Wednesday, 21 June 2017

WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2017

WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Police Investigation

1. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Police: Has she, or the former Minister of Police, been briefed by Police about any political interference or obstruction of justice in the Police investigation into allegations that MP Todd Barclay recorded a private conversation at his electorate office; if so, when?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Police): No, and I have spoken to the immediate former Minister of Police, and she had no briefings, either.

James Shaw: Have police briefed her about any instances where Bill English discouraged police from publicly releasing his statement or text messages regarding the allegations against Todd Barclay?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, and the statutory independence of the Commissioner of Police from Ministers is clearly laid out in section 2 of the Policing Act 2008—so, no.

James Shaw: Does she agree that if they were asked to do so by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, police would have had little choice other than to withhold the statement?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not deal with hypothetical or speculative questions like that. At the end of the day, the police commissioner is independent, and I respect that.

James Shaw: Can she explain why police did not serve Todd Barclay with a search warrant after Bill English told police that he knew that Todd Barclay had recorded his staff?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be ministerial responsibility, the Hon Paula Bennett.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, I cannot, because I have no responsibility for that whatsoever.

James Shaw: Can she explain why police decided that there was not sufficient evidence to issue a search warrant for a National MP—Todd Barclay—when he recorded his staff members’ conversations, but when journalist Bradley Ambrose recorded former Prime Minister John Key’s conversation, police chose to raid the offices of TVNZ, TV3, and the Herald on Sunday?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there is a point where a Minister clearly has absolutely no responsibility, and that is, I would submit, this question right now. It is entirely out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No. I have listened to the question, and the essence of the question to me is that, as Minister of Police, can she explain why the police did not take a particular course of action. To me, that is a legitimate question to ask the Minister. It is a relatively easy one for the Minister to answer.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, because the police commissioner and the police have statutory independence, and a Minister—it is not appropriate for them to be involved.

James Shaw: Has she or any other Minister, including Bill English, had conversations with police about allegations that a National Party board member politically interfered by threatening Glenys Dickson’s family over her complaints against Todd Barclay?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I can only speak in my capacity as the Minister of Police, and no.

James Shaw: Has she or any other Minister, including Bill English, discouraged police from investigating the allegations that a National Party board member threatened Glenys Dickson and encouraged her to drop the complaint against Todd Barclay?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As the Minister of Police—the police have statutory independence. I know of no such incident, so, no.

James Shaw: Does she expect New Zealanders to believe that police have not been influenced in their investigations by senior National Party figures, including the now Prime Minister, Bill English, who would rather the whole affair just went away?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I do, because the police are independent, and the statutory independence of the police commissioner from Ministers is clearly laid out in section 2 of the Policing Act 2008. I kind of find it offensive to police, his insinuations.

Budget 2017—Social Investment Initiatives

JONO NAYLOR (National): My question is to the Minister of Finance. How did Budget 2017 support social investment—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a fair bit of interjection coming both from my right and my left. I invite the member to start that question again.

2. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Finance: How did Budget 2017 support social investment initiatives?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Budget 2017 provided a $321 million social investment package with 14 initiatives designed to help our most vulnerable improve their circumstances. From reducing youth offending to contraceptive access for low-income women, we are funding high-quality social investment initiatives that evidence shows will help make a difference in the lives of target groups of New Zealanders. This social investment package means we can target integrated services at those individuals, families, and communities who face the highest long-term social and economic costs. We want to get in earlier with the right interventions to help change their lives.

Jono Naylor: How were these initiatives assessed?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Budget 2017 included the most rigorous investment criteria we have used for social bids, to ensure funding went to proposals with the strongest evidence base that will deliver long-run benefits for vulnerable people and for taxpayers. The funded initiatives are about supporting better cross-agency ways to target some ingrained and complex social issues. They are based on a citizen-centred approach and judged against a whole-of-life understanding of cost and benefit. The bids were assessed against the case for change, value for money, and effectiveness in delivering results.

Jono Naylor: How does social investment improve lives and reduce costs to taxpayers?

Hon AMY ADAMS: This Government is supporting—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the answer. There is one particular member who has not stopped interjecting since question time started. I will not name him, but he knows who I am talking about, and if he continues with that amount of interjection, I will have to ask him to leave. The Hon Amy Adams, to start that answer again.

Hon AMY ADAMS: This Government is supporting social investment because intervening earlier and more effectively is the best chance to change the lives of New Zealanders with some of the most complex and ingrained challenges. However, it is also about reducing the long-term cost to taxpayers by supporting people to lead productive and more independent lives. A good example of this is the social investment approach to welfare, which has already lead to a $4.1 billion reduction in welfare liability since mid-2014.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Ministerial Conduct

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers during Oral Question No. 2 yesterday?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.

Andrew Little: Is it an acceptable moral standard for a former finance Minister to say on Radio New Zealand on 1 March 2016 that he was not aware of any specific problems between Mr Barclay and his former staff, when, in fact, he was aware that Todd Barclay had recorded Glenys Dickson?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 173/2 is quite clear that the Prime Minister has got no responsibility for a member of the caucus—a ruling by your good self. I would suggest here that is exactly where we are going with this question.

Grant Robertson: I have two points to make. The first is that these matters were indeed traversed in question No. 2 yesterday, hence why it is a supplementary question that Mr Little has asked. Secondly, the first words of Mr Little’s question were about acceptable standards for Ministers. The Prime Minister is responsible for that. He gave an illustrative example of a behaviour of a Minister, and I believe that question is in order.

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to invite the member to ask the question again, but my first inclination, as I heard the question, is that because it was asking the Prime Minister a question in his former ministerial role as a Minister of Finance around radio comments, the question is in order. The question can be asked again. I will listen again very, very carefully and allow it to proceed if I determine it is indeed in order.

Andrew Little: Is it an acceptable moral standard for the former finance Minister to say on Radio New Zealand on 1 March 2016 that he was not aware of any specific problems between Mr Barclay and his former staff, when, in fact, he was aware that Todd Barclay had recorded Glenys Dickson?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: At the time the matter was under investigation and, in fact, the facts of it had not been established. Some of them were covered by a confidential employment settlement to which I was not a party and they were under investigation by the police, and at the time I was not sure what I could or could not say about that.

Andrew Little: When Prime Minister John Key said on Radio New Zealand on 7 March 2016 that he had had “a bit of a discussion with Bill”, did the former finance Minister tell the then Prime Minister that Todd Barclay had been recording his staff’s conversations?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the issue here is that I accept that the Opposition leader is dressing these questions up as being about the former Minister of Finance and so on, but what is quite clear is that the Prime Minister, the former Minister of Finance, was answering these questions on radio as the former member for an electorate. He is not responsible, therefore, as Prime Minister or as the former Minister of Finance for these matters. It is quite clear in terms of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that he should not be answering those questions, therefore, on a non-ministerial basis nor should he be speaking or answering questions about a member of the caucus.

Grant Robertson: I am not sure whether the Leader of the House heard the question correctly. The question asked about a statement the Prime Minister made. The current Prime Minister is responsible in this House for those questions. It was about something the Prime Minister said, and it is a legitimate topic for these questions to be asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Again, I am going to ask the member to repeat the question. The question, as I understood it, is very much around ministerial responsibility. Mr Bridges raises the possibility that the question was answered in the Prime Minister’s capacity as a former member of that electorate. That is possibly the case but I doubt it. He was on Radio New Zealand, I would think, because he was, then, the Minister of Finance. The question can be asked again. [Interruption] Order! I have called Andrew Little to ask his supplementary question.

Andrew Little: When Prime Minister John Key said on Radio New Zealand on 7 March 2016 that he had had “a bit of a discussion with Bill”, did the former finance Minister tell the then Prime Minister that Todd Barclay had been recording the staff’s conversations?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure I would have talked to the former Prime Minister about matters that were relevant to the management of the caucus, but I cannot recall either the discussion or the content of it.

Andrew Little: In light of that answer, and given that, according to the former Prime Minister, former finance Minister Bill English “just said a couple of his former staff members had left. That was it.”, is it acceptable that he covered up this incident from the Prime Minister?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I come back to it, because now what you have had is a reference to his former staff members. They were his staff members in his capacity as a local member of Parliament. The Speakers’ rulings are incredibly clear in regard to that. They are not in a ministerial capacity, and he is not responsible for what he did as a former member for an electorate. It is quite clear he does not have responsibility for that as Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, I do not agree with the member. The question, to me, is about the actions of a former Minister of Finance talking to the then Prime Minister. That is in a prime ministerial capacity; the Prime Minister has responsibility. The question will be asked again by Andrew Little.

Andrew Little: In light of that answer, and given that, according to the former Prime Minister, former Finance Minister Bill English “just said a couple of his former staff members had left. That was it.”, is it acceptable that he covered up this incident from the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Allegations of a cover-up are ridiculous. The statements made to me regarding this were reported to the relevant party official—that is on the record—and then to the police. It is a weird world when the Labour Party says that reporting a matter to the police is a cover-up.

Andrew Little: In light of that answer and what the former finance Minister knew throughout last year, and that at times another MP was making statements that, to his knowledge, were incorrect, did he not do anything to ensure that the law was properly observed?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I participated in a police investigation, and made a statement about the limited knowledge that I had. The police investigated; you would have to talk to them about what they did, how they did it, and what they established. That is a matter for them, and the same matters were actually canvassed extensively in the media. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member, I do not want continued interjection from Mr Grant Robertson.

Andrew Little: Is it an acceptable standard for a Minister to be aware that a public figure is lying and to cover that up for 18 months?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply do not accept the member’s assertion.

Andrew Little: Given his statement yesterday that it would not be acceptable behaviour to illegally record a staff member and his police statement that Todd Barclay did record Glenys Dickson, is it the Prime Minister’s view that Todd Barclay acted illegally?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. That question is definitely out of order. The Prime Minister does not have a prime ministerial responsibility for a member of caucus.

Andrew Little: Why did a member of his office tell several journalists yesterday that what Glenys Dickson had told police did not stack up, when his own police statement shows that her account does stack up?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no knowledge of that particular assertion, but the police had many months of investigation of these matters, and the member is free to ask them what they thought about it. I answered the questions I was asked by the police.

Andrew Little: Is he aware of whether former finance Minister Bill English requested that police withhold his police statement from the Official Information Act responses about the Todd Barclay investigation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand there has been an Official Information Act process. I was aware of it. I did not really take part in it. My statement is in the public arena, and I think it contradicts directly the member’s assertion of a cover-up. I answered the questions to the police with the knowledge that I had.

Andrew Little: Given the police statement that—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, please, less interjection from one particular quarter. Andrew Little is to start the question again.

Andrew Little: Given the police statement that “Police consulted those individuals who provided statements as part of the investigation. The redacted file that was released took into account the views of the individuals consulted.”, why did he ask for his police statement to be withheld?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate we have discussed this issue now in points of order, but what we have got here is questioning about a police statement that was made by a former electorate member of Parliament. It has to have been, because it was as the electorate member of Parliament that the Prime Minister had the information in the statement. It is quite clear in those Standing Orders and the rulings that I outlined to you earlier that in that regard, therefore, he is not responsible for them and he should not be answering as Prime Minister.

Grant Robertson: The police statement specifically identifies Mr English as the Minister of Finance. The police statement was given as the Minister of Finance.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I am not convinced by the point raised by Grant Robertson. I am going to ask for the question to be repeated—or I invite the member to change the question. As I listen to it a second time, I suspect on this occasion the Hon Simon Bridges is absolutely right in that the police statement would not have been given as an official prime ministerial or ministerial statement. I will listen carefully to the question, but unless it has changed, it is unlikely to meet the test of my allowing it to be put.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two points I want to make. The first is that yesterday we had a number of discussions and questions around the police statement. The Prime Minister has answered questions around the police statement just now. Just moments ago he contested Mr Little’s view about the police statement. I reiterate: he identified himself in that police statement as the Minister of Finance. It is legitimate, if only as a follow-up to previous supplementary questions, for Mr Little to be able to ask that question today.

Hon Simon Bridges: I think the difference, Mr Speaker, is that right now what we have from the Leader of the Opposition is questions in regard to the information in that statement, and that information came to the Prime Minister not as Prime Minister but as the former member of Parliament for Clutha-Southland.

Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I need no further assistance. It is time to move forward. The Clerk has now handed me a copy, actually, of the statement. In it Mr English is asked what his occupation is, and he says he is a member of Parliament and the Minister of Finance. That does not mean to say that he continues to make a statement in a ministerial capacity. If the member wishes to change his question, that would be the wisest way forward, but if he wants to place it again and let me make a very definitive decision, I give him that option.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to appear to be relitigating, but there is an additional point, and that is that the decision to withhold the statement was the police’s, and the question is whether it would take more notice of the view of the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That’s not a point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, the Prime Minister interjects, but it is a matter that has, really, two points. One is whether or not the police would take more notice of the Prime Minister’s request than any individual’s request. The second point is whether any ministerial staff whatsoever were involved in the communication, because if they were involved in the communication, it then squarely has to be answered.

Hon Simon Bridges: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any further assistance. That does not really help the position at all. Whether police would be more influenced by a Prime Minister or somebody else I have no idea. That is over to the police.

Andrew Little: In light of the most recent answer the Prime Minister has just given, and given the police statement that quotes “Police consulted those individuals who provided statements as part of the investigation. The redacted file that was released took into account the view of the individuals consulted.”, does he accept that it is acceptable ministerial conduct that he requests his police statement to be withheld?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure that all discussions were conducted consistent with the Official Information Act, and the police, in the end, have statutory independence. In addition to that, like any other agency, it makes the decisions about what information it releases, taking into account whatever factors it thinks are relevant.

Andrew Little: Why should New Zealanders place any trust in him as Prime Minister, given he has told media things that are untrue about his contact with Glenys Dickson, told media things that are untrue about his knowledge of Todd Barclay’s actions, and consistently failed the moral standards that New Zealanders expect of their elected leaders?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply disagree. The confidentiality of the original discussions had to be respected. It would be a breach of the law to breach those. Then it was a matter that was subject to police investigation, and I participated in that investigation.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Prime Ministerial Conduct

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements even if facts known to him make doing so extraordinarily difficult; if so, how?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, I do stand by all my statements in the context they were given, with the information that was available at the time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well if that is remotely true, when he was asked by the media about Todd McClay MP’s actions—

Hon Members: Todd McClay?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sorry, Todd Barclay. [Interruption] What a terrible relief!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All members make the occasional mistake. I will allow the question to start again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I have no doubt Todd McClay knew as well, but anyway. Ha, ha! When he was asked by the media about Todd Barclay MP’s actions, and against the now Prime Minister’s statement to the police in April 2016, why yesterday, when he was first questioned by the media, did he simply not tell the truth?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I explained just before—and, actually, yesterday, at the time I was asked that question yesterday morning—I was asked about a statement that was made, I think, some 12 or 15 months ago. I had not checked that statement, and as soon as I did check it to see what I had said, I made it public.

Hon Amy Adams: He can’t even remember yesterday.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I can remember you. Ha, ha!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a level of interjection coming from all quarters that must cease so that I can hear the question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does it not make sense to sack someone who has breached professional standards and broken the law, as soon as that is known to the leadership of a party; if so, why did it take him so long to get some guts and do just that?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is not in order. There is no prime ministerial responsibility as the leader of a party, and I refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 172 and 173 , which I quoted yesterday.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that he deliberately did not tell the truth when first questioned yesterday because he himself was deeply complicit in trying to avoid legal action, with taxpayers’ hush money, and he knew full well that a confidential agreement or contract to cover up a crime is an illegal contract?

Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The employment dispute is between the employer and the employee. I was absolutely no party to that, and I do not know what the dispute was or how it was settled.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the chronology of events and the communications have his DNA all over this story, including the cover-up and the hush money, how can anyone possibly trust him on these matters or, for that matter, on the economy, about which he speaks so much spin?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat what I have said to the member. There was an employment dispute that was settled between the employer and the employee. I was no party to that dispute or the settlement.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When it is clear to every independent commentator that this Prime Minister is complicit in a cover-up, why does he not resign? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister can proceed to answer that question.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Oh, I simply reject the member’s assertions. The fact that he wants to keep on saying it does not make it true. I made—[Interruption] My statement to the police stated what I knew of the circumstances, and I would have thought that making the statement to the police was not a cover-up.

Transport Infrastructure, Auckland—Waterview Connection

5. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Transport: How many people were involved in the construction of the Waterview tunnels in Auckland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Around 11,000 people were employed during a 5-year period at over three different worksites during construction of the Waterview tunnels. Construction began on the project in 2012 with Alice, the tunnel-boring machine, excavating enough dirt to fill 320 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Twenty-four thousand concrete segments to line both 2.4 kilometre tunnels have been installed, along with 400 kilometres of cabling and wiring. The end product is a world-class piece of infrastructure that will deliver the biggest change in Auckland’s transport system since the opening of the Auckland Harbour Bridge in 1959.

Dr Jian Yang: What reports has he seen on the expected wider economic benefits of the Waterview tunnels?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: When the tunnels open very soon they will provide more options for Aucklanders travelling around the city, particularly between the west and the south. The new connection will also provide more efficient links to and from Auckland Airport, Ports of Auckland, and inland freight hubs, reducing costs for people and businesses not only in Auckland but throughout the country. The estimated wider economic benefits of all of this are estimated to be worth $430 million, to improve productivity and reduce travel time and also include the creation of more than 18,000 jobs.

Mr SPEAKER: Just before I call the member—and I apologise—I say to Darroch Ball and Fletcher Tabuteau that I have warned them once about their level of interjection, but it has continued. If either of them interjects again during the balance of question time, I will be asking them to leave.

David Seymour: Does such a large number of people being required to build one tunnel point to low productivity in the New Zealand construction sector?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No. It refers to a massive project, the biggest we have ever seen in New Zealand.

David Seymour: Does the Minister believe that increasing vehicle occupancy rates would increase the productivity of New Zealand roads, such as the Waterview tunnel?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes, and that is why the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) is making its way merrily through the House and will be in the Committee of the whole House, I think, later on today.

David Seymour: How will the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) help increase vehicle occupancy rates?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: By providing a legal and fair playing field for ride sharing, carpooling, and all of the new kinds of technological innovations we are seeing in the small - passenger service space.

David Seymour: Has the Minister had any discussions with any other political parties about including new legislative initiatives in the bill he mentioned?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes, and I know that the member is a vigorous proponent of really enabling ride sharing and better occupancy of vehicles. The discussions between him and me have been very fruitful in that regard.

David Seymour: Given the fruitfulness of those discussions, why has the Minister declined to include any of the matters discussed in the bill?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am still thinking it all through.

David Seymour: Supplementary?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just rule first—the member has used his supplementary questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was certainly going to be my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: That is very perceptive of you, but it is actually not a point of order.

Child Poverty—Unicef Report, Measurement, and Definition

6. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Children: Is it acceptable that New Zealand has been ranked 34th out of 41 high-income OECD countries for child well-being in the UNICEF report - Building the Future: Children and the Sustainable Development Goals in Rich Countries?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, my office was advised that this answer may be longer than normal.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): Whilst in relation to this report, I have ministerial responsibility only for the indicators of child poverty and child abuse in goals 1 and 16, and not the well-being of all children, I have no responsibility or control over how UNICEF determines its rankings. But I would note that the report itself states that it is limited by the lack of comparable data in some domains, and “The Report Card cannot provide an in-depth analysis of the reasons behind differences,”. However, this Government is absolutely committed to child well-being, which is why we have increased childcare support for low-income families; increased benefit rates for families with children, for the first time in 40 years; increased Working for Families for low-income working families; and introduced a $2 billion-a-year Family Incomes Package in Budget 2017, which will lift families’ incomes by an average of $26 a week and reduce by 50,000 the number of children living in families receiving less than half the median income. We have introduced free doctors visits and prescriptions for children under 13, extended paid parental leave, and increased parental tax credits—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: —as well as helping to serve an average of 125,000 KickStart Breakfasts a week to schoolchildren across the country.

Jacinda Ardern: Why did she state yesterday that “it is simply not possible to measure poverty”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not think that characterises my answer. I was talking about a single measure of poverty. I recall explaining that hardship and poverty are on a spectrum, that we use multilevel multimeasures, and that there was no country that I was aware of that had successfully used one measure to measure poverty.

Jacinda Ardern: When her Government signed up to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and pledged to halve poverty according to national definitions, what was her national definition?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Again, I can respond only with my ministerial responsibilities, but I am aware, and I have stated in this House before, that a whole-of-Government, cross-Government group is working on how we define those goals. There are a number of them—16. The group does not have to report until 2030, and the countries have to report twice between signing and 2030.

Jacinda Ardern: Is New Zealand on track to halve poverty by 2030, as her Government has pledged to do, when she cannot even tell this House what poverty is?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We do not have to define it any more than is done on an annual basis by the Ministry of Social Development over a number of measures. Whether it is by income, whether it is by household income before and after housing, or whether it is by hardship, this Government—and the previous Government—probably has some of the best data to get underneath the causes of poverty. As I said in the House yesterday, we are using those measures consistently, over Budgets, as the economy grows and gives us the ability to invest back into our low-income households to help those children and those families.

Jan Logie: Was the Minister embarrassed to read about New Zealand being singled out in the UNICEF report as “proof that high national income alone is no guarantee of a good record in sustaining child well-being;”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The difficulty with the UNICEF report is that it does rely, in its conclusions, on a number of measures that New Zealand was not able to provide data for. New Zealand was not the only country in some of those measures. In fact, one of the measures that were used, I am aware, was developed only for the EU. So that means that countries like Australia, the USA, New Zealand, and a myriad of others outside of Europe were not able to comply with them.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question in relation to a quote in that report about high national incomes and poor outcomes for children. The Minister just—

Mr SPEAKER: The question was very much an opinion question: would the Minister be embarrassed by such a statistic? The question was addressed.

Jan Logie: When the Minister spends all this effort on defending the poor outcomes for our children, is she seriously saying that this is as good as it gets; if so, where is her aspiration for our children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government does not rest, and has not rested, and Budget 2017 showed exactly that, with a $2 billion investment in those families on the lowest incomes. We will continue with the myriad of policies and programmes that we have put in place, but they are guided by the tremendous data that this Government has—that this country has—to get underneath the drivers of poverty. It is not enough just to talk about it; this Government is doing something about it.

Jacinda Ardern: As part of the sustainable development poverty goals, what is she halving by 2030?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am one Minister of a number of Ministers who have responsibility for this sustainability goal. As I said, there is a cross-Government working group looking to define what that will look like. But, in the poverty area, there will not be one simple measure. There cannot be, because poverty cannot be defined by that. There will be a number of measures by which we will define it.

Question No. 5 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): I seek leave to correct an answer that I gave to question No. 5. I said—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need to put the leave. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I said that the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) is up later today. That is not the case. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There will be substantially less interjection, please.

Fuji Xerox—Fraud Allegations

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in respect of a matter I raised, you referred to “The External Reporting Board has not taken any action over the allegations, because it does not provide auditing and assurance services.” Mr Speaker, I am concerned about that because that External Reporting Board is the Crown agency that sets auditing assurance and accounting standards. That is what makes it relevant, and I want you to reconsider that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was an application yesterday for a snap debate. I made a decision on it. I am very happy to discuss with the member the reasons I gave, at any time he wishes to call by. Does the member now wish to proceed with question No. 7?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll drop you a line. Thank you very much.

Mr SPEAKER: I will look forward to it.

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Before making a statement, does he check all the facts; if not, why not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): To the best of my ability, but, as I pointed out to the member yesterday, I am often asked about topics where there has not been that opportunity. I try to check the facts as soon as I can, and say at the time that I am going to do that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If “there are certainly problems with Fuji Xerox …”—his words—then what investigations is he ordering into Peter Thomas, the former head of all-of-Government procurement at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who jumped ship to Fuji Xerox in 2015 and secured contracts from the Government?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am advised by my colleague that there was a thorough investigation of that and no issues came to light. But, of course, if there was any new evidence of anything that looked like inappropriate or fraudulent behaviour, then of course the Government would investigate it—sorry, the appropriate agency would investigate it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there are “certainly problems with Fuji Xerox … financial reporting,” what is he doing to investigate Fuji Xerox managing director Gavin Pollard, who on 23 December enthused over getting the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) all-clear, but 4 months before Fujifilm Japan found an initial $285 million fraud, and now, again, the SFO is reopening inquiries?

Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with any of the detail that the member mentions, but if he has material that has not been presented to the appropriate authorities then I suggest that he do so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is all over the international business press, and if “Mr Fix-it” and his mini-me, “Where’s My Bridges”, missed $500 million of fraud—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need that part in the question at all. The member will ask his question without that sort of opinion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is all over the international business press, and if Mr Joyce and Mr Simon Bridges missed $500 million of fraud, will he at least promise taxpayers that he will investigate Neil Whittaker, known as the Bernie Madoff of copiers, or Dean Murray, the “Wolf of Carlton Gore Road”, or David Monnery, also known as “The Agent”?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to allow that question. There is just too much imputation and opinion in that question. I call question No. 8.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am willing to walk outside this House and say that. It is not imputation. There is a series of crimes that have been committed here, and I am trying to get some accountability.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is welcome to step outside and say what he likes. It does not worry me. I have looked—[Interuption] Order! I have ruled the question out of order.

Primary Industries, Ministry—Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries Report

8. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on the positive outlook for primary sector exports?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has just released its Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries at the National Fieldays. MPI is forecasting that the primary sector exports will grow to $41.6 billion in the year to June 2018. This is an increase of 9.1 percent and would be the highest level ever. Dairy, forestry, and horticulture will lead the charge for this growth. New market opportunities and diversification into higher-value products such as chilled meat into China, retail-ready products, and nutraceuticals will help to further increase the value of our primary sector exports.

Barbara Kuriger: What was the primary sector’s reception to the launch of this document at this year’s National Fieldays?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. It was extremely positive. Many farmers and growers have dealt with some very challenging times over the last 12 months, so it was great to feel this real mood of optimism at the Fieldays—133,000 people came through the gates over the 4 days, which was a record. There was a strong sense that many farmers and growers will be looking to use this extra forecast revenue to reinvest in their businesses. Ultimately, this will have flow-on effects into the wider economy—in particular, to those businesses that support our primary sector.

Hon Damien O’Connor: In relation to the question, I just seek leave to table a summary of that report, which points to a reduction of almost 10 percent in—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. That information is publicly available to all members.

Economy—OECD Report and Performance

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I seek leave for question No. 9 to be held over until the Minister of Finance is here.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

9. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the OECD report on New Zealand that labour productivity is well below leading OECD countries, restraining living standards and well-being?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Improving productivity is a longstanding challenge for New Zealand, which the OECD report notes. The report goes on to say New Zealand recently halted its productivity decline relative to other countries, and the challenge now is to make up lost ground. The Government is tackling this productivity issue with large investments in R & D and skills in recent Budgets. We are seeing big increases in business R & D through our growth grants, and we are now producing a record number of ICT and engineering graduates. Finally, data last week showed we now have the highest level of business investment in plant and machinery in almost 7 years.

Grant Robertson: What responsibility does he take for the OECD further going on to say that “income inequality is above the OECD average,” that our child poverty rate is “more than double the rate in the best performing OECD countries.”, and that “Living standards and economic growth … vary considerably ethnically and geographically.”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We, rightly and proudly, take responsibility for the economic performance of New Zealand, for the fact that it is growing really strongly, and for the fact that we have the second-highest employment in the OECD figures and some of the very lowest unemployment.

Grant Robertson: But that’s actually not what I asked you about.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: And, Mr Robertson, what that means is more people in jobs and, over time, better results for all New Zealanders—inclusive growth.

Grant Robertson: Why has he overseen an economy where the export sector is in recession, with exports of goods and services having fallen in real terms for the last three quarters, and where per capita growth has declined for the last two quarters?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I simply do not accept that. Actually, if you look at what is happening, we have a strongly diversifying export sector where, for example, technology has gone from very small to very large—our third-biggest export. In our other sectors, high-value food is coming up very strongly. I think, in light of the global financial crisis, this is a country that is going incredibly well, with growth, with strong employment, with lowering unemployment, and with exports diversifying and going up the value chain quite well.

