Thursday, 22 June 2017

THURSDAY, 22 JUNE 2017

THURSDAY, 22 JUNE 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 27 June, the Government will look to make progress on the Appropriation (2016/17 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, the Imprest Supply (First for 2017/18) Bill, the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, the Point England Development Enabling Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Chris—Chris Hipkins.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Not yet, Mr Speaker—a little premature.

Mr SPEAKER: I do realise that.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I wondered whether the Leader of the House would like to consider deferring today’s question time until the National Government can rustle up some leadership—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is completely unnecessary and will lead to disorder.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Police Briefings to Minister

1. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Police: Under what circumstances is she briefed by police under the long standing “no surprises” policy?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Any no-surprises briefing to the Minister of Police is entirely at the commissioner’s discretion.

Jacinda Ardern: Was the Minister of Police at the time informed of the investigation into Todd Barclay on a no-surprises basis; if so, on what date?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have spoken to immediate former Minister of Police and she advises she received no briefings by police on this subject.

Jacinda Ardern: On what date was the then Minister of Police informed or did she become aware of the investigation of her colleague Todd Barclay; and by whom?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am unable to answer the question because I do not have that information, but what I can reassure the member of is that the method was not via a no-surprises briefing by the Commissioner of Police.

Hon Judith Collins: Would the Minister be surprised to learn that the former Minister of Police would have found out about the investigation from the media?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Not at all, because that would have been the entirely appropriate way for a Minister of Police to find out whether the Commissioner of Police had determined that this was not a matter that should be raised with her. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Less interjection on this occasion from both sides of the House.

Jacinda Ardern: When did the police inform the Minister of Police that they had received an Official Information Act (OIA) request on the investigation into Todd Barclay as part of their OIA risk register?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am unable to answer the question because I do not have that information, but I am sure it could be answered if the member put that question down in writing. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Less interjection please, otherwise I will have to deal with it more severely.

Jacinda Ardern: Does the Minister seriously expect the public to believe that the Minister of Police had no idea her colleague was being investigated, that her colleague never once raised it with her, and that she was never briefed on the redacted OIA requests that the police released?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would have every expectation that the public would want to know that the statutory independence of the New Zealand Police from ministerial interference as set out in Part 2 of the Policing Act 2008 would be rigorously pursued by the commissioner and his senior staff.

Jacinda Ardern: Is the Minister claiming that the police breached protocol when they briefed the Minister of Police on Mike Sabin?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The no-surprises discretion is entirely the Commissioner of Police’s, who decides what is appropriate to raise with a Minister of Police and what is not.

Jacinda Ardern: Has the Minister ever been told by the police that individuals who are interviewed by them are duty-bound to keep that confidential to the point of lying about it, as the Prime Minister did?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The last part of that question is completely out of order, and I refer the member to Speakers’ Rulings, page 48. You cannot accuse a member in this House of lying. It is not only offensive to the member; it is offensive to the House.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Prime Ministerial Conduct

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his actions; if so, how?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, by stating so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he has known about the Todd Barclay matter for well over a year, did his failure to recall conversations, communications, and statements when asked by the media relate to his fear of implicating himself in an alleged crime?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is no ministerial responsibility for the matters raised by the questioner.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note the answer and I note the comment you made before he gave the answer. The Prime Minister is on record for being responsible for what he said; that is what this question is about.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not find it easy to decipher exactly what the question was about. I just took the opportunity of saying to the honourable Minister, as he is answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, that he could answer it in so far as he detected there was prime ministerial responsibility. He has given his answer. I am not responsible for his answer. Does the member wish to continue with supplementary questions?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he has not been complicit in the cover-up following his communications with the police in April last year, why was he involved in so many communications connected with his statement to the police and the hush money settlement arrangement?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: All of that relates to the Prime Minister’s role as a member of Parliament, not as a Minister of the Crown.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was he in contact with Glenys Dickson and Stuart Davie during the duration of Glenys Dickson’s employment in Todd McClay’s office relating to the Barclay tape—[Interruption]—Todd Barclay’s office relating to the Barclay—[Interruption] You will not be smiling shortly. You will not be smiling shortly.

Mr SPEAKER: Finish the question. [Interruption] Finish the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters —in Todd Barclay’s office relating to the Barclay tape matter—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Late night at the Green Parrot.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: And that is a lie as well.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It does not need to go any longer, because the question is out of order. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 173/2. The Prime Minister does not have responsibility, as Prime Minister, for a member of caucus. Further supplementary questions?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there are so many of these text exchanges between himself and Glenys Dickson, why did he reply yesterday in the House, when asked about the Barclay matter, “I was absolutely no party to that, and I do not know what the dispute was or how it was settled.”, when his text message to Stuart Davie reads: “Glenys settlement large to avoid potential legal action. Had to be part paid by prime ministers budget. Everyone unhappy.”? That utterly refutes what he said in the House yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What was the question? There was no question.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a very good question. The Minister can address the question as he sees fit to interpret it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not sure there was a question there. I think it was a series of statements that the member had been pre-determined he would say. The point remains that none of that activity took place with ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Prime Minister release his phone records to substantiate the claims he made to this House yesterday and to the media about his non-knowledge or involvement?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am unable to answer that.

Economy—Infrastructure Investment

3. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Finance: How is this Government’s $32.5 billion investment in infrastructure helping New Zealand’s economy?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: New Zealand’s economy has grown in 24 of the last 25 quarters. This growth is no accident, and our strong economic plan is backed up by Budget 2017’s increase of $11 billion for new infrastructure spending. Our infrastructure spending will boost productivity and help provide the public services we need for a growing country—for example, the Waterview tunnel will open to traffic shortly, and will provide additional capacity for people travelling between south and west Auckland, as well as helping people get to and from the airport.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other transport infrastructure investments is the Government making to improve productivity?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There are significant transport projects under way right across New Zealand—for example, the northern and southern corridor improvements in Auckland, the Huntly and Hamilton sections of the Waikato Expressway, and the corridors into and around Christchurch. There are also many other provincial projects, including the Whirokino bridge replacement in Manawatū-Whanganui, the Awakino Gorge to Mt Messenger corridor in Taranaki, and the Mōtū Bridge replacement in Gisborne. This Government expects to open 540 new-lane kilometres of State highways over the next 4 years.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How is the Government supporting service employers and exporters through new infrastructure?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: This Government has revolutionised broadband connectivity in New Zealand. More than three-quarters of the phase one ultra-fast broadband roll-out is complete. More than 1.1 million households and businesses now have access to fibre across 22 cities and towns around New Zealand. In fact, New Zealand now ranks alongside other global connectivity leaders such as Japan and South Korea. The vast majority of New Zealand’s commercial services exports are traded over the internet, so our investment is providing them with a massive boost.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Prime Ministerial Conduct

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday, “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”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, although the Prime Minister should have been more precise in his response to the supplementary question and said “making a statement to the police”, rather than “reporting a matter”.

Grant Robertson: Is it not in fact correct that he did not report the matter to the police about Todd Barclay recording his staff, but rather that they asked to interview him because they had found out about his text confirming this during their investigation?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I hear the calls from across the House that this is a cover-up. Let me be very clear: the only cover-up in this country today is the immigration scam by the Labour Party for its campaign purposes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is not necessary to this particular question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It should be very apparent that he was asked a specific question, to which he provided no answer at all but rather sought to attack the questioner on another matter. That is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: And if the member had watched me, as soon as the Minister transgressed into an area that had nothing to do with him, I rose to my feet and stopped the answer immediately. [Interruption] Order! I would be grateful if the interjections from both the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Ron Mark would cease. They have not stopped since question time started at 2 o’clock.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked a question. Your stopping him does not answer the request from us to know what the answer to the question was.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member spent less time interjecting and listened to the answer, he would have realised that in fact the question was well addressed by the Minister before he diverted to another issue.

Grant Robertson: Is it not in fact correct that the only reason he spoke to police about Todd Barclay recording his staff was because the police requested that?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Of course, because the complaint was not made by Mr English and all of his dealings in this matter were made in his private capacity.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, why did the Prime Minister try to present yesterday that he had reported the matter to the police?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If the member had heard the response to the primary question, then it would have been made clear to him, and he would be clear that there was imprecise language used.

Grant Robertson: Why did his office not authorise the release of his statement to the police when they released the file of their work on the Todd Barclay investigation?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is no ministerial responsibility for that course of action.

Grant Robertson: Who made the decision in his office—his prime ministerial office—not to authorise the release of his statement to the police?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It was not a matter for his prime ministerial office; it was a matter for him as an individual. He did not have that—[Interruption] Well, all I can say at this point is that there was no ministerial responsibility in this case, and there is no ministerial responsibility in this case.

Grant Robertson: Can he not see that a person who knows for more than a year that there has been taping of a staff member in an MP’s office, who discloses that to police only when questioned, who lies to the media about what he knew, and who prevents the release of his statement to the police is involved in a cover-up?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that question is completely out of order. To suggest that a member lies deliberately is out of order, and, again, I refer members to a number of Speakers’ rulings on page 48.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify for me—there have been previous rulings. You are correct—you are not allowed to say that a member has lied in this House—but there have been previous rulings about whether or not a member has lied in another setting. I said in my question that he had lied to the media. I did not accuse him of lying in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: I will look further into the matter, but at this stage I have ruled that question out, as a question that, effectively, accuses another member of lying.

Roading, Auckland—East-West Link

5. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: On what date was the most recent cost-benefit analysis for the East-West Link project published and what were the project’s total estimated costs and total estimated benefits in that analysis?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The most recent cost-benefit analysis for the East-West Link project was published in December 2015 as part of the detailed business case for the project. The expected capital cost for the project in 2015 dollars was $1.05 billion, and the benefits of the project in net present value are $1.764 billion. The project’s estimated costs and benefits are as reported in the detailed business case, which is available on the Transport Agency’s website. The commonly referred to cost figure of $1.25 billion is an escalated capital cost figure, which is equivalent to the $1.05 billion unescalated capital cost figure referenced in the detailed business case. Escalated capital cost is used for funding applications for subsequent phases to account for inflation. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am just waiting for a bit of silence.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that the estimated cost of the East-West Link project has increased by almost $1 billion since that analysis was completed, from $918 million—or $1.05 billion, as he said, in net present value—to $1.9 billion, according to the New Zealand Transport Agency?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table a memo obtained from the New Zealand Transport Agency under the Official Information Act (OIA), showing the estimated cost of this project is now $1.9 billion.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be tabled.

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

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that in 2015 his Transport Agency estimated the benefits of the East-West Link project to be $1.7 billion, so if the cost of the project is now $1.9 billion, this means the project will actually lose the country money?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No. I think the member is wrong. I appreciate that she is New Zealand’s foremost transport economist, but on this occasion she is wrong. The benefit-cost ratio, the best estimate, is $1.9 billion. This is a very strong project that will make a really strong difference, not just to Auckland but to New Zealand, in transportation terms.

Julie Anne Genter: Is it not strange that now the costs outweigh the benefits of the project, the Transport Agency’s own economist gave evidence last week that said: “I have not prepared a quantitative assessment of the economic costs of the Project. Neither have I quantified the benefits.”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not sure what the member is asking me to say. I appreciate she hates roads, but this will be a great one.

Julie Anne Genter: Will the Minister admit that it is a double standard for his Government to fast track a $2 billion highway project with costs that outweigh the benefits, and at the same time tell Aucklanders that they have to wait 30 years for rail to the airport, and that we do not have the money to pay for critical rail freight projects—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Julie Anne Genter —like the third main line in Auckland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, not at all. This is a Government that is strong across infrastructure across the board, whether it is road, rail, public transport, or cycleways. I think the double standard is to use roads when you hate them.

Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister understand that unlike the East-West Link project, rail to the airport and the third main rail freight line will actually make it easier for far more people and far more freight to travel through Auckland, and that for both these projects the benefits far outweigh the costs? Why is that not his priority?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I probably do not understand as much as New Zealand’s foremost transport economist sitting across the road, and that is a big acknowledgment from me, but what I can say is that we like and we support projects across the board, whether it is road, rail, public transport, or cycleways. What is true about the third main project that she keeps referring to is that it is simply at an earlier stage in its investment process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why is this Minister allowed four insults in four answers, whilst he mangles the English language syllable by syllable?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Just ruling on the matter raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, my job is to see the question is addressed. It is then for this House and the public to judge the quality of the answer.

Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not take offence at the insults. I know it is because the Minister does not have a good argument.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Julie Anne Genter: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, will this be a point of order? I hope so.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table a memo from the New Zealand Transport Agency obtained under the Official Information Act that shows rail to the airport costs $1 billion and the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document, sourced under the OIA. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table the business case for the third main rail line, which states the forecast benefits significantly exceed the expected costs.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that that is not publicly available?

Julie Anne Genter: I am concerned the Minister might try to obstruct—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No—[Interruption] Order! I have said on many occasions that if you seek to table something, it is your duty to have found out whether it is publicly available. If you cannot give me that assurance, I am not putting the leave.

Julie Anne Genter: Is the real reason Aucklanders are stuck sitting in traffic not that rail to the airport, or rail to the North Shore, or a third main rail line are too expensive, but that his Government is wasting money and wasting our time on uneconomic billion-dollar motorway projects like the East-West Link?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, it is because there is a lot of growth in Auckland. If you take the East-West Link project, this is a project that is significant, that Auckland Council has prioritised, and that Auckland business has prioritised, not just over a few years but over a very long time. When it is built, it will make a really significant difference in congestion terms, as I say, not just, actually, to Auckland but across New Zealand, given its national significance.

International Education—Funding, New Zealand’s Reputation, and Student Numbers

6. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How does Budget 2017 investment in international education support economic growth?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Budget 2017 invests $6.8 million in funding over 4 years to support sustainable growth in the international education sector, to strengthen the net benefit to New Zealand and its value to our regions. This investment supports programmes that have proven effective in meeting growth in demand across the international sector, including increasing the share of international students studying in regions throughout New Zealand, building the New Zealand international education brand as an international education destination, supporting positive experiences for international students, and it is our fourth-largest export industry, worth more than $4.5 billion to our economy. This Government remains focused on supporting the international education sector, which can provide a net benefit for New Zealand.

Sarah Dowie: In what other ways is the Government supporting international students coming to our shores?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The National-led Government backs the international education export industry and the thousands of Kiwis employed in it. Our approach is to work with the industry to steadily improve outcomes, rather than threatening large parts of it. In an effort to increase the support offered to international students I was pleased to launch the International Student Wellbeing Strategy in Christchurch last week. The strategy is designed to protect and enhance New Zealand’s reputation as a safe and welcoming study destination, ensuring international students enjoy a quality education and are valued for their contribution to New Zealand. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just having trouble hearing the answers because of the excitement to my left.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does he have any concerns about a reported educational programme that featured lecturers Mr Little, Ms Ardern, and Mr—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brownlee will resume his seat. That question is completely out of order. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 173/5—questions can be asked of the Government’s intentions, but the Government has no responsibility for the Opposition.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling. I think it was absolutely correct. But what I am pointing out is that the question asked whether he was concerned about a tertiary—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume—[Interruption] Order! Mr Brownlee, if you want the same treatment that a former front-bench and very senior member got, you will be leaving the Chamber. When I ask you to resume your seat, you resume your seat.

Marama Fox: Is he concerned about New Zealand’s international education reputation, when recent reports identified the potential exploitation of 85 overseas university students, lured to participate in a fellowship programme offered by the Labour Party, and what is he doing to investigate the claims—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, that question is completely out of order. If the member had been listening to me giving Speaker’s ruling 173/5 to the House she would have known that before she started her question. So she has wasted one of her opportunities today.

Sarah Dowie: What reports has he seen on recent proposals—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to start again. Simply, with the yelling and the excitement on my immediate left, I cannot hear the question, and then I will not be able to hear the answer, and then I will be subject to questions about whether the answer has been correct. So I do need some assistance.

Sarah Dowie: What reports has he seen on recent proposals to cut international student numbers?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I have taken a careful look at a recent policy announcement that targets international students and our international education sector. The basic premise is that the Government should stop issuing student visas for courses below a Bachelor’s degree that are not independently assessed by the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to be of high quality. Last year just about 72,000 international student visas for tertiary institutions were granted in New Zealand. Based on the figures in that report, which target a reduction of 15,000 to 22,000 international students, that could put about 25 percent of the sector at risk, which translates to as much as $1 billion a year and thousands of jobs. I have seen that policy, and it is from the Labour Party.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want silence for this point of order—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You ruled earlier that the Minister or Ministers are not responsible for another party’s policy. He spent his whole answer doing just that, and you thought it was fine.

