Wednesday, 14 February 2018

WEDNESDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2018

WEDNESDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Statements

Chamber, Lobbies, and Galleries—Presiding Officers

SPEAKER: I’ve got just two brief points to make. The first results from a couple of members who looked slightly frightened as I came down the Noes lobby on my way in. I just want to make it clear that I’m not asking for either the lobbies or the entrance to Parliament to be blocked off from members of Parliament at the time that I am using it. People are most welcome to use it at the same time as me, and if they see me coming, they don’t need to turn around and go the other way.

Another slightly more serious matter: members may have noticed presiding officers using computers in the Chamber. They only use them to message the Clerk at the Table as an alternative to passing notes. This is a trial that has run from the beginning of the Parliament, following the use of similar systems in some overseas parliaments.

Ministerial Statements

Cyclone Gita—Assistance for Affected Countries

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I wish to make a ministerial statement. In the early hours of Tuesday morning, tropical cyclone Gita made landfall in Tonga, causing significant damage to homes, livelihoods, and infrastructure. It also impacted on the islands of the southern group of Fiji on Tuesday, with reporting from damage assessments expected over the course of the day. Prior to this, Gita caused widespread flooding in Samoa. Sadly, there has now been one confirmed fatality and some people have been injured.

Whenever disaster strikes in the Pacific, New Zealand is on hand to help. Our Pacific neighbours know they can turn to us in times of need, and New Zealanders can feel that we have done all we can in our response to date.

We remain in close contact with the Samoan authorities, and have made initial funding of $50,000 available, which is being used to support damage assessments as well as relief for flood-affected families, including those that remain in evacuation centres. Our high commission in Apia is working with local authorities and NGO partners to distribute New Zealand’s pre-positioned relief supplies.

In Tonga, where the destruction is more severe and widespread, I want to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs for making initial funding of $750,000 available before the cyclone even reached landfall. It has delivered over 10 tonnes of aid, including 1,000 tarpaulins, 200 shelter tool kits, 500 family hygiene kits, and 2,300 water containers to meet immediate needs. We’ve also deployed a 10-person team of experts from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the New Zealand Defence Force, the Ministry of Health, and Fire and Emergency New Zealand to assist with the coordination of New Zealand support and to continue needs assessments. The New Zealand Defence Force carried out aerial surveillance yesterday and collected imagery to assist the Tongan Government with damage assessments.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Governments of Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji in responding to this natural disaster. We remain in close contact with Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji authorities to determine how we can provide further support and work collaboratively into the future. In the meantime, our thoughts are with all of those who have been affected.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thank you. On behalf of the National Party, I’d like to join the Prime Minister in acknowledging the uncertainty many of our Pacific neighbours are facing in the wake of Cyclone Gita and also to affirm our support for the Government’s humanitarian responses. Our thoughts, and the thoughts of all New Zealanders, are with those people across Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji who are injured or displaced and those who are now looking ahead to how they rebuild their homes and their lives.

Disasters of this type are now all too regular an occurrence, and I could only suggest that infrastructure resilience becomes a priority for New Zealand aid and development in the Pacific. Equally, a more speedy process for biosecurity approvals on produce imports from the Islands may assist these economies in the recovery that their people must now begin. We also extend our thoughts to those here in New Zealand with families in Gita’s path, who are still waiting for communications that are yet to be restored with communities across the Pacific.

As the Prime Minister expressed, New Zealand has a longstanding history of being on hand to help when the Pacific is challenged by natural disasters. We encourage that support and that tangible help. I’d like to pay tribute to the staff from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the New Zealand Defence Force, the Ministry of Health, and Fire and Emergency New Zealand who are working alongside their Pacific colleagues to coordinate and deliver support to communities that need it. Our best wishes are with them.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Leader—Green): On behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, I extend our sympathies and support to the people of Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji in the wake of Cyclone Gita. The Green Party welcomes the Government’s quick response to provide relief aid to help in the clean-up and recovery, and we will back further support as the full extent of the damage and loss becomes clearer.

The images of destruction that we have seen from Tonga are truly heartbreaking. It is almost impossible to comprehend what it’s like to be caught up in such a ferocious storm, with Gita carrying winds of nearly 280 kilometres an hour. It’s an absolute credit to the authorities and to the emergency teams in Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji, as well as the people of those nations, that they saw the danger coming and prepared as best they could. But in the face of a category 4 or category 5 cyclone, there is only so much they can do. So, once again, our hearts do go out to our friends in Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji, those with whom we have such close ties, and we also want to extend our support to family members here in New Zealand, who have been watching and worrying from so far away. Rest assured the Green members of this Government will provide our support to ensure that our friends and neighbours who are caught in the path of Cyclone Gita will have the help that they need.

In my capacity as Minister for Climate Change in a Government that has clearly stated its commitment to meeting the challenges of climate change, can I say that the tragic destruction that we have witnessed in Tonga, the extensive flooding that Cyclone Gita left in Samoa, and the expected damage in the south of Fiji only strengthens our resolve to do what New Zealand can to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to the frequency and severity of these kinds of extreme weather events. We have a responsibility to our whānau in the Pacific, who live in such vulnerable environments, as Cyclone Gita has once again demonstrated, to show leadership on climate change, and to show the determination and action that other countries can follow. But, of course, the immediate challenge and the focus must be on the clean-up, recovery, and rebuild, and our hearts go out to those in the Islands.

Voting

Leave to Record Vote—Child Poverty Reduction Bill

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave of the House to have a vote entered opposed to the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, the context being that I had authorised another member to cast a proxy, but, as the bill passed on the voices, there was no party vote.

SPEAKER: Well, the House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that process being followed? There appears to be none; a vote will be so recorded.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Charter Schools—Legislative Reform and Potential Closures

1. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s policies?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister):Yes.

Rt Hon Bill English: In light of her statement that “we want to say hand on heart we want to be a society judged on how we look after our vulnerable”, is she aware that many of the children in partnership schools are vulnerable, so why is she moving to close those schools?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said yesterday, we are working as closely as we can with those schools to transition them, to make sure that those children have the best-quality education, and that includes making sure they have registered teachers and they’re being taught the curriculum.

Rt Hon Bill English: When the Prime Minister uses the word “transition”, is she aware that the legislation her Government introduces certainly closes the partnership schools—it makes their closure absolutely certain because legislation will be passed to achieve it—but there is no guarantee those schools will be able to reopen?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It ends the model. It stops future contracts. But it still allows this Government to negotiate with those schools to try and keep them open if they are willing to have registered teachers and to teach the curriculum.

Rt Hon Bill English: What guarantee can she give to the students and parents of the partnership schools, which she is legislating to close, that they will be allowed to reopen with some other status?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we’ve said, we’re stopping any opening in the future. With those who are currently operating, we’ve said we want to work constructively with them. There is the ability for them to operate as special character schools or even, perhaps, as alternative education operators and providers, and that’s the work that the Ministry of Education is undertaking with them, as we speak. What I would like to give them is the assurance that we are working diligently on this. I know that some of the rhetoric coming from the Opposition isn’t helping with their security, but that’s what we’re doing.

Rt Hon Bill English: Can I ask the question again. What guarantee can the Prime Minister give that a partnership school will be able to reopen, a guarantee that is necessary for the peace of mind of the students, and the parents, who attend those schools and may not be familiar with the legal niceties she’s referring to?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we’ve said, I can assure those parents, if the school in which their child is attending is willing to have registered teachers to teach to the curriculum and to operate with the same kind of funding parameters, generally speaking, as State schools, then that is exactly what we are seeking from those schools. Ultimately, those parents will want to probably have those same assurances from those current providers because a lot of this decision sits in their hands too.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is it now the case that if the schools close, it’s the schools’ fault not the Government’s and that she won’t actually offer a guarantee that schools will be able to reopen and, therefore, parents and students should be told the truth now rather than be misled through months of complex legal negotiations?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If these schools have at their heart the best education for their kids, then I imagine they should be able to transition.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Prime Minister aware that existing partnership schools are being urged to close rather than negotiate with the Ministry of Education in good faith, and that that urging is coming from Opposition members of Parliament?

SPEAKER: No, no. I’m going to disallow that supplementary. I think the Leader of the House has a special standard, and he’s going to stick with it.

Rt Hon Bill English: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to visit Pacific Advance Senior School, as I did on Monday, talk to the staff and the students, hear the stories of the way that school has changed the lives of those 13-, 14-year-old girls, and 16-, 17-year-old boys, of whom, as the Government says, there’s only 1,000, so it won’t matter much—

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Bill English: Will she visit a school, look them in the eye, hear the stories, and reassure them that the Government guarantees the continuation of that school?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to let the Prime Minister answer it, but I am also going to remind the father of the House that in the last couple of weeks I’d like him to set a very good example, which involves succinct questions, and just to warn people, especially sitting very close to him, if they ask one that long, it will be ruled out.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That assumes that I haven’t met and spoken to students from charter schools and those who teach there before—I have. In fact, just a few weeks ago, I had a conversation with someone who works in a charter school where they said they were absolutely confident that because they have registered teachers and teach the curriculum, they could transition and will.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister aware that as part of this shambles, education officials told a select committee this morning that the closures could cost up to $15 million?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the constant framing from the Opposition around closures when this Government is working—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s your law. It’s your bill.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Let me explain to Mr Smith, if he listens closely: we will not enter into any future contracts. We will negotiate with existing schools to try and transition them. It is that side of the House that is scaremongering and trying to cost the taxpayer money.

Rt Hon Bill English: So is the Prime Minister unaware, first, that her legislation guarantees the closure—legislates the closure—of the schools and, secondly, that the Government will have contractual obligations of up to a million dollars per school if the schools are closed as partnership schools, regardless of the nature of a transition?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I know that the member understands this. We’re ending the model. That doesn’t stop the ability of a school to start operating as a school of special character.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point—was Nikki Kaye’s a point of order or a question?

Hon Nikki Kaye: A point of order. The Prime Minister did not answer the question by the Leader of the Opposition. There were twofold points there, and she should answer the question.

SPEAKER: I think she addressed the question, which is the requirement.

David Seymour: I seek your guidance: at what point—

SPEAKER: No. The member will sit down. It’s not the Speaker’s role to do tutorials here; I’m willing to give the member one in my office later.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not seeking your guidance. I want to know: at what point is the Prime Minister misleading the House when she introduces legislation—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat, and he’s lost his supplementaries for this week. He knows well that to accuse a member of misleading the House in the House in that manner is disorderly. If he’s got any supplementaries left for this week, he doesn’t anymore.

Economy—Reports

2. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the health of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): International credit ratings agency Moody’s published their latest credit rating opinion for the New Zealand Government this week. It assessed New Zealand’s economic strength as very high and maintained the Government’s Aaa credit rating. Moody’s expects New Zealand’s economy to remain among the fastest-growing Aaa-rated economies in coming years. It also says that in the longer term, New Zealand’s potential GDP growth is higher than that of many Aaa-rated countries.

Tamati Coffey: What contributing factors to the Aaa credit rating did Moody’s identify in its assessment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Moody’s pointed to this Government’s commitment to preserving fiscal surpluses and reducing Government debt as a percentage of GDP over the next five years. They also noted the Government’s priorities of strengthening the economy and employment and the focus on improving living standards. I’m pleased to see that another international ratings agency recognises this Government’s progressive economic plan and our fiscal responsibility.

Tamati Coffey: What other reports has he seen on the health of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While headline growth indicators for the economy are positive, another report released this morning, the Salvation Army’s 2018 State of the Nation Report, is a salutary reminder that success in the economy must translate to the lives of all New Zealanders. The report states, “it is clear that the benefits of this recent strong economic growth have not been shared across the board, or trickled down, as the theory would have it.” The Government is committed to generating inclusive economic growth and taking a more active approach through initiatives like the Families Package to ensure that all New Zealanders share in prosperity.

Hon James Shaw: Did the Minister see in any of these reports any mention of an $11.6 billion hole in the Government accounts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I didn’t—

SPEAKER: No. Order! Order!

Economy—Construction Industry

3. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the analysis from Infometrics showing economic growth will slow to 2.6 percent in 2019, and that the reason for this includes “labour capacity constraints in the residential construction sector” and “changes in central government’s infrastructure priorities”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): No.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank’s forecast in last week’s Monetary Policy Statement, and I quote, “Residential investment is assumed to increase”—

SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. It’s very important that the member realises that supplementaries must flow from an answer. The member asked about a very specific report and he got a very specific answer, and the start of his question is not close to the primary question or does not flow from the answer. So the member has lost one supplementary.

Hon Steven Joyce: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I mean, he’s used it.

Hon Steven Joyce: Given that answer, does he have any concern along the lines expressed by Infometrics that the infrastructure sector is slowing down, as indicated by a number of concerns about different organisations in the construction industry?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have heard some concerns from those in the construction industry, but I can reassure them and the member that this Government is ambitious to make sure that we invest in infrastructure through programmes like KiwiBuild, through investing in regional roads and rail, and in making sure we make up for the underinvestment of the previous Government.

Hon Steven Joyce: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given his reference to KiwiBuild, is he aware that last week’s Monetary Policy Statement by the Reserve Bank indicated that they didn’t expect to see any benefit out of KiwiBuild policies until late 2019, and even then that would possibly displace private sector investment, and that the Reserve Bank expects residential investment to increase more slowly, over the next couple of years, than in previous years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This material was covered in the House yesterday in a question to Mr Twyford. The Government is confident that we will see the impact of KiwiBuild, starting in this term: $5.4 billion of additional investment in the residential building sector over and above the normal investment by the private sector. We are taking an active role in making sure that we have a decent, affordable housing stock, unlike the previous Government.

Hon Steven Joyce: Has the Minister had any meetings or been part of any meeting with representatives of the construction industry or the contracting industry where they’ve raised concerns about the effects of Government building and infrastructure policies on the industry that may lead to difficulties and a reduction in staff?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I informed the member in the select committee this morning, in fact, in a public forum issues were raised by members of the infrastructure community, seeking an assurance that this Government was committed to investing in infrastructure. I made that commitment because I believe in the policies that we have to ensure we do invest in housing, we do invest in roads, we do invest in rail. That’s what a good Government does. It’s just a pity the previous Government didn’t do it.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does he appreciate the concerns of the construction industry are, right now, that they had a long-term pipeline of work that is now being stopped by this incoming Government, they have no idea what will happen next, and they are very concerned for the future of their workforces over the next couple of years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise in the member’s question. We have a pipeline of work coming through. It seems that the former Minister seems to believe that one specific project that was going to cost $327 million per kilometre, the most expensive road in the world, somehow was the be-all and end-all of infrastructure and investment. We have a much wider ambition than that.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does the Minister perhaps appreciate that it’s not me but it’s the construction sector, it’s Infometrics, and it’s the Reserve Bank that are raising these flags, and will he take any steps, beyond just talking, as Minister of Finance to do anything about the looming slow-down in the construction and infrastructure sector?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have, as I’ve said before, an ambitious programme of investment in infrastructure that the construction sector will be a part of. The member needs to stop talking down the New Zealand economy and realise that there are great and ambitious plans on this side of the House.

Question No. 10 to Minister, 13 February

SPEAKER: Before we come to question No. 4 from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, I said yesterday that I would look at the content of a particular supplementary question to question No. 10. Upon reflection, having looked at it, I should have ruled out a question from the Deputy Prime Minister, and I apologise for not acting on it at the time.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about giving us one of our supplementaries back?

SPEAKER: Or taking one away for commenting on the ruling.

Foreign Affairs—Foreign Investment in New Zealand, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Funding, and Trans-Tasman Relationship

4. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by all of his statements?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: When he said in the House yesterday, “that’s why we’re getting our funding up to do our role.”, was he confirming a very large increase in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) funding in the 2018 Budget?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: From 2008 to beyond 2016, there was no increase in MFAT’s funding at all and a huge decline in overseas aid. Luckily, help’s been on its way and we’re going to turn that around.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: When he said to the House yesterday that one of his priorities is “improving the character and quality of … foreign policy engagement”, was that an indication that he’s dissatisfied with our current high commissioners and ambassadors?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Quite the contrary. This is a superb group of civil servants—perhaps without any peer in the world, given the lack of funding they’ve been suffering under, to the extent that a hundred senior diplomats left the job, and all of them, from every mission around the world, signed a complaint against the previous Government. We hear them and we’re going to fix things up.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does he stand by all his stated concerns over foreign ownership of New Zealand assets; and, if so, has his department told him that under the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership the threshold for Overseas Investment Office approval for a New Zealand asset purchase will rise by 100 percent from $100 million to $200 million?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the present Government is working on a number of issues about which the question is focused, but here’s the real point: when you are talking to international countries, the art of diplomacy is to jump into troubled waters without making a splash; not belly flops like some members prefer.

Hon David Parker: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the investment limit from Australia is already $500 million, that the $200 million under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is 40 percent of that amount, and that Australia already represents 80 percent of New Zealand’s foreign direct investment from TPP countries?

SPEAKER: Answering as the Minister of Foreign Affairs—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Answering as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I can confirm that, but it should not be our job to educate the Opposition.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has his department advised him that in bilateral meetings with other countries he can say that the ability for foreign investors to purchase assets including land will remain open, even with the passing of the Government’s Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, as indicated to the select committee this morning by Treasury?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that there is ongoing work until the signing of certain documents in March, and I’ve got every confidence in my colleague the Hon Mr Parker, who understands exactly what the coalition Government’s policy is about. We’re not going to leave ourselves open to the vagaries of international unbridled capitalism; we’re going to take control of our own destiny.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my last two questions, I’ve been very careful to align those questions with the Minister’s responsibilities and his engagement with his ministry. Now he can, you know, flannel his way through all these things with a series of insults against the previous Government and, indeed, personal insults as well, but it doesn’t take away his responsibility to answer as a Minister for his department. Now I asked a question, “Has his department told him …”, and he told me that, no, he trusts Mr Parker. Well, is the wool over the eyes or not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To the very contrary, I said I did trust Mr Parker, not that I didn’t trust him. And the second thing is—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s what we said.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I wasn’t at the select committee this morning; no doubt there will be a report back. But the big picture is that we’re working on a number of issues that were seriously neglected in terms of sovereignty by the previous Government.

SPEAKER: Right. I won’t count that as a question, but I think the member more or less asked a question in his point of order, and certainly got a reply to it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. With all due respect—

SPEAKER: Now—is the member asking me to rule on his point of order now?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, I’m asking—I’m taking a point of order.

SPEAKER: A new one?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, it’ll have to be, because you’ve more or less just ruled on the other one, just like you said I’d more or less asked a question. The fact is, I didn’t ask a question, “more or less”; I pointed out the Minister was not answering the question, which was “Has his department advised him …”.

SPEAKER: Yes, and he addressed the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister tell us what will be the most visible manifestation of his ambition for an enlightened improvement in his relationship with Australia?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We have for some time—as is evidenced by the complaints that New Zealanders have of the way the changed law has been applying in Australia, even as far back as 2002—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: There’s no change.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I finish—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No change in their law.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, if you don’t want to hear the answer, why, oh why, did you ask the question? Look, could I just say, Mr Brownlee, this is a very serious issue. The reality is there’s never been a time since 1946 when Australia has needed New Zealand more, and vice versa, given the problems and concerns we have in the Pacific. Now, we believe that we can have a far better-understanding relationship with the Australian political system and that the natural justice rules that we apply in our country will better apply to certain people there who are suffering from the application of—not the application of them, but of rigid immigration rules, for example.

Statistics—Collection of Rainbow Community Information

5. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of Statistics: What steps are being taken by Statistics New Zealand to ensure better collection of information about the rainbow community?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): I’ve written to the Government Statistician to make clear that work on collecting information on sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation is a priority for me as Minister of Statistics and have requested that Statistics New Zealand’s work programme in this area be progressed at pace. I note that, while it is a priority and work will be progressed, future decisions on how these topics are collected is the sole responsibility of the Government Statistician. But I do hope that the 2018 Census will be the last that fails to give New Zealanders the chance to identify themselves based on gender or sexual identity.

Jan Logie: Why were these options not included in this year’s census?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Despite rigorous testing, Statistics New Zealand have not yet been able to develop a statistically robust way to collect information on gender and sexual identity, as well as sexual orientation, in a self-completed questionnaire format such as the census. It’s possible that interview-based surveys like the General Social Survey may prove to be a far more robust way to gather this information. That’s why Statistics New Zealand have included a question on sexual orientation in the 2018 General Social Survey. That will enable Statistics New Zealand to test the methods and questions employed in collecting this information and will help to develop a statistically robust set of questions for the census in 2023, as well as all other social surveys in the future.

Jan Logie: What options are there in this year’s census for the intersex people who cannot accurately assign themselves biologically to male or female?

Hon JAMES SHAW: As an interim option, in this year’s census, people who want to indicate their biological sex is neither male nor female will be able to request a paper form and mark both male and female. More information is available on the Statistics website.

Jan Logie: Why is this work an area of priority for the Minister?

Hon JAMES SHAW: This is about helping to bring down the walls of discrimination, bullying, and stigma. People in the rainbow community have been feeling marginalised by the absence of this kind of data gathering, and we need it so that everyone can feel represented in New Zealand’s data. But, also, we need this information for the Government to make informed public policy and funding decisions based on good data. We need good data in order to be able to serve the rainbow community and population effectively.

Charter Schools—Māori Education

6. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): Has he received any reports indicating challenges in Māori education achievement?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): Yes, I have. Most importantly, I’ve heard from Māori parents and teachers who are ecstatic that this Government has removed national standards—a barrier to Māori educational achievement the National Government put in place.

SPEAKER: Order! Just before the member asks her question, I do want to make it very clear that in answering “Yes” to that question, the Minister is saying that he has received official reports in that area. If that’s not the case, he should make it clear now.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, Mr Speaker, not official reports, but certainly reports from parents.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very interesting point that you laid out for the House, and probably very instructional for the Government, but is that an appropriate role for the Speaker—to ask for someone to correct an answer in the House? That’s not what we understand the normal procedure to be.

SPEAKER: Yes, and the problem that I had, Mr Brownlee, was that the answer was, effectively, out of order because it said “Yes” at the beginning and then indicated that the report that had been received was not an official report. I just wanted to clarify with the member in order to assist members with their supplementaries. It is something that I have done at least twice previously, once with a Government supplementary involving Mr Robertson and once with an Opposition supplementary previously. I know that there’s not a high level of understanding within members of the House as to what receiving means as opposed to seeing, and the difference it means for ministerial responsibility.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Has he received communications or had discussions with partnership schools about the impact and challenges to young Māori of getting rid of the partnership schools model?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’ve had communications with some current charter schools. They’re mainly concerned about the scaremongering that’s been propagated by members of the Opposition, in particular members such as herself, who are doing their best Chicken Little impersonation, telling them the sky is going to fall down on their heads. However, I am comforted by the old Ngāpuhi saying that says, loosely translated, “A chicken is just a grown-up egg.”

Hon Nikki Kaye: When the Prime Minister said he had discussions with several partnership schools, can he confirm he was not acting in his capacity as Associate Minister of Education?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The charter schools in the north contacted me as their local member of Parliament because they were scared about the scaremongering that’s been propagated by the Opposition MPs around charter schools.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he cooperate fully with the formal complaint that has been lodged against him by a partnership school that he is giving preferential treatment by responding only to partnership schools that he has links with?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: This is a great opportunity for me to explain. I am aware of that complaint she’s mentioned. Let me say that on 12 February, I actually tried to ring one of the members of another charter school in west Auckland. They didn’t pick up the phone. But, again—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I do get the idea that members on my left would like this series of questions to continue. If they do, they’re going to listen to the answers.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to say to the member, though, that there’s been no favouritism. I was approached by He Puna Mārama Trust because of the scaremongering and the false information being propagated. So I responded to them and talked them through the publicly available information that the Minister—the fantastic, the best education Minister in 10 years—proactively released just last week.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the Radio New Zealand story a number of minutes ago that says, “Labour Māori MPs, including Kelvin Davis, have given their word that Māori charter schools will not shut down.”—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t think it does this Parliament any service to see a member reading the question out from a telephone, which is something I’ve never seen before. It lowers the dignity of this Parliament—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the right honourable Deputy Prime Minister to repeat his point of order, and I will not have any interjection during points of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is about the dignity of this House. It is not enhanced when someone is reading their question out from their cellphone, which is what I saw. If you want to look at the parliamentary record, it’ll show that as well. That’s what I’m raising as a matter of public order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need the member’s assistance. I think members these days get their information in the House in a variety of manners, and Radio New Zealand is available on the cellphones. If the member is quoting from that, it is something that I have seen done previously. If the member was being supplied by a person outside with particular questions to be asked, that would be a different matter. But I think it’s an unreasonable assumption to make.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the Radio New Zealand story a number of minutes ago that says that “Labour Māori MPs, including Kelvin Davis, have given their word that Māori charter schools will not shut down.”, will he fully cooperate with the inquiry, where people are saying he’s given preferential treatment in a complex legal process?

SPEAKER: In so far as he has ministerial responsibility, which I haven’t yet seen.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Mr Speaker, I’ll cooperate with whatever the complaint process is. But let me say that I’m happy to get in touch with other charter schools. I’m happy to speak to them if they too are confused by the scaremongering and misinformation of the Opposition parties.

Families Package—Measures

7. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Will the Families Package address the challenges faced by many families of growing living costs and food poverty, as highlighted in the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation Report, released today?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yes, the Government’s Families Package is designed to directly address the challenges faced by low-income New Zealanders. It increases the incomes of thousands of Kiwi families facing rising living costs and food instability, in particular by increasing the accommodation supplement and changes to Working for Families. Together, these initiatives will support families struggling to get by.

Jo Luxton: What specific measures will the Families Package deliver to ensure families can meet rising living costs?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Rising house prices and rents are a major driver of hardship, as highlighted in the State of the Nation Report. Our Families Package will provide targeted assistance to help address this. It includes increases to the accommodation supplement and accommodation benefit, which mean that 135,000 families will gain an average of $35 per week. This increase sits alongside this Government’s other commitments to building more affordable homes, expanding the social housing stock, and making New Zealand homes warmer and drier.

Jo Luxton: What other living costs will the Families Package help New Zealanders to meet?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Winter can be really hard on the health of our elderly and children. As part of our Families Package, our winter energy payment will help superannuitants and beneficiaries to afford the heating they need to keep themselves warm and healthy. When fully implemented, a single person receiving superannuation or who is on a benefit with no dependent children will receive $450, and couples and singles with children will receive an additional $700 over a five-month period.

Health Services—National Bowel Screening Programme

8. Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What are his priorities in the Health portfolio?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Better health for New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why did he wait until yesterday to announce a review of the National Bowel Screening Programme, over three months after he had signed a briefing, dated 3 November, entitled Bowel screening pilot’s incorrect withdrawal of eligible people?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Since I received notification that there had been issues with the pilot at Waitematā—something the previous Minister had been made aware of that could have affected life outcomes for people—I have requested information repetitively from the Ministry of Health to ensure we could be sure, on behalf of the public, that the programme was going to be delivered as stated by the previous Government. As the evidence has emerged, it’s become clear to me that the pilot has thrown up a number of lessons: that already there have been delays signalled, and that the previous Government had failed to plan adequately for the correct roll-out of this very important programme. I have decided to act. I have decided to seek an independent review so that New Zealanders can be assured that this very important service will be rolled out as they would expect.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I seek leave to table a briefing to the Minister dated 3 November, entitled Bowel screening pilot’s incorrect withdrawal of eligible people.

SPEAKER: I want to seek the assurance that that’s not one of the documents that’s been released under the proactive release policy that some Ministers are using.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m not certain. I’m happy for it to be tabled.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to the document being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why yesterday did he tell the House, in relation to a story on bowel screening funding, that the Taranaki Daily News had “printed a retraction because they misquoted me”, when the newspaper has stated today that no retraction was printed?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think I stated in the House yesterday that I had been advised that a retraction had been printed. It was an incorrect quotation, and I stand by that.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What assurance can he give that the three-month delay between signing the 4 November briefing warning of an issue with the pilot and announcing a review of the programme yesterday will not result in patients dying from bowel cancer?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am expecting that there will be no further delays. I’m hoping there will be no further delays. Unfortunately, I cannot be held responsible for the abysmal lack of planning under the previous Government’s watch.

