministers when, in this term alone so far, there have been more than 100 answers to written questions from just Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand Ministers stating that they do not centrally collate the data asked for, when, in those cases, responsible ministerial management would clearly be impossible without doing so?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Ministers answer the questions asked. In my experience, the quality of those questions is variable, although I must say that the New Zealand First questions are much better than the Labour Party questions.

Darroch Ball: How can he have confidence in the Minister responsible for HNZC when his replies to written questions revealed, for example, that Housing New Zealand does not centrally collate data on areas such as the number of State homes needing insulation or the number of police checks requested by Housing New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister maintains his confidence in the Minister in charge of Housing New Zealand, which is me. I am not surprised that there are some things the member has asked from Housing New Zealand that it does not have. It has been a longstanding Government monopoly, which did not really have to do anything in particular that well. As we found as we have come to sell some of those State houses to other buyers, they are slightly surprised at how little the Government knows about the state of its own assets.

Darroch Ball: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Social Housing when her replies to multiple written questions revealed, for example, that Housing New Zealand does not centrally record data on areas such as the availability of emergency housing or how many expensive tests have been conducted on State houses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member can address his question to the Minister for Social Housing, but emergency housing is a much broader issue than the obligation of Housing New Zealand these days. The Ministry of Social Development has fundamentally had responsibility for it. It is, for the first time in decades, having a comprehensive discussion with all the players in emergency housing, with a view to sharply lifting performance in dealing with those with the most serious housing needs.

Darroch Ball: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Social Development when her replies to multiple written questions revealed, for example, that the Ministry of Social Development does not centrally record data on areas such as Work and Income New Zealand office closures, the number of fraud investigations on employment programmes, outcomes of employment programmes, back payments made to beneficiaries, the amount of success fees paid to providers, or even the number of beneficiaries securing employment facilitated by Work and Income New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister for Social Development is doing an excellent job of filling the gaps, some of which the member has accurately pointed to. That is, when Government agencies provide a service we now expect them to know whom they provided that service to and what impact it had on the life of the recipient of the service. I would have to say that it is still regarded as a relatively novel concept in public services, but the Minister for Social Development and the Minister for Social Housing are doing an excellent job of filling in these longstanding gaps.

Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library that lists just a few—or a small proportion—of those questions that are answered with “We do not centrally collate that data.”

Mr SPEAKER: Order! For all written questions the answers are then published if the members want them.

Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a document that is collated by the library; it is not those answers—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have pointed out to the House on numerous occasions that the point of tabling a document is to give further information to members; it is not about making political—[Interruption] Order! Darroch Ball has a very bad habit when anybody is giving an answer to the member—and now when I am on my feet—of continuing to interject. The point of putting leave is to further inform members. If members want to go and look up that information, it is fully published and available.

Housing, Auckland—Affordability

11. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he think home ownership in Auckland is affordable given it now reportedly takes nearly half the income of a typical first home buyer to buy a lower-end home?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I think the member has made a mistake with the question, because the median household income in Auckland is currently $82,000, and I do not think anybody expects to be able to buy a house for $41,000. House prices have never been half of people’s incomes—at no time in New Zealand history—and are never likely to be. Perhaps it is just one of those others, like a universal guaranteed income, on “Planet Labour”.

Phil Twyford: Is rapidly declining home affordability the reason that Barfoot and Thompson recently reported that more than one-third of young Aucklanders think that they have no chance of owning their own home; if not, why does he think they are losing hope after 8 years of his Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are two independent measures of housing affordability. The first of those is the AMP360 Home Loan Affordability Report index and the other is produced by Massey University. Both of those indexes actually show that housing affordability not just in Auckland but in New Zealand is more affordable now than it was in 2008—[Interruption] Absolutely true. Let me give the numbers. In 2008 it took 101 percent of a person’s average income in Auckland to service a mortgage. Today that figure is 87 percent. I would also point out that, in respect of Auckland, the increase in housing supply and the reduction in interest rates have actually been improving the issue over the last 6 months.

Phil Twyford: How can he claim that Auckland housing is more affordable now when it takes 47.9 percent of the average first-home buyers income to service a mortgage—Dr Smith—up nearly 10 percent of their income on the 38.9 percent that it took when his Government took office?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have the exact figures from the index and they show that in 2008—when, remember, interest rates were 101 percent, and let us remember we had house price increases—

Iain Lees-Galloway: 101 percent!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —when the index was 101 percent and interest rates were double what they are now, and remember when Labour was in office we had Auckland house prices increase by 27 percent in 1 year, such that both the Massey University index and the AMP360 index show that housing affordability in Auckland is actually more affordable now than what it was in 2008.

David Seymour: What would the Massey index show if interest rates returned to 2008 levels?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Interest rates were an average of 10.6 percent in 2008. They are currently at the lowest levels in 50 years, and as a consequence the cost for the average Auckland household of interest rates returning to the level they were under the Labour administration would be a doubling of the housing costs for every one of those households. That is why interest rates and keeping them low for longer are pivotal to improving New Zealanders’ chances of being able to own and buy their own home.

Phil Twyford: What will he do to address the housing crisis given that his Crown land policy has come up with less than 100 hectares of land, and still has not built any homes; the Auckland Unitary Plan is in strife; his housing accord targets are failing to meet their targets and are about to expire; and Auckland house prices are already rebounding only a few months after the Reserve Bank loan-to-value ratio changes and the brightline test?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I remember this member in this House saying a year ago that house prices by March 2016 would be over a million dollars. Well, he is out by a quarter of a million—[Interruption] He is out by a quarter of a million. The member says that there have been no houses that have been built though the Crown land programme. I would love to take him to some of those gorgeous homes that I opened last week on that programme, which have been successful. I could take the member to Weymouth, I could take the member to Hobsonville, because the truth is that more new houses are being built in Auckland for 10 years and more of them are in an affordable price range because of the initiatives of this Government.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who, according to the New Zealand Herald, is “frankly unapologetic about the massive increase in Auckland residential property values, which has resulted in many established Aucklanders becoming relatively rich, but younger people being locked out of the market.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do agree with the Prime Minister that we do not want to be at the top of the table that Phil Twyford buys up to, because the table that he refers to, comparing international housing affordability, has Greece house prices being the most affordable—and house prices in Spain have actually come down quite a lot. I accept that if we had some of the loopy policies that members opposite suggest, our economy would be like Greece’s and our house prices would be like Greece’s. This Government is about actually having a successful economy, having a growing number of houses—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard plenty.

Irrigation, Marlborough—Irrigation Acceleration Fund

12. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding irrigation funding in Marlborough?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Recently I announced new funding of $895,000 from the Irrigation Acceleration Fund for the Flaxbourne Community Irrigation Scheme in Marlborough. Water from this project is likely to be used for viticulture and arable crops, demonstrating that irrigation is about much more than just dairy farming. Providing a reliable water supply for growers is especially important in Marlborough, given the serious drought the region has suffered over the last 18 months. The scheme will source river water at peak-flow times for storage, and irrigate 2,200 hectares initially.

Stuart Smith: How will the scheme help generate economic growth for the region?

Hon NATHAN GUY: A very good question. A reliable water supply for growers has major potential to boost regional growth, creating jobs and growing our overall exports. As the local member knows, this project has the potential to boost Marlborough’s economy by around $15 million per year. We know that viticulture is a big employer and has significantly higher annual turnover than current dryland pasture uses. Illustrating the potential of this scheme is one grower who said he has just 3 percent of his land currently under irrigation, but with this land accounting for 40 percent of his revenue.

Bills

Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I just want to make the point, before the debate starts this afternoon, that the bill as tabled in the Committee incorporates a significant Supplementary Order Paper that was negotiated between the Government, the Opposition parties, and officials to ensure that we got a bill that reflects fully the views of the Parliament—those views, essentially, being that Regenerate Christchurch should take a central and lead role from this point as the city recovers from the events of the earthquakes.

Over the last 5 years the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act has provided a legal basis for a lot of things to be fast tracked in the city as people were going about the business of getting their lives back intact. But now we have a situation where although some things that need to be done are not directly related to damage caused by the earthquakes, they are most certainly consequential to it. For the concept of regenerating the city—recognising that some of the worst statistics that were on the table 5 years ago have not materialised and that people are making a huge commitment to the rebuild of the city—we need a legislative framework that will enable that to happen while respecting many of the aspects that would normally be pursued through consultation with communities, etc., and, of course, we need a framework that will enable things to happen at a pace that will mean that Christchurch is not catching up with the rest of the country for decades and decades and decades.

So I just start with those remarks. I am happy to answer questions as we go through the afternoon, and I would like to once again convey thanks to all of the parties that participated in the seminar style that we deployed to get to a good and agreed position for this particular Act.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I would like to take a short call on Part 1 of this bill. The preliminary provisions of this bill are actually far more significant than they often are in a piece of legislation. They are covered in clauses 3 to 11 and they contain some very important provisions in this legislation before we get to the meat of the bill, in Part 2. The first of these is the purposes clause, clause 3 of this legislation, which, before we even got around to fixing this bill in the seminar style that the Minister has outlined, was a very well discussed clause at the select committee. It was a clause that attracted a vast number of submissions—I think that 60 of the people who submitted actually submitted on the purpose of this bill and what it was going to achieve, and I think this is where some improvements were able to be made during the select committee’s consideration.

Clause 3 states, first and foremost: “(1) This Act supports the regeneration of greater Christchurch through the following purposes:”, and it then goes through a number of purposes, including “(a) enabling a focused and expedited regeneration process:”. But one of the most significant gains that was able to be made at the select committee consideration of this piece of legislation was in clause 3(2)(b), if we are going to drill down into the detail, which was “improving the environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being, and the resilience, of communities”.

So although the Local Government Act may have done away with the four well-beings, what we have here in this bespoke Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill is the well-beings in writing—it is not about just the economic recovery of Christchurch. We all know that that is incredibly important, but we also all know that there is a far greater project that has to happen in terms of the regeneration in Canterbury. That, primarily, is about putting people at the heart of the recovery and ensuring that this is a recovery that is there to take people forward, to let people mend their lives, and, often, mend their very broken selves.

It is not only their homes and their businesses that have been broken in Canterbury—and I think we can see, through the mental health statistics that we face in our region, the scale of the human impact that the last 5 years have had. I would like, in my first contribution—the first of many, Minister Brownlee—on this bill, to acknowledge the human impact that has taken place on the people of Canterbury in the last 5 years. My real hope is that this piece of legislation signals a new phase as we go forward in the regeneration and recovery of Christchurch. So that is clause 3.

The next clause I would like to talk to in some detail is clause 8, “Geographical application of Act”. This is something that also changed during the select committee’s consideration. When the bill first landed on the floor of this House for its first reading, it defined areas of Greater Christchurch that were going to be specially marked out for attention in regeneration. These were defined as Christchurch City and New Brighton, which were singled out for special attention, and these were covered off in schedule 4 of the bill. But I think a sensible amendment was made to this at the select committee. It was decided that we would not try to statutorily define suburbs of a city, as that gets very complicated. What, instead, was put in place was the ability for regeneration plans to cover the whole of Greater Christchurch—Greater Christchurch, of course, being largely the urban development strategy area that Cantabrians are well aware of and were operating under pre-earthquakes.

I think this is sensible, but what I think also has to very much be part of it is something that comes under Part 2—and I would not like to wade into that during the debate on this part, but I will talk, when I talk about the letter of expectations in terms of Regenerate Christchurch, about making sure that primacy is still given to those areas of Christchurch City and New Brighton as areas signalled out for regeneration, as the original Act intended. I am sure that is something that the Minister and the mayor are working on together, and are working very closely on.

The other important part of this legislation is, of course, clause 4, the interpretation clause, which is in Part 1 of this legislation. Some very important definitions are there, including what exactly is meant by “Christchurch central city”. Although we have not tried to define it in terms of schedule 4, it does occur within clause 4. The clause also defines what a “Recovery Plan” is and what a “Regeneration Plan” is—and what regeneration will look like is actually what the future of our city and Greater Christchurch rests on. It is about what form these plans will take and how these will be implemented in the wider area. These are plans, and we will talk more fully about these when we get into Part 2 of the legislation, where we talk about what a regeneration plan means and who has power.

This bill is a significant move forward for Canterbury. I think we see that in the purpose of the bill—that we now have a mandate to consider the environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being of our city as we move into phase 2. That is something that some of us have thought there has not been enough of. So we welcome the opportunity, under this new phase of Regenerate Christchurch in this legislation, to incorporate those well-beings into our future and to provide the framework as to how we can finally get some movement on some of the projects that certainly we, on these benches, have been saying have been taking a bit of time and we would like to see some more movement on.

Labour is supporting this bill, subject to the amendments that have been made and now append to this bill as the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister alluded to, which we worked on constructively, in a cross-party way. I am very happy that Labour is able to come into the House, despite the minority report that we wrote, after the bill came out of the select committee phase, and now support it. I would like to thank the Minister for listening at that phase and taking on board the changes that were incorporated. It is a pity that some of the Government members of the select committee could not have made more use of the select committee process. But, none the less, we do have a piece of legislation before us now that does allow for locals to lead the next phase of the regeneration of Christchurch to a far greater extent than they have been able to in the last 5 years. That is certainly something that we welcome.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I welcome the passage of this legislation. As Megan Woods has outlined, Labour will be supporting the legislation. I think it is worth noting—and it is worth commending the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for it—that it is difficult in politics, from time to time, to take a position other than the one that you set out to. I said at the first reading that the Minister had listened to the submissions in the select committee. He obviously had listened to the Opposition parties. It is worth recounting, as we look at Part 1 and go through the purposes of the bill, that the overwhelming statements that were made, coming out of the select committee and by Opposition parties, were, as Megan Woods has said in essence, that smart people in our province wanted to shoulder greater leadership roles, wanted to shoulder greater capacity, and take a greater part in leading the recovery of our province and our city.

I think what we started with was a piece of legislation where, in the words of many of the submitters, the centre of power and the centre of gravity lay with the Crown and with the Minister, and that was something that the vast majority of submitters found difficult to swallow. There was a view—and I do not believe that anybody on this side, certainly in the Labour Party, had ever articulated the view—that the Crown should not be involved. Of course it should. I know there were one or two people—I think I might have been on talkback with one, on Newstalk ZB—who tried to purport that the Labour Party thought that we should have the Crown exit completely and hand it over to the locals, 100 percent. That was never our position. Our position was that the Crown had to be there—it had to maintain more than a presence, obviously.

The Crown, through the Minister, is an integral part of the recovery. But our view was that it was about time that the centre of gravity, if you will, the emphasis by which this legislation facilitated the ongoing recovery of Christchurch and Greater Canterbury, shifted to a far more robust and local and representational role. As I said in the first reading, we do have smart people in Canterbury. We do have eminent people in business, in the social sectors, and in the community who were willing and showed, not simply by their words but by their actions, from day one, that they were willing to get stuck in, put their shoulders to the grindstone, take responsibility, take leadership positions if they were offered to them, or take responsibilities if they were conferred on them, to assist as we went out of an emergency phase and went through to a long-term recovery phase.

I acknowledge the Minister, in all seriousness. I think he has done a job of listening and moving his position to what I think now is a far more acceptable bill, a far more robust bill, and a bill that I think will satisfy—these things never satisfy everybody in the community—those people who want an interest in the recovery of our province as it moves forward. I think a number of submitters were concerned that the original legislation essentially gave the Crown similar powers to what we have seen before—that is, essentially, a power of veto—and this legislation now enables people to be at the centre of it. Mr Lovatt and others who will be at the pinnacle, if you like, of the leadership of this recovery and facilitating this legislation going through are people who are smart operators. Clause 3 talks about enabling the Crown to efficiently and effectively manage the recovery as it moves through, and as we talk to clause 3 we see that they are people who are joined with all the community and want to see this recovery move more swiftly, move more effectively, and move more efficiently.

There are still major issues out there that are holding back the recovery of our province in an economic sense. We know, for instance, that the convention centre, which I acknowledge is an extremely complex issue to negotiate through, is a major project, but at the end of the day it is not Stonehenge. It is not one of the eight great wonders of the world. It should not take longer to actually put together than some of the great structures around the world took, but we have been waiting and we are missing opportunities because the deal has not been concluded.

The Minister might be interested to know that in the last 3 weeks a bank told a group of us that $80 million in capital aimed at the hotel and tourism sector had left town—80 million bucks in the last 2½ months. Some may say “Well, on the scale of the billions of dollars being spent, who cares?”. But $80 million is a reasonable chunk of dough, and I am told it moved primarily because we cannot get agreement, we cannot get a signal, and we cannot get certainty around that convention centre. Whether it is a lack of creativity on the part of the designers, I do not know.

An eminent business person in Christchurch said to me recently that the convention centre that we did have, which, I think, was pretty world-class, was essentially a concrete box with a nice facade around it and extremely high-class technology through it. Another business person said “If we’re talking anchor projects, the convention centre and the stadium, maybe we should ask whether we combine the two. Has anybody thought of that? Economies of scale, like many of the great convention centres and the stadiums around the world—combined together, economies of scale, one footprint, one platform.” I do not know whether that has been considered in the mix, but, essentially, that is a key component that I hope will, through the purpose of this bill, through the mechanisms within this bill, be efficiently and effectively actioned.

The people of Canterbury are crying out particularly for that anchor project because it will generate and release massive amounts of private sector capital, as I am sure the Minister knows, through hotels, through recreational facilities and others. That will give, in an economic sense, the biggest shot in the arm and, I would argue, the swiftest shot in the arm for money going into that province and economic growth than most other things. But I would be interested to know whether any consideration has been given, as an eminent business person said to me a couple of weeks ago—at the footy, actually—to combining the two projects, saving some money, having some world-class facility, and doing what other jurisdictions have done around the world. I do not know. It may have well have been considered.

There are other anchor projects, of course—the Metro Sports Facility and others. One would hope that now that we are going to have some pretty eminent people involved in this and making decisions around this—perhaps people who have had more standing with the Government than other groups in the community; political parties, for instance—those people will be listened to in a far more effective and efficient way. I think that what we as representatives of the community want to see from this piece of legislation is the button hit, the foot on the accelerator, and actually some intense speed and development go through our city and our province so that we can move ahead.

As Megan Woods has said, it is also, of course, not just about dollars and cents and bricks and mortar and jobs, though those things are extremely important. It is, as noted in clause 3(2)(b), about the social well-being of our community. As we did last week, or the week before, I take the opportunity to note for the Minister that people like Pete Townsend, chair of the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce, and others have said to us on this side of the House that they are deeply concerned about the mental health of communities, as we sit today. They are deeply concerned about the lack of resources.

I know, and I acknowledge, that the Government has put money in but there is a lack of resources and the district health board is under a strain in dealing with those ongoing mental difficulties—and they are there. It is not just politicians making it up. It is not just politicians, who from time to time are labelled as political if they dare to raise their head and dare to raise an issue—no. Go to the schools, talk to the medical practitioners, talk with the teachers and principals and the parents, and you will see evolving mental health issues flowing through even though we are 5 years from the tragic day.

I would make a plea to the Minister that he may wish to talk to some of his other colleagues—the Minister of Health and others—and ask them to look very, very carefully at the level of resources that are going into Canterbury on that front. Teachers, parents, and others will tell you that there are people in dire straits with those mental health issues. It is not a case of just saying: “Well, it’s 5 years on. The sun’s out. The birds are singing. A few people are smiling. The odd building’s gone up. Don’t people feel good about themselves?”. No—if a child was 5 years old when the earthquake struck, that child is now 10, and, actually, as a teacher said to me, that is all that child has known in its life. When we had the Valentine’s Day quakes and others, that triggered it for many, many people. Some are robust; others are not. Many deal with it by themselves in their own way, but I do count the opinions of medical professionals and educators and others when they say that these people need more resource and help.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): In the first of what I hope will be many calls on this bill, I want to just perhaps flag for me and for my electorate what the key issues are. Of course, the Christchurch East electorate holds the bulk of the residential red zone, which is a really significant matter to be dealt with, and also the suburb of New Brighton, which we have spoken about quite a bit in this House in relation to the rebuild of Canterbury and Christchurch. This bill provides the mechanism for those key players to actually find a way to engage the community—those people who have been displaced from their homes and their usual way of living prior to the quakes—back into the conversation about their vision for the city and for the wider region. It ensures that Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Canterbury Regional Council, and Ngāi Tahu have a significant role in establishing the direction for our city going forward.

What I appreciate has happened in the process that has led us to the redevelopment of this particular bill—and I want to thank the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for taking the step of allowing the workshopping process to occur, because it is a significant piece of work for our city and our region, and the complexity of it could not be underestimated. I thank the officials for the work that they have done on this, and the members of the Opposition, who actually took the view that they wanted to get the best bill, the best piece of legislation, for our region. I think that although we would not completely concur with everything, we have come to a place where the Minister can be assured he has broad agreement across the Committee for many aspects of this bill.

I am concerned about when we come to deal with the matter of the residential red zone and what will happen with those significant pieces of land, particularly as they are around the Avon River through the Christchurch East electorate, where many, many people had their homes, where families had been for some time. There is a lot of emotional content still attached to those parcels of land. When I drive through the area, particularly through New Brighton Road—which is still quite damaged, I have to say—there is no doubt that people who lived there loved their community. They planted trees and gardens that are still evident today, and there is still a lot of local buy-in for the particular area. There are groups of community members who keep the lawns mowed, walk their dogs, and actually keep the area active and keep people within the area. So when we come to look at the redevelopment of the residential red zone I urge the Government and I urge the members of this Committee to fully consider those people who have had to leave their land and this area behind, because they have a vested interest.

I am pleased that the bill actually provides an opportunity for those people to contribute to the discussion about what will happen in that area—around the design, around what types of things might go into the area, and around what kinds of developments will happen—because there is no doubt that something will happen with the area. Whether, as many of my constituents would like, it becomes much more recreational than it was in the past—that would be great, but I know that there are other options and opportunities, and I urge that our people actually have the opportunity to engage fully in that process. I think this bill actually provides a much stronger mechanism for that than the previous iteration.

So, too, with what happens with New Brighton. I know that there have been many master plans for New Brighton, but the community is well versed and well engaged in the discussion and what it would like to see. It is my desire that the community has an opportunity to be fully engaged in that discussion, because some of the consultation that has happened up to this point in some aspects of the rebuild of the city has not been as robust as it can be. Although I do actually really like the Margaret Mahy Family Playground, I use it as an example of where perhaps the process of consultation could have been far more robust. What I say about that is in relation to access for people with disabilities. When you go to the playground there are what people in wheelchairs call “islands” of bark around particular pieces of play equipment that are completely inaccessible for people in wheelchairs. They cannot ride over these areas. Also, I am told by people in the disability sector that they were not consulted at the design phase of the Margaret Mahy Family Playground. That sits outside our obligations for the accessibility issues for our city.

I know that that will not happen in the future. I have confidence that this process will allow those groups to actually be fully participant in the discussions about what the regeneration of their city will look like. So, too, the bus exchange: the bus exchange does not have toilet facilities for people with disabilities within it, and that is, again, because those groups with the role to advocate for people with disabilities were not part of the design phase of that particular bus exchange. That is completely inappropriate. Just on those notes, I will come back to some other issues within the bill, but I would urge that those elements are considered when we are setting up the mechanism with which to ensure that the community is engaged in this discussion. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. The Green Party is pleased to be supporting the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. Acknowledgments to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for the process that he put in place after the Local Government and Environment Committee had considered the bill to make these changes. Of course, it would have been desirable if it had been while the bill was at the select committee. Supplementary Order Paper 159, the Supplementary Order Paper with all the changes, amalgamating them with the bill itself, is hot off the press—it is still warm—but we are very pleased with a number of the changes in it, particularly to Part 1.

In the purpose of the bill it talks about supporting the regeneration of Greater Christchurch and recognising the local leadership of the Christchurch councils—the Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and Canterbury Regional Council—but in the original bill, before the Supplementary Order Paper, there was no mention of enabling and recognising the local leadership of Regenerate Christchurch. So Supplementary Order Paper 159, in putting Regenerate Christchurch there, at the heart of the purpose, has been a major change and a good change.

That is in line with a lot of the submissions from the city council and others, who highlighted that the bill as it was originally introduced was modelled far too closely on the powers that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority had in the emergency legislation, and that too great a power resided still with Ministers to override local views and to both initiate regeneration plans—initiate them through their chief executive officers—and sign them off. So it gave Ministers far too great a say in what the proposals for those regeneration plans would be, the whole process for developing them, and then the sign-off. But now, with this Supplementary Order Paper, Regenerate Christchurch is mentioned there, in clause 3(1)(d), and there is the change too to the definition of “regeneration”.

As I noted in the second reading, the Government has stripped out the promotion of environmental, social, cultural, and economic well-being from the purpose of local government, but improving the environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being and the resilience of communities is part of the definition of “regeneration” in clause 3 of the bill. So this bill could, potentially, be a model for urban regeneration elsewhere in New Zealand, with the partnership that it has between both the Crown and local authorities, particularly Christchurch City Council, as expressed through this new entity, Regenerate Christchurch, which will be the proponent of plans, and when it is not the proponent, it will have a major role in providing advice to the Minister, both on the outlined proposal document and on the plan itself.

