Wednesday, 15 August 2018

WEDNESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2018

WEDNESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Reports

1. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I have seen reports on the health of our small businesses which indicate that they are in sound shape. Craig Hudson, managing director at Xero, said that their data tells a different story to that of business confidence surveys, and he said that it’s important not to talk ourselves into gloominess over the economy. He went on to say, “Actually, the business performance is doing better than it was last year based on core metrics, which is facts.”

Kiritapu Allan: What do the reports say about the drivers of economic growth?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Writing for Xero, an independent economist named Cameron Bagrie said that the economy is currently “chugging along”. He said that the previous drivers of economic growth, such as the housing market and immigration, are slowing, and that more growth will need to come from other parts of the economy. He said a change in the economic model is needed. On this side of the House, we agree. It is time to move away from housing speculation and population growth and towards productivity and innovation and an economy where all New Zealanders can take part and see real improvements in their standard of living.

Kiritapu Allan: What did the report say about the underlying fundamentals of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In his analysis of the small business insights data, Mr Cameron Bagrie pointed out that many positives in the New Zealand economy exist today: interest rates are still low, jobs are aplenty, the falling dollar is supporting exporters, and New Zealand has one of the strongest fiscal positions in the world. He went on and on about the many good underlying fundamentals, and he said the economy does not have a slew of red lights flashing that precede a major downturn. I am thrilled that Mr Bagrie is taking note of the many positive indicators in the economy, and I might suggest the other side of the House do the same.

SPEAKER: Now, before I call question No. 2, I want to ask David Seymour if he interjected twice while that question was being asked. Yes, yes, he did. I will take that into account in the allocation of supplementaries in the next sitting week.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No, I misunderstood your question, Mr Speaker. It was not while the question was being asked, but, rather, while it was being answered.

SPEAKER: OK. I will take the member’s word.

Teachers—Industrial Action

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware that, under her Government, 60,000 people have been on strike in just 10 months, compared to 30,000 in the previous nine years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely acknowledge that because that Government couldn’t resolve the nurses pay dispute, we did have a situation we needed to resolve. And it took this Government doubling that offer that that party last made in office, acknowledging the legitimate safety concerns that nurses had, the understaffing and under-resourcing, and that is how we got to a successful resolution after nine long years of neglect.

Hon Simon Bridges: With teachers contemplating two-day strikes, does she intend to spend the next two years avoiding any responsibility and not actually fixing the problem? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Settle down please.

Hon Paula Bennett: A good question—a bloody good question.

SPEAKER: Paula Bennett—that’s a warning. I call the right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to say I find that line of questioning a bit rich given that the first offer made by this Government is double what that last Government allowed teachers to work under. Double—because we acknowledge that we’ve been left and teachers have been left carrying a neglect of nine years’ under-resourcing of teacher-aides and support. We’ve rectified some of that in the last Budget. We scrapped national standards. We doubled some of the funding that they receive on an operational level. We acknowledge the issues that teachers striked and marched on today. We are working with them to fix the problems we inherited.

Hon Simon Bridges: Then why did her Government prioritise $2.8 billion for a fees-free tertiary policy that isn’t delivering any extra students over additional funding for teachers’ pay and the other issues she mentioned?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First of all, that is not correct. Second of all, one of the issues that we have is barriers to learning. One of the first people I met after that announcement was made was someone who was entering into tertiary education to be a primary school teacher off the back of our announcement. We have a shortage of teachers. We have barriers to learning because of cost. We’re addressing both of those issues.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to get this patently clear, what term or years of recent politics were the teachers today on the forecourt of Parliament specifically saying they are protesting against?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The last nine years.

Hon Simon Bridges: I ask again: why did her Government prioritise $2.8 billion for a fees-free tertiary policy that isn’t delivering any extra students over additional funding for teachers’ pay? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Prime Minister will sit down. I saw what I’m taking to be a response—am I right?

Hon Simon Bridges: From me?

SPEAKER: Was the member responding to a similar—well, I’m hearing some people saying yes and some people saying no.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee will, I’m sure, help me.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Thank you. I think what the Leader of the Opposition was doing was suggesting to Grant Robertson that this is not instruction time.

SPEAKER: Can I ask—first of all I’m going to ask the Hon Grant Robertson: did he do a finger-pointing exercise?

Hon Members: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’ll hear Simon Bridges.

Hon Simon Bridges: I was anticipating an answer from the ventriloquist.

SPEAKER: Right, that member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Chris Hipkins: That was offensive—chauvinistic pig.

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Hipkins. Mr Hipkins will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I apologise for calling the Leader of the Opposition a chauvinistic pig.

SPEAKER: As a result of that non-withdrawal, the Opposition will have an extra five questions. That withdrawal will now be made in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Right, we go back, and I am going to ask Simon Bridges to ask his question again, because I can’t remember what it was.

Hon Simon Bridges: Then why did her Government prioritise $2.8 billion for a fees-free tertiary policy that hasn’t delivered a single extra student over additional funding for teachers’ pay?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister of Finance, for those who are interested in what he muttered, said, “We didn’t.” I’m going to expand substantially on that answer, because in the last Budget we prioritised funding for 1,500 more teachers. We gave a 45 percent increase for operational funding. We provided the first core early childhood education funding increase in nearly a decade. We tripled learning support funding to $272 million. That is called prioritising education. It’s called prioritising children. If that side of the House thinks that everything that was brought to Parliament’s forecourt today was all about us, then where were they on the steps of Parliament?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the fees-free tertiary policy uptake show some positive recent trends, and if so, could she leak that information to the House?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, indeed it does. We have seen an increase in uptake, and one of the issues we have is we inherited a declining enrolment across our tertiary education providers, which we are turning around.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why on Monday did her Government prioritise hundreds of millions of dollars more funding for new trees than it has for the entire primary school teacher wage settlement?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I say, that pay settlement happened to be double what that Government invested in the sector. But I’d also say that that announcement wasn’t just about the 1,000, possibly 2,000, jobs that it would create; it was also about the environment and it was about erosion. According to some of the ads the National Party has put out—I’m told the Leader of the Opposition cares about the environment; I’m yet to see any proof of it.

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s allowed is it?

SPEAKER: Yes, it is allowed in response to the type of questions that the Leader of the Opposition’s been asking.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was anything other than straight about the question I asked?

SPEAKER: I suggest that if the member wants an answer to that, he looks at the tapes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why on Monday did her Government prioritise hundreds of millions of dollars more for trees than for the primary school teachers’ settlement, when they’re protesting outside today?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I pointed out, that initial offer—because we are in the middle of a negotiation—was still double what that last Government put into teachers’ salaries. It’s not the only issue that we of course are discussing with them; we’re discussing their workload, non-contact time, professional development—all issues that weren’t prioritised by the last Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with Labour leader Jacinda Ardern, who said, “We will not” have national strikes under a Government she leads.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That was in a direct question around fair pay agreements and I stand by it.

Economy—Growth Projections

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the Government’s management of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Hon Amy Adams: What does it say about the economic management of New Zealand that the projections of the Reserve Bank, Treasury, and, essentially, all bank and independent economists are now more negative about the current state of our growth than they were at the election?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To pick most of those entities described by the member, they’re all projecting 3 percent growth on average over the next three years, which is the same as what was in the Government’s Budget.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he understand that the fact that the economy is not yet completely broken is not the same thing as saying it is not now considerably worse than it was when he inherited it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The downward trend in GDP growth began at the beginning of 2017, well before this Government got into office. But what we have said consistently, and we will continue to say, is that the last Government might have been prepared to have an economy fuelled by unsustainable drivers of growth like population growth and an overheated housing market; we’re not prepared for that. We want there to be good, high-paying jobs over a long period for New Zealanders. That means a transition in the economy, and that’s what we’re leading.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, what does it say about the Government’s economic management of New Zealand that the BNZ head of research, Stephen Toplis, has said, “[W]e do not think the Government’s fiscal targets will be met. GDP growth looks likely to surprise to the downside eating into revenue forecasts while the demands on expenditure will only rise.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I respectfully disagree with Mr Toplis. The latest Government accounts to the end of May show that expenses and net debt were below forecast and the surplus was above forecast.

Hon Amy Adams: What does it say about the Government’s economic management of New Zealand that under this Government GDP growth has fallen to its lowest level since 2012, growth forecasts are falling, GDP per capita has declined, firms’ views of their own activity index is at a 10-year low, the service sector is down, business investment is down, the New Zealand dollar is falling, and the only things that are increasing are the number of people on the unemployment benefit and the cost of living?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject various premises in that question from the member, and just refer her back, again, to Craig Hudson, the managing director at Xero, who said today that business performance is doing better than it was last year. The member should stop trying to talk the economy down. People in small business out there are working hard and are growing the economy.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he think it will do anything to turn around dismal levels of business confidence to have the Minister of Finance simply dismiss any negative economic analysis, ignore changes in the direction of key economic indicators, ignore the concerns of business owners, ignore the concerns of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and Treasury, and instead simply cherry-pick single lines of commentary in isolation to try to convince people that the Government’s policies aren’t actually hurting the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s not what we—

SPEAKER: Before the member starts, I do want to warn the member her questions have got far longer than are necessary for a question. They’re becoming, I think it’s fair to say, pretty close to short speeches of the style that we don’t have in our question time, although other Parliaments do.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re not doing the things that the member says. In fact, we’re working very closely across the business community and across the wider community to actually make sure that we have an economy that benefits everybody. If the member wants to talk about cherry-picking results, as I noted yesterday, it helps to read all the way down the page of the BNZ rather than cherry-pick the first line.

Education—Government Response to Concerns of Primary School Teachers

4. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to address the concerns raised by primary school teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government is listening very carefully to the concerns that are being raised by primary school teachers, and we do take them very seriously. To name three things that we have done already: we’ve reduced teacher workload by abolishing national standards; this year’s Budget provided the biggest increase in learning support funding in a decade; and the Government has made a clear commitment to addressing pay equity claims in the education system, which will ensure that our teacher aides—some of the lowest-paid people in the education workforce—are properly paid and respected.

Jo Luxton: What actions has the Government taken to restore teachers’ voice to their own professional body?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government does recognise that one of the concerns teachers have been expressing is that they want their profession to be respected and recognised and valued. The Government has made a priority of restoring democratic representation to the Teaching Council of New Zealand, to ensure that teachers do have a say in how their own profession is governed.

Jo Luxton: What is the offer on the table, and how does this compare to previous years?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Whilst we recognise that pay is not the only issue that teachers are raising during these negotiations, we do realise that pay is a legitimate concern to be raised during negotiations. The offer that is on the table with the primary teachers at the moment is more than double what they were offered under the previous Government. To put the cost figures out there, it is a $484 million offer, compared to a $215 million offer, which was the highest settlement reached under the previous Government.

Housing—KiwiBuild and House Prices

5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will KiwiBuild adjust to the market if the housing market falls by 10 percent or more; if so, how?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): It’s hypothetical to speculate on future house prices, but it’s important to realise that KiwiBuild already reflects the market and the shortage of modern starter homes that is such a feature of the current market. Because KiwiBuild homes are affordable, they are likely to be the least affected by any potential movement in the market. Because KiwiBuild is focusing on parts of the market where there is a chronic shortage of affordable housing and a high demand from first-home buyers, we don’t expect to have to adjust the approach.

Hon Judith Collins: What advice has he sought on the value of KiwiBuild houses if lending rates increase by more than 1 percent?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I haven’t requested any specific advice on precisely that issue, but, as I said, I do not expect that the value of KiwiBuild homes will be significantly affected by even the kinds of market fluctuations that commentators are currently talking about as the high- or low-end options.

Hon Judith Collins: If he hasn’t sought that advice, then how can he make his assumption that it won’t be effective?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we all make assumptions and we all make judgments, and these issues are things that are discussed frequently amongst colleagues and with officials. What I’m saying is that the market currently—particularly in Auckland—has stabilised. Our Government thinks that’s a good thing. We want to see a stable housing market while incomes rise. That’s a successful outcome, in our view.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he share my concern that by requiring only a 10 percent deposit for a brand new KiwiBuild house, banks are leaving borrowers exposed to interest rate rises and possible falls in property value?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I welcome the recent statement by Kiwibank, responded to positively by other banks, about their willingness to get behind KiwiBuild and provide mortgages that require only a 10 percent deposit. But I will say this: KiwiBuild homebuyers, like all homebuyers, will look at all the information that’s available to them. They will weigh up the risks, as anyone does when they buy a home or take on a mortgage, and I also note recent commentary that shows that the banks are exercising their due diligence in relation to mortgage applications with increased rigour lately.

Hon Judith Collins: Will the 10 percent deposits that KiwiBuild buyers will have invested be wiped out if the New Zealand house prices fall between 10 and 15 percent, as publicly contemplated by the Reserve Bank Governor last week?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the first part of the member’s question is highly hypothetical. I note that the Reserve Bank Governor in his recent comments suggested that house prices are expected to grow, according to Reserve Bank projections, by 2 percent in 2019. The governor also said that the market could go up or down or stay the same, and he also noted that the reason he wants to keep loan-to-value ratios (LVRs) in place is because he’s concerned that if he lifted LVRs, the market would take off again. I think the member’s scaremongering is not going anywhere.

One Billion Trees Programme—Return on Investment

6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Forestry: How does he arrive at the conclusion that the “$480 million odd dollars” accessed from the Provincial Growth Fund for forestry will lead to at least 2,000 jobs, unspecified commercial returns, and other returns that he conceives to be “nigh on $3 billion”, and, specifically, what are the components of the “nigh on $3 billion” sum?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Mr Speaker, after having reflected on yesterday’s chastenment, I shall be politic in this answer and not personally political. The figure of 2,000—

SPEAKER: Well, that’s noteworthy, I’m sure.

Hon SHANE JONES: The figure of 2,000 jobs was arrived at after officials’ advice and the CEO of Competenz identified that there is a substantial shortfall and that the billion-tree strategy will require at least 2,000 people to come into the industry. This is also on top of the natural churn of over 4,000 people as the industry replenishes itself. In respect of the sky-high figure for the New Zealand economy of $3 billion, that comprises $2.7 billion, which has been received from officials as a consequence of our billion-tree strategy. We will enjoy that upside only modestly reducing the bill left by the last regime of $32 billion left behind as a consequence of signing up to climate change obligations but doing very little at home. The remaining $300 million—and please indulge me, sir—will, naturally, come from the upside of the overseas investment changes, bringing the nephs off the couch, and a host of other benefits that regional economies will enjoy as a consequence of the $480 million investment.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he happy to answer questions on this topic, or is it a waste of his precious time to deal with such paltry and trivial matters?

SPEAKER: Order! The member has used one supplementary now, and if he wants to continue he will start again on another one.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many hectares of trees did he put into the calculator to arrive at his $2.7 billion figure, and what is the carbon price it’s based on?

Hon SHANE JONES: The billion-trees strategy covers the existing 500,000 hectares, the value of which will be increased as a consequence of our Provisional Growth Fund infrastructure interventions and the refinements from the Overseas Investment Office. In respect of the value of the carbon, that work is under way and it would be unwise to speculate as to how far the value of carbon goes. We wouldn’t want to unnecessarily spook that market. So the figure of $2.7 billion reflects the work of the both the current industry, the new plantings, and the improvements in the area of the Overseas Investment Office changes and legislative improvements.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the $2.7 billion extra worth of benefit verified by Treasury; and if so, will he release all the official advice relating to the forestry investment?

Hon SHANE JONES: In accordance with my largely transparent manner, I will gladly provide, at an appropriate time, information which lies behind the analysis undertaken by my colleague Mr Shaw and myself on the question of exposing New Zealand industry to the full costs of the just transition. I am very forward in ensuring that stakeholders in New Zealand realise that this is a costly transition, and the more support I enjoy through the billion-trees strategy the less the financial impost will be on other segments of the economy.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Given his reference to an open and transparent matter, why has he still not released a single funding agreement for any of the projects funded by the Provincial Growth Fund despite many repeated requests?

Hon SHANE JONES: Continuing, uncharacteristically in a politic vein, I would remind the House that in commercial transactions, if I start there, it is not appropriate to spill the innards of such transactions for short-term political parliamentary partisanship. That lowers the decorum of the House. In relation to other interventions in the broader Provincial Growth Fund, the disclosure is work in progress but I’m confident that sooner rather than later the member’s questions can be answered through better disclosure. But I would point out that where commercial sensitivity is at stake he should follow the advice of his former leader John Key.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the public entitled to know exactly where $3 billion is going to be spent over the next three years in terms of what specific arrangements have been made and what taxpayers are getting for the investment?

Hon SHANE JONES: I couldn’t agree more with the member’s question. It is a significant amount of money. The Cabinet paper establishing the fund is already available. The processes and the investment statement released by myself two weeks ago are a clear reflection of the desire to be transparent, but there is a caveat. A number of these transactions deserve to enjoy a certain level of confidentiality. That is the way of modern commerce. It may not be the way of rough parliamentary politics, but I’ll go with the former and not the latter.

One Billion Trees Programme—Announcements

7. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made regarding the One Billion Trees programme?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Not wanting to be repetitive, but all brands and all products are better understood when they’re constantly heard about and seen. The $240 million programme represents a grants scheme, $118 million—a substantial improvement on a contribution that was parsimonious and reflective of the last nine years. In relation to the partnership fund, work is under way at the moment to find appropriate partners. And although it wouldn’t have been where I’d have started, in assuring the House that this is not just an industry thing, I understand my Te Uru Rākau officials are talking with Gary Taylor, which is not where I would have started but I’ve encouraged them to get on with it.

Mark Patterson: What feedback has he received from the forestry sector to the pending Overseas Investment Act changes?

Hon SHANE JONES: Within the overseas investment legislative changes shepherded forward by the Minister, a key provision has provided daylight, has decluttered the consent allocation process, and gives certainty, something akin to a primrose path, for an industry that has been blighted by neglect, uncertainty, and broken promises—indeed, right back to the time when Graeme Hart appealed to John Key, snuffed out by Mr Nick Smith, to start planting trees nine years ago.

Mark Patterson: How does the programme support the creation of jobs?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Lining the pockets of billionaires!

Hon SHANE JONES: The importance of employing new battalions of New Zealanders in this nation-building strategy of planting trees, both exotic and native—what lies at the pith of this policy genius, that being the programme not the speaker, what we are doing in that regard—

SPEAKER: Please keep me out of the debate.

Hon SHANE JONES: We are wheeling out, Mr Speaker, a whole host of initiatives touching the hard end of the employee spectrum. It is more expensive than relying on orthodox approaches, and we are also working in partnership with industry, and I am preparing a paper for additional interventions that improve the prospects of our young people working in this industry with likeminded employers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is it not correct to say, as the Hon Gerry Brownlee has said, that this is just lining the pockets of millionaires?

Hon SHANE JONES: If I can make the observation that it was not a “millionaire” but a “billionaire”, Graeme Hart, who came to John Key, the Prime Minister, who was the millionaire. It was the billionaire Mr Graeme Hart who brought forward a proposal, snuffed out by Nick Smith; so you’re quite right: it does not actually line the pockets of someone who’s a millionaire. It was designed as a possible intervention with New Zealand’s billionaire. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Right. Thank you, both.

Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police, Inquiry into the Appointment Process

8. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does her Government expect high standards from all Government departments and Ministers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: If there are women in the police or the Public Service who have been bullied, does she have confidence that they can safely come forward, speak up, and not have their careers detrimentally affected?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I am sure the member on the other side of the House would hope, issues of bullying should not be political ones. I would hope that, regardless of who is in charge at any given time, we have an environment and a culture where women, and indeed any employees, feel safe and able to raise issues of concern. And if it is brought to the attention of the Government of the day that that hasn’t happened on their watch, we would expect, as we have set out, for that to be resolved by those departments.

Hon Paula Bennett: In light of that answer, is she concerned that the culture currently within police because of the fiasco around the appointment of Wally Haumaha—that there may be women who do not feel safe in coming forward?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would want to make sure that we have created an environment where those individuals, if indeed that is the case, are able to come forward. Of course, we have instigated an inquiry into the process. The Inquiries Act means that the person who we’ve appointed, Mary Scholtens QC, is able to make sure that the name or particulars of anyone that is part of that inquiry is able to be withheld or protected. Those protections exist.

Chris Bishop: Does she have confidence in Deputy Police Commissioner Wally Haumaha in light of new allegations of Mr Haumaha contacting witnesses, allegations which aren’t covered by the already established inquiry into the appointment process?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said in this House previously, we’ve undertaken an inquiry so that we can ensure that we’re applying the principles of natural justice. This is a statutory appointment, though, and so any question of issues like standing down or gardening leave, those, because of constabulary independence, are matters for the Commissioner of Police.

Chris Bishop: Does she have confidence in her Government’s professional independence from Mr Haumaha when her police Minister gives him a shout-out in his workout videos, her Deputy Prime Minister attended a celebration on a marae for his appointment as assistant commissioner, her foreign affairs under-secretary has whānau links to him, and he was previously announced as a candidate for New Zealand First?

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I am going to go back to that question and not require but ask the member to think very carefully about rewording it. We have had a tradition in this House, wherever possible, of not including the actions of family members—certainly within question time. I’d ask the member to reflect on his question and, if he agrees with me that that is unhealthy, to rephrase it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely we have to have some accuracy in the questioning in this House. Mr Bishop began by talking about what, in effect, is an allegation of witness tampering. So the real issue, sir, for you to judge is: who is this witness who is being tampered that he talked about? The fact is the person is not a witness. The person may be a complainant, and there’s a huge difference. He’s putting the two together quite naively and mistakenly and getting away with it in the House when he should be stopped.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think if we had the degree of exactitude that the Deputy Prime Minister is advocating, we’d have quite a few members on both sides of the House who wouldn’t be able to answer or ask a single question. Mr Bishop—going back to where we were at.

Chris Bishop: Did the panel convened by the State Services Commission to interview the short-listed candidates for the job of the Deputy Commissioner of Police recommend that Mr Haumaha be the preferred candidate for the job?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not going to get into elements of an issue that is now being independently assessed by an independent inquirer.

Hon Paula Bennett: When the Prime Minister just previously said, as she did yesterday, that, actually, he cannot be either stood down or on gardening leave because it would be the decision of the commissioner and that she can’t do it, is she aware that under section 13 of the Policing Act, the deputy commissioner’s role is a statutory appointment that holds office at the pleasure of the Governor-General on the advice of her, the Prime Minister, and that she has the power to act?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That includes them acting in that role of employment. What the member was asking about was whether I had the ability to stand someone down when there had been no formal process, and we’re undertaking an inquiry to ensure natural justice provisions apply, because the threshold test here is incredibly high. If the member is asking about gardening leave or temporary stand downs, that threshold, of course, is very different, and that is employment matter for the Commissioner of Police.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise an issue that is troubling a number of us on this side of the House: the regularity with which those of us who enjoy Māori ancestry—and I direct your attention to Speakers’ rulings 39/4-5. I accept in the roundhouse of politics it is tough, but I am particularly irked by the allegation that Mr Bishop made, enjoying private briefings from dissolute elements in the police force, that he has labelled those of us, essentially, by talking about Fletcher Tabuteau and Winston Peters, as somehow not passing the test of parliamentary probity. And I’d invite you to reflect on it, because it will lead to a substantial bout of disorder from the House. Now, I’m not suggesting that Mr Bishop is anti-Māori, and, quite frankly, I don’t care if he is, but it is an important principle, with the number of Māori in the House—whether they’re urban Māori or broader traditional Māori—that you contemplate that situation, because we’re not going to put up with it for one more day.

Hon Paula Bennett: As one of those Māori, there is actually also a convention that we express our conflicts of interest for our whānau and particularly when we are looking at making statutory appointments, and this side of the House has a right to question that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, yes, I would have made the same point that the Hon Paula Bennett has made, because what Mr Jones is effectively doing is saying that if there is a statutory appointment that involves someone who identifies as being a Māori New Zealander, then that process can’t be questioned and nor can anything that would make the suitability of that person appropriate for that. But further than that, sir, you sat there while Mr Jones referred to another member of this House, effectively, as having some racial bias, and that’s a completely unacceptable thing for him to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The allegation that someone is a cousin and therefore is biased in the choice of someone in a governmental job is so demonstrably false when the person doesn’t go to the lengths to describe how far removed that relationship might be. If he were Scottish or Māori, he might understand that this would include 7,500 people. But no such attempt is made. It’s the insinuation that because that relationship, distant though it might be, nevertheless corrupts the member’s mind in being impartial—and that’s unfair.

SPEAKER: I am in a position to rule. Members may have forgotten that I intervened on Mr Bishop’s question and asked him to reword it, because I thought the tone of it was not consistent with the way that we have gone as a country over the last number of decades. He reflected on that and, despite the opportunity, decided not to repeat the question in that form, and I want to thank him for that.

There are a lot of elements of judgment in this. I, of course, don’t want to indicate that people cannot be questioned where there are seen to be untoward influences, and of course that is the case, but what I did indicate was that I thought it was particularly important where family matters are being brought into account that people are either very specific or very careful and not general in allegations.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Precedents in rulings in this House are very important, because they do guide the House. I’d ask that you have a look back through, I think, the mid-part of 2015 when a then prominent member of the Opposition, now a very, very prominent member of this House, was asking questions of a Minister of the then Government that related directly to a family member. Those questions were allowed, they stood, and they went on for quite some days. When you’ve gone back over those transcripts and perhaps reflected on the wisdom of the course of action taken by the prominent Opposition member, now a very prominent member of Parliament, could you perhaps bring down a ruling that brings all of these things together. I think the general allegation made against the Parliament by Mr Jones today that it is somehow racially selective to bring up an issue that relates to the appointment of a person who is of New Zealand Māori descent is a very, very backward step for this Parliament.

SPEAKER: I don’t feel any need to bring back a considered ruling on it. I think the matter is pretty clear. Speaker’s ruling 41/1 makes it clear that people should avoid referring to MPs families in their private capacities. It is all right to refer to family members who have official roles, and that is a ruling of long standing. It is also all right where there is a clear intersection of the public business of an MP and a Minister and the actions of a family member, and that is an area of longstanding ruling where there is a suggestion of inappropriate behaviour on the part of a Minister in favour of a family member—that is the subject of questioning in the House and will always continue to be.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, is the member going to add anything to it?

Hon Shane Jones: Yes, I am. The point which needs to be made—and thank you very much for that clarification—is that the gentleman to my left has had no role in the statutory appointing of the said person, Mr Haumaha. So any attempt to further taint a member of Māori descent who is not connected to the statutory process needs your protection.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Jones, for stating the obvious.

Employment Relations—Industrial Action and Employment Law Change

9. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How many people have gone on strike this year compared to previous periods, and will the Government’s employment relations policies encourage more strike action in the future?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In answer to the first part of the question, accurate data on how many people have gone on strike this year is not yet available. Work stoppage data is self-reported and subject to delay and collation. In answer to the second part of the question, no.

Hon Scott Simpson: In light of all the strikes under this Government, does he think that this makes a mockery of the Prime Minister, who has said previously that there will not be any national strikes under her Government?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, and the member needs to listen more clearly, as the Prime Minister clarified earlier in this question time that that comment was made in relation to fair pay agreements.

Hon Scott Simpson: Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s changes to employment relations law that take away the right of businesses to deduct pay for a partial strike, even if the partial strike brings the entire production process of a business to a halt, will make strike action more frequent in the future?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. In fact, I would suggest to the member that having the opportunity to take a partial strike without penalty—partial strikes such as, for instance, wearing a campaign T-shirt to work—means that those union members are more likely to take lower-level action, rather than resorting directly to strike action.

Hon Scott Simpson: Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s employment law changes mean that employers will be required to disclose the personal information of employees to unions whether they’re union members or not, and that these changes are strongly opposed by the Privacy Commissioner?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. Again, the member is incorrect in his characterisation of the legislation. Should a new employee not wish to have their information passed on to the union, they can opt out.

Hon Scott Simpson: Why, then, is he pressing ahead with changes to the employment relations law that even the Privacy Commissioner has opposed on the basis that the employee’s personal information may be handed over to unions without their knowledge?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because this is a Government that believes in people getting a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and we are committed to restoring the rights that workers had before they were ripped away by the National Party in 2015.

Economy—Employment and Wages

10. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is the Government doing to lift wages?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): This Government supports the right of Kiwis to get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill restores the rights of Kiwi workers to bargain for decent pay and conditions that existed before 2015. This Government believes that families need enough income to participate in society. That’s why we’ve already raised the minimum wage. We’ve extended the living wage to the core Public Service, and especially important is pay equity. I applaud yesterday’s historic pay equity settlement for education support workers.

Marja Lubeck: What are his plans in relation to lifting wages?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I will shortly introduce the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to lift wages for people working in female-dominated professions. The Government is working with business and unions to develop fair pay agreements. We plan to raise the minimum wage further, to $20 an hour by 1 April 2021, and through the Future of Work forum we are preparing for a more productive, more sustainable, more inclusive economy with a highly skilled, well-paid workforce.

Marja Lubeck: Why does the Government think that increasing wages is important?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sadly, the share of income that goes to working people has fallen drastically in the last 30 years. That is one of the major reasons New Zealand wages lag so far behind Australian wages for comparable jobs. It’s a major cause of the growth in inequality. A better paid workforce leads to a more productive economy. That’s good for society and it’s good for business.

Oil and Gas Industry—Offshore Exploration Permits

11. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What reports has she seen on the process she is undertaking to give effect to the Government’s decision to ban offshore exploration for oil and gas?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I will take this opportunity to remind the member that there was no ban on offshore exploration; rather, the Government has made the decision that no further offshore exploration permits will be issued. But regarding this decision, I have seen many reports, including those I have received from officials in the recent weeks, with the following titles: “Progressing Changes to the Crown Minerals Act, Options for Consideration”; “Crown Mineral Act Changes, Next Steps”; “Proposed Changes to the Crown Minerals Act for Cabinet Consideration”; “Final Policy Decisions for Tranche One of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 Review”. I have also received 14 weekly reports that have addressed this, but I will not occupy the House’s time by reading out the title of each of these.

Jonathan Young: Does she agree with Woodward Partners energy analyst John Kidd’s investment note, published 13 August, which says “The Minister’s mixing of references to the process of obtaining the Cabinet approval required to give statutory effect to the announcement speaks to the procedural and legislative difficulties the Minister will now be juggling as she navigates a route to secure the formal policy decision still required”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, I do not agree with that assessment.

Jonathan Young: Is Mr Kidd correct when he surmises: “The invitation for bids for Block Offer 2018 is being held up by Government wanting to pass enabling legislation to accommodate the policy change into the Crown Minerals Act, so as to ensure the Block Offer 2018 process does not face a legal challenge on the basis of being inconsistent with the legislation in place at the time”; and if not, why?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m currently seeking advice on whether it would be prudent to take a precautionary approach during this transition period. I’m asking whether we need to consider a belts and braces approach to ensure that we minimise the risk for legal challenges, as we want to ensure there is certainty for industries and communities. We know and note—as members opposite will know—it is not uncommon that when people don’t get what they want, they may like to test it in the courts.

Jonathan Young: Does she agree with Mr Kidd’s further contention: “If the Government was to proceed with the invitation for bids, then there would appear to be a strong case for judicial review; if legislation is not able to be passed in a timely manner, we think there is a material risk that Block Offer 2018 will not proceed”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to that first part of the question, no I don’t agree with that assessment. As I told the member in the answer to the previous question, I am seeking some additional advice at the moment, but, whatever outcome we go with, there will be a Block Offer 2018 that will be initiated.

Jonathan Young: When the fact sheet accompanying the Prime Minister’s announcement on 12 April 2018 said “Officials will review the Crown Minerals Act to ensure the Act is consistent with this announcement”, does this imply that the Prime Minister’s announcement was inconsistent with the Act?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No. As I’ve answered the member previous times in the House, there were two announcements that were made on 12 April. There was the area that we were beginning consultation on for the onshore block offer of 2018. There was also the longer-term announcement around future block offers, and the fact that they would not contain offshore offerings. As we also said in the press statement that sat in front of the fact sheet the member is referring to, we were beginning the process around what changes would need to be made to give effect to that. I also point the member to the Cabinet minute that also said that.

Health Services—Cyber-security Threats

12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions on cybersecurity in the health portfolio?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, in the context they were given and taken.

Dr Shane Reti: When his office told Newshub a few weeks ago that he would not appear on camera to discuss 800,000 daily cyber-attacks on the Bay of Plenty District Health Board (DHB), with his office saying, “I just don’t believe your request has reached the threshold I would ask him about.”, does new select committee information showing 1.7 million cyber-attacks per day on another DHB now reach the threshold for him to front up on camera?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

Dr Shane Reti: Which DHB is reporting being under cyber-attack 1.7 million times per day or 20 times per second?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It’s impossible to give a definitive answer on the number of cyber-attacks across New Zealand, but I’m advised in respect of the reference the member made earlier to the Bay of Plenty example, which is a mid-size DHB, that it’s subject to between three and 10 cyber-attacks per second, which is between 260,000 and 864,000 every day. In that context, it is quite impressive that there have been no breaches. I certainly have not been advised of any successful breaches yet. But, within a wider context, challenges to cybersecurity are real and frequent. The healthcare sector remains one of the most targeted by malicious cyber actors. There are millions of cyber-attacks across New Zealand every day in the health sector.

Dr Shane Reti: As the responsible Minister, why can he not identify the most cyber-attacked DHB in New Zealand at the moment?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What matters are breaches, and it is extraordinary in fact, in my view, that we haven’t had any confirmed breaches in New Zealand. We know that in Singapore, Hong Kong, and also in Mexico in the last month, there have been confirmed breaches. These issues are taken incredibly seriously and, in fact, public discussion of these matters is incredible unhelpful, I’m advised by security people, and that member knows that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying it’s when defences aren’t working that one should worried—not when they are?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is quite correct, and I take my hat off to those people who work day in, day out, and especially when I’m advised that publicly discussing potential breaches and the response to them can support the activities of malicious cyber actors. That’s why it’s not in the public interest to discuss any potential breaches in public, even to the extent of confirming that a potential breach is being investigated.

Dr Shane Reti: In reply to written question No. 16298, he said he would update the Prime Minister on cyber-security issues when necessary; how, then, has he updated the Prime Minister on a DHB reporting 1.7 million cyber-attacks per day?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the member has not heard my initial answer.

Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s not clear to me that the Minister has addressed the question. I asked him: has he updated the Prime Minister on cyber-security issues?

SPEAKER: And I heard the initial answer, the member’s supplementary question, and the Minister’s reply. I think he even answered the question—more than just addressed it.

Dr Shane Reti: What is the threshold number of cyber-attacks for the Minister to appear on camera?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I think I explained, the issue that’s important is when there are breaches, and if there are any potential breaches, I expect to be kept briefed on them. But to repeat—publicly discussing potential breaches and the response to them can support the activities of malicious cyber actors. That’s why it’s not in the public interest to discuss any potential breaches in public, even to the extent of confirming that a potential breach is being investigated. If the member has specific information on potential breaches, he should contact my office directly.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Yesterday was a proud day for this Government. Our first Budget passed through the parliamentary process, and what that Budget has done is lay the foundations for a New Zealand that will leave behind the neglect of the last nine years and the failures of an economic model that left too many people behind. One of the critical areas of investment in that Budget was in education, and it is important to note today the first across-the-board funding increase for early childhood education in a decade in this Budget. There are 1,500 new teachers in this Budget, a tripling of the amount of new money for learning support for special education in this Budget, and, alongside that, the pay equity announcement from yesterday for the very people who support the most vulnerable in our education system—finally starting to be paid what they deserve.

I want to congratulate Minister Chris Hipkins for the work that he is leading in the education sector. I also want to congratulate Minister Hipkins and the Prime Minister for fronting up on the forecourt of Parliament today to say to teachers, “We hear your concerns. We want to work with you, as we are, to build this education system up so that our children have the very best opportunities, and we will keep working with you to do that.” I congratulate the Minister on fronting up. Where was the National Party today? Where was the National Party today? Standing up in this House crying crocodile tears for the teachers of New Zealand, and not one National Party member fronted up to the teachers. What that tells me is that they know where the blame lies: it lies with them. It lies with nine years of disrespecting teachers, underfunding education to the point that the offer on the table today, as Chris Hipkins has told the House, is double—more than double—what the National Party offered throughout their term in Government. We are getting on with the job of rectifying nine years of neglect. We will keep working with teachers to make sure every child in this country gets the opportunities that they deserve.

The Budget that passed yesterday has a lot of detail and important funding in it, but I want to talk briefly about a couple of the big-picture things that this Government is trying to do, because what this Government has done in coming together with the three parties in it is acknowledge that it is time to transform this country—transform this country to one where we face the future of work with confidence, where programmes like Mana in Mahi - Strength in Work deliver to our young people opportunities for apprenticeships. It’s a Government that’s prepared to face up to the fact that we can’t go on pretending climate change is not happening, that we’re actually going to not only address those issues but find the opportunities for good jobs that actually protect the environment and make sure that we’re growing the economy, just like the work on the billion trees programme, just like the work on the Green Investment Fund.

Then, thirdly, there is the big-picture issue facing New Zealand of reducing inequality. We cannot go on in a country claiming success about growth rates when we are leaving too many people behind. That’s why this Budget prioritised putting money into the pockets of low and middle income families. That’s why the minimum wage is growing, and it’s why we’re backing Iain Lees-Galloway and the employment relations bill, because it’s about fairness and growing wages. No amount of scaremongering from the other side of the House will get past the fact that we are putting in place a framework where employers and employees actually work together, where we value not just freedom of speech but freedom of association as well, where we actually have a Government that recognises that workplace law and working together is the way to go.

I’ve got one piece of advice that I want to leave the Opposition with, and it’s this: if you’re going to call on a retired District Court judge every time someone leaks from your caucus, David Parker’s going to have to grow the judiciary, because there won’t be enough people to do that. So I say this to the National Party: it’s time to stop looking in the rear-vision mirror. It’s time to get on board with a Government that’s actually making sure that we’re going to restore some fairness in this country, that we’re going to grow the economy sustainably, and that we’re actually going to be prepared for a future of work and the rapid change in that.

We are optimistic, we’re confident, we’re working together—I just wish the National Party could do a few of those things.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): It’s so nice to be able to tell the people of New Zealand who are listening that that was not Michael Cullen, because at least he could count. He’s had to be brought in to try and fix up the mess that Grant Robertson’s already making. I’m really pleased to hear that Parliament is today—[Interruption] my goodness, they don’t like it, do they?—now going to respect family members. Oh my goodness! I’m looking forward to a few apologies coming over, but I’ve noticed they never have. My goodness, this new Government, they’re good at throwing dirt, aren’t they? But they don’t like a little bit of it back.

Let’s have a look at it. If the teachers are so valued by Labour, as Grant Robertson says, then tell me this: why are they striking? Why are they striking, not under a National-led Government of nine only very short years really—it should have been another nine. But why is it that, after nine months of Labour, they’re striking? Why is it that we heard Grant Robertson say today that the National Party should have been down when the teachers came to protest against the Government? Has he forgotten, we’re not the Government, unfortunately? He even wants us to do his job for him.

Because actually, this man, this finance Minister, would have to be the least qualified Minister of Finance that I can remember in my short life to date—the least qualified. He is now starting to make me think that pretty much—that nice person, Luxton: she could be the finance Minister. Michael Wood would be an excellent Minister of Finance compared to Grant Robertson—because he at least knows how to count—

Hon Member: Darroch Ball.

Hon Member: No, not Darroch, but Rino!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —which is significantly better than Grant Robertson. Even Rino—Rino—is the man for it!

Why this is important is business confidence. I know that we’ve just heard today from the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education that, basically, the teachers should be happy. They should all be happy. We’ve heard from Iain Lees-Galloway—the Minister of, I’d call it “Unemployment”; Employment, whatever it is—that everyone should just be happy and be grateful. Well, how come they’re striking everywhere? Business can’t strike. Business has mortgages, it has loans, it has staff, and it has to keep things going. Yet business is now being told by this Minister of Finance and this Government on the other side of the House in Parliament that they should all just be happy. Don’t worry, be happy, it’s all going to work out well—that’s what they’re saying. Why is it that business confidence is so low? Why has it dropped to the lowest end of the OECD from being right at the top end? Why is that? Let me tell you.

Simeon Brown: Good question; tell us why.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it’s a very good question. It’s because they look at this Government and they do not have not a clue as to which direction they’re going, other than it’s going to be more costs on business—whether it’s more rules around employment, whether it’s having union thugs coming bowling into their offices and taking over. How come if I or any other member of Parliament goes into a business, we have to have a health and safety induction, but not these guys? Oh, no, no—they’re taking over the business. Why is that? Why is it that they see a Government destroy, overnight, the oil and gas industry? Why is it they do that? The officials found out about it at 7 o’clock the night before the announcement, and why was that?

That’s why business confidence starts to drop. They look at a Government that’s spending and spending and spending like there’s no tomorrow; a Government that doesn’t seem to understand that the more that they spend, the more pressure that puts on interest rates—the Government that is actually borrowing more. When I heard, during the election campaign, that we have this $11 billion fiscal hole from Labour, we were pooh-poohed all over the place—all the media commentaries and these so-called economists. Guess what? It’s going to be that plus more—more like about $18 billion—all paid for by New Zealand taxpayers, all paid for by people who have got mortgages who are now going to have to pay more interest because of this Government.

It’s a Government of fools, it’s a Government of inexperience, and it’s a Government that will just say anything to anybody just to get them off the front doorstep of Parliament. That’s what we saw today. If Grant Robertson is so keen on teachers, how come they’re striking? If Chris Hipkins is so keen on teachers, how come they’re striking? They never did it with us. And the reason for that is because they knew that when we told them these things, they were right.