Mr SPEAKER: No. No, that is not true. [Interruption] Sorry? That is not true. The Minister was asked whether he had seen any reports. He then went through quite detailed reports. At that stage, I was unaware of what reports he was referring to. Only at the very end did he attempt to align those reports with the policy of another party, and I immediately shut him down.

Business, Innovation and Employment, Ministry—Housing Affordability Measure Reliability

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Why did his ministry release the Housing Affordability Measure two days after the Reserve Bank advised that it was based on the wrong mortgage interest rate?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: The Minister had no involvement in the development of the Housing Affordability Measure (HAM). Officials advised that there were sound reasons for choosing the interest rate utilised in the measure, and that they are satisfied with the quality of the series.

Phil Twyford: Is it not the truth that he allowed his officials to deliberately release information that the Reserve Bank had said was inappropriate, based on the mortgage interest rate, because he was so desperate to make out that housing is more affordable than it actually is?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Putting aside the slight on Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials, actually, that is not what the Reserve Bank said. It did not say the measure was wrong, and it did not say that it was the only one that could be used. There was an interesting exchange whereupon the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment staff set out their reasons for using that rate in very clear terms, and I think that is smart thinking.

Phil Twyford: Can the Minister confirm that since the Reserve Bank publicly confirmed its advice 2 days before the measure was released, it was an inappropriate interest rate to be used and that MBIE officials subsequently acknowledged it was the wrong interest rate, said it was an experimental series, and that it would change the interest rate for the next lot of information that was released under the measure?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, I cannot confirm that. Officials advised me there was no error in the HAM interest rates, so the HAM shows reliable results. There were two main reasons why the effective rate was used: firstly, that rate series goes back further than the new rate series does, and it also takes into account a mix of floating and fixed rates, which provides a more reliable and predictable measure.

Phil Twyford: It’s not the rate that mortgage customers face when they walk into the bank.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is, well—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No; the member will resume his seat. Question time is not an opportunity to have a conversation. If you want to have that conversation—if collegiality has descended to that level—go to the lobbies and have a yarn any time you like.

Phil Twyford: How did he manage to stuff up a project that was 5 years in the making by using the wrong interest rate, data that was 2 years out of date, and by downplaying the difficulty of saving a deposit when house prices are so high on his watch?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: He did no such thing. The series was developed by MBIE. It is an experimental series that it stands by very strongly.

Phil Twyford: When he uses the correct interest rate recommended by the Reserve Bank, which is, typically, 1 percent more than the rate he used in the Housing Affordability Measure, does he think it will make the 80 percent of renters who cannot afford mortgage payments on a new home in their area without falling into financial hardship more or less happy?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The member is incorrect in his assessment of the difference between the effective rate and the new fixed and floating rates. In June 2015 there was a 0.3 percentage point difference between the 5-year rate and a 0.6 percent difference between the new floating rate; not the 1 percent that that member says.

Ministers—Confidence

8. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Health when the chief executive officer of the Tararua Health Group and the Mayor of Tararua are having to “cobble together” funds to support suffering cancer patients in the far-flung regions of the Tararua District because of health funding cuts, especially given that the vital road link between Dannevirke and Palmerston North has been cut and they still do not have cellphone coverage out at Pongaroa?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would simply say that the health Minister has done an excellent job in recent years. He has done a marvellous job of getting extra money out of the Budget—an extra $439 million going into district health boards. I think those people out there—it is unfortunate that they do not have better representation.

Fletcher Tabuteau: To the Prime Minister—[Interruption] I might wait.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Substantial—[Interruption] Jono Naylor, no more interjections from you, otherwise you will be leaving the Chamber for this question.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his Minister of Energy and Resources, who keeps allowing the Electricity Authority to delay its new pricing methodology, which has led business leaders to say publicly that the uncertainty is stopping them from investing in our regions and—for the benefit of Mr Bridges—if finally implemented, the methodology will be so harmful as to make any investment from that Government in the regions absolutely nonsensical?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. She is an excellent energy Minister, carrying on the good work of previous energy Ministers. I would also, on behalf of the energy Minister, thank Mr Fletcher Tabuteau for his congratulations to her on the delay in the commission’s work.

Schools—Property

9. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made following Budget 2017 on school property?

Hon TIM MACINDOE (Associate Minister of Education): My colleague the Hon Nikki Kaye and I have recently announced how some of the $392.4 million of capital funding from Budget 2017 for education infrastructure will be spent. We are investing $30 million in Bay of Plenty schools, and, so far, have announced over $8.5 million in roll-growth classrooms for the Canterbury, Waikato, and Wellington regions. In that vein, we have many more announcements to come.

Alastair Scott: How will this investment benefit the Bay of Plenty region?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: The $30 million investment in the Bay of Plenty region will boost capacity to help accommodate growing rolls in the area, by providing for a new school in Papamoa, expanding Golden Sands School, and building nine new classrooms at Pillans Point School. The physical environment in which children learn plays a significant role in their educational outcomes. These new learning environments will provide a modern, innovative, and inspiring environment, which I am confident will support educational success for many Bay of Plenty children.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want a clarification from you. You have ruled, in a number of questions so far, that people are not allowed to use Government questions to represent or misrepresent Opposition policies. If someone were to do that after you had ruled, would you regard that as trifling with you as the Chair?

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot rule on hypothetical situations like that, as I am sure the member would appreciate. I deal with matters as they occur, and it depends on the circumstances and the decorum of the House at the time.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does the school property investment in Budget 2017 include funding for marae-based accommodation for international students?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: No, it does not. But I have seen reports that one other party—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. We are not going there.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Is this a point of order from Ron Mark?

Ron Mark: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: This is a point of order that will be heard in silence.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to grant Alastair Scott an opportunity to ask a question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He has been here long enough to know that he cannot seek leave on behalf of another member.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need to deal with this. Is this a new, fresh point of order, not in any way relitigating—

Ron Mark: Not relitigating.

Mr SPEAKER: Right. If it is a fresh point of order, I will hear it. If the member is continuing in the same vein, I will take the matter very, very seriously—I am warning him.

Ron Mark: I will try my best, Mr Speaker. Your ruling that if a member seeks leave, that is the leave of the House and the House will determine its own future—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now trifling with the Chair. The member cannot seek leave on behalf of another member for another member to do something. I cannot make—[Interruption] The member wants to talk over me, wave his hands around, but he will not get me to change my mind.

Pike River Mine Disaster—Video Footage and Release of Information to Victims’ Families

10. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast—Tasman) to the Prime Minister: Has he spoken to the responsible Ministers to ensure that no information regarding the Pike River tragedy is being withheld from families?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, recognising that police do have their own independence, but noting that they have released very extensive video footage to the families.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there is an image taken from borehole 47, which has not been officially released to the families, that shows an intact body?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. That would be in footage that would have been released to the families by the police, and some media outlets have that footage, I understand, but have chosen not to use it because the families have asked for a period of time to consider the videos. But there are many, many hours of video, and I think it is appropriate to respect that for them. I would also point out that the whole of the Pike River incident—the great tragedy that it has been—was the subject of a royal commission of inquiry and that the representation for the families was provided by extremely high-quality legal advice, paid for by the Crown. There has been no attempt, in my view, for the families not to have information. Indeed, as the Prime Minister, he has made it clear that they should have that information.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why has the Government denied the families’ request for new, high-definition footage from the boreholes as part of the re-entry programme, given the existence of images from these boreholes showing bodies?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I said before, this has been one of New Zealand’s worst tragedies, and the suggestion that the member makes at the end is one that is subject to some difference of opinion. But there is no holding back of information—no desire to do that. The families have got hours and hours of video footage. They are working through it, and I respect the New Zealand media for giving them the time to consider their position on that before there is any further release for public discussion. Remember, though, that this is video that was all made available to the royal commission some time back.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Is the Prime Minister confirming that images from borehole 47 and others that appear to show intact bodies have all been released to the families of the Pike River victims?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is the information that I have been provided. It is not footage that the Government itself holds; it is footage that I understand is held by the New Zealand Police that has been released to some media agencies and is available to others—

Grant Robertson: To the families?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE —but also released to the families, Mr Robertson, so that they can have a period of time to view all of that footage and come to their own position on that before there is any wider disclosure. But I would also make it clear that all of that footage was available to the royal commission when it undertook its work some time ago.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Prime Minister ask the police, his Ministers, and all officials to provide any information available to the families of the 29 victims at Pike River mine?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is the intention that all Ministers who have a responsibility that they are directly engaged with would do so. Secondly, I would make it clear that police do have independent arrangements around these matters, but, as I said and observed at the start, they have released video to the families—hours and hours and hours of video—and the families are taking their time to look through that before there is any further public discussion. But, I state again that all of this has been made available to the royal commission, which considered all of these matters quite some time ago.

Waste Management—Waste Minimisation Fund

11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has he made about the Government’s Waste Minimisation Fund?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Associate Minister for the Environment): The Waste Minimisation Fund is funded from a levy introduced by the National-led Government in 2009. It charges on waste disposed of at landfills, to discourage waste and to fund recycling initiatives. Recently, I have made several announcements, including over $5.1 million of investment into four projects to reduce litter. This includes the installation of combined litter and smart recycling bins, supporting Keep New Zealand Beautiful to undertake a national litter survey as well, and as recently as this morning my colleague Dr Nick Smith has announced grants of $19 million for investments into solutions for New Zealand’s end-of-life tyres.

Barbara Kuriger: How is the Government using the Waste Minimisation Fund to help local community groups to move towards zero waste?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The organisation Para Kore has a vision for all marae around New Zealand to be zero waste by 2020. So far there are 171 marae taking part in the programme, and they have diverted a massive 178 tonnes of waste from landfill. Last week, in Raglan, in the member’s own beautiful electorate, I announced funding of nearly a further $800,000 to extend that programme, and a further $150,000 to allow the Waikato District Council to implement food waste collection diversion and composting services in Raglan.

Denise Roche: Why is he taking nearly $20 million from the Waste Minimisation Fund and not spending it on community groups that are working to reduce waste, and subsidising those that do not really need it?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The Government has provided grants of almost $19 million to nine tyre-related projects, including $13.6 million towards new equipment at Golden Bay Cement in the Northland electorate. That will totally dispose of 3.1 million shredded tyres per year. This technology is globally one of the most common and economically viable solutions to waste tyres. The high-temperature incineration minimises pollutants, the steel in the tyres contributes to the iron requirements of cement, and the rubber provides a fuel to substitute for coal. So this is a very good way of disposing of end-of-life tyres that have been causing enormous problems around the country.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Golden Bay retread complex he talks about is in the Whangarei electorate and not the Northland electorate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Denise Roche: Why has he rejected putting an advance disposal fee on tyres, as the industry itself has asked for, when $5 on each tyre would create about $25 million a year, which would cover recycling costs and more?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: It is because on this side of the House we take a pragmatic blue-green approach to environmental matters, and we are not the party of heavy-handed and expensive regulation.

Denise Roche: I seek leave to table an email to the Hon Nick Smith dated 22 September 2015 from Mark Gilbert—from the industry itself; the chair of the Tyrewise working group—expressing disappointment—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the document has been described. It does not need further description. Leave is sought to table that particular email to the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is no objection. It can be tabled.

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

Denise Roche: When will he stop coming up with half-measures that subsidise ongoing pollution for things like tyres and plastic bags, and instead introduce mandatory product stewardship schemes that actually work to reduce waste?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The issue of plastic bags is a current one, and I have recently received advice from the Ministry for the Environment on a range of options to tackle plastic bags, which I am now considering. Additionally, I am meeting with stakeholders in the sector, mayors, and officials regarding the issue and the disposal of them.

Melissa Lee: How is the Waste Minimisation Fund helping to repurpose waste that otherwise would have gone to landfill?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Last month I announced that the Government is supporting the collection and recycling of Tauranga’s untreated wood waste with a grant of $359,000. This grant helped purchase a wood chipping machine, which means that a very large amount—some 44 tonnes of kiwifruit boxes and pallets per week that used to go to landfill—is now being chipped and used in gardens as mulch and also as a protective layer for children’s playgrounds. The member will be pleased to know that I will be making further announcements in the future.

Regional Economic Development—East Coast

12. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Infrastructure: How much of the $11 billion infrastructure fund announced in Budget 2017 will go towards improving infrastructure on the East Coast?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: This Government has allocated $23 million in capital to the Tairāwhiti District Health Board and other projects to upgrade medical facilities in the region. A further release of $6.5 million in capital has been allocated for transport upgrades in the region, including the construction of the Panikau Hill and Wallis Hill slow vehicle bays, and the Mōtū Bridge replacement. This is on top of a number of infrastructure projects that were allocated capital in previous Budgets. Indeed, given the very large capital investment coming over the next 4 years, there may be additional investments made in the East Coast.

Marama Fox: What is he doing to support an improvement in infrastructure on the East Coast to support landowners with harvestable forestry holdings who are considering burning down their trees because there is no way to move them due to poorly maintained and impassable roads?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Minister for Primary Industries and the Associate Minister are probably better placed to answer that, but I am broadly aware that we have afforestation programmes at work at the moment on the East Coast, and I also know that throughout Tairāwhiti regional economic action plan, there are specific measures in relation to both forestation and also in relation to wood processing, to ensure viable economic and environmental measures in the area the member speaks of.

Voting

Correction—Point England Development Enabling Bill

Mr SPEAKER: On 20 June, when the House was considering the Point England Development Enabling Bill, the result of the vote to insert new clause 8A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 317, was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 45, Noes 74. The correct result is Ayes 57, Noes 62. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Bills

Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Part 1 of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill. I would like to speak, in this first call of many, with specificity to Part 1, clause 3—the purpose clause—new paragraph (ba), which has been inserted by the select committee. It relates to our obligations—New Zealand’s obligations—under the Outer Space Treaty, specifically not to “(i) place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner:”. The inclusion of that subparagraph and subsequent subparagraphs appears to be a response to the concern raised by some submitters that there was no restriction placed in the original legislation, using this bill, on performing activities in outer space and at high altitudes for military purposes. Some submitters requested of the select committee that the purpose clause be amended to require that this legislation be solely for peaceful purposes.

Reading the departmental report, there was some discussion about the difficulties of including the term “peaceful purposes”, and it would appear that this specific paragraph has been included in response to that. I actually wonder whether the inclusion of this new paragraph is actually necessary, for two reasons. One is that New Zealand already has nuclear-free legislation; we are already nuclear-free, and that remains the case 30 years on from when the Labour Government first made New Zealand nuclear-free. The other reason I wonder whether this is actually necessary—this new paragraph—is that we are signatories to the Outer Space Treaty, and whether or not we include this new paragraph in the purpose clause of this bill, that remains the case. I wonder whether the Minister would be able to address the first question, being: “Is this new paragraph actually necessary, or would our nuclear-free status and our being a signatory to that treaty actually mean that we are bound by those with or without the inclusion of this paragraph?”.

I have a more substantive concern about the wording of these subparagraphs, because they specifically restrict or prohibit the deployment of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction into outer space, as well as prohibit the establishment of military bases, installations, or fortifications on celestial bodies, or the testing of any weapons or the conduct of any manoeuvres on celestial bodies. But what these subparagraphs do not appear to prohibit is the use of conventional weapons or the deployment of conventional weapons into space. Certainly, it would appear that the deployment of conventional weapons on to celestial bodies is prohibited by this legislation, but it does not appear that the deployment of conventional weapons or military technology into orbit is prohibited.

I might have thought that I might be unnecessarily cautious, except for a comment that was made in the departmental report. Paragraph 19 of the departmental report, on the submissions on this clause, says: “… the effect of the provision”—and this would be the provision to include a peaceful purposes paragraph in the purpose clause—“would be to unduly restrict New Zealand’s ability to use space to further its national security interests. This could be harmful to New Zealand’s national interests.” I find that a little bit concerning—that the advice that the select committee received on this clause was that overtly stating that the purpose of this legislation is solely for peaceful, civilian purposes could be harmful to New Zealand’s interests. So my question to the Minister is about whether it is the Government’s position that this legislation could eventually allow the deployment into space, from New Zealand, of weapons or of weaponised technology, and whether it is the Government’s intention to use our ability to deploy packages into space to further our national security interests. Could that include the use of weaponised or other military technology?