We have not seen before in New Zealand entities such as this involved in plan making, and the bill is really breaking new ground on this. There is quite a lot of trust involved here, Minister Brownlee, because the Supplementary Order Paper that incorporates the bill and melds the draft Supplementary Order Paper that Opposition members had seen previously has just been tabled in the House today. So if there are any major differences between the draft and this one, we would appreciate the Minister outlining those, but we will be going through it quite carefully.

The Green Party still has some reservations about the bill, particularly the powers that remain with the Minister in Part 2, and we will talk about those later on. But we wanted to make sure that when the Government changes after the elections next year, there is a clear commitment to the people of Christchurch that there is an agreed process going forward for planning, particularly for the residential red zone, which, as Poto Williams noted, a lot of people have a very strong connection with, even though they may no longer be living there, and will want a say in what happens to that land.

In the purpose of the bill, set out in clause 3(e), it talks about “enabling the Crown to efficiently and effectively manage, hold, and dispose of land acquired by the Crown under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 or [under this current bill]”. “Efficiently” may mean that the Crown makes a large return from disposal, but those decisions must be in consultation with the people of Christchurch, because of the connections that people have with the land in the residential red zone. I would also note that in Part 1, clause 7 provides for the continued application of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, which means, of course, that if the Crown is going to dispose of any land that it has acquired, it must offer that first to Ngāi Tahu in accordance with that Act.

So the Supplementary Order Paper process and the discussion with Opposition parties around that has been very useful, and, as others have said, we hope that this is a template for other critical decisions going forward—for decisions on the anchor projects, where there has been very little information provided by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority; things like the convention centre, where there has been no formal business case that has been made public. This bill has been substantially improved through the input of other parties and through changes to the purpose and the process for preparing regeneration plans. Decisions around the anchor projects and the way in which the substantial Crown and ratepayer funding that is going into those is spent would benefit from a much greater involvement, not just of Opposition parties but of public discussion.

So, Minister, this bill does make major changes that we thank you for, in being prepared to listen to the Opposition parties, but we think that that same ethos of engaging with the Opposition and with the public needs to be taken over to the anchor projects. But the Green Party will be pleased to support this bill despite some of our reservations about the significant powers that the Minister retains, and clause 9 in Part 1, which provides in subclause (1) that a person exercising a power under the legislation “need not consider any Recovery Plan or Regeneration Plan” and we would be interested in some comments from the Minister about why that power is necessary. Given the major changes to the processes for developing regeneration plans, what is the point of having those plans going through the consultation with other councils, with the public if a Minister or chief executive, when exercising powers under the legislation, does not then have to have regard to a recovery plan or a regeneration plan? But we will be supporting the bill, with reservations. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I, like other speakers, am also very pleased, actually, with the outcome of the discussions on this bill. I do not think there has been a piece of legislation that has had so much cross-party involvement and discussion, and I actually enjoyed it. I enjoyed hearing what all the parties had to say about the various issues that were brought up, but I am particularly pleased that what was discussed was actually done. We can see that in the amendments made to the bill. Since the first reading, a lot of progress has been made, and it has given me and New Zealand First a lot of confidence in this legislation.

Fundamentally, what the bill seeks to do is to put in place a regime for the regeneration—as distinct from the recovery—of Christchurch. In doing so, it will have to do something that in my quite long experience in local government I had to do on many occasions, which is to balance the natural tension that exists between the need for public participation, public consultation, and public information with actually getting things done, because you can go on consulting and involving people forever—some of that is of great value; some of it is of not so much value. So, in the end, there has to be a decision, and that means getting things done.

Consequently, what we need to see as a result of this legislation is actually very good leadership that does bring the people of Christchurch together with the organisation and that, in the end, does produce plans that can be—and are, in fact—acted on. So far in the Christchurch recovery process, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has, I think, had rather patchy success in all of this. It did get some buy-in; there have been, however, a lot of delays in projects. I understand what can cause those sorts of delays, but people are now, 5 years on, feeling a little bit dissatisfied about the lack of progress—especially on some of the major projects—and the lack of information, also, about all of that.

The Christchurch City Council, I thought, did a very good job in its consultation process over the central city plan, and people gained a lot of confidence from that. However, I would have to say that you do not get the same feeling in some of the suburbs of Christchurch, especially those in the east, where there has been not much demonstrable progress in rebuilding both the streets and the public areas, and, also, the communities themselves—there is a long way to go there. So that is something that Regenerate Christchurch is really going to have to concentrate on.

But, I have a lot of faith in this concept of Regenerate Christchurch because it does include local people as well as those who will be representing the Crown, and that is necessary too. There are now in the bill, as Eugenie Sage said, much better provisions for public information, for transparency, and for the participation of the public in making plans but, more particularly, the collaboration of the councils who will be involved as well as the Crown itself.

For those reasons, as I said, especially in my second reading speech, I now have a lot of confidence in the bill, with its ability for Regenerate Christchurch to provide the leadership that is necessary to consult, to respond, to be transparent, and, in the end, it must actually get things done. We can then put all that demolition behind us, all that bare land into work, and, I hope, take what are some very significant opportunities for improving the transport system within Christchurch, in particular, for creating better recreation opportunities, for better areas for vibrant business to operate, and to build houses—again, where that is possible and desirable.

In doing so, there is obviously going to also have to be a balance between the magnitude of the sale of what was residential land, so that the Crown can recoup some of its investment, but also on putting significant areas aside for recreation and creating—where possible—new suburbs where there were old ones. I’m particularly looking forward, for example, to the Avon Loop, and whether that can be restored as a suburb—because it was a very, very good suburb. It was an excellent community, as were some of those around it.

It is my hope that it might be restored as a community with houses and, as there were in past, parks and recreational opportunities, and there will be some other areas as well. I don’t know whether that is possible, for technical reasons, but I hope it is.

There will be other areas where some very significant recreational opportunities will be possible, and if we do not take this opportunity as a Government, and as a city, to actually build those opportunities, the opportunity may never come again.

So those are my preliminary comments on this. They are founded on high expectations, which reflect the expectations of the people of Christchurch themselves, and a high degree of confidence in the structure that is being set up in this bill to achieve those objectives. I will have more to say in other parts of the bill about some of the problems that I think may still be there, but overall, and especially with regard to the institution that will be Regenerate Christchurch, with the collaboration of all the strategic partners that will be involved, I think it is going to be a success and I am very optimistic about it.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to take a call in this Committee stage of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. You may be asking why I am standing up and taking a call in this debate at all, but, as Mr Brownlee will know, I am a former Christchurch boy myself, and a proud Crusaders supporter—

Hon Member: The Hurricanes.

KRIS FAAFOI: —as well as the Hurricanes—and very interested in the goings-on in Christchurch. I grew up in the fine suburb of Hoon Hay, which my colleague Megan Woods, who is sitting to my right now, is the representative of.

It is an interesting life that this bill has had since it was introduced to this Parliament late last year, I think it was. At first reading, it got support to be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but had a rocky time at the select committee—well, to a degree, Mr Brownlee. But then, with some work from Mr Brownlee and my colleague Megan Woods, it has arrived back in the Committee in a much better state than it was when it came from the select committee.

One of the reasons for that, as some speakers have spoken to already in this debate on Part 1, is that there is going to be a lot more input from the Christchurch community itself in this next phase of the recovery for Christchurch. I think it has been a well-spoken criticism that, as we get to this regenerate stage of Christchurch’s rebuilding, there has been a lot of Wellington-focused decision-making and that not enough has come from grassroots people in Christchurch. Although those who are actively doing the building in Christchurch have got a fair bit to say about how things go there, the actual citizens have for some time been saying that not a lot of their voice has been heard.

In Part 1, as some speakers have said, in the purposes part of Part 1, around clause 3(1)(c), it does enable “community input into decisions on the exercise of powers” under this regeneration bill. Further down in clause 3 it also goes on to say that in doing so, the agencies concerned have to look at the “environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being and the resilience,” of the communities of Christchurch, which I believe is a good addition to this bill because of the concern that I raised earlier in my speech.

Interestingly enough, there was a documentary on Television One on the anniversary of the Christchurch earthquake, which I believe Mr Brownlee featured in. He may not have seen it when it went to air, but there was a considerable amount of comment in that documentary from, I would say, mum and dad Christchurch Cantabrians who were concerned about the lack of the level of input that they were having into the Christchurch rebuild. But I think some of the changes that have been made, with the input of Opposition parties, to this piece of legislation will enable them to have that voice through the enabling of community input into the regeneration plan and, importantly, through the inclusion of those well-beings—the environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-beings—that have been explicitly put into this piece of legislation.

Looking a little bit further down the line in Part 1 to clause 11, “Conditions applying to exercise of powers by Minister or chief executive”, within this piece of legislation there are still massive powers that are held by the Minister who is sitting in the chair and the heads of the agencies that are described in Part 1, and they include being able to acquire or to carve up or to sell off land—one of the many powers, anyway—that may be needed as part of the regeneration. That is still, I think, a very hefty power in this piece of legislation, and one that I think will need a lot of oversight by us as Opposition MPs and by those of my colleagues who are Christchurch-based MPs to make sure that what they are doing is within the realms of this piece of legislation.

I think it is a carry-over power from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation, which was passed very speedily, and needed to be passed very speedily, in the moments after the February earthquake. But because it is a carry-over power, it does not necessarily mean that the level of critique that—on this side of the House we will need to pay attention to some of the decisions that get made by the Minister and also by the agencies concerned. We could see—I guess the worst-case scenario is the mandatory acquisition of land taken for a purpose that is not necessarily the best purpose for that land. We will keep an eye out for things like that.

There is an amendment under the name of my colleague Dr Megan Woods that will amend clause 4 in Part 1, which will insert the name “Hagley Park Management Plan” into this piece of legislation. That will go some way to protect Hagley Park from the kind of acquisition that I have just spoken to. As a Cantabrian who grew up playing cricket and rugby at Hagley Park, I know how important a resource and, actually, a jewel it is for the people of Christchurch. So to make sure explicitly in this piece of legislation that Hagley Park as it stands now is protected is, I think, a very good amendment.

People who are not from Christchurch will realise, if they have travelled to Christchurch, just how important Hagley Park is. When Lancaster Park—or I think it was AMI Stadium—was hit by the February earthquake and was, therefore, rendered not usable, Hagley Park became the cricket sporting centre for Christchurch and for the Canterbury region. So I guess we do know the importance of Hagley Park. It holds not just the Hagley Oval; Hospital Corner is where they play cricket. I think it is south—or north—Hagley Park where rugby is held on a Saturday morning for little nippers like me—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Both.

KRIS FAAFOI: Both—OK. Some cold mornings at Hagley Park are had by some and will continue to be a bit of a rite of passage for Cantabrians who very well verse themselves on the rugby field when they get to senior levels. So I think to protect Hagley Park in that respect, with Megan Woods’ amendment, is a very good amendment to this bill.

Just wrapping up all those together, it is a much better piece of legislation because of the intervention of not just the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery but the Opposition parties. It means that because of the involvement of those in the community, we will have a unified regeneration phase of Christchurch—at least at this point, anyway. We would hope that because this piece of legislation has been improved and has got wide-ranging support from around this Chamber, the spirit of that will continue, not just in the legislative phase but also in making sure that it is continued in the actual regeneration. As we have said on this side of the Chamber, we will be keeping a close watch on that to make sure that the spirit of the law is continued. Thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I just wanted to respond to three speakers who have raised the issue of ministerial or chief executive powers in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, and they come under clause 11. Those powers, as are prescribed there, relate specifically to clauses 47, 53, 59, 60, 61, 62, and 75 of the bill. In each case they, interestingly, would give effect to some of the matters that have been raised by each of the speakers.

If we start with clause 47, we are talking there about the ability for either the chief executive or a Minister to be able to ensure that certain works are done at a certain time in a certain place. So if you think about a city that is still discovering at this point undiscovered damage, then having that ability to get something done very, very quickly is fairly important. It would be, I think, a stretch to image that either a Minister or a chief executive might go around looking for opportunities to use a provision like this. It would be with some disappointment that there was a necessity to exercise this particular power. None the less, I think it is quite a reasonable sort of power to have.

Clause 53 deals with temporary buildings. Anyone from Christchurch will know that at the moment, although temporary buildings are starting to recede a little bit from our landscape, they have been pretty much a norm—an accepted arrangement—for the last 5 years. There may still be occasions when, in order to achieve some regeneration of an area, some temporary building may be necessary, and this simply ensures that. Going through all processes, remembering that Christchurch City Council is a 50:50 partner at the start of this legislation’s life and by the end of it, it will be 100 percent the controller of Regenerate Christchurch, then I think you would expect that this would be a very seldom-used power.

Then we go to clause 59, which is also fairly prescriptive. It talks about the acquisition of and other dealings with property. It simply means that if you are to have a regeneration plan that is going to require a small bit of land somewhere or a variation to land—in fact, the next two powers all deal with that, right through to clause 62—then there is the capacity to do that through, firstly, discussion with the owner, but, ultimately, the whole of the regeneration plan could not fail for someone perhaps holding out, as often happens in various commercial arrangements already around the country.

We then jump to clause 75, which deals with the disposal of land. Just before I do that, let me talk about clause 67, which is also covered, where we are looking at—if you think about the comments that were made about the red zone by people wanting that land to become much more amenable to the community as well as perhaps being an area where some cost recovery may occur, where you have got thousands of titles, it will be necessary to amalgamate some of those, and that is one of the other powers that a chief executive has through a Minister.

There is, then, the final issue where powers lie around the disposal of land. It simply makes it clear that a chief executive may, with the Minister’s approval, dispose of lands held by the Crown as acquired under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, which is the one that this bill replaces. That seems to be—in my opinion, certainly—an eminently sensible thing to do where someone else might be able to do something with that particular piece of land that is of value to the community. All of this will be quite tempered by the views that Regenerate Christchurch has about the reshaping of the city.

So some of the fears that I think people have not necessarily expressed but have pointed to—concerns rather than fears—I do not think should be seen as anything other than mechanisms to be able to achieve the goals that Regenerate Christchurch itself will take to the communities throughout Christchurch as it goes about its work. In the end, these are backstop powers. They are not foremost, as far as the plans to regenerate the city are concerned. If you think again of what I said before, the structure of this bill has been, for the first few years of the existence of Regenerate Christchurch, sort of a 50:50 membership appointed by the Crown and appointed by the council. Although I have to say that it is the Crown that has provided a place on Regenerate Christchurch for Ngāi Tahu, and the Crown has agreed with the Christchurch City Council on the chair position—so that is an agreed position. Between us we have also agreed that appointments will be made to the regeneration board from the two other organisations that will be active in the city—so that is Ōtākaro Ltd and Development Christchurch. So you are getting a full circle of integrated organisations working through that Regenerate Christchurch lens, and I think that some of the concerns about the indiscriminate use of powers under the bill need not be as prominent as some might suggest.

I would also point to the fact that the House very generously gave a lot of powers to Ministers and the chief executive under the former Act, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, which expires on 18 April this year, and many of those powers were not used. They were described by some as wartime powers, “Henry VIII” powers, and all sorts of things, but very few of them have been actually used. They were there as a backstop to ensure that there was capacity to actually get things done. I take the point from Denis O’Rourke that, in the end, we have to have legislation that allows things to be done while taking into consideration the views of the wider community.

So I would simply say that although the bill itself has changed over the last couple of weeks, it still has, and did have, Regenerate Christchurch at the centre. I reject the idea that the new arrangements have put it back in. I see the Green Party is saying: “No, no, that’s not true. Look what we did.” Well, in part, that is true, but by and large what we have ended up with is a stronger affirmation of what was already in the bill, in my opinion.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Committee stage of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, and can I acknowledge the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for clarifying how the amendments will be empowering the locals more—or giving locals more of an opportunity—to take part in the important plan-making processes and regeneration developments that will be happening for the great city of Christchurch. I am very proud to be a representative member for the Christchurch area, and I do want to acknowledge all of the work that all the cross-parties, in particular the Minister, have afforded all members in progressing the bill to this point and incorporating and addressing a lot of the concerns that have been raised.

I want to offer a slightly different angle to the debate thus far. I really want to focus on the clauses in Part 1 that relate to the interests of Ngāi Tahu—Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. Obviously, I am a proud Ngāi Tahu. It is part of my whakapapa and, indeed, it is a huge part of the constituency that I represent in Te Tai Tonga.

I do want to give a few bouquets to start off with. I am pleased that the legislation, particularly in Part 1, affirms Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as a strategic partner in the legislation. I think that continues the very good relationship that was forged out of very unfortunate circumstances through the earthquakes and through the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation, which made Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu a partner with the Christchurch City Council and the Crown under that piece of legislation. It is commendable that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is a strategic partner, but I do lament that the legislation was not able to go that step further and insert a Treaty clause that placed some obligations on this new hybrid entity, which is a Crown - local government type of entity.

I know that Ms Eugenie Sage mentioned in her contribution before that this was a model piece of legislation for regeneration, and indeed it is. I just regret that there was an opportunity here to go further. Indeed, in Ngāi Tahu’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee it advocated strongly for the placement of a Treaty clause that is more than just recognising the existing rights that Ngāi Tahu has under its deed of settlement and its legislation with the Crown. They are, obviously, well known. They have been preserved not only in the existing Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation, but also here under clause 7 in Part 1. That is unchanged, so there are no real qualms about that. But what we could have achieved through this piece of legislation was the placing of more distinct obligations around a partnership, which includes this new hybrid organisation, that can stem and flow over through to the obligations of local authorities in terms of recognition of mana whenua. Rather than just leaving it to the operational level, there could have been some high-level guidance and some high-level obligations imposed in the legislation to ensure that this is the importance of the Crown partnership, that this is the importance of the Treaty relationship—as obligations are devolved back to local government.

I do regret that the select committee did not see the need to go that far, because what we see now is that Ngāi Tahu has a very, very strong relationship with the Crown. Minister Brownlee knows that—he has done a lot of work in that regard—and Minister Adams and various other Ministers. What is not happening, though—or what is unknown, really—is how receptive this new Regenerate Christchurch organisation will be in giving full effect to the mana whenua rights, to Ngāi Tahu’s Treaty rights. I guess that is a whole new grey area that is yet to be developed, and it really is incumbent on those leaders within the papatipu rūnanga in the Greater Christchurch area to assert themselves, to assert their mana whenua, and to build relationships with this new Regenerate Christchurch organisation.

I do acknowledge that steps have been taken in that regard. The six papatipu rūnanga have come together and have been initiating discussions at the operational level within the council and with the new Regenerate Christchurch establishment, just to assert their mana whenua status, to drive their pouwhenua in the ground, and to make sure that this new body, which will be including more local input, will also have a strong respect for and recognition of the mana whenua, Ngāi Tahu, in the application of its role.

We certainly hope, and I do, that operationally the Christchurch City Council and Regenerate Christchurch will have much greater recognition for Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, for the papatipu rūnanga across the whole Canterbury region, and, indeed, give effect to the Treaty partnership. I guess the way that the legislation is phrased at the moment, it is like: “OK, the Crown and Ngāi Tahu have their deed of settlement. We’re just going to park that over there. Yeah, that’s there, and we’re going to get on with everything else as Regenerate Christchurch and do all these wonderful things.” But they are not exclusive. They should be incorporated and be fundamental to the operations of how Regenerate Christchurch works. I certainly hope that the new organisation will be very receptive and open to working with its Treaty partners, to ensure that they give full effect to the Treaty settlement and to ensure the great regeneration of the mighty city that is Christchurch. Kia ora tātou.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair—good call. Tēnā tātou katoa. It is indeed my honour to stand in support and solidarity with my colleagues, particularly from the Canterbury area, who stand up in support of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. I am a member on the Local Government and Environment Committee, but for the duration of this particular bill I gave way to those Canterbury MPs, who, obviously, know of the impact more than I could ever do. But I do want to make a small contribution of support.

About this time last year, in 2015, we had tens of thousands from Māoridom descend on Hagley Park for one of the showcase pieces of New Zealand’s Māori calendar of events, Te Matatini. It was at that gathering that Sir Mark Solomon held a function as the chairman of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, to which he invited iwi leaders, civil leaders, and other people of importance. At that dinner Mark shared the story that he never had the opportunity to individually go to the many iwi across the country and the many agencies to say thank you—thank you—for the support that iwi and agencies across the country gave in support of the Ngāi Tahu Canterbury people during the earthquakes. It was a very telling time at that dinner, to hear him relay the stories of not only the tragedy that was bestowed on the people of Canterbury but also the challenges that Ngāi Tahu themselves, as the iwi of that area, put their hand up to play an active role in. I just start with that, as a small contribution—that this bill reminds me of the challenges that both the people of Canterbury have faced and this bill will face in addressing us over the next wee while.

We are here talking about Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”. I particularly want to make some comments on clause 3(1) and (2), and also to touch on clause 7 in that part, in the time I have got remaining. People have mentioned—and I want to also acknowledge Minister Brownlee in terms of his shifting on the original bill after working with Opposition members through the select committee. There were concerns, clearly, about the experience of the Environment Canterbury example in ensuring that the local voice was heard. So when I look to clause 3(1)(c), where we talk about enabling community input—I mean, that is a great start. I need to commend the Minister for making sure that the local voice is not lost in this commitment to regenerating Christchurch.

But then we go to clause 3(1)(d) and we talk about who will be on this Regenerate Christchurch organisation. We talk about Canterbury Regional Council, Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, the council at Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and Waimakariri District Council. If you follow me and turn to clause 4, I believe it describes what a “strategic partner” is, and it lists, again, those five groups that I have just mentioned. So I guess my point here is that if we have defined these five organisations as “strategic partners”, then the question in my mind is why they were not given the sole responsibility of rejuvenating and leading the plans in Canterbury.

Then we will get to the second part, around the role of the Minister. I guess it goes to the heart of taking clause 3(1)(c) to its ultimate conclusion, which is that if these organisations are strategic partners, then why do we not invest the regeneration with these strategic partners? That is the question, and maybe the Minister can help us. I understand that central government is putting a lot of resources into it, and it does need to have an overview, but when I read that particular part in clause 3, where we describe them as “strategic”—and no one is going to challenge that any of these five groups do not know how to manage and that they do not have good governance structures, good management, and good plans—then we need an answer for this Committee around why, I guess, if they are strategic, we are not using them to their fullest extent. I understand that many came to submit during the select committee process and there was a proposal there, but for me—like I said, maybe the Minister could share some clarification around why those groups are, on the one hand, strategic, but we are using them for only some parts of the regeneration and the veto power still rests with the Minister.

Moving to clause 2, there was some previous mention of the return to what many people will regard as the four well-beings. We are looking at clause 3(2)(b), where we talk about improving the environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being and resilience of communities throughout the area. For many people out there who value the role that local government plays in our local communities, on the one hand, we are removing the four well-beings from the Local Government Act, but here—and I am not debating that it does not have a role here in this bill, but what I am saying is that on one hand we take from local government authorities, and yet in this bill we are acknowledging and putting it back in here. I guess the question to the Minister, again, is whether we will see some consistency. If it is good enough for Christchurch, then why is it not good enough for the rest of the country?

Finally, I do want to just talk about clause 7, “Application of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998”. For me not to say anything contrary to my colleague the member for Te Tai Tonga—I am glad that it is there. I am glad that it recognises not just the role that Ngāi Tahu will play in the Christchurch regeneration but the role that Te Waipounamu katoa will play in terms of where they have started, where they are, and where they plan to be.

I think it is an opportune time when we start talking around regeneration that we start getting serious about partnerships, particularly with iwi post-settlement and the opportunities that it brings, with us working in collaboration. I just hope that this particular clause is actually implemented in its fullest—i.e., the values around partnership, working in collaboration, and us seeing that we actually want the same things. We have different resources and, I guess, perspectives to bring to the table, so I want to acknowledge that that is there. The test for me is whether we live up to that in terms of the way that we interrelate with each other and how the larger Regenerate Christchurch group sees the value that Ngāi Tahu can bring across the four well-beings in the previous clause, which I have just mentioned. I will leave the rest of my contribution on the other parts until later on in the bill. Kia ora tātou.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, Kaiwhakahaere. Mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. I want to just, first of all, acknowledge all of the previous speakers, particularly as we are talking about the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, because it has cross-party support. We call that kotahitanga—actually working together. Also, the other part of this is that it is a really unique template, and the fact is that this template can really serve other parts of New Zealand well in the future.