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I’ve got to tell you, I’m excited. We’ve got an old-fashioned whodunit. We’ve got an old-fashioned whodunit: “Limogate”. [Holds up picture of limousine] That was dubbed by TV3, but I don’t want to perform copyright. We’ve got a whodunit, and what I saw on the New Zealand Herald today was “Expenses-leak probe deepens”. The first paragraph actually involved you, Mr Speaker: “Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard will consider whether a further forensic examination is needed”. Well, go no further, sir; we have completed just that forensic investigation and we have got a list of suspects.

Before I go into that list of suspects, a little advice for Mr Bridges [Holds up picture of Hyundai]: Hyundai Accent. Three months, every single day: $3,000. Not $85,000 that he cost the taxpayer. There’s a little bit of a saving there, but we don’t want the Opposition leader to go around in a four-star safety-rated vehicle. Let’s even go for the big car. Let’s go for the luxury vehicle. Let’s go for the fancy Holden [Holds up picture of Holden]—three months, every single day: $13,000. The most expensive: $13,000. Why did the National Party leader take a limo and think that he could be driven around the country, costing the taxpayer $85,000? That’s because he thinks that he should, he thinks that he can, and so he did. He had no concept of what mahi actually meant, and he’s got no concept of what the taxpayer was putting into him.

We’ve narrowed down the suspects. We’ve got a forensic investigation. Look no further [Holds up picture of National Party caucus]: the entire National Party caucus. But we narrowed it down a little bit. The first suspect [Holds up picture of Maureen Pugh]: Maureen Pugh. Who is Maureen Pugh, I hear you ask? Exactly—perhaps it was the perfect crime. Suspect number two—now, this suspect was [Holds up picture of the Rt Hon Sir John Key] Sir John Key. But despite that, where he was the first primary suspect, he had quite a strong alibi, and he was working very hard—despite the confidence surveys and what the National Party says—making record profits with ANZ. The second suspect [Holds up picture of the Hon Steven Joyce]: Steven Joyce. Apparently he’s still sour about the leadership race, but he also had a solid alibi: knocking on every door of every single New Zealand economist in the country, still wanting to find someone who will agree with him about the $11.7 billion fiscal hole.

The third one [Holds up picture of the Rt Hon Bill English]: Bill English—the Rt Hon Bill English—for no other reason but just by association with the other two. Alibi: he was last seen doing some famous walk-runs. But now we’re getting a bit serious [Holds up picture of the Hon Judith Collins]: Judith Collins. Surely not—surely not Judith Collins. No, we’ll keep going. Now, here we’re talking [Holds up picture of David Seymour]: David Seymour—David “I don’t know what my policies are” Seymour; David “I spend my entire life attacking New Zealand First and Winston Peters and end up stealing their policies anyway” Seymour. But look what we found—this is probably the most promising. It’s not the first and primary suspect, but it’s one of the most promising [Holds up picture of the Hon Mark Mitchell]: Mark Mitchell. You know, and we saw this logo, too—the new leader of the New Conservative Party, apparently. The knives are out.

But here’s what we’ve come to a conclusion with: the number one prime suspect. It’s a little bit outside the box, but we found out who did it. We found out who leaked Simon Bridges’ expenses [Holds up picture of the Hon Simon Bridges]: it was Simon Bridges himself. You see, it actually makes sense in the end, because he’s in single digits with his popularity. It’s a false-flag operation—a false-flag operation. On this side of the House, we’ve got the popcorn out; on that side of the House, they’ve got the knives out. We’re looking forward not only to the rest of this year, but I think it’s going to happen even sooner than that.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, we know that the primary school teachers are on strike today. What we didn’t know was that the primary school students from New Zealand First were in the House today. That show and tell stuff—it was only last week that the very venerable Audrey Young from the New Zealand Herald acknowledged her 30 years of contribution to the New Zealand Herald, and I think most of that served in this press gallery. I heard her on the radio and she was asked what was the highlight of her career to date, in terms of the 30 years, and she said she remembered well breaking the story of the time that Winston Peters stood in this House and put up the sign “No”, and then she broke the story that proved it to be “Yes”. So to Darroch Ball, I say that when a New Zealand First MP stands up in this House and holds up cue cards like that, it doesn’t usually end well. It doesn’t usually end well, and it won’t for Darroch Ball and it won’t for New Zealand First.

Strikes, strikes, and more strikes. We’ve heard today in question time that there have been some 60,000 New Zealanders taking strike action in the short 10 months of this administration—

Simeon Brown: How many?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —60,000—and we heard that the records show that over the entire nine years of the last National Government, only 30,000 people went on strike. So, today, we’ve had the teachers marching here on Parliament and around the country, and we were told yesterday that about 1,300 primary school are affected, with parents who are stressed and having to cope with it. I’ve noticed that some of my colleagues have got their children busy around the Parliament here today.

But what we know from this Government is that they have empowered and emboldened the trade union movement in a way that we haven’t seen, frankly, since before the 1970s. They feel like they are owed a debt by this Government, because never forget the political, the historical, and the financial links that exist between the trade union movement and the Labour Party. They are deep, long, and strong.

So one of the first pieces of legislation that was introduced into this House back in January was something that the Labour Party had ready to pull off the shelf, that was prepared probably well in advance of an election at some stage. As soon as they got into the Beehive, they pulled this piece of legislation off the shelf, and it’s designed entirely to give strength, new members, and new money to the trade union movement. So what we are seeing is a contagion of strikes throughout the country. It is not just in the public sector but has now “contagioned” into—if that’s a word—contaminated the private sector, as well. What are the chances of there being more? Well, there are going to be lots more strikes.

Business confidence is tanking. My colleague the Hon Judith Collins has just made reference to the fact that only a year or so ago, we were amongst OECD nations privileged and quite proud of the fact that we had the second-highest level of business confidence in the OECD, and now, what is it this year? We have the second-lowest level of business confidence.

Now on the other side of the House, they say, “Oh, this is just junk. This has no bearing at all.” Well, I can tell the House that, in fact, business understands this stuff. Business knows that with the level of economic uncertainty and the level of legislative uncertainty posed by this Government, the economy is sliding, and that’s sad. That’s sad for New Zealand jobs, that’s sad for New Zealand businesses, and that’s sad for us as a nation, because this is a Government that doesn’t have any visible, coherent, or logical plan for economic growth, for a stable economy, or for a country that is focused on a direction that is going forward rather than backwards. What we find at every turn from this Government is uncertainty—uncertainty that creates a lack of confidence in the business sector but also, actually, out into the rest of the society as well.

So we’ve seen in this short 10 months that the first thing that the new Labour-led Government has done is provide a legislative payback to the unions, and we’re seeing that in the piece of legislation that’s going through the House now. But that’s just the beginning. That’s just part of a suite of legislative initiatives that will be bad for business and bad for employers and, of course, ultimately bad for employees. There will be no doubt that business levels will drop. So, 10 months in: chaos, strikes, strikes, and more strikes.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this call in the general debate. I’d like to first of all congratulate the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, for Budget 2018 that has just been passed.

One of the earlier speakers from the opposite side of the House said that we are, apparently, a “don’t worry, be happy” Government. I absolutely refute that we are a “don’t worry, be happy” Government. We are absolutely doing a lot. The do-nothing approach—especially to housing—was what the previous Government did. They just sat on the side, did nothing, and hoped that the market would somehow fix the housing crisis. We are a Government that is moving at great pace to address a whole lot of issues that we inherited.

In terms of housing, we came in and we inherited a national housing crisis. We are building houses. We are going to be building 6,400 State houses over the next four years. One of the first things we did over the first few months of our Government was we stopped the sell-off of State houses. During the middle of a housing crisis, the previous Government kept on selling off State houses. It makes absolutely no sense to keep on selling off State houses. They sold off over 6,000 State houses in the middle of a housing crisis. We came in and we found out that we are not just short of a few thousand but we are short of 71,000 houses—

Hon Peeni Henare: How many?

Hon JENNY SALESA: —in all of Aotearoa New Zealand. We are short of 71,000 houses. We’re short in Auckland—our largest city—of 45,000 houses. It doesn’t take just nine or 10 months to build up 71,000 houses. So we stopped that right away, within our first few months. Aotearoa New Zealand, according to the OECD—another thing we inherited from the previous Government—is No. 1 in the rate of homelessness when compared to the other OECD countries, thanks to the previous Government.

So instead of selling off State houses, we’re building State houses. In the last Budget, we put aside $234 million to build 6,400 extra State houses. We also put aside for the winter payment $100 million. The sad thing is that because we have such a high rate of homelessness, there are things that we need to do in terms of emergency housing and transitional housing before we can actually put all of these thousands of our families and thousands of our whānau into houses.

We are a country that is caring and compassionate. Everyone has a right to have a roof over their heads, and I’m glad to say that I’m in a Government that has housing as one of our No. 1 priorities. We put aside $169 million for transitional houses—that’s 2,155 transitional housing places. KiwiBuild homes: we are in a country where, 60 years ago, in terms of homeownership, if you had a professional job—say, you were a teacher married to a nurse, for instance—and were working full-time, you would be able to afford to buy a house. You could save and then actually make a deposit on a house and move—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sorry, but professional folks out there. But the reality is that in 60 years we’re now at the lowest rate of homeownership. That is one of the reasons why we as a Government are not a do-nothing Government that hopes that the housing market somehow will right itself. No, we’ve come in and we’ve said, “We need to address this.” We’ve put aside over $2 billion for KiwiBuild homes and we’ll be building a thousand KiwiBuild homes this year, 5,000 next year, and 10,000 the year after.

The other thing that we also inherited from the previous Government was a lack of skilled people. When we came in, we know now, we were short by 30,000 skilled people in building and construction. But this is an issue that industry and Auckland Council sat down and talked about in 2011 and 2012. They actually came up with a detailed report, presented it to the Minister at the time, and they said, “We predict that if you do nothing you are going to be short by 32,000 skilled people by 2018.” Guess what? We are short by 30,000 skilled people today. As a Government we are doing something about that: nine Ministers with nine ministries. We’re actually making sure that we train up our own people so that we can build up our own houses in Aotearoa New Zealand. In the short term, we’re looking at overseas skilled people, but in the long term we must train our own to build up our own country. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Madam Deputy Speaker, that was a speech that would give warmth to every single Labour backbencher in the House today. I think I can see Willow-Jean Prime’s eyes lighting up at that, because that was from the Minister who talks about doing nothing and yet as Associate Minister of Health has done nothing. When I asked her in written questions how many briefings, how many aides-mémoire, and how many papers she has received or taken in the seven months to the end of June, the answer was zero.

Hon Members: How many?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Zero. That’s what a do-nothing Minister looks like, and that will give encouragement to every single backbencher over there. There’s a reshuffle coming, and I look forward to seeing who is on that list.

But I want to also continue the theme of industrial relations, because we did see a big gathering in the grounds of Parliament today, and I must say that Dr David Clark must be back at his office thinking thank goodness for Chris Hipkins. Because he was the one that was under pressure from a nurses strike that seemed never ending, and then along came Mr Hipkins and gave us the teachers. But remember, it’s only the primary teachers. We haven’t got to the early childhood educators yet. We certainly haven’t got to the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association, so there’s plenty more where that came from.

Actually, David Clark should not be complacent either, because he’s the one, as Minister of Health, and with the Minister of Finance, who’s written the cheque that the Government cannot cash. They have promised, and they’re not going to be able to deliver. The nurses: very grumpy with their 12 to 15 percent increase. The midwives: very grumpy with their 9 percent bump. In fact, there was a review of the section 88 notices, and the report has not been released. It’s being hidden somewhere—we don’t know why—but the midwives continue to leave in droves. We haven’t got to the doctors. We haven’t got to the junior doctors. We haven’t got to the allied health professionals. Watch this space. Mr Hipkins and Dr Clark are going to be providing cover for each other for months to come, and that’s before we get to the Public Service Association. We have the IRD workers striking already. We have a number of others. This is the winter of industrial discontent that seems to have no end.

I give credit to Cameron Bagrie, albeit that he came to his revelation 11 months too late, because last week he said not only was the $11.7 billion fiscal hole real; it was probably bigger. Now, he should have said that in October/September last year, when he joined a number of economists that got a bit confused about a simple message. That was this: in order for the Labour Party to commit to their promises they would need to spend $11.7 billion more than they said they would, and he was right. He finally got to that, and I can tell you that the cheque is going to be written.

But despite that the Minister of Finance gloats about the Budget that was passed in the third reading speech yesterday. In that he said that he wanted to particularly note the major investments being made in the provinces and regions of New Zealand that will make the biggest difference of any single investment. Well, I didn’t hear them saying that in Lumsden this week, and I didn’t hear them saying that in Te Ānau or Whitianga or Rotorua or Roxburgh, where health services and social services are being cut by this high talking, well-meaning Government. Yet they cannot keep a small maternity hospital open in that very beautiful part of the country in northern Southland.

Not only that, at the same time that they closed down a primary maternity hospital in Lumsden, they take away the air ambulance that would take those expectant mums the 150-odd kilometres from Te Ānau to the nearest birthing unit—and the ambulance is being taken away. What kind of heartless Government is this who blamed us for overseeing the most benign industrial relations climate in a generation, where public sector and private sector pay went up by twice the rate of inflation and industrial disputes were at record lows? They had the audacity to come into this House and say that that strike action and that march on Parliament today is somehow the National Party’s fault. Give me a break. They need to own their issues. They need to take responsibility for the terrible industrial relations climate, for the incredibly unhappy regions around Southland, on the Coromandel, and in Rotorua for the promises that they broke and the complete derogation of those obligations for health in those regions and explain to them why they talk big and did nothing.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This year marks the 10-year anniversary of the signing of the free-trade agreement between New Zealand and China. China has become New Zealand’s largest trading partner, largest source of international fee-paying students, and second-largest source of international tourists. Over the last few weeks, I have attended many functions in the Chinese community celebrating the achievements and gearing up for 2019, the China - New Zealand Year of Tourism.

During the last general debate, I reported to the House the good news that more and more Chinese developers, builders, and financial providers have expressed a strong interest in—and indeed have since joined—the KiwiBuild project. This is a fantastically great idea. Instead of applying an ostrich approach, as the last National Government did, this Government has a positive plan to build a better New Zealand. If our teachers cannot afford a home in Auckland, if our nurses and police officers cannot afford Auckland, then there is a problem for us all, particularly affecting our future generations.

We’re looking forward to the third reading of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, introduced by the honourable Minister David Parker. I shall give a big thumbs up to Minister Parker. Minister Parker has delivered. This bill will help ensure that a greater proportion of foreign direct investment will be directed into productive assets where the benefits of free capital flows will be the greatest.

There is a big difference between investment and speculation. The test is a simple one, and this is really relevant to the ethnic community. For those who genuinely regard themselves as Kiwis, no matter how long they have lived here, either as a citizen or as a resident, they are more inclined to support the policy initiatives. But for those, again no matter how long they have been living here, who still adopt that foreign mentality and do not treat New Zealand as their home but as a safe island where they can leave their elderly parents or children here to enjoy our free health and education system, then, of course, that would be a different story.

What I can say is that the policy initiatives under that particular bill are no more different from the policy initiatives in places such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, or Singapore. Needless to say, this is an issue of supply and demand, not race. Of course, I heard some noises that the statistics collected in this space should be used to counter-argue the policy initiatives. I say that’s a nonsense because the statistics collected in this space were incomplete, and even the National Minister at that time admitted that the stats collected were incomplete and should not be regarded as a foreign purchase register. The stats were collected only after the introduction of the IRD disclosure rule. It missed the higher end of the market. They did not include the trusts or business purchases.

Now, let me give an analogy. To gauge the level of traffic congestion, we can simply monitor the movements on our motorways. But there is a big difference between different timings—for instance, the traffic situation at 3 p.m. or 3 a.m. In the view of the National Party, they relied on some data collected at 3 a.m. on motorways and then declared there is no traffic congestion in Auckland at all. In a similar vein, they declared that there is no housing crisis and have since made a mockery of the KiwiBuild and other policy initiatives designed to clear up the mess left over by that party over the last nine years.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What a great pleasure to follow that contribution from Raymond Huo, the Labour member, as he pitched before the Labour caucus and the Prime Minister for a ministerial position in the next reshuffle, which is not far away. But he got it wrong: he started his speech by talking about the benefits of free trade. He forgot that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance spent the last nine years in Opposition opposing free trade. We have the Minister for Trade and Export Growth who opposed free trade. We have the Deputy Prime Minister who voted against the Chinese free-trade agreement 10 years ago, which the member now celebrates.

But I just want to talk and congratulate the Prime Minister on returning from maternity leave and tell her that she is now finding out that running a Government is a lot different to student politics. While Chris Hipkins may well not have moved on from the student union, what the Prime Minister is now finding is that this is not about student politics; this is serious, and the performance of her and her Government at this stage is amateurish, and the scorecard is mounting, and it doesn’t tell a good picture.

We heard at the start of question time today about industrial relations—60,000 people on strike in the last nine months compared with 30,000 on strike through the whole of the nine years of the National-led Government. It is hard to believe those figures, but the reason they are occurring is because, in Opposition, Labour and New Zealand First went out and overpromised. They went to the teachers and said, “Vote for us and we’ll look after you.” They went to the nurses and said, “Vote for us; we’ll look after you.” Now they’re in Government and they’ve got to deliver, but they haven’t got the money because they spent $2.8 billion on free tertiary for first-year students and have seen a decline in student numbers of 900. It is hard to believe.

Then you look at business confidence, and this Government wonders why business confidence has continued to decline. It should look in the mirror. The Deputy Prime Minister is good at looking in the mirror. What he needs to do is get the Prime Minister beside him and they both need to look in the mirror and see why business confidence continues to decline. And Darroch Ball shakes his head. He’s the same as the Hon David Parker, who thinks all these surveys are “junk”. Well, I’ll give you one to watch, Darroch Ball. Look at the exchange rate—72c to the American dollar at the time of the last election. Now it’s 65c, and if he thinks that’s affected by anything other than the lack of confidence in this current Government and its policy settings, if he thinks it’s anything else, that member is dreaming. It is an international market where the people who trade currency look at the future of this country under a Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government and realise it’s all downhill, and that exchange rate should tell a story to anybody who wants to follow it. If he’s not prepared to accept that, look at the Treasury downgrades of their forecast. If he’s not prepared to look at that, Darroch Ball, go and talk to Adrian Orr, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who, at the select committee on Thursday last week, pointed out that they have revised downwards their growth figures.

But if you want any other indication as to how amateurish this Government is, look at no other issue than Wally Haumaha. I’d never heard of this man earlier. He was appointed to be the Deputy Police Commissioner, and now, six weeks later, his name is on the front page of the paper day after day after day. And the Prime Minister comes back from maternity leave and says she’s frustrated. Has she done anything about it? Let me tell Darroch Ball, because he’s probably also a mate of Wally Haumaha, like the Deputy Prime Minister is, like the Rt Hon Winston Peters is—they’re mates; we know that. Let me tell Darroch Ball something: Wally Haumaha is a goner. He will not survive, and anybody who had any ability to govern and thinks it’s more than student politics would have stepped in and sorted it out by now. To let this fester and fester and fester for the last six weeks shows how amateurish this Government is, and if we’ve got to put up with it for another two years, God help us all.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): I’ve just been sitting here in the backbenches listening to the inconsistencies of the other side’s debate just washing over me. They say we’re spending too much, we’re spending too little, we’re going too fast, we’re going too slow, we’re too hands-on, we’re too hands-off. And I think the thing is that it is really easy to criticise somebody that’s got a plan and is moving on it than to criticise something that doesn’t actually exist. What I want to do today is just briefly talk about a little story I used to share back in 2014 when I was on the campaign trail. I was trying to talk down south about the consequences of the previous Government’s hands-off approach, inaction, and no plan in our own community.

I think the thing is that ignoring the housing crisis and not increasing district health board budgets—just to account for the basics, cost pressures, and population growth—were having huge impacts. The story I used was just talking about how in my old day job I used to get really, really busy. So what I used to do—and we all do it—is work from a job list. And when you get really, really busy, what you do is you let that stuff that’s not that important slip below the bottom of the job list. Some things you shouldn’t let slip off the bottom of that job list—like spay the cat. I think the problem I had was that while I was getting really, really busy, my cat Tūī was making friends with the neighbour’s cat. And so on Labour Day a few years back I was presented with this litter of tiny kittens in the middle of my bed.

I think the story I used to tell was the fact that if you do nothing, it’s not like nothing happens. It’s like, the consequences can amplify. I think the problem that we’ve got is that by 2017, those little kittens had turned into feral cats and they were terrorising the neighbourhood. What was happening in health and in housing was we were seeing real consequences.

I think the problem we had in my own area in Invercargill was that we are suffering a housing crisis, and what the previous Government had done in that housing crisis was they’d sold off our State houses. Between 2012 and 2017 we lost 69 State houses. So at the moment our housing providers are at capacity, they’re struggling to house people, and we’ve only got 350-odd State houses to house everybody.

The other problem was that the previous Government just ignored the fact that our rental housing stock is really rundown and we don’t have decent rental standards. A lot of people are trying to find homes, but they’re mouldy, they’re cold, and they’re damp, and their kids are getting sick. And so having that whole hands-off approach has not done us any favours down south. We talk about Auckland, but it’s right around the country.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that’s actually got an active plan, and it’s turning the situation around. So in Budget 2018 what we’re doing is we’re going to be building 6,400 new State social houses over the next four years. We’ve said that down in Invercargill and everywhere else we’re not selling off any more of our State houses; we’re going to be building new ones.

The other thing we’re going to be doing—and it came through as such a privilege to sit and watch the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill No. 2 pass just before Christmas—is we’re going to be getting decent rental standards for our homes, and that’s going to make a huge impact down in Invercargill, where I see people struggling because there are hardly any rental homes and the ones they can afford are cold, they’re damp, and they’re mouldy; there’s all sorts of mould. People are talking to me about gaps in the walls and having to tape them up and the heating costs. And so as a Government we’re putting in place those rental standards so that people can be guaranteed a warm dry home. But also for pensioners and beneficiaries, having the extra winter energy payment so that they can be able to turn on the heater over the winter, and that’ll have huge impacts for families with kids. So, for us, we’re not just taking that hands-off approach; we’re actively doing things.

The other area I’d like to talk about is child poverty, and this is what got me involved in politics because, year after year, my job was to put the annual rates of child poverty out and report them to the sector—in terms of the health sector. What frustrated me, again, was that lack of plan, but our Government has got a plan, and what we’re going to be doing is putting in place transparent monitoring and targets for child poverty. We’re directing Government agencies to develop up strategies to address the well-being of children, but we’re also, with the Best Start payment, making sure that for babies in the first year of life, their families have enough income.

We’re looking at Working for Families, getting more money back into families’ pockets, and we’re increasing the minimum wage so that families going out to work have got enough to put food on the table. So I’m proud of Budget 2018. I’m proud of our Government’s hands-on—not hands-off—approach to achieving all those things that we need to do for our families to make sure people can get decent services and decent housing and can go to hospital when they need it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to take a moment to remind the members opposite about what is happening today in New Zealand, because today in New Zealand, for the first time in 24 years, primary teachers and principals are striking. So up and down this country, from the very north to the very south, there are families whose lives have been disrupted. There are parents who have had to get the day off work—and, yes, granted, some employers have been very good about that, but some have been less able to do so. There are mums and dads who are stressed out, and there are mums and dads who have had to call for help from family members, who have had to spend the money that was meant for a new pair of shoes on after-school care or a babysitter.

What we are supposed to do in this House today according the members opposite is ignore that disruption. Well, I want to take a moment to say thank you to teachers for what you do, because I know that that’s the sentiment parents have today. They’re not sitting at home saying this is the fault of teachers—no. They appreciate—we appreciate—the work that teachers do for our children. We appreciate the effort they put in for them, and we appreciate the value they provide our country.

But what do members opposite want us to do? Well, first of all, we have had the utter disgrace of a Government that had the Minister of Finance, at the beginning of this debate—what did he see fit to do? He asked the members of the House to congratulate the Minister of Education—to congratulate! And there was a round of applause. They all burst into clapping. Why did they do that? Oh, because there’s a strike? Great! I’ll tell you what, members opposite: parents in this country, teachers in this country, weren’t joining you in the round of applause for the Minister of Education. No, they were not, and they also weren’t wanting two minutes to talk about cats being spayed and people forgetting their to-do lists.

Then we had the Minister of Education deciding that it was an opportune moment to list his achievements. What did he start by listing? Oh, well, there were some very significant achievements. There was the fact that he had renamed the Education Council the Teaching Council. And no, no, no, but he’s done more than that: he’s changed the way that people are appointed to the Teaching Council. You know what? If he yells that from the rooftops, the teachers will say, “You know what, Chris Hipkins? You’re right. We should be applauding too! And, actually, we’re going to think twice about the strike now, because now you’ve renamed the Teaching Council we can see that, actually, you’re in the right here and we should just put our heads down.” Well, it’s not good enough.

We also had the Minister of Education decide that today was the day that he would show the young people of New Zealand—he’d show the children of New Zealand—how you should react when you have an opponent. The way he chose to react was to describe that opponent as a barnyard animal, and I think that’s not a very good example. Here is a Government that is more interested in playing—

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know the member is a new member. When the Speaker has made a ruling on a matter and required a member to withdraw and apologise for it, there can be no further debate or discussion in the House on the matter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is correct.

NICOLA WILLIS: This is a Government that doesn’t want to talk about the strike outside, and when they do talk about it, they want to play the blame game. What they are asking New Zealanders to believe is that the Opposition is to blame for their failure to reach a settlement, that somehow the Opposition is responsible for the instructions to the negotiators sitting at the table. Well, I want to take a moment to educate the Ministers and educate the members opposite about what powers you have as a Government, because here are a few of the powers that you have: actually, you’re a Government—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring me—don’t bring me.

NICOLA WILLIS: Sorry. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is a Government that has inherited the best financial books that they could possibly hope for. This is a Government whose very own finance Minister talks day after day about the strong economic foundations that he is working from. This is a Government that has the power to budget and prioritise the biggest revenues in our country’s history, that’s taxing more and that’s borrowing more.

And despite this largesse, despite these great books, this great financial position, what do they choose to prioritise? That is the business of Government: it is about prioritising the things that matter, and the things that matter to this Government are $2.8 billion for free fees, hundreds of millions of dollars for diplomats and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and billions of dollars for a slush fund for Shane Jones. These are the things that this Government prioritises, and it’s not good enough to say to the teachers that there isn’t enough money. The teachers are brave; they won’t have the wool pulled over their eyes. They know that what they are asking for pales in comparison to the student promise that the members opposite said was their priority and signed up to in the campaign.

Here we are: the lowest business confidence since the global financial crisis, and teachers striking. Take some responsibility.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It’s truly bizarre to stand up and follow that speech, as if the last nine years never happened. I was on the forecourt of Parliament today, listening to the teachers, alongside members of this Government. For me, if there was ever any evidence of the irresponsible nature of the last Government, it was listening to those speeches today, alongside listening to the stories of our nurses ahead of their strike talking about being stuck with people they were caring for for three hours, experiencing assaults, because there were not enough staff to come to their aid, because of the nine years of neglect of that previous Government. Today, to hear from the teachers that they are having to take second jobs and that they are going to food banks to feed their families because of the nine years of neglect of that Government puts you to shame, not this side of the House.

I want to acknowledge that this Government is listening and does understand, and that is what we saw on the steps of Parliament today: that this Government has taken action in the Budget with 1,500 more teachers, increase in support for students with additional learning needs, abolishing National Standards and offering to pay twice the average of the offers under the previous National Government. All of that comes from this side of the House, so it makes no sense what I heard from Nicola Willis, the previous speaker. But still, despite that action, the teachers are striking. It’s not because they’re greedy, and it’s not because everything is fixed yet; it’s because they are exhausted and stressed and worried about the depth of the crisis within our education system, and they are trying to prevent a further crisis.

There’s been a 40 percent drop in the number of people entering teaching in the last eight years—that is a crisis. They want us to value their work, because they want the best for their students. They care. They do that. They buy resources. They work their weekends. They work 12-hour days because they care, and they want that to be properly valued. And we may not be there yet—in the Greens we get to say that from our position of confidence and supply. We may not be there yet, but I want to make sure that they know that this Government is listening, and the Greens hear them, and we thank them for their efforts to defend the integrity of our education system that was so profoundly undermined by the last Government, to the point where a principal in Manurewa was struggling to find a teacher, to look for staff, to build the complement in their school. He finally found a brilliant young teacher who came to Auckland from Palmerston North, who loves her job and loves her kids, but she can’t afford to live in Auckland on the teacher’s income that she’s getting. So they are pleading to us, to this House, to take more action.

I recognise that in 1979 backbench MPs were paid the same as teachers now. We are roughly paid twice as much as teachers at the top of their pay scale—at the top of their pay scale. I’ve been a teacher, so I know how out of whack that is. MPs’ pays have been benchmarked against other people who are on top salaries, so our pay goes up, whereas so many people, like teachers and nurses and social workers and bus drivers, seem to have to convince us that they’re worth a pay increase.

Well, I and the Green Party are listening to the teachers. We see this as an opportunity to transform our society, and we really appreciate that it’s so much better under this Government, who are taking on the education system, and addressing poverty, family violence, housing inequality, and climate change. We are doing this; we’re not just blaming teachers. But we also are listening to that call for transformation, and the Green Party is happy to stand with the teachers for that society where we value the work that counts.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, that was a very interesting speech from the Green Party where they tried to come up with a whole lot of excuses, but they forget that they’re actually part of this Government and need to actually take some responsibility for what this Government does. But they are trying to make excuses by saying, “Well, we’re part of this confidence and supply agreement, so we don’t have to take responsibility.” Well, I’m sorry, but you’re the party which has brought this Government into power, so take some responsibility and answer the question: why are the teachers striking?

So what we have seen today up and down this country is something which is historic. For the first time in 24 years, we have seen primary school teachers and principals take to the streets, close the schools, and strike. There are schools in my electorate which have closed, and I just want to recognise and acknowledge—

Kieran McAnulty: Didn’t the member go there last year?

SIMEON BROWN: —all of the teachers and all the principals who have made that decision.

Matt Doocey: He’s got the day off school. Leave him alone.

SIMEON BROWN: Yes, that’s right. I’ve had today off school myself just to make this speech! Now, can you please be quiet in the cheap seats over the other side of the House.

So let me get back to where I was at. So it’s understandable why these teachers are striking, and I want to acknowledge the good work that they are doing. But what we have to also recognise is that they are striking because of the arrogance of this Government and the rhetoric that we are getting from the Minister of Education, which absolutely does show that they are not listening, they are not listening to teachers, and they are not listening to their needs.

The Minister of Education went outside Parliament today and what he said was “We are hearing your concerns and so we are getting rid of charter schools.”—we are hearing your concerns and so we’re getting rid of charter schools. We are hearing your concerns and we are changing the name of the Teaching Council. Well, that shows a Government which wants to distract themselves, they are out of touch, and they don’t want to talk about the real issues and the real things.

So this comes back to the real issue here. We’ve got the Green Party on one hand saying, “Well, we’re not really part of this Government, but we are.” And the reason why they’ve got this issue with the teacher pay and the teacher strikes is because all of the money’s been spent. This is a Government which has the wrong priorities and which has spent all the money. I’ve talked to teachers. I visit schools in my electorate all the time, and they understand. They understand that there has got to be priorities from this Government. They understand the need for Governments to prioritise, but they also understand that this Government has the wrong priorities. They’ve spent $2.8 billion on free fees for university students—$2.8 billion. And how many more students have we seen go to university?

Hon Member: Less.

SIMEON BROWN: About the same. $2.8 billion—$2.8 billion, Mr Ball, $2.8 billion. And how much have we seen spent on diplomats? About $1 billion on diplomats. And how much money have we seen spent on Shane Jones’ slush fund? A billion dollars a year on the slush fund. So who’s got all the power in this coalition? It’s the New Zealand First Party which has all the power in this coalition, and the Green Party is sitting on the side having to complain.

Chlöe Swarbrick: We are in confidence and supply, Simeon.

SIMEON BROWN: And, yes, Chlöe Swarbrick says, “We’re in confidence and supply.” Well, you’re still part of the Government, so stop propping it up and do something. Take some action if that’s what you going to say. Take some action and take responsibility. The Green Party is all care, no responsibility; that’s what they’re all about—all care, no responsibility.

Well, I’d like to touch on a couple of last comments and this is in regards to some of the issues that we are facing. We do acknowledge that teachers need to be paid more and we do acknowledge that we need to attract more teachers to teach in our schools. Well, what message does it send to young people who are thinking of teaching that we have to have strikes to get a pay rise? For nine years when we were in Government there were no strikes from teachers. They didn’t have to strike, they negotiated, they sat around the table, and they nutted the details out around the table where it should be.

Now we’ve got a Labour Government and they’re striking outside because the incompetence of the Minister of Education and the incompetence of this Government. They can’t sit down around the table and make these decisions and actually get a deal done so that we don’t have to have strikes from a core public service up and down our country—the inconvenience for parents and families and the disruption to our children’s learning. What have we heard today? Now they’re talking about a second strike. And how long with this one go for? Two days. They had a one-day strike today; now they’re talking about a two-day strike. So Mr Hipkins needs to gets the message: sort this out. Sort out teacher pay so we don’t have to disrupt our children’s learning.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Overseas Investment Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I move, That the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

If you’ve got the right to live in New Zealand permanently, you’ve got the right to buy here, but otherwise it’s not a right; it’s a privilege. We believe it’s the birthright of New Zealanders to buy homes in New Zealand in a market that is shaped by New Zealand buyers, not by international price pressures.

There can be no doubt that international buyers are having an effect on the marginal price in some of our markets; perhaps less marked than it was when the property market was raging some years ago and when there were fewer controls on the outward flow of capital in some other countries. But, nonetheless, in a recent quarter, 20 percent of the homes sold in central Auckland were sold to overseas buyers and 10 percent of homes in the whole of the Queenstown Lakes District Council area were sold to overseas buyers—two of our most expensive housing markets in New Zealand, and it’s no coincidence; these matters are linked. There can be a debate as to how much the effect is on price; there can be no doubt that there is an effect.

This is a Government that keeps its promises. In 2013, the party that I’m from announced that we intended to ban foreign speculators from buying existing houses. Five years later, we stand on the cusp of achieving it. In spite of all those sitting across from us who said it couldn’t be done, we’re here today to take another step towards restoring the great New Zealand dream of homeownership.

National said it could not be done. They said we had to trade off controlling who owns our homes and having access to trade agreements. They told us that we couldn’t sign up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or what became the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and protect the ability of the current or future Governments to control who bought our houses. They were wrong. We have proven them to be wrong. They said that during the election. They denied that there was a problem prior to the election. They couldn’t even utter the words “housing crisis”, but we have shown that, actually, with clever policy and hard work, from officials as well as the Government, you can get to a sane place.

This bill is a key part of the Government’s plan to improving housing affordability, which includes KiwiBuild, tax policy to discourage property speculation—and, of course, we’ve announced ring-fencing of losses and we’ve extended the brightline test from two years to five years so that properties that are flicked on and a profit is taken within five years will be taxed on income account. We’ve got the Tax Working Group looking at further changes to discourage property speculation. All of these things together work to address the declining homeownership rates, which are the lowest that they have been in New Zealand since the 1950s and are associated with the rise of inequality in New Zealand. Everyone knows that the largest asset that’s owned by most people is their own home, and if you have got decreasing rates of homeownership, you have most certainly got a country where you have got decreasing inequality, and that’s what we’ve been experiencing in New Zealand in the last nine years.

We’re determined to fix that, and one of the ways we’re doing that is by ensuring that the prices of New Zealand homes are set on the domestic rather than international market. Under the Government’s changes, overseas speculators will no longer be able to purchase existing homes. These homes will generally only be able to be brought to be bought by New Zealand citizens and resident-class visa holders—and that includes permanent residents who spend or commit to spend the majority of their time in New Zealand; amongst other things, that makes them a tax resident. So if they’re here, they’re turning their shoulder to the wheel of the New Zealand economy, then they can buy, and if they’re not, well, they won’t be able to buy an existing home.

Now, the regime will work to channel foreign investment into the productive sectors of the economy rather than into the speculative sectors of the economy, but it will also direct the foreign direct investment that is coming into housing into new supply rather than bidding up the prices of existing homes. That’s why we’re allowing foreign developers who commit to build large apartment complexes to get approval to sell a portion of the units to overseas investors off the plans without being required to onsell the unit once construction is complete. That’s a limited exception that we’ve got to ensure the viability of these projects, but it’s also why foreign developers will be able to retain an interest in other large new residential projects, as long as the dwellings are rented out or sold through shared equity models or outright sale. This too will assist first-home buyers.

In addition to better directing foreign direct investment in the housing market, the bill will also help channel more foreign direct investment into the forestry sector. This is an important ambition for the Government. Even in the committee stage last night, it was obvious that members of the Opposition still do not get it. If we did not make these changes to include forest registration rights under the ambit of the Overseas Investment Act, they would not be able to be included in the future. Any forest that is a freehold or leasehold forest can be sold by way of a forest registration right, for multiple rotations—for more than 100 years, if you wanted to. If your screening regime does not cover forest registration rights, you have an ineffective—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker; the country has an ineffective screening regime for forests.

So we address that issue by enabling investors to purchase forestry through either freehold or leasehold or forest registration rights, but then introducing a simpler process, because we want that investment. We want it to be easier; we don’t want to be clogged up by unnecessary, lengthy processes and by the complicated counterfactual analysis that they need to complete at present, following the High Court decision in the Crafar Farms decision, which has also impacted upon forestry. We’re taking an axe to the unnecessary red tape because we want to be stimulating further foreign direct investment into forestry.

Now, if a future Government wants to come along and change that, or, in a few years’ time, the current Government wanted to change that, we can, because we’ve preserved this policy space by including forest registration rights before the CPTPP comes into effect.

Before I finish, I want to reiterate that we remain a Government committed to being an outward-looking trading nation.

Hon David Bennett: What a load of rubbish.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, actually—they say, “a load of rubbish.” on the other side. The last Government dropped exports from 30 to 27 percent of GDP in the face of a promise to increase to them 40 percent of GDP. Abject failure: speculating house prices, rapidly increasing population, poor per capita growth, and a poor export performance.

Now, foreign direct investment is welcome to the economy where it adds—and this is not speculative asset classes like residential land or selling our pastoral farms. We don’t think that will assist—

Hon David Bennett: Trees.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Actually, we do think further foreign direct investment in trees will assist; that’s why we want it, but we also need foreign direct investment in other parts of the economy, and we’re open to that.

I thank the staff of Treasury and the Overseas Investment Office. There has been a rush to do this because of CPTPP. In the final event, we were able to leave it in select committee for six months—and I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their efforts during that period—and to introduce a separate Supplementary Order Paper to deal with these forestry issues in a more fulsome way. But we were only able to do that because the officials worked long hours, late at night, in order to run the policy process in parallel with the select committee process. Otherwise, this would not have been able to be achieved before the CPTPP comes into effect, and I’m grateful to the officials for their work and for the work that was done by the select committee. Can I thank all members for their contribution to this important debate.

Can I also say that I think it’s appropriate that this bill also tightens up on monitoring and enforcement. I agreed with some of the comments that the Rt Hon David Carter made yesterday in the House, that the enforcement and monitoring of overseas investment has been less than perfect in New Zealand and we need to improve upon that to maintain the integrity of the system and to maintain the support of the public. With that, I’m happy to take my chair as I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate, the third reading of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. The National Party opposes the bill, and we oppose the bill because we don’t believe that it actually fixes any problem. It is, in fact, nothing more than an attempt to justify some of the policies of the incoming Government and some of their decisions.

The bill, and the purpose of the bill, which amends the Overseas Investment Act 2005, is to extend the definition of what’s known as sensitive land in the Overseas Investment Act to include residential property. Of course, a lot of land is already considered sensitive, particularly large tracts of land, land around particular waterways and all sorts of other areas where it is important that there is an oversight by the Overseas Investment Office. So this bill, in many ways, is like using a hammer to try and crush a teeny-weeny little nut, because it is about saying that every residential house is now, apparently, “sensitive land”. It’s a nonsense.

Of course, it’s been brought in to be able to deal with the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and Labour. It has no more principle than the pursuit of power. It is something which a Labour-led Government a decade ago would never have done—this would never have happened under the Rt Hon Helen Clark. It would never have happened under a Government that valued foreign investment. It would never have happened under the Rt Hon David Lange. As someone who did some work with David Lange back in the 1980s and knew him, I think that this is the sort of bill that he would be absolutely appalled by, because he was never someone who would ever have taken up a stance of attacking people based on foreign-sounding names, which is exactly what this bill comes from.

This is a bill without principle. It is a bill to try and cynically blame foreigners—particularly those with Chinese-sounding names—for a Government that has no other policy in which to actually improve and increase house ownership in New Zealand. When I look at some of the things that were said in the last two or three years when we were in Government—and these things were said by the then Opposition, now the Government—some of those comments that were made about people: that there were 30 percent of houses in New Zealand being bought by foreigners, when all of the statistics that we received in Government showed that the level was about 3 percent, and then to find out that this gross abuse of statistics by the then Opposition has been continued on to now, with Mr Twyford now having to concede that, yes, the level of foreign ownership and purchases of housing in New Zealand is, strangely enough, 3 percent—the same as it was under National.

What has been the result of this attack on people with foreign-sounding names—well, apparently, only some people with foreign-sounding names. What’s actually happened is that there is now a stop on apartment blocks being built in Auckland’s central business district. We all know that Auckland has a lot of people—not that many when you consider it, really, but all wanting to live in the same place. We need to have more apartment blocks built. What’s happened with this ban—before the law’s even come into place, this message against people with foreign-sounding names—is that foreign-sounding people have decided they’re not going to buy apartments in New Zealand. Strangely enough, people who do build these apartment blocks, or in the past have, have said to me and to my colleagues and to anyone who would listen—even, apparently, the Government—that they can’t get any of these buildings built because they can’t get the finance, and they can’t get the finance because they can’t get the pre-sales.