Grant Robertson: Why under his watch are so many New Zealanders working more and more hours but feel like they are not getting ahead, and can he not see that relying on population growth and an overheated housing market is not actually an economic plan?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: In fact, if you look at what is happening in wage growth, it is going up. Actually, it has been higher since 2015 than in the likes of the United States and the EU. We have got a way to go, but, actually, it is growing in a low-inflationary environment, and I think New Zealanders would be pretty pleased by that. Actually, in addition to that, if you think about what we have done through the Budget, as we have got the ability to do that, we have had the Family Incomes Package and so on, which, again, help the New Zealanders who need it most.

Budget 2017—Auckland Schools, Buildings

10. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made following Budget 2017 on school property in Auckland?

Hon TIM MACINDOE (Associate Minister of Education): I am pleased to advise the House that Budget 2017 will see a $240 million investment in school property in Auckland. This investment will see four new schools and kura, including a new primary school in Pukekohe—in the member’s electorate—the expansion of Stonefields School, the co-location and rebuild of two special education schools, 170 new and replacement classrooms, and five new special education satellite units.

Andrew Bayly: How will this investment benefit students in the Auckland region?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: This significant investment will boost capacity in Auckland by providing more learning spaces for students. As a result of the investment by the current Government, Auckland is on track to have an extra 21,000 student places by the year 2021. The $240 million investment announced under Budget 2017 includes funding for kura and special education schools, which reflects the inclusiveness within our education system. I am very confident that the new and replacement schools and classrooms will help to raise student achievement by providing innovative and stimulating learning environments.

Health, Ministry—Performance Improvement Framework Review

11. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Has a recent review of the ministry been undertaken by Paula Rebstock; if so, what were its findings?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): As the State Services Commissioner has said today: “SSC started working with the Ministry of Health on a scheduled PIF review in February this year. The review is currently in progress and the review report is in the process of being drafted. Once the review report is completed, it will be published on the SSC website. This is expected to happen in the next few months.”

Dr David Clark: How long has the Minister had a version of the report, and how long does he expect to sit on it before it is released?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have been quite clear, quoting directly the State Services Commissioner, that the report has not been completed and is still in the process of being written, so I think this question is rather premature. I would be happy to answer the question when the report is released, as the State Services Commissioner says, in the next few months.

Dr David Clark: Has he seen a draft of the report?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, I think the member needs to remember that this is the State Services Commissioner’s report. The report is not complete—as he said very explicitly, the final report is months away. It is still in the process of being written.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I can imagine what it is. I am going to invite the member to ask the question again.

Dr David Clark: Has the Minister seen a version of the report?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am aware of a draft copy of the report, but it is far from complete. It would be very premature, actually, to waste time on this before the report has been finalised. As the State Services Commissioner says, actually, it is months away. The important thing is, it is his report to release.

Dr David Clark: Does he expect the report to paint a picture of performance at his ministry that he will be proud of?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The story with these Performance Improvement Framework reviews is they are all about looking for areas to improve, right across Government departments. There would be no point doing it if it was a rubber-stamping exercise. I expect that there will be a range of constructive suggestions there by which the Ministry of Health can raise its performance; otherwise, what would be the point of doing it?

Dr David Clark: Has the Minister received a request from any of the district health board chairs to meet following the recent Budget misallocation; if so, when does he expect to meet with them?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have been in communication with the chair of chairs, Jenny Black, and we are looking at meeting sometime in the next few days. So, yes, I will be meeting with her, but I am in touch with her on a very regular basis. Would you like to come to the meeting?

Dr David Clark: Well, yes, please. Supplementary question—have I got one?

Mr SPEAKER: All supplementary questions have been used by the Labour caucus today.

Open Data Access—Funding

12. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Statistics: What recent announcements has he made on open data?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics): On Sunday I announced funding of $7.2 million to further support open data access for information held by Government. I am committed to ensuring that data collected by the State is increasingly freely available and in formats that are easy to use. Opening data helps businesses, not-for-profit groups, NGOs, and individual citizens wanting to use the information to make their own decisions more easily.

Paul Foster-Bell: How is open data good for an open democracy?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: That is a very good question. In years gone by, Government data has been closely and tightly held. Today New Zealand is moving to an open data, open science environment where research findings, code, and tables are shared as a matter of course. Open data creates transparency, accountability, and more informed participation. Open data also helps everyone see how their tax dollars are being spent and how effective that spending is. I am delighted to hear that the Government Statistician has been emphasising recently the need to shift the conversation from “Will we open this data?” to “How will we open this data?”.

Urgent Debates Declined

GCSB—Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security’s Report

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr Kennedy Graham seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the Government Communications Security Bureau’s process for the determining of foreign intelligence activity. The report was released yesterday. This is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility.

Successive Speakers have held that it is for the member making the application to make out a case for the urgent debate. It is not for the Speaker to discover one, and I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 206/4—Speakers Hunt and Smith. On the information presented to me, I am not persuaded that the matter requires the urgent attention of the House; it is a matter that could be raised in the general debate today. The application is therefore declined.

Responses

Richard Prosser—Statements by Hon Dr Nick Smith

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter from Richard Prosser raising with me the misrepresentation of statements he has made in the House by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I have determined that Mr Prosser should have the opportunity to respond to misrepresentation under Standing Order 359. I now call on Richard Prosser to respond to the misrepresentation.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I wish to make a statement in accordance with Standing Order 359 in response to my words in the House being misrepresented by the Hon Nick Smith. On 9 February 2017 during the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, I stated that New Zealand First “is saying that when water is exported from this country it should command a royalty, paid to the Crown on behalf of the people who own it.” In reply to a response from the Hon David Bennett, I then gave an example of the comparative value of a royalty paid on a standard barrel of oil relative to a royalty charged at the rate of 10c per litre on an equivalent volume of water.

However, in reply to my supplementary question No. 3 to question No. 5 during question time on 24 May 2017, which read “Will he support New Zealand First’s policy of any potential charge that is applied volumetrically to consented water takes being confined to a royalty only on the export only of water as water only; if not, why not?”, Dr Smith replied: “I have seen New Zealand First proposals for a 10c-per-litre charge on all commercial water users. That would cost our dairy industry $600 billion a year, and effectively destroy New Zealand’s largest export industry.”

In this statement, and on three other occasions, Dr Smith has falsely portrayed New Zealand First’s policy of a royalty only on the export only of water as water only as being a charge on all commercial water users—in particular, the dairy industry—which it is not and which it has never been, and he has stated that he has seen proposals to that effect from New Zealand First that he has not seen, because they do not exist and have never existed.

My words have been knowingly and deliberately misrepresented by Dr Smith. This is unacceptable conduct on the part of a senior Government Minister and a member of this House of considerable experience. I thank you for granting this opportunity for the record to be corrected. Thank you.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just ask you to reflect on that statement. My submission to you is that it was not in the nature of a personal reflection made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith at all, and what we had there was really a matter of debate and general debate on party political matters.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I refer the member to Standing Order 359. It is an opportunity for members who consider that they have been misrepresented to consider a breach of privilege. It has become a lesser means of dealing with the matter. I looked very carefully at the statements that were made, the allegations that were made. I determined that, in fact, Mr Prosser had been misrepresented. He is then, therefore, given the opportunity to clarify that in this House, and he has done so.

General Debate

General Debate

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. You know, for the last couple of days there has been nothing spoken about outside of this House but the member Todd Barclay and the furore that has gone on around him. The allegations of cover-up—you would think that this place should all be slip, slop, slapping and covering ourselves profusely because of all of the conversations that have been going on. But there is one thing I am sure of, and that is that the member from Clutha-Southland right now must be in a whole heap of hurt. That is what I am sure of. Some might say not without reason, but there is a saying in Māoridom that says: “Waiho mā te whakamā hei patu.”

[Leave it for the embarrassment to subdue.]

Leave it for the embarrassment and not the hand to hit the child—and this young man is a young man. There is no doubt that this young man has been bitten by whakamā, and he is—

Hon Member: Don’t you make excuses for him.

MARAMA FOX: I am not excusing his actions, but there is no doubt that this young man has been hurt by the patu of whakamā, and so I am not going to throw any more stones that have not already been thrown. But I look to the legacy of our ancestors for examples of how to conduct yourself, for examples of how to serve your community, and for examples of integrity. In the last couple of days we have buried Dame Ngāneko Minhinnick, and now, the next day, we learnt about Iwi Nicholson—two fine examples of what true leadership looks like. That is what I want to concentrate my comments on.

The legacy that they left us was how to serve their community. The legacy that they left us, as we still mourn their memory, was dedicated service to their people—a legacy of service, a legacy of kaupapa. Kahurangi Ngāneko Minhinnick was the trailblazer in the environmental legislation reform and was laid to rest only yesterday at Tāhuna Marae, next to the waters that she advocated for in the Manukau Harbour. Iwi Nicholson was the repository of knowledge for Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Ngāti Raukawa, and his kōrero through the Waitangi Tribunal submissions tells of a brilliant mind—a man who was generous with his knowledge and shared it with his people.

The legacy comes from them to us, because come 23 September this year, we will be able to welcome new leaders into this House who stand with integrity—leaders like Rāhui Papa, for example. I was proud to be at Pōhara Marae on Sunday to support the announcement of his standing for the Māori Party. It was wonderful there to see his whanaunga, Nanaia Mahuta, supporting as well by being in attendance. We stood and acknowledged her work there, the member in Hauraki-Waikato. But on 23 September we also expect to see Shane Taurima take his place. We also expect to see Howie Tāmati take his place. For the last few months, if you have watched Facebook Live, you might have seen a little show that Te Ururoa Flavell and I do, called Run with the Fox and Swim with the Shark, and now, come 23 September, you can kick with the Kiwi and walk on the ground—apparently, that is what Rāhui Papa was saying. Make it all rāhui.

Anyway, we are heading towards a wonderful next period of time where we can put allegations aside, where we can stop belittling other people and take responsibility for our actions—which is what this man has done—and stand up and put people up to take a place in this country’s decision making, and show that we can be a part of this nation. I just want to remind everybody who might be watching out there in television land that come 23 September, we do not need 50 percent; we just need the middle, and then neither side will be able to make a move without us. Kia ora.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The National Government is the Government of infrastructure, and if anyone needed any persuasion on that, if there was any doubt whatsoever, I have got two small words for them: Waterview tunnel.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Thank you, Helen Clark.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It started, Mr Mallard, under the National Government, and was completed under the National Government, and the scale of this project, which was officially opened—

Phil Twyford: Two words: Helen Clark.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —earlier this week, Sunday. Phil Twyford was there, he loved every moment of it—I know that—even though it was a National Government success. He was there, and thousands of people from all over Auckland—actually, from all over New Zealand—came through that and were really chuffed to see what an exciting scale of project it is. It is some two harbour bridges in length either way, three lanes in each direction—the biggest, the most complex transport, infrastructural—

Hon Trevor Mallard: How are those bridges going in Northland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —project New Zealand—really well—has ever, ever seen. What it means for Aucklanders is transformative. What it means, quite simply, is the biggest transformation in travel patterns—

Grant Robertson: This is going to lead the news.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —in our biggest city in 60 years, Mr Robertson, since the harbour bridge came online in 1959.

Phil Twyford: What about the gridlock?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: What it will do, Mr Twyford, is, fundamentally, mean more capacity on our State highway network, a bypassing of the city, more options for Aucklanders, and I know they want to see that—particularly, actually, from the areas Phil Twyford says he represents and lives in. They will get in and around much better. More than that, it is going to free up local roads significantly—whether it is Carrington Road, whether it is Sandringham Road, whether it is Dominion Road, Gillies Avenue, Manukau Road, it is going to make a really significant difference. It is not a silver bullet, but it is, with other projects, going to make a very significant difference.

It is part of the Government’s comprehensive plan for Auckland and its transportation. We have been working incredibly hard on this, and people in Auckland and around New Zealand know that and are starting to see it with the cranes, with the construction that is happening everywhere over Auckland, but also around New Zealand. There is $4 billion—

Sue Moroney: Why are people stuck in their cars, not going anywhere?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —in new money, Sue Moroney, in the Budget, the most we have seen in the 2000s. It is actually part of a 4-year, $11 billion group of infrastructural capital expenditure. Over 4 years it is going to make a really big difference—all of it new money, the dividends of a strongly growing economy. In fact, it is better than that, because outside of just the new money coming from the Government, from this part of Government, there is, over and above that, $32.5 billion of infrastructure investment—

Grant Robertson: You can take your numbers up now.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —over the next 4 years. That is $9 billion in State highways, Mr Robertson. You may laugh, you may scoff, but it is the biggest investment in infrastructure we have seen in recent times—possibly in any times—in a range of projects: roads; rail, really big investment going to rail; cycleways; public transport—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Broadband.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —busways, but also, you are right, in other areas outside of just transportation, whether it is broadband, whether it is schools, and so on.

Let me just go through some of that. In education through the Budget there was $392 million more investment into schools around New Zealand. That is going to make a really big difference. Defence—there was over half a billion dollars of investment in that area. In housing there was $120 million in new money. In health there was $150 million of capital expenditure, and in the justice sector there was $786 million. So this is the Government of infrastructure.

I am really delighted to see projects that are going to make a really big difference for Aucklanders come online, like Waterview Connection, and other projects all around New Zealand—

Sue Moroney: The Government of gridlock.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —like the Waikato Expressway, which Sue Moroney has opposed for a long time, but which she knows the people of Hamilton are really excited about, because of the efficiency, the productivity, and the difference it makes. This is the Government of infrastructure, making a really big difference all around New Zealand.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): For the last 18 months the current Prime Minister of New Zealand has been at the centre of a cover-up. He has known that one of his MPs covertly taped one of his staff members, and that that MP went on to mislead, dissemble, and not tell the truth about what had happened. The Prime Minister of New Zealand knew this. He knew it from the beginning of last year, and he has done nothing to bring that member of Parliament to account.

What is more, when the Prime Minister of New Zealand has been asked directly about what he knew about what Todd Barclay had done, he has not told the truth. On 1 March last year Bill English was asked on the radio what he knew of the reasons for staff resignations in Todd Barclay’s office, and whether he had personally spoken to any of those staff. Mr English answered: “No.” That was on 1 March. On 21 February, we now know that the Prime Minister of New Zealand texted the then electorate chair of the National Party in Clutha-Southland to tell that man, Stuart Davie, that Todd Barclay had indeed recorded his staff member in a covert manner.

The Prime Minister has not told New Zealanders the truth about what happened in Todd Barclay’s office. He has dissembled, he has avoided answering questions, and he has failed the basic test of a Prime Minister in this country. Honesty is the very least that New Zealanders can expect from their politicians, and all the more so from their Prime Minister, and Mr English has completely failed on that account.

When he was given the opportunity to talk to police in April last year, he told them that Mr Barclay had indeed told him that he had recorded Glenys Dickson. When he then had the opportunity to see that document, that police statement, released as part of an overall police Official Information Act release, Mr English made sure his statement was withheld. This is not a Prime Minister who wants to be open or transparent. This is not a Prime Minister who was being honest with New Zealanders about what has happened.

It makes no difference that Todd Barclay has left today. This is about Bill English and Bill English’s credibility to be Prime Minister, because for politicians it is not about what happens when something is exposed by the media and what you then do. It is about whether you do the right thing at the time that you know about it. It is not a sign of credibility to come forward only when you are being exposed by the media. It is not a sign of credibility or leadership to change your mind within 3 or 4 hours yesterday because you worked out you had been caught out and found out. Those are not the actions of a real leader or a Prime Minister, and they are not the actions of someone whom New Zealanders can trust.

The Prime Minister has broken the basic bond with New Zealand people, of the trust that they should have in him. He did not tell the truth about what he knew. He stood by an MP who has told lies. He has allowed a staff member of 16 years to be bullied and covertly recorded out of her job, and even yesterday he wanted the issue to go away instead of actually fronting up to New Zealanders about what he and his protégé have done.

This is not a leader. This is a person who has become Prime Minister, and now that he is in that role he is cruelly exposed to New Zealanders as someone who does not have the fundamental capabilities and attributes that they need in their Prime Minister—that is, that he would be straight-up with New Zealanders, that he would show leadership and deal with people who break the law, rather than try to cover it up.

The last 24 hours have taught New Zealanders a lesson. This is a squalid shambles, as the Fairfax editorial said today, and, as other commentators have said, this has now cast great doubt on Bill English’s credibility. At this election it will be about a contest between a leader in Andrew Little who is straight-up and tells New Zealanders how it is, and Bill English, who has lied on behalf of his MP.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Is it not typical that we get a lot of trash talk from the other side of the House? I am not even going to lower myself to get in the trough with what we have just heard over the other side of the House.

I want to talk about the positivity on the back of Budget 2017, and the significant investment that has been made into infrastructure—about $4 billion. I saw that first hand yesterday when I was up in the Gisborne region. In this Budget we are investing another $90 million in water storage and infrastructure and irrigation projects. I was delighted to be there with the mayor, Meng Foon, yesterday, and other horticulture leaders, turning the tap on the managed aquifer recharge programme, where water on high-flow levels is taken out of the Waipaoa River and injected, under pressure, into the aquifer at the Poverty Bay flats there, which has got a huge amount of pressure on it over the summer months. Ultimately that will recharge that aquifer, to allow it to be used over the summer months. Here is a classic example of the Government investing with the local community and council, the local trust, to underpin job creation in the Gisborne region. We do not hear that across the other side of the House.

Another example—when I left the tap-turning ceremony I went down to LeaderBrand, which has just built the salad house. It is a massive investment—

Hon Anne Tolley: $20 million.

Hon NATHAN GUY: —of about $20 million. It is creating jobs. They said to me when I toured their factory, which is growing a whole lot of lettuces and other products, that they would not have invested in this new plant, which is not properly open yet—soon they will be having an opening, and the local MP, I am sure, will be there celebrating with those business leaders in her community—unless they had the confidence that the managed aquifer recharge scheme that we have invested in was going to work.

This Poverty Bay flats area underpins thousands of jobs—about 1,100 jobs—and then there is the ability, when they add more value to these products, to create more jobs. There are 3,000 hectares under irrigation, of 18,000—there is potential for more. This is a wonderful story but it gets lost by the other side of the House, which does not care and does not support our rural communities.

What is also important, when we think about the investment that the Government is making into infrastructure, is rural broadband. That follows on from the investment that is being made in ultra-fast broadband for our small regional towns. Soon, the Government will be announcing the next investment into Rural Broadband Initiative 2. If you think about the challenges that the primary sector faces right now, to do with water quality, nutrient loads, and taking value products to market, they are going to be required to do more measuring and monitoring. The way for our farmers and growers to do that is with reliable technology. Of course, smartphones mean that we need mobile technology. We need more cellphone towers. We need the Government to invest. Soon we will be world leading. While we are a small country here in the South Pacific, we will be the most connected country in the OECD.

What we have also heard from Minister Bridges this afternoon is the investment that is being made into transport infrastructure, with the Waterview Connection due to open in a matter of moments. I see the first-hand experience in my electorate, where we have recently opened the Kapiti Expressway. I was also, just a couple of months ago, having a look at the great progress that is being made on Transmission Gully. These are significant investments made by this Government that are going to transform the economy. Instead of vehicles, produce, and people waiting to get to market or to their hospital appointments or to the ferry, they will have a streamlined transport corridor, worth $2 billion, from Wellington all the way to Levin, and Foxton will be the gateway.

Can I finish by saying that the mood of the primary sector at Fieldays was really buoyant. There was a record crowd through the gates, of 133,000 people, and the reception that the National Party got was absolutely fantastic. Ian McKelvie, who is leading the Primary Production Committee, was there. We released this document, which says the primary sector is in really good heart—$41 billion next year, and growing at 9 percent. Well done to our foresters, fishers, growers, and farmers.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): On 30 April 1973, Richard Nixon accepted the forced resignations of Harry Haldeman and John Ehrlichman in the vain hope that blaming others and playing dumb would save his reputation and his administration, and kill the story. But the Washington Post and the New York Times and the networks were not buying it. The media was doing its job, and it kept on doing its job while Nixon dissembled and diverted. He inverted every legal and moral challenge that was thrown at him and threw them back. He prided himself on his prodigious memory. Nixon never stooped to the “I cannot recall” defence. He thought that such a pathetic line diminished his office. It took another 466 days until he arrived at the inevitable truth of the consequences of his carefully constructed cover-up. In the end he did the honourable thing. He lived up to the pledge he made before God and to the people who gave him the power and the privilege of his office. It was 9 August 1974, and I remember the day because we listened to his resignation speech over the intercom in my form 1 class at Glenfield Intermediate.

Bill English is standing at a similar crossroads. Will he match the vestiges of decency that Nixon finally mustered at the end and honour the solemn oath that he swore? Will Bill English submit to the Watergate principle that it is always the cover-up that gets you? Or will he try to run down the clock for another 94 days? Will he signal to the police to reopen the investigation that he was complicit in thwarting in the first place so that they can step in and save his arrogant, crumbling Government; so that he can try to hide behind the commissioner and say “I can’t comment; there’s a police investigation.”; and so that this broken Government can limp on, showering the electorate with more money, promises of things to do over 30 years, and new poll-driven targets that it has ignored for the last 9 years?

Arrogance, conceit, and hubris—we are watching the decay of another tired National Government. The true state of the English-Joyce Government is now on view. Alfred Ngaro naively revealed how those members think and talk behind the spin. Then Nicky Wagner doubled down on the hapless Ngaro. Do you know what the backbench members are saying now? “Bring back John.” That is what they are saying now. That is what they are thinking. That is what they want. At least John Key knew how to run a cover-up and come out of it smiling. Remember Muldoon after 9 years? He was bloated, entitled, tired and emotional, broken, bereft of ideas, and clinging on to power for its own sake. The game was up, and they abandoned him, just as Nick Smith and Anne Tolley refused to back their colleague and leader’s account—his account of the latest version of events. That was extremely telling.

History repeats. Bill English is sliding towards the same fate as Jim McLay and Jenny Shipley before him. This country needs a fresh approach; a fresh approach to housing that will see hard-working Kiwi families get a warm, dry home that they can afford, not living in a broken-down caravan or one of Nick Smith’s rat-infested boarding houses. We need a fresh approach to immigration that will give our biggest city a breather while infrastructure catches up. We need a fresh approach to mental health so that families are not left alone to cope with a family member who is mentally unwell and cannot get treatment. Just like in 1984, just like 1999, this crowd have run out of ideas. They have run out of excuses. They have had 9 years and this is what it has come to.

Andrew Little and Jacinda Ardern and the Labour team are ready. New Zealand needs a fresh approach, and it needs a new Labour-led Government.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (Minister of Customs): There is nothing tired about this Government, and this is a party that will go to the election campaign in just 3 months with a very proud record to stand on and with tremendous further plans. We have outlined in the Budget this year just how extensive our further plans are, and I have got a great opportunity now just to focus on a little bit of them. You would think that with just 3 months to go before that election the Opposition would be desperate to try to turn around their negative poll ratings and sell some sort of vision to the public about what they can do. But, instead, it is nasty; it is backward focused. It is the same negativity they have languished in now for 9 years, and I think the public is becoming increasingly unimpressed by the way in which they present themselves and are thinking there is no vision over there. It is the party on this side of the House that is showing that we are still full of energy and full of determination.

As the Leader of the House noted when he opened the National Party’s theme in this debate today, this is the Government of infrastructure, and we will be remembered in history as a party that has made an outstanding contribution to the development of this country. As he did, I want to congratulate everybody who has been involved in the staggering achievement that is the Waterview tunnel, up in Auckland. I want to thank, closer to home, all the wonderful teams that have been involved in the roll-out of the Waikato Expressway. It is transforming our region. It is an outstanding achievement. We are incredibly proud of having delivered it within budget and within the time frame that we promised when we came into office. I am so proud of the transformation of Waikato Hospital. As the Minister of Health has noted, we have one of the best facilities in Australasia right in my electorate, in Hamilton West, and we have wonderful people delivering great services there.

The Leader of the House spoke of major infrastructure projects in transport, health, justice, education, telecommunications, ICT, and many other important areas. And, of course, we have made an enormous contribution and commitment to the people of your region, Mr Speaker, in Canterbury for the rebuild of Christchurch and to support them through the terrible suffering that they have experienced since September 2010. I am very proud of that, and we as a Government repeat that commitment, and we are seeing Christchurch rebuilt in a way that I think is delivering a wonderful modern city of the future.

All of this is possible—and possible only—because of the Government’s sound economic management since we came into office in late 2008. We have a growth rate that is the envy of most countries in the Western World. We have steady growth in jobs and will be investing a total of $32.5 billion in new infrastructure over the next 4 years. It is a phenomenal achievement, and all New Zealanders will benefit from this. I am very proud of the country that we will be bequeathing to our children, our grandchildren, and their children to follow.

I recently became the Associate Minister of Education, and I have had the great privilege in recent weeks of visiting a large number of schools, mostly to deal with infrastructure announcements to do with roll growth and meeting the needs that those schools have. I want to thank the principal and the staff of Prebbleton School, in West Christchurch, where I was able to announce new classrooms for that school, Lincoln Primary School, and Allenton School, a little bit further down the road in the electorate, I think, of the member for Rangitata. I had the privilege of going to Cambridge East School and making a similar announcement, including three new classrooms in the member for Taranaki - King Country’s electorate, Pirongia School. What a phenomenal growth that area is seeing. I also, on Monday, went to the lovely Houghton Valley School, in the member for Rongotai’s electorate, and there, again, met with wonderful school communities working very, very hard, and I was delighted to be able to announce a new classroom that is going in there.

We inherited from the previous Labour Government school infrastructure that, on average, was 40 years old. We inherited major legacy issues, particularly of weathertightness and a lack of earthquake preparation, and we have been dealing with that. The Budget this year provides a further $456.5 million in school property, including $392.4 million of capital funding.

We are committed to rolling out the education infrastructure that this country needs. There are major challenges coming with population growth, particularly in Auckland, but we are on top of it. We are delivering, and I am so proud of that record.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well, you know, it is one of those days where you have a speech that you have to deliver, but then people stand up on that side of the House and they say things and you cannot let them get away with it.

So to Minister Nathan Guy, I have got a couple of comments to make. Mr Nathan Guy, it is so lovely to think that you came back from Mystery Creek feeling that the entire farming community is happy with this Government. Let me assure you: dozens and dozens of people came to the New Zealand First stand and said these words: “I used to vote National. All my life, I, my father, my parents voted National, but you have got our votes this time round. We’ve had enough.” And Mr Tim Macindoe knows, because he was getting it in the ear all the time that he was there, albeit he turned up looking like a suit from Auckland, but never mind.

The farming community, Mr Guy, has had enough of your incompetencies. You know, we have got myrtle rust. Talk to us about how horticulture is going to take you forward, and yet you have left the door open and allowed myrtle rust to come in, which will wipe out the honey industry—mānuka, kānuka, pōhutukawa, kauri. And let us not even talk about kauri dieback, which his famous ministry is not dealing with. And let us not even talk about pea weevil, velvetleaf, or the other dozens—there will be more. Mr Macindoe says that his party will be known in history as the infrastructure party—wrong. This Government will be known as the Government that had more bio-protection breaches in history than any other Government in history, and for the incompetence in the way in which it is dealing with it.

But I digress. What we have seen play out in the last 24 hours has, yes, been focused on the hapless Todd Barclay, the young junior backbencher whom New Zealand First has been hearing the stories about for well over 12 months and has been the benefactor, as many of his members resigned from his committee and joined the New Zealand First committee. In fact, our new candidate Mark Patterson is from that very committee. So we have known about this stuff.

The other person who knew about it was the Prime Minister, and it does not cut any ice around here to have the Prime Minister flatly give false answers to the media yesterday, and come into the House and try to retract his misstatements—it does not cut any ice. The fact of the matter is the Prime Minister knew that a complaint had been laid with the police. The Prime Minister knew that there had been a breach of the law. The Prime Minister knew that the police were investigating. The Prime Minister knew that Mr Barclay was refusing to cooperate, and the Prime Minister knew long term, down the line, that this was going to reflect on his party, but he had hoped that it would all go away—that the hush money that was paid up would make it all go away.