The other aspects of the purpose clause are around facilitating the development of a space industry, to provide for its safe and secure operation, and to implement our international obligations. The purpose, I think, as it is broadly understood by the public, is to develop a civilian space industry to make it possible to launch various—whether it be satellites, whether it be communications technology, whether it be to launch packages that might support the development of space stations and what have you in orbit around the planet. That is what I think people broadly understand this legislation to be about.

But it would appear, by the very careful wording of this additional paragraph to the purpose clause and by the advice that the select committee received, that it leaves the door open for New Zealand to engage in the weaponisation of space. And I note from the departmental report that the United States legislation actually specifically states that their outer space and high-altitude activities will be for peaceful purposes. Now, officials advised the committee that the definition of peaceful is somewhat ambiguous, that there is no agreed definition of peaceful, and also that civilian equipment or technology that has a civilian purpose can, over time, come to have a military purpose and, likewise, the opposite can be true. The example was used of the global positioning system that, initially, had a military purpose but now has a range of civilian purposes.

I understand that, but the fact that the US legislation specifically attempts, at least, to overtly state that the development of their space industry is strictly for peaceful purpose yet not only are we leaving it out of this legislation but we appear to be specifically leaving the door open to military purposes I think warrants a comment from the Minister. So my question around clause 3, new paragraph (ba) is whether we are specifically leaving the door open to a space industry that could develop into a military industry and could be used to further New Zealand’s national interests through the deployment of conventional weapons into orbit, because I do not think that is what most people understand the purpose of this legislation to be. If the Minister could answer those questions, I would be very grateful.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I apologise for not doing this at the beginning. I seek leave for the debate on all of the clauses in this bill to be taken as one debate, with each of the questions to be put separately at the end.

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

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

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te Whare nei. I too want to talk about the preliminary provisions, in particular—a suggestion from one of the submitters, Venture Southland, that recommended including a reference to peaceful purposes. I just want to add to what my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has contributed so far, and that is the whole notion around exactly what the opposite of peaceful purposes is—for example, if a company wanted to send up into space a particular product that is for totally civilian uses right now but could be used in the future for military purposes.

I think the issues that have been raised in the departmental report—and it goes to quite some length to discuss what exactly peaceful purposes might mean. It makes statements like “… in the context of space activities is ambiguous and open to differing interpretation.” I think the point that I want to make is that if in fact a reference to peaceful purposes was made, then surely that could be specified in the interpretation around exactly what that meant. So it could actually say that it excludes products that have the intent of a civil, everyday purpose that might, in some future time, be used for military purposes but the launch of that aircraft was for peaceful purposes.

I really want to acknowledge Venture Southland for making the suggestion in the first place, because I do think that it is relevant to this. But I also want to acknowledge the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I was not on that select committee, but it has come up with a very specific new clause ensuring that the purpose of putting these aircraft into outer space is not for the purpose of carrying nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. So I congratulate the committee on that, but that does not in itself totally mean—certainly from my view of the world—that peaceful purposes could not actually be part of the interpretation and the purpose of this bill. So that is the first part of what I wanted to speak about.

The other issue that I wanted to talk about was orbital debris and also when something goes wrong in outer space—ensuring that there are good processes in place to deal with severe and unexpected, but possible, accidents in space whereby debris is now orbiting around the Earth. During the second reading we heard a number of contributions around the impact of orbital debris. I also want to highlight the contributions from the New Zealand Law Society, the concerns that it raised on these matters—and I think it is on clause 76, I believe.

AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I feel like we need to be saying something like we have taken this giant leap forward. When you look at the purpose clause of this bill, clause 3, the first purpose is to “(a) facilitate the development of space industry and provide for its safe and secure operation:”. What a wonderful fresh idea it is for New Zealand. It is an idea that we need to get behind and support. And I do acknowledge that this is not something that has suddenly arrived at our doorstep overnight; this is something that has happened over the years—from 2007 right up till now—and we really should be celebrating it. We have punched that skyline. We are now competing with the rest of the world, in terms of this new space industry. What do they say in Star Trek movies? We are going to go where no man has ever gone before, and, literally, this company is the first of its kind. So facilitating the development of a space industry—

Fletcher Tabuteau: No, “person” now—“person”. Where no “person” has gone before.

AUPITO WILLIAM SIO —that is right—is something we need to celebrate. It also sends a very clear message about the changing work environment we will have, because in developing the space industry we will have astronauts. Little kids from Mangere can start dreaming about becoming astronauts—New Zealand or Kiwi astronauts. We can now start talking about young people in South Auckland becoming scientists, to help develop this industry. We can talk about a whole range of new jobs and industries relating to the development of the space industry, and we can get our young people to start dreaming and visualising in terms of going forward into the future.

The second paragraph of the purpose clause implements “certain international obligations of New Zealand relating to space activities and space technology:”. I note that this is a partnership between New Zealand and the USA. I have my concerns about this, because, yes, we do have obligations in terms of the international arena, but I wonder why the partnership with the USA. All that has occurred in terms of the relationship between New Zealand and the USA—how we differ in terms of our antinuclear stance, the GCSB, and all the spying that is taking place of recent times—causes me some concern. I do not know how deep we are in in terms of ensuring that everybody is quite clear about what those obligations are and what that means, not just presently but in terms of going forward into the future.

The purpose clause then goes on about implementing the obligations in the Outer Space Treaty. I did not realise that there was an Outer Space Treaty, but it makes sense that there needs to be one, because the fact of the matter is that if we are shooting skyrockets up in the sky and those rockets are releasing debris and whatnot, where do they end up? Sure, some of it will burn before it reaches our atmosphere if it has gone up high enough. But if they just put it up above here somewhere, where does it fall? How do we know that it will fall into the ocean? How do we know that it will not fall into a space where it is going to fall on a cow or a few sheep or real people? That is a concern, and I am not sure whether this legislation, in fact, gives confidence to the rest of the country about what we are doing here.

It goes on to say: “establish military bases, installations, or fortifications on celestial bodies:”. What does that mean? What celestial bodies are we talking about? Are we talking about angels? Are we arming the angels to become military bases? Look, it may be funny, but the reality is that this is the first time that New Zealand is embarking on developing a space station. We are beginning to send skyrockets into the wide, wide space, and accurate information will help people understand and get around it.

I understand that the local communities where this space station is based are very supportive of it. I can see those local communities setting up little tourism platforms and saying: “Come in and watch space. Give us $50, or something, and stand for an hour.”, and it may be a week before the next rocket goes up. But the point I am making is this is new space that we are entering into. This is new ground that we are going to cover, and it works perfectly with what the Labour Party has been talking about in terms of the work environment changing and the potential for this kind of industry to start bringing forward some of the career pathways that many of our young people can be involved with.

I see that “test any type of weapons” is mentioned next in the clause. That concerns me. What sort of weapons are we doing? We do not have the kind of military base that the States has. That concerns me. Are we being used by the USA to be, sort of, a secondary military base? Is that what its intention is? Because, from where I stand, it is certainly not the intention of New Zealand, nor should it be, to use this space station for the purposes of creating weapons that can land and kill somebody. The intent, I would think, is to develop an industry that can explore, find new life, and promote an industry where we can learn about how to protect this world, which we and other major countries, in many ways, are polluting.

This purpose is also to “manage any potential or actual liability that may arise from the space industry:” Good question—what potential conflicts are we liable for in setting up this space station? I do not envision any, but surely our ministry officials would be able to table that at some stage. Maybe the Minister would like to answer that. What potential conflicts? I mean, you put that in a clause for a purpose. What are we anticipating that we would end up getting ourselves into?

This bill seeks to “preserve New Zealand’s national security and national interests.”—great purpose, great purpose. That would mean that we need to have full control of our space station. We are partnering with the USA—good on them—and NASA is supposed to have a wonderful reputation but, notwithstanding that, we need to have full control. That means that this Government and future Governments need to be investing in supporting innovation in this kind of industry. My point is that, from where I stand, this sort of investment, this innovation, is about creating new jobs that our young people can aspire to.

Like I said, I feel like we should be saying something like we are going to punch the sky and reach new horizons. Fresh ideas are what is required. I am glad that the Government has come, albeit at a later stage, to fund and support this, but I want to give kudos to those have been responsible for this and have believed in it, going back to 2007, and to those Ministers of the Labour Government who supported it and provided that moral encouragement, because that is what is needed to get new innovation.

In terms of the purpose clause, there are wonderful things, but there are questions that I would hope the Minister would take the time to respond to.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I just want to take on, and discuss further with specificity, what the previous speaker, Aupito William Sio, mentioned around the involvement of the US. In the original discussions and, actually, in the original draft of the legislation—and I refer to Part 3, Subpart 2, “Secure areas”, by way of example—the conversation was always around security. In fact, the terminology was “Security areas and security enhanced areas”, and the thinking behind that was safety, protection of technology, and ensuring that in that the general public was safe and kept out of harm’s way. Also, we do have an obligation to our partners in this new endeavour, this new industry, to protect their technology.

So that made sense to me on the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee, and, actually, I should also add that in those conversations, what was exciting and what the potential showed us was that, yes, this is an important dialogue with the United States right as of this moment, but in our conversations we talked about other nations and their space industries, and the possibility of servicing their endeavours. We provide that unique space in the world, as it were, for an alternative launch for those countries, not just in their space in the Northern Hemisphere. So that was a great part of that conversation about moving forward, growing an industry, bringing technologies into New Zealand, and enhancing all of those support industries here in New Zealand.

But then, when you look at the newly written Subpart 2, clause 64, “Segregated areas and areas set aside”, the wording has changed in and of itself, and I do question the Minister in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, about the reasoning behind it. It now speaks to, in clause 64(1)(b)—“an area specifically set aside exclusively for work with US launch vehicles,”. Now, firstly, what is wrong with that, in my mind, is that the entire point of Rocket Lab, and the Government giving it millions of dollars, was that these are New Zealand launch vehicles. So what are we actually protecting here? That was the idea—or are we admitting that, actually, the whole ownership of Rocket Lab now is US and there is no New Zealand part to it whatsoever? I genuinely thought there was still that small part.

So now it is talking about US launch vehicles and US spacecraft, when there was no mention of that before. Now I am concerned that the wording has changed substantively. As I tried to preface in the earlier part of my contribution, we were excited about a worldwide space industry. Now the terminology is about US launch vehicles and US spacecraft. I genuinely want to know how we got here. When the officials came back and advised the committee—I tell you what, I apologise if I missed it, but I do not remember seeing what I think is a substantive change to the legislation. Please, Minister, could you advise on that specific part? That is substantively important to me.

But as you move further down that same clause 64, when we talk about segregated areas—this new terminology—that can be set aside, we are now saying that the Minister may declare private land to be included within a segregated area. All right, the Minister now has this power to set aside this segregated land, which the committee discussed and agreed to. But now we are talking about how the owner of the occupied land may disagree—“may not give their consent” is the wording in the legislation. I thought we had resolved it, to the point where we knew what would happen when the owner disagreed with the occupation of their land for the segregated area. But that does not appear to be in clause 64 of Part 2 any longer.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): There is a lot to be said about this, but, first and foremost, I do want to say that we know this is to enable Peter Beck and Rocket Lab to go hard. Peter Beck is, to be honest, the most innovative and aspirational Kiwi I have met for a long, long time. This is done from my electorate, on the Māhia Peninsula.

A number of the concerns that members have mentioned I can actually talk to them about privately, if they want, because I have sat down with Peter and I know what he is doing. As Aupito William Sio said, this is very, very aspirational, believe me. It is absolutely fantastic, but we do need this bit of legislation to tidy a few things up.

I do note in clause 6, “Act binds the Crown”, it does say, which is a little interesting: “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or any other Act, or … nothing in this Act or in regulations made under this Act applies to the New Zealand Defence Force.” In the purpose clause it has talked about the fact that we cannot put nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction up there. But the Defence Force can, in fact, do what it wants to, and I suppose we have got to allow the New Zealand Defence Force to do what it needs to do to “preserve New Zealand’s national security and national interests.” I have no doubt there is a proper definition for this. We all know what nuclear weapons are, but I do not know what a weapon of mass destruction is—whether it is an intercontinental ballistic missile or it is something bigger or wider than that. So, to me, this is a little bit wishy-washy. I know what it is trying to say, but I am not too sure how it would be put into effect. But, as mentioned, it is interesting that the Defence Force can do whatever it wants to.

The thing that I am a little bit interested in—slightly interested in; curious about—is clause 9, “When launch licence may be granted”. I talk about this a bit. Whenever, in legislation, I see the word “may” or I see the word “must”, they have two completely different meanings. What it does is it actually changes the legislation quite a bit. If the word “must” exists, then it compels a Minister to do something when certain requirements are met. If the word “may” is in the legislation, then it means that it provides ministerial discretion, no matter what else is listed in the legislation. If I look at clause 9, and the title of this clause is “When launch licence may be granted”, what it says there is: “The Minister may grant a launch licence only if the Minister is satisfied that—”, and it talks about a number of conditions that will be met before the Minister may grant a licence, things like the applicant is technically capable, which is quite important; there is no doubt about that; “the applicant has taken, and will continue to take, all reasonable steps to manage risks to public safety …”; “an orbital debris mitigation plan …”; and “proposed launch or launches under the licence are consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations;”.

Now, we all agree that that is important, but I would have thought that the Minister must be able to grant a licence if everything in this piece of legislation is met by the person seeking the licence. Otherwise, it means there are other things that the person or the licensee might have to end up doing that they are unaware of. What I would argue is that that creates legislative uncertainty. If it was a comprehensive list, then anyone who was seeking to launch a rocket or seeking a licence to launch a rocket would know exactly what they have to do. But the way the legislation is written, the Minister may in fact say: “You have met all of the requirements. However, I do not have to grant this, and I’m not going to.”

It is the same when we talk about when a Minister may decline a licence. This is clause 9(2), and it says: “The Minister may, despite being satisfied of all the matters in subsection (1),”—which I talked about—“decline to grant a launch licence if the Minister is not satisfied that—(a) a proposed launch under the licence is in the national interest; or (b) the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a launch licence …”. Again, I have looked through this and I cannot find any definition of “fit and proper person”. In other legislation the definition of what constitutes a fit and proper person is causing concern because it is too subjective. We need to have an objective definition of fit and proper, when it comes to something like this, otherwise the Minister can just say: “Well, I don’t like the cut of that person’s jib.” or “This is not a fit and proper person.” or “This person spent some of their time in North Korea or in Russia.”—I do not know, but it does not matter, because there are so many loopholes through which the Minister may decline a licence.

When it comes to something like this, I do not think that is good enough. The reason I say that is we are not talking about an industry where the barriers to entry are low. The barriers to entry in this industry are exceptionally high. In fact, they are so high that Peter Beck’s Rocket Lab is the only private company in the history of space exploration or launches that is not Government funded. It is the only private company undertaking this. I just think, when it gets to the point where someone is actually seeking a licence and they are told they are not a fit and proper person, that is unacceptable. Firstly, there needs to be a definition of fit and proper, so anyone can know, before they even look at getting in the game, whether they meet that definition or not.

Again, we look at “The Minister may, despite being satisfied of all the matters … decline to grant a launch licence …” if it is not in the national interest test. Now, there are some points down here that give the Minister guidance around what is in the national interest. For example, and this is in clause 9(2A): “(a) economic or other benefits to New Zealand of the proposed launch: (b) any risks to national security, public safety, international relations, … (c) the extent to which the risk can be mitigated by licence or permit conditions:”. And that is all very good, and I get that and we understand that, but then it says: “any other matters that the Minister considers relevant.” Now, for an industry that is so capital intensive, I just think that is too open-ended.

Of course we support this legislation, and I disagree with a number of things that Mr Tabuteau said. I think this is truly aspirational. But what I am doing is highlighting some of what I believe are the deficiencies in the legislation that might—just might—provide a barrier to entry or keep people out of the game or impose significant capital costs on someone seeking to get into this.

And the other thing, if we look at clause 10, “Conditions, indemnity, and insurance …” it talks about the fact that someone has to get a licence every time they want to seek to launch a rocket and they have got to provide the date, location, intended trajectory, and all these other things. Well, what we do know is that Peter Beck and Rocket Lab’s ultimate aim is to launch one of these every single week—every single week. Now, would that not be fantastic? That means that he has got a globally dominant position, and I think it is game-changing; it really is. It is hard to comprehend.