I just want to come back, because there has been a lot of talk about Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Ngāi Tahu iwi, and also mana whenua. My colleague and whanauka Rino Tirikatene actually brought up the fact, around the Treaty of Waitangi—first of all, when we actually did discuss the clauses of the Treaty of Waitangi at the Local Government and Environment Committee, it was considered. But I think that the most important part of this is that when you look at mana whenua in Christchurch—in Ōtautahi, Canterbury, Te Wai Pounamu—we understand the Treaty, and what you see there, particularly in Christchurch and particularly in this bill, is that this is the Treaty of Waitangi in motion. That was the situation here, right from the darkest days in 2011 when the earthquake struck, when Rūaumoko visited us for the first time. The situation here, though, is that everyone came together—that is what kotahitanga was, and particularly with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. They were actually included right from the beginning as a major stakeholder. They set up a committee in conjunction with the Crown and in conjunction with Christchurch City Council and all the other major stakeholders. It was called Te Awheawhe Rū Whenua. I was privileged enough to be a member of that committee.

That was the first part of this whole thing put in motion. What we had was the emergency. Then, following the emergency, we actually had the recovery and the rebuild. What we see now is the regeneration of Greater Christchurch in this legislation.

We have seen the inclusion of mana whenua Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu all the way through this process. What happened here is, within the bill itself, what we have seen is an acknowledgment. It is right throughout the first part of the bill, particularly in the inclusion of a major stakeholder within that collective—that is, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. What the select committee did was it really looked at this—and particularly in the second part of the bill, which I want to talk about—and that is the recognition of mana whenua. That was strengthened through the select committee process. I think the important part of this is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi has actually been very, very much in motion all the way through, and that is particularly why the decision that we came to was that it had already been included in how we were implementing this legislation.

That is the first part of it. The other part is how well we all worked as a committee. I am particularly using the word “kotahitanga” again—collective, working together. That is really the hallmark of this bill, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. Kia ora.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I would just like to take another short call specifically on the amendment that is in my name and the parts that pertain to Part 1 of this legislation. But I would just like to respond to a comment that the Minister who was in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, made when he said that the changes that had been made post the Local Government and Environment Committee consideration were minor.

Well, I think the Minister is being coy, and that actually the Minister came in and cleaned up what was an inadequate piece of legislation that the select committee reported back to this House, and that the select committee did not make the changes that were required to make this a piece of legislation that Labour could support. In fact, we, like other Opposition parties, withdrew our support at the select committee because the bill was inadequate, and we would like to have seen more. So I think that the Minister is being coy, and kudos to the Minister for cleaning up what was a very messy process that occurred at the select committee.

I want to talk to my amendment, which inserts alphabetically into clause 4 and which is the interpretation clause, “Hagley Park Management Plan”, and defines the Hagley Park Management Plan. This is the first part that is required for a broader amendment that I am putting up that would ensure that we protect Hagley Park and make sure that Hagley Park has the kinds of protections that our forebears in Canterbury have given that piece of land in the centre of our city.

All through this legislation, Labour has consistently argued that it is not time for Canterbury to return to business as usual and that there are bespoke provisions that are required for these next 5 years in terms of how Christchurch moves forward. But what we are saying is that when it comes to Hagley Park and the protections that have been built up over that piece of land, it actually is time to return to business as usual. When it comes to that particular taonga in the centre of our city, we do need to be able to say “It is as if the earthquakes never happened, and it is as if the bespoke legislation that is put in place to aid our recovery and our regeneration does not exist.” So in order to do that, it is necessary in clause 4, in Part 1, to define the Hagley Park Management Plan.

As I alluded to in my first contribution on this legislation, it does get difficult in terms of defining geographical parts of the city, but we are incredibly blessed, I guess, in Christchurch that we already have good statutory definitions of this area. The Hagley Park Management Plan “means the management plan adopted for Hagley Park in 2007 under the Reserves Act 1977.” So it is specifically that area of land that is to be protected—and in Part 2 I will speak more broadly to those protections—but this part of the bill does put in place those provisions.

Hagley Park has something of a history of being protected. It was established in 1855, and people who tried to make changes to it pretty quickly found that it was very difficult to do so. In the 1860s it was considered that it would connect to Great South Road, which is now known as Riccarton Road, through to Armagh Street, but that was a plan that fell over. Christchurch has only ever had two-term mayors, and one of them tried to put a road through Hagley Park, in the “road through the park plan” in the 1970s, and Ron Guthrey soon found in 1971 that he was thrown out of office when he tried to connect Harper Avenue to Salisbury Street through Hagley Park. It was just not going to fly.

Hagley Park is a special place for the people of Canterbury. It is protected, and it has been protected for generations in our city. Labour is putting up an amendment and saying that it is time now for us—it is our responsibility—to carry on those protections that have been built up for generations and ensure that while our city recovers and we regenerate, our taonga in the centre of our city remains dear and those protections for Hagley Park that have been built up endure for the next 5 years and beyond. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to take just a short call and reflect on a couple of clauses as they apply to the area of New Brighton. Those clauses are clause 3(1)(e) and clause 3(2)(b). What I want to relate to New Brighton is that the New Brighton area is quite a unique area within Christchurch City. It is unique. It has an interesting and eclectic mix of people living within it. It has one significant feature, and it is one of the things I find really quirky about the area. In many communities, a lot of the community life is driven by NGOs and community groups and the like. That is not unusual, and that is part of what happens in New Brighton, but there is a significant business interest in the New Brighton area. Many of you will recall that New Brighton was the first place to have the shops open on the weekends. It was what really stood New Brighton apart from the rest of the country, and it has always been a unique and unusual community because of it. It has a very strong business focus. You can appreciate, Mr Chairman, that the earthquakes have really disrupted a lot of business throughout the whole region, throughout Christchurch, but particularly in New Brighton, which was suffering a downturn before the earthquakes struck, anyway.

Why these clauses are significant for this particular area is that the regeneration of the New Brighton area is dependent on the support that we can gain for the businesses of the area. The New Brighton Business and Landowners Association is a very strong group within the area that is really striving to bring business back to the area, and that is largely dependent on what happens with the New Brighton master plan.

Why I am really hopeful that this model of collaboration between central government, local government, and other stakeholders goes as well as it can and has some significant input from the community is because I believe that in terms of the eastern suburbs, their regeneration is really based on the regeneration of the New Brighton area as their retail and commercial centre. It is an area that has, as I have said, suffered an awful lot, but it has been through a period of neglect. To ensure that the New Brighton master plan is developed to full effect will require this piece of legislation to proceed through the House—particularly with regard to the ability to acquire land, because some of the issues that have occurred in the New Brighton business area have been because landowners and business owners have wanted to hold out to see what kind of return they can get on their investment, and that has significantly hampered the ability to redevelop the New Brighton area.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to interrupt the member and say that she is making a very good speech, but it is a speech to Part 2 of the bill, especially in the areas of specific plans and the acquisition of land. She might like to now come back to Part 1.

POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will speak to the disposal of land in the residential red zone, which is also significant for many people who are my constituents and has some relation to a group of people known as the Quake Outcasts. Many of you will know that the Quake Outcasts are a group of people who joined together because of the offer that was made to them to acquire their properties when the areas were red-zoned. Some of the residents in that area decided that they would not accept the offer, for whatever reason—and there are many valuable reasons—and they made a decision themselves. But there is a small group who are concerned that this legislation—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the member, I am going to reiterate the advice I gave her a couple of minutes ago. I am willing to call her again. I have read the bill and I do know which bits are in which.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Megan Woods to clause 4 be agreed to:

In clause 4, insert, in its appropriate alphabetical order:

Hagley Park Management Plan means the management plan adopted for Hagley Park in 2007 under the Reserves Act 1977.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Functions, powers, and processes relating to regeneration of greater Christchurch

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We are now debating Part 2. This is debate on clauses 12 to 117, schedules 2A to 8, and the substance of the bill.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): This is one of several contributions that I wish to make to Part 2. There is, of course, the very meaty part of Part 2 that deals with regeneration plans—how we make them, who exercises powers, the limits on power, and appeal rights—but in this part I specifically want to speak to clauses 102 to 107, which are, I think, where the real business end is that this legislation gets down to. This is about the transfer of assets, liabilities, and Crown agreements.

There is much said about Regenerate Christchurch, the joint venture between the Crown and Christchurch City that will be responsible for the regeneration of many parts of our city. That is vitally important, and I will return in a later contribution to discuss those regeneration plans, but what we also have to remember very carefully is that what this legislation does is set up is a new organisation—which in previous iterations of the legislation was known by the somewhat superhero moniker of CrownCo, but now has the name of Ōtakāro Ltd. This is the agency that is empowered not only with getting the anchor projects up and running but also with developing the residential red zone and the land that lies within it. I have some very specific questions for the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, around what lies between clauses 102 and 107, because these set up the tertiary instruments that transfer and give delegated powers to a Crown entity under this part of the legislation. When one goes and has a look at the detail of this organisation Ōtakāro Ltd, there are some questions that we would like answers to.

If we look specifically at the constitution of Ōtakāro Ltd, there are some questions there, one of which, Minister, is about the definition of “major transaction” as it sits within the constitution of Ōtakāro Ltd. This is defined as being $25 million, or half the value of the entity. When you are dealing with the size of the transactions that Ōtakāro Ltd is going to have to undertake, whether they relate to anchor projects or the residential red zone, these are figures that do need some explanation around why it is that that is the definition that is given, because if you compare this with similar Crown entities that hold similar functions and similar powers, this is a different definition from what has been used. Other entities would use the Companies Act definition of “major transaction”, whereas Ōtakāro Ltd, under the constitution that comes into effect under these clauses of the legislation, institutes a dollar amount. I would just like to hear from the Minister why it is that a different road has been taken with Ōtakāro Ltd from the one taken by other Crown entities such as the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, Crown Asset Management Ltd and Southern Response Earthquake Services. And, of course, the Crown research institutes also operate under the Companies Act definition, as given there. So that is something that we do have some questions around.

The other thing that we do have some questions around in regard to Ōtakāro Ltd, and something we are interested in the answers around, is the section of the constitution that deals with distributions, because this is really where a lot of the business end of the legislation is. At the moment, the distributions—if you read this in concert with the objects of the constitution—allow Ōtakāro Ltd to work, essentially, as a clearing house for the Crown. I would like the Minister to take a call and state whether it is desirable or possible to insert into the objects of the company the regeneration of Christchurch and the putting back of any profits into the regeneration of Christchurch, because, as Ōtakāro Ltd’s constitution currently reads, any money that is generated through Ōtakāro Ltd does not have to be put back specifically for the regeneration of Christchurch or for the benefit of Christchurch. We think this is something that does need to be addressed.

We think that Ōtakāro Ltd can be a very positive vehicle not only for the moving forward of the anchor projects but also for getting some great things done in the residential red zone, but we would just like some more detail on how it is that this company is going to operate. It will, of course, be subject to Public Finance Act stipulations that it is accountable to Parliament and to its select committees, so there is a clear audit path that will be there for the company that is established and has assets transferred to it under clauses 102 to 107 of this legislation. But there are some questions that we do have around how it is going to operate, what it means for Canterbury, and—to use a phrase that my colleague the Hon Annette King likes to use a lot—why this would not be a hypothecated account in terms of Christchurch. Why would this money go back into the consolidated account, and why would this not be money that is there?

Any profits that are generated are there for the benefit and regeneration of Canterbury—that is something that we would like to see. As the constitution currently reads, and as it is enacted under this legislation, there could be a huge profit made through the regeneration of Christchurch, and then that money could go and be spent on housing in Auckland. Housing in Auckland—I am not that one-eyed. I know that it is a vitally crucial thing that this country needs, as are roads in the regions of New Zealand. But I would like to know why it is that this company has not been set up and why the transfer of assets that happen under this legislation has not been set up so that those benefits do flow directly back to Christchurch and sit squarely with Cantabrians. I am looking forward to a contribution from the Minister to answer those queries on that. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I have to say that shortly after the House had risen at the end of last year—it was not the most thrilling news that I had—I had to sit for 3 days on the Local Government and Environment Committee in Christchurch to look at the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. But having been somewhat less than thrilled to get the opportunity, I actually enjoyed the experience in the end because I thought that the submissions that the submitters brought forward were heartfelt, they were well considered, and I thought the committee was well chaired by Scott Wilson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Simpson.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Simpson—sorry, Scott. Scott Simpson—memory blank there. I thought that we did do justice to the submitters, many of whom were giving up, in the end, their weekends, because we continued to hear submissions on the Saturday morning.

The theme that was clear to me, which is expressed in Part 2 of the bill, was that as we transition from the state of affairs post-earthquake back to normality there is a need for a gradual transfer of power back to the city. Of course, after the earthquake, this Parliament, under urgency, passed legislation that, effectively, took control of the aftermath of the earthquake away from Christchurch City and gave very wide regulation-making powers to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to, essentially, take over any function that the Minister thought was necessary to take over at a central government level in order to pursue the recovery after the earthquake. I think, overall, the Minister has exercised those powers sparingly, and although the powers that were granted by Parliament were very wide—in fact, probably too wide—the Minister has been responsible and has not sought to garner too much power to himself.

Having said that, the form of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill that came to the select committee and was submitted upon by submitters was seen by many of the residents of Christchurch—Canterbury, I should say, with not just Christchurch but also Kaiapoi being affected—as being broader than was necessary. “Paternalistic” is probably the wrong word, but the bill did not sufficiently begin to devolve powers back to Christchurch City Council.

The Christchurch City Council is not a small council. It is one of New Zealand’s largest councils. It has got a large staff and a lot of very competent people, and so I was one of those who thought that perhaps the mayor and other submitters had something when they were saying that too much power was being retained by the Minister, as to what would or would not be done by Regenerate Christchurch.

The point was well made at the select committee that Regenerate Christchurch cannot spend the Government’s money. If the Government is making contributions to things, then either those contributions are bound by other deeds that have already been entered into between central government and local authorities or it was unspecified spending by the Government, which, of course, it can control by refusing to spend it. So it was not a matter of who controlled the purse strings, because the Government always does—central government always does—in respect of central government’s money. No one else can force central government to spend central government’s money.

I thought that the proposals that came forward from Mayor Lianne Dalziel and others were reasonable. I had expected that they would be put into the bill by the select committee. I was somewhat surprised to learn that by the time the bill came back to the House some of those amendments had not been made. Having said that, I am pleased that the Minister has seen sense, because I do not blame the select committee for that. I am sure that Government members had at that stage—I am not implying any wrongdoing here—a Minister who was not yet willing to make those changes. The Minister, through consultation with other parties and perhaps with members of his own party, came to the view that it was proper to move further, and Part 2 is where we do that.

The description in the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 159, which includes the alterations to which I have just referred, makes it clearer that the board of Regenerate Christchurch, which is an amalgam of people from central government, Ngāi Tahu, and the city council, now has an enhanced role, and, effectively, the Minister’s roles are truncated by the additional roles that are given to Regenerate Christchurch. I think Parliament can be pleased that it has got to an outcome that parties on all sides of this House can agree is a fair enough compromise. My understanding is that the Christchurch City Council is happier with this than it was with the previous provisions.

I will say one other thing. I think we now do need to learn the lessons from the Christchurch earthquake more broadly in respect of what powers we should take off local authorities and what powers we should leave with them. I think some of the broad regulation-making powers that this Parliament voted for—and I was one of those who did vote for them—were broader than they needed to be. The ministerial powers of intervention in regulation-making powers went further than was necessary.

I know that the Regulations Review Committee was at one stage hearing submissions as to what lessons we could learn for the future—whether there was some form of legislation that could apply in all future national disasters, where there could be some sort of menu from which regulatory powers could be drawn. There were some, including me, who were a bit suspicious that that went too far, and that it was, effectively, saying in advance that we will give carte blanche to Ministers in the future to override a lot of legislation that might not ordinarily need to be overruled and that we should not give those general discretions to override Acts of Parliament if you do not need them. Given that these events are pretty rare, I think there is always a case when you have a national disaster of the scale that we did in Christchurch for Parliament to pay particular attention to it and to pass specific legislation in respect of that event, if it is necessary.

I hope that the benefit of the experience in respect of the Canterbury earthquakes is that next time something like this happens, we know what powers are likely to be needed by a Minister to override normal statute law and to override normal city council powers. We can be more specific as to the powers that we give to the Minister in respect of that post-disaster phase, and also that through this now modified Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill we have got to the right sharing of powers between the Minister and the city.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to speak to my amendment, which relates to clause 79(b)(iii) of the bill. It is the second version that I want to speak to, because the first one has been amended. So those who have only the first version, please look at the second one. It has the last sentence, beginning with the word “Following”, deleted from it, so it is the same, apart from that deletion.

The point about this particular amendment—which, by the way, I have discussed with the Minister and we are in agreement that this amendment should be made—is that it would delete clause 79(b)(iii) of the bill, which contains the words “any part of a loss that ought reasonably to have been insured:”. The reason for that is that when you look at the bill as a whole, you realise that compensation will be payable in respect of an amount fixed by valuation under other parts of the bill for land that is taken compulsorily. So there would be a valuation, and that would be the amount that would be payable. This particular clause is, therefore, redundant. It can have no application. The Minister and I are agreed on that, so I trust the other parties in the Committee will see their way clear also to support the amendment.

The only other comment I want to make is around some of the comments made by Megan Woods about the destination of funds resulting from the sale of land, or other assets, I guess, as a result of procedures under this bill. I have always expected that the Crown would recoup some of its investment, and I am sure that everybody else would think so as well. But the point is this: in deciding how much the Crown will simply keep to recoup some of its investment and how much it will invest in Christchurch through Ōtākaro, it does need to look holistically, especially at the red zone. It is the red zone, really, that I have got in mind when I am thinking about this.

It is very important to not just sell as much land as is reasonably possible and then invest a minimal amount back to ensure that whatever is put in place is done satisfactorily but it is important that it be looked at holistically so that entire communities can be rebuilt, not just houses and roads, or whatever else is needed. More than that, as I said in my speech previously today, it is very important that we think in Christchurch about taking the opportunity to do things that we have never had the opportunity to do before, especially in the red zone, and, in particular, in terms of opportunities for recreation, because I and others who live in Christchurch know that there has always been a deficit especially of some things in those parts of Christchurch because they tended to be the older parts of the city where what you would do in modern subdivisions was simply not done in those days, and therefore it is a really difficult catch-up game to play.

So we must take this opportunity to invest some of the funds resulting from the sale of property in those areas back into the city not only to see that we get good communities back in those areas where it is appropriate to rebuild homes but also so that we can take the opportunity—which we will never get again—to provide recreational opportunities for the whole of Christchurch. I just hope that those are the sorts of considerations that are taken into account. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about that, and Dr Megan Woods has said she is as well. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I endorse the comments that Denis O’Rourke made and, similarly, I would call on the Minister to make a few comments about what Ōtākaro Ltd’s vision is, particularly for the residential red zone, because under Part 2 it is Regenerate Christchurch that can be a proponent for plans in the residential red zone, and only Regenerate Christchurch, but it needs Ōtākaro Ltd’s agreement and consent to submit an outline for the plan process, and it also has a role in providing almost a veto power there. So Ōtākaro Ltd and what its ambitions are will become quite critical. That outline document is really important because the plans, as they are developed, must be done in accordance with those outlines. So we would certainly be interested in what the Minister can say about what Ōtākaro Ltd’s role is to be.

But what I really would like to talk about in this call is clauses 16 to 22L, I think it is, and the development of regeneration plans. The Mayor of Christchurch, Lianne Dalziel, described this bill as the most significant opportunity for the city since the earthquake sequence 5 years ago and as a chance for a real legacy. I would agree with that, and why it is really critical is that in November last year, I think it was, the Press said that about 75 percent of Christchurch people felt that there was not a strong vision to lead the city.

When the city council conducted the Share an Idea consultation back in May 2011, there was a very clear vision that came forward from Christchurch people about having a very green and sustainable city. There were a lot of ideas about slowing down transport and having more active transport, more green spaces, more sustainable buildings, and greater energy conservation, and we have seen a lot of those hopes not carried forward in terms of the work that is being done around the anchor projects. Certainly, there are cycleways being developed by the city council, but that vision—that really colourful and engaging process that the city council ran with Share an Idea—has not flourished to provide the commitment to a sustainable rebuild that the Green Party and many members of the public would have liked to see.

So it is absolutely critical in terms of Regenerate Christchurch, and the process that it uses from here to develop these regeneration plans, that it involves people in a similar way to Share an Idea—that it is transparent, that the engagement is authentic and active, and that Regenerate Christchurch is implementing community wishes—because the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has not always done that. One of the changes that the Green Party wanted, but did not achieve in terms of persuading the Minister, was ensuring that there is a hearing in the public engagement process.

One of the problems with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has been that decisions have been made by faceless officials and there has not been the opportunity for the public to present to those making the decisions, to have their say, and to know that they have been heard and know who is actually going to make the decision. So the bill, in terms of the process for the preparation of regeneration plans, allows a hearing process, but it does not actually commit to that. That is not a requirement, but we do encourage Regenerate Christchurch to highlight the importance of good process in this plan development.

I would also like to record at this opportunity our thanks to officials from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. It would be fair to say that the Green Party has certainly been quite critical of the substantial powers that the authority and the Minister have had under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and the way that those powers have been exercised. But the authority’s officials have been very helpful in the process of discussion with the Minister in developing flow charts to explain the new plan process, the changes that the amendments would make, and the way that process would work.

We recognise that it is quite a difficult time for officials as the organisation winds up. Many have already left. We would be pleased if the Minister in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, would take a call in terms of how he envisages the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet operating, and how big the department’s additional responsibility is under the bill to monitor its implementation. We know that several dozen staff from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority have transitioned over to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and we would like to hear what the Minister envisages the role of Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet being in relation to the implementation of the bill and just how extensive the department’s engagement will be. Obviously, it will be providing advice to Ministers and not necessarily just the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, but it does have a new role with the winding up of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.

In terms of Regenerate Christchurch and the regeneration plans, Lyttelton, for example, was one of the areas where the community board led a process for developing a master plan for the Lyttelton community that did engage the people of Lyttelton, and it was not always about big projects. There have been changes made with the new square in Lyttelton, the process around the recreation centre, and a lot of what will happen in terms of public spaces. The community board and the city council ran that process. They involved the community, and the community has now seen some of their ideas actually taking shape, particularly with the new square—a really good place for people to gather for public events, for people to meet, and for building community networks.

Regenerate Christchurch needs to have that same commitment to good engagement so that the people’s wishes are what this next phase is about, if we are to fulfil the hopes that many people have in terms of the way they made submissions, and fulfil the hopes that the city council has and that the mayor has, in terms of her comments about it being the chance for a real legacy. It was, I think, the mayor who described regeneration as not what the Government does to the city but what the city does itself. That is what this bill, with the regeneration plan process, provides for. It does allow people to really influence what happens in the central city and in areas like New Brighton where regeneration plans will be prepared, and in that critical residential red zone, where the Crown has spent tens of millions of dollars purchasing properties and where certainly, as Denis O’Rourke noted, the Crown will be wanting a return. But it is an opportunity to be visionary, as Christchurch has been in the past, with the protection of Hagley Park as that core green space in the heart of the city, and with the protection of areas of the Port Hills, which provide a major backdrop to the city—an area for recreation and an area now for tourism with facilities like the gondola and with the proposals for the big, new mountain bike park.

We need to do something visionary with this residential red zone and its future. There were submissions on the bill that highlighted the need for environmental well-being to be at the heart of the regeneration process. We are pleased that that is now in Part 1, but it also needs to be at the heart of decisions around the residential red zone. There is a major flooding hazard issue in Christchurch. The residential red zone lands can be used as a buffer for the Avon - Ōtākaro River. We can add to the areas that are already protected in Travis Swamp, which provide a buffer against flooding as well as a major area for recreation and a heart for biodiversity in the city.

There have been many public ideas for what should happen with the residential red zone, such as the Avon-Ōtākaro Park proposal, with the city to the sea network of cycleways, community gardens, urban parks, and sculpture parks. If Ōtākaro Ltd is to realise those sorts of ambitions that Christchurch folk have wanted for this area, which is now largely devoid of houses, we need a good public consultation process. We need Regenerate Christchurch to commit to authentic and genuine community engagement, and we would be very interested in the Minister’s comments on how he sees Ōtākaro Ltd carrying out its responsibilities under the bill. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I am speaking to Part 2 of this bill. During the debate on Part 1 we on this side of the Chamber showed our delight at the willingness of the Government to work with Opposition parties to ensure that there was more consideration taken of the community in this next phase of the rebuild of Christchurch, and Part 2 operationalises that.

I just wanted to take you through a couple of the levels of proposed workings with the community where things will have to be either approved or consulted on. I think the Government has actually done quite a good job, and that is when someone is looking to revoke or amend or propose a new part of a plan within this piece of legislation. There are a number of groups that a proponent must seek the views of. An example of that is new clause 22B in Part 2, added by Supplementary Order Paper 159, where someone who is looking to—I think in this instance—amend part of a plan for the Christchurch district they have to seek the views of the Christchurch City Council, Canterbury Regional Council, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Regenerate Christchurch, and Ōtākaro Ltd and the chief executive. So in that respect I think it is good that that level of consultation and the views are being sought for proposals that are being put to either amend, revoke, or put forward a new plan.

