Thursday, 13 October 2016
Volume 717
Sitting date: 13 October 2016
THURSDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2016
THURSDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2016
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Resignations
Hon Phil Goff, Mt Roskill
the Hon Phil Goff
Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from, resigning his seat in the House with effect from Wednesday, 12 October 2016.
Voting
Correction—Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): On that note, I seek leave to correct Labour’s two votes on the Committee stage of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill yesterday, when 32 votes were cast instead of 31. I think the member who cast the votes is still grieving at that announcement, but the correct number of votes at the time should have been 31.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. The vote will be amended.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 18 October the Government will look to complete the first readings of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill and the three regulatory systems amendment bills, and to progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday, of course, will be a members’ day.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Housing New Zealand—Financial Position and Role
1. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: How much more money will he have to give Housing New Zealand so that it can continue to operate after February 2017?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister responsible for HNZC): None to allow Housing New Zealand to continue to operate; it can easily do that. Reports that it is “going broke” are simply wrong. As Housing New Zealand ramps up its large-scale building programme, of course it may need more Government support, because you would not expect an organisation that has been building 300 houses a year to have enough cash on its balance sheet to finance the building of 3,000 houses over a few years.
James Shaw: In relation to that answer, then, what is his plan to ensure that Housing New Zealand has enough finance to build the 30,000 homes that he has promised?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The plan is that Housing New Zealand will complete detailed planning of the next tranche of developments in addition to those that are already under way, such as the 1,000-house Northcote development. It will also need to complete over the next few months a detailed financial analysis to show just what funding it needs, given that it can source funding from, for instance, sales of surplus houses to the market. When it has done a proper job of that, the Government will then consider applying more taxpayer funds to it. But we are not just going to hand Housing New Zealand hundreds of millions of dollars and hope that it does a good job.
James Shaw: For a Government that prides itself on economic acumen, how can he rationalise ignoring Treasury advice and allowing the near collapse of one of the country’s most important pieces of social infrastructure?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member wants to burnish his credentials as an economic spokesman, then I suggest that he consider his description of the current state of Housing New Zealand. It is ridiculous—just ridiculous. There is no reason to believe that Housing New Zealand is under financial strain or going broke, and it is absolutely nowhere near near-collapse. Collapse is what happened to Solid Energy, not what happens to Housing New Zealand, which has $20 billion of assets and about $4 billion of debt.
James Shaw: On that note, does he consider it good economic management to squeeze Government entities like Solid Energy, Radio New Zealand, KiwiRail, New Zealand Post, and now Housing New Zealand to breaking point; if so, which Government entity is next?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Even the media has seen fit to withdraw the story that Housing New Zealand is going broke, because it is wrong and, unfortunately, has caused unnecessary distress, particularly to staff of the organisation, who, understandably, were astounded and bewildered at the assertion. Unfortunately, the member is taking it further by saying that it is near collapse. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
James Shaw: Why did he not invest more in Housing New Zealand back in 2009 so that it could build houses, provide jobs during the recession, and build up housing stock and its balance sheet for when demand inevitably picked up?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I explained to the House yesterday, the Government did exactly that, because Housing New Zealand had to run a large-scale rebuilding and repairing programme in Christchurch. I know that the members of the Opposition probably did not notice the earthquake, but we had to build 800 new houses and repair 5,000. So it was a large-scale building programme, and those skills are now being transferred to the Auckland large-scale building programme.
James Shaw: Given the obvious economic drag of the housing crisis, why is he continuing to treat housing primarily as a class of investment asset rather than essential social infrastructure that underpins the country’s success?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government, of course, is an owner of a large chunk—in fact, one in every 16 houses in New Zealand. We are applying ourselves to a, probably, 10-year programme to upgrade the housing and, in fact, redevelop whole communities, such as is happening in Tāmaki and could happen in another dozen, 15, or 20 communities around the country. The biggest step forward is that Auckland Council has finally realised that this is an important asset class for the community and for social benefit, and it has produced a plan that now allows the supply of more housing, as is required.
James Shaw: Does he believe that the purpose of Housing New Zealand should be to ensure that nobody goes homeless in New Zealand; if not, why not?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Housing New Zealand plays a role in that, but the member may be interested to know there are a significant number of other organisations that over the last 2 years have worked closely with the Government and the Minister for Social Housing to ensure that, for the first time, New Zealand has an established and well-funded emergency housing set-up that follows the principles—which I know the member endorses—of Housing First to solve the problems of homelessness, one by one, for those most severely affected.
Government Financial Position—Reports
2. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Crown’s finances?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Some surprisingly good reports. Today the financial statements of the Government were released for the 2015-16 year. They report a surplus of $1.8 billion. This is $1.2 billion higher than was forecast in the Budget just a few months ago. Revenues were about $1.6 billion higher than forecast and expenses were $600 million lower than forecast in Budget 2015. Total Crown assets have now increased to $293 billion—the highest ever—and the Government is on track to reduce debt to 20 percent of GDP.
David Bennett: What have been the main drivers of the improvement in the Government’s accounts?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The financial statements show that tax revenue increased by $3.8 billion and expenditure grew by $1.6 billion, and that accounts for the growth in the surplus. Interestingly, the $3.8 billion increase in tax revenue consists of $1.2 billion growth from wages and salaries, which indicates that despite the Opposition’s criticisms, wages and salaries in New Zealand are increasing faster than was budgeted. The corporate tax take was almost a billion dollars higher, and GST was around a billion dollars higher.
David Bennett: What are the Government’s fiscal priorities, and how is the Government balancing increasing investment in public infrastructure with debt repayment?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our priorities, which were set out in the Budget, are to maintain rising surpluses, reduce net debt to 20 percent of GDP, begin to reduce income taxes if conditions allow, and use any further fiscal headroom to reduce debt faster. At the same time we are also lifting the investment in public infrastructure—in fact, the Government’s capital spend has almost doubled since 2013 and will be maintained at high levels, when you take into account commitments such as funding half of the City Rail Link project in Auckland.
Grant Robertson: With reference to that last answer, was the order of priorities that he gave for the Government, in fiscal terms, the order he actually has them in—i.e., that tax cuts come ahead of lowering debt?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government will consider the weighting of the various choices we have. We are one of the few countries in the developed world that has the choices of paying off debt, improving public services, and investing in infrastructure. The member will just have to wait and see. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am waiting as well.
David Bennett: How do New Zealand’s accounts compare with those of other countries?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Pretty well. Compared with, say, Australia and the UK, we have a surplus; they have significant deficits, and it is increasingly the case, as time goes by, that we have one of the lower public debt levels compared with the peer countries we compare ourselves with.
Grant Robertson: Has he called for the sacking of the Minister responsible for HNZC in light of reports from his officials saying that Housing New Zealand’s “balance sheet is at risk and cannot service their debt levels.”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. Housing New Zealand is in a sound financial situation, and because it is embarking on large-scale redevelopment of housing, it may need some further support from the Government because it will not be able to finance all of that growth itself, and that is perfectly normal for public entities and private businesses.
Housing New Zealand—Statement of Performance Expectations and Financial Position
3. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: What changes, if any, did he make to Housing New Zealand’s draft Statement of Performance Expectations received by his office on 20 May 2016, and why has the statement still not been published 5 months later?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister responsible for HNZC): I sought two changes to the statement. First, in view of increasing demands on Housing New Zealand (HNZ) arising from the accelerated building programme, I decided that HNZ should retain the proceeds from the potential transfer of properties in Tauranga. Secondly, I asked HNZ to reconsider its planned housing divestments, particularly in provincial areas in light of stronger demand for social and emergency housing in those areas. Publication of the statement has been affected by these changes and by the start of a new chief executive in September.
Phil Twyford: Is it not pure incompetence to have driven a $20 billion organisation to the brink of insolvency and, worse, to have asset-stripped the very agency that should be leading the Government’s response to the homelessness crisis?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said before, the media have withdrawn and corrected the story that said Housing New Zealand was, in their words, “going broke”. I am not surprised the Opposition is persisting with it, because it seems to have almost no understanding whatsoever of the financial situation of Housing New Zealand, which has $20 billion worth of assets, $4 billion worth of debt, and not much short of a billion dollars in cash flow. It is in fine shape, and I think what is really bothering the member is that Housing New Zealand is embarking on large-scale housing development, which we require them to do competently.
Phil Twyford: Did Treasury and Housing New Zealand officials tell him last year that Housing New Zealand lacked the capital to service its debt, and why was he saying as recently as 31 May that Housing New Zealand had all the money it needed?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because it does.
Phil Twyford: It clearly doesn’t.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it clearly does, because it is signing off major developments, like the Northcote development of a thousand new houses, quite recently, with more in the pipeline. So the member does not need to be concerned about the state of Housing New Zealand’s finances, and I am sure the member is concerned that the Government is committed to supporting them on large-scale housing redevelopment.
Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that his musings about building 30,000 houses on what is now State housing land is not actually an affordable housing programme—it is just a desperate sell-off of land and housing to try to stop Housing New Zealand from going bankrupt?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, that is a ridiculous assertion about Housing New Zealand, but I know that will not stop the member making it—vigorously, no doubt, for as long as he thinks anyone might be listening, but it is just verging on stupid, actually. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want substantially less interjection from my right-hand side.
Phil Twyford: Is he deliberately sabotaging Housing New Zealand’s balance sheet, asset-stripping it, and running it into the ground in order to justify selling off even more land and State housing?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is the reason why Labour is such a fiscal risk, because that is its description of sound financial management. The fact is that Housing New Zealand’s large-scale building programme is financed, ultimately, by people working in the rain all last week, paying their PAYE, and giving us their GST on their milk from the supermarket. That is why we are going to be demanding of Housing New Zealand to ensure it has well-thought-through development plans, and is very careful about how much of the taxpayers’ money it is going to deploy in large-scale property development, which is in itself quite risky. The member can call that sabotaging the balance sheet; we call it doing the job properly.
Phil Twyford: I seek the leave of the House to table the advice from Treasury and Housing New Zealand officials in which they say that Housing New Zealand is at risk of being unable to service its debts.
Mr SPEAKER: I just need to know where the member sourced that Treasury advice.
Phil Twyford: Under the Official Information Act (OIA).
Mr SPEAKER: On that basis I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Phil Twyford: Why does he not, instead of sabotaging Housing New Zealand and asset-stripping its balance sheet, do what Labour would do and run Housing New Zealand as a public service with one job: putting a decent roof over the heads of Kiwis who need it?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have an example of how Labour would like to run housing, and that is how it did it last time it was in Government. It let it run fat with loose cash, it stopped maintaining the houses so that it would have some cash to build some new ones, and we have spent 8 years having to backfill the damage, sort out the arrogance and complacency—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is little point in carrying on with the amount of interjection coming.
Housing Affordability and Availability—Residential Building Activity and Building Consent Data
4. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What reports has he received to show the Government’s housing reform programme is increasing the supply and affordability of housing?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The latest figures show that residential building activity in the last year grew by 21 percent to over $12 billion, which is the highest level of investment in residential activity that New Zealand has ever seen. The figure of 29,627 homes is more than double that of 5 years ago and is the second highest on record. Secondly, if we look at the real estate figures out today, they show that for the first time in 5 years house price increases in Auckland are down to single digits, at 7 percent. That is welcomed. Today we have also had the Massey University housing affordability data released, which showed that housing affordability has improved across New Zealand in every region except Hamilton and Queenstown, and that housing affordability in every part of New Zealand is better than it was under the previous Government.
Joanne Hayes: Was the claim made yesterday in Parliament that only 18 affordable houses had been built in Auckland in the last 3 years correct?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. More than 10 times that number have been built in the very first special housing area. At Weymouth, 190 homes have been built with an average price of $450,000. Then if you go to the second special housing area, in Hobsonville, 70 have been built below $400,000, 212 beyond $500,000, 45 below $450,000—a total of 327 homes in the second housing area. If we look at the data from the HomeStart scheme, 300 grants have been made in Auckland for new homes since the scheme began. The claim of just 18 in 3 years is so disconnected from reality that I assume Mr Trump wrote it. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have got one or two regular interjectors in my sights. I will deal with them relatively severely if they continue to yell across the House, and on this occasion it is occurring from both sides of the House. Take that as a warning.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister boast about his Government’s housing reform programme when his own department does not collect code of compliance certificates issued once a house has been built?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That member has made the mistake of disconnecting the number of code compliance certificates from building consents, and there is a very simple reason for that, Mr Peters. There is a very simple reason: when you build an apartment complex of 100 homes, there are 100 building consents but just one code compliance certificate. The member needs a far better practical knowledge of the building sector.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Reserve Bank and Auckland Council say that in Auckland last year 9,251 consents were dished out but only 5,073 house completions happened—less than half of the 13,000 needed for migrants going to Auckland alone—why does the Minister not just sit down and resign?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because that member is so disconnected from the realities of the building industry that, actually, the amount of building activity in Auckland and across the country is at record levels—now over $12 billion per year. That is reflected in the GDP figures, that is reflected in the employment figures, so every part of the building system is going gangbusters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request from Auckland Council to us exclusively—New Zealand First—and also Mr Smith’s answer on the matter to us to a written question. Perhaps we will see who is disconnected now.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave with regard to the first document. I will not put leave with regard to the second document, which I take to be an answer to a written question, which is already available to all members. Leave is sought to table some local government information from the Auckland Council to the New Zealand First Party. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is not; it can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Joanne Hayes: What credence does he give to claims that building consent data cannot be relied upon, given that some developments, like the high-profile Flo Apartments development involving about 100 apartments, are now not proceeding?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason I have confidence in the monthly building consent data is that it co-relates historically so closely to census data on the number of changes in houses. For instance, in Auckland, between the last two censuses the number of homes increased by 33,777; the number of building consents issued over the relevant period was 33,703—i.e. within 1 percent. There have been some townhouse and apartment developments, like Flo, that have not proceeded, but building consents for those have not been issued or counted. Building consents trigger substantial fees and levies amounting, for a development such as Flo, to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and are generally sought only when finance is confirmed and development is ready to go. That is why this House can have confidence in those very strong, growing building consent numbers.
Joanne Hayes: What progress has been made in minimising the impact of appeals on bringing the new Auckland Unitary Plan into effect and enabling the 420,000 new home capacity to be utilised?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has been working with the Auckland Council to minimise the impact of those appeals and to take advantage of the new unitary plan. I am very pleased today that the appeal pleadings have been significantly amended so that they impact only on 29,000 of those 420,000—i.e., about 7 percent. That means, as of today, that 90 percent of the new housing capacity in the Auckland Unitary Plan takes effect.
Police Resourcing—Numbers and Funding
5. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements; if so, how?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes; as to how, with confidence and clarity and, I have been told, just occasionally, a little bit of charm.
Ron Mark: How does she reconcile her Government’s promise in 2008 to maintain a ratio of one police officer for every 500 people with her own admission in August that it has “slipped” to one for every 526 people?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously, the figures that I have given the member are absolutely correct, and, clearly, I stand by them.
Ron Mark: Why is she claiming credit for the only increase to police numbers that has ever occurred under this Government, back in 2009, when that increase had been committed to and announced by the previous Government through the New Zealand First confidence and supply agreement?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Clearly, that member is wrong, but I would also say to him that there is a huge difference between promising and delivering. This Government delivers.
Ron Mark: In her last sojourn as Minister of Police, before she was replaced, why did she freeze the Police budget in 2010?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I actually did not hear what that member said halfway through his question. Would he like to repeat it?
Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat the question.
Ron Mark: Thank you. Why, in her last sojourn as the Minister of Police, before she was replaced, did she freeze the Police budget in 2010?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Clearly, I was not replaced; I was promoted.
Ron Mark: Did she really have meetings with the Prime Minister in June about police resourcing, considering she has not been able to release dates, reports, and briefings related to those meetings, which were requested under the Official Information Act (OIA) by New Zealand First 2 months ago?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, I did.
Ron Mark: I seek leave to table—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need to hear it; I cannot do that with interjections. Can the member start again.
Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table an OIA request dated 11 August, which was extended to 29 September and still has not been answered—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need that part; I just need a description of it. I do not need detail about whether it has been responded to with alacrity or not.
Ron Mark: Oh, I am sorry. I apologise for that. I am still seeking the leave, though.
Mr SPEAKER: You have not finished. Just describe the document and I will decide.
Ron Mark: I seek leave to table an OIA request dated 11 August, which was extended to 27 September, seeking information around those meetings that I have just asked a question about.
Mr SPEAKER: So it is not a response to an OIA request; it is simply a request?
Ron Mark: It is just our OIA—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to put the leave. I have pointed out to members on many occasions that the point of putting leave is to inform members, not to make a political point, and that is exactly what I think the member is attempting to do.
Ron Mark: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: I hope we are not relitigating—
Ron Mark: No. I just need your guidance, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I have given my guidance.
Ron Mark: Can you quote the Standing Order so that we are for ever informed and guided by an actual Standing Order?
Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly come back to the member with the relevant Speaker’s ruling. It is one that I issued early on in my time as Speaker. It is a very lengthy ruling, and I gave it personally to the Rt Hon Winston Peters on one occasion in this House. I will have it delivered to the member immediately after question time.
Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a point of clarification to your ruling, which I am not questioning. Are you saying—[Interruption] It is a point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Just move on quickly.
Ron Mark: I just need to be clear that informing the House that we have lodged an OIA request is not of value to you.
Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not. It has no value at all, and I would be grateful—[Interruption] Order! I would be grateful if the member now waits for this piece of paper to be delivered to his office after question time, and has a good read of it so that we do not have this issue raised further.
Ron Mark: Why should anyone take anything she or this Government says on policing matters seriously when they have frozen the Police budget since 2010, reneged on election promises to maintain the police per capita ratio, have claimed credit that belongs to New Zealand First through its support and agreement with the previous Government, and continue to close police stations in exchange for iPhones and iPads?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There were about five questions there, so I will choose one. I would ask that member how he can possibly say there is a frozen budget when Police got an extra almost $300 million in this year’s Budget. That shows me that he clearly has not read the Budget documents.
Police, Minister—Statements About Child Poverty
6. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes, especially in context, and especially when I have said that to blame crime on poverty is so insulting to anybody who does not have a lot of money.
Jacinda Ardern: Does she stand by the exact answer she gave yesterday to the Police Association conference when asked the question “Do you think your Government is doing enough for child poverty and the gap between those that do have and those that don’t have?”, an answer from her that included “It’s not that; it’s people who don’t look after their children”?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I am happy to provide that member with the full question, not a little teeny bit of the question, as she has quoted. The question was: “Greg mentioned several homicides. I think we’re up to nine now—I think. We know we could never have enough resources. You know we couldn’t have enough resources in police. We have this chasing-our-tails scenario that continues on and on and on. If we look at the United Nations, who have just released a report on child poverty—and, of course, that is where all our recruits come from, continually into gangs, and a lot of our offenders are from that neck of the woods. Do you think your Government is doing enough …”, then we get to the little bit that Miss Ardern has mentioned. So my answer was: “Well, you know, speaking with my ‘MP for Papakura hat’ on, so I know something about child poverty, I can tell you we’re doing a whole lot more than the UN has ever done. So, actually, yes—a hell of a lot more. But just like police, we could always do with more. And one of the things I look at with child poverty—actually, I don’t see just money or money poverty. I see a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring”—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, these—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member—[Interruption] Order! I wish to hear the point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that the length of that answer is matched only by the vacuity of the answer she is giving.
Mr SPEAKER: And that, again, is not a point of order, and I—[Interruption] Order! On many occasions, again, I have said to that particular member, I determine when the length of answer is excessive. On that occasion, when a quote had been given and the Minister was taking the opportunity to put the quote into full context—although it was a very long answer—I thought it was justified.
Jacinda Ardern: If she stands by her answer at the Police Association conference yesterday, which also included: “In New Zealand there is money available to everyone who needs it.”, how does she explain the high levels of income poverty in this country?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I, of course, am the Minister of Police. If that member wants to ask questions specifically about child poverty, she should have the gumption to ask the Minister in charge—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will stand and withdraw that part of the answer.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I withdraw.
Mr SPEAKER: Is there a further supplementary question, or do you wish to continue your answer?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am happy to. I am also happy to say that it is not just about money in this country. It is about parental responsibility, and that is something that I take very seriously.
Jacinda Ardern: If there is enough money for everyone who needs it, as she has stated, can she tell the House what percentage of families defined as being in income poverty are also in work?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have indulged the member, but really—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As I said yesterday, and as I say again, I am speaking as the member of Parliament for Papakura, but I am very happy to say to that member that if she wants to put a question down on notice I am sure the appropriate Minister will answer the detailed question.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A Minister of Police speaking to a Police Association conference can only be speaking in her capacity as Minister of Police. She would not have been invited as an individual member of Parliament and, therefore, it is more than acceptable to ask questions about the statements she made in her ministerial capacity and to expect her to answer them.
Mr SPEAKER: The member is, on this occasion, half right. It is certainly acceptable to ask the question. But when I consider the general nature of the primary question, it is not unreasonable that the Minister then is unable to answer the detail that was asked in that question. If the member wants further guidance on this, I refer him to Speaker’s rulings 191/3 and 191/4.
Jacinda Ardern: Is she telling parents like Ebony Andrews, who, despite stringent budgeting, is left with $80 a week from her income as a learning support teacher and has to rely on KidsCan to provide basics like food, clothing, and shoes for her family, that she has all the money she needs to get by, or is she telling her that she is a bad parent?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, what I am saying to that person who is now being quoted by Miss Ardern is that I do not agree with the Labour Party, or with Mr Stuart Nash, who today said that poverty causes crime. I do not believe that.
Offenders—Employment Support
7. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding support for offenders into employment?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Last week, along with the very able corrections Minister, Judith Collins, I announced the launch of a new initiative targeted at improving the employment outcomes of people released from prison. Work and Income case managers and professionals will work with offenders before and after their release, to help them prepare for, find, and stay in employment. We are investing $15.3 million over 3 years for the trial, which will see up to 200 clients at a time develop an individual plan to get them into employment, and access education and training, financial support services, health services, and social and housing support.
Nuk Korako: What are the benefits of offenders being in employment?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We know that there are significant benefits from being in work, and especially so for this group of people. Data shows us that around 80 percent of released prisoners are still on a benefit 12 months after release, and many stay on a benefit long term. This Government is committed to breaking the cycle of long-term welfare dependency. We also know that if people are in employment they are less likely to commit crimes. This Government is focused on reducing the reoffending rate, and this initiative will go a long way to helping us achieve this target.
Childhood Obesity—Sugary Drink Tax
8. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Health: Will he now investigate a sugary drink tax, given the World Health Organization is citing evidence that increasing taxes on such drinks will contribute to reducing obesity and improving nutritional health?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Contrary to what the member asserts, there is neither clear nor new evidence on the effect of such a tax on obesity and the jury is still out on this issue. A sugar tax is not something we are actively considering but, as I have said before, we will continue to keep a watching brief on the emerging evidence, and two major global studies are due to report at the end of next year. I think that it is important to note that there is no single solution that will fix obesity. That is why we have implemented a Childhood Obesity Plan with a range of interventions across Government, schools, families, and the private sector.
Julie Anne Genter: So is he saying that the World Health Organization and the Prime Minister’s own Chief Science Advisor are wrong, given that the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor chaired an international commission on ending childhood obesity that recommended sugary drinks be taxed?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have talked to the Chief Science Advisor extensively about this, and he admitted there was no clear evidence on the subject, but he said that on balance he was in favour of a tax. But the debate we had was, well, what really is the price elasticity in this case and how much would you have to put a can of Coke up to to stop people buying it? The bottom line is there is no evidence that a sugary drinks tax will decrease obesity. So I know you love taxes—I know the member loves taxes and inquiries and sackings, but we are about evidence in this case.
Julie Anne Genter: Why is the Government happy to go ahead with the Childhood Obesity Plan but not a sugary drink tax, when 70—seven, zero—public health experts in New Zealand have said there is more evidence supporting a sugary drinks tax than any of the soft strategies in his plan?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No. The member is completely wrong. There is no evidence that such a tax would decrease obesity, and if you look at what happened in Mexico when they put a tax on 2 years ago, in actual fact 2 years later they are now finding that sales of Coca Cola are growing. So until there is clear evidence, we will not be considering it, and there is not that evidence.
Julie Anne Genter: Which evidence does he think is more reliable: that from independent public health experts in New Zealand, the World Health Organization, the Prime Minister’s own Chief Science Advisor, or research funded by the industry that sells sugary drinks and would like to continue selling as many sugary drinks as possible?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, certainly I have not read any evidence in the latter category, but in terms of the first category I do not think the member should confuse a passion for more tax with hard evidence, and there is no evidence. If the member has the evidence, please drop it off at my office and I will have a look at it. But I can tell you, it does not exist.
Julie Anne Genter: I would like to table a letter from 70 public health experts to the Minister of Health saying that there is more evidence for a sugary drinks tax than any—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The date of the letter, please?
Julie Anne Genter: I do not have the date here, but I do have the letter. It is—
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I need to put the leave for this first and then I will hear from the Minister. Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table the journal article from the British Medical Journal, published in 2016—in January, this year. It is behind a paywall. The title of the article is “Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has now been well and truly described.
Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No. I need to put the leave for you first. Leave is sought to table that particular article in the medical journal. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table the academic article from the Obesity Reviews, published in 2013. The title of the article is “Assessing the Potential Effectiveness of Food and Beverage Taxes and Subsidies for Improving Public Health: A Systematic Review—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That description will do. I will put the leave. It is an academic article dated 2013 on the issue of obesity. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table a journal article from the American Journal of Public Health, published in 2015: “Higher Retail Prices of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages 3 Months After Implementation of an Excise Tax—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! And again, a brief description is quite satisfactory. Now before I put the leave, does the member have any other documents she wishes to leave seek to table?
Julie Anne Genter: I have a few more.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member had better be careful about using up the patience of the House.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I am dealing with this one. Let us have a list of them all. I will put the leave and see whether members are happy for them to be tabled.
Julie Anne Genter: There is an article called “Taxing Caloric Sweetened Beverages: Potential Effects on Beverage Consumption, Calorie Intake, and Obesity”—
Mr SPEAKER: Well, that is well-enough described.
Julie Anne Genter: —from the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table all of those.
Julie Anne Genter: Sorry, there is one more: “A Typology of Beverage Taxation: Multiple Approaches for Obesity Prevention and Obesity-Prevention-Related Revenue Generation” from the Journal of Public Health Policy, 2013.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! A significant number of documents have now been described. It is now over to the House. I will put the leave for the House to decide. Is there any objection to those documents being tabled?
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, you know, there was a long list there. The first letter that the member is tabling was actually published in the New Zealand Herald a few months ago—so I can table a whole lot of newspaper articles to counter that sort of rubbish.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The process is quite simple. I need a description to decide whether it is relevant. If in doubt, I will put the leave. Then it is over to any member to exercise his or her right at the time to object to it being tabled. Once it has been tabled, there is no point in then raising the objection, as the Minister just has.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table advice to me from the Ministry of Health saying that there is no conclusive evidence that a sugar tax will decrease obesity rates—
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular advice to the Minister from the Ministry of Health. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table an article from the Wall Street Journal from May of this year that shows that Coca-Cola sales have actually increased—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been described. Now, again, is the Minister also going to attempt to table a large number of documents?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No. I am just making a point.
Mr SPEAKER: No, but if it is the Wall Street Journal, then that surely is available to all members competent to use—[Interruption] Order!
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: My point is—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The point made by the member was that a lot of her medical journals were difficult to find. [Interruption] Order! If the honourable Minister wishes to stay for the balance of question time, then do not interrupt me when I am on my feet. There was one document that was taken as behind a paywall. On that basis, I put the leave. I am not prepared to put the leave for something that is in the Wall Street Journal. I hope that is clear to the Minister.
James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I mean, the Minister did ask for evidence, and he surely cannot object when it is then—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want the point of order. There is not one. Further points of order?
Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Kia ora. This is actually a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding—and I am sure you have made it clear on several occasions—is that points of order are supposed to be heard in silence. It has become more and more common that the National Party backbench, particularly when members of the Green Party and particularly when women are standing—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point has been made and I think there is some value in it. I do not accept that the interjections come from one corner only. I will attempt to keep more silence, but points of order should be—in fact, must be—heard in silence. We move now, finally, to question No. 9.
Schools—Operational Funding
9. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that schools are receiving adequate funding to fully deliver the curriculum and offer New Zealand children the free education that the Education Act 1989 promises?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am satisfied that we are providing more funding for education than ever before. Under this Government, we have increased Vote Education by 35 percent to over $11 billion, including more than $1.35 billion for schools’ operational grants. Whether this funding is used effectively to ensure all children can progress in their learning along the curriculum is one of the key questions of the funding review.
Chris Hipkins: Why did she claim that her modelling “suggests that more than two-thirds of schools will receive increases that are greater than the inflation rate …” next year, when the actual numbers show that just 12 percent are set to receive an increase greater than the rate of inflation and the rest are set to be worse off?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not sure where the member is asserting I made that claim. What I have said is that over 96 percent of schools would receive some of this funding, depending on the distribution of those young people who come from long-term welfare-dependent homes.
Chris Hipkins: Did she say in her press statement on 27 May: “The same modelling suggests that more than two-thirds of schools will receive increases that are greater than the inflation rate”; if so, why did she make that claim, when the actual data shows that fewer than 12 percent of schools will receive an increase greater than the rate of inflation?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: It would appear that I did make that statement, since the member is quoting from a press release. I think I also said at the time that the actual impact would rely on the July return of rolls, and then we would know for certain what the distribution would be.
Chris Hipkins: So is it not true that the actual numbers after adjusting for inflation show that 1,894 schools will be worse off and will lose funding in 2017, while only 299 schools will be better off?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, and that reflects the member’s misunderstanding of how we fund into schools—
Tracey Martin: Ha, ha!
Hon HEKIA PARATA: —and that member’s also, apparently—which is $1.35 billion. The $12.3 million that is being distributed in addition amounts to the 1 percent, but the overall total is $1.35 billion being distributed across schools. It is driven by the size of the roll and by the 23 elements that are in the operational grant, and that is why it differs each year between schools.
Chris Hipkins: Does an analysis, school by school, using the same formula that she has used in her post-Budget publicity in every other year except for this year, show that nearly 2,000 schools end up worse off, while only about 300 schools end up better off?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.
Chris Hipkins: How can she claim that the education sector is being adequately funded, when a recent report from the OECD shows that New Zealand lags behind the OECD for per-student funding on average, and why will she not just admit that the National Government’s strategy for funding schools is to push more and more of the cost on to parents?
Mr SPEAKER: Either of those supplementary questions.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not claiming; I am basing it on evidence. What we know is, first of all, that the methodology that the OECD used for that report does not make consistent comparisons. It does not use the childcare subsidy in New Zealand, which is part of the support we provide for families, whereas it does for every other country. Secondly, its comparison is based on two children in every family doing 40 hours per week, whereas in New Zealand it is based on individual children, regardless of how many a family has, and it is based on 20 hours. So the comparison does not stand up under scrutiny. Sorry, what was the other question that the member asked? I am happy to answer that, too. For every $1.80 that parents provide to support fund-raising for their school, taxpayers provide $100. For every dollar that parents pay for early childhood education, the Government pays $4.80. I think it demonstrates that this National Government—
Chris Hipkins: Parents are taxpayers too.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Parents are taxpayers, and that is the very point that I am making.
Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, Mr Speaker, the member is making assertions that are not supported by fact.
Social Enterprise Sector—Government Initiatives
10. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: How is the Government working to enable growth in the social enterprise sector?
Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): On Tuesday evening I officially launched the new report Social Enterprise and Social Finance: A Path to Growth. Social enterprises are organisations that trade as a business to support their social or environmental mission. The new report, commissioned by the Government and authored by a strategic group, proposes a range of actions to enable social enterprises to grow and unlock new sources of capital. It is a sector that has existed for decades but is now growing into a significant economic, social, and environmental force. It outlines a range of actions for the Government and other sectors to consider in order to build the capability and contribution of social enterprise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Table it.
Paul Foster-Bell: How is the Government working to enable growth in the social enterprise sector, in particular in Wellington?
Hon JO GOODHEW: This report is an important step, spelling out the potential role of social enterprises in innovation, entrepreneurship, and regional economic development. Organisations such as the Wellington-based PledgeMe will be better able to realise their financial potential. The 2014 Government Position Statement on Social Enterprise outlined the Government’s commitment to facilitate further growth of this sector. That commitment has taken another step forward with the launch of the report. The report will also provide a useful basis for conversations about how to further grow this sector in the lead-up to the Social Enterprise World Forum 2017, to be held in Christchurch next September. I want to alert the House to the fact that this is easily found, as the member opposite has asked for this report to be tabled. It is easily found on the Department of Internal Affairs website if the member chooses to look.
State and Social Housing—Children’s Living Standards
11. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Social Housing: What action, if any, will she take to address the deeply held concerns of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in respect of children’s rights to an adequate standard of living and access to housing?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Housing: The Government has a comprehensive plan to increase the supply of emergency and social housing to ensure that those in need, including children, have adequate housing. This is the first Government to directly fund emergency housing. There was $41.1 million in Budget 2016 for 3,000 new and existing emergency housing places, and to fund a new non-recoverable special-needs grant to pay for emergency housing. Since then, another $9 million has been announced to roll out Housing First and other support for the homeless. We are also supporting both community providers and Housing New Zealand to increase the supply of social housing, with more than 2,500 new places forecast in Auckland over the next 3 years.
Marama Fox: Does she accept that filling all currently vacant State houses with wait-listed families who have children, and providing them with security of tenure so that they can get ongoing access to long-term services and support, is one of the measures she could implement now to intensify efforts to provide safe and adequate housing to all children; if so, will she commit to working with the Māori Party to achieve this?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Minister is always willing to talk with the Māori Party about these issues, and always finds its input constructive. Housing New Zealand is working to fill any short-term vacant properties as fast as possible because it is a priority to get families in need into our social housing. For example, in the Gisborne area Housing New Zealand has taken 13 homes off the market and let them to new tenants. It is doing this in other areas of high demand. We are also reviewing tenancies of those paying market rent, to free up houses for those in more need. So far, 943 people have left social housing, including 120 who have bought their own homes.
Marama Fox: In light of her recent announcement about opening up access to community housing providers to give them up to 150 percent of income-related rent, does she have any plans to work with the Māori Party to explore the expansion of this policy to extend it to existing community housing tenants as a measure to help eliminate homelessness; if not, why not?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are no plans to extend the income-related rent subsidy to existing community housing tenants. Our main priority is to get more people housed, and we will do that by providing the subsidy to new tenants, not those who already have a house. The extra $24.4 million the Minister recently announced comes on top of the $120 million in the Budget for community providers. This will help them increase supply so that we can get more people housed.