What the Prime Minister has, sadly, demonstrated to New Zealand—but, actually, gratefully, at this point in time in the electoral cycle—is that he is not fit to lead this country. Mr English is not fit to lead. What Mr English needs to understand is that to lead New Zealand he must enjoy the trust of the people, the confidence of the people. He must be reliable. He must exercise good judgment. He must be consistent. He must be courageous. He must be unwavering in the standards that he sets, and he must demonstrate those standards to a far higher level than which he demands.

On that point he failed. He must be impartial. One would have asked or suggested that a woman who had been in his employment for 17 years, whom he trusted implicitly and whom he knew absolutely, would not be telling lies. If he was to make a judgement call, if he was a leader who exercised wisdom, he would have deferred to that woman, that staff member, who had served him so loyally, so faithfully, during the highs and the lows of his career. When he was being investigated himself for double-dipping, when he lost an election in 2002 with a record devastating loss for the National Party—if he had the wisdom, if he had the loyalty, if he had the courage, he would have deferred to her view, sat down, and listened. He would have taken Mr Barclay outside—all the way outside, out into the ether, out of the National Government caucus—but he did not. He chose to defend him, to protect him, and to even go so far as to lie. This is a disgraceful affair that has unravelled in front of the public, but it is timely that it happened now, and for that we take some small amount of gratitude.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): This Government has done some pretty good things, but nature is not something that we can control, Mr Mark. If you think that this Government was responsible for delivering myrtle rust, you had better think again. But what I would like to say is that while we cannot control nature, what we can do is invest in infrastructure, and in our infrastructure programme we are looking at things like irrigation. Irrigation is not just for the farmers, although it is extremely helpful when it comes to certain weather conditions; it is also really good water storage for towns, and irrigation can be extremely beneficial when it comes to filling up rivers and lakes during dry periods. It has an environmental content to it. So while we cannot fight nature, we can put things in place infrastructure-wise, and, Mr Mark, I hope, when we decide on some of these projects, that you might see your way forward to supporting that.

New Zealand is growing faster than we have for a very long time. I cannot speak loudly today, but I will be able to do it for 5 minutes. We are adding more jobs across the country, but to keep growing we do need to invest in more infrastructure, and I can think of quite a number of examples just in my own electorate. At the moment, we have got consultation going on—final stages of consultation—for Mount Messenger. Recently Minister Bridges came out and he put the green light on the Awakino tunnel bypass. Mount Messenger is almost to the point where an announcement can be made, and there is really, really big excitement not only in the Taranaki end of the electorate but up in the Waikato, because that road is going to open up for produce, it is going to open up for tourism, and it is going to make a big difference to the lives of people who live along that stretch of highway.

Secondly, when it comes to infrastructure, 151 towns have been identified for the next stage of ultra-fast broadband, 12 of those in my electorate. I can actually say that those towns are getting pretty excited about having that infrastructure, and the more remote parts of the electorate are looking forward to the announcement on the Rural Broadband Initiative. What is critical is that infrastructure to productivity, to health and safety, and to getting young people who can come and live out in our electorates, take their mobile phones out of their pockets, and not just make phone calls but actually be able to get the data to do their jobs, to work with apps. So I think it is pretty critical.

I have also got another big project that is about begin in my electorate, and that is Waikeria Prison. Some people may think that Waikeria Prison, or prison itself, is not an exciting piece of infrastructure, I visited that prison recently and I saw people in there doing the baking, making the sausage rolls, and doing the farming. There were inmates who are actually training to be baristas—they are going to cater for the tradespeople. And I think what I am really excited about is that we are actually going to have a trade training centre in there and it is going to equip people so that when they come out there are more opportunities for them. I saw people doing driver-licence testing. I saw them on the internet looking for their support services. I saw a heap of things, and our employers are much more prepared to take on work-ready people who have come from corrections.

So there is a huge amount of infrastructure going on, and I know Minister Bridges has touched on roading, but I was also out the other day on the Forgotten World Highway. I know Ian McKelvie is very excited because all of the tourism infrastructure around Ruapehu, around the Forgotten World Highway, around the ski fields—I have to commend the Ruapehu District Council for partnering with the Government and putting in applications around infrastructure for tourism, because it is quite a remote part of the country. I have to say, it is probably one of the biggest investments Ian has had in his electorate, and it flows into mine around Ōhura. We are very excited that some of those facilities are going to be there for those people who want to visit the more remote parts of our country, because when you look out along that Forgotten World Highway, for places like Ōhura, Whangamomona—areas like that that I represent—tourism is their lifeline. The tourism infrastructure partnership is really helping that, and I am proud of the infrastructure that this Government is delivering. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. In this general debate, I want to speak directly to young New Zealanders. Day in, day out you are being told by your parents, teachers, and society how to act, and I want to share some good life advice that I have picked up serving a while in this Parliament. It is all pretty simple, common-sense stuff. If you are having a disagreement with someone, do not secretly record them on audiotape. That is just creepy and illegal. On the other hand, if someone tells you they are secretly recording people but they are saying something different in public, you really should speak up. If you do not like someone, do not slag them off on a friend’s blog and pretend it is not you. That is just cyber-bullying. If you are having an argument with someone about an issue, it is best to debate the facts, not attack the person. Revealing intimate, private data about that person is not winning an argument; that is just being stink.

Here is some good advice that has just come out: friends do not spy on friends, even if they really, really want that flash new overseas job, because that is just “Groser”. If you think you have disappointed someone you have a professional relationship with, a sheep farm in the desert is not the best or the cheapest way to make amends—try flowers or chocolate. If you have made a mess, clean it up. Do not just change the definition of mess and call it clean—you are not fooling anyone. If there is a crisis, do not panic—

Hon Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood it was a convention that you are not brought into these sorts of calls and that debate should not be read word for word from a script, as if the man was a comic genius—which, clearly, he is not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Speaker should not be brought into the debate, but that is a matter for the Speaker to determine, and it is not something that should be raised by any member in this House. It is a robust debate at all times. The member has not crossed any lines, and he can certainly continue with his speech.

GARETH HUGHES: That is right, Ms Barry. Thank you very much. It is amazing how many good tips I have seen in just the last few months, Ms Barry. For example, if you are in a position of power and you have the ability to fund projects people are passionate about, do not threaten to pull the plug if they disagree with you—that is bullying. If you have got access to Official Information Act material and the law says it should be released, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to guess what it means if you do not. If you ever find yourself in an important meeting, staring out the window, daydreaming about maybe being on a boat in the harbour, try to keep it to yourself. You would not want to tweet that to the rest of the world.

Watching National Government Prime Ministers has been another really good source for advice. For example, if you are new and you are worried that people might not like you, putting spaghetti on pizza or making weird videos will not make people like you. It is OK to have a brain fade—it happens to everyone—but if you are always having them, and only having them on tricky issues, you might want to ask yourself: “Should I see a doctor, or is something else going on?”.

Lastly, one other piece of advice I have picked up after watching National for 9 years is that there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially if you are poor, hungry, and do not have lunch—maybe if you are an oil company. The moral of the story is that if you want advice on living a good life, do not follow National’s example on running a good country. Secret recordings, hush money, funding threats, ministerial bullying, dirty politics, Official Information Act abuse, releasing people’s private data—this is all on top of growing pollution, poverty, homelessness, and inequality. They say that familiarity breeds contempt, and after 9 years that is exactly what I have for the ethics of this Government. For 9 years we have seen a steady erosion of standards. Our rivers are dirtier, and so are our politics.

For 9 long years we have seen lying, yelling, the spreading of rumours, bullying, keeping secrets, and name-calling. We would not tolerate these behaviours in our children, but we have come to expect them from the party in Government. But Kiwis do care. They know that politics can be done differently. The Green Party knows the values we instil in our children are the values we should be using to run our country—fairness, respect, responsibility. If someone makes a mess, they should clean it up.

We face so many big challenges as a country, and it is going to take grown-up politics to address them. The Green Party that knows politics can be done differently. It is time to clean up the Government.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. We are seeing the results of some very good planning and investment strategies of this National Government. I was at the ceremonial opening of the Waterview tunnel by Prime Minister Bill English and Ministers Bridges and Joyce. The excitement there was huge. We know that thousands of people want to go through that tunnel, walk through that tunnel, cycle through that tunnel before that tunnel opens for drivers. I know it was several months ago, but it feels like it was just a couple of months ago, that I was with Ministers Bridges and Goldsmith when the tunnel boring machine Alice had just finished boring those tunnels. The anticipation for its opening was enormous. This great infrastructure project, delivered under the watch of this National Government, has been delivered as it was promised.

This project has several highlights. Of course it will change the way that people in Auckland move, but as we heard in question time, from Minister Bridges, it employed 11,000 people. It gave the opportunity for employees to upskill at work, because we know this has been a most complex roading project. The tunnel boring machine, Alice, required some seriously high levels of engineering technique. This project also gave the opportunity for young people to take part in the competition that was run to decide the name for the boring machine. I want to acknowledge Branden Hall, as his name of Alice for the boring machine was accepted.

When I was talking to people in Mount Roskill, because this tunnel is going to make a huge difference to the traffic flow in Mount Roskill, I saw they were really eager to drive through this tunnel. I know that when this tunnel opens next month there will be a lot of people wanting to drive through it, just to experience it. Yes, it is going to open next month, for drivers. This is the biggest milestone in Auckland’s transport network in more than half a century. It is a project of $1.4 billion. We know that the economic benefit of it is estimated to be around $430 million, with increased productivity and reduced travel times.

We are able to deliver such a great project only because our economy is doing so well. We are investing hugely in our economy. We are diversifying our economy. Someone who has been outside of New Zealand, who has seen the world, knows that the world is becoming an increasingly interconnected place. The internationally friendly image of New Zealand, under this National Government, is attracting tourists, supporting our economy, and it is attracting international students, supporting our economy. We need that kind of investment from overseas, in all sectors.

Actually, our international education industry is a star performer. It is worth $4.5 billion, creating more than 30,000 jobs. That is what the Labour Party wants to kill, with its immigration policy proposal. Labour wants to kill that support to our economy of $4.5 billion. It wants to kill those 30,000-plus jobs, making 30,000-plus people unemployed. I ask—where will we get more money to invest in education? Where will we get more money to invest in health? Where will we get more money to invest in infrastructure projects like I have just spoken about?

It is the same Andrew Little who was posing for the media with those international students, for his political reasons—students who were being deported because they had submitted fraudulent documents—saying that the Government should allow those students to stay in New Zealand. Now it is the same Andrew Little who is attacking that international education industry, and attacking international Indian and Chinese students.

Our position was clear then, and our position is clear now, too. We highly value our international education industry. We highly value our international students. We want them to have a really good experience here in New Zealand, while they are here, studying. But if there is any fraudulent activity, there will be consequences. These international students are not only providing economic benefits but also helping us to create links with our trading partners. They are also giving us the experience of different cultures. Cultures are to be enjoyed.

So, under this National Government, we want to see that the economy keeps growing, that we keep doing well, and that we remain well connected to the world. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We have heard the National Government speakers today try to deliver speeches about the tunnel, as a way of trying to dig a tunnel out of here, because they are in trouble and they know it.

I want to refer, firstly, to the fact that we are 94 days away from an election—94 days away from an election. The public is watching. The public is making a decision about whom they want to govern their country. I want to acknowledge our leadership on this side of the House. I want to acknowledge Andrew Little because he has the hardest job in this place, as the Leader of the Opposition. He, as a competent leader, has been working tirelessly with our deputy leader—getting out there, genuinely engaging with New Zealanders on issues that matter to New Zealanders.

They have been out there, informing people, discussing with people, and learning from people, to bring together fresh ideas for how to run this country. They have a vision for New Zealand, and New Zealand will be able to see that on 23 September. At this time, a politically tumultuous time, on this side of this House we are very proud of the fact that we have leadership with integrity that is beyond reproach. New Zealanders deserve that. They deserve leadership with integrity, and they expect nothing less from a Prime Minister.

Let us contrast that with what we have on that side of the House. The question has to be asked: “Did Bill English stand aside while Todd Barclay lied?”. The other question that has to be asked is: “Did Bill English lie about the situation?”. If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then how can it be tenable for the Prime Minister to continue in his role?

These are not white lies that we are speaking about. They are serious. The police have been involved. There have been cover-ups. There are staff members who have come out, party members, making accusations that are serious. Todd Barclay’s resignation today does not change anything. The Prime Minister’s astonishing lack of discernment regarding this matter reflects serious flaws in judgment and serious flaws in leadership. We are concerned, and so should the whole of New Zealand be concerned.

The Prime Minister’s credibility is absolutely on the line, over the Barclay debacle. No one can question that. In the space of 4 hours yesterday, English first claimed that he did not know whom he had told that Barclay made secret recordings of his staff. Then, 4 hours later, he admitted that he told the police that Barclay himself had told him about the recordings. The fact is that English did not do a U-turn yesterday morning about not remembering who told him about the recordings; he misled the public. You can dress it up, you can call it a brain fade, but it is simply a lie.

What we heard today in the House was a continuation of those lies. We heard Paula Bennett get questioned in the House as the Minister of Police. She said that no Minister of Police was informed about the fact that this matter had been taken to the police. Well, I have spoken to a very credible former Minister of Police who informed me that, actually, when she was the Minister of Police there was a weekly briefing given to the Minister of Police, and at that briefing any matters that were sensitive, particularly matters involving high-profile New Zealanders, particularly matters that might involve MPs, would be included in the briefing.

So for the Minister of Police to stand in this House today and say that the Minister of Police was not informed at any time about the fact that this matter had been taken to the police can only be deemed a lie. This whole situation places major question marks over Bill English’s competency as the leader of this country. It also lets the country know that we have a tired Government. After 9 years the level of arrogance has gone through the roof and is leading to behaviour that is unacceptable with regard to MPs and also the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Around 3 years ago, around about that time, I was appointed as the National Party candidate for Port Hills. From there it was around 100 days where I had the opportunity to get out there and also campaign on behalf of the National Party to get to this House. What I am saying here is that the rest is history. But over the last 3 years I have been out there, working hard on behalf of the Port Hills residents. I have been out there getting to know the Port Hills people, and I have been out there getting to know what actually matters to our Port Hills constituents.

One of the most important things, particularly when we talk about what we have been through in Christchurch and Canterbury—back to 2011, back to 2017; I am talking about earthquakes and fires. One of the things that really matters is the rebuild of our infrastructure. When I think about that, that is really why, when I talk to our people on the doorsteps and when I talk to Port Hills people, it is about infrastructure, and it always has been. So when we look at the Port Hills and look at what has happened since the last sort of 3 years in particular, it has actually been about the construction of that infrastructure.

Just look at the way a lot of the roads and highway systems in Christchurch—we are all enjoying that as part of Port Hills residences, and also of Christchurch itself. Millions upon millions of dollars of infrastructure spend, under this Government, has actually resulted in what we are experiencing today. When we look at the construction of cycleways, particularly across the Port Hills—cycleways where people can walk and run and enjoy it—there are huge benefits in this. These cycleways go right across the Port Hills, and there are more to come.

When I look at the infrastructure that this Government has invested in, particularly around education, I only have to look at the western side of the Port Hills, where the first school that actually rose from the rubble was Halswell Primary School. That was also the first school that was introduced, and it was built under that modern learning environment. So that was the first one—a brand new school; investment in educational infrastructure. When I think of Cashmere: Cashmere High School; Cashmere Primary School. When I think of Halswell Residential College—all of these are beneficiaries of the incredible work that this Government has done under the investment in infrastructure.

The other part of this is—let us just go across the Port Hills, to the Port of Lyttelton. It is the largest port in the South Island; the third-largest in New Zealand. When you look at that now—this Government put in an infrastructure plan called the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan. What we are going to have out of that now is a completely reconstructed port. We are going to also have one of the most modern cruise ship terminals in the whole of New Zealand—$56 million will be spent on this new cruise ship terminal. That is a reflection of what this Government has done since those terrible, terrible situations of earthquakes and fire.

The other part is that the Port Hills people are telling us that this is the Government of infrastructure. When they looked at the last Budget—and they can see that they are going to continue to benefit from these incredible investments that we are doing, particularly around all of those different things, such as education, infrastructure in roading, cycleways, and even when we are looking at the manufacturing industries, and all of that. This Government here is the Government of infrastructure, and this Government will continue to deliver, particularly to the Port Hills people. Kia ora tātou.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Point England Development Enabling Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 20 June.

Clauses 1 and 2

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to speak to the title clause. Point England Development Enabling Bill—well, what is in a name? There is no clue in the name of this bill that helps you to understand the level of anger and cynicism and disenchantment that this bill has created in the community of Point England. Is there anything wrong with development, with housing, as set out in the bill? It is a bill about development. No. Everybody in Auckland understands that we desperately need to build more houses. People want to see development, but they do not want to see it at all costs. The fact that Auckland needs more houses built, that it needs more development, as this bill purports to deliver, is not some kind of alibi for every madcap hare-brained scheme that Nick Smith comes up with, and that is what this bill is.

Is there anything wrong with “Enabling”? Well, apart from the fact that the bill cuts across the Reserves Act, and the Resource Management Act, and the established legislative democratic processes designed to give communities a say about developments that are happening in their communities, and trying to ensure that the right questions are asked about the environmental effects of the proposed development—apart from that, there is nothing inherently wrong with a development project. In fact, I would argue that if the Government and Nick Smith had gone about this differently they could have done the enabling of this project. They could have pursued the development ambitions for this 12 hectare patch of land that we are talking about, without actually poisoning the well of public support for this project.

What is more, there is nothing wrong with an enabling bill that seeks to deliver up a patch of land that can be used as commercial redress in a Treaty settlement. There is nothing wrong with that at all. As speaker after speaker in this Chamber has pointed out through the course of this Committee stage debate, there is widespread respect and understanding for Ngāti Paoa and their aspirations to settle their Treaty settlement and move ahead, to build a platform at Point England for their people to have a marae, to have a place that they can call their own, and, actually, to build an economic base.

So there is nothing wrong with those things, those ideas that are all inherent in the title of this bill, the Point England Development Enabling Bill. But Nick Smith has, as he has so many times before, made a pig’s ear of this project, this Point England Development Enabling Bill, which had—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to sort of warn the member that just repeating the name of the bill over and over again gets to the point of being repetitious. It is a very narrow debate—the debate on clause 1—following a full Committee stage. So I am going to ask the member to confine himself to relevant matters, and I warn him there are not many.

PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In relation to “Development Enabling” in the title, what the Minister has done with this bill is to take precious parkland at Point England away from a local community that treasures that parkland and strongly believes that that parkland at Point England is needed not for development but for future generations. It is a community that is very aware that under the intensification plans of the Tāmaki Regeneration Co., it is going to have an extra 20,000 people living there, right across the fence from the recreation reserve, as it is now. That is why there is a level of cynicism and disenchantment about this bill.

I want to say also that it is an enabling bill for Treaty settlement legislation that will follow in this House. Labour has made it very clear—in fact, we have put it in writing in our minority view, as part of the commentary—that we will support Ngāti Paoa’s Treaty settlement process when the Treaty settlement bill comes to this House because we are part of a cross-party consensus in this House that holds Treaty settlement very dear. This is an enabling bill. It has some objectives that on the face of it sound worthwhile—

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am happy to take a call on the title and commencement of the Point England Development Enabling Bill. It has been an interesting debate to be part of, and I want to reflect on the title that this bill has been given and possibly some more appropriate titles that could apply to it. I would suggest that it could be called, quite appropriately, the Point England (Sir Robert Muldoon Memorial) Bill because this area, of course, is in the former Tamaki electorate, and contained within the bill are some of the kinds of centralising tendencies that we saw from that National Party Prime Minister, such as a willingness to override democratic norms, to override community voices, and to override due process.

In the debate that we have heard in this Committee stage on this bill, it has been raised time and time and time again that there could have been a better way through this bill and that with a willingness on behalf of the Government to sit down and negotiate and look at all of the options, we could have achieved something really good for Point England here. We could have achieved something really good for Point England that met the objective that all of us share to have a sustainable, enduring, and just Treaty settlement for Ngāti Paoa—and I do not think there is a member in this Committee who does not support that—and that could meet the objectives of supporting the Point England Reserve, which is right here in the title, and that is what we should be focused on. That is what we should be focused on.

That reserve has protections under legislation that this Parliament passed in the Reserves Act, and one of the key features of this bill is that it fundamentally changes Point England Reserve. It strips away the existing protections that that reserve has under the Reserves Act, and the core protection in the Reserves Act that the reserve has is the right for the benefits of that reserve to the local community to be paramount. Instead of going through a process to determine that, as we would usually have done under the Reserves Act, this bill, the Point England Development Enabling Bill, enables development on that reserve—development that may very well be contrary to the interests of that reserve and the community that it serves. So it runs entirely contrary to the treatment of reserves in this country under the Reserves Act. Enabling residential development on a precious piece of public open space—as this bill does, and as is reflected in the title of this bill—is simply unacceptable and inappropriate.

Let us return again to those first couple of words in the title, “Point England”. We have heard from the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, time and time again through this debate that, supposedly, this is a reserve that is not particularly valuable and whose amenity is limited, and we have had the canard about the cows, supposedly. Well, actually, we have heard from submitters and we have heard from members of the community that this is actually an incredibly valued reserve. They have submitted and they have emailed and sent us some pictures. These photos show the land, supposedly, that the Minister does not think is of value to the community, but here we have kids in the triathlon and we have people playing kilikiti, and of course we had submission after submission talking about the ecological value of Point England Reserve.

We had senior ecologists from the Auckland Council saying that at the very least, before we go down this track of revoking the reserve status of a piece of reserve land that has significant ecological value, and in particular—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member, but I am doing it to warn the Minister in the chair that, by both hand gestures and comments, he is reflecting on my chairing and that he is to cease.

MICHAEL WOOD: We heard from Auckland Council that because of the ecological value that is inherent in the reserve—and it is also, of course, one of the things that is protected in the Reserves Act and is stripped away by this bill—there should at the very least have been an ecological assessment to determine whether the development that is enabled on this site by this bill is appropriate, given the flora and particularly the fauna that is on that site, but through the course of this debate we have not heard any substantive response from the Minister on that point.

So I very proudly stand here with the Labour Party to say that the title of this bill is entirely inappropriate, that this bill itself is not something that we should be supporting, and that Point England Reserve is a valued reserve and it is not a site that is appropriate for development. What we know, of course, is that there is ample opportunity for development in that community. It is currently slated for 20,000 additional homes under the Auckland Unitary Plan. The way that we do good quality development is to plan it, have democratic input, and then support it with high-quality, public open space. We do not do it by ram-raiding the high-quality, public open space in the first instance. In fact, contrary to the principles of good development, this bill, which carves up a valued reserve, compromises good quality development in the future in Point England. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 41

New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.

Abstentions 14

Green Party 14.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 41

New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.

Abstentions 14

Green Party 14.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Electricity Industry Act 2010

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on Part 1 of the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I will have some questions for the Minister in the chair on this—I am just giving the Minister a heads up—on Part 1, because—

Matt Doocey: I seek leave for the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to be debated as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that proposition? There appears to be none. That will be the case.

Parts 1 to 4, schedule, and clauses 1 and 2

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I will indeed have many more questions, probably. I guess, from the outset, just to let the Minister know, I did not have the opportunity to sit on the Commerce Committee, so I am looking at the bill as returned from the select committee with fresh eyes—in particular, Part 1.

Part 1, effectively, allows EECA—the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, which I will hereafter refer to as EECA—to be able to actually have levies it has not had the ability to have before, in order to go right across the whole spectrum. One of the spectrums that EECA can now bring levies down for is in the transport sector. Of course, that is in reference to the increasing role that we hope that electricity will be playing in our transport sector, with the increasing uptake in purchase and use of electric vehicles on a private-use basis but also, we hope, increasingly in the commercial field, and in the public transport field as well. I note that new section 129A, inserted into the Electricity Industry Act 2010 by clause 6 of this bill, gives EECA the ability—or, requires EECA, actually—to submit a request to the Minister, seeking an appropriation of public money for the following year or any change for an appropriation for the current year that relates to costs that are intended to be recovered by way of levies.

One of the questions I have for the Minister is—given that now one of the main features of this bill is that it allows EECA to gather levies from a range of sectors—is the Minister being referred to in that clause of the bill the Minister of Conservation, or is it the Minister of the particular sector from which the levy is being derived? From my perspective, what I am very interested to learn about is, if levies for electricity use are coming from the transport sector, is that reference about submitting a request to the Minister in that instance to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Conservation? I very sincerely ask the Minister in the chair, who is shepherding the bill through this part of its process, whether they could provide some clarification to that.

I just note, Mr Chair, while I am on my feet, that I am not sure whether the advisers have made it here to be able to give advice on those matters.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It is not a matter to be raised on the floor.

SUE MORONEY: OK. I hope the Minister knows the answer without the advisers being available to give that. I would be very interested to learn about that.

One of the most controversial features in this bill—oh, I should have said at the outset that Labour supports the bill. We think it is inadequate to deal with the very exciting future that we have in front of us of renewable energy being so involved in sectors like transport, but we think it is at least a start, and that is why we are supporting these parts.

One of the very controversial parts of this bill is the ability for electric vehicles to be using bus lanes. I think it is Part 2 of this bill that allows that to happen. It is controversial because, of course, the whole idea of bus lanes is to promote the use of public transport, not private transport. That is the whole idea—that we are trying to increase the number of people traveling per vehicle. In Auckland, for example, they are called bus lanes but what they are, in fact, are T2, T3, and T4 lanes. What that means is that, yes, buses use those lanes, but also so do private vehicles that are transporting two, three, or four or more passengers. If we are trying to improve congestion in the horribly gridlocked city of Auckland, which that Government has allowed to—you know, it just sat back and watched while the gridlock has got ever worse in that city. If we are trying to unlock that gridlock, then why would we allow vehicles that may have just one passenger in them—may just have the driver in them—to actually continue to use those sorts of lanes?

That is the impact of the change in that part of this bill. Lanes that have been set aside in our most congested city, and in other cities, actually, which actually require people to have multiple passengers—in fact they are really designed for buses to use, to get people out of their one person per car habit and into buses so that they can expediate their journey by having a lane dedicated to them. Now, increasingly, the lanes are going to be clogged up, potentially by single-user vehicles, whether they are electric or not. I do not know, and I would be interested to hear from the Government what the policy setting is that it is trying to address by this. What is the policy setting? Because I have no evidence, internationally or in New Zealand, that suggests that opening these precious bus lanes up to single-user electric vehicles is somehow going to magically lift the number of electric vehicles that are purchased in this country.

All the international research and evidence says that the important thing about improving our use and uptake of electric vehicles is going to be about the purchase price—that is the single biggest driver of whether there will be a large uptake of electric vehicles or not. And yet this Government is not using the best tool at its disposal to address that issue. The Government, owning one of the largest fleets in the country, is not even requiring its own departments and ministries to purchase electric vehicles. That would be the single best way of having a mass purchase of electric vehicles. That would, by definition, bring the purchase price down, and that would be the thing that would increase the uptake of electric vehicles. But, no, this Government instead says: “Hang on, hang on. We’ve got congestion rising in all of our major cities, actually, but particularly Auckland. Let’s clog up the bus lanes more.”

As I understand—I am not from Auckland, but many Aucklanders tell me that, actually, the bus lanes are pretty heavily congested these days. That is a great thing, because that is about a great uptake of public transport. But why does this Government think that the best thing it can do is start to put electric vehicles—often cars driven by one person with no other passengers—in those lanes and make it even harder for our public transport system to be the most efficient it can be?

I throw that challenge out to the Government: please explain where the evidence is that that measure will significantly increase the uptake of electric vehicles in New Zealand, and where the evidence is that it will not instead have the possibly unintended but very obvious consequence of making the public transport system in Auckland and our other major cities less efficient. If that happens, if our public transport system becomes less efficient because the buses, and the people driving with two or three people per car, and the taxis, which can also use those routes—they are getting clogged up increasingly by people, one person a car, in an electric vehicle.