But when we are looking for the detail of the level of consultation that Opposition parties wanted with community groups—we wanted to make sure that that was in there, and I think, again, that is good work by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the likes of Megan Woods in our party to make sure that there will be some grassroots consultation. I think you can see an example of that in new clause 30H of Part 2, for where, in this instance, a part of a plan is looking at being revoked. In clause 30H(4) it says “Regenerate Christchurch must seek the views of the following on any material amendment it proposes to make to the proposed revocation: (a) each party specified in section 30B(1):”, which are the parties that I spoke of before—those five entities that I named earlier—and, in subclause (4)(b), it says “any other party that Regenerate Christchurch thinks appropriate.” I think that is where, in this piece of legislation, we will have the opportunity, hopefully, for public submissions.

One of the questions that we might pose to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, is what those kinds of entities might be. Would it be similar to a select committee process? Would you put the word out and say “Come one, come all.”, or would it just be specifically targeted groups in specific areas that those parties or Regenerate Christchurch might look at having to consult with? Because in subclause (4)(b), as it stands, “any other party that Regenerate Christchurch thinks appropriate” could be taken a couple of ways. I think if it is in the spirit of the piece of legislation that we have amended before us, that would probably be a rather wide range of consultation within the community, so that you would get a broad range of views. But if you were to take quite a miserly view of clause 30H(4)(b), then Regenerate Christchurch could say: “Well, we think only these people are the people whom we should consult around this particular amendment, and we will just speak to those people.”

I am not sure whether or not that would speak in particular to the kind of spirit that we have got around the House for input from the public to some of the changes that may happen through this next phase of this piece of legislation. It would be interesting to hear just how wide you might cast a net when you are looking at “any other party that Regenerate Christchurch thinks appropriate.”

Just one little thing before I end my contribution on Part 2, and again it is on Megan Woods’ amendment, which looks in Part 2 to amend the bill around Hagley Park—which, as a former Cantabrian, I think is great. It is a jewel in the crown of Christchurch. I think it is something that most Cantabrians and most New Zealanders who know Christchurch well want to make sure is protected, and as it currently stands in the bill it is not, so that is why Dr Megan Woods has seen fit to make sure that there is explicit protection within this piece of legislation for the land that is known as Hagley Park. Thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I will just speak to some of the issues that have been raised by speakers on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill this afternoon.

Firstly, Dr Woods was interested in the prospect of the profits that might come out of Ōtākaro Ltd being reinvested into Christchurch City. I would have to say that although Ōtākaro Ltd is set up as a commercial entity, the prospect of there being significant profit is not that great. If you think about the projects that it is going to have to work through on behalf of both the Government and the city, some of those as anchor projects may have a return on them, but in many ways the effort here will be to make sure that there is a commercial structure that is there for delivery and that there is as much reduction of ongoing costs to the end owner as possible. So that is a question that I think will come more into vogue when we see what the first year’s operations look like, but I would be very surprised if it is able to at any near point return significant profit. I am sure that Ōtākaro’s chairman, if he is listening to this, would be upset to hear that, knowing that he has a desire that we do get the best results by having the best commercial arrangements.

Denis O’Rourke was keen to suggest that as much of the red zone as possible should go into sporting facilities with there still being some possibility of a return to the Crown at some point. I think that is everybody’s desire, and I think, rather than prescribe it through this bill, that the arrangements that we have got for regeneration plans will allow that to develop over time.

There are a couple of things that I think are important. Firstly, those red zones have significant underground infrastructure running through them. If all of that were to be abandoned any time soon, it would put a huge cost on the Christchurch City Council. Over a period of years some re-routeing of that infrastructure network might be possible, so one of the first considerations—and Waimakariri has already done this, through the red zone out there—is to work out what needs to stay in place, what can be removed, and what can be replaced in a schedule over time. I know that the council has been working on this for quite a time, and that will be one of the first considerations there, because otherwise you could end up, through an unintended consequence, putting a huge burden on to ratepayers for, frankly, infrastructure that they never, ever see.

I would hope that some of the great ideas that people have floated at the moment for that area do eventuate. I think someone earlier said it was a one-off opportunity for Christchurch and will not be repeated, and so I am confident that those people who will be putting suggestions forward to Regenerate Christchurch, and Regenerate Christchurch itself, will want some kind of a process that allows people to put input into those plans, and I am confident that a lot of those suggestions are likely to be of a sporting nature.

There was a question from Eugenie Sage about Ōtākaro Ltd’s vision for the red zone. I think, really, this is much the same answer. Although Ōtākaro will represent the Government, as owner of the red zone, it will still be Regenerate Christchurch that puts forward any plans for its future use. Just thinking back to the diagrams that were used to say who does what, the prime decider or promoter of use in the red zone—in fact, the only promoter of plans for the red zone—will, in fact, be Regenerate Christchurch. Ōtākaro simply wants to be able to ensure that where there is a commercial opportunity, it can put that forward. If it fits, it fits; if it does not, it will not.

Eugenie Sage also mentioned the need for flood protection and other such things to be put in place around the river. Much of that work is being done by the Christchurch City Council at the moment, where it is trying to work out what is required. I think we will all have different ideas about that. I, for example, think that it would be great if the Bexley area now abandoned did return to being the wetlands swamp that it once was—a wildlife sanctuary, etc. Although I would love to be able to prescribe that, I think it is important that the city itself makes that determination and that decision. I am sure that those sorts of things will come through in the process that Regenerate Christchurch will run.

There was a question, also, about the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The role is essentially to finish and coordinate the Crown’s input into the Christchurch district plan. At the moment the Christchurch City Council, using the former legislation, has got a district plan process going on under the chairmanship of the Hon John Hansen and his group. That is a big effort and it was supported by a unit in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—that unit will now transfer to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—largely of a secretarial nature. Then there is the Crown’s representation on the horizontal infrastructure programme known as the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team. So you have two things there.

The Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team is actually an alliance of all of their contractors. “HIGG” is the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group, which is the Christchurch City Council, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, and the New Zealand Transport Agency working as, effectively, the clients and the payers, in this case. That work has to continue as the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team programme runs out towards the end of this year. They will also need to start monitoring the work that is being done in regeneration to make sure that the structures that we will put in place through this bill are working, and to provide advice in the right place on that.

Then there will be a lesser focus, I suppose, on providing advice about the lessons learnt out of this whole recent sequence. It was very interesting for me to be in Fiji last week, looking at the work that the New Zealand Defence Force is doing in Vanua Bailavu, an island off to the east of the main island in Fiji, and then talking to the Minister inside Fiji’s Government who is coordinating all of its recovery efforts from Cyclone Winston. He was able to say: “Look, we’ve borrowed this from the Canterbury earthquakes. This is the model that we’re going to use.” They are not using it entirely, obviously, but much of that structure is what is guiding them at the present time. So it is very interesting in that regard. So getting a group inside the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to look at and to capture all of the legacy that comes out of this—good and bad—will be, I think, an important thing.

The other point is that Regenerate Christchurch is a body that starts out with a very low budget, and so it will not have huge capacity to engage in lengthy policy exercises to the same extent that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet may be able to do. So I would expect that it will provide strong policy advice as required, almost under contract to Regenerate Christchurch, to supplement some of the capacity that that organisation may have. It also recognises that Regenerate Christchurch does not need to have a standing army for everything because most of what it does will be diverse and different.

Kris Faafoi asked a question about the consultation process that Regenerate Christchurch may use. This has come up in our discussions, cross-party, over the past few weeks. My recollection is that we started to talk about the sorts of things that Regenerate Christchurch may do. Some will be big plans; some will be very small plans, so to prescribe a consultation method, we felt, would be too restrictive, but the expectation, certainly, and, I suppose, the oversight, will be on it to have consultation at the right level for the right plan. You know, that is not trying to shirk away from it. It is just that, as we discussed in our deliberations, some things are quite small and it may be smart just to have a 2-week exercise on that. Others will be larger and will require some months or so to make sure that we get all the information. So there is no intention there to, you know, remove the requirement or lessen the requirement for consultation; it is simply allowing it to craft it for purpose.

Finally, can I indicate that the Government is going to support the amendment moved by Dr Woods. One of the interesting things about a bill like this, when you go through this process, is that there are things that are not always picked up. I do not think anyone has any desire to see roads through Hagley Park or any other sort of structure that may further encroach on the park, other than some of the excellent sporting facilities that could be put on the park. But let me just say that we are supporting it.

I also want to indicate that we are supporting the amendment moved by Denis O’Rourke. It makes it very clear that where there is a compulsory acquisition, then there is no issue about what is insured and not insured. It is simply that you go through a normal valuation process and then you reach agreement about the payment, and then—failing that—there would be the process that gets us to an agreed position, but the insurance status of the structures or other, I suppose, buildings is irrelevant in that discussion.

Those two amendments will, I think, make the bill better and, certainly, are providing indications in the bill that are in line with all of the parties’ work. I hope that those few comments answer the questions that have been posed this afternoon. I would say that the good thing about a bill that is widely supported like this is that if we do find, down the track, that there is something that we have all forgotten, then I think we will be in a better position to go and sort it out—not that any of us like retrospective legislation.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Can I thank Minister Gerry Brownlee for his very full answers to those questions. I think we are meeting new heights today, in a piece of legislation like this. It has not been my experience that I have seen many Ministers who are prepared to get up and, point by point, go through and give full explanations to very worthwhile questions, so I thank him for that.

I am gratified for his support for the amendment from Megan Woods in respect of Hagley Park, but I do hope that he will give great consideration to the odd light that may go in around the old cricket pitch there. I recall naysayers—not pointing at the Minister, because I know he was in support of it—about 120 of them, I think, who were very vocal in their opposition to the wonderful new facility that we have. You would have to have a high level of cynicism not to say that that is a world-class facility that does not impinge—in fact, it enhances—the quality of life of folks around it, given the thousands of people who turned up to watch the Black Caps time and time again. But I note, of course, that that particular facility does need lights and does need a few extra bits and pieces.

I suppose that in retrospect we could look back and say to those naysayers that maybe they should have just held their breath a little and had a look it, because it is very, very easy, of course, to be negative and to be opposed to everything that people want to put up, in terms of enhancing our environment. If you look at Hagley Park, especially, with it having had a history of sporting facilities there, many of us shook our heads at the time and thought: “What is there to object to?”.

I am also gratified at the Minister’s comments around flexible consultation, and I take him at his word. I think it is logical to suggest that consultation be tailor-made and fit for purpose, depending on the scale and size of a particular project or proposal. I have got to say that the people of Canterbury will, I believe, endorse that. They will endorse it also because it is led by local leadership. No disrespect to our fine Public Service, but I think there has been a feeling for some years that the level of direct input that the so-called faceless bureaucrat, to use the cliché, has had in Christchurch—those folks do a job, they do their job based on what their political masters tell them, and that is as it should be. But it is only the political masters, ultimately, who can be held accountable—all those local people or politicians in leadership who can be held accountable for the decisions that are made. I think it has been a point made by many in Greater Christchurch and Canterbury that we have had too many bureaucrats parachuted in, saying “Tut, tut, tut.”—or, certainly, that has been the perception—and that many decisions have been made without due consultation.

I greet the Minister’s comments positively because I think there has now been a realisation that to consult does not mean you are ever going to get consensus. Of course you will never get that, and those who feel that if you are somehow forced to consult, you will never get anywhere because you have to gain total consensus—that is a false assumption. You will never gain consensus, but with quality consultation, there will be, I think, quality input. People, even if they disagree with the decision at the end—I think Cantabrians and most people of common sense would say: “Well, we had a fair shake. We were allowed to have a go and we put our views forward. We didn’t win at the end of the day. However, you know, we’ll get in behind and we’ll get on with it.” I think that where, in the last 5 years, there has been a history of people who have been less than supportive, it was based, in fact, not on a wish to oppose for opposition’s sake, but on a concern that their voices were not heard, or, if they were, that they were just completely disregarded, or, if they were not, that the decision had been preordained. Rightly or wrongly, that was the perception of many in the communities.

I think that with this bill—where the rubber hits the road, of course, is clause 16 onwards, under “Development and amendment of Plans relating to greater Christchurch”. I believe you will see high-quality proposals generated from grassroots level, with people who have standing and leadership positions through this bill who will take account of that. But, as I say, that does not mean everybody is going to get everything that they want, and I think people in Christchurch know and acknowledge that. What they want to know—and I think I said in a speech I made when the House sat directly after the major earthquakes that local people generally are the experts in their own environment and their own communities. They know where resources have to be, they know where the needs are, and they can provide, in my view, the highest-possible quality input. But they need credibility, integrity, and confidence around the process.

I think this bill, given that it does have support across the parties, given the spirit in which we are dealing today—it is not often members will put up amendments and have them immediately reviewed and accepted by a Minister—and given that the Minister is prepared to provide reassurance as we go through this process, will provide, I think in large part, very high-quality outcomes.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I just want to make a brief contribution on the second part of this bill, and really, to refer my comments back, as I said in my previous contribution, to the area of New Brighton and the importance that this bill has in supporting the rebuilding of the business infrastructure in the area.

There have been stacks and stacks of plans to regenerate the New Brighton area, and one of the things that I have been really mindful of in my community is to say that I have always felt that the partner that has been missing in any opportunity to rebuild the area has been central government. So this legislation actually brings to the table all of those parties that actually will now be able to fulfil some dreams for the people of New Brighton. It brings together the local government in relation to the Christchurch City Council, it brings on board the regional government, it brings on board Ngāi Tahu, and also central government and the key stakeholders behind what will be, we hope, a significant opportunity for our community to rebuild its business, retail, and commercial heart. In order for our eastern suburbs to develop and grow, we need to return and restore our commercial and business interest, particularly to the New Brighton area.

I, for one, am very pleased that this opportunity has come to us to pass, but I do also have a note of caution to add in there, which is that there is a high level of expectation in the community that this bill will deliver what the community expects. I know that, as my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said, we do not necessarily want the world. We know that our expectations do need to be tempered with a dose of reality, but it has been too good an opportunity for our community to pass up and not make some contribution to the discussion. So I, for one, am pleased that we are going to be able to voice our hopes and desires for our New Brighton community, and that this bill will allow for those dreams to be realised.

There is a significant amount of infrastructure that needs to go in place to support that development, and I know that there is a great deal of work that is happening in the eastern suburbs at the moment. I want to ensure that what happens post the transition from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to Regenerate Christchurch is actually as smooth as it can be because we in the eastern suburbs still have significant amounts of horizontal infrastructure yet to be completed. It has been commissioned at this stage, and I would hope that the transition from one entity to the next does not diminish the work that is in place at the moment, but actually enhances it. We have got some concerns about the speed at which the horizontal infrastructure is going into place in Christchurch East, in particular, and I would hope that this legislation facilitates that not only to happen speedily but to happen well.

I did make a note in my previous contribution about the acquisition of land and how important that may be in the plans that we have for the New Brighton area, particularly around the redevelopment of the business area—the New Brighton mall and the reorientation of the mall to take most advantage, I guess, of diminishing the effect of the easterly wind on the people who visit our particularly beautiful part of Christchurch.

I guess the only thing I do need to add to this is what may happen to the disposal of the land, particularly the residential red zone. I have noted in a previous contribution that there is a significant amount of emotion attached to that land by the people who have had to leave it and not by their own choice. So I would hope that in the discussions about what happens to that land, full consideration is given to the wishes of the people who used to own that land and that property, and that they will be able to be a part of a very considered approach to not only what happens with the disposal but what happens with the redevelopment of that land. I agree with Denis O’Rourke that there is no doubt that not only will that land be developed for great recreational use but there will be other facilities and amenities that will go into the residential red zone.

So I advise a bit of caution, and I ask people to take full cognisance of the importance that those parcels of land had for the families that lived there prior to their having to leave when the area was red-zoned. On that note, thank you, and I conclude my contribution.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I just want to make a brief contribution on Part 2. Part 2, obviously, contains really the guts of the piece of legislation. It constitutes all of the respective bodies, Regenerate Christchurch and Ōtākaro Ltd, and really it follows very standard and sound practice, the way that the entities have been set up.

But I do want to just propose a pronunciation lesson on the name Ōtākaro Ltd. I have heard “O-to-karo” and “O-te-karo”, and other different variations, but if we are going to establish these entities, let us make sure we pronounce the names properly. So I would encourage this Committee—and we have got helpful guidance because we have got macrons over the “Ō” and over the “ā”. So let us say it is Ōtākaro Ltd, and people can just process that and maybe repeat it a few times—“Ō-tā-karo”. It is a beautiful name. Obviously, it is a name for the Avon, and you do see it all over beautiful Ōtautahi as we drive around our beautiful city.

But just talking about Ōtākaro Ltd, you know, I do note the composition of the board and I do acknowledge the trust that the Minister has placed in some outstanding and very experienced company directors and chair governors—in particular, Ross Butler, who is the chair. We will not hold it against Mr Butler that he lives in Nelson, but we know that he obviously has a very vast corporate governance experience and he chairs a number of significant companies across a wide range of sectors, including Rangitāne Holdings Ltd. For those of you who do not know, Rangitāne is a relative of one of the great South Island tribes centred up there in the Wairau region from the Kurahaupō waka. So I am pleased to see that Mr Butler has experience of working with the Māori economy. He has experience working with Māori organisations. I believe that if he can handle the politics of a Māori organisation, he can pretty much handle anything—in particular, his role as the chair of Ōtākaro Ltd.

I do hope that the company that is charged with project managing and delivering on these key anchor projects is well capitalised to actually fulfil its role. We know that the Minister mentioned that he wants it to be a lean, mean, commercial entity, and we certainly hope that. But we also hope that it has the actual resourcing to do its job properly and expeditiously.

I know that all members here who are from Canterbury will lament the big doughnut that has emerged in the Christchurch central business district area. You know, a lot of the development now has gone out to Addington way or out to Harewood way, and there is still a lot to be done for the completion of these anchor projects. So we certainly hope that that doughnut will be no more, and that it will be completed within a 5-year time frame in order to really step up its role to project manage some very important anchor projects.

One other point I would like to make in terms of the disposition of land responsibilities, which I think fall on Ōtākaro Ltd, is to mention the piece of land Te Ihutai, and obviously my relation over on the other side Tūtehounuku Korako will be well familiar with Te Ihutai. I think back to my uncle—we all call him uncle, Uncle Rick Tau—Rākihia Tau who was the upoko for Ngāi Tūahuriri, and I know that in respect of Te Ihutai, which is a piece of land in the estuary, there is some unfinished business around giving recognition or the return of Te Ihutai. Now there is obviously the devolution of powers from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to Regenerate Christchurch and Ōtākoro Ltd, I would hope that consideration would be had to the issues around Te Ihutai and perhaps the fact that that land is no longer available or is pretty much unsuitable for its original purpose, which was a mahinga kai—a significant mahinga kai—for the hau kāinga, Ngāi Tūahuriri, back in the day.

I would just appeal to the Minister, through whatever influence he may have through the new bodies that we are establishing, that some full consideration be given to the issue around Te Ihutai and that some compensation or recognition, whether it be by a land swap or some other creative arrangements, could be entered into with the owners of Te Ihutai, with the responsibilities that Ōtākaro Ltd and Regenerate Christchurch will now have in their responsibilities as custodians and as developers of the land that is available in the Christchurch area. Kia ora tātou.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I want to speak specifically to my amendments, which address clauses 34 and 42, but before I do I just want to pick up where my colleague Rino Tirikatene left off with his pronunciation lesson on Ōtākaro. Kelvin Davis, my Ngāpuhi colleague sitting next to me, tells me that the translation is either “dodging weeds” or “a place where people laid”—

Kelvin Davis: Played.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: Sorry—“played”. So we are hoping very much that it is the latter, and not a place where people are dodging weeds. But that could just be, as Rino would say, Ngāpuhi business going on there. Thank you very much for that service, I say to the member beside me, Kelvin Davis.

If we are going to talk about the amendments that I am putting forward, the amendments to clauses 34 and 42—and I am grateful to all the other parties in this Committee supporting these amendments because I think they are important to the people of Christchurch. It is not so much that we think there is an imminent threat of anyone doing anything heinous to Hagley Park, that jewel in the centre of our crown, but it is really about our responsibility as Cantabrians to protect that treasure. Generations of people before us have done it, and it is our responsibility in this generation to continue that protection and ensure that that place—that magical place in the centre of our city—endures and remains there.

In order to do this, there are a number of instruments that are used in this legislation, and what my amendments do ensure that the management plan of Hagley Park is the primary instrument and that it is not overridden by anything else that might be in this legislation. Then we have amendments that ensure that where there are any inconsistencies between a regeneration plan and the park’s management plan, it is the park’s management plan that prevails. So what that means is that if anyone wants to put up any kind of change of use for Hagley Park, they will have to go through a process that is business as usual—the same process they would have had to go through in 2010 in order to have a changed use for Hagley Park.

As we are drawing to the close of this stage, I would like to reflect on subpart 1 in Part 2, which is clauses 12 to 23, and really pay honour to the people who made submissions and who really were the voices behind the charge for a locally led recovery in Christchurch. One of the things that as a Canterbury member of Parliament you could not not hear was that the time was right for Canterbury people to take charge of their own destiny and that the time was right for us to have a locally led recovery. This needed to be balanced with the Crown’s need to endure within our region, within our city, and within its province and its obligations and its responsibility to our regeneration. I think that the changes that we have made get this balance better, and we can have that and there will be some satisfaction that locals can take charge of their destiny as well.

But also, in the later stages of this Committee stage debate, I want to pay tribute to all the Christchurch and Canterbury-based members of Parliament across this House from various parties. I would also like to note that, by a rough count, there are probably eight or nine of us in this Chamber today debating this legislation as Canterbury members of Parliament who were not here when the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation was enacted in 2011. I think that speaks to a number of jobs that some of our colleagues have gone on to do, with one, of course, being to play an important part of this legislation as the Mayor of Christchurch—Mayor Lianne Dalziel. We also have a number of colleagues from all parties who worked tirelessly in the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 and who have since retired, and I would like to honour the contribution that they have made to our city and our province over the last 5 years.

I think that what we have set up in this legislation—particularly, the grunt of it lies here in Part 2 in terms of how we propose regeneration plans, how it is that we get the anchor projects moving, and how it is that we now grasp that thorny issue of the residential red zone and capture some of the creativity and the innovation that we have seen flowing through our city in the last 5 years. That lies in this legislation. It is our responsibility as Cantabrians and it is our responsibility as Parliamentarians to make sure this works. Labour is happy to commend this legislation to the Committee.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Megan Woods to clauses 34 and 42 be agreed to:

insert in clause 34(1)(e)(iv) “(with the exception of the Hagley Park Management Plan)” after “Reserves Act 1977”;

insert in clause 34(2)(b) “specified in subsection (1)” after “an instrument”;

insert in clause 34(3) “specified in subsection (1)” after “an instrument”;

add after clause 34(4) the following subclause:

(5) The Hagley Park Management Plan prevails where there is any inconsistency between it and a Regeneration Plan.

insert in clause 42(2)(d)(iv) “(with the exception of the Hagley Park Management Plan)” after “Reserves Act 1977”; and

insert in clause 42(3)(a) “(but not changes or variations to the Hagley Park Management Plan under the Reserves Act 1977)” after “Wildlife Act 1953”.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Denis O’Rourke to clause 79 be agreed to:

delete clause 79(b)(iii).

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

New schedule 2A

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to insert new schedule 2A be agreed to.

New schedule 2A agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 5

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to schedule 5 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 6

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to schedule 6 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: I move, That the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider this bill. I am pleased to read the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill a first time. Before explaining this bill in more depth, I want to first acknowledge the stakeholders who have been involved in developing this bill and thank them for their valuable input. Getting this bill into Parliament has taken some time, as officials have worked with the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority to develop new provisions that will work for the industry and futureproof a piece of legislation that has worked well for the horticulture-based industries over many years.

Nine horticulture-based export industries operate under the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987. The combined value of their exports was close to $300 million in the year to 30 June 2015. This has risen from $50 million in the year to June 1988, the first 12 months after the passing of the Act in 1987. The export framework provided by the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987, more commonly known as the HEA Act, is highly valued by the industries operating under it. The rising export values from these industries demonstrates the Act’s effectiveness as a tool for industry coordination in export markets. For example, over the last 10 years avocado exports have increased almost fourfold, from $28.9 million in 2005 to $115.4 million in 2015. Similarly, summer fruit exports have increased from $15.8 million to $58.3 million over the same period.

Both these commodities are exported under the Act’s framework. To remain internationally competitive, New Zealand’s horticulture-based industries require an export framework that enables growers and exporters to deliver the produce most valued by diverse consumer groups in different markets while minimising compliance costs. This bill seeks to fine-tune the Act to better achieve this.

The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act is an enabling framework that allows industries to choose whether or not their product will be exported under the Act. If an industry chooses to operate within this export framework, it first establishes a product group representing both growers and exporters. The product group then applies for an export order and develops an export marketing strategy that establishes export requirements such as product size, quality standards, and chemical residue limits.