Police Resourcing—Numbers
12. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Why did she sign off on Police’s Four Year Plan on 27 May 2016 that stated there would be no increase in Police numbers?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Of course the plan works with the known resources at the time, and because I deal with reality at the time—and not hypotheticals.
Stuart Nash: Are 74 percent of sworn police officers wrong when, in their latest biennial survey, they said that they are “dissatisfied with the number of front-line police staff in their district.”?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Far be it from me to ever disagree with our wonderful front-line officers and to personally attack them, like that member does from time to time. Obviously they are never going to be satisfied, and that is because they care about their job and they try to do the very best that they possibly can. I am going to do the very best I can to deliver for them.
Stuart Nash: In light of that answer, why has she not implemented the promise made by John Key in 2008 that “there is one officer for every 500 people, and we will keep this ratio as population grows.”?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We can do the very best that we can in the Budget, and the $300 million increase in this Budget absolutely did help.
Stuart Nash: Is the incoming New Zealand Police Association president, Chris Cahill, incorrect when he said this morning that “Our staffing on the front line is at crisis point.”; if so, why?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have been involved with police for a lot longer than that member, so I can tell him it has never been described by the incoming president of a Police Association as being anything other than at a crisis point, but particularly when the Labour Government was in charge.
Stuart Nash: Are the police wrong when 60 percent said they cannot deliver promises made to the public, 55 percent said they have undue workplace stress, and 86 percent believe that front-line staff are under-resourced?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: These are, of course, people’s opinions, and I, obviously, always support the police. And particularly, I think, one of the areas where they get a lot of stress is when they get personally attacked, as the district commander for the Eastern Police District, Superintendent Sandra Venables, has been—by that member—on numerous occasions, to the extent that the deputy commissioner, Mr Viv Rickard, has had to go to see Mr Andrew Little about that behaviour.
Bills
Electronic Interactions Reform Bill
First Reading
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. This bill is a cross-agency omnibus bill that contains proposals from the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Department of Conservation. It amends and modernises 17 pieces of legislation to help enable digital interactions between individuals, business, and government.
Providing digital services that make it easier for individuals and businesses to interact with government is a core part of delivering Better Public Services. I should report to the House that good progress is being made. We are on track to meet the Better Public Services Result 10 target of ensuring that 70 percent of New Zealanders’ most common transactions with Government are completed in a digital environment by the end of 2017.
Internationally, New Zealand’s efforts in the digital area have been noticed. New Zealand was a founding member of a global network called the Digital 5 (D5), a group of countries committed to leading the way in providing digital services to their citizens. The other members of the D5 are the United Kingdom, Estonia, South Korea, and Israel. Earlier this year, in recognition of the progress that New Zealand has been making in this area, I was invited to give the annual lecture to the digital leaders network at the House of Commons in London.
But we need to maintain and build on this momentum, so work is under way on innovative ways to improve delivery of public services. This includes developing integrated services so a customer can easily access services from the different agencies that they need to deal with when they have a significant life event, such as having a child. Another area being explored is using information the Government holds to proactively deliver services for which citizens are eligible. Although it is hard to accurately predict technology trends and how people will interact with government in the future, we do know that New Zealanders want services that are easy to access, convenient, and tailored to their individual needs.
To deliver public services in digitally innovative ways we need to ensure that our legislation governing service provision is fit for purpose in a modern digital context. This bill helps put those legislative conditions in place and complements portfolio-specific programmes to futureproof legislation. The bill amends legislation related to the services provided by the three participating agencies. These changes will help make a tangible difference by allowing New Zealanders to choose to interact with Government services in a fully digital way when previously they have had to use paper forms or front up in a Government office.
Under changes related to the functions performed by the Department of Internal Affairs, the bill will amend the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995, the Marriage Act 1955, the Civil Union Act 2004, and the Electronic Identity Verification Act 2012. Currently, individuals are required, under some of this legislation, to complete a statutory declaration in front of an authorised witness when applying for various services, such as getting married, entering into a civil union, registering a name change, or becoming a marriage celebrant for some types of organisations. These legislative requirements presently prevent New Zealanders accessing such services in a fully digital way.
Therefore, amendments to the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act, the Marriage Act, and the Civil Union Act will allow individuals to apply electronically without completing a statutory declaration. For example, clause 21 of this bill amends section 23 of the Marriage Act to allow information on a notice of intended marriage to be verified electronically. Allowing alternative means to verify the information on applications for these services will enable a large number of transactions to be completed digitally. In 2015, for example, there were over 32,000 applications for these services.
Additionally, the amendments to the Electronic Identity Verification Act will allow consent-based use of the electronic identity photograph, which is collected as part of the application process for a RealMe verified identity. This will be allowed when an organisation needs a verified photograph of an individual, such as when issuing a photographic licence. Currently, the electronic identity photograph cannot be used for such purposes, even when the individual consents to its disclosure. Instead, they commonly need to provide a separate physical photograph. So this change will support the development of convenient digital services between individuals and organisations without undermining the voluntary premise of the Government-operated RealMe service.
The bill’s changes also provide protections to help ensure that the electronic identity photograph is used appropriately. For example, clause 38 amends section 62 of the Electronic Identity Verification Act to ensure that it is an offence to improperly access or use the photograph. The bill also amends 11 Acts relating to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. These Acts, which include the Commerce Act 1986, the Copyright Act 1994, and the Fair Trading Act 1986, relate to commerce and consumer affairs. Currently, provisions in these Acts require individuals or businesses to appear before Government agencies for a range of interactions. This requirement presently prevents the use of electronic communications, such as an audio or a video link, to conduct these interactions remotely.
The amendments to these Acts, such as clause 44, which amends section 98 of the Commerce Act 1986, will provide flexibility over current requirements to front up in person when both the individual and the agency agree. This provides an opportunity to make these interactions more convenient and run more efficiently. Other provisions in these Acts do not expressly allow for the sending of notices electronically, and this restricts the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—along with other agencies with commerce and consumer regulatory functions—from using email to communicate with business and individuals.
Amendments to these Acts, such as clause 53, which amends section 139 of the Copyright Act, will expressly allow certain types of notices to be provided electronically. This will support more timely communications and, in situations where it is difficult to find a person’s physical or postal address, will help ensure individuals and organisations receive the information they need when dealing with the Government.
Finally, under changes related to sports fishing and game hunting activities, the bill will amend section 26Z of the Conservation Act 1987 and section 19A of the Wildlife Act 1953. The changes in clauses 82 and 88 of the bill will ensure that sports fishing and game hunting licence holders entitled to vote in Fish and Game Council elections can vote online if they wish, and allow the image of the game bird habitat stamp to be incorporated within a game hunting licence, rather than requiring a physical stamp to be stuck to each licence. This minor change will help the online sale of licences and meet anticipated future demand for digital licences, potentially accessing portable electronic devices.
This bill benefits New Zealand because it will enable New Zealanders to complete more interactions with the Government on a digital basis. It is an important contribution to the ongoing efforts across government to provide services that are designed to meet the needs of New Zealanders in the digital age, and it is an example of how agencies are able to work together to achieve this. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): The Labour Party will be supporting this bill to the Government Administration Committee. As the Minister of Internal Affairs, Peter Dunne, just laid out, it obviously has some advantages in terms of moving many of our ministries into the digital age and allowing them to be able to communicate with New Zealanders much more easily. There is a cliché, really, that we are moving into a digital age and therefore the Government needs to be kept up to speed with that as much as anywhere else.
The Minister went on to talk about some of those advantages, including with regard to the marriage licences Act—being able to perform a lot of those activities online, including signing your marriage licence, as I understand it. For the Department of Conservation, it includes hunting licences and game licences, for example—being able to do that online and have that as part of an app, or even allowing the election on the Fish and Game Council to be carried out online as well, rather than having to do that in a paper form. I have to say that begs the question that if you can do it with the Fish and Game Council, why can we not move more rapidly to bring out online voting for, say, local body elections. We have just seen how appalling the local body election turnout has been in New Zealand, and a lot of that relates to, I believe, the fact that for many young people—and certainly I can speak for my own children, who were voting in this local body election this time for the first time—this is the first time they have ever had to post a letter in their lives. They sit there on their tablets or their phones all the time; it is about time we got our electoral system into the digital age as well.
There are other advantages as well that the Minister mentioned, including the transfer of Government bills, and of photos—for example, for licences—with the agreement of the applicant, etc., so that a digital photo can be used rather than a hard copy. All of that is, I think, uncontentious. It is useful. It is going to speed up the activities of government and the efficiencies of government, and can be supported. But obviously there is another side to every initiative that is taken, and I think it is worthy to mention three on this occasion.
First of all, there is a digital divide that is opening up in New Zealand, and I think we need to address that. The digital divide is between those people who, obviously, are well and truly electronically connected and those who are not. In the second category I put those sorts of people like older people who perhaps have not had the advantages of going through a more computerised education system or computerised age, and those who cannot afford to have a computer or connect to the internet in their homes—of which there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who are not connected in that way. It is worthwhile realising that we do have this divide and it is up to Government as well not only to put in these new-fangled and welcome efficiencies but to ensure that they are universal and right across the board and not just for some and not others.
Secondly, there is the risk of—as we have seen constantly and consistently, particularly in the last few months—the penetration into our digital systems, into our databases, etc. by outside influences. We only have to look across to the United States where recently all of the Government records—all of its Government records—were entered into and stolen. There is Yahoo!, where some of its digital information was passed across to Government agencies, and this morning, in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, we were listening to a number of submitters giving evidence on the intelligence and security changes that we are trying to make. Once again we have an agency, the GCSB, that is currently assessing the penetration by outside influences into our Government departments and key companies in New Zealand, which are being constantly bombarded by both other nations and crime syndicates to try to penetrate and get information from the Government. I am not convinced that we will ever be able to protect those resources completely, but we have to understand that there are going to be inherent risks when we consolidate and we put that sort of information together into databases and make it available in the way that the Minister laid out.
Lastly, thirdly, I want to mention this as well: this Government has not done very well when it comes to protecting our information. We have had leaks in health, ACC, social welfare, IRD—pretty much every single department in the Government has had various leaks in which people’s personal and private information has made it into the public arena. We have to do a lot more—I say we, but the Government in particular—to ensure that that information is protected. When it comes to those databases, the Government has not done particularly well in terms of setting up databases that are robust and actually work. The obvious example is Novopay, which, despite the fact that it has got out of the news, is still rumbling on through schools and still creating problems 6 years after it fell apart in glorious fashion.
The other thing that is happening right at the moment is in customs. Customs embarked on a new customs information-gathering system that was supposed to replace the old system, called CusMod, with a new system, called the Joint Border Management System (JBMS), which IBM was putting in place. The JBMS has not delivered anything like what was expected of it, and my understanding is that IBM has just been sacked by the Government and told: “There’s the door, go through it, because we don’t want to have anything more to do with you.”, having delivered over budget, 3 years behind what it said it was going to be, and not being able to deliver the most fundamental part of what it said it was going to do, which was to be able to establish the risk and intelligence functions of goods and people coming into New Zealand.
It is terrific to laud the progress of the changes that the Minister was talking about, and on the face of it they are pretty simple, they are pretty straightforward. But behind that there are problems: first, of making sure that that connectivity is universal across New Zealand; second, of making sure that the databases that we have in New Zealand, as we have seen so often over the past few years, are protected and that private information does not make it into the public arena; and, third, the woeful—the woeful—handling of major information projects that this Government has taken on, and I mentioned Novopay, but more recently, perhaps in the last couple of weeks, the exit of IBM from re-establishing and reformatting the entire customs system of border management. That has gone by the wayside as well, and IBM has been, as I said, given the sack, having delivered well over budget—about $30 million or $40 million over budget—3 years late, and not having done what it said it was going to do. It has been woeful, it has been a waste of taxpayers’ money, and it is one of those things that we have to keep a very close eye on. Thank you.
PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa, tēnā koutou katoa. I am going to make a brief intervention in this first reading debate on the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill and begin by congratulating the Hon Peter Dunne on bringing a very sensible set of measures to the House.
We are living in the 21st century and this Government has made great progress already towards implementing our Better Public Services target of having 70 percent of the most common transactions that Government offers to our citizens available and delivered electronically. I have got some personal experience recently, in signing up for the full RealMe verification service in order to become a marriage and civil union celebrant. I can say that although it was initially a little bit of an arduous process to go down to the post office, be identified, have the photograph taken, and supply all the documentation, and then to have the material sent to my home address so that they could verify my home address—ultimately, once you have got that set up, that gives you access to a wealth of Government services so much more easily, so much more conveniently than would ever have been possible before.
As the member opposite, David Cunliffe—the very distinguished and learned member opposite—mentioned, there is a digital divide, and we have to make sure that services are available not only to older and younger New Zealanders but also to those of different abilities, I think. Technology does have the potential to be both a great leveller as well as a great enabler of efficiency. So for those with sight or hearing challenges, with the technical improvements that have been offered—such as, for instance, being able to communicate verbally through a speech recognition tool—there are significant prospects to make it easier for our disabled New Zealand citizens to access Government services.
This is a very sensible set of measures. I think this Government will go down in history as one of the great reforming Governments, in that it has brought in, just yesterday, the Land Transfer Bill, which brings the land transfer system firmly into the 21st century from its 19th century origins in South Australia—the 1858 Real Property Act that was brought in by Sir Richard Torrens GCMG, the third Premier of South Australia, for instance. That is another example.
But this bill, in particular—the thing that I am excited about is that it allows the RealMe verification service to be extended to a far wider range of Government services. There really is very little excuse for any Government department not offering RealMe verification, because it is a much better system than a person walking in and having a human compare a photo and a signature with what they see in front of them. The machine actually makes far fewer mistakes than a human. But where there are, I think, some barriers to that is with archaic legislation. That is what we are fixing here today. It is an excellent bill and I commend it fully to the House.
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak in this, the first reading of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. I was not expecting to speak on the bill, so I have done a little bit of research so that I could understand what this bill is actually trying to achieve. This is an omnibus bill, to amend more than one Act, and it may be introduced under Standing Order 263(a), because it is dealing with interrelated topics “that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy.” What is that single broad policy? Well, that single broad policy is part of the “ongoing information management and digital transformation work”, or, as I like to think of it, how we use technology to deliver public services to New Zealanders.
In looking at the merits of this piece of legislation, I managed to find a Deloitte public sector research group report that was published in October 2015. It is titled The journey to government’s digital transformation: A global view. This survey examined “digital technology’s ability to fundamentally transform the way public sector organisations operate and deliver services to citizens”, and included 1,200 participants from Government departments of 70 countries. The key global findings were twofold. The first was that “Around 75% of respondents indicated that digital technologies are disrupting the public sector, and 96% said the impact was significant”, and the second was that “Nearly 70 percent [of these public sector officials] said they were behind the private sector.” So they identified this huge technological divide.
Why does it matter? Actually, from research and modelling in Australia it matters a lot. There was a cost-benefit analysis by Deloitte Access Economics titled Digital Government Transformation: Unlocking the Benefits of Digitising Customer Transactions. What it highlighted in this particular report was that the reduction in transaction costs by traditional channels had the ability over a 10-year period to reduce costs by 20 percent. It also increased Government productivity and efficiency to the tune—and this is quite staggering—of $17.9 billion. The other saving that it anticipated was a further $8.7 billion in convenience and out-of-pocket costs to citizens. So when you think about the merits of this piece of legislation, actually I think that speaks for itself.
The ICT and transitional costs were estimated at $6.1 billion. So if you look at the cost-benefit analysis, they are going to save $26.6 billion, and it is going to cost them $6.1 billion. That is a 4.36 ratio of savings to cost. So I think, really, the merit of this piece of legislation lies in that research. I could not find the New Zealand - specific research, but I am sure that the officials will be able to provide that advice in due course.
I also looked at the departmental disclosure statement, and the relevance to this piece of legislation on page 6 is to 163,000 New Zealand citizens. That is how many transactions annually this will enable to be completed online. So, actually, I think the scope of the transactions—I do not know how many officials anticipate, but if that is how many currently use those online services, if you think about making the technology more accessible to the entire country, which was my colleague David Shearer’s point, actually I think the benefit to New Zealand citizens is going to be huge.
It is incumbent upon me, given this is not really my area of expertise—but it is of my colleague Clare Curran, who is our spokesperson for open government—to communicate some of the messages that she thought were really relevant to this piece of legislation. We obviously are supporting the legislation to select committee, but there are questions around the amendments, specifically to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act changes. They are regarding the electronic verification, which currently requires statutory declaration documentation. Why? For her, and I think for other members of the House, it was actually within the context of the Phillip Smith issue. As we know, there was an inquiry into how Phillip Smith, who was on temporary release from Spring Hill Corrections Facility in the Waikato, could obtain a passport. What we want to be reassured about—and I am signalling this to the Government—is that any changes in the use of technology are not going to create an opportunity for someone else in Phillip Smith’s situation to be able to obtain a passport because we have enabled them through technology to do so. I am highlighting it because I think it will be one of the issues that will come up. I am sure there are ways and means, and we have the officials who will be able to answer those questions on our behalf.
