Wednesday, 2 November 2016

WEDNESDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2016

WEDNESDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): As notified to the Business Committee, I move, That the sitting of the House on Wednesday, 2 November 2016 be extended from 9 a.m. on Thursday, 3 November 2016 for the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill, and the Committee stage of the Statutes Amendment Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Points of Order

Points of Order

Oral Questions—Allocation of Questions, Calculation Including Members of the Executive

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to make a comment, and I hope you will allow me to do this, around the ruling that you made about the oral questions roster. Mr Speaker, obviously, you have the right to make the rulings that you do, but the Labour Party wants to register its strong concern with the ruling that you made that allows a member of the executive to continue to be counted in the calculation of the number of oral questions available to the Government.

It does not matter who that particular member is; it is about the position that they hold within the executive. For the purpose of questions, McGee is quite clear that members who hold executive office—Ministers, Associate Ministers, and parliamentary under-secretaries—are excluded from the calculation of the number of questions available to Government parties. This is, clearly, not just about the National Party; it is about all parties in the Government.

I think, in your ruling, Mr Speaker, that you acknowledged the fact that, actually, under the rules and guidance that this Parliament operates under, members of the executive should not be counted. Just because we have begun operating under a process that has proved to be incorrect, does not mean we should continue to do so, and the Labour Party strongly believes that members of the executive should not be counted and that we should not go ahead with a process that we all know to be wrong.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Firstly, I want to recognise, as Mr Robertson has, that this is your decision, and, I would say, the correct one. Given that—

Hon Member: Funny that.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, we are now 20 years into MMP and there have been a number of evolutions over the last 20 years that have come as a result of arrangements that parties make around MMP. I would make the point that during his time as Clerk of the House, McGee himself not only presided over but advised on a number of changes to the Standing Orders that were, as a consequence of practice, developed by Governments in support of the Government’s position on MMP. So I think your decision simply continues that evolution, and I am sure that the Standing Orders Committee will be able to make a determination for future Parliaments that reflects the advice you have given the House today.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Mr Speaker, I had no intention of commenting on this matter in the House, but as others have put their thoughts on record, I would just like to record that the position of parliamentary under-secretary is an ambiguous one—for instance, being able to enter a member’s bill in the ballot. The net effect of your decision to date is to maintain the size of Parliament relative to the executive in respect of the allocation of questions, and I think that having Parliament hold the executive to account is a very important function of this House.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank all members for their contributions on this. It is a difficult issue. It was discussed at length at the Business Committee yesterday, and I attempted to drive a decision to be made by the Business Committee. My job there is to drive that to near unanimity. That proved to be more difficult on this occasion than on many others. Although I accept, with some validity, the arguments advanced by Mr Robertson, I do not think it is quite as clear as Mr Robertson is suggesting, and that is why I do request that this matter be absolutely clarified through the review of the Standing Orders so that there can be no confusion in the future.

For those members who have not had a chance to see the decision, the Business Committee has, in the past, allocated questions, and it last made a decision back in April of this year. In view of the fact that we could not get agreement to change the roster in any way, either to reflect the fact that we have had one recent retirement from Labour or to reflect the decision around parliamentary under-secretaries being able to ask questions, I have decided that the safest way for me is to just stick with the decision that was made by the Business Committee without any difficulty at all back in April. That is the situation that remains until the matter is tidied up through the review of the Standing Orders, which will come into effect without any confusion for the 52nd Parliament.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing—Affordability and Availability

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Building and Housing, given the nearly 8,000 shortfall in new houses in Auckland in the past year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I do have confidence in the Minister, and I think the member really should take a good look at the facts. Statistics New Zealand reported this week that almost 30,000 residential building consents were issued across New Zealand in the year to September. That is more than double what they were 5 years ago, and momentum is increasing. Of these, nearly 10,000 consents were in Auckland, which is almost three times the number just 5 years ago.

Andrew Little: What impact has the $273,000 increase in Mount Roskill house prices over the past 2 years had on young people there hoping to buy their own home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Obviously, for any first-home buyer a rise in house prices has some impact, but, of course, the most substantial impact for those young people in Mount Roskill probably is, firstly, that they are paying interest rates that are at record lows. For someone borrowing $300,000, let alone, potentially, a bigger mortgage in Auckland, that saves them thousands and thousands and thousands—I think $16,000 in the hand. Secondly, as we can see today from the very strong employment growth in New Zealand, the good people of Mount Roskill are probably finding it a lot easier to get a job. Thirdly, I think the good people of Mount Roskill probably saw last week that this is a country that is No. 1 now in terms of ease of doing business. We have some of the best economic statistics in the OECD, and they have probably got a little bounce in their step. So the member might want to talk New Zealand down, but I do not think the people of Mount Roskill are.

Andrew Little: Given Quotable Value says that the median Mount Roskill house has increased in value by $2,300 each week for the last 2 years, how are young people meant to save for a deposit for their first home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are a number of ways, of course, that we do that. The first is with a strong employment market with very low interest rates—that certainly helps them. Secondly, KiwiSaver HomeStart will, without doubt, help young people. Thirdly, if you look at the comprehensive plan that we have got, obviously what is happening there is that you are seeing an enormous construction boom now happening in Auckland. In fact, if anything, the reason the member did not ask a question on housing yesterday was that, as he knows himself, he is actually starting to run out of puff on it.

Todd Barclay: What reports has he received confirming employment growth in the construction sector, which is being driven by a building boom across much of New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What an outstanding question. As part of the latest household labour force survey, Statistics New Zealand today reported that the number of people employed in the construction sector increased to a whopping 226,000 in September. That is 21,000 more construction jobs than 2 years ago, and 55,000 more than 5 years ago, confirming that the building sector is indeed booming. These extra construction jobs contributed to New Zealand’s overall unemployment rate falling to 4.9 percent in September, the lowest level since December 2008. Across New Zealand, there are a total of 35,000 more jobs than just 3 months ago, and 30,000 fewer people unemployed. Over the past year, 144,000 more people are in work. What a day of great celebration for the Government.

Andrew Little: Why, under his Government, are 80 percent of adults under 40 in Mount Roskill renters, with just 20 percent owning their own home? What is there to celebrate about that?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know the relative statistics as to what it was like 10 years ago, but I suspect it has not actually changed dramatically in that period of time. But what is true is that if you look at Mt Roskill, it is actually becoming—there is no question—a wealthier electorate there in Auckland. If you look at the massive construction boom that is now taking place in Auckland—as I said just a moment before; I will not bother repeating it for the House—there are a huge number of extra people who are working in the construction sector. We have interest rates that are at a 60-year low and we have very strong employment growth. The people of Mount Roskill and New Zealand are quite chipper about the outlook for New Zealand.

Jacqui Dean: What measures has the Minister for Building and Housing overseen as part of the Government’s comprehensive plan to increase the number of houses being built?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yet again, another outstanding question. There have been many parts of the Government’s comprehensive housing plan. We have set up the billion-dollar Housing Infrastructure Fund. We have created over 200 special housing areas for around 70,000 new homes across the country. We have extended legislation to enable special housing areas to be created for another 3 years. We have expanded the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme for first-home buyers. We signed off on a National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and we are getting the Auckland Unitary Plan under way. The plan was so comprehensive that yesterday the Labour Party gave up on housing, because it can see that the market is stabilising and that construction is booming in Auckland.

Andrew Little: Talking of special housing areas, how many of the exactly 18 affordable homes that have been built in Auckland special housing areas are in Mount Roskill? Would he be surprised to know that, actually, it is zero?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member is asking a question that he says he knows the answer to, he is really wasting the House’s time asking the question. But the reason he is asking the question is that his numbers are always so dodgy and proven to be incorrect. It is not 18 houses. As of 2016, in Auckland 1,300 homes have been completed in special housing areas, 2,200 building consents have been issued, 2,458 new sections have been created, and 7,170 new sections have been granted resource consents. I go back to what I said earlier: the reason the Labour Party did not ask yesterday is that it has given up—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Three Kings Quarry housing project would put 1,300 new homes in the Mt Roskill electorate, a large portion of which would be affordable, and that the lead opponent of these homes over the past 5 years has been the former chair of the local board, Mr Michael Wood, the Labour candidate? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is question time, not a football match.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, it could be, because we are kicking all the goals. I was aware of that, actually. I was aware of that and, you know, I would not expect anything different, because it is the same Michael Wood who does not believe in dodgy deals, except he has done one with the Greens to get himself over the line—or, at least, he wants to but because his potential leader is so worried, he is offering $1.4 billion worth of light rail, which, actually, the former member for Mt Roskill does not even support.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are moving into an area where there is no prime ministerial responsibility.

Andrew Little: Getting back to matters of fact—

Hon Members: Oh!

Andrew Little: Oh, it hurts, it hurts! Why, after 8 years of his Government, has the homeownership rate fallen to its lowest level in 65 years?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are a number of factors as to why homeownership rates around the world have been falling, but I think we can see, by the construction numbers, the consent numbers, and the employment numbers that we have seen, how much construction is now taking place. We can see that the elements of the plan are not only actually working in Auckland but, I think, starting to work around New Zealand, and I am confident that the housing markets will stabilise over time and more supply will be there.

Andrew Little: When is he going to stop dragging the chain and admit that Labour’s plan to build 100,000 affordable homes for first-home buyers is the only way to restore the Kiwi Dream?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I suggest that the people who believe that Labour is going to build 100,000 homes go there on the light rail that they believe is going to be delivered to Mount Roskill in the next 3 years.

International Education—Fraudulent Agents, Prime Minister’s Meeting with Indian Prime Minister

2. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the one I made yesterday when I said that after New Zealand First’s performance yesterday in the House I could not wait for Winston to come back.

Ron Mark: In light of his recent trip to India, does he stand by his statement in relation to fraudulent agents that he “won’t be raising it” but “expects it to be discussed”; if so, why did he not raise the issue when he met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because that is not the single biggest issue that I would discuss with Prime Minister Modi. That is because about 30,000 students each year come from India and the absolutely overwhelming bulk of them come into New Zealand legally and with the appropriate paperwork. The fact that there are a few unscrupulous agents in India is a matter, of course, to be dealt with and that is why we are putting extra resources in India while we will be putting more pressure on the institutions themselves to know their agents. But I really do not think it would be the No. 1 issue to talk to the leader of India about when we can talk about free trade and a variety of other issues.

Ron Mark: So can you tell the House again why you did not raise this issue given that 35,230 student visa applications have been processed in connection to education agents that have had an alert or a client warning placed on them by Immigration New Zealand’s Mumbai area office since 2010?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have all those details, and if he wants the specific details he really should go and put it down to the appropriate Minister, but I make the simple point that, yes, there are people who apply and whom the system correctly picks up and rejects. The vast, overwhelming bulk who come here are people who are lawful and entitled to be here and, hopefully, get a very good education, and some of them stay and some of them go home. But, in the end, the way for us to make sure that we protect the integrity of our system is that people follow the rules. If they do not follow the rules, then we have a way of dealing with that. I am pretty confident that, overall, the system works well.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table a document entitled “Total number of education agents that have an alert or client warning since 2010”. The date is 20 October; the source is an Official Information Request (OIA) response from Immigration New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none.

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

Ron Mark: Can he tell the House again why he did not raise the issue, considering that Immigration New Zealand has conducted 70 investigations into fraudulent activity regarding international students since 2010, resulting in 265 students being liable for deportation? Why did he not raise it, considering that?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There was a discussion with the Indian Prime Minister about the benefits of export education and about the benefits that New Zealand institutions, which do a very good job, can bring to helping educate those young people. There was certainly feedback that those young people are enjoying their experience in New Zealand. I do not think it would be for me to go to the Prime Minister of India and say to him that he should go and sort out a couple of his agents. It would be nice if he did not have anything else to do all day, but given that he has got 1.27 billion people to look after, he is probably just a little bit busier than Mr Mark is.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table a document entitled “Total number of investigations by Immigration New Zealand into international students since 2010”. The date is 20 October; the source is an OIA response from Immigration New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Ron Mark: If more than 163 student applications have illegally entered New Zealand via fraud, and that is only in the 2015-16 financial year, then why did he not think it was an important enough issue to raise in those discussions with the Prime Minister of India?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because in the discussions I had with the Indian Prime Minister, there were some big objectives we were trying to achieve, one of which is advancing a free-trade agreement with the country that is going to be the most populated by 2026. Yes, there are one or two agents in India that are not following the rules, and that is why the Government has beefed up its representation there. But the member last week was on TV bleating about the fact that I should not be going to India, and today he is in the House bleating on about the fact that I did not ask the questions he liked.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table a document entitled “Total number of student visa applications that have entered New Zealand via fraud, 2015-16 financial year”. The date is 20 October; the source is an OIA response from Immigration New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response. Any objection? There is none.

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

Ron Mark: If the New Delhi area office declines 60 percent of partner student applications after an investigation into “convenience-based marriages” by student visa applicants, why did he not think that that was an important enough issue to raise with the Indian Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The fact that there are applications that are being declined—and I simply make the point that they are being declined by all countries, from what we can see, that are offering export education opportunities—actually shows you that for the most part the system is working.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table a document entitled “Analysis report on the convenience-based partnerships at New Delhi area office”. The date is 11 August 2016; the source is an Official Information Act request from Immigration New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response. Any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Ron Mark: If the Mumbai area office is circulating a weekly fraud update uncovering weekly cases of fraudulent activity through dispersal letters, bank documents, recycled bank documents, and imposters pretending to be someone else, among others, why did he not consider that this was an important enough issue to discuss with the Prime Minister of India?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Some people could make the case that the member is trying to pretend he is the leader of New Zealand First. Anyway, I digress for a moment. The main issue here, of course, is that, as I said earlier, no one is arguing that there are not some agents in India who are acting inappropriately, and we would be concerned if our office was not picking them up—but the vast overwhelming bulk are. We have increased the number of people in India to help deal with that, and we are dealing with the individual institutions. The vast overwhelming bulk of the 30,000 Indian students who come to New Zealand have arrived here with the appropriate paperwork, and professionally. The number who are looking at deportation is about as small as the New Zealand First caucus, from what I can see.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table a document entitled “Weekly fraud updates at Mumbai area office from 28 March to 8 July 2016”. The date of this document is 20 October 2016; the source is from an OIA request to Immigration New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Any objection? There is objection.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be a better course of action for the member to table the entire OIA response, which, of course, is a document that proves to him that the New Zealand Government is on top of this particular problem, and it would save the House a lot of time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I do not need assistance from either member. That is not a point of order. It would certainly be more helpful than tabling documents after every supplementary question—which he is doing, in my mind, more to strengthen the political point he has made in his question, which is not the purpose of tabling a document. I have started putting the leave. If there are many more, it would be better, I think, if we hold it until the end and we put them all in one go, if I decide that they are relevant. But I do point out that the basic function of tabling a document is to provide further information to members. Everything that has been tabled so far by leave of the House has actually already been announced in the supplementary question that the member has given to the Prime Minister, so it is not adding any further information to members.

Ron Mark: Oh, it is.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, Mr Mark. It is not providing any further information. It may be reinforcing the information the member is making in his supplementary question, but that is not the point of tabling a document.

Ron Mark: Speaking to your point—

Mr SPEAKER: No, there is no need to speak to the point. I have made a decision. Does the member have a further supplementary—

Ron Mark: I seek leave to make a clarifying statement, because what you have just impugned is my reputation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought for the member to make a clarifying statement. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Annette King: You don’t object to personal statements. That’s stupid, Gerry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It was not a personal statement the member was seeking to make.

Ron Mark: Is it not a fact that, despite the Prime Minister’s assurances, fraud is rife in the Indian student market and it is affecting the reputation of our export education market, and yet he is too weak to raise the issue to the Indian Prime Minister’s attention and/or even attempt to address the problem that is contained in these documents here?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Far from it—125,000-odd students came to New Zealand last year, and about 30,000 came from India. The number of students that have been identified in New Zealand who could be deported because there could be irregularity with their documentation is a very tiny, tiny fraction of that. It is not even in the hundreds, let alone the sort of number the member seems to be claiming. The system is clearly working, because we are picking up the issues. Actually, overall, this is an industry worth well over $3.5 billion to New Zealand, and it works well. We know that the member represents the party that does not want to engage with the rest of the world, but he not should keep his head in the sand.

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 386, “Content of replies”, states: “(2) The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter … and not contain … discreditable references to … any member of Parliament”. This is not the first time the Prime Minister has made discreditable mentions of the New Zealand First caucus, which has got nothing to do with any of his questions.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I remind—[Interruption] No, I do not need assistance. Can I ask the member, when he returns to his office, to have a look at Standing Order 380. It also mentions that the supplementary questions are to be concise, without opinion or epithet. [Interruption] Order! When the last question was asked, it referred to, effectively, saying that the Prime Minister was too weak. If a member asks a question like that, he will get a robust response.

Ron Mark: Noting those answers, Prime Minister, can you not understand how most New Zealanders will see that your failure to raise these issues and the serious matters contained in your own department’s documents leaves this Government to be seen to be treating Indian students as cash cows and letting them be seen as being exploited, with our global reputation on human rights being brought into disrepute? Because that is the situation we are in, Prime Minister, all because you failed to raise—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The general debate takes place after question time. I remind the member that supplementary questions must be concise.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to say that I find that difficult to understand when I look at the answers and the length of the answers that you have consistently allowed your National Party colleagues—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The answer clearly relates to the question. If the question is long and full of opinion, like that question, it inevitably leads to a longer answer, and then we get a complaint from Mr O’Rourke about the length of the answer. If the member could practise his supplementary questions so that they are more in line with the Standing Orders—

Ron Mark: You’ve been pandering to them all day.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to stay to enjoy the balance of question time, then he will not interject when I am on my feet.

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, I want to be absolutely clear. The member has raised a point of order. I have given a ruling both to Mr O’Rourke and to Mr Mark—and to the whole House. If the member intends to relitigate the answers that I have given, then I will deal with that very, very severely, and it may be that I ask the member to leave. I just want to make that clear. If the member is going to raise a fresh point of order, he is, of course, entitled to do so.

Denis O’Rourke: This has nothing to do with a previous point of order. The point of order I raise, Mr Speaker, is that you said in your answer that I raised a matter relating to the length of the answers by the Prime Minister. I did no such thing. My point of order was about the content—concerning references to the New Zealand First caucus. It had nothing to do with the length, and I would ask you to withdraw that comment.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that the member may not have heard it, but I said to the member that when a supplementary question puts in political points like “The Prime Minister is too weak to raise an issue.”, then it is likely that you will get a very robust response back, as indeed has happened today. Question No. 3—

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I didn’t answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has pointed out that he has not had an opportunity to answer the question. I will ask the Prime Minister to answer the question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Economy—Employment and Wages

3. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Earlier today Statistics New Zealand released its latest data on employment and wages. Unemployment has fallen to 4.9 percent, its lowest level since the global financial crisis, supported by a 1.4 percent lift in employment and a 1.2 percent lift in hours worked in the September quarter. In the last year, 144,000 jobs have been added to the economy. The labour force participation rate has reached 70.1 percent, which is the highest level in the 30-year history of the household labour force survey, and New Zealand’s employment rate—that is, the proportion of the population in employment—is now the second-highest in the OECD.

David Bennett: How are rising wages and low inflation putting more spending power in the pockets of New Zealand households?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Statistics New Zealand reports that average weekly wages increased 1.9 percent in the last year, led by wage increases for nurses, primary school teachers, and the police. Over the same period, inflation was just 0.2 percent, which means real increases in New Zealanders’ wages. This confirms that the economy is generating higher incomes and more jobs for families and households.

David Bennett: How is broad-based economic growth helping to support regional growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One aspect of the statistics that is particularly pleasing is the falling unemployment rate in many regions, particularly the West Coast, Manawatū, Whanganui, Northland, and the Waikato, with a number of regions having unemployment under 5 percent and some even under 4 percent—a testament to the excellent efforts of the Minister for Economic Development, the Hon Steven Joyce, as well as the resilience of our resource-based regional economies. There are some other aspects of the release that are positive. There are fewer unemployed women, down to 5.1 percent from 5.4 percent. The unemployment rate for Māori and Pasifika is still too high, but both have dropped by about 2 percent over the last year.

David Bennett: What reports has he received showing how elevated business optimism is supporting a strong investment outlook for New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No one gets a job unless a business decides to take the risk of hiring a person, and employment does not go up unless they take the risk of hiring an extra person over and above the staff that they already have. The ANZ Business Outlook survey reports a net 38 percent of businesses are optimistic about their own prospects for the year ahead, and 21 percent of them are expecting to hire new staff. Importantly, a net 19 percent intend to invest. These expectations for more investment and more jobs are above the long-term average. Residential and commercial building intentions are particularly strong.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that today’s release shows that there are 3,000 more actual people unemployed than there were at the start of the year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That may well be the case, but fortunately there are a lot more people in work, and for those who are not in work, there are two things going for them: one is that they are in one of the faster-growing economies in the developed world, so the opportunities are as good here as anywhere, and, secondly, for those who are not in work and are in the welfare system, the Government has in place a comprehensive process to support those people getting back into work.

District Health Boards—Funding and Ophthalmology Cases

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with Professor Max Abbott who said, “Ten DHBs are in financial strife despite big moves to increase efficiency and extend services the best they can. I think it does suggest that more funding is required to health generally and also mental health”; if not, who is out of touch, Professor Abbot or him?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The only person who might be out of touch is any former Minister in a Government that ran up $160 million of deficits in 17 district health boards (DHBs) who now complains that a greatly reduced deficit of $60 million is out of control. As the member knows, health has remained the Government’s No. 1 funding priority. That is why we have invested an extra $2.2 billion in health over the next 4 years for new initiatives and to meet cost pressures and population growth. This Government has also increased mental health and addiction services funding from $1.1 billion to over $1.4 billion.

Hon Annette King: If Professor Abbott is wrong and half our DHBs are not in financial strife, how does he account for the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists’ comments that all DHBs have a significant backlog of patients needing follow-up eye appointments, with as many as 7,000 in one DHB alone and—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member that questions need to be concise.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Obviously, in ophthalmology there are one or two DHBs that need to lift their game, but you have got to place that against the background of greatly increasing demands. So, in terms of injections for glaucoma, the demand for those injections, because we have got this new technology, has increased by three to five times. But the background is that in ophthalmology we are doing a 100 percent uplift in operations and appointments compared with a number of years ago. So it is actually pretty good.

Hon Annette King: Can he confirm that the college had asked him for more resources for public hospital eye clinics, for training specialist nurses, and for more ophthalmologists in March 2015; if so, what action has he taken to address the disgraceful situation of Kiwis losing their sight through poor ministerial oversight?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have not met a group of doctors in the whole time I have been involved with healthcare that has not wanted more resources. That is how it goes. But that letter I had from the ophthalmologists actually was focused more on them wanting more decision-making rights over prioritising patients. So there were a range of issues they were discussing. But, of course, people want more resources all the time, and the answer to that is there has actually been an extra $4.2 billion that has gone into the health sector over the last 8 years.

Hon Annette King: Did the Health and Disability Commissioner advise him that he had been made aware of the serious situation and unacceptable delays in eye treatment in the Southern District Health Board (Southern DHB) in mid-2015; if not, when did he become aware of the problem?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to check my notes.

Hon Annette King: Why did he require $10 million in efficiencies from Southern DHB in 2015-16 when it was running a $34 million deficit, was unable to treat serious eye conditions in a timely manner, and was struggling to keep up with orthopaedic surgery and doing fewer elective operations in 2015-16 than in 2008-09 under a Labour Budget?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, I think the case of Southern DHB has been well canvassed. As you know, we sacked the district health board last year—a $42 million deficit down to $35 million this year and it is improving with a sustainable plan.

Hon Annette King: Why is he refusing to front up and be interviewed on the disastrous neglect of eye treatment around New Zealand—something the college did tell him about in March 2015, 18 months ago?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, look, that is just completely incorrect. I have answered a number of questions from the media on that. I did a stand up outside in the lobby yesterday. So the member is actually misleading the House on that one.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to that, and I could table, from Radio New Zealand, the refusal by that Minister to go on.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Speaker’s ruling 47/4 is quite clear that you cannot say that another member is making things up. So I require Jonathan Coleman to stand and withdraw the last part of his answer.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw and apologise.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Proposed Forestry Accounting Changes

5. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will the Government’s proposed approach to accounting for forestry and other land uses from 2021 reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions New Zealand is liable for after 2021, when compared with the existing accounting approach; if so, by how much?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Although we have a proposed approach, the detail of how it would work, how we would transition to it, or even confirming whether we will stick with the proposed approach have not been decided yet. So it is not possible to answer the member’s question as it is based on hypotheticals.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table New Zealand’s proposed accounting approach outlined in a Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) briefing dated 13 November 2015, received under the Official Information Act (OIA), to demonstrate that it is more than hypothetical.

Mr SPEAKER: I just need to check—is it freely available if members want it?

Dr Kennedy Graham: No, it was obtained under the OIA.

Mr SPEAKER: That does not actually answer my question. I will hear from the Hon Paula Bennett.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is actually available on the UN website. We put it there in November last year.

Mr SPEAKER: Then in that case, I will not be putting the leave. Further supplementary questions?

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister believe that her preferred approach for forestry accounting under the Paris Agreement—even if it is hypothetical in the sense that it has not been finalised—would have environmental integrity through a reduction in net emissions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would depend on how we transition to it and what the rules and details are around it.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does she accept, given the details in the MPI document, that the timing of this preferred accounting approach could mean that it appears that New Zealand’s emissions would reduce despite no actual emission reductions taking place in the real world?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am told that the timing of them looking at it in 2020 is based purely on the Paris Agreement coming into force then and the new rules after Kyoto, not necessarily because it is in line with when we might have a whole lot of trees being cut down.

Dr Kennedy Graham: As a general judgment on her part, does she accept that if Governments reduce emissions on paper but not in the real world, where climate change affects real people and ecosystems, the real world will be significantly worse off?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is my judgment—and, actually, I have said publicly a number of times—that I am very interested in how New Zealand does reduce its emissions. It is part of the work that is going on now that we have got, through a variety of task force advisory groups, even some of the work that the member is involved in internationally as well—which is part of what we want to do to actually reach that 2030 target, as well as looking at forestry and planting more trees, and, equally, looking at international markets. So do I want to reduce emissions in New Zealand? Absolutely.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister accept that the proposed rule changes in the MPI document, if accepted, would unjustifiably write off nearly a year’s worth of greenhouse gas emissions from the Government’s books?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would completely and utterly depend on how we would transition to it. As the report says, averaging is a worthwhile discussion to be having, and we are concerned that we want to see more trees being planted as they are being chopped down. At the moment there are disincentives for that, so we are looking at what we can do, and averaging is one way to get over that. There are other consequences of doing it, which I freely admit, and that is part of the work that is going on at the moment. Decisions have not been made.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Would she be concerned about the possibility that other countries, including bigger emitters, would follow New Zealand’s example and simply change the rules of the game so that they can avoid doing something about climate change themselves as well?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am certainly advised by the officials who are working internationally and who are looking at the Paris Agreement rules, now that we have got them in place, that a number of countries are looking at exactly what we are looking at, and it is what they need to do. So we are looking domestically, through phase 2 of the emissions trading scheme, and we are also looking at what the rules of engagement, if you like, will be now that the Paris Agreement has been signed and ratified.

Dr Kennedy Graham: If the Government were to succeed in getting these preferred rules accepted and then implemented the proposed accounting rules, would it make its 2030 climate change more ambitious in order to compensate?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would depend, as I have said, on what those rules end up being and on what the transition is, but certainly all of that will be made transparent and, I am sure, will be openly debated.

Student Loans—Overseas-based Borrowers

6. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress is being made on recovering student loan debt from overseas-based borrowers?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Good progress. As part of the ongoing overseas-based borrower compliance campaign, last week the first data-match under the information-sharing agreement with the Australian Taxation Office was made, locating contact information for around 10,400 student loan borrowers living in Australia. With more than 90 percent of loans in default held by borrowers living overseas and a significant majority of those believed to be in Australia, this tool will be a huge boost to enable the Inland Revenue Department to get in touch with borrowers who have been hard to track down and those who are deliberately avoiding their obligations.

Sarah Dowie: What results is the compliance campaign delivering?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The campaign has achieved good results over the last year, including a 32 percent increase in repayments from defaulting borrowers and an additional $100 million being collected in the year, with collection overall through the campaign passing $300 million since it began. I expect that this initial information-sharing agreement will see a further improvement in that figure over the next year. What is more pleasing is that the Inland Revenue Department is reporting a turn-around in attitudes amongst overseas-based borrowers who have previously been reluctant to engage with the department. It seems to now be getting through that if you leave the country for a few years, you cannot leave your student loan behind and hope it goes away.

Sarah Dowie: Why is the Government encouraging overseas-based borrowers to meet their obligations?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Overseas-based borrowers are just 15.2 percent of student loan borrowers, but they represent more than 91 percent of the total amount of debt in default. So if those who stay in New Zealand can pay, it is important that those overseas also meet their obligation to taxpayers, who have supported their study, and allow the same level of support to be available for the next generation of students. It is important for borrowers to know that being overseas does not mean the loan goes away, and they are encouraged to get in touch and get on top of their loans. To assist with this, we have made it easier for borrowers to contact the Inland Revenue Department and easier for them to make payments from overseas.

Anti - money-laundering Measures—Legislative Reform

7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Justice: On what date was the decision taken to delay the introduction of legislation to implement Phase Two of the Anti-Money Laundering legislation, and what are the specific “compliance costs” that “average mums and dads” will face as a result of the implementation of that legislation?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): There has been no formal decision to delay the introduction of the bill. A decision was made on 25 October to put out an exposure draft, which means that the introduction is now likely to occur next year. As I told the member yesterday, this has not delayed our target date for the legislation to be enacted, which is by far the more relevant date. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, the compliance costs involved in net present value terms have been assessed as being up to $1.6 billion over 10 years.

Grant Robertson: Can she confirm the official advice that she has received, that of the $1.6 billion of criminal funds being laundered in New Zealand 56 percent involves the purchase of real estate, and 26 percent involves the work of accountants and lawyers, the three groups that are the focus of phase two of the reforms?

Hon AMY ADAMS: With the information in front of me in the House, no, I cannot. But that could well be right. We certainly know that lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents are the sectors identified by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering and our own financial intelligence unit as being sectors to be covered, which is why we have committed to them being covered in phase two of the reforms.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a Ministry of Justice briefing note from July 2015 entitled “Phase 2 of the Anti-money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Reforms”, which has those figures I had in my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Grant Robertson: Why did she reject the advice of officials in June 2015 to immediately begin policy work on implementing phase two of the reforms?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Actually, in July 2015 I announced that we were starting the initial scoping work of the reforms, and the advice of officials actually had us on a time frame of the legislation being enacted in late 2018. We are now committed to having it in place significantly before that.

Grant Robertson: Why, 3 years after phase one was brought into force, 2 years after the Government was warned by President Xi of corrupt money from China entering New Zealand, and a year after officials asked her to begin work immediately is she still standing by, allowing billions of dollars of corrupt money to come into New Zealand?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Far from standing by, this Government is getting on with ensuring the regime is in place as fast as possible, and, actually, faster than officials recommended. But I reiterate that $1.6 billion of compliance costs over 10 years is significant, and the fact that this Government cares about things like compliance costs and their impact on business is why we are the No. 1 country in the world for ease of doing business, and a big part of the reason unemployment has now dropped to 4.9 percent.

Grant Robertson: Is not the real threat to mums and dads that hundreds of millions of dollars of criminal funds are being laundered in New Zealand through the real estate market, which is leading to massive house price increases and locking first-home buyers out of the housing market?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The member is blithely ignoring the fact that we already have the entire financial sector, which almost all real estate transactions go through, covered, and I think that if you asked ordinary New Zealanders whether they were worried about $1.6 billion of compliance costs landing on them, they would be very concerned and they would want the Government to proceed carefully.

Health Services—Primary-care Funding and Rheumatic Fever Initiatives

8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that primary-care funding has gone up from $667.2 million in 2008-09 to an estimated $892.7 million in 2016-17, an increase of about 34 percent, and what improvements to primary-care service does this increase deliver?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Over the last 8 years under this Government primary-care funding has increased by around $230 million, including an extra $25 million in this year’s Budget. We have also brought in free visits for children under the age of 13, with over 780,000 children benefiting from free doctors visits and prescriptions. The numbers of prescriptions dispensed has increased by 23.9 percent, showing that the removal of costs has improved access to medicines. And, of course, fewer children under the age of 13 are presenting to emergency departments, which shows that these investments are all paying off.

Dr Shane Reti: What specific services is the Government delivering to address serious but preventable diseases such as rheumatic fever?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Reducing rheumatic fever rates is one of our Better Public Services targets, and recent figures show a 37 percent decrease in new cases. Although we are tracking in the right direction, it is an ambitious target, and we need to continue to do more. This week my colleague Anne Tolley and I announced an awareness campaign to recruit and train around a hundred young people, mainly Māori and Pasifika aged between 11 and 19, to talk about how we prevent rheumatic fever. The youth campaign is part of the $65 million the Government has invested in the fight against rheumatic fever.

Community Social Services—Collection of Personal Information

9. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: Is she confident that requiring community groups to hand over individual client details as a condition of funding will result in better outcomes for people who access those services?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Social Development): Yes, I am confident that the collection of client-level data will result in better outcomes for those accessing the services funded through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

Jan Logie: Does she think that an MSD employee, say, struggling to pay the bills and feed the kids, will be more or less likely to get budgeting help if their details are shared with Government?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I think the member’s fears are unfounded, because what I can say is that there are robust procedures for the gathering of personal information. The Ministry of Social Development has been working closely with the Privacy Commissioner and the Government Chief Privacy Officer to ensure that clients’ privacy rights are protected. It does the member no service, nor the people accessing these services, to create unfounded fears.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not talking about my fears—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I was distracted at the time the member asked the question, so I did not hear it clearly. I invite her to ask it again.

Jan Logie: Does she think that an MSD employee, say, struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table, will be more or less likely to go to get budgeting help if their details are shared with Government?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I think that that MSD employee should not have any fears that their private information will be shared for any other purpose than to provide an excellent service to them for their needs at the time.

Jan Logie: Does she think a media personality or rugby player beating up his partner will be more or less likely to voluntarily get help if his information is shared with Government?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The whole premise behind MSD requiring the providers of services to collect client-level data is to make sure that New Zealand’s most vulnerable people get the services that they need, and that those services deliver to them an efficient and effective outcome. I believe this member is simply scaremongering.

Jan Logie: Does the Minister not understand that the trust and confidentiality at the heart of social work, budgeting, and counselling will be undermined by requiring community organisations to hand over individuals’ data to Government?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I absolutely reject that. In fact, we have had tragedies in New Zealand where children or adults have been harmed or have died and, in retrospect, people have said that they fell through the cracks. Often, that has simply been because client-level data was not shared.

Better Public Services—Unemployment and Employment Support

10. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made on the Government’s progress on Better Public Service Result one?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): As part of the Government’s regular Better Public Services update, I announced that the number of working-age people on a main benefit fell below 280,000 at the end of March 2016 for the first time since 2008, and the future cost of the benefit system has fallen by $3.6 billion in the last year. Since we refreshed the target, the number of people on a benefit has fallen by around 15,000, and if we look back to 2011, this number has fallen by around 51,000. I also note today’s announcement that unemployment has fallen below 5 percent. This Government is committed to helping people off welfare and into work so that they and their families can succeed.

Todd Muller: What announcements from Budget 2016 will contribute to continuing this downward trend?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Budget 2016 included $111.5 million over the next 4 years to support more people into sustainable employment. This includes funding for intensive work-focused case management for 120,000 clients; the extension of the Youth Service, which helps young people at risk of long-term benefit dependence; and allows us to trial some different ways of working with target groups, including working with district health boards and Corrections. We are absolutely committed to investing in the things that work, and trying new initiatives to support more people into long-term, sustainable employment.

Public Transport, Auckland—Light Rail and Auckland Transport Alignment Project

11. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Transport: Does he support light rail from the Auckland city centre along Dominion Road to reduce congestion and improve urban amenity along the route?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): I support transport solutions that are delivered at the right time, provide the best value for money, and are based on evidence. The recent Auckland—

Hon Annette King: What about the bridges? Are they on time?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —well, just wait—Transport Alignment Project that the Government and Auckland jointly undertook shows that some form of rapid transit, whether it is bus or light rail, will be required on the Auckland isthmus between 2028 and 2038. Officials are currently looking into the best options. So it is important that officials do this work before politicians leap in, because, as we have seen with Labour and internationally recently, light-rail projects are highly susceptible to multibillion-dollar cost blowouts.

Phil Twyford: Has an actual business case been done on the Prime Minister’s suggestion that fast buses be used instead of light rail, or is this just another example of the Government’s stream of consciousness approach to dealing with chronic congestion in Auckland, which is costing the city billions of dollars in lost productivity?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, that is the point here: no business case has been done on anything, and that is why it was so stupid to make a $700 million promise that overnight became $1,400 million, and may well be $2 billion before they are finished. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need the assistance from members to my far right. [Interruption] Order! David Bennett. Order! Mr Bennett might think it is a joke; I am quite serious. Members have a right to ask a question, and if the members are delayed from asking that question and not given the opportunity to hold the Government to account, that is a serious matter. If I need to ask somebody from that quarter to be leaving the House to get some control, I will not hesitate to do so.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the Auckland central access plan that investing in more buses would cost $9.5 billion and generate safety concerns, while light rail would cost less than half that and improve safety and travel time reliability; or does he support Parmjeet Parmar’s plan to fix congestion by building more bus stops?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Those figures sound highly inflated. I think the point of all of this is for us to have officials and experts actually go away and analyse the options before we make promises that go from hundreds of million to billions, without any sense of what the true costs and the benefits of it all are.

Phil Twyford: Will he confirm that in the negotiations on the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, the council wanted light rail in the first decade, but he and Bill English insisted on pushing it back so it would not happen until after 2028?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: What I confirm is that unlike the way the Labour Party may have acted when it was in office, there was no political interference. This was a process that was about officials and experts working through this rationally and on the basis of evidence, and they came out with 2028 to 2038. On this side of the House we work through the evidence before we make promises.

Marama Fox: Will the Minister look into a study to rejoin the Wairoa to Gisborne rail link, providing vital infrastructure to the region?

Mr SPEAKER: It is a fair way from the original question, but I will give the Minister a chance.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh—let us see what happens.

Phil Twyford: Why does his Government keep playing politics with Auckland transport when, according to the Ministry of Transport, delays in the average morning commute have gone up by 25 percent since 2012?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Here is what I call playing politics: making a $700 million promise that overnight becomes $1,400 million, without any evidence, without any benefit-cost ratio—basically, on the back of the envelope stuff. That is what I call playing pork-barrel politics.