I think there is a common misunderstanding: people seem to equate electric vehicles with fixing all of the woes of our transport system. Well, there is no difference. The one thing it will do is it will reduce carbon emissions, and I applaud that. I absolutely applaud that. But there is no difference, in terms of congestion, road safety, or those other aspects of our transport system we should be concerned about, that an electric vehicle delivers over a petrol-powered or a diesel-powered vehicle. They take up the same amount of space on the road. They add to our congestion. There is no road safety improvement from introducing them.

So, I want to finish my contribution by putting the challenge out to the Government to please show us the policy advice that tells us that having electric vehicles move into bus lanes is the best thing that we can do for our transport system.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I wish to pick up more or less where my colleague Sue Moroney left off—on the matter of the use of special vehicle lanes by electric vehicles. I understand the policy intention here is to facilitate and support the use of electric vehicles by allowing them to use bus lanes and other special vehicle lanes. For instance, we have had experiments with lanes for vehicles that have two or more passengers in them.

What I am interested in, though, is not so much the policy intention behind it but the enforcement, because it seems to me that it is going to be very, very challenging to enforce the rule that only electric vehicles are allowed to use what would otherwise be lanes specifically for public transport. I understand that this was raised at the Commerce Committee and that the committee’s response was to insert new clause 17A. New clause 17A, “Section 145 amended (Evidence of approved vehicle surveillance equipment)”, states: “(1) In section 145(1), after ‘moving vehicle offence’, insert ‘or a special vehicle lane offence’. (2) In section 145(2), replace ‘in proceedings for a moving vehicle offence’ with ‘, in proceedings for a moving vehicle offence or a special vehicle lane offence,’.”

I understand that the consequence of that amendment is that it will be allowable for photographs to be taken of vehicles in special vehicle lanes and that those photographs will then be used to look at the licence plate and determine whether or not that vehicle is an electric vehicle. Fine—that is one way of enforcing the rule that only electric vehicles may use special vehicle lanes.

My question to the Minister, as a representative of the Government, is about the resources that the Government is going to put towards the administration of this. What resources will the Government put into the—quite considerable, I would imagine—amount of administration that is going to be required to go through all of those photographs, all of those vehicles, and look at those registration plates to determine whether or not the vehicle is an electric vehicle and to then follow up with those that are not electric vehicles and issue fines and what have you?

Is there something that is going to be done through technology? Is there going to be new technology or at least resources made available to the Ministry of Transport, or the police, or whoever is going to be responsible for enforcing this so they can do this through technology, or is it going to be a matter of somebody sitting at a desk and going through all the photographs—sitting at a computer and going through all the photographs? I hope it is not the latter. It is one thing for us to pass legislation in this House, set up the rules, and say that this will now be possible, but it is quite another thing entirely for that legislation to be properly enforced.

My concern is that the concerns raised by submitters at the select committee are absolutely correct—that vehicles that are not electric vehicles will be able to get into special vehicle lanes. It will not be immediately obvious, and so you then have that issue of bus lanes being clogged up not just with electric cars but actually, potentially, with non-electric conventional cars as well, and that the resources will not be there to properly enforce this rule. Then it will become known that you can get away with driving in a bus lane and—hey presto—all the bus lanes are clogged up and the public transport system is then put under extraordinary and unnecessary strain.

I think that the House, in considering this legislation, needs to know that the Government has considered that as an issue—the resourcing that will need to go in to making sure that section 145(1) and (2), as amended by—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): If the member thinks he can sort of get a bit closer to the detail of the bill, that would be good. I will give him another try.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. How magnanimous of you! So exactly how does the Government intend to ensure that those changes made in new clause 17A will actually be enforced to make sure that this legislation actually operates correctly?

Another area that the select committee considered was the collection of the gas levy, and the select committee recommended amending clause 13 to replace rather than amend section 23 of the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989 to place liability for the gas levy solely on where the gas is sold by a retailer. That, presumably, is to simplify the process of collecting that levy—collecting the levy at the point of sale—and I wonder what consultation has been done with the retailers who are going to be required to collect that gas levy. I wonder whether that is something that is going to be simple for them or whether there are going to be additional costs for them in collecting that levy. Obviously, we want the collection of levies to be as simple and straightforward as possible, but, again, because this is a change that has been made by the select committee, what consideration has been made by the Government to ensuring that that levy will work appropriately?

Those are the only two issues that I wanted to traverse in this contribution. I am sure there will be others, and I am sure colleagues are preparing to rise to take a call as well, but if the Minister were able to address those questions, particularly, really, the question about the special transport lanes, that would be most appreciated.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Since the Labour members are asking me to speak—all right. I actually think that we are in danger, of course, of having peace break out, which is a good thing. Electric vehicles are something—and I will address some of the concerns raised by the previous two speakers—I am quite keen on, and I think a lot of members of Parliament are. They are quite expensive at the moment, but there is a really simple way around that: manufacturers could start making cheaper cars, and some already are doing that. The thing is that cars—whether they are petrol-powered, diesel-powered, or electric-powered—come in all sorts of different models and different prices, and at the moment there is just not the large second-hand market in New Zealand that we are used to having and do have in terms of petrol and diesel.

Sue Moroney: You could help with that.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Ms Moroney has just called out that we could solve that by having all the Government fleet in it. Well, possibly, except that there is another little issue, and that is the issue of how long batteries last in these cars and what is happening to those batteries at the end of it. I have had the privilege of going to see electric cars being made, and one particular make of car has batteries—multiple batteries—that actually form the chassis of the car, essentially. This works really well, until I said: “Well, what happens when they die?”. The answer was they are guaranteed for 10 years. I said “Well, in New Zealand 10 years does not make an old car. So what happens then?”, and the answer was: “Oh well, you could get a new one.” I said “How much is that?”, and it is US$25,000, and I said: “Well, that’s all a bit difficult.” Then the other issue I raised was about recycling and what happens with the environmental disposal of it.

So I think it is not everything, but I think the electric vehicle certainly does deal with some of the emissions issues that we have, and I think that it is actually the way of the future, and all these things are going to come to fruition. Of course, every carmaker would love us to be able to give all sorts of subsidies, and, of course, some countries do, but they are also countries that give subsidies for everything else, and we pretty much got rid of those. A cheeky question could be what happens when they are crushed, and, of course, there could be issues, particularly if those batteries are so much part of the chassis. But anyway, I think it is certainly very interesting.

In terms of things like the use of the bus lanes, or the special lanes, or whatever—that is why this bill does not actually say that they are going to be using them; it actually gives the ability of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and also local authorities to decide which of these special lanes can be used for electric vehicles. The point is well made that not all of these special lanes are going to be suitable, either because of the vast numbers of buses going through them, or various other reasons, so that is going to be left up to the local authorities and the New Zealand Transport Agency to decide.

I think it is also quite good to deal with an issue around how else we can encourage them. The point was made that we could have a Government fleet of them. That is, obviously, not a part of this bill. I would also hasten to add that you want to be a bit careful with that—that you do not try to determine when, for instance, police cars would all be electric. That might be a weenie bit of a problem, given the time that it takes to charge cars at the moment, and even the super chargers that are available—one is available in Hamilton; another one, I think, is being opened up on the Napier-Taupo road—take about 35 minutes to charge. Otherwise, a vehicle could take 3 to 4 hours to charge, and you cannot just sit around saying you are going to wait for the police car to charge up. I think electric vehicles are going to become even more popular in New Zealand when we end up with them taking as little time to charge as it does for people to put petrol or diesel in their car. Then, I think, we are really talking. Personally, I think that they are the way of the future, and it is just a matter of making sure that we get enough volume coming through. So this is something to encourage that.

I have visited places like Norway and California, in particular, to look at some of the things that they are doing around electric vehicles, and both of those countries do have this provision around electric vehicles being able to use special lanes. They do consider that as something that encourages them. Norway, of course, puts big taxes on imports of cars generally, but they do not have those on electric vehicles. They suggested that we could not put big taxes on top of electric vehicles, so I had to point out that we do not actually put big taxes on top of vehicles that are imported into the country in the first place, which they thought was unusual. I said we got rid of it in the 1980s; we are a free-market country. The other issue that California suggested is that we might like to make all of our car manufacturers manufacture electric vehicles, which is what they have brought in, and I said that would be excellent too, except that we do not manufacture any cars, so that is not going to work, is it? So really, we are down to these particular lanes.

We also have something else that we do for electric vehicles and electric vehicles owners, and that is that they do not contribute to the cost of the roads, and that is something that people need to realise. When diesel users pay their road-user charges, they are paying towards the money that goes into the National Land Transport Fund. In addition to that, people who pay for petrol—we are actually paying for that as well, and that is part of the cost. About 90c of the litre cost of petrol actually goes towards our road transport; that pays not only for the roads themselves but also policing of the roads. A big chunk of that goes into road policing, and it also goes towards public transport as well. It helps to meet the costs of public transport, so, actually, people who pay for petrol and diesel are contributing on a user-pays basis, plus they are also contributing to public transport. Electric vehicle owners are actually being given an exemption, which is being carried over, so that they do not contribute to that. So they are getting quite a substantial drop in the costs that they would otherwise be paying for, and that is because the roads are not generally paid out of the consolidated fund—out of the general budget.

I think it is really important that we understand that we are giving certain subsidies, and I think what is going to happen is that as charging stations become more available, as people get their heads around the fact that they can actually buy second-hand electric vehicles from places like Japan, or that manufacturers start producing cars that do not have to be at the luxury end of the market all the time and start bringing in the competition that there is in the petrol and diesel markets, we are going to find more electric vehicles becoming more commonly seen and used in New Zealand. For many people, if you lived at home and you normally travelled in the car to the city, or dropped off kids and various other things that people do, an electric vehicle makes a lot of sense, particularly if you can charge up the vehicle at night and it is fully going in the morning. But there is still quite some time to go.

I can also tell the Committee, because I know that you will be interested—I hope that you will be interested—that I have seen electric trucks being put together, too, and I know that there is an electric bus being trialled at this stage in Wellington. I went to the place where this is being manufactured in San Francisco—by a New Zealander, I should say, Mr Ian Wright, who is one of the founders of Tesla, by the way; just a plug for New Zealanders in there. I think things like garbage trucks or rubbish trucks are being converted over for electric motors, and what this means, of course—it makes a lot of sense, because they are going out during the day or night and they are coming back again, back to the station. They are not going on long treks anywhere. It would also deal with issues like noise pollution, which I think is a really important thing, particularly in cities, as well as the emissions.

So it all seems to make sense, but I think we just need to learn, sometimes, to crawl before we can run. In this case, we are making steady changes and improvements, and I think we have made some very sensible improvements that do not unduly penalise other road users but do actually give some really great incentives. Living in Auckland, as I do, any chance to be able to use those special lanes would be much welcomed, and may well encourage me down the path, next time I come to buy a vehicle, to move into the electric space. Sitting behind all those other cars, I would just love to be able to whizz by and do so legally. Thank you.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I would just like to thank Minister Collins for waxing lyrical on the periphery of this bill. It was genuinely entertaining—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member now and say what I was planning to say if the debate continued, and that is that we have now had half a dozen speeches that have been really good third reading contributions. It would be good, from now on, if people who had lovely third reading contributions could save them for the next sitting day when this bill could be considered. If we just focus on the wee bit that is here, and that is the Committee stage, then we can get on with it. Thank you.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: It would be my pleasure to focus on the specific parts of this legislation. I do look forward to the title debate, because, my goodness me, this is the most stupidly named piece of legislation I have seen in a long time.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the secondary networks clause, clause 7 of the bill. I am jumping quite far ahead, but it is one of particular interest to me, and I speak in particular about new Subpart 2A in Part 5. I would like to ask the Minister about her understanding of the Electricity Industry Participation Code of 2010, and the lack of reference to that code in this legislation. It is, in my opinion, addressing some of the issues that this bill purports to address, so the Minister’s view on that would be of keen interest to myself—and only to myself, I imagine.

The other question—and I put it to the Minister with a genuine question mark, because New Zealand First does support this legislation—is the question on the current number of secondary electricity networks in New Zealand right now. What information or what data does the Government have? I put it to the Minister that there is a great big question mark from some of the industry itself on the number of secondary networks out there. Then, of course, the implication of that is if we do not know that number, how many consumers are being serviced by secondary networks? I put it to Minister Collins that that makes this a great opportunity for this feeble bit of legislation to not only address those issues but, moving forward, say what the Government could do with regard to improving reliability of supply and the outcomes for consumers—obviously, in particular, to the two types of secondary networks and the embedded networks within the infrastructure itself. I do hope the Chair will let me respond to some of the Minister’s comments.

This does not do enough, and there is an amount of ambiguity—forgive me, Mr Chair, I am not sure to which part specifically I am speaking—around the use of the bus lanes, for example, for those electric vehicles. It is ambiguous. The identification process is ambiguous, and some previous speakers have very fairly pointed out, Minister, that the lack of identification ability, despite having these wonderful digital cameras, could—and at this stage will—create havoc on the roads. I am particularly interested, as I said, in the secondary networks issue in the new Subpart 2A in clause 7. I do look forward to some clarification on that.

Actually, while I have got the time, Mr Chair, I will go back to Part 1, because I have got through that quicker than I thought. In new section 129A in Part 1, the new section in clause 6 there, it says: “The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority must, before submitting a request to the Minister …”. In reading Part 1 up until that point, there is no clarification whether that means the energy Minister, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Conservation—so, you know, there is just a clarification issue there, probably, more than anything else. Actually, at this stage, that is all I have to ask of the Minister. Thank you very much.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am very happy to take a call on this bill, and in doing so I would like to comment particularly on some of the changes made at the Commerce Committee and some of the very good submissions received in respect of electric vehicles. The focus there will be on amendments to section 145 of the Land Transport Act and inserting new section 37A into the Road User Charges Act. Before I get on to those, I just must say I have stuck in my mind a comment from Minister Collins about the potential for the refuse industry to shift to electric vehicles. I have got to say, whenever I think of that particular industry, I think of Tony Soprano. So I have this image of Tony Soprano and the New Jersey mafia leading the way towards a brighter, more sustainable future for us.

Moving on from that, can I reflect a little bit on a couple of these changes made at select committee. The first one is new section 37A, inserted into the Road User Charges Act. By and large these seem to be sensible changes, and they relate to giving an exemption to heavy vehicles from road-user charges.

Sue Moroney: Electric vehicles.

MICHAEL WOOD: That is right, that is right—heavy electric vehicles. I guess there are just a couple of things I want to comment on. The first is the change made in select committee to section 37A(1A), which I think just makes the fairly common-sense but useful addition that when the Minister is making this recommendation—that these vehicles may be exempted from road-user charges—that the Minister does need to show that they are satisfied that the purpose of that will support the uptake of those vehicles. Just wearing my Regulations Review Committee hat, I think it is really important, when we do hand these powers to Ministers through the legislation like this, particularly when it is a power that directly relates to the economic incentives within an industry—it is effectively an impost being applied to some people and not applied to others—that we do put some onus on Ministers to actually demonstrate that there is a tangible benefit that is linked to the purposes of the original Act. So I thought that that was a sensible and constitutionally appropriate addition for the select committee to make to that. Perhaps one question for the Minister would just be what her expectation might be of the kind of evidential basis that we might expect to see from a Minister in showing that they are satisfied with that. I think sometimes we can be a bit light and airy with these things. Again, there are real impacts on an industry and on businesses. It would be good to get some satisfaction from the Minister that when these decisions are made there is some evidence on the table to base them upon.

The second thing related to section 37A, and the changes made in select committee are that we have clarified, in respect of any orders made under this part of the bill—which will then be an Act, of course—that the period in which the exemption ends must be no later than 31 December 2025. It would just be good to hear from the Minister why exactly we have chosen that date. I can see the purpose in having a date built into the legislation. In subsection (2A)(b) we say that for any orders made subsequently, the date is 5 years after the date on which the period of exemption starts. What is the particular reasoning behind, firstly, 31 December 2025, and, latterly, that 5-year period? I think the reason it is important to get a bit of clarity around those is that the particular kinds of vehicles that we are talking about, heavy electric vehicles, are going to be costly investments for any kind of business—for the Sopranos of Mount Roskill, or whoever it is—to make. We are talking about $100,000-plus vehicles, easily, and I think it is really important that we are able to give some certainty to those people that the period of exemption has some sort of rational basis and has not just been plucked out of thin air. So if we could hear from the Minister about exactly why those dates are the ones that have been inserted at the select committee stage into this legislation, I think that would be really helpful in terms of our consideration of the bill.

Moving on to the changes to the Land Transport Act 1998, we have got some changes made there to section 145 of that Act under clause 17A of this bill. These relate, effectively, to the capacity of local authorities that may choose to go down the route of giving electric vehicles the right to use special purpose lanes, particularly bus lanes. This goes to their ability to actually be able to enforce that, and of course that is pretty important, because it is all very well for this Parliament to say that something should happen or say that local authorities should or can do something, but if they do not actually have any realistic capacity to enforce it, then that is pretty pointless. I do want to go on and just talk a little bit shortly about some of the submissions received about, possibly, the utility of this whole area of the bill that is allowing electric vehicles to use special purpose bus lanes.

In respect of the enforcement issue, we received a number of very good submissions. I thought particularly it is worth taking a moment to have a look at the Ministry of Transport submission in respect of what the implications might be for electric vehicles using special vehicle lanes. What the ministry identifies in its submissions is that there are a number of additional steps that are going to need to be gone through here. Of course, we are talking about the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) here, and if I think about Auckland, for example, this means the bus lanes not on arterial roads like Dominion Road, but potentially on such roads as the northern expressway or, potentially—if we ever get it, and let us pray that we do—a bus lane on the Northern Busway. So, actually, the kinds of busways that the Ministry of Transport is talking about here in its submissions are amongst the most important ones to get this right on, because they are the ones that have huge capacity. Now more than half of the vehicles crossing the Auckland Harbour Bridge come across on the Northern Busway, so we have got to get this stuff right.

There was a question put by the select committee about the cost of installing cameras for enforcement of NZTA-controlled special vehicle lanes, and the ministry identified the costs involved for automatic enforcement solutions—costs that included cameras, infrastructure, communications, applications, installation, staffing, and back-office systems. So we are talking about a pretty significant outlay, and I do have a bit of a concern here that in putting these provisions in here we are not necessarily thinking through the next step—not only whether it is desirable but, if it is desirable, whether it is even particularly practical for the road-controlling authorities, be they NZTA or the local authorities, to go down this track.

The other question I did have for the Minister of Energy and Resources—and I am hoping that it is just an area that I am not too familiar with and she can answer it fairly simply—relates to clause 17, which replaces section 22AB(1)(r) and has been inserted by the select committee. In that text, it talks about—let me just read it out—“prescribing, subject to the marking of lanes on the roadway, that on any road any traffic lane may be used or any turning movement may be made only by vehicles of specified classes or vehicles carrying specified classes of loads or no fewer than a specified number of occupants:”. What I just want to confirm with the Minister in the chair is that the purpose of this bill is to ensure that electric vehicles can potentially gain access, if a local authority chooses to go down that road. But by defining it as “specified classes”, does that potentially open it up further for a local authority to make other exemptions? So if we could get some clarity from the Minister around that, that would be very helpful, thank you.

In coming to the end of my comments in this area, I do want to reflect on this whole area of the bill. It is probably the most contentious one. The Opposition is not opposing the bill on the basis of this, and that is probably because we are making it optional for local authorities, rather than compulsory. I suspect there would be some far firmer speeches and a greater degree of opposition if we had made these provisions compulsory. But we do wonder about the utility of them. We received some very, very good submissions. There is one here from the Bus and Coach Association, which notes that when Norway did go down the route of doing this—and Norway is put up as an example of why we should allow electric vehicles into bus lanes—it made congestion worse. It made congestion worse.

Probably the very best submission of all came from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service. It also noted that point, and it noted that in every single case it has looked at—and it looked at the case of Tāmaki Drive, where Auckland Council was pressured to make it a T2 or T3 lane. Every single time you go down this track of allowing additional vehicles into bus lanes, no matter what the other public policy objectives are, you make congestion worse, not only for people in the bus lanes but for everyone else. You actually defeat the fundamental purpose of those bus lanes. Of course, those bus lanes not only reduce congestion but make for a healthier and cleaner city as well. I do not think many local authorities are going to take up that option, for this reason. We support this bill, but it would be good to hear some answers from the Minister on those questions.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. It is my pleasure to take a call in this Committee stage debate on the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I just want to highlight that this bill aims to encourage energy innovation, so I commend those on the Commerce Committee who have heard submissions. I do have a question for the Minister in the chair—but a little preamble before I get there.

I am particularly interested in new section 22AB(1)(r), inserted by clause 17 in Part 3, as my colleague Michael Wood has previously quoted. It really is from the departmental disclosure statement about the empowerment through this piece of legislation of road-controlling authorities to enable electric vehicles as well as plug-in hybrid vehicles that operate on a combination of externally charged batteries or petrol or diesel motor to be able to use what are currently designated as lanes for trucks, buses, or cars that have multiple occupants. I think the aspiration within this bill is really about increasing the number of electric vehicles we have in New Zealand. Currently we have 2,000, and I know there is an aspiration that by 2021 there will be 64,000.

I have found it interesting, looking at the history of electric vehicles, and please bear with me. The first electric vehicle was created in 1832 by Scottish inventor Robert Anderson. It is really interesting, because in 1899 electric vehicles were seen as being the car of the future. Having had a look at the history in 1900, the electric automobile in its heyday—so, of 4,192 cars produced in the United States, 20 percent were powered by electricity. By 1920, however, there was a decline because of the viability of electric vehicles. The electric car’s downfall was attributed to a number of factors, including the desire for longer-distance vehicles, their lack of horsepower, and the readily available gasoline. In the 1970s we saw a re-emergence of electric vehicles because of soaring prices of oil—from the Arab oil embargo of 1973. Also then there was the emergence of environmental issues and the quest to look at and explore the viability of electric vehicles.

In February of 2009 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated $2 billion for the development of electric vehicle batteries and related technologies. The Department of Energy added another $400 million to fund building the infrastructure necessary to support plug-in electric vehicles. Just to finish this contribution from this particular research, the challenges are seen as being price—as my colleague Sue Moroney has highlighted—limited battery life and travel range, and building charging stations and other infrastructure to support electric vehicles.

So I have seen that in New Zealand we have 20 charging stations—I may be wrong. There is an aspiration to have another 80 by December next year. That costs approximately $60,000 per charging station. So we need an investment of $4.8 million, and it seems the private sector is putting its hand up. I have seen a press release from BMW and ChargeNet. Their aspiration is to create a network from Kaitaia to Invercargill. We have two pure electric vehicles on sale in New Zealand. They are the BMW i3 and the Renault Zoe. These charging stations apparently can charge a vehicle to 80 percent in 20 minutes, for a cost of $14.

Where I am going with this question is that I am aware of a trial—and this is what I would like the Minister to answer—in March of this year for 2 weeks on five motorway on-ramps and off-ramps in Auckland. In Auckland we have registered 1,033 electric vehicles, and so before, I guess, implementing this piece of legislation we wanted to actually look at whether or not the intention of that new section 22AB(1)(r), inserted by clause 17 in Part 3, was going to be utilised by those who own electric vehicles. From what I have been able to ascertain, Auckland Transport also said we need an information campaign, because people need to know that the vehicles that are using those special lanes for trucks, buses, and cars with multiple occupants need some sort of sticker, I think, so that the public becomes aware of why these cars are cruising down in lanes that actually have been reserved for those purposes. The New Zealand Transport Agency was to survey the owners of electric vehicles, and I am really interested in the results. I am hoping that the Minister has those—that was in March this year.

It was quite interesting to note that organisations like Mercury Energy have 42 electric cars—these are of those 1,033 registered electric vehicles in Auckland—Vector has 12, and Air New Zealand has 75, and it seemed that Air New Zealand was the one who was going to maximise that 2-week trial, and so I am very interested to know. So if the Minister could provide that information I think it would justify the inclusion of this particular amendment to the Land Transport Act of 1998 in this particular piece of legislation.

Just finally, I would like to do a bit of a shout-out to a man called Toa Greening, who is a resident of Manurewa. Toa came to see me in 2014 because he had this aspiration to bring a Tango model MINI electric vehicle, which at that time was priced at $230,000, but if somebody—I think he was hoping it would be Wellington City Council—was going to order 2,000 of these electric vehicles he could have got the price down to $29,000. I know Toa has been very active in this area, and, in fact, in 2015 Auckland Transport put out a tender for a partner operator for a citywide car-sharing scheme that utilised plug-in electric vehicles. What they were wanting to do was to, obviously, increase the demand of traffic on our roads, and increase the uptake of those who were willing to buy electric vehicles. They initially wanted a fleet of 200 to 300 cars. They envisaged 350 charging stations across the city. They had nine proposals. But I believe—and maybe the Minister can answer this question—that tender was never filled.

Auckland Transport has been active in this space for a few years. I think it is working with Cityhop to increase the number of electric vehicle users, which is a good thing. The reality of the situation that we are facing into the future is that we cannot be reliant on fossil fuels, so any work that we can do to encourage the purchasing of electric vehicles—I personally do not have an electric vehicle. I have had a look at what a Mitsubishi Outlander would cost and I think it is about 80 grand. So maybe when I am looking at updating my car, I will look at those options.

In some ways I do think that that provision in the legislation, new section 22AB(1)(r), inserted by clause 17 in Part 3, will encourage people to purchase electric vehicles, particularly if you live in South Auckland and are trying to get into the Auckland CBD—if I can use a car lane that only trucks, buses, and those with high-occupancy vehicles can use, it will be an incentive for me.

But I am just wanting to be reassured, as the House is, Minister, from the research and the evidence that it has actually been successful—that particular trial that I highlighted. If there is any information, I think it will be wonderful if you shared that with the House tonight, because not only am I interested and my colleagues here in the House but I think anybody listening to this debate will want to make sure that the provisions in this legislation and the changes to legislation are actually being done for reasons that have some evidence behind them—we are not just window dressing, but, actually, we do have some compelling evidence to say that there is some efficacy in these proposals, given that it is one of the specific changes that this piece of legislation will empower. Kia ora.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Before I seek the call, I would like to seek leave for the vote on Part 3 to be taken separately.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for the question on Part 3 to be taken as a separate vote. The Green Party is seeking leave to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. That will happen when we come to the vote.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): I would like to rise to support Parts 1, 2, and 4 of this bill but note the Green Party’s opposition to Part 3, which I am glad the Committee can take a separate vote on.

This legislation is called the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The other matters are pretty uncontroversial: we support the idea that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) should be able to access other energy-related levies. It was perhaps not the best way to structure it—that it specifically looked at only electricity levies. It makes sense to wrap it all in one organisation so we have a true leadership position in the New Zealand economy, working with businesses no matter what the energy is. Obviously, if you are looking at electrons or kilowatt hours of electricity, you do not discern where it comes from: gas, renewables, etc. It makes sense; equally so when it comes to the gas levy and when it comes to the “secondary networks” definition, which is contained in those Parts 1, 2, and 4.

It is the electric vehicles part that the Green Party does have considerable opposition to. We heard, from numerous submitters to the Commerce Committee, concerns that the encouraging or allowing of electric vehicles in bus lanes could be detrimental both to bus lanes and also to wider public transport outcomes. To summarise, basically, many of our bus lanes are full up with buses, and if you put electric vehicles in them as well, particularly as buses pull in and pull out as they drop off passengers—the risk is that if you add more vehicles to it, you are just simply going to clog up the bus lane and it is going to be less effective at doing its primary purpose, which is moving a large number of passengers on the buses around our towns and cities.