Mycoplasma Bovis—Culling of Cows, Industry Financial Contribution, and Official Financial Advice

9. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all of his statements?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Nathan Guy: How does he reconcile his statement in relation to M. bovis from July last year, and I quote, “All the cows and any with possible contact with another cow should all be destroyed.” with how he’s now stopped any culling of the herds?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: At the time of first discovery, there was one farm and one farming operation involved. Culling did begin, but, unfortunately, we then discovered that there was a second infected property in Southland. That led us to believe that there were possibly hundreds of properties that could have been infected, and the issue of whether it’s possible to eradicate or whether we were faced with an ongoing management regime for Mycoplasma bovis is the dilemma that we still face. Officials have, for a number of reasons, stopped culling at this point.

Hon Nathan Guy: What financial advice has the Minister received to manage or eradicate M. bovis from his officials, and how much?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Officials, thankfully, are not affected by the disease, but there are an increasing number of affected animals throughout this country, for a whole lot of reasons. Obviously, inadequate biosecurity import health standards, initially, which have allowed this disease into this country, have led us to a very sad and challenging situation where, through money appropriated through the Ministry of Primary Industries, we have been able to conduct the process thus far of tracing, of some extermination of some animals and removing them, and of ongoing testing and monitoring. To date, the number of confirmed infected properties is 23, the number of properties under restricted place notice are 38, the number of trace properties is over 1,500—this is a huge operation, and we cannot at this point say the total cost of this operation.

Hon Nathan Guy: Has the Government asked industry to contribute to the costs of eradication or management of M. bovis; and, if so, how much money has been requested from the Government to industry?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There has been no—

SPEAKER: Order! Did the member want to rephrase it, because I think there was an inconsistency between the beginning and the end. It’s a question of who was asking whom for money.

Hon Nathan Guy: Has the Government requested any contribution from industry to either contain or eradicate M. bovis; and, if so, how much money has been requested from the industry?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No such request has gone to industry at this point. Both the director-general and myself—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Nathan Guy, I think the member—

Hon Member: Animal noises.

SPEAKER: Well, that was the point I was going to make. He used to be the Minister in charge of animal welfare, and it sounds like an animal is being tortured at the moment.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’ll attempt to put him at ease.

SPEAKER: No. I think the member’s answered it.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like to answer more fully, to put the member at ease.

SPEAKER: No. I think, given the response, that is almost impossible. The member will resume his seat.

Hon Nathan Guy: He’ll be back to correct that one. Why did the Minister—

SPEAKER: Order! The member just lost that supplementary.

Migrant Worker Exploitation—Government Measures

10. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What actions has the Government taken recently to tackle migrant worker exploitation?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The Government is working on a number of fronts to tackle migrant exploitation. Recently, a couple who owned an Auckland-based restaurant were sentenced on charges relating to exploitation of their workers, resulting in 26 months’ imprisonment for one and eight months’ home detention for the other. This is the first custodial sentence for migrant exploitation in New Zealand, sending a strong message that migrant exploitation will not be tolerated.

Marja Lubeck: What are the Government’s further plans to address migrant worker exploitation?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I note that of the labour inspectorate’s investigations of the current financial year, more than half involve migrant workers. That’s why we are committed to increasing the resourcing for, and doubling the number of, labour inspectors. We will soon initiate an inquiry into migrant exploitation, and we are working on a number of fronts to stamp out the shameful exploitation of international students.

Marja Lubeck: And why is the Government tackling migrant worker exploitation?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Exploitation is a source of human misery and is simply not acceptable in New Zealand. We need to be known as a nation that upholds workers’ rights and a great place for migrants to live and work. The good employers should not be undermined by rogues who exploit their workers.

Unemployment Rate—Government Measures and Māori Unemployment Rate

11. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Employment: Does he stand by all of his statements?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Sometimes you make statements that make perfect sense at the time. Look at the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill English. In October, he—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member didn’t start well when he involved me in the answer, and he was going to continue in an out-of-order way. The member will now stand and answer the question.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: At the time of making them, yes, in context.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: So that’s one down.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was he serious with his answer to my question yesterday on why he thinks New Zealand has the lowest unemployment rate in 10 years: that the current Government has done a great job in the past few months?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I was absolutely serious with my answer yesterday. This Government has done fantastic work in the last few months, and it’s getting better by the day.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his admission on Radio New Zealand National last week that Māori unemployment had indeed fallen 20 percent in 2017; and, if so, how does he explain that fall?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, I do stand by my statement on Radio New Zealand National that, obviously, unemployment has dropped by 20 percent. There’s no problem with admitting that. The figures that the member refers to above relate to a drop in unemployment when comparing Māori with Māori annually. What the member appears to be missing is that my emphasis was that the Māori unemployment rate, when compared to the general population, has dropped by only 2.9 percent, and sits at 9 percent—double the rate of unemployment for the general population.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister happy with the trend this year in the unemployment rate in Northland?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve got some programmes in Northland. Things are getting better, but there’s a lot of work to be done. We’re going to get certain programmes in there targeting youth, and we’re going to get resourcing and funding out that the previous Government refused to support.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a simple question—was he happy with something—and he made no effort at all to answer that.

SPEAKER: I think he did, right at the beginning. He addressed it.

Rino Tirikatene: Why do young people continue to be at the forefront of the Government’s employment strategy?

SPEAKER: No. I’m happy to listen to the Minister explain to me how that relates to his previous answer. If he can relate it to his previous answer, he can answer it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry, Mr Speaker, what was the previous answer? Can I just clarify what the previous answer was—in terms of Māori youth?

SPEAKER: No. I think we’ll just—[Interruption] Order! I think we’re just going to scrub this one. We’re going to scrub this one now, because I don’t think Mr Tirikatene’s question related to a particular statement that the Minister had made.

Rino Tirikatene: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’m willing to hear from the member.

Rino Tirikatene: My question related to young people, in particular in the context of young Māori people, which has been part of the interchange on this question.

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

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order—you’re going to support him, are you, Mr Brownlee?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, I’m not, but I would support a continuation of questions going to the Minister. The primary question says, “Does he stand by all his statements?” Now, it would be very easy for the vast machinery of the Government to have come up with a supplementary question today that would have met the requirements of question time relating to the primary question. I think you’ve been very generous in saying, “Can you relate it to the previous question?”, but it’s a bit hard when the previous question was answered by the Minister with a series of stats that we’re quite sure, on this side of the House, did not relate to the question. But that’s for another day.

SPEAKER: It was a lovely speech, but I’m not quite sure how I should rule on it. I think I’m going to rule on it by going on to question No. 12.

Charter Schools—Minister for Youth’s Meetings and Prime Minister’s Youth Awards

12. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister for Youth: What steps has he taken to ensure maximum opportunities for the positive engagement and contribution of Māori youth?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Youth): For New Zealand to thrive now and in the future, all young Kiwis need to have the capacity, capability, and resilience to be the best they can be. As Minister for Youth, maximising opportunities for all of New Zealand’s young people, including Māori youth, is a key priority for me.

Chris Bishop: What conversations—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Both those interjections—each of them—result in an extra supplementary for the National Party.

Chris Bishop: What conversations or discussions has he had with partnership schools?

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Youth has no ministerial responsibility for conversations with partnership schools.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I’m willing to let the question go forward. It may be that the Minister for Youth in that portfolio has had a discussion with a charter school. We know that it wouldn’t be his direct ministerial responsibility, but it might have happened as part of his portfolio and if it hasn’t happened, it’s very easy for him to answer.

Hon PEENI HENARE: None.

Chris Bishop: Has he visited a partnership school?

SPEAKER: No, I think that that one can now—given the fact that the Minister has clearly said he’s had no discussions, I don’t think he would visit one and not talk to anyone, and, therefore, that—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There could well be quite a difference, despite your immediate reaction to that, and I think that the problem here is that we’ve got a Minister for Youth who has a very broad responsibility for representation of youth and also a very big responsibility to know what youth issues are. He stated in his primary answer that his concern is particularly for the development of Māori youth, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable, then, to ask the question, has he visited a partnership school? He may not have talked to staff.

SPEAKER: OK, on the basis that the Minister might have visited a school and spoken to no one, the Minister can answer the question.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Not in my capacity as the Minister for Youth.

Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that the Prime Minister gave him a stern talking-to for allowing her to appear in a photo at the Prime Minister’s own Youth Awards with a student at a partnership school?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We are very proud of all of the young people who receive awards at the Prime Minister’s awards. Look, we don’t have the background of every member who received a certificate, and I can tell this House that it was over 160 young people who walked across that stage. It is impossible for us to know the background and the school of each student.

Chris Bishop: Is he saying, then, further to that answer, that if the Minister and his office and his department had known that a student who was going to receive a Prime Minister’s youth award was from a partnership school, they would not have received the award?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We were there to celebrate youth, and that is the kaupapa; as each one walked across that stage, they received a warm handshake and congratulations.

SPEAKER: Mr Hipkins?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Normally, you would say that that brings to the end questions for oral answer; that’s what I was waiting for.

SPEAKER: Sorry, it does.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2)

Introduction

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In accordance with discussions of the Business Committee, I seek leave for the order of the day for the first reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill to be discharged and for the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2) to be introduced and set down as members’ order of the day No. 5.

For the information of the House, the bill is in the name of Louisa Wall and it was incorrectly drafted by the Office of the Clerk. The result is that the sole substantive provision in the bill makes reference to a non-existent section of the principal Act. If the bill had not been replaced, then the House would debate a bill that contains a fundamental error, and if it passed first reading it would likely be confusing for the public who wish to make submissions on it. By granting leave, the House will enable the bill to be replaced with one that contains the accurate amendment. I note that the error was made by the Office of the Clerk and not by the member in charge of the bill, whose submitted draft cited the correct sections of the principal Act.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none. But before I call on the Clerk to give the bill its introduction, I do want to remind members that when bills are drafted by other people in their names, they are responsible for checking them before putting them in the ballot. It is the sole responsibility of the member, and I think the member concerned is exceptionally lucky that the House has been this generous.

General Debate

General Debate

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

If there’s any issue that shows the growing gap between intention and reality on the part of this Government, it’s the shambles around partnership schools. If you want an illustration of the shambles, it’s this: the achievement of a student—in fact, a number of students; it could be up to four—from a partnership school has become an embarrassment for the Labour Government, because they turned up at the Prime Minister’s awards and she found herself, embarrassingly, in a photo with a young New Zealander whose achievement was being recognised but in a school where the Labour Party doesn’t like its legal form.

How ridiculous can it be? These high-sounding intentions about education, the aspirations of our young people, and a Prime Minister embarrassed about the achievement of what may be some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable young people, whose effort and inspiration was recognised at those awards. So that’s where the Labour Government’s got us to: achievement is embarrassing if it’s the wrong person from the wrong school. I have absolutely no doubt that under the management of this Government, if they had known those young people were coming to get Prime Minister’s awards, they would have made sure it did not happen—they would have made sure it did not happen.

That’s before you get to the somewhat delicate issue of the Māori Cabinet Ministers doing deals with the schools that they sponsored. Look, it was always going to be a bit difficult—well, New Zealand First should be listening to this, because it’s special treatment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this is a robust debate, but a member—and a member like that one, in terms of his seniority in this House—cannot allege deals of the character and the nature that he’s alleging. That may be common in some political parties, but it’s not with this Government.

SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] Order! I think this is a robust debate, and, in my view, in this context, the word “deal” is not necessarily out of order. I don’t think there was an implication of corruption, and therefore I’ll allow the member to continue.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It’s really a simple issue. There’re a number of partnership schools. Some of them were sponsored by people who are now Cabinet Ministers, and there’s growing evidence that Cabinet Ministers—the Cabinet; these are Ministers covered by the collective responsibility of Cabinet—on the one hand, have made Cabinet decisions to pass legislation to close the schools, because that’s what the legislation does, but, on the other hand, are, behind closed doors, having discussions. Now, what are those discussions about? It’s probably not about closing the schools earlier; it’s probably about how they can ensure the survival of those schools that they sponsored. It’s completely understandable; it just shows you how ridiculous the policy is, that a Cabinet includes Ministers who sponsored partnership schools, know the value of them, and want to keep them open. Isn’t it unfortunate that they happen to be two Māori Ministers with Māori schools, which makes the other schools—the Pacific schools and the other more mainstream schools—feel like they don’t have special access to Cabinet Ministers who will advocate for them?

What’s most disturbing here is that the Prime Minister does not understand what is going on. I mean, what we are seeing here is a big backdown, and it’s getting slippery and difficult and, I would suggest, legally complex.

We found out today that the Government may be legally liable for payments of up to $15 million, not for more education but to actually stop the education. They may have to pay out $15 million to stop the superior, better education of 1,500 of New Zealand’s most vulnerable children. How ridiculous is that? I mean, they used to promise to spend more money on more education, and now they look like they’re stuck with spending $15 million on no education, to actually stop that happening. The Prime Minister has illustrated continuing embarrassment about this—does not understand the legislation is a guillotine. It chops the partnership schools. They’re going to pass a law to close them.

The only issue is on what basis those schools will be allowed to reopen, and today I asked her two things. A guarantee: if they believe these schools should continue in a different form, then the Government should, before negotiations, guarantee those children—that’s who it’s for—that if the school closes on Friday once Parliament legislates to close them—[Time expired]

Debate interrupted.

Points of Order

Urgent Debate Application—Progress

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In accordance with the Standing Orders, I reissued a request made yesterday for an application for an urgent debate on a matter. I notice you haven’t acknowledged or ruled on that. Is it not normal for the Speaker to rule on an application for an urgent debate?

SPEAKER: The letter was opened in my office after question time had started. I will consider it and rule on it tomorrow.

General Debate

General Debate

Debate resumed.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Firstly, I need to acknowledge the passing of a kuia of the Wellington LGBTIQ community, Dana de Milo, in recent days. She was one of our torch holders who created space for so many of us to walk into, and she will be sorely missed by many—moe mai rā, Dana.

But speaking of great queens, it is pride season. Pride is a time of celebration and affirmation for people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, takatāpui, whakawahine, tangata ira tāne, fa‘afafine, fakaleiti, ‘akava‘ine, mahu, vaka sa lewa lewa, rae rae, fiafifine, fakafifine, hijra, gender-fluid, gender-queer, pansexual, asexual, queer, and questioning.

While we have come a long way as a country from when homosexuality and trans people were criminalised, we are still a long way from fully realising our human rights. For many of us, our moments of peace and our moments of celebration have been hard fought for, so celebrations, in fact, are often acts of defiance as well as an expression of joy, and, at times, they are also, all too often, an act of mourning.

My ability to stand here open and proud of my lesbian identity comes from the bravery and political advocacy of my elders, like Dana, so I am proud to stand as a Green Party MP to ensure that this House and our political platform enables all the members of my community to find a strong place to stand.

It’s all too often that I hear about the premature death of queer and trans people—sadly, mostly trans people—within my community because they could not find that place to stand. We all grieve for them and ourselves that we still live in a world where some lives seem to matter more. So, in the spirit of pride, I would like to draw the House’s attention today to some of the work that we need to do to help provide a strong place for my community to stand.

I do want to acknowledge the Minister James Shaw, the Minister of Statistics, for the leadership and support he is offering Statistics New Zealand to make sure that the data is collected to enable us to make our case to the Government for funding. I also want to acknowledge Pharmac for its decision to fund pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an HIV prevention tool in the tool kit to end HIV by 2025. And I also want to celebrate the opportunity in the select committee at the moment, in the Governance and Administration Committee, that gives us the opportunity to create a system that ensures that changes to gender markers on official documents are easy to use, consistent across passports, drivers’ licences, and birth certificates, and are based on a principle of self-identification. So progress is being made, but there are still outstanding issues that we need to turn our focus to.

We need to ensure that access to gender affirmation surgery and services is available in all district health boards (DHBs). A survey in 2014 of DHBs showed that nine of them said that they provided no healthcare services at all to trans people in this country. Now, that is unacceptable, and when we know that trans people can be waiting between 40 and 70 years to access surgery, we really do have to think that maybe this appalling failure and the gulf between need and supply could only be a result of an attitude that is prejudiced and trivialising, and we need to take action on this.

We also need to do more work to ensure that our schools are safe and inclusive for our young people. They are unsafe at the moment and lead and contribute to high rates of suicide. There is much that we need to do to unleash the fabulosity of my community, and I hope this House will help.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look, I’m really pleased to speak in this general debate, and what I would say is that on my birthday, I went out and walked with a group of people down Queen Street to protest against the closure of partnership schools in New Zealand. What I can say to you is, for all of the messages that we have from some people—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Scaremongerer.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: —on the other side of the House about scaremongering, let’s talk about the facts for a moment. Fact number one: the Government has put legislation before this House that does not say that every partnership school can remain open. What it says is that either the model will be gone and the schools will close—their contracts will remain until 2020, 2022—or, by mutual determination, they’re gone. So any message by the Prime Minister or members from the other side of the House that, somehow, the partnership schools themselves will be saved is wrong, factually incorrect, and not true, and it does not reflect the legislation before this House.

The second point is—as the leader has already said today—the financial cost to that, we heard from the Ministry of Education this morning, is potentially $15 million. Why? Why are they doing this? Because the Prime Minister says these schools are broken. You tell that young head girl who stood up at the partnership schools rally that these schools are broken.

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

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Nikki Kaye, sit down, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Members of Parliament cannot bring you into the debate, and especially ones that have been here for a little time. They should have learnt that a long, long time ago.

SPEAKER: The member is correct, and I’m sure the Hon Nikki Kaye will take more care from now.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: These schools are not broken. In fact, I’ve just seen Vanguard Military School’s excellent results. What they are doing for young Māori is hugely significant—another thing that we’ve heard. Basically, all these schools want to know—yes, it is correct the Government is talking to them about whether they will reopen, but they want to know that they have a future.

The reality is they’ve got a Minister going out there saying that his preference is that they all close. They’ve got some Ministers potentially behind the scenes having backroom discussions—the Prime Minister has already confirmed that. We’ve got some pretty serious allegations there, and all they want is fairness and justice and the ability to continue the futures of these young people. And what have they had? They’ve had a complete shambles. We’ve got potential legal cases, we’ve got Treaty of Waitangi issues, we’ve now got potential preferential treatment by Ministers, and we’ve got kids upset on the streets, giving speeches about the fact that they had mental health issues and these schools helped them. Why? Why is this happening? They’ve said “principle”; I say “ideology”.

What we need is all members of Parliament to try and force the Government—and I know the support is there. I know that’s why Willie, I know that’s why Kelvin, I know that’s why Peeni—you are out there—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon NIKKI KAYE: —trying to speak up—

SPEAKER: Order! No. [Interruption] That’s not helpful. The member does know that the members should be addressed by their titles or by their full names, not by their first names.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Well, look, at the end of the day, there are a whole lot of kids, some with pretty vulnerable issues. Their schools are closing and the Government will have to accept responsibility for that. Some of them may stay open, and we are fighting hard to ensure that the Government gives those schools the certainty, because those kids deserve to know. There are major questions to be asked around the costs and the legal questions, but also we’ve got these issues of potential preferential treatment. The Opposition will keep the foot down. The reason we’ll do that is because of the grandmother and the young person that spoke at the rally, because these schools are making a significant difference to the lives of young people.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I want to begin today by acknowledging the Rt Hon Bill English and his decision to stand down from Parliament after close to 28 years of service to this House and to the people of New Zealand. He deserves to be acknowledged. I haven’t always agreed with Bill English—in fact, I have probably disagreed with him more than I have agreed with him—but I think he does deserve to be recognised for the service he has given to the people of New Zealand and for the determination that he has shown over that period of time through a number of ups and downs that he’s experienced in this House.

It feels pretty good to be on this side of the House at the moment as part of a strong, cohesive, united Government that is delivering for New Zealand. We passed the Families Package, which provided a boost in incomes for 385,000 New Zealand families. We extended paid parental leave to 26 weeks. We are increasing the minimum wage. We are improving the conditions of people in workplaces by strengthening employment laws. We are banning overseas speculators from buying New Zealand’s houses. We have stopped the sell-off of State houses. We have made sure that rental homes are going to be warm and dry and healthy. We have started KiwiBuild so that we can get more houses built and added to the property market. We’ve resumed contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund so that we can provide security for New Zealanders in their retirement. We are on track to meet our surplus target and start paying back the record levels of debt that we inherited from the previous National Government.

I would note that almost every one of those things has been opposed by the National Opposition. They have been opposed by the National Opposition who, of course, are now somewhat distracted—somewhat distracted because the race is under way as to who is going to be the leader of the National Party.

I do believe one of the things that was stated today by one of those contenders, Simon Bridges, when he said, “I’m focused on Simon Bridges”. Everybody in the House will believe that Simon Bridges is focused on Simon Bridges. He clearly appears to be appealing to the young fogey contingent within the National Party; that’s his key demographic. A barbecue at Simon’s place has already had the desired effect—the vacancy has been created and he’s off.

It’s the same with Judith Collins. Now, it will be interesting to see how Judith Collins fares. It’s a little bit like giving the wicketkeeper a bowl when you’re playing cricket. It means you’ve given up on winning the game. That would be what would happen if Judith Collins was to become the leader of the National Party. It would be like an admission of defeat and they just needed somebody to fill in the shoes.

There is, of course, Amy Adams. She is the ultimate compromise candidate—the worst of everything. She is the worst of everything—no values, no profile, and absolutely nothing that would be attractive to the voters. By the time Amy Adams is done preparing for her race, the race will be over, but she’s certainly in the running.

Then, of course, we’ve got Jonathan Coleman. I have been told on good authority that Jonathan Coleman has secured his first vote to be the leader of the National Party. It is his own, but he has at least determined that he is going to be voting for himself.

Then, of course, we’ve got Steven Joyce. He’s mulling it over. He’s just trying to figure out whether he’s got a ladder tall enough to get himself out of his $11 billion hole so that he can make a run for the top job of the National Party.

But then there is the mystery candidate out the back there: Mark Mitchell, who’s throwing his name into the ring. Mark Mitchell used to be dog handler. That could come in handy if he does succeed in becoming the next leader of the New Zealand National Party.

I feel like I’ve watched this movie before, as the National Party tears itself limb from limb as they decide who the next leader of their party is going to be. And it is nice to be part of a strong, cohesive, and unified Government that’s focused on delivering for New Zealanders. We have seen real results in the first three or four months that we have been in Government and we are barely getting warmed up.

However, I do want to say to Bill English that I was disappointed with his general debate speech today. As much as I acknowledge his record of service in this House, I thought it was disappointing that he used his final general debate speech to belittle the accomplishments of young people who were recognised in the Prime Minister’s youth awards. I think that the House can expect better from Mr English. I’m sure we will get that when he delivers his valedictory speech, which will be more befitting him and better recognise the years of service he has given to this House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Actually, the Rt Hon Bill English spoke about real results—real results for real people, actually, who had faced some real challenges in life, and it was the previous Government who introduced an innovative solution to delivering education to children that weren’t being served in the mainstream system. So I am proud, and Bill English is proud, that we have given young people opportunities that they wouldn’t otherwise have been given.

I want to comment on another part of the record of the last decade. The Salvation Army this morning actually released in its state of the nation report the trends over the past 10 years, and it is, of course, no mistake that over the majority of that period of time the Rt Hon Bill English was the finance Minister and then the Prime Minister. This is not just talking about economic results, about economic progress; it talks about really important progress in social areas, whether it’s jobs, incomes, crime, benefits, or child poverty. So I wanted to focus some of my time in this general debate on real results.

Prime Minister Ardern has talked about the fact that she wants to be held accountable. We’re still waiting to hear what she wants to be held accountable for, but I thought I would actually talk about some of the record of the previous Prime Minister, whether it’s in areas of job creation, whether it’s income growth, whether it’s declining benefits, or whether it’s lifting children out of material hardship. These are not our words; these are the Salvation Army’s. One of the real hallmarks of Bill English’s time in this place, nearly 28 years, is his absolute commitment to putting data in the hands of others to help us as a country to solve our real challenges. So it’s recognising that it might be an iwi organisation, it might be a partnership school that’s run by a local iwi or Pasifika, it might be in a place-based initiative—very grassroots community organisations that are helping to solve the challenges of real people with real needs, whether it was lifting the minimum wage, whether it was increasing benefits for the first time in 40 years, or whether it was reducing the number of children living in hardship by 135,000.

So I’m looking forward to that Government opening the books, showing data, and providing more data than we’ve previously seen in the last nine years of Government—opening the door for others to help solve the problems, instead of shutting them down, like they’re doing with partnership schools at the moment, and actually allowing others in to work with the Government of the day. But you’ve said you want to be accountable for results, so what have you said so far?

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That Government have said they’re going to be held accountable for results. A billion trees—a billion trees. We’re looking forward to how many have already been planted. A hundred thousand homes—now, that can’t be counting the ones that were already under way, so we’re looking forward to those results. And 30,000 fewer immigrants—30,000. So those are the numbers that that side of the House have put out there. We will be watching and we will be counting, and we will be enabling and ensuring that others across the country are also watching and holding this Government to account.

If I look at the record of an extraordinary New Zealander who yesterday announced he was leaving Parliament after nearly 28 years of service, I’m not looking at his report; I’m looking at the Salvation Army report. And I’m looking at the increased number of jobs, I’m looking at increased wages, I’m looking at the reduced number of people on benefit, and, more importantly, the reduced number of children living in material hardship. That was delivered under this Government. I’m looking to see what the record of the other side will be to deliver for real people with real challenges, because, to be fair, the record isn’t so great when the first thing you want to do—the first thing in education that Labour wants to do—is strip the opportunity of the very children you purport to support.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei. Tēnā tātou katoa. I too want to acknowledge the 27-plus years of the Rt Hon Bill English. I just want to mihi to him for his 27-plus years of service, and I also want to send my best wishes to him, and to Mary and the family, in his next journey of life.

We’ve just come from almost 10, 12-odd days of a brilliant Waitangi weekend, and I want to talk about the positivity that the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, with her Cabinet Ministers and colleagues in the Government, displayed up in Waitangi. Five long days—the longest any Prime Minister in modern Government has ever contributed to the founding day of our great nation. There she was, moving amongst people with ease, sending out the positive vision that she, with this Government, has for this nation. I was proud, along with many of the members of the Government, to be alongside her as she moved seamlessly amongst groups, large and small—iwi chairs, rangatahi Māori, the Māori wardens, and the Māori Women’s Welfare League, not to mention the many others that she engaged with. So I want to mihi to our Northland members, who ensured that we had a successful five days celebrating in Waitangi.

But, as the Minister in charge of animal welfare, I take animal welfare issues very seriously, and I have to say that this Opposition will need a good vet at the leadership gallops—or should I say “trots”—to make sure none of the horses will have been tampered with who are lining up to take over from the Rt Hon Bill English. It is with regret that we note that “Billy Boy”, the old favourite from the South, has finally been retired to a paddock outside Winton—good luck and a long life, munching on those Southland swedes and watching this race.

The first question, though, is what kind of track is this? Hard and fast? Soft and slow? A bit of bounce? That might let someone keen and unexpected charge through the field, like the old show pony “Craven Coleman”, bloodline out of “Naked Opportunity” and “Desperation”. He may still come out of nowhere to surprise, but he will break a leg and will then have to be put down, like the last time he ran.

Then we have “Crusher Collins” in the blue silks, who may also be guilty of interference when that two-year-old “Brylcreem Bridges” tries to pass her on the inside. Look for the illegal use of the whip.

And the use of the whip, or whips, may have to be carefully examined by the stewards of this race. Whatever, I hope the stewards have got their eyes peeled for horse tranquillisers by the gallon, not for the horses but for us, the poor spectators. One thing for sure is there will be endless jockeying before they even hit the last bend.