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that National is taking its typical five-step approach to Auckland transport: one, trash the project; two, let several years go by; three, blame others for the problem; four, let more years go by; five, belatedly admit that Labour’s policy was right all along.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: What I can confirm is that the Government and Auckland have the best relationship in regard to transport that they have had in a very long time. That is because we have joined together, we have done the analysis, and we are investing billions of dollars. We have an indicative plan to spend a further $24 billion over the next decade in an integrated way—roading, public transport of a variety of forms. We are a strong Government in infrastructure that is making a real difference when it comes to transportation in Auckland.

Border Control, Illegal Drug Interception—FirstDefenders

12. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Customs: What announcements has she made regarding the Government’s investment into front-line drug detection equipment for Customs?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): Last week I announced the roll-out of 14 FirstDefenders. This is a mobile drug-detection device, which uses a laser to analyse the substance, often without needing to open the packaging. The device was purchased with over a million dollars from funding from the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, so Customs’ hard work in seizing drugs and catching criminals has paid off. We are using assets taken from the criminals to purchase tools that will help seize more drugs and catch more criminals.

Mark Mitchell: How will these devices enhance Customs’ capabilities to protect the border?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The FirstDefenders will be vital equipment for our front-line officers, making drug detection quicker, safer, and more efficient. They are portable, they are easy to use, and the samples are matched against the database of 11,000 illegal substances to prove an accurate match within seconds, without having to go to the lab. Customs will share this latest capability with partner agencies to help broader drug-enforcement work.

Mark Mitchell: What reports has she received on Customs’ recent meth interceptions at the border?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Customs’ largest ever meth seizure was announced last week. It was $176 million of meth seized from shipping containers in July, after a 16-month investigation. It was international collaboration, the use of intelligence, and new technology, which results in better risk assessments and increased operational efficiency and successful drug detection.

Questions to Members

Questions No. 1 and 2 to Member

Mr SPEAKER: We would normally move now to questions to members, but I am aware that the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee is not present in the House. Those two questions are therefore held over until tomorrow.

Urgent Debates

Saudi Agri-hub—Auditor-General’s Report

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the release of the report of the Auditor-General on the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership. This is a particular case of very recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Given the high level of public interest in the matter, it warrants the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. I call on the Hon David Parker to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. The only positive for the Hon Murray McCully in this report is that the report finds that he is not guilty of the crime of corruption. No money went into his hands, and he has been found not to have bribed anyone else. Beyond that, this report is an absolute indictment of the Government, its cover-up, and its poor standards. Indeed, the Auditor-General is very, very clear in distancing herself from the immorality—I do not say the morality; I say the immorality—of what has gone down here, and she says the use of a contract for services to resolve these matters was a decision made by Cabinet.

I comment below on the quality of the Cabinet paper process, not on the decision itself. The Government will turn up today, as it did with Skycity, and say that this report exonerates it. It does not. It lays bare an absolutely disgraceful stain upon the record of New Zealand. The Government has acted immorally, improperly, wasted millions of dollars, covered it up, lied to the Parliament, and lied to the public. It is only because of the very good services of a couple of journalists in particular that this even came to light.

This shabby sheep deal in the desert was exposed only because two journalists chased it down. The first was Matthew Hooton. Matthew Hooton ran a number of articles in the National Business Review saying that this was a shady deal that did not make sense. The only thing he knew about at the time was the then said to be $6 million cost of a farm in the desert, which was meant to be some demonstration farm of New Zealand agricultural expertise. He said it never made sense, he postulated that it was linked to trying to get a free-trade agreement with Saudi Arabia—an issue that the Government denied—and he kept digging and poking away at it. The National Government pretended there was nothing wrong.

Heather du Plessis-Allan, then at TV ONE, did an absolutely fantastic job of breaking this story. She ran a number of news items on TV ONE, she raised the question as to whether this was all as it seemed, and she put in a number of Official Information Act requests. She also approached me. I smelled a rat there. I do not normally fish in Parliament; I normally come with things that I can prove. But I came fishing, and on the day I came fishing with regards to payments in addition to the $6 million payment, McCully stood up on the tiles and told Heather du Plessis-Allan: “Oh, by the way, there’s another $4 million cash payment that we haven’t told you about.”

I came to this House and I asked questions about that $4 million cash payment, and Minister McCully stood up in this House and pretended that that $4 million payment was necessary, (1) to settle a legal risk, and (2) to pay for intellectual property. He denied that it was to facilitate a free-trade agreement with Saudi Arabia. He blamed the prior Labour Government. He blamed the prior Labour Government, and he said that I should be ashamed of myself for being part of that Government and that Phil Goff should be ashamed of himself for causing that $4 million payment to Mr Al Khalaf. That is what he told this Parliament, and that is what he told journalists.

The Labour Party sought release of our Cabinet papers from the last Government relating to the extension of the ban on the export of live sheep to Saudi Arabia for slaughter, because Mr McCully and the National Government were saying that there was evidence in them to back up his assertion that it was our fault and that he was paying off a legal claim that we had created. The National Government then actively supressed the release of those papers and breached the very Cabinet convention that is meant to act for the preservation of the national interest.

After weeks of the Government pretending that we could not see the full amount of those Cabinet papers, disclosing to the media redacted copies of them, and pretending that in the redacted parts there was evidence of some poor practice by the Labour Government, I released them, because the Government was in breach of that convention, and proved that those allegations that it was us who had somehow created a legal risk were wrong.

Of course, it was always legitimate for the past Government to ban the export of live sheep for slaughter. We now all know that that was initially because of the death of sheep in transit and that some of those processes have improved substantially, but that it was expanded or extended because of the evidence that was on TV about inhumane practices in Saudi Arabia after those sheep landed, when they were slaughtered in very inhumane ways that would not be allowed if they were slaughtered in New Zealand before they were shipped as carcasses.

Those practices included stuffing them in boots, tying them up, and cutting the tendons of their legs so that they could not run away. There was great justification for the then Minister of Agriculture under the Labour Government to extend that ban on the export of live sheep for slaughter, and the current Government, under the then Minister of Agriculture, acted entirely appropriately when the National Government itself again extended the ban on the export of live sheep for slaughter, not once but twice. Each time it did it, it acted legally. Therefore, it was always a fiction that there was a legal claim faced by the Government that justified the $4 million cash payment.

What has the Auditor-General said? And if I have got time, I am also going to take the House through some of the papers. The Auditor-General said “I share many New Zealanders’ concerns about the arrangements. I found significant shortcomings in the paper put to Cabinet in support of the decision to enter into the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership.” on page 5. Again, on page 5: “In my view, settlement of a grievance was provided under the guise of a contract for services.” “Guise”—i.e., a disguised payment, which was to facilitate a free-trade agreement and to settle these grievances of Sheikh Al Ali Khalaf, which had no basis in law. Then she goes on to say: “Importantly, the contract does not specifically reflect the settlement component relating to the grievance.”

That has been one of our points all along—that these documents misrepresented the true position. The Minister has denied it. He has been found out, and if we have now reached the point in New Zealand where the standard of conduct expected of Ministers is so low that they have to be found to be guilty of a crime before they are forced to resign, that is a terrible state of affairs in New Zealand—a terrible state for New Zealand—because what is the truth at the heart of this is that the incompetence of the Minister has been shown up. We still do not have the free-trade agreement. The incompetence of the Minister has been shown up. Many millions of dollars have been wasted on a farm in the desert. The lambs died. Rather than showcasing New Zealand’s expertise, that has sullied our reputation. What else has he done? Well, of course, he has covered that up, as I have already addressed, and he has misled Parliament and the public.

The contract for services was intended to conceal the nature of the arrangement. That is what we have said, and that was what is imprudent. What does the Auditor-General say further? And I am only up to page 5: “This lack of transparency, both at the time of the decision and subsequently, has led to the concerns from the New Zealand public about the nature of the payments made. To date, explanations from Ministers or officials have not resolved those public concerns.” That is quite true. In fact, until now, they have actively tried to cover up the true nature of these transactions.

Then, as I have already said, the Auditor-General says: “The use of a contract for services to resolve these matters was a decision made by Cabinet. I comment … on the quality of the Cabinet paper process but not on the decision itself.” She is making no comment on the morality of paying off a disaffected multimillionaire Saudi sheikh—millions of dollars in order to facilitate a free-trade agreement with Saudi Arabia. The Labour Party is willing to make that call. That is unprincipled and wrong. It is not something that the New Zealand Government should do.

The Auditor-General then says: “I found some significant shortcomings in the Cabinet paper, including that it: did not clearly explain that the Al Khalaf Group would own the goods and services costing the New Zealand Government $6 million;”—it is a bit of a miss, is it not, Mr McCully? It “did not identify how the $10 million”—

Grant Robertson: Making it up.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That was the $10 million in addition to the $4 million—sorry, the $10 million figure was made up. It was a figure that rose to $11.5 million. We actually know that that $11.5 million included flying sheep on Singapore Airlines to the other side of the world, to a farm in the desert where most of the lambs died, and it was meant to be a model farm of New Zealand practice.

She also says that the Cabinet paper “signalled the risk of a claim against the Government based only on the $20-$30 million figure that the Cabinet paper said was suggested by the Al Khalaf Group (there was no assessment by Ministry officials of the substance of that legal risk);”. I and the media have been fighting for a year—a year—to prove that point, and the Minister has resisted every attempt. I have got, under the Official Information Act, notes where the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) was schooled on the obfuscatory answers he was to give at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to deny that. The Government dragged the ministry into this cover-up as well.

The Auditor-General says further: “I was surprised that it was decided to use a contract with a private individual’s business interests to resolve a diplomatic issue between governments. It is difficult to reconcile the words of the contract with the unstated objectives,”—

Grant Robertson: That’s right. That’s the cover-up.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is the cover-up. Then the Auditor-General ends by saying, look, we are not a corrupt country, but transparency must be assured in order to avoid us being a more corrupt country.

Two other points. The report does not consider how it was that McCully got his old mate Alex Matheson—who worked for him way back when and was working for the Ministry of Economic Development overseas and somehow came to be working for the Rugby World Cup for McCully, then, at the end of that road, somehow he was appointed by McCully as a sort of roving consular figure in the Middle East—to sew up this deal. He was his inside man, who sewed this up. How is it that MFAT allows itself to be so manipulated by its Minister that it allowed that to happen? There was no consideration of how Michelle Boag, the former president of the National Party, somehow inveigled herself into the deal.

This is, I think, a disgraceful episode. I personally feel misled by Mr McCully. I have never said that he took a cheque or that he had profited financially. I think it is a very, very narrow view of what is right and wrong if he is judged by anyone on the basis of whether he breached the Crimes Act in terms of corruption. The truth is that this was a disreputable waste of money, which has been covered up for a long, long time, and it would not have come to the attention of the public had it not been for Matthew Hooton and Heather du Plessis-Allan, whom I think we should be celebrating as actually having done very good investigative work on this occasion.

Can I also thank the Speaker for enabling the House to actually bring this to a head in a way that caused the Auditor-General’s inquiry. If it had not been for the thorough processes that we have around question time, again, the Government would have avoided responsibility for wasting $11.5 million of taxpayer money, including a $4 million cash payment to Mr Al Khalaf.

We know it was a compensatory payment, because there are other papers, which we finally got under the Official Information Act, that showed that Mr Khalaf’s representative, Mr George Assaf, said that they needed compensation. Why would a Government ever think that you should buy your way into a free-trade agreement with someone who is connected in Saudi Arabia—with the then Minister of Agriculture getting out of the way—and, effectively, pay him off because of his grievance, which was not substantial in law, in order to get a free-trade agreement with the Gulf states?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I want to take the opportunity today to make some brief remarks in relation to the release of the Auditor-General’s report today. To those members of the public who listened to the contribution by Mr Parker and who feel confused, can I simply say to them that they should read the report. I cannot do justice to it in a few remarks in the House today; I will just make a few points. I do say to those who are concerned about this matter: read the full report. The best bits were not, in fact, quoted to the House today by Mr Parker.

It is an important report, and I welcome it because I was on the receiving end of some very colourful allegations by Mr Parker and by some of his fellow travellers, who decided to use words like “bribery”, “corruption”, “facilitation payments”, “dodgy”, etc., to describe a genuine attempt by the Government and by senior ministry officials, led by myself, to deal with a situation that we inherited. This is not a situation that the National-led Government created for itself; it was a situation that we inherited from our predecessors. Mr Parker can obfuscate all he likes, but anyone who reads the Auditor-General’s report can draw their own reasonable conclusions about the situation that was inherited by me, by my then colleague Tim Groser, and by members of this Government.

The first reason that I am pleased to welcome this report today is that the allegations of bribery and corruption made by Mr Parker and others—very serious allegations to make in a constitutional democracy like New Zealand—have been shown to be completely baseless. After full cooperation from members of the Government, members of the New Zealand Public Service, and all parties involved in this interesting period of recent history, the Auditor-General has said very clearly, and I quote from page 54, “We found no evidence of corruption, bribery, or a facilitation payment … The arrangements entered into were a lawful use of public resources, and public money was spent with appropriate financial authorities in place.” That is exactly what the Auditor—

Grant Robertson: Read the next paragraph—read the next paragraph.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am going to talk about the next paragraph. The Auditor-General has made a full-frontal finding that the very colourful, defamatory accusations being made by some members of this House are simply baseless and false.

Can I say that nobody listening to this debate should be surprised by that. This was not a process that was conducted by three or four people in a dark room; this was a process that involved months and months of discussion, involving the most senior officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—senior officials from the Middle East and Africa division, senior officials from the trade division, the most senior legal people available to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and, indeed, external legal advice on aspects as well. It should come as no surprise to anyone that there is a full-frontal finding by the Auditor-General today that there was no bribery, that there was no corruption, that there was no facilitation payment, that there was a set of arrangements that were “a lawful use of public resources”, and that “public money was spent with appropriate financial authorities in place.”

I want just to go back to the Cabinet paper that has been the subject of some comment by the Auditor-General—and I will make some references to that in a minute—and just read the first paragraph, because it is important to remember the history: “This paper updates Ministers on progress in resolving a serious bilateral relationship issue with Saudi Arabia that poses a major threat to New Zealand’s trade and economic interests.” For the past 4 years this issue has spilled over into the wider Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and has been asserted by the GCC to be the only obstacle to ratification of the New Zealand - GCC free-trade agreement (FTA). This was an FTA that was fully negotiated—completely negotiated—by negotiators on both sides, and the Saudi Government put in place a block on further interaction, because of offence that had been caused by the history, which I invite members who are interested to read in the Auditor-General’s report.

It is true—and I am going to be more even-handed than Mr Parker and concede—that there are some areas of this history that the Auditor-General gives the Government less than approval for. The report does suggest that some aspects of this process were less than perfect. It describes, first of all, the use of a contract for services as “problematic”. Can I say to the House today that I agree with that—I agree with that. In fact, what I would also say is that there were simply no non-problematic responses available to the Government. It is notable that the Auditor-General makes no suggestion as to what a non-problematic course of action available to the Government might have been. Can I be quite clear that the course of action that could easily have ensued, one of simply letting matters fester even further, would have been even more problematic to the Government, more problematic to New Zealand, and more problematic to our long-term trade and economic interests. That is why members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and I took the steps that are outlined carefully in this report.

As Mr Parker has told the House, there is a comment in the report that suggests that additional analysis should have been provided in the Cabinet paper that went to the Cabinet committee and to Cabinet. I want to say, first and foremost, that I am not going to comment on those findings of the Auditor-General. It seems to me to defeat the whole purpose of having as independent an exercise as this if people are simply going to give it their own analysis and spin. I just want to say, to the extent that there are matters that the Auditor-General suggests could have been undertaken better, and to the extent that there are procedures or processes that could have been improved, that as the Minister responsible, I will that take on the chin. I believe that we did our best in some very difficult and some very trying circumstances. To the extent that there were some blemishes in the process along the way, they have been identified by the Auditor-General, and those comments should be treated with respect, and I certainly will do so.

The most important point that I want to make to the House today is that the objective that the Government set in embarking upon these proceedings has been substantially achieved. I would refer to a press release here, which was released by my colleague the Minister of Trade on 29 September in the course of a visit to Saudi Arabia, which is headed “New Zealand & Saudi seek early completion of GCC FTA”, and accompanying this statement is a joint statement signed by Minister Todd McClay and by the Saudi Arabian Minister of Commerce, jointly committing the two Governments to the early completion of the GCC FTA. That visit followed one that I myself had undertaken earlier, and it follows interactions I have had with each of the other five Governments of the Gulf States to confirm that in this matter, having been resolved to the satisfaction of the Saudi parties, and particularly to the satisfaction of the Saudi Government, the objection has been removed and the issue of the free-trade agreement is now back on the rails and will take its proper course.

Those who do not take an interest in these matters may be surprised to hear that this is a very important market to New Zealand producers today. This is going to be a much more important market to New Zealand in the coming years, not just because the Gulf States themselves are hugely important, not just because they are natural partners—in that they have significant funds but a significant lack of arable land and water, and that their No. 1 priority is food security—but also because this is the gateway to the African continent, where there is going to be an explosion of trade and economic opportunity for New Zealand business in the years to come. For any New Zealand Government simply to walk away from a frozen free-trade agreement negotiation because it was difficult to resolve would not have been a responsible course of action. It was not one that I was prepared to contemplate.

So to the extent that there are criticisms of the process that are levelled in the Auditor-General’s report today, I accept those criticisms as the Minister responsible. To the extent that there is credit, now or in future, that is to be distributed as New Zealand banks the gains that come from the completion of the free-trade agreement and the enhancement of economic and trade opportunities with the Middle East and with Africa, I hope that some of that credit will come my way as well.

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Something maybe legal, but that does not mean it is not dodgy, and that does not mean it is not unprincipled. In other words, being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent. It is a bit like investing in cluster munitions through a distant legal mechanism. That is legal, but it does not make it right. I am pleased that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has chosen to front in the House today, to this report. It has been a long time coming. David Parker and I wrote to the Auditor-General on 28 May last year, so this report has been 18 months in coming. It finds that no laws were broken, but it also finds that there is a litany of incompetence, of unprincipled and rogue behaviour, of a cavalier approach to the use of public funds, and a complete lack of transparency. As David Parker said in his opening remarks in this debate, surely we have higher standards for our Ministers than merely not being crooks. Surely we hold them to standards of competence, that they observe due process, and that they are transparent, and that they use public funds wisely. It is quite an extraordinary picture that has emerged through this report. I want to pick up on a few specific points within the report.

First of all, the Auditor-General finds that the contract for services was used to transfer value to the Al-Khalaf Group in order to (a) settle a grievance and a very vague claim for compensation—this is on page 8—and (b) to resolve a diplomatic issue that was perceived to stand in the way of a trade deal, as outlined on page 9. There does not seem to have been a clear finding as to why compensation was dressed up as services. The Auditor-General refers to this, on page 9, as “a convenient mechanism” and that Mr McCully thought that compensation would need to be scrutinised by “a plethora of lawyers and bureaucrats” and so he wanted to avoid it. This is on page 32 of the report. Because of this guise, there was no analysis of the risk of a legal claim. There was not a clear explanation to Cabinet of what was going on. The contract does not contain any settlement wording at all. The Auditor-General refers to these as “significant shortcomings”. She says that they are surprising, and this is a failure to be transparent. It is worse, I think, that a Minister is using a sham device to avoid proper process and scrutiny.

There are some specific quotes that I would like to pull out. The Auditor-General says: “I was surprised that it was decided to use a contract with a private individual’s business interests to resolve a diplomatic issue between governments.” I am just going to restate that. It is quite an extraordinary statement: “… it was decided to use a contract with a private individual’s business interests to resolve a diplomatic issue between governments.” She goes on to say: “It is difficult to reconcile the words of the contract with the unstated objectives, which included resolving a complex diplomatic issue and removing a perceived obstacle to the signing of the free trade agreement. The contract for services was a convenient mechanism by which the allocated $10 million, later $11.5 million, was put towards achieving those unstated objectives. It does not tell the full story.”

That is an extraordinary statement about the behaviour of any Minister of the Crown, operating on behalf of the Government of New Zealand, in our relations with private individuals and Governments overseas, and it is absolutely intolerable, on behalf of the New Zealand Government. An amount of $4 million was paid to a Saudi businessman because he asked for it. The Cabinet paper signalled that the risk of the claim was based only on the $20 million to $30 million that the Cabinet paper said was suggested by the Al-Khalaf Group itself. No one who was qualified to do so appeared to have considered whether the legal risk that Mr Key and Mr McCully used in this House to justify the payment was at all legitimate. Nobody tested that. The payment was based on the unqualified assertions made by Mr McCully.

The Auditor-General goes on to say that in the Cabinet paper there is the promised $3 billion worth of trade in 5 years with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and that there is no evidence for this claim in the Cabinet paper. There is simply an assertion. The Auditor-General has not been able to find any evidence to back up that claim anywhere else. No one has tested Mr Al Khalaf or the Gulf Cooperation Council’s claims that this was the one thing that was standing in the way of the free-trade agreement. That, to me, is extraordinary; it is utterly extraordinary. This is based on absolute hearsay. The fact that the free-trade agreement is still not signed suggests that it was not the only block. The report also says that Treasury was supposed to have oversight of the project, and there does not yet seem to be any evidence that it did.

At the very least this is clear incompetence. An amount of $8.7 million of public money has been spent, against a budget of $11.5 million. The report says that it is not clear on what basis those amounts paid were arrived at. These numbers just seem to have been plucked out of the air, in the Cabinet paper. In terms of competence, who thought that shipping South Island ewes to the middle of a Saudi desert was a good idea? Is anybody surprised that 75 percent of the lambs that were born there subsequently died? The report also says that there is a total lack of transparency. The Auditor-General says that the contract does not tell the full story, and that to date, even at the date of the publication of this report, Ministers and officials have not resolved those concerns about the lack of transparency.

Although Mr McCully and the Prime Minister and others will stand up and say that this report somehow fully vindicates their behaviour, on the basis that no laws were broken, the behaviour exhibited, led by Mr McCully, is clearly incompetent, unprincipled, rogue behaviour. It is not transparent. I have to say that it is extraordinary to me that he continues on in his role as a Government Minister. I think that is intolerable and he should stand down immediately. The Prime Minister says that this was a creative solution. Well, I have to say that I started my career in one of the world’s largest accounting firms and we referred to “creative accounting” as things to be avoided at all costs, because that is not the basis of a society or a Government on the rule of law, and we have higher standards for the behaviour of our Government than that. Mr McCully needs to go. Thank you.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): Well, I am glad we have had this opportunity to debate this matter today. It has been a long time coming. In the short time that they have had it available to them, the media have had a chance to look at this report from the Auditor-General, and I think the headline that I have got in front of me pretty much sums it up. It says “ ‘Shortcomings’ but no corruption in sheep deal—Auditor-General”.

That behoves us to ask the question: what is corruption? We have heard—the Minister has said and members have made comment—that corruption is something that in this case, if it went to court, legally, the people who have had the finger pointed at them would probably get off. But it goes beyond that, because if they are significant shortcomings, and if an issue like this does not pass the public-interest test—if it does not pass the “Will this make the front page of the Dominion Post?” test—if it is corruption of thought, if it is corruption of behaviour, if it is corruption of morals, and if it is corruption of the established, ethical ways of doing business, is that still corruption and is that something that we want to countenance? Is it something that we want to allow this nation and this Government to simply get away with because that is a way of, effectively, covering something up?

There is an awful lot that has been said in a very short hurry about this, and I think many of us probably have not had a great deal of time to digest it in detail, but when there are statements that are made by someone of such unimpeachable integrity as the Auditor-General—when that person says “I was surprised that it was decided to use a contract with a private individual’s business interests to resolve a diplomatic issue between governments.”, that is something that we have to take on board and we have to take very seriously, because, in the grand scheme of things, resolving diplomatic issues between Governments is not something that is done, on the face of it, by the payment of money between Governments and private business individuals. When we boil all this down to brass tacks, essentially, that is what that comes down to.

What this Government wanted was a free-trade deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council, and what was standing in the way of it was a Saudi businessman who was annoyed—understandably, perhaps, from his point of view—at losing lots and lots of money from the ending of the live animal trade from New Zealand, which we as a sovereign nation put a stop to on ethical grounds because of the conditions faced by livestock as they were transported from this side of the world to the other. That all came about when something like 5,000 sheep died on a ship on the way from Australia to the Middle East, and fingers can be pointed in all sorts of directions as to who or what was ultimately to blame for that. But it threw a spotlight on a trade where tens of thousands of animals were being transported from what we like to think of as being civilised places for slaughter to places that are quite frequently accused of being uncivilised places for slaughter, and the conditions in which they were transported gave measure to that lack of civilisation, never mind what happened at the other end when they arrived.

We had put a stop to it. Money was lost. People, obviously, at the other end of that deal were experiencing much chagrin at losing money and they brought political and financial influence to bear on the political system at their end of the matter, and there we came to an impasse. So in order to break this impasse, a deal was reached and it was a deal that many of us would regard as being, ethically and in terms of business morals, corrupt. That involved, as it says on one of these many pieces of paper I have in front of me—

Hon Members: Take your time.

RICHARD PROSSER: —thank you very much—the payment of something like $11 million worth of cash, livestock, and agricultural equipment to a Saudi livestock importer, and that, we are told, supposedly broke the impasse. But I have to call that into question too, because are we, in fact, any closer to resolving this deal, which was brought to a halt by the end of our live sheep exports, or, at the end of the day, are we still going to have to turn around and, effectively, bend over and lift our prohibition—because it is not a prohibition in law. It is not a ban in law.

When the Animal Welfare Act was re-examined a couple of years ago by this House, we did not enshrine the ban on live animal exports other than for the likes of bloodstock. We relied on the convention that had been established since the prohibition was put in place. It is still legally possible for us to export livestock to that part of the world. Do we rely on that, or are we going to see the resumption of shipments of live animals from this country to parts of the world that do not have the same ethical standards that we do in terms of their treatment of animals, in terms of the operation of their abattoirs, in terms of the way animals are slaughtered, and in terms of the way animals are treated? Have we essentially sold our soul for the paltry sum of $11 million to placate one individual—

David Seymour: It’s not poultry.

RICHARD PROSSER: —$11 million, Mr Seymour—in the scheme of New Zealand’s sheep exports, and our meat exports overall, which ground this economy in total? Yes, $11 million is a paltry sum. It is a paltry sum, Mr Seymour, and I think you really should take that on board, because, Mr Seymour, some things are actually more important than bottom lines and some things are more important than paying lip service to concepts such as ethical behaviour. Sometimes corruption is corruption, even if it is something that would not lead to a conviction in a court of law. If it is immoral, if it is unethical, and if it is business practice that we as a nation do not want to be associated with, then it is a very paltry sum for selling our soul, Mr Seymour.

The report goes on to say that “It is not clear on what basis the amounts paid to the Saudi Arabian investor’s company under the contract were arrived at.”, so there is a complete lack of transparency throughout this entire matter. There has been from the beginning, and New Zealand First was saying so a long time ago. Back in May 2015 we said that the deal was “a new low in New Zealand diplomacy”. “A disgrace” and “borders on bribery”, said our leader, the member for Northland, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He then said: “New Zealand has been successfully blackmailed by two highly connected Saudi businessmen who have said ‘pay up or else your free trade deal is sunk’. We are paying for their business decisions. That opens up a Pandora’s Box of potential claims bearing in mind agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) now being negotiated.”

If this is something that the Auditor-General can discover in looking into one single deal like this, what on earth are we going to find when we eventually get to the behind-the-scenes negotiations that went on for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which, depending on the outcome of the US election, may or may not happen. And that may be a very good thing.

Going back to before the 2008 general election, which is slightly after this matter came to a head, we still have not been told what promises were made by senior National Party figures to George Assaf of Awassi Ltd, and especially to the Saudi Minister of Agriculture, who visited Mr Assaf’s Hawke’s Bay farm on 16 July of that year.

There is so much that is left unanswered by this report and by the questions that have arisen as a result of this report that we are almost at a point where, although we have to accept the findings of the Auditor-General because we do not call the integrity of the Auditor-General into question—I think that office has demonstrated over the years that it is above impeachment in that regard—it is quite likely that we are probably going to have to have a full commission of inquiry into this entire matter because it is rotten to the core. That is obvious to everyone. It is obvious to the average person, it should be obvious to every member in this House, and it is going to be obvious to the public. They are going to be asking those questions, and they deserve to have those questions answered. Thank you.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): That was a fascinating contribution from Mr Prosser. It was more pitiful than his usual contributions, because in the space of less than 10 minutes we heard that this involved selling our souls, corruption, a new low, bribery, blackmail, and rotten to the core. It seems that rather than reading the report of the Auditor-General, he has opened Roget’s Thesaurus to find the most colourful words that he could before he gave us that rather sad and pitiful effort.

Frankly, Mr Shaw was just as bad, because in the space of a few minutes—we did not get the full speech time from him—we heard it was intolerable, a litany of incompetence, rogue behaviour, dodgy behaviour, not transparent. Well, let me say to honourable members that if there is an urgent debate in this House, then I suggest it is important to read the document and have an understanding of the transaction and have an understanding of the findings—not dive for a dictionary or a Roget’s Thesaurus, come up with the most colourful phrases you can—and cut to the chase and have a cold, hard, analytical analysis of what exactly went on.

Throughout this process we have had exactly the kind of florid rubbish that typified Mr Prosser’s speech, and also Mr Shaw’s speech, rather than focusing on the facts. I know that focusing on the facts is something New Zealand First is particularly bad at, given its extraordinary performance in question time yesterday, but that is precisely what I want to do. I want to say something first about the process, because there have been a number of complaints from Mr Parker and others that this report has taken too long to get out, that people have not been cooperating, and that lawyers have got involved.

The process that was followed by the Auditor-General in this matter was perfectly standard. It has been adopted whenever there is an inquiry that those who could be the subject of criticism have the draft report given to them and they have an opportunity to make a comment for natural justice reasons. All that sort of work has taken a considerable amount of time, and now the report has come out. The critical thing about the report—and please, Mr Prosser; I suggest to him that he listen—there is no evidence of bribery, corruption, or facilitation payments. The report finds that all public money was spent within necessary financial approvals. That is the issue that the Auditor-General was asked to reflect on and report on.

Clayton Mitchell: That you can even stand there and try to defend it shows how out of touch your moral compass is, Mr Finlayson. It’s a disgrace.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: For the benefit of the big mouth from west Auckland, that is exactly what the Auditor-General—I am sorry, it was not him; it was the fellow from Tauranga. That is the point that has been established beyond doubt by the Auditor-General: there is no evidence of bribery, corruption, or facilitation payments.

What is also clear is that the National Government, in 2008, inherited a problem that carried with it major diplomatic, economic, and legal risk, and in his contribution this afternoon Mr McCully has spent some time addressing the diplomatic and the economic risk. What I would like to do is briefly touch on the legal risk, because the legal risk is pretty clear for anyone to see. What if, for example, a proceeding was commenced in the Saudi Arabian courts against the New Zealand Government? Would we have the benefit of sovereign immunity? What would the cause of action be? Would it be determined by Saudi Arabian law or New Zealand law? These are all the sorts of questions that a reasonable person, when analysing legal risk, would take into account in determining whether or not a matter should be settled.

I can recall, many years ago, as a litigator, being involved in a case where a New Zealand company was sued in Texas, in Harris County District Court. No one paid too much attention to it until they realised that the law that would govern the particular cause of action, which was breach of confidence, would be Texas law, and that it would be heard before a jury presided over by a judge who had been elected in the Republican landslide and was a probate lawyer. So all those factors were brought to mind when determining what exactly the legal risk was, and, even though the cause of action was flaky, a decision was made that because of the legal risk of litigating in Texas in a difficult situation, there needed to be a settlement.

Clayton Mitchell: What about the price of avocados in China?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: That kind of thing happens all the time when one is dealing with litigation in foreign parts. The member interrupts: “Well, would that apply in China?”. Well, of course it would. You would need to assess what would happen if you were litigating in China. These sorts of things happen all the time. There needs to be a mature assessment of legal risk, and that is exactly what has happened. When one looks at the legal risk—which I, as a litigator, thought was blindingly obvious—and one also looks at the issues of diplomatic and economic risk, then one is led to the need to sort this matter out as quickly as possible.

Linked with legal risk, for example, is that if the case was held up in the Saudi Arabian courts for a number of years, that would of itself have infected our relationship with Saudi Arabia and caused immense economic harm of its own. I know that Mr Prosser does not like the facts. He prefers to stand up and give a B-grade theatrical address relying on words like “corruption” and “bribery”, but, at the end of the day, they are serious allegations. He is protected by absolute privilege in this place, but one has got to come up, for one’s own credibility, with a few facts, and facts and Mr Prosser do not necessarily go hand in hand. Vague, immature waffle and Mr Prosser go hand in hand.

So that is the analysis of the legal risk. That is why there needed to be a solution to this matter, one that incorporated addressing the threefold problems of a diplomatic risk, a legal risk, and an economic risk, as a result of which Mr McCully—I believe, quite properly—said this matter needed to be sorted out, and reached a conclusion. Mr McCully has stood up in this House this afternoon and acknowledged that maybe the process was not A-grade, and he took that on the chin as one would expect him to do. There are matters that are raised in the Auditor-General’s report that all Ministers need to reflect on: to dot the i’s and cross the t’s—fair enough.

But I come back to the core issue here. After all the months, in this House and outside of this place, and in press releases, of allegations of bribery and a litany of corruption—all those sorts of things—what do we find from the Auditor-General? There was no evidence of bribery, corruption, or facilitation payments. At the end of the day, after all the purple prose, after all the hyperbole, the facts do not support what the Opposition has been saying for a year.

Quite frankly, at the end of the day, this Government, in 2008, inherited a mess. It needed to address the various risks; it addressed the various risks. Maybe, in terms of process, things could have been done better, but there was no finding of bribery or corruption. So my suggestion to Mr Prosser is that it is very important to look at the facts when determining this matter. It would help, when we are debating a report in future, if he has actually skimmed over it, read the summary, or had the summary read to him, because these are important issues, and one is dealing with the integrity—

Hon Member: He’s insulting someone. He’s on fire again.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am sorry to pick on Mr Prosser, but it was a pretty lousy contribution. At the end of the day, what Mr McCully did in terms of process could have been better, but in terms of substance he needed to address a very tricky issue and he did so. Quite frankly, I think members who blandly and eagerly toss around phrases like “bribery and corruption” owe Mr McCully an apology.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): As Attorney-General, you have to stand up every now and then and give these sorts of speeches in Parliament where you know deep down in your heart that there is something deeply wrong. That sounded a lot like a lawyer defending somebody he knew was guilty and was going down, and he had to give him the best send-off that he could. That is what it was—it was a send-off.

The risk here is about New Zealand’s reputation. That is what it is. We have a reputation for transparency, for honesty, for non-corruption, and Mr McCully has sullied that reputation. It is one of the reasons why our ranking by Transparency International has gone from No. 1 to No. 4. It is because Mr McCully has used this backroom, creative accounting—creative solution, as the Prime Minister calls it—but it is more about corruption in the minds of New Zealanders when they hear this. This is a backroom deal. It is one of Mr McCully’s loose, hip-pocket, avoid scrutiny at all costs type of remedies for a problem that actually does not exist.

Let us start with one major—one major—fallacy that has been brought up not only by Mr McCully but by the Attorney-General today that somehow the Government inherited this problem. It did not inherit this problem. We banned live sheep exports in 2004 when 5,000 sheep died. There was no public appetite, no public appetite whatsoever, for live sheep exports from New Zealand to around the world. That is the reality. The New Zealand Government, that Government, in 2009 reaffirmed that there were going to be no live sheep exports and it did it a second time—two times it reaffirmed that, and Mr Key said himself that there was no appetite in the New Zealand public for the resumption of live sheep export. That—that—is fact, so do not put it on this side of the House. They agreed with it, and they know that the public is not behind them on it. So let us just get that right out of the way from the very beginning.

The Attorney-General talked about this purple prose. He did mention the word transparency. Well, let us read what the Auditor-General said about transparency: “This lack of transparency, both at the time of the decision and subsequently, has led to the concerns from the New Zealand public about the nature of the payments made. To date, explanations from Ministers or officials have not resolved those public concerns.” The people do not believe the Government. Let us go back and remind ourselves what actually happened here. What actually happened? Six million dollars was paid to the Al-Khalaf Group to set up an agricultural hub in the middle of the Saudi desert—the middle of the Saudi desert. It was a disgrace. Rather than highlighting New Zealand’s agriculture, it was a new low—a new low—and $4 million was paid directly to the Al-Khalaf Group. Then we put 900 pregnant ewes on a Singapore Airlines flight and flew them to the hub where 75 percent of those lambs that were born died. My God, if New Zealand wanted to advertise itself as an agricultural powerhouse, you could not do any worse to its reputation than that.

That was Mr McCully’s big, grand plan. Why? Let us ask the reason why we did that. Well, the Attorney-General just explained that it was because we were going to be threatened with a suit of $30 million—and to just accept that. Except that we had absolutely—absolutely—no evidence that that was going to happen. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) has yet to come up—has yet to come up—with any sort of evidence that shows that that was about to happen. The Al-Khalaf Group—let us ask them. They said no, they were never intending to sue. They were never going to sue. Treasury was not informed about what this payment was and what it was for and why it was being handled. There were absolutely no grounds that we were going to be sued, and even then it was $13 million. Yet we, New Zealand, our taxpayers, our hard-earned tax money was handed over to Mr Khalaf in that ridiculous way—in that ridiculous way. So that is the first reason. That is the first reason why we paid over $11.5 million of taxpayers’ money to a shonky backroom deal that Mr McCully came up with.

The second reason was that we were about to get a free-trade agreement, which, of course, has not happened. We have not yet got a free-trade agreement. There is lots of purple prose about how it is imminent and how it is coming. We do not know anything about whether Mr Al Khalaf was responsible for the progress or whether that progress might have happened in any case. If we are to believe Mr McCully, this is about Mr McCully paying a Saudi businessman a large sum of money in order for that Saudi businessman to then put pressure on the Saudi Government to enable us to have a free-trade agreement. So what does that sound like to you? What does that sound like to people in New Zealand? That is the sort of thing that goes on in other countries, but I did not think it would go on here in New Zealand. I do not care what the Auditor-General says. That to me sounds like her definition of a bribe that she has laid out in the table in this report. That is what it sounds like to me.