But the concern I have is that if Mr Beck and Rocket Lab staff have to put in an application every single time—and it is quite onerous, and I get that to a certain extent—then is this going to hold back the development of this industry, or is it going to be a case where on Mr Beck’s tenth launch the Minister knows that this is a business of true integrity and an organisation that does what it says it is going to do, and it is almost a box-ticking exercise in the way that a pilot has to launch a flight plan. So we know when you are going to fly from Wellington to Napier this is how you do it, this is the way you go about, and it is all nice and easy and it is a box-ticking exercise. I hope that this is what this is about. Even though I do not want to minimise the impact of a rocket going wrong—because it can be quite significant—I just hope that this does not provide any sort of barrier to entry, or, a better way to put it, any sort of undue red tape that will stop Peter Beck and Rocket Lab from doing this.

But, having said that, I do understand that this legislation, whilst enabling Rocket Lab to do what it needs to do, also has to guide other organisations or people who also want to get in the game. So it needs to be robust. It cannot be there just for a person with the integrity of Peter Beck or the competency and the skills of Rocket Lab. It must be there for everyone, but I am just a little bit concerned about some of the provisions in here and how loose they can be and the power it gives the Minister. I just think it should be a little bit more prescriptive than it is when we are talking about such an important and such a capital-intensive industry.

I would just like to take the last 42 seconds of this call to say an absolute congratulations to Peter Beck. He has actually just been inducted into the international entrepreneurial hall of fame. He is a fantastic New Zealander who is employing real, true, fair-dinkum rocket scientists. What he is doing in Auckland and on the Māhia Peninsula and, actually, in his base in the States is game-changing. It really is game-changing. In a way, this is actually disruptive technology. This is not small advances. It is disruptive, and it is happening here. It is happening in the Napier electorate. It is happening near Wairoa. I congratulate Peter and his team, because I think it is just outstanding. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I would echo the comments from the honourable member Stuart Nash, that Peter Beck is doing a fantastic job. He is a great inspiration to, particularly, young New Zealanders, and hopefully more of them get interested in engineering and science and maths, and dream of a future among the stars. It is truly fantastic.

There are two main areas I would like to touch on. I would like to quickly touch on the point around launch licences and the regime, and then touch on some of the peaceful purposes debate, which has been pretty prominent in this Committee stage. The first is, I think, on the launch licences—I never have heard Rocket Lab complain that there should be a regulatory process to launch rockets. It is, in fact, a major undertaking to launch a rocket and reach orbit. We are, quite rightfully, proud in New Zealand that we are the only country with a privately owned space company that has reached orbit, but we should not forget that this is a major issue that only, I think, 11 nations have actually achieved. Others have tried, of course.

But I think I would also point out that it is important that there is a robust regulatory launch-permitting regime. One area where the member Stuart Nash was a little bit incorrect is that although New Zealand is the first country to have reached orbit entirely privately, there are a number of private space companies reaching orbit—Blue Origin, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, for example. But these other countries have previously done it only through a national space agency. So I think it is entirely correct there is a launch regime and there is a launch permit that is granted. The main area I heard Rocket Lab raising queries and concerns about, in terms of the viability going forward, was the liability, insurance, and indemnification requirements.

It, quite rightfully, pointed out that in China, third-party liability for launch operators is capped at $100 million, France $65 million, Japan $50 million, and the US $10 million to $270 million. This is up to regulations, under this legislation. This is something we raised in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that is a concern, because every party around that committee table wants to see New Zealand have a space industry going forward, supporting these fantastic new, entrepreneurial, innovative companies. This question of what the liability is and what the insurance payments are that these companies, for example Rocket Lab, are going to have to pay—it is still up to regulations. So really the ball is in the Government’s court, and this was the main concern I heard from Rocket Lab.

On the issue of the peaceful purposes debate and the militarisation of space—the argument we have heard in this Committee—look, this is something the Green Party takes really seriously. It is the core of our party charter, which encourages non-violence. So it was something we were very keen to pursue in the select committee. What we wanted to see was a peaceful purposes clause included, and I acknowledge the work of the Hon David Parker, who was very vocal and active on this issue as well.

This was a submission that was raised by Venture Southland, which was urging us to consider this. Venture Southland, of course, has a long history, particularly with the European Space Agency (ESA), monitoring ESA satellites from Southland, which, in itself, is a fantastic story that I wish more New Zealanders were familiar with. It was recommending this.

We had quite a vigorous debate in the select committee on the pros and the cons. From the Green Party’s perspective, we have heard different clichés around, you know, whether we have the right stuff, and to boldly go into space—all these sorts of clichés. And I guess the Green Party probably falls more on the Star Trek side of pop culture than Star Wars—you know, sort of exploring space and finding out scientific knowledge, than trying to dominate and blow up planets etc., in Star Wars.

So we wanted to see a peaceful clause. We do not like the idea of weapons going into space. Obviously, no New Zealand company is going to put a nuclear weapon into space, and that would contravene existing legislation, but there is a real vexed question around weapons. But then, once you go into the debate, there is quite a tricky question—what, in fact, is a weapon? Officials, quite rightfully, point to GPS, which it could be argued is a dual-use technology. One of science fiction’s great dreamt-of weapons of the future is simply a cobalt rod, called the “Rod of God”, which you would launch from a satellite, and which, in some cases, would actually be more destructive than existing nuclear weapons. It is a cobalt rod; is that a weapon? It is not a weapon on Earth, but it could be a very damaging potential weapon in space. You also get the example of Reagan’s “Star Wars”, you know, the national missile defence system, which George W Bush tried to restart in the mid-2000s. It is a defensive system, but the Russians and the Chinese would argue, in fact, that having a nuclear weapons shield is, in itself, allowing offensive nuclear weapons to be used. There is a huge debate.

The Green Party would have still liked, despite the debates and arguments, to have a peaceful purposes clause included. And we would point out that, when this legislation refers to our international treaty obligations—in fact, “peaceful purposes” is explicitly mentioned in the Outer Space Treaty. It is used by other countries—for example, Korea and the US. In terms of the Outer Space Treaty, it refers directly to the moon. So, it exists, we feel comfortable with it, and I think it would have been good to have that more explicit because, as we have heard from some members, there are concerns that we are going to see weapons being put into space, either by the New Zealand defence forces or on contract from other countries.

As a sort of compromise, what the committee came to do was amend the purpose clause in Part 1 by adding clause 3(ba)(i), which prohibits any objects carrying nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, installing weapons on celestial bodies, or stationing such weapons in space; and then, in subparagraph (iii), not allowing the testing of any weapons or conduct manoeuvres on celestial bodies; and adding a few other points around military installations and fortifications.

This is a very positive step. It is getting closer to the idea, which I think all New Zealanders can get behind, that we do not want to see the militarisation of space and we do not want to see an arms race in space. There are legitimate arguments, when you look at Reagan’s “Star Wars”, for example, and reports of cosmonauts taking up pistols on their side in the early days of the Space Race, for example. So we would have preferred a peaceful purposes clause, explicit in the purpose clause. We got as far as we could, through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and, basically, it is going to come down to the way the Minister does enact the launch permitting, and that incredibly important national interest test, which that Minister must use.

I would like to comment lastly, given I have got a little bit more time, on the debris recovery zone changes. This was an area we were quite concerned about in the original first reading of the bill because the wording of the legislation, as introduced to the House, was explicit that if there was an accident, if there was debris from the rocket launch scattered—maybe over a farmer’s paddock, for example—it would be prohibited to take a photograph or to record. This was even down to the minute detail—it was prohibited to even sketch the debris, which, to us, seemed a little bit zealous and overkill.

It turns out it is the result of the Technology Safeguards Agreement signed with the US Government. It is designed to protect the actual intellectual property of how you build an intercontinental ballistic missile, because that is, in fact, what these rockets are, if you put a nuclear weapon on the top. So it is something the Green Party could support: the idea that we would protect and keep secret from elements that would want to learn how to build intercontinental ballistic missiles to do damage—rogue nations like North Korea, for example. But what we wanted to stress—and it has been stressed—is the idea that this does not prohibit news reporting. If there was a rocket accident, this would, of course, be quite legitimately an issue of national interest where the media should be able to report. What we do not want to encourage though is the reporting of sensitive technologies that could help people do harm. It is entirely consistent with the Green Party charter, which is trying to encourage peaceful, non-violent uses of space and back on Earth as well.

So I will limit my comments to that, but I really hope a National member can take a call. This is incredibly important legislation. It is exciting legislation. We are at a time of huge knowledge being gained through space. There is a huge shift in the way space has developed, from, originally, the Soviet and US Governments, through to a number of countries participating in the International Space Station and other international scientific experiments, through to a host of new companies. Just this week we have seen new evidence of new extrasolar planets being discovered in the Milky Way galaxy, which is tremendously exciting. When you look up at the stars—in fact, 60 percent of those stars probably have extrasolar planets orbiting them. That is something that was considered science fiction only two decades ago, when I was growing up and learning about space. It is exciting to think that New Zealand can pay a constructive, positive, but, most importantly, a peaceful part in the exploration of space.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): As we start, I would like to put my thanks to you on record, Mr Chairperson, for your contributions to my first reading speech, which was the last time I was able to contribute to this debate. I was just rereading the transcript earlier—you challenged me on reading my speech, which encouraged me to put a little bit more emotion into it. You questioned whether I was admitting that I really was in outer space, and also encouraged me to come back to the bill. It was all good advice.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes. It still holds.

Dr DAVID CLARK: I believe that excellent advice was part of the reason why the speech was reported in the New York Times. So my thanks to you—I made page 2 of the New York Times with my last contribution to this debate. The bar has been raised. I have to say, I am not anticipating a rerun of that, but I do wish to thank you, Mr Chairperson, for my little moment where I reached for the stars myself in the international media.

I wanted to speak just a little about the mechanisms to exclude people from areas affected by a space launch. The departmental report, which I am waving in my right hand, recommends no changes to the bill on this front. It talks about the Maritime Transport Act and says an amendment “could be made to clarify that local authorities can use their existing powers to regulate access to marine areas to ensure navigational safety in relation to space launches.” It goes on, but the point the officials are making in the departmental report is that they believe existing legislation is sufficient to exclude people from launch sites.

The legislation itself—and I might ask whether the Minister in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, can clarify—clause 64 under Subpart 2, “Protection of sensitive space technology”, in Part 3 talks about segregated areas and areas set aside. I will read subclause (1): “For the purpose of the Technology Safeguards Agreement, the Minister may declare, by a sign or signs affixed at the perimeter of an area or by other appropriate notification, that the areas is—(a) a segregated area; or (b) an area specially set aside exclusively for work with US launch vehicles, US spacecraft, or equipment that is related equipment in relation to those vehicles and spacecraft.” It sets out how segregated areas are to be marked out, and then there are infringement offences in Part 3, in clause 78, and around that part of the bill. That seems to contradict the departmental statement, which says that existing law is adequate for keeping people from launch sites, and, indeed, the recommendations of the department itself on the previous page, which talks about “Ensuring regulatory costs are kept to a minimum”.

So here we are, applying a whole lot of extra requirements on those who have to protect the launch site from access by people who should not be there, and we might assume in this Committee that the law enforcement agencies that are in place and the laws that are in place are adequate. Mr Stuart Nash, the proud member in the area where this launch is taking place, is our police spokesperson. He is familiar with the law in that respect and he raised concerns about red tape. To me, this is another potential area of red tape that the department itself has advised against in its report, and I am interested in what the Minister saw in the existing legislation, or did not see, that he felt this additional information needed to be added. Why is this additional red tape in the bill?

You know, I am not saying there is no good reason for it. There may well be. The Minister may have had some information that said that the existing legislation was not adequate or was not sufficient, but I think it would be helpful for the Committee to understand why, because the barriers to entry—the capital costs for this kind of work—are significant, and several members have talked about that in the debate so far. Those extra barriers to entry—you know, there is the cost of capital associated and so on. We do want to minimise them. We want to see business success, we want to see export success—both literally and figuratively in this respect, because we will be exporting those satellites, hopefully, before long—and part of that is making sure that it is cost-competitive and that the business itself is capable of being “launched” in a way that is not overly burdensome on those who are carrying it out. So I would like the Minister to address that.

Furthermore, on the question of keeping those regulatory costs to a minimum, and on that aspect of keeping people from the launch site, the amendment to the Maritime Transport Act that could be made—is that something that is being made? Is that something I have missed in the bill? I mean, is that something that—yes, it is. Kindly, an official in the background is nodding and has answered it. That is one question that the Minister does not have to answer because I will take it as read from the officials that that change is being made, and good on the officials.

But I would ask the Minister whether those other things that the recommendations are about, which, effectively, to my mind are about reducing red tape—why the Minister is not taking those up and what he sees as being additionally necessary. I mean, of course, we do not need to think too hard about getting too close to a launch site and the dangers that could be there. We know that recently Alfred Ngaro tried to relaunch the housing policy, and he certainly got burnt. We know that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes, do not go there. Stick to the bill.

Dr DAVID CLARK —Todd Barclay was launching his campaign, and he got burnt.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Just stick to the bill—

Dr DAVID CLARK —and I could go on. Nicky Wagner was trying to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, you cannot, actually.

Dr DAVID CLARK —launch her career out on the harbour, and she got burnt, and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order!

Dr DAVID CLARK —I will come back—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! No, sit down. Now let us see whether we can get you in the New York Times for something else. When the Speaker gives you a direction, you stop doing what you are doing, and it applies when I am in the Chair as well. So do not take the piss by just throwing in a few more.

Dr DAVID CLARK: Can I put on record my apology, Mr Chair. I did not hear you, so I do apologise if I have missed an instruction there.

So to come back to the bill quite directly, as I said I was going to do, I would like the Minister to explain to us why those additional restrictions around the launch site have been put into place, what additional red tape he thinks, if any, is created by them, and why that is necessary. I think the Committee will want to know that because this is indeed a serious matter.

Finally, before I close, I too wish to put my congratulations on record. This has been a broad debate. Others have acknowledged Peter Beck’s fine contribution to rocket science. He has spent time in the South of New Zealand, and, as those coming from the South, we are very proud that we have helped—we like to think—and contributed something to his education along the way. His entrepreneurship is without question, and I have certainly met people who have been glad to be a part of that journey.

I mentioned in my first reading speech the chair of the Gisborne Chamber of Commerce, who I know contacted him and encouraged him to come down and look at launch sites and sent him some Google maps to try to point out where the opportunities lay. I too have visited the factory in Auckland where the vertically integrated—again, puns are everywhere here—building of these rockets takes place. I have had a peek into the launch centre and, my goodness, it is impressive. It makes me feel very proud of our abilities as a country to get new technologies across the line.

We have the skill sets here. We know we need to grow our exports as a percentage of the economy. I have been critical of the Government for failing to achieve its targets in that respect, but here we have people trying to make it happen. Let us celebrate that success as Kiwis, let us celebrate the opportunity that is here, and let us see just how far we can take this. Thank you.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a short call on this particular bill, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill, and I want to focus in the vein of my colleague Dr David Clark’s contribution around some of the red tape and bureaucracy but, more importantly, the practical nature of some of the enforcement provisions that are outlined in this bill.

But just to start my contribution, in the past week my son turned 21. Now, I can understand you looked perplexed, because of how young I look, that I have got a 21-year-old son, but the reason for putting it on the record first is that when he was a child, Toy Story was the movie. There is Woody and there is Buzz Lightyear. Of course, he loved Buzz Lightyear; I was more of a Woody fan—bit of a traditionalist.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Careful!

PEENI HENARE: But we have come this far—we have come this far. [Interruption] Are you taking the piss? I am sorry. No, but we have come this far and now this is an exciting opportunity for future generations to actually, as my colleague has said, punch through the sky—that glass ceiling that sits above us—and explore the new frontier.

But I want to come back to the bill now, now that that is on the record for my boy—happy birthday, boy. In clause 16, “Application for payload permit”, subclause (1) says: “A person or persons may apply to the Minister for a payload permit for the launch and operation of 1 or more payloads of a particular type.” Now, I can understand that sometimes we do not want to burden people with bureaucracy, but just because of the sheer nature of this type of activity, I would have thought that for each rocket launch, especially in the initial stages of this particular endeavour, a permit must be sought each time. As I read this—and I could be wrong; some clarification from the Minister would be great—it says: “operation of one or more payloads …”. Well, how many more are we talking about? I understand that in the commercial sense the particular payloads we are talking about might be of one single nature, but is this a sort of open door to say “Well, any payload of that particular nature from that permit holder can actually just go ahead.”?