Other than that, I do not really have much more to contribute. I think that the select committee process is always an incredibly robust one. We get submissions from people who not only understand the technology but will highlight some of the challenges in the system, if we remove statutory obligations in terms of requiring, for example, people to verify people’s identity. But I am convinced that the select committee process is robust, and the membership of the Government Administration Committee has the skills and expertise to identify any challenges and to provide amendments that this House, I am sure, will recognise. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. I just want to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne for bringing this bill to the House.
I just want to say that I found quite interesting the example that my colleague Paul Foster-Bell used in terms of getting himself registered through the RealMe process. Of course, his purpose was that he wants to be a marriage celebrant and be able to carry out or officiate marriages and civil unions. But once he had done that—once he had registered, once he had verified his identification—it then allowed for electronic transactions to take place.
I think that David Shearer made a very good point, which is that we live in an electronic world and that is not going to change. It is a digitised world where records are kept electronically. That is not going to change; that is going to grow.
I think that one of the issues, though, that Louisa Wall just raised, which I think is a very good one, is around safeguards. It is about making sure both that the system protects the individuals and that, actually, there are sanctions available for the departments that are entrusted with this information as well. I will just draw the House’s attention to just a couple of new offences that have been created as part of the bill. One is that “a participating agency commits an offence if the participating agency knowingly uses an individual’s electronic photograph for one or more of the purposes listed above without the individual’s consent or for a purpose other than one of the listed purposes …”. The other offence that has been created is “a person other than a participating agency commits an offence if the person knowingly uses an electronic identity photograph in relation to any transaction or service … and that person is not the subject of the photograph …”. So there are some good safeguards being built into the legislation.
We look forward to receiving the legislation at the Government Administration Committee and to being able to take it through a committee process and examine it more closely. Thank you very much.
BARRY COATES (Green): Ngā mihi nui. Tēnā koutou katoa. I will keep my intervention short; I do not believe in the need to speak to use up my allotted time, so I will not.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: You’ll learn.
Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s an acquired skill.
BARRY COATES: Thank you—thank you. I will learn how to do that later. Unsurprisingly, the Green Party supports this bill. As you know, we are an extremely constructive party. We agree that there are benefits for the public from changes to Government processes to make online transactions easier. We note the benefits in terms of registering births, deaths, and marriages; changed definitions to allow people to appear before Government agencies online rather than in person; and online purchases of hunting licences and voting in Fish and Game Council elections. We commend the Minister Peter Dunne for the initiative for this bill. There will be many thousands of New Zealanders who will benefit from this bill and will welcome it.
We have two points to raise. The first is that our support for this bill comes with a recommendation that the Government pay particular attention to the very serious issues of security and privacy of information. It is a point that has already been made, but we would like to emphasise that we have seen too many examples of personal information having been made public, most notably in the ACC leak but also in leaks from other Government departments. The Green Party would like assurances that there will be strong security and privacy provisions in this bill, and we also look forward to improvements in the performance of Government departments.
In addition, our support for this bill also comes with a second recommendation, and that is that the Government do far more to bridge the digital divide. Again, this has been mentioned, but the division between haves and have-nots in terms of internet access has been persistent and is a new and very powerful form of exclusion for too many people. The report The Internet in New Zealand 2015, from the World Internet Project in New Zealand and authored by Auckland University of Technology (AUT) academics, highlights the persistence of the digital divide in New Zealand and notes that the digital divide is more prevalent amongst Māori. It is more prevalent amongst people with low incomes. It is more prevalent amongst people with disabilities.
But the most excluded group—the group with the least access and usage of internet services—is senior citizens. From this survey, age is the dominant factor in explaining low internet usage. What the survey says is that there are 38 percent of respondents who are over 70 years old who have never used the internet or are ex-users. That 38 percent of senior citizens compares with 4 percent of 16- to 29-year-olds. That is not only a digital divide; that is a digital chasm. Twenty percent of those users who do not use the internet either do not know how to use it or are confused by the technology, 18 percent do not own a device able to access the internet, 13 percent have no internet connection, and 11 percent do not use the internet because they consider it too expensive. This is important, because more than half of the respondents who answered the surveys said that they use internet to access Government or council services. It is obviously a major problem for elderly people when they are unable to access these services online. So, obviously, the problems of this digital divide go far beyond this bill.
We do recognise there has been work undertaken by the Government to support internet access, but we urge greater urgency on this work and a particular focus on the needs of senior citizens. In that vein, we commend the Ministry of Consumer Affairs guide for seniors, Get online savvy, but, as this AUT survey shows, there is much more that needs to be done. It is disappointing to see other research showing that services like Skype or free communications apps like WhatsApp or WeChat are not used extensively by seniors. They have the potential to connect for free with family and friends, even if these family members and friends live overseas. We hope that the Minister will give consideration to boosting internet access as a flanking measure for this bill.
We look forward to examining this bill and, hopefully, making these points in the select committee. With that, the Green Party expresses its support for this bill. Thank you.
CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Good afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulations to you, Mr Coates, on your first speech in the House post your maiden statement. It was a good contribution. We also support this bill going through its first reading and to the select committee, but we support it with some reservations. We want to really underline that, because our continued support will be determined by the outcome of the discussions in the select committee, hearing from those vested groups and those affected people. There are a potential number of points that could be quite contentious. However, New Zealand First sees the pragmatism of dragging this Government into the 21st century, now that we are 16 years into it, and it is certainly a good prospect for the future.
But if I could start, I guess, by giving an articulation of the bill, I do think that Minister Dunne has done a great job this afternoon of putting that quite plainly and simply, but let me see whether I can do the same thing. The bill is an omnibus bill. It does project itself over three ministries—the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Department of Internal Affairs, which this bill has been headed through. The whole idea is about connecting people and businesses better with Government departments, and that obviously is through the digital age, through the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill, which we have here in front of us.
On the surface it does seem rather innocuous. It is not until you actually delve down into it that you see some of these problems. The bill is broken into four parts, with Part 1 relating to enabling electronic applications. On the surface of things, we do not take too much umbrage with that. Of course, the amendments to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act are simply the registration of a name change to provide a statement that is verified electronically as an alternative to the existing requirements to provide a statutory declaration. That is in clause 4, which amends section 21A.
Subpart 2 of Part 1 amends the Civil Union Act 2004 and permits notices of intended civil unions to be given and verified electronically. That does make sense. And then, of course, we have got Subpart 3, which amends the Marriage Act 1955. Clause 19 amends section 9 to permit applications for approval as an organisation that may solemnise marriages to be made electronically and any signatures to an application to be verified electronically.
Part 2 of the bill, which gets into enabling the use of electronic identity photographs for identity cards, licensing, and public registers, is where we have some concerns. We certainly look forward to the submissions during the select committee process. Just this morning on Morning Report at 7 o’clock, there was a situation, and although not directly related, it relates in so far as an identity was stolen from a picture on Facebook and used on a Russian dating website. The photo that was used was of a New Zealand woman. Her name was not given, and I do not blame her for not wanting to give her name out.
These are the sorts of activities that are going on and have been made very easy through the internet. Although the internet is making our lives a lot easier in some respects, it opens up some serious security problems, because access to information and the use of photographs, the use of people’s information and data to fraudulently obtain things that they might want to get—passports, and so forth—becomes a lot easier. So we want to make sure that the provisions that this bill has prevent that from happening. I note that Mark Mitchell has brought forward a couple of points about there being new offences that have been brought into this bill and whether or not they go far enough, and we will certainly be scrutinising this part more closely. It is certainly a part that we have some serious problems with.
In terms of the Department of Internal Affairs, as I have already mentioned, there are amendments to allow certain services offered by Births, Deaths and Marriages to be done electronically, and there is the removal of some restrictions on the use of photographs stored in the identity verification service provided that the consent of the subject of the photo is given. Again, consent is given but you need a person to verify that that consent is ongoing—whether you use your thumbprints or you have a live feed where a person on the other end can actually say: “Right, this is you, let me see your photograph. Let’s take that photograph now, and let’s put it into the system.” Other than that, we could be opening ourselves up to a can of worms.
There are amendments that relate to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The amendments relate to the requirement to appear before Government agencies in certain proceedings. This can now be done by videoconferencing, and that is a pragmatic way of getting through the workload and making sure that we can get some positive outcomes, but the second part is a serious concern.
I turn to Part 3, which concerns giving evidence and notice by electronic means. We do not take umbrage with the giving of evidence, but clause 45 amends section 102 of the Commerce Act to permit notices or other documents to be served or given by email. A notice or document that is emailed to a person is to be treated as received on the second working day after emailing, unless the person proves otherwise. This is a situation where you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. I can give you dozens of occasions when people have sent me emails and it has been 10 days before they have actually come through on my computer. It could be just that the Good Technology service has fallen over once again, or it could be a number of other issues that your computer system is having, and you will not know. Now it is up to you to prove it. We in New Zealand First have some difficulty in accepting that you have to prove your innocence in a situation where somebody has sent you an email. I am sure, through the select committee process, that some of these issues can be ironed out, but that is certainly another part that we have some difficulty in working through.
Part 4 is about enabling electronic licences and electronic voting, and this is a good position to take. It certainly is the way of the future. The future of online voting has been discussed for over a decade now, and being able to get licences electronically through the Department of Conservation might be a sound step forward in the right direction. There are amendments relating to the online sale of game hunting licences—again, we would not want to see hunting licences not being able to be gained practically by going into your hunting store and gaining that licence, but enabling an easier access to those hunting licences online certainly does make sense, and New Zealand First will be supporting that.
Voting in Fish and Game councils is something I have already touched on. There is very little issue with that, although whether you have got your virtual private network numbers with regard to your computer, there are ways of fudging those voting figures and that would need to be looked at through the select committee process. We certainly would not want to see people voting more than once online, which you can do. I could not do that. I do not know how to do that, but I certainly could find the people who know how to do that.
This is a good bill, I think, that needs to be pulled apart and put back together. I am sure there will be some opportunities to amend some of these shortcomings in the bill. The idea is sound and, again, New Zealand First will be supporting this through to the select committee. In terms of whether we can continue with that support, we would like to leave that open for discussion and see what solutions can be made for some of those problems that we have outlined here today. Thank you.
BRETT HUDSON (National): It is an absolute pleasure to rise and speak in favour of this Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. As members across the House have noted, digital technology is so ubiquitous in our lives. Even if you do not touch it personally, it is in your home, so you are a consumer of it one way or another. We see simple things like smartphones; I have seen reports that people look at their smartphones 2,000 or more times a day, which is phenomenal when you think about it. Yet more and more I find myself doing my own business and living my life through things on the phone that I think it is actually possible. We wear technology. Some people like things like Google Glass but most people might wear things like Fitbits, to help to record what we are doing, how active we are, the status of our health, how we are improving, and where perhaps we could seek some help.
The reality is that digital technologies are part of our everyday lives. When that is the case, it is also a part of our everyday business or education. We all—or most—in some form or another are using technology to do our work or to do our studies. So it is not at all surprising, then, that people would have a natural expectation that they should be able to undertake their interactions with businesses and with Government agencies through digital channels. So it is a delight, first, to see us undertaking measures through this bill to help facilitate that—but also the Better Public Services target we have of 70 percent of transactions with Government to be performed online by the end of 2017. It is an interesting point that at this point we are already at about 52 percent, or just over 52 percent, so we are well on the way to meeting that target.
As we go through this—and the items that this bill will achieve are laudable in themselves—what is more important, I feel, if this passes through Parliament, is that it is showing the willingness of our agencies, and us as legislators, to remove the barriers to greater adoption and use of digital technology in interactions with Government agencies. Recently, I attended a technology in Government seminar here in Wellington and met with one of our agencies’ chief information officers. He was telling me about what he has been doing in his business. He creates a little bit of what you might call a “sandpit environment” where he has got specialists who just tear down their archaic or traditional business processes and work out how they could do things differently with technology. Once they work out how they can use technology to get better or more efficient and more effective outcomes, they set about dismantling that old process and putting something new in place—something new that will support the use of that technology. That, in effect, is exactly what we are doing here.
We acknowledge that our processes and rules are outdated for this age and we are prepared to change them so that we can embrace more and more digital technologies so that our citizens can interact with us more through digital platforms. So at this stage I would just like to commend this bill to the House.
DAVID CLENDON (Green): This is a good bill. As my colleague Mr Coates has said, the Greens will be supporting it. It does some sensible things. It enables individual members of the public, businesses, and Government agencies to communicate with each other online where that is appropriate and helpful for all parties concerned. I think it is important, though, that this bill does get a fairly rigorous look from the Government Administration Committee, and I am sure it will. It is not a committee that I have ever sat on, but I have no reason to doubt that it will do anything but a good job.
There are aspects to this bill that are not worrying but that are potentially—I just think there are matters in it, particularly some assumptions that seem to sit within the bill, not least of all about people’s access to digital tools. We heard the word “ubiquitous” from Mr Hudson. In our lives, yes, it is. It is hard to get away from the wretched devices—the electronic leash, as I often call them—in fact. It is expected that one will answer that email at 11.30 at night or 5.30 in the morning. So be it. That is what we sign up for.
We also have to recognise, though—and again, Mr Coates, my colleague, mentioned it—the digital divide. I have seen that up fairly close and personal in Northland. There is a wonderful programme called Computers in Homes, whereby parents come into the schools and learn how to use a computer, mostly for the first time. At the completion of a course and if they have shown some commitment, they are gifted a computer and a modem, and they are assisted to get the things set up and assisted with an internet connection, with a person to support them in those first few months or if anything goes wrong, the purpose being—well, two purposes, really—to engage parents in their children’s education and to make sure that when kids go home from school there is a computer in the home to assist them with their study and their work. It is a great programme, but it does demonstrate the fact that a need for it exists. It proves that low-income homes, particularly, and, again, elderly people—we cannot just assume that that facility is available.
Rural areas are often compromised, in terms of internet access, by often very poor connectivity. I was speaking not so long ago to a business in the Hokianga—an art gallery, essentially—wanting to sell artwork online. For that you need a good, fast, high-quality connection, which they simply did not have; therefore, that particular aspect of the business was compromised.
So we ought to be just a little bit thoughtful about any assumptions that any and everybody can use digital technology, the point of that being that nothing in this bill, as I read it, suggests that the existing ways and means of communicating with Government agencies will be removed. Presumably, one can continue to choose paper or fax, or whatever it might be, but I think it is important that we maintain that flexibility—that we maintain the whole suite of opportunities and mechanisms for people to engage with Government agencies, in particular. Mr Dunne, in presenting the bill, made the point that New Zealand is at the forefront, in many ways, of this sort of technology. We are very willing to take it up, but we also have to make sure that people do maintain the option and that nobody is disadvantaged by the move to digital forms.
There are one or two points that I will make in my very few remaining minutes. In the explanatory note of the bill, the point is made that statutory declarations enhance the integrity of an interaction—they do provide a level of security for these interactions—and that ways will be found to verify in alternative ways that a digital interaction is equally secure. I am slightly nervous about the fact that there are not some means identified. I understand that it is never smart to imbed technical solutions into legislation, because they change and they evolve over time, but I would like to see something a little bit more robust—perhaps some key principles around what that level of security might look like. I would like to see just a little bit more guidance as to how we will ensure that people’s identities—because, essentially, that is what we are talking about—and personal information will not be lost or compromised in any way. Similarly, with photographs and the use of making online photographs more accessible—all good stuff, but let us just be aware of the security risks and ensure they are covered off. Thank you.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Iain Lees-Galloway—5 minutes.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a great pleasure to speak on the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill—it is the little surprises that make the day that little bit more interesting. So this is a good piece of legislation. It is designed—at least its intention is—to make interacting with Government more simple, more aligned with the way people interact with each other these days through electronic means, and, hopefully, a little bit cheaper for people to interact with Government as well.
I do note that it is an omnibus bill; it amends a large number of pieces of legislation. I was reading through it to see exactly what it does do, and I note that it amends a number of pieces of legislation to allow communication by email rather than by what we call snail mail these days. And I thought: “There is another piece of legislation that is before the House at the moment that does something similar.” Then I recalled the Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill in the name of Matt Doocey, which is a member’s bill, drawn from the members’ ballot, that allows companies to communicate with their shareholders by email rather than by snail mail. At the time we said: “Well, that would fit nicely in the Statutes Amendment Bill.” It would actually fit very, very nicely—perfectly in fact—in the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill, which I think just proves the point of what a complete waste of time Matt Doocey’s bill was; that amendment to the Companies Act could easily have been included in this piece of legislation, and, in fact, maybe that would be a good amendment to make at the Committee of the whole House.
Maybe a member—maybe even Matt Doocey himself—would like to propose a Supplementary Order Paper to this piece of legislation, or even the select committee could. This is going before the Government Administration Committee. It could propose an amendment to this piece of legislation—and then we could not waste the time of the House dealing with Mr Doocey’s bill; we could do it under this piece of legislation. The change would be made. It is a noble change but it does not require the time of the House of a whole member’s bill, and we could free up a space amongst the members’ orders of the day to deal with something a bit more substantive. So that is my recommendation to the select committee that is considering this piece of legislation.
A number of members have raised two areas of interest and concern. One is around security. Are our Government agencies up to keeping people’s data and information secure? I would relate that back to the decision made by Government earlier this year not to hold the trial for online voting for local government elections. They said that there were issues with security. I have heard the arguments. In fact, there were some very convincing arguments about the issues of security with voting, but I have to ask this: if we can bank online—if we can trust the interwebs to deal with our money—then why can we not trust them to deal with our votes? Why have we not cracked the security issue with our votes? In fact, we have already got RealMe—and if that is secure enough to keep our data and our private information secure, then why not our votes as well?