The Horticulture Export Authority export framework licenses exports and requires that exported produce complies with industry-developed standards. Enforceable export requirements enable businesses to effectively brand and market their produce. Horticulture commodities are experienced goods and possess unobservable characteristics that are valued by customers, such as taste. Without branding, it can be difficult for consumers to tell the difference between high-quality and low-quality products prior to consumption. New Zealand horticulture exporters pride themselves on being able to provide high-quality horticultural commodities in the global market and attracting premium prices for their products.

What are the changes to the Act, and why are we doing this? The bill does not substantially alter the current Act’s framework; rather, it provides more flexibility for industries to develop their export marketing strategies and provides additional clarity around administrative processes. One of the key proposals in this bill is to allow industry groups made up of growers and exporters to develop their export marketing strategies with up to five tiers of export licences to target high-value markets and reduce costs for exporting to low-value markets. This will give industries greater flexibility in designing their export marketing strategies.

Businesses that export to higher-value markets will have to meet more stringent requirements and meet the costs of doing so, whereas lower-value markets will have less stringent requirements and therefore lower compliance costs. Each tier will have a different licence fee to reflect the different costs to the regulator, the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority, in relation to different markets.

The bill also sets the requirements for industries to enter or exit from the Act’s framework. The Act is currently silent on how to determine the support, and that can generate uncertainty and impose unnecessary costs on an industry seeking to enter or exit from the framework. The Act currently permits regulations to be made for the authority to collect fees and/or levies from growers and exporters. The authority works with exporters and industry groups that represent growers and exporters, and the authority does not work directly with growers. It is therefore not practicable or efficient for the authority to collect fees or levies directly from growers.

To rectify this funding gap, the bill provides powers for the authority to collect fees or levies from the industry groups, and for the industry groups to collect fees or levies from growers and exporters. The industry groups also have a role in developing and implementing their industry’s export marketing strategy, and the bill provides new fees and levy provisions for growers and exporters to fund their industry groups.

The bill also updates the penalties for offences under the Act. The penalties were last set in 1987 and are no longer considered adequate when inflation, the growth in the value of commodities exported, and the costs of investigations are taken into account. The penalty for exporting without a licence—the main offence—will rise from $10,000 to $50,000, bringing the Act into alignment with the Kiwifruit Industry Restructuring Act 1999. This is the first substantive review of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act since it was first enacted in 1987.

The global market for horticultural products has moved on in the last 30 years, and the supply chain has become much more innovative and complex. This updating of the Act is essential to catch up on the changes since 1987 and to futureproof the export framework for these industries to be global leaders in the export marketing of horticultural commodities.

I remain interested in stakeholder views on whether we have got the changes right, and I encourage those with an interest in this area to contribute to the select committee process that will now follow. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I rise as the first speaker in Labour to indicate to the Government that we will support the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill to select committee, but we will, as always, scrutinise it very, very carefully. We in Labour can be very proud of this piece of legislation, which has served a number of sectors in the horticultural area so well since 1987—going back a wee way. That was when Labour was in Government and it saw the wisdom of showing some leadership and coordination in a sector where a lot of small growers have struggled at times to actually make a profit, let alone get out and reach into the real world.

I pick up a horticultural magazine—the latest NZ Grower—and here is a quote: “The nightmare situation for any grower or exporter is for a perishable shipment to be held up at the border of a foreign country.” That is just one of the risks that exporters of horticultural products from New Zealand face when they go out into the big wide world. Getting payment for their product, making sure that no low-grade exporter is going to come in and undercut them—these are the kinds of challenges that exporters of primary production from this country face as they try to generate export dollars for this country.

What Labour did in its wisdom in 1987 was develop a piece of legislation that said that if a group of growers were to come together and agree on a strategy as to how they would act, how they would operate, and how they would coordinate their efforts into a particular market, then Government would endorse that plan, bring some disciplines to that plan, and enable the product group to effectively tax its own growers. Parliament does not offer to anyone the right of taxation lightly. I know colleagues—and I go a way back—and I refer to my former colleague the Hon Jim Sutton who was in Government at the time who, I think, was probably part of the formation of this legislation. He would always remind Parliament that the right of taxation—it is actually given to Fish and Game New Zealand, and probably should be looked at very closely, but anyway—is not offered lightly to anyone in this country, but it is through this New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act.

It has been a while since 1987. There are probably a few people in this House who might have still been at primary school, or actually might not have been born—I look over at the other side of the House—so it is indeed time for a review of the Act. This has been going on for some time so we welcome it back into this House—actually, the Government does not have much else going on so it is good that we have got at least a worthwhile piece of legislation. As the Minister said, it does a lot of tidy-up operational issues, but the reason that we need an Act like this—and indeed, in my view, need more Acts of Parliament—is that it allows coordination across the primary sector. In fact, one for the meat industry would be an excellent idea if the Government had the courage to show some leadership in that area, but again it fails to do that.

We go back to the wisdom of a Labour Government in putting this legislation in place. The fact that the current National Government is reviewing it, I welcome that, if not applaud it. It is a very smart piece of legislation. We, effectively, have an organisation—the Horticulture Export Authority—costing $227,000 a year, which in export terms is not a lot in order to protect, assist, and discipline a sector that creates $300 million of revenue for this country. That is a pretty smart investment by anyone’s measure.

At the moment, the authority covers nine product groups. These are nine different product groups—actually, I cannot list them all off and I have got to be very careful because I might miss some out—exporting from New Zealand in a coordinated, disciplined way that enables each and every one of them to get more benefit than they would if they were doing it themselves. I think that is clearly proven time and time again. In fact, the next step up from the Horticulture Export Authority kind of discipline would be a Zespri model. If anyone was to have a look at that—having been though Psa and its challenges—this year Zespri announced almost record exports and record profits for its growers, proving once again that coordination, discipline, and cooperation deliver more for primary producers in this country than an all-out battle through open competition, as we see in the meat industry and as we see in wool where the sectors are failing.

There are 54 exporters covered by this piece of legislation, and maybe over time more might come in. This bill will tidy up some of the provisions around them working under the Act. As the Minister said, there will be—and I think they are needed—higher fines, so that anyone who breaks the rules will have a far higher penalty imposed upon them. This is because, in fact, the reputation of anyone exporting from this country is often based on the lowest common denominator. Because it is “New Zealand Inc.” and we are so small in the international arena of food production, in fact, any food safety scare or any impact on our reputation affects every exporter. The people who use this Act understand that full well and so they have come to Government and asked whether they can have this tidied up to make sure that what they are doing is fit for purpose in today’s modern world.

The amendment bill does not make any major changes to the legislation. It enables exporters to develop different market strategies for different areas and different groups. I welcome that. It also sets out in the explanatory note “how the product group must demonstrate the required level of support among producers and exporters of the product.” There has from time to time been, firstly, a basic requirement that the groups must come to the Minister with a clear mandate from the groups that says that “the vast majority of our exporters agree with this and therefore can you assist us with a strategy, endorsed through legislation, and we will take a levy for that.”

There has been debate from time to time. Unfortunately, in any democracy although people are offered the opportunity to vote many do not take up that opportunity. Indeed, a number of exporters have different scales and different sizes, and one or two exporters may, in fact, cover 40 or 50 percent of the export of the crop, but the votes are usually based on individuals, not necessarily on the volume of the export here. What the bill does is it clarifies for the Minister the knowledge that actually there is a clear mandate from these exporters. Neither Government—Labour or National—would want to impose an unnecessary or Draconian penalty or imposition on anyone who has an innovative idea to export a product from New Zealand. But if, in doing so as an individual, they were to potentially undermine a strategy of a group of growers, then I think—and Parliament probably thinks, and we will have a look at it through the select committee—that, on balance, we support the greater number of exporters.

So it will from time to time mean that individual exporters with a bright idea might just have to look again and might perhaps have to work with a group when they might not otherwise have done so. That is smart discipline. It is not imposing, as I say, Draconian regulation. I hope that the bill, as we deal with it at select committee and bring it back to the House, will have—I guess we will tinker with it and improve it in a way that does promote innovation in exporting but does not allow the undermining that we see in the meat industry and that we see in the wool industry, where people just go out and bid one another down in an attempt to win over a customer in a foreign country. We want coordination. We have to understand and be reminded that across the world most primary producers are either peasants—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted, and I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koe, e Te Whare, tēnā koutou te whānau o Te Pāremata, kia ora mai tātou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to the House, to you, the family of Parliament, and to us all; cheers.]

Members, when we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. The Hon Damien O’Connor was speaking and had the call, and he has 25 seconds remaining to speak, should he wish to avail himself of the privilege.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will take his 25 seconds for him. What a pleasure it is to get up and follow a very positive Minister, the Hon Nikki Kaye, and a very positive contribution, interestingly, from the primary production spokesperson for the Labour Party, Damien O’Connor, on a bill that will make a difference to some small but very good players on the world stage—on a very big world stage.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act to provide more flexibility and clarity around processes and export strategies. It currently enables nine different horticultural-based industries to operate under the Act—more can join if they so wish. The changes are necessary to bring the Act into line with legislation that governs the industry in its broader sense, such as the Kiwifruit Industry Restructuring Act 1999 and a number of others. This bill allows for regulation, providing the sectors the ability to set levies in accordance with the Commodity Levies Act 1990—that Act, of course, enables a number of other primarily agricultural organisations to set levies, and they do, of course. The principal organisations, I guess, are Beef and Lamb New Zealand and Dairy New Zealand, who utilise such levies and have contributed massively to the respective industries’ prosperity over the years.

The idea of setting levies, as the previous speaker referred to, is to enable the producers to structure themselves in a manner that promotes efficiencies and gives them advantages in the world market that they would not otherwise be able to achieve on their own. Any farmer who produces stock or milk and sends it to the factory or the processor will well know the cost of these levies, and you pretty quickly sharpen your vision as to what those levies are used for. I have got no problem defending the use of levies; I think they are a very practical way of enabling the industry, right across the board, to structure itself in a manner that creates advantages for New Zealand.

New Zealand is a small, highly productive food processor and provider, many kilometres from our markets. It is necessary for our Government to provide every opportunity for collaboration and efficiency for our producers. It is also the Government’s role to facilitate the environment to allow our export-driven economy to perform as well as possible. As the Minister said in her introductory speech, the sector is growing rapidly, with exports shifting from some $50 million in 1988 to some $300 million last year. I am confident that this growth will continue or dramatically increase in the near future, as transport becomes more efficient and cost effective and as our industries seize the opportunity to trade in the Asia and Pacific regions.

As they are introduced to the amazing quality of New Zealand produce, I can imagine a time when our world-class products in the Rangitīkei are venturing straight into markets or the shelves of Hanoi, Jakarta, or Beijing superstores 36 hours after leaving the farm in New Zealand—pretty much as quickly as it could leave the farm in New Zealand and get into the centre of Wellington. I think that is our great opportunity in the future. This bill, of course, enables that to happen and will certainly firm up our opportunity to achieve that. It facilitates the ability to achieve this more effectively and efficiently, and also enables the participants to monitor quality and much better take opportunities as the market place changes.

The horticulturalists are a particularly proud group of people in an industry with a great track record in quality. As a matter of interest, I am going to list the nine industry groups that currently operate under the principal Act. There is summer fruit—a sector that, interestingly, contains nectarines, peaches, cherries, plums, and apricots; it does not, interestingly, contain the apple and pear industries, as those groupings are separate and operate under their own producer board at one stage, and alone have provided some $570 million in export earnings to New Zealand. Other participants are kiwifruit exporters, avocados, blackcurrants, buttercup squash, chestnuts, tamarillos, truffles, and persimmons. You can see why we need to have an Act that gives these very small sector participants the opportunity to participate in a much greater world market. It also gives them the opportunity to utilise the “New Zealand Inc.” brand better, and plan the future. The revamp of this Act will assist in this.

Anyone involved in the primary sector knows only too well that there is only about 1 percent, in supply terms, between an undersupply and an oversupply in a very fickle market place. This can result in crops being left in the paddocks—an undesirable situation. It can also result in unsustainably high prices—an equally undesirable situation, ironically. Although this bill will not prevent those things, it will assist the participants to lessen the risk of their occurring. I have great pleasure in recommending this bill to the House, and look forward to progressing it through the Primary Production Committee in conjunction with my excellent team-mates. I look forward to hearing their take on the bill as the evening progresses.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is a delight to get up to support this bill. We in the Labour Party can see the benefit of exploring this area. The Act has been in place since 1987, I understand, and in those 26 years the horticultural industry has changed significantly. So it seems timely to revisit the Act and to make sure that we are setting up the appropriate structure to support horticulture exports from New Zealand.

It is no surprise, and it will come as no surprise to anyone in this House, that as a country it benefits us to work together to achieve scale and to be able to market our product abroad in a way that draws attention to its many benefits. If I can draw a parallel, I know that when I sat on a board in Otago that was concerned with growing the region, one of the better initiatives to come out of it in the time that I was involved was to market apples from the region and market them as organic, which achieved a price premium. That marketing was achieved only by the agreement of all of the players in the area who had the say in whether an initiative would be put forward for this. From memory, the apples achieved a 15 percent price premium as a result of being marketed as organic, and the change in behaviour that was required to market these products was nothing—absolutely nothing. The area where the apples are grown is relatively free of pests because it is an area that is sufficiently cold at the right times of year, so the apples were being grown in an organic fashion; they simply were not being marketed in that way. But by achieving scale, by achieving agreement across the region to market a product in a certain way, it could achieve a market premium.

This is part of what I imagine will be achieved by this bill. It will enable producers to come together, to pool resources in a modern way, to market products abroad, and to make sure that minimum standards are being met so that the products can legitimately be marketed in a way that will be attractive overseas. So let me have the rare privilege of congratulating the Government on updating some legislation. It is good that it is doing this. New Zealand is too small to operate at a smaller scale and compete in many of these areas.

There are other areas, of course, that ought to have similar treatment applied, and some Government leadership would go a long way—for example, in the meat industry, where we know that many producers are struggling as they have overheads that make the area less profitable over time and yet they have capital barriers to achieving effective market structures and a Government that has been unwilling to show leadership in that area. That should not stop me congratulating the Government on this particular initiative, which does show some leadership in this area—albeit rare, it is a thing that should be welcomed, because overall this Government is failing to achieve its export targets.

That is something of a background to this bill. It was the Government’s target, and I believe it still is, to raise New Zealand exports to 40 percent of GDP. When the Government started, New Zealand exports were over 30 percent of GDP; they are now below 30 percent of GDP. The Government is actually going backwards, and is forecast to go backwards further, in the area of exports as an overall portion of our gross domestic product. The Government has as one of its central agendas something it calls the Business Growth Agenda, which is supposed to achieve this 40 percent target, but, in fact, as I have just explained, the Government is moving in the opposite direction. Overall, unfortunately, the Government’s unwillingness to lead in the area of economic diversification and its unwillingness to make real progress in this area is hampering New Zealand as a country, in terms of our future prosperity and in terms of being able to achieve the Kiwi Dream, which every New Zealander used to have, of having a secure income and opportunity throughout their lifetime to make the most of life. We have the lowest homeownership rates in New Zealand since 1951—there is one example of how that Kiwi Dream is drifting away. Labour, of course, has a vision to bring back that Kiwi Dream, to actually grow our exports, to have increasing prosperity as a country, and to afford the kind of lifestyle that we think all New Zealanders ought to be able to have.

This bill itself does aim to enable product groups to develop more flexible and targeted export marketing strategies, and it does that through the permissive mechanisms of collecting levies. It establishes a relationship with the bodies, the different horticultural product groups, rather than directly with the producers and exporters. In the past, the levies were allowed to be directly received only from the producers and exporters, as I understand it, but now the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority will be able to charge fees to horticultural product groups, and they will be able to, then, onwards, levy their members. This mechanism will, of course, make the whole process a little more efficient, a little more modern, and it has got to be practical if our exporters are to be left free to get on with doing what they do best: to grow the products that we want to sell offshore.

In the 1980s, of course, when the Act was first brought in, we know that we had some big issues in this area. We had fly-by-night exporters who would send one crop off on a boat, not caring about the reputation of the country. This Act, and its updated version, also enables fines for misbehaviour, for things that do harm to the industry as a whole, and that is important if we are to present a “New Zealand Inc.” image abroad, if we are to continue to establish our clean, green credentials and to sell our products at a premium on the international stage. That is, after all, what we would like to do as a country, to move towards that more prosperous future that we, I think across the House, would like to see—albeit that we may differ on the ways that we might get there. I may have some criticisms of the Government’s particular approach, but I think we all share the desire to see a more prosperous future.

As I said at the outset, we will be supporting this bill. We will be supporting the more flexible and targeted export market strategies that we think will result from this bill, and also the intention, which I have not spoken to yet, of clarifying the requirements for product groups to enter and to exit the export framework, which seems, again, a sensible, modernising move. In the papers that we have been supplied so far, that is part of what the bill sets out to achieve. All of these things will be examined at the select committee, and we will have the opportunity as members to contribute—those who sit on the Primary Production Committee and those who want to substitute in to refine the Act—and make sure that it actually does get on with the job of making sure that those credentials, the ways of entering and exiting that particular framework, are as good as they can be, to make sure that the process is set up optimally, and to make sure that when the powers of those bodies to levy are set, they are set up in a way that actually clarifies the Act and makes it more user-friendly for the groups that will be doing the exporting.

Although the Government, overall, is failing to meet its export targets, we see this as a small, positive step in the right direction, and it is nice to see that the Government is not, in this regard, distracted by hair straighteners, over-expensive TV screens, barbecues, sun decks, or blow-up sheep. Here is one occasion where it is taking a small step in the right direction and making sure that New Zealand’s exporters are supported through up-to-date legislation. We will be supporting this bill and the promotion of the “New Zealand Inc.” brand abroad in respect of horticultural products.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I almost heard a Freudian slip, I think, come from the other side of the House. I almost heard the Primary Growth Partnership spoken about quite positively.

Dr David Clark: No, not that slush fund.

STUART SMITH: Well, I think we will let you away with it. It is early in the night, though.

Look, it is a pleasure to speak on the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill, which, as has been alluded to earlier, amends the Act of the same name that was passed in 1987. There are, in fact, 11 fruits that are able to come under the Act, but boysenberry exporters and nashi pear exporters have elected not to take up their right to operate under the Act at this moment. It is important that we get the flexibility that exporters need to be able to operate to their fullest advantage, and this bill will allow that to happen.

The premiums for our fruit are, really, very real and demonstrated, I think, by the exports, which grew from $50 million in 1998 to $300 million in 2015. That shows the effectiveness of the Act—that is a 500 percent increase, and for those who may think that the CPI would have played a part somewhere, well, it did, but it was only an 84 percent increase. So that is a magnificent increase in value for fruit exporters. Avocado exports earned an almost fourfold increase from $28.9 million in 2005 to $115 million, and I think summer fruit, which most people do not think a lot about and was alluded to by colleague Ian McKelvie earlier—there was a very good summer fruit orchard in Marlborough, in fact, that did a great job but, unfortunately, that is now in grapes.

I think one of the things I would like to focus on this evening is the voting mechanism that is called into play in order for this to be taken up by an industry. I think the meat industry has been mentioned twice across the other side of the House, and it was said it should be brought to bear in that industry, but you still have to get 60 percent of the producers to actually agree before you can get an order. The Minister cannot proceed an Order in Council without that and without 60 percent of the production votes also going in favour of it. That is quite a significant task, and I know from going through that myself several times with a commodity levy order—twice in fact—that it is quite a task to get people across the line. I think there would be a significant challenge in trying to get the meat industry across the line to do that.

But anyway, that is by the by. I think what they are after is a single-desk seller, and that is, really, another kettle of fish altogether. I think there is far more to be gained by niche marketing, and that can be effected quite adequately as it is now in that particular industry.

Nimble industries do need flexible legislation, and this amendment bill will give us that. It is right that we need 60 percent of the production as well as 60 percent of the producers to vote in favour of this, because it is very important that the scale operators also have a say in what goes on, not just the small operators. It is also taken over a 2-year average, and I think that is really important, because there is an agricultural risk in growing fruit, as with most agricultural crops—that is why it is called an agricultural risk. There could be a number of operators that could miss out through a frost or some other significant weather event and not be able to partake in the vote in a particular year. That would not be fair on anyone’s books, I do not believe.

The bill also allows exit provisions for product groups as well, and it sets out mandatory considerations that the Minister must take into account before he signs an Order in Council. Again, I think it is just tidying up around the edges. It was a good Act, but it was not quite fit for purpose. After this bill has gone through the process, it will actually make it a much better environment for exporters to operate in. With that, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a short call on the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. The Green Party is pleased to be supporting this bill. When you look at the latest annual reports of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority, the previous five annual reports have highlighted the need to amend the principal Act to provide more flexibility in the sector and to appeal to a broader range of sector groups. I wonder just what priorities the Government has that it has not moved faster to introduce this bill, given the much-trumpeted objective in the Business Growth Agenda to double primary sector exports by 2025 and to increase the ratio of exports to GDP to 40 percent by 2025—especially when the changes that are in this bill are based on a review of the Act that started in 2010, and there has been wide consultation with the sector.

So why the delays, for nearly 6 years? I would posit that it is due to the Government being totally seduced by the dairy industry, and the formerly high dairy payouts, by Fonterra’s strategy of growing the milk supply by 2 to 3 percent annually, and its myth that there are no limits to growth, that it could continue to push for increased milk production by allowing the dairy industry to freeload on the environment through the weak rules the Government has in relation to land use and water pollution, and the exclusion of agriculture from the emissions trading scheme. The Government’s preoccupation with dairy as the way to grow exports and the way to grow GDP has meant that it has neglected the horticultural sector and the need to better market our fruit and vegetables and nuts and the need to update this 30-year-old legislation.

The current Act, passed, as Damien O’Connor noted, in 1987 by the last Labour Government, promotes the export marketing of horticultural products by providing a structure under which to have recognised quality standards and a structure to allow marketing to be coordinated through export marketing strategies and export licensing. Whether you are a grower, a pack-house operator, or an exporter of particular products, such as avocados, you opt to work within the Act’s framework through the Horticulture Export Authority, which licenses exporters and monitors compliance. So the principal Act and the changes in the bill are important because they help to give growers some control and influence over exporter behaviour, in order to protect the reputation of their products.

I note that in 2012 only 15 percent of our fresh horticultural exports were done under the principal Act. As at September last year there were 76 export licences issued by the authority, and they were held by 54 different entities across the nine different product groups, like avocados, blackcurrants, boysenberries, buttercup squash, nashi pears, summer fruit, and tamarillos. They are only some of the fantastic fruit and vegetables that New Zealand produces that are suitable for export. Certainly, this is a growing sector, up by 12 percent in the year to June 2015, a 25 percent increase in total export receipts, and record earnings of nearly $300 million. So that is a major improvement on 2013-14 when the high New Zealand dollar really hurt exporters.

But we need a regime, and this bill helps to provide it, that allows and helps the growers, pack-house operators, and exporters to increase their market share, to develop new markets, to add value to their products, and to coordinate their marketing. The bill helps to do this by, for example, allowing an exemption from the licensing requirements for a year. If there are exporters that have a joint venture. They are exempt from getting a licence if they already hold a licence as individuals. The bill is making only small changes to the Act, but it will provide more flexibility and clarify some of the Act’s current provisions. It replaces the one-size-fits-all approach with a multi-tier system that provides for different requirements. It also significantly increases the fees, up from $4,000 to $10,000 for offences under the Act. It means that there will be greater information sharing between the Horticulture Export Authority, the Customs Service, and the Ministry for Primary Industries.

The delay in introducing this bill is not the only example of the Government failing to respond to the needs of the horticultural sector and failing to help it reach its potential. The Horticulture Export Authority has long called for country-of-origin labelling for fresh fruit and vegetables because it believes that this will help benefit quality production. And yet the National Government has resolutely opposed this, and we do not have mandatory country-of-origin labelling. That means that fruit and vegetables in local shops do not have to have any identification of where they have come from. We had the hepatitis A scare last December, which was associated with imported berries, but that hit local producers because there was no way of consumers knowing whether they were buying imported or local berries unless the company had chosen to label the products itself. The Green Party will introduce mandatory country-of-origin labelling of fresh and single-ingredient foods, so that consumers will know how their food is produced, where it has come from, and what food they are choosing to buy and eat and feed to their families.

In Australia any food product must identify the country of origin of whatever makes up more than 50 percent of the total production costs of that product. Given the similarities between the markets, if we had similar rules to Australia it would simplify it a lot for both food manufacturers and exporters who are sending their products to both markets. New Zealand is such a small market that it is often uneconomic for the large food manufacturing companies to change their labels just for us.