In the last few minutes, I do want to return back to the serious notion of governing the nation for all New Zealanders and lay out the plan of Labour, with the Greens and New Zealand First, in terms of the first 100 days and beyond. I want to particularly acknowledge the restarting of our Superannuation Fund, which contributes to ensuring that the age of super stays at 65, which is a big issue for the constituents of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti; the Families Package, which my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins acknowledged; the ban on overseas speculators, which is definitely going to help in terms of the house availability in my electorate; and, of course, the stopping of the mass sell-off of State houses. These policies put in place by this Labour-led Government, with our coalition partners, is a commitment that this Government is here to do the business. It is here to do the business that nine years of that National Government failed to achieve.

Can I also point out that it is very clear that when we come to charter schools, we have made it clear that we are not shutting down charter schools. I will say it again: we are not shutting down charter schools. We are actually saying that there won’t be any more opened. Like Minister Hipkins has said, as we speak, Ministry of Education officials are speaking with every single charter school, up and down this country, on a case by case basis and in an open and transparent way around the future educational needs for their young people. That’s a Government committed to doing the right thing by all New Zealanders. Kia ora tātou katoa.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to correct Meka Whaitiri, the previous speaker. The Government has actually announced that they are going to be shutting down partnership schools, and the fact is that two of the MPs—Crown Ministers in the Government—are actually backing two of the Māori partnership schools, which has come out in the media this afternoon. It has come out in the media, so the Government cannot deny that the aim of their game is to shut down partnership schools, except for the two Māori partnership schools, of which two Ministers have got their fingers—

Hon Willie Jackson: Three.

JO HAYES: —three Ministers, then—deeply entrenched in those schools, and that is not—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member’s got to be very careful with the tone and direction of the comments she’s making.

JO HAYES: Thank you. Well, anyway, going on. The announcement that was made that came out in the media this afternoon around those partnership schools, I think it does look at the other partnership schools and start to—I’m sure that the people that are in those partnership schools are thinking, “What about us? What about us? We are part and parcel of a group of partnership schools that have helped, and continue to help, 1,500 vulnerable children”—children that could not fit within mainstream education and that did not succeed in mainstream education—“and what’s going to happen to them? What is going to happen to their successful futures?”, because there will be no successful future for those children that are going to be mainstreamed into mainstream schools, and they are not going to succeed. Partnership schools were an avenue for these children to actually succeed, and the success was renowned, over and over again.

When the previous speaker talked about the Prime Minister being in Waitangi for five days—and good on her—I guess that a lot of those five days will be for nought if her generals do not fall in line and do not actually adhere to support some of the things that she has said. I can see that the generals are starting to fall out of line with each other, and that is not good for this country. When I start to look at some of the other areas that this Government purport to actually support Māori in, I start to look at the Whānau Ora programme. And, as from where I stand here, as from yesterday and in previous months, I’ve heard nothing about Whānau Ora or what this Government’s going to be doing for it. There’s speculation out there that, perhaps, they will be reviewing it to get rid of some of the Whānau Ora projects and programmes, and I don’t know why that is.

Now, when I asked Te Puni Kōkiri today about what type of review it is, I was told it might be an independent review. It may be a ministerial review. Then we heard last year in November from the Minister on the programme The Hui that it is going to be a comprehensive review. No terms of reference—we have no idea what this review’s going to do, considering there was a review done on the commissioning agents last year that came out and from the review they were able to shape up their back office administration side of their business and they came out of that very well. So if you’re going to do a comprehensive review, wouldn’t somebody actually let the public know what type of terms of reference will actually go on with the review of Whānau Ora?

It is something—like, when you look at Whānau Ora, it is about building whānau capacity, and a lot of whānau capacity is actually based within education outcomes. I was brought up in the knowledge that education will set you free, and yet, we’re looking at partnership schools that are going to close just because there is a Government that doesn’t want a successful story to go on. And they have been successful. You cannot deny that.

SPEAKER: Order!

JO HAYES: The Government cannot deny that—I’ve got you—partnership schools have been successful and will continue to be successful. So why shut them down? Why close them? Why send them to the wall when something as successful as partnership schools has helped Māori and will continue to help Māori, if the Government could just get their heads out of the sand and up and looking and supporting Māori? Why aren’t Government supporting Māori?

I believe it’s because they just want to change things just because the Government thinks it can. It’s not good. It’s not good politics, and it’s not very good leadership either. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): After that speech, it’s very clear to me that a Māori should be in charge of the National Party. There’s no doubt about it. Your time’s come. Their time’s come. The reality is for years and years Māori have been ignored in that party. Winston Peters made a great run.

It was a shame Jo—she left, because she’s in my speech—

SPEAKER: Order! The member can’t refer to members leaving the Chamber.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies—my apologies, sir. But really, the time has come for a change. We need to see a change in the National Party and a change in terms of the leadership.

Winston Peters—he could’ve been the first National Party leader but, sadly, sadly, the knives came out for him. The problem the National Party has, of course, with our Māori members is that we’ve got some lovely members on the other side—we’ve got four. I’m looking at the seven Māori members on this piece of paper, and there’s four lovely—very lovely—members.

One of them is sitting right over there now, Dr Shane Reti. Dr Reti over there, look, he was a fantastic doctor—a fantastic doctor. And does he have aspirations? It’s very hard to have aspirations in a National Party who have never promoted a Māori to the leadership. But I say to the member over there, Dr Reti, you’re a fine member, you’re too nice, you’re too lovely for the National Party.

Harete Hipango—she’s beautiful. She’s fabulous. She’s too nice, too sweet, and too lovely to take on the National Party leadership—that there is no doubt.

Now—Nuk Korako. We love Nuk. We love Nuk. He’s the man. He’s probably not the man for the leadership, but he’s a kaumātua. He’s got to whakatikatika i tana reo [fix up his language]. Peeni will work on him in terms of his reo side, but what a man. What a leader he could be if he just got a bit of support.

I’ve got to say to Dr Reti, just get behind. There, she’s come back here. That’s good. Sorry there, Mr Speaker, but it’s great to see the fourth member of the—I was saying four lovely people, and Joanne Hayes, after the last speech, it’s questionable whether she fits that bill. But I don’t like your chances, Joanne, of leadership.

But the problem with these four is that they’re in this category of “lovely”, but then we have “nasty”, and there’s three of them who fit the bill.

Number one—Paula Bennett. Ooh! Woah, there’s some problems there, particularly when she can go on to a marae and then, all of a sudden, talk to the media about our wonderful chairman, Huri Dennis, and then deny it all, and then run rumours about our wonderful Deputy Prime Minister and bash beneficiaries. Oh, it’s a sad day when we hear that Paula Bennett has aspirations in terms of the National Party leadership. But she’s Māori, and we love Māori. Some question there, but she is Māori, and good luck, Paula—don’t like your chances.

Then there’s old Simon—Simon Bridges. Now, Simon Bridges, in terms of what’s positive about him—not a lot, but he’s from Ngāti Maniapoto, which is my tribe. He’s from Ngāti Maniapoto. That’s my mum’s tribe. And even though our chairman, Tiwha Bell—well, he’s disowned him. But even though Ngāti Maniapoto have said, “Goodness gracious! Is he one of our sons?”, we still support him because he’s Māori. But there’s a nasty edge, and we saw that on day one here, didn’t we? Didn’t we? He came after us. Simon—he is so intent on being the leader. And he’s got this group behind him—these right-wing fundamentalists who so want to put him up as the leader of the National Party. But I don’t think it’s going to work out.

But the real man—the person, the Māori, who should lead the National Party—is Jami-Lee Ross. Jami-Lee—I see, look, OK, he’s got anger problems. We know that and the Speaker knows that, but we’ll put him on Whānau Ora. We’ll put him on a programme. He’ll come right, sir, with your counsel, with your support. We’ll look after Jami. Jami’s got aspiration. He’s good looking. He’s young. He’s been ignored, you know. So he went a bit crazy one day—we all know that. We all saw it. But, Mr Speaker, you’ll help him. And I like Jami.

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, sorry, my apologies again, sir. But his main positive is he’s from Ngati Porou—whanaunga to myself and Peeni—and I think he could go on to great things.

So I say to Dr Shane Reti and Joanne Hayes over there—support Jami-Lee Ross as the new leader of the National Party. Kia ora tātou.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I find it so interesting that the only thing the last three Labour MPs could speak about was the National Party leadership race. Do you know why that is? I’ll tell you why that is. That is because they are deflecting, because the issue of the day is charter schools and they don’t want to talk about it. They will do anything in their power not to talk about charter schools, and I’ll tell you why.

Actually, what they’ve been doing is they’ve been hiding away in their offices all day thinking about clever things like horse races and dog handlers. What I’ve been thinking about is the ton of garbage that has been coming out of the Labour Government over the last few months about charter schools because they are ideologically opposed to them.

The Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern called charter schools, at the end of last year, a failed model. Well, let’s take a look at the actual reality, not just that spin. Vanguard Military School is a charter school in my electorate that I will stand up for. Let’s look at their results—let’s look at their results. The reality is Vanguard Military School—their NCEA results for last year for level 2 were 89 percent compared to the national average of 77 percent. And do you know what? Those Māori MPs opposite me should be interested in the fact that Vanguard have 50 percent of their roll who are Māori students.

So you know what? Given Miss Ardern’s speech at Waitangi about the distance between the whare and the homestead and how that represented the difference in equality that we still have and her hopes for the future, I’m sure she would be interested in Vanguard’s roll-based results for last year for Māori students. Level 2—90 percent compared to the national average of 72. Let’s look at level 3—95 percent compared to the national average of 55 percent. For a failed model, charter schools certainly seem to be working for Māori, and Mr Jackson knows that.

Today in question time, Jacinda Ardern was so very concerned that charter schools have unregistered teachers and don’t teach to the curriculum. So let’s look at her very grave concerns. The teachers are unregistered—the Labour Government say it with such passion you’d be forgiven for thinking that the local P dealer was teaching chemistry. The reality is that teachers of core subjects are registered teachers. Vanguard employs two unregistered teachers. One is a defence force teacher and the other one is a Te Reo teacher.

What about the charter schools who are not teaching to the curriculum? Again, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Vanguard students get credits for making coffee and braiding each other’s hair. Well, I can tell you that Vanguard, like most other charter schools, teaches to the New Zealand curriculum. In fact, English, maths, and PE are compulsory.

So why, given all of this, is it that one of the first pieces of education legislation is to get rid of these amazing schools? The reality is that these schools work; they just don’t work for the unions. Unfortunately, Mr Hipkins—in his inept Government, this whole issue has become a massive omnishambles.

Let’s break it down: the negotiation process, whereby Mr Hipkins blindsided schools with two press releases that he put out with his intentions to close charter schools down, without even bothering to phone them first. Or how about Mr Hipkins’ empty offer to transition charter schools to special character schools? Like the ministry meeting with Vanguard this week, for the first time, and expecting them to have an application for special character school status in by 1 April. They have to make a decision, after four years of operation, in six measly weeks. Well, that is a very bad April Fool’s joke. If only Mr Hipkins was as good at talking to charter schools as he is with the Australian Labor Party.

Then we have the Labour Party’s backtracking Māori MPs: Jackson, Henare, and Davis. Kelvin Davis, my favourite one, pledged to resign from Parliament if the next Labour Government closes either of the charter schools in Whangarei. What about the charter schools in my electorate, which are also in his electorate, that he’s never visited? Vanguard—he has never even visited them. He hasn’t even picked up the phone to call them. That is a disgrace. He has been their MP for three years, and he’s never walked in the door. Why is he not standing up for the 50 percent Māori students in that school?

As much as I like beating up on the Government, this is about the children of those partnership schools, the children that I have visited and spoken to. I have looked in their eyes and seen the future that they now have under the charter school model that they didn’t have before. Thank you.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): E Te Māngai o Te Whare. What I find interesting is that, in this general debate, I would have thought that the other side would have used this as an opportunity to do their speeches for the leadership campaign. I’m surprised, actually, that they didn’t. They are trying to find somebody who can match the very popular Jacinda Ardern, our current Prime Minister. They are trying to find somebody with youth. They are trying to find somebody who can appeal to a different generation. We’ve seen these tweets and these reports and these updates coming through. What I challenge the other side to do is to find a leader who has as much heart as our Prime Minister has. We are a Government with heart, versus the Opposition.

I am still disturbed by some of the comments I heard in the debate yesterday on the bill for the reduction of child poverty. I heard comments like, “This will do nothing to change the outcome.”, made by the Hon Paula Bennett. “This will do nothing for child poverty. This will not change the status quo.” I heard quotes, for example, that, “Our children are in poverty because their parents make bad decisions.”, and blaming it on the parents for spending money on alcohol—that there are parents and there are families who don’t want free lunches or the raincoats that are being offered. The challenges thrown out from the other side, for us to go to Kaikohe and see some of the great work that the other side were doing—I heard blame; I heard denial; I heard personal responsibility arguments being given; I heard about economic growth being the solution to all of our problems.

Well, what we saw today was the report released by the Salvation Army on the state of our nation. What does that report say? We’ve had a 12 percent increase in families needing food parcels. It highlights the real-life impact of a decade of management that left too many people behind. Nine years of neglect. We also received another report this week on the stocktake of New Zealand’s housing. The housing crisis is worse than we even knew it to be. The previous Government had no heart. They denied there was a housing crisis. They denied that child poverty was an issue.

Well, our Government is not prepared to tolerate this. We are going to do something about it. In the first 100 days of being in Government, we have already done a significant amount of things to address these issues. But that is not it. We have got a lot more work to do, and we are absolutely committed to doing that work.

We heard, actually, that on the birthday of one of the members who spoke earlier, she marched about charter schools. Well, I’m proud to say that on my birthday, the Hon Grant Robertson introduced the Families Package. That Families Package will benefit over 385,000 families. We introduced the Best Start payment. That is going to be of benefit to the more than 65,000 babies that are born every year in this country. We are extending Working for Families; reinstating the independent earner tax credit; increasing the accommodation supplement; the accommodation benefit; a winter energy payment that will benefit approximately one million people; and lifesaving legislation in the passing of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). That is lifesaving legislation that is going to make a huge difference to the people that live in my region in Northland who are suffering from respiratory illnesses that are caused by cold, damp housing.

Our priority, our focus, is to put children and to put people back at the heart of everything that we do. I was proud of our Prime Minister when she stood on my marae, at Te Whare Rūnanga, on Waitangi Day saying and challenging—making the statement that she wants to be judged on her actions. She wants to earn the right to stand on the mahau of that whare and to speak. She is saying to all those that come to Waitangi next year to judge her on what we deliver. We are a Government that wants to be held accountable. We are prepared to put what we want to do, and aim to do, into legislation so we can be measured against that. We have achieved a lot in the first 100 days, but there is a lot more to come. Kia ora.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It gives me pleasure to speak in this general debate, and, as members on the other side have asked me to say a word, I’m going to. I’m actually going to talk about charter schools. What I witnessed today in question time was the biggest set of, sort of, avoiding of the issue that I’ve seen so far in this House, from the Prime Minister down, actually—Ministers, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Education, and the Leader of the House. What I saw was a contentious issue that nobody will actually front up on.

I want to talk about charter schools a bit. I acknowledge the Hon Meka Whaitiri, who’s in the House with us today, because we actually have a charter school, Te Kura o Mangateretere. Before the election last year, the Hon Anne Tolley and I visited that school. Sure, it doesn’t have all the registered teachers and it may not meet all the criteria of mainstream education, but we saw about 30 young people that had largely been rejected by every other schooling system in the North Island—from Tauranga, from Auckland, and from Whakatū, which is our own local community. That school has been set up, it feeds the kids in the morning, and it teaches them in a different way, and, actually, for the first time, they were telling us they had a group of people that believed in them, were confident in them, and that could make a difference.

Now I accept that the Government may have an ideological difference in approach, but what I heard today was a Government that will not front up to the decisions it’s about to make, and, actually, what that’s about is fronting up. I challenge the Prime Minister and the Minister of Education and some of the Māori MPs, who happen to be Ministers, to front up in those schools, look those kids in the eye, and say, “We are about to change things, and, yes, we might be about to change things, but here’s another way.” You see, today in the House, the Prime Minister would not give the Leader of the Opposition a guarantee that those schools would remain open, and I actually think—

Erica Stanford: She can’t.

LAWRENCE YULE: Yes, technically, she may not be able to, but what she could do is go into those schools and talk out the transition plan, because that’s what’s missing at the moment.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why a leader—and I’ve been a leader in various roles myself. Sometimes you’ve actually got to front up to the people you are talking about and talk to them about the issue. You see, this Prime Minister, she says, “We care.” She talked about Waitangi—about walking the walk. Here is an opportunity for this Prime Minister to front up in a contentious area of change and make a difference, to reassure these young people—these 1,500 young people—who are in a good set of education that they’re happy with, by choice, who are now being told that their school closes and there’s no guarantee of a future.

The Hon Chris Hipkins, who sits in front of us—he too claims that he can’t be involved because it’s subject to ministerial processes and technical government processes. Actually, have a heart. These kids and these schools don’t know where they stand, from the time this policy was announced to now, and I watch members on the other side shaking their heads. Yes, they can go and talk as a local member of Parliament, but they’re covered by a collective responsibility. I’m sure there are conversations going on. This is actually an easy thing to solve—a really easy thing to solve. Front up to these schools, give them a guarantee that they’ll remain open—even under the new arrangements—and talk with them about how that’s going to happen. At the moment, that hasn’t occurred, and I worry, in this early stage of this Government, that when the tough things happen, nobody’s prepared to front up and do the tough things.

I challenge the Prime Minister and I challenge the various Ministers here to actually have some courage and some gumption to look these people in the eye, just like the Hon Bill English did the day before he announced his resignation. He gets this. He understands the difference between talk and the walk. Here we have 1,500 young people of New Zealand, probably our most disadvantaged or challenged, who have a system. It’s working. It may not tick all the boxes in an educational critique, but it’s working. We’re going to shut them down—that’s what the law change says—and yet nobody to this day has properly fronted up to those young people. Thank you.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the last speaker in this general debate, I find myself in the position of taking the post-match commentary position on some of the speeches from that side of the House, and some from this side of the House. I think it can be best summed up, for members on the Government side of the House, that we’re part of a strong team—that we’ve had a great start to this parliamentary year at Waitangi and in getting through our 100-day programme.

I think the theme that I would pick up from the other side of the House is “don’t mention the war”, because there is one going on across that side of the House. I think it was a little bit rich of Lawrence Yule to stand up in this House and, within the first 30 seconds, accuse this side of the House of “avoiding the issue”. Ha, ha! There is an issue on that side of the House, and I do want to tackle that and say that I do respect the decision that the Rt Hon Bill English has made, and I respect him as a politician. Every year, when I have been sworn in after a general election, I have the honour of being sworn in with Mr English, and I shake his hand because I do have respect for him and I do want to note that here in the House.

But I do think that the Rt Hon Bill English has been treated shabbily by his caucus—shabbily by his caucus. I’m at pains to point out the anatomy of this coup against Mr English, because there’s someone in this House who started it all off who I have quite a lot of respect for—the member for Invercargill, Sarah Dowie. An innocent comment started this whole ball rolling. When asked, when leaving a select committee, Sarah Dowie said the innocent words of, “Look, there’s been a little bit of talk.” Just that little half a sentence from Sarah Dowie meant the game was all on, and we know it was on because Sarah Dowie is a very truthful person and she got caught out telling the truth.

Over Christmas, a lot of them were talking about it, and then when Mr English was giving his state of the nation speech a couple of Wednesdays ago, boom—someone spruiked the speech. Now who was it—who was it?—and why would they do it? It’s pretty obvious that there was unrest in the National caucus. Bill had done his best, but they realised he wasn’t the man for the job, so when Bill was about to take centre stage someone from that side of the House said, “We’re not going to let Bill have it all his own way.” So Sarah Dowie and then this spruiking of his speech all added up to something being amiss in the National caucus.

I respect the decision that Mr English has made, but now it’s all on, and now there are a whole lot of people who have never had phone calls from senior members of the National caucus who, all of a sudden, are getting phone calls every five minutes—because that’s how it works in their caucus. There are three or four runners, I know now. I think “JC” tried to get out and have first-mover advantage—not that “JC”, but Judith Collins. She tried to get out and get first-mover advantage on Twitter today, but I think it’s not looking good for her, given—and it may be news to some of the members who are in the House, because they may not have seen this because they think something else is the issue of the day—Amy Adams has also announced her candidacy for the leadership. Apparently standing behind her were Maggie Barry, Chris Bishop, Tim Macindoe, and Nikki Kaye.

So I think, if I put my former political reporter’s hat back on, that’s bad news for “Slick”, and when I say “Slick” I mean Simon Bridges, who was, up until about 35 minutes ago, the front runner for the leader of the National Party. But it seems—and if the party wants generational change—

Hon Willie Jackson: Māori’s going to miss out.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —Amy Adams has got it. Now I do want to point out the speech from Willie Jackson, that they haven’t taken his suggestion of looking for a Māori leader to lead them to the 2020 election.

Hon Willie Jackson: Jami-Lee.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: He did mention Jami-Lee; I don’t think Jami-Lee is going to run. But, here’s the rub: Judith Collins is not going to sit and watch Amy Adams just take it so easily; neither is Simon Bridges. So it’s going to get ugly, until it comes to a head, and it’s going to get ugly for the National caucus. So the phone batteries of the members of the National caucus are going to go very flat very fast over the next three or four days, because they are going to get lobbied heavily by both—I think the front runners now are Amy and Simon.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Amy Adams and Simon Bridges. So—

Erica Stanford: Is that all you’ve been thinking about today? Come on, what else is new?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Ha! Erica Stanford thinks that charter schools are the issue of the day. I would suggest you go to the New Zealand Herald and Stuff websites and figure out that the failed leader of the next National Government is about to be chosen.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Debate resumed from 13 February.

Part 1 Repeal of provisions that provide for expiry of subparts 5 and 5A of Part 2 (continued)

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Chair, and it’s good to see Minister Chris Hipkins in the chair as well. I hope that he will be able to answer a very simple question that I put to the Minister last night. It’s not an agricultural question; it is a policy question, which I think that as a suitably qualified member of the Labour Cabinet he will be able to give us some direction upon. It is not something that is particular to the Minister of Agriculture but rather something that, being of a policy nature, he would be able to determine for us.

That is, in the Dairy Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2), the question asked is around why they took out the clause around open entry and exit. Now, for the Minister’s awareness, that clause was in the original bill that the National Party had presented to the House. Basically, it gave the ability to Fonterra to say no to new conversions that they would have to provide capability in their industrial manufacturing sites to process. So, effectively, they have to provide the infrastructure in stainless steel to enable the production of those milk solids into products. Generally, that would go into milk powders, which are not value-added products, because it is spare capacity that they would not have that major investment in.

Now, the Minister made it very clear that the emphasis that the Government is taking in this bill is to direct the industry into a more value-added approach, and nobody has any problem with that. In fact, Fonterra and farmers are very much in that zone. The question is: why then do they take out a clause that encourages now—because that open entry and exit provision is removed, it means that Fonterra has to provide a lot more commodity-based infrastructure, when, if they’d left that clause in, it would achieve their purpose of more value-add for the industry.

So it’s a very simple policy issue that I think the Minister in the chair would be able to give us direction on. He’s a very astute Minister that understands a lot of the policies behind legislation like this, so it’s not something that we needed the actual Minister to be there to determine. So I’d like to have a reply from him as to why that clause was taken out, because it seems contrary to the intention that the Labour Government has made clear in its speeches in this House last night. It just doesn’t make sense when it’s what the industry wanted, it’s what farmers wanted, and it’s what the general public want—to see more value-add—and yet we’re taking out the one clause that would have encouraged that value-add, and now we’re encouraging more of the same, in essence, of a lot of powder production.

The second issue that I didn’t get a chance to talk about in my first contribution in the committee stage yesterday was in relation to regulated milk. This is the portion of milk that Fonterra has to supply to new start-up companies. When Fonterra was formed, the intention was that, of course, there would be that supply to let those companies start, and they get, basically, milk at cost price. Fonterra delivers it at cost price to these companies—

Rt Hon David Carter: The old Fonterra argument.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, no; that’s how it works, Mr Carter.

So, effectively, these companies get a start with not having to do their own collection at that point. Now, what was looked at—from Fonterra’s point of view, they see that as becoming difficult to maintain because they’re giving a very big start to those other companies, and so the submission, and what was agreed upon, was to reduce that regulated large-scale provision of milk.

Now, that makes a lot of sense when you consider the argument that New Zealand First has made consistently in the public around the internationalisation of the dairy-processing industry. New Zealand First has been very careful on a number of occasions to make public statements saying that they don’t believe New Zealand - regulated milk should go to international processors.

If we look at our market and the production of milk, even in the South Island there’s a very high proportion that has an international component—for example, Synlait; Bright Dairy and Food Co. Ltd, a Chinese company, has 39 percent; Open Country Dairy Ltd has a shareholding that’s overseas based. If you look at some of the other companies, like Yashili New Zealand Dairy and Oceania Dairy Ltd, those companies also very much have an overseas presence in what they own and how they are owned. They, effectively, are getting subsidised milk from New Zealand farmers and the New Zealand cooperative for international companies. Rightly, as you would expect, New Zealand First found that very egregious, and they have taken it upon themselves to say, in many public statements, how bad that is.

I just want to quote the Rt Hon Winston Peters in the Waikato Times on 6 March 2017.

Rt Hon David Carter: You’re getting desperate.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: I am brave. He said here that “New Zealand First will not be so craven … While it is positive Fonterra will finally get control of its burgeoning milk pool in 2018/19 with discretion over taking milk from new dairy conversions, we would ensure that ‘regulated milk’ only goes to New Zealand-owned processors.” This is what New Zealand First has said in their policy, and what they have said pre-election: “We will ensure that regulated milk only goes to New Zealand - owned processors.”

Now, the regulated milk provisions in the bill that was put forward by the previous Minister have been removed. One cannot reconcile the fact that the Labour - New Zealand First coalition has removed the clauses that would limit regulated milk, and, in effect, what New Zealand First is actually doing by voting for this bill in the form it is in now, is increasing the amount of milk that now goes to international companies and internationally owned companies, because they’re not limiting that amount of regulated milk. That is very much contrary to the perception of New Zealand First. It’s contrary to the approach that New Zealand First has always taken.

There’s another comment from the Rt Hon Winston Peters on 16 June 2016, where he said, “If you look at this Act, it only benefits the foreign processors.” So instead of having the sunset clauses that would have applied in the legislation—that’s the 80 percent threshold—and reducing it to 75 percent and keeping the legislation going, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, his comment was that this only benefits foreign-produced processors.

I ask the New Zealand First Party to actually explain, through the Minister—because the Minister will be acting on behalf of both coalition partners—why, before this bill was actually introduced to this House yesterday, they were so strident in their opposition to foreign processors, and yet the very bill they bring in means that foreign processors have more access to milk. Why did they take away the provision that would have limited foreign processors’ access to milk and replace it with nothing, but encourage and mean that foreign processors have that access? It just does not make sense, from a New Zealand First point of view, that they would do that.

So there are two things that I would like the Minister to explain. The first is a policy rationale: why this Government has taken out the open entry and exit provisions that would have meant that Fonterra would have been able to say no to new conversions, and therefore would have been able to invest more money in value-add, rather than just have to have more stainless steel there—why that was taken out. Secondly, why the other provision on regulated milk was taken out, which only has the effect of encouraging and increasing the milk supply at a regulated price to foreign companies.

Those two things can still be left in this legislation and still enable the Labour Party to do their wider review. That doesn’t preclude them doing that. I just can’t understand why they’ve taken them out, from a policy point of view, because it doesn’t match with the intention that the Labour Party said yesterday, of wanting to have more value-add, and it doesn’t match with the intention that the New Zealand First Party has said, of reducing the regulated milk that would go to international companies. So I’d really appreciate it if the Minister could answer those two questions. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): For a short part of those two contributions to the debate, I found myself in the very unusual position of agreeing with David Bennett. I don’t recall that happening before, actually, in the history of this Parliament. But I am recovering a little bit from that position, and I guess the reason for that is that this bill was, in part, introduced by the honourable member’s party. It was introduced in the bad old days, when we had a National-led Government. It didn’t proceed to a select committee.