The big debate that we also heard in the select committee was around the enforcement of the bus lanes. This was quite a wide debate that we heard, and we canvassed some evidence internationally on how you can signal whether a car is, in fact, an electric vehicle or not. Other countries have different coloured licence plates, different stickers, or other forms of identification. The concern we had is that there would be a bit of a dilemma facing councils that would want to minimise non-electric vehicles using bus lanes if they, through a by-law, made the bus lanes available to electric vehicles. It is twofold. We do not want to see those massive congestion issues, but, secondly, we also do not want people free-riding without an electric vehicle, taking advantage of the, I guess you could consider it, perk or advantage. The problem is that people could get quite upset if they saw the other vehicle in front of them and they knew it was not an electric vehicle or could not easily identify that it was an electric vehicle, and you could get road rage.

I gave a personal example. I live quite close to a very high-traffic bus lane in Wellington, and the council often has cameras erected out the front to try to photograph those cars taking advantage of or abusing the bus lane. But what we heard from the officials is that it is going to be at the councils’ expense. If you go to any local government event anywhere up and down the country, a key message you hear is that this Parliament gives new obligations, new costs, to local government without the ability to actually raise extra revenue. I think it is a quite legitimate concern they have, and here we are yet again bringing in another obligation. There is not an easy way to stop that free-riding or that dilemma if you do not have those identifications. That is why we have got a concern.

If you were going to be promoting electric vehicles, which is, ostensibly, the objective of the energy innovation bill, there are a range of other measures you would look at. What we heard in the select committee was that putting electric vehicles in the bus lanes might have a marginal difference, but it is very much on the margins; it is not the most effective thing you could do if you truly wanted to drive a step change in the adoption of electric vehicles. It has been fantastic in New Zealand to see their growth from about 700, maybe 3, 4, 5 years ago, to more than 3,000, as we heard recently. That is fantastic, but that is a drop in the bucket. I believe there are around 70,000 new vehicle imports we have in some months—record numbers of vehicle imports and a drop in the bucket when you look at what other developed nations are seeing with the growth of electric vehicles.

I was in California recently, where the state does not offer just access to high-occupancy vehicle lanes—now, remember, these are very different to bus lanes, which often only go for a small amount of time, except for the high-occupancy vehicle lanes. In California, there are two dedicated lanes for multiple-passenger vehicles. There you also get a $10,000 state credit, a $5,000 federal tax credit, huge amounts of cash investment, not just access to high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and they have got around 3 to 5 percent, if my memory serves me correctly. In the Netherlands, I understand it is—

Hon Member: 3.

GARETH HUGHES: —3 percent, the Minister informs me. In the Netherlands, we see a penetration of around 17 percent. In fact, Germany’s and the Netherlands’ Parliaments are having debates about whether, in fact, petrol- and combustion-driven engines should be prohibited in the coming decade, which is phenomenal.

So other countries are putting much more significant promotion measures and also more significant sticks—for want of a better word—in terms of forward planning and signalling an end to legal sales of combustion motors, but also much higher petrol and fuel excise taxes and other forms of feebate measures. So when you look around the world, there is a whole bunch of other initiatives, from infrastructure, electric charging, to tax credits, to sticks as well. In New Zealand we limit it, basically, to elimination from the road-user charge and, possibly, if councils enact it through a by-law, access to the bus lanes.

My fear is that because we are loading it all on to councils, they are going to face pressure from electric-vehicle owners to open up the bus lanes and then the councils are also going to be required to pay for all the enforcement costs. We heard, in the committee, that we could be talking in the order of tens of thousands of dollars when you look at the camera technology, the staff costs from people, literally, sitting on the side of the road—in 2017; the 21st century—looking at the vehicles and watching. You are going to have to take photographs, to scan their licence plate number through the national database because there is no sticker, there is no coloured licence plate, there is no easy identifier. So it is going to be quite difficult.

The Green Party absolutely supports the intent of promoting electric vehicles. We have launched a number of policies over a number of years, from investing in modern State high infrastructure, from rolling out a network of fast-charging stations, from fringe benefit tax changes, which are going to drive that corporate procurement, which is going to drive that second-hand car market—probably the most effective thing this Parliament could be doing if it wanted to truly drive a step change—through to a cash rebate of $1,000 etc. So, while we are talking about energy innovation, we should be talking about the truly innovative steps we could be making, not this, and that is why we are voting against Part 3.

When you look at the other parts—the gas levies, the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act amendment changes, and the “secondary networks” definition—this is not innovative. We heard that again in the committee. There were other steps this Parliament could be taking to adopt that, at a time of huge disruption and change, when you look at the global energy industry. Recently, I was fortunate enough to meet with an official from New York, where their Reforming the Energy Vision, the REV strategy, which they are rolling out in that state, is truly bringing transformative change to their energy sector. By prioritising energy efficiency and conservation and smart technologies, they are actively reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I will give you Seattle as another example, where I have met with officials. At a time when they are the fastest-growing city in the US, they have, in fact, seen an energy consumption decline of around 13 percent, because their state and federal policies have driven their utilities to invest in energy efficiency and conservation measures.

When I recently launched a paper about how getting to 100 percent renewables could look, from some consultants from the Rocky Mountain Institute, what they found is that energy-efficiency measures cost in the order of 0.6c per kilowatt hour. Compare that, a negawatt—using less electricity—with 8c or more per kilowatt hour for new generation. And that is very cheap comparatively, internationally, for new hydro and new wind generation—an order of magnitude cheaper for new efficiency and conservation.

These are the measures we should be debating instead of just the definition of secondary networks as they relate to, say, an apartment building. We should be having the conversation about how we can get solar panels on apartments, how we can get that apartment car-park using electric vehicles to feed in and discharge into the local electricity grid and to access cheaper hydroelectricity, which is often flowing at night, at close to negative prices, or charging during the day from solar panels on top of the apartment or a nearby business. If we could do that, if we could harness a distributed battery network through a network of, literally, hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles, we could be saving consumers money with the peak electricity costs, which drives the average wholesale cost, which flows through to consumers. We could be reducing the need for coal and oil to be burnt at peak times. It is a fantastic opportunity for New Zealand.

So, look, we welcome Parts 1, 2, and 4 of this legislation, but we will be voting against Part 3 because we fear it is going to damage public transport in New Zealand, and if we looked across the range of initiatives this Parliament could be debating to truly encourage electric vehicles, this is not the place you would look.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): There are a couple of things I want to say about this bill, but if you give me 30 seconds—we have a brand that we take to the world. It is clean, green, “100% Pure”. It is about innovation in this space that allows us to make a difference, and I would just like to reiterate what Gareth Hughes and a number of my colleagues have said: we need to be innovative in this space if we really want to be seen to live the brand that is worth a substantial amount of money to our economy.

I just think we could have been a whole lot more innovative in this space, and I think we actually need to be, not just from a pure “let’s save the world” approach. I think we actually need to be innovative in this space because our brand is worth—well, I know it was valued 12 years ago at $20 billion a year, and if we are not seen as leaders in this, then it slowly erodes our global leadership position in anything to do with clean, green, “100% Pure”.

The irony is that a former energy Minister, when he announced this sort of stuff, turned up in a huge big ministerial BMW that drinks diesel faster than my fire engine, announced—[Interruption] that is really fast, I tell you—an energy-saving method, and then jumped back in his BMW and raced off again. I just think that the Government should be really walking the walk on this and not just talking the talk.

But what I would like to talk about, first and foremost—or secondly—is Part 2. Now, we have heard a lot about electric vehicles—how it will work, how it will not work—the pitfalls of this bill, the advantages and disadvantages, and what we could have done better, but there has been something snuck in here that I think we need to just tease out a little bit more, and this is about the applying of a levy and how this is going to work. Part 2 actually amends the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989, and it is about charging a levy for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA).

Now, the amendments, we are told, are necessary so that EECA can use its levy funding for a full range of activities. At the moment, the EECA levy comes off the electricity users, but what it is seeking to do is spread the levy across electricity, transport fuels, and gas consumers. At the moment, the total amount EECA can levy is set by Cabinet, and it is currently at $17.5 million. The allocation of the levy will be spread across three sources, and that will be determined by the Minister, based on advice from EECA.

I just would not mind knowing the efficacy of this advice, or what sort of advice it is going to put in front of the Minister. I mean, this is a pretty big call. We all know EECA from the ads that it runs on television, and, by and large, it does a good job, I do believe. But there are some little fishhooks in here that I think we need to tease out.

I am looking at new subsection (2A), inserted by clause 11—this is an amendment to section 14—and it says: “Despite subsections (1) and (2),”—this is from the primary piece of legislation—“levies recovered under sections 23 and 24 may be applied for the purpose of meeting a portion of the costs …”. Now, whenever I see in a bill “may” or “must”, you know there is a little bit of ambiguity. “Must” is an absolute—it has to happen; OK? There is no wiggle room there; it absolutely has to happen. When I see the word “may”, I know there is a little bit of ambiguity, and it always raises questions. Under what circumstances will these levies be applied for the purpose of meeting a portion of those costs?

Unfortunately, the Minister responsible for this piece of legislation has left. I am unsure whether the Minister in the chair at the moment, Scott Simpson, is over this bill. I suspect he is not, and I do not blame him, because it is not his portfolio area. However, it would be good to know under what circumstances these levies will be applied. When we talk about meeting a portion of the costs, again, I know that sometimes you have got to leave a little bit of wiggle room there, but what portion of the costs are we talking about? There is sufficient ambiguity in this clause to actually raise some questions that it would be good to have the answers to.

I go down to new section 14A, inserted by clause 12, and it talks about the “Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority”—EECA—“consultation about request for appropriation”. What this talks about is that before EECA submits a request to the Minister about an appropriation of money, it must consult. It must consult with the people who are liable to pay the levy, and it must consult with any other representatives, or any other persons, who EECA believes are significantly affected by the levy. Then what EECA must do, when the request is submitted, is “report to the Minister on the outcome of that consultation.” I suppose the question this brings up is: what will the level of consultation be? The other question, which I think it is very relevant, is: will the Minister take account of this consultation?

The reason I ask this is that what EECA is required to do here is consult with those whom it is going to take money off, and my initial impression is if an agency or a body or a Minister or a Government department is going to take money off a sector, then I suspect the level of consultation will go something like this: “Can we have more money?”, “No, go away.”, “Thank you very much.” Now, I am being a little bit glib here—of course I am—but what I am saying is that an industry body, or an industry advocacy group, like EECA, has to build an incredibly powerful business case before key players are going to accept a body taking money from them to be used to drive efficiency in an area where they make a whole lot of money, if you get my point here.

So what I would really like to know—and, again, it is difficult with the Minister in the chair—is whether this is just consultation because we say they must consult. If so, what is the Minister going to do with this consultation? If, in fact, the result of the consultation is that we think that EECA has enough money, we think it does not need any more to deliver on its purpose, and we do not want to give it any more money, is the Minister then going to say: “Well, I’ve heard that consultation, it’s all very well—we’re now going to charge you a little bit more money.” This is the concern I always have when I hear about consultation with industry.

I have no doubt that EECA will approach the consultation in a proactive way. I mean, it would be mad not to. I would hate to cast aspersions on EECA’s credibility, because I think it does a good job—I just want to put that on the table—but consulting with people you want to take money off is always a little bit fraught with difficulty, and it does actually bring up conflicts of interest, I suppose.

I would also like to talk about gas levies. This was something that was snuck in there as well. What has happened at the moment is that gas levies are charged, and what we were told by officials is that the ability to collect these levies is difficult. They believe there has been under-collection by a significant amount, but the portion of levies compared with revenue is actually very, very small. But it is difficult. So what they have said is: “Look, there’s an easier way to collect this levy.”, and it just means that the retailers will collect it, and this bill sets out how they are going to do it.

But we brought up, at the select committee, a concern we had, and that is whenever Parliament says to an industry or a group of consumers or companies: “We are mandating you or we are requiring you to collect a levy.”, often a sector can use that as an excuse to increase the cost of that good or service to the consumer. What we did hear from officials is that the amount of the increase in the levy to the consumer is actually minuscule. I think we are talking about $2 million over the sector. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is about $2 million over the sector. So it is not much at all—for every consumer it is a fraction.

What we will be very concerned about—no, no; “concerned” is the wrong word. What we expressed concern about and what we have said we will keep a very close eye on is whether the industry actually uses this as an excuse to increase the amount that it charges to the consumer for its gas. What we heard is there is no reason why they would do that, because the amount is so little that it just would make no difference to the average bill—0.001 percent or something. If the gas companies do increase the price to the consumer, then we are going to take a good hard look at that and we are going to make sure that they do not.

But the interesting thing about this—and I am a little bit confused about this, and I should not be, because I was on the committee—is that, as section 23(3), in clause 13, says: “the levy is not payable on, and a return is not required to include,—(a) piped gas of a prescribed type; or (b) piped gas that is to be used for a prescribed purpose.” I am not too sure what a “prescribed type” is, or whether what will happen is that there will be something in the schedule that will outline what a prescribed type is or what a prescribed purpose is so in fact the levies do not have to be collected. Unfortunately, I did not get the main piece of legislation, so perhaps it is in there. But it is always a little bit difficult.

The other thing, also, is clause 14, which amends section 33. New subsection (1A) talks about regulations made under subsection (1). What this is talking about is formulas for calculating or methods of calculating the levy rates. I know I have got a couple of seconds, and I am probably going to run out of time.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): I would also like to touch on the points made by the honourable member Stuart Nash regarding the amendments to consultations, which is clauses 3 to 6 and clauses 8 to 15. I guess it has always been a vexed issue as to what happens with levies, and the ownership and governance when those levies are collected, and how they are actually spent. I think we share some of the concerns around the adequate and appropriate level of consultation, if it is just token.

I note that in New Zealand we do not have the strong energy community advocacy groups that are so prominent overseas. In other countries they have very professional organisations that can have a statutory or even a semi-judicial function to advocate for their consumers, which we do not have in New Zealand. I would note it is publicly available that there were four submitters principally opposed to the use of levies to fund the activity of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. (EECA): the Major Gas Users Group, Business New Zealand, the Major Electricity Users’ Group, and the Motor Industry Association.

I guess our fear is that these professional and coordinated and organised groups could present a predominant or an overwhelming response in the consultation. We cannot just leave it up to Grey Power to advocate for energy consumers in New Zealand, I guess is my main point.

I would also point out to those organisations that in many respects they are the beneficiaries of the work of EECA. Every consumer, big or small, business or residential, in New Zealand benefits when we invest in energy efficiency and conservation. Perhaps part of the problem in New Zealand—and when you look at a recent OECD report, we have in fact got one of the lowest energy intensity ratings in the entire developed world because we use energy less efficiently than most other countries.

It might not sound like much, but effectively we are burning and throwing away billions of dollars, if you listen to the former chief executive officer, Mike Underhill, in terms of energy that we are using or burning that we do not have to. What I would prefer is if we had a true public conversation around investing in EECA.

I note the officials—in response to some of those groups that were opposed even to the idea of a levy to fund some of EECA’s activities. But it only funds less than half of EECA’s work. I think if these businesses were looking at some of their international peers, they would be more actively engaged in supporting the work of EECA and seeing the levy not as a cost to their bottom line but as an investment that is benefiting their bottom line. With such low energy intensity, New Zealand businesses are less competitive vis-à-vis other countries, because we are spending more on getting oil to New Zealand, burning oil less efficiently, paying more for electricity than we have to, and investing in equipment and plant and product that are less efficient than overseas competitors. We cannot keep competing if this is going to be the case. So I urge those organisations to get behind it.

This is a huge missed opportunity, over previous years, but also a huge low-hanging fruit for New Zealand. I have got a true vision, that we could be investing in energy, efficiency, and conservation—not seeing it as a “nice-to-have” or a marginal benefit or a side occupation. This should be at the heart of New Zealand’s energy policy, because this is going to target the true energy poverty issues that we see in New Zealand.

When we invest only in business-targeted approaches, through the bulk of EECA’s work, I think it is quite legitimate, as Stuart Nash questioned, as to who is actually going to be dominating those consultations. What we have seen in recent years is EECA moving away from the large-scale huge benefit programmes—for example, the Warm Up New Zealand scheme, which insulated 300,000 homes and did not have any of the problems that the Australian energy efficiency scheme had with its insulation roll-out.

Move away from these mass, huge benefit programmes towards more business-targeted approaches we see—for example, investing in boilers, which is good work but this has become the bulk of EECA’s work. What I would like to see is the ability for this consultation to be true and appropriate by involving consumers. Despite having insulated 300,000 homes, we know there are more than, say, 700,000 substandard homes. In New Zealand we have got 40,000 trips being made by kids to hospital every year as a result of cold, damp housing.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back—come back.

GARETH HUGHES: So when you are looking at clauses 3 to 8, it is important that the consultation is adopted appropriately.

MATT DOOCEY (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you, Mr Chair, because I did have a little bit more to say on the gas levies. The thing about this is that I know we are going to come to the title and commencement—no; we are taking it as one question, are we not? This is actually coming into play on 1 July 2017, so we are not very far, but I am assuming it will receive the Royal assent before then.

But my point is that there is actually a change in the way that these levies are collected. If we have a look at new section 23, in clause 13, it talks about gas levies. What is required is that the retailers have to report to the secretary on a quarterly basis. This has been well signalled, and I think the officials have consulted with the retailers and so they knew this was coming—of that there is no doubt. But we have seen, in a number of bills, the implementation period pushed out a little bit to allow certain industries or companies or organisations to actually get their systems in order, which would allow them to report in a timely manner—to change their systems.

What I am a little unsure of is—I am making an assumption here that the gas retailers, because this has changed, now have all the systems set up that will actually allow them to report in a way that is meaningful. As mentioned, the reason why we have made this change is simply that the ability to collect the levy under the old scheme was non-existent. It was very difficult to police. There was absolutely no suggestion of dishonesty or fraud or anything like that; it was just that it was so difficult.

We believe that the officials did not have the men and women on the ground to allow them to undertake this. The companies found it just too hard. So we have actually made it a lot easier. But we have got to make sure that we do not transfer a problem we did have, which was that it was too difficult, to the organisations that we are mandating to collect this. So I just hope that they have got the systems in place that will allow them to really hit the ground running. I must admit, this is one of the few bills where I have read about a required change in system or software, where we have said that from the day it receives the Royal assent or from 1 July this industry must comply with something that I am assuming is going to take a database or a software change.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the regulations—this is clause 14 now, on page 6—amending the prescribing levy rates. The thing that, again, concerns me a little bit, and I think we are seeing a little bit of a move to this, is “Regulations made under subsection (1) may”—this is clause 14(1A)—“(a) specify the periods for which the amounts or rates of the levies apply; and (b) include, in any prescribed method of calculating or ascertaining amounts or rates of the levies, provisions relating to any shortfall in recovering or over-recovery …”.

So, I suppose my question is again—under what conditions or circumstances would the regulations change the periods for which amounts or rates of the levies apply? What we are actually saying here is that under regulation you can change the time period, so it does not have to come back through Parliament. You can also change under regulation the amount that the levy is, which does, in fact, give the Minister, I believe, quite a bit of power. I sort of wonder, when I see these things, whether, in fact, it provides a level of uncertainty in the market place.

Again, I am not suggesting that a Minister would do this without a level of consultation, without a very good reason, or certainly without mandating the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to go out, or officials to go out, and consult. But what it is saying here is that, under regulations, a Minister can actually change the amount of the levy.

Now, that gives the Minister a little bit of power and I, again—unfortunately the Minister responsible for this bill, Judith Collins, is not in the chair. I am not too sure whether the Minister there at the moment, Scott Simpson—I know he is busy reading his phone, and there is no doubt important stuff on there. But I am just wondering whether he has any idea, or any thoughts, or even within his current portfolios—under what conditions he may decide to change that levy through regulation. I just think it is good practice if you are changing something as big as this—and there certainly is a levy, which is a form of taxation, let us be honest. If that sort of stuff comes through the House, through amendments and legislation, it just provides a level of transparency that I think is important when you are changing a levy, a tax, or the terms and conditions under which that levy or tax is applied.

But apart from that, we support the bill. There are some good things here. It could have been more innovative but—let us leave it at that. Thank you very much.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 28; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

Green Party 12.

Part 3 agreed to.

Parts 1, 2, and 4, schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Land Transfer Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is debate on clauses 3 to 8, and schedule 1.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): It is a great pleasure for me to rise to confirm Labour’s support for this great bill. Rarely would we have a piece of legislation that would catch the attention of almost everybody—yes, almost everybody. Buying and selling properties, mortgaging and leasing land, getting the relevant instrument registered, and duly becoming a legal owner would affect almost everybody in New Zealand. In the 21st century we need a new land transfer Act to support this largely electronic system. We need an Act that is accessible and written in plain and modern English. The Law Commission, with the assistance of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), has drafted such a kind of Act.

Some provisions in the 1952 Act have remained and changed from the first Act that was passed to implement the so-called Torrens title system, which is well over 100 years old. A comprehensive review of the Land Transfer Act 1952 is long overdue. The result is a mix of hopelessly outdated and obscure provisions alongside more effective and modern provisions, some reflecting only the paper registration system and others focused on electronic registration, with considerable duplication and lack of clarity.

This is not a simple amendment bill. It will become the new principal Act in this area. It will replace the Land Transfer Act 1952 and the Statutory Land Charges Registration Act 1928, both of which will be repealed by this bill. Most of the content is uncontroversial. It is a major piece of legislation in this policy area, so deserves proper scrutiny by the Committee.

It is a big day, not only for lawyers, not only for financial institutes—banks, mortgagees, property owners, and, probably, real estate agents; it is a big day for everybody. As the newest new, old member, it is the first time for me to have the opportunity to have a look at the bill itself.

Phil Twyford: Welcome back, Raymond.

RAYMOND HUO: Ha! Thank you very much. Immediately, I decided that I like the bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission for such great work to shape and reshape this bill in this current form. When I flick through the bill itself, lots of familiar names emerge, so it gives us a great opportunity for me to say a thankyou to the law commissioner, Professor John Burrows QC; his predecessor, Professor Geoffrey Palmer; the Hon Simon Power; the Hon Maurice Williamson; and the Hon David Cunliffe for their contributions. Over the last two terms, as Labour’s spokesperson for building and construction, I did work very closely with the Hon Maurice Williamson, especially on the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) and Building Amendment Bill (No 4), which duly became the Building Amendment Act 2012 and Building Amendment Act 2013.

Back to the bill—Part 1, clause 6, “Meaning of fraud”—I believe it is the first time for us to give a legal definition as to what constitutes fraud.

Paul Foster-Bell: Mortgage fraud, specifically.

RAYMOND HUO: Mortgage fraud? Well, I am sure my colleague Phil Twyford will cover that part later on when we come to the specific clauses—[Interruption] Well, if the National members are really passionate about that specific clause, I believe my colleague, together with colleagues from New Zealand First, will contribute more. We will come to that part later on.

Coming to “fraud”—specifically of interest to the National backbenchers—this is the first time for us to have a legal definition, but one thing we need to take note of is submissions from relevant stakeholders such as the New Zealand Law Society, the Auckland District Law Society, and the Bankers’ Association. For instance, the New Zealand Law Society and the Auckland District Law Society submissions assumed that mortgagors would have to do more than is currently required under the LINZ e-dealing certification identity verification standards, and that would in turn mean increased costs for mortgagors, which would be passed on to consumers. We are talking about compliance costs and probably more complicated due process for the relevant parties, including lawyers and conveyancers, to fulfil the requirements under the proposed changes.

The New Zealand Law Society, in its submission, showed that it is particularly concerned that where a mortgage is executed under power of attorney, the mortgagee would be required to verify the identity of the donor mortgagee, rather than the attorney. This would defeat the purpose of giving someone power of attorney in the first place.

What I am talking about is really the balance between the way we are proposing to impose on the relevant parties—as I said, including the conveyancers and the lawyers—to fulfil the requirement under this bill, and also the compliance costs that may be incurred under the strengthened regime.

One thing I am particularly interested in asking the Minister in the chair, Scott Simpson, is what kind of ramifications there would be in the current-day, modern, 21st century electronic system—for instance, the balance between social media and electronic commerce law. Can a videoconference or FaceTime, made available through smartphones, be used to assist with identification verification for the purpose under this bill? Another matter that some conveyancers and lawyers may report would include something like—for instance, in China, its notary public system is different from that in New Zealand. For instance, if we do have a certain piece of form or instrument that needs to be certified, under the notary public system there they simply cannot verify that sort of ID system—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Keep on what is in the bill, on Part 1.

RAYMOND HUO: —thank you, Mr Chair—by getting the necessary signature presented in the form, rather than in a separate attachment. So this is something quite relevant to Part 1, which is, as I said, the first time we do give a legal definition as to what constitutes “fraud”. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the officials, because the departmental report is probably the very source of information, and it addressed those kinds of issues.

Back to the submissions made by the New Zealand Law Society and Auckland District Law Society. All the above submitters agreed that the provisions, if retained, would benefit from amendments to clarify that mortgagees can rely on the existing level of identity verification/authorisation, including records retention, carried out by their lawyer or conveyancer.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I stand in support of the Land Transfer Bill, and I echo some of the sentiments made by my colleague Mr Raymond Huo over many of the technical aspects within this bill.

I want to focus on a couple of things here in the preliminary provisions in Part 1. Under clause 5, “Interpretation”, it says here: “ ‘land’ includes”—and you always look for the part that has got the underline. Having replaced “plants and trees on land”, it says there, “plants, trees, and timber on or under land”—“on or under land”. I wonder whether this is aimed specifically at the types of industry I see growing particularly in the Far North around swamp kauri. Large holes in the ground up north suggest that many people have now gone in and raided the swamp kauri. They have finally seen the asset and the value in swamp kauri, and I wonder, just from the Minister, whether there can be any more clarification of exactly—when it suggests there “plants, trees, and timber on or under land”, is that specifically hoping to capture swamp kauri, and if there are any other types of descriptions of “timber … under land”, I would be interested to know what those are, just for the purposes of this bill.

The reason I say that is that while we support this bill, it talks in this bill about fraud and the value of land, and the ability to have compensation and how it has to be comparable in so far as people will be able, in compensation, to purchase another land block to the same value. In this particular part, just in the interpretation—“plants, trees, and timber on or under land”. The value of swamp kauri is huge. I have seen the market grow over the years from my time in the Far North. Once upon a time, swamp kauri meant nothing, and now, all of a sudden, people are actually approaching farmers and landowners to try to harvest the swamp kauri, and, sadly, a lot of the anecdotal evidence, anyway, comes back that there are significant issues in that particular industry. But I digress. I am just trying to seek a little bit more clarification on exactly what that means and what some of the other timbers under land are that we might expect will be covered by this particular bill.

Also, I take the point made by my colleague around the departmental disclosure statement, and say just how particularly good I thought the disclosure statement was. This was the result of a lot of great work done by many people, and it says there, in particular—and I think it is worth mentioning—George Tanner and Warren Moyes, who I see, sadly, passed during the progress of this bill. I think it is important to place that on the record in the House.

As we go through more parts of this particular bill—we have looked at Part 1, around these preliminary provisions. That looks pretty straightforward to me, other than just that particular part under clause 5, “Interpretation”, which says “ ‘land’ includes—’, and paragraph (d), as given there. So I will leave that there, and I hope that some of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber will understand—[Interruption] Oh, look, I have no doubt that as we get into the more meaty parts of this bill—it has already been mentioned that it is rather technical—we will debate the merits of “mortgagee” and, of course, the definition of “fraud” a little bit later on. But I am very specific with my speech about asking exactly what “timber … under land” means, so I will take my seat now. Kia ora.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am very pleased to take this opportunity to speak on this section, being clauses 3 to 8 in Part 1 of the Land Transfer Bill. As was reflected on by my colleague Raymond Huo, this is a substantial and important piece of legislation. I know that when we look at Part 3, the members opposite, who are very engaged in this debate through their comments, are going to be exceptionally pleased to know that we are continuing to maintain the Torrens system of land title in New Zealand—

Paul Foster-Bell: Hear, hear!