If a developer’s going to try and build an apartment block—of six stories, 10 stories, whatever—in an area in the CBD of Auckland or Wellington or any other place, they’re going to have to get around 70 percent pre-sales before they can actually get the financing to start the building. That is a huge ask. In the past, New Zealanders have been very loath to buy off the plans in an apartment block—that’s the issue. The people who have been generally willing to take a risk on buying an apartment block off the plans have been people with foreign-sounding names, often foreigners. They’re not buying the land; they’re buying an apartment.

So this bill was amended at the insistence of the Government in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It was amended to allow for foreign people to buy apartments off the plans. That’s an admission by this Government that the policy based on loathing and scare tactics around people with foreign-sounding names was a failure. It was a failure because it stopped new apartment buildings being built. So that’s why there’s no new apartment buildings being built in Auckland’s central business district. It’s not that there are not people who would like to have an apartment there; it’s that developers have to have the pre-sales off the plans before they can get the financing. It’s not easy to sell off the plans in an apartment block, in a building that no one’s actually seen, other than on plans. It’s tough, and our developers need to have help with this.

So this new concession from the Government—is that going to fix it? They’re going to now allow foreigners to buy in pre-sales off the plans, in apartment blocks and only apartment blocks. Is it going to fix it? Well, my answer to you in this House is that no, it’s not going to fix it, because even when these foreign people are now allowed to buy off the plans, they’re apparently not allowed to live in them. They can rent them out to their foreigner mate who happens to be coming to visit or they can rent them out to a New Zealander or they can leave them vacant, but they just can’t live in them. What a ridiculous nonsense that is—what a ridiculous nonsense.

There is a whole section in part of this bill that is all around enforcement. Well, who’s going to check no one’s living in it? Who’s going to check that it’s not this particular person with a foreign-sounding name living in it, and not another person with a foreign-sounding name living in it? This bill is something I believe is—if this was a National-led Government bringing through this bill, I would resign.

Hon Member: Everybody would be very sad.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would resign because I’d be ashamed of a National Party that did this. And I see the new member sitting there going, “Oh, oh.” Well, actually, this is the best job that that women’s ever had.

Hon Member: Yeah. It’s the best job she’ll ever have.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It will be the best job she’s ever had. And I congratulate her for coming in on the list from Labour, but let me tell that member this—

Willow-Jean Prime: Which one?

Hon Member: The whole lot of them.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The whole lot of them. They’re all “listies” from Labour. What I say to them is this. Understand this: David Lange would have been turning in his grave at this. I worked with David Lange in his Māngere electorate office, and I worked with him on the Housing New Zealand board. He’s a decent man. He had his foibles, as everyone does, but he was a man of principle, and he would have been appalled at people who attacked someone else just on the basis of their name. That is what these MPs are signing up to. They’re signing up to “You look a bit different from us, so you’re foreign and we don’t like you. Don’t buy from us. Don’t come to New Zealand. Don’t invest—oh, except when we want to kick you out.” That’s the message that the Labour - Green - New Zealand First Government is sending to New Zealanders: “If you’re not one of us, you’re the other.” That’s the damage they’ve done to New Zealand, and that’s the damage they’re doing to our economy. Well, they’re at fault.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. After listening to 10 minutes of that member, Judith Collins, it almost made me think, “Where has she been for the last nine years, where the average family in this country has been shut out of owning their own home?” One million dollars to get a home in Auckland—one million dollars to get a home in Auckland, and for nine long years that side did nothing about it. They shut ordinary New Zealanders out of participating in our own economy.

I’m proud to stand here and take a short call on this important bill, the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, because, like my honourable Minister David Parker said in his opening remarks, it is a bill intended to change the Overseas Investment Act because we here on this side of the House believe in productive foreign investment that adds value to our economy. We are a Government committed to maintaining New Zealand as an open, outward-facing trading nation, and this bill will help ensure that the greater proportion of foreign direct investment is directed into productive assets where the benefits of free capital flows are the greatest. This bill talks about addressing Kiwi homeowners, and we should be proud about addressing that—that makes home affordability more available to Kiwi buyers. It talks about tourism, forestry, and, of course, the business sector.

I will touch briefly, in my time, around the forestry and this Government’s ambitious one billion trees. Where we go, around the nation, we want to encourage investment in forestry. This Government’s flagship policy of one billion trees—half a billion by the industry; the other half a billion is a challenge that we want to take up on this side of the House. Why? It’s quite simple: this is about meeting our carbon targets. It’s also about raising economic value and opportunities in regions.

This is what this bill does. The overseas investment legislation does it by two simple ways. The legislation itself will improve the coherency and the simplicity of New Zealand’s screening regime for overseas investment in the forestry sector and, like I said, encourage growth and jobs and progress. It’ll also apply two new screening pathways that have been introduced in response to sector feedback, and I want to acknowledge Minister Parker himself and the officials that travelled up and down this country to ensure that what we are bringing to this House fitted with the needs of the industry, local government, and, of course, iwi.

The screening pathways will offer simpler options for screening and will provide more certainty as we become a haven for overseas investment in the forestry sector. Also, this bill removes a loophole and impediments to level the playing field in our forestry sector. This Government is committed to working with local government, with industry, with iwi, and with all parts of society to ensure that we are planting trees in our region, and this bill will enable that to happen. I commend it to the House.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m sure you’ll agree with me that it’s disappointing when you get some symbolic legislation like this and a Minister of the Crown comes before this House to take the second speech by the Government and reads notes from the research unit. This is symbolic legislation. It’s very symbolic for the Hon David Parker who, from the time he entered this Parliament, has shown a distaste for foreigners—

Darroch Ball: Oh, come on.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —a huge dislike of foreign investment, and an absolute dislike for any successful business person who he terms wealthy.

It is symbolic legislation for another reason. It is actually a piece of legislation that Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens campaigned on and now they’re in this House delivering it. They campaigned from the start to outlaw foreign investment. They failed to look at the history of this country over the last 200 years as to what’s made it such a successful country as it is today. I note that Kieran McAnulty is at least listening without interjecting on this occasion, not like his fellow parliamentary colleague the lightweight Darroch Ball.

New Zealand First has opposed foreign investment from the time I first became familiar with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, with the exception, I might point out, of the current owner of Bowen House. For some reason that I don’t understand, he’s completely supportive of the foreign ownership of Bowen House, but for any other foreign investor he rails against it. I give it to the Greens: economically naive that they are, from the moment they arrived in this House they’ve opposed foreign investment. So I say to the voters, this is what you get when you vote for a Government that opposes foreign investment and you will see the ramifications over the next 2½ years for this legislation. It was well signalled; it’s now being delivered.

I remind all members of this House of the dreadful attack by the Hon Phil Twyford on New Zealanders, some of them three- and four-generation New Zealanders, who happened to have a Chinese-sounding name—and Darroch Ball laughs. He thinks it was funny. Well, he may not know many of these New Zealanders, three- and four-generation New Zealanders, who are totally—totally—offended to be accused of being a foreigner simply because they have a Chinese-sounding name.

I remember also, Mr Twyford, and fellow members of the then Labour Opposition claiming time and time again that the reason for high residential prices, particularly in Auckland, was because 30 percent of them were being bought by foreigners. Quotable Value has released the data consistently. It was never 30 percent—never 30 percent—consistently 3 percent. Yet Kieran McAnulty thinks that 3 percent investment by foreigners into a residential market is enough to trend the market and significantly turn it up. He nods his head at that. That’s the economic genius that we have on the other side of the House. Three percent doesn’t significantly lift the price of housing.

But what I say to that Labour Government particularly is the reason the Hon David Parker said he’s introducing this legislation—and he repeated this time and time again through the committee stage of the House—is he wants to see the price of housing come down. I asked the Hon David Parker: by how much? He refused to answer. So I say to the Hon David Parker, have a look at what’s happening in Sydney and in Melbourne now: down 5 percent in the last 12 months and I believe we’ll see a similar decline in residential prices here in New Zealand. If it occurs, look out for the backlash from people who have invested recently with very high mortgage commitments.

The interesting thing about the select committee process was we heard from 64 submitters. I don’t recall any of them being in support of the legislation. They all came along to us and said, “We can understand why you’re doing it. We can understand that the Government campaigned to do it. So do it, but give us an exemption.” That was the consistent message. The rest home sector wanted to be exempted. The telco sector wanted to be exempted. The supermarket sector and the mining sector asked to be exempted. Queenstown, as an area, said, “Exempt us. It’ll have a dramatic effect on our values.” But there was one particular exemption that surprised me. It came from a Northland iwi called Te Ārai. In their case, it was a private benefit—we were led to believe to the iwi because of a Treaty settlement; subsequently, found out it was a private benefit to two wealthy people: one a New Zealander and one an American who has already invested in property in New Zealand. The advice we had to the select committee was you cannot provide a private exemption for that particular Te Ārai development. The select committee chair overrode that advice and presented the legislation back into this House to give a private benefit to one particular iwi in Northland. Who has close affiliations with Northland?

Hon Mark Mitchell: Who was the chair of that?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: The chair was Michael Wood. He defied the advice from the Office of the Clerk. But a better question to be asking is who has close affiliations with one particular iwi in Northland?

Hon Mark Mitchell: Who is it?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I don’t know. I don’t know, but the finger points very closely to the Deputy Prime Minister again. But—but—common sense prevailed. The Speaker got out Standing Orders, and he very, very correctly said it is inappropriate to deliver a private benefit in a bill such as this.

The final point I want to make is around a sudden Supplementary Order Paper that appeared in the latter stages of the select committee process. What happened is that the Hon Shane Jones realised that if legislation went through, it would stop his billion-tree per year programme in its tracks, because the forestry industry is already 72 percent foreign investment in New Zealand. So there was an argument, I believe, in Cabinet—a big argument—the Hon Shane Jones versus the Hon David Parker. Which of the honourable members won?

Hon Member: Shane.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Shane Jones. We know, on this side of the House that Labour members don’t want to admit it because they got their noses rubbed in the dirt—Shane Jones won. And in came a Supplementary Order Paper which not only allowed the status quo of 72 percent foreign investment in forestry, but made it easier. This is a bill to stop foreign investment for everything except one sector: forestry. Why did it happen? Because Shane Jones beat David Parker.

This is the sort of legislation that explains declining business confidence. This sort of legislation will stop dead the foreigners wanting to invest in housing and apartment development in Auckland. The Hon Judith Collins has said it’s already happened. We had numerous apartment developers coming to the select committee saying, “Our developments require pre-sales so we can go to the bank and get funding.” Did the Government want to listen? No it didn’t. Now, with the passing of this dreadful piece of legislation, apartment development, which the Government claims it needs in Auckland, will stall. Not only will that stall, but so will this continued problem of business confidence. Darroch Ball continues to laugh every time I mention it, but what will happen is employers will stop employing. When they stop employing, the cycle gets harder and harder to stop. The winter of discontent has only just started.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It is a pleasure—an absolute pleasure, actually—to get up and speak to this third reading of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. This is core New Zealand First policy, and we are proud to accept that challenge from the member that has just got down, the Rt Hon David Carter. We absolutely make no apology for that. Our first founding principle is to put the interests of New Zealanders first, and this bill does exactly that. This, at its core, is about the ability of New Zealanders to own their own home.

I will commend Minister Parker on bringing this bill forward, shepherding it through the House. Actually, before it got to the House, he did something the Opposition said we couldn’t do. When they were in Government, when Todd McClay was roaming around, he said we couldn’t do this, it was against all our trade deals, and we could not enact this policy. Well, guess what? We are, he did—he absolutely did, and it took him about two days to work out how to do it—and here we are on the third reading of this bill, about to enact this legislation.

Owning your own home is the foundation of this society. Sir Keith Holyoake, the great National Party Prime Minister used to talk about New Zealand being a property-owning democracy. It is the core founding fundamental to have a family—your home is your castle. Even if you haven’t got a family, it’s your sanctuary, it’s your place where you can be you, and where you can express yourself and just be a participating member of society without having to worry about being at the whim of a landlord. It’s an absolutely core fundamental to bring out the family and the foundation of our society.

I dwell on the teachers that I saw out there today in front of Parliament protesting in support of their wage claim, as they have been neglected over the previous Government’s term. I heard on Radio New Zealand this morning a representative from the teachers saying that a starting wage for a teacher after—what is it?—three, or maybe even four years’ training is $47,000. A senior teacher—like my sister, a primary school teacher—earns $75,000. So how does that equate to house prices in Auckland, our biggest city, where a third of our people live and where the majority of this issue occurs—a million dollars. They are, even for a senior teacher, 12 or 13 times their wage. That is extraordinary. That is the issue that we are trying to address with this piece of legislation.

It’s not the only lever. I know it’s been expressed that it’s not the silver bullet, and it’s not. But when you’re in a Government in this situation with those people, like the teachers out there, unable to get on a housing ladder, you pull every lever in your arsenal—every last one. We are doing other things. The KiwiBuild programme: 100,000 affordable houses. We’ve got reforms to the Resource Management Act coming up. The Tax Working Group is looking at various options—the extension of the brightline test, for example. We are doing other things. This is one part of a measure, but it is an important part none the less.

It is symbolic, as Mr Carter mentioned before. Why should you be able to get off a plane in Māngere and go out and buy a house or two or ten, like people were doing? Why should you be able to do that when the citizens of this country, in the extreme circumstances of this issue, were living in garages and in cars? Look, we had to do what we had to do on this issue. It is the right thing to do, and we are doing it. We are addressing supply, and we are addressing demand.

The Queenstown example that was given in some of the previous readings—yeah, OK, it might affect some people at the top of the curve, but what about those people trying to live there and take advantage of the opportunities and to live in that magnificent part of the country? Minister Twyford has just announced a measure to bring in 1,850 affordable houses with the Queenstown Lakes District Council. That’s another aspect of this programme that the Government is bringing in. So this legislation has made some changes. It’s a provision for a commitment to New Zealand. Overseas participants in the market have to be able to demonstrate that they’re increasing supply and that they are providing an overall benefit to New Zealand.

The select committee process—I hear that’s being talked down a little bit over there, but we did take changes in that select committee process seriously, and there have been several adjustments, as there should be, through that process. Prime amongst them are the amendments to allow foreign investment in apartment blocks over 20 dwellings, and the threshold for that has been set at 60 percent. And that’s in regulations, so Governments coming in will be able to change those regulations as they see fit. If Mr Parker hadn’t got those concessions so that we could write them into our trade agreements, this would have been locked in in perpetuity. So he’s to be commended for looking at the flexibility of this.

Clause 5 of new schedule 3 looks at the hotel units and a similar type of provision to allow a freeing up of the amendment so that hotel units can be built with the help of some foreign capital. Clause 1 of schedule 5 recognises essential services—the likes of power companies, etc.—that may need access to some land that might have been deemed sensitive, to get some utility services provided, and there are some amendments for that. All of that came through the select committee process, so I absolutely refute that that wasn’t a robust process that was taken properly.

Of course, we come to Supplementary Order Paper 52: the forestry carve-out. It has been referenced that 72 percent of forestry is already owned by overseas interests—

Andrew Bayly: That’s right, and you want to make it 100 percent.

MARK PATTERSON: —which is an absolute shame. That is a shame. That’s not something you should be waving around with pride over there; that is a shame that it got to this place. This is why we’ve got to start taking some of these measures on housing, to stop it escalating out of hand.

We’ve had to, probably, suck this one up a little bit, because we do need to get more trees in the ground. Why have we had to do that? It’s because Paula Bennett disappeared overseas, she turned up at the Paris accord, and she swanned around on the international stage making promises that she had no intention of being able to keep. She did not put a single measure in place to back up, to put some walk behind her talk. No, she did—actually, she did. The plan was actually to send $1.4 billion a year—$14 billion over 10 years—overseas to buy carbon credits. Many of those were subsequently found to be faulty—an absolute squandering of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. So that is why we’ve had to pull this carve-out out. This is why we have had to do it. The one billion trees strategy, this nation-building strategy that we will do—we will rally behind this strategy. We have resourced it, and we will make this happen. We will make our international commitments, and we will do so ourselves, and we will do so proudly.

This bill, at its core, is about affordability of housing for New Zealanders, for our citizens, for the teachers that were out there, for the policemen, for the nurses that also got a pay rise the other day, for the meatworkers—for everyday garden-variety hard-working Kiwis that want to get on a property ladder. We are for them, and this measure is for them. This is an egalitarian bill that doesn’t look to look after the big end of town. This will, hopefully, be a step in the pathway to returning us to that property-owning democracy that Sir Keith Holyoake used to talk about. This bill is about a fair go for New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. If anyone needed to understand why the New Zealand economy is crashing and burning, look at what we have just heard from the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson and the other nine members of New Zealand First that are the economic geniuses behind this bill, that are delivering the economic plan for New Zealand that is working so very, very well! They are ably supported by the other economic geniuses we see in this room from the Labour Party, that have got no idea either, and the Green Party, that will never stand up for its values in this House.

There’s a reason that we have a property market, and that is a market where buyers and sellers come together. Like any other market, there needs to be a fair interaction of buyers and sellers. Once rules are put into a market that dictate what the price may be, who may buy, what time they may buy, and all those other factors that are all opportunities that the New Zealand First Party can’t resist, then that market is distorted. What is happening to ordinary New Zealanders, the very people that the Labour and New Zealand First parties talk about here? They are distorting the future of New Zealanders, because they are presenting to them an unrealistic market for property. If we can’t compete in our property markets, there is a reason, and that reason is because we are not earning enough on the international stage.

Any time any country in the history of this world has put rules in place to stop competition in one area, thinking that they can dictate that price, it fails. And when those rules go away, that country and those people are not able to compete, and they go further down the scale. That is what they are doing to New Zealanders. They are giving them false hope and taking away their future to compete. Why can’t New Zealanders compete in the property market if we expect them to compete in the overseas markets where they sell their products? Should we expect New Zealanders to be competitive in their overseas trade and yet uncompetitive in our property markets? No, we shouldn’t, and that is the strength of New Zealand agriculture: it’s because our farmers are competitive in the land market. They can actually make enough money out of their farms to buy their farms. That is the strength of New Zealand agriculture, and to take that away in fell swoops, like this bill does, leads to the economic decline that we are seeing in New Zealand now.

We need to be competitive as people, and we need to be able to do that in a way which Government doesn’t dictate. That is the fundamental belief that the Government doesn’t understand. Because they don’t understand that, they are destroying the New Zealand economy, because all the business people out there understand that and they live by that. The people in this room have no experience in the business community, and they will lead New Zealand down the track of failure.

New Zealand has a very fragile economy. We can’t afford to do too many of these decisions. We can’t afford to cut mining, cut roading, and cut foreign investment. Once the New Zealand economy gets the jitters, it gets it big time—and the New Zealand economy has already got the jitters—and there will be no way back under this Government. That Government is facing an economic decline that we thought would take a matter of years. It’s only going to take a matter of months, and that’s because of policies like this.

Let’s have a look at this policy. Even if the person that was delivering this policy actually believed in what the New Zealand First and Labour Party and Green Party have espoused during the election campaigns—and that is their belief that there should be no foreign ownership of land, or that anybody coming in here would not be able to purchase land if they’re not a New Zealand resident. That’s the premise the Minister started with. Well, look at this very piece of legislation—what is enabled to happen under this legislation? It makes an easier road to purchase farmland in New Zealand than there ever has been before.

Previously, if an investor from overseas wanted to come and buy an 800 hectare farm in the north Waikato—beautiful rolling country that could be our productive land for sheep, beef, dairy, whatever, fruit, vegetables—they would have to go through the Overseas Investment Office and prove that they are adding value to that beyond what a New Zealander would, having purchased it. Those are the current rules. Under this legislation—

Mark Patterson: It had never been enforced.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —there is an exemption. They are enforced, and they have to go through them, and under this legislation there’s an exemption for forestry. Now, the Minister is very cute in his response to this, saying, “Oh, forestry rights have never been acknowledged.” Well, maybe that is true, but he also said, after that, that there will be a lower threshold for land purchase. So, essentially, that overseas buyer can come in now and say they’re going to buy that beautiful farm and put it into forestry, and they will be exempt from having to go through the full force of the Overseas Investment Office.

That is the tragedy of this bill: it actually increases foreign ownership. It makes it easier for someone to buy property in New Zealand than it would’ve in the past. What’s worse, that investor will be paid to do that, because we know that the Government is going to bring in something around forestry rights, emissions trading scheme payments to put in forestry. In fact, there are payments to put in forestry now through the Provincial Growth Fund; we just don’t know what those payments are, how much is being paid to somebody, and whether that’s consistent. But take that foreign buyer. Now, potentially, they could get paid through the foreign investment fund to buy New Zealand land and to take it out of its most productive use and put it into forestry. The people over there will say, “Oh, nobody will ever do that. Why would they want to do that?” Well, if that person is getting only a 1 percent return on their investment overseas and they don’t actually want to have to come here and work the land but they’re quite happy just to park a few million dollars here to have a safety mechanism in case their home country has some difficulty—

Barbara Kuriger: And they don’t have to pay for the rural roads.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —they don’t have to pay for anything—they will actually get the advantage of this bill. So they can come over here, buy land, put it into forestry, take it out of productive use, and get paid by the Government to do so, at a higher rate of income than they would be getting for their money overseas. That is not good business. That is selling New Zealand down the road.

That’s what the New Zealand First Party has done here today. The reason they are doing that is because Shane Jones has a wild promise that he needs to actually meet. The Labour Party have no economic credentials. They do not understand what they are doing in this bill and they’re just trying to appease the New Zealand First Party, and the New Zealand economy sees that.

People in business understand what is happening, and they see right through what this bill is. They see that it is silly policy made by people that have no understanding of what they are doing, and it is creating a false economy for New Zealanders. It is meaning that New Zealanders will be told they don’t need to be productive and competitive. It means that New Zealanders will actually lose some of their best land under silly rules that you could drive a truck through.

Angie Warren-Clark: No hyperbole there.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, that member there wouldn’t know. That member there—I bet you she’s never been involved in a property purchase involving farmland and seeing how that works. So—

Angie Warren-Clark: Wrong—wrong.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Have you? Forestry? No, she hasn’t done any forestry purchases, has she? I’d love to see her do a forestry purchase, and if she did, it’d probably still be to some foreigner.

But this is an attack on the very values that New Zealanders need to succeed. We need to be competitive, hard-working New Zealanders that have the opportunity to compete on the international market. If we constrain ourselves and we put ourselves behind barriers, there is only one thing that will happen to New Zealanders, and that will be that we will be less competitive. We will fall behind and we won’t be able to deliver what we want for our future generations, and this bill does exactly that. It constrains our people’s ability to succeed and go forward, and, at the same time—at the very same time—we are incentivising people to come and buy New Zealand property without adding value to that. In fact, we are probably taking away economic value, and that is not smart economy.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I did so enjoy listening to Mr Bennett, because he highlighted why National is there and the Greens, Labour, and New Zealand First are here. The repeated references to competition in his speech—I lost count of how many times he talked about competition in the market. It’s been National’s reliance on competition—that whole philosophy, which is heartless when it comes to people wanting affordable housing—that has ended up with the housing crisis we have today. Its reliance on the market and competition has been at the basis of its unwillingness to intervene.

Mr Bennett, 20 percent of the sales of houses in Auckland in the March quarter were to overseas persons. This Government has intervened because we don’t think New Zealand housebuyers should have to be competing with overseas people, who can often pay a much higher price. The domestic market for our houses should be determined here, in Aotearoa New Zealand, and not be influenced by competition from overseas persons who are speculating, often. So that’s why, Mr Bennett, this bill has been introduced and is close to being passed. The National Government said they couldn’t do it. Todd McClay walked around before the election saying that it would cut across trade agreements. National wanted this to be done by stamp duty, but that would have cut across trade agreements.

So I congratulate Minister Parker, and I am very grateful for the huge amount of work that officials in Treasury and the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) have done and the work that members in the Finance and Expenditure Committee have done to actually finalise and develop this bill. It is a measure to ensure that New Zealanders can get easier access to affordable homes by requiring any overseas persons to have to go through a screening process.

As the Minister responsible for the Overseas Investment Office, can I tell Mr Bennett that there are significant changes there to ensure that those processes are efficient both in the forestry sector and in the residential sector, because the processes should be clear-cut and easy to understand, and there should be adequate enforcement mechanisms as well. The previous speaker was worried about that. Can I inform him that there’s been $7 million allocated in Budget 2018 for compliance and enforcement by the OIO, and there are provisions in this bill which would enable the office to require overseas purchasers, if they’ve bought forestry land—for example—and if they are not complying with the conditions of their application, to actually be required to dispose of that land. There is more monitoring being done by the OIO, so Mr Bennett should rest assured that this Act will actually be enforced.

On the forestry front, his speech there was making a mountain out of a molehill. The reason this Act gives a clearer, more streamlined process for forestry is because of climate change. We have a lot of catching up to do because, as a previous speaker, Mr Patterson, noted, National squandered the opportunity to do something about climate change. We need afforestation to sequester that carbon to reduce the likelihood of going beyond the tipping point, so that New Zealand does its share to reduce our emissions and to put us on track to being a zero-carbon economy by 2050.

Seventy percent of our forestry in New Zealand is already overseas-owned, but it’s the investment that these companies can bring to increasing the plantings, to doing more processing, and to providing more jobs in the regions that is why we want a streamlined test. So there are good reasons, Mr Bennett, for that streamlined test. It’s not an easy run, and the OIO will be ensuring that there is good information on its website around the consents that are granted, around the standing consents in the housing property sector.

We want this Act to work. The OIO is investing the time and resources in working with the real estate sector, with the conveyancers, and with the forestry sector to make sure that the tests in the Act are understood and that the legislation is ready to go when it comes into force, because this bill is about ensuring that we get those billion trees in the ground, that we do our share to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and that the Government ensures that there is every opportunity for New Zealanders to purchase affordable homes without having to compete with people overseas.

So this bill will make a significant difference. It has had to be done at speed—but there’s still been a six-month select committee process—because, as Minister Parker has repeatedly explained but the Opposition still doesn’t seem to realise, it needed to be got through before the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement came into effect. So that’s why we are doing what National said couldn’t be done, particularly in that housing space, where the provisions in the legislation will ensure that while there’s not competition with overseas speculators and where there is investment by overseas companies in actually significantly increasing housing supply to deal with that housing affordability issue, that can be accommodated under the Act. So it is sensible, Mr Bennett.

What else did Mr Bennett say? He said that we face a risk with the forestry provisions of having New Zealand lose some of our best land. That is very rich coming from a National MP because, of course, it was under National that their ministerial directive to the Overseas Investment Office made sure that those purchasing farms who were living overseas or were overseas companies didn’t need to go through all the tests under the Act unless they were large farms—10 times the size of the average farm. So their ministerial directive made sure that the Act was only very narrowly applied and in very limited circumstances, and it has been this Government that has changed that ministerial directive to ensure that any sales of rural land over 5 hectares have to go through a consenting regime under the Act. So it’s making sure that where there are sales of land to overseas persons, there are substantial and identifiable benefits to New Zealand.

So this Government’s agenda is about ensuring that everyone recognises that it is a privilege to own land in New Zealand if you’re an overseas person, that it’s got to deliver substantial and identifiable benefits, and that we don’t want overseas speculation in houses, because we want to ensure that New Zealanders have access to affordable housing. The National Party, with its emphasis on the market, on competition, is all about allowing property speculation people to capture financial gains for themselves, with no concern that our rates of homeownership in New Zealand have fallen to the lowest in 60 years. This bill is about helping to reverse that, helping to make housing more affordable, helping to ensure that we get the investment in forestry, helping to address our climate crisis, and not the head in the sand attitude that we’ve seen from the National Opposition.

I commend this bill to the House. I thank all of the officials in Treasury and the OIO who have worked long and hard on it. I congratulate Michael Wood as chair of the select committee, and Minister Parker for the huge work that he has done in shepherding this bill through the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, this is a funny place, this Parliament. You know, some days you go home at night thinking, “Oh, we’ve had a great day, we’ve achieved a little bit.” Some days you go home at night wondering why you’re here, and some days you go home at night wondering if what’s going to happen as a result of your having been here. I’ve got to say that this is one of those days.

I listened to the Minister a little earlier on saying that in 2013 he dreamt up this bill—2013. That’s quite a long time ago. And, you know, you would think that he would have noticed that the world’s changed a little bit in those years since 2013—five whole years. The economy’s changed dramatically in that time. And to listen to the last speaker, the Hon Eugenie Sage, speaking in much the same mode, you’d wonder where they’d been for the last five years. I remember for some time sitting in numerous select committees, actually, with the Hon Eugenie Sage, the Hon David Cunliffe, and the Hon Damien O’Connor moaning and moaning and moaning about this exact piece of legislation and what they weren’t going to do when they got to the point of being able to implement it. Well, I find it very disappointing that we’ve got to this point, five years later, and the piece of legislation is still in exactly the same form that they designed it those five long years ago.

This is, without question, one of the worst pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen in my time in Parliament. It’s not the worst piece of legislation because I disagree with the philosophy; they’re absolutely entitled—anyone in this place is entitled to have a philosophy which then enables them to implement it in legislation. It would be really nice if that piece of legislation was being implemented at the time of implementation—in other words, if they were using what was going on in the economy and in the world right now, it would be very relevant. It’s not.

We then listened to the member for New Zealand First, who I think originates out of Southland, the place where—almost half the land in Southland has not only changed in ownership but changed in land use in the last 10 or 15 years. It’s quite possible, I guess, that under this piece of legislation half of Southland could go into pine trees. He’d look pretty odd then, wouldn’t he? That’s exactly what this piece of legislation could achieve, because it enables people to buy land—and I’m talking about foreign owners buying land—in any part of New Zealand. It doesn’t matter whether it’s class one land or class 10 land; they can buy any sort of land and plant it with trees, because that’s the blindness with which this piece of legislation is being approached, and the history drives it to be in that form, I think.

So I think it creates a couple of real problems, this piece of legislation, and both in critical areas for this Government and, I think, critical areas for New Zealand. One’s around housing investment, because instead of encouraging investment in housing—and whether we like it or not, in New Zealand we need foreign capital; we need injections of capital into this country—this piece of legislation is going to stop that piece of foreign capital being injected into the housing market in New Zealand. It’s going to stop the apartment market stone-dead. I can explain why: because no one in a falling housing market or even a stable housing market is ever going to invest in an apartment that they can’t live in. The reason for that is because the moment they don’t live in it and they let it out, it depreciates in value, so no one, no absentee owner, is going to invest in that type of opportunity. In a rising market, they probably would and probably did.

I think the same thing exactly happens in the forestry market, and we’re going to see some challenging times in that market, too. Other than the climate change thing—which our Minister Sage talked about—there’s no capacity in New Zealand, and there won’t be capacity in New Zealand, for further forestry manufacturing and production other than sending those logs out through the ports. So that raises a couple more issues, because the ports in New Zealand—whilst the roads of national significance and some of the work that is still ongoing in that area have made those ports more accessible, it hasn’t made the ports any more efficient, or any bigger, or able to deal with the quantity of timber going out of the country now. Imagine what’s going to happen as we increase the planting of forestry in New Zealand.

The reason for that is that the RMA—and I’ll get back to that in a minute. The Resource Management Act precludes any form of further production lines being built in this country, and there will be no investment in that either in the next—until such time as that Act changes. That RMA is also inhibiting and has inhibited significantly the development of housing, particularly in Auckland. The Auckland plan concluded that, of course, and some efforts were made under the previous Government to alter that regime. It hasn’t been entirely successful and it will need a lot more work. So it doesn’t matter what we do with legislation like this, this type of legislation is not going to manage the problem that we’ve got, because there are some significant problems in behind it.

The next thing that I want to get on to is the exemptions, and there were a number of exemptions talked about in the committee stage of this bill. There were also some exemptions brought to the select committee by the Government, or by the Minister, and there were also over, I think, something in excess of 60 submitters who all would have liked to have had exemptions for their particular industry. It doesn’t matter what it was; whether it was aged care, health—all those sorts of things were looking for exemptions. Now, the very fact that almost all submitters were looking for an exemption really meant they’re all struggling for capital and are all struggling for investment opportunity in New Zealand. That, again, precludes those industries from expanding at the rate we would like them to.

The next thing I want to touch on is the potential for depopulation in provincial New Zealand caused by unplanned planting of pine trees, or of trees. We’ve already seen in provincial New Zealand significant depopulation—the Bay of Plenty, some parts of the East Coast, and certainly in the central North Island, where depopulation becomes an issue because the trees are planted with no thought to the future. I’ve got no problem with planting trees; I think it’s a great scheme to plant trees, but the problem is we plant them randomly and we plant them everywhere, and that’s a real challenge for us. We need to plan this whole planting of trees much better. The potential for foreign investment in this land will preclude us from being able to, in my view, plan the planting of those trees in a proper manner.

I also listened to the Minister give what I thought was a pretty unconvincing speech when he introduced the bill for its third reading today. Not only was he unconvincing but I also had a great deal of sympathy for the officials that went through the process of trying to put this bill in place, because you could see in their faces that they were struggling to make it relevant, and I think it has struggled to find relevance. I think there are such a lot of shortcomings in this bill that to apply compliance to it’s going to be almost impossible. The costs of that compliance—there’s been no work done on the cost of that compliance. That will be significant, and when you think about it from an investor’s perspective, if they have a significant cost of compliance in the lead-up to their investment decisions, they’re not going to make those investment decisions—they’re not going to make that opportunity available to New Zealand. So, again, even though the opportunity’s there for investment in both forestry land and in apartments and, in fact, in residential land, it’s very unlikely to happen because they’ve been precluded from doing it.

One last point on that, of course, is perception. When you tell them they’re not welcome in New Zealand, whether you like it or not, you can’t legislate to make them come back. The moment you tell someone they’re not welcome, they have that feeling they don’t ever want to come back. And I don’t blame foreign money for leaving the country and not entering at the rate we require it at, because they’ve been told and have the impression that they’re not wanted back.

Governments have the ability to distort markets, and you never know, when a piece of legislation is put in place, what the reaction of the market to that piece of legislation is going to be. And, I guess, whilst I understand the Government’s—well, I don’t understand it, but I recognise that the Government has a will to drop house prices, and there was some discussion in the House about that today. If you take 10 percent off a house price and the deposit’s been 10 percent, then that poor person’s got no equity left.

I think there’s a very real possibility that this legislation will have a distorting effect on not only land prices but land use, and I don’t think that Governments can ever interfere, or should ever interfere, in land-use trends. I think they should make sure the planning’s done around land use and what might happen in the future. And, again, I think if you look at some of the changes we’ve seen in land use in New Zealand in the last few years, it hasn’t all been positive, but it hasn’t been positive because the planning hasn’t been done before the land use took place. That’s something we very much need to consider.

In my view, this is a sad piece of legislation. It’s an old piece of legislation that, in my view, has run its course, has been introduced far too late, and has been introduced from an idealistic perspective that I think is tragic for New Zealand and for the housing market in New Zealand particularly. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Willow-Jean Prime.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Aroha mai, rima meneti te roa o tēnei karanga.

[Apologies, this speech has a duration of five minutes.]

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Āe, tēnā koe—kia ora. E tino harikoa ana ahau ki te tū mō te wā poto ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire. E tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire. He aha ai? Nā te mea he whenua rangatira tēnei whenua. E mōhio ana ahau tētahi raruraru nui, ko te raruraru ko te noho kore whare. Te maha o ngā tāngata e rēti hoki ana i ngā whare. E mōhio ana ahau he raruraru tēnei i roto i tōku ake takiwā i roto i Te Tai Tokerau. E mōhio ana ahau he raruraru tēnei mō te iwi Māori, te tokoiti o ngā tāngata Māori, ngā whānau Māori e hoko ana i ngā whare, nō rātou te whare. He raruraru anō hoki mō ngā tāngata Pasifika.

Ko tēnei tētahi kaupapa hei whakamāmā ake i tērā tū āhuatanga, i tērā o ngā raruraru. Ko tēnei ko te aukati i ngā tāngata, ngā kaihoko, ngā tāwāhi te hoko i ngā whare o Aotearoa nei. He raruraru tēnei nā te mea 20 paihēneti o ngā whare i roto i te pito o Tāmaki-makau-rau, nā ngā tāngata nō tāwāhi i hoko wērā whare i roto i te wāhanga tuatahi o tēnei tau. He mea nui te whakaruruhau ō tātou ake tangata i te tuatahi.

Nō reira, e kaha tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire, pau te kaha nō te mea he whenua rangatira tēnei, ko tēnei tētahi mea hei whakamāmā ake i te tū āhuatanga o te nui o te utu ki te hoko i ngā whare, me te nui o ngā tāngata e noho kore whare ana i roto i Aotearoa nei. Nō reira, e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire, kia whakairi ki tēnei Whare. Tēnā koe.

[Yes, thank you—thanks. I am very happy to stand for a short time and speak about this bill. I support this bill. Why? Because this is a fine country. I recognise there is a big problem: the issue of homelessness. So many people are also renting houses. I know this is a problem in my own electorate in Northland. I know this is a problem for Māori people, as very few Māori people or families buy houses, own houses. It is also a problem for Pasifika people.

This initiative is designed to mollify that situation, that issue. This will prevent people, purchasers, foreigners, buying houses in New Zealand. This is an issue because 20 percent of the houses in central Auckland, people from overseas bought those houses in the first part of this year. It is important to protect our own people first and foremost.

Therefore, I strongly support this bill with all my strength because this is a fine country. This is one thing that will ease the situation of the large price to buy houses, and the large number of people who are homeless in New Zealand. Therefore, I support this bill. May it come into effect in this House. Thank you.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Andrew Bayly—five minutes.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’ve got to say this was an embarrassing process to be involved in for the members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which heard the avalanche of submissions from such a wide range of submitters, and to hear the continuous chorus of statements saying how this would be bad for New Zealand—would be bad for New Zealanders—was actually somewhat daunting and also sobering. And, naturally, we do oppose this bill, and we oppose it on many counts.

The first question is: why on earth would you be implementing a bill such as this just when we need new houses to be built in New Zealand? The second issue is that I think there’s a general lack of understanding among the New Zealand First, Labour, and Greens members of Parliament about the need for businesses, whether they’re one-, two-, three-people businesses right through to your big corporations, to be able to access foreign capital. And a bill like this doesn’t provide for that. And also what it has done, a bill like this, in the way it’s been presented, is sent such a poor message to the international community that, effectively, says New Zealand is off limits for foreign investment, and that is at a time when we need to be continuing to ramp up the investment in infrastructure in New Zealand. And that is probably the most damning thing about this bill: the international message that it sent to our friends around the world.

Now, I just want, really, to turn to the issue around residential building and apartments. And, again, I just note—and I use this word advisedly—the naivety of Ministers and Government members about the need if you are building and developing new houses and apartment blocks in New Zealand. One of the key requirements is the need to be able to access bank funding. And all banks impose—and it doesn’t matter whether they’re international banks or New Zealand banks; whatever the case may be—a requirement around pre-funding, which requires the element of pre-sale. One follows the other as night follows day, unless you’re incredibly well resourced and you can fund an entire development off your own financial resources. And very few developers are in that situation.

So what we ended up with was an absurd situation where we had last-minute changes to recognise this fact, which was blindingly obvious to everyone—namely, that if you’re building more than 20 homes or apartments, a foreign person doing that could get a dispensation to allow up to 60 percent of those homes or apartments to be sold to foreigners. And so here we have the logic which is: the foreigner can build the house but we don’t want them to live in it. We don’t want them to own it even though the foreigner has built that house in New Zealand. But we are also very happy that that foreigner land banks and makes all the money out of the development. So we think that’s fine, and, in fact, the last-minute change allowed for that, specifically catered for that. And so we think it’s fine for foreigners to be land bankers and developers and make the money but not to own the house once they’ve built it. And I think that logic train is somewhat missing in this whole bill. And, anyway, there’s a way of getting around the issue. All you have to do, if you’re a foreigner, is build the house and then rent it to your daughter or son on a commercial lease for at least three years and get around the commercial arrangements that way.

And then there was the issue of the existing foreigners who have built very expensive homes in places around Queenstown, who are now facing substantial loss because they will not be able to sell their new homes to other people. And I think just this whole bill—Mr McKelvie said it was sad; in my view the process was bad and the bill itself is not only sad but it’s bad. It’s bad for New Zealand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. I call Dr Deborah Russell.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Mr Assistant Speaker, this bill is what New Zealanders want. This bill is about New Zealanders retaining control over their own land. This bill is about New Zealanders having access to their birthright of a secure home in their own land. And I am proud of the work that the Minister David Parker has done to bring this bill to the House and get it through the House. I am proud of the work that the Finance and Expenditure Committee chair, Mr Michael Wood, has done getting the bill through the select committee, and I am proud to have been part of that committee, working to ensure that New Zealanders retain their birthright of having a say in who gets to own property in this country.

I say to you that this is a welcoming bill. It is a bill that welcomes people who want to come and live in New Zealand, who want to make a commitment to New Zealand. It welcomes them to buy property here. If someone makes a commitment to living in this country, then of course they can buy a home here—if they make that commitment. All this bill does is ensure that non-residents, non-citizens, cannot buy homes here. Why? Because we want to ensure that New Zealanders and people who are committed to New Zealand can buy homes here, and that’s why this is the bill that New Zealanders want.