In addition to that, let us go through the Cabinet paper that Mr McCully’s office—as opposed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—put together in its backroom. All of these things were not answered in the Cabinet paper, yet we agreed to hand over the money. It did not identify how the $10 million figure was arrived at. Why not $20 million? Why not $5 million? Why not $3 million? Who knows? It was just a number that Mr McCully dreamt up. It signalled that the risk of a claim against the Government was based on $20 million to $30 million, but we do not know whether it was going to be $20 million to $30 million, $100 million, $2 million, or, as I have just said, whether it was unlikely to ever have happened. It did not include any analysis about whether there were any other potential obstacles about getting a free-trade agreement. Maybe there were other things. It actually happened to go down the tubes at around the same time as the global financial crisis, and we know that was a factor too. It identified that New Zealand exports could double with a free-trade agreement, but without any analysis about how it could double. The Auditor-General said: “Based on these … shortcomings, I am concerned at the lack of robust analysis and the quality of information that was provided to Cabinet on this matter.” Mr McCully had this creative solution but had absolutely nothing behind it. It was a shambolic shambles of a document. You have only to read it to think: “I don’t know how that got through the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I expected better from their lawyers and their people.” This did not even go through them; this came from Murray McCully’s office straight into Cabinet—straight into Cabinet—without going through the pre-Cabinet committee meetings.

This is a disgrace. It puts New Zealand’s reputation at a low ebb. It has circulated widely that somehow New Zealand, rather than being a transparent, open country that would never resort to payments to business people in order to get favours, has done exactly that—has done exactly that. I think it is a real shame, and if you want to pick the eyes out of this and say that nobody was corrupt and nobody paid bribes and nobody benefited individually, except for, obviously, the Al-Khalaf Group, and Murray McCully did not pocket any money—I did not expect that it would find that, but what it has shown is that this was a shambles. It was an utter shambles, and the Government should actually be ashamed of itself that it has got this far. It has brought great discredit to New Zealand’s reputation.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): The events that led to the Auditor-General’s report and this debate are the result of Government acting outside what should be its proper role. The proper role of government is to provide a limited basket of public goods and a regulatory environment in which real business people can get on with building their businesses, not politicians attempting to be business people with taxpayers’ money.

If you begin at the beginning of this saga, it commenced with poor regulatory practice and confusion over whether or not New Zealanders are supposed to be able to export live sheep and under what circumstances. Had that simple question been answered in a clear and principled way, we would not be here. But, of course, the Opposition, when in Government, banned live sheep exports. The Government promised some people that they would reverse the ban and then did not, and throughout this there was no principled approach to how a Government should regulate. But then it got worse. Then we got an activist Government that attempts to wheel and deal and make commercial deals and pick winners and try to be an activist Government in business with taxpayers’ money. You can hear the Opposition members thinking “That’s right. That’s what this Government does all the time. That’s what they did with Skycity, trading regulatory favours to have a convention centre. That’s what they do regularly with the Major Events Development Fund.”, but I have got news for the Opposition members. They have absolutely no right to criticise any of those practices, because they themselves are guilty of exactly the same principles and exactly the same philosophy.

Let us just ask the Green Party how their so-called Green Investment Bank would pick winners. If you have a Green Investment Bank, you are picking technologies that will not attract capital in an open market. You are picking them precisely because they fit your particular political preferences. A Green Investment Bank would be just as open to the kind of corruption the Opposition has been accusing the Government of today. But what about the Labour Party? Is anybody aware of anybody who has proposed a $2 billion railway straight down the Dominion Road with no business case? Is anyone aware of anybody who has recently done that? The fact of the matter is that the two marital partners of Labour and the Greens are just as guilty of activist government as any Government on this side of the House has ever been—wheeling and dealing, picking winners, and trying to get into business with other people’s money—which inevitably leads to precisely the issues we are debating. But what about the very vocal New Zealand First members? They have got a lot to say for themselves, or at least many words very loudly, but very little thought. Who in New Zealand First does not want to give more money to their own particular preferred hobby horse—or should that be trains? Actually, “horse” was not a bad metaphor.

Denis O’Rourke: What about charter schools—is that a hobby horse?

DAVID SEYMOUR: How many in New Zealand First know their own history of giving oodles and oodles of cash, taxpayers’ hard-earned money, to the racing industry because it fits their particular preferences? How many of them would love to give hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars more money to KiwiRail to open non-viable railway lines? I hear members asking: “What about partnership schools, kura hourua?”. If they cannot tell the difference in contracting for a service that it is part of the core role of Government to provide on a contestable basis, getting better results for the students, then I do not know how to help the members from New Zealand First.

The fact of the matter is that the events today are not extraordinary. They are symptomatic of a Government and of Governments from both sides of the House, of both stripes, that think it is the most normal thing in the world for an activist Government to wheel and deal, to pick winners, and to spend other people’s money on its own political prerogatives of the day, and all of the Opposition members who have been crowing about this report have no different principles from that which they are criticising today. Only the ACT Party truly believes in low, flat taxes, a stable regulatory environment, and letting business people get on with building businesses, not politicians pretending to be business people with taxpayers’ money.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): That Government is so out of touch. That is what this report shows. It is so out of touch that it thinks it can thumb its nose at transparency, at common ethics, and at public concern. This is not a report that exonerates the Government. This is a report that examines the evidence, provides narrow definitions of “corruption” and “facilitation payment”, and finds that the bar, which is set very high, is not one that can be proven to have been met.

There is so much surrounding evidence that is incredibly damning, and there is a finding that Ministers have severely lacked in their duties. They have not carried out their duties as they should. That is abundantly clear in this report. The definitions used, as I have said, were narrow. The report shows that it cannot be proven beyond doubt that a Minister was involved in corrupt activities, but the central claim of the Government that a cash payment resolved a legal dispute is shown to be absolute hogwash—absolute hogwash. No legal advice was sought by the Minister.

Mr McCully himself wrote the Cabinet paper. Mr McCully wrote the Cabinet paper. The Auditor-General lays that bare. Mr McCully claimed there was a legal dispute that was being resolved by this cash payment, yet he sought no legal advice whatsoever. There is no evidence that a legal dispute was in train or ever would be in train. These are the findings in the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the Saudi sheep scandal. The Auditor-General openly says that she shares the concerns of many New Zealanders about this arrangement.

I quote from the report: “I found significant shortcomings in the paper put to Cabinet in support of the decision to enter into the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership. The contract’s benefits to New Zealand were unclear in the Cabinet paper, the business case, and its subsequent implementation. It is not clear on what basis the amounts paid to the Saudi Arabian investor’s company under the contract were arrived at. A key objective of the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership was to remove a perceived obstacle to a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council. That agreement remains unsigned,”—i.e. if that were the impediment, you would have thought that the agreement would have been signed by now.

The Auditor-General goes on to raise further concerns about transparency, about the effectiveness of the arrangement, and about shoddy practices. I would encourage members in the House and outside the House to read this report in full, as Mr McCully did. Mr McCully did it under the guise that it gets him off the hook. I am doing it because it shows a shoddy Government with weak practices that is not observing the rules of common decency and is failing to be transparent in its dealings with the public. It is out of touch. It is arrogant to think that a proper process should not be followed with the spending of Government money. In so far I agree with the previous speaker, David Seymour.

The Auditor-General also says in this report that there is a range of questions that remain unanswered. She has an expectation that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will assess and report on the value of the whole spend once the partnership money has been spent. That is something she is yet anticipating. She says she is unsure about the value of this spend. There is nothing in here that convinces her that this was money well spent, and, indeed, right up front she says that the parameters of her investigation were very narrow. I think there will be more questions to come on this. This does not put an end to the discussion. It is a report that does not exonerate the Government. In fact, it opens more questions about the Government’s failed and shoddy deal, the Saudi sheep scandal.

It also says in here that the Auditor-General found mixed messages and a general lack of transparency, and this is a pattern. It has to be said that this is a pattern that is growing, and the Auditor-General refers to a growing number of accusations of corruption over her time in the office. “Accusations of corruption and bribery should be of concern to us all.”, she says. That is her final conclusion in the overview at the start of the report.

She concentrates, too, on the mixed messages that have been sent, and that is Ministers not being straight. That is Ministers not being principled. They are saying one thing to one party, another to the next, and a third thing to the media, and they are not releasing the documents in a timely fashion, to cover up a scandal. We have seen it with child poverty. Ministers do not admit that happens. We have seen that they do not think there is a housing crisis, when people are sleeping in cars, and we have seen it in Skycity, which the Auditor-General said was a deal that was neither transparent nor even-handed. We have got another one here. There are plenty more questions to come on the Saudi sheep scandal.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I was just wondering whether I might share my own context around how this whole situation has arisen.

Carmel Sepuloni: Only if it’s relevant.

MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think it is relevant. If I go back to April 2010, at that time I had been living in the Middle East with my family for a fairly long time. I was still very involved in trying to grow my own business up there, and I was lucky enough to be asked to assist with a trade delegation that was coming up to the Middle East. It was led by our Prime Minister and also had our Minister of Trade, Tim Groser, on it. Of course, everyone will remember that shortly after arriving in the Middle East we had a tragedy back home. On Anzac Day one of our Iroquois went down and we lost three of our servicemen. The Prime Minister, of course, did absolutely the right thing: he decided to come home to do what he could to support the families and be here with the nation over what was a very difficult time.

Our trade Minister stayed out there and carried on with the delegation. I was lucky enough to get some time with him, along with some other business people—Kiwis who had been up in the Middle East for a long time—and we raised with him and talked with him about the issue around the free-trade agreement. He was very open with us about the fact that there was a real challenge to face, and that was around this issue with live sheep shipments and the perception that an agreement had been broken, and that that lay with Saudi Arabia—which, of course, is extremely influential and has a leadership role within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

I just want to address, at this point, the point that Mr Shearer made around the fact that the Government is trying to blame the Labour Party, which was in Government at the time that the agreement was made. I do not know the context and I do not know the details around why that agreement was made. I am certainly not pointing the finger at you. I do not want to see five or six thousand of our Kiwi sheep lost while being moved in an ocean shipment. If that was the right decision to make, I fully support it. I think that was the right thing to do. However, the perception that created for the other partner—the Saudi partner—was that we broke the deal. In my world, when I was in business, the minute that you broke a deal, for whatever reason—even if it was the right thing to do—you immediately took on legal risk. I think the point around whether there was genuine legal risk in relation to this deal gone wrong—absolutely, there was. Whether a party was going to trigger that and take it into court, we do not know—that is crystal ball stuff. The Minister was very right when he had a look at the situation and clearly identified that, as a country, we were carrying legal risk. That cannot be debated.

In terms of economic opportunity, I can tell you now, as someone who was lucky enough to spend a fair bit of my adult life in the Middle East building a business, that the GCC is very good to do business with. We have lots of services and products we can offer up there. We have a large Kiwi community living throughout the GCC, and there will continue to be real opportunities for us, especially around this agri-hub and agribusiness. Is there economic opportunity up there, and was it at risk? Without a doubt. In terms of diplomatic risk, of course there was diplomatic risk. I remember when New Zealand was blocked in getting apples into Australia. The Government got alongside our apple producers—it was the right thing to do. We needed to try to open that market up, and that is exactly what we did as a Government. Make no mistake, the Saudi Government would have taken exactly the same position with one of its own citizens, if it felt that a deal had been broken. We were carrying significant diplomatic risk.

When I spoke to Tim Groser in April of 2010, he was quite right in saying that this was complicated but that they were going to be throwing themselves and their resources—we have got very good trade negotiators and we have got a very strong Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and they had been working to try to find a solution—to allow us to unlock the negotiations around a free-trade agreement. And that is exactly what they did.

I would just like to highlight and support the Minister’s comments around reading the report. It is important, now that the report is out, that people get it and read it. They can come to their own conclusions on it, but there are a couple of points that I do want to make that I think come to the heart of it. On page 48—bearing in mind that we have not had a lot of time to read the report—“Was there corruption or bribery?”. There are four points that the report goes through here—it is very detailed. It is a very good report, and I support the Minister’s comments around it. I am not challenging anything in here; he is not going to challenge anything in here. The whole purpose of the report is—they have spent a lot of time, they have gone into a lot of detail, and I think they have done a very, very good job of it. But, basically, the report says: “Therefore, we do not consider that an offence of bribery could be established. We found no evidence or reason to refer the matter on to an appropriate agency to carry out a criminal investigation into corruption and bribery.” They could not be more clear about what they are trying to say in the report.

“Was there a facilitation payment?” This is another accusation that has been levelled at the Minister for months and months. “Was there a facilitation payment? We were also asked whether there were any facilitation payments. The Ministry of Justice has explained a ‘facilitation’ or ‘grease’ payment as a small payment made to a foreign or public official to speed up a service to which the payer is already entitled.” They found that there were no facilitation payments. They are very clear about that. There were no facilitation payments. I do not know how much clearer they could be.

If I move forward: “How was the money spent?”. Of course, this is truncated, but—“How was the money spent? The Ministry made a $4 million payment to HAATT Est on 21 February 2013. The rest of this Part covers the spending of the remaining $7.5 million allocated to the Partnership. We have reviewed NZTE’s spending from the time the funds were transferred from the Ministry and found that the spending was made with appropriate financial authorities in place.” The report is very clear that, actually, the right financial authorities and the right financial processes were in place. There were no facilitation payments.

If I move on, I actually come to the point that the Minister opened with. This comes to the heart of the report: “We found no evidence of corruption, bribery, or a facilitation payment. The arrangements entered into were a lawful use of public resources, and public money was spent with appropriate financial authorities in place.” You cannot be any clearer in the report. The Minister has stated clearly that some things could have been done better, right? I guess that just about all of us claim at some point in our lives that we could have done something a bit better, but, actually, there is a big gap between doing something better and actually doing something illegally. I am very happy to stand up in the House today and support the Minister of Foreign Affairs and say that he, the Speaker of the House, the Rt Hon David Carter, and the Hon Tim Groser, along with their officials, have actually done a very good job at finding a way to be able to unlock the ability for us to enter into strong negotiations around a free-trade agreement. The Hon Todd McClay is progressing that very well up here. I can tell you now, from my own context up there and from my own networks up there—I have invested heavily not only financially but also in friendships and networks—that they feel this thing is moving very, very positively in the right direction.

If I can just finish up by saying that there are real opportunities that exist up in the GCC. Someone mentioned food security. Food security is very important and is something that we take for granted down here. I would be the first one to say that when those sheep arrived and threw their lambing up in the Middle East, for whatever reason, something went wrong. I did not like it either. I did not like the losses that were faced. There are all sorts of reasons behind that. Climate is the obvious one, and that there was no ability to transition the sheep properly. I do not know—I am not in on the details—I am just guessing. But I would say that the GCC countries are making big investments into being able to provide protein for their growing populations, and, actually, New Zealand has got a huge opportunity there to be at the forefront of technology and innovation and to be able to assist them with the issues that they face with food security. Thank you very much.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House. It is a red-letter day, but what I thought I would talk about this afternoon is the state of the House. I thought it would be a good time to reflect on what has been happening, and, I must say, I extend my sympathy to the Labour Party. It is losing one of its brightest business brains, and I bet that it is feeling pretty gutted about that. As David Cunliffe goes off to another career, Labour Party members will be ruing that and will be quite worried about that.

In the meantime, what we saw with New Zealand First yesterday was a laudable attempt to reintroduce its caucus to the public of New Zealand. It left out a couple of members, but, nevertheless, it was a fairly—not even generic. It was a bit of a mishmash, but they mostly got on their feet and asked a question. No one was quite sure whether there was a plan or whether the plan was just to work through the names.

Then it comes to the Greens. Well, right now I think they are actually in relationship-building. They are not sure whether they want a relationship with New Zealand First, even though it might be necessary. They are trying to build their relationship with Labour. Nevertheless, they have a new member and a fairly new co-leader, and the relationships there actually do not look to be gelling just yet—but never mind. Maybe it is best described as jugglers looking for a circus. Actually, today what we saw was catastrophising, which I suppose is better than what we have had in the past, which was a crisis searching for a crisis—but never mind. New Zealanders are much more interested in the things that really matter to them and Better Public Services (BPS) is certainly something that is important to New Zealanders.

The National Government has picked some really tough targets, and we are having some success, but there is not a moment that we can be resting on our laurels, because these tough targets require us to keep at them to achieve them. I just want to talk briefly about BPS target No. 1, and that is helping New Zealanders to gain independence from welfare. The number has gone down 15,000 people since 2011. That is actually a future liability for New Zealand taxpayers of $3.6 billion, but there is a much more important thing about this liability going down, and that is the New Zealanders who are gaining a better life for themselves.

There are 51,000 New Zealanders who have actually come off a main benefit since 2011. That is a phenomenal change in their lives. It has gone down from 295,320 to 279,769 in the last result. Why does it matter? Well, if you are a child in a benefit-dependent home, this is what it means for you: you have a 48 percent chance of not achieving NCEA level 2 compared with those who are not in a benefit-dependent house.

Hon Member: Stop labelling people.

Hon JO GOODHEW: In fact, you also have a 48 percent higher likelihood or chance of being notified to Child, Youth and Family. These are the facts. This is not a label; this is a fact. So having these children in a non - welfare-dependent household makes a very real difference to them. And 45 percent of them are going to end up on a benefit themselves, therefore limiting their life choices.

I want to also talk about today being a red-letter day when it comes to the household labour force survey, because there are some real highlights we should be celebrating. There are fewer unemployed women: down to 5.1 percent from 5.4 percent. The unemployment rate for Māori is 10.6 percent, down from 12.1 percent. For Pasifika it is 10.1 percent, down from 12.3 percent. That really matters. That means a change in the lives of those New Zealanders and their families. A new measure showing underutilisation fell from 12.7 percent to 12.2 percent, and if we are talking about those 15- to 24-year-olds who are getting out into the employment world, who are not in education or training, it is up very, very slightly, but you know what? There are lots of initiatives there. The important thing is that we are measuring and working on this.

So we are reducing long-term welfare dependence and supporting vulnerable kids. We are increasing the proportion of 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2, and those 25- to 34-year-olds with a level 4 qualification or better. We are reducing crime. These are the things that really matter to New Zealanders but clearly are not on the radar of the Opposition.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I am going to quote something that was posted on my Facebook before we came to the House at 2 p.m.:

God and soldier we adore

In times of trouble and in war.

Trouble gone and all things righted,

God forsaken, soldier slighted.

A couple of weeks back, on behalf of New Zealand First, I put out an invitation to all Ministers, to all members of the House, and to those who support our armed forces and our police—including their families—in the battle against suicide, to attend a book launch to be hosted this evening for the book Your Subconscious Bodyguards: The Good News About PTSD, written by Dion Jensen. We put out a press release on that and we gave the background on Dion Jensen. He is a Kiwi veteran. He served in East Timor, he served as a New Zealand Police officer, and he served as a security contractor in Iraq. He has drawn on his experiences in dealing with his demons to produce, through his book, a tool and a programme to help veterans, police officers, and, indeed, anyone to identify their symptoms and deal with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Noting the low numbers of people who have accepted that invitation, we put out a press release last night again advising Ministers that the book launch was happening this evening and why we felt it would be a good thing for people to attend. We followed up with some phone calls.

It is interesting and, sadly, ironic that this morning we read the story on Stuff of a report of the decision of the Wellington District Court, which overturned the ACC’s decision to decline a 56-year-old army veteran’s application for cover and compensation for PTSD. Looking at this case, we see the same old issues that have been raised over the last 30 to 40 years. This man has served his nation. He served in Afghanistan and he served in the police force. In the time of that service, he endured several traumatic incidents, particularly whilst on his tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2009. He witnessed such things as fatal rocket attacks, and watched as a helicopter carrying 16 people exploded and crashed. There is a list in this article of things that this man has endured, but what stands out very, very clearly is that, post his discharge from the army and post his inability to continue his employment in the police force, he ended up—as seems to be par for the course—in a battle with the ACC. The ACC adopted a very stingy and mean-spirited approach to his claim. As his lawyer, John Miller, said: “We wonder sometimes how people who argue the ACC points and deprive returned service personnel who have been diagnosed with PTSD compensation can sleep at night.”

Politicians are not held in high esteem by the Defence Force, and there is very good reason for that. Very often when Defence Force personnel deploy, they are sent off with accolades and promises afoot as to how well they will be treated when they return home. We wax lyrical on those deployments in this House and we do so again on Anzac Day, when we laud, applaud, and honour those who die. But where we fail so consistently is in honouring and supporting those who have returned home complete in body but already fallen internally, through PTSD. We throw them back into the mental health system, which fails them. We throw them back into a very heartless, mechanised system we call the ACC, and we leave them to flounder as their marriages fall apart, as their relationships fall apart, and as they head down a pathway to depression and suicide.

This evening at 6 p.m. we will host a book launch, and speaking at that book launch will be the author, Dion Jensen, and also another gentleman, Major Gordon Benfell, who has an astonishing military career but who is a man who suffers PTSD. We in New Zealand First would like to see those members of the House who support our veterans—and I mean truly support our veterans—appear there. At the top of the list of who we would like to see walk through that door—because they have declined these invitations—are the Minister of Health, the Minister for ACC, the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, and the Minister of Defence. We also note that the Minister of Health is a former Minister of Defence. It is all the more reason why they should front and just listen. That would be very helpful.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call in this general debate. Actually, it will be on the topic of health, which will be no surprise to anyone seeing that I chair the Health Committee. In fact, it is around the work of the Health Committee that I want to begin and just to acknowledge, first and foremost, the people who are putting and sending through many, many petitions. The Health Committee is incredibly busy—just shy of 20 petitions—and, in fact, another one came today from the Life Matters Suicide Prevention Trust, from Corinda and Denise on the steps of Parliament here, asking us to look more into suicide and mental health in New Zealand. We have petitions too from everything from tube weaning to smoking in cars, from the use of marijuana to breast cancer, psychoactive substances, autoimmune injectors—and the biggie, which often comes up, around euthanasia, or assisted suicide.

I thought I would just quickly touch on that—a sort of an update both to the House and those listening around the scope of this particular petition we are dealing with. It came out of the work of the Hon Maryan Street, as a petition, and the Health Committee to date has received 22,000 written submissions, all of them pretty much unique—in other words, they are not form-generated; these are individual submissions. This is unprecedented in the history of this Parliament. Eighteen hundred people have asked to be heard by the committee—in and of itself, again, unprecedented for this Parliament, any Parliament. And we have elected as a committee, all nine of us, to hear from those 1,800 people, and we are well under way.

Speaking more broadly now, moving to the whole Government agenda, there is a lot of positive news in the health space for the Government. Fundamentally, and built on increased funding year after year—I know this is constant good news to the Opposition, and just from the sounds I can hear from them at the moment, I am sure that is absolute joy, not opprobrium; it is joy, I am sure. There are three things I want to quickly note.

One is around telehealth, or the use, again, of telephones and tech services to access health. About a year ago, seven helplines were, effectively, merged into one—so, the likes of Healthline, Quitline, and the Gambling Helpline. Instead of having them separate, now they are coming through one system, and over the last year about 425,000 Kiwis have been assisted. This is a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week hotline, staffed—triaged, if you will—by everyone from nurses through to care support workers. It is a fantastic system. When I did some very basic maths, basically, we are saying that in the year that it has been in operation there is one contact every minute, and 81 percent of calls are handled within—sorry, I have to read my notes on this—20 seconds, which I think is fantastic and built on a $12 million boost by the Government.

The other thing is around kidney donation. This is something I have been quite interested in and I am sure the committee has too, with the organ donation discussions we have had. In recent days, we have actually had New Zealand’s first, effectively, three-way kidney transplant: three kidneys and three donors. This is not the usual way that it works, but it works incredibly well, and with a spot of luck it will help us increase the number of transplants in New Zealand. I think it is really important, too, that we understand that the Ministry Health, through the Minister’s direction, is working through some of the dynamics around transplants at the moment.

The third element I want to highlight, I think, is around the mobility teams—probably forgotten by many in the House, unfortunately. We have invested a substantial amount of money into developing these mobility action teams. That work is around musculoskeletal issues, basically—think of the likes of arthritis right through to orthopaedic problems. So, it is about teams to support people to get mobile, because atrophy—as Opposition parties know—is really a killer. The second mobility team has been formed, and it is here in Wellington, I believe, which will be good news to my colleagues here—including, even, Grant Robertson, the local MP here in Wellington Central.

Grant Robertson: I have a high threshold for being impressed, but that does sound impressive.

SIMON O’CONNOR: He does sound impressed, and I am very pleased about this. I just want to finish off by acknowledging, fundamentally, those amazing community groups that are supporting our healthcare system every day. I want to acknowledge the likes of the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, which we had here a few weeks ago, celebrating 50 years of medical research. In that vein, I also attended a forum the other day by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand—amazing work. I also want to draw the House’s attention to two wonderful groups, which are coming into this Parliament, actually, in the following weeks. We have got the Lung Foundation, which is going to tell us about, effectively, this cancer killer—the largest in New Zealand. It will come in next week. We also have macular degeneration, one of the major issues for New Zealanders, the week after. So I encourage—I encourage—members to come along and hear about the—

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): When the Prime Minister was elected into the office 8 years ago, he stood up and said to New Zealanders: “I expect high standards from my Ministers. If they don’t meet those standards, then I will set about doing something about that.” Well, today in the House, we have seen the impact of 8 years of John Key’s standards. We have a Minister of the Crown who believes that the fact that he escaped the Crimes Act definition of corruption means that he is doing his job well for New Zealand. That is the standard of John Key’s Government today: if you avoid actually committing a crime, you are doing a good job. That is how low it has got under this Government.

Today’s report from the Auditor-General on the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership is actually, in many ways—because most of the House will know that the Auditor-General is finishing in her role, towards the end of her report today—is sending a message to the Government. She is talking about transparency. She is saying in the report: “I have had more and more complaints coming about corruption.” She is saying that transparency matters. To the members on the other side of the House: today we heard Bill English say we are best in the world for ease of doing business—good-o, we have gone up one spot there.

Todd Muller: Most transparent country and Government.

GRANT ROBERTSON: We have gone down in Transparency International rankings, Mr Muller. We have gone down under the National Government because of the attitude of John Key and his Ministers to the way they go about their work.

Here is what the Auditor-General had to say about Skycity, the Government’s deal with Skycity on the Convention Centre: “a range of deficiencies …”, “[did] not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.”, “meetings [with Skycity and the Government] … were materially different in quantity and kind [from the Government and other parties]”, “[it was] poorly planned and executed.”, “[their processes] fell short of good practice …”, “[there was a lack of] fairness and credibility of the process.” It is a pattern of behaviour, because today we have another report that tells us that the Government once again has failed the basic standards of Government: to be fair, to be transparent, and to be even-handed.

There is a different definition of corruption—not the legal definition, but one that I think many New Zealanders would attest to—that corruption is a dishonest action that destroys people’s trust. It is a dishonest action that destroys people’s trust. The dishonest action that is in here lies at the feet of Murray McCully and the Cabinet paper that he put up, because in that Cabinet paper he did not tell the truth to his colleagues, and he did not tell the truth to New Zealanders. What he said in that Cabinet paper was that there was some great legal risk out there, and on page 39—since Mr McCully is very keen for all New Zealanders to read all of the report—of the Auditor-General’s report today said: “… we did not find evidence of officials’ real analysis of other options. We also did not find evidence of Ministers or officials requesting or receiving internal or external legal advice on the extent of a risk of a claim of compensation from the Al Khalaf Group …”.

There was no legal problem here. Mr McCully was solving a personal grievance that he thought might do something for New Zealand—goodness knows what, because nothing has actually been achieved at the end of the day.

Hon David Parker: To facilitate the free-trade agreement.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Exactly, to facilitate a free-trade agreement—a personal grievance to solve a diplomatic problem. And, again, as the Auditor-General says in her report: “I was surprised that it was decided to use a contract with a private individual’s business interests to resolve a diplomatic issue between governments.”

There are a lot of words to use about this operation by Murray McCully—secretive, incompetent, cavalier, immoral, irresponsible, dodgy—but it is just plain wrong, and this out-of-touch Government does not understand that $11.5 million is not its money to play with. That money could build 31 State houses. That money could give hundreds of hours of special education support. That money could lift children out of poverty. It is not the Government’s plaything. Its arrogance that it gets to do whatever it wants, whether it is a deal with Skycity or a deal with Mr Al Ali Khalaf, is out of control. John Key told New Zealanders there would be high standards under his ministry, but all we have had is a record of incompetence and corruption, in my words. Maybe it does not meet the Crimes Act level of corruption, but I think most New Zealanders will see this dodgy deal for what it is.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): An issue that I hear about frequently in the Epsom electorate, in Auckland, and up and down New Zealand, is not, oddly enough, the Saudi sheep deal. What I do hear about from people with increasing frequency is that they are anxious about inequality and anxious about the levels of immigration, and they tie the two issues together at one nexus, which is the housing market, particularly in Auckland and particularly in the Epsom electorate. I am just interested in why that is and whether these issues really do go together. Is the problem with inequality, the housing market, and immigration really a problem caused by excessive immigration, as some would have it, or is it a problem with a dysfunctional market in housing alone?

One way to answer the question yourself is to ask how some other markets have been impacted by record levels of immigration. Well, we might ask ourselves: “What has happened to the market for jobs?”. Just today, at a time of record immigration, we have the lowest unemployment in 8 years, and it is kind of interesting. People like to claim—what is known as the lump of labour fallacy—that there are only so many jobs in a particular place, and if more people come somebody will be unemployed. The reality of this is that when people come to a country, when they earn money, and when spend it, they create demand, which leads to jobs, or Say’s Law, which is that demand creates its own supply.

You might ask yourself about the electricity market, another market that is free and flexible in New Zealand. What has happened in the past decade to the price of electricity? Well, it has actually gone down—partly because some generators overbuilt in the middle of the last decade—but we have not seen an increase in the price of electricity because there are too many immigrants. We have not seen an increase in the price of food, cars, electronics, or clothes. In fact, all of those things have stayed relatively static. The Ministry of Social Development tells us, and Statistics New Zealand tells us, that the increase in inequality based on consumption over the last 30 years is practically negligible.

Why then is there so much anxiety about equality, immigration, and housing? It is simply because the housing market—and the Auckland housing market in particular—is highly dysfunctional. It is extraordinary that New Zealand reached its peak in home building in 1974. People should just think about that for a moment. In 1974 there were more homes built in New Zealand than in any year since, and they did not have nail guns, and they were not built by the State—a couple of thousand of the 39,000 were built by the State. Something has gone seriously wrong, and if you want to ask what that is, well, it is simply this: the price of available land that people are allowed to build upon has gone through the roof because of dysfunctional regulation of planning and dysfunctional funding of infrastructure. Those are the problems that we need to solve.

It also tells you something else, which is that there are two worlds in New Zealand when it comes to concern about inequality and poverty. There is the world that works. All of those markets I mentioned—electricity, clothing, transport, food, and electronics—are free and open markets exposed to competition from the world, or at least very well regulated within New Zealand, where prices go down and people have plenty. Then there is the market where the Government regulates the supply of land, where the Government regulates the standards of building, and where the Government has almost a monopoly on the way that infrastructure is funded, and the price of housing has gone up. It is the only commodity that has gone up in price in real terms in the last 30 years, and it is the one that is the key contributor to inequality and poverty.

So what I say to this House—and what I say to people in Epsom, in Auckland, and up and down New Zealand, and overseas, if they will listen—is that we do not have a crisis of immigration; what we have is a crisis in the Government regulation of our housing market. That is what this Government and any other Government need to fix.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I have already been contacted by a number of people who are absolutely disgusted that Murray McCully and the National Government claim that this Auditor-General’s report exonerates them. I am going to go through a few of the exclusions from this report.

David Seymour: I hope he’s got some new material.

Hon DAVID PARKER: These are things I have read since my first contribution. It is actually quite a long report; you should read it, member for Epsom, before you say stupid things. On page 4 of her report, she says: “It is not within my legal mandate to comment on or criticise the Government’s trade, diplomatic, or animal welfare policy decisions.” There is nothing in this report about whether it was proper to do a shabby deal to pay off a disaffected Saudi businessman. There is nothing in this report about it because it is not within the legal mandate of the Auditor-General to say whether that was a proper thing to do or not. She says it time and again.

The next time she says it is on page 8 of the report, where she says: “The use of a contract for services to resolve these matters was a decision made by Cabinet. I comment below on the quality of the Cabinet paper process but not on the decision itself.” Again, she is highlighting to anyone who reads the report that she is not commenting on the morality of paying off a disaffected Saudi businessman in order to get a free-trade agreement with Saudi Arabia. What she does criticise is the fact that the contracts did not set out what was actually going on.

Next, she says: “I was surprised that it was decided to use a contract with a private individual’s business interests to resolve a diplomatic issue between governments. It is difficult to reconcile the words of the contract with the unstated objectives,”. She says: “The contract for services was a convenient mechanism by which the allocated $10 million, later $11.5 million, was put towards achieving those unstated objectives. It does not tell the full story.” And the Government claims this exonerates it. The Government claims this exonerates it.

And then there is this issue: McCully says he is OK because he has not committed a crime. He says he has not paid a facilitation payment. Do you know what sort of facilitation payment it was that the Auditor-General was talking about? She was talking about the sorts of facilitation payments that the Ministry of Justice explained are: “A ‘facilitation’ or ‘grease’ payment … a small payment made to a foreign public official to speed up a service to which the payer is already entitled.” That was never the allegation. It was never the allegation. He has never been a public official. These were not small payments. It was a $4 million cash payment. It is not a criminal act facilitation payment; it is a $4 million payment to facilitate a free-trade agreement. It is still a payment that is wrong—morally wrong. Paying someone off who was not owed anything—$4 million in order to get out of the way of a free-trade agreement.

Why did the Government do it this way? Well, you know, at the back of the report the Auditor-General has gone to the trouble of setting out how you have got to seek authority for different sorts of payments from Cabinet. She explains that if it is a compensatory payment of more than $750,000, it has got to be approved by Cabinet and “In either case, the payment must be endorsed by either the Crown Law Office or a court judgment.” Neither of those things here—that is one of the reasons why the Government has been so unclear about what this payment was for.

We now know—and it has dodged this for over a year—that there was no substantive cause of action, that it did not have any legal advice, either internal from the ministry or external to the ministry, in support of the allegation that there was some legal risk to it. What if it is an ex gratia payment? An ex gratia payment, she sets out, of more than $75,000 must be approved by Cabinet. Those members are hiding under the fact that this is a diplomatic payment that is beyond her jurisdiction to scrutinise and that, therefore, somehow what they have done is legitimate. It is legal, but it is immoral. It is a facilitation payment that has bought off a wealthy Saudi businessman who had no legal claim against the New Zealand Government. It is shabby, it is unprincipled, and if we have reached such a low stage in New Zealand that a Minister has to be in the dock before he has to resign, I think that is very sad. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No. [Interruption] Order!

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I know today everything is all about the sheep, and although I have some sympathy for Mr Parker and the report that has been put out, that is not what I am going to talk about; I am going to talk about something else. I am going to talk about a very significant day in New Zealand history. I am going to talk about 28 October. People are looking around right now, going: “28th of October? What the heck happened on the 28th of October?”. It was actually the anniversary of my maiden speech—but no, that was not the historic day. Well, history is yet to tell, but hey. The 28th of October is also my wedding anniversary, and although that is rather significant—28 years, “Nice ring.”, “Thank you darling, I bought it for myself and said that this is what you got me.”—that is not the historic day.

The 28th of October is, in fact, the day on which we remember He Whakaputanga, or the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which made this country its own sovereign State—well, recognised it, at least, in the eyes of the British, because they were the ones who drew it up. We already knew it was a sovereign State. We did not need anybody to tell us; we lived here.

Anyway, the 28th has now been made a historic day that everyone in this nation is going to have the pleasure of celebrating together as a nation, because it is time that we grew up. It is time that this nation recognised its history—with all its warts, with the good and the bad, and with everything that has come from it since, and how that then impacts upon our future—because 28 October has now been set aside as the day that we will remember in time immemorial the Rā Maumahara for our land wars. That is correct.

I have to recognise the petition from the Ōtorohanga students, who came here to Parliament, because this certainly was the impetus that convinced the Minister, the Hon Maggie Barry, that, yes, something needed to be done. There on the forecourt of Parliament, she committed to that crowd of people—all of those waka tauā [war canoe] that came in and did this massive haka on the forecourt—that she would commit to finding a day and finding a way forward to ensure that all of New Zealand remembers the Land Wars. Thousands of people—in fact, more, we understand, than died in both the First and Second World Wars from New Zealand—were killed during the Land Wars, or the civil war, that saw the establishment of this nation. It saw the confiscation of lands and it saw the rise of the peaceful protest here in Aotearoa with Te Whiti and Tohu Kākahi that then inspired Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

On 5 November, instead of celebrating terrorism, and instead of celebrating a terrorist act where somebody tried to blow up Parliament, and for years they burned an effigy of this man and thought that that was fun—what a fun night out that would be—let us celebrate “Parihaka Day”, and remember what went on here. These are the scars that are left upon our nation. I travelled to Ngāruawāhia this year to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the koroneihana of King Tuheitia, and on one of those celebration days there was a gifting back of land that was taken after a battle at Rangiriri—the first of its kind. While I was there on the forecourt of Māhinarangi, on the ātea, a kuia looked at me and said: “Marama, it’s easy to find where the battle sites of Aotearoa are. The road goes straight through them.” There is no hallowed ground, no place to remember, no plaque, no grave, and no memorial. But now we have a day, on 28 October, where we, as a nation, can grow up, open up, and discuss the issues that have plagued us all in the settling of this nation, and that is te rā maumahara, te rangi e whakamaumahara atu i ngā pakanga o tēnei whenua [the day of remembrance, the day that commemorates the wars of this land]. That is our speech. It is not sheep, but it is important, and I look forward to celebrating the Rā Maumahara in the future.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): Kia ora. The National Government is absolutely committed to delivering better public services for all New Zealanders. Getting the best possible outcomes for spending taxpayers’ money is a challenge for any Government, and it is a real responsibility. Spending taxpayers’ dollars as intelligently as possible and investing in the right places in the Government system delivers better and more services, and provides better opportunities for New Zealanders.

In 2012 the National Government set 10 challenging targets for Better Public Services—to produce better outcomes and to focus on getting the best use of our taxpayers’ dollars. It is not something that many Governments are up for, but we are absolutely committed to using that money as effectively as possible, and to making a real social investment. Four years later, I would just like to highlight some of the successes of the Better Public Services targets, starting with early childhood education.

We all know how important it is to get our young people learning-ready. We have increased from 94.7 percent of young children getting into early childhood education in 2011 to 96.6 percent in 2016. Those children are really getting a step up into schooling, which will open doors for them in their future.