MICHAEL WOOD: —and we hear that from them now. I make a bit of a joke of that, but it is important because, you know, what is the Torrens system, for example? When we look at the purpose of the bill—and the purpose of the bill is part of the debate in this section—we need to get this absolutely right. The Torrens system, for what it is worth, is the fundamental system that we have whereby the State retains a register of land. When you actually think about the kind of way in which our economy operates and the absolute importance of people having certainty over who owns which bit of land and what happens when you have a transaction—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. 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.

MICHAEL WOOD: It is a real pleasure to resume my call on this bill. As I was saying before we left the Chamber, this is a bill that is quite technical in detail—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: We’ll get down to the detail.

MICHAEL WOOD: I know that will bring quivers of delight to some members who are in the Chamber this evening.

But it is actually an extremely important bill, and it goes to some really core things at the heart of our society and economy. Everyone who owns a property or plans to transact in a property wants to know that there is certainty of ownership before and after that transaction. One of the things that this bill deals with in that respect and tries to affirm is the Torrens system, which is perhaps relatively unknown but is an extremely important legal principle that we have in respect of property ownership and land transfer in our country and also most other Westminster systems. It is referenced in clause 3 in Part 1 of the bill that, of course, we are talking about at the moment.

What the Torrens system ensures is that people can have that certainty. It means we have a legally enforceable State-run register of land and you can take it to the bank. You know that if on that register it says that such and such a person owns this bit of land in this place, that is the way it is. If you think that if we did not have that certainty, think about the problems that we would get into. So it is incredibly important.

One of the really important words that we use when we describe the Torrens system, and it is used, I am pretty sure, at points in this legislation, is the word “indefeasibility”; it guarantees indefeasible title. It is an extremely high legal test. It basically means it is undefeatable. There is no question about it; that is it. One of the questions I want to get on to in respect of this debate is how we deal with the fact that this bill intends to, and of course we support this, retain the Torrens system—and, again, it is mentioned here in clause 3(a) that we want to continue and maintain the Torrens system of land title in New Zealand, and then in subclause (b) retain “the fundamental principles of that system,”.

At the same time, further on in the bill—and we will have debates on this, I suspect, in Part 2—we are actually intending to create some extremely limited grounds for defeating that principle of indefeasibility. So in cases where there might be manifest injustice, we are saying that that indefeasibility might not apply, it would have to involve the High Court, there are extremely limited grounds for going down that track, and we think that they are probably justifiable.

But it raises an interesting question in respect of clause 3 in Part 1, where we start by saying that we want to continue and maintain the Torrens system but at the same time, later on in the bill, we are injecting a set of new principles that do, bluntly, somewhat undermine the core indefeasibility at the heart of the Torrens system.

One of the questions I have for the Minister in the chair is in respect of clause 3, where the Government Administration Committee has made an alteration to the bill. They have added in the wording “(d) by all of the above means, maintains the integrity of title to estates and interests in land.” In the accompanying text, the select committee has said that “For clarity and certainty, we recommend adding subclause 3(d)”—as I have just described—“to insert the principle of ‘maintaining integrity of title to estates and interests in land’. We consider that this inclusion is necessary to safeguard this principle.”

The question I have for the Minister in the chair is, is the issue that I have just described the reason that we have felt the need to put in that additional wording to safeguard the principle of the Torrens system? Do we need that additional wording there because we think that changes later on in the bill could potentially create the risk that we are undermining the Torrens system, and does that have unforeseen or foreseen circumstances that we are concerned about? So it would be really good to hear from the Minister in the chair exactly why that wording has been inserted, and if it is about addressing that particular issue.

Just in my remaining time, briefly—[Bell rung] Thank you, Mr Chair. The clock was—OK; I will carry on. I will probably take a brief call on this part.

In terms of some of the other changes that we see from the select committee in this part, I think my colleague Peeni Henare expounded admirably on clause 5(1)(d), the addition of “plants, trees, and timber on or under land”, and I think he posed some questions to the Minister in the chair that it would be good to hear about as well. I have got a good definition of “paper instrument”, which I am sure will put many minds to ease as well.

As I say, our core concern at this point of the debate is that at this very first stage we do tackle this question of the purpose, because if we get the purpose wrong, if we undermine the principles of the Act, we create problems for ourselves a little bit later on.

One thing I did note in clause 3(d), which I referred to as well, is that the wording does have a shadow of some very important wording in the Tax Administration Act, where at the beginning of the Act we say that one of the things we have to do is maintain the integrity of the system. Within the context of the Tax Administration Act, that, effectively, gives scope to Inland Revenue, as an agency, to undertake a fairly wide range of actions and have wide freedom of movement to ensure that things are kind of done as we think they should be done. So it gives a latitude of operation. Perhaps, again, the Minister in the chair might be able to assist in answering whether that is also part of the intention of the inserted clause 3(d) here. Does it mean that we might see Land Information use this as a bit of a roving tool to ensure that the system does maintain its integrity, perhaps in ways it does not currently as well? So it would be good to hear what is envisaged with that part.

I think with that, those are probably the key points I would like to raise in respect of this part, but I look forward to taking further calls on later parts. Thank you.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I thank the honourable member Michael Wood for his excellent contribution. I will take a call, even though I am simply holding the fort, because this is actually a very important piece of legislation. The member may be interested to know, or maybe not, that I was in Adelaide last week—

Michael Wood: Try me.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Probably not. Adelaide, or South Australia, was where the Torrens system was actually invented. There is a Torrens Terrace in Adelaide. The Torrens system was based on a shipping model, actually, and then it went from South Australia to New Zealand and other parts around the globe. I think it is fair to say it is probably the best system of land registration in the world, and we have been very lucky to have it developed over the years here. I think it was a reflection of the fact that when colonisation was taking place, the old English system of exchanging deeds just would not work in a country like ours, so that is why it was introduced. It is obviously, as I said, a real world-beater.

I was interested by the inclusion of clause 3(d) in Part 1. I think it is really nothing more than a belt and braces approach to examining the purpose. I think that is born out in what the Government Administration Committee said in its commentary. It said it recommended the additional clause to insert the principle to safeguard that fundamental principle of the Torrens system.

Of course, Mr Wood did mention the issue of manifest injustice, which is referred to in some detail in clauses 56 and 57. As he knows, the term is not defined. Manifest injustice is referred to in a number of statutes—I can think of the Copyright Act 1994 or the Sentencing Act 2002—but it is one of those terms, I guess, where you know it when you see it. I think the point of not defining it is to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on the court to look at something in the particular circumstances and say: “That could well be a manifest injustice.” I am sure that we are going to cover this in greater detail, but the bill’s provisions have been looked at very closely by the select committee, which I think has done a really good job. It has clarified matters to make it clear that fraud does not of itself constitute manifest injustice. The threshold for manifest injustice is very high indeed, and an order that would overturn registration, bearing in mind the principles of the Torrens system, could only be made in exceptional circumstances when compensation would not properly address the injustice.

The member raises a number of very good points, and I hope that I have addressed them, as well as interested the Committee on the origins of the Torrens system.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): And your trip to Adelaide.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: And my trip to Adelaide.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I would like to take a short call to bring to a conclusion the point raised by the New Zealand Law Society in its submission, which I could not get addressed in my earlier contribution before the dinner break. Basically, the point raised by the New Zealand Law Society is that it wishes to have amendments to clarify that where a mortgage is executed under a power of attorney, it is the identity of the attorney and not the mortgagor that must be verified. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the donor mortgagor giving power of attorney to someone else in the first place. This is a valid point.

What I can say from a lawyer’s point of view or from a bank’s point of view is that any lawyers or conveyancers would have implemented a rather robust system in verifying the identity either of the attorney or of the donor mortgagor. If the power of attorney had been prepared or executed by that lawyer who is acting for the particular client on the conveyancing matter, or prepared by some other lawyers, they must have taken the necessary steps in verifying the identity of their respective clients. Likewise, mortgagees—namely, banks, lenders, etc.—are best placed to know their customers, to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of the mortgagor; namely, the borrower.

The New Zealand Law Society in its submission has raised a very valid point—that it is the identity of the attorney, not the donor mortgagor, that must be verified. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for allowing me to make a short contribution to Part 1 of the Land Transfer Bill. Can I just acknowledge the Hon Minister Finlayson and his explanation of the Torrens system in Part 1, clause 3. I want to acknowledge that he gave us the historic beginning of where the Torrens system came from, and I do believe—and I could be wrong—that he explained that it is a world-class land system. Of course, it is a registration system.

My question, in terms of Part 1, is actually when you look to clause 4 and talk about the “Land subject to this Act”. Clause 4(d) states: “land that is, after the commencement of this section, vested in a person for a freehold estate under any other Act, including any Act relating to Māori land.” Now, it is probably fortuitous, or very opportunist, that we have not only the Attorney-General in the chair but the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, because, as I understand from his sharing to the Committee about the Torrens system, it is a registration system of landownership, it is world class, but in so far as Māori land is concerned in this country—and the Minister is very familiar with this—there is the communal nature of that land.

So the question to the Minister in the chair is whether we believe that the Torrens system, given that we have got perhaps two types of land tenure in this country, is fit for purpose in terms of that land that is held in Māori communal ownership. I say that again referring only to clause 4(d), where this bill, this particular bill we are debating tonight—the Land Transfer Bill—actually includes and encompasses Māori land. There, for me, is a bit of a dichotomy in terms of Māori land: multiple ownership, the registration of it, will have not just one person but multiple persons. It also allows the registration of future owners who have not succeeded to land, so, for me, Māori land tenure or ownership is regarded in that—it is not, once you have filed you are the owner and that is it, but this evolution of owners who either pass on and then leave the interest, or through genealogy, whakapapa, then their next of kin assume their rights of interest in the land.

So this is really going to be the angle on which I am going to make my contribution in the debate on this bill, I say to the Minister in the chair. So, really, the question for me is assuring that he is comfortable that the Torrens system of land title in New Zealand is fit for New Zealand in 2017 and going forward, given the nature of Māori land and general title land. I just want some assurances, because, like I said, the Minister is also a very hard-working Minister in terms of Treaty negotiations and ensuring that how Māori classify land and the special relationship with that land is not put at risk by passing this law.

But, really, what I am curious to know is just the Torrens system of land tenure and its appropriateness to Māori land ownership in this country. This is a short contribution but something that is very important to this side of the House, to ensure that this bill encompasses—and is allowed and is flexible enough to ensure that Māori rights, in terms of the communal part, are not undermined by clause 4(d) in this particular Part 1 of this bill. I am looking forward to perhaps the Minister’s response. Kia ora.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This is a non-political bill. It is one that I am sure all parties would wish to support. New Zealand First certainly does support it. It has been a long time in development, and I think it will be a great advantage for New Zealand to have it passed, so we will be voting for it.

Phil Twyford: Denis, I was wrong; this is Part 1 we’re on.

DENIS O’ROURKE: Sorry, I thought this was Part 2. So I think I will sit down and reserve my comments for Part 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Oh, you have been put wrong by Mr Twyford.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the Committee stage debate on the Land Transfer Bill. It is quite timely for me, because I am going to pick up on where my colleague Meka Whaitiri left off. In doing so I would just firstly like to acknowledge the Law Commission’s 2010 report A New Land Transfer Act, which is 342 pages long. It completed this review of the Land Transfer Act 1952 and the two subsequent amendment Acts, the Land Transfer Amendment Act 1963 and the Land Transfer (Computer Registers and Electronic Lodgement) Amendment Act 2002. Contained within that particular Law Commission report was recommendation 21, which, in fact, was that there should be an in-depth review into the registration of Māori land. So what my colleague Meka Whaitiri has brought up is actually germane and pertinent to Part 1.

I am very interested in the comment by the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, about a document that I have just got. It is Land Information New Zealand’s addendum to its main departmental report on the Land Transfer Bill. Actually, the Government did respond to the Law Commission recommendation, and, in fact, it asked for Te Pūni Kōkiri, Land Information New Zealand, and the Ministry of Justice to investigate the issues and report back to Ministers on what, if any, aspects of Māori land registration should be subject to the review. The recommendation of that process, however, was that a review of the relationship between the two Acts was not deemed to be needed or appropriate. So I am really interested to know whether the Minister agrees with that or how they came to that conclusion, because I think it is important that we address such issues.

I have been trying to find an alternative to the Torrens system, actually, because it seems we have got one type of registration process. In fact, it was created in 1858 by Sir Robert Richard Torrens, who was the third Premier of South Australia. The reason the system was created in South Australia was that in the context of the early 1800s, that state was a booming land speculation environment, and so at that time it granted lands. Apparently, there were 40,000 lands that were granted, and, over a period of time, 75 percent of those lands were lost, so no one actually knew who owned them.

So I can understand why this system was created, but it seems it has not evolved, and there do not seem to be any alternatives. I have googled, and Strata seems to be a system that is used, but that is about multiple ownership of single dwellings. But I just wonder whether there is anywhere else in the world—or whether the Minister in the chair knows of any other systems—because the whole intention of this legislation, as was highlighted in the Law Commission’s report, is that we want the legislation to be clear, effective, and fair.

I just want to commend the Law Commission for its work, because I think creating a bill like this, which seems to have general support of the House—it is an incredibly technical bill, which is what we have been briefed on in making contributions to the debate in the Committee tonight. But just from my perspective, I am really interested to know whether there are any other registration systems, because, basically, the purpose of this bill is to simplify land transactions and to certify the ownership of an absolute title to property. That is all that this bill is wanting to do, but just from my curious perspective, I am wondering whether there are other systems that are used in other jurisdictions. But I am also very, very interested in the Minister’s agreement, or otherwise, about the relationship between Te Ture Whenua Māori Act and the registration of Māori land and this Land Transfer Bill, as my colleague Meka Whaitiri has highlighted. Kia ora.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I am interested in the points that Mr Huo made, but I think I should deal with those when we look at Part 2, because we are dealing with this part by part. I think the honourable member is referring to clauses 54 and 55, so I will deal with them then.

In answer to the questions that have been raised about clause 4(d), that simply deals with the interrelationship between the two pieces of legislation, and maybe we will get on to that Homeric epic, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, later in the evening. Clause 4(d) simply deals with that class of land that is “vested in a person for a freehold estate under any other Act,” which will include Te Ture Whenua. There may or may not be many in that class, but the purpose of clause 4 is to set out in some detail those categories of land in our country that will be subject to the Act. As I say, paragraph (d) deals with that class of freehold estate, which is defined in clause 5, relating to Māori land. I do not think it is any more important or less important than that.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Land title and registration

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This is the second time, but I will start again. I was saying that it is a very good bill, and I too want to commend the Law Commission for producing it. New Zealand First will vote in favour, but we do want to make some constructive suggestions for improvement. Irrespective of whether they pass or not, we will be supporting the bill.

The first is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 325, which would insert new clause 9A, for a requirement for the registrar to maintain a register of foreign land ownership. The reason for that is that it is a very important issue for us. It is very important for New Zealand First to understand foreign land ownership in New Zealand and, in particular, how much land is owned by foreigners and who they are. We think that is a matter that the public should be able to discover easily, and that will never happen unless there is a register of foreign land ownership.

There is, actually, currently no easy or accurate way to measure the amount of land under the control of foreign nationals, and that is the point. Unlike other jurisdictions, there is no official database of foreign land in New Zealand. As I understand it, the estimates that some have made about foreign ownership vary from 1 percent to over 3 percent, but even if it is 1 percent, that is still quite a lot of land. There are many people in the community who would have an interest in knowing and understanding that—not just political parties; many others as well.

The Overseas Investment Office, as you know, collects data and it decides on foreign ownership, but its data is not broad enough, not accurate enough, and not complete enough to provide the information that people need. So this SOP would ensure that a comprehensive register of foreign-owned land in New Zealand is available for anyone who needs that information.

The proposed register would record names and nationalities, the amount and value of land involved, and the regions in which the land is situated. Purchasers would actually be obligated, under this provision, upon registering land dealings, to provide information for the register. It would apply to all dealings in land, as that term is defined in section 2 of the Land Transfer Act 1952, including: “messages, tenements, hereditaments, corporeal and incorporeal, of every kind and description,”. There is a substantial penalty also provided for in the bill for deliberate non-compliance, being a fine of up to 25 percent of the value of the land concerned. So there would be quite a heavy penalty, and therefore we think that that would ensure that compliance is achieved.

The register is intended to be a resource for policy makers as well as the general public, who would be able to accurately assess foreign land holdings across New Zealand as well as within particular areas of the country. The register would provide transparency for concerned New Zealanders. Although it would not cover existing foreign land holdings, it would, over time, provide a valuable resource of information without actually incurring any significant costs.

I want to move on now to my second SOP, which is No. 313, and that would delete clause 57(3). When you look at clause 57, 57(1) provides for the cancellation of a registration where it would be manifestly unjust to maintain it, and that, along with clause 57(2) are, we think, good provisions. “Manifestly unjust” is an appropriately high bar, and we approve of that. But clause 57(3), we believe, is wrong and should be deleted. It prevents an order for cancellation unless the court finds in the negative—that compensation could not properly address the injustice. If the high standard of the term “manifest injustice” in clause 57(1) is met, then the applicant should be able to get cancellation, in our view, unless the court finds that it would be unjust to do so for some very good reason that it would judge to be the case. That would mean that a defendant would have the burden of proof to show that resort to cancellation would be unjust, and that is the way it should be.

It should not be necessary for an applicant for such an order to show that compensation would not properly address the injustice. After all, there is another clause, clause 59, that already exists to provide for compensation where that is applied for. It is pretty obvious that if a person is applying on just grounds and meets that high bar for cancellation, then they should be able to get that unless a defendant can prove that they should not. I think that is the fair and proper way that it should be, and that is why we in New Zealand First believe that clause 57(3) needs to be deleted—because it actually works against the whole intent of the clause.

I want to move on now, finally, to my third SOP, which is No. 314. That would reinsert clause 54. It is not a hugely important matter in the great scheme of things, but it is important enough in its own right. What clause 54 provided for, and should still provide for, is imposing new requirements on mortgagees to take reasonable steps—and I want to emphasise the term “reasonable”—to verify the identity of the mortgagor and the authority of the person executing on behalf of the mortgagor.

That is a very sensible and basic requirement that would assist in avoiding both fraud and mistake, and particularly mistake, I believe. That can occur in situations, for example, where a trustee or an agent acts without authority, or when one or more than one interested proprietors purport to sign on behalf of all. In my experience, those are the kinds of situations where this would apply. It is not necessarily deliberate cases of fraud, because they are few and far between, but there are many other cases that this SOP and this clause would cover.

The best time to avoid those improprieties or mistakes is at the time the mortgage is signed—right at the coalface, in other words. Clause 54(1) would require only an ordinary best practice procedure by requiring verification of a mortgagor’s identity and their authority to sign. It is not expensive. It is not difficult to do. It is something you would expect banks, for example, to do anyway.

The reasons given for deletion, in my view, are inadequate and unconvincing. They were, firstly, that sufficient protections already exist—well, where and how; I do not believe they do—and, secondly, that mortgage fraud is unlikely given the Landonline system now used. Well, maybe that is the case, but that does not mean there will never be a fraud, and it certainly does not mean that there will not be any mistakes.

The third reason is that the cost of compliance is too high and disproportionate. I take that with a huge grain of salt. I do not believe for a moment that the cost of compliance of this would be high or disproportionate. So for those reasons I think that it would be best, on the balance of all those considerations, for clause 54 to be reinstated. It is not a big deal, but it is actually just good common-sense stuff. It does not impose huge or expensive or difficult obligations on people dealing with mortgages. It is the sort of stuff, as I said, that is just best practice, and they should be doing it.

I commend all three SOPs to the Committee, for the reasons I have given, and I hope all parties will sincerely consider them and help us to make it a better bill. Thank you.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I thank Mr O’Rourke for those very helpful comments and would respond to his first Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 325 by saying I think it is probably outside the scope of the bill. This legislation is very technical legislation on the hows and whys and the means by which one registers an interest in land, and so on. It states the fundamental principles about indefeasibility of title. A register of foreign landowners addresses a slightly different point. I hear what the member is saying. Maybe there should be some sui generis legislation, but that can be the subject of a separate debate. It is my belief that what the member is proposing in that SOP is outside the scope of the bill. I just need to give a bit more thought to the second of his SOPs, SOP 313, so that I can give him a reasonably coherent answer, rather than waffle, so I will come back to that.

If I can talk to his third SOP, SOP 314, about whether those clauses 54 and 55 should be reinstated, I think he very accurately summarised the reasons that were advanced as to why the clauses were deleted. First, he talked about the issue of costs, and he said that he did not think that the costs would be insurmountable. He may well be right, but the fact of the matter is that those costs of compliance would, as sure as anything, be passed on to the consumer, because I would not think that the banking institutions would carry them themselves. Then the issue arises about whether that expense is justifiable, given the low level of mortgage fraud in the country.

The second point I would raise, and I think this is a more powerful point, is that existing identity verification requirements appear to be robust. The legislation currently requires both lawyers and conveyancers, all 30 of them, to take reasonable steps to confirm the identity of a person who has given them authority to lodge a transfer instrument on their behalf. The requirement to verify identity for a transaction relating to land also arises in other circumstances. One that I am very familiar with is the protection provided for in the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009, which places an obligation on entities to verify a person’s identity. I also refer Mr O’Rourke to Part 2 of the Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996.

Denis O’Rourke: So it won’t increase costs, then, because they have to do it anyway.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I hear what the member is saying, and we obviously would not want to have a contentious debate on clauses 54 and 55. The view of the department and the Minister for Land Information is that although the risk appears to be currently low, there will be monitoring to ensure that should the situation change, it can be addressed speedily, allowing the clauses to be reinstated should they need to be.

Denis O’Rourke: Do it now.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It may not satisfy the honourable member, but I hope that that answers the position of the Government in relation to the first and third of his SOPs. I think it has picked up the point raised by Mr Huo, who will correct me if I am wrong, and then I will come back to Mr O’Rourke’s second point when I figure out what to say.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I appreciate the comments from the Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, but notwithstanding his opinion about the Supplementary Order Paper of Denis O’Rourke, Supplementary Order Paper 325, which would insert a new clause 9A—notwithstanding the Minister’s view that that is out of scope of this bill, I want to express Labour’s support for this amendment. It deals with a problem that has been the subject of much contentious debate in this Parliament and out in the public sphere over the last few years, as the housing crisis has got worse and worse. It is our view on this side of the Chamber that unchecked demand pressures are causing real problems in the housing market. By no means the biggest pressure, but still a significant one, is the lack of regulation or lack of limits around foreign investment in the residential real estate market. Denis O’Rourke’s amendment seeks to fix one aspect of this problem by inserting in Part 2, in new clause 9A, the requirement for the registrar to keep a foreign ownership of land register. This is, basically, the policy in Australia and in the UK, so it is a very sensible, mainstream proposal. What it would do is establish a transparent register of foreign ownership that would include the person’s name and nationality, the amount and value of the land involved, and the districts in which the land is situated.

What is the problem it is trying to solve? The problem has been a terrible dearth of reliable information about foreign ownership of land. In the case of residential land, the Government has stepped into the vacuum over the last year or two by having Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) run a survey of people buying residential property. It has only recently released the sixth quarterly report of that Land Information New Zealand data. It purports to provide summary information about the extent of foreign buying in the residential real estate market, but on the sixth go, it is still having real problems generating any kind of data that sheds useful light on this issue. In the most recent one it tidied up one of the longstanding problems with the data, and that is that it was treating people who are in New Zealand and buying homes while on either a temporary student visa or a temporary work visa as New Zealanders, which obviously made kind of a mockery of the numbers.

But in the most recent instalment of LINZ data it still included trusts and companies—automatically treating them all as if they were New Zealand residents buying residential property. So you could only conclude from the most recent batch of data that was released that foreign buyers in the residential real estate market were somewhere between 4 percent, which was the absolute number that the data could confirm, and 22 percent, given that a large number of the non-resident foreign buyers buying homes in New Zealand are using trusts and company structures.

So I say all that by way of just saying that this is the problem. It is a real problem—the lack of data. It is a matter of huge public interest. There is very, very strong public support for the idea of putting limits and controls around foreign investment in real estate as they do in Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and British Colombia in Canada, most recently. What this would do is provide a source of really good, reliable information in real time about the presence of foreign ownership—in fact, not only in terms of residential property but property more generally. This would be overwhelmingly popular with New Zealanders, this initiative. It is sensible, it would provide good data to support public policy, and Labour will support Denis O’Rourke’s amendment.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I think it is good timing, with the Minister the Hon Christopher Finlayson in the chair as I read through this particular bill, and, in particular, clause 57, “Court may make order only in cases of manifest injustice”, and, given the Minister in the chair’s role and responsibilities in the House, one particular provision under clause 57(4): “In determining whether to make an order, the court may take into account— … (c) if the estate or interest is in Māori freehold land, failure by a person to comply with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993;”.

Given that Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is to go through its progression through this House, I wonder whether—and it is good timing that it is Mr Finlayson in the chair—he can provide some sort of commentary, just on that part in particular, with regard to the proposed changes under Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Also, in his role as the Treaty Minister, the clause—I was staring at it earlier; it will come to me—I am referring to is around the value of land and the compensation aspects of this particular bill around the value of the land, and what impact this might have on proposed Treaty settlements moving forward. So I guess it is not necessarily a question, but certainly a request as to whether the Minister in the chair would not mind providing some commentary for his thoughts, in particular around that particular clause I raised—clause 57(4)—where it says there: “In determining whether to make an order, the court may take into account— … (c) if the estate or interest is in Māori freehold land, failure by a person to comply with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993;”. Some commentary on that would be much appreciated.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I have just had a text from Mr Williamson, who calls me a very sad puppy for being interested in this stuff. But it is very interesting, and I say to Mr Williamson that he should be ashamed of himself for making such an allegation.

But let me address immediately the very good point made by Mr Henare about clause 57(4)(c), which talks about where manifest injustice may apply in relation to land that comes under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The issue he raises is: how does that provision affect Māori land, and does it, in fact, introduce a different standard in respect of land under that Act, compared with other land? The point I would want to make about that is that the manifest injustice provision does not introduce a different standard of conduct in respect of Māori land compared with other land. Māori freehold land will continue to have the same indefeasible protections as for other land.

The point here that needs to be emphasised, though, is that when considering whether to make an order cancelling the registration of land or of an interest in land because the applicant alleges allowing the registration would constitute a case of manifest injustice, clause 57 sets out various factors that the court takes into account. One of those factors where the estate or interest is in Māori freehold land is whether there was a failure by a person to comply with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

In other words, in instances where due process was not followed under that Act, resulting in an incorrectly registered title, the manifest injustice provision would allow the court to consider—at least consider—the overturning of the registration to avoid an unfair outcome. So I say to Mr Henare that, if anything, the provision reinforces current protections under the 1993 Act.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you, and I thank the Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, for his active involvement in this debate. It was interesting today—with the good offices of Phil Twyford there was a group of youth leaders from Myanmar who were following MPs for the day. The discussion with Myo Thu, who was working with my office, was very much that in Myanmar there is no Torrens system, so there are great difficulties in terms of customary ownership of land and working out who owns land and therefore how any property taxes should be levied, and the benefits we have in New Zealand from having our Torrens system, the fact that it has been put online, and the fact that it does then provide, as Michael Wood noted, indefeasibility of title and a security when people are engaging in property transactions, which we are very fortunate to have.

I would just like to comment in terms of Mr O’Rourke’s Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), particularly the one that seeks to reinsert clause 54, SOP 314. Certainly, in the Green Party we are supporting the bill, but we will be voting against this SOP because, with other members of the Government Administration Committee, we were convinced by the evidence that the Law Society and the banks provided that it was going to make the whole system too cumbersome if there was a requirement in the bill, as it was originally introduced, that the mortgagee would have to verify the identity of the mortgagor.

I note in the submissions of the Law Society that it made the point that it thought that this provision, clause 54, had ended up in the bill because of the concern that New Zealand would follow Australia in terms of the increase in incidence of identity and mortgage fraud. But while Australia, as the Minister has noted, was the birthplace of the Torrens system—in South Australia—it seems that New Zealand has subsequently overtaken it and that our electronic Landonline system is now much more robust than the largely papers-based system that operates in many states in Australia.