This is what New Zealanders want, and there are good reasons for wanting it. Part of it is just that retaining control, but the other reason is that we have had a housing market that has failed. Oh, it hasn’t failed in terms of rising prices—which is fine for those who own property already and fine for those who can bring funding from overseas as non-resident, non-citizens, and owners, but it is not fine for the young people who have been locked out of housing and it is not fine for Māori or for Pasifika—people living in and committed to this country who cannot afford housing here. Now, this bill by itself will not rein in our housing market, which has failed, but this bill, together with the action that this Government is taking right across the housing portfolio, will help.

That is exactly why I am proud to support this bill. I am proud to support what New Zealanders want, and I commend this bill to the House.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I enjoyed that last contribution immensely. It was as though the member who just resumed her seat, Deborah Russell, had been on cut-price acting lessons. All I can say is I think she should keep winding up the drama. We’re actually here to make legislation—high-quality legislation—for the future of New Zealand, and I have to say that in almost four years in this House, I have not seen a more ham-fisted attempt at legislating.

Let’s just pause and ask ourselves what this bill intends to do. Well, the member did get one thing right: it intends to stop foreign entities from purchasing residential land. And that leads to a couple of questions: what’s a “foreign entity”, and what’s “residential land”? Well, under the Overseas Investment Act, a foreign entity is anything with more than 25 percent foreign ownership—an overseas person, they call it—and residential land is usually defined by councils. It’s pretty laborious, but there are a whole lot of definitions and it, basically, comes back to what most New Zealanders would think of as a residential area—a suburb or an area where, mostly, people live.

Well, the interesting thing is that in order to achieve the objectives of the bill to make housing more affordable for New Zealanders, one of the things that has to happen is we need people to build more homes. Home building, it turns out—as we found in the select committee before the Government went into reverse gear, at great speed, putting all sorts of exemptions and carve-outs into the bill—tends to involve a lot of foreign entities purchasing residential land. You see, when you have a home in a modern country like New Zealand, you need things like electricity and you need things like telecommunications; sometimes older people in the community need things like retirement villages. The thing about big telcos and electricity companies and retirement villages is that many of them are listed globally on sharemarkets called the Australian Stock Exchange—if anyone from New Zealand First has heard of that, come and see me later—and that means that many of them are more than 25 percent foreign-owned. So it suddenly means that we would go from about 150 Overseas Investment Office applications per year to an estimated 2,700, as all of these organisations that are involved in building homes—whether it’s Ryman Healthcare or whether it’s Spark or whether it’s an electricity reticulator—would, all of a sudden, have to go through the Overseas Investment Office.

Of course, what the Government did once it realised that it had, basically, made it impossible for the New Zealand construction sector to build homes—I mean, you can’t make up how stupid this bill is—is they then started putting in exemptions for just about everything, to the point where the bill has become meaningless. It’s a case study in bad law-making, but it’s also a case study in this particular Government of how poor their understanding of the country’s history and economy is. You see, the history of this country is actually a history of foreign investment. Right back to the time that Kupe sailed up on the beach with a waka hourua and a couple of kunekune pigs, we have been bringing foreign capital to this country, and we’ve never looked back, and so it remains in the construction of housing today.

This Government is out of touch with that reality. They came into Government with things like the despicable Chinese-sounding names publicity stunt, on a wave of xenophobia and the premise that we must do something. Their minor premise: “This is something.”; their conclusion: “Let’s introduce the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill.”, even though it will not achieve anything like what it intended to achieve. In actual fact, if it has any effect, it will prevent much-needed foreign investment from boosting the construction sector and adding to the number of homes in New Zealand.

That’s what happens when you have an accidental Government with no real policy agenda, with no real policy understanding, wasting this House’s time by putting in place legislation that will not achieve its stated objective. Just ask Vancouver. Just ask Auckland—after we required IRD numbers and bank accounts—whether restrictions on foreign capital inflows actually affect house prices. It won’t achieve its objective but it will put all sorts of roadblocks in the way of building more homes, and for that reason it’s easily the stupidest bill I’ve seen in four years. I proudly stand for the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): The last speaker for Labour, Deborah Russell, said this was to do with New Zealand’s birthright. In my view, this has got nothing whatsoever to do with birthright, and if members of the Government sat in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, they would have heard a chorus of submissions and multitudes of carve-out provisions as this ill-thought-out, ideologically driven piece of legislation made its way through this Parliament.

I completely agree with the last speaker, Mr David Seymour. There was hysteria created in this country in the lead-up to the election. The campaign about “Chinese-sounding names” was despicable, and the Government itself had done very little research to understand what was behind it, how big the issue was, how serious it was. But it captivated some people’s hearts and minds as it related to housing. I found it offensive, actually, to our significant ethnic communities that are living in New Zealand that that was used to somehow bring this piece of legislation to this House.

This is a terrible piece of legislation—a terrible piece of legislation—and I actually want to put it on the record that I’m proud of foreign investment in New Zealand and I’m proud of the things that New Zealanders have achieved using that foreign investment. As the first piece of significant legislation I came across after entering Parliament, I was amazed that the Government had no understanding whatsoever of the reliance that the New Zealand economy has on foreign investment. It soon became abundantly apparent as carve-out clause after carve-out clause was brought in through the select committee process following the submissions to try and maintain a sense of proportionality for that foreign investment.

This bill set out as a ban on foreign sales of residential houses and land. But it actually was more encompassing than that, and that had to be reined in by the select committee process. It’s easy to forget what the last National Government did in getting to this point. The last National Government required all foreign buyers to be registered for IRD and to indicate that they were foreign buyers when purchasing a house. They introduced regular monitoring of foreign buyers through Land Information New Zealand, which showed that there was a small percentage of the market, around 3 percent, that was going in foreign sales, and they introduced the first brightline test, which was subsequently amended—with no notice—from three years to five years.

I also want to talk about a carve-out provision which has been the subject of the time of this House. That was a Northland example where a carve-out was sought by the Government based on Treaty settlement claims for wealthy investors. At that time, I, as a junior member of the select committee, asked the select committee for further advice: were there any other potential Treaty claim carve-outs, and would this have any implications? We actually—our side of the select committee—couldn’t even get advice. We couldn’t even get it through, and we were told by the chairman that that’s our decision to make. We now subsequently know that the Speaker made a ruling to say that specific carve-out provision for an individual wasn’t allowed.

When I talk about foreign investment I want this House to understand why I support it. In my own part of Hawke’s Bay we have been transformed by the use of foreign investment. Craggy Range is an Australian-owned company, where the Peabody family have come from Australia and are significant investors. Elephant Hill—the Weiss family have come from Germany. Cape Kidnappers—Sir Julian Robertson has come from the USA. All of those people have entered my community in Hawke’s Bay, have been wonderful contributors—them, their staff, and their families—and they have transformed the tourism base of the Hawke’s Bay economy. Yet this bill says that when they first arrive on our shores to do their property development they are not allowed to buy a house—not them, their family, or their staff. That’s where I think this ideologically driven bill is so misplaced.

I want to comment on what Mark Patterson said in his contribution. He said he’s proud today. I want Mr Patterson to remember that in these things there are balances. Most of the nursing homes and rest homes in New Zealand have significant foreign investment in them. A significant investment in Silver Fern Farms was made by a Chinese entity.

Mark Patterson: Shame!

LAWRENCE YULE: I know, Mr Patterson. I know you don’t like it. But you go and tell the workers, Mr Patterson. When Silver Fern Farms was in some difficulty, if they hadn’t had the foreign investment and they didn’t have their jobs, you know what they’d say? “We want the foreign investment.”—as most people do. But you stand up here, Mr Patterson—you stand up here in this House and you say somehow it’s bad. If I was you, I wouldn’t say this is a proud day, because I think actually you’re missing the point. Foreign investment is a great enabler for the economy, for the people that live in rural parts of New Zealand. Subcontractors, contractors, meatworkers, nurses—many of them get their income from a foreign investment that’s made.

In this legislation we have also got some carve-outs where we pick and choose. So it’s OK for Australians or people from Singapore to buy a house in New Zealand, but it’s not OK for somebody from the UK, Scotland, or America. Tell me how that’s fair. When we go and negotiate free-trade agreements, particularly post-Brexit, with the EU or Great Britain, I guarantee this issue will be brought up as part of the negotiations from their side. All we’ve said is “Oh, we haven’t quite thought that far through. We’re just going to treat Australians like this and Singaporeans—we got a little bit of the deal a few years ago.” Our mother country—they have expectations, and I’m a proud supporter of the Commonwealth, but I think this will make a big issue for us in the United Kingdom.

In the area of housing, I don’t think this will make one iota of difference. I now know in Auckland—and I talked to a property developer the other day, who had sold all but six of his apartments and was in the profit phase. All the apartment funding up to that point had largely been done by foreign investors. Since this legislation came in, now he cannot sell to the last six investors, because people have been scared off. He actually can’t even get banking finance now for the last six properties, and he’s in a little bit of financial stress.

So for all the reasons that this was done, I think it’s not going to achieve its outcome. As the last speaker on this side of the House, I think we’re going to look back at this legislation in five years and see a number of things. (1), it’s made no difference whatsoever to the price of houses in New Zealand. (2), there will be unintended investment decisions made by foreign purchasers around forestry in particular, where it will now all of a sudden be very appealing for them to go and buy properties—good farmland in my view—and plant it in pine trees, because that’s the only way they can make a foreign investment in New Zealand without going through the Overseas Investment Office.

I also think something that hasn’t been thought-out is that there is lots of land in New Zealand that’s under 5 hectares that is still incredibly productive. Members opposite might know that the average size of a kiwifruit orchard is about 3.6 hectares—well under. So what we’re saying is “You’re welcome to New Zealand. Buy our kiwifruit orchards. Buy our farmland and put in forestry—no overseas investment approval.”

So what I am really surprised about and what I’m saddened about, as a strong supporter of foreign investment, is that we are saying to the world, “We are closed for business. By the way, we want your money. Please give us your money. We don’t have enough of our own to fund these things. We’ll have your money, but you can’t buy a house here.” I think that is having and will continue to have a chilling effect on the New Zealand economy, and that’s why I think this bill is a travesty for the investment decisions in New Zealand. Thank you very much.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. What a privilege it is to speak on this third and final reading of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. This is the day that this Government fulfils yet another one of its promises, and I have only two things to say. First of all, we welcome all people who live in New Zealand to buy a house here. Any New Zealand resident can buy a house here. No matter where they come from, we welcome them all with open arms.

There’s just one other thing to say: we welcome any overseas investment which benefits New Zealand. Look at the bill—the benefit to New Zealand test is there in black and white. Anyone who comes to New Zealand with their money can buy our land if there’s a benefit to New Zealand. New Zealand is here for New Zealanders. This bill is for New Zealanders—another promise fulfilled by this Government. We’re going to keep doing it. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a third time.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill; the committee stage and third reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2); and the second and third readings of the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill.

The urgency motion covers three bills that have, I understand, support across the House, and that all have reasons to be enacted in the current sitting block that are sufficiently strong to warrant the claim for urgency. The National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill will support the Mycoplasma bovis response and eradication programme by clarifying existing obligations regarding the declaration of animal movements, search and inspection powers, and offence provisions. The discovery of the first case of Mycoplasma bovis in the Tasman District this week has underlined the need for prompt action.

The committee stage of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) will include consideration of an amendment to the Customs and Excise Act 2018 that would correct a drafting error that would’ve resulted in the removal of excise-equivalent duty on imported champagne from 1 October.

Hon Louise Upston: You wouldn’t have minded that!

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The correction—ha, ha!—needs to be in place in advance of that date, although there are probably mixed views about that around the House.

The enactment of the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill before the Pacific Islands Forum summit early next month will support New Zealand’s advocacy and leadership of improved trade in the Pacific. I ask the House to support the motion.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Today, I introduce the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill to the House. This bill is an important step in our effort to improve the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system and support our joint effort with the industry to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis from the country’s cattle herds. As we begin spring calving, it is important that we ensure all the tools we have can properly be used to track, test for, and eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. This bill corrects anomalies in the original NAIT legislation so that we can ensure our eradication efforts have every chance of success. The amendments will improve the investigation and management of non-compliance with the NAIT Act, which will help deliver the higher levels of compliance that are necessary to support the Mycoplasma bovis response.

The amendments align search and inspection powers in the NAIT Act with those that the previous Government passed in the Search and Surveillance Act in 2012. It was always the intention at the time that these two Acts, both passed in 2012, be aligned. The bill will ensure we can track all animal movements by holding to account those people in charge of NAIT animals who move them to locations not registered with NAIT without declaring these movements. The bill is not about increasing powers for officers, but about ensuring that those already available to them can be used properly and that they align with other legislation. This will help our phased eradication efforts.

The bill highlights the coalition Government’s commitment to the strengthening of our biosecurity system. A well-functioning NAIT system is a key part of those efforts. A review released earlier this year highlighted many issues with the NAIT system. The outbreak of M. bovis further highlighted these problems—simply, not enough farmers were recording animal movements. We are changing that, and I think farmers now understand how important NAIT is for our farming systems.

Alongside today’s legislation, we are already implementing nearly two dozen changes that don’t require legislative change, which flow from the well-overdue NAIT review. This legislation shows the coalition Government’s ongoing commitment to eradicating M. bovis from the national herd, alongside our industry partners, to protect our economic base. We’re about action that helps our farming sector, not just ignoring the problems and hoping for the best. We will revisit the NAIT legislation again in coming months after consulting on more changes—in particular, ways to make the system easier to use.

The response to the cattle disease Mycoplasma bovis highlighted problems in the use of NAIT that should have been fixed years ago. This is one branch of our work into making New Zealand’s biosecurity system fit for purpose. Alongside our NAIT work, the Government is committed to an overhaul of the Biosecurity Act to make it fit for purpose. Bit by bit, branch by branch, we are fixing our biosecurity system so that we can protect our vital primary industries, that provide the economy with more than $40 billion in income each year.

I want to thank our coalition partners for their support, not just for today but for the Mycoplasma bovis response. That response, I can report, is progressing well. To date, more than 20 previously infected farms have been repopulated as part of the Mycoplasma response, and another seven are well on the way to returning to farming. We are working closely with farming groups to ensure those farmers caught in the response get the support they need. I want to thank Dairy New Zealand, Beef and Lamb New Zealand, Federated Farmers, the rural support trusts, and Rural Women New Zealand for their help.

To those farmers caught in the response, we know this is hard. Where we make mistakes—and we have made a few—we will improve the systems that we run, and we’re very, very cognisant of the pressure that these farmers are under. We’re investing $30 million over two years in science to develop our understanding of M. bovis and how to better test for the disease. We will start a new round of bulk milk testing—and, indeed, it has begun—over a 12-week period to help our understanding of M. bovis’ spread in the hope that we won’t identify any new sources of infection.

Farmers know that the Government is here to help them in times of biosecurity threats and that we want to improve a system that was left without much change for some time. Wherever I travel in the country, farmers tell me that they want NAIT to be improved. I’m listening to them, and today’s legislation reflects the need for change. Just like we listened to the nurses and we’re listening to the teachers and to the business community, this is a response and a change that farmers want to see.

I would ask that the Opposition, who have worked well on M. bovis with us, can see the wisdom in these changes and support this through the House in a very efficient way. There are, of course, points that we can discuss in this, but I hope that the Opposition can see their way to support this legislation. This is not about increasing, in any unfair way, anyone’s powers, but it is about correcting anomalies in legislation between the NAIT legislation and the Search and Surveillance Act to align those effectively.

There’s no reason to stand in the way or to prolong this legislation, and I hope that, as I say, all parties in this House can come in behind this legislation and pass it for the good of farmers in the country, for the good of the people—all people—who want us to run an efficient animal tracing system, one where those who choose to flout it can be caught, can be penalised, and then can change their ways. So I welcome the introduction of the bill into this House.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Mr Assistant Speaker, thanks for the call. It’s interesting hearing the Minister of Agriculture’s address this afternoon, and I appreciate the sentiments around M. bovis and doing what the Government and industry can to support those farming families through.

This bill goes a lot wider than M. bovis. I’ve spent a lot of time with my colleagues over the last sort of week or so, looking at this bill, and we realise on this side of the House that the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system has been tested as a result of the M. bovis response. I want to thank the Minister from the outset for phoning me and letting me know that this bill was coming. Unfortunately, he couldn’t answer all of the detail, but he did allow us to have two meetings with his officials. We still have some unanswered questions that we want to indeed explore through the select committee process.

We don’t support the House being put into urgency this evening. We feel that this bill—while we could certainly discuss and debate and argue the intent of it—warranted going to a select committee. Indeed, I reached out to the Minister and said, through the Primary Production Committee, we would be prepared to have a truncated select committee process. Indeed, I think in the space over the recess that is coming up in the next fortnight, we could have turned this bill around and back into the House.

The reason that I believe it should have gone to a select committee—and, in essence, we’re cautiously going to support this bill, but we need to have some comfort from the Minister through these stages and from his officials when we get into the committee stage. There are four aspects of it and, in general, you could argue and discuss that on merit, three of the four aspects are important and needed. But we have concerns about one particular aspect. I’ll come on to that in a moment.

The aspect of a search warrant and the particular “form” and then changing the clause to “if any”, under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012—yep, we can discuss and debate that. The one that we have particular concern about is expanding the warrantless inspections of these NAIT officers. It’d be worthwhile for the Minister to explain when he gets into the chair in the committee stage with his officials—he’s mentioned twice in his introductory remarks about not increasing the powers of officers. We, on this side of the House, don’t necessarily agree with that.

Also, this change in this bill will mean that a warrantless inspection can occur. Currently, things like copying documents and taking photos and videos can’t occur. So the proposal in this bill is indeed to go further than that. I was just talking to David Carter earlier on—who has a huge amount of experience in the House and, indeed, was a former Minister of Agriculture. What would scare the heebie-jeebies out of farmers is when the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), or Biosecurity New Zealand—because they’ll probably have a new sticker on a vehicle; it’ll be the same vehicle, but a new sticker—arrive, and it could be several of them, to have a look at animal welfare. In a lot of these cases, these officials are indeed multi-warranted. Questions will start coming from the officials and there will be further answers, and no doubt more questions and discussions.

It’s likely, farmers being the way that they are, that they will say, “Come up to”—it might be that they’ll go to the woolshed, because it’s closer, or the cowshed and have a discussion. But there’s a probability that they may get invited into the house. So we want assurance from the Minister that these warrantless inspection powers that are going to be expanded—will it go as far as the dwelling? We understand how farms work: NAIT records are unlikely to be stored in the computer in the cowshed; they’re more likely to be stored in the house. So what does it mean when a farmer, with their goodwill nature, has invited these NAIT officers into their home? Does it therefore mean that while they’re in the home, they can start asking for these particular documents to copy them? So we want to understand more about that provision in particular, because we have got some grave concerns about that.

It also goes on to clarify that NAIT needs to have registered locations, because there is obviously a gap in the legislation whereby, when a farmer sells to another farmer, they need to ensure that that farm is indeed NAIT-registered. That makes logical sense. The next part of this bill goes on to say that there are offence provisions for failure to declare these animal movements.

What’s also really interesting is that I kicked off the NAIT review in 2016 because I was hearing the concerns from farmers and from NAIT officials, whether it’s loss of eartags, the glitches in the NAIT system, or non-compliance—all of those things. Now, the report has come back. There are 38 recommendations. We heard from the Minister this evening that 15 of those are going to be dealt with by the Government and another 23 by NAIT and Operational Solutions for Primary Industries. When I look through those NAIT recommendations, I can’t see anywhere these search and surveillance powers. I struggle to reconcile, in the information that I’ve been given, how this is a drafting anomaly between the NAIT Act 2012 and the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. I reckon what’s happened—because I’ve heard this quite a bit around New Zealand—is that NAIT officers, MPI officers, have gone in to do a warrantless search and they’ve realised that they can’t go as far as where they want to go.

So this has not come about through the 38 recommendations of the NAIT review. This is late. This has only come to the table late. We need to understand and hear from the Minister—preferably in the second reading, when he next speaks—what are the examples that he can give us, so we can understand why there is suddenly this urgency.

What’s also important to understand is we heard from the Minister just a few moments ago that he’s going to have another bill—hopefully not in urgency, because we wouldn’t appreciate that, but he’s going to do another NAIT law change in this House. So why wouldn’t you do both of those together? Why wouldn’t you send them all to a select committee? Why wouldn’t you allow Federated Farmers, Dairy New Zealand, Beef and Lamb New Zealand, and farmers that may have been on the other end and had some experience of these warrantless inspections. Why wouldn’t you allow them to come and submit?

I’ve been in this House for 13 years, and I’ve heard the Greens talk a huge amount about civil liberties under the Search and Surveillance Act. Surely this warrants going to a select committee, even if it was a truncated period.

So this is not the end of the debate on this bill. What we have just learnt this evening is there will be another bill. There’s going to be another NAIT bill that’s going to change the law. Surely, it would make sense to have both of these come to the House and send them off to a select committee—not debate them in urgency—so that we can get some comfort and support them in their entirety. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions that we need further debate on.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The timing of today’s bill is important, as we are at the end of a long winter and we’re about to head into spring calving. The movement of animals will increase the biosecurity and animal welfare challenges, and that is why my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor has introduced this bill under urgency to this House.

As the Associate Minister of Agriculture responsible for animal welfare, I’m adamant that there is no place for animal cruelty. The suffering caused by the M. bovis outbreak defines animal cruelty, so this Government is committed to strengthening biosecurity by overhauling the Biosecurity Act and making it fit for purpose so that outbreaks like this don’t happen again.

So tonight, on the floor, we are debating this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. The Minister has gone through the parts that it’s amending. It’s attempting to remove the requirements as declared on the search warrants. It talks about aligning the powers under the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act for warrantless inspections, and it also talks about the clarification—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry for interrupting the member, but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Members, the House has resumed. We were debating the first reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. Are you seeking the call?

Hon Amy Adams: Well, I thought Meka had some time left, but I will if she’s not here.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes, she did, but, obviously, she’s not going to seek the call. So I call the Hon Amy Adams.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Madam Assistant Speaker, look, thank you. I did want to come down to the House and take a call on this amendment to the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation. I know speakers who have spoken so far in the debate will have canvassed the National Party position on the bill, but just to be really clear—

Hon Nathan Guy: Cautiously support.

Hon AMY ADAMS: —we want to cautiously support the bill and certainly vote in favour of it.

But the reason I particularly wanted to speak was to outline very clearly and as explicitly as I can the very real concerns that we have, and I want those in Hansard because the reason we have come to the position where we will vote for the bill has not been an easy one and we have relied extensively on representations both from the Minister, to my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy, and from his officials. I certainly thank him for making the officials available to us, but the position that we find ourselves in with the bill coming up at very short notice, being passed at incredibly short notice, and no opportunity for even the most truncated select committee process is deeply concerning to me. Let me just lay that balance out, because it is important.

We’re dealing in New Zealand with an issue of extreme concern to the New Zealand economy but, particularly, the agricultural community and the families who are dealing with the threat or the actual infestation of Mycoplasma bovis on their farms. The devastation, the heartbreak, the anguish that I have seen in farming families in my own electorate, that I know has been mirrored around New Zealand, is incredibly real and very concerning. My colleague the Hon Nathan Guy—very rightly, I think, and with our full support—has said, genuinely, we don’t want this to be a politics issue. We don’t want politics to get in the way of the response, and we have worked—

Hon Nathan Guy: And we want good legislation too.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Yeah. We’ve worked very, very collaboratively with the Government, and the Government has equally, I think, responded in kind to make sure that this doesn’t become about the politics. We really want to stick to that, and there’s no way that we would want to do anything which in any way was seen as impeding the response.

But, and it is a big “but”, what we’re dealing with in this legislation—now, look, some of the provisions are really at the tidy-up phase and we take no issue with the prescribed form required for legislation, the moving between farms and other places. It’s all fine. The issue that’s really concerned us has been the issue of amendments to warrantless search powers. I’ve been in this House for 10 years and I’ve watched the extent of the concern—very genuine concern and appropriate concern—around giving agencies of the State powers of search and seizure of goods. Of course those things have to be handled carefully. We all understand that they’re a necessary part of a framework, but these are the most intrusive powers that Parliament can grant. What we’re talking about in this legislation is giving NAIT officers the right without warrant and without cause—I want to repeat that because it’s really important; without any warrant but also without cause—to go on to any property and seize any goods, any assets, any papers, or anything they like if they think it would be useful. I’m sure members can understand how incredibly intrusive that can be.

In our legislation we have any number of both criminal and security enforcement agencies and regulatory enforcement agencies that are tasked with overseeing their regimes, and a number of them have powers—mostly under warrant; occasionally without warrant—to go into properties, but almost always there is a requirement that there at least has to be reasonable cause to suspect an offence. We normally have some sort of threshold, so if you need to go without warrant you’ve got to have a good reason to have to do so. That is not the case here. This is a warrantless power to go on to any farm without cause, as of right, and seize any goods that they think they would like to take.

Now, of course we all like to have the utmost faith in the professionalism and the pragmatism of NAIT officials. But in this House we are passing law and we have to look at it in terms of what powers they are given, and these are unconstrained, very extensive powers. My very real concern was that we are not taking just a month to go to select committee. I mean the Mycoplasma bovis response—

Hon Nathan Guy: Well, a week. We could do it in a week or two.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, a week, absolutely—just a chance for the very people who’ll be affected to say, “Look, I don’t think you’ve understood this part.” or “This is going to be a real concern because of X or of Y.” I don’t believe the Government has put up any good reason why a week, two weeks, at this stage of what is a response that is already many, many months old and has many, many months to run—

Hon Nathan Guy: 12 months.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Twelve months, my colleague Nathan Guy tells me. I cannot understand for one minute why the Government can’t take a week or so when it is granting the most intrusive powers of the State to an agency of Government. Now this is not a question—

Barbara Kuriger: Mr Patterson might tell us.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I doubt he will, but it will be interesting to see what he says to farmers on the stump. But I can’t understand why, when you are dealing with powers as important as this, you don’t belt and braces it.

I want to put very clearly into the Hansard, first of all, the National Party’s extreme concern at the width of these powers and our extreme frustration, annoyance, and opposition to the fact that it has not gone to a select committee. Now, I understand the Government doesn’t want to take six months and they don’t want to take four months, but we could do this very quickly. I have seen select committees—as other members will have—that are, literally, done in 24 hours. It is just a chance to go out, say to a few of the groups who will be affected “What are we missing?”, and for us to get legal advice even. We’ve had to rely on the legal advice that the officials have given us—and I appreciate it—

Hon Nathan Guy: In haste.

Hon AMY ADAMS: —but in haste, over 20 minutes, where they were late for a meeting themselves. That is not the basis on which we like to support legislation on this side of the House. We like to ensure that we understand the legal ramifications, we understand how it sits in our framework of powers, and we understand how it will affect those that it will apply to. None of those were possible for us because of the haste.

We will support it, on balance, because we certainly don’t want to detract from the spirit of working collaboratively on the M. bovis response, but these powers last beyond M. bovis, and these powers are not limited to biosecurity intrusions. They’re not even limited to NAIT purposes, because the officers that will go in will hold a number of different regulatory hats, and once they’re on the property without cause, without warrant, they can seize anything they like under any of those regulatory hats and that deeply concerns me.

Now, the officials told us that this puts them in no different position—and I want this to be very clearly noted: this will put the NAIT officials with no greater powers than other regulatory officers have. I am not sure that on my quick glance of the legislation I could satisfy myself with that, but I take them at their word because of the urgency and the situation we’re in. But should that prove to be wrong, I want it noted that the National Party support is because of the assurances we received from the Minister that the urgency is unavoidable, that the select committee cannot be accommodated, and that the advice of his officials is that this gives NAIT officers no greater power than any other regulatory body in New Zealand—not a criminal body, not misuse of drugs, not investigating a murder. If either of those things is not correct, then I will have very serious issues to raise with the officials, because we have no option but to take them at their word.

A short select committee process would have allowed for a proper legal analysis. It would have allowed for farmers to talk to us about how this may or may not be an issue. It would have allowed us to explore, for example, whether there was some constrained form of the powers that could have been negotiated as a sensible compromise to meet the urgent issues, then a select committee process to look at a more wholesale approach. There could have been a sunset clause that said, “Let’s put it in place now with a sunset clause, and then take the time to send a bill to select committee for a proper consideration.” These are intrusive search and seizure powers without warrant, and for all the parties that have stood in this House and railed against intrusive powers of the State who are all silent as little lambs right now, I hope that they’re prepared to stand by if this legislation goes further than how it has been represented to us.

I don’t like legislating based on a reliance when officials say, “Trust us, it’s OK.” We’ve been told that there is no option. We are prepared to treat honourable members across the House at their word, but if this power is not properly constrained and if it is not subject to a sunset clause, it should go to a select committee. And even with those amendments it would benefit from going to a select committee. It is a deeply, deeply concerning situation, and it has been the cause of a matter of some debate for us because I will not see farmers—or anyone in New Zealand, frankly—subject to unwarranted, unnecessary, intrusive powers of search and seizure unless there is the most carefully considered, discussed, debated, informed debate on it. None of that is possible. It should have gone to a select committee, but because of the nature of the M. bovis response, we will cautiously support it.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Yes, it is with some, well, not pleasure, really—this is a serious matter. We need to bring this legislation forward under urgency: the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. In response to the previous member, the Hon Amy Adams, who has just resumed her seat, and also other members of the Opposition who have spoken so far on this bill, in questioning the need to go under urgency when you are essentially granting powers to the State, it is an issue that we do take seriously on this side of the House, and we would not go to this process lightly. But I think the issue that’s being lost on the other side of the House is that this actually has gone through a select committee process.

When the original legislation, the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Act 2012, was passed, the National Animal Identification and Tracing provisions were supposed to totally align with the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, so that all went through a very extensive select committee process. So what we’ve found in the heat of the battle, when we have had to go to these provisions, is that they haven’t been fit for purpose. They haven’t actually been effective, because they haven’t aligned with the Search and Surveillance Act, which they were supposed to. So this is not like we’re pulling something out of left field. This is just bringing this Act into line with what it was originally intended to be when it was brought into legislation, I might say, under the previous Government. So maybe you’d have to take a bit of a look at your own processes here. So we are—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

MARK PATTERSON: Sorry?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Do not bring me into the debate.

MARK PATTERSON: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. The Opposition—the former Government—may have to look in the mirror a little bit as to why we’re here debating this very issue.

But let’s step back a bit for a start and just ascertain why we are here and why we are doing this. We have had a major biosecurity outbreak. This is a serious disease for which we have had to bring in a serious response. The taxpayer and the Cabinet, led by our Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, have had to come up with a package of $886 million. That is shared across industry, but the bulk of that is being carried by the taxpayer, so this is not a trivial matter. We do have to respond in kind, and if we need to take some measures to help that response, that’s what we need to do, and we are doing it.

Can I just say I need to go on record as saying to the farmers that are affected that this has been an absolute tragedy for most of them. Through absolutely no fault of their own, they’ve found themselves mixed up in this terrible situation. The response to date has been found somewhat wanting in parts. I think most of us that have been involved in that will know some of the personal stories, and we have had to cobble together a response in part and learn as we go. That is something we’re working through, but it’s something we have to do better. There are still some people falling through the cracks.

So to those farmers who’ve been affected, all our hearts go out to them. This is not a political matter; this is a something where the whole nation is behind them. I’d just particularly like to mention the rural support trusts and the work that they have done. I think that’s been absolutely invaluable. But there are lessons from this that we have had to learn. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated response. If we look at pea weevil, myrtle rust, kauri dieback, velvetleaf, and Bonamia ostreae in the oysters, we have had to deal with a lot of these biosecurity outbreaks, so we really do need to tidy up our act here.

Also, just going back to their decision to eradicate, I note the article in the paper. Ben Walling, I think, is the Southland farmer that had to put down 400 of his calves. He articulated how terrible this disease was, how distressing it was on the animals and on the farmers, and he said that his response was absolutely necessary. We had no option but to go for eradication if this was to get out into the wider community.

So, a well-functioning NAIT system is absolutely pivotal in our response. Of course, we have had the review and the NAIT system has been found wanting. There has been significant non-compliance, and you know this is not all just politicians or the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI), but we farmers have to take our share of responsibility here, too. But we haven’t had the enforcement going behind this legislation to give it the teeth. We’ve been allowed to be too slack around this stuff, and haven’t we paid dearly for that.

I will commend this Minister for his response. Since the report came out in April, he’s certainly stepped up the infringement and the enforcement of infringements. There’s been 39 infringement notices. That’s up from one in the previous five years—one—and I think that particular infringement penalty was $150. So it was totally inadequate enforcement. I would commend the Minister for the way that he has stepped up here and shown some leadership.

I would also note the industry groups that have got in behind this as one. It’s not a cheap exercise, as we’ve established, but the industry organisations have risen to the task. They have sold the necessity of this to their membership, and I think that’s what we needed. We needed to be talking from one voice, and we did, and that includes across the House, actually. We took the politics out of this a little bit and focused on the matter at hand, which was a serious one, and we’re getting on with doing the job as a Parliament, which I think, under the circumstances, is commendable.

Of course, within that $886 million, we’ve got $30 million being committed to science, and, of course, we’ve got the spring milk testing coming up shortly. And isn’t that going to be a pivotal time when we find out, with the stock under pressure, whether this has escaped beyond the known outbreaks to date? So that will be a pretty telling moment.

The response has been hampered by non-compliance. This bill, while technical, is extremely important because it does, as I said earlier, align the NAIT Act with the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which is always as it was intended. To the members opposite that are showing some concern, it did go through a select committee process. It was the intention for this to be consistent with that Search and Surveillance Act, and many of you would have been involved in drafting that.

It amends some anomalies around search warrants and the way MPI and NAIT officials are able to obtain such, but I think the issue that’s been brought up is around the warrantless inspections. Again, to repeat myself, it does align with the Search and Surveillance Act, but what we’ve got now is a situation where the NAIT inspectors are able to access a farm. They’ve got the ability to get on to the farm, but once they’ve got on to the farm they’re unable to actually take the actions that they might need to do, whether that is copy some documents or take some videos. So we’re essentially sending them in there with one hand tied behind their back. They’ve already got the ability to access a property, but they just can’t effect their duties while they’re there. The checks and surveillances that are in the Search and Surveillance Act are still available within this NAIT Act as well. Of course all the movements are to be recorded between farms. That’s just an eminently sensible move. Just because a farm is not necessarily registered does not mean that those cattle should not be recorded as a movement. We absolutely need to know that detail.

So this is part of a suite of packages, as the Minister alerted us to before. He has signalled that the NAIT Act will be reviewed in full. There is, for example, new technology now available to us that we must be looking at. Also, the Biosecurity Act is up for review as well, and for some amendments. So, within that suite of packages in this response, this Government is taking this issue extremely seriously. We’re putting the measures in place that we need to do—we absolutely need to do. There is no alternative but to get this right. So, with this, New Zealand First supports this bill to the House. Thank you.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Assistant Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart that I will vote for this legislation. National has spent a long time discussing it. We are bereft of information, but, after a difficult discussion, National has agreed to vote for this legislation and support it. Being a loyal member of the National caucus, I have no intention of crossing the floor over this issue, but I am close.

Let me take you through the reasons why I am so concerned. First of all, why the urgency? Why the urgency? Mycoplasma bovis came into this country in July last year, we had a general election in September, and a Government formed in October. This issue has been on the Minister Damien O’Connor’s plate since he became Minister, and he’s had every opportunity to present this bill to the House. We spent the first almost six months of this Government passing National legislation. There’s nothing complex in this bill around the amendments to the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation apart from the search powers.

This could’ve been in the House a lot earlier, and it could’ve gone to a select committee. It could still go to a select committee, and yet we had an urgency motion earlier today, voted on by Labour, by New Zealand First, and by the Green Party. I’ve been in this House long enough to recall those speeches of the late Rod Donald when he railed against the use of urgency when it wasn’t necessary, and he did it with passion. He was principled about the use of urgency, and here we are rushing this legislation through when it doesn’t need to be rushed. It could even go to a select committee for a week and we’d have a chance to look at these issues that concern me and concern fellow National members.

I want to pick up on some of the points made by the previous speaker, the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson. The first point I want to make is he’s right: there should be no politics around Mycoplasma bovis. There was initially, as the debate was in this House, and I didn’t think that was appropriate. This is an issue on which we should all be there to support the New Zealand primary sector. It’s not about politics around M. bovis, but that doesn’t stop me criticising the Government for not getting this legislation to the House earlier.

The second point that really worries me is the search and surveillance powers of NAIT officers. We’ve been asking of the officials—we’ve had two meetings with the officials, courtesy of the Minister. One lasted 25 minutes and the other lasted 35 minutes. That’s the extent of briefings, and in the first meeting we had, which lasted 35 minutes, most of the questions we asked weren’t answered because the officials that presented to us couldn’t answer the questions, yet we hear in the contribution from Mark Patterson that it’s been through a select committee.

It’s been through a select committee as the search and surveillance legislation. That did go to a select committee in 2012—2012—when that member Mark Patterson was the branch chair of the National Party for the Lawrence branch. That’s where he was then. So maybe he can take another call and tell me why New Zealand First voted against the search and surveillance legislation when it went through the House in 2012. If it’s so good, now, to slap it into the NAIT legislation without giving it the courtesy of a select committee examination, why, then, did the Rt Hon Winston Peters vote against it? Silence—silence from Mark Patterson.

I have another question, and this time for the Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, who said in his speech just before the dinner break—and I quote him—“This is not about increasing … powers, [for NAIT officers]”. That’s what he said. Go and check his Hansard—“This is not about increasing … powers, [for NAIT officers]”. Well, I refer the Minister to the explanatory note. It is about aligning the powers of the NAIT Act for warrantless inspections and searches with those in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Minister, it is about giving additional powers.

Hon Damien O’Connor: It’s equivalence.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: It is about giving additional powers. He says it’s equivalent powers to the search and surveillance legislation of 2012. Is that what the Minister is saying—it’s equivalent powers? Well then, why did the Hon Damien O’Connor vote against the search and surveillance legislation in 2012?

Every Labour member in this House in 2012 voted against the search and surveillance legislation, and now they rush it, in urgency, into the NAIT legislation on the pretence that it’s necessary for Mycoplasma bovis control—and the Minister laughs. But the Greens—they hang their heads in shame, because they are supporting this legislation and they are supporting urgency, and they voted against the search and surveillance legislation in 2012. How the wheel turns so suddenly. I remember the Hon Steve Maharey, when I was on this side of the House and he was on that side of the House and we were quizzing him on a similar issue. He said, “Oh, they’re the sorts of things you say when you’re in Opposition.” That’s the famous quote from the Hon Steve Maharey.

This legislation could still go to a select committee. I want to know about these increased powers of search and surveillance, because it’s been explained to me by the officials that it now means a NAIT officer—who may be well trained and who may be well-educated, who may not be well trained and may not be well-educated, or may be a retired or broken-down farmer—can come on to my farm and, with the powers in this legislation, can grab all my financial records, can take any records that they want, and I can do nothing about it. That’s what it seems to me, and the officials were unable to deny it.

They did make the excuse: “Oh, the officer can’t go into my house, my dwelling.” Well, Damien O’Connor knows how the farming industry works. When you get a visitor, the first thing you do is say, “Come in. We’ll sit around the kitchen table in my house.” In other words, inadvertently, the farmer has invited the officer into the house, and that gives that officer the chance to seize any information he or she wants. Is that right, Mr O’Connor? Silence.

I’m not even sure that the Hon Damien O’Connor understands what he’s doing with this legislation. It is very Draconian. In fact, as one of my colleagues who was very involved in the search and surveillance legislation of 2012 said, this actually gives more power to a NAIT officer than it does to the New Zealand Police force.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Cool.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, Damien O’Connor scoffs and says that’s not right. If it went to a select committee, Mr O’Connor, I could’ve sorted that out. I could’ve had that question asked.

There is no need for urgency. I accept we need amendments to NAIT legislation—I was the Minister that brought it in. I accept the point that Mark Patterson made, that we haven’t seen good compliance and we need to tidy that up, but the Minister’s had 10 months to think about that, and what he does now is he introduces it in the dead of night, under urgency, and doesn’t give the Opposition the chance to ask the questions that we should be asking.

I say to the rural community: beware. There might be good intention around this legislation. There is a challenge to control Mycoplasma bovis in this country. There is a challenge to be the first country in the world that eradicates Mycoplasma bovis, but with this legislation, we are giving such extraordinary powers to unnamed officials that I think when farmers learn the extent of those powers, they will be worried. Many of them will be petrified, and it could have been sorted out. All we had to do was to send it to a select committee, and when we said that to the Hon Damien O’Connor, he refused. He said it’s going to be passed in the dead of night tonight. I think that’s wrong.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you. Speaking on behalf of the Green Party on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill, I think the comment of the previous speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter, that the Minister should have fixed this up ages ago is very unfair, because of the huge effort that Minister Damien O’Connor and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and Biosecurity New Zealand have been putting into dealing with the outbreak. The number of public meetings that have been held around the country and the amount of activity on-farm to actually try and eradicate this disease has been significant. So the focus has been on that activity rather than on doing the changes here. That said, however, there is a huge amount of effort going into implementing the recommendations of the review, and nearly 30 of those have already been implemented. There is the commitment to bring further legislative changes back to the House.

The Green Party is supporting this bill on the understanding that it was a drafting anomaly in the original Act in 2012 and that this bill is simply correcting that anomaly. My understanding is that a search warrant under the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Act must be in a particular form and that, at the moment, regulations need to be passed to enable that to happen. The bill is removing that requirement, so, again, that is a process issue.

The fact that this bill is making the NAIT legislation consistent with the Search and Surveillance Act is providing the powers to officers that are consistent with those that other agencies have. So at the moment, under the NAIT Act, you can already have warrantless inspections and searches. A NAIT officer can already enter and inspect a place without a warrant to determine whether that person’s complying with the Act, so it’s the anomaly in the drafting that they can’t undertake their usual activities like taking photographs, like requesting a person to assist with entry and search, and like copying documents which means that that’s the reason for this bill to align it with the search and surveillance provisions. So this power is already there; it’s just the drafting anomalies. I have listened carefully to the Hon Amy Adams and her speech, but the assurances that the Green Party has been given through the Minister are that this is simply correcting a drafting anomaly.