This bill is a good one but there is much more that the Government could be doing to grow horticulture exports, to protect the reputation that we have when we market our primary production overseas, by doing much more to ensure that we have clean water. We cannot market summer fruit, boysenberries, and avocados as coming from clean, green New Zealand unless we do much more to give integrity to that brand by protecting water quality and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to ensure that we have a stable climate.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am very pleased to rise to take a short call in this first reading of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill, at least to the select committee, and, very probably, beyond it.

At first glance, the bill appears to be well-intentioned and not overly imbued with controversy, in spite of the comments from my Green colleague Eugenie Sage, who, I think, has given what is possibly the grumpiest speech in support of a bill that I have heard in quite a while. National members can rest assured that they are doing it right, but they are doing everything else wrong. But, doubtless, we will go through this in more detail as the bill progresses. I do like the Green member’s suggestion of country-of-origin labelling. That is something we generally support, but whether it is within the ambit of this bill or able to be within it remains to be seen.

The general policy statement proclaims that “The purpose of the … Act is to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural commodities. Groups representing growers and exporters of a specific horticultural commodity, eg, avocados, choose whether to export within the framework established by the Act. If a group opts to export under the Act, the group develops an export marketing strategy that contains grade or quality requirements for its products.”, which is eminent common sense. I am surprised, in actual fact, that it is not something that exists to a greater degree across the board.

“The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority (the Authority) then licenses exporters of the specified commodity and monitors exporters’ compliance with the relevant requirements.”—all of which is well and good. The authority’s website, for the uninitiated and for those of us who were not around making laws 30-odd years ago or 29 years ago—in fact, Mr Barclay was not around 29 years ago, so he certainly was not making laws—outlines some of the machinations of the authority. It says that “The primary purpose of the HEA is to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural products. We do this by providing an export structure and support network …”—blah, blah, blah. “This structure requires these groups to develop an Export Marketing Strategy (i.e. their rules for exporting).”

Iain Lees-Galloway: Clause 2(c)—blah, blah, blah.

RICHARD PROSSER: Blah, blah, blah, yes. Well, a lot of these bills do contain a lot of blah, blah, blah, particularly ones created by previous Labour Governments.

It also says that “The HEA also liaises with sector stakeholder groups on matters relating to market access, trade barriers and their removal, and plays a role in lobbying government on such matters on behalf of the industry.”, which is a good thing. It is a very good thing, because it makes it a kind of voluntary single desk. Mr Smith mentioned the single desk as if it was almost a separate issue from this; in actual fact it is not. This is a voluntary single desk. It is a virtual and voluntary single desk, and we know that this type of marketing works very well for New Zealand.

We know from examples such as Fonterra and Zespri and ENZA—current events notwithstanding—that there is a great power that collective marketing brings to a nation of New Zealand’s size and make-up, the construction of our economy and where most of it is focused in terms of production export. Dr Clark mentioned the possible benefits that could be given to the red meat industry if it was to follow a similar strategy. So it is gratifying to see that Labour is picking up on yet another one of New Zealand First’s policy initiatives, and I am sure that Labour members will be supporting our bill when it does get drawn from the ballot, unless, of course, the Government wants to sneak in and steal a bit of thunder and select the bill and bump it up the Order Paper all by itself. We would be most happy if it was to choose to do that.

So the single desk works very well for importers and regulators in overseas jurisdictions as well, because they have a single point of contact to deal with and because they know that they are then dealing with a Government-accredited agency that can be trusted to set and maintain standards. They know what they are buying and they know that it will be true to label.

It works for producers and exporters for the same reason. The single desk helps to maximise returns to the growers and the producers and the exporters, and that benefits the entire “New Zealand Inc.” story, because it means that New Zealand companies are not competing against one another in world markets.

There is a premium that is attached to “Brand New Zealand”, which has been estimated at anywhere up to about 15 percent. It helps nobody at all to have that premium left on the shelf because New Zealand producers and exports are competing against each other for shelf space for the same market, in the same market, for goods that, in all honesty, would sell anyway and sell for the premium if we were not discounting against each other.

So it is good for our companies to have that kind of an advantage. I say “our companies” in a nationalistic sense, not in a nationalising sense or a socialist sense. Nobody wants the private businesses that are our farmers, our producers, and our growers to be brought under any kind of State umbrella, but what we do want is the most unfair advantage that New Zealand business can be given—we do. New Zealand First wants New Zealand businesses to have an unfair advantage out there in the world. We want them to succeed, to do well, and the single desk is a very powerful tool in terms of achieving that.

The voluntary single desk is a step in the right direction. The authority’s website describes it as a kind of halfway house between a completely regulated market and a completely free market. That is probably a good thing, if nothing else, in the sense that it is an acknowledgment from the Government that this free-market ideology thing actually does not work and that the playing field is never actually level unless it is artificially made so by intervention. But, like all good things, once a system has been in place for a while—and coming up 30 years is probably long enough—one or two areas do show up where there is room for improvement, where the bugs need to be ironed out, and this bill intends to make some of those improvements.

As Mr O’Connor mentioned, and others have touched on as well, the system for fees collection and the system for fines are two of those things that will enable the authority to operate in a much more streamlined fashion and do its job a lot better and a lot more efficiently. These are good things that need to be sorted. In fact, the Minister for Primary Industries, in a press release, stated that the bill was introduced to update and futureproof the Act—and that can only be a good thing. If it can achieve that, then New Zealand First will be more than happy to support it going through the entire process and becoming law.

At first examination, as I say, there does not appear to be anything that is too much of a contentious nature. I will look forward to examining it in the Primary Production Committee under, as I have mentioned before, the very able and affable chairmanship of Mr McKelvie. That being the case, I do not intend to take up too much more of the House’s time at this stage, except to reiterate that New Zealand First will support this bill through to first reading and probably beyond. Thank you.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): I just want to echo Mr Prosser’s sentiments towards our chairman of the Primary Production Committee, Ian McKelvie. Before I start my short contribution regarding the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill, I just want to pass on my comments around how much I am enjoying working on the Primary Production Committee, because, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a very pragmatic committee made up of like-minded people, all with the best interests at heart with regard to the exporting and the fruition of our exporters and producers and anybody operating from the primary sector. This bill, as has been remarked on already, is a small step in being able to make life easier for our horticultural exporters.

As we know, New Zealand is a small export-based economy. We have challenges around distance from our markets, transport costs, and just the general size of our economy. So anything we can do to modernise and strengthen and support the framework within which our exporters are operating at quite a disadvantage, probably, compared with a lot of other countries—that is a huge advantage that we can provide for them.

The Act, as has been mentioned, has been in place now since about 1987, and over the last three decades a lot has happened, including the birth of myself. So I think that probably provides an opportunity for having a relook at the framework and taking into consideration how the markets have changed and the playing field that our exporters, among others, are currently participating in.

As we know, dating back to about 1988, when there were $50 million of exports that arose from the fruit and vegetables exported under this Act, that figure has now risen to about $300 million, which shows that we have got new producers in the market, that our current producers are producing more and exporting more, and they are more reliant on the economies that we are exporting to. Enabling our horticultural producers to work together and maintain the integrity of the market and the brand as a premium export, both collectively and individually, is hugely important, not only for them as individual producers and the industry but also for our country as an exporting nation.

With that I would just like to offer my support again for the bill, and I look forward to hearing submissions and engaging with the submitters over this process. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—David Clendon.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I thought I would just take a brief call to support, in large part, my colleague’s earlier speech, which, in my view, had a strong critique and some very positive, forward-looking commentary—not in the least bit grumpy, I thought.

This is an important bill. I think it is fair to say that the horticultural industry has often felt like a poor relation. New Zealand is a food-exporting country and it will continue to be an important part of our economy. Tourism, of course, is our single largest export earner now. It is quite a good plan as well to bring people here to enjoy our produce, our wine, and the like, and get a premium that way, but food exporting undoubtedly is an important part of the overall picture.

Yes, we have for a long time focused on the export of protein in the form of dairy, red meat, and so on. The red meat industry has had its problems, not least of all because of, I would argue, a lack of coordination at the producer marketing level. Dairy, of course, was focused too much on selling low-value, high-volume commodity rather than the high-value, low-volume commodities.

I think we need look no further than Zespri to see the potential for a coordinated marketing mechanism in order that New Zealand producers are not competing with one another in a race to the bottom. We want to present New Zealand produce as high-quality, premium products—let people compete on price. Let them come to us with a price. We need to be setting the scene where people want our produce and are willing to pay top dollar for it because it is the very best product. I think Zespri has achieved that through having a single marketing desk, coordinating the growers, coordinating supply, and I think that is an important part of it.

I had some direct experience of this in my former life as an academic. The school of natural sciences, where I taught at Unitec, taught horticulture programmes, including organic horticulture, which certainly is the long-term future for New Zealand—to present ourselves as the organic producer for the globe, essentially. It is true to say, I think, that the industry always struggled to be heard by Government. My colleague Eugenie Sage did make a very pertinent point, that it has taken a long time to see the very necessary and positive amendments made to this legislation that this bill will effect.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is important that horticultural products, of all products, live and die on three things: critically, on quality, on consistency, and on security of supply. There is no point going to market if you cannot assure those three things. I think it is important to have a coordinated approach, well organised at this end of the supply chain, to have the producers well integrated, well organised, and well coordinated, to present high-quality products, consistently high-quality products, and to assure the markets that we can hit the button when and where they need the product and when they need it, and that we can fulfil our obligations and our promises.

I think this bill will make some small steps in that direction, and for that reason the Greens will be supporting it. I guess part of my interest is entirely selfish, coming from Northland, where, of course, horticulture is a critical part of our regional economy. There has been a lot of investment, particularly in avocados, in the last couple of years: new planting—

Richard Prosser: They’ve got a good MP now.

DAVID CLENDON: —well, yes, he does visit occasionally, I believe—increased planting in avocados, and some significant investment in pack-houses. We need to make sure that that has got the best chance of succeeding.

Horticulture is an employment-rich industry. It requires lots of people. Part of the challenge, too, is to ensure that the seasonal labour force has something to do every month and every day of the year. That is the challenge that faces that whole industry: to find the degree of coordination within and between the industries that will ensure we can create good and consistent employment in New Zealand for people working in the horticulture industry generally.

This bill is useful. It makes positive amendments. It is a little overdue, but give the Government credit where it is due: it has got to the table, and we are pleased to support it. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Rino Tirikatene.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to speak in support of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill, and I am looking forward to hearing submissions as a member of the Primary Production Committee.

This is a really good piece of legislation that is long overdue. The horticulture sector has been quite patient. It made appeals back in 2010 to look to amend the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act. Sure enough, it has taken over 5 years now, but rest assured Parliament is on to this piece of legislation, and we will be seeing it progress through this House—hopefully expeditiously.

This is, as I mentioned, a very positive piece of legislation. We are dealing, largely, with small, fledgling-type export industries—some of the product groups in question are truffles and tamarillos—through to the major product groups like avocados, buttercup squash, and kiwifruit to Australia. So there is quite a range. There are some very small players, and with a piece of legislation that they have been operating under for some 30 years it is time to modernise and to ensure that our industries are best equipped to compete in the international markets, because that is what everyone in this Parliament would want.

We want our primary sector to be profitable, to be productive, and to be able to compete fairly and make sure that we can increase our yields, increase our returns, and increase our foreign exchange earnings across all of the product groups. I know that the way that the industries have been doing that, and it has obviously been proven to be a successful model, being nearly 30 years old, is through cooperating: cooperating to compete, collaborating, and making sure that we have consistent quality standards, so that when we do supply our wonderful produce our very much discerning customers, who will pay premiums for our wonderful produce, know not only that they are getting a wonderful product but that the next order that comes along, and the following order after that, will be of consistent quality—wonderful New Zealand - grown produce.

So it is very important that we have the Horticulture Export Authority just to oversee the entire structure and to collect levies—bearing in mind that this is a voluntary organisation. It is a member-supported organisation, via the product groups. There is not one cent of Government funding that goes through to this body. It is entirely driven by the levies and the support that it gets from the respective product groups and, in turn, their members, and from the fees that are collected through the licensing of export pack-houses.

This is a small organisation. It needs our support, and I am glad that our Parliament is finally implementing some real common-sense amendments. It is one thing to export products to one market, but within that market there are many different markets, and if you segment that out, there may be differing requirements that need to be applied to ensure that we can get very good export returns and increase our yield, increase our foreign exchange earnings, and increase the profitability back to our growers here in New Zealand and our exporters.

Just to conclude, this is a very positive piece of legislation. I think of the large Māori participation in the horticultural sector. If I think of kiwifruit, obviously, Māori are probably one of the biggest players if not the biggest player in the kiwifruit industry, particularly up in Tauranga—Seeka, Te Awanui Huka Pak. If I think of the buttercup squash, there are some significant landholdings of Māori up in Gisborne, on the East Coast. So this will benefit not only the horticultural sector but those Māori landowners who are also supplying. I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call on the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill tonight. I just wanted to start off with a small quote that I picked up today when I was doing some research. It is from our Prime Minister when he was visiting the kiwifruit industry in 2015. He said: “Either we are going to be the people that stand up and sell wine, and kiwifruit, and lamb, and a million other things we are good at, or alternatively someone else is going to supply it and if they do, we will miss that opportunity.” I really see, in supporting this piece of legislation, that it is part of taking our opportunities.

As previous speakers have mentioned, there are nine horticultural export groups that are forming together in this piece of legislation, which updates the 1987 Act. It is about collectively promoting the New Zealand Inc. brand. A previous speaker from the Green Party talked before about apologising for being selfish and standing up and supporting his region in terms of what it grows. Well, no apology is necessary for doing that. It is something that we do all the time, and I know that back home in my electorate of Taranaki - King Country we often talk about the ability to grow things being much easier than the collective ability to put them together and get them into the export market. Everything we do in terms of this piece of legislation is going to help that.

I think it is also important, as we look at this piece of legislation, that it is going to clarify the powers of product groups to collect fees and levies to fund their export marketing strategies. I know from having 11 years of experience in a previous life with the board of Dairy New Zealand the importance of collecting that levy, having a farmer vote, and having support for the levy. It puts industries in control in terms of determining what they want to spend that money on. So I think it is really important that this is clarified. Another feature of this is it clarifies the requirement for product groups to enter into or exit from this framework. It gives greater certainty for this and reduces costs, and I think that is important, because it is really easy to collectively do something and enter, and it needs to be very clearly understood how to exit at the same time, otherwise it brings some grief down the track.

The outlook looks good. By 2019 the export revenue for horticulture is expected to grow to more than $4.5 billion, and that works out to be 16 percent growth over 4 years. I am part of the Primary Production Committee, and I really look forward to being on the group. It is really pleasing to see that people are supporting this through its first reading, and I look forward to progressing this bill as it works its way through Parliament. Thank you.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I rise to speak to the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill with pleasure, actually, and I have not said that recently. There have been a number of bills that have gone through this House that I do not think have been particularly good for New Zealand, but this is a step forward.

There are a couple of points that the last speaker, Barbara Kuriger, made that I would just like to elaborate on. She talked about promoting the ”New Zealand Inc.” brand. I think that is vitally important, but the problem we have got is exactly the problem that Dr Nick Smith alluded to in the House today in question time. We have a real problem around Brand New Zealand, or the “clean, green”, 100% Pure New Zealand” brand, because it is what we go to the world with. This started out as a tourism brand, and it was so successful that it sort of morphed into our unique selling proposition and our global competitive advantage. But it does not matter what this bill—the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill—does or what it achieves or how it drives efficiencies, because if we do not live our brand globally, then our ability to claim a premium off anything grown here, especially in horticulture, is greatly diminished.

I would argue that one of the things that this Government has done very poorly is actually manage our global brand. I would say that we have got about 5 years to get this right. What we cannot have is another exposé that was done by, I think, the Financial Times, or one of these big broadsheets overseas, which actually sent people over here and blew this “clean, green”, “100% Pure New Zealand” brand out of the water. Luckily, it did not get much resonance. The Prime Minister was quizzed on it on Letterman—he made a little bit of a fool of himself, but that is not unusual, so anyway—and it died a death. That should have been a wake-up call to us. It should have been a wake-up call that said: “Do you know what? If we don’t get this right, then we will turn into just another small economy selling commodities into a growing global economy.”

I suppose one of the issues I have is—you know, we say that we can feed the world. We cannot. We can feed about 40 million people—that is the estimate that I have heard. It could be slightly more, or it could be slightly less, but it is around about 40 million people. We should be aiming for that ultra-premium end of the market—the Chinese market, the American market, the European market. Brand New Zealand has to stand for something, and if it does not stand for something—if we cannot get a premium off this—then why would people buy it?

The last speaker talked about how this bill and the amendments in this bill will help reduce costs. Well, this is amending quite an old piece of legislation—1987, it has been alluded to—so there will have been a number of efficiencies already gained by our growers. But the thing for me is that we still live at the bottom of the world. Our transport costs are high, whether we airfreight or sea freight, and, usually, the sorts of products we are talking about require airfreight or they require quite expensive refrigerated containers for sea freight. It is still expensive just getting things into the market, so if we cannot get a premium on that, then why would people buy Brand New Zealand?

I say this with a fair amount of skin in the game—70 percent of apples grown in New Zealand come from Hawke’s Bay. Hawke’s Bay, at this point in time, is absolutely booming because apples are doing well, the grapes are doing well, and our horticulture is going great guns. We have had a great summer—you know, one of those summers where the rain falls, but not too hard. There is enough warmth in the soil, the grass grows, and there is a lot of hay around. It is fantastic. But if we do not get our brand right, then there will be no markets to sell this to, or if there are markets to sell this to, it will be just another commodity where our brand means absolutely nothing.

The last speaker was right in saying that we do need to be smarter in how we go to the world. Let me give you one example. We have the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement. It is worth a substantial amount of money to our exporters. But—

Hon Nathan Guy: What about TPP, Stuart?

STUART NASH: Well, we have not got the Trans-Pacific Partnership at all, Mr Guy—you should know that—at the moment. We have the Chinese free-trade agreement, which is a fantastic agreement because it works for both countries, unlike some of the others that are out there at the moment. But what I am saying with regard to this bill is that taking a grower out of New Zealand and putting him or her into a market where the culture is different, the language is different, and the customs are different—let alone the supply chains—is like taking a New Zealand company and putting it on Mars. It is so different. So what we need to be able to do is aggregate supply and go to these markets with a certain offering.

We know in some areas like—for example, wine is a classic case. If a winery cannot supply enough wine for 12 months of the year, then it does not matter how good it is, because you will not get these high-end American restaurants, for example, buying it. And it is the same with our products. That is why the ability to aggregate supply is vital. Keep in mind that this is a voluntary body—there is nothing compulsory about this, at all—so if growers do not see value in this, then of course they will not be part of it.

I will tell you one thing that I will be interested in seeing, and that is who submits and on what they submit. I note from the departmental disclosure statement that there has been a fair amount of external consultation, including, obviously, all the relevant Government departments—which have been consulted, as is always the case—but I do note that in 2012 and early 2013 there was a discussion paper released and workshops in Mount Maunganui and Wellington. These have been endorsed by the growers, so it will be interesting to see the sort of feedback that comes in. It may be one of those bills where the work has been done, there is nothing more to add, you will get the officials coming in from the various departments and saying “This is fantastic.”, and it goes through like that. I would not be surprised, and what I think we will see—and I do not sit on the Primary Production Committee, I must admit. But what I think we will see is a number of growers coming in and using this as an opportunity to send a message to the Government that we do need to do these things better.

We are an export-led economy, we are a primary industries - based economy, and it is important that we get things right. And this is just one of those steps—it is why we are very supportive of it. As Damien O’Connor alluded to—well, most of the speakers have actually alluded to it—the legislation has been around since 1987, but the world has changed significantly since 1987. We know this, and that is why we need the mechanisms to be a lot more sophisticated, a lot smarter, and a lot more engaged in the way we do things.

Channel to market is a classic case. You aggregate supply—this has happened well in the timber industry; not so much in the log industry, which is a bit of a disaster at the moment. But in the timber industry there is the classic case of a company where what it does is it goes around the various sawmills, it aggregates supply, and it meets demand, so we are basically talking about a trade here. Trade has been around since, you know, the ancient Greeks and beforehand, but this is about doing it smarter. And what it is also recognising is that certain growers and manufacturers have a core competency, and that core competency is not necessarily international market development or international marketing. I think that is fair enough because, as I mentioned, it costs a lot of money, for example, for even a large grower to have an office in China or to hire an international market development manager or an international marketing manager, let alone understand supply chains and all those various things that it takes to actually get product into market.

So this bill is timely. It perhaps should have been done a couple of years earlier, but that is OK—this is what we are dealing with now. But, as mentioned, it will be very interesting to see what the submitters do and how this piece of legislation comes back to the House after the select committee process.

The one takeaway that I would like to leave is that I would just like to really reiterate that we have got to get our global brand offering sorted. We have got to start living this brand, because if we do not and if what we are taking to the market is exposed as a falsehood—and I am not going to say “a lie”, but certainly “a falsehood”—then we run the very real risk of not only damaging our global competitive advantage but also destroying it, and we simply cannot afford to have that happen. I wonder whether any of the submitters are going to be talking about that, because I would urge them to do this. They can digress slightly. Select committees allow them to do that, and I am sure the chair would allow this as well.

But we do support this bill. It is a timely piece of legislation—bring it on. Let us hope it is in place before too long, because this is the sort of thing we need to see. Thank you very much.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Bills

Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill.

Protecting our native wildlife is of crucial importance to the ongoing health of New Zealand’s precious natural environment. Our birds, our animals, and our forests are central to our sense of our national identity. They are our national monuments, taonga that are treasured by all New Zealanders. However, species such as moa, the giant Haast’s eagle, grayling, and huia have become extinct since humans landed here. Today some 77 species of our surviving native birds, or 37 percent, have either disappeared from mainland New Zealand or face a real risk of doing so. Many other species of wildlife are also threatened.

The unique qualities and threatened status of so many of our species is why the Wildlife Act absolutely protects our native bats, reptiles, frogs, and birds. The Wildlife Act also protects eight marine fish species, marine corals, and a small number of native land invertebrates. Under the Marine Mammals Protection Act, New Zealand’s whales, dolphins, seals, and sea lions are also absolutely protected. This means that it is illegal to hunt, kill, possess, or sell these animals.

Unfortunately, some people still continue to illegally hunt or kill protected wildlife. For example, people have been caught trying to smuggle tuatara, native parrots, and geckos out of New Zealand. Since 2010 there have been seven convictions for the attempted smuggling of 68 geckos. International dealers and collectors have a high demand for these geckos, as they are unique, attractive, and long-lived. Within New Zealand, people have also been prosecuted for taking or killing geckos and protected birds such as kererū. Hunters have taken dogs into wildlife refuges, or set possum traps illegally on the ground so that they “accidentally” catch kiwi and weka. This sort of offending matters because it is yet another pressure on our wildlife. Even low levels of offending can harm species that are already threatened by introduced predators and by the loss of their habitats.

In 2013 my colleague Jacqui Dean’s Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Act significantly increased the penalties for offending under the Wildlife Act, and in five other conservation-related Acts. This Act, rightly, had the strong support of all sides of the House. However, increased penalties are only one part of any tool kit to deter and respond to offending. We also need education and information to increase awareness and to improve voluntary compliance, and we need to be effective at apprehending and prosecuting offenders if they do, in fact, offend. This is the focus of this bill.

Although the Wildlife Act includes many enforcement powers, these have not been updated for more than 60 years. A good illustration of this is that the Act currently enables any ranger to call on any “male person” over the age of 18 for assistance—I think it is about time the Act was brought into the 21st century. The old powers also mean that there are four significant gaps in the basic powers that we feel are essential for effective enforcement. These gaps can make it difficult to investigate offences thoroughly, or to prosecute offenders when this is necessary.

Firstly, it would seem logical that if rangers come across offending, either about to occur or in progress, they would be able to intervene to prevent it or to stop it. Unfortunately, rangers are not currently authorised to take preventative action to stop an offence that is about to occur.

Secondly, rangers are currently authorised to stop and search vehicles, vessels, and bags and other items in transit. However, they do not have the power to temporarily stop people from leaving the scene of an offence so that rangers have sufficient time to carry out their duties. The ability to do this can be vitally important in situations where an offender is trying to evade the ranger or to hide the evidence of the offending.

Thirdly, establishing and verifying an offender’s identity is essential to any ability to prosecute. Although a ranger can require a person found offending to provide their name and address, they cannot require that offender to provide evidence of their identity. Offenders can, therefore, give false names and addresses, which makes it very difficult to investigate offences and bring about successful prosecutions.

Finally, the Act currently allows rangers to seize only a few types of evidence, and this does not include common items such as mobile phones, cameras, documents, or computers. In several cases, rangers investigating offences were not able to seize cameras, phones, and even bundles of cash, which would have provided evidence that the offending was commercially motivated and, therefore, warranted higher penalties.