The other issue—and I think this is the far more pertinent and interesting issue that this Parliament does need to consider—is that question of the digital divide. I know for us, we are all in the privileged position where, yes, everything is online—everything—and we seem to be in constant demand because of people’s ability to access us through all manner of online means. But the truth is, there are people who have difficulty accessing the internet, both by virtue of geography and also through the sheer fact of poverty or not having sufficient income to have the tools or the connection necessary to be able to connect to the internet so as to be able to make use of the changes that this piece of legislation proposes. So I think we need to be mindful of that. That is not a reason to stop proceeding with this legislation. It does not preclude people from being able to interact with Government through the old means, but it is something that we need to be aware of. We cannot fall into the trap of assuming that because digital technology is ubiquitous for us, it is for every member of the New Zealand public. But this is a good bill, an interesting bill, and I commend it to the House.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Like the last speaker, it is with a little bit of surprise that I find myself speaking to this bill. It is with even more surprise that I find myself welcoming Barry Coates to the House and finding myself on the same side as a Green Party member for the first time in 5 years. It is a new look for the Green Party, Barry.
Some of the points that were, interestingly, raised by my fellow Manawatū MP Iain Lees-Galloway are the issues that interest me about this bill. It is not necessarily because we cannot afford the technology. It is because people of my age are tested by this kind of stuff significantly, and people older than me are even more tested by this stuff than I am. I note that one of the targets that the Government has got is around 70 to 78 percent, or something like that, of engagement in this type of process. It is an admirable target to have. It is going to take quite some time before people older than me are going to adapt to this kind of technology. That is one of the challenges that we have got as a Government and as a country. In fact, the slower acceptance of the older generation of this type of technology is one of the challenges that we have got in the world, is it not? It is certainly going to take a long time, and, of course, every time we take another pill we live another day, and so we have got to put up with it for a little bit longer. Ha, ha! So it is quite challenging.
With those very brief words, I will certainly support this bill. But I do warn the select committee that it will be challenging—it will be challenging for many of us to adopt this type of technology, and the Government is just going to have to be patient with it. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a genuine pleasure to speak to the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. I would just really like to begin with sending a message to my friend across the hall, Mr McKelvie, just to say: do not be threatened by the technology that is slowly taking over the world. Embrace it; it is useful out on the farm—as I am sure you have seen in your electorate—and it could save you time and effort, which I think everyone in this House is after. This is one of those pieces of legislation that is “sign of the times” legislation. It is going to, I hope, set out to make the likes of Government departments and processes, and dealing with the Department of Internal Affairs via Births, Deaths and Marriages, a lot more efficient. We in Labour will support it through to the select committee stage.
I do hope that we approach this legislation with some caution, though. Although we support it, because we want to make the processes much more efficient and effective for Kiwis out there who are using these kinds of things every day, there is a danger—when we get into the detail in the select committee—that some of the Government departments may not have the adequate security settings or the training within those departments to make sure that some of the things that we have set out to achieve in this legislation become a reality.
One of the things that my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway talked about within this bill is that it allows an electronic vote, I believe, for—let me just make sure I am going to get this right, because I do not want to get Forest and Bird on my case if it is not them—who is it? It is for the Fish and Game Council elections. I think that is an important aspect of this bill. We heard that the Government, back in 2008, was ambitious for New Zealand, but one of the ambitions that it has not quite got to achieving is electronic voting for local body elections. We have just had those local body elections, and I think we all know the result—we have been talking about it for some time; the other side of the House has been quite silent on it. Having a look at some of the details around the Fish and Game Council elections and what that might entail, in their departmental disclosure statement it says that if one allows, by this legislation, an online vote to happen it will “enable up to 94,000 transactions”—and I am assuming that is votes—“to be completed online once every three years.” Let us just take the city of Porirua, for instance, which I represent—
Iain Lees-Galloway: Who is the mayor there?
KRIS FAAFOI: Ah, Mike Tana. Good mayor—he won by 144 votes. If we had electronic voting there—and there are certainly fewer than 94,000 people in Porirua—it would enable much more voting to happen. Many more people would have their say. So why can we not have electronic voting in our local body elections, which we have just had throughout the country, and the results came out on Saturday, when the New Zealand Fish and Game Council—which we are told will have 94,000 votes under its electronic elections every 3 years, and so it is on the same cycle as us—is able to have its election held online?
That is the kind of question that we want to ask at the select committee. Why can the average “Joe Citizen”, when they are choosing their local ward councillor or their local mayor, not have the ability to vote online? I think the turnout was something dismal, like somewhere between 35 and 40 percent around the country—somewhere in that region. If we really want to get people in New Zealand voting—increased voting in New Zealand—for their local bodies and for their mayors, then we think that we should make a faster move toward electronic voting. Why can it not happen for our local district councils, but here, in this bill, it enables the Fish and Game Council elections to be held electronically every 3 years? Why are they the priority? I do not get it. If the Government says: “Well yes, we are going to bring in legislation to enable the Fish and Game Council to do this.”, I think the question needs to asked of the Government: why is it good enough for the Fish and Game Council every 3 years—and I am not demeaning the Fish and Game Council elections—but not good enough for everyone who votes in their local body elections? I think that is a pretty important question to ask.
Another issue that I think we have with this piece of legislation is around organisations that might start having access to identity verification information under the RealMe system. The RealMe system allows people to go in to their local PostShop—take in their photo—and with certain Government departments that will be good enough as an online verification of their identity. What this piece of legislation says—and the purpose of the bill—is that some organisations have expressed an interest in using these identity verification service photographs to replace manual requirements for physical photographs. I would be OK if some organisations were Government departments or quangos—organisations with an official purpose for the photos. But “some organisations” is a bit vague. Is it the likes of businesses that want to use this? I do not mind that, but I want to know which businesses are going to get access to some of this very sensitive information through the RealMe system. I think, again, that is another question we want to ask of the Government at the select committee, once it gets to that stage. I understand it is going to the Government Administration Committee—a good committee—and I am sure we will get to ask those questions of it.
Another good thing within the bill is the ability to use videoconferencing more from Government departments. I think, certainly for people out in the regions or people out in rural areas, physically going to a Government department to verify your identity or to interact with the entity when you specifically have to attend a meeting has become a bit cumbersome, given the technology that we have. Imagine it: Mr McKelvie is in Marton and he has been requested to go to a Government department, such as the ACC or IRD, in Wanganui. Ian is too busy. He says: “Look, I’m on the farm—got too much on. Is there any other way I can do this?”. Well, under the circumstances as they now stand, Mr McKelvie is out of luck. He has to physically go to Wanganui to the Government department to make sure that he can verify that that is him, and that he, under law, has attended and been to the office to make sure that business is done. But in the new world, Mr McKelvie can crank up the laptop, open up Skype—or maybe even use his phone and FaceTime—and call the Government department concerned. Would that not be a lovely world, Mr McKelvie? Would that not be a great world, where people who have got distances to travel and it would be an inconvenience for them to deal with a Government department can actually just ring them up via Skype or do a FaceTime call? I think that would be a great thing.
Mr McKelvie, this is the piece of legislation that your Government is proposing, so I think you should take it with a firm grip and really empower yourself, and help other New Zealanders empower themselves to be able to use this technology for their benefit. But, in all seriousness, it might help us make things more efficient—and it might make it more effective for the end-user and the Government department. There is some devil in the detail around the security of information and also around some of the other organisations that might get their hands on some of this information, about which some questions need to be asked at the select committee.
I do just want to finish back on the electronic voting, because it is something that has been floating round for such a long time. Why, when the New Zealand Fish and Game Council can vote online for its leadership, can we not use the same technology for people out there in their city councils—[Interruption] I think Mr Barclay has got something to say about that—for their mayoralties, to make sure that online voting can happen. It should be easy. It is easy—it is so easy that the Government can do it for the Fish and Game Council, but it cannot do it for the average Joe Bloggs who voted just in the last couple of weeks in their local body elections. So I would like to see the Government—I will not use the word that I am not allowed to use—follow through with one of its objectives when it came to this House: to make online voting, at least for our local bodies, a reality. It should be done to make sure that everyone out there has their democratic say to make sure they pick the right person in their community and in their city and in their district to be their local representative.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Bills
Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 20 September.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I want to say from the outset that the Labour Party will support this bill. It is an important bill for the innovators in our community. We know from the statistics that we do not hold enough patents in New Zealand. Patents are extremely difficult and extremely expensive for many, particularly smaller innovators, in our community who want to protect their intellectual property.
But I have got to say, before I do this, that I want to thank the chair of the Commerce Committee, Melissa Lee, for the way she chaired this piece of legislation. She allowed a lot of latitude to examine its content and, particularly, the officials. Normally, I would not criticise public servants. I think we have a world-class public service. But—if you read the report from the committee, not just the minority view from the Labour Party but, actually, the words that are consensual, if you like, between the parties on the select committee—I have to criticise, absolutely, the process of this legislation.
This bill set out to facilitate the development and implementation of a single patent application process and a single patent examination process, in respect of the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand and its equivalent in Australia. It was something that the Labour Party supported. It was a Government proposal, like many of the trans-Tasman amalgamations that we have had in respect of the law in accountancy, greater efficiency, ease of access for the industry, etc., etc. We then got some concern from the patent attorneys and, I have to say, from a couple at the big end of town—Fisher & Paykel Healthcare and others that are involved in serious innovative work—that this would be detrimental to the industry.
If you go and look at the select committee report, it talks about the lack of benefits to businesses and patent attorney firms making applications on their behalf—that there would be a small cost, perhaps, in time savings. It talks about increased administration costs to business, it talks about significant costs in other ways, and then we get to the heading: “Consultation and quantification of costs”. All those criticisms, which have led the Government to gut the bill and to reverse its original proposal to do away with the trans-Tasman amalgamation, on the basis—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: We listened.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I do not actually criticise the Minister—he had a chirp there. I do not criticise him. In fact, I am on record—Melissa Lee will verify this—as saying that I felt sorry for him. If he was served up the drivel that we were served up by officials to the Minister—it was almost impossible for the select committee to make a recommendation. But he was served up, I think, grossly inadequate advice.
There was no quantification of cost in respect of costs and benefits. In fact, officials came to us—and I wrote this down. It took us, I think, two meetings to get it out of them. We asked them whether they had quantified the costs and whether they had gone and talked to industry about it. The answer was: “Oh, yes. No. Well, maybe. Well, we’ll come back to you with something.” The following week they came back to us with nothing written down. But I wrote this down: they gave us the figure, I think, of half a million dollars in respect of some of the costs. We asked: “How did you come to that?”. They said that that was “our best guess” and “back of the envelope”. That is what these officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) told a select committee.
The process was so bad that at one point, thankfully—unusually, but thankfully—the Minister’s own adviser came and attended a private session of the committee, which I and, I think, all members of the committee welcomed, to give the Minister feedback on the lack of adequacy in respect of this bill. If you look at the paragraph under “Consultation and quantification of costs”—and this is a paragraph written by the committee as a whole and supported unanimously, I think, by all parties—it says this: “We consider that there was a lack of consultation with patent attorneys and the rest of the industry …”, because, of course, MBIE did not consult the innovators, the small guys and girls at the small end of town.
The Labour Party actually went out and talked to some of the universities and others, and to innovators. The officials talked to a few at the big end of town, like Fisher & Paykel. I make no criticism of Fisher & Paykel, but the officials did not actually talk to the innovators, many of whom struggle to access patents and to protect their intellectual property. The paragraph goes on: “… there was a lack of consultation with patent attorneys and the rest of the industry before the development and proposal of these enabling provisions. Moreover, we consider that quantification of likely costs—that is, the costs of developing and implementing these processes, and the compliance costs to the industry and patent applicants—was inadequate.” As I say, I do not often criticise those in our public service, but I suspect other members will join with me in that criticism.
The pre-consultation process was hopeless. When we asked about and dug into the lack of costings and the lack of quantification and the reason for the reversal of the Government’s own proposal, we were told, basically, at one point, that the industry—and by that, the officials meant the patent attorneys, but the industry is wider than that; it goes to the patent attorneys’ clients, the innovators who require this form of patent protection. We were told, basically, that “They didn’t like it, trust us.”—“us” being the officials—because they have heavy-duty so-called expertise in this. I have got to say, and I do say it with seriousness and I did say it to the officials, that if this was the sort of rubbish and lack of analysis that you served up to your Minister, I actually feel sorry for the Minister. And I mean that in all seriousness. I did say it, and we actually said to them to go back and talk with the Minister, and the Minister has made some decisions in respect of the suit.
Although we support the bill, I can do no better than read the last paragraph of the Labour Party’s minority view, which says this: “Labour will vote for the proposed amendments. We remain bemused at the dexterity required by the Government to justify a complete reversal of its original position.” This is a bill that should have gone out to the industry as a whole. It is the industry that knows best about this, but I think officials felt that they would just fire this one through. The amount of time and money that has been wasted to dish up an inadequate piece of legislation, badly drafted, and to then put that before a select committee—and then for the Government’s own officials to come in and say “We want to reverse what we originally put to you.”, not just a minor tinkering in the odd amendment, but the major part, the trans-Tasman amalgamation, if you will, of the processes around patents.
Now, it may well be valid. I say that we support the legislation, but I have to say that, given the lack of analysis and advice we had, the jury is still a bit out. We will see how this goes. But I just say to the Government—and this has bubbled up in a number of pieces of legislation where bad advice for badly thought-out legislation has been served up. Actually, to the credit of the National members and New Zealand First members and others on the committee collectively, we took a long time to examine the bill and pull the facts and the truth from officials. We have done our best, I think—and thanks to the chair—to put humpty-dumpty back together again and to put a bill before Parliament that, I hope, will serve the industry, not just the big end of town but those innovators, the patented attorneys’ clients, who need this sort of legislation to work and work well.
MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the second reading of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Before I actually get going on the substantive nature of the bill, I am just a little bit in shock that I got so many compliments from the member who just sat down. It is actually quite surprising to get so many compliments. I think I was counting about four things at least that he actually thanked me for. I thank the member. Compliments across the Chamber are way better than insults, and I thank the member for his contribution to the select committee process.
I would like to also thank the members of the public who, in fact, contributed to the select committee process, as the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has said. The select committee is actually there to scrutinise the piece of legislation. I just want to remind the member—he has been here long enough—that select committee members meet often, we actually examine legislation, there are things that we may not like, and select committees decide. In this circumstance, the committee as a whole agreed that there were some elements within the legislation that needed to actually exit the legislation. I am thankful for the unanimous decision that we made as a committee, and we, in fact, worked quite constructively.
I think the important aspect of the bill is not the single patent application (SAP) and single examination process (SEP); it is actually the thing about the implementation of the single trans-Tasman registrations regime for the patent attorneys in our two countries. I know that we have actually had quite a lot of submissions from patent attorneys who were opposed on the grounds that it would, perhaps, impact on the competitiveness of the New Zealand patent attorneys, that it might in fact increase costs to quality as a patent attorney in New Zealand, and that it might actually reduce the level playing field with Australian patent attorneys. There were lots of concerns raised by submitters saying that, as a country with such small numbers, we may actually lose out to Australian patent attorneys.
I think the committee actually agreed as a matter of course that, in fact, that might make us more competitive against the Australian patent attorneys. I think even the minority report of the Labour Party members actually acknowledges that, in the sum of it all, when we actually got to the bottom of it, it was, in fact, because of the benefit for New Zealand and the benefit of the competitive nature of it that we were actually supporting it. I think having joint registration implementation of patent attorneys across the two countries is something that we value and we promote and we will have, and I think it is a welcome decision. In relation to the SEP and SAP, which we removed, that was supported, and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has spoken extensively on that particular matter.
I now move to the recommendation of the “lack of unity of invention” grounds issue, which I raised previously in my speech in the House. The issue that some people might actually have is the issue of retrospectively applying it from the date that the Patents Act 2013 entered into force, which is 13 September 2014. We as a committee did, in fact, note the undesirability of retrospective law being passed by this House, but we also understand that no application on file would be affected by this amendment, and that it is important for any potential applicants to be aware of the potential law change so that there are no challenges based on the unintended provisions currently in legislation over the period between the bill’s time in Parliament and the resulting passage into law.
I think the New Zealand patent, of course, gives key intellectual property rights under the bill with the recommendations as proposed. We will see stronger protections for patents and the role that patent attorneys across Australia and New Zealand have to play in their development. We believe in ensuring our regulatory regimes are fair and effective for those businesses and companies that utilise them, and I think it was agreed as a committee that we are here to protect the businesses so they can be competitive, and having a shared regime between Australia and New Zealand will, in fact, improve the competitiveness of New Zealand’s innovative business.
It is a good bill. I thank the members of the committee for working constructively on this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): This is, indeed, an interesting debate to be having here in the House. We do, on this side of the House, support what is left of this bill. It became very evident through the process that the homework of the Government had not been done and that the Minister, unfortunately, had failed to instruct his officials clearly to question the motion put forward by the Prime Minister that we should unite these markets in this way. This, as I recall the history of it, was about something that the Prime Minister promised after a backslapping episode, I think, with Kevin Rudd in Australia. This is where it came from. It was a great idea, “Let’s do this. It seems logical on paper. Let’s give it a whirl.”, and away they went. I do not know whether they were kayaking at the time or quite what they were doing, but there was no real outcome. I do not know—was it a pyjama party? One of the members on the other side will be able to tell me what happened and what preceded this bright idea.