The incoming Government looked at it and said there are some provisions in this legislation that we want to see go ahead, but the new Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damien O’Connor, who has had a lot more experience with the dairy industry than the member who just made a contribution, although I acknowledge his experience in the dairy industry—

Hon Nathan Guy: Try and be nice. Try and be nice, Ruth, if you can.

Hon RUTH DYSON: You should address people by their proper names, the Hon Nathan Guy. Standing Orders of the House of Representatives—page a day. The Hon Damien O’Connor, the current Minister, who has a lot of experience in the dairy industry, said there are some provisions in this legislation that if they don’t progress through to the third reading and be passed, will mean that provisions that everyone in the House seems to agree on will expire. So that’s why I’m pleased that we’ve seen, despite the debate that the National Party keeps contributing to, that there’s a lot of agreement that those provisions shouldn’t expire.

There is some debate about that, and that’s one of the downsides of not having gone through the select committee process, but I want to raise one that’s been mentioned to me, because I know it’s been considered by the Minister, and in his view the positives from this legislation outweighed the negatives. In fact, in his view taking away the provisions that I’m just going to refer to would not address the problem, and that is this: there are some units that are dairy farms that would in most situations be considered not viable.

Most good dairy farmers would say, “That’s not a place that you should have a dairy farm.” It might cost too much to irrigate, it might cost too much to fertilise, or it might be too far away from the pick-up system, but under the dairy industry legislation, of course, Fonterra have a requirement to collect that milk. So the position that’s been put to me is that we should consider that as a Parliament, and I think we should, in the way that often these issues are discussed—in a more bipartisan way than many other pieces of legislation. If we do have some parts of our country where we actually don’t think that dairy farming is the best use of that land, but some people have started a dairy farm, and then Fonterra are required to pick up the milk, is that good? Do we want to see that continue?

I think that’s a legitimate debate to have, and, as I say, because we are progressing this bill through all stages so that the provisions we all agree on don’t expire, I think that as the wider review is done—the Minister’s given us a clear undertaking that the wider review of the dairy industry is going to take place—I welcome the contribution from our National Party members. The Hon David Bennett, who I’ve already acknowledged, has got experience in the dairy industry, and the Rt Hon David Carter—a former Minister—has got a lot of experience in this House, as well as in the farming community. I would welcome their contribution to that particular point: is this a problem? Is it an issue that this Parliament should consider? Should we just leave it entirely to the market, in which case would we take away the requirement for Fonterra? I’m not talking about for existing farms, of course, because you couldn’t retrospectively change the rules, but in my view the incentives are wrong. We are providing incentives for dairy farming in parts of the country that without that Fonterra requirement would probably not run a dairy farm.

So I’m really pleased with the progress that this bill is making. It hasn’t been around the Parliament that long—it was introduced only last year by the National Government, and didn’t ever make it to a select committee. As I said, some provisions that were in it originally have been taken out, but to make sure that the parts that this Parliament wants to keep don’t expire, this very small bill is going to progress through all stages, provided that it gets the votes that it needs. I’ve enjoyed listening to the debate yesterday and today. I hope that we have more contributions to it, and that perhaps, more than just biffing bricks at each other, we talk about, and contribute to, the actual policies that drove the introduction of this legislation in the first place, under a National-led Government, and which have led us to this situation as we currently are in.

It seems to me that the more we are able to openly discuss policies, rather than just take political point-scoring opportunities, the better off our legislation will be. We can consider the views and perspectives of other members of Parliament, particularly those who have experience and expertise in this area, and make what might be a medium-quality bill even better, or, as I have seen in years gone past, a bad bill better. That’s the responsibility of a member of Parliament. I think it’s one that we take pretty seriously. I know that the Hon Nathan Guy has put in one amendment to this. I’ve had only a brief read of it. I don’t think it will be getting the support of our party at this stage, but—

Hon Nathan Guy: I’ve pulled it.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Oh, the honourable member’s pulled it? Thank you. I didn’t realise that. I wasn’t aware of that fact. I just saw it on the Table about half an hour ago. So we haven’t, then, had any amendments to this legislation. Perhaps it’s not big enough to amend—there’s not much to it! But, certainly, I would welcome the opportunity to give consideration to amendments from whatever party in Parliament, to make sure that as we progress this, particularly without select committee consideration, we make it as good as we possibly can. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thanks very much for an opportunity to make a call on what is a very important bill even though it’s a very small bill. What it does is just a band-aid on an expiry date for South Island processors, but the substantive point that I want to make is it’s kind of interesting that the Government chose to put the House in urgency for this bill yesterday, and then took it out of urgency last night, and now we’re back debating it not in urgency. So it is kind of bizarre, and having the Leader of the House in the chair this afternoon, it would be quite good to hear from him about his strategy, because what I found rather ironic is there was no discussion with Opposition parties—that I’m aware of, and I’ve canvassed it with my colleagues last night—from the Minister about putting the House into urgency for what is really just a small, technical date change. I find it really hard to fathom that the House was thrown into urgency yesterday to debate a very technical change on this bill, and yet here we are this afternoon, now not in urgency.

Mr Chair, while you’re referring me to refer back to the bill, I’m happy to do that, but here we are today, now that this bill isn’t so urgent as it was yesterday. I think, had the Government not been so arrogant as to presume that we would just tick this through under urgency yesterday, without making the full speeches that we made—and they were full of content, not of rhetoric, because we know how important this bill is to the primary sector and, indeed, to the dairy industry. So I would appreciate hearing from Mr Hipkins this afternoon as to why this bill was urgent under all stages yesterday, and now suddenly it’s not so urgent.

What I would also want to hear from the Minister is why there couldn’t have been a truncated select committee period. You would think, for a bill that is significant to the South Island—there’s probably 4,000 suppliers in the South Island; certainly, I would think, there’s 50,000 jobs that are created in the dairy industry in New Zealand, so let’s presume there’s probably 20,000-odd in the South Island—it would warrant the select committee having a look at it. Yes, Mr Hipkins will no doubt get up and say, “Oh, it’s just a technical one. It’s a date change.”, but there’re a whole lot of things that could have been included in this bill that we are debating in the committee stage this afternoon that aren’t, and those things are going to be swept off to a review.

We spent quite a bit of time yesterday referring to the review. We finally heard from Minister O’Connor that the review is going to take 12 months, but we didn’t hear whether the review is going to be run by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE), or Treasury or whether there is going to be any independence. He actually offered up to me yesterday—not you, Mr Chair, but Minister O’Connor—that we could choose to nominate people for a sort of panel or committee. Then he also went on to say that it would have been great if he could have brought the terms of reference to the debate yesterday, because that would have helped the fulsome nature of debating this part that we are now debating in the committee, but he couldn’t do that, because anyone with any dairy industry experience within MPI was focused on M. bovis cattle disease. I find that a little bit hard to fathom, when there are about 2,500 officials that work in the Ministry for Primary Industries.

So, concluding my contribution this afternoon, we support this technical change, in the National Party, but it would have been good to have had the discussion prior to leading up to urgency yesterday, because we saw that as a real, sort of, breach of our confidence on this side of the House that there was no—[Time expired]

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. The member who has just spoken, Nathan Guy, has raised some fairly legitimate, I think, questions about the process the Government has followed in this bill, so I am very happy to respond to those, as to why the bill was introduced under urgency yesterday and then urgency was discontinued last night and the bill has been brought back during the regular sitting time today.

The bill was introduced under urgency because we want to have it passed by the end of the month. We want to provide the certainty to the farming community in the South Island that will go with that. Therefore, the only way to do that and to have it passed by the end of the month was to ensure that there was no select committee process between the first and second readings. Urgency was required to deliver that yesterday, and we did just that last night.

We could have continued through urgency this morning, for example, and passed the bill before lunchtime today. However, that would have most likely affected the select committees that Parliament had scheduled to meet this morning. I’m aware that there are a number of annual review hearings that took place this morning, including one on my own portfolio of education, that most likely would have been cancelled, had the House been sitting. I am sure that the Opposition members, in their role of holding the Government to account, would have been somewhat disappointed had I, as Leader of the House, put Parliament into urgency that would have resulted in annual reviews being cancelled because the House was sitting, and select committees aren’t supposed to meet while the House is sitting. So, therefore, I made the decision to end urgency last night and bring the bill back for the remaining part of its committee stage this afternoon, then we will do the third reading tomorrow, and the Government will still meet its objective of passing this bill through reasonably promptly to give that certainty required.

The member David Bennett asked a variety of questions, as did Nathan Guy, as to why certain provisions were not in the legislation. The legislation, quite simply, preserves the status quo. As the member previously indicated, it simply pushes out the clock to stop the South Island provisions from expiring whilst a wider review takes place. The matters that the members have raised simply sit outside of that objective. They are wider than that objective. The objective is very simple: it’s to preserve the status quo while a wider review takes place.

The final question is: why the urgency? Well, obviously, there is a ticking clock; there is a deadline here. I note that the previous bill that was introduced into the House in March last year by the previous Government was not progressed in any way. A full select committee process could have taken place between March and the general election, had the previous Government thought that this was a priority. They clearly didn’t. Therefore, this Government is left cleaning up the mess that we inherited.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to stand and take a call on this small, short, but very important bill, as the Hon Nathan Guy alluded to. As Minister Hipkins also alluded to, the fact of the matter is that the previous National Government sat on its hands over this particular issue with the bill that they had looked to introduce but chose to take no further. Well, you know, I’m just reiterating what someone says that makes absolute sense to me.

We believe that the removal of the expiry provisions is of utmost importance in order to allow the industry to continue to operate in an efficient and competitive manner whilst allowing the Government to undertake a review of the issues in the dairy sector and the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. We know that back when Fonterra was established, there was concern about it having a dominant market position. A way to manage that was the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act in 2001, which placed regulatory requirements on Fonterra through Subparts 5 and 5A of Part 2, promoting the efficient operation of dairy markets in New Zealand and providing for the monitoring of Fonterra’s Farmgate Milk Price.

We know now, looking back, that there are more independent processors in the South Island and that they are collecting over 20 percent. The default expiry of the efficiency and contestability was triggered. Once that happens, the Minister must request a report on the state of the competition, and then, once the Minister’s received the report and gazetted the response to it, the Governor-General must by Order in Council declare that Subpart 5 and all of Subpart 5A will cease to apply to the island that’s reached the market threshold. The default expiry requirement really creates uncertainty for those involved in the dairy industry whilst also imposing time and scope restraints on managing the whole decision-making process and the regulatory response to expiry.

So, under clause 4, we see that sections 147 to 150 will be repealed. Currently, section 148 says that Subparts 5 and 5A cease to apply. So what that means is that there will be no obligation from Fonterra to collect milk from new conversions—or, potentially, dairy farms, currently—and that does not help provide certainty to the industry, and it’s an industry that at times faces real uncertainty through weather conditions, payouts, etc. So amending the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act and preventing expiry provisions will mean that the status quo remains.

Some of the key provisions that will be maintained are the open entry and exit, whereby Fonterra must accept applications from farmers to become a shareholding farmer and they must accept a supply of milk from that shareholder. Shareholding farmers can also exit when they choose and move to supply another dairy processor. This is one of the most significant of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act provisions, and it allows for new processors entering the industry the opportunity to obtain milk supply and will also incentivise Fonterra to price milk efficiently.

The milk price monitoring regime, currently the Commerce Commission, is required to review Fonterra’s Farmgate Milk Price calculation at the end of each dairy season, and it also reviews Fonterra’s Farmgate Milk Price manual. This manual sets out the methodology by which Fonterra calculates its base milk price that is paid to the farmers for their milk at that season.

The intention of this is to provide confidence and transparency in Fonterra’s base milk price settings. It also allows for the 20 percent rule. This allows farmers to sell 20 percent of their milk to other processors each season. So, again, this is going to continue to provide certainty to dairy farmers while the Government undertakes a full review, or the ministry organises a full review, of the industry, and I think that it’s really important for our farmers. Where I live, in the electorate of Rangitata, the majority of farming practice there is predominantly dairying, and this will provide real certainty for them.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to take a call in the committee stage of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to really focus on the core provisions of what we are doing with this piece of legislation. It is all about, as my colleague Joanne Luxton said, providing certainty for our South Island dairy farmers, the whole dairy sector. If we look at clause 4 in Part 1, it really goes to the heart of it, because Subparts 5 and 5A of Part 2 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA), those provisions have been activated under the 2001 principal legislation. That was because the market threshold, which was set in the legislation at 20 percent, had been assessed to be in excess of that. So we had all of these legislative triggers that had been activated, which led to the Minister requesting that the Commerce Commission produce a report, but it also activated—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Did they do it?

RINO TIRIKATENE: They did; they did a very fine report. In fact, the Commerce Commission felt that there was sufficient competition and the industry wasn’t quite ready for full deregulation. So that’s what we’re doing here today, ensuring that the provisions of DIRA, which have been in place since 2001, will continue for all farmers in the South Island, and processors as well.

So let us think: what would happen had we not passed this legislation? It would throw the entire dairy sector of the South Island into disarray, because the provisions of Subparts 5 and 5A of the Act are far-reaching. As I said, it’s activated a process, a trigger point, and the cancellation, basically, of the regulations that have long applied. So what we would do, in one fell swoop, by failing to pass this legislation is throw all of the dairy sector into disarray. They would not know whether they would be obliged—who would collect their milk, whether they would still be able to apply for open entry into Fonterra, or whether they would still be entitled to be able to give 20 percent of their milk supply to a different processor.

So the reasons why we are doing this, as I’ve said—it’s very important that we maintain the status quo, that we provide certainty for our South Island farmers, and, as it states here, in repealing the provisions of the expiry, which are imprinted into Subparts 5 and 5A, we need to ensure that those provisions don’t come into effect so that, indeed, as I’ve mentioned, the status quo can remain. Our farmers of the South Island can be at ease, they can wake up in the morning, as they do, and get to work on their farms, and they will know exactly what will be taking place.

Now, that’s not to say that change is not on the horizon, and that’s why, running parallel to this piece of legislation, there will be a review being carried out. As the Commerce Commission said, there needs to be a pathway to deregulation, but that needs further discussion, further consultation with all of the industry, because, again, these are big issues that need to be discussed. Setting the right thresholds—again, based on the Commerce Commission’s recommended 30 percent threshold, effectively, again, the status quo should remain, because currently Fonterra’s supply that they don’t have is around 24 percent.

So it’s really important that we pass this legislation. We started it under urgency, and it’s really important that we continue that process so we can, again, provide comfort, certainty, to the South Island dairy sector but also, parallel to this, we will continue the path, have full consultation with the sector, to ensure that there is a clear pathway to deregulation, which will occur, and that will provide a larger picture for our dairy sector in the future. But for the time being, it’s very important that this legislation—that the triggers that are in place are cancelled so the status quo can remain.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It’s a privilege to take a call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to acknowledge the importance of the dairy industry in terms of our reputation as a reputable export nation. Recently, I’ve just returned from the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, which was the delegation led by Jonathan Young, and joining Jonathan Young were Mark Patterson and myself. I’m talking about this because they made stunning speeches internationally, in Vietnam, about New Zealand’s contribution to economic development in terms of the primary industry, and it is important to note that whilst we in the House might have differing ideas, when we represented the nation in the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, we were one. We were one, and when we did speak, we spoke on matters regarding Aotearoa New Zealand. We were proud to talk about the great things that are happening here. So I want to acknowledge the dairy industry and its importance in terms of its contribution to the well-being of our nation.

I’ve chosen to make a call on this—I think the member, maybe three members ago, spoke about how it is a small technicality. He talked about—and I want to thank the Minister for putting clarification on—the small technicality, but I put it to the House that if the dairy industry is important to the nation, to our growth, then anything to do with the dairy industry is not small. Every discussion that we have on the dairy industry is not small.

I’ve heard members speak about the importance of preserving the status quo, and one thing that comes with preserving the status quo is the confidence and security—confidence and security, not just for the farmers themselves but the rest of New Zealand. And in doing this process, in terms of talking in the House about the dairy industry, it also educates parts of the country or members of the public, and I put myself in those in terms of educating myself in terms of the dairy industry.

I want to support this bill because it’s important that time is allowed. Some people might say 12 months is a long time, but if you take out the public holidays and the weekends, I think time is to allow certainty—if we are seriously looking at the sector, to ensure certainty in the market, and we as a country and as a Government are responsible for making sure that we provide time by conducting a review that runs side by side in terms of this legislation.

I want to also support what others have said—that the legislation has been here since 2015 and we’re just talking about it now. Some members of the Opposition—I sat through yesterday, and I’ve listened to honourable members speak on this subject and talk about their expertise in terms of their knowledge in the farming industry, and most of the people that spoke on that were accountants. My background is social work, and people might question, “Well, what does she know about the dairy industry?” Well, I started my talk about the importance of New Zealand’s contribution to the world economy, and the importance of that being transparent, and about keeping the status quo while the review is being conducted. It is because we want confidence and security—not just for our farmers but worldwide—we want to make sure that things—[Time expired]

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Mr Chair, thank you. I’m delighted to take a call on this very important piece of legislation. As I walked into the Chamber not that long ago, Mr Chris Bishop shouted out the word “outrageous”, and I wasn’t sure if he was commenting on my entry into this debate or on the comments of one of my other colleagues or if it was a comment in relation to one of the leadership aspirants in the National Party today, but I don’t think this bill is outrageous at all. I think this bill is actually a very, very important piece of legislation, and the Government’s very pleased to be getting on with the job and putting it forward today. I think we’ve heard previously that this is a bill that languished in select committee for some time back in 2016, and, actually, there’s a degree of urgency in proceeding with it.

The bill, of course, amends the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA). That Act came about in 2001 under the previous Labour Government, and enabled the formation of Fonterra. This goes to the very heart and the very purpose of what we’re talking about, because why was that Act required to enable the formation of Fonterra in the first instance? The chief reason that it was required was because Fonterra acts, essentially, in a monopsonist manner, in that it is not quite a single buyer but an extremely dominant buyer of a very important commodity product within our economy. The normal competition laws that are in place wouldn’t necessarily allow for such a company structure to form, and so we needed a special piece of legislation to allow for it. When this House makes those sorts of decisions, we need to put in place certain protections to ensure that that market power that is handed, in this case, to Fonterra has some checks and balances on it and that we don’t entirely eliminate the potential for companies to enter that market and create a degree of competition and a degree of innovation.

So the situation that we find ourselves in is that that original Act put in place certain provisions that created those checks and those balances, but there were, essentially, sunset clauses put in there that said that when we get below a certain threshold those provisions will no longer be in effect. That was passed last year.

So what happened at that point was the Commerce Commission had to undertake a review, and what they found—this is really, really important; that’s why we have to get this piece of legislation through—is that, and I’m quoting from the regulatory impact statement here, “the current state of competition is not yet sufficient to ensure the efficient and contestable operation of dairy markets in the absence of the DIRA regulatory regime.” So that is why we need this piece of legislation, to ensure that we have those protections while we get on with the broader business of looking at what the longer-term regulatory regime might be and whether it is, in fact, possible to move to more of a deregulated situation. But, of course, we want to be cautious in that area, because if we remove those regulations while there is not sufficient competition within the industry, we have a lack of competition, we have a lack of innovation, and we have a lack of protection for some of those smaller players who may well have good things to contribute within the dairy market.

So the bill itself is a reasonably short piece of legislation. Part 1, essentially, relates to sections 147 to 150 of the primary legislation. The particular provisions that we want to ensure are kept in place to ensure that we have a degree of competition within the industry relate to—I’ll just find them here—having an oversight of what is happening within the sector, essentially. We’re talking in particular about the South Island. The key things that we want to see in place are having an open entry and exit regime. So Fonterra must accept applications from a shareholding farmer in Fonterra and must accept supply of milk from that shareholder.

There’s a milk price monitoring regime, and that’s, effectively, ensuring that the regime that we have in place, which has Fonterra as a very dominant receiver of milk, a very dominant buyer, doesn’t result in milk prices being too high. This is really important—the 20 percent rule. That allows Fonterra farmers—farmers who’ve signed up with Fonterra—to sell up to 20 percent of their milk production to another processor each season. That, to me, is probably the critical part of this, which allows space for smaller suppliers, who might otherwise be squeezed out by a very, very dominant buyer, to have a place in the market, to get a toehold, to be able to innovate, to be able to give good service to those farmers, and also to keep Fonterra on its toes. So this piece of legislation does need to go through, so that we can ensure that degree of competition and innovation remains in this very important industry, which makes up 40 percent of our agricultural exports. Thank you, Mr Chair.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Chair. As someone who stands in this Chamber representing what, on the surface of it, would appear to be a very rural electorate, Ōhāriu—certainly, while it’s the most beautiful electorate in New Zealand, it also is quite interesting because it’s one that really, when we look at dairying, is a picture and a history of dairying in New Zealand. Unbeknown to many, there were once 20 dairy farms in that electorate, out in Ōhāriu Valley. Those farms once provided this fine city and the burghers thereof and the people thereof with their dairy products over the years. Obviously, this has evolved somewhat now—essentially it’s now horses and sheep mostly out there. However, that does give a little background to what I would like to discuss in relation to this bill.

In my own background in dairying, let me just say that I was so young when I first started milking cows on a West Coast dairy farm that my father, instead of using metal cups, actually had plastic cups so that we young lads could actually reach up and put them on in the very modern cowshed, the first herringbone cowshed, on the West Coast. So here we were—and I suppose as a member of the Labour Party I’ve got to be very careful that I’m not going to be quoted later on, across the Table, as advocating for child labour. But here I was, as a six-year-old, milking cows with my brothers while my father went off the farm to help the rest of the West Coast. As we had that herringbone shed, we did get many visitors from around the South Island. It was such an advanced piece of technology on this farm. It was to be, obviously, overtaken later on by those who were lucky enough to have the roundabout.

However, on a little bit of a sadder note, before I go on to the depth of the bill—and although farmers like to think of themselves as a very independent bunch, right through the history of farming there has been the need for good government oversight and even control to ensure that industry does continue. I talk of TB. I can still remember my father looking at the results of the latest TB test, and Buller, northern Buller in particular, was an area that was badly hit by TB—losing a third of the herd each time. He, like many other farmers in the district, was very nearly wiped out. It was only the timely intervention of the Government, where those cattle that previously went down the chute because they were riddled with TB when they went to the works, were actually bought from the farm—

Rt Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to remind Mr Chair and the member that we’re talking about the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act Amendment Bill (No 2)—two simple pages of an amendment; nothing to do with the contribution being made by this member whatsoever.

GREG O’CONNOR: Mr Chairman, if I might, just to give some context—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no—e noho. [Interruption] No, I don’t need any help. I thank the member for that contribution. This has been quite a wide-ranging debate on such a small bill, and I tend to agree with the member and I’ll ask Greg O’Connor to continue but to come to the bill. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR: Right, thank you for that very clear and concise direction—

Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I’d just like some clarification on the ruling you just made. This Chamber is aware, and every member should be aware, that this bill didn’t go through a select committee. So I’m just wanting your assurance that there is quite a wide berth given to the speeches that are made through this process.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I can assure the member that if it did go to select committee, the content of some of the speeches would not be discussed there.

GREG O’CONNOR: Thank you again, Mr Chair, for that very clear and concise direction. What I was endeavouring to do was to just build the background and context to understand that the background of this bill, of course, was around ensuring that there is sufficient competition in the dairy sector in the South Island—in fact, right throughout New Zealand—to ensure that, actually, the people who are ultimately protected are the farmers. I am aware that there are farmers now in the South Island who are in some trepidation that, ultimately, their milk will not be picked up because, in the absence of any such competition, which this bill is actually addressing, there will be only one big provider who will decide they will stop at a certain river and not go beyond that river to pick up the milk. We’ll see that those very people that members across the aisle seek to be protecting—or certainly leveraging their anger, as we saw in the previous election—will be the ones who will be left either pouring the milk down the drain or actually having to turn their farms into another source of production.

So I recommend this bill to the committee for the reason that it is absolutely essential in an industry that is so important to New Zealand that we have the right governance structure, and that this Government, which in the past has saved farmers like my father—saved industries—still maintains the ability to do so. A laissez-faire approach would be the result of ignoring this legislation, and that would result in a poorer farming environment. Thank you, Mr Chair.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the amendment to the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. I think it’s important that we look at the role that the dairy industry plays in New Zealand and also how this has changed over time.

There was a time in New Zealand when any small farmer had the opportunity of participating in dairy farming and of being able to make a living from dairy farming. Over time, we’ve seen companies grow bigger and a more corporate spread happening, while that’s benefited New Zealand hugely—and we look at the contribution that our only multinational company, Fonterra, makes to our economy—we also look at how the average person is trying to make a living in farming. Their first crack really is as a sharemilker not as an owner or an operator. So when we look at the inability of the average farmer to be able to participate, and own and take a stake in how this is happening, we need to make sure that there is sufficient competition within New Zealand’s dairy industry to enable that healthy competition to take place.

So what we’ve seen through the Commerce Commission’s inquiry is that this is not sufficient in the South Island, that there is not a sufficient level of competition happening in order for us to be satisfied that those provisions should expire, and that’s exactly why this piece of legislation is being put through under urgency. We need to make sure that there is sufficient knowledge, that we do have healthy competition, and that we do have a good way of doing this. The Labour Party has a strong record of making sure that we have healthy competition in the market place. When I think back to having Telecom as a single provider in our telecommunications industry, the last Labour Government looked at opening the market place for there to be more healthy competition and to enable other providers to give New Zealanders access to fair price products in the telecommunications market. That’s also what we need to be reassuring New Zealanders should be happening right here. For that reason, we need to make sure that there are good opportunities for those in the South Island to have a fair go.

Now, one of the things that I remember, growing up in parts of rural New Zealand, was seeing how much it’s important to have a good community and good people who can make ends meet. I remember clearly at A and P show days where kids were struggling out in the farms and where farmers were struggling. We need to make sure that this bill proceeds with urgency in order to give that reassurance.

The Government wants to take a strategic view of the dairy industry, given its place in New Zealand’s economy; 40 percent is a big whack of what we earn, and it’s about right that we make sure that we do it properly. I think the members opposite would be inclined to rush into this blindly and stamp it and not be too concerned. But we do need to remember that this bill did not proceed to select committee, and it does need further interrogation and debate at this point in time. It would be nice if the members opposite actually even paid attention and started listening and contributing to the debate instead of sitting there quietly, so it’s important that they don’t even seem to be that concerned about this piece of legislation, which was kicked off initially by their own party. But there’s still opportunity tonight for further comment, and I encourage the members opposite to read the papers and take part in the debate and talk about some of their own constituents, potentially, who could benefit from this piece of legislation progressing as quickly as possible.

So, Madam Chair Williams, I thank you for the opportunity and I commend this bill to the House.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Chair Tolley. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I’m glad the National members are supporting it. I’m glad they are, because on one hand it’s quite surprising. If you listened to the debate last night, David Bennett himself said it was the biggest attack on the New Zealand farming industry in the next three years—the biggest attack in the next three years—but David Bennett and the National Party voted for it. Now, I don’t want to call them up on their inconsistencies of language, but I’m glad they’re voting for it, because what we’ve had for a long time is an approach where policies and rules have been rammed through.

What we actually need to do is have a whole-of-the-country discussion, because it’s really important when we’re dealing with the dairy industry that we get all stakeholders around the table. Instead of a one-sided debate that has seen the massive intensification, the massive problems we’ve seen in New Zealand, we should be working collaboratively over those solutions. What we need is to hear from all those stakeholders that have had their voices ignored. It’s incredibly important because Fonterra, you know, is the world’s biggest dairy exporter company, the second-largest by volume, responsible for 40 percent of our primary industries and a huge number of jobs—tremendously economically important, but also, you could put an argument, a tremendously missed economic opportunity.

Now, what we haven’t heard in this debate in the committee stage is a comment on the environmental implications of what Fonterra’s done. What we’ve seen is two-thirds of our waterways in New Zealand are considered unsafe for our kids to swim in. Our kids are risking getting sick if they swim in our rivers, and we’ve got to acknowledge that Fonterra and all those dairy farms are a major contributor to declining water quality—in fact, the dirty rivers that are making us sick across the country. Other countries have their factories, which are quite visible with their smokestacks and pollution; this is our equivalent in New Zealand, responsible for half—half—of our total greenhouse gas pollution. So this is such an opportunity to address those issues. How do we encourage more value-added products from our agricultural sector? How do we tell that national story and leverage off our “clean, green” brand? How can we clean up our environment and make sure that our rivers are safe to swim in? So that’s why I’m glad that all parties are supporting it, because, essentially, all this bill does is give us a little bit of time, a little bit of breathing space so that we don’t have to do what the previous Government used to always do, which is ram stuff through to actually get all the parties around the table.