I would like to think that there would be a little bit more of a strict view by the Minister on this particular matter, until, of course, we are at a stage where we are comfortable with the settings in exactly how this particular endeavour looks for our people here in Aotearoa New Zealand—when we have got our systems right, and when we have got our mechanisms in place to safeguard against some of the questions that are being asked in this debate. I certainly do not think that that is unreasonable or outside of the scope to expect something from the Minister, or perhaps some more direction on this particular matter to make sure that those—I do not want to use the word “restrictions”, but I do want to make sure the safeguarding of any commercial endeavours of the payload permit process moving forward are actually in place to make sure that we can see a trend, we have got a clear list identifying what types of payloads are going into the ascent up into the orbit, and I think that this is an important part that I would like to hear a little bit more from the Minister and the advisers on that particular matter.

My colleagues on this side of the Chamber—and I have got another meeting to get to shortly so I just want to wind up, if I can, with the next clause, clause 17, “When payload permit may be granted”. I want to focus on clause 17(1)(aa): “the applicant has an orbital debris mitigation plan that meets any prescribed requirements;”. My colleague Dr David Clark talked about the segregated areas that can be declared by a Minister. I just quickly want to point out that for those who are able to access that site, I wonder exactly whether we have thought about the practicalities and, indeed, the capacity of our workforce to actually deal with something like this. If we send a workplace safety assessor on to a segregated site declared by the Minister, does that person exactly understand what they have got themselves into and how this might work?

I just want to hear whether there are any ways that we can build our capacity. I understand that this will always happen when we reach into new frontiers—I understand that—but there should also be a robust plan for our workforce: ambulance, police, and all those people who will be confronted by these particular matters should mitigation debris plans actually not work. I will leave those questions for the Minister now. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to turn my attention to Part 3, which relates to enforcement and other matters. I will say at the outset that the questions I have are the questions of a member who is not on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and is coming at this with fresh eyes, so some of them might be a bit naive, but here we go.

My questions are around the enforcement officers. I presume that this legislation is going to fall under the auspices of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Minister of Business, Innovation and Employment, given that he is in charge of this legislation and MBIE provided the official support for this legislation. I am interested in exactly how the enforcement regime of this legislation is going to be established.

Clause 58 allows for the appointment of enforcement officers. It says: “(1) The chief executive”—presumably the chief executive of MBIE—“may appoint such suitably qualified and trained enforcement officers as the chief executive thinks necessary for the purposes of this Act.” Now, I thought that maybe the interpretation clause would tell me a little bit more about who these enforcement officers would be, but the interpretation clause tells me that the enforcement officers are the people appointed under section 58, so it rather circular and is not particularly revealing.

So here are my questions. Is the intention to set up a new department of MBIE? I imagine that these enforcement officers will be similar to labour inspectors or immigration enforcement officers. Will there be a new department in MBIE to enforce this legislation? How many enforcement officers does the Government imagine will be required to enforce this legislation? What is the nature of the employment relationship that is anticipated, because I see that under clause 58(2): “An employment officer—(a) is appointed for a term not exceeding 3 years,”. That does not sound like a classic employment relationship; that sounds more like a contractual relationship.

What I found very interesting is that clause 58(5) says: “An enforcement officer appointed under subsection (1) is not to be regarded as employed in the service of the Crown for the purposes of the Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956 or the State Sector Act 1988 just because the person is an enforcement officer.” So does that mean that the Government intends to contract independent contractors, private contractors? Exactly how is this regime going to be established? It is not clear. As I say, I have not been on the select committee, and all this may well have been addressed at the select committee, but these are genuine questions. I think it is important to know whether we are passing legislation through this House that does have an important enforcement aspect to it.

There are other aspects of the legislation that deal with keeping people away from the launch site. There are aspects of the legislation that deal with excluding people from the debris zone, and people not being able to take photographs, or make sketches, and what have you. All of these are important from the view of health and safety, from the view of protecting intellectual property, and from the view of protecting the people who are working in this industry from people who might want to commit criminal acts and nefarious acts.

So the enforcement of this legislation is important, and I think it would be useful for the Committee to have understanding of what type of enforcement regime the Government intends to put in place. Is it that these will be additional duties that current MBIE employees who are already involved in the enforcement of other legislation might take on? None of that is clear, and it not necessary for it to be clear in the legislation, but I do think it is important as we are passing this legislation to have a fuller understanding of how the Government envisages that being established, and so if the Minister were able to address those questions, I would be very grateful.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): There are a number of points, actually, that I would like to bring up, having looked through the legislation. Like Mr Lees-Galloway, I was not on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but, as mentioned, I do have a little bit more than a passing interest in this. There are a couple of things, and most of these are procedural points. When it is talking about granting a launch licence, for example, you have got to provide the date, the location, intended trajectory—it makes sense—except, as we know with the launch of rockets, there is no specific date. I know that with Rocket Lab’s first launch, I think it was scheduled originally for a Monday—it might have been a Tuesday—and ended up being launched on a Thursday. These are so weather dependent, so what I am assuming—it is just a minor point, but I am assuming the officials will be able to advise the Minister—is that you can actually provide a range of dates, or more of a window than a specific date. Even though it is always fine on the Māhia Peninsula, I would suggest something like a fortnight’s worth of dates, but I am assuming that when it talks about “the date” what it is meant to be is actually a range of dates there.

There is another interesting clause. Clause 14 talks about how the “Minister may revoke or suspend a launch licence”. It says: “(1) The Minister may, at any time, vary a launch licence on any conditions that the Minister thinks fit,” and it does list down about five different areas that the Minister must consider. But then again down the bottom it has got in clause 14(1)(d) “for any other reason specified in the licence.” Again, I will come back to a point I made originally: this is a pretty serious game, and I do not think the legislation is quite prescriptive enough to provide a level of certainty. We have got some terms and conditions there under which a Minister may vary a launch licence, but then when you have the bottom thing it is basically “Well, we can do it under (1), (2), (3), (4), and anything else the Minister considers relevant.”

There is one thing that I am not too sure about, actually, but I would like to bring it up. In terms of getting a licence, what happens is the person seeking the licence has to, as mentioned, give the date, the time, the location—that is fine—and intended trajectory. Well, that makes sense. But then in clause 18(1)(ii) there are “details of the intended and actual basic orbital parameters (including the nodal period, inclination,” etc., etc. The question I have here—and it is a genuine question—is whether this information will remain confidential. If someone is launching a rocket into space, obviously the technology they are using could well be proprietary, and I have no doubt there are a number of patents when constructing a rocket that allow satellites to be launched into space, but I am not sure whether in fact the trajectory or any of the launch sequencing is proprietary or not.

So what I would like to know is that when a licence for any of this is sought, whether it is a facility licence—and that is covered a little bit later on—or a launch licence or a payload licence, I would like to think that in fact the information provided by the company or the individual seeking such a licence remains confidential. The last thing we want is for some other company to come in here, do an Official Information Act request—or, worse, go on to the website and have a look and see what a competitor is doing in terms of all the terms and conditions that they have outlaid for a launch or for a licence or a facility licence. Again, I look at clause 18. This is “Conditions, indemnity, and insurance relating to payload permit”. It talks about “the date”, and I am assuming we need to talk about a range of dates there.

One interesting thing is in clause 18(2). This is talking about insurance, and it says: “The Minister may require, as a condition of the permit, a permit holder to—(a) indemnify the Crown in whole or in part against—(i) any claim brought against the Crown …”. Basically, this is if it falls out of the sky and it injures someone or kills someone, or a claim under international law, an act or omission of the permit holder, etc. In here I do not know why there is any wiggle room there. I would have thought that the Minister must, as a condition of the permit, require the permit holder to indemnify the Crown. Again, I have talked about this: the “may” versus the “must”—the “must” is compelling; the “may” says that it is not compulsory. I would have thought, in this game, and with the potential liability to the Crown of anything going wrong—and I do believe that Rocket Lab has indemnity insurance to the value of about $2.6 billion, something along those lines. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Final call, Stuart Nash.

STUART NASH: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would have thought that the Government would make that an absolute requirement.

There is something that I would like to talk about, and it comes to the definition of “fit and proper person”. Now, I did talk about this earlier, and I was remiss—clause 53 talks about the “Criteria for a fit and proper person test”, and the fit and proper person test is throughout this bill. It was removed in one section, but, basically, the fit and proper person and national security are big tests that must be met in the granting of, basically, any sort of permit.

But one of the things here that surprises me, I suppose, is that there are (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) criteria, and one of them is that a person may be declined on a history of mental health problems. I ran into trouble because I tried to defend the police practice of not employing cadets who had taken mental health medication within a 2-year period. I think we have become a lot more enlightened in managing mental health, and what we do know is that mental health in no way is a barrier to people’s significant achievements. I am a little bit concerned that the Minister may turn down an application for a permit for pretty much anything in here because someone has a history of mental health problems.

Again, we talk about “may”, so it might not be a factor that the Minister takes into account when considering whether a person is fit and proper, but I would be a little bit concerned if, in fact, a permit holder did not receive a launch permit or licence, etc. due to mental health. The thing here, it says: “The Minister may, for the purposes of subsection (1)”—this is the fit and proper stuff—“seek and receive any information (including medical reports) as the Minister thinks fit;”. Now, the thing about this is—does this mean that if the Minister requires medical information, that overrides the patient-doctor confidentiality? As it reads, this is what it says. Again, I could be wrong in the way I am interpreting this. I do understand that if we are talking about launching rockets, for goodness’ sake, we do need to make sure that the people we are dealing with—they are not a Dr No, or whatever his name was in the James Bond film. But I am a little bit concerned that this might be a little bit antiquated when it talks about mental health problems.

The other thing is—let us go to clause 56, “Minister must consult security Ministers about national security”. The interesting thing about this clause is that if the Minister has concerns about anything that is going on, the Minister must consult. The bill originally said the Minister has to refer the application or other matter to the Minister for National Security and Intelligence, but they have changed that to “must … refer the application … to the Prime Minister.” We know that in most cases the Prime Minister usually is the Minister for National Security and Intelligence, but there is a very recent history where, in fact, the Prime Minister was not the Minister for National Security and Intelligence. I think—and correct me if I am wrong here—John Key gave that portfolio to Chris Finlayson.

I wonder why we changed that, because we do note that the Minister for National Security and Intelligence is really the Government’s expert on, obviously, national security and intelligence. I wonder why it has been elevated to the position of Prime Minister, even though the Prime Minister, I suppose, is the boss of all the other Ministers. I wonder whether it has gone to the Prime Minister because they believe that any decision around this—and it is a pretty serious game; we have talked about the possible payloads these rockets can take. I wonder whether it is because the select committee, in the end, and officials believed that the decision was of such national significance that it had to be taken by a Prime Minister, and anyone beneath the Prime Minister simply did not have the moral authority—even though, of course, the Prime Minister can consult any Minister that they require to get a decision. It is interesting that it has been elevated so high, and I suspect that is because, with the sort of industry we are dealing with, the consequences of getting this wrong are absolutely significant.

But, as I have said, the barriers to entry in this are incredibly high. This is my last call. We do support this bill, we support the industry, and I hope it grows a lot faster and a lot further than it is at the moment. Thank you very much.

AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I want to draw attention to the duration of overseas launch licences. In clause 27 of the bill, it says: “An overseas launch licence must specify the date on which it comes into force and the expiry date.” I note that the expiry date is 5 years, yet the industry, or the family, or the company that started this goes back to 2007—and the launch took place, when? It was only this year or last year. That is a 9-year period, so I wonder whether any discussion with the company that we are proud to acknowledge took place in terms of that licence period.

Clause 27 then refers to some other sections, 28 and 30, and then clause 28 goes on to “Renewal of overseas launch licence” and states: “(1) The Minister may renew an overseas launch licence for a further period of up to 5 years if the Minister continues to be satisfied of the matters in section 25(1).” I am not a member of the committee, so you will pardon me. The overseas launch licence—that seems to imply to me that we are preparing for international companies to land at our doorstep to launch their rockets, if I am correct. I do not know. But then, if you look at clause 25—“When overseas launch licence may be granted”—it makes reference time and time again: “(1) The Minister may grant … (2) The Minister may, despite being satisfied …”.

The concern I have—and you all appreciate that you will take it with a grain of salt, because I have not been part of the select committee—is that we have often debated in this House who is responsible. Whilst we appreciate that, at the end of the day, we hold the Ministers and the Government responsible, the reality is that from time to time the Ministers will say “Well, that’s an operational matter.”, and I’m not sure of the practicalities of having a Minister give approval for these licences without necessarily securing the best advice from the department that would be charged with operational matters.

I will tell you why I raise this point. We are embarking on a new area. It is the first time ever—proud of that, and I think the company and everybody associated with the beginning of this should be proud of it. But we are now embarking on a new area, and we need to be protective of it in its initial stages. I am not sure whether—there are clauses in here looking at how easily an overseas launch licence can be granted—we are really protecting this industry of ours and the information and the intelligence that we have gathered, because my view is that the fact that a small country like New Zealand is able to launch a rocket in a private launch suggests that we have a point of difference here from the USA. It suggests that we have a point of difference here from the rest of the world. I think that we need to be very protective of that, but the way that I read the clauses of renewing overseas launch licences suggests to me that we are opening up the market at a very early stage without any protection given to those who are responsible for the innovation—those who are responsible for achieving what they have done, going back to 2007, and to the point we are at now.

Why do I air this concern for protecting those who have come up with this innovation? Because there is the potential, as I have said in earlier remarks, for us launching into a new—

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 75

New Zealand National 58; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 41

New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 327 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 327 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Food Safety Law Reform Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID BENNETT (Minister for Food Safety): I move, That the Food Safety Law Reform Bill be now read a second time. The bill addresses the recommendations from the Government Inquiry into the Whey Protein Concentrate Contamination Incident, which required legislative change. The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee in August 2016 and was reported back to this House in December 2016. We sincerely thank the members of the Primary Production Committee, and particularly the chair, Ian McKelvie, for their thorough consideration of this bill. We also acknowledge the valuable input from both written and oral submitters and the considerable support the bill received from key industry stakeholders.

To recap a little of the history of this bill, the Fonterra botulism scare had a major impact on New Zealand’s food safety reputation both domestically and internationally. The Government accepted all 38 recommendations made by the whey protein concentrate (WPC) inquiry into this incident. Most of the inquiry’s recommendations have been, or are being, implemented through operational means. The bill addresses that these recommendations need statutory change before they can be implemented.

The bill amends the three main food safety Acts: the Food Act, the Wine Act, and the Animal Products Act so that improvements stipulated by the WPC inquiry, and other enhancements, can also be made across the food safety system. The main areas the bill amends relate to incident responses where we are making sure that the Ministry for Primary Industries can ask the people who provide services to food businesses for information during a serious food incident.

We are also allowing privileged statements to inform as well as protect the public, setting requirements for tracing and recalling foods, and ensuring that the statutory role in contingency planning of the Ministry for Primary Industries is clear.

There are risk management plans and programmes where we are requiring more information to be supplied when a programme is submitted for registration, and we require that all food safety obligations are clearly identified in these programmes.

There is harmonisation of enforcement tools. The tools in the new Food Act will now be available under the Animal Products Act and the Wine Act. This will mean that similar offending can be treated in a similar manner across the food system. There is the ability to make regulations in certain areas—for example, to require any operators to get formal verification checks that they are meeting their obligations, and to require testing of procedures for tracing and recalling food.

There is the design of delegated legislation, which then requires duplication so that the empowering provisions are set at the right level of delegation. This will mean that more of the obligations on operators will be set in regulations, rather than notices.

The bill also makes enhancements to the wider regime, such as allowing for the use of automated electronic systems that will improve the efficiency of interactions with operators and overseas trading partners. Additionally, the opportunity is taken to make some minor and technical amendments that generally tidy up and clarify some interpretive issues and help the entire system to function smoothly.

The Primary Production Committee has recommended that the bill proceed with a few revisions. We support all the changes recommended by the committee. As recommended by the Regulations Review Committee, the bill now has a fall-back date for two provisions that would have delayed commencement. This will ensure the regulations provided for in the bill will be made promptly within 2 years of the bill’s enactment, providing certainty for business about any new requirements in a timely manner.

The Animal Products Act and the Wine Act allow regulations to provide an exemption from the payment of certain levies. This exemption can be used in situations when the levy to be charged would be unfair, such as when a charging mistake had occurred.

The Regulations Review Committee advised that expiry dates should be set for exemptions if possible. The Primary Production Committee therefore recommends that as a legal safeguard these two exemption clauses should be amended to set an expiry date of no later than 5 years from the granting of the exception.