On paper, it does sound like a very simple and bright idea: the reduction of time and resources spent by businesses applying for and obtaining patents in both countries; regimes that sit slightly at odds with each other, that require correction in duplication, and so on. Why would you not address that? Why would you not get stuck in and make it a single regime across the countries? It seems pretty sensible, and as Melissa Lee has just said, New Zealanders fancy themselves as being able to do some of these things more efficiently and better than our cousins across the Tasman—and we often do in these common market things. So the idea looked good on paper, and somehow that was the end of it. A bill was drafted up. It went through—“Tickety-boo, tickety-boo. Send it off to the parliamentary Chamber. We will rip this one through, we will put a big tick next to it, and we will claim that we made business easier. That is what we do as a Government.” But there was no homework done.
What became evident in the process as this went through the select committee was that there had been no homework done. The Government had not even talked to the industry itself. The Government had not talked to the industry that would be affected by the legislation. It is almost beyond belief. I have never seen anything quite like it in this Parliament. And, of course, as Mr Cosgrove said in his contribution, the dexterity required for the Government to reverse its original position in this particular bill was admirable—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Awe inspiring.
Dr DAVID CLARK: It was awe inspiring. It turned on the head of a pin and then eviscerated the bill, sending it through the Parliament.
How much does each bill that goes through Parliament cost in terms of the time of all the members sitting here? It would be hundreds of thousands of dollars, I dare say, by the time you add in the staff time to get one bill through this Parliament. It is important that this Parliament debates issues that make sense, not ones that have not been homeworked first; not ones where the Minister is trying to do the Prime Minister’s bidding without checking out whether it is a good idea in the first place. This is because it then leads to this kind of embarrassment, where we stand here in the House and have to reverse out, in quite an elegant way, for the Government to put it through.
Believe you me, it would have been delightful for us to oppose this bill, but we realised on this side of the House—and we certainly hope—that we will inherit this legislation before too long. This Government is now so out of touch, so arrogant, that it does not want to consult industry on anything, and it is digging its own grave right now with this kind of legislation. We hope, ultimately, when we are in Government, to manage this kind of legislation and make it good and better for business, but across there they are making an absolute bugger’s muddle of this, and that is why we are standing here today supporting a bill that started out doing one thing and now does almost nothing. It now does almost nothing. It is because that was the save that we could make that actually got a bill through that did one or two little, tiny things that needed to be done anyway and it somehow went some way towards justifying the hundreds of thousands of dollars of parliamentary time that it cost to put a bill through. We did not want to just oppose it and have an absolute shambles go through, because they had the numbers. We had to find a way through in the select committee process that somehow made sense, and that somehow satisfied the industry.
The industry, of course, put up the argument that when you are looking at doing patents and so on, it is advantageous to have a local industry that knows how this stuff is done—one that is close to business in your own country. As people deal with intellectual property, naturally enough they reach out to those who are closest to them—the people whom they have dealt with before, the businesses that help them with their intellectual property development. If you were to gut the industry in New Zealand by completely changing the requirements overnight, you would end up with a situation where New Zealand businesses were required to get in contact with a Sydney office they had never had anything to do with or a Melbourne office they had never had anything to do with, and you would have the world turned upside down. You would have, effectively, a loss of intellectual property to New Zealand, where the whole object should be that you set up a regime that looked to gain intellectual property for New Zealand in the longer term. The whole thing was an absolute shambles. It was a sloppy, unedifying process of drafting, as the report notes.
I congratulate members opposite—I really, genuinely do—who could also see how bad it was and who had the courage over there to challenge the Minister and say: “Look, this is just so bad that we are going to recommend to the Minister that we take out the key parts of the bill.” There you have it in the combined report from both sides of the select committee, which says: “We therefore recommend that clause 5 be deleted to remove the empowering provisions.” It does not get much plainer than that. They gutted the bill, and they agreed to gut the bill because it just did not make sense. Those on the select committee did their job, and I congratulate them on that side of the House. Sometimes they require a little bit of pushing, a little bit of guidance to challenge the Minister, and I can understand that—the backbenchers want to be Ministers themselves one day and do not want to criticise colleagues—but, in this case, those members opposite should stand up and take a bow. Mr Brett Hudson and our chair, Melissa Lee, should stand up and take a bow because they were prepared to challenge the Minister and they were right—they were absolutely right. The thing is a shambles, and members on that side on the backbenches were prepared to stand up to a Minister who had not done his homework, who was too quick to say yes to the Prime Minister to try to do bidding for something that was completely indefensible.
It would not have got this far down the track if the Minister himself had spotted it, if he had asked officials to do their homework, if he had asked officials to talk to the industry properly, and if he had asked officials to talk to their Australian counterparts—who, incidentally, stopped work on it when they saw that it was an absolute shambles, too. The Australian counterparts stopped work on this. They have no intention of bringing this into place. Everybody could see that the bill as it was proposed was not good for New Zealand and was unlikely to proceed because of that. Thank goodness, again, for Mr Brett Hudson and Ms Melissa Lee, who stood up, along with other members of the committee, and said: “Enough. Enough, Minister. This is a shambles. We will have nothing to do with it, and we will be glad to eviscerate it for you so you don’t have to face the ignominy of going out to the industry with a bill that has just made a mess of that whole field.”
I think we do have to look at the bigger picture and see that this bill is a sign—one of those signs, one of those symptoms—of a Government that has lost its way. It is a Government that had, once upon a time, a claim to represent business—small business in particular—but here in this bill the very group affected by this bugger’s muddle would have been small business, and the Government is so out of touch that it does not think it needs to consult the very industry that is affected by the bill. You have got to ask yourself what the Minister was doing when he waved this bill through to Parliament. It is half-baked, but we are seeing that across Government. We are seeing that in housing policy—the Government has come forward with a half-baked housing policy when we have got people out there who are living in cars. We have got people living in cars—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of the bill.
Dr DAVID CLARK: —and their half-baked solutions will not solve that. I challenge members opposite to continue to challenge the Ministers who are out of touch—those backbenchers across there who I again say should take a bow for agreeing to make these changes in the bill to save it from its own fate. They should stand and take a bow, but they should also challenge the Government as more bills come through this House that achieve precisely unedifying outcomes for industry, for New Zealand, and for business. Good on those members of the committee who stood up and said they would not stand for this. Well done those members of the committee across the House who said the Minister needs to do his homework. The Minister has been put on notice, and I hope that the bills we receive in future will be better for New Zealand, better for business, and better overall. Thank you.
BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
Dr David Clark: Take a bow.
BRETT HUDSON: Thank you, Dr Clark; I will bow. Before I move on to it, I just want to remind the House that the actual core purpose of this bill was to replace a 60-year-old and outdated regulatory regime for the attorneys and to put in a modern licensing regime. That was the heart of the bill.
To help Dr Clark and his understanding of what empowering provisions are, empowering provisions do not mean that those provisions are the heart of the bill. Empowering provisions empower other things to take place, and they may not themselves be wholly prescriptive. That is what an empowering provision does—it empowers something else to happen—but, unfortunately, Dr Clark thinks that an empowering provision is the heart of the bill. He is most certainly wrong. The two parts that the bill was intended for and will deliver were, firstly, a joint registration system for patent attorneys between Australia and New Zealand, which would also include a single disciplinary regime and a disciplinary tribunal to determine complaints and to discipline attorneys as might be necessary.
The second substantial part of the bill was about opposition to patents on the grounds of lack of unity of invention, and I will cover that one first, because the lack of unity of invention was simply a drafting error from a previous amendment. What it meant was that unless you were seeking to patent only one unique piece of innovation, someone could object to your patent application and it would be struck out. It was clearly something that had not originally been intended, and it was the purpose of this bill—and still is—to remove that odd ground for opposition.
But the heart of it is about the registration system, which includes the disciplinary framework and tribunal. Within that, it is true that the officials had looked at a single application process and a single examination process common to the two countries for patent applications and examinations. What was discovered through the select committee process was that that was looked at some years ago, and times have moved on. Technology has moved on. There are already some applications, either in place or in part, being developed that would, to one degree or another—and, quite frankly, to almost a whole degree—supersede and nullify the SAP/SEP application, as it was called, that had originally been mooted. It was for that reason that it was removed from the bill. There simply is no purpose for that, no reason to go to those lengths on our own now, as things currently stand.
But the heart of the bill—the heart of what is still progressing through this House—is all about a joint registration system between Australia and New Zealand for patent attorneys, one that has a common disciplinary code of conduct and a common disciplinary tribunal. That has always been what this bill is about, that is what it remains about, and I commend it to the House.
BARRY COATES (Green): As a new MP, I am going to try to be constructive with all my interventions, as I said in my maiden speech. However, I should say that, in this case, I find that to be a major challenge. I am, obviously, new to considering this Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, but I have benefited from discussions with my colleagues. In reading through the history of this bill and the submissions so far, and the discussions of the Commerce Committee, I am deeply concerned at the performance of the Government on this bill. It has been poorly drafted legislation and poor Government policy direction. There was obviously a serious problem with the previous legislation, enacted in 2013, which had to be rectified by retrospective legislation. This is an extreme measure that the House should avoid wherever possible. However, due to poor drafting, we agree that it is necessary in this case, and, reluctantly, the Green Party will support this removal of the lack of unity for invention in order to rectify the problem with the Patents Act 2013.
The first version of this bill included a single patent application and a single examination process. These were strongly opposed by submitters, by the Green Party, and, ultimately, by the Commerce Committee itself—and I echo my thanks to the chair and members of the committee from all sides of the House for their acceptance of the need for change to this bill. The officials eventually agreed that the joint mechanisms with Australia would not be in New Zealand’s interest and have recommended deleting clause 5 from this bill. The Green Party agrees, but it questions how the draft bill was able to get to this stage without proper analysis. The process around this bill has been flawed. There was inadequate consultation on the provisions of the draft bill—a point made by many submitters.
The remaining substantive provision in this bill is the trans-Tasman licensing regime for patent attorneys. We believe this needs careful consideration, particularly in light of the failings outlined previously. We accept the case for updating and modernising the existing licensing regime under the Patents Act 1953. It is, as has been observed, over 60 years old, and we agree it is no longer fit for purpose. However, we have got continuing concerns over the remaining proposals in this bill, and we are mindful that they were opposed by all 13 submissions from patent attorneys and the submission from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. For clarification, the opposition from these submissions is opposing the licensing provisions as well as those provisions that have already been taken out of the bill.
We are particularly concerned by the lack of joined-up thinking around the licensing regime. A more coherent approach would have ensured that the key elements were in place before instituting trans-Tasman licensing—notably a New Zealand trademark or attorney scheme, a New Zealand qualification scheme, and an extended period for a New Zealand patent attorney to register in Australia. We urge the Government to put these missing elements in place. To not do so, we think, would result in prospective New Zealand patent attorneys being disadvantaged in comparison with their counterparts across the Tasman—and being required to bear higher costs.
More broadly, we think there needs to be a review of the effectiveness of trans-Tasman harmonisation arrangements to ensure that there are not unintended consequences for New Zealand professionals. The establishment of this licensing scheme should not be regarded as a model for other professions—other than how not to do it. An ideological push for harmonisation will not work. Any change needs serious work and analysis, and we believe this is a cautionary tale for other attempts for cross-Tasman harmonisation. The licensing regime would, as the Government has pointed out, create a level playing field in some respects; for example, the same set of criteria to register and practise would apply to New Zealand and Australian patent attorneys. However, since the locus for registration and licensing will be in Australia, it is likely that New Zealand patent attorneys will need to bear additional costs for travel, particularly if it is a protracted process such as a disciplinary hearing.
There are also issues of governance that will not be so subject to a level playing field. In particular, a domination of Australian representatives on the governing council and disciplinary board, established under Australian law, is likely to mean that future development of licensing is likely to be more oriented towards the needs of Australian firms and not to New Zealand patent attorneys. It will be similar with the disciplinary process and rules. It may well be that the identical qualifications and codes of conduct would achieve the Government’s aims of harmonisation and cost-effectiveness, but with the sacrifice of local flexibility and governance.
The Green Party accepts that major changes have already been made to this bill. We would, however, like there to be greater attention paid to the concerns raised by submitters, and particularly to the issues of joined-up thinking on a trademark scheme and New Zealand qualification scheme. This should be done as a matter of urgency, and we would look to have assurances in that respect. We also consider there may be a process of governance that would allow the establishment of something like a governance and disciplinary subcommittee of the board that would be specific to dealing with the application of a common base of qualification standards and rules for application in New Zealand.
We look forward to analysis about the impacts of the remaining elements of the bill on small business. That is a crucial consideration that we consider has not yet had sufficient scrutiny. In closing, we have concerns, but we would be prepared to support the bill if there were assurances that these issues would be addressed in the implementation of the bill, and we would be looking forward to further amendments at the next, Committee stage. Thank you.
RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call on the second reading of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this bill to the Commerce Committee in its first reading. At the time, it seemed like this bill was a pretty straightforward bill that had all the answers to fix all the outdated issues, the poor drafting results, and the things that were wrong for the patent profession.
In my first reading speech, I referred to the comprehensive redrafting of the Patents Act 2013, which took effect in September 2014. That was, at the time, a mammoth exercise where we saw sweeping changes introduced to the Act, and now, 18 months later, here we are again in the House fixing unintended consequences. That is why New Zealand First supported this bill in the first reading—so it could go through the select committee process and go through the scrutiny it needed to have.
When this bill came to the Commerce Committee, we were provided with advisers, which is the normal process. I believe that when advisers are appointed to any select committee, the chief purpose of the advisers is to be the specialists for those members of that select committee. Therefore, they are to provide documentation, evidence, facts, things that actually could be wrong with the bill, and recommendations that we need to consider when going through the bill under that scrutiny process. I absolutely believe that advisers need to be professional at all times. They need to be organised, they have to be informed, and they must treat members with respect. Above all, I believe that should there be any potential personal interest in a bill and its passage through the select committee and this House, then it should be treated by advisers with the professionalism that I would expect them to give to a bill.
I do not wish to slam the advisers too heavily, but I do feel really strongly about the lack of transparency. I felt, at the time, quite concerned about the fact that when advisers were pushed, they really did not want to give members the answers that we wanted—like the cost analysis of the implementation, which we expected to be informed about by the advisers. I found that that whole process was a Mickey Mouse outfit. I found that it was like drawing blood out of a stone to get the advisers to answer the questions. So I echo what members of the Labour Party have said this evening—that the performance of the advisers overall was really poor. Had I known at that time that there was a process that members were actually allowed to perform, I would have actually insisted on that and had an outcome happen with those advisers. So I believe it was a hindrance to the members, and it was really frustrating.
Through my contribution tonight I will address why this bill is still not fit for purpose. After what the Labour Party and Green Party members have just said, I cannot understand why they are still supporting this bill. It is critical that this bill has buy-in from the profession itself and the industry. I feel that with the amendments and with the submissions that came through, the Government still does not have buy-in on this bill. I think it is imperative that we make the right choices and we look after the industries that we say this bill will look after.
There were 20 submissions that came to the select committee. We heard six oral submissions, and there were two supplementary submissions. As has already been echoed through the House, there was an absolutely overwhelming opposition from the submitters—the patent attorneys—which was to do with the single patent application process (SAP) and the single patent examination process (SEP) and the aim to implement a pilot project to see whether this project would work across the Australia and New Zealand jurisdiction.
However, the advisers advised the select committee that a new electronic procedure for filing patent applications had been put in place by the World Intellectual Property Organization—WIPO for short—and this was not only endorsed by the industry itself but used effectively. They had alerted advisers that the pilot project preferred by our advisers would actually make the SEP and the SAP undesirable and, therefore, redundant. This was the issue that New Zealand First had when we first considered the bill, and that is what raised a red flag.
I just want to also add to the fact that had the SAP and SEP not been removed from this bill, it would have put an absolute financial burden on the patent profession itself. What I do want to address is that, clearly, the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs was not aware that the proposed SAP and SEP, proposed by his advisers, was merely a pilot programme that advisers wanted to put to the test through legislating a pilot programme inside of this bill, which came into the House on 9 February this year. They wanted this pilot programme to be put inside of this bill so that it could be tested to see whether or not it was going to be successful. I seriously ask how the legislating of a pilot programme because of the belief of an adviser that this would work in this country can be a responsible use of the time of this House.
In terms of the submitters who came to the select committee, I was alerted to the fact that they felt that they were absolutely not consulted with at all and that their industry, overall, performed quite well. The first time they knew that there were issues was actually when this bill came to the House. I would like to actually read some of the concerns from the submitters, specifically a submission from the New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys. It said: “It is our view that consultation with the New Zealand profession has focussed solely on how a joint registration regime should be implemented rather than on whether it is wanted or required or how it would benefit New Zealand businesses and/or the New Zealand patent attorney profession. The NZIPA can only see increased costs and compliance for the New Zealand profession as a consequence of joint registration.” Another submitter, Mr Matt Adams, stated: “We don’t seem to have been consulted on whether we want a joint registration regime. The assumption is that we need one.”—the assumption was that they needed one. He continues: “If we are going to go down this route we need to make sure that we have a level playing field. What I see proposed needs amendment to ensure a level playing field.”