What about early childhood health? Infant immunisation rates and reducing rheumatic fever have been a huge focus of these Better Public Services targets. Immunisation is one of the best and most cost-effective public service initiatives that we can have. We are increasing the numbers of children being immunised, and we have increased them from 84 percent in 2012 to 92.8 percent in 2016. That makes a significant difference to children’s health and well-being, and, with that, it supports families and gives them a better quality of life. In the cases of rheumatic fever—that is a dreadful childhood disease, and they have dropped by 40 percent. That is extremely good for families right throughout New Zealand.

As an ex-teacher, I am delighted always to see improvements in education. When we look at the number of 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2 or equivalent, that has increased significantly from 74.3 percent in 2011 to 83.3 percent in 2015. This means that these young people can open doors, can go to further education, can go to trade training, and can actually contribute and build a life for their future. On the same theme, looking at trade training, we have increased the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds with advanced trade qualifications, diplomas or degrees. The number of those who have New Zealand qualifications at level 4 and above has increased from 51 percent to 56 percent in 2016. Many of those young people are working in Christchurch. The rebuild has made young people see the opportunities of getting a trade, knowing that if they go through that programme then they can see a job and they can build a future. The number of young people who are not in education or trades is very low in Christchurch.

You would have seen recently that New Zealand has been seen as the easiest place in the world to do business, and part of that is to do with Better Public Services No. 9, which is all about an online shop for Government service, advice, and support to help small businesses grow their businesses. The fact is that New Zealanders can complete their transactions with the Government easily in a digital environment, and we have made a huge increase in that area. Originally, in 2012, only 29 percent of our transactions were done online, and these days it is almost 50 percent.

So you can see that these Better Public Services targets have made a real difference. They have targeted how we have spent our money, and they are making sure that we get the very best value for money and deliver the best services for New Zealanders. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Huri noa ki ōku mema hoa mahi o Te Whare Pāremata, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To you, Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you. My appreciation throughout to all of us, my fellow working member colleagues of Parliament House. Well done.]

Aotearoa New Zealand must support the Standing Rock opposition to the construction of the Dakota oil pipeline. I stand as the Green Party spokesperson on indigenous rights and human rights, because the opposition to the pipeline in North Dakota is directly linked to the political campaigns here in Aotearoa New Zealand to care for our waters, for our land, and for the sovereignty of our very own first peoples.

The pipeline in North Dakota will cross the Cannonball River and the Missouri River, threatening indigenous waterways and primary drinking sources. This pipeline will carry around 470,000 barrels of fracked oil per day over about 1,200 miles, from North Dakota to Illinois.

I have written an open letter to the United States Ambassador to New Zealand, Mr Mark Gilbert, to ask the US Government to listen to the call of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and the millions of people around the world who have joined the campaign to stop this construction altogether. Since April, over 90 First Nations groups have gathered at Standing Rock to peacefully and non-violently resist the construction of this pipeline over their lands and sacred places. In doing so, they are exercising their sovereignty as First Nation peoples. They are also doing so in a long line of oppression that the United States has had over its First Nation peoples.

I have written to the ambassador, Mr Mark Gilbert, not just to call for the halt of the construction of that pipeline but also to protect those protesters at Standing Rock against the intimidatory police violence. Under US international law, police arrests cannot be used to intimidate people who are holding peaceful assembly, but that is absolutely what has been happening. The police have been shooting protesters with rubber bullets, pepper-spraying people—old women, old people—in the face, and dragging people out of sweat lodges. They have set dogs on to peaceful, non-violent, direct resistance.

Here in Aotearoa, from our own campaigns such as Te Whānau-a-Apanui resistance to Petrogras, and Te Hiku and northern iwi resistance to Statoil, we understand the global fight to uphold indigenous sovereignty and to have a clean-energy future that protects our environment and our waters and earth for everybody. We understand that these fights are connected, and we ask the New Zealand Government to show some leadership in upholding the very issues that are being fought here, in our own waters.

As an indigenous woman and as an MP, I understand that when I am standing on the banks of the Ōmaru Creek in Glen Innes to call for that river to be cleaned, it is directly linked to the resistance of indigenous peoples around the world who are speaking out against and showing up violent campaigns of dirty fossil fuel extraction. They are doing the work for all of us, for cleaner energy and for a climate that we can actually all survive in. So it is my job and my privilege as an MP, as an indigenous woman, and as a mother to ask for all of us to support the Standing Rock opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Kia ora.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I am going to focus on the education results under the National Government. But before I get to the substance of my speech I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our Minister of Education, the Hon Hekia Parata. Minister Parata has been deeply committed to enhancing the performance of our schools and raising the achievements of our students. She has worked extremely hard and has overcome numerous challenges. She will leave this Parliament with a legacy of a modern education system that is more flexible, more efficient, more innovative, and also more future oriented.

I have said repeatedly that education is a key responsibility of any Government, simply because our students are the future citizens and future workers. In that sense, they are the future of the country. It is important that our students have the necessary skills and qualifications to do well in society and to contribute to a thriving economy. For that reason, the National-led Government has made education a key area of our Better Public Services. We have invested heavily in education since we came into Government in 2008. As a matter of fact, among all OECD countries New Zealand spends the highest percentage of public money on education. We are spending over $4 billion on tertiary education and a record $11 billion on other sectors of education. We have more than doubled the spending on the youngest Kiwi learners since 2008, to about $1.8 billion.

We are spending a lot of money on education, but at the same time we have been trying to modernise our education system to make sure that it reflects New Zealand, now and in the future. Our efforts have paid off. A recent OECD report, entitled Education at a Glance 2016, shows that the performance of the New Zealand education sector compares very well with those of other OECD countries.

Also, the mid-year report on Better Public Services results, released a couple of days ago, indicates that New Zealand is on track in lifting participation and achievement from our earliest learners through to tertiary graduates. I will read these three results of education targets: participation in early childhood education is up, from 94.7 percent in 2011 to 96.6 percent in 2016; achievement in NCEA level 2 is up, from 74.3 percent in 2011 to 83.3 percent in 2015; and the number of 25- to 34-year-olds with New Zealand Qualifications Framework level 4 or above has increased, from 51.9 percent in 2011 to 56.6 percent in 2016. We are pleased with all the results, but we are particularly pleased with the increased proportion of 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2, because NCEA level 2 gives students more opportunities for further education and employment. Also, very often NCEA level 2 is the minimum requirement for jobs. Under National, more children are starting education earlier, staying in education for longer, and achieving better results. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): What a dark day for New Zealand when this Government thinks that being let off the hook on a Crimes Act test for corruption means that it has been exonerated. What a disgrace. What message is this Government and this Parliament sending to the New Zealand people? Well, they have not been exonerated. This Government had not been exonerated in the minds of the New Zealand public today.

In the second to last paragraph of the report today on the Saudi sheep debacle, the outgoing Auditor-General said this: “My final thought relates to transparency. New Zealand has worked hard to have an ethical and transparent public sector. Accusations of corruption and bribery should be of concern to us all. During my time as Auditor-General, I have seen an increase in these accusations. None of my inquiries have upheld those accusations. However, complacency is not an option. We should all continue to demand transparency in how our public resources have been used and what was achieved with our money. Transparency is the best foil for corruption.”

Well, what is the state of transparency in New Zealand? This year New Zealand slipped down Transparency International’s record, to fourth place, and, as we know, transparency is all about perception. In a report written by a board member of Transparency International New Zealand, it was said: “It is impossible to actually measure real corruption—by its very nature corruption is somewhat hidden and intangible—and therefore other metrics are necessary as proxies. For example, when Transparency International commissioned a survey of public opinion about corruption in New Zealand in 2013, it found that 65 per cent of New Zealanders said corruption had increased over the previous three years. Other surveys have also provided alarming evidence. The State Services Commission Integrity and Conduct Survey of 2013 found that 15 per cent of public servants ‘reported observing illegal conduct in the previous 12 months’. And in 2011 a TVNZ poll asked: ‘Is New Zealand the least corrupt country in the world?’, with 57 per cent choosing the option ‘No, we’re deluding ourselves’.”

If that poll were taken today, what would the figure be in the New Zealand community? It would be a much higher rate than 57 percent, which should be of concern to this Government—but no, it thinks that being let off the hook for a Crimes Act test means that that is OK, that that is an OK message to send to the New Zealand public. It is not an OK message to send to the New Zealand public. Paying lip service to transparency, not listening and not paying attention to the requirements of accords that we sign up to, such as the Open Government Partnership, shutting down whistle-blowers, intimidating people, blaming public servants instead of taking responsibility as Ministers—all of those things are the pattern that this Government has shown over and over again. What message does that send to young people who are going through school and looking at politics and wondering whether they should vote? What message does that send to the public generally?

It sends a message about a Government that is out of touch, a Government that is not connected to its community, and a Government that thinks that getting away with it means that it is OK. Is that the message that we want to send out there to our children, to the voters of New Zealand? I do not think so.

Carmel Sepuloni: It’s a low bar.

CLARE CURRAN: That is a low bar, and this Government should be ashamed today, and McCully should resign or be set aside.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to talk about a report that was issued today by the Human Rights Commission. It is a report called Staying in the red zones. This is a summary of it. If I were to retitle this report, I would call it Unfinished Business, because, really, that is what it is about. Many people in New Zealand think that the issues about Christchurch—the earthquakes, and the red zones, and the people who have been affected by it—are all over, but of course that is far from the truth. This particular report relates specifically to 350 people who are still living in the red zone in Christchurch—350 people—so, for them, things are not over by a long shot. The report that I have in front of me is something that I think the Government should take particular notice of, because it does show that there is unfinished business. There are things that the Government still needs to do.

Some of the issues, for example, which are listed here, that people have to face because of red zoning—which is after all a Government measure, remember, not something that the people did themselves; this is a Government measure—are that people still have difficulties with their mortgages, people cannot get the finance that they need, people cannot get the insurance cover, and people are worried about services that may or may not continue to be delivered. As the summary of the report says: “Red zone residents have faced difficulties securing insurance for their red zoned properties. At the time of the research almost half the red zoned [residents] had full insurance … while the remainder had partial insurance. Insurance is one of the most significant issues facing red zone residents and it has affected their levels of stress and wellbeing.” It is a very serious matter when we know that so many people cannot get full insurance for their properties. That is something that needs to be addressed.

You might say to yourself, why then did they not accept the Government offer? Why have they chosen to stay and live in the red zone? The report from the commission surveys shows the main reasons. First of all, there is attachment to home, financial reasons, and a perceived drop in the quality of life if they intend to move. Of course, with home prices the way they are now, you can understand why that may be. People also felt that during the process they have been through, they have not been properly informed, that communications by Government agencies have been poor, and that is something, in particular, that needs to be addressed.

In addition to that, there were the people who were living in uninsured properties or whose land without properties on them could not be insured, and they have suffered. They had to go through the whole process of a Supreme Court decision and the legal proceedings leading up to all of that before they got the Government to really take notice. They are worried about the delay. They have been worried about the difference between the compensation offered to others, the compensation offered to them, and the fact that the compensation offered is well out of date given that so many years have now moved on.

This is what the summary of the report says about that: “Following the earthquakes, the land revaluation process in Canterbury scheduled for 2010 was delayed until 2014. The new valuations significantly affected owners of red zoned land, with the rateable value of red zoned properties falling dramatically for many by up to 80 to 90 percent. The loss of equity in what for most people was their biggest asset has been a source of stress, and was perceived by some residents as an added pressure to accept the Government offer to purchase properties at 100 percent of the 2007/08 valuation. Owners of uninsured properties, who are not eligible for the Government offer, were particularly affected by the drop in the value of their properties.” Those people have not been fairly treated.

There are many other things listed in the summary, and summarised on the last page are what the key issues are: human rights should be front and centre of this and they are not; the right to property in New Zealand has been compromised by this process; post-disaster actions by the Crown have been inadequate; communication needs have been inadequate; community engagement has been inadequate; and, finally, there is no one size fits all for matters like this, and the Government simply needs to review it again.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Charities Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 November.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me pleasure to take a short call on the second reading of the Charities Amendment Bill, a bill that is equally as short as the contribution that I am going to make. I do remember 2005 when the Charities Bill was first brought to Parliament. I remember, I guess, a disquiet that occurred in our communities around what might or might not happen to our thousands of charities that operate in all sorts of sectors in our communities. I remember at the time the Department of Internal Affairs, I guess it would have been, put a lot of people out into the communities giving advice to those charities, charitable organisations, and the people concerned with them on how they might or might not comply with the legislation and what that legislation might mean for them. I think you would have to say that there has been very little negative impact from that legislation, so this amendment bill has been brought to Parliament to make some very simple changes, but quite important ones.

In an odd way, one of the clauses in this bill stops someone convicted of tax evasion, or someone who is, perhaps, not suitable to be operating a charity from being an officer in those charitable organisations—and that is, obviously, clearly very sensible. It also provides that an application for registration as a charitable entity can be treated as withdrawn if the applicant does not to respond to questions. That was an issue that certainly caused some challenges in the early days of the re-registration of thousands of charities throughout New Zealand, because many of the officers of those organisations struggled, frankly, with having to comply with stuff they had never had to comply with before. You can see why that has been brought to bear in this. Finally, it corrects a 2012 drafting error, something that does not happen very often in this House. So with that short contribution, I will sit down.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. I want to talk about four things. I want to talk about the community and voluntary sector charitable organisations. I want to talk about a couple of the submissions that were made to the Government Administration Committee. I was not on that select committee for this bill, but I have read through those submissions. I want to reference one of those submissions to another bill before this House, and I want to talk about clause 13, which has been struck out, altering section 61 of the principal Act.

Across our country, charitable organisations play a very important role in society. The community and voluntary sector is one that the Government should be supporting. We have noted and noticed from feedback from the community, from the voluntary sector, and from charitable organisations that they are feeling quite unsupported, really. I think, through this bill, there is a potential for them to feel even more unsupported, and I will get to that later.

I want to talk about submissions, and one in particular that has been made by Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust. This trust is a post-settlement governance entity for the settlement of the Ngāruahine iwi. Their bill is before the House right now, awaiting its third reading. I want to talk about this not only because it is in my electorate but also because I think the House needs to be reminded that participation by iwi post-settlement governance entities is a really important part of our democratic system. These are the organisations that have been mandated by their iwi to represent their people’s interests in Aotearoa. So they have a mandate, and I took particular note of their submission on this bill.

I want to talk further about their settlement, though, because within every single settlement—and I want to remind the House of this—the Crown acknowledges breaches of the Treaty, and then it goes on to apologise for those breaches. My point, related to this bill, is that when the Crown reaches an agreement with settlement groups—with iwi—it is really important that we do not go and pass legislation that impacts on them. What is the point of making an acknowledgment—what is the point of making an apology and then putting up some legislation that potentially hurts them? So that is why I am talking about this particular group and its ability now to engage at this level, even though its settlement has not yet gone through. I want to acknowledge all of the submitters, including this one.

I come to clause 13, which has been amended and, basically, taken out. It was to amend section 61 of the principal Act with a very small alteration, but the select committee, as I understand it, heard new information about the impact of making that change, so it was removed. Remembering that this bill originated from the Statutes Amendment Bill that is before Parliament, and that if only one member objects to any part of that Statutes Amendment Bill, then that cannot pass, so this part of that bill was separated out into its own bill. I want to make the point, in reference back to what I have already said, that it would not be appropriate, now that this change has been made by the select committee, for clause 13 to actually come back through a Supplementary Order Paper. That is my main point around all of this—I want to say to the House that that would be inappropriate, in my opinion.

This is a very short piece of legislation. There is not a lot in it, so those four points that I wanted to make—I wanted to acknowledge the charitable organisations and the work that they do in Aotearoa; I want to acknowledge those submissions, in particular the one from Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust; I want to reference it back to their legislation, to the acknowledgments of the breaches of the Treaty to them, and to the apology that they will receive through that legislation; and I object to any future inclusion of clause 13 of this bill. Nō reira, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā tātou.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take just a very short call on the Charities Amendment Bill in the second reading, and I acknowledge, as I do so, the ongoing leadership of Minister Goodhew in this particular field. As we have heard during the course of this debate, these are non-controversial amendments that will lead to greater transparency and confidence in respect of charity matters and management of the same.

In particular, I was pleased to see that clause 11 got the support that one would hope it would get through the submission process and the select committee deliberations, making it clear that if someone has been disqualified under section 143B of the Tax Administration Act, they cannot be an officer of a registered charity. I think everyone in this House and the wider public would see that as sensible.

Equally, clause 12, introducing the 20-working-days time frame for an entity to respond to notices to provide more information, seems very sound. I noted, in reflecting on select committee deliberations, that there was some concern around that being too tight, but I think the opportunity for a request for extension of time is a sensible way around that. So, as other speakers have said, this is a short bill. It is sensible, it is sound, it has been thoroughly tested, and I add my voice to those of the House in supporting it to the next stage.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill

In Committee

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for this bill to be debated as one question, but voted on separately.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave has been sought for all provisions to be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Part 1 Amendments to Bail Act 2000

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate on Part 1 is debate on clauses 3 to 11A and schedule 1.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for this opportunity. From the outset, Labour supports this bill. Drug and alcohol misuse is a major driver of crime. As a preface to a broader contribution from me on this particular part, with regard to the drug issue that is currently happening in Tai Tokerau, I want to lament the recent loss of my nephew Moses Mahanga, who was involved in that particular incident, and, of course, my cousin Mr John Harris, who was buried recently.

We know that the driver of this particular issue is drugs, so this party supports any bill that will see drug and alcohol misuse addressed as a major driver of crime. We want to make sure that when people are put under supervision, the means and the legislation are in line to ensure that we keep them safe from themselves but, more importantly, we keep our communities safe.

Clause 4 in Part 1 refers to some very simple matters, and I think they are quite straightforward. The inclusion of the use of the term “psychoactive substance” falls in line with the Psychoactive Substances Act, which was passed in this House in—if memory serves me right—approximately 2013. I did actually have to go and have a look at exactly what some of the psychoactive substances were. I was not too sure myself, but I went in and had a look, and it is clear that there is an issue there. But I wonder, just out of curiosity—and I am sorry I did not sit in on the select committee. For a lot of those drugs that are included in the Psychoactive Substances Act, it is often said that they are undetectable. They are hard to detect in the system, they are hard for the immediate senses to detect, and I just wonder what kind of an issue that may bring for those officers, or those with the powers to enforce testing, with this particular bill. That is just out of curiosity more than anything else.

It clearly says there in the definition of the term “drug or alcohol condition”—and it is a pretty straightforward change in that particular clause—that “either or both” is being removed and it now says “doing 1 or more of the following:”, and that, once again, is referring to the use of a psychoactive substance. In the definition of “drug or alcohol monitoring device”, it is quite clear there that it is “a device, connected to a person’s body, that is able to detect the presence in the person’s body of 1 or more of the following:”, and that gets to my point about some of those questions. A quick Google search will tell you how, to the untrained eye, to the naked eye—to make an assessment straight off the bat, it is often difficult for law enforcement officers and for those with that responsibility to instantly see that that person is under the influence of a psychoactive substance. I wonder what the technology looks like—what the device might look like—that will actually allow for that proper testing to take place and to make sure that we are not impinging on people’s rights.

Clause 4 carries on talking about the “medical laboratory technologist”, and it is quite straightforward. Those people with those particular skills—and I have mentioned how it is when you first interact with the person under supervision. Clearly, it sets out the terms in here about those professionals who are more qualified and who, with the right tools and with the right practice, can actually assess more properly whether or not the individual is under the influence.

Moving on to some of the other changes in Part 1 of this particular bill, clause 8 inserts new sections on the testing and monitoring of people with drug or alcohol conditions. We know that when people are put back into the community under supervision, it is important that we make sure that, first of all, their rights are not impinged on but, more importantly, those particular people abide by the supervision rules that have been placed upon them.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): We have supported this bill through the first reading and through the second reading. The reason for that was that we do actually support the intent of this bill, which is to bring the offenders and bailees in line with the offenders inside the wire, inside the prison, so those inside the prison do have permanent and blanket restrictions on consumption of alcohol and drugs, as we know.

Prisons are smoke-free and we claim that our prisons are alcohol-free and drug-free, and Corrections staff have done a great job at ensuring that those policies of smoke-free prisons are effectively implemented. But there have been instances of those rules being violated, but those are not really, really concerning to us. What is concerning is that the offenders were released on bail or on temporary removal or on temporary release and had these restrictions placed on them. However, there was no mechanism in place to ensure that they actually complied with those restrictions and there were no consequences if they did not. This bill will ensure that those on the outside, those in the communities, whether they are on bail, on temporary release, or on parole, are actually answerable for their violation of those restrictions.

That was the reason that we supported this bill throughout, although we did have some reservations about how this bill is going to be actually administered. We were told that those offenders on parole and on temporary release will be managed by Corrections, and those who are on bail will be drug tested, randomly though, by the police. We did have some confusion about the modalities and the resources. At the moment the police do not have resources to carry out their core functions of crime prevention, so we wonder how they are going to be drug testing these people on bail when they do not have resources to respond to emergencies. That was one of the concerns that we had. However, we still supported the intent of the bill.

At present when the offenders are on parole, they are managed by way of drug testing—again, random drug testing—by Corrections. We had pointed out that at present the situation has no requirement that the chief executive of Corrections communicates with the Commissioner of Police while formulating these rules. We were told that there was no need for such a requirement because we have faith in both entities and we have faith that they both will communicate. Well, if that was the case, where was the communication when—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

MAHESH BINDRA: When we broke for dinner, I was speaking about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 163 and the intent behind it. The intent was that the amendment that was sought in that SOP was that both Corrections and Police will be absolutely required to communicate with each other and not just expected to. That is the ambiguity that this SOP sought to take care of. However, the Minister has taken the view that there is no necessity for such an amendment as Corrections and Police already communicate with each other. Well, Minister, if that was the case, what happened to the communication when Phillip John Smith escaped and went right up to Brazil causing us huge embarrassment internationally? What happened to their communication when Tony Robertson raped and killed Blessie Gotingco?

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): It is a pleasure to talk on the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill. The bill is in four parts, and because New Zealand First wants to debate each part separately, there is going to be a lot of repetition. I will cover a few things off. Part 1 makes amendments to the Bail Act 2000, Part 2 makes amendments to the Parole Act 2002, Part 3 makes amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002, and Part 4 amends the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014.

Everything that I say, basically, on Part 1 is able to be repeated for Parts 2, 3, and 4. I will just take a couple of points out of the bill. In clause 4 when we talk about bodily samples, we are meaning “a sample of the person’s blood, breath, hair, or urine;”. When we talk about testing offenders to see whether they have got alcohol in their systems, one of the things we have to be aware of if we attach a device to their bodies is that it is possible for devices to pick up alcohol-based products.

I remember when I was a teacher and we had a policeman come round to the school and show the kids about breath-testing devices. The policeman got some kids to gargle Listerine. The device was able to pick up the alcohol in the Listerine and it gave a positive reading. Also, there were certain types of deodorant and cologne that were alcohol-based as well, and there was potential there to give off false positives. So that is just something that we have to be aware of. I do not know how great the devices are. I suspect that that will not happen, but it is just a possibility given that breath-testing devices could pick up alcohol in cologne and Listerine.

Before I got into that I should have said that this bill is designed to stop people who have an issue with alcohol and drugs and may have offended because of alcohol and drugs. If they have a condition that says they should not be partaking of alcohol and drugs—well, no one should be partaking of drugs in the first place—this monitors that. People who have allegedly committed a crime and have been bailed may be bailed on the condition that they do not partake of alcohol and drugs. If they have been to court and been sentenced to a community sentence, it may be on the condition that while they are doing that community sentence they should not partake of alcohol or drugs. If they have been in prison and they have been paroled, part of their parole conditions could be that they should not partake of alcohol and drugs. It makes sense, because we have got to keep these people away from some of the factors that actually lead them to offend, and we have got to keep our communities safe.

So the Labour Party does support this bill. One of the changes made when the bill was at the Law and Order Committee was the addition of psychoactive substances—not just drugs and alcohol being consumed by the person. We are well aware of synthetic marijuana and the problems that causes. I think that this is a very sensible inclusion in the bill. We are aware of the whole debate around psychoactive substances that occurred—I think it might have been last year—and in many cases psychoactive substances cause as much damage and harm in people’s lives as the regular partaking of marijuana, other drugs, and substances like that.

Another part of the bill that I think is a good inclusion is that offenders are able to use any information gathered to support themselves if they, for example, are going for custody of a child and one of the concerns from another parent is that they have alcohol or drug problems. They can actually use the information gathered by the monitoring devices to prove that they have actually abstained from alcohol and drugs and that they should be given a chance with their child in that instance.

If we debate this bill part by part the debate is going to repeat the same issues over and over again. Personally I think the time of the House could be better spent on other legislation, but it is the choice of people to debate it part by part. So I will just leave it there at this stage. Kia ora.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): My colleague Kelvin Davis just pointed out that because this debate on the four parts is being taken separately, it is going to be very repetitive. So just to make it a little more interesting, I am going to focus more on alcohol than I am going to focus on drugs. So—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I will just make one point: the member must focus on—sit down. Two or three points—the first thing is that the Committee stage is to talk about his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 163, which he has tabled before the Committee and will be voted on in the course of this debate. He must also use this period of time to talk about the submissions that were made before the select committee. In his previous speech, he started talking about an escapee from prison; that does not form any part of this debate. So he must speak very narrowly either to what was raised in the select committee by way of submissions or the SOP that he put before the Committee.

MAHESH BINDRA: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to point out that this is the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill, and I am going focus on the alcohol part. Is that permissible, Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes, as long as he is talking about what was raised in the select committee by submitters and what is the substance of his Supplementary Order Paper 163, but not introducing new material. This is the Committee of the whole House, and it reflects the select committee discussions.

MAHESH BINDRA: Thank you, Mr Chair. So then I would like to stick to my SOP. The intent of that SOP was to make sure that both Corrections and Police talk to each other when formulating regulations about how this drug testing of offenders in the community is going to be managed. However, unfortunately the Minister took the view that they already do communicate with each other, which I do not think is the case. Had they communicated, Blessie Gotingco would probably still be living. There has been a huge lack of communication between these two vital departments, namely, Corrections and the Police.

So then I come to the alcohol testing of community-based offenders, which I do not think has been given enough focus. I would like to point out an incident on 1 June 2013—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to raise a point of order after that scintillating contribution from Mr Bindra, but this bill—and this part—is about conditions of bail, and the drug and alcohol testing when someone is on bail. It has nothing to do with Police and Corrections talking to each other, and people escaping New Zealand; it is actually about drug and alcohol testing of people on bail.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The point is well made by the Minister. The member must draw the attention of the Committee to the specific clauses that he is wishing to amend by way of his Supplementary Order Paper, and make it relevant to the part that we are debating at the moment, which is Part 1. So if he could do that, the Committee would appreciate it.

MAHESH BINDRA: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do take the Minister’s point and your own point on board. I think I have spoken enough about the SOP, and I will try to finish my speech here. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of Mahesh Bindra to clause 11 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 26

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 94

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

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

Ayes 26

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 94

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 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.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of Mahesh Bindra to clause 18 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of Mahesh Bindra to clause 30 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to insert new Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in her name to schedule 3 be agreed to:

in Part 1 after new schedule 1AA, clause 6(2)(b) replace:

Part 2

Consequential amendments

Insert as Part 2 of Schedule 1AA the Part 2 set out in Part 1 of this schedule.

with

Part 2

Consequential amendments

Insert as Part 2 of Schedule 1AA the Part 2 set out in Part 1 of this schedule.

Amendment to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 as amended in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to schedule 3 be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to insert new schedule 4 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Bail (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Parole (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Sentencing (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, and the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 236.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill

In Committee

CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate, with separate votes taken at the end.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill, which has been through an extensive select committee process, and, I think, has come back to the House improved. We certainly support the intent of this bill, which is to improve the way that communities recover from emergencies, and for there to be a seamless and timely transition from response to recovery. This is a pretty important piece of legislation within an even more important context and I do not think anyone would disagree that having New Zealand better prepared and better able to deal with the aftermath of major events is an important thing to do.

We note that the bill is in the first stage of a wider review that is being undertaken into the legislative framework for recovery. One of the issues that we did raise at the Government Administration Committee was where that wider review was up to. Although this is an important piece of legislation in its own right, it is really just one part of the picture, and so we are raising questions of the Minister at the Committee stage as to the timetable of the wider legislative review, the substance of what that review will involve, whether it will involve more legislation coming to the House, and whether it will be coming to the House within the next 12 months. I think they are pretty important questions to be dealt with.

We raised a number of questions—issues—in the second reading around matters that we had concerns about at select committee. Many of those were actually dealt with at select committee, which is always an important thing to happen. One of those was our unease around the ministerial powers that were being expressed in the original legislation and the imbalance between the exercise of ministerial power and the consultation with local communities in the recovery phase of an emergency. Mostly, those concerns were allayed—to the point where Labour supported the bill as it was coming back to select committee. However, I do want to keep on the record that we do remain concerned and watchful that this imbalance does not diminish the role of local communities in the recovery phase of an emergency. That role is critical on the ground where the local communities and those representing the local communities are empowered to act, and to do so in relationship with the Minister so that there is not an imbalance occurring there.

I also want to put on record the appreciation of the time taken by officials in the drafting office to ensure that these clauses have been written in a way that is acceptable to all parties. I do mean that most sincerely, because I deal with a few select committees and I think that, in respect of this select committee, the officials really did go out of their way to ensure that there was the best outcome possible. It was a very good select committee, very well chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson.

I am signalling tonight that Labour is putting up Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 237 to address an issue that we also raised in the second reading, which was with regard to a provision that was removed at select committee on the inclusion of strategic recovery plans. It was contained in the original version of the bill in new section 57A, inserted by clause 21, which was removed at select committee. We believed that the inclusion of provision for a strategic recovery plan was a vital element to be included in the actual legislation as an important signal from legislation. We believe that those plans were vital for the element of successful recoveries and we noted that although the bill no longer required civil defence emergency management (CDEM) groups to prepare a separate strategic recovery plan, the function of recovery planning was now integrated into the general statutory functions. That was what the proposal was—for it to be taken out of the legislation and it be included in the general function, statutory functions, of CDEM groups and recovery managers. Our concern was that the lack of a specific requirement in the legislation raised the risk of poor planning where those groups were weak.

We know that in respect of the civil defence activity around the country—in the different groups—there are different levels of organisation. Our concern was that there should be a requirement in the legislation for strategic recovery planning so that that could flow down. The argument from some of the submitters was that there was not enough detail, and that, therefore, there needed to be more specific detail as to what should be included. I think the remedy proposed by officials was to remove that function altogether. We remained concerned; so that is what the essence of the SOP before the Committee tonight is. We understand that this is supported by the Government and, if that is the case, then we believe that is very cooperative and a good outcome.

The SOP affects clause 2, clause 7, and clause 19. It inserts a section in clause 19 that requires strategic planning for recovery from the hazards and risks. We believe that, at least, gives a legislative requirement that will address the concerns that we had about that lack of signal coming from the legislation. Our concerns on that have been allayed. We had concerns originally around the ministerial powers—and so that leaves, ultimately, the concerns around what is left out and the bits of the puzzle that have not been dealt with. These are the large-scale events and response readiness. We think that, although this bill addresses important recovery issues, those bits have not yet been addressed, and although there has been a commitment by the Minister to a second stage of the legislative review focusing on large-scale emergencies, there is no evidence of this occurring in the short and medium term. We, therefore, believe that that leaves the country with a problem.

So in the Committee of the whole House, tonight, we are hoping that there will be some indication from the Government as to what the next stage will be and when that will occur, because although focusing on recovery is important, so is response readiness. We believe that in every community around New Zealand—some more than others—that response of community responsiveness to large-scale events is critical. This bill makes clear that it is focused on the small to medium sized events. Those small to medium sized events do, ultimately, result in quite massive costs to the country and to communities, so leaving out the issue around where we are going with the large-scale events is pretty important. So we are pretty pleased tonight to be putting this SOP on the Table. We hope that it will receive support across the Committee. It provides an important signal in legislation that all civil defence emergency management groups around the country must be developing strategic recovery plans, and the ministry will be providing guidelines for how those will occur.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I have to say, I had to rush through a bit of dinner because I was not expecting the last bill to go through quite so quickly—there were only a couple of speakers and it was about 30 minutes. So, anyway, I have rushed back and got all my notes and I think I am ready to go. Good news: we will be supporting this bill through this Committee of the whole House stage.

David Bennett: Ha, ha! That’s not a New Zealand first?

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Despite what my colleague over there—my less learned colleague over there—thinks, we do actually like to support good, solid, robust discussion and also good bills. To be fair, when we spoke on the second part of this legislation, we said that we were considering a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and I have to give accolades to Nikki Kaye’s office for contacting New Zealand First and myself directly with regard to a potential SOP from New Zealand First. I tell you what, it is the first time, actually—oh, no, the second time; Amy Adams has also done it. I am very, very congratulatory—if that is a word; I think I might have made that up. It is a good thing, actually. So I actually replied with a “No. We won’t be putting an SOP in, but we will be supporting Clare Curran’s SOP.”, and we did have some discussion around clause 19 in regard to the timing of things and that information that is going to be coming out.

I do have to point out that we would like to see this hurried along. I know it is on the Order Paper, quite high up, and we would like to see it moved through. As much as Gerry Brownlee is probably disappointed that we are not going to continue on all night with this, we would like to see it put through under urgency, because the second phase of this legislation, which is talking about large-scale events, large earthquakes like Christchurch, is really what we need to focus on. And as the climate is changing around the planet, we are certainly seeing a lot more small-scale, localised events and floods and slips and slides and all the other things that create all these problems. So anything that we can do to expedite that through to make sure that we are well prepared for those weather conditions and those civil defence emergencies, the better.

We would certainly like to see the time frames of this—I think it is 180 days after receiving the Royal assent—potentially expedited by the Minister. If the Minister would like to say the reason why the select committee is bringing it out to 180 days after the Royal assent is achieved to actually bring this into force—we have seen this Government putting bills through the House when we have felt that there has been unnecessary speed and haste. We have seen it do that. And on occasions where we can see the necessity for something to be expedited, it seems to go quite slowly. So if the Minister could answer as to why it is going to take 180 days after the Royal assent to come through—if there is a good reason for that as to why we cannot actually push it through.

Obviously, the second part of the commencement date is around that provision in clause 19 and some further clarification required about the civil defence emergency management groups’ responsibilities in building on their plans. I know the Minister has got plenty of experience with civil defence emergencies because he has been heavily involved with that down there in Christchurch. Some may beg the question whether he has or not, but I believe he has probably been working down there day in, day out. That takes me to another part of the bill, which is around transitional notices. My staple fell out of my pages, so I am going to have to sort of dig through them until I can find them, if you can just bear with me for a moment.

Transitional notices are a good thing. The national transitional notice for the 90 days gives provisions to the Minister to extend that quite simply, and, also, to add to that, to make sure that they can actually shorten them if required, if the clean-up gets resolved quickly. And, of course, the Minister has the right to actually cease the civil defence transitional notice period. With local issues where you have got a 28-day transitional period, again, this ensures that the Minister makes it a priority to contact the local mayors or local civil defence emergency management groups or the council etc., to ensure that they are on top of things before they actually call it short on a local emergency. We see it as quite a good provision.

All in all, we certainly will be supporting this through. As I say, our big issue is making sure that this is transferred through this Committee rapidly and is implemented as quickly as practicably possible. We have not heard anything in the way of negativity towards this, and New Zealand First will certainly be supporting positive, good legislation that helps our communities rebuild in times of need. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin my contribution to the Committee stage of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill by acknowledging Minister Gerry Brownlee, who has picked up the responsibility for the passage of this bill, and also by acknowledging the Hon Nikki Kaye, who brought this bill the House and, as the member from New Zealand First who has just resumed his seat, Clayton Mitchell, indicated, has maintained a very close interest in this bill, to the point of contacting the various parties following their second reading contributions and saying: “You mentioned this; I’d like to talk about it. You talked about an SOP.” So thank you, Nikki Kaye, for your ongoing interest, and we look forward to you picking up this responsibility again. In the meantime, you can be assured that we worked hard on it at the Government Administration Committee. You can actually tell that the select committee worked hard on it by the number of amendments that came back and were discussed during the second reading.

I want to primarily focus, though, in my contribution, on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 237, which is in the name of my colleague Clare Curran. You may remember that during the second reading I and others expressed some frustration as we had had in the original legislation the provision about the preparation of a strategic recovery plan. There was a debate about whether it was implicit or explicit. It certainly was not clear; submitters raised that for us. It was Labour’s view that we should make it clear. It was National’s view that because it was unclear we should take it out—we should remove section 57A, in clause 21. Just removing it did not seem like a sensible way of resolving a lack of clarity. As a result of taking out section 57A, we ended up with no provision to require the preparation of a strategic recovery plan.

What Supplementary Order Paper 237 does is, essentially, put that provision back in. So, in clause 2, the words “section 19(3)” are replaced. In clause 7, the phrase “the development of strategic recovery plans for emergencies:” is inserted into section 9, and in clause 19, new subclause (1AB) inserts the words “the strategic planning for recovery from the hazards and risks referred to in paragraph (b):” into section 49(2) of the principal Act. Basically, what my colleague has done is what half the select committee wanted to do in terms of clarifying that original section 57A. Unfortunately, it was the one disagreement that the committee had between National and the Labour-Green members on it, and the National Government decided that it would remove it.

I certainly support this SOP. It is great that National has given an indication that it is going to support it as well. There are lots of legislation where you think it is probably great to have a cross-party agreement, but I do not think there is any more important than civil defence, so that right through from community organisations, to volunteers, to community leaders, through our territorial local authorities, through the civil defence structure, and through to central government we are all on the same page when we are thinking about how we can deliver the best response to a civil defence emergency. This SOP being supported will give a clear message that Parliament has thought about it. We have made a lot of alterations during the consideration, and I think that the Committee stage should go smoothly as a result.

The other point I want to mention is that during the earliest deliberation on this bill there was quite some concern about the use of a permanent legislative authority (PLA). I was not sure whether any members would seek to amend that provision, because it was raised earlier. There do not appear to be any other Supplementary Order Papers on the Table other than Clare Curran’s, to which I have already referred.

I hope that is an indication that everyone is now satisfied that the use of a permanent legislative authority is entirely appropriate in this situation. It was one thing that gave us a little bit of angst, but because there is no SOP on the Table referring to another tool, another mechanism, I hope that everyone is satisfied with that PLA use. We were convinced at the select committee that it was an appropriate use, and it seems that the Committee of the whole House does as well. So thank you for the opportunity to contribute, and I look forward to the progress of this bill.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): Can I acknowledge the contributions from Clare Curran, Clayton Mitchell, and Ruth Dyson. I think one of the things that I would reflect on over the last 6 years, when a number of us had have to deal with situations in Christchurch, has been the fact that Parliament itself has been unanimous in providing support to the city, whether it was by way of the initial legislation or the most recent legislation, or, in fact, the number of things on the way between.