I think what we have seen with MPI’s work on M. bovis is that there are some major compliance challenges—that animals are being moved from one location to another without the proper identification—and that that increases the risk of spread of the disease. So those compliance issues should have been dealt with by the previous Government. What we’ve seen under this Government is a significant increase in infringement notices. Some 39 have been issued in recent months, compared to one notice in the entire five years before that.

Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand, which is the organisation charged with implementing NAIT, has done a really good job on TB and on getting TB infection rates down. Movement control is a critical part of doing that, but the whole NAIT system has been very poorly implemented.

If New Zealand is going to get on top of this disease and if we’re not going to face the billion-dollar cost which its spreading would entail to our primary sector, we need stronger compliance and enforcement provisions. That is what this bill does, so the Green Party is supporting it. No, it’s not going to a select committee, but our understanding is that this is correcting drafting anomalies. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’d like to start by just addressing Eugenie Sage, the Green member who’s just sat down. As the Rt Hon David Carter pointed out, both the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party voted against the search and surveillance powers in the previous iteration of this legislation. But I’d like to address the principles, which were raised by the Rt Hon David Carter, around the Greens opposing urgency quite vigorously when it wasn’t needed, right back in Rod Donald’s time—

Rt Hon David Carter: We heard it many times.

STUART SMITH: —I believe you talked about. But in the last term, we heard this time and time again—the principles of it—and I’d like to share a quote which I think is quite appropriate: “Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; … If at my … convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?” We are in that moment. What about your principles now?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

STUART SMITH: Yes, we have a very serious situation. Yes, we need to make some changes, but going into urgency to fix problems, an anomaly—well, it’s not a drafting anomaly, actually. It’s actually extending search and surveillance powers, which the other side of the House oppose—including your leader, Mr Patterson. So, you know, these people should do some research and don’t just rely on your comms unit’s—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

STUART SMITH: —notes. Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

STUART SMITH: Don’t rely on the comms unit’s notes that might come out on this particular legislation, but do a bit of research yourself. I have seen the Hansard from that debate and, as has been pointed out, not many of those people are left in this Parliament—certainly, not here tonight—that spoke in that debate. But the Rt Hon David Carter remembers it well, and it’s quite interesting that we end up in this position now.

Yes, we need to take action—there’s no doubt about that. We are going to vote for this, but the select committee process is there for a very, very good reason, because we could end up with unintended consequences out of this. It’s not that urgent that we couldn’t go through a truncated select committee process, which we offered to support. We offered to support that. We’re very happy to do that. Let’s get this legislation right. Don’t fix one issue—which we might not agree fully with—but then create another, and I think that’s where we’re headed with this.

Let’s not forget M. bovis—yes, it came in in July of last year. It’s been a serious issue, and our sympathies go out to those people who are dealing with it. It’s a very difficult situation for many of those that are involved with that, but let’s not make it worse.

In some of the provisions of this system, the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system, like, for example, making it clear that when animals are shifted from a NAIT property, they still have to record it whether it’s going to another NAIT property or not—and I think that’s great. That’s fantastic—96 percent of those animal movements that go to slaughter at the freezing works are recorded under NAIT and 94 percent of those movements that go to saleyards are actually recorded under NAIT, and that’s, I believe, up to 1,000 to 2,000 transactions per day. So it’s a significant number of transactions.

However, we do have to acknowledge that some in the farming sector have not been playing their part. It is difficult, and it will always be impossible, I think, to have 100 percent compliance because tags come and go. I know from experience, in one of my former lives, certainly, on a stud farm and trying to match up animal tag numbers, that the tags come out. They fall out and you can’t exactly find out where they are. It’s impossible to have 100 percent compliance with that, and NAIT will be the same—there’s no doubt about that. Getting it to something over 95 percent is, I think, easily achievable, but everybody has to play their part, and we do need the regulatory framework for that to work.

I think the Primary Production Committee—most of us who will be speaking on this bill have been a part of the Primary Production Committee at some time or other—is a very collegial select committee. It’s probably the best select committee that I’ve sat on for that collegial nature, although I have to acknowledge Tutehounuku Korako sitting over there. Yes, the Māori Affairs Committee is also quite collegial, and I do enjoy that as well, when I’ve had the pleasure to sit on it. But, as I’m sure the members opposite will agree, that select committee is very collegial. It would have worked through this process very quickly and efficiently, and we would have ended up with a far better situation, or at least—even if it didn’t change, even if it remained the same—we’d be much more comfortable in the knowledge that we’d explored all the opportunities and all the permutations of this particular search and surveillance.

Kieran McAnulty: Oh, but don’t play politics—we mustn’t play politics.

STUART SMITH: We are extending powers. They’re quite significant. It might be very easy for Mr McAnulty to play light with this, but, actually, we’re talking about people’s homes here. We’re in homes. We’re not talking about going just to a business, as would be the case with many other urban businesses where it’s a building that’s quite separated. This is a home that people are going into, quite often.

Hon Stuart Nash: There’s $800 million of taxpayers’ money to get this sorted.

STUART SMITH: It is $800 million. It’s a serious issue. No one’s saying that it isn’t a serious issue. What we’re saying is that you don’t cause other problems just in order to solve another one.

We hear today that there’s another bill coming. There is another NAIT bill coming. Why couldn’t we put them together? And when urgency finishes tomorrow, we have another bill coming up before the House—the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill—that’s exactly the same as this: rushed, not consulted, haven’t gone out and found out all the issues that might surround the bill. Why haven’t you done that? Why hasn’t the Government done that?

I am very concerned about this Government. There are so many of these examples. We’ve got the same sort of thing with the Overseas Investment Act, the same thing with the waka-jumping bill. It is a very bad trend that’s coming through with this Government, and the principled support—or lack of—with the Greens supporting this type of legislation and legislative process is very disappointing. As they go into their conference this weekend, I wonder if their members will reflect on that and perhaps send a message to the caucus that they are not living up to the legacy of the likes of Rod Donald—a very proud legacy, and someone who had principles that were worth something. Mind you, he didn’t have to have that tested in Government, I suppose. But when they are in Government now, we see that those principles have a very low price after all.

Actually, the NAIT system offers us a real opportunity to have traceability in our system. So it’s far wider than biosecurity, although this is why we’re debating this so quickly and in a much shorter process under urgency, but traceability is absolutely the way forward for our industries to get a higher price in the market. We produce enough food for about 40 million people, and when you take out the 5 million who live in New Zealand, that’s 35 million people that we can sell our food to, and those people want to achieve a higher price. Why would they pay for that? It’s because they want to know the provenance of their food, and they want to know that that food has been produced in a certain manner.

Wander into Tesco’s in London, or anywhere else in the UK, and what will be found there on the more expensive cuts of meat is a photograph of the farmer who produced that meat. Why do they do that? They don’t do that just to fill the shelf up; they do that because the consumer is prepared to pay more when they can identify that cut of meat and the provenance of that product. They can also have confidence in the system and the traceability of the production right through the value chain. Blockchain is coming, so this sort of legislation under the NAIT will be very important to fit within that blockchain, which will dominate our production and value chains very quickly in the near future.

So, in summary, I support, as we do, the legislation but with very serious misgivings—certainly serious misgivings about the process and serious misgivings about the offer that we gave for a much truncated select committee process so that we could ensure that we’re not making another mistake. That it has not been taken up by the Government is something I think they should reflect on. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call.

Rino Tirikatene: It is indeed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Tēnā koe, Rino Tirikatene.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I don’t intend to speak long on this bill. I’d like to commend Minister O’Connor for his swift action in bringing this bill to the House and also to congratulate the Government for the work that it’s doing in the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis.

I just want to say that I’m pleased that the Opposition will be supporting this bill. I know they’re going through a set play, set piece of, you know, moan and groan about urgency, and we’ll hear more of it as the contributions go along. But they are supporting this bill because they know that it’s needed—it’s needed. We’ve learnt from these terrible incursions, these outbreaks that happen across the primary sector, the damage that it can cause. All we are doing is strengthening the National Animal Identification and Tracing provisions to ensure that the system works properly. It’s all about just tracking the traceability of stock. It’s had a long history, the system. Unfortunately, the uptake hasn’t been as good as it should be, nor has the enforcement, but we’re fixing it, and we’re taking swift action to do that.

Everyone knows that this system is important, and I would just like to congratulate those farmers who have been playing by the rules and putting on those tags and entering the data. This is a wake-up call, I guess, to all those that haven’t, because the price that we have to pay is too great. We’ve learnt from the whey protein contamination incident—those sorts of events—and likewise with the outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis, that these organisms can cause huge destruction across our primary sector, our exports, our brand, our reputation, and our wealth as a country. So we need to take these systems seriously. This isn’t representing new policy. All we’re doing is making sure that the legislation reflects the legislative intent that’s always been there, and so I support this legislation.

I acknowledge the Opposition. Yes, they may have concerns, and I guess, if they want, they’ve got 20-plus hours of debate in this House and questions that they can ask to tease out any issues or concerns that they may have. But, ultimately, we need this legislation. It’s good for our primary sector and it’s going to be good for our country, and I support it at its first reading. Kia ora tātou.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Madam Assistant Speaker, I’m very happy to be standing up and taking this call, as this has affected my electorate, Clutha-Southland, greatly. The reason why the National Party wants this bill to go to select committee is pretty straightforward. It’s too important, not only to the agriculture sector but to our country. Farmers have sent tens of thousands of their fit and healthy stock to slaughter. How do you explain that to your kids? “Mum and Dad, why are our perfectly, often individually named, stock going to slaughter?” Decades of genetics lost—years and years—a lot of money spent building up the genetics, sent on the truck down to the works. Livelihoods lost, cash-flow problems that result from slow compensation payments, and sleepless nights.

This is too important to rush through this House and then not take it to the select committee, and just talking—I mean, in my experience on the Primary Production Committee, we actually get on. The reason why we get on is we want to make the primary agriculture sector as best as possible for our country. I had one farmer contact me yesterday just outside of Gore, in West Otago. He said, “Hamish, I saw you at some of the public meetings. The reason why I’m getting in touch is that I’ve had 17 different personnel from the Ministry for Primary Industries, the different organisations, on to my farm, and nearly all of them have told me something different.” This guy just wants to get on with his life.

I’ve got another farmer. He spent the last 10 years battling away, paying off interest only. He’s finally at a stage now where he can start paying off principal, and this has put him back. He’ll be paying interest for the next five or 10 years. This farmer was actually mentioned earlier by a previous speaker, I sat down with him and with his wife, and he said that this has driven him to depression. The wife can’t sleep. He said, “We had to explain to our children why we are sending our fit and healthy stock to slaughter.” This is a big deal.

I just want to recall Steffan Browning’s speech, from the Green Party, back in 2012, on the Search and Surveillance Bill. This is when the Green Party actually stuck to their values. His speech—would you like to hear it?

Rt Hon David Carter: Yes.

Dan Bidois: We’d love to.

HAMISH WALKER: This bill is an “invasion of human rights … Human rights and civil liberties are out of the window. This is a police State type of bill. This is a Big Brother bill. I am looking forward to a day when it can be repealed and we can have more sense made out of it. The Greens will continue to oppose this bill.” This brings back memories: the waka-jumping bill, the “Minister of Water Bottling”, and the “Ministry of Mining on Conservation Land”. I encourage all the Green Party members this weekend, at their annual conference, to get out there and let them know what they think.

I just want to acknowledge all the farmers and communities affected out there, especially in Clutha-Southland. The financial toll, the emotional toll, the uncertainty, and the gossip that this has caused—I’ve had some farmers into my office, and they’re telling me they’re treated like lepers. So this is a big deal. I also want to pay a special tribute to the organisations like the Southland Rural Support Trust, Dairy New Zealand, Federated Farmers, and the banks in Southland, who are standing by our farmers in Southland. I don’t know if that’s the case in other areas of the country, but in Southland they certainly are.

I’ve attended many meetings across Otago and Southland, and the most common feedback I get is that the response so far has been a complete mess. Why, Minister, are we rushing this through the House when we can put it through the select committee? It would take only a week. We can hammer it out, and we can all have our diversity of thought to get the best outcome for farmers. This is an important issue for New Zealand—not only the farming community but New Zealand. It’s costing nearly a billion dollars. We’ve got Government Ministers talking down the industry. How are we supposed to attract workers to the industry when you’re talking down the industry?

This actually goes to international markets. We’ve got people overseas questioning what’s happening when you’ve got Government Ministers talking down the industry. Minister, it’s not too late to take it to select committee, and I urge you to listen so you can get cross-party support on this.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I would like to answer a question that that last member, Hamish Walker, asked. He said, “How can you explain the slaughter of fit, healthy stock to your kids? How can you do this to your kids? Some of this stock is individually named.” Well, I will provide an answer to that member. How you do this is you stand up and you take responsibility and say that the last Government got this wrong. The last Government did not put the processes and the procedures in place that would mitigate the risk of this happening. The National Animal Identification and Tracing system, if it had been up and running and working well, would have mitigated this. It would have allowed the Ministry for Primary Industries to follow this through and ensure that it didn’t happen. But do you know what? Because that Government did not want to offend its farmer mates, it did not enforce the one system that would have mitigated the risk around this.

The interesting thing about this is that I have watched this debate, and I have seen Nathan Guy sit there smiling and laughing and joking. He should be out there in his office or talking to farmers, doing a mea culpa, saying, “If we had got it right”—if that Minister had taken responsibility—“then we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in at the moment.” The member asked, “Why are we doing it under urgency?” Because it needs to be done urgently—it needs to be done urgently—and that’s a consequence of that last Government taking its eye off the ball completely. It’s going to cost the taxpayer $800 million. I think the Hon Damien O’Connor has done an absolutely brilliant job of salvaging this. I will acknowledge that the rural support trusts, Federated Farmers, and all the support agencies have got behind the farmers and they’ve said, “We recognise that in your time of distress we are here to help.”

But the other group that says “We are here to help.” is this Government—is this Government. That is why Minister Damien O’Connor has been travelling up and down this country and being really honest and having very honest conversations with the men and women who farm our land—very honest conversations. He’s put action in place—“This is how we’re going to do it.”, and he’s done it. And he’s done it. If the Minister that he succeeded, the Hon Nathan Guy, had shown the same level of leadership that this Minister has, instead of burying his head in the sand, not wanting to offend his farmer mates, not ensuring this was implemented, we wouldn’t be in this situation. And what’s happened? Eight hundred million dollars—$800 million—that’s the cost. That’s the cost. I’m pleased, the farmers in New Zealand are pleased, and, I suspect, the taxpayers of New Zealand are pleased that we have got a Minister who is a Minister of action, who’s got a strategy to sort this out—who’s got a strategy to sort this out—and I thank the Hon Damien O’Connor.

We’re going to support this bill 100 percent. I know that that side is going to support it. Mr Carter said we shouldn’t play politics. Well, don’t. Do the right thing. Do the right thing and see this through, because it’s coming, and you’ll find that that member, what’s his name—Hamish?

Kieran McAnulty: Hamish van de Molen, or something.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Use the member’s correct name.

Hon STUART NASH: Sorry, the member for Clutha-Southland. Well, what I can tell that member is, finally, he will be able to go out to his farmer constituents, who he says he visits a lot—I doubt that—and actually say, “Well, we’re taking action on this. This is too important.”, and it is. So, well done, Minister O’Connor. Let’s get this through, and let’s get the sector sorted, finally. Thank you very much.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to speak after the MP for Napier and highlight to him why being a rural MP is very different from being an urban MP, and to dispel some of the myths he’s just given. It was a very impassioned speech—the most impassioned I’ve heard him for the last two weeks, with some of the other controversies that are going on in the House, but anyway.

I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak on this, but I am highly critical of the process, because I believe that what the Hon Nathan Guy offered was a very sensible, short-term, truncated solution to get to the bottom of some of the concerns that this side of the House have. I’m surprised that the Minister hasn’t taken it up. He would have done the thing and said, “I’ve got the numbers; it doesn’t matter.” But, the Hon Damien O’Connor, remember what we did on the Christ Church Cathedral bill? About one week before Christmas, we said, “Let’s have a truncated select committee.” Dr Duncan Webb would remember this. “Let’s have a truncated select committee, get it through, and get it sorted.” We agreed to that. The Hon Nathan Guy suggested a very similar approach in this case, which has just been roundly rejected.

After hearing all the speeches from the other side of the House so far, including that from the Minister, I’m left wondering what the rush is. What would it take? Another two weeks? Another week? Would it really matter? I’ve heard everybody saying—including the last speaker, the Hon Stuart Nash—that we need to get on and do this. This side of the House is not disagreeing with that. It agrees that this legislation needs to be amended and changed, but it has some real concerns. The Hon Meka Whaitiri spoke about spring coming, as if somehow that was a big thing that was going to happen on the calendar. Well, spring is coming, but some of the provisions in this are actually not related to spring. There might be some calf movements; I accept that. But, actually, the search and surveillance and some of the more worrying things—it doesn’t matter when they’re brought in.

I want to go back to a meeting that was held in Hastings, because a number of my colleagues and the Minister have said—and the Minister may not be aware that his own officials are telling people this—that Mycoplasma bovis started in New Zealand in about June or July of last year. But they now know from DNA evidence that Mycoplasma bovis was likely to have been in New Zealand—and the Minister might like to listen to this—in December of 2015, based on the gene technology. They managed to track it back by DNA.

Barbara Kuriger: When was that?

LAWRENCE YULE: In December 2015. My point in saying that, Madam Assistant Speaker, or Madam Chair, is that it has been in New Zealand a long time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You were right the first time.

LAWRENCE YULE: It has been in New Zealand a long time. As part of that, it hadn’t actually been picked up until about July of last year. My point in saying that is it wouldn’t matter what National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) had done. I suspect this particular type of disease would have been very hard to track even if we’d had 100 percent compliance with NAIT.

I think what we’re trying to do here is rush something through when, actually, the lead-in times are about three years, not a year, and it’s not going to make very much difference to anything in the next two weeks. So I’m amazed actually, now I hear the facts from my learned colleague the Rt Hon David Carter—the honourable or right honourable—

Hon Members: Right honourable.

LAWRENCE YULE: —right honourable; my apologies, sir—when he referred to the Hon Damien O’Connor speaking against the Search and Surveillance Bill and Mark Patterson’s party voting en bloc against it in 2012. Today, it’s the best thing since sliced bread—no worries; don’t worry about it. Well, I’m saying: where are your principles? We have every right on this side of the House—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

LAWRENCE YULE: Where are the Opposition’s principles? We have every right on this side of the House to actually—

Hon Member: That is a very good question. Where are the Opposition’s principles?

LAWRENCE YULE: We have lots of principles, and one of them is making sure, when we have concerns, that they can go through the proper select committee process.

I want to relate a little bit of my own farming experience in this, because before I entered politics, I was an active farmer. When I started farming, how we managed animal identification and how we used animal health remedies—what paperwork we filled out was minimal. I remember when TB forms first came in and you had to record your TB accreditation. There was a big change in things. You had to fill out your status, and you had to account for it all—sorry, individual farmers had to account for it all. Eventually, over time, people got used to that system. Then, meat companies, including for traceability and value reasons, actually got a much tighter control over animal health products.

Over time, the farming industry became more and more aware and more used to that type of regime. So it has been on a journey, and I actually think to have 96 percent compliance with NAIT at the works and 94 percent at the sale yard—the figures I’ve been given, honourable Minister; if I got that wrong, I’m happy to hear it—actually are not a bad result. But I am also saying that we need to do better.

This side of the House is saying that we need to do better, but there are some provisions in this legislation that cause me and my party grave concern. In the Napier electorate, actually—in an area that I’ve had some involvement with—Jeremy and Sharon White have a bull beef farm at Pātoka, and they have Mycoplasma bovis. They have slaughtered their entire herd, basically, and been in a whole process of compensation with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Government, including letters and correspondence between myself and the Hon Stuart Nash and the Minister. They have no animals left and are restocking their farm, and I agreed with that approach.

What I do know is that out of that whole process they have lost most, if not all, of their confidence and respect and understanding for MPI. They have been told many times different stories about what is going to happen when and by whom. They had that much conflicting advice that they didn’t know where to turn. In fact, one day I spent an afternoon with them and we, with some other people who are used to the farming industry, made a decision that they should kill the whole lot—all the animals—and that’s what they did. I’m really worried that in an environment of limited trust—that’s what I would call it, limited trust, and I’m being generous in this case—we are now going to give NAIT officers an ability to enter a property for a search and surveillance and seizure when, actually, the level of trust and the level of integrity is questioned by the very farmers that I represent in my electorate.

You see, we do not let the Inland Revenue Department walk into your property or into your house and take your records or your books. We do not let the New Zealand Police force just wonder into your house or property without certain provisions that have been made, including a warrant. What we’re doing here is allowing an unnamed, probably trained—hopefully—person from MPI to access a property. I agree with all my colleagues: farming people are generous, warm people. They will usually invite somebody into their home. Once they’re in the home, they will have complete access to the records and ability to take videos and photos, and I don’t think that’s right. For the people I represent in my electorate and the farming community of New Zealand, if they knew this was what was on the agenda, they would be horrified.

I think the farming community in New Zealand absolutely understands that there actually needs to be a much higher level of NAIT compliance. I think the farming community in New Zealand has taken this as a terrible, terrible learning curve towards what might happen with foot-and-mouth.

Dr Duncan Webb: It shouldn’t have had to. It should have been in place.

LAWRENCE YULE: OK. Duncan Webb, what I said earlier was I don’t think NAIT would make any difference to where this happened, because Mycoplasma bovis came in in 2015 and wasn’t detected until 2017.

My point is this: if we go down this path and we do search and surveillance, the relationship between MPI and the farmers and the lack of trust will only get worse. I remember when IRD had a lack of trust. I don’t think it does any more, but I think MPI has a real issue with trust in the farming community, and I think we need to be really, really careful how we put this legislation through. We could have dealt with that in a rational and sensible way through a truncated select committee process over the recess—perfectly possible to be done. Yet the Minister sits over there and hasn’t responded to that request so far, and we are going to pass something that I think will be really compromising to the relationship between New Zealand farmers and MPI.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It’s marvellous to be following what is somewhat of an East Coast line-up of speakers, following the MP for Napier, the Hon Stuart Nash, and one of his constituents, Lawrence Yule. Two Napier-based MPs and here we have the real voice for Wairarapa standing up to put my support for this, and it is marvellous to have the opportunity to do so.

What a marvellous opportunity to be able to stand up and lend my voice of support to yet another example of this House coming together for the sake of the rural and regional sector of this country. But is it actually coming together? That’s the question. Is the House actually coming together on this very important issue—of course, the amendment to the National Animal Identification and Tracing, something that is crucial to the rural and regional sector? No—no, it’s not. It might show it when it comes time to voting, but, actually, what we’ve heard tonight are these thinly veiled pleas to keep politics out of it.

What we’ve seen from the National Party is that they stand up and they say “Look, I’m not going to bring politics into this.”, and then spend nine minutes talking about politics, claiming that they have always been neutral throughout the Mycoplasma bovis response. What a load of rubbish—what a load of rubbish.

The previous speaker, Lawrence Yule, wondered why the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has an issue with trust. Perhaps, if the National Party didn’t take every opportunity they could to put the boot into MPI, we might actually be able to have a sector that backs the department. Perhaps, when the issue that caused rise to this bill, Mycoplasma bovis, arose, if that side of the House didn’t stop playing politics and trying to put the boot into the Minister, we could have actually had a universal approach to this. It wasn’t until after a couple of weeks that the National Party actually got the message from the farming sector and industry reps that they didn’t appreciate having their party putting the boot into them that those members got the message.

You’ve got representatives like Alastair Scott in Wairarapa, who was standing there at every opportunity putting the boot into MPI. But after two to three weeks, when the Minister actually started to put forward proposals and actually demonstrate that he was bringing industry along with him, members just like Alastair Scott got the message and they shut up, and I will find that tonight will be exactly the same thing.

Actually, it doesn’t matter, because at the end of the night, the National Party, when they’ve stopped playing games, will vote for this bill because they know it’s important, they know that the sector wants it, and they know that the regional and rural areas that they are supposed to represent want it. It is this Government that’s bringing it to the country and fixing a problem that they created.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I move, that the piece of legislation—the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill—we’re dealing with—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Would the member like the motion that the member needs to put? Just a moment.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you—I apologise to the members. I move, That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to take the call on the second reading. I was hoping that the Minister of Agriculture and Minister for Biosecurity—would have responded to some of the questions and comments from this side of the House. It’s obvious and very clear to us that we’re going to have to wait until he’s in the chair at the committee of the whole House stage to answer a lot of these questions.

Let’s just recap on some of those questions. One is that we haven’t had a sense from any of the contributions from the Government benches this afternoon, and into the evening now, as to why urgency needs to be taken on this bill, 10 months on since the Government has been formed. What was also glaring was when the Minister spoke a few hours ago, he indicated to the House that indeed there is another National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) bill being cooked up. So we have got a NAIT bill in urgency this evening—it’s a bit like the Ginsu knives, isn’t it—but wait, there’s more. There’s more coming down the pipeline, so why would the Minister come into the House in urgency when we have another bill that’s being cooked up by his officials?

Surely it would make logical sense to combine those two bills and send them off to a select committee so that everyone can have their say. When I talk about “everyone”, I mean Federated Farmers, Dairy New Zealand, possibly Beef and Lamb New Zealand, Fonterra, and farmers that have been on the end of this response and indeed may have had first-hand experience of these NAIT officers coming on to their property and using their warrantless powers. So we haven’t got a sense from the Government benches this evening as to why urgency is needed. We can’t fathom—not even from Mark Patterson—why this couldn’t go to a select committee.

Mark Patterson: I told you—listen.

Hon NATHAN GUY: You would have thought—beg your pardon?

Mark Patterson: You could’ve listened.

Hon NATHAN GUY: I did listen. I think you got confused. You were talking about a select committee for the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, that New Zealand First, the Greens, and Labour all voted against. Now, they want to, effectively, get these two Acts to align, and Mr Patterson can’t give us a clear reason why it couldn’t go to a select committee.

What we also haven’t heard from the Minister, or anyone from the Government benches, is why this is not a recommendation of the NAIT review. There were 38 recommendations. We’ve heard from the Minister this evening that 15 of those are going to be dealt with by Government—that’s, obviously, on the second NAIT bill—and 23 of them are going to be dealt with by NAIT and Operational Solutions for Primary Industries, but when you look through the whole 38 recommendations, two of these particular aspects of this NAIT bill that we are debating in urgency this evening aren’t there. We haven’t had any examples from the Minister as to why suddenly this has become an urgent issue, when he’s been in the chair for 10 months. These are the unanswered questions.

He also stood up in the House and said that these provisions that he wants to insert into the warrantless powers go no further. Well, that is completely wrong. It was interesting to hear from Eugenie Sage, because the Greens were really opposed to the Search and Surveillance Bill when it went through the Parliament and became an Act in 2012 because of civil liberties and being seen to encroach on people’s personal lives and personal property. I listened intently to Eugenie Sage this evening, and the critical point in her contribution was “We are led to believe that this is a drafting error and it is a technical inconsequential tidy up that should have been done a long time ago.” But the reality is that when we look at this bill and when we sit down with the Minister’s officials this week, we realise that it’s more than just a technical bill, and, indeed, it is consequential.

So we have some concerns on this side of the House, and we would really have liked to have ironed these out in the select committee process. It’s not too late, is it, for the Minister to stand up and say, “I’ve spoken to my officials. We’ve had a bit of the huddle on the Government benches, and we realise that we should send this to a select committee.” It’s not too late. The Primary Production Committee—I’m going to ask David Bennett, the chair. Is the chair prepared to call the Primary Production Committee to meet in the recess?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

Hon David Bennett: Yes. Yes.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes, Mr Bennett said that he is. So here we have an offer from this side of the House for the Primary Production Committee to indeed meet in the recess. We believe that we could turn this bill around in a truncated period over the recess and we’d be back into the House within two weeks to debate it. That offer, so far, has been turned down by the Minister.

Why would the Minister want to, effectively, not give New Zealanders and farmers an opportunity to submit on this bill? You would think it’s logical. They talk about being open and transparent. Why would the Minister not send it to a truncated select committee process?

So, in conclusion, we are cautiously supporting this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. There are aspects of it that we entirely agree with. Those two aspects are that when a farmer sells animals or moves animals to another farm, that farm must be NAIT-registered, and then, of course, there is the compliance and infringement aspect of that if that transaction doesn’t occur accurately in the way it should. But the search and surveillance extension of these warrantless powers has us on this side of the House really concerned.

We would have preferred to have heard from the Minister at his second reading speech just a moment ago, to stand up and answer these questions, but it’s clear we are going to have to wait until the Minister gets in the chair. I have a personal view that the Minister is only just coming to terms with what part of this bill actually does, and it’s going to mean that we are going to need to explore these very detailed and technical questions via the Minister to his officials either later this evening or, more likely, tomorrow morning.

I conclude where I started off: M. bovis is a very important issue. The NAIT system needs to change. The Minister has had 10 months to bring this bill to the Parliament. He’s decided to bring it through in urgency at the end of a four-week session, when we go into a two-week recess. There’s ample time for this bill to go to a select committee, even if that was truncated. There’s ample time for people who are interested in this bill—and that would generally be farmers, but it could be stock agents and it could be truckies who are involved in the whole NAIT supply system—to have their voices heard.

But the reason we have all of these unanswered questions is we have had just two sessions with the Minister’s officials—as my colleague the Rt Hon David Carter mentioned, one for about 35 minutes and one for about 20 minutes—and they couldn’t answer some of the specific details of this bill. It’s an important bill. We want to get it right. We, fundamentally, think that parts of it are really important and it should go through, but there are some aspects around the Search and Surveillance Act of 2012 that we have some concerns about.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): This is an important bill, and I therefore commend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’d just like to, first of all, thank the Minister of Agriculture. I think that he’s done a pretty good job on M. bovis so far, and I think that the farming community recognise that. I do appreciate what he’s done in this space up to now, so I just want to record our thanks to the Minister.

I also want to put out a big thanks to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). As somebody that had been a Minister in a junior role with them, I have a lot of faith in that organisation, and I think that they do a very good job in difficult circumstances. So to all those MPI staff out there and those that’ve been contracted to work with MPI, I’d like to pay our respects to them and say thank you very much for your good work, because their heart is—like everybody in the farming sector—to see that New Zealand prospers and succeeds on the international stage. So I think it’s important that we register our thanks to both the Minister and to MPI in what they’ve been doing in this area.

The National Party will support the bill at this stage of the debate. We do recognise that this is something that needs to happen, and is really based on the issue of M. bovis that we’ve seen come through our communities in the last nine to 12 months. It is an issue of recent occurrence that we need to act on in this Parliament. Whether we need to act through urgency is a question that raises more doubt, because, typically, urgency is for a circumstance that needs to be done with some immediacy, and there doesn’t appear to be the immediacy in this case as, in some way, you could say the horse has bolted.

But the fact of the matter is that we have this in front of us in this Parliament here tonight, and the fact of the matter is that the Government has the numbers to pass it through this Parliament, and they won’t listen to rational and reasonable debate, so we know that they’re going to do it. I would implore that the Minister actually take some time and look at some of the options around what could be done in the next five or six hours to try and make sure that we actually have a result that does achieve all the purposes.

So, on one side, you’ve got a Government that has a responsibility to look for rules and requirements to provide safety to our primary sector. On the other side, you have farmers that want to comply with the law but that also have got some personal property rights that they wish to retain as well. They could justifiably feel that this could be an intrusion on some of those personal property rights.

Now, this is not the most extensive bill you will see. To those that are listening, it is a matter of pages, this bill. In fact, you can have a look at it. It’s only about four or five pages, and the substantive clauses are really only clauses—they’re not in any major detail.

I would like the Minister to take some time to actually look at, possibly, an option around this bill. I know he’s busy at the moment, but the Minister may want to consider the option of an amendment to this bill. If I was the Minister, I would be looking at—when we go to clause 8—possibly having an amendment in clause 8 where he added an extra test. Now, it would not be very much difficulty for him to do that; in fact, it would only be a one-line test. He could add in something to the effect that “where the Minister deems in the national interest, these powers would apply”, rather than having the overall application of these powers in any National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) inquiry.

For example, if you’re a lifestyle block owner and you may have five cattle on your lifestyle block and you didn’t understand the NAIT rules, you hadn’t been aware of them, and you made a genuine mistake, potentially, the search and surveillance rules could come in and be very Draconian in that case. Now, there must be cases where the Minister needs to have that authority, and foot-and-mouth would be the ultimate case where you would expect that to be the case. Nobody in this House would deny the Government of the day to have full rules and security and strength in that case. M. bovis is getting pretty close to that position as well.

So I ask the Minister to consider, in clause 8, maybe just putting a slight amendment in there so that farmers have that security of their private property rights and the Government can still achieve its purpose, and that if there was an area of national interest and there was something that was very difficult that the Government needed to deal with with some urgency, they actually have the power to do that. So I’d ask the Minister to genuinely consider that.

If we went through a select committee process, that’s what would’ve come out of the select committee process. There would be a request from the committee that there would be an amendment to clause 8 to reflect a national interest test, and it would only be one line that the Minister would need to put in there. It does not take away from his powers in the M. bovis situation or the foot-and-mouth situation, but it does give farmers some comfort that they actually don’t have these huge and Draconian rules that would apply to them that don’t apply in normal situations in any other case.

So I think that this Parliament can come to a balance within the next four or five hours, and I would hope that the members of Parliament here look at that constructively, because we know that the Government of the day will push this through, but there is an option where we could actually do something within one line that would enable farmers to feel that there is security in their private property rights but also would give the Government the power to act in real cases when they needed to.

M. bovis has shown there is deficiency in the system. Now, nobody’s denying that. Nobody’s denying that we need to do something to tighten those rules up, and farmers need to acknowledge that and they need to act in a better way as well. Now, we’ve all been guilty of that as farmers. The rules have been a little bit lax and this was a big wake-up call for New Zealand, and it could’ve been worse. You can see the reason why the Minister is trying to do this, but in doing it the way they have done it, they have taken it to a wider degree. It is very simple to take that back a little bit, so that the Government does not lose the power to be able to act when it really needs to but that also enables private property owners to feel that they’ve been listened to in this Parliament—which would be a really big thing, and would gain them a lot of credit out there—and also to feel that they are not being walked over.

I do acknowledge the Minister, and I do think he’s done a good job. I think he can do a better job if he just actually looks at the heart of what he’s trying to achieve here tonight. The heart is to be able to intervene, when he needs to, to prevent a problem for the New Zealand industry. I don’t disregard that at all. But I do think that he can also retain those private property rights, ownership, and personal privacy issues by making a very simple one-line change, by bringing in a national test that if, in the Minister’s view, it is in the national interest that those Draconian powers come into play, then he can say to do that. If it’s an M. bovis or foot-and-mouth, you would not disagree with that. In other cases of just genuine NAIT non-compliance or not understanding, we’ve got to probably have a little bit more leeway for the ordinary person out there.

So there is a solution here tonight. I think the Minister knows he can do that, and it wouldn’t be hard for him to do that. It would be, I think, in the interests of this Parliament, that has shown a united approach around M. Bovis, to look at maybe having a united approach around something like that to, essentially, enable all the main participants to actually achieve the interest that they are seeking, and to show to the New Zealand public that this Parliament can work constructively and provide real solutions, even in the short time frame that may be put forward. Thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’ll just take a very short call in the second reading, but I would actually commend the previous speaker, David Bennett, on what was a fairly measured contribution and, I think, probably something I’m not terribly used to from him on matters in this House. No, I thought the commendation of the Minister’s performance, the recognition of the issue at hand—and it is a very serious issue we’re dealing with here. I think we just need to step back and take that into account. We can get carried away with the process, but it’s what we’re trying to achieve that is a really important thing here. This is to give our Ministry for Primary Industries the tools that they need to respond appropriately to this very, very important matter.

So we’ll look forward to—within the committee stage of this bill—going through the details. There are some genuine queries and questions being raised by the Opposition. I know the Minister has got the answers to all of that, and we’ll look forward to responding in a bit more substance through that process. But that would be my urgent urge: to step back and remember what we’re trying to achieve here. We’re trying to bolster this response to this very, very important biosecurity outbreak. So with that, I commend this bill, in the second reading, to the House.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): For the worried farmers who have now tuned in and are listening to the debate in the House tonight, that was Mark Patterson, the New Zealand First member, who previously spent 15 years as a branch chair of the National Party in Lawrence and is now supporting the New Zealand First - Labour - Greens Government to pass legislation that should worry every farmer in New Zealand. Not only every farmer: there are 25,000-odd farmers, but no one’s yet mentioned all the lifestyle blocks around the city that run one or two cattle and that now will have these powers usurped on them, giving a National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officer the right to come in with more powers than the police. That’s what’s happening with this legislation.

I’ve been in this House a while, and I’ve seen history tonight. I have never before seen a Minister responsible for legislation stand in the second reading and say these words: “I move, that the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill be now read a second time.” and then sit down. He added nothing else. He could have at least taken the opportunity to correct the clear mistake he made when he introduced the bill in the first reading, when he spoke in the first reading and said this legislation is not about increasing the powers of NAIT officers. That’s what the Hon Damien O’Connor said, and if he doesn’t know it’s wrong by now, he should, because I’ve seen him ducking in and out and talking to his officials.

The very reason National’s expressing concern about this legislation is not around the issue to reform NAIT and get it working right, and it’s not about getting cooperation to tackle Mycoplasma bovis; it’s about the extraordinary powers being given to NAIT officers, that I’m told are greater than the powers of a New Zealand Police officer. Damien O’Connor could have at least given a proper speech.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Get another lawyer.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: He says he’s not a lawyer—that’s the excuse. The Minister of Agriculture sits there and says he’s not a lawyer, and that’s the reason he didn’t take the call.

I’ve listened to most of this debate, and there’s a very clear solution here. It doesn’t have to be done in urgency. The Primary Production Committee chair and the National members of the select committee are willing to meet over the recess. What the Minister’s achieving is passing this legislation through this House, effectively, on 15 August. Why can’t we agree to pass it on 4 September? What difference does the fortnight make? The answer is very, very little. Mycoplasma bovis has been here for 12 months. The Minister’s been in charge of the challenge of Mycoplasma bovis—and I acknowledge it’s a challenge—for 10 months. What difference would two weeks make, so we can check out these huge powers that have been given to NAIT officers?

I’m not arguing for one minute that the NAIT legislation that was passed in 2012 is perfect. I am not arguing that NAIT has been well complied with by farmers, who have the first responsibility, but I’m saying to this House that not only should we improve the compliance and ask farmers to accept their responsibility but, then, this House should have a look at the layers of responsibility that need checking.

What about Operational Solutions for Primary Industries (OSPRI), the organisation now, effectively, led by industry that’s in charge of two strategies that are important—NAIT being one, and TBfree New Zealand being the other. We’ve got every chance of ridding this country of bovine tuberculosis, but the responsibility doesn’t rest initially with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), and it doesn’t rest with the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of primary industries; it rests with an organisation called OPSRI. Not only is that organisation in charge of the TB strategy but it’s actually the organisation that’s charged with the responsibility of compliance for NAIT. No one in the House tonight has mentioned that. Probably, some of the members on the other side of the House don’t know it, but that’s where I challenge this House to look at for compliance.

I want to refer to the fascinating speech from the Hon Eugenie Sage, who, when she spoke in the first reading, said, “We’re only here to correct a drafting era with the NAIT legislation.” Well, the officials actually tried that on us in the two meetings we had with MPI officials yesterday and today. That was their initial comment to us: “You’re only passing this legislation to correct a drafting error.” We teased it out, and this legislation’s not about fixing a drafting era in the original NAIT legislation. We interjected that to the Hon Eugenie Sage, and she left her seat after she’d spoken and went immediately to the Hon Damien O’Connor—not happy, I think, that she now realises she’s been misled. She has been misled.

There’s no response from the Minister, because this legislation is not about fixing drafting errors. This legislation is about an attempt to give extraordinary powers to NAIT officers—and extraordinary powers that we’re not having the opportunity to examine because the Hon Damien O’Connor and the Labour Government, supported by New Zealand First and supported by the Greens, won’t give it the opportunity of a select committee examination for two weeks.

Talking of the Greens’ support for this, a National member earlier mentioned a former Green member, Steffan Browning, who claimed that the search and surveillance legislation, which this Government’s attempting to now align with the NAIT legislation, was—and I quote—an “invasion of human rights”, and he looked forward to the day when it was repealed. Well, we’re not repealing it. What we’re seeing tonight is that every party who voted against this legislation is now supporting the extension of that legislation into the NAIT legislation.

I just want to comment on a couple of contributions we’ve had from our members on this side of the House, who are prepared to take their full calls. The first was from Hamish Walker. He’s been down there in the Clutha-Southland electorate. He knows the heartache that Mycoplasma bovis has caused to people. He spoke about the difficulty farmers have in addressing their own family and explaining why apparently healthy animals are being culled. That’s where we should be working cooperatively with the Government, and we’ve offered our cooperation. Lawrence Yule spoke with absolute heart about Jeremy and Sharon White, who have had their farm in the Hawke’s Bay completely destocked—absolutely devastated their lives, devastated their income, and devastated their farming operation—in an attempt to work cooperatively to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis.