The intent of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill is to provide better tools for protecting our wildlife by addressing these gaps in the enforcement powers. It is important to note at the outset that Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers who have compliance training and carry warrants from its director-general—these are about 260 DOC staff—already have these powers when they are dealing with offences on conservation land. This amendment bill expands that power of the conservation estate, and includes any area in New Zealand.

So this bill would allow a ranger to intervene to prevent an offence if it were about to occur, or to stop offending that was in progress. For example, a ranger might trip or remove illegally set traps, or intervene to prevent someone who is hunting protected species. If a ranger does intervene, the way in which that person does so would need to be “reasonable in the circumstances”. The bill allows a ranger to temporarily stop a person to ensure that they do not leave the scene. The ranger will, however, need to have reasonable cause to stop the person, and may stop them for only a period of time that is reasonable in the circumstances. It will also enable a ranger to request an offender to provide their date of birth and evidence of their identity. Rangers have been misled and lied to in the past and were unable to achieve successful prosecutions because of this. The bill will also allow a ranger to seize any evidence, provided that it is relevant to the investigation of the offence. These four standard powers will be available to the department’s full-time rangers.

Finally, the bill proposes a limited power of arrest. The Wildlife Act currently does not allow rangers to arrest a person. Rather, if arrest is necessary, rangers have to wait for the police to come and assist. This is inefficient as it ties up the resources of two agencies, and it is ineffective as offenders—not surprisingly—will not wait for the police to arrive, and a lot of offending against wildlife takes place in remote areas. A power of arrest would, therefore, be useful in specific, planned surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations such as for international poaching offences, as these can last for several weeks and often occur in the backblocks, hours away from towns and police stations.

Because the ability to arrest someone is a significant power, it will be limited to serious offending against absolutely protected wildlife, such as that involving illegal hunting, killing, or export. Access to the power of arrest is also limited to full-time DOC rangers, who are specifically warranted to use it. The current training given to rangers covers this ground, and making those minor changes to the Act will not impact on the department’s budget. This is, in essence, a very minor technical change.

The bill does not affect the Act’s core principles such as the protection status of wildlife or how wildlife is managed. The powers will be available to protect wildlife in the same way wherever the wildlife occurs in New Zealand, whether on private land or public land, but these changes will not affect people or businesses unless their activities break the law. The bill also includes various safeguards around how the power is used and who can use it. The power of arrest for wildlife offences will also be available to police constables and certain Defence Force officers, customs officers, and fisheries officers, as these agencies regularly work with the DOC in joint-agency wildlife operations.

The proposals in this bill are not, of course, the only way of protecting our wildlife. Enforcement is only one part of any tool kit. It is far better to prevent offending happening with education and information than to deal with it after the event, and we must continue to manage the pests and other threats to New Zealand’s biodiversity.

I would like to finish by quoting the legendary conservationist Don Merton: “Our taonga, our threatened species, are our national monuments. They are our Tower of London, our Arc de Triomphe, our pyramids. We don’t have this ancient architecture that we can be proud of and swoon over in wonder, but what we do have is something far, far older than that. No one else has the kiwi, no one else has the kākāpō. They have been around for millions of years, if not thousands of millions of years. And once they are gone, they are gone for ever. And it’s up to us to make sure they never die out.” In my opinion, the enforcement powers in this bill provide necessary and practical mechanisms for helping to prevent the loss of our taonga, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of Labour to register our support for the sentiments that the Minister of Conservation has just made in terms of New Zealand having natural heritage values within our conservation estate—and indeed across our country—that should be protected. We will support the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill going to a select committee and we will expect a thorough investigation because, Minister—as you rightly point out—as powers are expanded for Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers to be able to carry out their duties in this modern age, getting the right balance between the powers of search, seizure, and arrest with regard to the ability to enforce these particular powers is a matter that I think the select committee will want to spend some time on.

Minister, you raised a number of reasons as to why the modernisation of the search, seizure, and arrest powers is required, and indeed I want to comment on a couple of them—firstly, with regard to the issue of international dealers and smuggling. I am sure that when the select committee hears some of the specific reasons for expanding the powers of DOC rangers, it will want to look at some of the overlapping ways in which agencies with a common interest will need to collaborate. Some of that is already happening but it could be better improved, and, indeed, Minister, you highlighted that. I think that the way in which customs officers at the border want to surveil those who have been involved in international smuggling of wildlife species is an area that I think is of interest when you are looking at cooperating with information but also in respect of apportioning roles and responsibilities between DOC rangers and customs officers.

It will also be of some interest, I think, to the select committee to look at the way in which these provisions have been covered in the Act. There are a number of things that will require DOC rangers to make a judgment based on discretion—based on what they reasonably believe is important information that could be used as evidence of offending or offending about to take place—but also on the practicalities of how they assess whether or not to go to the next step and take reasonable steps to stop, and keep stopped for a period as defined in the bill, a person of interest. That requires a level of judgment. It is my concern, Minister, that when DOC rangers or those authorised to carry out these extra powers make a decision, giving some context around that will be very important, because enforcement at the end of the day does not exist in a vacuum. We have DOC rangers who operate in isolation, often in areas that are well away from a lot of the public, and we need to be assured, I think, at the select committee level, that they are able to carry out these particular tasks with some level of safety and assurance.

Just today up on the Kāpiti coast, a young girl of 21 working at a mall was trying to stop a shoplifter and got knocked over. In the conservation estate, if you have got people who are looking to smuggle species for a huge amount of money, there is a safety element as well. So this is where the balance of enforcement coupled with the extension of powers is a matter that the select committee should legitimately be looking at.

So my question at this first reading will be around how the powers will work in practice, how these matters of judgment will be made in the context of taking reasonable steps to stop people of interest, and the point at which rangers are making the assessment. Minister, you made a comment about requiring information to be gained from a person of interest, such as their date of birth and their details, and things like that. Well, quite frankly, if they are on the run and on the hop and you are chasing them, you are not going to be able to inform them beforehand. These are some of the practical things that I think we need to sift through at the select committee to give a better context to how the intention of these powers will operate in practice and in reality.

They are important because if a person has come from overseas with the express intent to smuggle species of a biodiversity interest to them—which can fetch quite a handsome sum on the black market—getting, for example, their name, their address, and their passport could be really something very useful, and detaining them until prosecution would be entirely justified. But, again, we will have to pursue these types of questions with some context around practical examples, so this will mean that the select committee will have to delve back into some of these cases that have led to prosecution, to get the legislation working in a way that it is intended to. It might mean some changes, but we should leave the select committee to do its job and report back at the second stage of the bill around those particular interests.

Minister, there are two specific issues that I have commented on. One, in respect of extending powers, is whether they are able to be enforced. Labour has a real concern about the ability of the DOC to enforce the expansion of powers granted to it to be able to conduct its role when, actually, the budget of the DOC has not been substantially increased. Positions that have been changed through the restructure have not been backfilled, so we are making some comment on the fact that the DOC is underfunded to carry out its current roles, yet we are expanding its roles. Is it able to practically enforce the extension of powers that it has been given? You commented on that, Minister. Again, I raise this out of courtesy because it will be a matter to ask questions about when we get to the select committee.

There are also some aspects of the bill that I considered would be of interest for us to think about in this first reading. One is its intent. That is really the point at which a decision is made about whether or not to seize or make an arrest based on an action at a particular point in time and the information available to the DOC rangers. Say, for example, if the DOC ranger understands that hunting is being undertaken in a particular area and it is after the fact—it is after the fact that they have had information passed on that then might lead to subsequent actions of the rangers—what weight is given to the evidence provided to the DOC ranger in order for them to make a decision? So this is, for example, a ranger stopping someone who has gone out 3 days previously on a hunting trip who is then making their way home, and the DOC ranger has been given information to then stop them quite a way from the place where an activity of an illegal nature has been conducted. This is a matter that I know that the Minister is well aware of, and if this bill is intended to improve that situation, maybe it is something that the select committee might put its mind to.

So with that said, the extension of powers does modernise the ability of DOC rangers to carry out an extended range of roles. Will it be able to be enforced practically, and will the determination of the extension of powers meet the practical way in which DOC rangers carry out their tasks? In a nutshell, it seems to me that those are the issues for the select committee to address when the matter gets to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee it gives me great pleasure to be speaking in this first reading debate on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill, introduced by my friend and colleague the Hon Maggie Barry.

I listened carefully to the contribution made by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and I think she has raised several good points that will need to be teased out and addressed at select committee. I want to give the Hon Nanaia Mahuta a cast-iron guarantee that the committee will strive to make sure that we get a good range of submissions, that we give those submissions due consideration, and that the matters that she raises will be carefully considered by the committee. I want to thank the Minister of Conservation for her very considered introductory comments. I thought that her speech—and I listened carefully to it—was very good and it actually neatly summed up what is the nub of the issues confronting the hard-working warranted Department of Conservation (DOC) officers, who do so much to preserve our natural environment and also the creatures that live in that natural environment.

The Hon Nanaia Mahuta and I have something in common in that our electorates cover the same piece of geography. One of the great features of the Coromandel electorate is that a very large proportion of my electorate is covered and administered by the DOC conservation estate. In that area there is a small but very dedicated group of warranted DOC officers and rangers, who do an extraordinary job on behalf of all New Zealanders. To have those people’s good work so frustrated, as it has been now for so long, when they encounter criminal activity occurring—not being able to do anything meaningful about it is not only frustrating for those committed officers but also extremely frustrating for those of us members of the public who want to ensure that our conservation estate is protected and secured for the future.

This bill, as Minister Maggie Barry has made comment on, is a reforming of the principal Act, the Wildlife Act of 1953. It will come as no surprise to members of the House that an awful lot has occurred since 1953, much of it for the good, and we now live in a society where many of the pleasantries that existed back in 1953 in terms of our conservation estate no longer exist. The simple, stark reality is that many of our native creatures are highly sought after in terms of black-marketing across the international market place for people who have evil intent and who want to market our rare and endangered species internationally. This bill on first reading would appear to give those DOC officers—there are about 260 of them—the power that they need in certain circumstances, when it is warranted and needed, to do something about criminal activity in our native environment when they come across it. This bill will better empower DOC staff to take on those who are offending against our native wildlife.

There are four main provisions in this bill. The four new standard powers that the bill will give to those officers will be, firstly, to take preventive action when an offence is about to occur. When they know that something is going to happen, they will now be able to actually intervene and do something about it, rather than merely stand aside and watch criminal activity occur in the most frustrating way.

The second power that they will be given is to temporarily stop persons suspected of an offence, so that an investigation can be allowed and can take place. Up until the passing of this legislation, that has not been able to take place.

The third power will be a power to seize a broader range of evidence. Of course, back in 1953 there were no such things as laptops and iPhones and cameras and mobile phones and all those sorts of devices. Much of the criminal offending and evidence of it is now recorded on such devices, and this bill, when passed, will ensure that DOC officers have the ability to seize such evidence of an electronic and technical nature.

The fourth power that they will be given is to require identification details from suspected offenders. Nothing could be more frustrating for a DOC officer than to come across an illegal act going on in the conservation estate somewhere and then not be able to demand and insist that the perpetrators of these crimes identify themselves when they are suspected of being an offender.

This bill modernises the principal Act, and not before time, in my view. I am very much looking forward to working with parties across the House to guide it through the select committee process. I was interested to hear on the radio this morning Kevin Hague from the Green Party indicating that the Greens are going to support this legislation. I welcome that, too.

I am looking forward to this bill coming to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am looking forward to providing a rigorous scrutiny of it, and I am looking forward to receiving submissions from a wide cross-section of New Zealanders who are interested in the work that our DOC officers do and in preserving the natural environment over which they administer. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): As my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has already said, the Labour Party is supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. It seems that there are some sensible extensions to the powers of Department of Conservation (DOC) officers to intervene to prevent or stop offending, and the granting of a power to arrest. I note with some interest that clause 5 of the bill, inserting new section 39F, applies Part 4 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, with any necessary modifications, to the exercise of those powers. That is important. It is one of the things that the 2012 Search and Surveillance Act tried to do, which was to make sure that where search and surveillance powers exist across the various arms of Government, the same underlying rules apply. So it is good to see that these extensions to wildlife powers are being made subject to the relevant parts of the Search and Surveillance Act.

The explanatory note says that “The Wildlife Act … classifies and provides for the management of New Zealand’s land, freshwater, and marine species (but does not apply to domestic animals and birds, marine mammals, freshwater fish, or plants).” At least in respect of the freshwater species that we are left dealing with, I presume they include some of our rarer species. I am not sure where the remaining habitat is for our increasingly rare frogs, but they will be covered by the Wildlife Act 1953. In respect of water, I think it behoves me in taking a call here in relation to what is attempting to improve the conservation of protected species to say it is to be noted that if you have not got clean water, it is very hard for these species to survive—particularly frogs, actually. They are very susceptible to pollution.

I was somewhat dismayed at the answer of Nick Smith at question time today, when he answered a supplementary question from me that tried to drill down to what is the actual effect of the national policy statement on freshwater quality. I think he misrepresented the true effect of the national policy statement that we have.

That instrument was promulgated by the National Government after it had spiked the version of the national policy statement it inherited that had been proposed and was just about finished by the prior Government. But it popped out the end of the review process that is provided for under the Resource Management Act normally overseen by an Environment Court judge, and that time, it was overseen by the former Principal Environment Judge, Judge Sheppard. The effect of the national policy statement that was spiked was to control increases in intensity in land use, because, as Dr Nick Smith correctly said at question time today, the main source of increasing pollution of our rivers is no longer factory pollution or council sewage outlets—most of which are now under control, and the remaining ones that are not under control are being brought under control—but the main cause of degradation of our waterways now is increasing intensity in land use, where more intensive farming systems, which include, normally, more fertiliser, more livestock per hectare, and often irrigation, means that the nutrient load and the livestock effluent load from those farming practices increases. Unless those farming practices are controlled by our planning laws and the likes of a national policy statement on freshwater quality, the national policy statement is ineffective to halt the decline in quality of the water in our rivers.

The national policy statement that the Government promoted—in substitution for the Judge Sheppard one that it spiked, which it did not proceed with—has as a legislated minimum, with the associated national environmental standards, wadeability rather than swimmability. Then it manages rivers as collections of rivers within a catchment, rather than applying to each river. So, in fact, the effect of the national policy statement that the National Government says was great progress is to allow the continuing degradation of rivers in New Zealand so that even if they are currently swimmable, they do not have to be maintained in that swimmable state. Because of the lack of control on non-point source discharges—the sort of diffuse pollution that you get from more intensive farming systems—8 years after this Government came to power we have a continuation of the decline in freshwater quality in our rivers.

I see it down my way a lot. I travel around the South Island, and indeed the North Island, a lot, as most MPs do. I have long had an interest in water quality, and actually I was counsel for a large number of the water conservation orders that lie on South Island rivers, so I do know my stuff around this. I am also a swimmer in rivers, I am a freshwater fisherman, and I am a tramper. I feel well able to tell this House with some sadness that I am witnessing the continuing decline in rivers. Rivers that I used to swim in and I was very confident that I was not going to get ill from are increasingly degraded—not all of them, but far, far too many of them. Some of the worst rivers, of course, are the east coast lowland rivers in Canterbury and Otago, which are increasingly degraded, particularly in middle and South Canterbury but also in other parts of the South Island. That is what this Government would be focusing its attention on if it really was trying to look after the biodiversity values and the wildlife that are to be found in those habitats, because without the habitat protection, the wildlife cannot thrive.

These powers of arrest that we are granting to wildlife officers under the DOC to stop people illegally taking natural wildlife can never be applied if there is no wildlife to be taken. It is the sad reality because of the absolutely irresponsible attitude by the current National Government, which on this issue I think is too much in league with the farming lobby that votes them into power. I think it is irresponsible. New Zealanders do not want a lot of things, but I think two of the things that they are really clear on are that they should own their own land and that their rivers should be clean. On both of those very important metrics this Government falls down.

Further, in respect of this—and the Assistant Speaker will probably tell me to stop digressing too far into land issues—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes. It is a very wide speech, this one.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —but it is terrible that some of the dairy farmers who have caused these water-quality problems now want to sell their land to overseas buyers, which is a terrible thing.

I think the water degradation in New Zealand is a terribly serious thing. I think we need to go back to the Judge Sheppard national policy statement, which essentially provided that clean rivers ought not be allowed to get dirty and that dirty rivers ought to be cleaned up over a generation. It had powerful provisions in it that related to the control of increases in land use intensity, which we still do not have. It is interesting that the Fish and Game Council, which is New Zealand’s largest NGO concerned with fresh water, was so distraught at the ineffectiveness of the Land and Water Forum—partly because the Government cherry-picked some of the recommendations but also partly because it was being effectively closed down within that—that it has withdrawn from the Land and Water Forum.

The latest report from the Land and Water Forum adopted by the Government has the date—[Interruption] well, this is about protecting our wildlife—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It would be good to mention it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —for fencing our streams against dairy cattle and beef cattle as 2030. It has not learnt the mistakes from what happened with the dairy boom that came along so fast and degraded our rivers. The dairy boom is over, but the beef boom is now on. So what does it do? It lets beef farmers have their cattle in our rivers until 2030 in respect of the mid-country and 2025 in respect of the lowland country.

So I am happy to support this bill. But I have got to say that in respect of the serious issue of protecting the habitat of this wildlife, it will have no effect whatsoever, and habitat protection is what needs to be addressed most.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is an honour to rise in support of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill and an honour to speak on behalf of the dedicated Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers, who deal with protecting wildlife, who deal with detection of those who seek to harm or poach our wonderful, unique, and rare wildlife, and who investigate those criminal activities and apprehend offenders, and they should be acknowledged.

I want to say to Mr Parker, who just sat down, in respect of water quality, that in Southland it has been a wonderful process led by Environment Southland to put in place a land and water plan that looks to the future on the back of the national policy statement to maintain and improve our water catchments. It has run a collaborative process that has involved not only DOC stakeholder advice but also those working in the dairy industry and those working in the sheep industry—a very collaborative approach that brings all of the stakeholders together to maintain and improve water quality. Of course, the DOC has been part of that. But back to the bill at hand, which is in respect of amending the powers dealing with detection, investigation, and apprehension of offenders against our wonderful wildlife. I am very supportive of that and the powers that will be extended and given to our DOC rangers, who often find themselves in isolated areas having to deal with extreme situations that, in some cases, can put them into harm’s way, but they do their job extremely well and should be thanked very much for it.

Tourism is, of course, growing in New Zealand. It is now our second-biggest export earner, and 3.2 million people visited New Zealand in 2015. On the back of that, of course, New Zealand has, as part of that, a niche market because people come here to enjoy our natural beauty, to enjoy our rare and unique wildlife, and to see these animals in situ. They are able to go into our national parks, into our conservation areas, and into our reserves, which span the length and breadth of New Zealand, and enjoy seeing these wonderful species in their natural habitat. Of course, that is also a risk because it means that poachers can come into our country, sometimes undetected, and, given that they are paid quite considerable amounts, they can get away with taking some breeding pairs of our wonderful geckos, skinks, and birds. When you are talking about dealing with threatened species, to have a breeding pair taken from that population can be extremely devastating, and we need to protect our wildlife for our future generations to enjoy. So we need to give our DOC rangers extended powers to deal with these offenders effectively.

I want to just turn to my colleague Scott Simpson. He talked about some of the wonderful natural areas in his region. Of course, I have Fiordland National Park and Rakiura National Park, which is our newest national park in New Zealand. And, of course, it is not immune to offenders. Some years back, I remember DOC officers saw choppers fly away, and it was suspected that they had some of our rare and native skinks and geckos in their possession, yet there was little that DOC officers could do about it at that stage.

Of course extending these powers is fantastic for our DOC officers. There is the power to intervene to prevent or stop offending, and the Minister already talked about some of these things that could occur; the power to remove illegally set traps when they reasonably suspect that offending is occurring; the power to stop a person—previously, of course, DOC officers could stop vehicles only when they suspected that there was some sort of offending occurring—the power to take further details like date of birth and identification; and then, of course, the power to seize further information to build a case. So this is an effective change to the Act, and I absolutely support it in aid of these wonderful people who protect our wildlife.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It seems to be a bit of a theme in this Parliament, and perhaps the last one, to be overhauling or amending ancient legislation. When we look at those bills, it becomes readily apparent that they were drawn up in, I guess, simpler ages, when circumstances were somewhat different. I must say, in contrast to the Radiation Safety Bill, which the House was dealing with some weeks ago, it is certainly a pleasure not to have National Party members filling their speeches with reminiscences of the songs of 1953 that they recall. As Scott Simpson was saying, 1953 was a simpler time perhaps, when understanding of conservation practice was more primitive, but perhaps also a time when New Zealanders’ sense of collective responsibility was stronger. As Scott Simpson was saying, it was a time when perhaps just the uniform of what was then a forest service ranger would have been enough to ensure compliance.

There has been some updating of the Act in the intervening years, and in her contribution, the Minister referred to the bill sponsored through this Parliament by Jacqui Dean. Kate Wilkinson was also concerned with the issue of penalties under the Wildlife Act, because the penalties that were imposed in 1953 were simply inadequate to provide any kind of disincentive to those who were motivated to break the law. I guess my frustration with those attempts to change the Act, both increasing the penalties and now on this occasion ramping up the enforcement powers the Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers have, is that they have been piecemeal attempts rather than a comprehensive overhaul of the Act. They have also been very reactive. It was the high-profile cases of lizards being smuggled and of native birds being shot that actually prompted a particular action, but they did not prompt a comprehensive review and modernisation of the Act, and that is what we actually require.

In his wide-ranging contribution, David Parker spoke about the importance of habitat, and, indeed, one of the issues with the Wildlife Act is that it focuses very much on individual species. Part of what we know now as part of modern conservation practice is that focus on individual species is almost worthless. We need to see species in ecosystem terms and in relation to the habitats. A modern Wildlife Act would have that kind of focus.

The other aspect, I guess, that the bill could be considering, and an enlightened Government would be doing in an overhaul of the Act, would be to really address the emergency that we face in threatened and endangered species in this country. Actually, if you consider amphibians, almost all of them are critically endangered. The same applies to reptiles and to many of our birds. We have the highest proportion of species in this country, of any country on earth, that are endangered, yet, of that vast list of endangered species, only a very small number actually have active protection plans. That is why I have a bill in the ballot also to amend the Wildlife Act to actually require New Zealand to do what the United States, Canada, and many other countries have done—that is, when we identify a species as endangered, there then becomes a responsibility on the State, on behalf of us all, to put in place a plan to recover and protect that species, very often in the context of its ecosystem and the habitat that may be threatened.

The Green Party will certainly be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. In the select committee process, there are several issues that we are going to be specifically looking for. We are going to be asking whether these powers are enough. Are these powers going to be adequate to achieve the purpose that is set out in the bill? I noted with great interest and some horror the Minister’s comment that there would not be specific extra training—that rangers were considered to be already trained enough. I find that quite extraordinary. I am going to be teasing that out at the select committee. On the other side of the ledger, whenever we have a bill that is expanding enforcement powers, it is appropriate for us to be asking whether these coercive powers are appropriately balanced with other rights and freedoms that people should have, such as those set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and such as privacy rights. Has that balance been struck in the correct place?

I am also concerned because, in many ways, the extra powers that our rangers will have as a result of this bill, if it passes, are similar in kind to the extra powers that fisheries officers have. We know from experience that fisheries officers are indeed sometimes subject to threats or to physical violence, and that might be a new dimension, a new threat, faced by conservation rangers that has not been faced to date. It will be a matter of great interest what planning has been done by the department and by the Government to ensure that our conservation rangers are appropriately protected from those additional threats.

I was also astonished to hear from the Minister that the Government does not consider that these new powers will require any more resourcing for the DOC. I just cannot see how that can be. We hear pretty well daily of fresh situations where the DOC is unable to carry out its basic functions because it is cash-strapped. It does not have the resources to perform those roles, and yet this seems to be another case of expecting the department to do more with less. I come from the West Coast—others have been mentioning their areas—and I have been recently concerned about the Inland Pack Track in the Paparoa National Park. The main track in that national park is currently closed in one part because of damage from Cyclone Ita. The DOC reckons that the cost of repairing that will be $62,000, which it does not have. It has been calling for volunteers to come and repair the main track in one of our national parks.

When this Government came to power, it reduced the baseline funding for the DOC by $35 million—approximately a drop of 10 percent—and since that time that baseline funding has not only been kept at that low level but also it has been reduced further. It is hardly surprising that the basic functions that New Zealanders expect from the DOC to protect the species, the ecosystems, and the habitats that we love, which the Minister spoke of when quoting Don Merton in her speech, are not being met and the department is failing to meet those expectations. We are going to be looking, when this bill is considered at the select committee, at whether or not the Government will in fact adequately resource these extra functions that the department is being asked to perform. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise to take a call for New Zealand First on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill, and I sing in a chorus of support for this bill to go to the select committee. We would certainly look forward to hearing from submitters on what they have got to say. Although the intent of the bill is commendable, the achievement is something that might fall short of the intention of the bill, which is what I really want to speak about today.