The one thing I think we can be sure of is that even though this bill is before us now—and it has had considerable thought put into it—it will not be the last time that we have to think about the way in which there is a response to any particular civil emergency. So it is, at this point, a best effort, and I do not mean that in any way that is going to downplay the contribution of people; it is just the fact that we work off the experience that has been before us at the present time.

The question that Ruth Dyson raised about the ongoing planning, etc., and the two positions that have been taken was, I think, more semantic than fact. The reality is that prescribing, as Supplementary Order Paper 237 from Clare Curran does, the task that is required in making sure that there is a risk plan—basically, a plan for a recovery of risk—is something that we will support this evening, quite obviously, because it adds to the importance of the work that so many people commit themselves to throughout New Zealand in the absence of any particular civil emergency. So they do need to have an understanding that the whole Parliament supports the work they do. Many of them will go about their training exercises, their long hours of commitment to what might happen in a field, and some of them will never ever see an actual disaster. Although that might be a good thing, the comforting thing is that we do have people out there who are trained to respond and to keep things ticking over.

We had two situations in Christchurch. One, we had the more local emergency—split across three counties in the 4 September 2010 event—when I think you would say the response, although excellent from the individuals concerned, was not quite as good as it could have been because of the structures that were in place at the time. And that is not a bad thing to say that; it is just an indication that you can learn a lot from those situations, and, in many ways, what we have got in front of us today does pick up on that.

Clare Curran mentioned the need to have a big plan for when you have great big disasters. It is going to be interesting to engage in that discussion in the months ahead, largely because everyone will have a slightly different view on what you do. My own view on it, for what it is worth, in response to the issue you have raised, is that if it is a very big disaster, Parliament will want to have, I think, some say, at some point, in what will be the exceptions to any law that might be necessary to recover from that disaster, and that may be different according to different disasters. So although I do not discount the fact that we probably will get a bill that provides a blueprint, I think you can never totally discount the fact that there might be a need for Parliament to come together at those times and to set aside some things that would be usually done in order to make greater progress for a wider number of people.

You cannot anticipate that, and nor should we, but the structures of response, I think, we can get a lot stronger, and I am sure the goodwill that this Parliament has, given the experiences that so many of us have had in local areas with floods and other big weather events, and then coming to understand, as many of us do now, the fact that in New Zealand you essentially live with your risk, is going to mean that we will be much more interested in getting a bill that we can all subscribe to, and giving that support to those people in the field who are required to deliver on it.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on this legislation, which, as my colleagues have indicated and given very good reasons for, Labour is supporting. I would like to acknowledge what the Minister in the chair has said—that he is a member of this Parliament that has gone through a lot in regard to a disaster and the immediate recovery phase of that, as have Canterbury MPs from across this House. I would like to acknowledge them all.

In my contribution I want to deal with the powers in new Part 5B of this legislation. This legislation deals with how it is we transition from the emergency phase to the business-as-usual phase. I—like many New Zealanders, I think—before September 2010 understood civil defence very much in terms of that emergency phase. It was the yellow pages at the back of the telephone book that told us all what to do in a disaster. That was very much my understanding of civil defence.

But I will never forget, in September 2010, being down at the Addington Raceway with the then member of Parliament for Wigram, Jim Anderton, trying to do some of the things that the Minister in the chair has just mentioned. And trying to sort out some of the things that were needed that we had not anticipated in a disaster lasting this long: such as where were people going to do washing over a protracted period of time such as this; or how were we going to cater for the ethnic diversity of people who needed to be housed, and for the different kinds of sleeping arrangements that needed to be held at the Addington Raceway. Then, in February 2011, I will never forget being down at the Addington Raceway as people flooded in, thinking that this was, once again, going to be their safe haven in an emergency—that this was the place that they could go to. But, of course, that facility was so badly damaged in that quake that it was not able to be used. The logistics of trying to shepherd people to somewhere safe was something that was quite harrowing to watch, and I would like to acknowledge the many volunteers within civil defence who give so tirelessly of their energy and of their expertise and of their skills to do that.

I think that is the phase that we can understand, but what I have come to understand more over the last 6 years is how it is that we transition. As the Minister said, there are certain powers that do need to be put in place so that we can deal with an emergency: how it is that we clear roads, how it is that we put in place—as we had to in places such as in the Hon Ruth Dyson’s electorate—barriers to stop rock falls coming down, and how we do that at the kind of speed at which we need to do it with, to keep people safe.

But how, then, do we transition back to business as usual? That is the bit where new Part 5B in clause 28 of this legislation—that transitional period—becomes so critical. I would like to acknowledge here the work of the Government Administration Committee, chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson, the work that all members of that committee have done, and Supplementary Order Paper 237 that Clare Curran has put forward here. This is because what is absolutely vital in this transitional phase is to make sure that we strike the right balance between trying to do things in an expedited fashion to keep things moving along, but making sure that locals have a real say in their recovery—that they are absolutely part of this transitional phase—and that they feel that they are part of it and they, once again, have some control over their lives. As people come out of an emergency phase, the adrenalin starts to wear off. That emergency phase starts to dissipate and things seem to be returning to normal, and people very much want to be part of their destiny.

The other thing that I think we have learnt is that this is not a linear process. Emergency recovery and transition overlap, and that for different people in different communities at different stages, we need to have the flexibility to do that. One of the things that I would like to talk to was the suggestion, from the Canterbury District Health Board, that was put up under this new Part 5B, which was that greater power would be given to the medical officer of health and there would be the ability to do that. I think we were very lucky in Christchurch not to have had a public health outbreak. We did not suffer from the communicable diseases problem that people anticipated was going to happen because of the kinds of situations people in Canterbury were living in, in the emergency phase and beyond the emergency phase, and I would like to see that as something that this House kept an open mind to. That is a critical thing that we do need to consider when we are considering those things, so I would like to see that. But I think that this is legislation we are happy to support. I do acknowledge the comments that have been made about how this is legislation that is set up to deal with the small and medium sized disasters and that we will be coming back to revisit larger disasters. But Labour is happy to support this piece of legislation.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I too want to acknowledge the work of the Government Administration Committee, and Supplementary Order Paper 237put up by my colleague Clare Curran. I acknowledge that that has wide support, and I am happy to support that.

I am going to confine my discussions to clause 4, and a little bit of clause 5. In particular, I want to look at clause 4(7), which looks at “recovery activity”. I just want to quote from the bill, where recovery activity is defined as “the assessment of ongoing monitoring of the needs by the community affected by the emergency;” it is “the co-ordination and integration of planning, decisions, actions, and resources”; it is about measures to support “the regeneration, restoration, and enhancement of communities; … the cultural and physical well-being of individuals and their communities; … government and non-government organisations and entities working together; … [new measures] to reduce risks from hazards; and … to build resilience”.

In this regard, I want to actually quote the activity that took place in the community of Aranui as an example of how a community deals with a situation, and how it actually works to build that resilience into a community for later disasters. What happened in Aranui in the February earthquakes was—it was a community that was largely cut off from the rest of the city. There was poor communication in and out of Aranui, of course the roads were fairly damaged, and for a few weeks the community there had limited access to water, and no access to functioning toilets. As a community—it is one of our lower socio-economic communities—what they did was they decided to doorknock every single house in that community and talk to the people there, find out who was living there, who had mobility issues, who had health concerns, and where there were children; so every house was mapped in that community. What they did was they ensured that those who needed to be prioritised were prioritised. As communication was fairly limited, they ensured that the resources went to those who needed them first.

There were organisations—and I happened to work for one of them—who, at that time, opened their doors to ensure that there was a hot meal prepared for people at lunch time, that they could have access to showers, and that they could do their washing. They were simple things that actually meant that a community could continue to function, even in a limited capacity, through those times when it was difficult to get even the basic services through.

What that did for that particular community of Aranui was it actually set within them the opportunity to ensure that their community was not going to be affected in the same way again. Every year, they continue to do that door-to-door mapping of the community: they find out who has the health concerns, who is elderly, and what kind of support they might need. They have actually, through their own fund-raising, put together a container that has generators, supplies, and blankets—it has enough supplies to keep that community going for a few weeks, should it be cut off again. That is at the heart of what this clause 4 talks about—building resilience. That community has done it on its own. It should be something that, as communities across the country, we actually use as a model. These people realised that in order to get through a significant event, you have to take measures yourself, so they have done it themselves. I want to commend them for doing that.

Like my colleague Dr Megan Woods and the submission from the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB), I also want to question why, within the definitions of those key roles, we have not included the health response and recovery manager. As my colleague said, this is a significant role within the civil defence roles and responsibilities. It is something that I think the Minister could perhaps answer—why that was not considered. It is a very good submission by the CDHB, and it certainly is a vital role that should have a place within the civil defence and emergency management profile. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to be able to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party in the Committee stage of this bill. I too want to add my voice to others in this debate in support and in particular acknowledge the members of the Government Administration Committee and the members of the House, and particularly the chair of the committee, Ruth Dyson, and possibly Minister Brownlee, who have both had more recent experience of a civil defence emergency.

I have got to say that, on the committee, the chair’s experience was incredibly informative, and that she knew what questions to ask and she knew what areas of tensions have arisen in the past between local activity and the more formalised systems. Going into looking at this bill, that was a particular area of concern for us. The previous speaker, Poto Williams, talked about the recovery activities in Aranui. We heard some amazing stories in Lyttelton as well. More recently, and on a small-scale event, during some of the recent flooding up in Kāpiti, I know how the community there came together to be able to support people who were affected by the flood, who maybe were suffering financially as a result of the impacts of the flood, and people would take turns to go with somebody to Work and Income to manage the formalised systems. It was actually the relationships and community that were essential to people’s sense of well-being in that recovery process.

It is really critical that we get legislation that facilitates and aids that local connectedness and that local response, but just monitors and fills in the gaps, and provides the more formal systems if a community is unable to provide them itself. I do feel that this kind of legislation should probably always continue to be evaluated after events to make sure that we have got it right. You can never, I do not think, stand up and say “Yes, we’ve got it 100 percent right.” before you have had it in practice. But I am feeling that we made really good progress in the committee, and there were a lot of changes made through that process of questioning and testing it through discussion against the experience of some of the members and the submissions.

I am really pleased that the Labour member Clare Curran is adding Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 237 to reinsert the strategic recovery plans into the legislation, and that the Government, indeed, is supporting that. The rationale from the Government members on the committee, as well as, I think, some of the advice, was that we did not need it because within the legislation there is a function of planning that is built into the legislation for civil defence and emergency groups and recovery managers, so there was no need to put a plan into the legislation as well, and it might create confusion. When submitters had raised concerns about the lack of clarity and specificity, and the thought was like: “Oh, well, we’ll take it out so we don’t get confusion.” But I think it is much better to put it in and to get the support of the Government with the guidance to provide the specificity.

We have heard stories from different places around the country of very different levels of knowledge and experience around planning. So to actually put in the legislation—and to put the guidance behind with it—the codes, technical standards, and guidance for timing and longevity, as examples, I think will help the local, on-the-ground organisers work through those steps of recovery that we want them to work through. The Green Party will be very happy to support that SOP.

I would also, just really briefly, like to touch on the initial concern—which was raised earlier by the Hon Ruth Dyson—that we had around the permanent legislative authority. I spoke for the Greens as we interrogated that and the officials gave us some very clear advice, and I have absolute confidence in the validity of that as a tool for giving councils surety of funding.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Just taking another call in the Committee stage of this bill, first of all I would like to thank Minister Brownlee for his words and for the signals he has given for the next piece of work that needs to be done. On this side of the Chamber we would express eagerness for those discussions to start being held and for there to be as much community involvement as possible in those.

I am certainly aware of some pieces of work being done around the country into various scenarios. One of those is a piece of work being done into a major alpine event, down in the southern part of the Southern Alps, and the impact of that. It is something that we have to bear in mind. Another issue, of course, is the impact on New Zealand of a tsunami following a major earthquake event somewhere else. I do want to put on record here in the Chamber tonight that we have got some real concerns about the ability of New Zealand’s coastal communities to be able to respond to such an event. I think we had an instance of this at the beginning of September, when there was a definite delay in the time period before there was an alert provided to the community, and the manner in which that alert was provided was called into question.

In 2016 it is time that we grappled with the fact that we need a national alerting system and that there are means to do that. This Government seems to have been going around in circles on that. Perhaps it could be the subject of another debate. There has been a considerable amount of money spent on looking into various models, but we still do not seem to be any further ahead. I am just alerting to the Committee that that is something we really should not be sitting on our hands about.

I would also like to make some comments about the absolute importance of this legislation, with direct reference to a medium sized event—it could have been described as a small to medium sized event—in Dunedin last year, with the 2015 floods in South Dunedin. Certainly for the people who were affected it was a major event, and the response from Civil Defence to that was dire. In fact, it was better described as a non-response. That night, Civil Defence personnel were not even aware that there was an issue in South Dunedin and actually had gone home to bed. They were not even looking at South Dunedin.

To this day we still do not know just how many homes and businesses were affected by sewage-laden water during that night. Elderly people with dementia in rest homes had to be moved into the middle of the rest home, or moved out of the rest home, in a rather chaotic manner. Two elderly people who had water up around their thighs got back into bed because they did not know what else to do. Two families with small children were left feeling quite desperate and had to move out of their homes for months, and battle with insurance companies on their own.

I guess the point I want to make tonight is that—it is a plea, really—through what this legislation is part of, through a legislative review, we should address the civil defence organisations around the country that really just are not up to scratch and are operating as fiefdoms, with Dad’s Army types of organisations behind them. I know that that is changing, but there are still remnants of those. In my part of the country there have been some changes made, but it has taken nearly a year and a half for that to happen. I look forward to ensuring that that is not replicated anywhere else in the country, and that anyone else does not have to go through that kind of situation.

Just finally, I want to make a few comments about the permanent legislative authority. I will echo the comments from the Green member—that it is a sensible mechanism—and also from Ruth Dyson. We did think when we had the first reading of this bill that we were going to have a bit of an argument about that, in that this all looked a bit unusual. I think we all learnt something in the select committee about a measure and a mechanism that is actually being used for other things and is quite sensible. It is used as a way of funding New Zealand’s contributions to international forums, such as the IMF and the OECD—payments of tax credits, and search and rescue costs. Those are just a few of the different kinds of examples.

We certainly did receive sound advice from a Treasury analyst, who, helpfully, appeared before the select committee and reassured us that the permanent legislative authority was a flexible mechanism for reimbursement of expenses during an emergency and for providing ongoing authority for such expenditure. So we were comfortable. There has not been any debate on that throughout this discussion on this bill. There were not any real concerns about that. I think that, ultimately, we do have a reasonable piece of legislation. It is a pretty good piece of legislation that has been helped by good cooperative relations across the select committee and good advice from officials.

I thank the Government for its support for the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table tonight. I look forward to the next discussion that happens around the bigger picture and how we deal with major events in New Zealand. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 237 in the name of Clare Curran to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 237 in the name of Clare Curran to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I seek leave for all provisions of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate, with separate votes on each at the end.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): As I outlined in the last part of the process a couple of weeks ago, Labour will support the bill. We will not labour the process tonight; there will be a number of calls from colleagues. This is a piece of legislation that we should get through, but I want to pose a number of questions to the Minister—and I am sure he can anticipate some of those questions. This is a bill that, in large part, proposed originally an amalgamation of the single patent application process and single patent examination process systems, in large part, I suppose, as we on the select committee saw it, to benefit the acquisition and processing of patents in a global sense, trans-Tasman. The Government in its infinite wisdom chose to reverse that process for a number of reasons.

I have to say of the original Government proposal, Opposition members supported it—in line with amalgamations around banking, accountancy, and other industries that have had their processes amalgamated in the past. We felt that this was a good idea from the Government. Our focus was about ensuring that those who are involved in innovation, who are involved in intellectual property, and who seek patents, which are (1) expensive, and (2) difficult to obtain, especially for the smaller end of town—if this could ease that transition and provide a cheaper process, provide lower compliance costs etc., then we felt it was a good idea. We were surprised, I have got to say, when the position was reversed.

The position that was advanced by officials was that after some analysis—if I can put it that way, such that it was—this proposal was of no greater benefit to the industry. It is interesting to define what they meant by “industry”, because our view was that they were talking about the patent attorneys as opposed to the innovators. We had a couple of submissions from the likes of Fisher & Paykel—huge contributors to intellectual property not only in New Zealand but around the world—but we as members, I think, across the divide were interested in the benefits, or lack thereof, for the smaller innovator. So officials told us, basically, that the scales had fallen from their eyes and this was no longer a viable proposal because it had not a lot of net benefit to the industry.

On probing those officials over many days, we asked, for instance: “I wonder whether the Minister might be able to respond—what costings, cost savings or cost-benefit analyses have been done around these proposals?”. I remember writing that down, and my colleagues, I am sure, on both sides of the aisle will recall this—the officials saying “Well, back of the envelope”, and “Our best guess is”. Those are direct quotes—and then they would rattle off some figures. I recall saying to officials: “Well, I actually have—and I do put on record—some sympathy for the Minister, because if that was the depth of the analysis that was served up to him, is it any wonder that there was some delay and some conjecture about which way we should go on this?”. At one point in the select committee—and I am very thankful for it, as it was rather unusual—in a private session, the Minister’s senior adviser was good enough to come down and sit in on the meeting so that we had a direct pipeline to the Minister. So that the Minister would understand the angst that not only Opposition members were feeling but also, I would wager, Government members about—to be blunt—the lack of quality advice that we were receiving before the committee.

This is not a political bill. We agree, and we will support the bill, and we would have supported the original premise that was put to us. But it is a little ironic when a Government simply takes the major provision out and reverses it; there has to be a substantive reason why. So, Minister , what I would ask of you, through you, Mr Chair, is whether you could give us some reassurance that this reversal is for the benefit of the innovators; that it is the case, as officials told us, that the net benefit to innovators of the trans-Tasman amalgamation was so minuscule that it was not worth doing. That begs the question as to why this proposal was ever served up to a Minister and a Cabinet. Could you give us some assurances around that, because I am loath to criticise officials—I do it very rarely. I think we have world-class public servants, but I have to say—and I do not know whether Government members will admit this publicly—that there was a loss of cross-party unanimity in trying to get this bill back to the House so that it would work.

There is actually no politics in patents, for goodness’ sake. We actually want the bill to work. But what we were met with was, at best, substandard advice—where officials had not gone away and done a proper cost-benefit analysis, and where a select committee was confronted with an analysis that was “back of the envelope” or “best guess”. Then we diligently undertook—and the chair of the committee, I have to say, was extremely good in letting us—a free-flow interrogation, if you will, of these ideas so that we could tease out the policy propositions. But when you are left with that sort of advice—and the other advice was, basically, “just trust us because we are the experts”.

The thing that we found difficult also, Minister, was that the “industry” had actually not been consulted with—because my colleague Clare Curran and others went and subsequently, with the agreement of the committee, consulted with the innovators. Clare Curran will identify some of those in her contribution. When they actually consulted with them, they had never been interacted with before. Our objective was simply to get a piece of legislation that would facilitate the protection of intellectual property for the innovative community, especially those at the smaller end of town, to protect those fabulous and good ideas that our entrepreneurs have in this country.

It is extremely expensive and extremely difficult to get patent protection. I have got to put on record that the committee was less interested in the notion of patent attorneys changing—it was sort of put to us that life as we know it would end: the patent attorneys would go out of business, they would leave town, and they were incapable, almost, of adjusting to a market that may change through legislation and regulation, and this somehow was a doomsday scenario. Well, I have got to say that I was less interested in that and more interested in what the benefits or otherwise could be for those entrepreneurs and those innovators—not for those patent attorneys whose incomes are derived by charging fees.

I would simply put, through you, Mr Chair, to the Minister: could he give us some background and some assurance that this proposal is the valid one, given that it is a Government reversal, and that there is some net benefit for that smaller end of town innovator? Because at the moment even though the Labour Party is supporting legislation, we do so with a degree of reticence given the poor quality advice that we received during the select committee process. As I say, I feel some depth of sympathy for the Minister. If what was served up to us was served up to him, then I suspect he had some difficulty in coming to a decision as to which was the best course of action to take in respect of this bill. We want to expedite this tonight but I would appreciate it, through you, if the Minister could give us some assurance on those points.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I will take a slightly different point of view from that of my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, although it was a very harmonious committee that considered this bill. The one point that I would question a little is his praise for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and the advice that he was given. I honestly believe that Ministers themselves have a responsibility for the legislation they put forward to this House.

We are here this evening debating legislation that has been proven to be inadequate and not sufficient for the purpose it was originally created for. Here we are passing through the Committee a bill that does very little indeed. The changes that are going through in this bill could easily have been rolled into an omnibus bill, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, I suspect, of taxpayers’ money could have been avoided being spent on paying all of us and all of our staff to be here in the evening debating a bill that virtually does absolutely little of any value.

We are happy that it does little, in fact; for the one reason that it was likely to do harm. That is where we got to. That is where the back of the envelope - type calculations that my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove got to—that it may well indeed do harm. But ultimately we do not know. We do not know because the analysis was not done in a way that could give us the confidence to know whether this was a good thing we were doing or a bad thing.

The small changes and tweaks that are going through in the bill we do support, so we do end up, on balance, supporting it. I would be interested in the Minister in the chair giving us a little bit of a history of how he came to put this legislation forward, because the story I heard, and what came out in the select committee, was that this was ultimately the result of a promise that John Key had made when he was out kayaking—I cannot remember whether it was with Kevin Rudd or somebody else—that they would try to unify the arrangements in New Zealand and Australia, which on the surface seems like a sensible thing to do. I would like the Minister to give us the reasoning behind it, and the reasoning he has now reached as to why we should be doing exactly the opposite. If he could slip on his flip-flops and get up and explain to us how he came from one position to the extreme opposite—maybe with a slight Australian twang for some amusement along the way—that would probably be doing a public service. At least we would be entertaining the public, but we might also learn what he hopes the bill will now achieve.

I think it is important to understand why we are here, why we are passing this legislation, and why this could not have been done through an omnibus bill—whether, in fact, there is another process that has been considered for the bill from here on through the House. That may be something we would have to take technical advice on, but it would save the House some time. We could get on with what would be, hopefully, more important legislation in the wider interests of the country. The one thing I will say is that this bill is emblematic of the Government’s wider efforts. It is a Government that has said it wants to get exports up to 40 percent of GDP, and that requires us diversifying our—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise for interrupting the member, but I have let him go now for about 3 minutes and I want to remind him that we are on the Committee stage of the bill. The bill has been accepted in its current form and principle, and all we are trying to do is make sure that the detail is actually consistent with the principles accepted at the second reading. His speech was probably marginal for a second reading one, but it is certainly not good for the Committee.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am still on my feet, Mr Cosgrove. What I am going to ask the member to do now is to stick to the detail of the bill.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not wish to challenge your—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You had better not be.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I know you too well to do that, in a lot of ways. But one thing I would say about the member’s speech is that it is a very unusual situation that we face in the Committee in that a proposition was put forward by the Government and then reversed. There was an extreme amount of conjecture around that, some extremely flimsy analysis around it, and part of, as you say, checking the accuracy or the detail in the Committee stage—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK; thank you. I have heard enough.

Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Chair. Let me read from new Part 6, inserted by clause 6: “The purpose of this Part is to regulate the provision of patent attorney services by giving effect to the joint registration regime in accordance with the Arrangement.” That is precisely the issue. Does this bill really give effect to a joint registration regime in the way that it was intended when the bill was lodged with the House? I do not think it does anymore. That is what I am arguing. I think the bill has changed in such a fashion that I am questioning whether it really achieves the original purpose put forward by the Minister, and I would appreciate his response on that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you very much for the interventions by the previous two members, David Clark and Clayton Cosgrove. I should not have to explain to the previous speaker, David Clark, why he is here. I do not know why he is here myself. But the purpose of this bill is a very clear one, and that is to introduce a modern licensing regime for the patent attorneys. There seems to have been a great deal of confusion on the other side where it has conflated two different elements of the bill.

The fundamental part of the bill is to introduce a trans-Tasman licensing regime for patent attorneys because the one that we have been operating under for a number of decades does not have some basic elements, such as a code of conduct, any disciplinary regime, and all the sorts of things that we would normally expect to be part of a licensing regime.

As has been mentioned, the idea in the trans-Tasman setting with the agreement between the two Prime Ministers was to introduce that trans-Tasman regime as part of the broader single economic market that we have been making good progress towards. The idea of that is to have a quality patent attorneys industry across the Tasman so that New Zealand businesses can protect their intellectual property more effectively.

The two elements that they—my friends across the other side of the Chamber—keep on referring to relate to the single patent application and the single examination processes. These were two processes. When this was introduced—

Dr David Clark: This is the main substance of the bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No. It is not the main substance; it was one of the substances. The primary substance of the bill was introducing a patent registration regime. If I could relate the history for the benefit of the members, when the bill was introduced to the House in November 2015, it included the proposition that it was a bespoke trans-Tasman single patent application and examination process.

Running parallel to that had been a long, ongoing conversation at the World Intellectual Property Organisation, the WIPO level, to develop an international examination process called the Electronic Patent Cooperation Treaty (ePCT) system. There was a great deal of uncertainty as to whether or not that would actually occur. So when we introduced the bill we included the trans-Tasman operation as a good way of operating, but we were also conscious of the fact that it was possible that an international regime could come along and supersede it. That, indeed, is what has happened subsequent to the bill’s introduction. In June this year—to the surprise of many, actually—the WIPO ePCT system had been concluded and had general agreement around that. So the rational thing to do, given that development, was to say that it no longer makes sense to try to develop a bespoke trans-Tasman single examination process when we can achieve the same thing at an international level.

We got very strong feedback through the process, and that is why that part of the bill has been withdrawn. We are left with a bill that does a very effective job, I believe, in drawing together a trans-Tasman patent regime for the registration of patent attorneys. I do welcome the broad support that this bill has across the Committee. I do welcome the contribution from the member Mr Cosgrove to say that there is no politics in patents, and I think we should keep it that way. Thank you very much.

BARRY COATES (Green): I rise to address the bill, and I am very aware that Part 1 of the bill has undertaken substantial change. I think we would not entirely agree with the rather optimistic view expressed by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.

Certainly, from our perspective, the starting point for this bill was a political announcement between Prime Ministers Key and Rudd in August 2009, and that political announcement, we think, was not well thought through in terms of the practicalities. It was followed in November 2011 by Cabinet’s so-called regulatory framework, and we think that provided, again, an inadequate starting point for the development of the bill.

Combined with a poor process and a lack of consultation, the bill that was presented to the Commerce Committee needed considerable work, and I think it is to the credit of the committee that there has been a new proposal that has now been brought back to the House with a withdrawn single patent application and withdrawn single patent examination process. We do support the fact that those elements have been dropped from the bill.

We also note that there is retrospective legislation here. Retrospective legislation should be very much a last resort and should not, by any means, be a regular occurrence. We are aware that there were failings in the past in not considering the implications of the 2013 legislation carefully enough.

With regard to Part 2 and the proposal for the trans-Tasman licensing regime for patent attorneys, we do agree with the need to modernise and update the original framework agreed under the Patents Act 1953—it is no longer fit for purpose—but we notice that the proposal in the bill was opposed by all 13 submissions from patent attorneys, as well as a submission from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare. We think that joined-up thinking and a more complete examination of this issue would have put key elements in place before this legislation—for example, the New Zealand trademark attorney scheme, a New Zealand qualification scheme for attorneys, and an extended period for New Zealand attorneys to register in Australia.

We think that, to some extent, the legislation has been put in place without those elements there that should, in fact, be there for the system to work to the advantage of New Zealand patent attorneys. We would urge the Government to put those pieces in place as quickly as possible. That will help defray some of the additional costs that are of obvious concern—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to refer—the member sits down when I stand up—members to Speakers’ ruling 52/2, dating back to 1931, which makes it clear that “Members must confine their remarks to the bill before the House and cannot make irrelevant matters relevant by suggesting they [should] be included in the bill.”

So what we are debating now is the bill we have got, not other matters. The member has been going for 4 minutes and, I think, at least half his speech could have been regarded as being irrelevant. So that is a reminder.

BARRY COATES: Thank you for your advice, Mr Chair. I will take your advice. With regard to the bill, we remain concerned about the governance arrangements—for example, New Zealand patent attorneys have to travel to Australia for disciplinary proceedings, and we consider that the New Zealand subcommittee to the governance committee would ensure that New Zealand issues are not lost in an Australian-dominated governance committee.

However, despite some of these criticisms and our concern over parts of the bill, there are significant improvements that have been made during the committee stage. For that reason, we do support the bill as amended, and we commend this for agreement. Thank you.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and, in particular, on behalf of Ria Bond, who is a member of the Commerce Committee, and who has been part of the process thus far. The feedback has been a process of asking the question: why are we actually here? It seems to echo some of the earlier contributions of members on this side of the Chamber.

Hon Member: It’s an existential question.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: It is an existential question for Mr Goldsmith. The reality is the legislation itself—I think, the Minister will acknowledge—came to the House in the first reading and then to the select committee in a flawed manner. It did not serve the purpose for which he intended. The committee had a great deal to say about that and a great deal to explore around why that was the case. The feedback from the New Zealand First member was that the to-ing and fro-ing with MPs and officials was such that the select committee process probably failed the purpose for which it was intended, and that is the question I raise in the House tonight. Listening to other contributions tonight, you are not achieving what you set out to achieve. If there are any gains, they are minimal.

Reading submissions in preparation for my contribution this evening seems to suggest—and I am loath to read them out because this is not in the bill, but it is what should be in the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, do not read those out.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: So I am well advised not to read those submissions out. Thank you, Mr Chair.

What I will acknowledge is that new Part 1, new section 92(4)—which seeks to remove the right to operate a grant of patent on the grounds of a claim or claims related to one or more inventions—seems to have been supported by the committee and submitters. But, essentially, from then on—around the single patents application process, the single patent examination process, then Part 2, clause 6, where all 13 submissions opposed the implementation of the joint regime—we have come to a point where I suggest, respectfully, to the Minister, that he and his officials need to take this back for due and thoughtful consideration, because, I submit, it is not achieving what he set out to do.

It is a short contribution, but it is a sincere one. I hope the Minister takes what we have to say into consideration. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): We, the Opposition on the Commerce Committee, actually did the Government a huge favour with this piece of legislation. Minister Goldsmith should actually be getting up and thanking us, because what could have come back to the House was the bill in its original form. If it had come back to the House in its original form, then that Minister would have had to introduce, embarrassingly, a major Supplementary Order Paper to remove the substance of the bill because it was shown to be so woeful.

In our minority report on this bill, we described the whole process as unedifying and sloppy, and that is being kind. As my colleague David Clark has pointed out, what we were given was a piece of legislation that was somebody’s bright idea, which had not been tested, and, in fact, was acknowledged during the select committee process as being—and this is the single patent examination process (SEP) and the single patent application process (SAP) for patent registration—a pilot.

As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has pointed out, there was no cost-benefit analysis, and, in fact, nobody wanted it. The reason nobody wanted it was that it was going to cost the industry more. When I went and talked to the innovators—because they are actually the ones wanting to register patents—about the impact of this, none of them had been consulted. Secondly, all they wanted to know was whether this was going to take more time and whether it was going to cost more. The answer, essentially, was yes.

The problem was that this Minister had not done his work. He had not done the due diligence before this bill came to the House for its first reading. There had been no testing of the principles behind it. I do not even know whether he had read it. That become patently obvious—see what I did there—as we went through the select committee process, because the officials had to go back to the Minister not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not even five times but six times during the select committee process—six times. Do you know how we know that? Because we had to drag it out of them as to what was going on and how on earth we had got ourselves into this situation. We had to write to the Australians. We had to find out what process had been gone through.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Don’t forget the confidential documents.

CLARE CURRAN: Oh, yes. There were confidential documents, but we cannot talk about them. Mr Chair, this is so relevant because this is why the SAP and the SEP—which are major substances of this piece of legislation that none of the submitters wanted and that the industry affected had not even been consulted on—was not effective. We discovered that there already was an international process being developed that superseded this and, really, it was not going to work at all, and that is why it had to be dumped.

So we did the Government a favour by doing the responsible thing, behaving like a select committee should, working together, and actually saying that this really should go. That Minister really should get up and thank us, and next time he puts a piece of legislation to the House for a first reading, could he please read it and could he test with officials whether or not it has got sound principles so that we do not waste everybody’s time, and probably a lot of money, and end up with what really is a pretty minimal and pretty embarrassing piece of law.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I just want to revisit some of the questions I asked the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs because, with respect, they were not answered. Fundamentally, what Labour members and other colleagues who have taken calls want to know—because we could not get it out of officials—is whether this bill will work given the reversal of the primary Government proposition. For instance, if we look at page 2 of the commentary it talks about, given the reversal, the “Lack of benefits either to businesses or to patent attorney firms making applications on their behalf:”. It talks about “Increased administrative costs to New Zealand businesses:”. It talks about on the following bullet point “Significant costs”.

Then we go to consultation and quantifications of cost. “We consider that there was a lack of”—this was the Commerce Committee’s report, Minister—“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.”

My simple question is, as we posed in the Labour minority view, given that there was no cost-benefit analysis done or demonstrated, unless one accepts that the notion of “back of envelope” and “best guess”—I am trying to think of the figure that was given to us but, forgive me, I cannot remember—is appropriate cost-benefit analysis, and I am just going to take a short call, is can the Minister give the industry, and by that I mean the innovators, not the patent attorneys, the innovators; not those who charge fees, but the innovators who need intellectual property protection, an assurance that this reversal will work to their benefit? If the answer to that question is yes, could he demonstrate that by quantifying a cost-benefit analysis, which I assume his officials will now have done, now it is some weeks that it has been from the select committee process?

Could he quantify that, and could he tell us what the benefit of this reversal will be? Because, as other colleagues have said, we are supporting it. We supported the original proposition, it was reversed, and we are supporting this proposition because we want to see this legislation work for the benefit of the innovators. But we remain—and we have made this clear in our minority view—none the wiser, with respect, and it is a rather unusual legislative position to be in where legislators will go through a process, support legislation, but still have a major question mark as to whether the rationale that they were presented with was so flimsy, such that it was, that it will actually give effect to the intent of the legislation.

So we simply seek assurances around its effectiveness. And if the answer is yes, it will be effective for that innovative industry, those entrepreneurs, then can that be demonstrated? Can some evidence be provided in respect of quantification of costs and benefits? I think that is a reasonable, non-political request to make, and I am sure all the constituencies in the sector will be grateful for those assurances by the Minister.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into five bills, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill with amendment, and the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): I move, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I want to begin this third reading debate by acknowledging again the work of the Primary Production Committee on this technical but important bill. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill will extend, expand, and clarify data protection in the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

Data protection is how Government agencies use and safeguard the data that is supplied to them as part of applications to register agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. Data protection rules prevent agencies from using the data provided by a previous applicant to assess subsequent applications to register similar products for the duration of a protected period. This is achieved, however, without stopping third parties from generating their own data and registering a competing product.

In bringing this bill to the House my objective is to support primary industries’ productivity and international competitiveness by encouraging the registration in New Zealand of new agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines (ACVM) products and new uses for existing products. However, I want to ensure that this is done in such a way that we do not inhibit competition in our ACVM product markets.

The revised bill before you is very different from the version introduced. The Primary Production Committee recommended a number of changes to the bill in response to submissions by users and suppliers of agricultural compounds. As I said in the second reading speech, the revised bill is a balanced approach. It is balancing the issues raised by submitters, and I thank the members of the committee for their diligence. The changes definitely improve the bill. The bill will make a number of revisions to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, and for innovative products, including new uses, the bill is going to extend the data protection to 10 years and simplify how the data protection is actually applied. For non-innovative products, including reformulations and new uses, the bill is introducing data protection of 5 years. For data supplied as part of reassessments the bill introduces 5 years’ data protection.

The bill also clarifies and expands what qualifies as a new use. Under the bill, applications would qualify for data protection if they result in a product being used on an additional species of plant or animal, or a new pest or disease, or if they allow different application rates, methods, or withholding periods. Although those changes seem pretty technical in nature they are very important to our primary industries. Data protection provides time for suppliers of agricultural compounds to recoup the cost of developing the data to support the registration application.

In terms of the benefits, the bill creates the right incentives for suppliers of agricultural compounds to invest in developing the data. This data is required by the regulators, as well as the data needed to support any reassessments. I am confident that suppliers will respond positively and that we will see more of the innovative products being brought to our market. We will also see good products stay on the market after reassessments, and products that will be registered for a wider range or broader array of uses to help our smaller sectors.

The benefits of this for users of agricultural compounds are going to be higher investment in research and development, and increased primary industry productivity and international competitiveness. This is particularly important for the smaller sectors. There will also be better pest and disease management, and lower pesticide and antimicrobial resistance. There will be reduced risk to the environment, food safety, trade, animal welfare, and workers as we aim to phase out unsuitable products. Finally, there will be stronger supply side competition as substitute products are introduced to the market over time to compete with the registered products.

I would like to thank the Primary Production Committee again, and also the submitters who took time to submit on the bill. I think this is an improved piece of legislation that will deliver benefits to our primary industries and, in doing so, to New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I was talking briefly to a constituent tonight, just before I came down, and he said: “Go down and give the Government heaps.” It is going to be difficult, because we do agree with the Government on this piece of legislation, and it nice to see Minister Goodhew acknowledge the good work that the Primary Production Committee did to improve a bill.

I have said before in speeches in the House that this is a bill to protect New Zealand farmers and primary industry producers from ourselves. It is about innovation, and we are very, very good at that. So what has happened over the years is that we have had agricultural chemicals and compounds, they have been designed and developed for a certain purpose, and then, in the good old Kiwi way, farmers have taken that product and said “Well, that might be good somewhere else.”, and they have applied it. But, in the new world of traceability and of maximum residue levels and accountability and registration, that is simply not good enough.

The Minister has said that this bill is designed to do a couple of things—not to inhibit competition. The Government still believes that competition delivers nirvana to everything and everyone. It does wake up occasionally to the fact that, actually—through some good regulation and good law—when we have controlled competition and robust commercial activity, we often get a far better outcome.