The Government has taken a gutsy call: $880 million to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. I support it. We’ve offered, as a National Opposition, complete support to the Government as it embarks on this programme, bearing in mind a significant part of the money is actually not Government money but industry money through Dairy New Zealand and Beef and Lamb. But where that support breaks down, Hon Damien O’Connor, is when you introduce Draconian legislation like this and you’re not even prepared to take a second reading speech to justify it. I think that’s appalling, and as we move to the committee stage shortly, I assure the Minister I’ve got a large number of questions to ask him which the officials couldn’t answer earlier today. I expect and hope that he’ll stand and take the calls and answer those questions to satisfy me.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you. I think the Opposition needs to work out whether they actually support strong action on Mycoplasma bovis or not, because we’re hearing flip-flop speeches from members of the Opposition which talk about why they’re going to support the bill but then are very critical of what is in the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill.

Now as I understand it—and I’m no lawyer either—the key parts of this bill are to remove the requirement that a search warrant under the original National Animal Identification and Tracing Act, or the principal Act, must be in a particular form to align the provisions in the principal Act which provide for warrantless inspections and searches with the relevant provisions in the Search and Surveillance Act, and to make it clear that animal movements from one farm to another place must be declared to National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT), to the tracing authority, even if it’s not a registered NAIT location, and to ensure that the offence provisions around this clearly cover the failure to declare movements of animals from one location to another. So these amendments are designed to ensure that the NAIT system, which was established under the former Government to have a whole-of-life tracing system from birth through until death, actually operates, because we’ve seen with Mycoplasma bovis—and it would be the same with something like foot-and-mouth—that actually being able to trace infected animals is critical to getting some control of the disease and eradicating it.

We need to have an effective regulatory system and an effective tracing system if we are to maintain the confidence of consumers overseas that the meat products we’re exporting and that the milk products we’re exporting are fit to eat. So an effective NAIT system is about safeguarding our reputation and brand overseas, which I would have thought the Opposition would be concerned about, and it is about ensuring that we can tackle Mycoplasma bovis effectively.

Now, I’m no lawyer, but I did go back and have a look at the principal Act, and in Part 4 of that Act it sets out, in over 30 pages, the details around search and inspection powers. There are quite specific provisions which constrain the way in which those powers should be exercised. I would caution the Opposition if it’s thinking of introducing Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to put in some other threshold tests, because they potentially risk undermining the schema of the principal Act, which was carefully thought through at the time, and the safeguards which are in the principal Act around how those search powers are exercised.

There are certain purposes for which a consented search may be undertaken, for example. There are restrictions on the issue of a search warrant in schedule 2, clause 34—quite a few restrictions—and there are some tests in the principal Act that if an issuing officer, in terms of a search warrant, is going to issue that warrant, he or she’s got to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence against the Act has been or will be committed and to believe that the search will find evidence in respect of that offence. So there is a carefully thought through schema here to provide safeguards against the unreasonable exercise of search powers. The form and content of search warrants has got to be done in a particular way, and that clause goes on for a page and half with a lot of detail. So this bill is aimed at correcting some of the drafting errors with the comprehensive provisions in the principal Act.

There’s another clause—clause 40 in schedule 2—which sets out that every search power authorises the person exercising it to do certain things. The power of seizure, which Opposition members have talked about repeatedly, is to seize anything that may be lawfully seized. So there is a test in there that the seizure has to be of a thing that may be lawfully seized. So there is an ability to test the wrongful exercise of these powers in the High Court. There are also safeguards in schedule 2 that anything that is seized has got to be reported on, so that it is clear to the farm owner. There is a requirement if the farm owner is absent that the authorisation notice has to be left on the property. So in the principal Act, which, of course, did go to select committee, there was consideration of the submissions on the overall protections that apply to any searches and warrantless searches that are exercised.

So any SOPs that the National Opposition is likely to be presenting should consider the risk that that they will undermine the schema in the principal Act and potentially erode the safeguards that exist in the principal Act. There hasn’t been the opportunity to check all these in detail, but, having looked at schedule 2, it is quite comprehensive, and it does provide a number of safeguards. So I think the Opposition doth protest too much in claiming that this is a huge extension of powers, when in the principal Act there are strong safeguards against improper use of those powers. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’d just like to begin by addressing the member Eugenie Sage, who accused our members of flip-flopping. Being a member who spoke out stridently against Chinese-owned water bottling companies, the moment she became the Minister she very quickly approved one. So flip-flops might be something she may be quite good at judging, but she doesn’t seem to have a very principled position on that particular issue.

I really did enjoy the Hon David Bennett’s contribution. In fact, he even got some praise from the other side, which is quite an unusual thing for that particular member, but I don’t know why.

I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Nathan Guy and the Hon Damien O’Connor, both of whom have been in the unenviable position of having to be the Minister during a difficult biosecurity outbreak in New Zealand. I well remember meeting with the Hon Jim Anderton when he was the Minister of Agriculture when I had a former position with New Zealand Winegrowers, and we had a meeting about biosecurity issues. He told me at the time that it’s the worst job you could have—being the Minister for Biosecurity—because there’s no good news with biosecurity. No one ever reports it when something’s stopped. It’s only when something breaks out that the biosecurity Minister is in the news, and then everybody wants to attack him. There’s only downside and no upside. I remember that very well. You could say a lot of things about Jim Anderton but, actually, I quite enjoyed some of our meetings. That was a very good one, and I remember it quite vividly.

So I do acknowledge the difficult job that those two gentlemen have had in, firstly, Minister Guy and, now, Minister O’Connor. I know he’s doing his best. However, we do have some issues with this bill.

I would also like to acknowledge the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and Roger Smith, the director of biosecurity, and the work that they’ve been doing. They are doing their best. It’s a huge test to ramp up. They have all of the exercises that they’ve put in place to try and model these sorts of outbreaks and how they might manage them, but nothing tests it like the actual event and then to ramp their staff up and get them out there to work in very challenging conditions.

I thought before about Hamish Walker’s contribution and the very difficult pain and situation that those families who are having their animals killed are going through. I thought there was quite a lack of generosity from Stuart Nash to actually attack Hamish Walker, who gave a very good contribution. He wasn’t saying it shouldn’t happen; he was just acknowledging the difficult position that those families are in. It must be heart-wrenching for them to see their animals going off to the freezing works when they’re often in what appears to be quite good health. We know that they’re not. They are infected or, potentially, the risk is too high to keep them, so it is the right thing to do, but it must be very difficult for them to do that.

However, there are some things that could be done better. I know, certainly, from some close family members who have had some animals tested—they haven’t had any found to have M. bovis at this stage, but to wait eight weeks after a test, and longer, and not have any response. All they want to know is are they infected or aren’t they, and is it clear or undetermined—just some information. I acknowledge that they’re very busy, and I understand that they’re being stretched, but communication goes a long way. I think MPI would do well to remember that, but I do acknowledge that they are doing their best.

As has been pointed out, there’s been a review undertaken with 38 recommendations—38 recommendations—but not one of them was around extending the search and surveillance powers. However, this is now suddenly the main driver for this bill, and I find that difficult to understand. We have asked the questions. The Minister had the opportunity to answer some of those questions when he stood up for his second reading speech and elected not to address them. He will be taking his place in the chair tomorrow, we hope, when we get on to the committee of the whole House. I for one will be looking forward to hearing some of those questions being answered, because we deserve answers. New Zealand deserves answers, and so do the farmers of New Zealand. Yes, we are taking this incredibly seriously and we want to get the best-possible tools for MPI to manage this process. However, we have very serious questions about the enhanced search and surveillance provisions that are in this bill.

We do also, now, hear from the Minister’s speech that there is another bill. We have to really question why those two bills weren’t pulled together and put through. We would’ve agreed to a truncated process. It could’ve been: gone through first reading today, met during the recess, and then gone through to the rest of the processes. We could’ve done this months ago. We’ve had months and months of National Government bills that were on our Order Paper, which we’ve been debating in this House for months. Now we’ve got these bills that are being rushed through without going through the proper process.

We’ve had a wonderful example of a great process. There’s been a medicinal cannabis bill—a very flawed one—in the House, and Dr Shane Reti took it upon himself to go out, research a bill, and put one in the ballot himself. He didn’t have the benefit of MPI sitting behind him with all those bevy of officials to do the work; he did it himself. How long did it take him? Two weeks. He got up off his backside, went around the world, spoke to the right people, came up with a framework, and has a bill drafted, and it’s more complicated and far-reaching, as well, than this bill we’re debating tonight. When MPI have all those resources, they could have done the work. They didn’t, and I find that very disappointing. I’ve congratulated MPI—you give people praise where they deserve it—but they deserve criticism as well, and this is simply not good enough.

So I think that it would be quite helpful for the Minister to reflect on that. When he gets a chance tomorrow morning, he should be, I suspect, having a very serious talk with his officials and asking them why they couldn’t do what Dr Shane Reti did on his own in two weeks, on his own resources, and put together a more comprehensive bill than we are debating tonight—more well-thought-out, a greater platform framework and principle of the bill, and then all of the clauses in it are be far better thought out than this bill tonight. I think, quite frankly, the farmers of New Zealand deserve better than that.

So I think that when we look at the Opposition—well, what are the Government parties now—who took great umbrage at the search and surveillance legislation, they are now, with great delight, all of a sudden throwing those principles out the window and just going on and doing what they are told because somebody has decided this is the right thing to do, when they haven’t really done the work. Principles are only really measured when they are put to the test, and when they’ve been put to the test, they’ve been found sadly wanting on this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The level of chatter is slowly rising. I think the member’s done a great job, but his own colleagues could actually help him a bit.

STUART SMITH: Well, thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, I thought they were murmuring great praise of the speech in support. So I think that’s quite—I’m taking it as a compliment anyway.

Matt Doocey: I would too, Stewy.

STUART SMITH: Yes, indeed. But I hope the other members on the other side of the House take the rest of the night and tomorrow to reflect on what they’ve said today, because I think it hasn’t reflected well on a lot of them, and I think they’re better than that.

Eugenie Sage, while I started out criticising you, the work that you’ve done and the research to come back here and make a sound argument—I might not agree with it, but at least you’ve made it. My colleague David Bennett, sitting on my right—his suggestion of putting a national interest test into clause 8, I think, is a very sound one, and that would improve this bill dramatically. It would go right to the heart of what Eugenie Sage was talking about and actually add a lot more to it and make us much more comfortable with the bill than we are now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jamie Strange. This is a split call—five minutes, with a bell at one minute.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute this debate. I would like to acknowledge the Minister Damien O’Connor—a very good Tasman gentleman—for bringing this bill to the House.

I’m going to take a short but substantial call. This bill is simply tidying up an issue around stock movements. I commend this bill to the House.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I’m happy to speak in this second reading after that substantial contribution from the last member, Jamie Strange. Actually, it’s important on our side, because Mycoplasma bovis is serious, it’s terrible, and it’s had devastating effects on farming families in New Zealand, on much-loved farming businesses, on much-loved animals, and on mental and other welfare of hard-working Kiwis. I don’t like it in this House, at half past 9 at night, when we actually have really short calls that make no contribution to anything, to simply rush this legislation through.

I come back to the point I made in the first reading, which is that the DNA evidence shows that Mycoplasma bovis was probably introduced in New Zealand in December 2015—around that time. That’s what they’ve mapped it back to. So it’s been in New Zealand a long time, and, sure, we found some issues in the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) tagging system when it was first picked up in clinical signs in the middle of last year. But here we are, late at night, trying to rush something through under urgency.

I actually want to congratulate the contribution from the Hon David Bennett, because what he sought to do was actually clarify the powers and provision of search and seizure in the national interest. I think that all Kiwis would expect that in the interests of the national interest, at certain times there do need to be some specific provisions. I’ll be looking forward to that amendment being properly debated in the committee stage of this.

We are not going to beat Mycoplasma bovis or, in fact, foot-and-mouth, if it ever got here, or, in fact, any other biosecurity risk, unless we have the farmers working with us. The farmers have the most to lose. Sure, it’s cost $880 million, and a significant contribution is actually coming from the farming families, but actually the farmers are the best placed to help resolve this.

I liken this to what, actually, Inland Revenue used to be like, where most people thought they were a compliance agency, they were hard to deal with, you couldn’t get hold of them—all those types of things. Now, a lot of stuff is online and they’re way more user-friendly. I think the real risk with this legislation, as it’s placed before this House, is that the Ministry for Primary Industries will be set up and known as a whole lot of people wandering around with clipboards, deciding that they can walk into your dairy shed, into your woolshed, into your stockyards, and if you’re invited—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. If they’re invited into somebody’s house, they can actually take their clipboard in, take photos, and do a whole lot of things.

I don’t believe the farming industry bodies that are supporting this approach—and Federated Farmers of New Zealand, in particular—actually understand this particular provision of this bill. I’m mindful that the Hon David Bennett, as the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, offered to reconvene the meeting next week during the recess—during the recess. I’m not on that select committee, but I would be happy to come back to Wellington and sub in as part of that select committee, because I believe the farmers I represent are not going to take it too lightly that somehow somebody can wander into their house, their woolshed, their stockyards, or their dairy shed and seize and search a whole lot of material without their knowledge.

Now, I have listened to the Hon Eugenie Sage going through a whole lot of things that are in the NAIT legislation, but actually we haven’t been satisfied on this side of the House, despite two meetings with Ministers’ officials, that this part of the legislation is as it said. The Hon Eugenie Sage said she sought assurances. Well, the National members have sought assurances from the Minister and his officials and we’re not satisfied with what’s been given.

It is still not too late for the Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, to actually take this to a select committee, and for the select committee to convene next week and get to the bottom of—and find all the information required on—the search and seizure provisions.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to reiterate my support for this bill. Can I congratulate the Minister, Damien O’Connor, for his leadership in this matter. I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First up, I would like to congratulate the list MP for Hamilton East, Jamie Strange, because we’ve got a lot of people on the opposite side of the House to us—calling themselves “Government”—who sit on the Primary Production Committee and have not attempted to even make the length of call that the list MP for Hamilton East has made. Actually, it’s probably an indictment on the Minister, Damien O’Connor, that the Minister actually made an even shorter speech than the other three members from the Primary Production Committee that are here.

I just want to ask a question also—and also Stuart Smith mentioned before that the Hon Eugenie Sage has at least made the attempt to take a call. We won’t agree with everything that she has said, but at least she made the effort to take a call. I would like to ask a question of the Hon Eugenie Sage. When we talk about search and surveillance—and I know that the Green Party have been against search and surveillance in the past—it just seems to be totally different when it’s about farmers. The reality is that most farmers’ offices are their homes. They are where their families are. I just think that to up these powers, and we’ve heard tonight about having more powers than the police to go into these houses—why do we have to do it in this way? If they can actually enter the house and ask for information, and then if they need to find out more it takes 24 hours to get a warrant, why can we not just bide out that time and wait, and get a warrant if there’s something that then is deemed to be urgent enough to get a warrant?

Now, Kieran McAnulty did speak when he had his chance to during the first reading, and I just want to correct something that Kieran McAnulty said in the House tonight. He got up and he gave the Minister a lot of credit for taking the politics out of the M. bovis situation. I agree that the politics needed to be taken out of the M. bovis situation, because we were playing with farmers’ lives and there were a lot of health issues out there. There was a lot of stress, and we needed to get that out of this situation, and I have to say that the clarity of actually now having a project of phased eradication has given a lot of certainty to it.

But I was calling out to the member Kieran McAnulty while he was making his speech. I’m not sure whether he heard, but I told him to go back and check my Twitter message and my Twitter conversation with the Hon Damien O’Connor from 12 May this year. It was while we were all down at the dairy industry awards, and I know that because the Minister upset me with something that he said on one of the television programmes—I think it was The Nation—on that morning. We exchanged some emails and we exchanged some tweets, and one of the things I put on here was to the Hon Damien O’Connor: “Farmers are too important to be kicked around like footballs! They are worried, they don’t know about 1 June cow movements. Everyone’s pointing the finger and no one can confirm anything. It’s a joke!”

Now the Minister will be able to verify that tweet because it went to his account. So we had an exchange on Twitter, and, actually, that night we shook hands and we decided that the farmers would come first. So there was quite a process in taking the politics out of this, and the statement that Mr McAnulty made that the Minister started the process and then it took two weeks for the Opposition to catch up is just nonsense.

Hon Member: That’s right—dead right.

BARBARA KURIGER: So yeah, I’ll accept an apology around that one.

Now, M. bovis, as I’ve said, has been devastating, and I will acknowledge that Hamish Walker and Lawrence Yule and Andrew Falloon are members on our side of the House who have been really instrumental in supporting their farmers up until this point in time. It’s only more recently that I’ve had, sadly, the opportunity to support a farmer that’s in my electorate that’s, unfortunately, contracted M. bovis in the herd of cows that they have. I can tell you, it’s devastating—it’s absolutely devastating. Farmers love their cows, and this is hurting. I think that what is happening with this piece of legislation is absolutely just another sting in this whole process, and I’m really disappointed.

The industry knows what it has to do. The industry is already taking steps. Yes, it could have been better, and that was something that the Minister and I discussed via messages and words at the time. Yes, it could have been better, and yes, we need to make it better, but why do we have to keep doing it to people? Why can’t we work with people? Why can’t we take them on a journey? There are a lot of questions that we, on this side of the House, will be asking the Minister when we get through into the committee stage.

I think it’s really important that we take people on a journey, because it’s one thing for the Green Party not to believe in search and surveillance until it comes to an issue where it involves farmers—well, I just have some news for the Green Party. It is that farmers are people too, and the rural support trusts have been out there—I’ve got people that are working until midnight. They’re taking calls. They’re on 24-hour calls, supporting farmers to the end.

The Minister has also admitted tonight—and we’ll all say that this was bigger than all of us—that mistakes have been made and mistakes do get made. I think that it’s really important that we stop and think about each other as people. We listened to the Speech from the Throne and it talked about how we’re going to be a kinder and a more caring society. Well, where is the kinder, more caring society in this? Yes, we want to clean up M. bovis—every one of us wants to clean up M. bovis—but you’re not going to do it by sending out search and surveillance officers.

Everyone’s looking over their shoulder—absolutely looking over their shoulder—and I’m going to mention the Hon Michael Woodhouse. When he was the Minister who was dealing with WorkSafe, I can remember a day when everyone was looking over their shoulder, waiting for WorkSafe to come up the drive. Michael Woodhouse, as the Minister, had enough strength to stand up and say at that time “We are going to engage, we are going to educate, and then we are going to enforce.”, and guess what? In my first year as a member of Parliament, I heard a lot of things about WorkSafe, and people were freaked out. Guess what? I can go out there now and I’m not hearing very much about WorkSafe at all, because they are engaging and they are educating to the point where those people who were going out and selling health and safety services as a business are no longer doing that because WorkSafe’s actually stepping in and offering to fit that bill and offering to help people with their health and safety.

I think that the Ministry for Primary Industries could take a leaf out of their book. I have seen collecting, collecting, and collecting of information. People get this information and, at the end, they try to add it all up and I can tell you that sometimes one and one does not even make two. I can tell you that 90 percent of the information that is collected in some instances actually turns out to be irrelevant to the point of what those officers were collecting it for. So I ask the Minister: what difference will a day make?

If the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) people go and have to ask for information, and if they feel that there’s more reason to go and collect that information, then they can go and get a warrant. They can go and get help. There is no need for these people to be walking in or—worse still—to be invited into someone else’s house for a cup of tea, and for that farmer to end up having search and surveillance going on where they happen to go and collect up a whole lot of things and, in a worst-case scenario, they don’t even leave a list, often, of what they’ve collected up.

So I really think that this is overkill. I actually think the industry knows what’s going on. The Rt Hon David Carter mentioned the lifestyle farmers before. Well, actually, the lifestyle farmers are starting from square one, because most of them don’t even have any experience of NAIT. So you can imagine it’s going to give equal powers for both, but what’s going to happen when someone goes into a lifestyle block? Those people are not going to have any idea. So, please, Minister, take some calls and explain to us why this is necessary.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Ahiahi mārie Te Mana Whakawā.

[Good afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker.]

It is an absolute privilege to take the last call in the second reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. I want to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to all the people in the industry. As someone who enjoys a quality steak, I want to take this opportunity to say thank you very much for your contribution. Leadership is about caring for people, and I want to thank the industry for their caring for people and, of course, to extend my thanks to the Hon Minister Damien O’Connor for his leadership in this case.

There are four words that stand out for me in this policy statement and the words are “food safety” and “quality assurance”, and that’s the leadership that this Minister is leading. I commend this bill to the House. Malo.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. [Interruption] Oh, there is objection? There is objection. Well, we will not have it as one.

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I make no apologies for wanting this legislation to move as quickly as possible through the House. I will answer some of the questions that have been raised by members through the second reading. A number are legitimate questions, and I appreciate that.

I guess the first one is why the speed and why it’s taken so long. I guess we can run through the process. When we came into Government, we were presented with a new set of facts around M. bovis. We got on with action in that area, and then the next stage, I guess, was to look at the whole regime around National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) and what was happening and wasn’t happening. Then we had to actually force the NAIT review out into the public arena, because Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand was sitting on it for some reason, and I had to actually almost threaten them to get that out. That was a frustration: a review that had taken 12 months, initiated by the previous Government, but wasn’t available for anyone. So the 38 recommendations—and some of them don’t relate directly to that, but they clearly went from top to bottom and said that NAIT needed a lot of changes to improve it.

Then we carried on with what is the primary focus and always has been; that is, to focus on the eradication of M. bovis. That is the most important thing. NAIT is one of the tools that we have and it’s been a very poor one. What we have identified, because I asked officials to go away and look at the immediate changes that we need to make, adjustments that we can bring through the House quickly, and to improve the system—they said there were 23 recommendations that required no legislative change or regulation and indeed they’re going through that process. But the ones here that we are dealing with are technical. They in no way relate to policy settings for NAIT, or for the discussion or debate and process that went through under the previous Government to set up the NAIT regime. We are simply making technical adjustments to give effect to what the previous Government wanted and we want, and that is for the system to work. Currently, it doesn’t work.

In the provisions that we’re looking at here—I’ll just run through them—people have raised, quite unreasonably, the scare tactics about what powers we are conferring upon NAIT officers here. What we are, effectively, doing is bringing their powers into line with those of the Search and Surveillance Act, and I know a number of my colleagues and I have referred to that as well. With those two pieces of legislation going through the House at the same time, under the previous Government, the assumption was that they would both line up. The NAIT Act went through first, and the provisions weren’t adjusted to line up with what was the final Search and Surveillance Act. People have pointed to the opposition, for whatever reason, from the Opposition party—the Government that it is now—at the time, and we can go back and, I guess, we can relitigate that. I can certainly quote from speeches from the Government of the day, supporting a number of things in NAIT, and the assumption that, actually, we were going to align the provisions and the powers in the NAIT Act with that of the Search and Surveillance Act.

There are a number of issues within—and I’m sure that there will be points raised by the members here, and I’ll reserve my right to answer the points as they are raised as we go through this process. I don’t want to prolong it. We do need to get these things in place. Federated Farmers contacted me, saying, “We believe that the changes you are making to allow penalties to be imposed on a farmer that shifts animals from a NAIT property to one that doesn’t have a NAIT identification are unnecessary.” No, they are necessary because, while it’s illegal to transfer from a NAIT property to a property that doesn’t have a NAIT number, there is no ability in the legislation to penalise or prosecute people for that. The prosecution can occur only if people don’t notify when they move animals from a NAIT property to another NAIT property. But if you move them from a NAIT property to a property that doesn’t have a NAIT number, you can’t penalise them. It’s a ridiculous situation, and it’s one of the technical amendments that we’re moving through.

In terms of if, without a warrant, NAIT officers go into a property—and they can’t go in without a warrant, into any house on a farm or to a marae. That’s in the legislation now. They can’t do that. So they would apply for a warrant. Let’s get that clear. But if they go into a property and they’re trying to check whether compliance has been adhered to, they are entitled to go into a property without a warrant on the basis that they believe compliance has not been adhered to. When there, they are able to lawfully seize what they believe might be useful property. Now, these things are all determined, I have to say, in my bundle of papers here; I’ll get to them eventually. The point being that “lawful seizure” is a term defined in the law, and supported through precedent and case law, and a proposal to add “reasonable cause” to that might seem, on the face of it, to be a reasonable proposition, but the problem is that if you put “with reasonable cause” in that, then you undermine the credibility and integrity of “lawful seizure”. Then you’d have to go back to every other piece of legislation that doesn’t have “with reasonable cause” and then start to pull apart the, I guess, solid “lawful seizure” definition that we currently have in law.

So what we’re attempting to do is give more ability for, firstly, that lawful seizure, because I think there has been identified, through the Ministry of Primary Industries’ (MPI) processes in this whole M. bovis saga, a limited ability for them to go and get the information that they need. Let’s be clear: farmers want people to adhere to the NAIT regime. They want it to be easier to do that, and we’re working through the changes. But they want the people who are blatantly disregarding the law to be caught and penalised and prosecuted. We need to be able to get the information to do that when we believe that a farmer is noncompliant, when they might go on to a property to try and verify that. If they see evidence that they think would be useful, at the moment they can’t seize it. So we believe they should be able to.

These are technical amendments that we are making here. They don’t require the full consideration of a select committee. I appreciate the arguments that are put up by the Opposition, but we need to move through because, actually, every day that we don’t have these provisions in place does limit the ability of MPI to get on with the job of, firstly, identifying, and seizing information, and prosecuting those people—and there are still some out there—that are blatantly disregarding the NAIT system. I think it would be irresponsible of us or anyone who supports the farming sector, and I know that the Opposition do support the farming sector, generally. But sometimes we’ve just got to make the hard calls and do what’s necessary, and this is, indeed, what the Government is doing through this piece of limited NAIT legislation. Yes, there will be other legislation that will be considered and will go to a select committee, and that will be far more wide ranging, but these are technical issues not related to policy. I think anyone who studies NAIT will realise there are policy issues that need to be addressed, and then there’s the greater issue of the Biosecurity Act and its review.

Can I just acknowledge my colleagues who have been very restrained—and our coalition partners too—who, again, have to understand a technical piece of legislation. I’m getting advice. I’m happy to answer any of the specific calls, but I do appreciate the support as indicated from the Opposition and hope that we can move this through as quickly as possible and let MPI get on with the job, and we can then eradicate M. bovis.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thanks, Madam Chair. I acknowledge the Minister, Damien O’Connor, and thank him for taking a call. It’s good that he stood up and addressed some of the concerns that we have, on this side of the House. We’ve got a few more that haven’t been discussed in detail, so presumably we’re talking about Part 1 this evening. This is a two-part bill, with a title and commencement debate to come as well.

What I’m really keen to hear from the Minister, and he may need to go to his officials, is, as I understand it, this bill changes—indeed, as he has alluded to, the change when a transaction occurs from a farm to another farm that isn’t registered under the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system. As I understand it, it’s a two-legged stool. There needs to be ascending and receiving transactions occurring. Can the Minister confirm that if this law is changed—well, potentially it’s tomorrow—the NAIT system, i.e., the software, the hardware, and the overall system, can cope with this law change that is proposed in this bill? That’s a very important and alive question that I would really like to hear from the Minister on, because I’m hearing that, potentially, the NAIT system right now doesn’t have the capability to be able to handle that transaction. So therefore, if that is so, you would wonder why the urgency is on that particular aspect.

I understand the intent of it, and I support it. But if the NAIT system indeed needs to be turbocharged in its hardware, it may require funding. Where’s that funding going to come from? Is it going to come from split-share—35 percent MPI; 65 percent from industry? I think that’s a very important point that needs to be debated and discussed through the select committee process.

What was also good to hear from the Minister this evening was that a personal dwelling—i.e., a farmer’s house—isn’t part of the warrantless powers, but we still have a concern, and you heard about it from some of our speeches this afternoon, that farmers, being like they are, tend to do a lot of business around the kitchen table. And when a salesperson comes in, or an MPI compliance officer or the like, they tend to get invited in to sit around the kitchen table. Suddenly, they are in the house, and then these warrantless powers that the Minister is proposing to extend—suddenly the person is already in the dwelling. It would be interesting to know the safeguards around that.

We haven’t had a real sense from the Minister. He’s indicated that there is another NAIT bill that’s being worked up by officials, probably as we speak, because he’s already indicated there are 15 recommendations that need to be worked up. They may not all be coming in that bill, because we’re probably addressing a couple of them now. The first question is: what’s the timing of that? And if it’s in the next bill—the NAIT Amendment Bill (No 2)—if it’s going to be in the next—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Sorry to interrupt you. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.

Debate interrupted.

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

WEDNESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2018

(continued on Thursday, 16 August 2018)

Bills

National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Good morning. Thank you. It is great to be back here. I do feel that we shouldn’t be back here this morning debating this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill in urgency. We spent quite a bit of time last night actually outlining to the House why this bill is unnecessary to be debated in urgency. Indeed, it should have gone to a select committee.

Hon AUPITO William Sio: It’s for the farmers.

Hon NATHAN GUY: That member over there wouldn’t have a clue about what farmers do. In fact, if he was genuine about his rebuttal, he should be using his influence on the Minister to say this is a really important issue and it should have gone to a select committee.

Can I re-highlight some of our concerns, and I look forward to Minister O’Connor taking a call. Where I left off last night in my contribution was I was very keen to hear from the Minister about this aspect of this bill where a farmer moves animals to a non - National Animal Identification and Tracing farm location. We support what he is trying to achieve here, but I was under the impression that the system may not be able to cope with that. Indeed, we have some new information this morning that says that potentially it could but it’s going to require an investment in due course from Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand to do that.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I want to make some comments this morning as we go through the committee stage in this, because this is a bill that I personally do not like. I think it is an utter disgrace that it’s in front of the House and it is designed entirely to cover the backsides of Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officers who have not acted appropriately or understood the powers that they have under the existing National Animal Identification and Tracing Act.

Where we are here, in Part 1, of course, is dealing with the movement of animals from one location to the other and adding in the provision for some scrutiny or oversight of animals that are moved to a non - National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) location. My question is: how do you have a non-NAIT location if the system was working and if the system had been diligently applied by MPI in the first place? The second point I’d like to make is: how many people out there are not complying with NAIT regulations? How many people sell cattle or sheep, or whatever the animals are, and simply say to the buyer, “Oh look, I haven’t kept up with it. Don’t worry about it. You get on with it.”

The Minister knows full well that a lot of people do that sort of thing. It’s not at all uncommon. So we have had a lax approach to the way in which the regime has been in place in the past. It’s pretty clear that it is a bill that’s before us today that, effectively, covers the tail of MPI officers who have, with all due respect, probably lost the opportunity for sound prosecution by their failure to recognise either the powers or the constraints of their powers inside the bill.

So what I would ask is simply for the Minister to come and explain to us particularly this clause 8, which deals with compliance and enforcement. It amends and replaces the definition of “search power” so that it includes warrantless entry and inspection powers conferred by or under the principal Act. The need for a prescribed form for such search warrants is removed, and the amendments to clause 82 of schedule 2 align with the offence provision in the clause, which is the amendment made by clause 7 to section 31.

What does this mean? It means that a NAIT officer under this bill is going to have more power to enter, to search, and to seize than a police officer might have in a criminal investigation. That is, I think, completely excessive. The Minister sits there smiling because he thinks no one’s actually caught on to this. I don’t think there’d be a farmer in the country who wants to see NAIT officers given the powers of entry to their property and the powers to seize property, assets, information, or everything else as they choose without any kind of warrant. A warrant at least is an expression, if nothing else, of a concern that has been identified.

We’ve heard in our discussions with officials that the problem is that there might be someone there who sees, say, tags missing off animals’ ears etc., etc., and they think, “Right, we’d better have a bit of an in-depth search here.” and they have to go away and it takes a bit of time to get a warrant. Well, I’m not sure that the time factor is a reasonable consideration. Then they said, “Well, the problem is they might have all their details written down inside a notebook, and suddenly the notebook disappears, or suddenly the computer records disappear.”

Well, wake up. We’re in 2018. Every transaction these days between a farmer and another farmer will have a long computer record. For every transaction between a farmer and anyone else who buys those stock units, there will be a long computer transaction list. Somehow they’ll get from one farm to the other. That would tend to mean that there is a transport company manifest somewhere and there is a payment made by the farmer to the transporting company, or by the buyer to the transporting company. These records, under a warrant, are able to be accessed, so any suggestion that there needs to be some kind of immediacy is completely out of order.

I do not understand the Green Party, who went on the streets in all sorts of protests against the Search and Surveillance Bill, silently sitting in this committee allowing this huge extension of powers to NAIT officers—powers well beyond those of a police officer.

Madam Chair, I can speak on if it’s your choice. [Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: So the question for the Minister is: why is it necessary for a NAIT officer to have search and seizure powers greater than a police officer conducting a criminal investigation? Why do they not have to at least satisfy the concerns of anybody who values civil liberties in this country and gain a warrant from a court?

Hon AUPITO William Sio: Will Mr Brownlee vote for the bill?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And there we have Mr Sio sitting over there, Aupito sitting over there, telling me that everything’s OK—“Don’t worry about it.” Well there is a slight—there is a slight—connection here, or should I say simile here, to something that he found very, very offensive that happened during the 1970s and 1980s: the so-called dawn raids.

I’ll tell you what—the member might sit over there and smile and say, “Oh, this won’t happen.” Well, how many times does this House give powers to people that ultimately become abused? So if I was a farmer out there at the moment going about my daily business, worried about the capital I’ve got invested in my farm, worried about the commodity prices, and worried about who was going to be there to purchase the animals when they reach their bullet point, their disposal point—I’m sorry, I’m not a farmer so I don’t know what you’d describe that as—over the top of that would be the worry that should they miss some compliance somewhere, there’s not going to be a discussion with NAIT. I don’t believe now, after this incident, that there’ll be any farmer that doesn’t want to comply. It’s not in their interests. Those bad farmers—those rogues, those ratbags—who have caused the problem in the first place are not typical of farmers in this country. And I think it’s just outrageous that because the MPI officers mucked up—completely mucked up—the investigation on that particular farm, we come here now and are asked to pass a law that grants extraordinary powers to the NAIT officers who are selected, appointed, by the Ministry for Primary Industries.

What are their qualifications? What makes them capable of understanding what is reasonable human rights behaviour when they’re exercising the extraordinary powers that are given under this bill? None of us like to think that anyone can knock at our door and just enter our home and go for a bit of a search through any of our records. While the Minister will probably stand and say, “Well, dwelling houses are removed.”, I don’t doubt that within a short period of time, MPI NAIT officers will decide that the office where a farmer keeps all his records or the corner of the lounge or the living room, or wherever it is, is actually not a dwelling place. And it will be up to the farmer to go to the court to prove that it’s part of his dwelling, so all of these protections aren’t there.

What we have is a bill granting extraordinary powers to a small group of people who are, simply, taking those powers because they have not used the powers they’ve got right now properly—haven’t understood what they’re required to do. I don’t for one minute think that there would have been the mistakes that were made in original investigations in the M. bovis problem had there been proper warrants sought and perhaps even police assistance in getting the information required for prosecutions.

Here’s the question also for the Minister: can he stand up in the committee today and say that there is going to be some prosecution of some ratbag farmer who has not complied with NAIT regulations and that has seen the spread of M. bovis in New Zealand. His answer will be no. Then the question will be, “Why is that?”, and the answer almost certainly is “Because MPI stuffed up the investigation.” Then you’ll say, “So is the answer to their stuffing it up this piece of legislation?”, and almost certainly the answer will be, “Well, if they’d had this bit of legislation, they wouldn’t have been in so much trouble, because they would have had the warrantless right of entry and seizure from farm properties.”

But it is not appropriate, in my opinion, to change a law that affects every New Zealander, because, by the way, there’s no constraint on where a NAIT officer might go—no constraint that says “just a farm”. It could be anywhere. This is very bad for the civil liberties of New Zealanders.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): With a number of questions being raised already this morning, I would hope the Minister Damien O’Connor is going to take the opportunity of answering genuine questions. We are in urgency. This has not gone to a select committee. The only chance we get to find out how the Minister thinks his legislation is going to work is in the committee of the whole House. So I implore the Minister to listen and to answer the questions.

I want to start my contribution this morning by talking to an amendment that I’ve moved and that I hope the Minister will give due consideration to, because I think my amendment takes a lot of the heat out of the arguments that were before the House last night. The amendment is to insert new clause 8A, and it says that the amendments in clause 8 will expire on 15 August 2019. The reason I have put that amendment before the committee is that this side of the Chamber passionately believes this legislation should have gone to a select committee. It could have gone to a select committee for the two-week recess, and been back and ready to pass by 4 September. I asked the Minister yesterday in my speeches—and he hasn’t responded but he might—why the urgency. What difference would a two-week select committee process make to the efficacy of this legislation? I want that question answered.

If we accept my amendment, then we do—we heard from the Minister yesterday that he intends to bring yet another NAIT amendment bill before the House. I want to know the timetable for that amendment bill, and I also want an assurance that the Minister will respect democratic process with that legislation and send it to a select committee. Because if we then allow these extraordinary powers to expire, as per my amendment, he’s got the ability to bring it in in his next draft amendment legislation of NAIT, allow it to go through a select committee process, and let the farmers of New Zealand have a say on the extraordinary powers that he’s rushing through, that the Hon Gerry Brownlee has just spoken about. It’s a simple solution, Minister, that will take the heat out of his committee today, allow us to have some comfort in seeing the legislation pass, knowing that the issue then, within 12 months, will be substantially examined at a select committee, as it should be. Why won’t the Minister accept that amendment?

The second issue I want some answers to concerns clauses 4 to 8, and it regards what is a movement of cattle. Now, it might seem a fairly plain question, but what about a farmer that has two contiguous blocks of land, and he attempts to run them quite independently. And he then, for some particular reason, wants to move a bunch of two-year-old heifers from one particular block to another. Does he have to register that as a movement? It is an absolutely contiguous common boundary.

Another example: it might be a hill-country farm, contiguous at some point on the hill, making stock movement difficult from one part of the farm to another, so he engages a transport company and takes his stock from his farm, but along the road because it’s an easier way of moving it to the same property. Is that a movement requiring registration as a NAIT movement?

My third example, and this is particularly common around the cities of New Zealand, is where you’ve got a large number of lifestylers owning their 8-hectare blocks and not wanting to engage in agriculture in any way, so they enlist the assistance of a local farmer, and what that local farmer does is he moves them around, raising them as if those properties were his own. They’re not his own; they’re owned completely by somebody else, and he moves them legitimately, either by driving them on the road or by getting transport in.

As he answers that question, I come back to a fourth example, or a farmer with one registered NAIT number, who perhaps has two properties but separated by, for example, 20 kilometres. He moves cattle from one of his properties to the other property—is that a NAIT movement that needs to be recorded? Is that a NAIT movement that should have been recorded under the current legislation but now has to be recorded under the proposed amendment legislation?

They are simple questions, practical questions, Minister, from a farmer who knows a little bit about NAIT, unlike, I suspect, the Minister in the chair, who should know a lot about NAIT but maybe doesn’t know as much as he should do. They’re the sorts of questions that farmers will be asking as this legislation is passed and receives its formal assent. I want to know where they go and ask for that information.

We’ve just had a very brief half-hour select committee briefing by the NAIT chair and the NAIT chief executive. I subbed on to the Primary Production Committee for that examination—I came away with less confidence in NAIT as an organisation and Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) as an organisation than I had before I attended that briefing. We asked the chief executive about the level of compliance with NAIT under the current legislation. She answered—and this is extraordinary—that she was comfortable with the level of compliance. She argued that when you compared the introduction of our animal tracing system with others around the world, they take time to come in and we should be grateful that it’s being complied with at the level that it is. I don’t agree with Michelle Edge. I don’t think the level of compliance is anywhere near where it should be.

The next question that arises out of that—that I didn’t get a satisfactory answer from Michelle Edge as chief executive of OSPRI, but I look forward to the satisfactory answer from the Minister when he takes to his feet—is who is the policeman for NAIT under the current legislation and under the amendment legislation? Who is expected to monitor compliance? As I pointed out to the NAIT people before the select committee this morning, there’s a perfect opportunity for compliance auditing to be done under the TB testing regime. Farmers get regular TB tests done by a person who is a subcontractor to OSPRI, and they have the opportunity to do an audit of NAIT every time they do a TB test.

So, Minister, take a call. Talk to your officials who are pushing for these extraordinary greater-than-police - like powers in the Search and Surveillance Act; talk to your officials and answer to me on the level of compliance auditing that’s done now under the TB testing regime. Again, Minister, despite the answer that was given to me today by Michelle Edge, the chief executive of OSPRI, my observation as a farmer would be that there’s zero auditing done by the TB testing regime—a lost opportunity, Minister.

There are a number of questions I’ve raised. They’re not frivolous questions; they’re genuine questions. I do ask the Minister to talk to his officials and have a serious look at my amendment. If he agrees to that amendment, we can take the heat of this argument out, knowing that the extraordinary powers will have a sunset clause on them prior to a proper select committee examination, which he is refusing to allow on this particular occasion, and I want to know the reason why he’s refusing to allow that examination. Why the urgency for this to be done under urgency?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to answer a few of the queries. I appreciate the oratory skills of Mr Brownlee, but I’m not sure I appreciate all the points that he’s raised. I guess trying to overplay what we’re trying to do here probably might raise some concern with farmers, but is completely without justification.

What we are trying to do here is align the powers under the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Act to be equivalent to those under the Search and Surveillance Act—no more, no less: that is, we’re wanting to assist NAIT officers and Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) people who are going in, firstly, under the powers of checking compliance, whether warrantless entry—there’s a warranted entry and a warrantless one. The warrantless one is the one that we’re looking at to ensure that if they are moving not into a house, not into a marae, but into a building on a farm to check to ensure that compliance with the NAIT Act is, in fact, occurring, they have the ability to, I guess, look around, see what might be going on—

Hon Amy Adams: They have that now.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —and lawfully seize anything that might assist them—lawfully seize.