So in Part 1, by delaying the implementation of sections 147 to 150 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA), we allow the open market entry and exit and the milk price monitoring regime to have a bit of time to have that review. At the moment, what we know is they would have expired in May of this year. Now, we did have concerns, originally, with this. What we wanted was for the industry to be able to crack on with the changes to the open entry and exit, because at the moment one of the major problems facing our environment in New Zealand is that automatic entry and automatic requirement for milk to be picked up. When you drive across country, be it Canterbury or the central North Island, you can see these massive dairy conversions, and I think, quite simply, you could argue we’ve been seeing dairy in the wrong place. It’s not suitable for the environment. What it has done is it’s encouraged peak cow—this fantastic growth in the numbers of dairy herds, which some experts say is the equivalent of tens of millions of people’s effluent flowing into our waterway. This is what these rules have achieved.

So we are urging the Government to crack on with this review, because we do need to call a halt to the massive and, I put it, crazy intensification in conversions we’ve seen in this country’s recent history.

Alastair Scott: Ah, you are closing down the dairy farms.

GARETH HUGHES: No, we’re not talking about closing down the dairy farms. We’re talking about a smart, rational approach that actually sees dairy in the right places and other agricultural industries in the right places, because when we’ve seen the massive environmental consequences, we know something’s gone incredibly wrong. That’s something that has been totally ignored by the previous Government. It’s something that their original legislation, which these clauses are changing, would have ignored. The National Party’s always said that environmental issues shouldn’t be dealt with by this, but when you’ve seen a structural body, in the form of Fonterra—with the massive market power and influence it has, it hasn’t acted as a force for good. In fact, it’s acted as a force for declining water quality in New Zealand and dirty rivers that are making our kids sick. So that’s why we want to make sure all the stakeholders are around the table. We can actually design a system where it acts as a force for good.

Now, we’re a huge supporter of cooperatives in New Zealand. We want to see more cooperative activities. It’s a great model that’s succeeding on the world stage, but let’s take it to the next step and make sure it’s a force for good. That’s why we were glad, when we were delaying these sections—only for the year review—that the Minister has agreed to some of the ideas that the Green Party has been pushing, because we want to make sure the sustainability and environmental protections are contained in that review. So the Minister’s agreed over that 12-month period to talk about organics. Now, what we know is it’s a higher value - added product. It receives greater export earnings and less environmental impacts. There’s some fantastic work being done by conventional and organic dairy farms in New Zealand. What we want to make sure is that Fonterra, as a cooperative, is set up to encourage us to approach those greater value - added products.

When you look at those 10,500 dairy farms in New Zealand, aggregated—you know, the world’s largest exporter—but when you look at a different comparator, we’re the 18th in the world for sales volume per kilogram of milksolids. That’s a common measure of value. What that means is we’re very good at producing milk, but we’re not that great at actually producing value out of it. So when we are exporting products all around the world, we’re focusing on these low-value commodities, these, essentially, brown paper bags of milk products—products that have a high greenhouse gas intensity. Now, when you’ve got a system that the DIRA encourages, which is for Fonterra to accept every single drop of milk being produced, what you’ve seen is negative environmental consequences. But, on the flip side, because the system has been driven by volume, they’ve gone for these low-commodity, low-value products. So to process those milk products—the milksolids—they’ve turned to coal, and we know that Fonterra’s the largest coal consumer in New Zealand. So not only are we trashing our environment and not only are we trashing our climate, but we’re not even getting the most out of the product.

So we’ve got a vision that we can achieve a sustainable dairy industry in New Zealand. We could leverage off that great—$18 billion is the estimate—“clean, green” brand. We could tell a fantastic story in traceability of dairy products, back to the story of those family farmers who produced it. We could be focusing on innovation, and I put it to this committee that Fonterra’s lack of success at innovation and focusing on R & D has been a primary driver of our country’s terrible standings, as we saw at the end of the National Government after nine years—in the bottom half of the OECD for R & D.

I guess our theme tonight is we can have an opportunity by passing this legislation—these key, critical sections we’re debating right now—so that we can have that national conversation. We can actually make sure that Fonterra is a force for good. We can focus on more income for New Zealand. We can focus on cleaner rivers. We can focus on innovation and R & D. So, basically, what we’re talking about is that if we listen to National and their arguments—never mind the inconsistency that they’re voting for it, but the way National went about it was if you didn’t support this, you’d see very little change and very little change for good. So what we’re talking about is let’s have this review, let’s get all the people around the table, and let’s sort out the solutions and have a cleaner, richer New Zealand.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Chairperson Williams, thank you for the opportunity to provide a contribution this afternoon. Yesterday, I proffered a relatively animated contribution, because I personally am so concerned about the lack of attention that the previous administration paid to the implications that the absence of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA) amendments have for the primary industries.

Now, before I turn my mind specifically to Part 1, which repeals the provisions for the expiration of Subparts 5 and 5A of Part 2 of the primary legislation, I just want to make a brief note about the fact that the Opposition yesterday waxed lyrical—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Order!

KIRITAPU ALLAN: —about the fact that us having to go through this process of taking this legislation through urgency was, in some way, us trying to lack transparency. Right now, we are in the committee stage, where there is every opportunity for the Opposition to ask questions of our Minister and to ask questions of our officials, who are sitting in this Chamber. As I’ve been sitting here listening to the contributions, or lack thereof, from my Opposition counterparts, I have been trying to understand why—really have been trying to understand why—when they had their DIRA amendment bill up on the Order Paper in March of last year and they knew that the order—the revocation of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Subparts 5 and 5A of Part 2 of the Act Disapplied to South Island) Order 2016. Now, that was enacted because Subparts 5 and 5A were triggered by the fact that the South Island had reached its 20 percent quota as determined in 2001, when the original Act came into being, and the provisions were triggered almost two years ago.

This order was gazetted by our former Governor-General Jerry Mateparae, noting that this provision—Subparts 5 and 5A—would cease to apply to the South Island in May of 2018. Now, that’s in three months’ time. That’s in three months’ time, and the Opposition, the former Government, has the cheek—there are two parts. One is to say that they’re a bastion and friend of our dairy industry, but the reality is that they’re completely fine to accept uncertainty within this industry, knowing that we are three months out from this order coming into effect, which will mean that the DIRA provision would cease to apply to the southern island.

Because they were the Government at the time, they know that the Commerce Commission found that albeit in 2001, when it might have made sense that 20 percent of the sharemilk contributions going to independent processors—that might have been sufficient to debunk the competition that Fonterra held. But when the Commerce Commission came out with their findings last year, I can only imagine the beads of sweat and the tears in quiet little cracks and corners around the former Minister for Primary Industries—what he must have been doing at that stage—knowing that a huge stoush was about to be on his hands. He was going to have to deal with a battle between Fonterra—and of course they want to be the dominant provider. Why wouldn’t you? This is commerce and business. And then, they wanted to compete with the interests of their farmers.

Now, we saw the submissions from Federated Farmers—and those guys waxed lyrical yesterday about the 105 submissions that they received. Well, they weren’t 105 submissions all in approval of their hack provision—the compromise legislation that they were going to rush through. No, they weren’t. They know that; we know that. This piece of legislation is being rushed through under urgency because the former Government failed the farmers of the South Island. They failed the farmers of the South Island.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Thank you, Madam Chairperson Williams. I stand here as a proud and staunch Mainlander, representing the South Island dairy farmers from my electorate of Dunedin South. Clearly, I am advocating for this bill and its intent and its objective and its effect, which is, ultimately, protecting the interests of South Island dairy farmers.

You know, this is a strategic bill. It fits into a wider strategy. It’s a bill that demonstrates that this is a responsible Government, in direct contrast to the behaviour of the previous Government, which is now the National Party Opposition, firmly in Opposition. I think the reason why we’re having this bill and the reason why it is under urgency is because the previous Government—the National Party Opposition—clearly either were avoiding a stoush that they didn’t want to have, or they just took their eye off the ball.

Kieran McAnulty: They just fluffed about.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: They fluffed about. They had the opportunity to put this bill before a select committee, because there was a time limit on it. Well, let’s hear from them and let’s hear the explanations as to whether they just took their eye off the ball, or they were avoiding a stoush that they didn’t want to have before an election. Why is it that this bill didn’t get to a select committee, given that it was time-limited? Two years, as Kiritapu Allan, the member before me, referenced—two years this was triggered.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Is it appropriate for another member in the Chamber to physically come and interrupt a member’s speech?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I would suggest that it is highly unusual, and I’d encourage the member not to do so. But I do believe that what is being indicated here is relevance to the bill. So I’d just encourage members to stay—it is a broad-ranging debate, but to stay, if we can, to the components of the bill.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Rt Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. While I appreciate that it’s not normal for members on the other side to assist Government members by taking them a copy of the bill, the general debate was three o’clock until four o’clock today. We’ve now had a very wide-ranging debate and the current speaker has certainly not once referred to the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2). It’s a relatively wide-ranging debate but not to the extent we’re discussing all aspects of the dairy industry. It’s a simple piece of legislation. It’s simply about extending a threshold for the South Island. It’s no longer in urgency, despite the Hon Clare Curran claiming it’s still in urgency. It was the Government’s move yesterday, after going into urgency, to break urgency last night about 10 o’clock. We’re now on normal time.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member. Thank you. No, I don’t need any more assistance.

Darroch Ball: It’s up to the Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It is up to the Chair to determine relevance. I have cautioned members that we do need to come much more to the substance of the bill, but, given that the nature of the debate is quite wide ranging, I will determine relevance. And points of order will be taken in silence and so will determinations.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) is before the committee today because of a trigger that happened in 2015 and a Commerce Commission report that lead to a bill eventually being drafted by the previous Government that never made it to a select committee. That is why this bill is before the committee and has had to be put through its stages without going to a select committee. My point is made, and clearly to the National Party Opposition it is a sensitive point, and so that’s why we’ve had the reaction that we’ve had.

I’d also, as a proud Mainlander, like to acknowledge my heritage in the dairy industry and acknowledge my godparents, actually: my godparents, my uncle and aunt, Digger and Moira O’Neill from Edendale.

Hon Member: Hey, but that was an important cousin.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: It is. Digger and Moira O’Neill, sadly, passed away—my godparents and my uncle and aunt. Digger O’Neill actually sat on the board of the Edendale cheese factory when it was the cheese factory; very well known in Edendale. And I have milked a cow; not very successfully, but I have milked a cow. I actually feel very proud to acknowledge the O’Neills today, who made a very large contribution to the dairy industry in the South Island and that the interests of South Island dairy farmers are paramount in this piece of legislation.

But beyond that, I do acknowledge the Green member Gareth Hughes, for the importance of where this fits. This goes to this Government’s strategic approach, its responsibility; it’s responsible government. Looking at this in a context of a wider strategic undertaking of the dairy industry and its place, that’s looking at sustainability, and it’s looking at environmental impacts—something that the previous Government never would’ve gone near; that is of importance to New Zealand society, “New Zealand Inc.”—and looking at also the ability for us to examine and innovate in the industry, which will lead to more sustainability.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you, Madam Chairperson Williams. I find it remarkable that the National Party Opposition, who claim to be the great friend of the farmer, negligently allowed the progress of this bill to just sail forth towards the automatic expiry provisions, seemingly without a thought for the state of the industry and the important decisions that needed to be made about the future of the dairy industry.

So many members in this debate have pointed out how important the dairy industry is to this country.

Hon David Bennett: Their heritage. Yes, I’ve learnt a lot.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Notwithstanding the heritage of various members, and we’re not going to go any further into the heritage of members of this House.

Hon David Bennett: Come on. Tell us your heritage.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’ll stay right out of my heritage, thank you, Mr Bennett. So this bill prevents the expiry of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA). Without this bill, we face two possibilities. The first is that the bill that the previous Government had before the House would’ve pre-empted an important consideration of strategic issues facing the dairy industry.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Could I just ask the member to take a seat. Can we just have a little bit of order. If members are wanting to interject across the Chamber, the interjections need to be helpful to the debate; currently they are not. Let’s just take a deep breath and start again.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I would say that any interjections that are helpful to the speaker would be most welcome—

Hon David Bennett: I asked about your heritage.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —but no interjections about my heritage, thank you, Mr Bennett. So what this bill will mean is that the DIRA provisions will continue to apply throughout the whole of New Zealand, allowing time for the new Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor to undertake a comprehensive review of the DIRA before any other changes are made. The alternative to that is just to let the automatic expiry provisions run their course. But it’s our view on this side of the Chamber that that would not be helpful to the dairy industry.

The main purpose of the Act was to manage the dominance of Fonterra until there was enough competition in the market place to make regulation unnecessary. That’s why the DIRA contained those expiry provisions that were triggered when Fonterra’s market share fell below the threshold specified in the Act. So the expiry process that’s contained in the original Act necessitated a review of the state of competition in the dairy markets to be undertaken by the Commerce Commission. The Commerce Commission did that review in 2015, when Fonterra’s market share in the South Island met the threshold. So, as we know, the Commerce Commission found that there wasn’t sufficient competition to let parts of the DIRA expire in the South Island.

So keeping the DIRA in place now will give the industry certainty about the regulatory environment, and it allows the new Government to undertake the very review that the past National Government should’ve conducted if they were serious in their claim to being the great friend of the dairy industry.

The review that I know the Minister Damien O’Connor has under way now is intended to allow a much more strategic focus to be taken to the issues facing the dairy industry, including, for example, environmental issues, the likes of which Gareth Hughes set out; the need to get the industry on a much more sustainable footing; to reduce carbon emissions that are such a feature of our dairy industry right now; and to find new policy settings for land use in this country that will allow the industry to continue to generate the prosperity that it does for New Zealand without putting further stress on our waterways and our land. What this Government wants to see is the best outcomes for farmers, for consumers, and for the economy overall.

I said before that preventing the expiry of the DIRA will mean that the current regulatory settings will continue in place. The key provisions that are being maintained are the open entry and exit, the milk price monitoring regime, and the 20 percent rule. This bill provides certainty for the dairy industry while the essential review is carried out.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (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 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call another member to speak, I am encouraging you all to speak specifically to the substance of the bill and to give us some discussion and debate that hasn’t been heard before. We’ve been going for an hour and a half, and the substantive part of the bill appears to have been covered. So I am encouraging members to take a call if they have something new to add to the debate.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson Williams. It is indeed a great honour to stand here to speak to this bill. I have been waiting for quite some time, but on that fact I’m not surprised because this is a very important bill. It seems today, if we were to look at just what’s on offer, the Labour Party is the only party that’s taking this bill seriously.

This bill provides certainty for the industry. It is a very small and very specific bill, but it is a bill that’s important and will provide certainty, not only to the industry as a whole but to those individual players, those farmers, and those who work within the industry—just like my father, who’s a dairy shed inspector and has been for 40 years. The fact is—

Rt Hon David Carter: Vested interest.

KIERAN McANULTY: Oh, yeah—well, OK. The point here is that this Government—the Labour Government—wants to give New Zealanders the opportunity to hear what it is we’re proposing here and what it is that this bill is going to do. You would think that the Opposition would take the opportunity available to it and want to speak on it. In fact, all we have seen in the last half an hour, from the contributions of a former Speaker of the House, is to act the goat, cross the floor, and pass a piece of paper to a speaker—which I found to be highly inappropriate—and then stand up, and at that point I thought, “Here we go. Finally, the National Party will say something.”, but all it was was a closure motion.

I wonder why that may be. Perhaps it’s because this bill, or something very similar, was available to be discussed and implemented in March of last year. Did they do anything with it?

Hon Members: No.

KIERAN McANULTY: No. No, they fluffed about. They fluffed about, for two potential reasons: one, they wanted to avoid taking responsibility—they wanted to actually avoid having this debate—or, two, because they couldn’t be bothered. They ran out of time. And, here, the only contributions that we saw on this bill from the National Party last night were criticisms of it being considered under urgency. Perhaps if the opportunity was taken at the time, there wouldn’t be the need for urgency.

Now, talking specifically to the purpose of this bill, I want to highlight why we wouldn’t just leave it and let the expiration date that this bill proposes to push out come into force. When the original Act was passed in 2001, Fonterra had a dominant position in the market by the nature of its establishment. The main purpose of the original Act was to ensure that that dominance, until sufficient competition emerged within the market, still allowed for those smaller or alternative contributors to the industry to actually be there. We wanted to ensure a competitive market.

You would think, given the founding principles of the National Party, that they would want to take the opportunity to discuss why it is so important to ensure competition in the market, or is that not what the National Party stands for?

Kiritapu Allan: We thought so.

KIERAN McANULTY: We thought so, of course. But, obviously, not today.

This bill gives certainty to the market because it pushes out what would have been the expiry date of May this year, and in doing so it provides this Government the time to consider a broad review of the industry—something that is good practice, particularly when there hasn’t been one in an industry that has seen significant growth over the last couple of decades. It also gives those producers in the South Island that are worried about their particular farm and the contract that they have—without this expiration date being pushed out, they have no certainty within their contract of supply. They could live beyond any arbitrary boundary and miss out on what was previously a guaranteed contract, because it is not preserved in legislation. So I’m pleased to be able to be part of a Government that is actually wanting to take the initiative, that does take the dairy industry seriously, and that is therefore putting this forward to the House so that no more are those within the industry showing concern.

But, touching on the key provisions that are being maintained here, there are three in particular.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Motion not agreed to.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just wanted to raise a point of order with respect to this bill and remind the committee that the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act passed in the time that we have dealt with the No. 2 bill in the committee stage. I thought that was pretty amazing, because that was quite a substantial piece of legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): As we have heard, dairy obviously plays a key role in New Zealand. This bill amends the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 (DIRA) to prevent the expiry of certain provisions in May 2018. The Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) aims to prevent the expiry of those provisions to provide certainty for the dairy industry about the regulatory regime. There are three key words here: No. 1 is continuity, No. 2 is consistency, and No. 3 is competition. We’ve certainly heard a lot about competition, and markets thrive under competition, and that’s what this bill attempts to do.

Dairy makes up approximately 40 percent of New Zealand’s total primary sector exports. New Zealand’s largest dairy processor, Fonterra, as we know, was established in 2001 from a merger of the two largest dairy cooperatives and the New Zealand Dairy Board. It was created under a Labour Government, and it is something we’re certainly very proud of.

The DIRA Fonterra provisions are due to expire in the South Island on 30 May 2018, hence the reason for this bill. This bill will allow a more strategic focus to be taken to issues facing the dairy industry, including, for example, environmental issues—as we’ve heard from the member Gareth Hughes—land use, and how to achieve the best outcomes for farmers, consumers, and the New Zealand economy.

The DIRA was passed in 2001 to manage Fonterra’s dominant position in dairy markets until sufficient competition emerged. We’ve heard a lot about that, around that aspect. The DIRA, therefore, contains automatic expiry provisions that were triggered in 2015 in response to Fonterra’s reduced market share in the South Island. If we look at DIRA in the South Island—my family once had a dairy farm there and it was the largest producing dairy farm in the South Island; it had only 300 cows. But, certainly, this is an example of the Labour Party standing up for farmers in the South Island.

The DIRA regulatory provisions on Fonterra in Subparts 5 and 5A of Part 2 provide a means of promoting efficiency that would ordinarily be provided through competitive market pressures.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Which you’ll talk about later, on Part 2. We’re on Part 1.

JAMIE STRANGE: Ah. So just coming back to the three key points there I mentioned around No. 1, continuity—so it provides continuity for farmers, it provides certainty for the market around consistency and around competition. It allows for checks and balances around Fonterra.

So we certainly commend this bill to the House, and we’re not going to take too much more time. Thank you for listening to contributions.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Chairperson Williams, it does give me pleasure to speak again on this bill. I’d just like to speak about the Pāhau River. The member who represents Canterbury there may be aware of this, but this is a river that recently has been given an award. It is the river in New Zealand that has reduced the E. coli count by the most for any river in New Zealand, which is a wonderful achievement by the dairy farmers in that area. That’s on the back of some other great achievements in North Canterbury where, by the use of pivot spray, by the use of moisture probes and only irrigating when necessary, and by the use of riparian planting, some great things have been achieved in North Canterbury in dairy farming. However, one of the problems is that those achievements have been lost in the noise that’s been created deliberately by those who seek to turn town against country on this and other issues—which will bring me very shortly to this bill, and to summarise this bill.

The important point is that this bill ensures that there will be sufficient governance of the dairy industry to ensure, not only for farmers but for the rest of New Zealand, that the industry—which we all accept is extremely important to New Zealand—is properly governed. We’ve heard that in the past, through suspensory loans, through subsidies, and through other means, Governments have been very involved in ensuring that farming does stay in a good state, and this Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2)—DIRA, as we call it—is simply an extension of that. It is about ensuring that we get an extension to the exemption—that we get this extension that will guarantee we can do the necessary work to ensure there is sufficient competition in dairying in the South Island; to make sure that the continued intervention—positive intervention, necessary intervention, that has made the New Zealand dairy industry and other parts of farming in New Zealand the success they are today—continues.

I recommend this bill to the House as a means of ensuring that the necessary governance over this vital industry is maintained. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Conservation (Infringement System) Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 1 February.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Kia ora and thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. Much of New Zealand’s taonga exists within nature’s stores. The lure of New Zealand for many lies in the environmental uniqueness of our national parks and reserves, our native wildlife, and our outdoor culture. Unfortunately, though, these treasures are vulnerable to corruption and misuse, and people do take advantage of this. So, personally, I am pleased to see the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in the House today. It is good to address this issue, and it will give the Department of Conservation (DOC) the ability to issue infringement notices for minor offending.

Currently, we have a system where someone who breaks the law either goes through the costly court system for a major offence—and I’d like to make a note of the example of the kererū crimes that hit the headlines a couple of years ago, when a certain matua, a whanaunga from the North, tried to smuggle the birds out under his coat after a hunting trip in Ngāi Tahu. Now, of course, there was no other option but the full force of the law to come down hard. However, at the other end of the scale, the minor end of the scale where maybe, say, a tourist drops rubbish as they’re walking or mountain biking around the redwoods in Rotorua—should they get caught, all they get slapped with is a wet bus ticket. This bill will tidy up the law, and those who commit an offence at the minor end of the scale will face real consequences in the way of an instant fine.

From the Bills Digest, the purpose of the bill is “to create systems of infringement offences for less serious offending under the following Acts which are administered and enforced by the Department of Conservation and local authorities: Conservation Act 1987; Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978; Marine Reserves Act 1971; National Parks Act 1980; Reserves Act 1977; Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989; Wild Animal Control Act 1977; and Wildlife Act 1953.” It’s important to note that the bill doesn’t create any new offences, and the penalty is to be set by regulation and must not exceed more than $1,000.

From DOC’s regulatory impact statement, I note “The Department of Conservation (DOC) administers about one third of New Zealand’s land area (more than 8 million hectares), 44 marine reserves, and 6 marine mammal sanctuaries (totalling 4,115,669 hectares) for the purposes of conservation. In addition, DOC also protects, conserves, or manages native freshwater fisheries, recreational freshwater fisheries, and protected native wildlife, and controls harmful species of introduced wild animals and regulates the hunting of these animals.” As we can see, this is a vast area that DOC is responsible for, and for such a vast area, it’s imperative that there is a better system to allow DOC to carry out their work.

The Conservation (Infringement System) Bill hopes to fix the anomaly where the Department of Conservation is the only major Government agency that lacks the power to use such a system in enforcing laws within their jurisdiction. It’s not a new concept, at all. These systems exist already in many other areas of law, certainly for traffic offences and, more relevantly, in the Fisheries Act. This bill will bring conservation legislation in line with similar Acts and it creates consistency across our legislation.

Now, what are some of these activities that would be treated as an infringement offence? Well, currently, there would be breaches of the whitebait regulations—they’re some of the most numerous prosecutions, currently, for illegal fishing in marine reserves—and also offences relating to the Taupō trout fishery. This bill would also enable DOC to manage littering in public conservation land through the infringement offence. And what about those who foul our special natural spaces—freedom campers who leave behind their nasty business? Well, I do note that the Freedom Camping Act 2011 already contains separate infringement offences, and so DOC can use those. So this bill doesn’t actually affect freedom camping.

Now, overall, the bill seeks to make conservation and protection efforts more effective, as actions previously inappropriate for prosecution will have more of a consequence than just a warning—just a shake of the head and a wag of the finger and a “Tut, tut!” The scale of the infringement system means that penalties will be better matched to the degree and seriousness of the offence. Since its beginning, DOC has had to deal with offenders in one of two extremes, by way of either a warning or an official prosecution. Warnings are the equivalent of a slap on the wrist and do little to deter people from continuing and committing further offences. They rarely have the desired effect of changing people’s behaviour. DOC currently issues around 200 warnings a year and are concerned that the numbers will increase, as minor offences continue to occur without a specific remedial penalty.

The bill will remove unnecessary costs to the judicial system, as fewer of the minor offences will need to be addressed in the courts. This will be beneficial for Kiwis also, as well as tourists, as this is a difficult process to manoeuvre and can have lasting impacts on future endeavours. Currently, the prosecutions take time and resources from both DOC and the court system. It’s also a huge impediment to individuals who commit minor offences and who must endure the hassle of the court system and the lasting impact that any criminal conviction has on their future, on their life, and on their future rights and freedoms.

There are a number of examples where we can see the need for a better system. In 2016, in the Kāweka Forest Park, two hunters were found without permits. They were trespassed. A couple using a campfire at the Mangatūtū hot springs were given a verbal warning from a DOC officer, only to be discovered again with another fire. They were then trespassed. Now, these kinds of infringements are very real breaches of the law, but a warning, or even a trespass notice, may not cause the offender to change their behaviour in a way that a fine might.

Now, even though the fines won’t be paid directly to DOC, it is a way for DOC to recoup some losses they encounter as a result of offending. Minor offences can have an impact on the environment and on the resources available to DOC. By using infringement notices for these minor and medium offences, some of this will be accounted for, and DOC’s resources can be better spent on improving conservation rather than on repairing damages caused by these offences.

I’d just like to note New Zealand First is concerned about the safety of these warranted officers that will be carrying out this work. DOC maintains a nationwide network of warranted officers who are formally trained and who hold official warrants to undertake compliance and enforcement activities. New Zealand First would like to see that these DOC warranted officers are suitably trained and equipped with the appropriate safety gear for the work that they have to carry out. As at December 2017, 111 incidents of threat, harassment, intimidation, or assault to DOC workers had been recorded since 2006, when records first started being kept. We must ensure their safety.

I’d also like to just note that concerns may come from the public around introducing such a system. They may think it’s, in fact, a way of gathering revenue. There are no new offences being added to this piece of legislation, and the fines will be capped at $1,000.

Essentially, the main focus of DOC is the protection and conservation of our natural taonga. It’s the responsibility of DOC to carry that out in the best way possible, and they have a duty to ensure this. However, they absolutely need the proper tools to carry out this programme.

The Conservation (Infringement System) Bill will give the department that tool. Human activities are among the contributing factors that lead to the degradation of our natural environment—our natural heritage. If we tread with heavy footsteps, then, at the very least, we need to ensure that we mitigate the effects and that some form of compensation is made to reset the balance. A lack of respect for Papatūānuku, our precious taonga, our nature stores—which we are all kaitiaki of—must not be allowed to continue without consequence. An infringement system is long overdue, and New Zealand First will support this bill. Kia ora koutou.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I and National are delighted to support this bill—this Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. The reason we’re so delighted is that it’s National Party policy, and I worked with it with the Hon Maggie Barry, when she was the Minister of Conservation and we were in Government. I’m particularly pleased because not one single word has been changed since the bill was introduced in February last year.