The bill is a balanced piece of legislation that does allow for the protection of data—of course, people may be confused: it is basically information that is gathered to show that a chemical works and is not harmful when it is applied to a particular crop or use and is not harmful to the crop or the animal and does not hang around to be harmful to anyone in the food that might be consumed from that. So companies put a lot of money into that science and into the information that then gets provided to Agcarm for registration of the product to say what it is used for, what the rates that should be applied are, and that, if done correctly, it will offer no harm to the environment or to the animal or to the crop or to the consumers of the products.

We, as a country, must uphold those core principles absolutely. There should be no doubt that any food produced in this country is indeed the safest, best, and purest food that people can consume around the world. The premium that we should be getting for that should enable farmers to maintain their viability into the future.

This piece of legislation is timely. I have got here a report done by Covec—you know, another one of the consultancy agencies that the Government is often happy to throw money at. It was done in February 2009, and, in fact, it has taken a long, long time now—2016; it is almost the end of it—for the Government to get off its butt and get around to actually implementing the recommendations here.

A lot of people in the chemical industry and the industry supplying goods for the agricultural sector have probably been frustrated. They will be pleased to see the third reading of this bill go through the House, and I am certainly not going to delay that any longer than necessary. Mr Assistant Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that.

Can I just say that we support the Government bringing the bill to the House, finally. The select committee has done the best job we possibly can. It is a balanced bill between protecting the information supplied by companies, but leaving the door open for innovation and for the development of new products. So I think this will be a good bill for agribusiness moving forward, and I hope that it is implemented, used wisely, and does, indeed, protect New Zealand’s reputation as the producer of the finest food and fibre for the most discerning customers in the wider world. Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. As has already been said tonight, it is a bill that has been a little while in the making, but it is a very important bill for New Zealand agriculture because it gives us the opportunity, I guess, to become more innovative than we have been and to get access to some modern and innovative products that have not been available on the New Zealand market to date. It also gives companies the opportunity to protect those products for a little longer, and that is the reason they will be available in the market place. As well as that, it also gives us the opportunity to use products for different uses than we have to date. This legislation enables companies to protect that data for a little longer as they change the use of those products from one use to another.

So it is a pretty important bill for agriculture in New Zealand, and it gives us a really good opportunity, I think, to rid the country of a large number of chemicals that are well out of date. The reason it gives us the opportunity to rid the country of those chemicals is that there are much better, newer, and more innovative animal remedies and what we would know, I suppose, as chemicals, primarily around weed control and things like that—there are all sorts of pest controls—on the market in other parts of the world than there are in New Zealand, and this bill will enable those to come to New Zealand. So I think it is quite exciting for New Zealand. It gives us the opportunity, as I said, to become more innovative, and it will clean up a lot of the old chemicals around.

For quite some years now companies have been stating that the amount of protection they get on bringing a new chemical into the country is not adequate to enable them to go through the cost structure. So the cost structure is too high for the short-term time frame they can protect that data, and, consequently, because our market is so small, it is not really economic for them to bring that product to New Zealand to make it available to our farmers.

The Primary Production Committee had some interesting debates on this and, as often happens on our select committee, we ventured into discussion on all sorts of other things, from food safety, to food labelling, to country of origin, to Monsanto, which is one of our favourite topics, actually. Fortunately, our select committee staff are very tolerant of us, and they do put up with some quite wide-ranging discussions on these topics that we have in the course of the select committee meetings. But out of that discussion comes some interesting stuff, and I think it really just emphasises the fact that we need to create opportunities for new and modern, innovative products to come to New Zealand in order to eliminate some of the older ones we have.

So—like the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor—I am not going to take too long on this contribution, but I do want to congratulate the Minister, Jo Goodhew, on bringing this bill to the House. I think, as I said, it is a necessary bill and it will do a great job. We did have great discussion on the select committee. We did not reach full agreement, and the Greens have inserted what I would consider to be an extraordinary minority view, appended to the bill, which is almost bigger than the report itself. But, none the less, that is how we live in our select committee and it works pretty well for us.

So it gives me pleasure to support this bill as it goes forward. I think we have had adequate discussion, both in the select committee and in the House, on where this bill is going to take us and where it is going to take agriculture in the future. It will improve our opportunity, I guess, to get rid of some historic chemicals, and it will also improve farmers’ opportunities to make a great deal of progress using new generation products. So I have got no problem commending this bill to the House and thanking the select committee for the hard work it did on the discussion on it. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to speak at the third reading of this bill, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Yes, this is a technical bill, but the essence of it is that we have listened to all of the submitters, who unanimously encouraged the Primary Production Committee to extend the data-protection periods. We listened carefully to those submitters and, acting as a committee, we implemented those changes, and I think we have come to a bill that is going to be welcomed by our agricultural and horticultural sectors, and also the suppliers of agricultural compounds, agrichemicals, and veterinary medicines alike.

This is an example of the select committee working together and crafting the piece of legislation and improving it. I believe that what we have done is strike a balance. I believe we have struck a better balance, because, clearly, the data-protection periods from the incumbent piece of legislation and even the initial bill that was proposed were inadequate. They were inadequate and, therefore, the industries were asking our committee and asking Parliament to give greater consideration and more extension to those periods. So we have done that.

We have done that, and why have we done that? We want to make sure that those companies get an extended period of protection that allows them to recover their upfront investments into research and supplying highly technical, confidential information that they have to supply with their applications for registration of these products. The changes enable them to recoup that investment that they make. But also we are not into creating monopolies. We do not want this protection to be unlimited, but we have set a fair duration for all the different categories of applications that are provided under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

We have struck that balance, and why do we want to do that? We want to ensure that there are opportunities and incentives for the suppliers of these products to actually submit new registrations, new uses, and new reformulations to other parts of our agricultural industries. So this bill will encourage those registrations to, hopefully, be flooding in thick and fast so we can help broaden and deepen our productive sectors, our primary sectors, and grow the wealth and grow the productivity of our beautiful country and our export sectors. This is, I believe—and as previous speakers have said—about us striking the right balance.

We do want to see those new products come into the market and come into the registration process. That will benefit new fledgling industries, particularly in our smaller niche product areas. Many—in fact, the vast majority—of the products that are registered have a very, very small customer base, and so there is a lot of upfront investment required in the business case. Without that protection, it is hard for those suppliers to make that business case work. So with this bill we do want to encourage a greater variety of new products to be coming forth, provide more protection for our plants and more treatments for animals, and to increase the productivity of our primary sectors, primarily.

This is a big market that we are talking about too. Although we are a major producer in Aotearoa, we are talking about over half a billion dollars’ worth of agricultural products and veterinary medicines. That is not an insubstantial number—over half a billion dollars—and as for our sheep and beef farmers and the on-farm costs, Mr McKelvie would be well aware of the costs that are involved as a percentage of the on-farm costs that these products create. There are a lot of these products, but only a small amount of them have very large turnover, large sales. The vast majority of them are very small niche products and, therefore, they do need that extra protection, and also the encouragement of new applications and new registrations to come through so we can meet the needs of our horticultural and agricultural sectors.

So, with that, I will not prolong my contribution, but I do commend the work that we have done as a committee. We have crafted a fine piece of legislation here, and I am sure it will be to the benefit of our farmers and our horticultural producers right throughout the country, and I commend it to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is—

Steffan Browning: I thought we were having another National Party one.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is the member calling?

Steffan Browning: Yes, I am, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Steffan Browning.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I would like to speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. I am very disappointed that a bit more rigour has not been put to the bill by the Government and some of the other Opposition parties as well. This bill is openly aiming to encourage more pesticides into New Zealand and with double the length of secrecy around those compounds. I call it a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) bill, and the reason I do that is that this bill started off extending the data protection from 5 years, year on year on year—in three stages—for new uses, up to 8 years. When that was announced last year, I thought “Mmm, that sounds like the Pharmac issue around the TPPA.”, and I looked at that and identified it as that. But it got worse.

When the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was agreed and signed, effectively, earlier in the year, it had made a 10-year period of data protection for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines (ACVM). We identified that with the officials. They fudged for a bit and said “No, no, we’re not sure what’s in the TPPA.”—it was very straightforward, it was very easy—and then, sure enough, it has come through to 10 years’ data protection.

That is 10 years where civil society, interested parties in the community, people who really care about the health of New Zealanders and the environment cannot get the information about the formulations in these compounds—10 years. How many of those will need to be reassessed and withdrawn, even in that time—or should have been? We cannot rely on our Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). It is interested in production; it does not care about the tool. It does not care, it seems, whether people are being exposed to endocrine disrupters that are affecting our children’s hormonal development. It does not seem to care about the rising cancer rates that are so prevalent throughout New Zealand, particularly in the horticultural and agricultural areas. We have our own universities doing research and showing the prevalence and the increased rate of these sorts of diseases amongst the workers, particularly women, in horticulture, where they appear to be exposed to these pesticides.

But what is happening? We cover it up. We say: “Bring in more and tell us less.” Eleven hundred new ACVM compounds were registered since 2008, since this Government has been in, and only 239 were cancelled or expired. I am holding the fine print—these are the thousands of pesticides and agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines are already registered. What do we need more for? Do we need a plethora of more things when we are not even managing what is out there?

Other countries, progressive countries, are doing pesticide reduction strategies. They are not cranking up. They are not trying to find ways to bring in more and then to hide what the hell is in them. I did an amendment to this, but, of course, it got voted down. It was to make sure that all applications for new or altered compounds be assessed in the full formulation as used—as used; as the community, the farmer, the worker, the animals, and the environment are exposed to. So many of these are not assessed. They are generally assessed with industry science, which you could assume is partially biased or at least edited, and not the full formulation as it should be tested—actually tested and not just fiddled about with—“Look at this compound maybe, or that.”

I did bring up in a previous speech that one of the main additives in many of the glyphosate products—it is in 69 of the 91 registered—is banned in Europe. The European Commission has banned it, and we cannot even find out, because of this sort of damned law, which one it is. Someone who may even think that glyphosate-based herbicides are OK cannot find out which ones have got polyoxyethylene tallow amine in them, which has been found to be even more toxic than the base ingredient, glyphosate. They cannot find that out because of this bill.

Unfortunately, most of this House, apart from the Greens and the Māori Party, are ticking it through. It is appalling. Can we rely on MPI? No, we cannot. Can we rely on the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)? No, we cannot. I use a primary example with the EPA. Because of the pressure on glyphosate and the issues that are going, especially through Europe—and we should be very cognisant of that, as an exporting country that relies on clean, unadulterated food, and what consumers want—they do not want to have those traces in their food. The Environmental Protection Authority commissioned a paper to look at what the World Health Organization’s (WHO) international agency for research on cancer had found—that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen. [Interruption] Seventeen world-class toxicologists—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry—[Interruption] Order! I just ask the member to take a seat, and I am going to ask Mr Barclay to cease interjecting for the rest of this speech.

STEFFAN BROWNING: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. So this international agency, with highly reputable scientists, people who really, really know that subject, went through a multitude of papers, not just the industry papers. They looked at papers with full formulation, not just the ones with a sole ingredient, and they said it is a probable carcinogen. It should be off the shelves on that basis, but, of course, it does not suit us here in New Zealand.

So what happens? The EPA commissions someone to reassess it. It gets one individual to reassess it, and then, of course, it edits it. We have looked at some of that editing, and we have also looked at what the Ministry of Health said about it. The Ministry of Health said: “What are you doing? What are you going down that strategy for, because even if you find it is different from the WHO, does that mean we cannot use all WHO stuff anymore?”. The Ministry of Health and the Minister should take good note of that. The ministry warned the EPA, but the EPA still went down this track.

That paper for the EPA discounted full-formulation science, invariably. It discounted more independent science, and it came to the conclusion that it probably was not a carcinogen—this one retired toxicologist from New Zealand against the 17, with all the influences from MPI and EPA to make sure he got the damn words right. Is that the sort of stuff we want for New Zealand—to come out with something that has no credibility in terms of science just so that we can do business as usual in New Zealand? It is appalling.

The purpose of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is “to protect the environment, and the health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.” This bill does nothing of the sort. It leads us further down the track in this pathetic approach to pesticides in New Zealand. This pioneering country, in the old colonial style of rip, tear, and bust, and do whatever—with no precaution or care, it seems, for the health and safety of people and communities—will allow 10 years’ data protection to meet the TPP agreement’s requirements. That is what has happened here.

The literature out there says that that particular herbicide—which I go on about so much, because it is a classic example—should be off shelves, and it certainly should be off the streets and parks of New Zealand. The Greens are certainly opposing this bill. Thank you.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a final call in this third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill.

There has been, and there continues to be, a degree of misunderstanding about what this bill actually is and what it does. What this bill does not deal with is patents or trademarks. It does not address the ownership of patented compounds or, indeed, the nature of those compounds. What this bill deals with is the data that is generated in the pursuit of the development of those compounds, not with the compounds themselves. It is not about patents; it is about the research that goes into creating patentable products. Products themselves can still be protected via the legislation, providing that the researcher or the developer—whoever it is who has created the compound or discovered the use for it—has the wherewithal to fund that patenting and trademarking process on an international scale.

Nothing in this bill actually stands in the way of a third party doing their own research and recreating a particular compound. It does, however, prevent that third party from gaining access to the data that was used or generated in the development of the compound, or in the development of the innovative use for the compound, by the original inventor. Or, more to the point, it extends the protections that already exist from 5 years to 10 years, against the original change that the officials proposed, which was to go to 8 years.

People have talked about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and how this bill will be affected by it. The way that this bill is structured falls short of what the TPP would require, if, in fact, the TPP was going to happen—which, as we now know, it probably is not, certainly in its current form or time frame, depending on the outcome of the United States election. The bill’s proposed 10-year protection is still conditional on new and innovative uses being registered for any given compound, rather than it being a blanket protection, as applies in Australia and some other parts of the world, and, indeed, as the TPP would require. So the advantage to New Zealand in extending the research protection is that it provides an additional incentive for companies to do their high-tech R & D here, rather than anywhere else.

My colleague Steffan Browning from the Greens raised the concern—well, he has raised it tonight, but he also raised it in the Primary Production Committee—that by passing this bill we are helping the likes of Monsanto and other evil empires to tighten their grip on the free peoples of the world, and, really, that is not the case. My point in response—and I will reiterate it here—is that there is a large and growing thrust in the world’s wealthy and discerning markets towards organics and other foods that are produced without GE, without GM, and without the excessive use of kinds of agrichemicals, as we have come to consider them. Producing those foods, which is something that New Zealand does particularly well and which we are developing a reputation for—if we are going to do that on a large commercial scale, it will still require specialty compounds in order to maximise safe and efficient production. This bill will, in fact, make it easier for companies to develop such compounds, so you will have the likes of better compost-starter enzymes, better fatty acid herbicides, better Bacillus thuringiensis - carrier solutions, better soap-based fungicides, and all those sorts of things. It is not just a bill that protects chemical companies as we know them; it is a bill that gives additional protection to all manner of further ongoing agrichemical research, including into organics and GE-free.

In extending the protections, it gives companies that are doing that sort of work an additional incentive to build their research labs here and carry out that work here—the research and the manufacturing—rather than doing it in California or Switzerland or somewhere else. I do not think it is going to be a bill that will enable evil corporations to give us three-eyed sheep, two-headed chickens, asparagus that glows in the dark, or anything else that we do not want.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I love asparagus that glows in the dark.

RICHARD PROSSER: Ha, ha! I have never seen asparagus that glows in the dark, Mr Woodhouse. I have seen a report about some pigs that glow in the dark—they were created in Japan. But that is a whole different story.

When those companies do elect to do that research and manufacturing here in New Zealand, it is this country and our economy that benefit. We benefit through job creation, and that is everything from the construction sector—as it builds new labs and new factories—to attracting more of our best and brightest to universities to study the biological and physical sciences that are involved in the manufacture, the research, and the development of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. We keep more of those people here in New Zealand, because they can get the good, well-paying, career-advancing jobs that their qualifications then call for here in New Zealand, rather than having to go overseas to find that work.

Small companies are also advantaged by these sorts of additional protections because they are the ones that are least able to gain additional protections through other means—they do not necessarily have the funding and the wherewithal behind them to go into international legal processes to get trademarks, patents, and so forth. This legislation is another mechanism by which we can extend those protections to them. It is a shot in the arm for the Kiwi inventor, the innovator, Kiwi ingenuity—No. 8 fencing wire—the guy working away quietly in his shed, and the independent researcher working away quietly in a lab somewhere who comes up with a brilliant idea. It is all part of the New Zealand story. It is those smaller operators who will benefit most from this kind of legislation.

As things stand, when existing protections expire—we do have existing protections, and this bill is about extending them, rather than creating them—all the information that was discovered, and the data that was created that went along with the application to register it, becomes available to all and sundry. That means that, say, the “XYZ Company” from the United States or Germany or China or wherever has then got access to that data and can then use it to, essentially, duplicate the work that the original inventor did. They might come up with a slight change and come up with a different product. They themselves then have the wherewithal, in terms of scale, to manufacture larger quantities, to market globally, and, essentially, to pull the rug out from under the person in New Zealand who had the bright idea to start with.

If somebody is in a position where they are doing that sort of research, be they an independent operator or a small company, they are much less likely to put that kind of time, effort, money, and resource into developing a new compound or into researching a new use for it if they know that, 5 years down the track, all the protection for that research that they have done—the blood, sweat, and tears that they have put into their hard toil; perhaps they mortgaged their house to fund it—can potentially be pulled away from them by some large corporation that has just been sitting and waiting for the protections to expire.

At the same time, as other members have mentioned—I think Mr McKelvie mentioned it—companies based in other countries that have, in a similar manner, created new compounds or developed new uses for them will be able to bring their products to New Zealand knowing that they will have a similar, comparable degree of protection for that data here as they would have anywhere else. It means that by passing this bill, we give some surety to New Zealand farmers—to livestock farmers, to growers, and so forth—that they will be able to get access to the newest, latest, most cutting-edge, innovative products that are available overseas, because there is no disincentive for the foreign-based companies that create and manufacture these compounds to bring them here, as they know that they will have the same degree of protection.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that, in some ways, we do not believe this bill goes far enough. It could have gone further, but it went at least as far as the majority of submitters from the industry asked for. That aside, we agree with the intentions of the bill. We believe that it is necessary and that it will bring advantages to this country. New Zealand First supports it, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It is not an area of expertise that I particularly hold—the primary industries area. However, I have had the opportunity to speak on this bill in several passages through the House. It has amazed me, actually, as a townie, to be part of the conversation and to actually understand the level of science and discussion that sits behind our farming industry. I think that members of the House should take the opportunity to engage in conversations across other areas where they may not necessarily have a high level of expertise.

I was fascinated by this particular bill and the fact that the data can be used by those researchers to find new and different ways of using their products, whether it is around different species that can benefit from their products, or whether it is finding completely innovative ways to use these compounds or to add something to the formulations, which means that you can use these compounds in new and creative ways. It has been fascinating to be part of the discussion.

As the previous speaker has said, we are a country of inventors. We take the No. 8 wire approach to many things. I think that really stands us in good stead. When we go overseas as members of Parliament and look at the ways that other countries’ primary industries are structured and the types of data that they use to inform them and to support the work they do, we can see that as a small nation at the bottom of the world we do incredibly well. I guess part of it is the fact that our isolation has forced us to really look at different ways of working, different ways of using our research, and different ways of using the technology that we already have for a broader base of opportunities.

I do want to comment too on what Richard Prosser said about data management. I know that we have some very strong tertiary education in terms of being able to use that data management and those processes in some incredibly diverse ways. I do not have the strength to be able to talk about this in any real depth. I do not actually have the knowledge that other members of the House have of the practical implications or the practical applications of this work. But it has fascinated me that we can take a formulation, we can recreate that for use across a range of species, or across a range of applications, and, with this piece of legislation, we can provide some protections for those people who actually create the information and the knowledge, so that they have some benefit from that. I know that I have got prime-time viewing but I will not hold up the passage of this bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): This will be a short call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. The Green Party wants the primary sector to have access to the latest technology, both for plant protection and for animal health. But we are opposing this bill because we think it is weighted too heavily towards industry rather than the protection of the public. We want a New Zealand where there is greater use of integrated pest management, greater use of organics, and where there is greater public knowledge about the compounds that are being used to control pests and weeds. This bill, by extending the data protection, actually mitigates against that.

Although Mr Prosser and others have talked a lot about the benefits of extending the secrecy around the compounds that are used in these products, because we do not have a robust assessment of pesticide use in New Zealand, by either the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) or the Environmental Protection Authority, we think there needs to be much greater transparency about what chemicals are being used. I also think that if you read the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry for Primary Industries, a lot of the claims that have been made about the commercial benefits of extending data protection are on somewhat shaky ground. The ministry made it very clear in the regulatory impact statement that there was no detailed information by which it could establish the extent to which the current regime and the current 5-year term for keeping information about the composition of these compounds secret resulted in new products or new uses not being registered, or the extent to which it inhibited the development of new products, using existing chemistry.

When you have had MPI saying that a precise determination of the net economic impact of any changes is not possible, how can all these assertions be made that it will have significant economic benefits? We do not think it is appropriate that we have got legislation going through that will make the current regime less transparent by extending the periods for data protection, extending the non-disclosure periods, when you have got only some anecdotal information where the industry claims that the current rules have discouraged a product from being registered. It is interesting that the provisions in the current legislation go back to our obligations under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. So, again, it seems to be where these big chemical companies, using international agreements, have influenced New Zealand legislation.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2016

(continued on Thursday, 3 November 2016)

Bills

Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a very short call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. It is a really important bill. We are in a country where we live with innovators and people who like to develop products that help our primary industries along, and what this bill does, effectively, is extend the time that the data is kept private, so that it gives them an opportunity to get a return on their investment. It is also for if they want to change the use—so if there is another use for that data, they get more years to be able to hold on to it.

I think it can only do good things for innovation in this country and also for others who are wanting to invest over here in that innovative space—because we are always looking for new ideas and ways to do better agriculture, particularly as we move into the realms of climate change, etc. It is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, the question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion—

Todd Barclay: Mr Assistant Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, I am sorry. You are too late. I paused, no one took the call, and I am putting the question. You are too late, I am sorry.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 104

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 16

Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 October.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, when we were last debating the second reading of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill, Stuart Smith had the call and has 7 minutes remaining, should he wish. Are there any further speakers?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I understand that Mr Smith is away. I know it is a bit early in the morning to be talking about wine, but I am sure there will be a few members in the House who might still have some memories of it. Can I just say that this is a very important bill, and it moves into effect what was passed in 2006. Since 2006—10 years ago—a lot has happened in New Zealand across the agribusiness sector. A lot has happened in the wine industry, and, clearly, there is a greater appreciation for the need to protect the intellectual property and the brands that we have built up and are now so very proud of. This bill will give protection to Marlborough sauvignon blanc and to Central Otago pinot noir, and it will ensure that what we say is in the bottle indeed comes from the area to which the label refers.

In 2006, with the best of intentions, the general purpose being the same, there was the possibility that wine from overseas could have come in—up to 15 percent of any bottle by volume—and could have, arguably, tainted the integrity of the brand for something like Marlborough sauvignon blanc. That door has now been closed, and, in fact, anyone who purchases a bottle of Marlborough sauvignon blanc will know that 85 percent comes from Marlborough and possibly 15 percent from somewhere else in New Zealand. But, clearly, we have moved, and those who are smart will have all their wine from Marlborough if they call it Marlborough sauvignon blanc.

What the Opposition, although supporting the bill, is concerned about is perhaps the lost opportunity. We heard time after time from submitters to the select committee and from officials that it is absolutely essential that consumers know where their grapes are grown and where their wine comes from, because it is about the integrity of the product. But the Government refuses to move on the area of country-of-origin labelling—that is, identifying where food comes from across the rest of the consumer market. What absolute hypocrisy that we could have officials coming and saying such strong things about alcohol—which, arguably, is the least risk, I have to say, from a food safety perspective—and refusing to acknowledge that country-of-origin labelling should rightfully be imposed for consumers of products other than alcohol.

But, anyway, moving right on from that, where the Government will find that it has some trouble is that if it wants to make any progress on a EU trade deal, then—we have been told very clearly—unless we have geographical indicators for food, and unless we implement country-of-origin labelling, which is actually an overarching umbrella for geographical indicators, we are not going to have any trade deal, and that is the reality. The Government has missed the opportunity through this piece of legislation to actually move us ahead and to be in a better position to take up any offer of a trade deal with the EU, and so we are going to be back in the House with another geographical indicators piece of legislation that refers to food. I do not mind that; I think it is the smartest thing we could do, but once again the Government misses the opportunity.

My personal view is that I represent an amazing electorate called West Coast - Tasman—two distinct geographical areas; three, really, but two that are well known: the West Coast, bound by the Southern Alps, and Golden Bay. These are two areas that, in my view, should have geographical indicator protection for the products that we produce: seafood, dairy, beef products. Both of those areas, in my view, should, over time, aim to have an international reputation for fine quality and safe food, but it is a brand that they have to, firstly, realise the value of and then work to develop. And then, hopefully, a visionary Government, a Labour-led Government, will come with a geographical indicators piece of legislation that will ensure that.

In fact, the Rangitīkei, where the chairman of the Primary Production Committee comes from, might even have some value in developing a brand. I mean, he tells me that it is a nice area up there, that maybe there is some value in having a geographical indicator, provenance, or appellation. There are a number of terms for it, but what it says is that the product that we are selling to the consumer comes from a distinct area and that there are some qualities unique to that that are worth paying a bit more for—because that is what we are about here. It is about value adding.

I say to this House and to the Government members of the select committee, who missed the opportunity to move in this area, that we need geographical indicator legislation for food and for regions like Golden Bay and the West Coast, where innovative producers of fine products can build a brand and sell to the rest of the world and tell a story about their magnificent region and why the qualities of their product are different from those of somewhere else in the world. Indeed, unless we accept and embrace that and promote that, New Zealand does not have a good future.

Last night I was at Landcorp, where those from Landcorp were promoting Pamu as a brand. It relates to their operation, their systems of production, and it depends, of course, upon the provenance of New Zealand Inc., that of our country, but I think that as they move down the path to, I guess, higher value and more brand distinction, they will be looking to identify, perhaps, the meat from the Mackenzie Country, or the wool from Mackenzie Country as Icebreaker does. This is an amazing area of opportunity for New Zealand as a primary producing country, and the passage of this legislation is needed. It is, effectively, an update on the 2006 piece of legislation.

There is a lot of passion about wine—it must be something related to the passion to drink it. But there is a passion about wine and the need to protect it and how well it has done in the international market. I have to acknowledge the wonderful growth in exports, but also too in other areas of primary production, we should be using the same wisdom. It may seem repetitive, but unless we get that message through, not just to the company executives but all the way down, through to traders, to the stock agents, and to the farmers themselves, we are not going to get a realisation of the underlying value that we have in this country for the amazing production of quality, pasture-fed—for the most part—protein and fibre to the rest of the world.

We miss the opportunities every single day because the Government sits on its hands and does not facilitate the growth of that branding and the growth of collaboration across the primary sector. I have said to the Minister for Primary Industries and to members of the select committee that we must move faster. Ireland has developed Origin Green. The Ministry for Primary Industries and the Minister have woken up to it 5 years down the track, and they are just now trying to discover why the Irish are making such good progress: the Irish realise that their country has some unique attributes and they are going out and building on those.

This piece of legislation says that for wine only we have got some wonderful attributes: Martinborough, Marlborough, and Central Otago, and there will be other areas like Waipara as well. As they build distinct brands and distinct taste profiles for their products, they need to have protection through legislation so that no one else in the world can sell a product using those terms. There will still be, as we have pointed out here, the risk that others might sell wine as “in the style of Marlborough sauvignon blanc.”, but it is not Marlborough sauvignon blanc. So our challenge now, and the challenge for those people, is to get out and market to the consumer the importance of reading the label carefully and knowing that it is Marlborough sauvignon blanc, not “in the style of”.

I think that the select committee has done a good job to tidy this up, but the Government has missed the opportunity to ensure that country-of-origin labelling and geographical indicators—that is, appellation and provenance—are legislated for for the whole of our primary food-producing sector.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a pleasure to speak on the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill—hence the reason why we are dealing with wines and spirits here and not sheepmeat and all sorts of other things. But I will get on to that a little later.

Is it not nice to be talking about some positive legislation—legislation that adds value for an industry on the move, an industry that last year produced $1.6 billion worth of income for the New Zealand economy. The industry is growing at a rate of about 10 percent a year, which is pretty significant. It is also a really interesting example of how regional fortunes change around New Zealand. Some members will remember the Marlborough Plains of 30 years ago. They were pretty rocky, and if they did not have water on them they were brown—the same colour as this House—at all times. Now when you fly over the Marlborough Plains they are completely different and are producing a good deal of the $1.6 billion worth of wine that leaves New Zealand every year. It is a pretty amazing performance, really, and you can see that the same thing is happening in Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Central Otago and other parts of New Zealand.

This bill is a result of an obligation under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. These oblige New Zealand, effectively, to provide protection for geographical indicators. A geographical indicator indicates that a wine or spirit comes from a particular region, and I guess two that come to mind very readily internationally are Scotch whisky and champagne. Of course, in New Zealand we have, as the previous speaker alluded to, many other geographical indicators that will be picked up as a result of the development of this legislation.

Although I have three wine growers in the Rangitīkei electorate, I find it highly unlikely that we will have a Rangitīkei wine registered. Of course, the other thing about it is that speaking about wine at this time of the day is quite dangerous for us laymen because they always say that if you are thinking about it at 9 o’clock in the morning you are in trouble by 6.

I want to speak very briefly about a topic that the last speaker, Damien O’Connor, touched on, because I think it is equally important. If you think about the Rangitīkei, for example, maybe one day we will see Rangitīkei land registered as a geographical indicator. I think it raises a very good point, which was part of a quite lengthy discussion we had in the select committee on this very topic. Of course, this piece of legislation is specific to wines and spirits, and it is an amendment of an Act that was put in place in 2006 but never implemented. That is why we have not dealt with the other points around geographical indicators in the course of this discussion. I am sure that, as the last speaker, Damien O’Connor, said, this will be an issue that comes back before a select committee in the future—and, I hope, reasonably quickly, because, I think, again, if you refer to the Pamu brand, which Damien O’Connor spoke about and which we visited last night, that type of branding is changing the world very quickly. Lewis Road Creamery is a good example of that type of branding. I think it is going to be hugely—

Hon Damien O’Connor: This member should be a Minister.

IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! Certainly not! It is going to be hugely important for the future of New Zealand exports. The days of us exporting bulk commodities are long gone, and although we still rely on that type of export to some extent, it certainly needs to change. This is a way that it will change.

We received some 38 submissions on this bill, pretty much all of them agreeing with the bill. I just want to touch on a couple of other things the bill deals with, because they did engender some interesting discussion. It contains what are called “opposition procedures”. I would have thought that anyone can protest a thing if they do not like it, but “opposition procedures”—which, clearly, is a legal term we use to describe how you oppose something—allow an interested person to protest or oppose the registration of geographical indicators. An “interested person” is defined in the principal Act, so there is no issue with that. The bill also allows for objection on cultural lines, and we can be confident that this cannot be abused, as it did create quite some considerable discussion around the select committee table from one particular member. These conditions mirror a provision in the Trade Marks Act, which has long been enforced and has never really been challenged. I think that we can be sure that those types of provisions, from our perspective, are going to create the right impact—they are not going to cause any problems, I think.

I want to thank the select committee for some quite interesting discussion. With a bit of luck, we will have got most of this morning’s select committee discussion out of the way here in the House before we get to the select committee meeting, so we will have a much quicker select committee process than usual. The discussion that the Opposition has already raised this morning is one that we have every time we have a select committee meeting, and no doubt it will come back again.

I want to thank the committee members for the great bit of work they have done on this piece of legislation. I also want to congratulate Minister Goldsmith on getting this legislation to the post and on choosing the Primary Production Committee to deal with it. He was so enthusiastic about this bill that he was even seen last night wearing a geographical indicator of his own on his shirt. I have got a great deal of pleasure in commending this bill to the House for further discussion in the Committee stage. Thank you.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. This is a very, very positive bill, as has been said, and we are very keen to be supporting it. There are some issues around it and things that we should be considering while it proceeds, all the same. I come from Marlborough. I was brought up in Marlborough from the age of 4. I live there currently, and just the other weekend I climbed my maunga, Mount Stokes, or Aorere, in the Outer Sounds. The area is very, very precious to me but, unfortunately, it has become degraded somewhat, and the reason for this bill is part of that.

Those names of Marlborough, Awatere, Wairau, Kaikōura, and maybe Kekerengu may end up as names that have the protection that will really emphasise the positive features around this industry. I also think that we should be exploring other aspects of the food industry in this as well. I can think of Marlborough garlic, for example—that is the best area in New Zealand for growing it. We are very well known for that. In Otago we have got apricots. We did actually lose a lot of apricots growing in Marlborough to wine, as the wine has been shown to be maybe more consistently lucrative for landowners in the area.

This is positive legislation. The move, as someone previously said, for the Marlborough Plains—she said the Wairau Plains—through to the Awatere Valley, into grapes has been phenomenal. It is a major economic shift for the region. But our diversity has gone as well, and so has the New Zealand ownership of that land—it has gone as well. Most that will benefit from this are overseas companies that are selling—or actually growing, but certainly controlling—the wine out of our region, and that is anathema.

I just noticed the new statistics on overseas ownership, and there is a lot of Chinese money in there and there is a lot of US money in there. Constellation, one of the US companies, is just moving through some very valuable land that would do much better food production, and it is just converting that. But not only that; it is bringing in its pesticide regimes more and more. We are having some growth in organics in the area, but this good labelling—Marlborough, Awatere, Kaikōura maybe—is likely to be lessened. It is at risk.

At the moment—and some members in here will have shares in it—at least 50 percent of the surface area that is under viticulture, which is the dominant thing in Marlborough, is herbicide covered, because in spring they think they will warm the ground and get some frost protection by doing that. It is 50 percent. In 2007 it was 70 percent at one stage and it dropped down with our work on the issue, and then they said: “Hey, that’s sustainable wine-growing.” There is nothing sustainable when you cover up to 100 percent in some vineyards. There is a member here in the Government who had 100 percent when I was talking about it in 2007. It may well be more than 50 percent at the moment. I have not had time to analyse it as fully as I would like.

Fifty percent of the surface area is under a probably carcinogenic regime, and then there are the rest of the pesticides, and the statistics around Marlborough, and the statistics in Hawke’s Bay—in those areas—need to be looked at. What will “Marlborough” mean when we ruin our reputation? It was good to hear Damien O’Connor mentioning the clean, green image and what we are doing for Brand New Zealand. This stuff will help if we do it right, but it will not help if we wreck that reputation because of what we are doing in terms of the health of the community and the health of the environment.

Just this last weekend I took photos of herbicide-resistant ryegrass. That herbicide resistance started in these vineyards because they were using glyphosates so consistently.

Todd Barclay: Ha, ha!

STEFFAN BROWNING: The member over here may well laugh, but what do you use next? What did the wine industry want to use? Some of them wanted to use paraquat instead of glyphosate. They have got one tool they are allowed to use occasionally. That resistant ryegrass has now spread to the roadside corridor, and so the local territorial authorities are trying to manage their roadside that they might have done with glyphosate—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member is wide of the mark on this. I just ask you to come back to the intent of the bill and its content, and just focus on that.

STEFFAN BROWNING: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am totally on focus, because my region relies on good branding, and what is happening is bad branding, false branding. There is not going to be anything to be proud about if the region is being given a poor reputation. There are some major problems with the horticulture there. We have got to do it in a generally sustainable way if we are going to put our name to it and somehow protect it. What the hang are we going to protect a name like that for if it has got a bad reputation throughout the world?

We will be voting for this bill because we see it as positive, but hand in glove with that we must have those improvements that will protect our brand, protect Brand New Zealand, and our reputation at the same time. These names will be protected. They are already on a number of labels. But the same Government that is promoting this in terms of labels cannot get other aspects of food labelling correct at all. Some it has not even monitored or enforced since 2003, and consumers miss out there. So, again, this is a positive bill for what its intent is, but let us see the other areas of food labelling have their act cleaned up at the same time.

In terms of the other areas that could come under a similar bill—this one is very specific; wine and spirits—there are some problems with that. Fonterra makes some very good mozzarella and other cheeses, and feta is one that I think the Greeks will push back on if we start to go down the path of registration of geographical indicators. We may actually not be able to use some names, and so those are some of the complexities around that. Registration of wine and spirits is relatively simple and it has a long history. In Europe there is a long history of areas being able to protect their names.

So the Green Party will be supporting this bill for those positive things. We just really hope to see that Brand New Zealand and “Brand Marlborough” will be protected by some good sustainable practices. Thank you.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): It is always a pleasure to follow my erstwhile friend and colleague from the Primary Production Committee and the Green Party, Steffan Browning. He has that wonderful ability that the Greens have of being able to support a bill but to do so very, very grumpily. So thanks for that, Mr Browning. I know it is early in the morning.

I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the second reading of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this bill to the select committee and we continue to do so because it is a necessary piece of legislation for the wine industry and for New Zealand’s international trade. But I do have to flag at this point that our support might not continue beyond the Committee of the whole House. I give that indication because of a clause that has found its way into the bill to which New Zealand First finds that we are diametrically opposed. As with so much of this Government’s legislation—as with too much of this Government’s legislation—it is a clause that makes special reference and gives special preference, yet again, for no adequately explained reason, to Māori on the basis of race, and that is a great shame. It would be a great shame if New Zealand First members were forced to withdraw our support for a bill that we acknowledge is a necessary thing for the wine industry—

Hon Member: You’ve got to be joking, man.

RICHARD PROSSER: —listen and learn, Mr Tirikatene, you will understand; I will explain—and for New Zealand’s international trade, both imports and exports of wine and spirits to the rest of the world, particularly to Europe, because of a clause that the Government has decided to include in it, which is not only entirely unnecessary but is actually counter-productive in a number of regards. It is counter-productive in that not only is it yet another example of the promotion of separatism but, at best, it could be seen as paternalistic and insulting to Māori. Members on both sides will doubtless argue that, yet again, here is New Zealand First being racist again, here is New Zealand First indulging in Māori bashing—the same tired old inaccurate excuses that they trot out for supporting political correctness every time New Zealand First stands up for one franchise, one people, one united people, and one law for all. The thing is that Māori is an official language of this country, and it should not need that kind of special recognition that it somehow needs this kind of paternalistic help and support. It is insulting, it is derogatory, and it does not need this special justification.