I think this Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill certainly does suggest that we need some changes. It has been over 63 years of the current legislation, which needs to be looked at with regard to its enforcement capabilities. We see that in 2013 there were some changes made to the Wildlife Act that increased the penalties, and that was very much a necessity because we have seen over the years a large increase in our wildlife being shot and killed or traded in black market operations, and, certainly, many, many times—right up until recent weeks—we have seen high-profile cases of this sort of nature going on with our very, very precious and rare species that we can find only here in New Zealand. So it is great that we are actually having this bill put in front of us for a discussion today, and we are certainly looking forward to having it pulled apart and put back together at the select committee stage.

We in New Zealand I think are all very, very proud of our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand, and that brand has been held in high regard around the world. We are seeing record numbers of tourists coming to this country because of our beaches, our walks, our rivers, our mountains, and our wildlife. Given the ease with which people can come to this country to see that, it is absolutely paramount that we keep it in the best and most pristine condition that we possibly can. I think what has resonated with me most strongly, apart from Maggie Barry’s wonderful voice—which does sound like the late-night love songs radio show; that was very resonating, I have to say to Ms Barry, as she sinks down into her chair—was Kevin Hague’s discussion with regard to the resourcing of the DOC, or, I should say, the lack of resourcing for the DOC.

We have seen a degradation in support by this Government that has had a massive impact on our tourism, our ecotourism, and our ecology of this country. If we do not do something about it now, we are going to see masses of problems for our future, and the problem that, unfortunately, if it is not dealt with, we will never get back to the state that it once was in. I am talking about our beautiful kiwi, our kākāpō, the kererū, the takahē, the tūī, the pūkeko, the morepork—which is my favourite. In fact, over Easter, we took our kids away for the weekend and they actually came across some very rare green bell frogs, up in the Bay of Plenty. It was great to see them out there, but if we do not look after the environment that they are in, we are certainly going to lose them.

I am also coming to the point with regard to the fact that I think this bill is quite timely. We saw, 2 weeks ago, the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill being put into place, and there were questions by New Zealand First to the Minister at question time with regard to how the Government is going to enforce this 620,000 square kilometres of land. Of course, we did not get a satisfactory answer, but now, in hindsight, on reflection, I can see that the answer is right here in front of us. This new enforcement that it is going to give the three DOC rangers on Raoul Island in the Kermadecs will actually be enough to secure the wildlife that we have got there because now some of these rangers will, of course, be able to arrest people and hold them for a certain amount of time. I do not know exactly how that is going to work—whether they are going to put them in handcuffs, if they get given those, or maybe they will just be tied up in flax bushes and held in mānuka cabins until the police can get there. Of course, that takes about 20 hours by the time they get their helicopters fuelled up and get over there.

We are going to see some major problems because we have even seen our police force funding being drastically cut, and we are having difficulties even in terms of the respect that New Zealanders have towards the police. In the Bay of Plenty last week we saw—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No, that is not part of this.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: I am getting to my point. We are seeing Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers who are being expected to do more for less. My point is that the police are unable to do the work they have got with the number of people they have. We have got people pulling guns on police officers, so what is going to happen to our DOC rangers when they have been given the power to go and arrest somebody who is involved in potentially illegal activity? The point is that we are putting our rangers and our DOC staff at serious risk by doing this and not having a strategy, because saying “Stop, or I’ll say stop again.” does not work when you are talking about potentially locking somebody up for up to 2 years with a $100,000 fine. It has not been working for the police and it certainly will not work for the DOC rangers if this is the only power and this is the only tool they have got to use against this crime of poaching, etc.

We have seen in the 2015 Budget cut that operational funding was dropped by $8.7 million, and we also saw the cut to the Natural Heritage Management System of $7 million, but on top of that $7 million cut we had $11.2 million taken out of that, which was dedicated to the growth in the kiwi population. So you could actually say it is around about $27 million in funding, not to mention the hundreds of jobs that DOC workers have seen—and, again, putting their lives in danger and at serious risk if they are asked to do more for less.

To the bill. I think there are a number of good parts to the bill, and I think there are some sensible parts to the bill. Expanding the powers that enforcement officers have with regard to making sure that when they are asking for somebody’s date of birth and their address, they give verified proof of that is sensible, because there is no point showing up to the courts, waiting for judgment, and, of course, the person does not show up because they gave you false details. It would certainly be a big help to get that small matter dealt with promptly and efficiently, as the police have the same ability to do so.

The power to intervene to prevent or to stop offending is common sense. If they see something that is taking place, those DOC workers should have the power to react to stop that from happening, or to prevent it from happening, whether it be from trap-setting or potential behaviour. The ability to stop those people in their tracks and hold them is a good power, also. Of course, we have heard tonight from Scott Simpson in relation to the modern world that we now live in, with phones, with computers, and with iPads, etc., and with telephones’ capabilities of taking photos, etc. It would be very, very pertinent to ensure that those DOC rangers and workers can see some of those materials, whether it be money or otherwise, go towards building a case against a perpetrator or a potential offender. So that is certainly well supported. We do, however, get back to the main issue of getting our DOC workers, who are already under stress and who are underfunded, to do more for the little amount that they are getting.

In terms of the degradation of our tracks, which are some of the best track walks we have got in the world, as we go around the country in the North Island and in the South Island—although they are absolutely fantastic to see, they will be reduced. I just want to point out before I finish my contribution that the Office of the Auditor-General’s published report, in relation to what I am talking about here, said that the department was prioritising work and working with partners to manage biodiversity, and the report made eight recommendations. However, the follow-up audit shows the department has made limited progress on these recommendations. The 2012 report recognised the DOC for its leading conservation methods and practices, but said it was not “winning the battle against the threats to New Zealand’s indigenous species in the habitats they live in”. It also stated that “at best, efforts to date are merely slowing the decline of biodiversity in New Zealand, which is a cause for concern”.

In Budget 2016, we would like to see more money put into our conservation, ensuring that our natural habitat is looked after for the future generations of our children. Thank you.

JOANNE HAYES (National): My contribution will be short, to the point, and will not waffle around like the previous speaker Clayton Mitchell’s one did. I want to thank Minister Maggie Barry for bringing this bill to the House. I think it is a really good bill.

In a nutshell—this is what I have written down—this bill gives—[Interruption] Are we listening? This bill gives powers to Department of Conservation (DOC) staff and others to protect our native fauna by stopping the perpetrators, asking for proof, and penalising them through prosecution. In turn, the perpetrators receive persecution from the peoples of this country, if not a ban preventing them from access to New Zealand for the next 10 years. That basically puts into a nutshell the whole purpose of this bill, and I am very proud to stand and support it. I cannot wait for it to come to our select committee, because the sooner it gets there the sooner it can be enacted and we can start implementing this piece of legislation immediately. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call—Eugenie Sage, 5 minutes.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill, which the Green Party will be supporting to the select committee. I think the very short speech given by the previous speaker, Joanne Hayes, shows the very limited vision of the Government in relation to our indigenous wildlife. We all agree in this House about the importance of our indigenous plants and wildlife. I have heard various comments about its importance in terms of our identity as Kiwis, but this bill has a very limited ambition. Certainly it gives additional powers to Department of Conservation (DOC) staff to prevent offences, to detect and investigate offences under the Wildlife Act, to seize materials, and to stop people, but it just shows a complete lack of vision.

If the Government is amending the Wildlife Act—if it is taking parliamentary time to do this—it could have been much more ambitious by amending the Act to protect our indigenous freshwater fish, given their very precarious state—74 percent of our freshwater fish species, our native species, are staring extinction in the face. That is a statistic to be ashamed of, given that it is one of the highest proportions of threatened native freshwater fish in the world.

It is the Wildlife Act that provides varying levels of protection for our birds, our native reptiles, our skinks, our geckos, our native frogs, our bats, and eight marine fish species. It protects them from poaching, from hunting, from being collected, and from being held in captivity without the proper authorisation. You cannot kill native birds, except for the pūkeko, the paradise shelduck, and the tītī, because of the provisions in the Wildlife Act. You cannot keep native birds in captivity without authorisation from the DOC because of the provisions in the Wildlife Act. Yet people can kill and destroy our freshwater fish and their habitat because of the big hole in the Wildlife Act, and this bill does absolutely nothing to close it.

As my colleague Kevin Hague pointed out, this highlights the need for a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act to provide much better protection, not just for endangered species but for their habitat as well. The reason that this is such a crucial gap is that there has been an incredible decline in the health and status of our native freshwater fish over the last 20 years, which has coincided with the intensification of agriculture in our lowland areas. In 1990 the DOC recorded 10 freshwater fish species as being threatened with extinction, and by 2002 that number had increased to 16. In 2013 a comprehensive review showed that 74 percent of all of our native freshwater taxa were threatened with extinction, and that is 76 percent if you just consider the native fish species that do not spend part of their life at sea. Four of the five species that people eat as whitebait patties are threatened with extinction.

It is a ridiculous state of affairs that we do not have a single native freshwater fish species protected under the Wildlife Act except grayling, and they are extinct. It is also ridiculous that we continue to allow the killing of threatened species. Four of the five whitebait species—the kōaro, the short-jawed kōkopu, the giant kōkopu, and the inanga—are all taken by whitebait fishers, and they are all threatened with extinction. We have got regulations under the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations that protect exotic species—brown trout, rainbow trout, chinook salmon—but we have no legal protection for our native fishes.

That is a gap that this bill could remedy by adding all of our native fish species—and a lot of our indigenous invertebrates—to the schedules at the back of the Act and by giving the DOC staff increased powers to monitor the whitebait fishery and protect those species. It is also ridiculous that we have no legal protection for the tuna, or long-finned eel. There was a comprehensive report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment about its decline towards extinction. Again, this bill could close that loophole by adding it to the list of protected species. That will be something that we hope to see submissions on. We hope that the Minister will recognise that that is a major gap, and look to amend the legislation to close it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Damien O’Connor—5 minutes.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): This is another classic National Government conscience-easing piece of legislation. It says that “The objective of this Bill is to reduce offending against wildlife by improving the powers available to effectively detect and investigate offences and apprehend offenders.” We assume that that is to protect the endangered species and the species mentioned in the legislation. So the Government is setting out, we hope, with the right objective, to protect them for good reasons, as has been mentioned in many of the speeches. But there are a whole lot of gaps in this, I have to say. It will allow full-time rangers to implement the legislation if it proceeds as put to the House. The question is, with the increasing number of volunteers whom the department relies on, where does it leave them? The facts are that the National Government has not funded the Department of Conservation (DOC) to carry out its core duties, whether it be keeping tracks open or looking after species. I would like the Minister and, I hope, the select committee to be able to do that.

So it does, as we often see in legislation from the National Government—be it on customs or biosecurity or police—increase the penalties. It increases the penalties to prevent harm. National members think that sorts out their conscience and that they are, in fact, doing the right thing. The reality is they have squeezed funding from the DOC, and pretty much every other Government department, to the point where it cannot carry out their basic duties. This legislation will do nothing to protect the species pointed out here because there is not enough basic funding in the department for it to do its core duty. So we will no doubt see this passed through.

There are a few questions I would like to ask. When we have a department where only 27 percent of the DOC staff have confidence in their senior leadership—

Hon Maggie Barry: Oh, rubbish.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No, that is what it is. The Minister shakes her head. Well, I have talked to a large number of DOC staff and others. I think that is overestimating it—I think that is overestimating it. The survey was probably taken a couple of months ago, not now. They are in trouble, not because the penalties for harming wildlife are not high enough, but because there is not enough core resource in the department’s budget. If we are to have penalties for action against wildlife, can we not have penalties against inaction—which is what I would charge the Government with—because the same outcome is going to occur? If someone was to abuse or pollute a waterway, or do whatever, there will be a negative impact on the inanga and any of the other native species. But if the Government does not spend the money to administer its core duties, the same outcome occurs. So why do we not boost the penalties in that area? In fact, I would suggest that at the next election people should vote the Government out. That might be a very good way of delivering the right penalty to the National Government on conservation issues.

I read through the explanatory note, and it is quite detailed on what should occur. One of the things that interests me, coming from the West Coast, is: “The Bill also provides a limited power of arrest that will enable an enforcement officer to temporarily arrest a suspected offender until the officer can deliver the suspect into Police custody.” Well, I can tell you that on the West Coast they might also have to provide a power to feed and accommodate that person because it is probably going to take you a hell of a long time to get a policeman there, given the National Government’s underfunding of the police. So we will not have anyone in Karamea. Kahurangi National Park is a huge national park, where some of these things could occur, and there will be people out there. So if an offender is caught and there is no policeman at Karamea and they have to get one from Greymouth, does that mean the person will have to feed and accommodate the person who has been apprehended and suspected of that activity?

There are a whole lot of things in here that do make me chuckle, because the Government’s attempt to ease its conscience by increasing the penalties for action against wildlife should be met by the same penalties for inaction by the National Government in respect of protected native flora and fauna right across the conservation estate.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I have to actually reject some of the suggestions in the diatribe of the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor. With regard to the Department of Conservation’s (DOC) budget, even the functionally innumerate should be able to see from looking at the budget.govt.nz website that last year the DOC was given a budget of $450 million, an increase of $50 million over what it spent in the year before. So there has been a real increase in the resource going in.

But I think we should also make a very important point about this Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill in this first reading debate, and that is that these additional powers that are being granted to the DOC rangers so that they can take action to stop the poaching of our most previous and endangered species are being done within existing baselines. They do not carry an extra cost. These are extra enforcement powers that will allow DOC rangers to take action to prevent an offence from happening, to seize a broader range of evidence—including those kinds of modern gadgets that modern poachers use such as cameras and cellphones—and to require identification details from suspected offenders in addition to the arrest power, which will apply to the absolutely protected species.

This is a very good bill, proposed by the very fine Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry, one of the finest champions of conservation in New Zealand. I would note that when the Wildlife Act 1953 was put into place, Sir Sidney Holland was the Prime Minister, and now we have a John Key - led Government and this is just one of its many conservation and environmental initiatives. It seems that National is the true champion of our environment and conservation.

It is a very fine bill. It will get an excellent hearing under our committee chair, Scott Simpson, that absolute quintessential Bluegreen from the Coromandel. For all of these reasons I commend the bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to rise and take a call on the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. I look forward to it coming to one of the hardest-working select committees in Parliament, the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I endorse the sentiments of the chair in saying that we will give it a thorough scrutiny when it comes before us.

When reading the bill, and there have been some great contributions in the House this evening, and listening to all the contributions today—it has been a good start, but clearly more work needs to be done in this bill. It is a simple bill. It has got two parts. When I read it and listened to the contributions tonight, it reminded me that the analogy that I drew was with a wharenui or a whare tipuna. The strength of a whare is in its parts and how it is put together, particularly the tāhuhu, or the ridge pole, which gives it the mana and the strength. Listening to the contributions today and the debate that has gone on in the House, I do believe that there is still quite a bit of work to do—namely, when I look at the policy statement submitted by the department, or the departmental disclosure statement, actually, it talks about proposing what this bill is, in giving the Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers more powers to investigate and to make arrests, but it also makes the point here around species that are also threatened by introduced predators and habitat loss. So when I made the analogy of a wharenui and a tāhuhu, we need to make sure we protect the wider context, the habitat in which our wild species and our plants are nurtured. In the contributions that people have made today, particularly on our water quality—that is an area that does need to be cleaned up if we are going to ensure that the bill that we are asking this House to consider meets the intended purpose. It is about updating the Wildlife Act of 1953, as people have said. It is 60 years old, so I think it is absolutely important that we provide contemporary, fit-for-purpose tools in terms of modernising the Act.

Not only has this bill been introduced to reduce the offending but it is also about protecting our native species, hence the reason why our habitat must be healthy—that is, our waterways and our native forests need to be healthy. The conjecture that this side has put is that we still have a long way to go. The water quality standard around being wadeable is just not enough. It is not enough, and it is not good enough. This side—Labour particularly—wants to ensure that our waterways are actually swimmable and fit to gather kai and fish out of. It is a basic right that many of us growing up in New Zealand had, and there is no reason why we should not have that.

Back to my analogy of the tāhuhu, or the ridge pole. We have got coercive powers being given to DOC rangers, but I would also like to see whether there are some educational resources being made available so that we have a balance—so that it is not all just around punishment but also about education.

I heard comments made in the House around information sharing with the Custom Service. A tāhuhu needs to be connected and related. We have the work of the DOC officers, but we also need to make sure that we are sharing information at the border to prevent any of the species getting across our borders.

In looking at this, I also heard about the opportunity to work in partnership with iwi and regional authorities. All parts of the community, not just the DOC—particularly with some of its resourcing being constrained—should be looking at partnerships that ensure that at the end of the day our native species are protected. I would like to see a bit more of that coming through in this bill, and, like I said, hopefully we will get some submissions in the select committee process.

Talking about iwi, though, I turn to the section of the departmental disclosure statement that talks about “Consistency with the government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations”. One question—well, actually, it is not a question. It is probably a point that I want to raise here with members of the House. When we have a section in departmental disclosure statements—and I think I have said this before, so I will repeat myself—that talks about whether a bill is consistent with the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations, we cannot say that discussion with Te Puni Kōkiri meets that test. We cannot say that, but time and time again, when I look at departmental disclosure statements, under this particular section, it always says that the department has talked to Te Puni Kōkiri. Can I make it really clear that Te Puni Kōkiri, or the Ministry of Māori Development, is regarded by all Māori out there as a Crown entity. It is not the Treaty partner. So, you know, I will say this again: it is not the Treaty partner. It is good that you noted that you are talking to it, but it is not the Treaty partner.

What it goes on to say in that section is that officials who prepared this statement spoke to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. As we all know, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is the iwi authority for Te Wai Pounamu, and that is unquestionable. But my point is that there are many more iwi who have settled with the Crown around the rest of the country who have DOC arrangements as part of their Treaty settlements. Therefore, I want to offer that if we are going to have bills in this House that have impact on iwi, we should have a much wider canvass than just Ngāi Tahu. That is my plea. It is not ignoring their advice; it is a plea for all the other iwi—and there are many around the country that have settled, but for some reason we have not spoken to them. To me it is not good enough to say they can just come and make a submission to a select committee. I think if we are going to meet our obligations, as this bill is saying it is going to, then we must cast the net a lot wider than what has occurred here.

So that is my only criticism of this bill—I think we should have done a lot more research into the impact that this is going to have on our Treaty partners, wherever they are. Big, large, small, urban, rural, coastal—all have relationships with the local DOC. I just think there is a wealth of experience and some information that was lost in bringing this bill to the House.

There is not much more that I want to add, but those were my contributions in the first reading. Like I said, I look forward to it coming to the select committee, where we can debate it much more intensely and hear from all those who, obviously, are passionate about our native species. We want to ensure that those that are still with us stay with us, and those that are on the verge of extinction also have the opportunity to be protected and looked after. I stand and commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. Can I just start by acknowledging what great vision I think this bill provides—great vision around the environment and conservation. When you look at the range of bills that we have introduced during this term—the Environmental Reporting Bill, and of course, recently with the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, and now with this Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill—it very much shows the vision this Government has around the Bluegreen agenda. I want to acknowledge the very hard-working Hon Maggie Barry for the all the work she does as the Minister of Conservation.

I suppose when I reflect and think about the success of this Government, what comes through time and time again, and what underpins the bills we bring to the House, is that we are listening. We are listening to the people, and we care about people. So what we have done is we have listened to Department of Conservation staff who have identified gaps in the previous Wildlife Act of 1953—an Act of 63 years of age, which now has some gaps in the modern age. So what we have done is we have listened because we care. Not only do we care about the people of New Zealand but we also care about its wildlife. We had Clayton Mitchell talk about a range of birds that he was interested in, but it always surprises me that no one ever mentions the kea. I love the kea, the curious kea, but no one ever talks about it.

When I look back at this bill, I suppose that in a modern age with modern technology, things have changed. We now know that we are seeing smuggling to order through the use of the internet. The smuggler can be connected with the purchaser a lot quicker. We need to ensure that this legislation is up with the modern times. We also know that with accessible international air travel smugglers can come into this country quite quickly. It is no surprise that some people will want to come into this country because we have such unique wildlife that you get only in New Zealand. We know that New Zealand First would just like to stop anyone coming into the country, but over here we just probably want to stop the smugglers. So through this legislation we can get on top of this issue a lot better.

What has been identified is that it is pretty much a very persistent problem over the years. When we look at 19 prosecutions being made for the illegal hunting and killing of endangered protected wildlife between 2004 and 2011, and seven foreign nationals being convicted of attempted smuggling since 2010, we see very much a persistent problem that we need to address. So I look forward to this bill going through to the Local Government and Environment Committee—a very hard-working select committee with Scott Simpson as its chair. I am sure it will get a range of submissions from people in New Zealand, especially in my area of Waimakariri. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 17 March.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, when we were last debating the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, Kris Faafoi was speaking and has 5 minutes remaining, if he wishes.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for giving me some extra time. I thought I had less than that, but I will take that gladly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): We are stopping at 10.

KRIS FAAFOI: OK, I will take that into mind. When I was interrupted—I think it was on 17 March, as the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill was getting into its third reading—I was talking about the funding freeze at Radio New Zealand. There was quite opportune timing with a story on the Fairfax website, Stuff, this morning that highlighted the changes in some of the costs of the new Checkpoint show. In amongst some of those costs—which I think are fair enough, given the changes that they have made there—there were some comments by Richard Griffin, the chair of the Radio New Zealand board, and Paul Thompson, the chief executive of Radio New Zealand, that I think speak to some of the issues that we have had on this side of the House with the funding freeze at Radio New Zealand.

If I can, I will just read from that story: “Paul Thompson and chairman Richard Griffin told the Commerce select committee in February [that] Radio NZ would not seek extra funding in the May 26 Budget after accepting it is not a priority for more Government cash.” The story says that “They had not ‘given up’ on getting extra funding but it was ‘pointless beating your head against a brick wall,’ Griffin said. Even preparing a plan to ask for more money cost money. ‘We have a plan but it is not based on putting up a proposition in this Budget round. We [will] have a plan … the Government and Treasury are already looking at [it], and hopefully buy into [it].’ ” But if you look at the track record, I am not sure whether their plan will be a priority for this Government.

Radio New Zealand has had a funding freeze ever since Dr Coleman was the broadcasting Minister, and then Craig Foss was the broadcasting Minister. I would hope that Amy Adams as the broadcasting Minister—who out of those three I think understands the broadcasting industry the most, especially the challenges that that particular broadcaster has—would have seen fit for some kind of new vision for Radio New Zealand. But instead of a new vision for Radio New Zealand, we have seen a new normal for Radio New Zealand, and that is a funding freeze. For the last 7 years, it has had absolutely no increase in its funding whatsoever, but it has been tasked with taking on a challenge that every other media outlet—whether it be traditional print, traditional radio, or traditional television—has been asked to do, and that is to manage the convergence of those technologies coming together.

In that speech on 17 March I said that I did not want to delay this bill any more, so it is painful to stand here and talk about some of these concerns that Labour members have because we actually want this piece of legislation to pass. But it is absolutely our duty to point out that if we want to have the kind of country and the kind of democracy that we want, then we in this country have to start taking seriously the funding of Radio New Zealand and the journalism that it is well-known for. And that certainly cannot happen when you have got a Government on that side of the House that has an attitude that says: “We do not care about Radio New Zealand. Just do what you have to do, but you cannot do anything that challenges the way you do your business, without any more funding.”

It is absolutely imperative that it is given more funding because at the current stage we are looking at more lay-offs while we are asking this entity to do much, much more. I do not think that is fair on the current staff and the current management. It is certainly not fair on the millions of New Zealanders who see it as a very important piece of our public broadcasting environment—especially given that Television New Zealand has become extremely commercial—where they rely on information from Radio New Zealand being unbiased, up to date, informative, and inquisitive in the way that they want their news and current affairs to be.

I will not take up too much more of the time of the House, other than to talk about our concern that the priority of this piece of legislation is such that it has, again, been put last on the Order Paper today. So I am here, again, finishing off a day with an interrupted speech in an interrupted debate on this piece of legislation because the Government just pushes it to the back. I wonder when this piece of legislation will ever get passed if this Government keeps on making it a very low priority.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in this, the third reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill, in what I fear will be a short episode 1 in the short-run serial that will make up this call in, no doubt, two parts. So, fundamentally, we arrive at this part. This bill will receive its third reading in short order, and it is part of National’s commitment to improve and deliver better public services. Within those public services—and the Government reported on these just very recently, showing extremely good improvement across a range of services aimed at delivering better outcomes for Kiwis and better outcomes, it might be added, for the same or even less Government expense. Now within that suite of better public services, it also includes the continuation of a reliable, independent public radio capability.

Interestingly, when I looked at the statistics provided by Radio New Zealand in its recent annual review for the previous financial year, it noted that the survey work it had undertaken shows that 92 percent of its listeners agree that Radio New Zealand contributes—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.