Now, the member sitting in the front there understands full well—better than I do—what “lawful seizure” means in case law, in precedent. If we are to make any adjustments to that, that has huge ramifications not just across the Search and Surveillance Act but, actually, in many other Acts. What we’re not attempting to do is make any major change. In fact, these are just technical changes, which is why we are not going to select committee, because we will have, probably early next year, another piece of legislation that legitimately goes through more changes of policy under NAIT and under biosecurity.

I would have thought that, actually, the National Party, the former Government, would have been more helpful and conciliatory in this whole process, because, without going and digging too deep, I think the former Minister Mr Carter has identified a few of the problems himself—that is, that he got the NAIT regime in front of the select committee, asked questions, and wasn’t comforted. Well, I have to say, I’ve not been comforted at all while I’ve been Minister. Firstly, we’ve had a focus on eradication of M. bovis and then improvement of the NAIT system. Then, in terms of changes to NAIT Ltd or to Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI), those things are evolving. Can I just say that I’m happy. I would’ve rather had them happen more quickly, but a former colleague of theirs has now gone to London. He was in charge of NAIT and OSPRI, and we are seeing the change at a CEO level. I think those things will help us move forward, and the faster the better—no more said in that area.

Can I just work through a couple of the other issues. The urgency is because we want these changes to occur as quickly as possible. We’ve been working systematically through the challenges of M. bovis, including the need to upgrade NAIT to ensure that the investigations under way do deliver an outcome. The question, I think from Mr Carter, is “Will anyone be prosecuted?” Yes, I can assure him of that. In spite of, I guess, the technical glitches that we’ve had in seizing information and getting the right evidence, the changes that we’re putting through here will assist in that in the future.

One thing that the previous Government never did—or NAIT or OSPRI; call it what you like—is they never sent clear messages to farmers that they should adhere to this. The previous speaker Mr Carter says, “Well, should all stock movements be recorded?” And he quite clearly, I guess, exposed what has been the problem: that being apologetic and trying to make excuses for farmers not to do things, as the previous Government did, hasn’t helped here. So I’ll be upfront and say, yes, all movements should be recorded—absolutely—because we’re paying $886 million, or maybe more, to try and eradicate M. bovis. That would’ve cost us hundreds of millions of dollars less if we’d had a proper operating NAIT system—fact. So, yes, we will ask farmers to record all movement. Yes, we will change the NAIT system to make it more effective and efficient, because it’s been clunky and the changes that most speakers are referring to should’ve happened under the previous Government.

We’re getting on and doing it, and I know that Opposition members understand the need for us to do that. As we’ve moved forward and exposed some of the deficiencies, we’re going to make the changes. So we can have some assistance and move this through as quickly as possible, so that NAIT officers, and MPI officials as well, can do their jobs properly, because, if they can’t, then we’re likely to end up with hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure through other biosecurity incursions.

Can I just refer to a couple of other questions around lifestylers moving stock between blocks. Yes, you should record those movements, because, as with many of the unfortunate farmers who are caught up in the M. bovis situation at the moment, some of them have different blocks of land. Some of them have been able to work with MPI and identify different blocks and different management regimes, and that means that not all the animals off all their farms have then had to be killed—just the ones off clearly identified blocks. If we’d had better traceability around all of those movements, other farmers may not have had to kill all their animals—the point being, we need identification and NAIT numbers connected to land blocks, we need to have all movements recorded, and we need to have all animals recorded. These things have not been happening, and we’re trying to move through to make sure that they do.

One of the signals that farmers should clearly have is that if they don’t adhere to the system and there’s a suspicion that they’re not adhering to it, then officers can come on to their property and investigate properly. That’s the basis of good law: implementation. The fact that it hasn’t occurred under the previous five years is not our fault. I have to say that we are doing that now. It hasn’t happened in the past, and what we’re trying to do is rectify that. I guess the member—and there’ll be lots of speeches, no doubt; righteous speeches, on all sorts of areas of overreach, etc. The bottom line is I think most of the members of the Opposition know that we’ve got to do this. We’ve got to do it quickly to make sure that the NAIT system operates, and we will have the ability to scrutinise the areas of policy change in the select committee when the new bill is brought before this House.

Rt Hon David Carter: When?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: What we’re wanting to do—it’ll be next year, early next year. But can I say that we, as a Government, are wanting to bring in good law and ensure that we have a good outcome from that law. The fact that we are having to debate issues around the NAIT Act is because the NAIT Act passed by the previous Government left a whole lot of holes exposed and, in part, contributed to the frustration and the cost that we have in running the M. bovis eradication programme.

We’re trying to move forward here, and so I’d appreciate it if the Opposition could see their way through to run a better NAIT system, to have better levels of compliance, and to have more cooperation. We’d welcome that. Otherwise, I’m happy to answer any of the questions raised here.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Well, Minister Damien O’Connor has taken a call this morning to apparently answer some of the genuine questions—

Hon Nathan Guy: He hasn’t answered the questions.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —I said “apparently”—raised by the Opposition. Let me make it very clear for everybody that we have no objection to the strengthening of the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) provisions, and the whole of his speech was all about the strengthening of the NAIT provisions. What we have a strong objection to is a bill that, firstly, has not been scrutinised by a select committee, so it had no farming interests able to express an opinion on the need for the extraordinary powers that are conveyed in the bill.

No one is going to be arguing against a better NAIT system that would have helped more in the circumstances. No one is going to say, “Well, we shouldn’t track the movements of animals, particularly in a country that is so dependent on its agriculture and where biosecurity is such an important aspect of maintaining our economy.” No one’s going to argue against that, and the Minister, I think, is disingenuous in suggesting that that’s what the Opposition are doing today.

But it is still very unclear why a NAIT officer has to have such extraordinary powers of entry, of surveillance, and of seizure on farm properties. What’s worse is that it’s not even clear that those powers can only be exercised on farm properties. The reality is that there may be numerous places where such records could be held in the electronic world. It could be in the accounting offices in downtown Wellington or Auckland or Christchurch or Dunedin, or in the small provincial accounting offices. It’s quite possible that the records are held there, and NAIT officers have an absolute right to come in and go fishing around to see what they’re after, without ever satisfying someone who is there to protect the civil liberties of New Zealanders—a judge, in this case—that it’s necessary to do so. All this rubbish about “Well, records can be deleted, notebooks can be lost.”—all that sort of thing is complete rubbish.

The other thing I’d have to suggest to you is that the concept of a NAIT officer having all these powers is clearly designed to be quite coercive of the farming community, and another word for that might be “intimidatory” of the farming community. So if a NAIT man turns up at the gate, you know that you could be in trouble. You know that there is no possibility of your declining entry to the property—well, in actual fact, they can’t do that now anyway. But there is no idea that you could say, “Well, actually, I do not have my records available today.” There is no engagement, but simply an understanding that you’re about to be turned over by the NAIT officer. That, I think, is quite a problem, and it certainly doesn’t auger well for creating the sort of cooperative environment that will be necessary for the full implementation of the NAIT arrangements.

It’s also not clear exactly what went wrong in the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) investigation of the ratbag farmer down south. Why can’t we know what the exact problem was that’s meant that probably the people who are responsible for the M. bovis spread throughout the country are likely to escape prosecution? Simply passing it off and saying “Well, this legislation will make sure that that can’t happen in the future.” is not good enough. It’s not good enough. We are being asked to set aside all of the concerns that we have about the civil liberties of New Zealanders, the freedoms of New Zealanders, the right to consider your home your sanctuary, etc., simply because a Government department failed to understand its own legislation.

Now, if I’m wrong, the Minister will stand up and tell me I’m wrong and, at the same time, give us a clear indication or, perhaps, the example of what went wrong. But what’s clear is that something did go wrong. Somebody inside MPI or some group of persons did not know how they should operate that legislation, and that’s why we’re here today.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I want to seek your assistance. Look, it’s a matter that I genuinely haven’t heard addressed in this committee, and so I’m genuinely asking for your guidance. It is around the status of the explanatory notes of the legislation. Now, my concern is that this explanatory note starts off by telling the House that the bill “makes technical amendments” to the Act and “does not represent new policy.” Now, within the course of the debate, obviously, we can debate those matters between us, and we have a very different view to the Minister. But my concern is that when you have a document that has come out of the Parliamentary Counsel Office that asserts in the introductory section of the legislation those matters of absolute fact, I think the representation of the contents in the bill is seriously questionable.

Now, I know we won’t want to get into the debating of the merits, but can I just give the Chair this context, which is that the Minister himself has acknowledged in his last contribution that this now ensures that National Animal Identification and Tracing officers, who are already lawfully able to enter a property and inspect—which we agree with—can now seize goods. Now, we will all debate the merits and the value and the appropriateness of that, but to suggest that giving powers to seize is a technical matter and not new policy would be like saying that a bill could come into this House and say that the police could enter any property in New Zealand, at any time, for no reason at all, and take property and that that was technical. It simply cannot be factually accurate. Now, I’m not saying that the Minister can’t bring in a bill that we should have those powers—and that’s exactly what we debate in this House—but it cannot be technical to say that a new power of seizure that everybody accepts does not exist now is not new policy.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah. OK, I understand the point. Can I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 96/2, which I think won’t satisfy but does address the issue. For the benefit of the committee, it says, “whether an explanatory note is accurate is always a matter of opinion. It is not a matter on which the Speaker can judge.” So the Minister’s opinion can be criticised in the debate, and members do not have to accept it. The point of order that the member is making may well be correct, but according to Speakers’ rulings, it’s a debatable point and it’s nothing that the Chair can rule on.

Hon Amy Adams: Thank you for that, Madam Chair. Speaking to the point of order, can I ask—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I’ve actually—you’ve made your point of order and I’ve ruled on it.

Hon Amy Adams: Yes, OK. Well, new point of order, then.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is this a new point of order?

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you—a new point of order. Thank you for your ruling. I understand that. I note that I did look at Speaker’s ruling 96/2, which, of course, makes it very clear that a Minister may not mislead the House in the explanatory note and that the explanatory note must be factual. My question to you now, as Chair, is what then is the remedy for the House if the Minister does indeed mislead the House in an explanatory note and the explanatory note is not factual, and, as a further aspect of that, is the Chair confirming, then, that the explanatory note is no more than a statement by the Minister of—in this case—his personal opinion and that it should be regarded as having no greater standing than that? So the question is: is it simply a statement of the Minister’s opinion and nothing more, and, secondly, what is the remedy for this House if the Minister does breach Speaker’s ruling 96/2 and misleads the House in that explanatory note?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So that point of order, then, is what is the remedy if the House decides that the Minister is deliberately misleading, and there are procedures for that. As Chair of the committee of the whole House, I have no remedy for that. You will have to take up the formal response about anyone misleading the House—OK?

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, for that. Look, we are, obviously, now debating Part 1, which is a substantive part of this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. I want to come to exactly the point that I’ve just been raising, which is around the status and the nature of the changes we’re making in this bill. My colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee has set out very well that there is no objection on this side of the Chamber whatsoever to improving the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation to ensure that the NAIT legislation is properly complied with, that the officers have the appropriate range of powers, and that our response to M. bovis is robust and effective. That is why we are voting for the legislation, and that is why we have worked so constructively with the Minister, through my colleague Nathan Guy, to this point. To suggest otherwise is, frankly, offensive to this side of the Chamber.

What we are absolutely saying, and we’re saying very, very clearly—in fact, the Minister acknowledged it in his last contribution—is that this is not a technical bill. I’m sorry. I know the officials want to pass it off that way, but officials will always take an opportunity to get more powers. What the officials are saying is, “We’ve now discovered we would like to have more powers than we currently have.” Fair enough—bring a bill to the House and we can have the debate as to whether those powers are appropriate. But to give an officer the power to seize goods, which they do not currently have, can under no interpretation, in any natural meaning of the words, be regarded as technical or a drafting error. When the NAIT legislation was passed, Parliament said that when a NAIT officer goes into a property without warrant, without any cause to suspect any offending—and, as my colleagues have said, this isn’t just farms; it could be any number of businesses that may hold records or information relevant—they should have the power to enter, they should have the power to inspect, but beyond that they should get a warrant.

Now, if the Minister wants to bring a bill to the House and suggest that actually those officials should have the power to also seize goods, well, we can have that debate. We’re up for that debate. It’s a debate we can have. But I want to remind the committee that that very Minister is the one who voted against the search and surveillance legislation that provided for, actually, more constrained powers than this.

Hon Nathan Guy: Did he vote against it?

Hon AMY ADAMS: He voted against that. So to now suggest that the powers that the Minister in the chair said were inappropriate and should be opposed should not only go through but should go through in urgency, should go through without a select committee—and he has the audacity, the barefaced cheek to describe it as a technical change. Mr O’Connor, I ask you, please explain on what basis giving an officer going on to a property without warrant, without cause, a power they don’t currently have is technical?

Now, I don’t mind, as I say, having that discussion. On this side of the Chamber, we have implored you: please send it to a select committee. If we’re going to grant an extension of warrantless search powers, the very least you can do is allow members of this House to get good legal advice, to allow those affected to come and address the select committee, and to allow us to assess the way those powers sit in the overall framework. The Minister has completely refused to do that. He has, I believe, attempted to obfuscate through his officials and through this bill by telling his support partners and members of this House that it’s just a technical fix-up—nothing to see here. Well, listen; I’ve been a Minister for six years. I know that every time you get told something is minor and technical, every alarm bell in your head should be going—and a siren. And then to rush it through under urgency is outrageous. It is utterly outrageous. This is an extension of warrantless search powers—no select committee, no legal advice—and the Minister has attempted to tell this committee that it is technical. Under no analysis possible can this be regarded as technical, and the Minister should expect that we will be raising the issue of why he has attempted to mislead the House in the explanatory note in this way.

I also want to reflect on the fact that the Minister has not answered the questions that my colleague the Rt Hon David Carter put up. Now, the Rt Hon David Carter is, of course, not only a farmer himself but a previous Minister in the role that the Minister in the chair now holds. I’m sure the Minister in the chair will acknowledge that David Carter has extensive knowledge of not only the law but the practical operations in this regard, and he has raised very serious and reasonable, realistic scenarios in which this—[Bell rung] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Amy Adams.

Hon AMY ADAMS: He has raised very reasonable, as I was saying, and practical examples of exactly what could be caught in this aspect of now widening the definition of what is caught as a “movement”.

David Carter pointed out that if a farmer was to move a mob of cows from one paddock to another after milking—is that now a movement? Is that now going to have to be reported for NAIT purposes? There are any number of iterations of confusions as to what that might be—Mr Carter ran through several of them—and while the Minister took a call, he didn’t address any of those. These are important issues, and while we don’t have a select committee to go through it, it is incumbent on the Minister to go beyond what a Minister in a committee stage might normally do and take the time to work through every reasonable question that is put, because he has denied members of this House, he has denied the public, any chance to raise their concerns with him and with his officials through a more considered process. I simply cannot emphasise enough to this committee how concerned I am that we would be extending warrantless search powers without any assessment of that and without any checks and balances.

One of the amendments on the Table that I want to support is that of my colleague again, the Rt Hon David Carter, where he has suggested, quite reasonably, that this House is determined to ram this through without taking the opportunity to test it, even over a very limited time frame, Minister. We’re not talking about anything that would delay the M. bovis response. A week, 10 days would be sufficient for members to get the sort of advice that would enable a proper consideration. If the Minister is utterly determined that he won’t do that, we implore him and we implore this committee to put in place a sunset clause so that if these powers are to exist over a permanent course, if this is to become the new normal, at the very least the Minister takes the time to bring a bill back to the House that goes through the proper process.

Now, the Minister has told us he’s intending to bring more NAIT legislation to the House. So he already has a vehicle. He’s got a bill coming back to the House. He has every chance in that bill to say, “OK, now let’s have a proper select committee process and a testing of that.” If that’s his intention—and I hope it is—then there can be nothing lost at all to support a sunset clause in this legislation so that at least members of the House, but more importantly those affected by these powers, know that there will be an opportunity to really test this with some rigour before it becomes the new normal. So if the Minister is true to his word—and I’m sure as an honourable member he will be—and he intends to ensure these matters are properly reviewed in the NAIT legislation, tested in the select committee process—and we would welcome that—then I implore you to show your good intentions by backing the amendment that puts in place a three-year sunset clause. That’s plenty of time for the Minister’s legislation to progress, but it would assure the House that this is not a nefarious, dead-of-night—although we’re now in the morning—under urgency approach to ram through extensions of warrantless search powers as the new normal because the officials have seen an opportunity to get some more powers and to rely on the goodwill of this House to address the M. bovis response as a platform to do it.

I can think of no reason why that wouldn’t be acceptable to the Minister. I hope that it would be acceptable to other members of the committee who have, on many occasions, spoken strongly about their concerns at extending search and surveillance powers. The most concerning search and surveillance power is always the warrantless one. This is what we’re talking about. Of course NAIT officers need the ability to go on to farms and to inspect. They can do that now, but if they want to seize goods, that is a massive increase in their powers. It is not technical. It is significant. It needs to be properly debated, and if it isn’t going to be in this process—and we think that is incredibly regretful—the House should at least have the assurance that it cannot become the new normal without a select committee process in due course.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chair, I’ll just attempt to move through the thing to—firstly, the accusation that this is not a technical bill. I guess I go through the explanation, which is accurate, which says particularly that the provisions in the bill which change the particular form, the format of a search warrant—so not a terribly big policy issue—align the powers under National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) and clarifies. These are not major policy changes.

I can go back to the issue of the search and surveillance powers and quote from the report that came from the Primary Production Committee way back before the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act was passed. “This anticipates the enactment of the Search and Surveillance Bill”—because both were going through the system at the same time—“currently before the House, and would facilitate an amendment to the provisions that are proposed to form Schedule 1A, to align the provisions of the two pieces of legislation once they are both in force.”

The clear intention of the committee when processing the NAIT Bill, before it became an Act, was that the provisions would align with the Search and Surveillance Act. Can I say that those provisions are the same as in the Wine Act, the Fisheries Act, the Crown Minerals Act, and the Waste Minimisation Act. So what they do is, of course, provide powers for people to enter property under warrants if they have reasonable cause, or if they don’t have reasonable cause, they are able to have a warrantless search to check for compliance, and while doing so, under section 110(d) of the Search and Surveillance Act, “to seize anything that is the subject of the search or anything else that may be lawfully seized:”—the point being that “lawfully seized” is a term, as I’ve said before in my earlier speech, that has been laid down through precedent and through case law, which, if we are to tinker with, would be a policy change. But we’re not intending to at all. What we are—

Hon Amy Adams: No, you’re adding the power. You’re adding the power.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We are not adding power; we are aligning the powers under the NAIT Act, which are currently inadequate, to those of the Search and Surveillance Act. And, I guess, the question could be: why wasn’t that done earlier to enable NAIT officers to better implement the Act? Well, I can’t answer for the previous Government. All I’m saying is that, when exposed as a deficiency by our Government, we wanted to make the change to ensure that no more powers, but equivalent powers, should be given to NAIT officers as are currently given to officers to implement the Wine Act, the Fisheries Act, the Crown Minerals Act, the Waste Minimisation Act, and we believe, because it’s so important, the NAIT Act as well. That is all this bill is doing. That is why it is a technical amendment. That is why the explanatory note to the bill is accurate, and I stand by it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the chance to speak on this bill, and I appreciate the Minister’s last response, but he leaves many questions open that members of the farming community would like answered, and especially in this committee here today.

We understand, and everyone in this room understands, the need to do something in regard to incursions that may require that, but the powers that are being put in place here are unfettered powers. They are not the same powers that are in other legislation that the Minister has tried to hide behind. These are the search and surveillance powers, which are the high end, you could say, of the powers available to any Government organisation in regard to search and surveillance. They are, basically, unfettered powers which enable an organisation to do what it likes. And I explain that to the New Zealand First members, because, when the farmers understand what these powers are in comparison to other investigationary powers, they are completely different. These are the top end, unfettered powers, and they were designed in legislation that was for the national interest to protect New Zealand in cases of attack, basically, and to give New Zealand extreme powers.

Now, when we’re talking about the case of New Zealand farmers and incursions, there do need to be powers given to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and other officials—nobody’s denying that—but they need to have some kinds of rules around them, otherwise this would be seen as a blatant attack on farmers at a point of weakness, when there is an incursion, like M. bovis, to use this process to put on them more powers than would be on any other organisation. And that will be the reaction of the farming community. It won’t be a reaction of “Thank you. Let’s do this.” They will be going, “You have now increased the powers that MPI have.” And so we want the Minister to actually specify whether warrants are required for those pieces of legislation that he just talked about—do they need a warrant in those circumstances?—and to go through individually and answer that.

Hon Amy Adams: Do they need reasonable cause?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Do they need reasonable cause in each of those circumstances under those other pieces of legislation he discussed? We don’t want these broad statements about how this was about trying to align legislation that was set up at one time to be put in the other place. It didn’t happen that way. The search and surveillance rules were put there for a reason.

Now, we also have the situation in this House where we’re in urgency. Urgency is a very special part of the political process, and it’s only used in special circumstances. This is not a special circumstance that demands urgency. There certainly is a need to do something, as the Minister has reflected on, but it does not demand urgency. So why would there be urgency in this situation? It can only lead to one conclusion, and that is: because the Minister does not want to have a full and fair process of investigation of these rules. That can be the only reason why there would be urgency at this stage.

The select committee has offered to meet in the recess over the next two weeks to go through all these things and to give that comfort to farmers, and that has been denied by this House.

Hon Nathan Guy: By the Minister, not by the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: By the Minister. If there’s nothing to hide, why not do that? Why not go through a process which gives comfort to those people out there that are going to be subject to these rules? There’s no urgency. The incursion has already happened. The Minister is dealing with it as best he can. This power won’t assist them in any part of that incursion at the moment. It simply is using the guise of that emergency situation to pass through laws that will mean that farmers are subject to a higher sense of invasion to their personal privacy and their personal property rights—and anybody else that’s a landowner or has any stock or involvement in those industries. That is what is happening here today.

I believe that there is a solution that can be looked at in the context of this debate here today. [Time expired]

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just take a brief call just, I think, to step back from this a little bit and look at some of the context, because I think there is a little bit of misunderstanding about how important bringing in these provisions is, as we see in Part 1.

I just want to go back to a previous contribution by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who seemed to be under the misapprehension that these powers weren’t particularly needed because there would be other ways of finding this information—that there would be some transport records or some other records that we could go through. Now, is he not aware that there are utes and trailers and bobby calves getting taken all round this country, and the response from the head of the Ministry for Primary Industries, Geoff Gwyn, outlined this quite clearly during the select committee process.

Hon Amy Adams: We haven’t had one. That’s the point. There hasn’t been a select committee.

MARK PATTERSON: Well, his appearance before the select committee previously. This has been a widespread occurrence, and this is why these powers are going to be necessary. We have to give these National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officers the tools that they need to effect their role.

Hon Amy Adams: Then have a select committee.

MARK PATTERSON: There is some urgency around this. As we’ve heard, we’ve started the spring milk testing. This is going to be the key part of our response to find out if indeed this disease has spread outside the cordon of known outbreaks. So this brings milking-testing processes under way. We need to have our officers with the powers that they need to respond to the results of that test when they come up. It is quite clear. So these are, to the member who’s just sat down, the Hon David Bennett, special circumstances. This is a response that we need to make.

I just want also to go back to the Rt Hon David Carter and the observations he made about the select committee appearance by Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) this morning, and particularly Michelle Edge, the CEO. It was an absolute exercise in denial, and I think it showed us what the Minister is now having to address. There has been a systems failure. We do need urgently to tidy this up and get it under control. Michelle Edge told us that it is sort of an international norm, it does take a while for these things to settle in, and there are other countries that have had this longer that, maybe, we are not looking so bad against.

Well, I’ve got news for Michelle Edge. We expect to lead the world. We don’t expect to follow the world in these things. This is what the Minister of Agriculture is doing. He is putting in place the provisions that we need to make this response, and to get ourselves back to leading the world and getting our reputation back on track. So this is not a measure that is taken lightly.

We do know that the powers that we are asking for were ones that were originally intended, as outlined by the Minister’s re-presentation of the select committee report at the time. The Search and Surveillance Act—the very people that are now railing against it are the people that brought it in. So if you’re that concerned about that particular Act, it will be because you guys, the previous National Government, brought that particular Act in. So if that is not appropriate, that is an issue that you need to address in reflection, because we are having to deal with what you’ve brought in, and that’s what the Minister is doing because we do need some action.

So just in conclusion—

Simeon Brown: Appalling speech. Appalling speech.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. It’s up to expectation.

MARK PATTERSON: Just in—no. Just in conclusion, you’ve got to take a step back and realise why we are doing this. This is a serious biosecurity incursion. We’ve got an $886 million bill. We’ve had a denial from OSPRI. We’ve got a Minister that is looking to take some action. We need to have the powers made available to him under this provision and we need to give our NAIT officers the powers to respond. This is walking the talk. So we in New Zealand First will back this provision and we will back our Minister to make the changes that he needs to make. Thank you.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you. Madam Chair. It was good to have the Minister of Agriculture on his feet a few moments ago. Really, he was what I consider to be sort of dancing on the head of a pin. First of all, he appears to have been sucked in by his officials that this is a drafting anomaly—

Simeon Brown: It’s not a nice pin. It’s not a nice pin.

Hon NATHAN GUY: —and it’s quite technical. And I thought—no, it’s not a nice pin; it’s actually quite sharp.

What I thought was really interesting was when the Hon Amy Adams got up to take a point of order on the cover sheet of this bill—which is written by the Minister, all signed off by him—which says that this bill makes technical amendments and it doesn’t represent a new policy. Well, we have a completely different point of view. It was interesting to hear Mark Patterson just talk about his talking points—

Hon Amy Adams: He’s doesn’t know what bill we’re debating.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yeah, that’s right. He started to talk about the search and surveillance stuff and how we are making changes to that. What I’m really keen to hear from the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, is this: can he name to us—and he might need to turn to his officials—one regulatory scheme where officials can enter, search, and seize goods (a) from a property, (b) without a warrant, and (c) without reasonable cause? That is a very fair question, and I would appreciate him in the next wee while giving us examples of that. We also haven’t heard examples from the Minister as to why suddenly this has become very urgent—hugely urgent.

Clayton Mitchell: Anyone could answer that.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Ten months, and now—well, take a call, then.

Now, suddenly we’ve got to put the House into urgency; no select committee; he doesn’t want to hear back from Federated Farmers, Dairy New Zealand, Fonterra, Beef and Lamb—doesn’t want to hear what they think about it. He doesn’t want officials to sit down with the select committee in a truncated period so that we can interrogate them to understand that this is a technical bill, because we don’t believe it is, Minister. That’s why we are proposing two very important amendments, and I want the Minister to consider them. One is from the Hon Amy Adams and is hugely important. When you look at the powers under warrant under the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012, it has wide-ranging powers. What these warrantless powers will do, the extension that the Minister—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: New powers.

Hon NATHAN GUY: —wants—yeah, new powers: copying of documents, photos, videos—OK, we get that. But what is not mentioned is that with these warrantless powers they can go on and seize anything. So they can, effectively, turn up on a farm, unannounced, without cause, and say, “Hi, I’m taking your hard drive.”

Hon Amy Adams: For no reason.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yeah, for no reason—no reason; no cause. Surely you would think that if you can go on to the property and photograph documents and video and copy documents, that would be enough. Why not, then, go back into town, get a search warrant, get it signed off by the judge, and go back? These powers go beyond being technical. That’s why the amendment from Amy Adams needs a huge amount of consideration and debate, and I think that the Minister should be able to support that. It knocks out that one intrusive power: the power to seize any property under a warrantless inspection.

The other amendment—from me—is all about a National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officer having to have reasonable cause to suspect non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. So what I mean by this is that a NAIT officer can’t just suddenly drive along and think, “Oh, I’m just gonna swoop in on this property under my warrantless powers and go in and interrogate the farmer or the farm manager under these NAIT officer provisions.” He or she has to have reasonable cause.

We have seen elements—if you think back to the WorkSafe debate that we had where we had overzealous officials out there on farms, completely overreaching and going beyond their powers, and that got farmers’ backs up. We know that by and large these NAIT officers are good, well-meaning people. We know that they’re doing their utmost to try and get on top of the phased eradication of M. bovis. But what could happen—here’s a hypothetical and it indeed could happen. You have an overzealous NAIT officer, with extended warrantless powers, who takes it on themselves, with these intrusive powers, to turn up unannounced, without cause, and demand to seize property.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Vindictive behaviour with no consequence.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Exactly right, Mr Brownlee. Why on earth wouldn’t the Minister want this piece of legislation, this bill, to go to a select committee so that we can hear from his officials why this is needed?

Hon Amy Adams: We found out that it’s not technical.

Hon NATHAN GUY: We agree it’s not technical—Amy Adams is exactly right. So I suspect that the Minister won’t be able to give us an example of a regulatory scheme where officials can enter, seize, and search goods from any property or place, without a warrant and without reasonable cause.

Simeon Brown: Just one would be helpful.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yep, one example would be helpful. So these are two very good amendments. There are others in the name of David Bennett, that he’s going to talk about shortly, and the Rt Hon David Carter. We think that the Minister should seriously consider these proposals from the National Party. The contribution this morning and yesterday has been fair and reasonable and balanced, because, fundamentally, we want to get on and make sure that the NAIT system is working appropriately. But these warrantless powers—an overzealous NAIT officer being able to turn up on properties unannounced, without cause, and seize property—we think, have gone too far.

The other questions—which I’m very keen to hear about from the Minister—are these: what about the question that I proposed last night to do with the NAIT system; can he give us a feel on the overall system, the IT, and whether it will be able to handle the proposed changes that he’s talking about; and what’s the likely cost? That’s one question.

What happens if the farmer has been open and warm when a biosecurity, animal welfare, NAIT officer, or whoever, turns up on the farm—they could indeed have a ute-load of them—and he or she invites them into the house? Suddenly, they are in the property, where the potential hard drive and the files are stored. As I understand it, the provisions with these warrantless inspections do not include the dwelling. But what happens if the farmer—like they often do when someone cold calls on them—says, “Come on, let’s sit around the table and have a cup of tea or coffee and have a chat.”, and suddenly they’re in the dwelling?

What happens if the records are stored down at a bank—more likely the local accountant’s office. In fact, it may not be local. Because of the way technology is now, it could be not be in the local town; it could be in the city. So does that therefore mean that these NAIT officers, with these warrantless powers, can turn up unannounced and take all of these files?

So this is not just a mere drafting anomaly that the Minister has been sucked in to believe by his officials. I heard the Greens—Eugenie Sage—parrot that last night: the lines that she’d been given by the Minister’s office. That is not true. It’s not a drafting anomaly. It’s not just a technical bill; it goes further. The cover sheet on this bill says, “The bill does not represent new policy.” Well, we don’t agree.

So there are several questions that I’m very keen to hear from the Minister, and the technical one is one I imagine he’ll need to go and refer to his officials on. He’s said on numerous occasions that this doesn’t extend the powers of NAIT. Well, of course it does. So I’m keen to hear from the Minister, and we’re going to have more contributions.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. I do want to acknowledge the Minister and the fact that he’s motivated by the right thing, and that is to make improvements that he’s identified in the bill to help with what has been a serious issue for the country in terms of dealing with the M. bovis outbreak. But the problem—and this is the way I see it—is that although initially in his briefings from officials he was told, and he believed, that this was merely a technical change to the bill, actually, through the process, he’s realised now that it’s not a technical change. It’s actually a major change to the bill.

One of the changes that’s proposed that I’ve looked at is a very good one, and that’s around National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) - registered animals. Right now, if they’re moved from a NAIT property on to another property that’s not a NAIT property then they don’t have to be registered or reported on. So that is a good change.

But when you are making the changes to this, or when the Minister’s making the changes to this bill, you should be looking very carefully at the way you’re going to genuinely strengthen the bill and the way that you’re going to be able to make that apply through NAIT offices in the country, to make a better, stronger, regime, with cooperation and by working alongside the farming sector and the rural sector. If you don’t have a spirit of cooperation, if you don’t have their buy-in, and if they don’t actually trust in what you’re doing, then, actually, the system’s going to become worse, not better.

This is a fundamental argument that exists inside the bill in its current form, and it’s why we’re taking a very strong positon in saying that this needs to go through a select committee process so that, actually, submissions can be made on it, and especially so that this part of the bill around a warrantless search is interrogated properly. I sat in the meeting with the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the Hon Amy Adams, and with officials, and this was the bit that we really wanted to interrogate, because we feel that it is absolutely not a technical change. It’s a massive change in terms of the number of powers that are going to be passed to these NAIT officers, and that is going to create a whole lot of new issues to deal with. We couldn’t get any straight, clear answers. The officials are doing their job, but at the end of the meeting we could not get any clear answers. We actually asked them—and I’d still like to see this information—to go away and show us clearly where other agencies share the same powers and have got the same access around warrantless searches.

I just want to highlight just how powerful the powers that are going to be conferred upon NAIT officers with this bill are. Again, the Hon Nathan Guy referred to some calls that the Hon Eugenie Sage took yesterday. It’s clear, it’s very clear—and I’d ask Gareth Hughes, who’s in the House today, to maybe take a call and ask the Minister to clarify this—that she referred to searches with a warrant. So she’s confused; she’s talking about searches with a warrant. Fundamentally, we’re happy with that. Warranted searches—there are no issues there for us, either.

The issues that we have are the new powers that are being conferred for warrantless searches. Let’s just give a clear example of it: right now, under the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act, a NAIT officer is able to go on to the property for the purpose of an inspection—and maybe the Minister can take a call and answer this, because we couldn’t get an answer on this yesterday. So right now, as the Act provides for, a NAIT officer can go on to a property, with the purpose of inspecting and checking on compliance in terms of the Act. They can do that today, right now. If they identify or they think that maybe someone’s not compliant or that the law is being broken, there’s a very simple next step for them, and that is to go and apply for a warrant. They need to make their case; that gets tested.

You know, we can’t have a regime, whether it be the police or fisheries or anyone else that has a power to search, just being given a wholesale power to be able to search without there being any checks and balances—that’s what we have in this country, a very good system of checks and balances. So they can go away and they can apply for a search warrant. If they meet the criteria and if they meet the standard for a search warrant being issued, then they can go, if they need to—I mean, you know, the police often do this: they’ll be there for one purpose and they’ll realise that there could be some evidence that they need to gather for a court case—[Time expired]

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Madam Chair, thank you for the call. I would just like to follow up on my last call and talk about an amendment that I’m putting through as a tabled amendment to this bill. Now, I don’t believe for a second that the Minister doesn’t understand this legislation. He knows exactly what he’s doing in the Chamber here today. He’s not a silly Minister. He would understand that he is giving extreme powers to his departments, all under the guise of M. bovis, to attack the farming community. That is what is happening here today. There’s no other way of looking at it.

There have been reasonable requests made to the Minister; all have been declined. The Minister refuses to answer the hard questions. He will get up and talk about things that are irrelevant and try to diffuse the situation, but when he is asked to specifically say, comparatively, if other legislation has these powers in similar cases, he will not answer that. When he’s been asked to take this to select committee, in a conducive process where all of Parliament could work together, he refuses to do that—and we would do that in a timely manner to enable the Government to have the tools to attack M. bovis; he refuses to that. And now I’m going to give him one last chance—and that is the amendment that I’ve put forward under this part. This one chance is for us to put another test into this bill, to say that search powers are available only if the Minister decides that in certain circumstances these powers are necessary—and I don’t disagree that there may be some certain circumstances, like if there was a foot-and-mouth outbreak in New Zealand.

In that circumstance, and even in an M. bovis outbreak like we have now, the Minister may be able to use these kinds of search and surveillance powers, because that’s what they were originally for. They were for situations where the national interest of New Zealand was being attacked. That’s why we brought them in when we did. We did not bring them in as a wholesale mechanism to investigate and manage New Zealand farmers, New Zealanders in business places, or New Zealanders in any other environment.

So what I am saying here today, Minister, is this: why won’t you agree to having another test in there, which says that in special circumstances—and that’s what the tabled amendment says—the Minister will determine, and let this House know, that these extra powers are convenient, necessary, and required?

You are in this situation now. The M. bovis outbreak would be something that, potentially, would satisfy the conditions of this amendment. It would enable the Minister of Agriculture to go out of this House, to have actually listened to the requirements of the community that have been represented by the Opposition here, and to take into account the property rights and the personal interests of New Zealand farmers and other people that may have property that would have animals and be subject to this legislation. I request the Minister to do that today, because that is his last chance.

Otherwise, we will see legislation passed here today that is Draconian. It is understood by the Minister and the Government parties, and they are doing this because they want to use the M. bovis situation to put extra unfettered powers into their department. The Minister may laugh—and I think it’s disgraceful that he laughs in this situation. He has done a good job on M. bovis, and I’ve said that many times in this House, but he doesn’t need to stuff it up now. This is a step too far, and he knows that.

This is something that could be subject to abuse, and even if it isn’t subject to abuse, it gives the fear to ordinary New Zealanders that it could be abused. Ordinary New Zealand farmers and property holders now will know that they have no recourse if somebody comes on to their property under the guise of National Animal Identification and Tracing. It will create fear in a community that we rely on to actually act with integrity and understanding to deal with M. bovis and whatever may come in the future—and we are doing the exact opposite.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’d just like to follow on from what my colleague the Hon David Bennett was saying. The risk that we’re facing here by not going through the proper process with select committees is that we are going to implement some rules that provide much further-ranging powers than are actually anticipated. There’s a whole range of reasons. We’ve heard a bit about that, and I’ll go into that in more detail, but one of the aspects I would encourage the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, to consider in this instance is the Rt Hon David Carter’s amendment proposing a sunset clause which will then allow for this to be in place only up until such time as the additional proposed piece of legislation for changes to National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) is brought before this House.

The National Animal Identification and Tracing Act was implemented in 2012 and started getting rolled out 2013. It started with cattle initially, and deer were subsequently brought into it. A three-year phased trial, initially through to 2016, was conducted, and then a review of that process was initiated. So this is all normal practice that has been carried out. There’s an element of luck with timing with the incursion of Mycoplasma bovis and this review of NAIT having already been under way for some 12 or so months prior to that incursion occurring.

We saw the results of the NAIT review early this year. There was a whole raft of recommendations—38 of those coming out of that report—and the Minister has already told us that he will be bringing another suite of amendments to the NAIT legislation before this House. So I would encourage him to seriously consider and to adopt the Rt Hon David Carter’s amendment providing a sunset clause to this particular set of amendments we’re proposing today to enable—clearly, on this side of the House we disagree with what’s being proposed at this point—a compromise; to say, “Well, look, let’s get this in place, but, actually, let’s put an end date on it subsequent to seeing the new proposed legislation.”

In terms of that new proposed legislation, the expectation from this side of the House would be that it does indeed go through the full, normal, democratic process, as in a thorough select committee process at that point, which will help a review of any relevancy for the continuation of what’s proposed under today’s discussion as to whether or not that would indeed be incorporated into the more fulsome review of the NAIT legislation that will at some point come before the House. So I would really encourage that amendment to be adopted by the Minister.

Now, there is no dispute from this side of the Chamber that we do need to tighten up some of the rules around NAIT. There have been instances where it has not been adhered to as strongly as it should have been in the rural community, and farmers accept that, but to hear that we need to be providing this far-ranging power—I believe it is an unintended consequence of this legislation. I don’t believe the intent was necessarily there at drafting stage to provide such wide-ranging powers. But the reality is that, under this proposal, it does give those powers of warrantless searches—the power to enter, to search, and to seize property for any purpose, for any reason. Actually, there does not need to be any reasonable cause, and the Hon Nathan Guy has an amendment on the Table—again, a relevant, worthwhile amendment to be considered—around the requirement for these NAIT officers to have reasonable cause before they can actually enter the property under a warrantless search.

One of the points I really want to capture is that farming is a little unique in that, often—and, generally, 95 percent of the time; 100 percent of the time, just about—home offices are where the details, the records, of a farming business are kept. So that’s a room within the dwelling of the farmer. That entitles these people to enter, to search, and to obtain information from those offices if they’re invited into the house. Look, anyone in this House who’s from a rural background will appreciate that farmers are friendly, open people. Someone turns up at the door; they’ll invite them in. I spent many years in the rural banking sector and was always welcomed into people’s houses. You’d sit down for a cup of tea, you’d discuss business—

Hon David Bennett: Maybe not always.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Perhaps not always, as Mr Bennett points out, and I accept that may be the case. But, you know, farmers always welcome people on to their property, which gives them access—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Stuart Smith. I just encourage the member to have some other arguments.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Yes. I would like to speak to clauses 4 through to 7 in relation to animal movements from National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) properties or between properties, and raise a question, because what’s not clear is what constitutes a movement and what properties would be captured in that. I can use an example of stock being grazed in vineyards in Marlborough—and this happens a lot, particularly with sheep. Now, sheep aren’t part of NAIT, but they may well be at some point in the future. Anyway, the argument holds true. Where animals are taken to a third party’s property, shifted on to there, grazed—and then they may well be shifted four or five times around different properties. Is that a movement that has to be recorded and reported to NAIT? That’s unclear—it’s totally unclear—and I think this is a very important aspect to it.

Also, what would be unclear—what about the search and surveillance clauses? Does that give power to NAIT people discharging their duties under this bill to be able to have access to, in this case, a vineyard’s records, and a warrantless search and seizure of property from a third party completely unrelated? The way I read the bill, that is actually the case. This would have far-reaching implications if this is the case and this level of uncertainty is out there, because we’ll have people who would be concerned about those infringements on their rights and having that extended to them. So they will simply withdraw that opportunity for the grazing of those animals to be carried out on these properties. It’s a very valuable part, and a symbiotic relationship between, in this case, sheep—but it could be cattle going on to vineyards. The great thing about grazing on vineyards is that most of the year, they don’t have any animals on them at all.