Clause 21B is the offending article that has raised our ire. It will insert new section 39A, which is proposed to read: “It is a function of an advisory committee appointed under section 177(1) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 to advise the Registrar whether the use of a geographical indication in relation to wine or spirits, or the registration of the geographical indication, is, or is likely to be, offensive to Māori.” The explanation given for the reasoning behind this proposed change, as is recorded in the report of the select committee, is that although the bill, as it is introduced, provides that “the Registrar must not register a geographical indication if its use or registration is deemed offensive to a significant section of the community, including Māori.”, the bill does not specify whom the registrar should consult to determine whether or not the registration of the geographical indication would be offensive to Māori. And that is true, but, by the same token, neither does it specify whom the registrar should consult in order to determine whether or not any other given geographical indication might be offensive to anybody else—or, more specifically, anyone, we would presume, who is not Māori.

I will come back to that point, but it is worth remembering at this point, I think, that we are dealing with geographical indicators here. This bill deals with geographical names and features that might be, or are, associated with wine labels and the production of wines and spirits. We are not talking about words, phrases, or cultural concepts, and for those who might argue that to some Māori, at least, and in some situations, these may well be one and the same, it is, essentially, place names and names of geographical features that are already in use, and it is difficult to see how their inclusion on a label could be offensive to anybody.

There are already provisions in the law allowing such names, words, and wording to be removed from official use and recognition if they are deemed offensive, and indeed, the Geographic Board is undertaking just such an exercise right at the moment with regard to some names that although they might reflect a period of this country’s history when certain nomenclature was not considered offensive by a large majority of the country at that time, are no longer considered to be so. There is a place in North Canterbury that is named and officially gazetted as Nigger Hill, and that is plainly no longer acceptable in terms of the values and mores of modern New Zealand. It is going to be removed, and rightly so. I do not believe there is a single rational person in New Zealand or a member of this House who would disagree with that. But that is a decision of the Geographic Board, and should not, we believe, be a function of the advisory committee to the registrar of trademarks.

If a name or a feature is deemed acceptable for use as a place name, then surely it should be acceptable for use on the label of a wine or a spirit that is associated with that place or feature. Perhaps the Māori Language Commission could be consulted if there is any perceived offensive potential in the combination of certain place names with certain products, though, once again, because it is going to be established and gazetted—names of places and features that will be registered—it is difficult to see how such an offence could be caused.

To return to my earlier point, this proposed new clause does not make any specific reference to any significant section of the community who might be offended other than Māori. That is plainly racist and separatist, and it is insulting and derogatory to Māori.

We need to be mindful that this bill deals not only with our own registration of geographical indicators for New Zealand wines and spirits but also it deals with this country’s recognition of the registered indicators from other parts of the world from where we import such products. On that note, there is a place in Australia that goes by the name of Chinamans Knob. That may or may not sell more wine, but it could well be seen as being offensive to any number of people in this country if it were to appear on a bottle of imported Australian wine, and, yet, we have made no provision in this bill as to whom the registrar should consult on that matter. The New Zealand Gazetteer on the Land Information New Zealand website, in fact, lists all sorts of officially recognised and, presumably, acceptable place names that could be offensive to all manner of people, and knobs feature quite heavily. There is a Scotts Knob, which might offend people of Scottish heritage—or it may well persuade them to buy more of the stuff. There is a Richards Knob, and I myself might choose to take offence at that, but the bill does not make any special mention of a body to be established or consulted in terms of asking me whether I object to that or not.

My point, really, is that we do not regard this as an insurmountable obstacle. Agencies that already exist could be utilised in order to satisfy the requirement that “the Registrar must not register a geographical indication if its use or registration is deemed offensive …” without requiring another inspection of every application by yet another agency, presumably requiring the payment of yet another fee. Further to that, a colleague of mine suggested that we could go one step further and require that any such agency that is going to undertake that activity should make up a list of words or names that might give offence and the reasons for that before any such application is submitted, so that both the applicants and officialdom would have some guidelines to work with. My colleague suggested that in similar circumstances references to things that are sacred—perhaps names of gods and so forth—might come into play, but, again, we are not talking about those sorts of cultural concepts. We are talking about place names that are already in use and that are already deemed acceptable. It is unlikely that anything outside those parameters would find its way on to a wine label, and if it was to do so, it is more likely, actually, that that sort of thing would probably be outside the scope of this bill.

So we will be proposing some changes to the bill when it comes to the Committee of the whole House. New Zealand First will be introducing Supplementary Order Papers to either scrap the proposed inclusion of clause 21B and new section 39A altogether or to, perhaps, replace the proposed use of the advisory committee for the registrar of trademarks with the oversight of the Geographic Board or the Māori Language Commission instead and to suggest, as I say, that whatever agency finally is settled on, it comes up with a list of names, words and phrases, and so forth, first, against which applications can be measured so that we do avoid the potential for any offence being caused and, also, so that we avoid the requirement for people paying unnecessary additional fees. We do hope that the Government will take a genuine, objective look at these proposals that we will bring forward.

In closing, I reiterate that we do agree that in all other regards this is a necessary bill. It is long overdue in some aspects, and we support its passage through the House at this stage. Thank you very much.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to speak in the second reading of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. It never ceases to amaze me how one of the more simple bills, such as this one—which was, effectively, written by the industry for the industry—can still be almost derailed by some arguably more marginal, loose interpretations of what the bill is trying to set out to achieve by some members of the Opposition. It is always entertaining, though, having a robust discussion about the use of glyphosate, the prevalence of Monsanto in the New Zealand market, and so on. But this is an important bill for the wine and spirits industry across New Zealand.

In my electorate of Clutha-Southland, we are home to Central Otago pinot noir, among other varieties of wine, and a number of our colleagues here, right across the House, have pretty important industries that will benefit significantly from this. New Zealand prides itself on being a premium producer on the world stage, and that is one of the things that can set us apart from many of the larger producers. We are never going to be able to produce as much wine as somewhere like the United States or key parts of Europe, but what we can do is differentiate ourselves and really put forward the quality version of our various varieties. That is what this bill sets out to achieve.

I want to acknowledge the chairman of our Primary Production Committee, Ian McKelvie, who, through his primary sector background outside the wine industry, brought an interesting take on this to the select committee, as did Barbara Kuriger, through her dairy industry background. Also, I acknowledge one other member as well, our deputy chairperson, Stuart Smith, who has spent his life working for and on behalf of the wine industry. He actually developed this bill in the later stages of his time as chair of the New Zealand Winegrowers Association, so it was really good to have him on the committee to be able to engage with the industry and get this legislation into a good position.

I think it is quite unique, really—our committee, the Primary Production Committee, does not consider much legislation, but the legislation that it does consider is, generally, actually prepared by the industry that is going to benefit most significantly from it, itself. That is part of our role in Government, I think: we need to be able to do our best to enable, support, and protect industries as they produce and export on to the world stage. It is a real privilege to be able to assist them through our roles as members of Parliament—to give them greater protection in that space, despite the fact that Mr Prosser was mentioning some more marginal aspects, such as some geographical or cultural indicators outside of the wine industry. But it was fascinating to hear, anyway.

That is the main point, I think, that I just wanted to mention, which is really on behalf of—I have got a small wine region in my electorate, but there are a growing number of wine regions across the country, and each and every one of them is becoming more and more aware of the need to have that level of protection to protect their premium brand, which they invest so much in. It is a real privilege to be able to speak in support of this bill. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Barry Coates—5 minutes.

BARRY COATES (Green): I rise to express support for this bill, for the Geographical Indicators (Wine and Spirits Registration) Amendment Bill. The Green Party strongly supports this. I must declare a family interest in winery and a personal enthusiastic consumption of New Zealand products. I think this is a fantastic example of a really savvy—excuse the expression—marketing approach for New Zealand products. We see New Zealand products earning a premium on world markets, associated with not only high quality but also with production values. I think we should not forget the really strong effort of the industry in moving towards 100 percent certification according to sustainability criteria, which works very well with geographic indicators, so that consumers know that not only are they drinking a good product but also that the product is certified as sustainable production.

My point from here is that this bill focuses on wine and spirits. We note that in Europe we have Parma ham, Scotch beef, Welsh lamb, Stilton cheese, Jersey royals. These are geographical indicators that apply to products other than wine and spirits, and the question is: if we are serious about adding value to New Zealand’s primary products, if we are serious about diversifying away from commodity products, if we are concerned about our clean, green image and defending it, then why are we not looking beyond wine and spirits? Certainly, we would encourage a stronger move to do so, so that we could celebrate Bluff oysters, Morrinsville cheese, Pukekohe potatoes, Ōhākune carrots, Waiheke olives, Taupō beef, and maybe Tokoroa kauri. In future, I think, we can hope that this extension from wine and spirits will actually provide a huge amount of benefit to the New Zealand rural sector.

However, there is a problem, and the problem is that New Zealand’s trade policy is very much aligned towards following US interests, and US interests regard trademark as being the primary form of identification of products and geographical indicators as potentially getting in the way. If I look at article 23 of the Doha agenda from the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which provides the authorisation for countries to pursue this bill, then we see that article 23 talks also about extending protection beyond wines and spirits. However, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, the “TPPA”, has provisions that focus on preventing confusion with trademark. This is a departure from the WTO approach—a departure from the trade-related intellectual property rights approach—which is primarily concerned with protecting geographical origin. We have here two systems of trade: one European Union system and one United States system.

I think it is of deep concern that we are about to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, apparently—not without the opposition of a number of parties in this House and a majority of the New Zealand public—which would, essentially, be locking us into a trademark-dominated system and could potentially undercut the establishment of geographical indicators beyond wine and spirits. Therefore, we will support the bill to this next stage, but we would also request that the Government undertake research into the potential extension of geographical indicators to other products and how this may or may not be undermined by the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement ratification. We would remind the Government that there is still time for it to step back from the ratification process. We look forward to the Government response on that.

We look forward to geographical indicators being potentially a far stronger way of defending New Zealand’s image and reputation internationally and gaining more value for New Zealand’s primary sector producers. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Kris Faafoi—5 minutes.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I just begin by agreeing with some of what the last speaker, Barry Coates, said in terms of the ability for this piece of legislation to be able to be spread further beyond wine and spirits, as it stands now. I do believe there is a lot more potential in being able to brand and market and give, as the title of this bill suggests, geographical indicators to a lot more of our primary products—and, as my colleague Damien O’Connor says, to be able to create a better narrative and a better story and a better marketing ability for our country and for our primary products. That was certainly the case when I visited a farm about 2½ months ago in the Wairarapa—a red meat farm in Wainuiōrū, I think it was. The farmer there, William Beetham, took us around and was very proud of his farm, obviously, despite the challenges that the farm was going through there at the time. He spoke of the ability for his industry to be able to tell a better story around their product.

I am not a wine drinker; I am a whisky drinker. I think of the story behind whisky out of areas of Scotland—the history and the storytelling and the ability for them to market their whisky. I think we have got the ability to do that, not only with our wine and our spirits but also with other primary products. So although the legislation has got a relatively tame title to it, I think it really is an important piece of legislation, in being able to get more value out of our products that we produce here in New Zealand.

I cannot go on for the next 3 minutes without trying to respond to some of the comments made by Mr Prosser. I actually think that the piece of legislation that we have in front of us has been made better by the Primary Production Committee acknowledging that the body that will have to decide whether or not a geographical indicator may or may not be offensive to Māori might need some advice during that process, and by its looking at setting up a body to go to for that advice.

I find it strange that if the New Zealand First Party is fundamentally opposed to Māori being given any special consideration at all in this piece of legislation, it has waited until this point to make that known. I know that it was brought up at the select committee, but there was a first reading of this legislation, and if New Zealand First is fundamentally opposed to that, then it should have raised the issue at the first reading, because that was a rather significant part of this bill.

Richard Prosser: It wasn’t there then.

KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, it was. It was there then. The change in the bill that has come to this House after the select committee stage is the fact that the body may need some advice. That is the change. I talked specifically about the original clause in the bill in the first reading, to say that I thought it was good that if in some cases the brand or the geographical indicator might be offensive to Māori, that should be taken into consideration.

Let me give you a potential hypothetical argument as to why I think that is good. If, per se, a vineyard were to be set up in my electorate and someone with absolutely no connection to the local iwi decided to call their wine Ngāti Toa or Toa or Whitireia, I am pretty sure that the local iwi would be a little bit concerned about that. I think the iwi would have the right to go to the body and say: “Look, these guys have no connection with us. They’ve come into our iwi area, set up a vineyard, and tried to take our brand in our name. We don’t like that.”

Richard Prosser: But this is a place name, and do they live there?

KRIS FAAFOI: Well, it might not be. I think Ngāti Toa or Toa or an iwi name is a geographical indicator, and that is the issue. If iwi have no ability to be able to stop that, if they find it offensive—and it was in the original first reading, it was; go and have a look at the original draft of the legislation—then I think they should have the right to do that.

I also think that the body that we give powers to, to be able to determine whether that is offensive or not—it may decide that it is not—should have the ability to go and ask someone for advice, whether it be cultural advice, intellectual property advice, local advice, or historical advice about whether or not it is a valid claim that it is offensive or not. To come to the House now and say that this is something that New Zealand First is fundamentally opposed to, to me smacks of the party potentially not having read the legislation at the first reading, discovering this aspect post that, and now wanting to make a political point of it, which I think is wrong.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call this morning on the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. It really is related to wines and spirits, although we have had a lot of good discussions around food this morning, which I think is great because it is about provenance and it is about pride, as well as being about certainty of the product for people who buy this wine.

Parochialism is alive and well. There is a bit of an MP rivalry between Tasman and Taranaki when it comes to rugby, and, of course, Stuart Smith—who has a lot of knowledge of wine—and I, along with Nick Smith, agreed that whoever lost the recent game between Taranaki and Tasman would front up with a bottle of wine. We did not win. Unfortunately, Tasman did. But I got a text from Stuart Smith with the name of some specific bottle of wine from his region that he thought would be appropriate to pay my dues in terms of losing the rugby.

I quickly got back to him—and I am never going to win a discussion with Stuart Smith on wine as he is an expert on the subject; I drink beer—and I said to him: “No. You are going to get a wine from my electorate.” I have Vilagrad wines. I do not have much wine in my electorate, but I do have the Vilagrad Winery. It is recovering from a massive fire from last year, and it has reopened and is back in business. So he is going to get the bottle of wine with “V” for Vilagrad. Unfortunately, we did not have a “V” for victory.

But that parochialism and those geographic indicators are about provenance and pride in what we produce. So I am really supporting this piece of legislation, because I do think we need to go out into the world and be absolutely proud of what we produce. I do not get a lot of chances to watch TV, but when I had do it is often a cooking programme. We have far too many cooking programmes, but I watched a British one. It is all about buying British beef and British lamb, and I think that we in New Zealand have got to be a lot more proud of supporting our own products.

I was really thrilled recently when I had the opportunity to go through Taupō for a business parliamentary attachment. Louis and I went to a restaurant called The Lazy Trout. I opened up the menu—it was a lovely meal—and it had Kāwhia Coast whitebait, King Country beef, and King Country venison, and I am thinking “Wow! I’m so proud of my electorate.” I am so proud of where this food came from, and I had to taste everything that came from where I came from. I went in there with no intention of having dessert, but when I found out that it was Taharoa cheesecake with Pirongia forest berries on top, guess what? I had dessert. I did not need it, but I had it. But for me, it is about that provenance story.

I have been having a number of conversations with Wintec. It now has children making camembert in the classroom from our good dairy products. And I will put a call out to the dairy farmers. Yesterday it was fantastic to have that increase in the auction. It was really, specifically good to have that 19 percent increase in whole-milk powder and to actually lift stuff out of that commodity cycle, which we are so dependent on, and get some pride into our products.

Last night I was fortunate enough to be at the Pāmu Farms of New Zealand presentation and watch a great presentation about Lewis Road Creamery. I saw the pride that there is in that product and the extension of the product lines that are going out, the marketing and the advertising—it pops up on Facebook—and there is now a new chocolate spread, there is ice cream, and a whole range of things. Building on that brand and building on that story is so important.

While we are on the topic of food, we should not forget our fibre as well. We had a great presentation of what can be done in terms of natural and healthy carpets for our homes from the wool that we produce. Things have been taken over a little bit—well, a lot—by synthetics in recent times.

I proudly stand here in support of this bill on wines and spirits. I do have a tendency to drink beer rather than wine. Recently the King Country Brewing Co. has started labelling and canning the King Country beer with the big hat on, and the Ragland Brewing Co. has also launched, so pride and provenance is important to me, and I support this bill. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to speak in the second reading of this bill. I have to respond, first up, to Mr Prosser’s contribution, because I found it hard to believe that here we are in 2016—that sort of speech takes race relations in our country back into early last century. I am very disappointed—very disappointed, but not surprised—that New Zealand First is making an issue over the fact that there is an advisory committee, which has long been established under the Trade Marks Act, that is there to simply advise the registrar that a particular application may give rise to concerns to Māori.

I am even more shocked that the member sitting next to Mr Prosser, Pita Paraone, my whanaunga from the North—right from where the Treaty was signed, a rangatira from the North—is letting his own party run roughshod over what have been hard-fought battles by Māori in this House to get recognition of the Treaty and to give expression to that through all of the mechanisms of Government and the laws that we enact through this House. I am really disappointed. I am really disappointed in that, because, yes, we are talking about geographic names and we are talking about wine and spirits, and we do acknowledge that this will be of benefit to our wine industry, which is having stellar growth at the moment. So, in one sense, yes, we are looking at that. But there are instances where there are sacred sites, sacred names, sacred places to Māori, and they may well have concerns about whether a geographical indication (GI) application has been submitted. It may give rise to those issues.

I give a classic example—a couple of examples. I gave the example from my Ngāi Tahu side: if a geographical indication registration, say, hypothetically, would be made for Kaiapoi or Kaiapōhia—those very sacred areas where I dare not go into it but a lot of blood was shed back in those days. I believe that there would be real concerns. That would be of great concern to me and also—[Interruption] Well, let us use the example of how the member, Richard Prosser, would—and he can consult with his fellow colleague, Pita Paraone. What if a GI application were made for Ruapekapeka? Ruapekapeka is a very sacred site to us in the North, particularly to the member’s colleague there and to the leader of his party. What if a GI application was made for Te Ruapekapeka. That is just a place—it is a place name.

Here is another one: the Aoraki region. The Aoraki region is a region. It is recognised. Sure, you could say it is the Mackenzie region, as well. But those are examples where there should be at least some recognition, and that is what this bill does. It gives only an advisory role. Based on what the member is saying, he says: “Oh, well, we can deal with that another way.” Well, there is a way, and we have put that in this bill. So whether he wants to consult with his colleague and come up with some other process—but, definitely, those are likely to be very offensive if there were applications made for GIs for those names.

I am really disappointed that the member would set us right back by going back to the same old—talking about special treatment, talking about being paternalistic. That is insulting and derogatory. All we are asking for and all we have provided for is utilising the expertise of an advisory body that has long been established. I think it has been around for well over 12-plus years. All we are saying is that we are going to use the expertise of that body, which I know is drawn from academics, iwi representatives, and the like from all around the country. We are going to use their expertise if the alarm bells go off with the registrar on a particular registration. That is all we are asking for. That is all we are providing for, nothing more.

So if the member could come back, I would be interested to hear how he would deal with a GI application for Ruapekapeka. If this process is not good enough, or if he just thinks “Oh no, that’s just special treatment.”, well then, I guess his colleagues will have to stand up in the North and say how they would be promoting such a view. As I said, I am shocked and disappointed—shocked and disappointed. But I do not want to belabour the point.

Moving on to this bill, we do support it. We do support the amendments that we made at the Primary Production Committee. We have listened to the industry. This is a bill that is about promoting and enhancing the value that we can capture from selling our wines, which are in high demand around the world.

I am very lucky. The electorate that I represent has some fantastic wine regions—Marlborough, Nelson, Canterbury, the Waipara Valley, and Central Otago—so if anyone wants to support this bill, it is me. I know that the economic benefits have transformed these particular regions around the country, if you do look at Marlborough or through Central Otago. It is good to see that there are Māori participating in viticulture and in the wine sector, right back to wines that I remember over in Martinborough, from Hau Ariki Wines—which was probably the first Māori wine and which is still over there with the person who was my whanaunga, the late Mr Hawkins—to what we see with Tohu Wines and the Wakatū Incorporation and what they have been doing, to other grape-growing areas that have significant Māori involvement in the Hawke’s Bay and up on the East Coast and in Gisborne. This is a positive piece of legislation that we are wanting to implement.

I do want to touch on the matter about country of origin.

Ian McKelvie: Oh!

RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes, Mr McKelvie, I had to go there. Mr McKelvie said maybe one day—maybe one day—sometime in the future that might happen. Certainly, if it is good enough that we can do this for wine, we need a bold Government that will make sure that we can do this—the story of provenance, the story of where our beautiful bounty from the land and the sea comes from. That is definitely what we want to enhance New Zealand Inc., because that is what this is about.

This is a separate issue, but returning to the point about the Māori names, I believe that maybe there needs to be some additional advice. We have just implemented Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori, a substantial piece of legislation to do with Te Reo Māori, and maybe there could be some input through the mechanisms and the bodies that we have set up under there into this process. But, for now, the advisory committee that we have recognised is more than appropriate to play that part. Therefore, I commend this bill at its second reading. Kia ora.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I am very pleased to be able to rise to take the first call for the second reading of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee, chaired by my colleague Scott Simpson. The intellectual rigour those members brought to the process, the thorough nature of the approach that they took in examining all the details, and their recommendations have added value to the bill, and, I think, rigorously tested its parameters in a way that means that nature will be better protected. I will speak on those measures shortly, but, first, I think it would be useful to explain to the House and the wider public the context and the purpose of this bill.

Our native wildlife faces many threats. Introduced predators—the usual suspects: rats, stoats, and possums—are destroying our biodiversity. Our Government’s response to that has been to announce the visionary target of Predator Free 2050, and our Prime Minister is right behind it, as is our entire caucus. I think, too, the people of New Zealand have realised that our threatened species need better protection. Weeds are also a very big threat to our biodiversity. They smother habitat and food sources, they cause disease, and they cause a range of problems, hence the policies that I have brought in around the War on Weeds, naming the Dirty Dozen, and putting many millions of dollars, some of which I will be announcing tomorrow, around wilding pine control and other measures, because we acknowledge that our plants, as well as our precious taonga species, are under threat.

Poaching is a very real threat, and, at times, it can be overlooked. We have to face the reality, though, that it is a growing problem. There is a lucrative international black market in our native species, our spectacular geckos and skinks, and that drives some people to break the law, to seek to take advantage of our country’s remarkable wildlife. This can and does pose a major threat to its security. For example, reptile smugglers tend to target pregnant females, which is a real problem for the small, fragmented populations that breed very slowly. We know of one gecko population on the Otago Peninsula, for example, driven almost to extinction by smugglers, and another population where poachers took almost half the breeding females. My colleague Jacqui Dean’s excellent member’s bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Act, passed in 2013, and that increased and standardised the penalties for offences against protected wildlife, with fines of up to $300,000. It was designed to deter and to punish smugglers, as this Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill is.

Dealing specifically with the problems of illegal hunting is important and at the heart of this bill. Over the past few years people have killed whio, tūī, kererū, kea, kākā, shags, petrels, oystercatchers, and herons, and tried to sell blue duck chicks. Hunters and domestic dogs have killed kiwi, gulls, and weka. The Wildlife Act protects our unique taonga species from being illegally taken, hunted, killed, or smuggled out of New Zealand, but its enforcement powers, which were given to DOC rangers, have not been updated for 60 years and are no longer fit for purpose when our threatened taonga species are so in danger. Some of the language in the old bill is outdated. I have referred before to how it specifies that only men can be enlisted to help rangers. More broadly, the powers themselves need to be expanded and clarified to fit modern times and the threats that our biodiversity and our ecology face.

The purpose of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill is to better protect wildlife by modernising the protection and enforcement powers available to investigate and prosecute offences against protected wildlife. The bill affects only the Wildlife Act, and changes only enforcement powers. It does not change the protected status of wildlife or how wildlife is managed. The current training given to rangers covers the ground, and making these minor changes to the Act will not impact on DOC’s budget. They will, though, give full-time rangers four new powers. There is the ability to take action to prevent an offence about to occur or in progress, or to stop offending in progress, which will potentially enable rangers to prevent or minimise the harm to wildlife. In other words, they can act in a timely fashion to intervene before a crime is committed. Temporarily, they can stop persons suspected of an offence to allow investigation. This can be very important in situations where an offender is trying to evade the rangers or is trying to hide evidence of the offending.

It will also enable our rangers to seize a broader range of evidence, such as laptops, cameras, and mobile phones. This can help build a case, or help to prove intent—for example, whether an offence is commercially motivated. Also, they will have additional powers requiring proof of identification details from suspected offenders—specifically, their date of birth and evidence of their identity. This will support rangers to get information that is legally required before a person can be charged. In addition, this bill grants the power to arrest. That is limited to very serious offending against absolutely protected wildlife, such as that involving illegal hunting, killing, or export. Access to that power of arrest is also very limited: to full-time DOC rangers who are specifically warranted to use it. That is a very small team of highly trained specialists, many of whom are former policeman. This will most likely be used for the serious offences that I referred to earlier, such as international smuggling, because these can pose significant risks to absolutely protected wildlife such as our native lizards, and because the suspected offenders are a potential flight risk.

I welcome the Local Government and Environment Committee report on the bill, and the 14 tweaks and adjustments that are recommended—12 from DOC and two from the select committee, all of which have been adopted. They have clarified the nature and extent of the new powers and their relationship to existing provisions in the Act. The new section 39AA specifies which rangers will have access to the powers to seize evidential material, to require people to stop, and to intervene to prevent offences. New section 39AA clarifies that these powers are available to DOC full-time rangers, specifically those who are warranted and trained in enforcement work. They are also available to police officers and to fishery officers as well.

They are not available to DOC honorary rangers or honorary fishing officers or to any honorary Fish and Game New Zealand rangers. There was, and there is, a very simple reason why this was the case. Honorary rangers are at arm’s length from the Government. They are not public servants, and are not subject to the Public Service Code of Conduct which binds DOC and other full-time Crown staff who are employed by the Crown—and obligation, transparency, and accountability are very important parts of the rigour of this process.

The select committee also clarified the safeguards around some of the powers. Any evidence seized must relate to the investigation of a suspected offence. The power to stop a person may be exercised only in relation to a suspected offence, and does not enable the use of force. A person may also be stopped only for a time that is reasonable in the circumstances.

The committee replaced the existing section 40 of the Act to clarify the type of behaviour that constitutes obstructing a person acting under the Wildlife Act. The changes to the section take account of the new powers. The committee further amended the new section 66A, to make it clearer who can require identification information, and what types of identification information can be required from suspected offenders. The committee extended the ability to require suspected offenders to provide their date of birth to full-time Fish and Game rangers. That is, I think, appropriate for the level of offending that they are generally dealing with when they are managing game-bird hunting under the Act. The full-time Fish and Game rangers do an excellent job, as do the full-time DOC rangers, and I commend them all for the great work that they do, and for their sincerity, and for the—frankly—heroic nature of the work that they sometimes do in the field.

Rangers are out in the front line of conservation, day in and day out, sustaining the very essence of our New Zealand identity. Our DOC rangers maintain the tracks, the huts, the reserves, the special places, and the landscapes that we all—including visitors to this country—enjoy so much. They make our nation famous to the world, they keep the standards high, and they care. They also protect our native species in the heat of the summer, in the cold of the winter, and in the driving wind and gales which seem to come in every season, and which make it very difficult for the young fledgling chicks to survive—our DOC rangers are there every step of the way. They do that work in the face of often ill-informed and vicious abuse from the likes of the anti-1080 poison lobby. I take this opportunity in the House, with this bill, to commend the fortitude and the stamina of the DOC staff.

This bill is a small but vital way to help make their work a little bit easier, and to help them be even more effective in protecting our national monuments, which are our national taonga, from poachers. I commend the work of the DOC full-time rangers, the Fish and Game full-time rangers, and I commend this Wildlife (Powers) Bill to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Labour is pleased to be able to support the progress of this bill through the House and to support the consideration of the Local Government and Environment Committee on what are some small but integral steps towards modernising the legislation.

I did not sit on the select committee. However, I know that from the considerations and from having read some of the submissions, it is clear that the committee took seriously some of the fundamental aspects of empowering DOC rangers by way of allowing and broadening their ability to intervene, to stop, and to detain people for illegal activities. I just want to summarise a couple of those submissions. First, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee and the suggestions it made around the scope of the stop-and-search powers, to ensure that the objectives of the bill could be achieved while keeping in mind the balance between individual rights and conferring rights to DOC rangers—I think it made some helpful suggestions, which the committee and DOC officials reflected on. You can see that through the amendments to the bill that have been suggested.

The Minister of Conservation is right: protecting New Zealand’s biodiversity does matter. When we think about New Zealand and our conservation estate, and the rich biodiversity that we have throughout—which we can share with our children, the next generation, who are part of protecting and cherishing the estate—it is only right that we try to ensure that DOC rangers have the types of powers that stop people from, basically, plundering and illegally taking our natural wildlife. For that reason, I read carefully the submission by the New Zealand Fish and Game Council, and I did happen to be at one small part of a hearing when it was there. It argued against being excluded from the provisions of the bill. I think the committee deliberated on this matter, but, in the end, landed in the right place.

Some of the conversations that were had when I was at the select committee were largely around the fact that the Fish and Game New Zealand honorary rangers are just that—they are voluntary. They do not have statutory powers, and it would be difficult to try to confer significant powers on a group of people where, quite frankly—we did have the discussion during the public submissions—there could be a rogue ranger and they could just go all over the show with their powers. I think the committee, in good conscience, weighed up the submission from Fish and Game New Zealand and balanced that with some practical applications of what was intended in the legislation, and really narrowed down the powers there.

The New Zealand Law Society also gave a very useful submission. It wanted to stress and ensure that the powers that were being conferred in this bill aligned with the Search and Surveillance Act. That has been the case, and you can see it in the committee’s report back to the House.

The Minister has pretty much extensively covered the things that were considered: the power to seize evidence; the power to stop a person, in addition to the existing powers that are already there for DOC rangers; and the power to intervene to prevent offending. Those were the key aspects from the committee’s report, which many of the amendments focused on.

On the issue of DOC rangers and approved officers having the powers of arrest, one of the interesting points that the report notes is that the committee has narrowed the scope, or the potential for interpretation of the scope being too broad, in the way in which these powers were going to be conferred. I think, all in all, that suggestion was a very useful conversation in the committee.

The committee notes in the report that it heard a number of submitters and made various recommendations. Clarifying the classes of rangers was very important. Again—having only sat in on the submission from Fish and Game New Zealand—identifying who was intended to be covered by the Act and, therefore, who was not, was very well specified within the amendments being proposed. Making clear that rangers can seize evidential material and the extent of that evidential material, and, again, aligning those powers to the Search and Surveillance Act, gives greater confidence to the way in which the Act is intended to operate.

One of the things I remember from the first reading debate is the fact that we have DOC rangers out there doing great stuff, and often by themselves. We want to make sure, ultimately, that in carrying out their role and that by conferring extra powers of this nature on them, they are safe and they are able to conduct these types of duties and obligations in a way that will protect them as well.

One of the other aspects is the issue of requiring a person to stop and for how long you would retain them. I am sure that was a healthy conversation, and I know that a number of colleagues who were at the select committee will probably comment on the issue of detaining people and for what period. In the end, “reasonableness” became the operative word—being reasonable in that manner.

I want to spend some time on commenting on the type of information being obtained in order for a prosecution to take place, and requiring that date of birth information is obtained. This is a matter that I know my colleague David Parker, who was on the select committee, wants to raise in the Committee stage of this process. It is really to ensure that if you are going to pursue evidence that will potentially lead to a prosecution, you have then got to make sure that all of that type of information and the people who can collect it are able to do their role. I understand that there was some discussion around an extension to make Fish and Game rangers able to obtain this information for that purpose.

It had occurred to me, when listening to the Minister’s speech around this—and it is purely from a safety aspect—whether there would be some kind of a review around the way in which certain parts of the DOC estate at certain periods of the year might be better supported because there is, maybe, a trending of activities and things like that. That is an operational decision—I understand that—but if we are going to have a bill that increases the powers of DOC rangers to be able to intervene and stop illegal activity, then looking at the operational aspects of whether or not the capacity needs to be increased in various parts of the DOC estate is probably a natural consequence of those powers.

Finally, I know that the bill will go through its Committee stage and there will be some useful discussion around the narrowing of the powers, as suggested by the amendments by the select committee. There is ample time for that to be discussed through the Committee stage. But can I say, from my small part in the DOC estate that is within my own electorate, we are very grateful for the good work that DOC rangers conduct within our area. Over the summer period, in particular, you see a natural increase in the number of Kiwis enjoying the DOC estate and offering to help with the activities of DOC rangers, where they can. Just at the back of my house they are improving the tracks. If you are up for it, there is a great walk, with a number of steps. If you are up for it, again, you can help take stones up a stairway—called the Hākarimata Ranges, Minister.

But can I say that, in so far as the DOC estate is concerned, these amendments, albeit small, are useful amendments for DOC rangers. At the border, when you see eggs being smuggled out, when you see things coming illegally into New Zealand—reptiles and the like—you realise that we have the luxury in New Zealand, being surrounded by ocean, to be able to protect what we have here and to be able to ensure that we can stop wildlife from going out elsewhere as best we can. In order for that to happen, amendments like this are very practical and useful to achieve that purpose. Kia ora.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Before I commence my contribution, I would just like to acknowledge, with grateful appreciation, the speech of the member who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. I think she neatly and aptly summed up the opportunities and challenges that the Local Government and Environment Committee was confronted with in terms of addressing what, on the face of it, seems like a relatively minor change but is actually a change that extends powers to full-time DOC rangers and, indeed, to full-time Fish and Game rangers to help them do the good work that they have done for so long and will continue to do to protect our native creatures that these days, sadly, are highly valued on the international black market.

It is 60 years since the principal legislation was introduced. Most of us in this Parliament have not seen any change to this legislation in our lifetimes. So I want to commend my friend and colleague the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry, for introducing this piece of legislation to the House. I think it is a good piece of legislation. It is balanced, it is measured, and it is appropriate. It modernises a piece of legislation that has actually served us as a nation well, and it has served the Department of Conservation well, but it is time to modernise it.

I particularly noted at the select committee, and the Minister made reference to it in her speech, that the existing principal legislation has that rather quaint gender-specific reference that was typical of the time. For instance, currently DOC staff, if they need assistance from members of the public, for instance to help them do their duties and maybe apprehend or intervene in a matter, they are permitted by statute to only request assistance from men. Of course, that is something we would not want to have, necessarily limiting the ability of people of whatever gender to assist and be involved in the good work of DOC officers, should they need it.

The Hon Nanaia Mahuta and the Minister both made reference in their speeches to the delicate balance that we had to find in terms of getting the civil liberties aspects of this legislation in perspective and with the right balance. This relates to giving people some quite serious powers—the powers to stop, detain, and arrest. These are not powers that are given lightly by this Parliament, and nor should they be. So very careful consideration was given to how far we wanted to extend those powers. In the end, the select committee went further than in the bill as first introduced. After consideration and careful thought, we decided to extend those powers to full-time Fish and Game rangers, because they do excellent work. In fact, Fish and Game do excellent work, both full-time and voluntarily as honorary officers. But we thought, on balance, that the appropriate position to land this legislation was that full-time staff would be the best placed to do that, and not to extend it to volunteers, in this situation. I think that was about right. I do not think it is in any way a slight or a discounting of the work and effort that Fish and Game do in our conservation estate and, indeed, around the country.

This is a very good piece of legislation. As the member Nanaia Mahuta said, it is quite a small piece of legislation but its impact is quite large on protecting our native creatures and species from those ratbags who want to come here, steal them, take them away, and then sell them on the international black market, which I think all New Zealanders would want to be stopped. This bill extends the powers to enable full-time DOC rangers and full-time Fish and Game rangers to do the job that they already do, but to do it better. I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I would like to acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee as well as the officials, who have put a lot of work into ensuring that this legislation comes to the House. Labour supports this bill. This is a bill that will reform the Wildlife Act of 1953, with the objective of giving full-time DOC rangers new enforcement powers when they encounter offences. Some of these new powers would allow DOC rangers the following power: the power to be able to seize a whole lot of evidence. Currently DOC rangers have the power to stop vehicles and to stop vessels, as well as bags in transit. However, this new legislation will allow them to stop a person, and, as previously discussed by my colleague Nanaia Mahuta as well as the Minister the Hon Maggie Barry and Scott Simpson, this is a power that is not given lightly—the fact that we are giving people the power to be able to stop someone else.

At the select committee a lot of submitters were very concerned about the length of time that DOC rangers would be able to stop individuals for, whether they would be able to stop people under reasonable circumstances, and whether they would have reasonable grounds before they would stop a person. We believe that the amendments that have come through after the select committee process are actually quite sound, so that the powers would be given only by the Director-General of Conservation before DOC rangers are able to use this power of arrest, and that it would be done by written authority. One of the things that the legislation now clarifies is that instead of the power to be able to warrant—because the power of arrest is actually the power to be able to stop someone without a warrant, the term “warrant” has now been taken out of the legislation.

However, we do have some concerns with this particular legislation, and I would like to turn to one of those concerns. My colleague the Hon David Parker intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) when we come to the Committee stage, and his concerns were expressed during the select committee process. Right now, the prosecutorial guidelines applying in New Zealand require all charging documents to include a date of birth. This is in part to avoid confusion between two people of the same name, including parents who have the same name as their child living at the same address. This is an SOP to address, in particular, the Fish and Game rangers being excluded from this legislation. We were advised by the New Zealand Fish and Game Council that its rangers are currently limited in their ability to perform their statutory role of enforcing game hunting because they are unable to require date-of-birth information from suspected offenders, and they cannot prosecute unless this information is given voluntarily.

We were also advised by officials that although this would be a useful power for full-time Fish and Game rangers, it would not be necessary to extend the power to honorary Fish and Game rangers, because honorary rangers were said to be generally accompanied by full-time Fish and Game rangers. However, we were told by Fish and Game New Zealand that this information was incorrect. So the SOP that my colleague the Hon David Parker intends to introduce would be to address this particular issue.

Labour supports any measures that would help our hard-working Conservation staff to do their jobs properly. Our natural environment is a massive asset to all Kiwis, not just for recreation but for tourism, as well. Tourism, as we know, is one of the main ways that we earn funding from overseas folks. We also must ensure that the environment is protected for our future generations of New Zealanders to enjoy.