The WPC inquiry was concerned about the regulators’ access to risk management information held by food business operators. Our policy to address this has several strands, including removing the ability for operators to supply only an outline of their risk management plans and programmes to the regulator for registration. Another part of the policy was to require operators to send full copies of their plans and all amendments to their verifiers. Verifiers would be required to store these so that there would always be in immediate access to the most up-to-date version of the programme. However, industry submitters were concerned at the likely compliance costs for operators for this requirement. There was also concern about verification agencies having to hold and store up-to-date versions of the plans and programmes, because this would generate costs, for example, in IT systems, that would likely be passed on to operators.

The Primary Production Committee recommended removing these requirements, because it considered the food safety benefits would not justify the probable compliance costs. The law currently requires operators to supply full plans and programmes to the Ministry for Primary Industries within 48 hours on request, and we consider this as an adequate source of information that is available quickly when needed. These provisions in the original bill have now been removed. However, other provisions relating to improving access to risk management information remain in the bill. Coupled with existing law, we are confident that these improvements will address the issue the WPC inquiry considered.

The bill amends some additional regulation-making powers—for example, to regulations to set traceability requirements. The Primary Production Committee recommends, for the avoidance of doubt, that the bill clarifies that consultation must occur on all proposed regulations and supplementary notices under the new powers. We agree, and this change has also been made.

These and other minor and technical amendments agreed by the committee reflect a balanced and careful consideration of the range of comments received from submitters and enhance the bill. I commend the Food Safety Law Reform Bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast—Tasman): Most of the country, probably, will underestimate the importance of this piece of legislation. We are a country that is still entirely dependent, for our economy, on the production of food. It used to be considered that we produce wool and meat and milk, but, as was widely accepted at the Fieldays, and in a number of forums, New Zealand is in the business of producing food. It must be the finest food for the world’s most discerning customers, in my view, because it will always cost them a bit more to buy quality food from New Zealand. So we have got to produce food that is indeed up to expectations.

We have, through history, had a very proud record of food safety, but, I am sad to say—through the new pressures of market forces, opportunism, and commercial pressures and through a Government that, when it came in, of course, cut taxes, tried to squeeze government, and in some areas undermined the expertise, the professionalism, and the capability of New Zealand officials. One area was food safety, and without going back to identify all of the issues that we have had—of course, the whey protein concentrate inquiry was one that exposed a number of major problems. Fonterra, our largest single company and one that is still owned, for the most part, by New Zealanders—a company we should be very proud of—made a mistake. Indeed, no matter how big or small you are, mistakes will occur. But it relied on Government agencies to, firstly, test, and then verify some of the samples that went through from a problem they had identified. That is where it all went wrong, and because the Government had not invested in the proper areas of regulation and testing—in fact, we got caught out big time.

When we talk of costs, I do not think we have been able to assess the true cost of this to New Zealand. It is in the hundreds of millions of dollars because, for too long—and it was not a period of months, but for a number of days and weeks—people thought that we were producing food that could be contaminated with botulism. That is indeed a serious threat, I guess, to our food safety reputation. Thankfully, that was not the case, but what we did is we failed in a number of areas—particularly the Government agencies failed in a number areas when they should have been able to reassure Fonterra, when a mistake had occurred, of that while it had to rectify that it had indeed not done anything that would have put New Zealand’s reputation at risk. AsureQuality and AgResearch, in my view, failed because the National Government had not maintained their capability or brought them up to the speed that is necessary to uphold our international reputation. So what we have now is a piece of legislation that we hope will improve the regime, make it more robust, and prevent any mistakes like this happening in the future.

The reality is that if the Government continues to underfund these important areas—it claims we have growth in the economy, it claims we have growth in exports, and it claims we have growth in imports and net value to New Zealand, but what is not always occurring is an increase in the level of investment required to run proper verification and testing regimes. There is some additional money going to AgResearch and AsureQuality, but it is not at the same proportion as the growth in our economic activity. I put to the Government, because Labour supports this legislation, the qualification that there has to be proper investment in these areas of oversight. The naive belief that the National Government has always had is that, well, the market will sort this out. If we have got rogue players or people who have a lesser standard, then, you know, they will not last long. We as a country, and the agribusiness sector, are driven by the lowest common denominator. Our reputation is based on the poorest performance of any exporter from our country, not that of the highest performer.

So we need systems in place. We need regulations that ensure that the poorest performer exceeds the expectations of the customers in the market place. That is around food safety, absolutely, and it is around food quality. So we hope that the passage of this legislation, in supporting it through, will indeed support that reality, I guess, as we move into the future.

There are a few requirements. The Minister for Primary Industries has referred to some of them—new requirements for risk-based plans and programmes. The Primary Production Committee has thoroughly canvassed all of these issues and, I think, made some adjustments that, in general, we think will improve it. Acknowledging the chair of the Primary Production Committee over there, Mr Ian McKelvie—I think he managed a very good process, and I think we have done well. However, one of the things that did occur was that in all of this kind of upgrading of regulation, we are at risk of, I guess, killing the golden goose—strangling innovation in New Zealand in some small areas of food production where we are seeing true innovation and growth. I refer to a submitter who has come to the select committee on at least two occasions, I think, on food safety issues, Biddy Fraser-Davies, a small cheese producer who is doing some innovative things, who wants to continue, and who is providing inspiration for other small artisan cheesemakers. Her concern is that we do not put in place regulations and requirements and food plans that simply stifle her out of existence.

Trying to find that balance was something that the select committee, I think, endeavoured to do, and I think we got the balance about right, although I will put on notice that Labour, in Government, will undertake a programme to ensure a food safety regime that is practical and affordable to small, artisan, and innovative food producers in this country. We need that. While this is about tidying up the regime for Fonterra, we cannot expect the smallest player—keeping in mind that their standards must not be lowered at all, but the way that they meet those standards, and the verification of that, simply cannot be unaffordable, which is the reality that many of these people are facing at the moment.

Stronger verification, stronger enforcement, traceability, and recall regulations—I think everyone in the food sector, Fonterra in particular, have upped their game in this area. Fonterra now talks of the ability to actually, through DNA analysis, trace milk right back to a particular farm. I think that is what the market is now expecting. We have got in the marketplace—in spite of attempts to deny this reality—the ability now in marketing single farm - sourced milk for consumers. I think that when we roll that out around the world, we will be stepping up and getting more value for our produce.

Can I just say that Labour does welcome this legislation in through the House. It has been a long time in coming, but, you know, good things take time. I trust the select committee has got the balance right—that is, around regulations, certification, and requirements, but again always leaving the door open for innovative New Zealand food producers to get out there, to test the local market, and maybe to investigate the possibility of getting into the export market.

New Zealand depends upon primary production. We are food producers to the world—not to the whole world, but to about 40 million or 50 million people. We need our reputation to be upheld. The passage of this legislation, off the back of the lessons learnt by Fonterra’s unfortunate incident with WPC80 and the mistakes made by two key Government agencies—we are moving to improve that. I think we can assure the world that these mistakes should not occur again, as long as the Government properly resources the agencies that must always keep proper oversight on food production in this country.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Just in the few words I am going to say about the Food Safety Law Reform Bill, I want firstly to commend the Hon Jo Goodhew, who brought the legislation to the Primary Production Committee, and the reasons for that have been well canvassed. I also commend Minister David Bennett, who is now handling this piece of legislation.

The select committee process, which is what I will talk about in the short time I will be making a contribution to this—[Interruption] It is quite noisy. It is a bit like being in a chook run, is it not? I am sure this legislation applies to the chook run as well. This short contribution I will make on the select committee stage—it was a very interesting select committee process, because we had a large number of submissions, some 30-odd, that really were not on song, I guess, with the intention of the legislation, but none the less they were very interesting for the select committee. They dealt with things like food labelling, pesticide testing, compliance costs, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and all sorts of things. The compliance costs were the critical thing, and the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor, mentioned those.

We ran almost a joint select committee process, I guess, with the officials. We ended up with some substantive changes. One that created a great deal of discussion was removing the requirement for operators to send full copies of their risk-based plans, along with all amendments, to the verifiers. There was a great deal discussion in the select committee around what the select committee felt, or some members of the select committee felt, was some risk involved in this. We eventually got our way through that, because in fact these companies that are responsible for their own food safety have a very good record in this stuff.

I guess the key thing was that the Ministry for Primary Industries or whoever was reacting to any kind of a food safety risk was able to access that information very quickly. The key to a lot of the discussion that we had in the select committee was about ensuring that the person responsible was accessible to the officials and that the company had all the information required to very quickly get to the core of any problem that may arise in the future. That created quite a lot of discussion in the select committee, and we eventually got to a consensus on that. There were a number of other issues that the select committee dealt with, but, as Minister Bennett said in his words earlier on, on this topic, they were all resolved in a satisfactory manner. I think the select committee process worked pretty well in that respect.

The real interest in this for us, I think, as a country is that food safety is probably the No. 1 issue when it comes to protecting our export markets. I think the previous speaker again alluded to this. If we are not seen to be the best operators in the world, then we are certainly not going to have the same access to our markets in the future. Wherever you go in the world and talk about New Zealand exports and New Zealand food, food safety is absolutely the key, I think, to drive all of that.

The changes to this legislation, as a result of the whey concentrate scare, I think will secure New Zealand’s future to a much greater extent than we have in the past. We are now passing legislation around food safety at a rate that is commensurate, really, with the demands of the world. It will be very hard to keep up with those demands for food security as we move forward, and for food safety, because food security and food safety are slightly different things. So it is really important that we get this right and continue to get it right in the future.

I want to very briefly talk about a couple of things that arose that were not relevant to this bill necessarily. They relate to country-of-origin labelling, and, of course, the Primary Production Committee has a bill in front of it now relating to this. But there was a lot of talk about that by submitters. The other issue that there was a lot of talk about was the costs of compliance and the risk that we face, I think, with the costs of compliance around the potential for innovation in the food industry. Almost all of our major products in New Zealand have originally come out of a garage-type operation, and it is pretty important that we enable that to continue.

I am not going to take any more time on the second reading of this bill. I want to commend it to the House. I thank the select committee for the work on it, right across the House, and I hope this bill makes good progress through the House. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to add my support to the second reading of this Food Safety Law Reform Bill. Can I congratulate the newly appointed Minister David Bennett on the great gravitas with which he delivered his speech, and the good work of the Primary Production Committee, led by our chair Mr McKelvie. It is a shame about our deputy chair, but that is another matter. We are a hard-working committee, and we did give plenty of consideration to this bill.

As my colleague Mr O’Connor mentioned, this is a very important bill—a very important bill. Our food safety system is paramount and is absolutely integral to us as an export-producing nation. We all know too well the failings that arose as a result of a pipe that was not cleaned properly in one of Fonterra’s plants that made infant formula, which led to a worldwide recall of products, a host of systemic failings within the testing organisations, and a communications faux pas, and to this day the cost has not truly been fully spelt out in regard to the damage caused by that botulism scare. So this is an important piece of legislation. We are just completing the amendments to the legislation that are required in the adoption of the many recommendations that were made under the Government Inquiry into the Whey Protein Concentrate Contamination Incident.

And so here we are. We are making amendments to our three main food safety Acts: the Animal Products Act, the Food Act, and the Wine Act 2003. Other speakers have touched on the main issues that arose at the Primary Production Committee, and I would like to acknowledge, with thanks, all of the submitters who came before our committee. There were a lot of leaders of industry groups—for instance, Horticulture New Zealand, Meat New Zealand, the meat groups right across the board, and Seafood New Zealand. This is all integral to their adherence to food safety standards, which are in aid of our exporting and the selling of our delicious products worldwide. So it was great that they fronted to the committee and made some very helpful recommendations.

I would like to just touch on, as touched on by Mr McKelvie, the fact that a lot of the submitters actually submitted beyond the scope of what was actually in the bill, but they made some very, very cogent points particularly around—for instance, that dear artisan cheese producer, Biddy, over in the Wairarapa—how we must try to support and foster. It is about striking the balance between minimising the risk and fostering innovation, and also protecting the integrity of our industries as a whole.

When a small artisan cheese producer has to spend 40 percent of their revenue in testing verification, just for a certain batch of cheese, something is not quite right there. You know, I can understand when you are talking about that flash Timaru plant in Fonterra that makes mozzarella in 6 minutes, which we see on the telly at the moment—I can understand that, obviously, that is a very expensive verification process and should be very thorough, but for a very small artisan cheese producer it makes the business uneconomic. That is why, as touched on by Mr O’Connor, it is the innovation that comes from the small producers, particularly these artisan producers—we want to foster that. We do not want to stamp that out through over-regulation and over-compliance. So it is just finding the right balance. We are very concerned about this particular issue, and so I am pleased that we are going to be doing further work in that area. But there were many artisan producers who came before the committee and made that exact point.

Can I also acknowledge—and it is also probably outside the scope of the bill—that there was a very impassioned submission by the early childcare centres in relation to the food safety requirements and the testing and the verification that has to go into just feeding kids in early childcare and, again, the cost that that adds to looking after kids in childcare. Those were some very good submitters.

In terms of the actual bill itself, I am pleased that we were able to provide, I believe, a good model of ensuring that when regulations are made under primary legislation, those regulations must have a clear time frame for being enacted. And so, for instance, the commencement date on certain clauses—rather than just saying that those particular provisions will come into force on the adoption of regulations, we have imposed a time frame for that to happen. And I believe that is actually a good practice that should be adopted across all pieces of legislation. We have recently had the Statutes Repeal Bill because certain pieces of legislation have been redundant and dormant as a result of those very measures. They have never actually come into existence.

The tightening that has taken place around the regulations, particularly around the commencement, certain exemption clauses—those are good practice, and it actually puts the onus now on the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and other agencies to ensure that they actually come up with these regulations promptly, and consult with industry when required, and ensure that the participants in the whole export sector have some certainty around what is required for their business. I think, fundamentally, that is what this bill is all about. It is about providing certainty for our food producers, who transact with markets all over the world, so that they have a very clear knowledge of their responsibilities in relation to how they actually engage in trade.

One of the main, I guess, areas of contention was around the obligation for an owner to supply their complete risk management food safety plans to a verification body and for that verification body to actually hold that plan for every food business that it deals with. These plans can be absolutely enormous. I am talking about thousands of pages just for one export business. I think that whilst we grappled with, you know, making sure that there is tight regulation and the ability to promptly be able to target in and home in on information that may be required for a food recall or testing, I think we struck the right balance there to ensure that it is not necessary for every verification body to hold that voluminous amount of information when, really, that information is already there and is already accessible within the business itself or within MPI itself, and therefore it should be able to readily get to that information if it so needs to.

There is a lot contained within this bill. I have touched on just a few of the main matters that came before the committee, but we are on our way to improving our food safety Acts and I believe that we have done some very good work within this committee. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, this Food Safety Law Reform Bill—I did have the pleasure of sitting on the Primary Production Committee at that time when we considered the bill. As has been referred to, I have left that select committee—

Rino Tirikatene: Come back.

STUART SMITH: Tēnā koe, Rino. This really marks the last steps in the whey protein concentrate inquiry, and I think it really highlights—there have been a couple of points made there by the previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, which are quite valid points, that this sort of issue has arisen, and of course it has led to this bill, or major parts of this bill. But that is of course—it is an iterative process, and you do not realise there is a gap until you find that gap by accident. Fortunately, actually, it was not the regulators that caused that issue; it was the producer of the milk powder itself. So that was an issue that has been dealt with.

There is a balancing act, which has been talked about by most of the other speakers, and how—not putting too much burden on the smaller producers. However, when our reputation really hinges on us being a high-quality producer of safe food, then we really have to ensure the whole sector—no matter how big they are, or how small—is actually not causing a risk to the community. I do note—particularly the small cheese producer who has been referred to on several occasions; it is 40 percent or something of their revenue to cover the cost of compliance. It is massive, but it is a very small producer, and the producer is producing cheese from non-pasteurised milk, which has a higher risk profile than it would have if it was from pasteurised milk. So there is a risk.

I accept that we could do better in cutting back on that bureaucracy. However, you have to—really, we charge the Ministry for Primary Industries with the role of making sure food is safe, so if it is going to err one way, I would far sooner see that it errs on the side of safety, than taking a risk with people’s health.

The early childhood education issue was also referred to. The early childhood centres are actually charging money to feed the children whom they are looking after on their properties. It is incumbent on them to actually do that in a safe manner. So if you are charging money for it, then you have to actually meet the regulations. I do not make any apology for that whatsoever.