Another question that came up was the qualification pathway of patent attorneys through this proposal. A very well-known submitter with a lot of credentials in this field submitted about the fact they were worried about the watering down of patent attorneys here in New Zealand and their being overtaken by the Australian system. What this submitter, Elspeth Buchanan, said in her submission was: “Further, since New Zealand will have only a tiny representation on the governing council, it will be very easy for the governing council to set (for example) continuing education requirements and training requirements to suit the Australian profession only. As matters stand at present, it is doubtful whether it is going to be possible to train patent attorneys in New Zealand in the same manner as prescribed in Australia. If in fact all training has to be done in Australia, this is a truly enormous cost burden for any of the New Zealand firms, and the end result could easily be that New Zealand firms cannot accept trainees. Persuading Australian staff to come across to work in New Zealand firms (which in general pay substantially lower salaries) is extremely difficult, and it is not scaremongering to predict that the New Zealand patent attorney profession could in fact cease to exist within a few years.” That was a huge concern when we were within the select committee, listening to the submissions.
In closing, New Zealand First is absolutely not in favour of supporting bad legislation, and this bill is no different. Sadly, the National Government has brought bills like this to the House many times. They are written badly, not fit for purpose, and not fit for the profession that they say they are going to protect. This bill does not justify the fact that the Government has been forced to do a complete U-turn, scrap the SEP process and the SAP, and has still continued to ignore what the majority of the submitters said—that “We are an industry that acts above the expectations of New Zealand, and this bill is going to do nothing but wipe us out.” Thank you.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to take a call on the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I just want to point out a small irony, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, with the last speaker who has been very concerned about a supposed U-turn around the single patent application process (SAP) and the single patent examination process (SEP) but has also indicated that New Zealand First has done a U-turn and is voting from having supported it to not supporting it.
This is a good piece of legislation. It is a small change, but obviously it is significant for those who practise as patent attorneys. This is something that has come about—well, I think it is about 60 years, I understand, since there have been changes—and fundamentally, at the heart of this, is to work out a cooperative model between Australia and New Zealand, and why, as we heard from other speakers, this could be of a concern. Actually, it sits on a background of a closer economic relationships between New Zealand and Australia over a long, long time. In fact, I would argue that it would be rather odd for us not to move towards a single framework or system in this area, in the way that we have done with many, many others.
I note too in some of contributions that there was great concern around the officials. It is all well and true for people to voice what they feel, and I am not going to change that. But I was struck by one line that was put out earlier, which I thought was quite indicative: to say that “we did not get the answers we wanted”. We heard from the Opposition that “we did not get the answers we wanted”. I think that is an insight there, shall we say: that receiving answers is not about whether you want them or not; it is the answers that were given. I suppose that is where some of the debate has come from.
The other thing I just want to draw the House’s attention to, and certainly of anyone who is listening, is this whole SAP and SEP thing. It is always very easy at times to have a whole lot of acronyms, but it can sound a little bit daunting. SAP refers to what they call the single patent application process and SEP is the single patent examination process. The long and the short of it is that these were proposed and now have been withdrawn for the simple reason that, actually, the ground has changed. The situation has changed. I think it would be foolhardy for any Government to maintain a system whose time has come. I know it has become almost a singular obsessive focus of the Opposition. Again, it is completely up to them. But I see it as quite prudent, as once again the Government continues to adapt to modern times. I look forward to the progress of this bill.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to stand in support of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its second reading. The main purpose of this bill is to update a 60-year-old, outdated regulatory regime so that patent attorneys can have a modern licensing regime. It is the most important part of the bill, which has been missed out. It is going to benefit patent attorneys significantly with time and cost savings, through the establishment of a single trans-Tasman registration regime. It will allow them to seamlessly practise in both New Zealand and Australia. That is important, because the Government has been working for a long time to ensure that businesses get the opportunity to do their business in a better way and to reduce red-tapeism and paperwork so that it can be helpful in growing their business.
This bill helps to build our economy, and we have an understanding with Australia that we will have many more opportunities to reduce red-tapeism. This bill aligns our patents system more closely with Australia’s, building on our close economic relationship by integrating a trans-Tasman relationship. It is important to understand that businesses should be allowed to do what they do best—not do paperwork. With these words, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise in support of this bill along with my colleagues, but I do so with some comments that I think go to the heart of the bill’s conception, construction, and implementation. If I can use a medical analogy—this bill was flawed in its conception, it was mangled in its gestation, and it would have been stillborn were it not for the midwifery that was offered by the Opposition. I am sure that the Minister will have learnt some salutary lessons from this process.
In all my time in this House, I have probably never ever seen a worse officials’ performance in front of a parliamentary select committee. To say that they were not frank would be a great compliment. To say that the information presented to members of this House was partial would be undoubtedly kind. There were real issues of probity when it emerged, under cross-examination from my colleague Mr Cosgrove, that the officials briefing the New Zealand Parliament in a confidential, closed session were at the same time carrying out negotiations with their Australian counterparts, without reference to the select committee and without volunteering that information until it was dragged out of them. I note that there are none actually present in the Chamber today. Can I just say that I hope the Minister will take those matters up with the chief executive concerned, because it was frankly a display that was not befitting of the high standards that the New Zealand Parliament and the New Zealand Government normally expect.
Let me restate before I get into the meat of the bill where we in the Labour Opposition and the Government do agree, because there is some common ground and that is the basis of why we are in fact offering our support for this vote. Firstly, of course we support free and fair international trade. In general, we support closer economic integration with our largest market, our neighbour Australia, provided that that operates in terms of New Zealand’s national interests. We supported the closer economic partnership agreement. We support, within limits, the single economic market limit that was actually kicked off by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and his counterpart, Mr Costello, in Australia. But it is worth noting, because it is an underpinning of this bill, that the current Government changed the rules from pursuing those options that were in the interests of New Zealand and in the interests of Australia to pursuing anything that was in the interests of the totality, which means usually that it would be in the interests of the larger player but may not be in the interests of the smaller one.
I say that the job of the New Zealand Government is to look after the New Zealand national interest, and we were vigilant in this committee, and the Government dropped the ball. The level of research contained in the regulatory impact statement and the materials presented to the committee were desultory. There was no cost-benefit analysis to speak of to support the Government’s contention that the bill as proposed would have reduced compliance costs to New Zealand business. The Labour Party supports the idea, as we support New Zealand business, that we do want to remove unnecessary compliance costs. And if it were the case that the patent attorneys profession was, shall we say, gold plating or featherbedding, that would be a legitimate target for Government action, except that there was actually no evidence presented to the Commerce Committee that that was in fact the case in any quantifiable manner. The only submissions that were available to the select committee, from both the institute and New Zealand businesses, said the opposite—that the bill as drafted would have increased compliance costs to New Zealand and would have defeated its own purposes. And submitters pointed out that the Government’s officials had not consulted with them in an open and broad-based manner. It was a bad process supporting a questionable idea.
The performance of advisers in the select committee was not up to par, and that is putting it mildly. Not only was there not any form of rigorous cost-benefit analysis but officials were not frank about the level of analysis that did exist. In other words, it sounded like there was some until they were cross-examined and we found out that the emperor had no clothes on. That should not be the case in the New Zealand parliamentary process.
Secondly, as I have said, officials of the New Zealand Government were having a parallel negotiation with their Australian counterparts, which resulted in the amendments that have been brought to this House. The trouble was, they must have been giving them information about a confidential New Zealand parliamentary process while it was happening and without being frank to us that that was going on. Again, it was cross-examination from my colleagues that slowly but surely dragged out of the officials what was actually going on, and it was reprehensible and bad process.
Thirdly, officials contradicted themselves, because they said that this bill was designed to enrich the intellectual property environment of New Zealand. Yet all of the evidence, all of the submissions, rang warning bells that in the medium- to long-term the opposite would be the case. The reason for that, which was contained in submissions, was that it shifted the centre of gravity of IP formation and protection away from New Zealand to Australia, reinforcing a pre-existing process that corporate control and corporate head offices were already largely moving across the Ditch and high-end professional services were following them, and this would mean that the IP community was likewise. Although that may not have been a critical issue in the first year, it may have been a very significant issue over 10 years or 20 years when it became more and more difficult to sustain intellectual property protection and IP law and practices in New Zealand, and so trade marking and copyrighting would be done in Australia—yet another reason why, if you are an innovator, you would not locate in New Zealand.
That is a step that, if that had played out—and it actually will not, to an extent that we consider dangerous, because of the amendments—it would have been directly contrary to the stated goals not only of the New Zealand Labour Party but of the Government itself: that we want to have a higher value, higher-income, high knowledge economy. Why would we export our knowledge production processes to our nearest competitor? It made no sense. All right, if there had been evidence of a major cost advantage, but there was none. All right, if corporate New Zealand had lined up behind it, but they did the opposite. All right, if there had been good consultation and a reasonable level of acceptance by the profession, but there was the opposite. Just imagine that had been done to the New Zealand Law Society or the Bankers’ Association or Federated Farmers or the Road Transport Federation. Why does the Government have it in for the intellectual property profession? It beggars belief.
Well, what was the end of this story? As I said, the bill was subject to a forceps delivery. There was quite a bit of pain. Two thirds of the bill was removed without anaesthetic. The single application process and the single examination process, which were the heart of the bill, no longer exist. They have not been amended; they have been amputated. The only thing that is left in this shell of a bill, a fig leaf for ministerial process, was the joint training process that allows New Zealand patent attorneys to be trained in Australian universities. Fair enough, because there currently is not a proper course in New Zealand, although Victoria wants to put one on. I do think that although we support this bill, we are going to need to monitor the long-term impact of the educational opportunities on both sides of the Tasman.
Summing up, as you will gather from my remarks, I have rarely seen a worse select committee process than this. I would like to commend my colleagues for the way in which they handled that. They were temperate, but they were also not going to let the issues go when officials were trying to do an end run around the New Zealand Parliament. I am pleased that they were able to hold them to account. I commend the Minister, actually, for having the courage to make the amendments that he has made, which has afforded us the opportunity of supporting the bill. As I say, we support the principle of reducing cost where that can reasonably be done for the New Zealand business community, we support good international trade rules, and we support, within reason, a closer relationship with Australia. We will watch with interest to see what contribution the remains of the bill make.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be agreed to.
Ayes 106
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 14
New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.
Question agreed to.
The question was put that theamendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: I move, That the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill modernises the current framework for exporting horticultural commodities. It amends the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987. That Act enables smaller horticultural industries to collaborate in the marketing of their products overseas.
The horticultural sector is a star performer. In the last 12 months it has grown by about 20 percent, and the sector continues to grow. For example, avocado export volume is forecast to double in the 2016-17 year.
Before I talk about the bill in a little bit more detail, I want to thank the Primary Production Committee and its chair for their hard work in considering this bill. I also want to acknowledge the valuable input that was given by the 10 oral submitters.
The Act promotes the effective export marketing of horticultural commodities by enabling the industry to set grade standards for its produce and requiring exporters to comply with those standards. In controlling the marketing and export quality of the industry’s produce, affiliated product groups are able to develop a consistent brand for its produce. It also enables affiliated industries to leverage the benefits of New Zealand’s clean, green, high-quality reputation. The Act does not create a single desk or monopsony exporter model, and the Horticulture Export Authority itself is not an exporter. The Act preserves a multi-exporter model. For example, there are 12 buttercup squash exporters and 21 summer fruit exporters. There are nine affiliated product groups currently exporting under this framework, and their combined export revenue ending 30 June 2016 was over $282 million. The two largest horticultural industries operate outside this export framework—of course you know that they are pipfruit and kiwifruit, exported by Zespri to all markets other than Australia.
The changes in the bill will enable affiliated product groups to better target their marketing strategies to specific markets overseas. Better-targeted export strategies will support affiliated product groups to meet different demands in different markets and optimise their returns. The changes provide more clarity around the requirements for entering and exiting from the export framework. They also provide certainty as to how the authority and the product groups are funded to deliver on their strategies. When we look at clause 28, for example, this clause formalises the current information sharing that occurs between the authority and the New Zealand Customs Service, and between the authority and the Ministry for Primary Industries.
The bill originally required the authority to consult with the Privacy Commissioner when developing such information-sharing agreements. I agree with the committee that the authority must also consult with the Privacy Commissioner when amending an already existing information-sharing agreement.
Finally, I support the committee’s recommendation to add a new notification provision in clause 31. This will require the authority to formally notify the nominal fees it sets, where the authority is given discretion to set fees within a maximum cap or by a formula through fees regulations created under this Act.
I support the changes recommended by the committee, as they will enable our horticultural producers and exporters to have the tools available to optimise these returns from their export markets. Most importantly, they will continue to make significant contributions to growth of the New Zealand economy and the regions. I commend this bill to the House.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am very pleased to speak at the second reading of this bill, the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge at the outset the Hon Colin Moyle—
Ian McKelvie: Who? Even I can’t remember him.
RINO TIRIKATENE: —ha, ha!—the distinguished member of this House and Minister of Agriculture in the fourth Labour Government, who established this authority. It was one of a number of quite groundbreaking reforms that were initiated under his tenure as the Minister. The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority is a hybrid. It is not quite a single-desk monopoly, and it is does not mean that participants in the market are free to do whatever they want and export whatever they want. This was Mr Moyle’s design—that there be a hybrid export authority, and this was the model that was used.
So what does it do? It requires horticultural product groups to apply under the Act—if they want to, as it is a voluntary system—to be a registered product group under the Act. What does that mean? It requires them to do things—two tools. One is that all product that is exported has to come from a licensed export pack-house, and there are requirements around that. It also requires that those product groups comply with an agreed export marketing plan. It is about collaboration. It is about these horticultural industries working together to compete in the export market place—an international market. It is a great model and it is 29 years old—it is coming up to its 30th anniversary next year—but it has been pointed out, as it is periodically being reviewed, that it is in need of modernisation. This was first mooted back in its independent review back in 2009—and here we are in 2016 finally implementing the legislation that will give effect to those changes.
I do acknowledge the Minister and the other members of the select committee. We did receive 10 submissions, primarily, obviously, from the stakeholder that is directly impacted by this, which is the authority itself, and also from the different product groups, or the participants in those product groups. Just to give people a bit of flavour as to what product groups actually come within the framework of the Horticulture Export Authority, they are the likes of, as we have heard, avocado—what else is there? There is kiwifruit, but only kiwifruit to Aussie—not generally. There is buttercup squash, through to very up-and-coming industries like truffles and tamarillos. Those have not adopted the full requirements to be export-licensed, because they are only just starting out. There is a wide range—we have got summer fruits in there as well—of horticultural product groups that are part of this Horticulture Export Authority regime. They are working together, and they have got their requirements in place. This bill is about them updating and providing a bit more flexibility in terms of what they might have to do to better compete and to better market their wonderful produce in the international market.
What are the amendments that we have considered? Primarily, there were three main substantive amendments. There have been a lot of technical amendments made, but the substantive issues that submitters were mainly focused on were around three things: an infringement regime that could be inserted into the bill; the requirement around the entry and the exit of a particular product group or an industry into or out of the export authority framework; and, the last one was an issue around fee exemptions. Those three areas mainly revolve around the powers of the export authority, and what it can or cannot do.
In relation to the first aspect, regarding an infringement regime, the export authority wanted to be able to impose fines—for non-compliance, particularly—these are like low-level fines on exporters who do not have an export licence or who are not playing by the rules. It was to send them a message. So the export authority asked whether there could be an infringement regime that they could basically carry out themselves. However, on consideration, it was felt that there are already quite heavy sanctions within the Act itself—and they are criminal offences—which is, obviously, quite a different level of offence. It was felt that to have two levels of offences with infringements being solely the responsibility of the export authority would be beyond the scope of what was required. So that was declined and it has not been put into the second reading version of this bill.
The other, more substantial, issue, which was quite interesting, was the entry and exit requirements. As currently drafted in the bill, it is like four out of four boxes had to be ticked for a particular product group to be included into the framework. Those four boxes were growers and exporters, and—[Interruption] Gosh. Sorry. So you have got the growers and exporters, and by number and value. It is quite confusing—but, if you can bear with me, it is about getting the support of 60 percent or more of the growers of that particular product group and the entities that are involved.
The whole purpose of getting that broad support was to ensure that no one section of an industry could influence the direction in which that industry wanted to go. It was felt by the industry participants themselves that having to tick all four boxes was maybe a bit too onerous, and a bit too restrictive on them—having to make future decisions as to whether they might want to exit from the regime or, indeed, enter the regime, or make changes. However, following close consideration of that particular issue, it was felt that having the four requirements in place was justified, for the very reason that the export authority was established, which was to make sure that there was, from the whole industry—small players and big players, growers and exporters—broad agreement and support. That is why there is a 60-plus percent threshold, from all of those different groups on the actual direction that that industry wanted to head in under the export authority’s framework. So that has been left in place.