The point that both the Law Society and the banks made was that Land Information New Zealand already has quite detailed standards, which require evidence about contact details for the physical address of the property and the landowner concerned, and quite a high level of information that is already provided. The other point that was made was that there has been only one known case of identity fraud in New Zealand since Landonline was introduced. So it certainly was not the problem that it was in Australia.

So we will not be supporting that SOP, but we certainly will be supporting Mr O’Rourke’s other SOP, SOP 325, to insert new clause 9A, “Registrar to keep foreign ownership of land register”. The Minister thinks this may be beyond the scope of the bill, but I would encourage him to go to clause 10 of the bill, because that does talk about the purpose of the register: “(a) provide a public record of land that is subject to this Act, including a record of—(i) title to estates and interests in land … and (ii) other information …”. Looking at the contents of the register, we think that Mr O’Rourke’s SOP is perfectly in line with what the register should have in it, as set out in clauses 10 and 11.

There is increasing concern about the extent of foreign overseas ownership of land in New Zealand, and it is very difficult to get accurate information on that. I think the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA)—it has fallen on it as a non-governmental organisation, with the limited resources it has, to be the best source of accurate information on the extent of land that has gone into overseas ownership. In 2016, I think, CAFCA calculated that there were at least 362,000 hectares of freehold farm and forestry land and 103,000 hectares of leasehold land. If Mr O’Rourke’s SOP became law, we would have much more accurate information on the extent of land that was in foreign ownership. It is the Green Party’s longstanding view that our laws around overseas ownership in New Zealand are far too lax and that we should actually change the law to put significant restrictions on landownership by non-citizens and non-residents.

I think we have seen that recently with a Landcorp farm, Jericho station, in Southland: there is a significant degree of public concern about this 1,400-hectare property going into overseas ownership. A local New Zealand Southland farmer put in a bid of $8.5 million, but an overseas owner can offer more than that. If we have title laws on foreign ownership—and Mr O’Rourke’s SOP is a step towards actually just providing more accurate information—we can help ensure that the basis of the primary production sector of the economy is maintained in New Zealand ownership. Alienating that alienates the basis of creating wealth in our primary production sector. This is only a very small measure, but I do encourage the Government to consider the purpose of the register, the contents of the register, and the fact that this SOP belongs with this bill and would actually add to the value of the register in providing accurate information to New Zealanders about overseas ownership. Thank you.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I thank the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, for his earlier comments. Basically, the Minister’s view is that any measures that lead up to the registration of foreign ownership of our residential properties are outside of the scope of the bill. Specifically, the New Zealand First member Denis O’Rourke’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 325, according to the Minister, is outside of the scope of the bill. With due respect, it is the Chair, advised by the Clerk, who decides whether—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): That is right.

RAYMOND HUO: —amendments are in scope, not the Minister in the chair. So could I ask the Chair whether SOP 325 has been ruled in or out of the scope of the bill? The Chair can answer my question either now or after my contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Oh, thank you!

RAYMOND HUO: That is your call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Good! I will get around to it—it is a valid SOP at the moment and it has not been ruled out, so go for it.

RAYMOND HUO: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. At the moment we do not have any legitimate and reasonably reliable data about the number of foreign purchasers of New Zealand residential properties. Figures released by Land Information New Zealand showed that only 3 percent, for instance, of Chinese non-residents, were responsible for purchasing New Zealand residential properties, but the houses purchased by people with Chinese names were more than four times the level of ethnic Chinese in Auckland’s population.

So here we are—we are talking about the “Chinese names”. One colleague, shortly after I returned to this House, did make a joke that we now have not one but two “Chinese names” in this House. In talking about my Chinese name—you may forget about my first name, because it can be painful even trying to get it pronounced correctly—my last name, spelt H-u-o, is pronounced similar to the word h-a-l-l, with a soft “l”: Huo. Still, people get confused. Some call me Mr Hugh, and some of them call me Mr Hwah, or Mr Who. French people will certainly call me Mr ’uo, because the “h” is silent. If my last name does get pronounced “who”, that can well be my campaign slogan: “Who cares!”

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

RAYMOND HUO: And, being light-hearted, we do care.

Now, back to Part 2. Part 2 deals with “Land title and registration”, and clause 9 is “Registrar to keep register” and clause 10 is “Purpose of register”, so that brings us back to SOP 325. We do not have any legitimate and reliable data about the number of foreign purchasers of New Zealand residential properties. What I just outlined just shows that the discrepancy is enormous. On the one hand, we have a housing crisis; on the other, nobody knows about the size and scope of foreign ownership of New Zealand residential properties.

Hon Member: He’ll know.

RAYMOND HUO: Well, those National MPs may have a good laugh, but National does operate in such a manner. It is flying a big jumbo jet, but without a working navigation system.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

RAYMOND HUO: Now, back to this bill again. We have three problems with the Land Information New Zealand data. Even the Minister at that time admitted that the data was inconclusive and should not be viewed as a foreign buyers register—here we are; we are back to the SOP again. Those figures were based on the low side of the market. They were collected after the introduction of the new IRD disclosure rule in October 2015, and the data did not and will not include trusts and business purchases. This means that the scale of influence by foreign purchasers in the domestic residential market, at the height of their activity prior to October 2015, will remain unknown for ever.

About US$1 trillion of capital flowed out of China in 2015, and it is reasonable to assume that that movement of money will have had some impact on the New Zealand housing market. As my colleague Phil Twyford said in his contribution earlier, Auckland is not alone with housing problems, despite having the fourth least affordable houses in the world. Hong Kong, Beijing, Vancouver, and other major cities have similar problems too. The Hong Kong Government has widened its property curves by imposing stamp duty, double stamp duty, and buyer’s stamp duty. Now, in Beijing—

Phil Twyford: 15 percent market value.

RAYMOND HUO: 15 percent—yes, damn right. In Beijing, local authorities applied harsher rules that do not allow non-residents, even Chinese nationals, to buy their residential properties unless they become tax residents for a number of years. Interestingly, the same issue has attracted all sorts of debate there, but race is not part of the argument. The matter is treated as a simple matter of supply and demand, and not race.

Funnily enough, it appears that no one so far has questioned this National Government as to why it has refused to collect any reasonably reliable data to help gauge the size and scope of the problem. At best, it has been in the slow lane; at worst, it has been in denial.

A Kiwi-Chinese investor can buy a property anywhere in New Zealand. But should his family members, such as brothers or sisters living in Beijing, Hong Kong, or Singapore, enjoy the same right? National says yes; Labour says no. Labour’s policy puts the best interests of Kiwis, including Kiwi-Chinese, ahead of foreign buyers, including Chinese nationals. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): That was me—I was the last to my feet, Mr Chair, so I am very flattered and somewhat surprised, but delighted, to take the call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The Minister’s pet.

MICHAEL WOOD: Ha, ha! That is a disturbing comment, Mr Chair, but I will take it in good heart. Ha, ha! I am very happy to rise, and there are a couple of particular clauses I am keen to speak to in this part of the debate. Those are clauses 54 and 57, and I want to talk about some of the alterations made at the Government Administration Committee to these clauses, but also a couple of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been put forward by Denis O’Rourke. Really, Part 1 was a scintillating debate, but it was a mere entrée, and we really are getting to the meat of the matter here, because we are getting into those serious issues about what a manifest injustice is and what the changes are that we are actually looking at making to the Torrens system here. These things potentially do have a significant impact.

I want to come back to that discussion about the importance of indefeasibility, which this whole system rests upon. It rests upon the certainty that we want to have about the identity of the owner of land, and, sitting underneath that, we need to have certainty about the identity of sellers and buyers of land. That comes to the heart of clause 54, which I would like to speak about a little bit here now.

The select committee has struck out clause 54, and when we go through the submissions there are a small number of submissions that encourage this step to be taken. It is probably no surprise that the chief submission that does that comes from the New Zealand Bankers’ Association. I will make sure I retain parliamentary language and am kind, but let me just say that bankers can be bankers, and, in this respect, the New Zealand Bankers’ Association has advanced an understandable argument from its point of view. No industry or sector ever welcomes an additional level of legislative scrutiny or regulation over its activities, but I have to say that I think the select committee may have over overheard the concerns that have been raised by that organisation.

What I can say is that, yes, possibly there are some small compliance costs that would come about as a result of clause 54—and let us just be clear about what clause 54, as it was when it came to the select committee, does: it simply asks that those parties who are lending in a mortgage situation—chiefly but not exclusively the banks—take steps to absolutely ensure that they verify “the identity of the mortgagor or the identity and authority of a person who executes a mortgage”, and I am reading from the struck-out clause 54(2) here. Of course, there will be compliance costs associated with undertaking those steps. When we put protections into our system, there usually are compliance costs. So the question is not whether there are compliance costs, and if the answer is yes we strike it out; the question should be that if there are compliance costs, then, taking into account what we achieve by some public-good regulation, are those compliance costs reasonable?

What I have not come across in either the submission of the New Zealand Bankers’ Association or in the select committee commentary is actually any real quantification or argument that those compliance costs really are excessive or burdensome, given the importance of getting this stuff right, and bearing in mind how bad it is and how many people are potentially very badly damaged, and the processes that we then have to go through to fix it up, if we do not verify correctly the identity of mortgagors. So I am not at all convinced by the arguments around the compliance costs.

There was also an argument put forward, I think, by the Auckland District Law Society, which, of course, has produced many fine contributors to our society—a few National Government Cabinet Ministers, as well. It has got a very, very good submission that it has put forward here. It sort of makes a convenience argument about this as well, and it says, effectively: “This will mean that parties who are providing mortgages will need to attend the legal offices of solicitors to sign the documents.” Certainly, I can see that that is a small inconvenience, but I think that in the greater scheme of things it is not a burdensome one, particularly when we know that when you are buying a house, it is not something you do every week. It is a major transaction; there are going to these things associated with it. So I think taking—

Phil Twyford: There is in Auckland.

MICHAEL WOOD: In Auckland, that is right. Well, there are some people who are trading them every week, but not most ordinary people. So I do not think that those arguments that have been put up in favour of striking down clause 54 really do stand, and for that reason I certainly stand in support of Denis O’Rourke’s—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I will just—[Interruption] Order! I will allow a second call, but I should inform the House that it gives me no small amount of pleasure to overrule my former lecturer from Victoria University—a fine school. However, the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of a register for foreign owners is in scope.

MICHAEL WOOD: Well, look, this evening just gets better and better. There has been action all over the place—unprecedented things happening in the House this evening, and I hope to improve on it with some comments shortly about clause 57, which I know people have been waiting for all night. So, as I say, I just want to reaffirm that support for Denis O’Rourke’s Supplementary Order Paper 314, for the reasons that I have outlined, which would effectively reinstate clause 54, which was struck out at the select committee.

The other thing I would just note on that is that I have done a number of years working in close association with the banking sector as a union representative of the good folks who actually produce the documentation and sign off on mortgages, and what I do know is that most of the banks do have pretty robust internal procedures, for very obvious reasons—to protect themselves in this area. So I think the argument is somewhat specious that having a legislative confirmation that that is important provides any additional great burden on those very large and very profitable organisations. It simply does not stack up with the experience that I have.

If we move on to clause 57, I just want to talk particularly about clause 57(3). This is another clause where we have a Supplementary Order Paper from Denis O’Rourke, who has been very prolific in this debate, as he is in some others. What Mr O’Rourke suggests is that we strike out clause 57(3). This is actually really important: this relates to what the courts might do when we do find that there is the case of manifest injustice. So, going back to the earlier commentary, manifest injustice is that very high threshold that we have set that means that we have got a narrow way through the Torrens system in terms of the utter integrity and indefeasibility of the land register. Clause 57(3), as it is written, sort of puts an extra test in there, because—I will just read it out so we have got clarity on this: “An order under this section may be made only if the court is satisfied that in the circumstances the injustice could not properly be addressed by compensation or damages”.

That, really, is the point of the SOP from Denis O’Rourke, SOP 313. Effectively, what he is saying is that if there is a manifest injustice—if we have got this wrong, if we have already cleared the hurdle, cleared that very high legal bar that there is a manifest injustice—why would we not just put it right and correct the register? Why would there have to be this additional judicial test to be looked at about whether it is appropriate to first consider compensation or damages. It almost seems to be an additional complication in the system. If we have got it wrong, if there is a manifest injustice, let us simply fix that up in the first place. I think that is what Mr O’Rourke is trying to achieve through his SOP to remove clause 57(3). The Labour Party sees the merit in that and does support that SOP.

I just want to refer to a couple of other submissions that came in in respect of this, and, actually, just to pay some tribute to a very good submission that came through from the Wellington Community Justice Project. I have seen submissions from this group on a number of other bills before; a wide range of bills. The group is, as I understand it, of Wellington law students and recent graduates who submit and engage in the legislative process to make sure that we have good and socially just law. It makes the point—and I am reading from section 9 of its submission here—that “The words ‘manifestly unjust’ indicate an extremely high threshold that naturally promotes caution.” So again, they are sort of reaffirming the point, in respect of this issue with clause 57(3), that it is a very high threshold—a very high threshold—and I think that within the legal system it is going to take a pretty strong case to clear it. If we get there, why are we complicating the matter further by bringing in questions of compensation or damages as well?

While we are on the question of “manifestly unjust”, I do just want to comment on a slight divergence of view that came through between different submissions. The Wellington Community Justice Project addressed the question of whether we should have a definition, in clause 57, of the term “manifest injustice—or, more appropriately, in the interpretation clause. They came down on the side of saying no. There are possibly some reasons of certainty, but actually it is probably better to leave that to the courts. I would note that the Auckland District Law Society came to the opposite view, and actually did call for there to be greater clarity by way of definition in the bill.

The Labour Party thinks that the select committee got this one right, on balance—that it is a complex area, and it is better to let the courts build up a body of jurisprudence around this, through their own interpretation. Thank you very much.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I do want to make a short contribution on Part 2, “Land title and registration”. In my earlier contribution I talked about examining this bill through the lens of Māori land owners. As the proud member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, 30 percent of this country’s Māori freehold title land sits in my electorate. Part 2, where we talk about land title and registration—I completely understand that we are modernising the land transfer system in this country, through electronic registration, which, clearly, Part 2 outlines and which we have been doing for some time now. My two questions in relation to Part 2—obviously we are talking about the land registration, the purpose of the registration, and the content of the registration. The Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, will also be well aware that we are currently reviewing Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. One of the cornerstones of that piece of legislation is the establishment of a Māori Land Service. Some of the powers in the Māori Land Court will be taken into this yet-to-be-determined service, including registrations. We do not have any detail on that. In fact, last week even Treasury gave that piece of work a red alert in terms of meeting the Government’s own requirements for major works.

Coming back to the bill, Part 2, “Land title and registration”—I want the Minister, if he could, to give assurances, as we debate Part 2, as to whether there is an expectation that Māori land owners’ registration is going to be delivered through Land Information New Zealand. Or perhaps he can give some assurances that the Māori Land Service is still being developed, because I think it is an important point to stand and ask that, on behalf of the constituents within Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. There is huge confusion around the so-called Māori Land Service. So that is one question that I would be interested in the Minister’s view around: what are we debating in Part 2 of this bill, in terms of the registration, its purpose, what it will do, how it will go about it, how it is going to be available, and whether Māori land owners are going to be steered by this part of this legislation that we are debating in the Committee this evening.

I want to thank the Minister for explaining to my colleague Peeni Henare around clause 57—I want to thank the Minister—around the role of the court in terms of clause 57(4)(c), which states: “if the estate or interest is in Māori freehold land, failure by a person to comply with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993;”. Obviously, if we pass Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill that will have to be amended. But a supplementary question in response to the Minister’s explanation is which court we are talking about. Which court, Minister, are we talking about? Are we talking about the Māori Land Court, in relation to clause 57, in so far as Māori land owners are concerned, or are we talking about the High Court? I ask that only because if that is the case, then I want it on the record, because the point that was made in the submissions on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill was the financial barrier of filing in the High Court for Māori land owners.

So I have two simple questions: are we talking about the Māori Land Service, through Land Information New Zealand, and are we talking about the High Court, in relation to clause 57(4)(c)? Those are two simple questions that, hopefully, the Minister can shed some light on. Kia ora.

BARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): There cannot possibly be a point of order. What possible point of order is there now?

DENIS O’ROURKE: The person who just moved the closure motion has already, previously, moved a closure motion. I understand you cannot do that twice.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member’s understanding is incorrect. [Interruption] I am sorry; I am considering the calls. We have had quite a few. Mr O’Rourke, do you still want a call?

Denis O’Rourke: Absolutely.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will give it to you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman; a very good choice. I just wanted to respond to—

Matt Doocey: That’s just rewarding the behaviour.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry, the member should know better. I am not going to say that I am going to punish people for disagreeing with me, because that is not fashionable these days, but the member should take some care when he criticises the Chair’s rulings. Denis O’Rourke, starting again.

DENIS O’ROURKE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just wanted to comment on some of the comments made by others concerning the three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that I have proposed. The first one I will not need to take much time on, because it has already been found by the Chairperson that SOP 325 concerning a foreign land-ownership register is within scope. I just wanted to say this: that, really, all it does is ask for some very basic information about nationality, name and address, and so on. That does not seem to me to require a huge effort on behalf of either a purchaser or the land registrar. It is quite simple to do, relatively straightforward, and inexpensive, but the benefits in relation to that small effort, that small cost, would be huge. I do not need to say anything more about that.

I did want to make some brief comments also on SOP 314. I would like to make just two points on that, in relation to what others have said. First of all, it is pretty obvious that just about everybody agrees that those requirements for verification of the identity of a mortgagor already exist. Indeed, Mr Finlayson himself actually cited other legislation that makes that the case. So how on earth could having this clause in this bill add any additional cost? How could it add any additional complexity?

The real point is this: many people forget it is not just about fraud. With respect to Eugenie Sage, who talked only about fraud, remember—mistake. I will tell you of a case that I was involved in, as a very young lawyer, early in my career. It was a case concerning an equitable fraud on a power of appointment. It was a case in which the fraud was alleged to have occurred by a 13-year-old girl who had no idea what she was signing, had not been advised, had no representative, and yet it was she who had allegedly committed this fraud.

The point I am making is this: mistakes and wrong procedures happen. It is not just deliberate fraud. That is why this sort of provision is important in this kind of legislation. It actually, again, does not add any costs to any expense or any difficulty whatsoever. It is stuff that the banks already do. This is the Land Transfer Bill. This, above all, is the legislation in which that provision is necessary. It should not have to rely on codes of practice or other legislation.

Finally, in relation to my SOP 313, that is a very serious issue. If clause 57(3) is not deleted, I believe that serious miscarriages of justice will happen, simply because if that clause continues it will be very difficult for a court to ever be in a position to be able to grant cancellation—very, very difficult indeed. A double hurdle—first, manifest injustice, and secondly, it is the applicant who has to do the proving. The burden of proof is completely wrong. It should be the defendant who does that.

After all, applicants will usually apply for both cancellation and compensation. Why not leave it to the court to decide which of the two is the most appropriate? Why hamstring the court from being able to do justice in the way that that clause would do? It just does not make sense. It will cause injustices. I sincerely suggest to the Government that it looks again at that clause 57(3). It should not be in the bill, and it should be taken out. I urge all parties with any common sense at all, or any sense of justice, or understanding of this legislation, to actually vote in favour of Supplementary Order Paper 313 and remove that clause.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Thank you for allowing this opportunity, Mr Chair. I do not intend on taking up too much time. I just want to say to my colleague that people do care, my friend; they do care. In this particular bill, I want to talk about clause 59(1). The reason I want to talk about this particular clause is due to the response by the Minister who was in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, with regard to Māori land holdings and, in particular, the court—whether the issues that this Land Transfer Bill deals with will then go on and be heard in the High Court. That is certainly what is proposed under Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

Clause 59(1) of the Land Transfer Bill says: “A person may bring a proceeding in the court against the Crown for compensation if the person,—(a) by reason of anything in subsection (2), is deprived of an estate or interest in land; and (b) by this Act, is barred from bringing an action for possession or other action for recovery of the estate or interest …”. I bring up that particular clause because the response from the Minister was talking about Māori freehold land, and I wonder whether the Minister actually realises just how many issues have come through the Māori Land Court with Māori freehold land around succession of landownership—around succession of landownership. I wonder whether this particular bill is proposing, as it does in clause 59(1)—are we asking for, or is there going to be, a large fallout of unintended consequences with regard to Māori freehold land? It is a shame Mr Finlayson is no longer in the chair. He answered the previous questions really well, and he also talked about the ture whenua and the ownership of Māori freehold land and what that might mean when an appeal, when the value of the land, or when the ownership of the land are in question.

In these particular clauses, 59(1)(a) and 59(1)(b), I cannot help but think there is going to be a flood of inquiries from Māori freehold land owners, those who have actually felt that they have not had justice served through the Māori Land Court. I can give one very quick example: a whāngai tamaiti of a land actually succeeded the ownership of his whāngai father’s land, despite the four natural kids of the father. The Māori Land Court actually found in favour of this particular whāngai child, and the other actual descendants of the landowner had no recourse to be able to seek justice. I wonder, just in this particular clause, whether or not, as an unintended consequence, there might be a flood of inquiries with regard to this particular clause and all of those Māori land owners who actually do hold Māori freehold land. I wonder whether the Minister can address some of that.

I must say that my comments in this contribution are premised on the response from Minister Finlayson, who was in the chair. I hope that this particular exchange can continue, because I think this is a serious matter—the Māori Land Court, freehold Māori land, and whether or not there is a course here now for justice to be sought by those who have felt that they have not had justice heard through the Māori Land Court.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 325 in the name of Denis O’Rourke to insert new clause 9A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Denis O’Rourke to insert new clause 54 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 74

New Zealand National 58; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 313 in the name of Denis O’Rourke to clause 57 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 74

New Zealand National 58; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Dealings in estates and interests in land

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I would like to take a call on Part 3. I am particularly interested in clause 99, subclauses (3) and (4). Subclauses (3) and (4) of clause 99 refer to encumbrances, while the immediately preceding subclauses (1) and (2) address mortgages. A common example of the use of encumbrance includes the use in a subdivision to require the owners of the lots to join a residents’ association or society, and pay annual fees. The purposes can be various. The common one in Auckland, I guess, is to limit an owner’s ability to, for instance, install a giant satellite dish in the front garden or the backyard. Another example would include the measures to provide for the obligations of a landowner using council land for such matters as building a retaining wall.

Looking at the bill itself, while the term “mortgage” is defined, “encumbrance” is not defined at all. Again, looking at the relevant clauses, it appears that the definition of “mortgage”, which includes a rent charge or annuity, would include an encumbrance. I had a look at the submission from the New Zealand Law Society. In its submission the Law Society said that this would result in a confusing situation. “By way of example, presumably clauses 100 to 105 relating to mortgages would extend also to encumbrances.”

However, the Law Society believes it would be desirable to state this clearly and explicitly. The New Zealand Law Society in its submission noted that it would be desirable in this bill to define the expression “encumbrance”. Clause 99(4)(b) referred to the prescribed form of encumbrance, and the Law Society believed that it would be helpful if the prescribed form in the regulations was available at the same time as the final version of the bill. The end result is what we can see in clause 99(4)(b), which now reads “contain the prescribed information.”, so the wording “be in the prescribed form and” has been deleted.

The population in Auckland has gone up by 45,000 a year. We need about 15,000 extra houses a year and we are building only about half that number. Supply is falling far short of the demand, and that puts prices up. The Auckland Council has addressed the problem of not having enough land to build on with the Auckland Unitary Plan, and once the appeals process has been dealt with, it will enable the construction of close to half a million housing units in brownfield developments and about 15,000 units on greenfield sites.

Back to this bill—I agree with what the Law Society’s submission said, which is that there may be “many redundant encumbrances which could impede the reasonable use of the burdened land. … there is a strong case for extending to encumbrances the powers of a court to modify or extinguish covenants in gross.”, as a whole. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to make a few comments in relation to the new clause 92A in Part 3, and it has to do with leases. I note that in the commentary there is some discussion about the policy intent of the bill in regard to consent for varying a cross-lease, and there was some discussion, I understand, at the Government Administration Committee about this. It is kind of a clarification, really, and is bringing this bill into line with the policy of the 1952 Act. Essentially, the idea is that the cross-lease should be able to be varied only with the consent of all the parties—so, all of the mortgagees—because a variation to one lease may affect the others. The committee has taken the view that it is important that this intention be made explicit, and so it has added in clause 92A. It has also recommended adding a definition of “cross lease” just to cross the t’s and dot the i’s.

There was also some discussion, I understand, from submitters on this. The Auckland District Law Society was concerned about this gap, and I think it drew the committee’s attention to it, pointing out that clause 92(8) only required consent from a mortgagee for the land subject to the lease. As any kind of variation of one lease would affect the value and potentially the usability of another lease in a cross-lease situation, it proposed the inclusion of what became clause 92A. So it was a pretty useful intervention, I think, and one that was agreed to by the committee.

The officials have said that, essentially, it was the policy intent to align with the 1952 Act. They advised the committee that last year Cabinet rescinded a policy decision from 2010 that had been made to accept the Law Commission’s recommendation, which was to actually remove the requirement to get consent from the mortgagees of all the leases in a cross-lease situation. So I think that has to some extent clarified that. The intervention of the Auckland District Law Society was appreciated in that regard, and I will leave that there.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that the—oh, Michael Wood.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Oh, Mr Chair, I am always delighted to surprise you. I am keen to take a short call on clause 226 of the bill, where I think the Government Administration Committee has actually done some really good work in proposing some quite important changes in respect of the regulation-making powers that are set out in this piece of legislation. It warms the little cockles of my heart—coming from the Regulations Review Committee—to see that scrutiny has been applied in this area. Actually, just looking at the comments in respect of clause 226 and the proposal to insert a new subclause (3), I do note that the Regulations Review Committee does seem to have provided some guidance on this.

So what are we talking about here? If we turn to clause 226, it sets out a very broad range of regulations in respect of the bill. These are measures that by Order in Council can be undertaken in terms of applying this bill. They are not necessarily hugely substantial things, but they are quite important—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member is about two parts premature.

MICHAEL WOOD: Oh, my apologies.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We are currently debating Part 3, clauses 73 to 153.

MICHAEL WOOD: My apologies, Mr Chair. I will leave it there.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Miscellaneous applications and other matters

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 5, which is clauses 207 to 247 and schedule 2, stand part. I am assuming that Mr Wood would like a call at this point.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Having tempted the appetites of other members in this Committee to hear about the regulation-making powers that are set out under this bill, I will continue my comments in relation to this.

I think where I got to was that if we have a look at clause 226, it does set out quite a wide range of regulations. It stretches to, goodness me, a couple of pages of the bill—about three or four pages. Just to give a flavour of some of these, they are some very practical things, but some quite important things. For example, “specifying [the] classes of persons”—I am looking at clause 226(12) here; there is actually another addition from the select committee—“who must electronically lodge, or direct the electronic lodgement of, an instrument of a specified class … (12a) specifying classes of electronic instruments that are not capable of electronic lodgement …”.

Of course, this stuff is quite important because it is dealing with electronic means of lodgment, and what we know about that is that if we looked at the different ways in which people might have electronically communicated 10, 15, or 20 years ago, they were quite different to the ways in which we might communicate now. There are constantly different tools and different systems and different channels that people use, and if we want to set up an enduring piece of legislation, there does need to be some regulatory flexibility to be able to include or exclude certain forms of communication. So, looking specifically at paragraphs (12) and (12a) there, which have been inserted by the Government Administration Committee, those do seem to me to be sensible regulations to put in place, to make sure that the Act keeps up with the times in respect of people’s ability to lodge the important information that they will need to under the terms of the Act. It goes on to the various other regulations that it also prescribes.