It did seem a little bit outside the scope of the bill, but that is none the less where it is. It is about food safety, so it was not about early childhood education, although it has an implication for anyone who sells food. So I think it is a great bill. There has been a lot of progress made on that, and I commend it to the House.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Speaking to the Food Safety Law Reform Bill, it was an interesting bill to work through in the Primary Production Committee. Quite a lot of aspects of food safety and food labelling were traversed there. This focuses on the main food safety Acts: the Animal Products Act, the Food Act, and the Wine Act. As stated in the report, the bill is to “improve their alignment, operation, and design to better protect human health, and maintain and strengthen New Zealand’s reputation as a supplier of safe and suitable food, both domestically and internationally.” Really, that is what this bill is primarily about: it is a reputational issue, because of the whey botulism issue.

So what does the bill actually achieve? It reinforces, rather than achieves a lot. It reinforces the need for traceability and transparency. I cannot see where it has significantly changed what exists, but it did mean a thorough going-over, and our trading partners should feel confident that we have refreshed, we have gone through—and our processes are somewhat the better for it, albeit they were pretty good to start with, in some areas. The Green Party will support it. The Green Party also thinks food safety should be separated out from the Ministry for Primary Industries so that it can operate way more impartially in terms of true food safety. Hopefully, very soon, a future Government will achieve that.

One issue that did have some contention—albeit we had no minority views from the select committee—was about having the operators and verifiers hold full copies of risk-based food safety plans and programmes. So many clauses were removed that were about those food safety plans and changes in management actually being sent through to the regulators, the enforcers, at the time of the change. You would think, with a bill like this, that you would do that—that that was the point of it. But they were removed. So some of us, as it was reported, do have concerns about that—that the verification agencies should be holding that stuff immediately. For those in the electronic age—you know, we have got tablets and stuff. Nearly everybody has those; some small cottage industries might not. However, the big actors that this was really aimed at do. They could do that at the touch of a button. For some reason, the ministry and the Government chose to let them off on that point.

In the organic sector, which I have a history in, if we want to change something, we have to send that through to the certifier before we actually do it. We cannot just go changing it. There is some flexibility in there, but you have to let the verification agency, or the certifier, know that you are making that change, so you know that if something happens and you need to do a recall, you want the agencies to know now, not 48 hours later. So the bill slips up in terms of some of the potential that it could have had.

There are requirements to consult, and that is all very good. One thing we traversed, and it was seen as being out of scope, was country-of-origin labelling. There was one of those moments of serendipity in there in that even when my last little effort to try to get an amendment on country-of-origin labelling put in there was being turned down, the members’ ballot was drawn and we got the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill out. So it has been very good to see the House—apart from one David Seymour—support that bill, and we are working on that now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of this bill.

STEFFAN BROWNING: It is very much in the report back by the select committee that country-of-origin labelling was well traversed, and those points were considered there.

The compliance requirements for small food producers was the next part that was very well covered, and we have heard a bit more of that. The small food producers—Biddy has been mentioned; a number of us have been on that property. The people from Mount Eliza Cheeses came and showed us that a French cheese could be imported and it would not have had anywhere near the testing that these small cheese producers are being put through. They are having to pay the compliance costs here in New Zealand, these small cheese producers, and yet the French stuff can come in through equivalence-type programmes. The cheeses can be on the same shop shelf, right next to each other, and have huge differences in what the requirements are. We are very grateful—we have a new Minister for Food Safety, who is, I think, hearing those submitters, and we look to see some change in that area in the near future.

Another thing that was brought up was the labelling of genetically modified and radiated food, and that was reported back as well. Currently, under regulations, genetically modified food is meant to be labelled. However, we have found that the Ministry for Primary Industries and its predecessor, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, have not monitored or enforced that legal requirement since 2003. I am introducing, as we speak, a Supplementary Order Paper putting in a little bit more encouragement to the chief executive and the ministry, effectively, to ensure that that actually does happen, because consumers want that choice. We have found that that is in scope, and so it will say that the chief executive must ensure regular and effective monitoring and enforcement of food-labelling requirements for irradiated foods and genetically modified foods. For the genetically modified foods it is just not happening. For irradiated foods, because it is a more recent introduction of a food, there is still a bit of labelling happening, but that is drifting away as well.

So that Supplementary Order Paper to amend the Food Safety Law Reform Bill is intended to make it a requirement for the chief executive to regularly and extensively monitor and enforce those requirements, as they are in the food standards 1.5.2, and also 1.5.3 in terms of the irradiated food. Consumers need clear labelling to make informed purchasing choices, because there is no point in putting this stuff into legislation and regulation if they are just totally ignored. I am hoping, as we move through with the country-of-origin labelling part, that, of course, once it is in it will actually be monitored and enforced. Consumers and the public need to be able to have confidence in our food safety laws and our labelling laws to make the laws good and meaningful.

The Food Safety Law Reform Bill is focused on measures to maintain and strengthen New Zealand’s reputation as a supplier of safe and suitable food, with a particular focus on industry monitoring, compliance, and availability of information—and that is where the labelling comes in—and the design of delegated legislation. So that Supplementary Order Paper is to make explicit certain monitoring, compliance, and availability of information to make sure that it occurs as intended under section 18 of the Food Act 2014. I will catch up with the Minister to win over his support on that Supplementary Order Paper, and I assume that, across the House, we will get support for that.

So the Greens will support this bill, as I have stated. There are some shortcomings, and there are some improvements, and traceability and transparency should be the better for it. Thank you.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): Well, it has been—I have to go back to remember now—nearly a year since we last debated this bill in the House, but, obviously, not since we last debated it in the Primary Production Committee. I want to echo something that my colleague Steffan Browning has just said in congratulating the new Minister for Food Safety on picking up this bill. I do actually believe that he is listening to the concerns of the committee about particular aspects of this bill—notably, to do with the costs involved in the testing and compliance regime for smaller producers. Since his elevation to Minister-hood, he seems to have sort of morphed from being National’s attack dog to being quite a reasonable, approachable chap. Maybe it is a case of taking the school’s worst troublemaker and turning him into a prefect.

I am not going to take up too much of the House’s time at this particular stage for two reasons. One is that there is not a lot of new ground to go over. I tend to agree with most of the speakers so far, and certainly with members of the committee. We do have a good, consensus approach to this process. The other reason is primarily that a lot of what I was going to say was connected with country-of-origin labelling, which many submitters felt should have been in the bill, and a number of members of the select committee felt should have been in the bill. Of course, as Mr Browning has been fortunate enough to have his member’s bill drawn covering that aspect, it has kind of taken the wind out of those sails a little bit. But it is still pertinent to the discussion around this bill, because it was something that I think many in the industry and many in the public presumed would be a core part of a bill that is to do with reforming food safety law. Perhaps the name was something that made people feel that perhaps things like genetic modification, labelling requirements, and those sorts of things would have been covered by it, when, of course, as we know, and as the ministerial statement from Minister Goodhew reads, when she was introducing it: “The bill is an important part of putting the false botulism scare behind us. It illustrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring the safety and suitability of food, which is vitally important for the health of consumers—both in New Zealand and overseas—and our international trade reputation.”

That is the guts of it, and that is why we have ended up with this Food Safety Law Reform Bill, which is aimed pretty much fairly and squarely at major producers. That is the way things have to be in a country like New Zealand, where, as we have heard, three-quarters of our overseas income is derived from the primary sector, and much of that from food. We produce and sell this food at very high quality to discerning markets on the basis that people around the world trust New Zealand’s reputation, and trust that our processes for producing food will be safe and can be guaranteed to be safe.

It does have the flip side, of course—that imposing those same requirements on smaller, innovative artisan producers may make things untenable for them. Without going back over all the numbers that have been thrown around, it does seem that there is a case for the smaller producer to be treated differently, not in terms of the required safety outcomes, but perhaps in terms of some of the costs and procedures that are involved in determining how records about the safety of process are kept. I have suggested to the Minister that perhaps, in the case of smaller producers—maybe up to a certain size, volume, weight production, or value even—they could be treated differently in that the final product might be the only part of the process that is required to be tested.

Whereas smaller producers should still be required to have a food plan and to record that food plan and to adhere to it, the individual testing along the way of each step, which is an essential matter for larger producers, might not be all that necessary for smaller producers because of the scale of their operation, because, at the end of the day, it is the finished product that is required to be safe. If something does go wrong with a smaller-scale production, it is likely to be very much quicker and easier to locate the source of that and also to stop any potentially dangerous or contaminated product from getting out into the market.

I think that is one of the things that the Minister has considered. I do not know whether he is completely online with that suggestion, but he does appreciate the need for something else to be done. Perhaps his thinking, if I am correct, is that we are moving towards smaller producers perhaps proving the nature of their operation, and, through doing so, winning some concessions in terms of the number of times that they might have to be tested.

I think there are certainly things that the ministry could work on. If we have a cost recovery for getting inspectors into remote places to carry out inspections, these could perhaps be sort of corralled so that you have got one inspector coming up for a few days into a certain area who does a number of businesses so they are not all having to shell out a couple of grand for travel costs and those sorts of things. There could be a coordinated approach. I certainly do get the impression that the new Minister—and, I presume, the officials, because they certainly take their lead from him—has a regime like that in mind.

I think we will probably arrive at a point through the committee process and through the Minister’s intervention where it is possible for us to ensure that the food that we produce at any scale is safe for consumption, both domestically and overseas, and yet we are not stifling that innovation and we are not making it untenable for smaller producers, such as the likes of Biddy, whom I think most of us have visited, and some more than once—and a quite delightful experience it is too, especially with the model railway. I do not know whether you have been there yet, Minister, but there is a model railway and cheese, and how they work together is fascinating. So, looking at the regulatory impact statement, the objectives of this regime are, of course, to make sure that “food is safe and suitable, public health is protected, risks are identified and managed, New Zealand’s good reputation increases access to overseas markets; and market access is facilitated.”

Again, that comes down to the perception of New Zealand as being a trustworthy nation and having sophisticated processes, and so forth. In terms of some of the backstory behind that, it is interesting that we are amending the Wine Act as well. As some members of the House will be able to attest, if many consumers saw what goes on in wineries before the finished product arrives in the bottle on the supermarket shelf, they might be appalled. At harvest what go into the vats are crushed grapes, yes, but this also includes dust and dirt and spiders and wasps, unmentionable things that vineyard workers have stepped in, diesel, and all manner of unmentionable matter that is then purified by the action of fermentation, and we end up with a lovely crystal-clear, translucent, and somewhat delicious beverage at the other end of it. Yet, for a very long time—in fact, if we go back into the history of wine production, as with cheese, as with butter, through certainly the history of this country and across Europe—there were no standards and no means of attaining a standard anyway, other than the final test that if the wine did not kill you, it was good, and if it did, something had gone wrong.

So, as I say, without wanting to take up too much more time of the House, New Zealand First will continue to support this bill. We believe that there are still modifications that can and will be made to it. I think at the end of that process we will end up with a piece of legislation that is very fit for purpose. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki—King Country): I also would like to make mention of our new food safety Minister and acknowledge the cross-party respect that he seems to have across the House. I only want to speak—

Grant Robertson: I wouldn’t call it respect.

BARBARA KURIGER: Do not test my voice. I want to speak on only two topics today, and one of them is around the substantial change we made in terms of people being able to send only part copies of what they have changed to the verifier, rather than having to send everything in every time they make a small change.

If there is one thing that really grits me it is costly, complex compliance. As you can imagine, a lot of our bigger producers now are quite technically able, and so when they make a small change it is very easy to digitally send that in. But, actually, we have also got quite a lot of small producers who are working on paper-based folders, and so if they are going to make one small change it just makes sense to notify the verifier of that rather than go to the extreme of having to send the whole folder in again, because it just does not make sense to do so.

The second thing I wanted to really cover off—because I know we get a lot of concerns about people who run food stalls, and things like that, that they are going to get caught up—is that the Food Act covers only food that is sold or traded. There is a clear exemption to allow fund-raising sausage sizzles and home baking at school fairs to take place. So food safety should never be compromised, but again we do not want to put people in the situation where they are finding that it is very costly and very difficult. So growing food for personal use, sharing it with others, bringing a plate to a club or a committee—that is the foundation we are based on here in New Zealand, and we should never try to change the way we do hospitality and fund-raising. Thank you.

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

MOJO MATHERS (Green): It is my pleasure to take a short call on this bill. I was not part of the select committee process, so I have not been party to the details of submissions and arguments and discussions. However, I am pleased that we are supporting the bill, because, at the end of the day, we all share a common concern and drive to ensure the safety of the food that we consume, and this bill goes some way to improving that.

It is worthwhile thinking about, you know—because food is something that we all eat and we all care about—along with some of the core principles around the food that we eat. For the Green Party, I think they fall into two main categories. Firstly, there is the whole category of the consumer’s right to know: to know what it is they are eating—what the ingredients are—and also where it comes from. These are two very fundamental aspects about our food that we want to know. The other thing that the consumer is often really concerned about is whether we can trust that the food that we are eating is safe. Can we trust that the regulatory regime is strong enough and robust enough to ensure that our food is safe for consumption?

But in addition to that, around the whole trust issue is the trust that the labelling is honest—that the food is what is says it will be but also that if something is required to be labelled, that information is actually on the product. We have, you know, regulations and requirements for food to be labelled with the GE ingredients or for irradiation. The consumers expect that to be enforced. It goes to the heart of trust in the food regulatory system that if we do have a regulation that does require something to be labelled, we expect that to be monitored and we expect that to be enforced. So it is absolutely concerning that GE and irradiated foods have not been—the regulations around them have not been monitored or enforced since 2003. We would certainly like to see that rectified with this bill in the Committee stage, with the amendment that my colleague Steffan Browning is putting forward. Just as the compliances and the processes that are being provided for in this bill are all about meeting consumer trust in the process, particularly in our overseas market, so we have to have trust that the existing regulations are being monitored and enforced. All these elements fit together.

I share the concern around the fact that at the select committee stage the committee seemed to weaken the provision for having the most up-to-date plans available. With modern technology within the digital age, really any business that is serious about food production should be able to do so quickly and easily through digital formats, to ensure that the most up-to-date plans are available to the verification agencies. In some ways, it seems to be locked in an old way of approach.

Finally, I just want to echo the points that have been raised by several speakers, notably Damien and Prosser, and so on, around small artisan cheese companies. It is absolutely really important that we can adapt the bill to ensure that the compliance costs are not disproportionate to the risk involved. When the compliance costs and the level of testing required are going to cost up to 40 percent of their income, something needs to be done. We are talking about very small-scale producers, so therefore—the risk is lower for small-scale producers because the risk is related to the scale of the production and how many people are going to actually be consuming this cheese. It is also worthwhile realising that, of course, the comparable product imported does not have to meet the same level of testing. Therefore, why are we expecting our domestic cheeses to be at a higher level than imported cheese? We are hoping that that will be resolved. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call Michael Wood—5 minutes.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am very happy to speak to the Food Safety Law Reform Bill in this second reading. Before I go on to my substantive comments, I just acknowledge Minister Bennett for shepherding this legislation so beautifully through to this point—it is Minister Bennett’s time to shine—and recognise my Labour Party colleagues who have played a part in the select committee process to date: immediately to my right, Rino Tirikatene, Damien O’Connor, and other members of the Primary Production Committee. One of the pleasant surprises that I have had in my now 6 months in the House has been that when it comes to these kinds of issues, there is actually a reasonably pragmatic and workmanlike approach across party lines to dealing with these sorts of issues, where we can—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Workperson.

MICHAEL WOOD: Workperson—thank you very much. It is always good to have the National Government front bench ensure that we say the right things and focus on the big issues. But when we are confronted with these issues, there is a pragmatic approach to doing what we need to do in terms of public good regulation in many cases, and this is one.

Of course, this issue came out of—and this is a real mouthful, but it is important to go back to the source of these issues—the independent Government Inquiry into the Whey Protein Concentrate Contamination Incident, which, of course, we know is the false botulism scare that hit a couple of years ago. It was extremely serious—extremely serious. I was reading some of the Minister’s comments before, and this goes to the heart of why food safety really matters and why getting this bill right is important. Food comprises 60 percent of our merchandise exports, brings in $27 billion of export income, and directly supports 80,000 jobs across our economy. Those export markets that we send our produce to, whether it is milk powder, as was the case in the false botulism scandal, whether it is meat, whether it is fresh dairy, whether it is apples—whatever it is, those foreign markets that we are sending them to that generate the incomes and the jobs need to have absolute confidence in the integrity of our food safety systems, as of course do the New Zealand consumers, who are major consumers of those products as well.