They were two of the most significant issues that we had to consider, and I am sure that the members of particularly the product groups and the industries and the companies concerned are just looking forward to the passage of this legislation. It has been a long time in gestation, and I am pleased that we have been able to continue it on. I look forward to being able to complete this process, hopefully in the not too distant future, and I commend this bill to the House.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in the second reading of this bill and to follow Minister Lotu-Iiga from Maungakiekie. Only a couple of weeks ago we had Minister Finlayson introducing an agricultural bill from out of the middle of Rongotai—of course, he does have the Chatham Islands and there are a few farmers there. Maungakiekie has only—[Interruption] Yes, he does. He has only Cornwall Park in his electorate. Of course, Cornwall Park used to have a few cattle on it. Nowadays it is much more famous for the late Martin Crowe than for—
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Finlayson, like me, does not have an electorate.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member might be right, and one might not think it is debatable but, actually, if the member wants to assert it, someone else can tell him he is wrong during the debate.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In fact, there are clear rulings from the Speaker that the descriptions that list members use to describe themselves, and that we can use to describe list members, must be approved by the Speaker, and that includes any representations around geography—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will resume his seat. I, possibly unlike the member, was listening carefully to what was said. The Hon Chris Finlayson was not described as the member of Parliament for Rongotai.
Hon David Parker: It was as “his electorate”.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): He said “he came from”.
IAN McKELVIE: An interesting sojourn. I was going to comment on the late Minister of Agriculture from the Labour Party, who was mentioned earlier, but I will not now.
Grant Robertson: Not late; he’s alive.
IAN McKELVIE: Oh, he is still alive. Oh, my word; I will not comment on that! The process that this bill takes has been very well described by Rino Tirikatene. It really enables New Zealand’s horticulture industry, which is made up of numerous small operators right across the spectrum—whatever they grow, really—to remain internationally competitive. It allows those industries to operate under a framework that enables growers and exporters to deliver the produce most valued by diverse consumer groups in different markets while minimising our compliance costs. That is primarily what it sets out to do. The bill, I think, is a very good piece of legislation, and it enables, as I said, our small operators to combine and collectively get much more strength than they otherwise would have got.
I want to thank the Minister for Primary Industries and the Primary Production Committee. As was just mentioned, there were 10 submissions on the bill, and the select committee got through those pretty quickly. They were pretty much all in agreement as well. So although those submissions were basically in agreement, as usual the select committee deviated off from time to time on to glyphosate and country-of-origin labelling, which are two of our favourite topics that we cannot seem to get away from. None the less, we did get back to the bill.
This bill is one of the actions that this Government is taking to enable our export industries to grow significantly. It is a good example, really, of a Government intervention that does not create more production but creates a much better environment for that production to be marketed in. I think that is a fairly important part of any Government’s role, actually. The horticulture industry has a pretty significant target. It wants to grow itself to a turnover of $20 billion by 2020. That is a pretty significant industry by anyone’s standards, particularly in New Zealand.
This bill is also, to a large extent, about trade. Trade is the key to what we do in this country. It also, I guess, emphasises the importance of our free-trade agreements. The average horticultural exporter in New Zealand pays some $38,000 in foreign tariffs a year—in other words, tariffs to stay in the market place. That is a pretty significant bite out of anyone’s income. So it does point to the value of New Zealand’s free-trade agreement process that we have been engaged in for many years now, and will need to be engaged in in the future. One of the good examples of that is the benefit that kiwifruit and buttercup squash have got in the Korean market out of the very recently signed free-trade agreement with Korea. That market is worth about $55 million to New Zealand, and there will be a significant saving once those duties come off.
This bill, I think, has got great value to New Zealand. I am not going to go into the detail of it any further; that has been covered by both the Minister and by the first speaker from the Opposition. I have got a great deal of confidence in commending this bill to the House, and I look forward to the discussion in the Committee stage.
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): We are supporting this bill. We are very encouraged by the Government’s commitment to encouraging collaboration across the agricultural sector in question here, the horticulture sector. It is well known, of course, to all New Zealanders watching this debate that real benefits can come from industry members working together. Fonterra is the example that is put up time and again. On both sides of the House, efforts have been made to encourage members of an industry to work together in order to achieve higher prices and higher-value goods for export and to achieve market penetration, which can most easily be achieved by scale.
I can think of a local example. When I was in an economic development agency in the South Island—Otago Forward, it was called, and it was a mechanism rather than an agency. It was an economic development mechanism that accessed Government funding for projects involving collaboration between different councils and different local territorial authorities—territorial local authorities, I should say; TLA, a three-letter acronym. In the example I am thinking of, it was required that the different TLAs agreed a priority in order to access Government funding—the different TLAs agreed that there would be real merit in working on getting some Government funding and pulling the industry together to get a marketing strategy to sell apples at a premium.
It was a simple proposition. It turned out that absolutely nothing needed to happen to the apples, but they were able to be marketed as organic apples because a marketing strategy was put together, market research was conducted, and thereafter they achieved a 15 percent—I think it was—price surplus in markets. And that has happened ever since. It required collaboration within the industry to put forward the proposal, and agreement about how the apples were going to be supplied into which markets, and so forth, and the result was a price premium on those products that would not otherwise have been achieved. The simple thing was that where the apples were being grown, it was too cold for pests. The apples were not being sprayed, because they did not need to be sprayed, at all. They were being produced organically, and now, as a consequence of this collaboration, they were also being marketed organically and were attracting a price premium.
So when industry pulls together, when it pools its resources, it can achieve great things. We have seen this in New Zealand time and time again, so facilitating that collaboration is something to be commended. In fact, as a country we are far too dependent on far too few commodities, and anything we can do across the agricultural sector—where we have natural advantages—and, indeed, across any sector to encourage collaboration to achieve higher value in our exports is to be praised.
It is not often I can stand on this side of the House and speak so heartily in favour of a Government bill, but I do so on this occasion and it does bring me pleasure. We like to be constructive on this side of the House, despite the fact that we think that, overall, the Government has lost its way—that it is getting a little bit out of touch on many issues.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): It’ll happen more next year.
Dr DAVID CLARK: But we hope—yes, I expect it will happen more next year—that the Government will be congratulated as it adopts our policies in the run-in to the election. We will see. We will see. But I expect that it is nice on this occasion to be able to do it without yet being in the run-up to the election. Good on it for running with a good idea. They do not always get it wrong on that side of the House—more often than we would like, but not always.
This bill does have the primary purpose to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural products. There is not much not to like with that. In fact, the industry itself, of course, has welcomed the progress of the bill. It is looking towards the opportunity. I hope that it does seize that opportunity. There are times, apparently, when legislation is put in place but, because of internal competition factors or personalities, that nettle is not seized. Of course, we know plenty of other industries that could benefit from greater collaboration. In the sheep and lamb export sector, we have got firms that have competed internally and have engaged in a race to the bottom, when greater collaboration could have attracted price premiums offshore.
It is a real struggle to get there, and we would encourage the Government to consider further how it can assist industries to work together and how incentives can be set up to encourage existing market players in New Zealand to work together to achieve the best value for New Zealand as a whole. Within New Zealand it is a small market, and where there is unfettered competition it will not necessarily yield the best results for us internationally. The Government has set the goal of growing exports as a proportion of GDP to 40 percent of our economy, and we know for a fact that during the time of this Government exports started around the 30 percent mark and have actually dropped. They have dropped, so, sadly, New Zealand is in a place where, as a proportion of our total economy, our exports have been dropping under this Government. I think that speaks to the overall lack of direction.
I think that here the Government has stumbled upon a good idea. Its promise, of course, as Mr Parker asked about, was to increase exports to 40 percent of GDP—
Hon David Parker: And it’s gone backwards.
Dr DAVID CLARK: —and it has gone backwards. It has actually gone backwards and is now less than 30 percent. I think the member draws attention to a very important point, because that was a reasonable goal to have, I think. I think setting it at 40 percent was achievable when it was set, if the Government had adopted the right strategies—if it had consistently adopted strategies that looked to extract the maximum value out of New Zealand produce and New Zealand industry for the betterment of the country.
Hon David Parker: New export industries.
Dr DAVID CLARK: But, unfortunately, it has neglected new export industries. It has failed to take advantage of our innovative industries here. I mean, I think of another example, the biofuels sales obligation brought in by the last Labour Government. I think the Hon David Parker was responsible for that one. It was a very forward-looking piece of legislation, and the Government lost the opportunity.
I will come back to the main purpose of the bill, which, of course, is about progress overall and the effective marketing of products. But that progress could be broadened, and that is the general point I was trying to make. We welcome it in this particular instance, but marketing our products appropriately is something that should be broadened and should be done more widely to ensure the best value for New Zealand through collaboration.
The regulatory impact statement is something that I have had a chance to have a quick look at. Some of the assumptions in the bill that have not been fully explored are drawn to attention in that document, and the one that sticks in my mind is the fact that the Government has not really canvassed the industry at a deep level to understand how widely this will be implemented. The Government has had some discussions, and I am encouraged by that. It has spoken with the industry and it has had positive feedback on this proposal. But it has not actually dug into the flexibility and efficiency as it will be applied. It has not actually dug in and done deeper market testing to see whether the industry will respond to the incentives set up and achieve the best possible outcomes—I think the industry will, and I think it has taken a good punt.
I do not want to be too critical of the Government here, because it is moving in the right direction. I congratulate it. I just wish that it would take more of these sensible steps in the House—not like the previous bill we debated, an eviscerated set of legislation that had been introduced to the House before it was ready, before it had been consulted on. Here we have some legislation that has been consulted on, that takes New Zealand forward, that adds value to our exports and, hopefully, moves us closer to that 40 percent target. We have got to get back over the start line, having gone backwards from 30 percent when this Government took office—30 percent of GDP being exports. Now we are below that and we have got to start moving up that ladder, up the value chain.
New Zealand deserves a prosperous future. New Zealanders deserve a prosperous future. We have got the imaginative business people, we have got the entrepreneurs, but they are being held back by a Government that too seldom supports the industries it purports to represent. Labour will support this bill. We do want this industry to get ahead. We want to see a more prosperous New Zealand. We want to see the efforts of our exporters rewarded appropriately and we want, of course, the benefits that go with that for all of our country. So, without further ado, I do recommend this bill be supported. I am happy to add my voice to that plea and look forward to the further progress of this bill through the House.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, as has already been said, the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill—what is not to like about it—is an enabling piece of legislation. It enables an industry that is already doing very well, despite the lower dairy prices. I am pleased to see the dairy prices moving in the right direction, but, despite that, this industry in particular has been one of the industries that has done some of the heavy lifting. Exports have gone up tremendously.
I think one of the key things in this particular industry and this legislation is that it is about scale. It is about industries being able to aggregate, or producers being able to aggregate, their products and sell them in a market. When the exporter attempts to sell their goods overseas in the export market, the first thing the purchasers are going to look at is the quality of the goods; they will look at the price, they will look at the ability to supply, and they will look at scale. If you do not tick all those boxes, then it is very difficult to sell to a producer.
So although on a small scale at the local market the producer of avocados can sell quite easily beside another avocado producer, going into an export market simply will not work, because the purchaser does not want to buy New Zealand avocados from 10 different suppliers; they would like that volume from one. So this legislation enables that very thing to happen. It is not just that supply issue; it is about a more integrated system for the quality of the goods, the size—all of those issues. That sort of thing is what a purchaser wants. There is no doubt about it that this legislation, in fact, deals with all of that.
We had 10 submitters who came before the committee. It was fantastic. They were all absolutely wanting this bill across the line as quickly as possible, because they see the benefits of it. Rino Tirikatene mentioned this before in his very good speech about the boxes that had to be ticked. Having had quite a bit of experience in this area myself, I say that the fact that you have to get 60 percent of the producers—and those votes have to represent at least 60 percent of the goods produced both from the producer and the exporter—is quite a high bar to get across. But if you have not got that level of support, then perhaps you should not really be doing it. So I support that. There was some angst, I guess, in that, and the committee considered that and, I think, made, quite rightly, the right decision.
I also think that before a regulation, an Order in Council, is passed, having the Minister take into account and consider all of the evidence before him—and it is all documented—is a very good step and very sound. This is a great bill, its time has come, and it is a great pleasure for me to commend it to the House. Thank you.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I rise on behalf of Richard Prosser to take a call on the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill’s second reading. You can just picture it—it is like the industry came to a Government representative and said: “We want to tidy this up, we want to fix a few things up, we need to modernise it, and we need to elevate our game, but we’re going to need your help in legislation.” You can imagine one of those MPs on that side of the House there going: “So what do you want?”. “Well, what we need”—they would tell the Government—“is we want to be able to, effectively, charge higher prices, increase yield through an integrated approach, and we need legislation to do it.” You can just picture the MP on that side of the House going “OK, OK, but it is going to take quite a long time to make it happen.”, and the industry rep says: “No, we need you to do it now. It’s critical. We need it to happen.” The National MP goes “Well, OK, we’ll help you out. We’ll do it now, but what if we add this to it and this to it?”, and the industry rep goes: “No, leave it alone. Don’t touch it. It’s good as it is, and this will work just how we want it to.”, and the National MP goes “Well, OK, OK, we won’t do that, but what if we add this?”. You can just picture the industry rep looking them in the eye, saying: “Leave it alone. Do it.”
I take that creative licence in the House today because this is a good piece of legislation that does what it seeks to do in a simple, eloquent, straightforward way, so it made me think that those on that side of the House did not write it. They could not have, is basically the summation there. New Zealand First is supporting this bill because we do believe it will achieve its written objective, and I will take some of the time of the House this evening just to enunciate why we think that is the case.
You will forgive me for using some script here for specific detail, but what we are doing is amending the 1987 Act to provide more flexibility, which is what the industry—they did come to the Government to say they needed this flexibility for the growers and exporters of horticultural products so they can target their marketing strategies to meet the needs of specific markets. Originally, the group was achieving its goals but, as they said and as the contributions noted, they need the update, and I think my little skit illustrated what that conversation looked like.
There are some administrative processes that were cleaned up. There was clarification around the requirements for the product groups to enter—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to ask the member to resume his seat. All members have in front of them the explanatory note of the bill, and reading the explanatory note of the bill—even with a few insertions—does not add anything to the House. I will say at the same time that I realise the member is not the member who is familiar with it, but unless someone is a member, including a Minister, in charge of a bill, or asking a question for another member, or is replying for another Minister or member, one does not do it on a member’s behalf. The member is speaking and the requirements are the same. Can I ask him, if he has got something to say, to say it, but not just to read out the front page of the bill. Thank you.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker. My notes were such that I thought that I was speaking words to the effect of the front page but not the front page itself, so I apologise to you.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I can read it.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: The administrative update, which I apologise for reading in the exact detail—in terms of the unavailability of that person and conflicts of interest, and making that a notifiable process for the group. But what I think is important from my perspective and from New Zealand First’s perspective are the changes to the tiers of the licence. What we had was an inability to be responsive. The industry came forward and said it had a 2-year process and it was probably taking too long, and I think that comes back to the flexibility noted in contributions earlier today—including from myself, actually. What it would do is we would have a 2-year turnover, and that was actually holding back some of the industry players who were wanting to be a bit more responsive to the needs of the market or, in fact, potential markets, and so it moved to the 1-year process. Those concerns were raised and they were dealt with.
In fact, the Persimmon Industry Council agreed that the flexibility would provide practical options for exporters who wished to use that second-tier process, which was and is important, as we note. Assistant Speaker Mallard is being quite strict on me in terms of detail, and perhaps I might acknowledge a bit of repetition, and I do not want to waste the House’s time, but I do want to add and conclude, though—and I think it was spoken of before by one of the previous speakers from Labour—by noting the goals for the New Zealand export market set by that Government over there, the National Party members over there. It was at the time what looked like a very sensible and achievable goal with regard to growing exports as a percentage of GDP to that 40 percent mark.
What we have here is almost a fluke, because industry players actually have come to the members opposite and said that they wanted this legislation—and what do you know? Actually, we have got legislation that we believe will enable a growth in quantity and an increase in yield from that quantity, which is just as important in New Zealand First’s position on exports. We do want that value added and we support efforts that make that happen. We do want to support the growth of volume and yield. This is a win-win for industry and New Zealand, and there is no reason, when you read the legislation in detail, to oppose it.
We hope it achieves what the industry set out to do, but we do note, again, that the buy-in is optional and the measure of participation going forward has yet to be established. So we do watch, and we hope that the industry, having set that support through legislation, uses it, and it does achieve the goals for which it is intended. Thank you for your patience, Mr Assistant Speaker.
BARRY COATES (Green): It is my pleasure to speak to the second reading of this bill. The Green Party supports the bill. My colleagues on the Primary Production Committee have engaged in the select committee stage and we welcome the improvements that have been made. We appreciate that different grade standards have now been included in export marketing strategies, and we agree, also, with the changes to the tiers of the licence. We also think that the bill will contribute to a number of Green Party policies that support farmer- and industry-led initiatives. It helps diversify our primary production away from dairy products. It supports value-added activity, and potentially leverages our clean, green reputation.
We note the variety of products that are included—avocados, blackcurrants, boysenberries, buttercup squash, nashi pears, summer fruit, and tamarillos—and we recognise that these are only some of the fruits and veges that New Zealand produces that are suitable for export. We welcome the fact there has been a huge increase in revenues from the Horticulture Export Authority, from $50 million to almost $300 million in 2015—that is a mark of the progress that has been made.
We would say that it is about time that this bill has been introduced. The latest report from the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority notes that five previous annual reports have highlighted the need for an amended New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act to provide more flexibility to the sector and appeal to a broader range of sector groups. Given the potential contribution of this sector to boosting primary sector exports, we think it is a wasted opportunity that the Government has not moved faster to introduce this bill, especially since, as has already been pointed out, the Government has been failing to meet its export targets. We note that a review of the Act—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption on the next sitting day.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.