But what I really want to get to is clause 226(3), and this is at the bottom of page 117. What it notes, I think quite sensibly, is that “The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the end of each period of 5 years from the commencement of this section,—(a) commence a review of regulations made under subsection (1)(18); and (b) consider as part of that review whether any matter contained in the regulations should be enacted in this Act.” Let us just take each of those in turn, so firstly clause 226(3)(a). The reason this is important is that when this Parliament, when this House, gives to the executive—and of course the makeup of that executive can change, whoever it is—the powers to make these kinds of regulations, it is appropriate that it is not a lead that can just go and go and go. So I think it does make sense in these cases, particularly with a large and technical bill like this, that it is actually quite central to the way that our economy and society operates. We spoke about this earlier, the fact that having absolute certainty over who owns what bit of land, and what size bit of land that is, and where it is; it is quite important that there is some oversight over that. So where the executive makes regulations having a process whereby we come back and review them in 5 years’ time strikes me as a good measure. I am pleased that the select committee in this case decided to insert that into this bill. I think that is something that, perhaps, should be considered in some of the other bits of legislation that come before this House.

The second bit, I think, is also a good suggestion, which is that having done that, having conducted that review, if there are regulations that seem to have an enduring quality that are important enough that in 5 years’ time they are still there, they are still relevant, and they are still important in terms of the way that we put this Act into practice, then instead of just having them sitting out there as regulatory powers of the executive, why not actually bring them into the ambit of the Act itself. That to me seems to be a sensible and appropriate thing to do where we determine that about those regulations.

The other addition made, just following on from clause 223, is clause 226A, “Regulations providing for transitional matters”. This to me seemed to be a little bit of an oversight that it was not there in the first place, and that we did not have a clause in the bill that provided for this. We know that in the transition period when a bill like this comes in, there are going to be things that get picked up and will need addressing. So it is entirely sensible and appropriate that the select committee picked that up and inserted it into the bill so that we have got some regulation powers in that transitional period. We certainly support the insertion of that into the bill. Thank you.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I would like to take a short call, not necessarily with some comments, but observations.

The term “fraud” has not been defined until now. The term “mortgage” is defined, but “encumbrance” is not. The term “adverse possession”, although well defined in common law, is not defined under this bill. Having said that, this is a largely technically laden and, it could be, dry bill, but we did enjoy taking calls on this bill.

For me, as the newest MP, it is the very first time to have such a great opportunity to have a look at the bill itself. So I would like to thank the Government Administration Committee, which has a wonderful chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and again thank the Law Society for its submissions and thank the Law Commission for having shaped and reshaped the bill in such a wonderful form. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston and on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): I just want to take a quick opportunity, I guess, now that we have reached this part of the bill. It always is an interesting part. You hear of some very clever, witty exchanges in the Chamber on these clauses, but I think it is a good opportunity, actually, to summarise what has been a very technical bill that has been debated throughout this particular process.

When we consider some of the content of this particular bill and we look at the title of the Land Transfer Bill, actually, while it states something rather simple, perhaps something a little bit more complex could be given as a title for this particular bill—really, I guess, capturing exactly what it is that is in the bill. There is some very detailed stuff around mortgage issues. I have asked questions about ture whenua and its scope around Māori freehold land. So perhaps, just as a suggestion, the Land Transfer Bill could be called something a little bit more in line with what the content of the bill is. It could be something like, I do not know, the “Land Technical Holding Bill”. The reason I say that is that, obviously, the technical aspects of this particular bill are over the heads of a heck of a lot of people. But it was said during the debate that lawyers across the country will be celebrating this particular bill to make sure that the land transfers in the future are done properly in the House.

I will close my contribution and just once again thank everyone for their contributions on this bill, the Land Transfer Bill. There could be any number of other names for this particular bill, and I have already offered one in the hope that that could be considered on the floor. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): While it might be at the end of the debate, I guess the very start, clauses 1 and 2, are arguably the most important parts of a piece of legislation. I know that people who come into Parliament or have anything to do with us often look at the books, the huge volume of books, that we have out in the back here in the lobbies, around Parliament, and through the offices, and they go to look for legislation based on the title of the legislation relating to the interests that they have; in this case it would be land.

So there are a couple of questions that I have here, actually, and it might require, perhaps, a further call, I have to say. The first one is that the title clause, clause 1, says: “This Act is the Land Transfer Act 2016.” Well, I believe it is 2017 now. Given that the commencement date of the piece of legislation may in fact be 2017 or 2018, it is something that needs to be clarified. While this has been a lengthy process and these are quite important issues that have been considered very carefully, I think we should have the date of the bill, actually, when it finally—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am now going to interrupt the member. The member has been here for some time and I am sure he realises that the process involves that being changed by a clerical decision in the Clerk’s Office rather than here. I think the member is almost certainly aware of that, and might be having us on.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I guess it is good to have an assurance on that. That is important. But that is the piece of legislation before us that we are currently discussing in the Committee tonight.

Can I then go to the substance of the title itself, because, having heard the debate and going through the issues that have been raised, it might be more appropriate to call the legislation the “Land Security Bill”. What it does do, and I think there has been careful consideration and general consensus, is it does update a piece of legislation that started out in 1952, with a few amendments. It updates it, it brings it into the modern world, and it is about security. I think that transfer was the issue back then, when you had to ensure a paper system that allowed, I guess, the tracking of the transfer of that. Now, with the new modern systems that this piece of legislation in fact confirms, endorses, and upholds, of course at the push of a button we have records and computers and databases that actually can record the transfer. But what we have been talking about is the security of the ownership of that: be it through mortgagee sales or through some other rorting, the potential for a person’s property rights in the ownership of a piece of property to be undermined. I think the committee and the members in this Chamber have done a really good job to go through and point to some of those things. So we could, in fact, amend—I am not proposing to put a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on the table, I have to say, but the bill could be better titled the “Land Security Bill” of 2017—or 2016, subject to the Clerk’s Office to change; I appreciate that.

If we go through, then, to the objectives, in clause 3 the purpose, as is pointed out, does more than just ensure safe transfer. I am referring to clause 3 on the basis that the purpose should be properly reflected in the title clause, clause 1. The purpose is about transfer; I accept that, but it is also about the security, which I have mentioned before, and compensation for any loss, and the one that I do have issue with is that it says here that the purpose is the register of land. I have to say it is the partial register, because the refusal of the Government to accept—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just come back to clause 1.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes, well, the refusal of the Government to accept an SOP that would have included registration of foreign owners means that we do not have an accurate register of land in this country, because we are not going to register where the people come from, or indeed where we can get hold of them. So given that our topic—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon Damien O’Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman. They are real issues, and I appreciate the wisdom of the Chair in accepting what might seem pedantic issues to many watching and in the Chamber. This is the crucial part of the legislation: firstly what it is called, and then when it is commenced. I have not even started on clause 2.

But in clause 1, if we are truly to reflect the purpose of the Act in its title and to assist people in trying to find this piece of legislation when over the next 50 years they go to the books and they go to records to try to find it, then, as I say, it would be better to be the “Land Security Bill”, and I think it might be “Land Security and Register Bill”. If we are to have a truly accurate register of land, then we should say so up front. But, of course, then picking up on my point that actually we are not registering everyone, perhaps it would be inappropriate to have “Register”. It could be the “Land Security and Partial Register Bill”. These are legitimate points that can be tabled in the Committee. If the Minister was of the mind to accept these, then he is indeed in a position to go and change that, even at the last minute. We could have, perhaps, a change of heart from the Government.

I say that I am a bit disappointed having heard the debate, understanding the importance of this for Māori, for farmers, for homeowners, and for everyone in the country who wants the property rights to be upheld—not, perhaps, in some of the ways that the Magna Carta Society would have it, but understanding that we are passing through in our lives, we deal with property, and we want some right of ownership and control and security before we pass it on to whomever. So when we get this legislation or when we are changing it we have got to get it right. There are a few SOPs that have been kicked out that would have improved it. I am disappointed at that. But I guess in the end to have the same boring old title as was laid down in 1952—the Land Transfer Act—does not actually truly reflect the new focus that this bill actually offers land security or property rights security and partial register of land title. I rest my case.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I too want to add some creative suggestions for the title of this bill, because “Land Transfer Bill” I just feel does not really do it justice. It is too short, and it fails to take into account, I think, a very good Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that Denis O’Rourke brought to the Committee, which—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Which has been voted down and therefore is not relevant to this debate.

PHIL TWYFORD: So it is too late to even propose it?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes.

PHIL TWYFORD: OK, then.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Unless there is an SOP on the Table.

PHIL TWYFORD: I will rest my case, too.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am very happy to rise and speak on the title and commencement clauses of the bill. It is difficult, after the tour de force that Damien O’Connor has offered us on the title, looking at it from many, many different angles, but I think there are a few things that we do need to consider here.

What I want to suggest in respect of the title is that we do actually look at a different option, and one of the things that I know many of us have valued about this debate is that we have actually learnt a bit more about the importance of land transfer in our economy and our society, and some of the core principles that underpin it. The most important one, which we have spoken about a lot today, actually, is the Torrens system. It has been raised by a number of members in the course of the debate, and actually we had a very good discussion about it from the previous Minister in the chair, Christopher Finlayson, who some of us might note was, in a relative sense, a little bit more active in terms of engaging in the debate. He gave us a very good exposition of the origins of the Torrens system and its importance in terms of New Zealand having a settled and secure and trusted system of landownership.

As Mr O’Connor said, this bill goes back to 1952 in New Zealand—there were previous iterations—but the principles of the Torrens system go back to the 19th century. It was explained to us that Mr Torrens—

Paul Foster-Bell: Sir Robert.

MICHAEL WOOD: Sir Mr Torrens?

Paul Foster-Bell: Sir Robert Richard Torrens.

MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you, Mr Foster-Bell—he never misses a beat. He was based in South Australia at that time, sort of in a frontier country, as New Zealand was at the time, and there was a real importance in terms of establishing a secure system of landownership and transfer. So my suggestion in terms of the title of the bill is that we could amend it to be the “Land Transfer (Torrens System Security of Ownership) Bill”. That to me would really point to the historical roots of what we are talking about here in terms of our system of landownership.

We discussed the fact that the Torrens system has embedded within it that important principle of indefeasibility—that notion that, basically, you cannot turn it over. You can take it to the bank. If you own a piece of land and it is on the register that is controlled by the State and it says “Here’s this piece of land, here’s how big it is, here’s where it is, here’s when it was transferred.”, that is it. You basically cannot dispute that, and that is absolutely essential to the way that our economy and our society operate.

So I do want to move on to a question that arises, actually, in the commencement clause, and it would be outstanding if the Minister in the chair, Michael Woodhouse, could give a little bit more guidance on this. I will just bring up clause 2, “Commencement”, here. Clause 2(1) says: “This Act comes into force on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” Clause 2(2) says: “One or more orders may be made under subsection (1) bringing different provisions into force on different dates.” I am happy to stand here and say that I am a relatively new member, so it may be that this is quite a common provision, but I would be interested to know in respect of this particular piece of legislation the reasons that we think there is value in bringing different bits in at different times, and what parts of the legislation we might think might come in first and which might come in later, and the rationale that sits in behind that.

That does seem to me to be quite important, because if we go back to what this bill is about, it is about people understanding how land is owned and how it is transferred. It goes to a whole range of matters around how the people who are involved in transactions, such as banks, mortgagees, and mortgagors, interact with one another, and I think for security, for certainty, we should know which bits of this bill will come in at which times and what the sequencing of those will be. This is a many-latticed thing, and one part of the bill interacts with another part of the bill. So we want to have some certainty, I think, as a Committee, before we know that this bill is signed off, that that question around when different parts are going to commence has really been thought through by the Government before this bill comes into effect. So it would be really good if Minister Woodhouse could give us some guidance on that and answer that question.

In wrapping up, those are the two key points. I think we could be a bit more expansive with the title to recognise how important this is and some of those key principles, including the Torrens system, that underlie it, and there could be some certainty around the commencement. This bill has been developed in a collaborative way, with a Government Administration Committee process that Labour members have been very happy to engage in, and there has been a range of really sensible changes that have come into it here. We think it is a shame some of the Supplementary Order Papers have been shot down today—they would have improved it—but overall it is a good bill that modernises our land transfer system. With those changes that I have recommended, I am very happy to vote for it this evening.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I am appreciating the time that we are considering this bill. Looking back on how long it has taken this bill to come to the Committee, I think it has even outlasted our former leader, who has moved on—and the legislation is still around—who was the spokesperson, and who, I think, put a lot of good wisdom into the whole process.

But in relation to clause 2, “Commencement”, I am just trying to think back to a piece of legislation that I have spoken on that is basically open slather on, or no clear indication of, when it will be implemented. In relation to the three subclauses to clause 2, I have got three questions: when, why, and what?

The first question is in relation to subclause (1), “… on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.”, which is without any clear idea of when that might be. The Minister might want to take a call and give the Committee, and, I guess, the many, many thousands of people who will be watching this debate, some idea of when this might come into play. It is a substantive piece of legislation. It is about their property rights. Every Kiwi who has a bit of property or an interest in property should be interested that we are doing the right thing here, but what we are not able to say is actually when this is going to come into effect.

In relation to subclause (2) of clause 2: “One or more orders may be made under subsection (1)”—that is the first part—“bringing different provisions into force on different dates.” So the point made by my colleague Michael Wood is quite right. We have no idea when the Government might choose to bring these things into play. In fact, in the transfer, or the security—which I was referring to in my earlier speech—we have no idea when that might come into play or when that might offer the support, security, and certainty to New Zealanders, because there is so much leeway in subclause (2) here.

So, firstly, we do not know when any of it might be brought into play; then we are told that, actually, they can basically choose to bring in parts of it whenever they like. Then, subclause (3) states: “Any provision that has not earlier been brought into force comes into force on the day that is …” 12 months here, but with Minister Upston’s Supplementary Order Paper 252, we understand that it will go out to 18 months. The question I ask is given the flexibility in the first two subclauses, why are we then asking for another 18 months for other parts that we do not know about? That is the “what”. So subclause (1) is the “when”—we want to know when they will bring it in. Why would you then have different parts of it on different dates? And, thirdly, what are you going to leave out that will then take 18 months, not 12 months as originally proposed, to bring into law?

I think it is a little remiss of Parliament, of the Committee here tonight, to hand over to the Government such an important piece of legislation and then say: “Well, you can bring it in when you like, and you can mix it up however you want, and then if you want to leave things out, you can for up to 18 months.” What kind of mess will that leave for Landonline or for lawyers or people involved in conveyancing? How will they know what part of the law is in place at what time?

I think those three questions are legitimate. It would be great to hear the Minister clarify those, before this Committee finally says yes to move a piece of legislation forward that is so important, but so confusing, even in clause 2. I think it is a perfectly reasonable proposition, as pointed out by Michael Wood, and backed up by myself, that we get clarity on when clause 2(1) might come into force, why we should then leave different parts of it out, and what would be delayed for up to 18 months, which is an amendment by Minister Upston at the last minute from the 12-month period originally proposed in the piece of legislation.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I do want to take a call on clauses 1 and 2, in terms of the title and commencement date, following on from my colleagues. I guess I want to suggest, given the debate around this particular bill, around the concerns that I have expressed in several contributions in this debate—and that is on behalf of my constituents around Māori land owners in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

The question is: is this bill better titled “The Real Te Ture Whenua”? Is it better titled “The Real Te Ture Whenua Bill”? The reason why I say that is that we are changing Māori land law, but we have no details, particularly around the critical issue of the Māori Land Service. We have debated this particular bill, particularly Part 2 that introduced the role of the register and its roles and responsibilities, which is what Māori land owners are waiting for, with bated breath, in terms of Te Ture Whenua. I say that because maybe the answer—and we did ask the Minister in the chair at the time, but unfortunately there was a change. I was looking forward to that particular Minister getting up and clarifying for us around the registration that we debated in this particular bill, and those that I mentioned in terms of Te Ture Whenua.

So, getting back to the title, there is a title that may be more appropriate for this bill. It is fresh, it is innovative, it reflects our bicultural nature in this country—or it may clarify exactly how Māori land owners are going to have their land managed going forward under this National Government. So there is a suggestion. Another suggestion around the title could be, I do not know, “Aotearoa Whenua Transfer Bill.” That could be another way to modernise the state of the country that we are in, in 2017 and going forward.

In terms of the commencement date, I do want to pick up the comment and add to the question around why 18 months. You have heard several members on this side of the Chamber make the comparison between this bill and Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, and the 18 months’ commencement date is absolutely the same in Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. The question I too want to ask, alongside my colleague Damien O’Connor, is why the delay? What is happening with this Government, and why are we not going to implement or commence this particular bill that we are debating, according to clause 2, for 18 months once we have passed this through?

I have not heard the Minister in the chair, Michael Woodhouse. Maybe he could enlighten us as to why 18 months—why that is. We have not heard any contribution from the National benches as to why that may be the case, during the whole debate on this bill, but I do want to ask the Minister in the chair whether he could help alleviate some of the concerns I have had around that 18-month period, like my colleague, and also around the connection I have made from the title around the Land Transfer Bill to Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

I think it is more important that we get a modern title that reflects, like I said earlier, the bicultural nature that we have in New Zealand and the role that Māori whenua plays in this country, alongside the general title, the Torrens system that we have just debated in this bill. I think it is time to get a fresh approach. Clearly the Minister, because he has not risen to his feet—maybe that is a sign of agreement with what we are suggesting around a more modern and more fresh title. I commend this bill to the Committee.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 31 May.

Part 5 Authority to act in relation to Māori freehold land (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last considering the bill we were debating Part 5. Meka Whaitiri had the call, and while she had 4 minutes and 27 seconds remaining, we are going to be really generous and give her 5 minutes.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, and thank you very much for giving me a full 5 minutes for this contribution, and for reminding the Committee that we are debating Part 5. Part 5 is “Authority to act in relation to Māori freehold land”. This is where the rubber hits the road, because in this part we are talking about the role of governing bodies. This part talks about the establishment of governance bodies, who appoints them, what their role is going to be, and how they are going to be managed, so this particular part, like I said, is where the rubber hits the road.

I want to say to the Minister in the chair, Te Ururoa Flavell, that I have put a few tabled amendments on the Table there. I apologise if I have repeated myself from the last speech, but I think it is important in my 5 minutes that I do go through my tabled amendments that relate to Part 5. Let us start with clause 132. No, clause 132 has been debated; my apologies. Let us start with clause 154(1)(b), which is in Part 5. After “how governance agreements are”, my amendment is suggesting that we insert “reviewed and”. If we go to clause 154(1)(b), where it talks about the “Overview of provisions relating to governance bodies”, we have got “includes provisions relating to the registration of governance agreements, the transfer of assets and liabilities to governance bodies when they are appointed, quorum and eligibility requirements for kaitiaki of certain governmental bodies, and how governance arrangements are cancelled.” I am suggesting in my amendment to clause 154(1)(b) that after “how governance agreements” we add “reviewed and”. That is to ensure that we have the ability not only to cancel but also to review governance arrangements.

My second amendment in Part 5 is to clause 184. I will give the Minister and myself a chance to turn to that particular clause; we are talking about subclause (4)(a) of clause 184. In this particular part we are talking about the kaitiaki, their numbers and their eligibility, and we are talking about who will be disqualified as a kaitiaki in subclause (4) of clause 184.

In the bill, we talk about criminal history, and in there we say “the person has been convicted within the last 5 years of an offence relating to fraud or dishonesty (whether convicted in New Zealand or overseas):”. So we are saying that a person is disqualified if they have been convicted within the last 5 years. My amendment is suggesting that 5 years is too low—5 years is too low—and I am suggesting that that should be lifted to at least 10 years. The reason why I have said 10 years is that Māoris have got memories like elephants, and when you have committed a criminal offence that stigma, even though you have served your time and you have served your punishment, remains. I want to make sure, for the benefit of Māori land owners, that they do not get themselves in a situation with a kaitiaki who has just come out of a “criminal history”—and it says there: for “fraud or dishonesty”—where the limit is only 5 years. So I just want to make sure that I have explained why I think that is necessary—that we lift that up from 5 to 10 years.

In the last minute that I have—if I could ask the Minister to turn to clause 193, which talks about the process for appointing kaiwhakahaere. In subclause 4 of clause 193, as I interpret it—and the Minister may have a different view—we talk about “The court is not required to direct the chief executive to arrange a meeting of the owners under subsection 2(a) if the court is satisfied that—(a) the proposal to appoint a kaiwhakahaere has already been sufficiently considered by a meeting of the owners; or (b) the matter requiring the appointment of the kaiwhakahaere is sufficiently urgent to justify appointing a kaiwhakahaere without a meeting of owners being held; or (c) in relation to the matter requiring the appointment of a kaiwhakahaere”, and it goes into the subparagraphs. My amendment is that I actually think that, whatever we are doing with Māori land, Māori land owners should actually meet about it. That particular clause, as I read it, actually gives the chief executive—

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora tātau katoa e Te Whare, i ā tātau e wānanga nei i tō tātau whenua.

Ka tangi ake ki te āhuatanga ō wā tātau mate e hoa mā, te āhuatanga ki a Iwikatea Nicholson e takoto mai rā ki tōna marae, ka mutu, ki a Ngāneko Minhinnick nō nā tata nei a ia i tukuna atu ai ki te kōpū o papatuānuku; tērā momo kua ngaro atu i ā tātau. Me tangi ka tika; waiho rātau kia okioki.

Anei tātau e hui nei i tēnei pō, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Chair. Acknowledgments to us all, the House, as we here debate our land.

I really grieve the circumstances of our deaths, fellow colleagues: that one relating to Iwikatea Nicholson, lying over there upon his marae and, furthermore, to Ngāneko Minhinnick, who was just recently released into the bosom of Mother Earth; that ilk is lost from us. How fitting, indeed, that we mourn; allow them collectively to rest.

Here we are, meeting here this evening; my appreciation to us all.]

If I can just say that we pay our respects to Ngāneko Minhinnick and Iwikatea Nicholson today, who have recently passed away, in this last week, and on their marae up in Levin—huge advocates for kaupapa Māori, tikanga Māori and, indeed, Māori land. So I just wanted to pay respects to them.

The last time we were debating this bill a number of members made a few comments. I would like to go back to them, just for the record, to make sure that we cover those off and, indeed, address some of the issues that the member Meka Whaitiri has put towards the bill tonight.

Some members question aspects of the bill that are actually features of the current Act and have long been part of Māori law—land law, at least. Pita Paraone referred to clause 170, which requires the Registrar-General of Land to show a governance body as the registered proprietor of Māori freehold land for which it was appointed. The member said this was a departure from the current process, and suggested that this was the first step to bringing Māori land under the general land title system. Actually, I can tell the member that Māori freehold land is and has been a part of the wider land transfer system of titles in this country since its inception—since 1870, in fact.

Pita Paraone: I think what I actually said is that it would do away with the Māori Land Court, which is much different from what you’ve just said.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I do not want to say too much to Mr Paraone, but section 10 of the current Land Transfer Act 1952 makes Māori freehold land subject to that Act, and sections 1 to 3 of the current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 require every Māori Land Court order that affects or relates to the title in any Māori freehold land to be sent to the land register for registration under the general land title system. If the member has any concern about the registration process then I think he is about 150 years too late.

To clarify this for the member, I note that the records of the Māori Land Court are a part of the court register and not a land register, and they record the decisions and proceedings of the court. We currently have only one land titles register in this country. There is no current statutory provision for the Māori Land Court records to be a land titles register. The bill will change this, Mr Paraone. For the first time there will be a formal Māori land register provided in statute and backed by statute, sitting alongside the land transfer register of titles. I hope that helps the member. In fact, Māori land titles will be protected by a dual system of registers, and I will say a little bit more about that for the member’s benefit when we get to Part 8 of the bill.

The member also questioned why a minor who is a sole owner of a parcel of Māori freehold land could not have that interest protected by having a governance body appointed. As we discussed during the debate—I think it was Part 3—the bill provides a mechanism for the interests of minors to be protected, namely through the appointment of kaiwhakamarumaru, and when it comes to governance bodies I would like to point out to the member that under the current Act you need at least two owners to form a Māori corporation. Under the previous Act it required at least five owners, and before that at least three owners. So, once again, this bill is simply building on existing approaches in law, where it is sensible enough to do so.

The member Adrian Rurawhe referred to clause 156, as did the member Meka Whaitiri, and questioned why, when a governance body is appointed, the owners become the beneficial owners and not the legal owners. He suggested there could be other options, such as appointing a custodian trustee. It does not matter whether you have a custodian trustee, which under the bill the owners can still choose to do if they think that is the best option for them, or whether you just have a governance body. In either case the trustee or the governance body becomes the legal owner of the land.

As I explained when I took a previous call on this, this is no different from the current law where either the custodian trustee or the responsible trustees of an ahu whenua trust or a Māori incorporation become the legal owners of the land. The owners themselves do not become the beneficial owners. They remain the beneficial owners. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to call the Minister, but I am going to reiterate a warning that I have given to the Minister previously about reading speeches. I know he is replying to a lot of the comments, but the practice of Ministers reading speeches in Committee is something that is certainly to be discouraged and has been discouraged by Chairs and Speakers in the past.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the help. I think that because of the importance of this bill I wanted to make sure this is on record and just for the purposes of replying to the points. But the point is well made, and I appreciate that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sure. The third reading is the normal place to do that, but carry on.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Sure. Thank you. I have talked about having taken a previous call, and we spoke to some of these issues. So I just wanted to reiterate that the legal owner simply holds the land on behalf of the owners, and for their benefit, in accordance with the conditions that the owners set out in their governance agreements. So it is pretty simple and straightforward, and I hope that helped Mr Rurawhe.

Louisa Wall also questioned the issue, as did Meka Whaitiri—I think, under clause 193. Kaiwhakahaere will be appointed by the Māori Land Court, and the process involves a meeting of owners so the court can be informed of the owners’ views before making an appointment. The first point to make is that this is also the current process under current law for appointing agents for the owners, under section 10 of the current Act. I will not go into what the current section 10 is—simply to make that point. But the process under the bill for appointing kaiwhakahaere is basically the same as the current process for appointing agents. The chief executive has the responsibility to report the views to the owners, and this is, I am told, not a power of recommendation.

Can I finally just go to Louisa Wall, who raised a concern about the possibility of having more than one potential representative entity and how it would be determined which one would have priority. I am advised that there is no reason why, amongst a group of owners, there cannot be more than one entity that represents a hapū, an iwi, associated with that particular piece of land. I think the real point to be made here is that the owners do not have to appoint any representative entity as their governance body if they do not want to. That is the great thing about the bill; there is an element of choice available to them. It is not about telling them what to do. It is their choice in the end.

I want to—finally, just in the time left—talk to Meka Whaitiri’s comment about financial implications associated with the governance model. The exposure draft did indeed require existing trustees and incorporations to transition to the new governance model. I think that it will be clear to the Committee that we attempted, through the changes made, to take that away. As a consequence of the changes that have been made now, existing trusts and incorporations will not have to face the costly transition unless they wish to, by their own choice, move to adopt the new model. I think that has been well canvassed, so I do not intend to go over that.

Meka Whaitiri also wanted to take in her amendment to clause 154, which she referred to just recently. She suggested a change, to clarify that this subpart include provisions about governance entities and how they are reviewed. Clause 154 summarises the provisions relating to governance entities, and that is set out in Part 5. I think it would be very misleading to include the proposed changes in this provision. Under the bill, the role of the Māori Land Court is limited to reviewing the process by which the governance agreement is prepared, and not to review the governance agreement itself. That is important.

Meka Whaitiri also suggested amending clause 184 to provide that a person may not be appointed as a kaitiaki if they have been convicted of dishonesty offences in the last 10 years—that is the substance of her amendment. I do support the concerns that she has been talking about, in terms of dishonestly of kaitiaki, but I think that that proposed change would hold the governors of Māori entities to a much higher standard than those who are currently managing other companies. I am advised that clause 184 is modelled on section 382 of the Companies Act 1993, which limits criminal history and exclusions to convictions in the last 5 years. So I think there is an element of needing to have consistency across the board, and not just have it that Māori land is subject to a higher threshold.

So I think that the two provisions need to be consistent. But the one thing that Māori land owners did say in our consultation process about this whole issue was that our people should be held to similar standards—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Point England Development Enabling Bill with amendment, the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill without amendment, the Land Transfer Bill with amendment, and progress on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.