However, the other concern that Labour has is in terms of funding. DOC already struggles with the funding that it has to do the massive job that it currently does. Last year 1,500 of our DOC staff, out of frustration at the fact that they were being so overworked, took industrial work-to-rule action after being offered very little pay increase. In 2009 there were 803 DOC rangers, but currently there are only 637. So in terms of funding, in 2009 National’s cut to DOC’s budget was $46 million, in 2013 it was cut by another $8.7 million, and this year there was a further cut. We are going to hand over to our DOC staff even more powers, even more work for them to do. But, as we implement this new legislation, in order for this bill to work, the Labour Party is saying to the Government that it needs to fund DOC appropriately in order for us to ensure that it can do all of the work that we intend for it to do, with this additional work, appropriately. Thank you so much.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill in its second reading, and in support of the Department of Conservation (DOC), which is one of the most popular Government departments in New Zealand. It has a very wide-ranging brief and it executes those functions exceptionally well. It has dedicated staff on the front line and in its back rooms, going in to bat for our wildlife and for conservation efforts, and it should be commended for that.

As such, I commend the Minister the Hon Maggie Barry for introducing this bill, which is well overdue—it is now 60 years that the Wildlife Act has been in existence, and it requires updating to give our wonderful rangers, full-time DOC rangers and full-time Fish and Game rangers, enforcement powers that are modernised and that are balanced with respect to individuals’ civil liberties but that are necessary to protect our wildlife.

Obviously, New Zealand is synonymous with its wildlife, with its parks, and with the nature of recreation in New Zealand, and one of the beauties of that is that New Zealanders can go into the bush, we can enjoy nature, and we can get to witness interactions or interact with wildlife in situ. Unfortunately, as my colleagues have mentioned, some of those species are very highly valuable on the black market, so we need to protect our ecosystems and make sure that those species are there for the enjoyment of all people. Notwithstanding that, of course, with New Zealand being synonymous with nature, our tourism industry is built on that—over 3 million visitors to New Zealand in 2015, and most of them visiting our national parks and wonderful spaces, which hold some of these wonderful, rare wildlife. And let us face it: New Zealand holds about two-thirds of the world’s biodiversity, so we need to protect that, and we need to give our rangers the powers to be able to seize evidence and arrest people whom they reasonably suspect of committing an offence by taking these wonderful species.

So I am very pleased that this legislation has been brought to the House. It was a robust select committee process, and I am pleased to be supporting the Department of Conservation in these efforts to give it powers that are modernised in order to help protect our wildlife. So I support this bill.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is pleased to support the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill, but I think we risk some of the Government members actually overstating what is in this bill when they talk about the Act being modernised. The bill is quite narrow in its ambit. It deals with improving the enforcement of the Wildlife Act, but there is a need for a major overhaul of that Act, and this Government lacks the vision to do that and adequately support the Department of Conservation through ensuring that funding is adequate. We can hear lots of speeches from Government members talking about the important work that departmental staff do and the importance of the department’s mandate in protecting our indigenous plants and wildlife and our special landscapes, but we do not see a commitment in the Budget to actually adequately resourcing that work. We do not see a commitment to ensuring that—

Hon Maggie Barry: Predator Free 2050—visionary.

EUGENIE SAGE: Well, yes, the Minister of Conservation may have a vision of Predator Free 2050, but it is the Green Party, through our Taonga Levy, that has actually come up with a practical proposition to provide the funding to support it, rather than the very ad hoc measures that the Minister has proposed—to provide just a bit of additional funding for kiwi and a bit of additional funding tomorrow for wilding control, which is a project that we support. But there is a total under-investment in conservation through the continued cuts to conservation funding that we have seen under this Government. The Government is very good at getting the headlines with all of its PR about how well species are doing, but it fails to look clearly at what bycatch is happening and at the continued underfunding of conservation.

This bill is very narrow in its scope. What we need is an overhaul of the whole Act to protect native fish species. It is under the Wildlife Act that we see most of our native birds protected—

Hon Maggie Barry: Out of scope.

EUGENIE SAGE: —except the—yes, well the Minister is saying it is out of scope. But if the Minister had had some vision, she would have embarked on a more comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act. The Minister and this Government do not seem to care about the fact that 72 percent—72 percent—of our native fish species are threatened with extinction, yet not one existing native fish is protected by the Wildlife Act. The only fish that is protected is the grayling, and that is extinct, Minister. So if the Government had some vision, we would be looking at a much more comprehensive overhaul of the Act, to protect native fish—to protect a taonga like the tuna, the longfin eel, which is still being fished to extinction. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has said, it is on a slow pathway to extinction.

This bill will be useful in increasing the powers that the warranted officers within the Department of Conservation have available to stop, intervene in, and prevent offending. It will increase their ability to stop a person if they think that the person is about to commit an offence, allow them to stop a person’s vehicle but not hold the person for questioning, allow them to request identity verification and date of birth, and allow them the power to seize a broader range of materials that are connected to offending, for example, mobile phones and the like.

But this is not the first time that we have amended the Wildlife Act. We had a private bill in 2013 that increased the penalties for offending, which is all well and good, like this bill, but it is not actually addressing the critical issues of loss of biodiversity and the fact that our native fish do not have any protection under the Act. The whitebait season has started again, and yet most New Zealanders do not realise that of the juveniles of the five native species that make up the whitebait catch—the kōaro, the shortjawed kōkopu, the giant kokopu—are threatened with extinction. That is the sort of change that we need to be seeing to the Wildlife Act—actually providing protection for these species, and the Department of Conservation ensuring that there are adequate freshwater fish reserves to protect them—not just fiddling by improving the offence provisions.

The Green Party is supporting the bill. We will consider the amendments that the Labour Party members are proposing to put forward, because the advice that we had, in the Local Government and Environment Committee, was that warranted officers—State servants, Department of Conservation staff—should have these powers, and so should employed staff of Fish and Game New Zealand, but not honorary officers, because that was extending the powers too far. There has been a disappointing gap in the Wildlife Act in that there is no protection for our indigenous native fish, because they are every bit as important as our native birds, our skinks, and our lizards, which this bill is designed to protect through trying to stop smuggling, export, and capture of those species. The Government should be amending the law in a much wider way to provide proper statutory protection for all of our native wildlife, and not just the native birds, the reptiles, and a few species of invertebrates that are currently listed in the legislation. But we do support the increase in the provisions to stop offending. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): It is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call and speak to the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. In all of the years—I suppose it is 2 years now—that I have been speaking in the House, I do not think there has been one time that I have actually given a genuine nod of approval to Minister Maggie Barry for any legislation or views that she has brought forward. But today I am going to give you a genuine, sincere nod of approval, because I think this bill is quite good, and the amendments made by the Local Government and Environment Committee—

Hon Maggie Barry: Good job I’m sitting down.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: I know. You are going all red. It is like you are blushing.

Hon Maggie Barry: No, no. Don’t push it.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Ha, ha! But the reality is, I think the committee has done a great job in making some amendments that are here before us today, particularly around extending those powers from not only full-time DOC rangers but to Fish and Game rangers as well.

I have to lament some of what Eugenie Sage has said in relation to the funding, because I think that is a real issue, and I will touch on that. But the essence of the bill goes some way towards tightening up on poachers and people who are abusing our wildlife.

At the end of the day, tourism, which is our largest GDP provider and our biggest export, is looking to grow absolutely exponentially over the next decade and more. That is largely because of our unique flora and fauna and, of course, our native species that people want to come and see and be part of. If we allow the proliferation and degradation in the taking of species illegally and we do not empower our people to actually enforce the law, then, clearly, that is just going to lead to the demise of what we hold absolutely pure: our ”100% Pure New Zealand” brand, which the world cherishes and which we should be should be cherishing too. This goes some way towards enabling that to happen.

The ability, in basic terms, to prevent an event from happening—so for a DOC ranger or a Fish and Game ranger to be able to step in and, if they feel that there is something that is going to take place that is potentially illegally, they can actually involve themselves in that situation—is a good step. Stopping and being able to detain somebody if they are in the middle of illegal activities, or are likely to be involved in illegal activities, is good. The reasonable stoppage time—the key word being “reasonable”—whether or not that goes far enough will obviously come out in case law when that is first tested. Perhaps the Government would like to consider putting in more definition and clarification about what is fair and what is reasonable. Of course, we do not want to be going into litigation with people who are illegally taking and plundering our natural resource, and then having to justify what a fair and reasonable amount of time was. That could actually open up all sorts of legislative issues around the time frames for which they were held. But it is still a good measure.

The ability for full-time rangers to be able to seize equipment and seize assets from poachers or potential poachers is a great idea. Enabling a ranger to be able to take a laptop or computer or cellphone to use as evidence is absolutely paramount. How can you build a case without the ability to gather that intel and information that can actually go towards indicting those people and, obviously, convicting them of an offence?

Finally, just like the powers of police to enable the police to get genuine information from those offenders—obviously, name and date of birth are essential, as well as addresses and proof of identification. Otherwise you are out in the bush, you are looking at or talking to a potential poacher, it is all going swimmingly until they give you an erroneous address of the person and there is no way to check up on that. These sorts of pragmatic steps have certainly been accoladed by New Zealand First, and we look forward to those being implemented.

I note the time in which—28 days after the Royal assent is given—this legislation will actually be introduced, so we would like to see this bill expedited through the House. Again, it is a good piece of legislation, as it was last night with the Charities Amendment Bill. We would like to see good, solid, robust legislation that has full support of the House to be pushed through at some sort of pace, unlike some of the other legislation that we have seen be put through in the past.

Eugenie Sage mentions that our fish are not protected under this bill. Well, I beg to differ, because we have got most of our native birds covered under this bill; all of our native reptiles, particularly the tuatara, which is a targeted species on the international black market—whether our own fellow New Zealanders are actually exploiting this creature or if it is an international group that is doing it, regardless, the tuatara is a very, very precious species and should be looked after. We have got two native species of frogs, the gold and, I think, the green—the bell frogs. We are not very creative with our naming, though, are we? Green and gold, North Island, South Island, Stewart Island; that was a guy who—you know. Anyway, bats of course—we have got a native species of bat—and there are eight marine invertebrate species that are protected, and certain specified native land all covered under this bill. So it does go some way. We do have concerns that our native species are being slowly but surely brought to extinction, and we need to do everything we absolutely, possibly can to ensure that they remain for future generations and they grow and flourish in this beautiful land of ours.

Certainly, we could talk about some other aspects of that, but I do want to go back to what is probably the overarching issue here: this is good legislation, a step in the right direction—a modernisation, if you will—but funding is absolutely paramount, and we have seen, since 2009, a reduction in DOC funding of $60 million.

Hon Maggie Barry: Oh, rubbish.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Absolutely—it is here in black and white. I could come over there or I could table it if you like, but it is actually available if you just look for it. In 2009 we had $403 million, and in 2015 we had $342 million. In 2008 our capital expenditure within the Department of Conservation was $98 million, and in 2015 it was $23.5 million. That causes some serious concerns in relation to health and safety. We have seen our number of DOC rangers be reduced from 809 down to 637. We are expecting our front-line officers—

Hon Maggie Barry: Stick to the facts. Stick to the point of this bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —to do more for less. Now Maggie Barry wants to chip in and be part of the conversation. No, you just do not like the reality that this is the truth and you are trying to shut down the truth from the people of New Zealand. This is the frustration that we have, New Zealanders: Ministers will not face the fact that you are being completely underfunded, and they are potentially putting our DOC rangers in harm by underfunding them—making them do twice as much for half the money.

The reality is that New Zealand First has some serious concerns. This Government has overcommitted itself, has not budgeted its finances properly, and is causing all sorts of issues in the long term in many sectors—which I will not segue into, but I might just talk about housing, police, corrections, and a range of other things—but specifically, the Department of Conservation needs to be seriously looked at.

New Zealand First will be supporting this through the final stages. We would like to see it hurried through. We would certainly like to put the acid on Minister Maggie Barry to seriously put funding as a priority for our most precious of items, our land and our native species, because at the moment, under this Government, it does not seem to be a priority and you are making our front-line officers do more for less. It is absolutely in black and white—you can deny it all you like, but, at the end of the day, you have had your lovely speech. We enjoyed it, because listening to Maggie Barry, of course, is like getting beat up with toilet paper—it is just so soft and smooth and silky. Thank you, I will end my contribution there.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, mauriora. E ngā mema o Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. E Te Minita, tēnā koe. I would like to begin by acknowledging our wonderful Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry, who does so much hard work protecting and defending the precious natural environment of our country. I want to thank the member who just resumed his seat, Clayton Mitchell, for the first 8 minutes or so of his contribution, which made perfect sense and which I agree with, but, unfortunately, he spoilt his otherwise good contribution in the last couple of minutes by engaging in some unfortunate numerical inexactitude.

This is a Government that has invested considerably in extra support for our environment and in making sure the Department of Conservation, which does such good work, has the tools it needs, the resources it needs, and the staff power it needs to get out and protect our precious natural environment in New Zealand. I am going to agree with the contribution made by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who said that this bill is a good balance between the individual rights of New Zealand citizens going about their business and enjoying nature and the powers of rangers to be able to do something when they detect someone they suspect of violating the general principles and the specific laws that we have in place to protect our endangered species—all of our native species—our plants, and our wildlife.

This bill brings in a great level of power to allow a full-time State-employed ranger to not just ask for proof of ID, which was the previous situation, but demand proof of ID—not just ask someone what their name and date of birth is but be able to demand it, and we are backing that up with the legal powers to do so. This is a huge gain, and this gives them a greater level of power than they have had in the last 60 years, but when we are giving stop-and-search powers it is important that these come with a balancing level of control. There are not, for a voluntary ranger, the levels of integrity and code of conduct controls that can be applied to someone who is in the service of the State—someone who falls under State Services Commission rules.

So I think it is important that we do distinguish between an honorary ranger, who does incredibly valuable work—and as my colleague Scott Simpson, the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, said, this is not to underrate the work they do. But when we are giving powers that could be considered by some to be invasive we need to balance that with a countervailing level of scrutiny. This is something that, as a Government, we have approached very carefully. We do not want rogue rangers and we do not want vigilante action, and this bill achieves a very good balance between those things.

It was disappointing to hear a half-hearted, lukewarm, and half-baked contribution from the Green Party, which I thought actually stood for protecting our environment in New Zealand. This is a bill that significantly increases the powers of our hard-working rangers to be able to protect our natural environment and protect endangered species, so it is disappointing to hear that from a party that purports to protect our environment. This is a very good bill, it is a credit to a very fine Minister, and I commend it to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Mojo Mathers—5 minutes.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would like to start by saying that the Green Party absolutely recognises and honours the hard-working commitment of DOC rangers and staff. I also just want to acknowledge that they have been facing a totally unacceptable level of abuse as the symptom of, particularly, DOC’s use of 1080. I just want to put on our record that it is not acceptable that they should have to face that kind of treatment of having their photos splattered all over social media, their personal home addresses, and so on. That is just not OK.

We absolutely do support giving them more powers to strengthen their ability to enforce the Wildlife Act, but I also want to affirm that it is disappointing that the real problem, which is the underfunding and under-resourcing of DOC, continues to be ignored. It may be stating the obvious, but if you do not have enough people on the ground, giving them more powers is not going to make a lot of meaningful difference to protecting and saving our endangered and threatened wildlife. We need the numbers on the ground, and the numbers have been going down. Eight years ago there were 833 DOC rangers; now there are 788, despite the fact that we have a biodiversity crisis in this country.

So we support the bill, and we support it because we have a biodiversity crisis, with nearly 4,000 of New Zealand’s precious and unique species at risk of going extinct. Eight hundred are listed by DOC as being at very high risk of extinction, and that number has increased by nearly 200 species in the last 5 years alone. Nearly all amphibians are critically endangered, it is similar for many reptiles and birds, and just last week a marine environment report found that New Zealand has the highest number of threatened seabird species in the world, with 90 percent of our seabirds at risk of extinction, as are many of our marine mammals. Not only do we have the dubious honour of having the highest proportion of endangered species of any country on earth, the vast majority of these do not have any active recovery plans in place, and this is a disgrace. The biggest threats to our native species are predation, habitat loss, and environmental pollution. So, obviously, coming down very hard on people who are smuggling or killing rare and endangered species is the right thing to do. But they are only the edge of the problem. The main problems are, as I have said, habitat loss, habitat degradation, and predation, so it is a small part of the picture.

So we support this bill, but if we are talking about the biodiversity crisis, it is just tinkering at the edge of the margins, and this bill will do little to address that. We have to get real about what it is going to take in the way of resourcing and funding DOC to do its work.

I want to give as an example, very quickly, of how this is playing out on the ground. Six months ago I moved to a beautiful area that is right beside a scenic reserve: Peel Forest. This forest is not being adequately managed for pest control, so possums are running rampant through the forest—so much so, that on the edge of our property there is one small self-resetting trap where we caught 11 possums in a mere 2 weeks. That is how many pests are going absolutely rampant through this highly unique and important remnant forest, which is very precious in Canterbury because there is such a small area that is left of the forest type that used to cover a lot of the Canterbury Plains. Now Canterbury is one of the most modified landscapes in the whole of New Zealand, so we should be doing everything we can to be protecting these last remnants, and that is not happening because the DOC staff are understaffed.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ā, huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ki a koe e Te Minita o Te Papa Atawhai, ngā mihi.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to you all throughout this House. My acknowledgments to you, Minister for the Environment.]

I want to rise in support of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill to highlight that this bill is a very important part of the Government’s environment and conservation programme, because it will reduce offending against wildlife. Most of what we do in the conservation space is about conserving particular areas of land and the wildlife that lives there. It is also about regulating human access to those conservation areas in a way that ensures we can all enjoy these areas without causing harm to our native species. A lot of our work is also about reducing predators. Well, actually, it used to be about reducing predators, but thanks to this bold vision that the Government has, we are going to actually eradicate predators and make the country predator-free by 2025.

There is also another type of predator that we have here that really does endanger our wildlife, and that is people—people who deliberately or carelessly endanger our wildlife by committing offences. But the issue we have right now is that the powers of the DOC rangers to deal with these offences are very, very limited. These rangers are highly trained and trusted individuals who do a fantastic job of looking after our most pristine natural areas. I think it is appropriate that we are now giving them new powers to prevent offences against wildlife and deal with the offenders whom they actually encounter.

These rangers are already very, very highly trained, and as a result of this bill they will receive further training to ensure that they understand their new powers and the limits to those powers so that they can apply them effectively to prevent the endangerment of our precious wildlife. That is really a big part of the essence of this bill. Under the bill, rangers will have the power to take action to prevent an offence about to occur or in progress. Powers of arrest will be limited. They will be limited to certain rangers authorised by the Director-General of Conservation, but other full-time rangers will have the ability to temporarily stop suspected offenders in order to allow an investigation. They will be able to seize a broader range of evidence that they currently at the moment cannot. So they will be able to require identification and details from suspected offenders. The range of powers that allow these offenders to be stopped is: to be stopped, identified, investigated, and in certain circumstances arrested, also then leading to prosecution. These powers, to me, as part of the Local Government and Environment Committee, are well-thought-out, they are sensible, and they carefully balance the operational requirements of DOC staff with the principle that agents of the Government should have no more power than they need in order to carry out their job.

In this case, this bill is an excellent bill. It is a reflection of the great work that has been done under this Government in the name of conservation. I acknowledge once again the Minister of Conservation in being the one who actually really is responsible for this bill coming to the House, and it is our pleasure to be sitting on the committee to assist in enabling that to happen. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted to join the voices of support for the second reading of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill, and I want to particularly congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee on the work that it did—very ably chaired by a member whose name just escapes me at the moment.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon RUTH DYSON: Scott Simpson, an excellent chair of the committee. I think the whole committee seems to have done a very good job on this.

This bill was certainly necessary. It is not a very big bill, it is not a very substantial bill, it has not got a lot of policy issues in it, but it was needed to update the powers that Department of Conservation (DOC) officers have. The main new power that is given in this bill is the power to seize a wider range of evidence. That is clearly to ensure that any prosecution has a more robust case behind it so that it does not fail. That is a smart thing to do. There is the power to stop a person—it might seem like that must be the case at the moment, but, actually, under the current Wildlife Act, rangers have powers to stop only vehicles, vessels, and other items. For example, if someone is carrying a bag, rangers can detain the bag but they cannot detain the person, so that obviously makes examination, calling the police, etc., a lot more difficult.

Currently rangers cannot temporarily stop people to assist in an investigation. So, obviously, if someone is doing something that is considered illegal they can just leave and, again, the rangers have no ability to stop them. If the rangers think that a person might have been a witness to such an offence, they cannot stop them either. They cannot seize evidence. They cannot seize cameras, they cannot seize mobile phones, and they cannot seize laptops. I think that the original legislation was passed before laptops and mobile phones were in use—it is 1953 legislation, so it is getting on. We did not have mobile phones and laptops, so I am told, in those days.

Another new power that is being given by this legislation is the power to require suspected offenders to supply identification details. Obviously, that is another critical bit of information that would enable a successful prosecution to later go through. In some specific examples there are warranted rangers and approved officers who would actually themselves have the power of arrest. So those are the main additional powers that are being given to all DOC rangers and some specifically warranted rangers and approved officers in terms of the power of arrest.

Labour supports any measure that will help our hard-working Conservation staff do their jobs properly. I do not think there would be very many New Zealanders who do not totally value the work that DOC does. It will be a good message for DOC staff to hear from this Parliament that their work is appreciated, because we know that they do not feel very valued. They do not feel as if they are properly supported to get on and do their job. The Department of Conservation does an annual survey, and the 2015 results showed that only 27 percent of DOC staff had faith and confidence in their senior leadership, which is a really sad reflection on how people whom we in this Parliament value so much regard the support that they are given.

We know that our natural environment is not just good for New Zealanders to love and value but is also a massive asset for our country for recreation as well as tourism. People come to New Zealand because of the beautiful environment that we have and, of course, because of the welcoming people as well. So we have to ensure that that environment is protected for future generations. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that that protection is properly funded and properly supported.

We know that DOC has been struggling with funding over the last little while. I know that under the previous Minister there were substantial cuts to the DOC budget. The Minister came to a select committee that I was on and explained the reason for the cuts, and basically said: “You know, we haven’t enough money to go round and DOC has to have its share of the cuts in the same way as other Government departments and agencies have done.” That was his explanation. It was not well received, I know, by the committee at the time, because DOC is funded to only the bare minimum now, and it cannot really afford to face any more cuts.

We know that DOC staff, as I mentioned earlier, feel undervalued and they are also overworked. Last year 1,500 DOC staff took industrial action, and they were offered a pitiful pay increase. They felt as if it was a slap in the face, given all the work that they had done. In this legislation we are giving them additional work, and what would be really great to hear—and I am sure that DOC staff would welcome it—is that they are getting additional resources. They are getting all these additional powers. There will be more work when the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill is passed, but where are the resources to back it up?

In 2009 there were 803 DOC rangers—that is public information; it cannot be argued because it is information that is on the public record—and now there are only 637. Again, that is information that is on the public record. There has been no change in the names of the rangers. There can be no explanations such as: “They are now called something else.” They were rangers then and they are rangers now, and the number has reduced substantially. Again, in this bill we are giving those very people more work to do. It is the DOC rangers who are going to be asked to do this work.

In 2009 the DOC budget was cut by $46 million. That was done by the previous Minister, and I have already explained the reasons he gave to the select committee for that cut. In 2013 it was cut by another $8.7 million. I want to know whether, in the next Budget, the addition work we are giving the rangers will be properly resourced. We should not be setting up public servants to fail. That is a very bad thing for this Government to do, and it is a bad thing for this Parliament to do. So although we support the intent of this legislation, and we will certainly be voting for it, I suppose the message to the Minister is: “Put your money where your mouth is.” Let us see the resources so that we can be confident that this legislation will be enacted in the way that Parliament has intended, in the way the select committee discussed in its careful deliberations, and in the way, I am sure, the Minister originally intended. Thank you.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in support of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill in its second reading. Could I acknowledge the Hon Maggie Barry, our Minister of Conservation, for all the great work she does and the ambitious work she and the Government do in ensuring we protect our wildlife.

We know that with New Zealand’s culture and economy our wildlife and our environment are a key part of that. It is something we should always be looking to protect, and it is great to see that this National Government, with its Bluegreen initiatives, is the party that is very much looking to protect our environment and protect our wildlife. A lot of constituents in my electorate say to me: “Why does the Green Party always default to far-left socialist policies? Why does it not get back to talking about the environment?”. Well, I suppose we have probably taken that space of talking about the environment, championing the environment, and championing the wildlife. I mean, when you look at the great wildlife we have, whether it be our kiwi, our tuatara—I am a big fan, being from Canterbury, of course, of our cheeky kea. It is a great bird.

The benefits of being an open country and connecting to a globalised world actually come with some risks and some threats. We know that in the days of the internet, as well as more accessible airline travel, this poses some risks from people who might choose to shop online for some of our wildlife, or who come over here to smuggle some of our wildlife back to another country. So it is quite right that we are taking a very keen interest in this space, and quite right that we have actually listened to Department of Conservation (DOC) staff. This bill is actually based on the feedback from DOC staff, and it is great that the Government is looking to empower them further to achieve their jobs. Their feedback was that they have not been able to seize devices storing evidence, such as cameras and phones. They were having a bigger issue around people providing false names and addresses and not being able to ask them to provide some proof of ID, and they have had an inability to stop people for a reasonable period of time. So that is what this bill seeks to address, and I feel, after going through the select committee process, we have gone some way towards achieving that outcome.

The bill comes back from the Local Government and Environment Committee in pretty good shape. It has gone through the submission process. I think we had seven submissions overall. Every submission was favourable to the intent of the bill and supported it, although there were some concerns. We have looked at them and pretty much looked at putting them into the amendments, and some of the amendments I would like to talk about today in this second reading.

The first one is around new section 39A in clause 5. There was a lot of discussion around extending the powers of rangers to seize evidential material. I suppose when we give people those powers to seize items, we should always ensure that it is proportionate and reasonable, and I feel where new section 39A has landed—it comes back into the House for its second reading, and it clarifies this to be proportionate and reasonable.

New section 39B in clause 5 amends powers to stop someone when investigating a suspected offence, and very much when we were looking at this we wondered whether we should be putting in something around a time frame for stopping someone. We found that that could not be defined, but what this amendment to new section 39B does is it comes back in clarifying that this section does not intend to give the power to physically stop someone. So it is not the physicality of stopping someone, but more just to direct or require them.

New section 39C in clause 5 looks to give reasonable grounds, where a person is committing or is about to commit an offence, for the necessary person to prevent or stop the offender. There was a lot of discussion at the select committee stage about what we are doing here, and whether we are actually going to be giving a new power to give people the right to go on to private property. It was something that we were a bit concerned about, but our amendment clarifies that it does not give the person—or a ranger, in this case—the right to go on to private property.

Just finally, around new section 39D in clause 5, what we are looking for is around clarity of arrest: are we saying it gives all professionals, in this case, the ability to arrest, or, rather, to just detain someone and wait for a constable to arrive and arrest the detained person? Where we have landed for this is that it just clarifies the ability for the ranger to have those powers as well. So, overall, it is a pretty good bill that has come back in good shape from the select committee, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill

In Committee

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question for the purposes of debate and then voting.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am sure there is no objection to that. There is no objection. That will be the process.

Parts 1 to 28, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I have been waiting for some time to speak at the Committee stage of the Statutes Amendment Bill. In my first contribution I want to draw on two Supplementary Order Papers on this bill that are on the Table: one under my name, Supplementary Order Paper 191, and Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the ACT leader, David Seymour. In essence, those two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) are offering the ability for the Government to have a “get out of jail free” card, because my SOP looks to insert something in the bill that I think is non-controversial and something that most parties would agree to. It is not a massive departure from policy or a large policy issue that would require the debate in a separate piece of legislation.

Unfortunately for this Committee, the contents of my Supplementary Order Paper are contained in another piece of legislation, a member’s bill in the name of Nuk Korako, a National list MP. It essentially looks to amend the Airport Authorities Act 1966 to allow airport authorities or airports to advertise in mediums other than the newspaper when they want to sell luggage that has been lost or left at airports. Just to clarify, the law does need to be changed, because at the moment the Act as it stands allows airports to advertise the sale of lost luggage that they are now taking responsibility for only by way of a newspaper advertisement.

This change, contained in Mr Korako’s bill and also within SOP 191, would not change the world entirely—I know you should not say that when it is your own SOP—but it would save this House, this Parliament, and the taxpayer a significant amount of money. When Mr Korako had his bill pulled from the ballot he said at the time that it was an issue that had been raised with him, as someone who was a member of Parliament, in and around his daily work engaging with the industry.

At that time I think I had been the spokesperson on tourism for the Opposition for around about 4 or 5 months, and I think I took a pretty aggressive approach to making sure that I was engaging with stakeholders, including Christchurch Airport, the local airport of Mr Korako. But not once was the issue of advertising sales of lost luggage raised with me—not by Christchurch Airport; not by Queenstown Airport; not by Wellington Airport, my local airport; not during the extensive visit to Auckland Airport, both domestic and international, which I had the pleasure of visiting; and not by Air New Zealand, which I spent a complete day with, getting to know the operation. So I think Mr Korako’s assertion that this is a major issue for the likes of airports or airlines is slightly—and I am been slightly diplomatic—wide of the mark.

So in an effort to try to save some time of this Committee, I think this is a perfect opportunity—through the Statutes Amendment Bill—to address the issue, this great gap in our tourism sector that Mr Korako thinks is so important that he thinks it is worthy of a member’s bill in the ballot. My SOP, SOP 191, would essentially do everything that Mr Korako’s bill, which is before the House as a member’s bill, after being pulled from the ballot, would do.

So if an airport found itself overwhelmed with a quantity of luggage that it thought it needed to offload, my SOP would allow Christchurch Airport—to give an example from Mr Korako’s own patch—to advertise in other than the Christchurch Press that it was going to have a sale of lost luggage. It would also allow Christchurch Airport to advertise online and in other modes of communication. I guess that would also open up the option of radio advertising. I am not sure whether Mr Korako has thought about that. It may be that that is something he could raise at the select committee if my SOP does not get through.

I am being a little bit tongue-in-cheek here, but a Statutes Amendment Bill is a great way—it is a way that we are currently using—to tidy up legislation and to make sure that things that are not controversial do not take up the time of this House. I think the fact that this SOP had to be brought to this Committee—there is another SOP in the name of David Seymour, and I am sure he will be down at some stage to talk to it—means the issue should have been included in a Statutes Amendment Bill, which speaks to the point that I believe that the member’s bill ballot process in Parliament is being abused by the Government.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Yep.

KRIS FAAFOI: It is. For people at home who do not know how the member’s bill ballot operates, it is a little bit like Lotto. Members of this House who are not members of the executive, I understand, get to put a piece of legislation that they feel very passionate about—it could be a local issue—into the ballot. Every so often we have a draw, and if your bill is drawn from the ballot, then it possibly may get debated in this House. I think that process should be used for bills that are worthy of the time of this House.

Quite bluntly, advertising lost luggage by any means other than the newspaper should not take up a first reading, should not take up a select committee process, should not take up a second reading, should not take up a Committee stage, and should not take up third reading time in this House. Mr Korako’s bill will cost taxpayers thousands of dollars, if not tens of thousands of dollars, potentially creeping up to $100,000. We have at the moment a situation where services in our country are struggling for funding, yet this Government and that particular member think that this issue is such a big issue it should be debated and go through the complete legislative process in the House. I also think the Government knows it has got it wrong, because Gerry Brownlee at one stage tried to have it pass through all stages in an attempt to save face.

Hon Ruth Dyson: It didn’t work.

KRIS FAAFOI: It did not work. I am not sure that this is going to work, because I believe also that any member of this House—and maybe I should not tell New Zealand First this—can object to my SOP and then it is off the Table and it will not happen. But I think we should try to save those tens of thousands of dollars and the time of this House, respect the process of a members’ ballot, and not have ballots for that sort of legislation anymore. So we could do away with that in Mr Korako’s case. We can also do away with it in the case of Mr Seymour’s SOP, which, I believe, will streamline the process for a bill under the name of Matthew Doocey.

So I guess the ball is now in the Government’s court and also in New Zealand First’s court if they actually want to save the taxpayer some money. There are two SOPs—two of the three that are now on the Table—that will potentially save a couple of hundred thousand dollars and a lot of time in terms of the processes of select committees, where issues that New Zealanders really care about could be discussed and debated, and we could progress through this Parliament inquiries or legislation that will make a difference to the people of New Zealand.

Advertising the sale of lost luggage is not on anyone else’s radar other than Nuk Korako’s. I want to know from Mr Korako where this issue came from, because I think there would possibly be one or two people—Mr Korako’s executive assistants, who have probably had to wade through quite a bit of research because of this—who are actually concerned about this issue.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill, but I regret that I have to start my contribution by correcting my colleague. I totally support his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 191, which inserts into the Statutes Amendment Bill the Airport Authorities Act 1966 alteration. But the bill that he is trying to get off our Order Paper in order to save the taxpayer thousands and thousands of dollars, and Parliament hours and hours of time, is not about lost luggage.

The airline companies themselves deal with lost luggage. If you are flying Air New Zealand, and you arrive in Auckland and they say “Welcome to Auckland, Mr Faafoi. Your bag is in Invercargill.”, Air New Zealand will get your bag from Invercargill to Auckland for you, because that is what they do when they accept you putting in your bag at check in. This bill—

Sarah Dowie: They don’t lose it from Invercargill.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, it is.

Sarah Dowie: No, they don’t. They don’t lose it at Invercargill.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Oh, sorry. Sarah Dowie has just offered to collect your bag from Invercargill airport, Mr Faafoi, and take it to you. She is a generous young woman.

Kris Faafoi: What’s it doing in Invercargill?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Ha! So the member’s bill that is going to waste hours of time, which should be in this Statutes Amendment Bill, is about lost property. If you leave your comb or your book or your pen at the cafe or somewhere else within the airport, that is what this deals with. It is not just insignificant because it deals with lost luggage; it is even more insignificant because it does not even deal with lost luggage.

I want to go back the point of statutes amendment bills. It is a very unusual process, and one that I think as a Parliament we should really value. The point of a statutes amendment bill is to make changes. It is an omnibus bill because there are a whole lot of Acts that are changed, but each change to each different Act has to be minor, it has to be technical, and it has to be non-controversial. That is the point of a statutes amendment bill. Although Parliament takes a lot of effort, particularly at Committee stage, to ensure that the details of the bill that we are considering are right; often we get it wrong. A statutes amendment bill gives us the opportunity to correct a drafting error or an inconsistency, so that the law reads as it was intended. That is the point of a statutes amendment bill, and those are the criteria that it has to meet.

As members will have noted in our second reading, which I will just briefly refer to, some of the provisions in the original legislation did not meet those criteria, and we peeled them off as separate bills during the debate. So it is now the opportunity for the Committee of the whole House to go through that same deliberation and make sure that the 26 bills that we are proposing to amend in this Statutes Amendment Bill are indeed correct and that we have got it right.

We should not confuse this statutes amendment process with statutes repeal, which has quite different criteria. A bill recently went through the House that actually repealed an Act. So statutes repeal actually repeals an entire Act, presumably because it is redundant, but the criteria seem to be looser than for statutes amendment, and I think that is something that the Standing Orders Committee might like to look at. I do not think it is appropriate, for example, for a statutes repeal bill to be used to take away a piece of legislation because the current Government does not like it.

We have got a process for that, and in my view it should not be a statutes repeal bill. I refer to the Supplementary Order Paper 191 of Kris Faafoi, even though he exaggerated the scope of his SOP and of the member’s bill that it seeks to replace. I also want to commend the Supplementary Order Paper 207 of David Seymour. That is not a move that I take very often in debates in this House. David Seymour is actually doing exactly the same thing as Kris Faafoi, but on a different bill. He is proposing that nonsense legislation—the time-wasting and money-wasting legislation of Matt Doocey—is replaced by a Supplementary Order Paper. I hope that the member has noticed that yet again, twice in one week, I am commending something that he has done. This is a bit of a risk to both our reputations, but the member David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper would save the taxpayers a lot of money.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would just like to commend the member Ruth Dyson on her commendation, but I think for both our interests, reputations, and future career prospects, we should try not to make a habit of it.

I would like to speak to a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I have on the Table in my name. It is Supplementary Order Paper 207, and it is really quite a simple thing. At the heart of it, it amends the Companies Act so that companies are able to send out their annual reports in an electronic format rather than a paper format. It is a very simple thing.

I do actually want to just pay a tribute to Matt Doocey, who has been much maligned for introducing this member’s bill, because he did use the members’ ballot for the purpose it was designed. He is an electorate MP. He had feedback from business people in his electorate, who said: “We have to send out these reports in paper format. The cost is killing us. The environmental impacts are highly negative, when we know that 90 percent of the business—when we do our banking, when we take our orders, when we do our commerce—we do electronically. It is absolutely archaic that the Companies Act requires us to send out a paper format report every year and upon request.” So Matt Doocey was doing the right thing.

But I think—as others have commented—it costs $43,000 an hour to operate this House, on an average cost basis, and it was a very large use of this House’s time and, therefore, taxpayers’ money to make such a minor amendment through the whole member’s bill process. Thankfully, one of the things I can say as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform is that I am very pleased that this Government does, from time to time, have a statutes repeal bill, a statutes amendment bill, and a Regulatory Systems Bill—bills that are designed to clean up the many aspects of the 40 books of statutes that this Parliament has passed in the last 170 years or so, to reform those many aspects where they are an impediment to people going about their lives in an efficient way.

This SOP is not a complex one. If you go through the various sections, it amends the Companies Act. Wherever there is a requirement for a company to send out a paper statement, it is replaced with the option of sending out an electronic statement. It requires a company, in the first instance, to notify a shareholder or somebody who is entitled to receive such a document that they have a choice, and then that person must make an election either to continue receiving paper or to receive their documents in electronic format. If the person fails to make that election, then the company no longer has an obligation to furnish them with a paper statement. If they elect to have electronic statements, then they will receive this correspondence in an electronic format for the rest of their association with that company. That is a very small thing this Government can do, taking up a small amount of the House’s time in order to make it easier for people to go about their business, build their companies, and actually create wealth and opportunity for New Zealanders up and down this country.

I think, Mr Chair, you are probably detecting that I have actually spoken as much as one can speak on this. I am very pleased to see the House considering this SOP, and I hope that all members will consider supporting it. It should be non-controversial. Thank you.

Part 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Kris Faafoi to insert new Part 1A be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

Parts 2 to 6 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of David Seymour to insert new Part 6A be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts 7 to 28 and schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your leave to withdraw my objection to the earlier amendment, please.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question on new Part 1A—your objection to that?

Mahesh Bindra: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK. I will seek the leave of the Committee to revert, before I report, to new Part 1A for the purpose of putting that question. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Kris Faafoi to insert new Part 1A be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 11.43 a.m. (Thursday)