So there are, really, two issues within here. One is, I guess, the moral imperative to ensure that our food safety systems do deliver safe food to people. It would be wrong if we, as a Parliament, allowed our food safety systems to put out food that is not safe, that makes people unwell. But, secondly, our international reputation as someone who you can do business with, as someone who you can trade with with confidence absolutely rests upon these kinds of systems being right.

So what this bill does is amend three Acts: the Food Act, the Animal Products Act, and the Wine Act. Largely, the Wine Act is made consistent with the provisions of the other Act. Really, what we are doing here is engaging a piece of public-good regulation. I just want to touch on that principle for a moment, because, of course, whenever we get into these areas—and it is reflected in some of the submissions that I have read through—there is always a tension, there is always a balance. When we put public-good regulation in place, we are saying there are some things that we want to achieve as a society here that are important for the common good. Generally speaking, when we do that there may be some costs and some inconveniences to some people who are caught up within that system, but what we have to do is balance those things up and strike a reasonable balance. As I review the bill as it stands, particularly with some of the small changes that have been made by the select committee, it does seem to me that we have struck a pretty good balance here in terms of getting the public-good objectives, ensuring safe food systems, without being extremely onerous.

Some of the key provisions of the bill include strengthening of the provisions around food control plans, putting in proper requirements that people who are producing and serving up food actually have adequate food control plans. This seems to me to be pretty common sense; we need to make sure that those are fit for purpose. The bill also talks about national programmes and ensuring that those national programmes around food safety have proper oversight and that food businesses that are operating under those national programmes actually have to register their businesses in accordance with regulations that might take place under those national programmes. So there is a range of very sensible, pragmatic measures here that I think can give our consumers and our trading partners far more confidence in our food safety systems.

One final comment I will just make, which my colleague Damien O’Connor, I think, made in his first reading speech, is that I do think there is a bit more consideration for us to make about, potentially, the separation of policy implementation and enforcement, which is currently all there in the Ministry of Primary Industries. That is a possible further step we can look at. I commend this bill to the House.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I would like first to acknowledge and mention Biddy; she has been mentioned a couple of times around the traps this afternoon, and she is an interesting lady. She hand-milks two or three cows just outside of Eketāhuna in the mighty Wairarapa, and her brand of cheese is called Cwmglyn. It is a hard cheese, and it wins international medals around the world.

I appreciate that there needs to be rules and regulations around food safety, but we do have to be careful that we do not over-regulate and make the compliance to such an extent that it discourages innovation and award-winning producers like Biddy. I do note that the Primary Production Committee says exactly that there is merit and warrant for further consideration with regard to the smaller submitters and producers. I do appreciate that there are other ways. There will be better ways and more practical ways that have been mentioned already by Mr Prosser in his contribution.

The other piece of that is, of course, that there are other handmade, small cheese producers. There is another one in Featherston, C’est Cheese, which is really focused on attracting and supporting the tourism industry. That is where the margins are made. It is not around commodity cheese; it is around high-value, hand-produced cheese. So, again, we need to make sure that the rules and regulations that we set in this place continue to allow those people to innovate, to snowball and support other industries vis-à-vis the tourism industry.

I would just like to mention one other thing, and that is to talk about the traceability and the recall provisions. Traceability of food is very, very important. It is about the safety, but it is also about the brand—the brand is far more important than anything, in my view, in the production of food, whether it is red meat or cheese or vegetables. People do pay a premium for a brand, and the New Zealand brand is a strong one that we must continue to support and protect. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei. Tēnā tātau katoa. I am happy to take a call on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. I too want to acknowledge the hard-working Minister, the Hon David Bennett, in bringing a bill of this importance to this House. Of course, Labour is going to support—

Hon David Bennett: Someone’s going to mean it when they say it soon.

MEKA WHAITIRI: Take it while you can. Clearly, I want to acknowledge the hard-working Primary Production Committee. It was a committee that I enjoyed for the short time that I was on it. I want to acknowledge my colleagues Damien O’Connor and Rino Tirikatene for their contributions in the passage of this particular bill.

Just to remind us, this bill addresses the recommendations of the Government Inquiry into the Whey Protein Concentrate Contamination Incident, and the bill attempts to improve and enhance the three Acts governing the food safety system, improving the alignment, operation, and design, so as to better protect human health and maintain and strengthen New Zealand’s reputation as a supplier of safe and suitable food, both domestically and internationally. Not only it is every New Zealander’s birthright to consume safe food, but as we are a nation people surrounded by sea and we have got a very productive land base—although some of us would say our rivers are a bit polluted—we also have a birthright to have access to clean food. This bill is clearly an attempt to make sure that our food system—our food safety system—is fit for purpose.

So the key parts of the bill, as other speakers have talked about, are around new requirements for risk-based plans and programmes, the traceability and recall regulations, the stronger verification, and, of course, the stronger enforcement. Like I said, I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee, but I do just want to raise some points as recorded in the report from the committee. I want to make a couple of comments on that particular report, and acknowledge that in terms of clause 2, regarding the commencement date, I see there must have been some debate at the select committee around the open-endedness of when the legislation would take effect.

I know that the committee has settled on a 2-year enforcement after the commencement date, making sure that we actually have a date where this would kick in, to ensure that the regulations that underpin this bill are given enough time to see through. I guess the only comment I want to make around those 2 years to allow regulation is to ensure that we have a system to monitor the progress of those regulations. I am sure the honourable Minister has got that in his purview.

The other comment about the select committee’s report is around the requirements to consult, and I note that the committee recommends amending clause 149 of the bill to ensure that section 163 of the Act requires consultation, and it talks about the new headings in terms of tracing and recall, verification, record-keeping and reporting, infringement notices, and risk management. I just wanted, again, to acknowledge that recommendation from the select committee.

There have been many comments by contributors to this second reading around country-of-origin labelling. I listened to the chairman of the select committee talk about the 30-odd—there were actually 43—submitters to this particular bill in the select committee process, saying that many of them were out of scope. I guess country-of-origin labelling was one of those examples where submissions were clearly out of scope, as others have said. What I want to say is that I want to acknowledge those large producers, like supermarket chains like Progressive Enterprises and Foodstuffs, which are actually doing voluntary initiatives around country-of-origin labelling and, hopefully, if not in this bill, the Minister may pick examining and reviewing the extension beyond just voluntary initiatives to making it more mandatory across the board.

Under the compliance requirements for small food producers—there probably is not one MP in this House who does not have a local farmers market. I attend mine in Hawkes Bay, and I would say that the Hawke’s Bay farmers market at Tōmoana showgrounds is one of the best in the country. The reason I mention that is to make sure that this bill does not stop innovation around some of the produce that is coming through from small farming markets. Some of them are going to market—they are expanding. I know this is a food safety bill that we are debating, but, you know, the innovation that I have seen in a short time in our local farmers market is quite amazing. Once upon a time it was cheese and wine, but now you are seeing things like figs and you are getting meat that has been dried and passed off in so many different ways. I guess the point is that we have got to support our local producers. They are doing quite innovative things, and we must make sure that the balance around this bill does not stymie the innovation of those small farming producers.

I also want to acknowledge the submitters around New Zealand raw milk and imported raw milk, in terms of some of the standards. That was put up, again, to the select committee with New Zealand raw milk cheese producers saying that they are treated differently from the imported raw milk cheese producers. I am sure, again, the Minister notes that the Ministry for Primary Industries is currently reviewing it. So we are not saying “No, you have to comply.”, but there is a possibility that there could be something done around our New Zealand raw milk producers in this country.

I do, like I said, want to acknowledge the 43 submitters who submitted to the select committee, of whom 11 gave oral evidence. I believe that this bill has factored in all those submitters in making the changes necessary to, like I say, get the right balance in terms making sure of every Kiwi’s birthright to food that is safe and clean, and ensuring that we are allowing the producers their innovation and their energy. Tomorrow’s growers, if we are going to expand our primary production area, not just in fruit, cheese, fish, and meat—a lot of Kiwi local growers are evolving and innovating as we speak. So with that small contribution, I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill, in its second reading, of course. Before I start, I just want to acknowledge the new Minister in charge of this, Minister David Bennett—a fine fellow doing a great job. But I think we should also just acknowledge the Hon Jo Goodhew, who introduced this bill originally as a final step in terms of implementing all the recommendations of the Government Inquiry into the Whey Protein Concentrate Contamination Incident. I should also acknowledge the chair of the Primary Production Committee, Mr Ian McKelvie, and the committee members.

Unfortunately, I did not sit on the committee, but as I represent one of the food bowls of New Zealand, the fantastic area of Franklin, this is a very, very important bill from my perspective. I do note that the Government is actually implementing all 38 recommendations from that inquiry.

Why is this important? Well, we all know, do we not, Mr Robertson, that food and beverage exports account for 60 percent of New Zealand merchandise sold overseas. That is why it is vital. I think this is a great bill, as we have heard before. I do not really want to spend a lot of time on it, but it does deal with the main things about getting information at the right time, particularly during an emergency so we do not see a repeat of some of the events that we have seen in the past. So I certainly commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill

Second Reading

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I know you are on a high, Mr Bennett, but there is a process to go through.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Grant Robertson: Keep going.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Ha, ha! The changes in this bill uphold public safety and help to ensure that offenders meet the sentences or conditions placed upon them. The bill enables better information flows between key agencies so that offenders can be effectively identified within the criminal justice system and out to the border. This bill is part of the Government’s wider response to the inquiry into the escape of Phillip Smith/Traynor. This bill complements the implementation of better operational practices that has occurred across the justice sector following the event. I would like to begin by thanking the Law and Order Committee for its diligent consideration of this bill. The committee has recommended it proceed with amendments.

Before I discuss the bill and the changes the Law and Order Committee has recommended, I would like to remind you about how this bill came about. Phillip Smith was convicted of murder, child sex offending, extortion, and kidnapping in 1996 and sentenced to life imprisonment. In November 2014, while on a 74-hour temporary release from prison, he was able to board a plane bound for Chile, using a passport he had obtained issued under his birth name Phillip John Traynor. He had a ticket for onward travel to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, where he remained at large for 4 days before he was recognised and deported back to New Zealand. I want to reiterate that this is totally unacceptable.

The Phillip Smith inquiry was established in order to investigate the events and processes that enabled Mr Smith’s escape. In addition to highlighting some operational weaknesses in law enforcement and border processes, the inquiry identified a series of legislative gaps in the way that information, particularly identity information, is shared and managed between key justice sector agencies. The purpose of this bill is to address these legislative gaps and ensure that justice sector agencies can effectively and efficiently perform their functions related to law enforcement.

I would like to briefly touch on some of the key provisions of the bill. First, the bill allows specific agencies to share real-time information with one another in order to verify the identity of individuals who are subject to the justice system. The bill specifies the circumstances in which this verification can take place. These circumstances are key situations where identification is needed to ensure an individual complies with their sentence provisions and does not mislead public sector agencies—for example, the Department of Internal Affairs will be able to verify the identity of anyone who applies for a passport, by accessing identity information from Police and Corrections.

Phillip Smith’s use of an alias highlighted the need to anchor identity verification on unalterable information. This bill, accordingly, enables certain public sector agencies to collect, use, and share a wider range of information, including biometrics, such as fingerprints. A third key change contained in the bill will enable key agencies to access the driver licence database and information about births, deaths, marriages, civil unions, and name changes for the purpose of protecting the public and enforcing our laws.

I would like to now bring to your attention the changes to the bill that the Law and Order Committee has recommended. The committee has made recommendations relating to the collection and management of biometric information. The first of these is a recommendation that purposes for which biometric information can be collected be expanded to include the management of offenders and protection of public safety. This would be in addition to the two other purposes already included in the bill—namely, identifying offenders at the border and preventing offenders from leaving New Zealand without written consent from a probation officer.

The committee has also recommended expanding the scope of the bill so that offenders undertaking community work can be required to submit to the collection of their biometric information. Offenders undertaking community work are not subject to the biometric information provisions as introduced, but the committee found it logical to allow this collection in order to align treatment of all offenders serving sentences or community work orders.

The committee has also made recommendations relating to the management of offenders seeking to leave the country. The bill, as introduced, would require any offender serving a sentence of supervision to get written consent from the probation officer before leaving the country. This would require a border alert when any one of these offenders attempted to leave the country, so Customs could check that they had required consent. With around 8,000 offenders subject to supervision sentences at the end of last year, the committee considered that this would put too much strain on border processes and has recommended that this requirement be removed.

The final recommendations that I would like to highlight relate to how and when a victim of the offender is alerted, should an offender escape. There is a legislative requirement that when certain offenders escape from prison or abscond from home detention, their victim, or a representative of that victim, be notified for their safety. The committee has recommended that this requirement be extended to instances where an offender absconds from temporary release, like Phillip Smith did. The committee has also recommended that where a victim has nominated a representative to receive those alerts on their behalf, and that representative cannot be reached, Police and Corrections should be able to alert victims directly, where their safety is at risk.

I am happy to support the committee’s recommendations regarding the bill. They strengthen the ability of justice sector agencies to verify, identify, and ensure that an incident like the Phillip Smith escape does not happen again. I would like to thank the committee for its work throughout the consideration of the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to contribute in the second reading of the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. First of all, I would like to thank the officials for their support during the select committee process. There were a few issues that were raised at the Law and Order Committee that—as the Minister has just alluded to—had to be tested to make sure that the recommendations were made. What is paramount in this bill is the safety of people, and that is what we have been doing in the past 8½ years. National is strengthening how the front-line agencies verify the identity of offenders and share the information across the public protection agencies.

There was an inquiry after the escape of Phillip John Smith. He escaped from prison and escaped to Brazil, and then he was tracked down from there and brought back. Then a Government inquiry was started, and this bill was introduced to Parliament to fix some of the issues that were raised in that inquiry. The bill contributes to the Government’s priority of delivering better public services by reducing crime and reoffending. This is, again, part of the Safer Communities work that this Government has been doing. This omnibus bill aims to strengthen the ability of the Government agencies to perform their functions related to law enforcement, including the detention of restricted patients and special patients who are under special care and serving their sentence also.

I would like to highlight some of the recommendations that were made by the select committee, so that we can understand why these recommendations were made. First of all, I would like to touch upon the collection of biometric information from offenders on community work. The bill as introduced did not include the provision that offenders serving community work should have their biometrics collected. But we found it would be consistent for the management of the offenders to make sure that when an offender comes up for community work, the person is the right person, not somebody else who is presenting for their service. That is why the select committee thought it would be important that people who are serving their sentences through community work should be entitled to give their biometrics.

Another point that came up during the select committee process was that if somebody resists giving their biometric samples, it can be considered an offence. Three months’ imprisonment is the maximum that can be imposed and a maximum $1,000 fine can also be imposed in cases where a person is not ready to give his biometric samples.

There is the collection of biometric information from prisoners for the wider purpose, as I mentioned. The identification and the management of the prisoner are equally important for Corrections. This amendment would ensure that prisoners use the same standard, and I would also like to say that it standardises the types of biometric samples collected at all stages. This amendment would ensure that the prisons use the same standard of identity verification, so that it is used in other parts of the criminal justice system. It will be consistent and there will not be any difference. So when a prisoner arrives at the police station or at the prison, the same kinds of biometrics are collected at all stages.

I would also like to highlight a recommendation from the select committee. When somebody is trying to travel overseas, particularly when they are on community service, they do not have to go and ask for permission to travel overseas if the probation officer gives permission. We understand that it is unnecessary and inefficient to include in the border alert process the offenders who pose as a low risk of flight. In practice, probation officers prohibit only a small portion of offenders on supervision from leaving New Zealand. For an offender to be prohibited from travelling, they would need to present a risk, such as issues caused by absence from a drug and alcohol rehabilitation programme. A probation officer can give permission to travel if he feels that the prisoner or the convict is fit to travel and there is no major risk in any manner.

We also recommended that information sharing between the agencies—the judiciary, the Police, and border customs—is also important. They should be on the same page, so that they have information about everyone who is trying to go overseas. If a person has been convicted for any reason, they should be able to identify the person and it can be alerted to Corrections that this person is trying to escape from New Zealand, unless they have got permission.

These select committee recommendations were recommended by majority. The Green Party had their own minority view. They had some concerns about this. But, overall, the majority of the members of the select committee were—

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

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.