Now, most New Zealanders care deeply about the natural environment. We enjoy the fact that we can get out in the great outdoors, and the vast majority of us treat the environment—as the privilege that it is—with respect and care. But there are always a few—a few who break the rules. In the past, Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers had only two options for how to deal with illegal behaviour, and they were two options at either end of the punishment spectrum. The first was a warning, and the second was a prosecution. We all know that prosecutions are very time consuming and very expensive. The problem was that sometimes a warning was too soft an approach, and sometimes a prosecution was too tough. So what this bill does is provide a middle ground: an infringement and a fine system that will deal with less serious offences fairly, well, and efficiently and, most of all, quickly. I think the quickness is really important because what we want our DOC rangers to be doing is looking after our conservation estate, not necessarily chasing up the few bad eggs in the system.

I support this bill, and I really hope that the new Government will continue to support National’s conservation legislation. In particular, I’d really like to ask them to reconsider the stalling of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill. That was supported by Parliament unanimously back in 2016, and thousands of New Zealanders and environmentalists were really keen to see that happen, particularly the Greens. They welcomed this bill because they’d been lobbying for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary for many, many years and are always wanting more marine reserves—in fact, just last week, the new Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage, was talking about marine reserves and increasing the number of marine reserves in New Zealand.

So I just suggest that they progress the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, because what I saw on the Greens’ website, under Eugenie’s name, is that the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary would be New Zealand’s only reserve that protects an entire ecosystem, and, by protecting 620,000 square kilometres of Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, it would become the world’s largest no-take marine reserve and would be a positive inspiration to other nations to implement greater marine protection measures. So it is absolutely deeply disappointing, certainly not uplifting and positively inspiring, that self-serving coalition politics are stopping the creation of this globally significant sanctuary.

The conservation Minister talks about the significance of conservation, and we agree with her. But talk’s cheap. How about she walks the walk and passes the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, because that would be truly significant for conservation.

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

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I am very pleased to speak on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I welcome the support from across the House for this bill and acknowledge the work by the former Attorney-General and by the former Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry. I look forward to the bill going to the Environment Committee. Having been a member of that select committee, I am sure that it will apply the usual and scrupulous care and attention to examining the bill, to reading the submissions, and to analysing those that the former committee, in the last term of Parliament, did. One of the particular issues that I am interested, as Minister of Conservation, in hearing the select committee’s views on—and advice, obviously, back to the Parliament—is just the status of Fish & Game in relation to this new regime of infringement notices.

The Department of Conservation (DOC) is the only major agency that doesn’t have an infringement notice system for lesser offenses under conservation legislation, and that is why this bill is important. There are a lot of issues in terms of breaches of the whitebaiting regulations, breaches of marine reserves—the smaller breaches, where it may not be enough to justify a prosecution—but at the moment, because we don’t have this mechanism of infringement offences, the person may not be penalised at all for illegal activity. So this bill is bringing the Department of Conservation and conservation legislation alongside fisheries, biosecurity, and other legislation, by providing this opportunity for infringement offences.

I would point out that it’s not going to be like the traffic system, where infringement notices are issued on the spot. There will be trained staff and warranted officers, so that rangers and staff in the field, if they catch someone doing something illegal, will be able to gather information and then give that information to the warranted officers to make a decision about whether an infringement notice should be issued. That provides a certain safeguard, as does the training there.

That’s why this whole issue of Fish & Game—and I acknowledge the comments by my ministerial colleague the Hon David Parker and his work in taking proceedings for Fish & Game. The previous Government decided that Fish & Game shouldn’t have the same powers as conservation rangers and staff, and that is something I’m very interested in hearing the public’s views on. I’m sure that Fish & Game councils, and others, will make submissions, and the select committee will actually weigh that, because it’s the Fish & Game councils that do have statutory responsibilities for the management of game birds, for the management of sports fisheries—trout and salmon—for the licences to be observed, and those sorts of issues. Under that legislation, it may well be appropriate for those Fish & Game staff, warranted officers, to actually have the power to get the information and to initiate the infringement notice procedure.

As others have commented—and I won’t go through all of the eight Acts that the bill amends—it’s, essentially, creating an infringement offence under each of those pieces of legislation, in parallel to the offences that can be taken to prosecution. It’s recognising, as I’m sure many other members in the House recognise, that we want our national parks, we want our conservation lands, to stay safe from damaging activities—our marine reserves, similarly—but, for example, if somebody drops litter in a reserve at the moment, if it’s conservation land, the department doesn’t have a mechanism to take action against that person. Local councils can, under the Litter Act, in the areas that they administer, but the department can’t on conservation land. So it’s putting the department on a much more equal footing with other agencies.

I would certainly like to acknowledge that the procedures that will be used certainly ensure that Māori customary rights are respected when conservation staff are doing enforcement work, because the seriousness of offending guidelines, which are going to be developed by the department, will recognise whether particular species are taonga species and the impact of any offending on wāhi tapu and other sites significant to Māori.

There will be regulations that are developed under the legislation to actually establish the scale of the penalties. That work’s obviously still to be done, but there’s a lot of benefit in this legislation in ensuring that those who seek to do harm to conservation areas can be prosecuted, but those people who, maybe unwittingly, do something like anchor in a marine reserve may not be prosecuted but can have an infringement notice issued to ensure that they recognise that there is a problem in doing what they have done.

I think that this bill will help make the whole enforcement system for conservation legislation more effective and efficient, and it will reduce unnecessary use of DOC’s resources in taking prosecutions for less serious offences, and it will help keep some matters out of the courts that don’t need to go to the courts, thereby saving on court time and resources. So, taking heed from the comments of some members of the Opposition who were keen that this bill go to select committee without further ado, I really welcome the support that members across the House have given to this bill and to the principle of ensuring that our conservation legislation is much more efficient, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise with pleasure to speak on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in its first reading. Of course National supports this bill; it is, of course, our bill, and it is very nice to be back talking on a bill that has cross-party support. I’m not going to say too much more than the previous contributors, because it’s been quite a comprehensive debate already. Can I just start by acknowledging my colleague and my electorate neighbour, the Hon Maggie Barry, for this excellent piece of work. The Department of Conservation (DOC) has wanted an infringement system for a long time, and it’s been very persuasive in outlining its need for it. The middle step that this bill creates will allow DOC to concentrate on its core business while still efficiently and appropriately responding to conservation offences.

This bill is really an effective in-between for DOC rangers, allowing fines to be issued for offences that deserve more than a warning but less than a prosecution. These offences can include minor breaches of fishing regulations, camping in the wrong place, dogs being let off the leash in prohibited or protected areas, and taking plants from national parks. These offences aren’t to be minimised, of course, but it is patently clear that punishing them with an infringement system commensurate with the level of offending is more appropriate than the heavy-duty tool of prosecution. Prosecution has its place, but for lower-level offences it’s a costly exercise that is time-consuming for DOC, leaves people with criminal records, takes up court time that can be better used, and is ultimately not commensurate with the crime.

A similar fine system exists under other statutes, including the Fisheries Act, the Resource Management Act, and the Biosecurity Act. There is widespread support for the type of infringement system that this bill creates to deal with those less serious offences at the minor end of the scale while still holding people to account. This bill delivers what DOC wants: a flexible system that many other departments already have. New Zealand’s natural environment is a top priority for National, and this bill is a further step towards protecting it. I’m looking forward to scrutinising this bill when it comes to the Environment Committee, which I serve on, and I commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is about common sense. It is an excellent bill, and it’s simply around not using a hammer when a fly swat will do. Most New Zealanders are decent law-abiding citizens, and it starts from that premise there, which is an excellent premise to start from. The objectives of the bill, as we know, are, number one, to improve the effectiveness of conservation compliance and law enforcement to better protect conservation values; number two to ensure that penalties for offences are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence; number three to ensure that people do not risk criminal convictions if they commit minor offences; number four to make the treatment of offences consistent with those in similar regimes, such as fisheries; number five is around removing unnecessary costs to the court system; and number six is about contributing to the Government’s objectives of improving government interaction with New Zealanders and delivering better public services for less cost.

The Conservation (Infringement System) Amendment Bill updates eight separate Acts to allow the Department of Conservation (DOC) to issue infringement notices instead of prosecuting for minor offences. One of the minor offences that’s talked about in this bill is around whitebait—maybe someone taking extra whitebait. While I was reading that, it certainly brought back memories of my father. He told me that he used to catch whitebait; he used to have sackloads of whitebait back in the day, but I don’t think you get that any more, unfortunately.

If we look at the first point there, which is around conservation values, some of the key conservation values are biological, ecological, social, and cultural values of outstanding significance. In my area, in the Waikato, there are a number of excellent examples of this—for example, Mount Pirongia, where I grew up, where there is a strong community passion for preserving the conservation of that mountain, saving the kākāpō being one of the key aspects. You also look at my region in Pūtāruru, around the Blue Springs, and, again, there’s a sense of community.

However, there are some tweaks that need to be made, and one of them is around the offences because some offences are quite minor, and for a minor offence we don’t need to throw the full book of the law at the person. So it’s just about treating the offence as it should be treated, depending on what that is—for example, we may have some teenagers who, at times, maybe make silly choices, but there’s no point them having a criminal conviction for something that is just minor. So that’s where the aspect around common sense comes in on this bill, which is excellent.

There is another aspect here I’d like to talk to, which is around removing unnecessary costs to the court system. Our court systems at times are under a lot of pressure so, like I said, going back to that keyword around common sense, you know, this is an example of taking some of the pressure off the court system so people are not going to court when they don’t have to. The cost to the Department of Conservation around court costs includes staff time preparing the file, travelling to court, attendance at court hearings, the cost of serving the information and, in contested hearings, the cost of conducting the case, all of which is at times unnecessary. The cost to the court system includes registrar and judge time, and in some instances offenders may receive legal aid.

Our national parks, public conservation lands, and indigenous plants and wildlife need to be kept safe from illegal human activities, but I don’t want to see people prosecuted and get a criminal conviction for a minor breach of the whitebaiting regulations, for example, like I mentioned before—for example, dropping litter in a park. Offences in the current law have covered a wide range of offending, but this law is simply narrowing it to make it more nuanced, which in my opinion is good legislation. Like I said before, you don’t always need a hammer when a fly swat will do.

These changes bring DOC’s powers into line with how low-level offences are dealt with in fisheries management, biosecurity, dog control, resource management, traffic, and parking, which are good examples to follow. So thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the time, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and support this Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. It’s a real pleasure because this bill really does go to the heart of what it is to be a New Zealander. I certainly, myself, hold very dear the conservation estate, which I enjoy on a regular basis. This bill is about ensuring that the tools are there to protect our conservation estate. In doing that, it enables us to build a culture of preservation, protection, and value around our conservation estate, because, in my view, for far too long we’ve had a laissez-faire approach to our conservation estate, a “she’ll be right” attitude, where, in fact, the users of that estate have thought that it doesn’t really matter if they break the rules; as long as they’re not doing anything too bad, no one will mind. Well, what this bill does is it enables enforcement officers to take a much more nuanced approach, as my friend Mr Strange alluded to. I would have said a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but if you want to try it with a fly swat, that’s all right by me.

What we have here is an absolute range of possibilities, and I’m sure that conservation officers will still use a warning approach in the right circumstances, and I think we’ve got to recognise that at the lower end it is entirely appropriate for a conservation officer or any other enforcement officer to educate the transgressor, to impress upon them the importance of the rules, and, indeed, to send them away with those valuable lessons. But there will be situations that fall into an intermediate ground, a ground where it is not appropriate to throw the book, where it’s not appropriate to invoke the precious resources of our court system, but nevertheless that conduct has to be set aside as unacceptable.

Looking at the bill, you can see that there are a number of somewhat obscure offences, including, indeed, selling or delivering a carcass of a wild animal to a game depot or game packing house without the ears attached. Now, that’s not something I knew, and it’s those kinds of offences that might be a little obscure. I understand that will be to ensure that it is, in fact, wild game and not a tagged animal that’s perhaps from a deer farm, but those are the kinds of offences; a little bit obscure but nevertheless important to the regulation of our conservation system.

We’ve got an infringement system coming into force that will be cost-effective, time-effective, and proportionate to the wrongdoing. We’ll be able to avoid the prosecution, which is exactly the opposite of all those things. Having said that, it’s important to recognise that this bill sets apart a number of offences that by their very nature are serious, require a serious response, and will be dealt with by the courts. So we’re seeing things like firearms offences in there and, of course, offences that interfere with the system itself—offences, for example, of obstruction of a conservation law enforcement officer. Those kinds of offences, which go to the very heart of the system itself, will always be prosecuted. If the evidence is there, then it is appropriate for that prosecution decision to be made.

So we will have a response to the full continuum of offending, and I think it’s really useful to have, not quite, I must say, a ticketing approach but an approach that lets people know that what they’re doing is quite wrong, that there are consequences for their wrongdoing, and that, in fact, they will pay the fiscal penalty for that.

And it’s worth noting that exactly how that will roll out is yet to be designed. There’s a lot of work yet to be done, not only by the select committee—and I’m sure the select committee will do an excellent job—but also in the devising of those regulations to ensure that, for example, the range of fines available is proportionate and that the mechanism by which they’re enforced is appropriate.

I understand that the Department of Conservation (DOC) is not looking at a system like a kind of ticketing system where you get a note written on the spot, an instant fine system—which, sadly, I’m familiar with in another context—but rather a system where the enforcement officer will report the offending and it will be scrutinised by a team of people whose particular job is to look at those matters, a specialist team. I think that’s really important to ensure that a decision can be made, whether it’s a warning letter or whether it’s a fine of some sort or whether it goes to prosecution, because one of the difficulties in any kind of roadside or tree-side system is ensuring consistency, and if we have a team of enforcement officers who are trained and will be able to give uniformity across all offenders, that’s a really good thing. It overcomes that kind of roadside discretion, which sometimes can perhaps be misused but, at the very least, can sometimes perhaps just go awry, where one officer might be a bit more generous and sympathetic to a sob story than another.

It’s also important to note that local government is being brought into this system, and that’s a really good thing. Local government already has significant enforcement powers across a range of areas, including the issue of infringement notices. So where they do administer reserve land, they will now be able to issue these infringement notices using the same system as a DOC officer. So that’s a really good thing.

It is also worth just noting—I think this really is something for the select committee, and I would encourage anyone who is interested in this area to make a submission—the carve-out for the New Zealand Fish & Game Council. They haven’t been included in this framework. That’s a decision that was made when this bill was drafted by the previous Government, and I’m not going to take a view one way or the other. I can see that there are good and compelling reasons for that. They are not a Government agency—they’re a private agency—and to give them the power to impose a fine would be a significant step. It may well be thought that where a fisheries officer sees an infringement, it is considered to be more appropriate to say, “Well, if you think it’s serious, we need to have an arm of the State involved. We need to have a court process.” That’s an entirely legitimate approach.

On the other hand, I am sure the select committee will take into account the countervailing argument, the argument that, in fact, fisheries officers are some of our most responsible enforcement officers. They’re also numerous. There are many volunteer fisheries officers out there. They do a fantastic role, and I don’t think we should dismiss lightly the suggestion that they’ll take such a job seriously and won’t misuse that power but, rather, will see it as an important tool. And there is a question of why they should be dealt with differently—why someone who is accosted with an undersized trout by a fisheries officer is in a different position from someone who is accosted by a conservation officer. So I think that is an important question for the select committee, and I hope that submissions are made on it.

But coming back to the bill as a whole, it really is an excellent piece of legislation that has come from the prior Government and one that looks at something that is really important, and that is ensuring that the rules around conservation are adhered to at every level. It’s that kind of broken-window approach to conservation—that minor infringements are just as unacceptable as other infringements, and we need to leap on top of those. We can’t have people taking, you know, one fish too many and getting away with it because a prosecution is just too much bother. No, we need to be able to respond to that and say, “That is wrong, there is a system that is proportionate to your wrongdoing, and you need to know that this graduated system will respond whatever the wrong is.”

Now, this doesn’t necessarily catch people who are ignorant or who have genuine reasons for not complying with the rules or have an excuse that is compelling. There’s no suggestion that this is a compulsory system. I mean, in my experience, enforcement officers have always been ready to educate, to warn, to listen, and, really, to engage in a quite constructive manner with users of the conservation estate, the marine estate, and so on.

This bill is a great step forward. There’s work to be done, if I may say so, and I think we do need to look at it. I commend it to the select committee, and I do hope that members of the public will take a close interest in it, because it touches on something that is dear to all of us. I’m sure that this will be a great step forward for the conservation estate.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I’ve listened very carefully to the contributions of my colleagues, and I too believe that the bill makes some useful steps forward in the way in which the infringement system will operate across a range of Acts to try and get some greater consistency but also to ensure that the infringement is proportional to the offence. I do want to make the point that even in its simplicity, it’s the type of bill that will, I expect, garner a lot of interest at the select committee level, and we do expect a lot of groups to participate in the select committee process and give a view on the effectiveness and the way in which the infringement system is expected to work but also intentions around implementation and its workability. So we do expect that there will be a broad range of submissions: Fish & Game, recreational groups, hunters, the general public—vigilant lawyers, perhaps—landowners, and also local government officers, because, as I say, in its simplicity it offers a very practical way of dealing with infringements in a number of areas.

There are some aspects that may require further investigation and may urge the select committee to pay some attention to the finer detail. For example, I was just looking through the bill and noted that there could arise questions in various contexts around who authorises the offence and who is able to authorise the infringement notice. In some instances it’s a ranger, and in some instances it’s a warranted officer. In relation to reserves, it’s the director-general or chief executive who warrants a ranger to be able to issue an offence. Now, a select committee, thinking through the practical application of that and who are the people that we’re talking about, I think, may find, or may reveal, the way in which, in practice, this will happen.

The other thing is that, by and large, the infringement system exists within an ecosystem of greater care and respect for the rule of law, and the general public have a part to play in this process. Take, for example, in the conservation estate when people enjoy their part of the conservation estate and see someone who is taking into the estate a dog untethered, which runs off and chases a bird. If the general public sees an activity or an infringement like that take place, then what actions are they able to take? I think the practical application of what’s intended to, I guess, capture these types of smaller offences but to ensure greater vigilance in the way that we look after our conservation estate are things that the select committee can pursue. And it is useful, because, after all, you do want to know that the laws that we are seeking to ensure have an impact to protect our conservation estate, our wildlife, our marine mammal protection, and the like can actually work.

The other issue is how to pay. Now, I’m making this comment based on how road tolls are collected, but paying an infringement notice isn’t that easy, actually. If we think about just a couple of weeks ago, you go to Waitangi and you pay your toll online—it isn’t easy for a lot of people to go through that system. So it’s worth investigating just the payment method and whether it’s accessible to a range of people who may or may not have access to the internet and online banking services and the like. Now, these are all the types of issues that could come through a select committee process, and we encourage submitters to think about these issues as they reflect on the intended impact of this particular bill and the way in which it is implemented.

I come back to a point that I made earlier around context. Context does matter. The bill covers a range of other Acts, and when you think about them in isolation of each other, there are different sets of circumstances, in reality, that apply. Take hunting: there are infringements that apply to hunters there, and I have heard, certainly, in instances where Māori land abuts conservation estate, where hunters are, kind of, on the border there, on the periphery, they kind of travel a little bit freely, and it is the bugbear of landowners. But how do you ensure greater compliance in that space? I’ll be interested to see whether that is an issue that comes through at the select committee.

I take also the issue of the Wildlife Act and the protection in this area. Now, a point was raised earlier around the exemption of Fish and Game not being covered in terms of the extension of the rights to rangers. I think I recall in the House last term that we did debate that very issue, and it did come up as to the reasons why they weren’t given extensive powers. That may come up again in the submission process this time, as well. Suffice to say, context will matter. The practical application of how the law is intended to apply and actually will apply—that insight will be gained through the submissions process.

I do also note that there is a level of variability in the way in which reserves operate, so it will be helpful to local government—the way in which infringements are set out in a more consistent way and apply to reserves. I’m sure that will be a very useful addition to a number of issues that apply on reserves. Now let me read a couple of them: “Failure to remove animal, vehicle, aircraft or boat”—one of them; “Unauthorised entry” into a reserve; “Anchoring or mooring of a boat in breach of notice or permit”; “Damage by fire”; “Altering boundary marks or items issued by Minister, Department, or administering body”; “Using or receiving items removed unlawfully from [the] reserve”. My understanding across reserves in local government is of the level of variability. This will give some consistency to certain matters and will enable councils to practically apply a common standard when it comes to offences, setting out offences, and the issuing of infringement notices.

Lastly, can I just say that, albeit there is a simple range of amendments to the infringement system, I do pick up on the point well made by the speaker before me, my colleague Duncan Webb, when he said that these are incremental steps that in their totality will make a difference to the better functioning of the way in which we protect our special areas and the way in which the public observe the rule of law, and, practically, our attempt to try and ensure that the infringement is relative to the offence that is being committed.

They are very practical amendments. A lot of hard work has gone into preparing the bill that we have before us. I encouraged submitters across a range of community, stakeholder, and interest groups to make their views known on this bill. We will certainly welcome feedback at the second reading of this bill, when it comes to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Bills

Food Safety Law Reform Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 12 December 2017.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): When we were last considering this bill, we were debating the question that Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part. Tamati Coffey had the call and has one minute and 55 seconds remaining.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Chair, for that. I will take one minute and 55 seconds to try and finish off what I started, which was now three months ago—so, best of luck.

The bill itself—I demonstrated that I was incredibly supportive of this bill. It’s gone through the select committee and all of the suggestions have been made. How controversial is it? Not very controversial; in fact, it’s had quite a bit of favour from the sector itself. So that’s something to be applauded. It’s in response, of course, to the botulism scare that happened here in New Zealand and, as somebody from an electorate that is reliant heavily on tourism, where we encourage people from all around the world to come and visit our shores, we need to make sure that we’re sending a positive message that when you get here our food is going to be safe.

The proposals are mostly enabling or clarifying positions to strengthen the food safety system. We’re going to be, through this bill, implementing the inquiry recommendations, and the bill includes some other minor enhancements and technical amendments. The bill will also amend three main food safety Acts so that, where possible, similar provisions apply across the sectors. As I’ve said, it’s relatively straightforward, this one. It had unanimous support and both sides of the House supported it during the second reading.

The consultation itself took place and there was good support, as I’ve said, from the sector; a very solid piece of work. They also looked into the financial impacts this bill was going to have, and I’m pleased to report that there were no immediate costs from the bill. There may be some cost to the Ministry for Primary Industries and to business to implement the proposals, and that will be explored in more detail as regulations are developed.

Two points that I wanted to—

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I apologise to my learned colleague; I didn’t realise he had more to say. I take a call on behalf of my colleague Mark Patterson, who’s actually had a family tragedy and so he’s not here this evening, so just to acknowledge him in this moment.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to talk on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. Just to, I suppose, update the public listening around what this bill does, because it’s been a little time since we last were here discussing it in the committee stage. It was, obviously, as my learned colleague said before, a side effect, or a downstream consequence, of a whey protein concentrate suspected, sort of, botulism issue with Fonterra; more than 1,000 tonnes of consumer product across several countries was affected by a recall of this product. As it turned out, there were no actual cases of consumers becoming ill from the issue that created that recall. But New Zealand prides itself—we have to pride ourselves—on the quality of the food that we produce. We are a food producing nation, still, currently. And while we wish to go forward and, obviously, invest in new technologies and be part of the new digital age and so on, right now we are known best for the food that we grow, the food that we produce, the food that we make. So this bill continues that legacy of making sure that the standards of New Zealand food are not only maintained but can never be questioned by others out there.

I note that there are a couple of Supplementary Order Papers. I note actually the Supplementary Order Paper I picked up off the table is in the name of the Hon David Bennett, which is lovely to see. I see it’s got some very practical, reasonable things in it, which is why I had to read the name twice, but I think that’s excellent. Thank you very much, Mr Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr Bennett for bringing some practical, reasonable steps into the bill.

I do, however, want to acknowledge that New Zealand First did have some qualms, and I probably go to the amendment in section 9, which will amend the Food Act and allow regulation to permit low-THC hemp seed to be in food products. New Zealand First had very collegial conversations with the Minister in the chair. He was able to assure us that a person would have to—

Brett Hudson: Over some low-THC hemp.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No, it’s all right, Mr Hudson; I’ll tell you. If you consume a very, very, very large amount of this particular hemp seed, Mr Hudson, it may have some effect. It may have some effect, but thankfully this amendment to section 9, it’s not going to have any really significant downstream effects. It’s low-THC hemp seed in food products, so the Minister was able to alleviate New Zealand First’s fears.

There was another issue, of course, that we did have some concern around—and I think it’s been expressed by members of the select committee, if I can recall correctly conversations that I have had with my colleague—around small artisan food producers and the compliance costs that are a concern to them. If I recall correctly, there was a particular cheese manufacturer from the North for whom our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, wanted to make sure that the compliance costs, the travel that they had to take, and so on was taken into account in this legislation, and we are assured by the Minister’s office that the Ministry for Primary Industries is looking at ways to reduce that compliance burden for small producers.

I would ask the Minister in the chair whether he would take the opportunity, though, to articulate again the fact that the small and medium sized producers have been taken into account. Those concerns: the distance of travel—I think testing facilities are quite some distance from the North. I’m not sure whether it’s Takapuna—from Whangarei to Takapuna, something like that. For those of you who don’t go north very often, Mr Bennett, that’s about an hour, an hour and a half. It’s quite a long way. The roads are not necessarily very good; there’s been some neglect in that area. So we would really appreciate the opportunity—if the Minister would like to just articulate that for us again so that we can be very clear and we can put our concerns to rest.

There’s one other area that I’m very pleased to see, and that’s around the regulations with regard to the criteria included on the need to protect public health and the requirement for any food to be safe and suitable. Making regulations under this new provision requires full Cabinet processes such as public consultation and regulatory impact analysis, including analysis of cost impacts. I wonder if the Minister wouldn’t mind speaking to that also, because, as a parent, obviously, as somebody—well, I eat food, but also there have been times in my life when I’m the person responsible for providing food to young humans. I am interested. I’m relieved to see a statement like that, but I just wonder, to make sure, if the Minister wouldn’t mind articulating and stretching on that for a little bit so that we can give real reassurance to the New Zealand public that these sorts of provisions are in place because the Government recognises that it’s important; there’s an important responsibility to make sure that the food we eat does not harm us.

There is only one other place—my husband is a winemaker, and I note that this bill also amends or impacts on the Wine Act—

Hon David Bennett: I wonder why.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: He’s a gold medal - winning winemaker, actually, Mr Bennett—a gold medal - winning winemaker. You should try his pinot noir. But I would be interested, Minister, if you would be able to just give us some clarity about how this bill impacts on the Wine Act 2003. I know you yourself dabble a bit in making a bit of the product, so I thought perhaps you could expand on that, because I know that the winemakers in Martinborough and Central Otago—

Hon David Bennett: When is she going to get back to the bill?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —will be riveted—will be riveted, Mr Bennett, to this particular reading because they are very concerned. They produce a high-quality product here in New Zealand. It’s obviously world-renowned, and I just hope that perhaps the Minister could give us some clarity for those winemakers tuned in here this evening, so that we can see how this bill might affect those.

So New Zealand First will be supporting this piece of legislation. We’ve had such a wonderful relationship with the Minister in the chair. He’s alleviated all our fears. The collegial relationship—it’s fascinating, it works very, very well, you know. So we’re more than happy to support the Minister as he passes through this piece of legislation at committee stage. Thank you so much, Mr Chair.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): So as we know, the purpose of this bill amends the three main food safety Acts, the Food Act, Animal Products Act, and Wine Act, to address gaps identified by the whey protein concentrate (WPC) inquiry and make other improvements to the food safety regulatory system. It obviously arose out of the Fonterra botulism, and we know the three purposes: protecting human health, maintaining New Zealand’s reputation, and ensuring steps have been taken to address the recommendations of the WPC inquiry.

I’d particularly like to ask the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, if he could please elaborate on the aspect around the low-THC hemp seeds in food products. This is an area I’m particularly interested in. I think that whenever—

Hon Member: Yeah, right!

Hon David Bennett: Ha, ha!

JAMIE STRANGE: Not as interested as some members, but whenever the word “hemp” or “marijuana” is mentioned, some people in society tend to freak out. I mean, we’ve just had a bill come through from Chlöe Swarbrick. Myself, I’d probably lean towards a more socio-conservative model, but when it comes to marijuana and hemp, I think there are aspects of this plant that we shouldn’t be scared of. So I’m really encouraged to see this in the bill.

So, Minister, if I could just share some of my thoughts around this and then maybe you might want to elaborate and add a few aspects around this, and why the change is needed around the low-THC hempseeds in food products. My understanding is the definition in the Food Act 2014 does not allow substances regulated under health legislation to be in food, even if the level of substance is safe to consume. Food products are continually evolving and New Zealand’s regulatory system must be able to adapt to new business opportunities, consumer preferences, and technological developments, hence the reason why this aspect is included in this bill.

The reason it’s needed now is that in April 2017, the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation approved a standard for low-THC hemp to be in food. Under the food treaty with Australia, New Zealand is required to adopt this standard without undue delay, which is what we are doing. The proposed change around this is the amendment to section 9, which was just alluded to before, of the Food Act to allow regulations to permit the low-THC hempseed to be in food products.

I know that there were a few concerns raised in the ministerial forum. They originally had concerns about potential impacts on roadside drug-testing and whether marketing low-THC hemp would confuse the public about the acceptability and safety of cannabis—so in a sense blur the lines. But the Minister might want to talk about that. My understanding is these issues have been addressed, but the Minister might want to elaborate on that aspect of it there.

The benefits that I understand around having low-THC hemp is that this amendment will also help futureproof the Food Act, because similar interface issues are likely to arise in the future. Food science and technology and the development of foods for health are growing rapidly. For example, a 2015 report by KPMG stated that the annual global nutraceutical market, which the hemp is involved in, is primed for rapid growth and was expected to be worth a lot of money by 2018.

So I guess just coming back to my original point there around this aspect of the bill, it does seem to be an aspect of society where we have become a little bit nervous when there is mention of the word “hemp” and mention of the word “marijuana”, but I do think it’s important to take an objective look at this plant and have a look at the aspects of this plant that can be used for good purposes. I think this bill has done that, which I appreciate.

In closing—so, just coming back to the key objectives of this bill, around one I didn’t mention, which is harmonising the implementation of the WPC inquiry recommendations across the three food safety Acts. So it’s about bringing them together, which is, in essence, about simplicity, which is certainly something that makes sense for Governments to do. So I certainly commend this bill to the committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response around this particular aspect of the bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to continue where I left off just before. I was talking about the financial impacts of the bill, about which I stated before that there would be no real immediate costs from the bill, but there are a couple of points I wanted to make. One was that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) had identified the need to invest in its IT systems to store risk management programmes. As well as that, businesses were set to incur some costs too, and I was wondering if there was some talk about how we could quantify that, just while we’ve got the opportunity to.

There were some amendments to the Food Act that I wanted to also bring up and touch on and get some clarification on, on top of that. As a small-business owner and as a hospitality provider myself, I’m quite familiar with the Food Act and the amendments made to it. Now, the Food Act—for those people that don’t know it—overarches the whole food regulatory system here in New Zealand. The amendments made in this part were for the purpose of implementing the inquiry recommendations and also for imposing the new design for delegated legislation and clarifying the relationship between both of those, and also to make other changes for overall improvement and consistency.

I wanted to bring in clause 8, which has been removed, and I just wanted to know a bit more about that area. That would have required operators to send full copies of their plans to their verifiers. Now this change was made, apparently, because of the likely compliance impact on businesses, which would be greater than the food safety gains. Some select committee members have stated their discomfort with that being removed, but despite all of that happening, it did go through, and the members of the committee supported the bill through to its second reading. So I would like to know just a wee bit more about that, too.

Also, clause 24 in that particular part of the amendments to the Food Act—that was also removed. It stated that it would’ve required a verifying agency to hold and store copies of food control plans supplied by the operators. Now, I guess, from the outset, it looks like quite a reasonable thing to expect, so I’m just looking to find out why exactly it was removed—again, just while we’ve got the opportunity.

Clause 25 was also removed, and that there would’ve required a verifier not working for an agency to hold and store copies of food control plans supplied by the operator. It seems that maybe the rationale was the same as the first one—clause 24—being removed, but I’d just like to hear a bit more clarification around that.

All in all, I think that the bill is a very solid piece of work, and I commend the committee and all of the work that’s gone into it for that reason. There is one little pit that I did want to point out, especially around giving the Director-General of MPI the permission to compel parties that provide services to a food business to provide information, and then to also be able to inform the public as well, which I think is a good move in terms of efficiency and time. I’d just like to hear a bit of the background behind that, and also just say that MPI and their statutory role in contingency planning—all in all, with those few modifications, I think that it will lead to a better system, all in all.

Again, I’ve got nothing else to specifically point out in this, but there’s just a few clarifications that I’m hoping we might be able to get on that piece. Thank you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to first of all thank the Labour Party for supporting this bill. I think that it’s really important that we have support across the House. The speeches tonight have shown an indication—maybe through the speaking notes, but—of certainly some of the issues—

Hon Member: Oh, come on!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —that have arisen in this bill, and I’d just like to thank you. I don’t give praise to the left very often, but in this case it is great to see that you are actually doing the right thing for New Zealand for once and supporting this bill. [Interruption] I know, I know, it’s difficult for you to accept that, but this legislation’s really important.

It’s important for a number of factors. First of all, New Zealand is a food-producing country, and we need to have the highest standards of food production and for people to have confidence in those rules and regulations that are in this country. That’s a crucial part of enabling New Zealanders, who are consumers, to actually have some security and that what they buy actually meets the standards. Also—

Hon Dr David Clark: Careful—it makes your hair fall out. That member should know.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: The member over there, who is balder than anyone else in this House—it’s great to hear him talking about hair loss. But I’m sure that as Minister of Health, he’ll work for some solutions in that area. But it is really important for New Zealanders to be able to have confidence, and also for us as an export-industry country that really exports a lot of food products that we have those high standards here. So I think it is great that we see the Government parties supporting this bill along with the Opposition here tonight. I think that shows that Parliament is supportive of the general health and well-being of all New Zealanders but also is supporting our export industries in a way that I think we can all be very proud of.

There are some changes that have occurred during the process of this bill, and those reflect some accommodations with our Australian colleagues. We’ve heard about the THC and other things there that actually reflect the joint arrangements between the two countries around food safety. That’s a unique arrangement—where two countries work together under the same regulatory system—and I think that’s something that’s also very impressive in our system.

But, in saying that, this is not a bill that necessarily will solve all problems. The food safety and integrity issue is a difficult one, and there’s always going to be issues around compliance costs and balancing that against achieving the goals of higher standards of level for the safety of our consumers. That’s a difficult balance to achieve, and I’d just like to thank the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) personally for the great work that they and their officials do in supporting this bill but also for the way that they actually implement this legislation. They’ll get some pressure from food producers who think that they are too regulatory, but at the same time they have a very important role to play in our system of maintaining that integrity, not only for our consumers but also for “Brand New Zealand”. So I think that we should all thank MPI for their great work in this area. It’s not an easy process.

It’s good to see that Minister Damien O’Connor is also supporting this bill passing through. It is under a time frame that needs to be passed, and we recognise that. With the contribution of all parties in this House, I think that we can actually work towards a food system that is strong and maintains the values that all political parties would want to see in our New Zealand food system, but, at the same time, it gives consumers comfort and direction around some of the issues that are involved.

So this is good to see it coming through the parliamentary process. It’s not perfect. It will take some time to work through. But we need to be engaging, and this is a very good first step. With the good work of MPI and the understanding of food producers and consumers, I think we can all work towards getting a very good resolution of these issues for the benefit of all going forward. So I thank all members for their support.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Unlike the last member, David Bennett, I’d like to just talk about a couple of issues in the bill. I just have a couple of questions around process, really, that, hopefully, the Minister will answer. I mean, I agree with the previous member—

Hon Amy Adams: No, you don’t. You’re filibustering—be honest. We can see it.

Hon STUART NASH: Leadership bid started already. We’re going to hear it. They’re all going to line up and they’re all going to have a go every time there’s something on. Get the face on TV and go hard—go hard, Amy. Here we go. In the Hansard—filibustering.

There’s no leadership bids going on here; I actually have some real genuine questions for the Minister.

Ian McKelvie: Ask him after hours.

Hon STUART NASH: Are you going to put your hand up for the leadership as well, Mr McKelvie? Go hard. Or does it mean, because he’s sitting beside Amy, that he’s—he’s asking Amy at the moment, “What can you give me if I vote?” Here we go. It’s all beginning. And then he’s going to go and someone else is going to come and sit down. We’re going to have this all night. They’re going to come in and out. It’s going to be the best show in town.

Anyway, anyway, here we go. Back to the bill—and thank you very much, Mr Chair; I was just a bit distracted by that member having a go and I thought—anyway. Clause 233 talks about “Notification of certain matters”.

Hon Member: Yeah, that’s important.

Hon STUART NASH: And it is important because what it says here is the director-general—and this is important—“… must—(a) publish the notice, or notification that it has been issued, in the Gazette;”, and this is how notices have been communicated to the general public in the trade for time immemorial. But what it does say here, it talks about “where the Director-General considers it practicable, cause the notice to be brought to the attention of persons likely to be affected … by [the] notice [, by] publication in any newspaper or trade journal,”.

The question I have here is what is the test when we talk about “considers it practicable”? The reason I ask that is that it is very easy for the director-general to say to any notice, “Let’s just put this in the trade journal, or let’s put it in a little public notice in any newspaper.” The concern I have about these notices is they do affect the health and well-being of a business. If someone has made a decision based on a certain regulation or something, then the director-general issues a notice—and they should be looking in the Gazette, but I actually think this should be published; this must be published in trade journals, or we must do whatever we can to actually get that information out there to people who are likely to be affected.

And again, what is the test around “likely to be affected”? Is that a test that the director-general him or herself is going to make? Or is it actually an objective test? But we can move away from this if we say that they must be published in trade journals or in newspapers. It is not a hard test—or even if we specify a newspaper over a readership of say 100,000 so we know it’s going to go in the Dominion Post, or the New Zealand Herald, etc. It’s not hard to give effect to. The last thing I would want to see is these notices just published in the Gazette when it would’ve been really easy for the director-general just to direct his or her staff to put it in trade journals. It just makes it a lot easier. It is very important, as the last member alluded to, for the integrity of the system that people have the ability to get the information required to undertake business.

Another point I’d like a bit of clarification on is new section 118A, inserted by clause 234. This talks about “Automated electronic systems”. I’m assuming—and I could be wrong here—reading new section 118A, we’re talking about an email system. But I’m not too sure if my assumption’s correct. It says here, “The Director-General”—and, again, I’m quoting—“may arrange for the use of an automated electronic system to do the actions”, and the actions are “(a) [the] exercising a power: (b) carrying out a function: (c) carrying out a duty:”, so they’re quite important. But, again, under what circumstances, or what safeguards are in place to ensure that the director-general’s actions are actually communicated and received?

If we go to new section 118A(4) subparagraph (a) and (b) it says, “The Director-General may make an arrangement only if satisfied that—”, and I quote, “(a) the system has the capacity to do the action with reasonable reliability;”. And this is where my concern rests. What is the definition of “reasonable reliability”? Is it the fact that the director-general has communicated with this person or this organisation more than once and got a reply? Or is it an assumption because someone has got an email address that they’re going to receive the message? What is the test around that?

What it does say is it talks about, and I quote—this is new section 118A(4)(b)—“(b) a process is available under which a person affected by an action done by the system can have the action reviewed”—I know I’m going on a bit here, but it’s important—“by a person described … without undue delay.” Again, I’m not too sure what the definition of “undue delay” might be. Because we’re talking about notices, here, that can have an impact on someone’s business. Is “undue delay” within 24 hours? Is it within a week? Is it within a month? So just a little bit of guidance around what undue delay actually represents.

The reason I ask these questions is I would hate for the judiciary to have to interpret what these are because someone comes forward and says, “I did not receive the notice. You might’ve sent me an email, but I was out of the country.”, or “That email isn’t used.”, and the Ministry for Primary Industries says, “Well, we believed that you’d received this without undue delay, and we expected you would get it within a day.”, and the person says, “I was in Uzbekistan. I wasn’t back for a week—I was negotiating some sort of trade deal—undue delay?” So I just think a little bit of a clarification around that.

The other thing it says, and this is quite interesting because what it does say—

Ian McKelvie: You’ve got to remember this speech’ll be on record.

Hon STUART NASH: Mr McKelvie will be interested in this—

Hon David Bennett: We want to hear about Greg. Greg O’Connor’s cowshed is better than this.

Hon STUART NASH: —and certainly Mr Bennett will be interested in this, because I know that Mr Bennett’s passion as a dairy farmer is food safety. For the first time I heard someone from a former Government talk about “Brand New Zealand”—from the dairy industry. How ironic now that we’re putting all this sort of stuff in place. Mr Bennett used to give me a lot of gyp about talking about “Brand New Zealand”, but here we are.

So this is new section 118A(6), and it says, and I quote—

Hon David Bennett: Say “Brand New Zealand” again. Say it with a deep voice. Say it like a man.

Hon STUART NASH: A dairy farmer—talk about “Brand New Zealand”. They’re the ones that get the benefit, and yet some of them—not Mr Bennett; he’s a dairy farmer that acts, I know, with integrity, but some don’t, and I would like to see Mr Bennett hold more of them to account.

Anyway, we’re talking about the previous bill, or the bill before the bill. But anyway, what it says here—and this is most interesting—and I quote, “The Director-General must consult the Privacy Commissioner about including in an arrangement actions that involve the collection or use of personal information.” So what does this actually mean? So does this mean that every time the director-general goes out to a supplier or a customer or someone who is involved in this and asks for personal information—I mean, I’m assuming personal information is also about business information and where do you live, what’s the address of your company, etc.—that they’re going to have to consult the Privacy Commissioner? Or is the Privacy Commissioner going actually to come up with a ruling that states that this is the sort of information that the director-general can collect with impunity? I would suspect that every time the Privacy Commissioner sent out an automated electronic notice or request—i.e., let’s assume it’s an email—that asks for personal information, it will be incredibly onerous if they have to go to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and get a ruling on whether they can actually collect the information they’re asking for.

The reason I ask this is that we are operating in the 21st century. I am all for automated electronic systems. We need to move to the 21st century where electronic systems are the norm, they’re the way of doing business, because, let’s be honest about this, writing letters and that sort of carry on isn’t the way forward. So we’ve got to just get this sorted. Whenever someone asks, you know, “Mr McKelvie’s a farmer, can I collect information from him?”, going to the Privacy Commissioner to ask if they can actually collect this information, I would’ve thought, could be quite onerous.

I’m just after a little bit of clarification about what this actually means but also what we’re trying to achieve here. We have got systems like the New Zealand Business Number, for example, on which a supplier, a business, or a sole trader can enter all the information required. So I’m just sort of wondering what sort of personal information we’re trying to collect that would require a trip to the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner is an office we hold in high integrity—there’s no doubt about that. The Privacy Commissioner must, and I totally agree, be satisfied that the information that is being requested is done so for a proper reason.

Hon Member: Oh, of course.

Hon STUART NASH: Absolutely. So I’m just seeing where we’re coming from on this. The interesting thing, the last point I’ll make in the last 13 seconds is in new clause 118B(2), inserted by section 234, it says, “An action allowed or required by this Act done by the system—… (b) is not invalid by virtue only of the fact that it is done by [a] system.” I look at this and I wonder what this actually means.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Food Safety): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thought it best that I take a call before I started forgetting all the questions that have been put to me. I guess the bill hasn’t been in the House for some time and there may be some people who are listening who may not have quite worked out what it’s all about, so I thought I would go back to basics.

This bill is a very important piece of legislation. Unfortunately, because of the false botulism scare—which was an international debacle, effectively—we weren’t in the position to properly test milk powder that was thought to have botulism in it. As we do always take a precautionary approach, we went out and alerted some of our trading partners, and that has literally cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. Subsequent to that, the previous Government held an inquiry. It came back with recommendations—in fact, there were 38 of them in all. It did undertake some very good work—I acknowledge the set-up and establishment of the New Zealand Food Safety Science and Research Centre and the Food Safety and Assurance Advisory Council—and it conducted a number of other practical operational changes that we hope will prevent any such thing in the future. I will acknowledge the previous Minister of Food Safety, David Bennett, and his, I guess, shepherding of this bill into the House.

I have to say there have been a lot of very good questions put to me in the committee and there have been a lot of others. Can I just say, firstly—and starting to address some put by our coalition partner, New Zealand First—they have consistently raised issues about the impact of food legislation on small producers. Can I assure the Hon Tracey Martin, in regard to the question that she asked on behalf of her colleagues, that we are as a Government moving to reduce the compliance on small innovative food producers and to ease the pathway for them to develop the new products that might take New Zealand into the future. This Government will assist us to move from being a country that produces lambs and logs and produces meat and the best bulls, to producing the finest-quality food for the world’s most discerning customers. That’s what we want to do.

A lot of that innovation and creativity comes from small operators around the country, and we are doing a number of things. We are progressing a range of initiatives that will help reduce the time, the effort, and the cost required for small food-business owners to meet the food safety regulations. We make no apology for those regulations being stringent, because we need to produce the safest food in the world. But we have to acknowledge that for small operators around the country, who might be incurring the cost of long travel distance to far-flung-out places—and they’re just producing a small amount of food, but it’s great food—they have to incur the cost of flights, of travel, and of verification. We are looking to bring a lot of that online and to reduce, I guess, the ongoing compliance costs. But we must ensure that they continue to produce safe food. That’s paramount. So an assurance for the Minister there, on behalf of her colleagues, and, of course, the rest of Parliament, which wants to ensure that we have a good food safety regime.

I’ll speak briefly to a couple of—oh well, before I’ll go to that, I guess, just in answer to a few other questions that have come from my colleagues. To my associate, Minister Nash, he’s asking about what “practicable” means. I could turn the table on him and say, well, it’s a bit like what “precautionary” means in fishing. There’s a lot of variation in it, and can I say that we have to trust the people who implement this to do it in the right way. It’s up to Ministers in Government to keep an eye on them, and I’m sure we’ll do that.

Can I come back to the Supplementary Order Papers, and there are two of them, doing a couple of things. It was raised, again by New Zealand First—who have concerns about allowing people to eat hemp seed. I have to say it’s a low THC. Actually, THC in itself doesn’t do a lot to give you a buzz, and so I’d have to say—well, actually I apologise. That’s not quite true. The THC will, but the cannabidiol won’t—and so a slight mistake there on my part. There’s no way that we’re promoting the consumption of high THC hemp seed, or will allow that. But the reality is that we’re going to have to change, through the Supplementary Order Paper, the definition of “food” because, as we know, people are eating lots of things safely as food.

I have to say I can remember the first time they put a flower on my plate. I looked down with horror, wondering what to do with it, but I was assured that you could eat the flower safely. I’m more familiar with tutu, which is actually the flower down in my patch that if you ate it, you wouldn’t do too well.

The point is that we have to ensure the systems in place protect us. This change in definition will allow people to consume hemp seed, but it’s not going to give them a buzz or make them sick—other than huge amounts of consumption of seed, which may do strange things to your body, but not to your mind. So it’s a sensible progression.

The other Supplementary Order Paper, which was brought in at the last minute, is one to ensure that the Dietary Supplements Regulations won’t expire, as they are deemed to do in 2019 under current legislation. We’re taking the opportunity in this piece of legislation to extend out to 1 March 2021 those regulations, to give us plenty of time to have a review of them and to go through and make the tweaks that we may need.

Can I just say that I appreciate, as I say, the introduction of this bill by the previous National Government. The fact that we supported it through—it’s had unanimous support in the House all the way through, and we’ll pass this as quickly as we can.

It’s been a long and sorry saga around the WPC80 dilemma, but we’ve used the opportunity—made the best of a good crisis, I suppose—to improve the legislation and to hook on a couple of other changes that will improve the regime around food safety in this country, so that we can rightfully stand up and say that we produce the best food, the safest food. We’ve got legislation in place that can be implemented, and any of our trading partners can come here and check the legislation and check the practices carried out by the officials. On top of that, of course, it will provide pathways for young, often, but small innovative food producers—people with new ideas to create new food that will take this country into the future.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to take a call on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. Just by way of opening remarks, I thank the Minister for taking a call to remind us all of the purpose of this bill. Can I also acknowledge the Hon David Bennett and, obviously, the former Government, from which the bill originated as a result of the botulism scare in 2013, and, obviously, the decision by Cabinet in 2014 to limit the scope of this bill. So thank you to the Minister for explaining that.

The bill, as he’s quite rightly indicated, is another measure to ensure food safety production in this industry, which is very important to many of the folk around the country. While the Minister was explaining and answering some of the former questions, it reminded me that where I come from, the Hawke’s Bay, I enjoy frequently, every Sunday morning, the Hawke’s Bay Farmers’ Market. They seem to have become a regular feature in many of our electorates.

At that fair, I’m always impressed with the innovation in the food that’s been presented over the many years that I’ve been going to the Hawke’s Bay Farmers’ Market—food like olive oil, and recently we’ve been having ostrich meat on the menu. I do want to say, in relation to Part 1 of this bill, Minister, where you talked about the verification process, I did have the occasion to talk to a particular supplier who passed on his comments around the supply of ostrich meat and his determination to farm ostrich meat. But he did pass on the drawn-out verification process that he had to face. In fact, he talked about it taking more than 12 months to get verification.

So there is a part in Part 1 of this particular bill that addresses verification and, I guess, putting it in layman’s terms for this particular supplier, I’d be keen for you to give the House, if possible, a bit more detail on how you see the verification process actually being rolled out. You talked about website tools to make that possible. But I’m sure, for you as a West Coast MP and me as an East Coast MP—nothing beats the face-to-face engagement on the ground to help facilitate the ongoing innovation that a lot of our small providers in the food industry are keen to unveil.

I do know that you touched on this, Minister, but for the gentleman that I had the pleasure of not only tasting his ostrich meat but actually listening to some of his concerns in Hawke’s Bay around verification, I would ask if the Minister would just make it crystal clear how he sees it rolling out, both in terms of people on the ground where our small operators are, as well as the self-help tools that you addressed in terms of making the process a lot more seamless online. So, Minister, that’s an important question for some of our small providers in the Hawke’s Bay where I come from, and I’m hoping that you can give a bit more clarity and certainty to the question around verification and making it a lot more seamless for our very small but very innovative operators around the country. Thanks very much for that.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much. I’m very excited to be able to rise and speak to this bill. My colleagues and I here on this side of the House take this issue seriously. I can’t help but note that in the list of speakers that have risen to speak on this bill, only one has come from the National Party. What message does that send to producers and, indeed, consumers—not just here domestically but internationally as well—when something as crucial as this is not getting the debate that it deserves?

I do note that the only speaker to rise from that side of the House, the Hon David Bennett, said this: “This bill will take some time to work through.” What that says to me is this deserves the debate that this issue warrants. This issue deserves to have the time and the scrutiny, for people to actually take it seriously and stand here and discuss it.

I would specifically like to touch on clause 23 and clause 112. I’ve just come from an event here in Parliament. The honourable Minister was there as guest speaker, and two groups of food producers from the Wairarapa and Hawke’s Bay regions, the shepherds and grasshoppers, a longstanding association of producers who’ve got together to advocate for their industries. I think they’d be concerned to see that the party that portrays itself as one that advocates for the rural sector has not even bothered to talk about this bill tonight. But we will, and we have, and we will continue to do so.

Hon Andrew Little: Because we’ve got a good Minister.

KIERAN McANULTY: We have a marvellous Minister; a universally acclaimed and admired and respected Minister—mainly by those that don’t know him.

Clause 23 inserts New Part 3A, and Subpart 1 of that brings together and clarifies some very important requirements. It is around the provisions for tracing and recall. We’ve heard tonight how important our image is to our export sector. How we are perceived as a country is directly linked to the demand that we see, particularly overseas. As consumers get more educated and more discerning, so it is more important that New Zealand lives up to international standards and lives up to how we portray ourselves overseas as a food producer.

Indeed, the requirements that this bill is proposing to make in the amendments to the Food Act, specifically around tracing and recall, give confidence to those consumers and give confidence to our producers and exporters that we can say, just like producers in the UK and just like some producers in the United States, that if there is an issue, we can have the measures in place to be able to recall it quickly and trace back to the source of the problem.

Of course, it was the false botulism scare that brought rise to this bill. We as a country, as an exporting nation, cannot afford to make those same mistakes again, and I’m pleased that clause 23 does bring in requirements so that producers do have to have provisions in place for adequate tracing and recall. Similarly, in the proposed amendments in Part 2—the amendments to the Animal Products Act—clause 112 inserts New Part 6A, with a similar subpart, and this is, as outlined, very similar to that in clause 23 in that it brings in requirements for tracing and recall.

Of course, all food that is produced here and exported needs to be able to be recalled if there is an issue. The fact that this wasn’t here before the botulism scare is a concern, and I do acknowledge the officials and the previous Minister—and, of course, our Minister here—for putting work into this so that we can put confidence back into our export sector and food producing sector. As this bill clearly outlines in the purpose, it’s not just animal products and it’s not just food either; it’s all products of the primary industries that we export as a nation so that we can live up to our clean, green, pure New Zealand brand.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on this, the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. I would like to agree with the Hon David Bennett in what he said before, in that this bill is a very important bill. It is important to give people confidence, and it’s important for people’s health and well-being. He did mention that there will be compliance costs, etc. and things like that, but, in all honesty and in all fairness, if we don’t look to pass this bill the cost to this country could be far greater than some compliance costs. As a country, we pride ourselves that we supply food to consumers here at home and to other countries around the world, and that they can be assured it is safe and of high quality, and this particular piece of legislation is one that we should take note of.

As we know, it was the whey protein concentrate (WPC) contamination incident that brought our reputation into question. It caused significant damage to our reputation and damage to customer relationships. While this did turn out to be a false alarm, it was a very expensive one that cost in excess of well over $180 million, and that, ultimately, came directly out of farmers’ pockets. There were two inquiries after the incident, and this bill that we have before us is a result of the recommendations made from the inquiry.

Although the inquiry was originally based around the dairy sector, the purpose of this bill is to amend three Acts: the Food Act 2014, the Animal Products Act 1999, and the Wine Act 2003. This bill ensures that recommendations made from the WPC inquiry have been addressed. It is intended to better protect human health. We need to know our food is safe for consumption—don’t we; we don’t want to risk our health unnecessarily—and to ensure our international reputation as a supplier of food that is totally safe for consumption both here and internationally. Reputation is everything, especially for an economy like ours that relies heavily on export. More than 10 percent of New Zealand’s gross domestic product is from our food sector, and that is actually quite substantial.

In Part 1, amended section 43 set out in clause 7, is, ultimately, about managing risk and vulnerability; we simply can’t risk having issues such as the botulism scare. It is simply too costly, not only financially but also to our reputation. Operators will be required to submit food control plans for registration, and this allows the registration authority the ability to have full and clear information about what the operator’s risk management processes are. It is vital that there are robust plans and processes in place. It not only gives us assurance that there are actual risk management plans in place but also ensures that operators know what is required of them and how they will demonstrate competency—that is, in regard to how operators intend to demonstrate that staff have appropriate training in food production, processing, and handling.

This bill takes four tools that are currently in the Food Act and puts them into the Animal Products and Wine Acts. These tools will encourage compliance and incentivise behaviour, which is more favourable than immediate prosecution. These tools are improvement notices, infringement regime compliance orders, and court order penalty for commercial gain if found guilty. This bill is about managing risk and our vulnerability.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before I call the next speaker, I know the member’s a new member, but you really should not be reading a speech in the committee stage. Try and do it without reading it.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. I’m delighted to take a call on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. I want to focus on the design aspects around the regulation-making powers and notices—the delegated legislation, so to speak, which is a core aspect of this bill. A bouquet is owing to the officials who have drafted this bill, because, effectively, the actual, real guts of everything that this amendment bill is wanting to do will be found in regulations, and, potentially, in notices that will be made as well. This legislation clarifies the regulation-making power for all delegated legislation that sits under the three Acts that we’re amending.

I guess a best-practice model was followed around delegated legislation based around the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines, and I think that’s very important, because there needs to be consistency. Yes, we are having the power and authority of Parliament to pass primary legislation—you know, it gets proper scrutiny, as we’re doing through the House. For regulation-type powers, obviously, that goes only through Order in Council by the Governor-General, so it has less checks and balances, I guess. Then, further—I guess a step down from there—is the issuing of notices by the chief executive of the ministry. For instance, in the Food Act, it’s the Ministry for Primary Industries. So there is a hierarchy of delegated legislation, which is integral and central to this bill.

I believe that the officials have pitched it right, but what I would just like to have clarified—I guess an issue for me is that it is prescribed, the situations where, for instance, a chief executive must issue a notice, and it is prescribed around regulations, and practically every second or third provision is all around regulations and/or notices. But for me, I guess, the concern is around the thresholds of what a chief executive is responsible for, because, indeed, a chief executive can also delegate his or her powers to other officials within the ministry. So that’s also a part of it.

What we’re doing, though, is we’re taking away the scrutiny of Parliament, we’re taking away the ability to review and to give proper consideration, and we’re putting more power and authority into the hands of officials and bureaucrats. I think we must always be careful around how much power we are prepared to devolve to unelected bureaucrats who are discharging functions under the empowering legislation, but I guess it’s the subject matter that is crucial. So I would just urge Minister O’Connor, through his officials, to ensure that there is very thorough, comprehensive consultation that is to take place with the industry—with all participants, food companies who are impacted by this legislation—to ensure that those powers are set correctly, to ensure that powers that are delegated are appropriate. That will give confidence to the food sector in general and to the New Zealand public in general that there are appropriate decision-making delegated powers at the right level for the appropriate decisions that have to be made under this legislation.

But, apart from that, I do commend the officials for what they have done in drafting this legislation, and I’m looking forward to it being implemented fully through the enactment of those regulations that will come into force in due course. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 316 and 11 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Customs and Excise Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the debate will be conducted on the following four themes: information disclosure, powers and obligations, revenue and trade, and mechanics and miscellaneous. There will be no debate on clauses 1 and 2, but clause 2 may be referred to in relation to the commencement of provisions as they are debated. The Chairperson will determine the length of the debate on each theme, so there will be no closure motions accepted. There is no limit, however, on the number of calls per member. However, the practice will continue that no more than two consecutive calls will be given per member. All questions will be put at the end of the debate.

Information Disclosure

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members, we come first to the debate on information disclosure, comprising Part 5, Subparts 5 and 6.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Madam Chair, thank you very much. It’s indeed a privilege and a pleasure to oversee the ushering of this very important bill, the Customs and Excise Bill. By way of opening the discussion, can I first acknowledge the former Ministers, the Hon Tim Macindoe and, of course, the Hon Maggie Barry, who definitely had a hand in this bill that we are discussing tonight. I’m looking enthusiastically for the contributions that I know are going to appear as we deal with it theme by theme. Despite the time, I know that there’s going to be a lot of contribution given to this very important legislation. This is a non-controversial piece of legislation, but it’s a very important piece of legislation.

We are attempting to modernise the Customs and Excise Act, which hasn’t been modernised for up to 20 years. In some parts of the Act, it’s about a hundred years in which it hasn’t been touched, so this is an attempt to bring it into the modern world. The legislation will be more flexible to respond to a changing global environment and changes in business and border management practices, and the bill will balance the protection of the nation with individual rights. Just for members’ information, the bill carries over most of the current Act, with, of course, the key policy changes to bring the legislation into line with modern technology and business practices.

For members of the House, I want to acknowledge that business have been involved throughout the policy development stages of the bill and consulted on the draft. If there was an exemplar bill that we would put up where stakeholders have been actively involved in its crafting, then I would definitely nominate this one. The Customs Service will continue to engage with business in developing regulations, customs rules, and staff guidelines.

The major policy change is in relation to greater information-sharing between customs and other Government agencies: disclosing information on people and goods and crossing the border for national security, law enforcement, public health, and safety purposes. Information will also be able to be disclosed to implement or guide Government policy, such as free-trade agreements or to maintain regulatory regimes.

To increase certainty about how customs must manage its information and circumstances and conditions under which information may be disclosed, the bill provides for information-sharing agreements made at the ministerial level for domestic arrangements, or chief executive level for international arrangements. Agreements will specify protection for personal and commercially sensitive information, and give a more efficient and transparent process for the sharing of information.

This bill attempts to be better for businesses. It will be easier for traders to do business and to interact with customs. The bill also is attempting to provide greater certainty around excise liability and greater certainty for the fuel industry around when excise is due, and collect an additional $5 million per annum in Crown revenue from avoiding future litigation. It also clarifies when excisable goods are subjected to the control of customs. It’s also about modern and flexible powers to protect New Zealand. This bill confirms the majority of customs’ existing powers, while recognising privacy concerns. It also provides greater scope and flexibility to address smuggling and national security concerns. The bill also introduces a modern sanction framework. A range of penalties have been increased and made consistent across the bill and other legislation to ensure ongoing compliance.

In terms of opening statements, I think it’s important that the members are also made aware that the Privacy Commissioner and the Law Society made submissions on many of the substantive policy changes in this bill, and these submissions have informed the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s report back to the House.

I now turn members’ attention to theme one and its title of information disclosure. Focusing on this particular part of the bill, just for the benefit of members, I inform them that the bill provides a coherent legislative framework for managing information while protecting privacy. This part of the bill continues the information-matching arrangements contained in the current Act, which are working well. Permitted information matches relate to matters such as student loans, fines enforcement, and child support. Any information disclosure agreement made by customs under the new provisions must be consulted with the Privacy Commissioner prior to it being approved by the relevant Ministers within domestic Government, or the chief executive for international and private sector agreements.

Sensitive personal information, such as the passenger name record data and biometric information, can be disclosed only under restricted circumstances. To increase accountability and transparency about how customs must manage its information, the bill provides for agreements with other Government agencies, including for direct access to customs information, to be made at the ministerial level for domestic arrangements. The Privacy Commissioner will have active oversight. Greater information disclosure by customs to other Government agencies will contribute to national security, law enforcement, and public health and safety.

The bill retains the ability from the current Act for customs to disclose information to overseas authorities under a formal written agreement. Checks and balances are written into the agreement. The bill also retains the ability from the current Act for customs to disclose information to an overseas authority outside of a formal written agreement. This ability is restricted to a limited range of functions of the overseas authority and in the type of information that can be disclosed. This form of information disclosure is necessary to meet operational considerations when the trade flows between New Zealand and the other country are not sufficient to warrant a formal written agreement.

The select committee considered in their view how best to balance the need for transparency in the collection, use, and disclosure of information with parliamentary oversight. I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee and, of course, the officials who have brought this bill to this stage. I look forward to the contributions from the House.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson Tolley. It’s a pleasure to be able to participate in the debate on the information disclosure aspects of this Customs and Excise Bill. I intend to speak with some particularity to clause 293, but before I do that I would like to make some general statements about the information disclosure aspects of this bill. Obviously, our Customs Service has the power to collect an enormous quantity of information and data, not just about goods and items that cross our border but about people as they cross our border. It is a rich source of information, and it is appropriate that the Government judiciously make that information available for other purposes. But it is certainly incredibly important that “judicious” is the keyword here. We must take extreme care and caution with the information that is gathered about people, how that information is shared with other Government agencies and with the private sector, and how that information is used. I believe that these aspects of this bill warrant significant scrutiny by Parliament.

It may appear to some members that this is reasonably non-controversial. There’s certainly agreement across the House about these aspects, but I think it is our duty as representatives of the New Zealand public to ensure that we scrutinise this bill closely, given the nature of the powers that this legislation provides to not just the Customs Service but other Government agencies and our ability to use the information that we collect about people. For instance, information that is collected by the Customs Service can be used in the administration of the Student Loan Scheme Act—you know, personal information about people to be able to enforce aspects of that legislation.

Simon O’Connor: You’re doing well, mate—keep going.

Alastair Scott: Only two minutes and 26 seconds to go.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: There’s considerably more than two minutes to go, I can assure you gentlemen. It also can be used in the recovery of financial support under the Child Support Act. It can be used in verifying people’s benefit entitlements. So it is very personal and private information—absolutely appropriate uses, but it’s very important that we as a Parliament are satisfied that this legislation is carefully crafted and able to ensure that we protect people’s privacy and we use that information appropriately.

As I said, I wish to speak particularly to clause 293, which deals with the direct access to information for purposes other than the specified purposes that other clauses relate to. This allows for Government agencies to share information that supports the detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of various offences; the detection and investigation of suspected or actual terrorist acts or the facilitation of terrorist acts; the protection of national security; the processing of international passengers; the protection of border security; the protection of public revenue; and the protection of public health and safety. Obviously, as Minister of Immigration, I have considerable interest in this information-sharing ability. As Minister, I am regularly briefed on action that is taken by our border services to ensure the integrity of our border, to ensure the integrity of our immigration system, and to ensure that people who wish to attempt to enter New Zealand for unscrupulous purposes or who are unable to verify the validity of their intentions for trying to enter New Zealand are able to be, in some cases, turned away or are able to be processed in an appropriate manner.

Now, the ability to do that is, of course, incredibly and heavily reliant on the ability to gather data from various sources about those people—heavily reliant on the ability to collect that information. So the ability to collect and share that information is important, but it is, as I say, vital that we have the right protections in place. I am pleased to see that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee saw fit to elevate the responsibility for entering into these types of data-sharing agreements from the chief executive level to the ministerial level. We, as Ministers, as elected members of Parliament, have that accountability to the people of New Zealand in a much greater way than even a chief executive, as senior they are, as great the level of accountability that they have, the levels of responsibility—[Interruption] Two members are heading off to a leadership meeting, I think. It is important that it’s actually the elected officials, the elected representatives, who are able to enter into this type of arrangement.

It’s also important that the Privacy Commissioner must be consulted—so it’s not an option for Ministers entering into these agreements. The Privacy Commissioner must be consulted, and Ministers must have regard to any comments received from the Privacy Commissioner on the proposed agreement. Again, I think, in the 21st century, when people’s data is one of the most sought-after commodities available in the 21st century, it’s incredibly important that we make sure that those safeguards are included in there.

Legislation also prescribes what these written agreements between Ministers must include, such as which databases may be accessed, the particular types or class of information that may be accessed, and, importantly, the purpose for which that information can be accessed. We have seen this in the past—previous Governments that have been a little loose with the purpose for which they were using information. Perhaps, frankly, they have misused and abused the access to information that we have as a Parliament and as a Government, and it is important that the exact purpose for which information can be shared, for which that information can be accessed, is set out in those agreements and that we don’t have creep beyond what those specified purposes are.

If, once an agreed purpose is set in place, it is determined that maybe it would be useful for the Government—that there is a genuine and useful reason for going beyond the purposes that are agreed in those initial agreements between Ministers—then Ministers need to come back to the table, set out that new purpose, and work with the Privacy Commissioner to make sure that that is a reasonable and sensible purpose, because we cannot allow information to be used incorrectly or inappropriately by people who are in a position of significant power.

Those agreements must also set out how the information is to be accessed, the designations of the people within the Government agency who will be able to access those databases, the way the records are to be kept, safeguards that are to be applied, etc. So this is all about making sure that we have the appropriate level of oversight, the appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that where this information is being shared, it is for the specific purposes laid out in the Act. The Act is actually quite precise in terms of the exact reasons that this information can be shared. I think that is incredibly important, and I think that the improvements that have been made, the changes that have been made by the select committee, do improve the bill and they do go a long way to protecting the privacy of individuals.

So with those comments on this specific part of the aspects of the bill that deal with information disclosure, I’m happy to conclude my contribution there, but I suspect that other members have considerably more to say on this part of the bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chairperson Tolley. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Customs and Excise Bill in the committee stage as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I want to commend the debate and the themed debate that we will be having, and what it does provide is a real scrutiny of the select committee’s work. Actually, in this particular area—in the information disclosure area—I want to commend the select committee. They made numerous amendments, particularly to clause 288—which I will speak to—clauses 293 and 294, and I’ve got some special comments for clause 297.

So if we start at clause 288, this provides customs and the Ministry of Justice to share information to enable recovery of fines. The amendment that I specifically want to focus on is actually an increase in the threshold in the definition of what a “serious default” means. Under the previous legislation, it was people who owed at least $1,000 who could be stopped. Obviously, that was our opportunity to recover the debt that these people had to society, and I know the Minister has talked about that in her opening address. But what we did do, I believe, is futureproof that particular clause in allowing, by Order in Council, that amount to elevate up to $5,000 over a period of time. Now, I think that is a really good attempt at making sure that this piece of legislation is fit for purpose going into the future, but I would appreciate from the Minister some clarification about that figure. How it did you come to that? Was that something that the officials with the select committee were able to set?

Regarding clauses 293, 294, and 297, again, I think the select committee did a fantastic job in focusing on the issue of privacy. I found a little quote just before about where privacy came from, and I’ve found a paper from the European Digital Rights commission on the evolution of the concept of privacy. Actually, privacy—as they’ve noted—started, essentially, in 1776 when John Adams, who was the second President of the USA, made a comment about the British, who at that time seemed to think that they had a right to search houses without justification. So the whole concept of unjustified violation of privacy is in a state of evolution, and what I’ve enjoyed reading in the select committee report has been the thinking around those particular amendments to those particular clauses.

As a principle, what those clauses have said is that—and I just want to focus on some principles of privacy that our Privacy Commissioner has published on their website. Private information—the whole issue of privacy—is actually about how we collect private information and how we use private or personal information. There are 12 principles. We should think about the purpose of the private information or personal information we are collecting, the source of that personal information, the collection of that information from the subjects themselves—that is, do people know and are they aware that the information that they are contributing, even if it is ticking a box, is actually being collected?

So it then becomes about the manner of the collection, the storage and security of personal information, who has access to that personal information, is it readily retrievable, is there an opportunity to correct personal information—so, if you find that your personal information has been stored and you find out that there’s a problem with it, you are entitled to confirm that that information is correct but also to change it if it isn’t. So there is an issue about the accuracy of the private information, and the people who collect it should also check it and verify that that private or personal information is, in fact, correct.

It should not be kept longer than is necessary, and, obviously, there are limits on the use of private information. It must not be used for any other purpose than that for which it is collected. In fact, it’s within these clauses that we see the extension of the use of that personal information from one ministry—that is, from the Customs Service—to other ministries such as the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Development, the police and a variety of other agencies. The intersection of the use of that information then becomes about issues such as police vetting and security issues, and do they also relate to issues about some of the substances or commodities that people are wanting to bring into the country?

So there obviously are limits, and should be limits, on the disclosure of that personal information. Also, we should make sure that there are never unique identifiers in the system, so that people’s personal information isn’t coded in other ways so that we actually know who they are and all their details.

The reason that I highlight that particular framework around privacy is because everything that the committee added to clauses 293, 294, and 297 has been about protecting that personal information and the integrity of its use. So requiring Ministers, for example, to have information-sharing agreements elevates it to a level that is beyond a chief executive to chief executive relationship. It then says that the safeguards attached to the sharing of that information must be complied with. So, for example, in new clause 293(3), there are now some criteria that Ministers will have to sign off before those agreements can actually be entered into, such as “(i) direct access to the information is reasonable and practical … (ii) there are adequate safeguards [including audit requirements] to protect the privacy of individuals, … (iii) the agreement will include appropriate procedures for direct access to and use, disclosure, and retention of the information;”.

So it’d be really good to hear from the Minister specifically about clause 297(5B), where we are requiring a review of any privacy agreements, and the Privacy Commissioner has an opportunity to “have an active oversight of information disclosure arrangements.” This is, specifically, arrangements with overseas authorities, and the reason I want the Minister to comment about it is because having a review clause like that actually goes back to my point about the paper that I highlighted about the evolution of—sorry, where is it; I’ve lost my reference—this whole issue of privacy. It’s such a changing world, and privacy is a concept that will change, based on data and information and technology.

One of the issues that has been highlighted recently, for example, is the whole Edward Snowden revelations and the National Security Agency in the United States and their ability to collect data from multiple sources. So in this technology space, things are happening at such a pace that I know the Privacy Commissioner—given it is their primary function—will be able to provide that oversight, which means that we can update this particular clause, if needed, or those particular arrangements.

Information and the access to information and who and how information is collected is actually dynamic. It is part of the dynamic society that we live in today because it’s a global society. It’s one where we can purchase things online, and someone may be able to monitor our IP connections and what we like and don’t like. I mean, that certainly happens with our Countdown cards. They know what specials to send you.

I just, again—in concluding—do want to highlight the work of the select committee, and I actually congratulate them because these amendments we should be proud of as a Parliament. Kia ora.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chairperson Tolley. It’s with great pleasure I stand to support this very substantial bill. I must say, it’s a much-needed bill, because the law prior to this was very confusing and had layer upon layer of reforms. So this consolidation of all of those reforms, and a re-expression, is indeed welcome.

It does give significant powers to the Customs Service, and for good reason. On the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, we’ve had occasion to look at what customs does, and they face an extremely onerous challenge of protecting our borders. It is, I think we must recognise, a battle that is fought not necessarily simply with boats and with border controls and the like but also with data. So I can see the enhanced powers in respect of the searching of electronic devices—and it is worth querying the Minister on some of those powers. They are powers that are indeed much needed, because, obviously, in battling against the evils that sometimes cross our border, whether they be drugs, other illicit goods, or even simply people avoiding duties, we do need that information and that data.

So clause 207 does allow the searching of electronic devices. However, it’s all very nice to say that customs has the right to search an electronic device, but as we all know with our devices, they are often locked down, and asking nicely sometimes simply won’t do it. So my question, really, is whether the powers go far enough, because whilst we need to be very cautious in interrogating someone’s personal device—whether it be their laptop or their mobile phone—when we must, we must do it thoroughly and we must do it properly. When a phone is encrypted, as indeed has been discovered in a recent case in the United States, it’s more or less impossible to interrogate that data without destroying it. So my question, really, is this: do we need to be able to compel not only the holder of that device but also the manufacturer of that device to provide access to that information? If someone won’t give you their password, someone won’t give you their encryption key, or whatever it might be, the question then is: where do we go now? We have, essentially, a stand-off, and, as sure as night follows day, some people in those situations simply will not be prepared to hand over—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don’t like to interrupt the member, but I think you’re on the wrong part. We’re actually on information disclosure rather than powers and obligations. [Interruption] I know it’s a—

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Madam Chair, there’s a lot of overlap there, because the real question there—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you arguing with me? We are in a themed debate, so bring your discussion to the theme of information disclosure. I’m sure you can do it, Dr Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yes, absolutely, Madam Chair. Thank you for the vote of confidence. The information on that device is critical and the question is about the protection of that private information. I didn’t want to overlap with the previous speaker too much, but that really is the question, about protecting that information and ensuring that information that is interrogated, the private information, the non-relevant information, is protected and it is not disclosed to the wrong person—that it’s not interrogated and, in fact, that it’s put entirely to one side. As the previous speaker noted, privacy is a critical concern, given the extensive powers that exist here.

So, really, in respect of this bill, yes, it’s an absolutely necessary consolidation. But there are some residual questions there about the balance to be struck between the powers we’re giving customs and their need to get that information and the privacy rights of the owners of that information—the individuals concerned. Thank you.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Madam Chairperson Tolley, thank you very much. I just want to rise and answer a couple of questions—very good questions—that have come from the right side of me. Of course, there is always an open invitation to the left side to ask some questions.

In terms of the member Louisa Wall, I just want to pick up the question she asked in relation to clause 288, around the $5,000 upper limit threshold. Her question, I understand, was the rationale behind that $5,000. Suffice to say that—well, what I’m getting advised is—the $5,000 is regarded as a reasonable upper limit to the $3,000, and it’s amended so that it’s no longer open-ended. So there was, obviously, an attempt to kind of bring it in within a reasonable amount so it wasn’t open-ended. So, in terms of that—just, initially, answering your question—I also want to say that the Regulations Review Committee raised concerns about the fact that it was open-ended; hence the reason why we’ve got that $5,000 limit. The Regulations Review Committee identified it, and I think that’s where we’ve got to the $5,000. So that’s just in response to that particular question.

In terms of your further question, to the member Louisa Wall, around clause 297, particularly around the Privacy Commissioner—her question around the guarantee of protection of privacy information-sharing between agencies—under clause 297, we’re talking about allowing the Privacy Commissioner to require chief executives to periodically review an agreement. So, just for the member, the Privacy Commissioner may request a review of an information disclosure agreement on any grounds he or she sees fit—for example, changes in data practices, non-technology. A review would look at the agreement’s reasonableness against the changed circumstances—so just another layer of certainty for the very important question that the member raised around guarantees of the privacy of that information. So just a short call to answer and respond to the member’s questions in the committee.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you. Just to continue, in terms of clarifying information disclosure, there are two main points that I’d like to cover in the time I have to speak tonight, the first being general comments around information disclosure, and the second being more specific discussions around direct access to information, particularly around clause 293. The main reason that we’ve reviewed the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is that the world has changed and we have come to learn the fact that for New Zealand, as an island nation, our border is special, very special, not just in terms of our identity as a nation but also in terms of our economic state at the moment, and it’s important to protect that.

It’s important to protect it because customs is the only agency that collects information about all goods and people that come in and out of New Zealand, and that’s an important function. It’s not important just because of those goods and those people. We’re in an age where it’s the information surrounding those entities that has become even more interesting over the time that we try to strike a balance between making sure we have transparency in the collection of that information and its use and dissemination but also in terms of protecting that border—making sure that we retain the importance of being an island nation with a border. That’s why this piece of legislation is so important. It enables us to move, as a country, with the times and to make the most of who we are as a country, make the most of the fact that we are an island nation. That’s why it’s really important to keep us moving with those times.

One of the most important things that this piece of legislation does is clarify the direct access to information for certain purposes. In the past what we’ve seen is—well, for want of a better term—a bit of a free-for-all in some ways. We haven’t had a clear framework, in terms of transparency, as to where we are accessing information. There’s been no clear measuring up of who’s getting it and where, so it’s good to see that now if we’re wanting to access thing like the passenger name record, which is the list of people coming into New Zealand—if there are agencies that need to access that information directly, we need to know why and we need to make sure that our Ministers are aware of the reasons why. It’s really encouraging to see that before entering into any written agreement about information sharing, those Ministers must be satisfied on three clear factors, and I’m going to iterate those now because I think it’s important that we know what those factors are that Ministers must be conscious of before written agreements are entered into to enable that direct access of information into customs information gathered at our borders.

The first is that the “direct access to that information is reasonable and practical”. The second one is that “there are adequate safeguards, including audit requirements, to protect the privacy of individuals”—and how important that is. Thirdly, is that “the agreement includes appropriate procedures for direct access to, and the use, disclosure, and retention, of the information.” Can I just say that at a time when we’re recording biometric information—that’s information about people’s identities that are recorded; their faces, their irises, their fingerprints—it’s important to know how long that information is being retained. So while we move with the times, while we need that more accurate data, we also need to conscious of how we are retaining that information to make sure that that privacy is adequately protected.

One of the main objectives behind this bill—and they are listed out in the introduction at the very start—is the “facilitating [of] greater information-sharing between Customs and other agencies.”, and that is so important. We do need to be a joined-up Government, we do need to be making sure that we understand who is coming into New Zealand and who is leaving, and that is why we need to make sure that—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry, the member’s time is up.

Powers and Obligations

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It is my view that it is now reasonable to move on to the next theme, which is the debate on powers and obligations, comprising Part 3, Subparts 1, 2, 4, and 8, and schedule 5; Part 4; Part 5, Subparts 4, 7, and 10, and schedule 8; and Part 6, Subpart 1.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Just by way of introduction to theme two, powers and obligations, the committee may want to know that the bill confirms the majority of customs’ existing powers while recognising privacy concerns. Powers are backed up with modern sanctions. Specific thresholds must be met before customs officers can search an electronic device. So for my learned colleague Dr Duncan Webb, this is the part you might want to take a call on.

The bill further goes on to clarify the traveller’s obligation to provide access to an electronic device for such searches. Privileged information will be protected in full searches of electronic devices. Controlled deliveries are highly effective in breaking smuggling networks and will be possible across a wider range of goods such as objectionable publications. There will be a streamlined process for imposing controls on imported and exported goods. Also, the commercial transportation operators may be required to provide the passenger name record information—or PNR—they generate, such as ticketing data and payment information. Limits are prescribed on when the power can be exercised relative to arrival or departure times. PNR is used in the advance risk assessment of passengers. The chief executive must have regard to the recommended practices of the International Civil Aviation Organization in respect of PNR data.

The bill restricts the Customs Service to collecting, using, and disclosing passengers’ biometric information in order to verify passengers’ identity and to establish whether a passenger is subject to travel restrictions imposed by the courts or the Parole Board.

The bill allows customs to set performance standards for users of the Joint Border Management System, and, as a last resort, to suspend or revoke a user’s registration. The bill further introduces a modern, cost-effective infringement notice scheme for minor offending. Regulations will set the infringement offences and fees.

Finally, forfeiture and seizure provisions have been modernised and minor improvements made. But, in substance, the provisions are unchanged from the existing Act.

Can I just make one small comment before I resume my seat. It is an acknowledgment that in this particular part, at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submitted that this clause should allow the Minister of Customs to oppose a prohibition with reference to an established iwi interest rather than simply the public interest. I just want to acknowledge the select committee, which accepted that the public interest test is broad enough to consider an established iwi interest. It is in the public interest to consider that the interests of iwi are taken into account.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I have so much more to say. I thought I’d stick to the appropriate theme this time, but I’m sure I’ll be told if I don’t. And I won’t repeat myself—I’m sure the Minister will remember my earlier comments.

Obviously, the powers within the bill are very significant, and one of the really significant and very far-reaching powers I think we need to think very carefully about is the power of seizure. One of the difficulties with seizure is that it can appear quite disproportionate, in the sense that the use, for example, of a craft to smuggle goods can lead to the seizure of that craft and not only the goods, which are forfeit almost without saying. But the fact that assets used for illicit purposes may themselves be subject to seizure suggests that we need to be cautious about that.

There are two clauses of the bill that perhaps push out a bit further these powers, and they are new to the legislation. One is the ability to condemn goods—that is to say, they become property of the Crown if conditions for their release are not met—which is in new clause 166A, proposed through Supplementary Order Paper 12. We can understand why that might happen, particularly if there has been some flagrant disregard, for example, for the placement of a bond or whatever that might be. But in many of these situations, particularly, you’ve got to remember that there may not have been a trial and there may not have been a conviction. In these situations, we’ve got to be very cautious indeed in seizing these goods first. So, whilst the power may exist, I wonder whether there ought not be some very careful discretion not to exercise it in all circumstances.

The other interesting move in this piece of legislation is apparent in a number of places, including clause 169, which is the extension of customs’ powers to the contiguous zone—that is to say, beyond the usual jurisdictional limits of New Zealand, which are the immediate waters outside of New Zealand, but far out beyond that. Now that is consistent with international covenants on the law of the sea, but in terms of extending domestic powers, because customs’ powers are fundamentally domestic powers, well beyond our national borders—that is something that I would invite the Minister to give some consideration to, and perhaps justification for.

Whilst these significant powers are—and that includes power to seize. The power, particularly, to seize illicit imports or exports extends beyond our immediate zone—our legal jurisdiction—out into the contiguous zone, and that is a significant geographical extension of the power of customs. So I’d invite the Minister to just explain how that is perhaps both consistent with good governance and with our international obligations.

Having said that, clearly we need to equip our customs with all those necessary powers and, by and large, the powers are entirely justifiable in the hands of an agency that is subject to law and subject to review. And on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call, Raymond Huo. My apologies, Raymond Huo.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson Tolley. It’s a great pleasure—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m going to apologise again to the member because the time has come for me to report progress on these bills before the committee tonight.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Food Safety Law Reform Bill with amendment, and progress on the Customs and Excise Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.