That has a very low worm burden to no worm burden on those properties. So the pasture is clean. The pasture is also great for storing carbon, so we want to have that. We don’t want to have chemically nuked - out vineyards, which would be the alternative. Otherwise, you’re spending a lot of money. Also, in these days of concern about the environment and climate change, the alternative to having stock grazing in those vineyards is to run tractors around and mow them. That is not the best solution. So this bill, I think, has quite far-reaching and perverse impacts.

This is what we are often back in this House fixing—a bill is drafted, it becomes an Act, many years pass, and people haven’t thought about the consequences of what might happen in the future. This is the opportunity. We’re not going through a select committee process, as has been alluded to by many people today, and I won’t traverse all of those arguments. But that is a serious problem, potentially, in the future.

I note that the Hon Damien O’Connor is back in the chair, so I’d like him to consider that question. What happens when stock is moved on to a grazing property such as a vineyard? Does that constitute a movement that has to be reported to NAIT? And when it shifts from one vineyard to another vineyard, does that constitute a NAIT movement that has to be recorded? Do the search and surveillance powers in the bill—and the warrantless entry and all of those provisions—also apply to those third-party properties? Because the way the bill reads, they do. And, as I said, this will have far-reaching implications for those good relationships between farmers and third parties, utilising our resources in New Zealand for the best effect, and helping to meet our climate change ambitions as a country—these things all fit together. And in my reading of the bill, this will have implications that we do not want as a country. I certainly don’t want it in my electorate, and having all of those good relations being undone by an ill-thought out, ill-prepared bill, which has come before this—[Time expired]

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I appreciate that, in the spirit, I guess, of some unity around the Chamber, we’re wanting to move on and improve the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system, because we all realise that it’s not working as it should. I appreciate the points that have been raised. I stand by the explanatory note of the bill. I stand by the advice to me—that this is a technical bill to make some changes.

Can I just go through a few things. The first question I have is why should farmers—good farmers—and people in the farming sector have any less protection from the rogues than people in the wine industry, the fisheries industry, the people in Crown minerals, or, indeed, people who are managing waste across the country? What we are doing here with changes is just giving equivalence to provisions that ensure that compliance officers have the same ability to investigate where they suspect non-compliance, because non-compliance affects everyone across industries.

So I’ll work through some of the proposed amendments that have been put to us and those that I have here. There are some valid points raised, and I’ve had discussions with the member Nathan Guy on where we might go from here. Can I say in respect of the one about reasonable cause—a proposition put up by the Hon Nathan Guy that they would have to have reasonable cause to suspect non-compliance before they could do anything—that the reality is that if an officer has reasonable cause to suspect non-compliance, they’d get a warrant. But a warrantless search, for the most part, is because they might need to go and get some indication of whether compliance is in fact being adhered to or not—they don’t know. And, in fact, under all those other Acts, then compliance officers can go in to inspect.

Hon Mark Mitchell: They can do that now.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: To inspect, right? Not to search, and the member knows that. So if, then, in inspecting, they identify any property that they realise may be relevant, then they can lawfully seize it. And lawful seizure is accepted in law. The member will know that. He’s probably done quite a bit of it himself—that is, to seize under precedent, under case law, under protections in that law, they can lawfully seize what might be relevant to the investigation, or to confirm or otherwise whether compliance is occurring.

I guess that if we were to introduce reasonable cause as a qualification to legal seizure, then the problem is that all the other Acts that rely on legal seizure as a term would have to be changed, and it comes down to a policy issue as to whether that would be relevant in the others, under the Search and Surveillance Act.

So we start to unravel what is a legal construct around protection—which the previous Government has endorsed through the Search and Surveillance Act—on one side, and then the ability of compliance officers to carry through with their legal obligations. So, in my view, I can’t support Nathan Guy’s amendment, that does seek to have a qualification of reasonable cause, on the basis that that would undermine legal seizure across all other Acts.

Can I say that in another one—and it’s hard to keep up with the numbers. I appreciate that the member the Hon Nathan Guy has made some, I think, updates on his Supplementary Order Papers. I’ve got some of them here, and I’m not sure which one is which. So I guess he’s clarified the drafting on one of those, and I appreciate it’s much the same argument around the one of legal seizure.

Can I go to another one that has been put up by David Bennett around the declaration of a natural disaster. Certainly, in times like that, maybe there are other powers that are required. The situation with M. Bovis, arguably, is similar to that of foot-and-mouth. The difference is in the way that the disease is transferred—one happens very quickly, the other happens more slowly, but they are, none the less, both actually significant natural events. I don’t think we should have to wait for a natural disaster to be declared before we go and investigate whether people are complying with the law—with the law.

So can I say that the Minister would have to declare an incursion before a search can take place. That’s a ridiculous situation. Can I say that we have to be reasonable here. We are trying to protect good farmers, who abide by the law, who understand the value of NAIT, and want people who are non-compliant to be investigated and prosecuted. And the question was asked of me: will that occur? Well, in spite of the flaws or deficiencies in the law that we were delivered when coming into Government, we’ve identified them—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Bungled operation.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —the Ministry of Primary Industries has moved—well, maybe it has been more difficult because the law was deficient. That’s why we’re trying to change it. That’s why we’re trying to change it, and this technical amendment will make it easier to ensure that the law is adhered to.

The Hon Amy Adams put up another amendment. She’s going a step further and, in fact, has two here to say that “Notwithstanding anything else contained in this clause, a NAIT officer … shall not have the power to seize any property”. Well, that’s a rather ridiculous step back from what should be, and are, accepted under the Search and Surveillance Act as reasonable powers to follow through on obligations to ensure compliance, as any good policeman, as any good compliance officer would do. I cannot support that. So I have to say that, at this point, I haven’t seen any amendments that I consider acceptable, because they will either unravel legal precedent by way of legal seizure; they will either undermine the ability to seize property, full stop; or they require a threshold which is too high before we can go in and have either a warranted or warrantless search.

We need to ensure that there is flexibility in the powers of compliance officers to go in, first, to check whether compliance is occurring, and then, if they suspect it isn’t, to be able to seize the property that either can confirm or clear those farmers. This is fair. The Search and Surveillance Act, as passed by the previous National Government, brought a fair balance between protection of property rights and individuals’ rights and the need to enforce the law, particularly in those Acts—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why have a search-warrant regime?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, we have a search-warrant regime under warrant or warrantless, and that member should know the difference between that. So without trying to unravel what is significant legal precedent, what we’re making is a technical adjustment to bring the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act into line with the Wine Act, into line with the Fisheries Act, and others that require the same compliance to protect industry.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I take issue with what the Minister is trying to explain away there. I think the Minister really needs to take to his feet again and actually explain to this committee, given we’re doing this under urgency, why a National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officer should have greater powers than a police officer. The police are our principal law enforcement body.

I have been looking at the Search and Surveillance Act this morning, and the police are very, very limited in what they can do without a warrant. They can enter a property if they have reason to suspect someone is unlawfully at large in that property. They can enter a property and take action if they have got reason to believe that there could be injury to people or destruction of property. But they don’t have the right to enter a property without a warrant just to sniff around. Now, the NAIT officials get that, but the Minister has not explained to this committee why NAIT officers should have greater powers than a police officer does, because there’s simply no justification for it.

The other thing which is new—absolutely new—is this: given the Minister wants to give these greater powers to NAIT officials, why is it that he feels there should be no check or balance or reporting on their exercising of warrantless seizure or warrantless search?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who has to?

BRETT HUDSON: Well, thank you, Mr Brownlee. As a new member in this House in 2014, the very first select committee I had the privilege to sit on, under urgency, was the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee considering a bill under urgency to give greater surveillance powers to the State surveillance agents: the GCSB and the SIS. That was a fraught bill. Members of the then Opposition fought quite strongly against extending powers to the State security apparatus—fought strongly against it. So provisions were included in that bill that if those security agencies, who are there to protect the lives of New Zealanders—that, for them, is an issue of national security, and the potential for terrorist activity in New Zealand to damage property and to take the life of New Zealand citizens, and indeed visitors to this country, is hugely serious. The provisions in that bill require that if there is warrantless surveillance, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must undertake an assessment and report back if that warrantless power was exercised appropriately under that bill.

So where, Minister, are the provisions in this so-called technical change? Where are your provisions you’re proposing so that New Zealanders can know that Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials and NAIT officials exercised appropriately that warrantless huge power you want to give them, that the conditions and circumstances were right, and that they exercised that power to an extent that was appropriate for those circumstances but they went no further than they needed to, and that the New Zealand public can therefore have confidence?

Particularly, I want you, Minister, to justify for New Zealanders and to this committee why, if we require that sort of assessment and report for matters of national security and the potential loss of life, we do not require that sort of oversight and reporting for something that is truly important—and we accept that—but certainly cannot be compared against an act of terrorism that could take wholesale numbers of lives of our citizens and visitors to this country.

So I am very keen—very keen—for the Minister to find a way to persuade members in this committee. I am keen for him, firstly, to inform us, and, secondly, to persuade us of the rationale to give such sweeping rights of access and seizure to MPI officials when we very carefully—and that Minister was a member of that Opposition—considered for our intelligence apparatus how we would limit those powers for them, to make sure that New Zealanders could have confidence that the surveillance activities on them and in their country would always be used and observed with the sorts of protections for New Zealanders’ rights and privacy that they demand and expect.

So, Minister, take to your feet and tell us all why NAIT officials should have greater powers than our security intelligence services.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I think the Minister in the chair, in his latest of a long line of responses to questions from the floor, was overly generous and conciliatory to the Opposition, because I don’t think our rural communities or farmers are being well served by the debate, and, quite frankly, the politics we’ve seen dished up in this debate. We’ve seen exaggeration. We’ve seen red herrings. We’ve seen extreme claims: extreme claims of conspiracy theories that officials are running rampant, trying to totally change the regime under the catastrophe that is M. bovis—an absolute conspiracy theory; extreme claims that, somehow, Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials are getting greater powers than police officers, as Gerry Brownlee said, or even more bizarre claims that they’re getting even more powers than counter-terrorism operations in New Zealand. Our public and our rural communities aren’t served by these exaggerated claims. We should be getting proper information, accurate information, to people, which will be on the parliamentary record.

Matt King: Have you read the bill?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I have read the bill, Mr King. I have read the bill.

GARETH HUGHES: This is a technical amendment. Even if the Opposition says it a hundred times that it’s not, it does not make it true. But I have a question—I have a question for the National Party. Given this technical amendment simply aligns the legislation with the existing search and surveillance legislation that they passed—you know, with the existing safeguards within it—is National going to now logically follow and amend legislation, or put up members’ bills to put these extra hurdles, these extra jumps, that they want to see MPI go through into other legislation? Is National going to introduce legislation to put existing hurdles they want to see in the Wine Act? Are they going to put them in the Waste Minimisation Act? Are they going to put them in the Fisheries Act? They’re being absolutely logically inconsistent asking for greater hurdles for MPI. Given it was National that put in the warrantless search provisions for NAIT, are they going to now follow the tenor of the debate tonight and remove that in the future? It was National that put in the warrantless search functions. This is why I say the public aren’t being well served by the debate and the tenor coming from the Opposition.

Look, the fact is these warrantless searches were there originally. They follow strict guidelines: the codes within the departments. Now, the fact is it’s their job, right? It’s their job, and that’s why National put it in the original NAIT legislation for compliance officers to actually go talk to people, to actually do their job investigating. They have those guidelines they’ve got to follow. This legislation passing is simply fixing the problem when they exercised their functions, did a warrantless search as part of their routine compliance obligations, and they could literally see offending material. Let’s say—a hypothetical scenario—a whole bunch of counterfeit tags were sitting on a table. National, if you follow the logic of their debate tonight, would not let that official take a photograph because the fact is they’re trying to make up for, quite frankly, the botched job they originally did with bluster, exaggeration, and red herring in this debate.

Now, I’ve been asked why the Green Party is supporting this under urgency. The Green Party supports urgency when there’s a legitimate case for urgency. In this case, we are talking about tens of thousands of cows being culled, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, we’re talking about a biosecurity crisis which—quite frankly, we’re fortunate that it wasn’t foot-and-mouth, because the regime that National created wasn’t fit for purpose. This was something the Prime Minister has said has failed abysmally; something Minister O’Connor has said was pathetic—the NAIT enforcement; something we’ve heard one of the creators, Coats, saying was a betrayal of New Zealand agriculture. So no amount of bluster, no amount of making things up, no amount of exaggeration is going to change the fact we’re here today to fix, to clean up, the mess that was created. This technical amendment is doing that because biosecurity is important to New Zealand. It’s important to our economy, and I just want to make sure the record’s straight and farmers and our rural communities know exactly what’s happening here.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take my first call in the committee stage of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. I do want to acknowledge the Minister, both for taking the opportunity to respond to some of our questions in the committee this morning but also for coming down to Ashburton and attending the public meeting that was attended by between 800 and 1,000 people, which is certainly the largest public meeting that I recall in Ashburton in recent times.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did he need you there to get a crowd?

ANDREW FALLOON: He did indeed. He did indeed. I’d also like to acknowledge Nathan Guy, who’s come down to Ashburton on many occasions, and quite recently to also meet with a number of affected farmers, who have infected properties, restricted place notices, and also notices of direction.

I do want to start my contribution this morning by speaking to Part 1, and specifically provisions relating to animal movement. I’m in the, I guess, unfortunate position of representing an electorate that is, probably more than most, affected by Mycoplasma bovis. The vast bulk of the properties that are infected or are under restricted place notices are either in Southland or in mid-Canterbury, and I’ve certainly dealt with a great many number of farmers over the last 12 months who have been negatively affected by M. bovis, and many of the concerns that they have relate to animal movement.

They’ve been incredibly affected by it, not just by the length of time that it’s taken to move to culling, but then, when it comes to animal movement, in many cases stock have been moved off at a very slow rate of just a few dozen a day in some cases. So it takes, in some circumstances, many weeks for farms to be depopulated. So I have to ask the question to the Minister: why has it been so slow? Why has it been that once that decision’s made to cull on a farm, the process is so slow for removing stock? In many cases, these are farmers who have been without an income since January of this year. They can’t receive full compensation payments until they are depopulated and, in many cases, have gone through the 90-day stand down.

I do now want to turn to the search and surveillance provisions in this bill. Like my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, I do have concerns about the scope and the nature, and particularly the process these provisions are being brought in by. But one area that the bill is silent on, and that I’d like the Minister to perhaps comment on as well, is around where this bill makes no comment.

At the start of this year, I caught up with a farmer, just south of my electorate, actually, in South Canterbury, and he was one of the first affected by Mycoplasma bovis, and it hit him very hard. His farm was very clearly under surveillance. When I arrived at the property there was a police car parked just down the road, and so he was very clearly under surveillance for a very long period of time. But, unfortunately, every evening that police car would depart. So although he was under surveillance during the day, there was nobody keeping an eye on his property during the evening. It won’t surprise many members of this committee to know that that farmer was targeted repeatedly by burglars and other thugs in the community.

I do want to say, though, that the fortunate thing is that that is the exception rather than the rule. Most communities around New Zealand, and particularly in my part of the world of mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury, have pulled together very well in response to Mycoplasma bovis. The community haven’t thrown a lot of blame around. Most of the farmers who have been affected have done the right thing, they’ve told their neighbours, and they have contacted agencies like the Rural Support Trust for support.

I do just want to come back to that meeting though that Damien O’Connor had in Ashburton, because one of the big questions that was asked at that meeting still hasn’t been answered, unfortunately. The question that was put to him was: “At what point will the Government say that eradication is no longer possible and that we have to move to management?” If the tens of thousands of stock that are currently going through the process of being culled doesn’t work, and if the billion dollars that was allocated to spend on the response isn’t enough, at what point does the Government say that we move from eradication to management? I’d really like an answer to that question. He was asked that question several months ago. I still haven’t heard an answer from him. My constituents still haven’t heard an answer from him. This response from the Government in many cases has been bungled, and it’s been far too slow.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): We heard a contribution a few minutes ago from the Green member Gareth Hughes, who was asking a number of questions to the Opposition—a somewhat unusual process in a committee stage. But all I want to say to him is that his interpretation of the Act and his analysis of how both the Search and Surveillance Act and the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act work at the present time is very, very inadequate. What I find amazing is that his party were once out on the streets rallying people in protest against the Search and Surveillance Act, but are now in here today voting for an expansion of the powers—or an expansion of those who may call on powers under that Act. I think what I am now expecting is that any time soon, we’re going to see the Green Party promoting a bill that allows agricultural chemicals and pesticides to be considered part of organic farming practice. That is the sort of ridiculous situation that this party has got themselves into.

We have a bill here today that allows the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officers more powers to surveil, search, and seize than a police officer, because all it has to be is on a suspicion or an idea. And then, of course, we learn from Brett Hudson that not only does this bill confer more powers on NAIT officers than police; it also confers on NAIT officers less supervision, less scrutiny of their warrantless activities, than is on either the GCSB or the SIS—the country’s two main security agencies. So, in other words, the Government currently thinks that there is activity going on on farms that is likely to cause incursion issues across the agricultural sector that is of greater risk to the country than any terrorist threat. I want to suggest to the Minister that that is somewhat out of balance with the reality of the world we live in.

Now, the question is still not answered by the Minister: what scrutiny will go on NAIT officers who decide to use their warrantless powers to search and seize? Is there going to be any? I think it would be only reasonable that some kind of regime, such as the Inspector-General’s scheme over the security agencies, the SIS and the GCSB, applies to NAIT officers; a similar thing to the Independent Police Conduct Authority that applies over the police. These guys are going to be totally free agents to enter any property, because there is no definition in the bill that confines it simply to a farm or to a place where animals are contained or held or housed or whatever; it’s a general power.

So, as I said earlier, they can go into the local accountant’s office. They can go into the main offices of accounting firms throughout the country if they have an idea or a bit of a suspicion that there might be records of movements of cattle inside those premises. It’s most unlikely, but there’s no constraint in this bill on the use of that warrantless power. So we’re going to have a group of New Zealanders, presumably, who are titled NAIT officers—no particular indication of how they’re trained, what they’re trained in, what they are supposed to understand, but they’re going to have this extraordinary power to go wherever they like without any constraint whatsoever. That cannot be the intention of the bill.

If the intention is to tighten up the NAIT regulations, which we all agree with; if it is to encourage greater compliance with the NAIT regulations, which we all agree with; if it is to have a regime in place that means if there is a future incursion of any type there is a greater ability to contain it and to eradicate it, then we all agree with that. What we don’t agree with is the opening up of the warrantless authority to go anywhere you like, to search anything you like, and to seize whatever you like without any reference or scrutiny of that activity whatsoever.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Bennett to clause 8 be agreed to:

In clause 8, after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) In Schedule 2, after clause 49, insert:

49A Search powers only available in response to biosecurity incursion or natural disaster

(1) A NAIT officer conducting an inspection without warrant under clause 49 does not have the ability to exercise the search powers set out in clause 40 unless the Minister has declared that the search powers are required in response to a biosecurity incursion or natural disaster, as set out in subclause (2).

(2) In making a declaration that the search powers are required in response to a biosecurity incursion or natural disaster, the Minister must—

(a) make a statement to the House of Representatives to this effect; and

(b) present a written notice to the House of Representatives outlining—

(i) the specific nature of the biosecurity incursion or natural disaster; and

(ii) the period for which the declaration is in effect.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Rt Hon David Carter to Part 1 be agreed to:

After clause 8, insert:

8A Expiry

The amendments contained in section 8 of this Act, amending Schedule 2 of the principal Act, expire on 15 August 2019 and shall be of no further effect from that date.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are in the middle of conducting a vote.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I’m sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are in the middle of conducting a vote, Mr Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Have you called another vote or are you just declaring a vote?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are in the middle of conducting the—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, can I perhaps explain. The reason for my seeking the point of order is that I understand there has been some last-minute agreement to accept a tabled amendment that would belong to this part. It is not included in your list at this point. Now, the only way that could happen would be if the committee were to grant leave for that amendment to be considered in the voting. So we’re not looking at further debate, simply that the amendment in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy, which puts a 12-month review clause in there for the use of the warrantless powers, which is quite a reasonable thing—and I understand the Government is OK with that.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. Yes, thank you, Mr Brownlee. We are actually just about to put that question.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 1 be agreed to:

after clause 8, insert:

8A Review

(1) The Minister must, 12 months after the commencement of this Act, initiate a review of the amendments set out in section 8.

(2) The Minister must present a report on the review to the House of Representatives within 3 months of the initiation of the review under subsection (1).

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 1 be agreed to:

after clause 8(4), insert:

(5) Notwithstanding anything else contained in this clause, a NAIT officer conducting a search under clause 49 of Schedule 2 shall not have the power to seize any property.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 1 be agreed to:

after clause 8(4), insert:

(5) In Schedule 2, after clause 49, insert:

49A Reasonable cause required

Notwithstanding anything else contained in this schedule, a NAIT officer conducting a search under clause 49 shall not have the ability to utilise the powers contained in clause 40 unless the NAIT officer has reasonable cause to suspect non-compliance with this Act.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to regulations

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you very much. We’ve had a very good debate on Part 1. The National Party is disappointed that our amendments didn’t get across the line, but, fortunately—and I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, and thank him for accepting the review clause that’s now just been inserted. That will mean that the Minister will get official advice on that section that we’ve been particularly concerned about, to do with the warrantless powers. He will now be given a report in 12 months, after the bill is enacted, and then he will report that information within three months of that review period. That will give us some comfort, on this side of the House, that it is working as indeed intended by the Government.

Speaking in particular to Part 2, which is the lesser part—it’s about the amendments to regulations—and, in particular, around the animal movements between locations other than National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) locations. This is really a tidy-up. When I was speaking about this earlier on today and, indeed, last night, I posed a few questions. We were fortunate in the Primary Production Committee this morning that we had Operational Solutions for Primary Industries (OSPRI) and NAIT officials in front of us, so I was able to ask the question, and the question was “Is the existing NAIT system—i.e. the software, the hard drive, all of the componentry—fit for purpose, and can the NAIT system handle that?” As I understand it, it’s a two-legged stool whereby information needs to be inputted and received. Well, from the chief executive we got a cautious “yes”, and then, from the chair, he went on to say that the system needs to be modernised; it’s going to require a budget, and it’s going to take six to 12 months.

So while we support Part 2 and have less concerns from Part 1—and those have all been debated and discussed, and we would’ve preferred this not to have occurred in urgency so we could’ve had the chat with senior officials in front of us—what was interesting to hear from NAIT officials today is that they do have reserves in their account. We didn’t have enough time this morning to glean what the quantum is of those reserves, but it’s very clear to us that the overall NAIT technology—hard drive, system software—is going to need to be upgraded. I think it’s going to be in the several millions of dollars to do that, but having experience as a Minister in this place for nearly 8½ years, I know that when officials come and tell you something about IT systems, it tends to be “Oh, well, we think it’s going to be in this range, but here’s a contingency of 10 percent.”, and, indeed, it could be 20 percent more than what they forecast.

So I guess we want some assurance from the Minister this morning that, indeed, these regulations are fit for purpose and that the NAIT system and software can handle it, because, in effect, this bill could pass into law within a few hours, and we want to ensure that, indeed, the NAIT system compatibility is up and ready to go for, presumably, next week or the week after. So it would be good to hear from the Minister about that.

I guess the other important point on these amendments to the regulations is there’s going to be an infringement and a compliance component of this on farmers who don’t apply. Here’s another question for the Minister and his officials: what is the likely infringement if farmers don’t comply? We’ve seen this in the past, so it would be good to get a bit of a handle on it from the Minister on the second part of these regulations—what are the likely infringement fines that are going to be incorporated with this amended regulation 5(5B)? So if farmers don’t adhere to the movement of stock when a farm is not NAIT-registered, what is the fine going to be, and how long is that going to take in terms of that report going back through the system from OSPRI across to the Ministry for Primary Industries? I acknowledge that in the last wee while, there’s been more compliance, and that is a good thing.

So we support Part 2. We’ve got a couple of questions that I’ve pitched to the Minister this morning, and it would be useful to hear those answers.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Chair. When we come to Part 2, I’d just like to thank Minister Damien O’Connor for accepting the last amendment and the parties for voting for it, because I think it gives a degree of comfort to this House that there will actually be a review, and that was—

Hon Nathan Guy: In 12 months.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yeah, in 12 months’ time. So at least it won’t be completely unfettered. There will be, at some point, a bit of a review.

But when we come to Part 2, it’s the amendments to the regulations, and one of the big things in there is the insertion of the words “or other locations”, and a principal part of this bill is actually to deal with other locations. Now, primarily, you could see how it’s been identified as a risk where there’s a non - National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) location that stock have travelled to, and that’s what the Minister is trying to deal with in this situation. However, the words “other location” could actually have an extensive meaning—if you look at something like a calf club show at a school, for example. Is that now going to be considered an “other location”? There won’t be a NAIT requirement on that property. It’s a calf club event at a local school. Will there have to be NAIT compliance for a transfer of animals there and back?

That would actually be the sort of issue that could come up, because it’s not necessarily just a transfer from one farm to another. In the earlier speeches, I noted that the Rt Hon David Carter made a number of references to inter-farm transfers. There may be different properties that the same farmer holds or leases or has stock transferring between, and “other property” is intended to cover those. But there may be circumstances that the people in this room aren’t aware of that could actually be genuine cases where that “other property” may actually become a very difficult or tiresome requirement. For example, if there were a number of properties that had different titles, or different farms—like a lot of farmers—

Hon Nathan Guy: Oh, contiguous as well.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes. A lot of farmers may have two dairy farms, for example, that are right beside each other, and they may transfer stock from one property to the next.

Hon Nathan Guy: And how’s that going to work?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: How would that work? Or if they had a runoff right beside their dairy farm that they were taking—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is this why you never introduced it?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Pardon? Is that member saying something? No, she’s not. That would be typical. And the other member beside her is laughing because he doesn’t know when to vote in this House.

So if we just take that example, there’s a runoff beside a dairy farm and the person takes their stock to that runoff for the winter for grazing, and it may be used for maize or some other thing like that. Does that farmer then have to actually declare that movement, and is that what was intended in the circumstance when it’s really just taking stock through a gateway to the next part of their farming enterprise?

Then you could get situations where there are lease animals. I think one of my colleagues raised the issue in regards to vineyards, where there are animals—in that case, sheep—that are taken around different vineyards in a lease-type arrangement. So is that intended to be covered, as well?

Now we understand the—

Hon Kris Faafoi: What happened in the previous regime, then?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Pardon?

Hon Kris Faafoi: What was the situation in the previous regime?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Look, that’s a good question. What was the situation in the previous regime—and that’s why we’re doing this amendment around “other place”. To that member, I say that there’s no problem with extending it to the other place—OK? So we’re not voting against that. We’re saying that that is—

Hon Kris Faafoi: So you didn’t do this in your nine years?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, it’s not a matter of—the member is asking a question of whether it was done in the past. It hasn’t been, because this is what’s being done in the bill. That’s how legislation works, and there’s no problem with that at all. The question is defining “other place”, and that is the issue, because the bill hasn’t gone through a select committee. There has been no robust process to actually look at those definitions. There has been no opportunity for members of the public and the farming community to come in and actually say whether that definition would actually work.

So, Mr Faafoi, it’s not a matter of who hasn’t done what; it is a matter of getting it right now. That is the thing that—

Hon Kris Faafoi: And that’s what we’re doing.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: And they’re not doing that, because there has been no select committee process. It is simply a case where the Government has wished to push this through and it hasn’t looked at that. So—

Jamie Strange: It sounds like class sizes.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: What’s that member saying?

Jamie Strange: It sounds like class sizes—all of a sudden you’ve discovered what we need to do.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Class sizes—talk about class sizes. There are no class sizes when the teachers are all on strike. That member is talking about class sizes when his Government has put all the teachers out on strike, so I think he would be better to be quiet in this Chamber and to listen, rather than to actually interject to distract people from the actual full impact of this bill that we’re looking at here today.

So there are some questions around what “other places” will look like, and we’re not trying to obfuscate the process here. We just want to make sure that it is actually done in a way that actually meets the requirements that are being sought.

The Minister may have gone through all those options and may well have looked at that and got advice from his department as to what would be considered to be an “other location”. We will look forward to him being able to explain that, because this side of the House hasn’t had that luxury. We haven’t had the advice that he has had to the extent that he has had it, and he may well have considered whether something like a calf club at a school is an “other location”. He may well have considered if there is an adjoining piece of land that is used as a runoff with a different title, that is considered to have a different NAIT number, and that is now required to be registered for that movement. He may have considered those things, but we don’t know that, and we request him to answer those questions so that we have that clarity and so that members of the public and the farming community know where they stand.

With these unfettered powers that are being given out to NAIT officers, farmers will now need to be able to understand what the requirements that they will have to satisfy are, because, potentially, they could be in breach of them in a very quick manner because, as soon as somebody comes on to their property, they can ask for that search and surveillance right. It comes to a fundamental point of how we want NAIT to work. Nobody denies that NAIT needs improving. That’s the point Mr Faafoi said before, and nobody denies that at all. The question will be that NAIT will never work—it will never ever work properly—if it doesn’t have buy-in from farmers.

This is the heart of what’s going to be the problem with what the Minister’s doing today. Even if he thinks that it’s just a temporary solution and something that needs to happen and that “I’m all-powerful. I can do this.” and his department requires that, this actually sends the wrong signal to farmers. It sends the signal that there will be a Draconian approach to NAIT going forward. NAIT will work, and it needs to work, in a different way in the future, and that is only if there is buy-in from farmers, because I can guarantee you that the next time we have an incursion, we will be doing exactly the same thing. We’ll be sitting in this House and we’ll be saying “We should have done this. The legislation should have had this power. This should have happened.” But if we actually have farmers working with the system and with the Government, the officials, and the department at the time, then we will be much more effective.

And 99 percent of the farmers have worked with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and are willing to go through that process now when it comes to M. bovis. That’s the success of MPI at the moment and why we’re looking at eradication rather than just containment, because we know that the vast majority of industry are working with MPI. There will be some rogue cases, but that’s in anything in life. But when there is a system of Draconian measures that’s planted on top of a community who we need to work with us to deliver results, often you don’t get that result. What happens is the opposite. People retrench and try and avoid the system.

We don’t want avoidance, and with these Draconian powers it’s going to encourage people to look at loopholes in the NAIT system. It’s going to encourage people to look at avoidance of the NAIT system, and it will achieve the opposite of what the Minister wants to achieve today for those rogue players. Those are the people who need to actually feel that the system works for them and that they can be part of it. Now, that’s something I wish the Minister had taken into account when he looked at the principles behind the policy he is enacting here today. I feel that he’s going to lose a lot of credit now within the farming community. There will be people that—whether it’s true or not, the perception will be that this is heavy-handed governance. Whether that is true or not, that is the perception.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Mr Chairman, thank you. I don’t need to remind the committee that we’re in urgency with this legislation. I do apologise—I’ve been away for the last hour and a half, but I understand that some legitimate questions have been raised, and I’m disappointed that the Minister hasn’t taken the opportunity to answer them. The Minister laughs. He thinks it’s funny. This legislation doesn’t need to be in urgency, Minister. If he’d had a half-competent Minister of Agriculture and a half-competent Leader of the House, this legislation could have been introduced on Tuesday, could have gone to a select committee for 24 hours, and we could have got the answers that we wanted. It could be back here today and passed and achieve the timetable the Minister wants. But, no, we are seeing the arrogance of this Government, where it puts this legislation through all stages in urgency and refuses to answer even some basic questions. I think it’s an appalling process, and I say to the Hon Damien O’Connor that it’s one that the farmers of New Zealand will be noting.

I just want to comment before I ask my specific questions on the comments just made by the Hon David Bennett. The respect for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) amongst farmers is at an all-time low. I spoke to a farmer at the airport the other day who had been to the M. bovis meeting called at Ashburton and then went to the M. bovis meeting called at Darfield—approximately 70 kilometres apart, these two locations—and he got completely different answers from the MPI officials at the Ashburton meeting to the questions that were then put again at the Darfield meeting.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Was it the same officials?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I’m not sure. No, I don’t think it was the same officials. I think it was different officials. But if the message from MPI is so unclear, how can we expect farmers to get any comfort around the possibility of a successful eradication of M. bovis? Then, to introduce this legislation, which gives MPI officers more power than a police officer—more power than a police officer. What’s that going to do for the farmers’ impression of, and respect for, MPI? And I ask the Minister to stand to his feet and answer that question, and when he comes to answer the question, I have some others.

I’m referring to Part 2, clause 9(2) and (3). I put these questions to the Minister: four questions around what is a movement that has to be recorded under the new legislation. The Hon Kris Faafoi interjected and said, “Well, what are the rules now?” Good question, Mr Faafoi. You’ve now doubled the number of questions that I want to ask. As I outline these scenarios, I want the Minister to answer whether movements must be recorded under the current legislation—because I don’t know the answer—and whether they then have to be recorded under the amendment legislation before the committee, driven through in urgency by the Hon Damien O’Connor.

So the first question I ask—again; and, hopefully, we’ll get an answer—is about farmers who own two farms. We know of many farmers who own properties—two separate properties, but absolutely contiguous. These farmers, for good biosecurity reasons, run each farm as a completely separate unit, but there might be a drought or wet winter requiring them to move a mob of 30 yearling heifers from one unit to the other unit—absolutely contiguous. They walk them across through an effective boundary gate and the movement’s occurred.

Does the farmer have to record that movement now—thanks to the Hon Kris Faafoi for that question—under the current legislation? And does the farmer have to now record the movement under the proposed amendment legislation? Simple question—it shouldn’t even require the Minister to turn to his officials. He should be able to answer it.

The second question I posed earlier, and again, it still remains unanswered. What about a situation where the farmer owns a farm property, two blocks are absent—I want to outline a scenario where a farmer owns a farm property. It is contiguous, perhaps in a hill part of the property, but stock movement is facilitated easier by using the road. The farmer owns both bits of land, but he takes the opportunity of moving cattle from one paddock to another, going out on to a public road, perhaps past two or three blocks of land that he or she doesn’t own, and then to a gateway into the other part of his property.

Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah, that’s a fair question.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: It’s a good question. I know of a scenario where this is appropriate. And I want to know, thanks to the Hon Kris Faafoi, what the law is now about whether that movement must be recorded into the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system? And I want to know from the Minister what the law will be as to that movement under the new proposed legislation. And I do think the Minister—

Hon Kris Faafoi: You passed it!

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —looks like he’s taking these questions seriously; he’s busy with the officials. Listen, somebody interjected that I introduced the legislation and I should know. I don’t know. That’s why I’m asking the question today. I don’t expect the Minister to know the answer, but I expect the Minister to ask his officials and give us the answer in the Chamber today.

The third scenario I ask about is a farmer that owns various blocks of land, not contiguous; perhaps separated by a kilometre or more of public road. He runs this farm, these various blocks, as one unit. He’s registered with one NAIT number. And he moves his cattle from one block, perhaps a kilometre away, either by droving them, or by getting his own truck, or by getting the transport company in to move them. Does he have to file a movement in the NAIT system under the current legislation—again, thanks to the interjection from the Hon Kris Faafoi—and does he have to record that movement under the proposed amendment legislation?

The fourth question is one I raised with the Minister earlier, and it hasn’t been answered. Is the farmer who makes use of all of the lifestyle blocks around the cities of New Zealand—and this, Minister, is a real issue. I know farmers who, effectively, have set up their farming operation utilising the grazing ability of lifestylers. And the lifestylers who own their 4 or 8 hectare block have no interest in owning any livestock to graze it. It must be grazed regularly for the issues of fire and weed control. So the farmer then treats, perhaps, 20 of these lifestyle blocks, effectively, as his farm. He owns only his own; he doesn’t own the 19 blocks of land to use. Does that farmer have to record a movement every time he goes from one lifestyle block to another under the current law—I want the answer—and under the amended law that we’re rushing through in urgency today?

If the answer is yes in both cases, then I want to point out the practicality of it, and this is particularly of relevance to someone like Stuart Smith, the member for Kaikōura, where there’s a whole lot of vineyards that regularly get grazed by a local farmer. He leaves stock there for a very brief period of time, perhaps 24 or 48 hours, because, of course, if you overgraze those blocks, particularly with young cattle, you could do damage to the vineyards. So he moves 30 there one day and goes back the next day and happens to want to move them to another vineyard block, and, for some reason, there’s only 29 there—one’s jumped out. How does he possibly record that movement if it needs recording? There are no cattle yards about—he might have access to a scanner, but he probably won’t. How could he legitimately record that movement? I suggest to the Minister that it would be impossible.

And then I want to pose another question that’s come up in this debate, and that’s about the excellent rural community calf days—the pet day at the local school; part of rural communities. Are we going to be allowed, even under the current M. bovis situation, to continue with calf days?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and, indeed, things will change around the recording of animal movements. I think one thing that Mycoplasma bovis has done is alert individual farmers to the need to actually record movements from one property to another, given that the spread of the disease is between animals and some of them have got different blocks and have been able to differentiate the necessary culling of one block, because they do run them separately. And, yes, the movement is defined in the Act, and location is defined in the Act.

The core objective here is that—while movements have to be recorded, there are some people who don’t, and if they don’t and they’re moving from one National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) property to another NAIT property, then we can prosecute them. But if they’re moving from one NAIT property to a property that doesn’t have a NAIT number, we can’t prosecute them—clearly, a bizarre situation and one that we need to rectify, which is why we’re making the technical amendment.

In answer to the questions that have been raised, if the property is contiguous, there’s no necessary recording of the movement—no change. However, can I say to farmers who have a property that bounds one on the other that if they want to run them differently, and they do, if it comes to biosecurity management, there’s a huge advantage in that, particularly when it comes to culling. And if you’ve recorded the movements from one to the other, and managed them as two properties, and if you do happen to, say, under a Mycoplasma bovis outbreak, have an infected herd, then if you run them as one complete property, you have to cull the whole lot. If you run them as two and record the movements, then you don’t have to cull the whole lot—clearly an advantage from the biosecurity perspective moving forward. Farmers may be able to make those calls and, in my guess, they’ll probably start recording all movements, as they should, because it protects them as well.

The assumption that this is all cost and all burden and all difficult is one, well—it’s around the obligations to conduct a business, really. And biosecurity will be higher in terms of priorities in a farming operation. I make no apologies for that at all, and I think there’s a whole lot of learning to take place.

Can I just say that if a property is contiguous and stock is moved through a public road, there is no recording of the movement—no change from the status quo. If the property is not contiguous and is separated by 1 kilometre, no—if the farmer has chosen to register both properties as one NAIT number. Somewhat of an anomaly that we’re working through is that a farmer can have a number of different properties within a 20-kilometre radius and have one NAIT number. In my view, that’s not sustainable. We should have a NAIT number for each property, and while there may be some allowances—and talking with Federated Farmers, the point was made around bovine tuberculosis as a current management regime around biosecurity. Should you have to record the movement of those animals? Look, I think there will be particular circumstances where exemptions are allowed but, in summary, any movement of an animal from one property to another should be recorded, with the exceptions that I’ve just run out here.

In terms of lifestyle blocks, yes you should record them. Don’t underestimate the risk associated with lifestyle blocks, where people maybe don’t fully understand the biosecurity risk. They might be bringing in animals from a number of different properties and be thinking, “Because they’re lifestyle, it’s not important.”—no, that’s wrong. It’s very important, and so what we’re doing here is just making the amendment—the change—to ensure that, actually, if people move animals from one property to another and the property they’re moving to is not registered with a NAIT number—and it should be—we, firstly, change the system, as was investigated by the select committee this morning. We’ve had assurances from NAIT that they can make the changes very quickly so that, instead of recording a number, you record an address. That’s really important so that the property, if they don’t have a current NAIT number, is identified by an address.

Hon Nathan Guy: Rapid number.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That’s right. A rapid number, or whatever. It’s really important. The core of this is actually about ensuring that everyone does the same thing right through the system and that where there are gaps in the system because there’s not a NAIT number, that actually doesn’t exempt a person moving stock from the obligation to record that movement, because it is the movement that has the potential for the transfer of disease, particularly when it comes to Mycoplasma bovis. That’s the thing we want to know about. That’s the threat we’re trying to reduce.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to acknowledge the Minister, who’s just given us a full explanation of those aspects of Part 2 to do with stock movement, and I want to reflect on what the Minister said and what it will mean to farmers and lifestylers and people with contiguous farming operations. It will mean, for them—and we absolutely accept the necessity for this legislation and the necessity for compliance with this legislation. I don’t think farmers understand that any more clearly than those farmers in South Canterbury and North Otago, where, in Glenavy, the first six farms were identified as having M. bovis.

I’m not unfamiliar with the situation in South Canterbury and North Otago, obviously, and I just want to talk about a meeting I went to in Glenavy, at the hall. We had representatives from National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) and from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). It was a very full meeting—probably about 200 farmers—at 5 o’clock on a Wednesday evening, or something like that, and the MPI officer in charge gave those farmers a very clear message around the reporting of their movements to protect stock from the further spread of M. bovis. There was one voice in the audience—one farmer—who said, “Well, if it gets too hard, then we have choices.” And the MPI man, very rightly, said, “No, you don’t. You don’t have choices. You should comply with NAIT requirements, and particularly with stock movement restrictions that may be put on because of M. bovis. Because, if you don’t comply, we will come and visit you and it won’t be pleasant.”—or words to that effect. It was a very strong warning, and it was accepted by the vast majority—this was just one lone voice.

But if I then reflect on the powers of NAIT inspectors to enter a property without warrant, and if I reflect on how that will impact farming families, then how can farmers have confidence in NAIT? How can they have confidence in MPI when what they are seeing, increasingly now, is not a spirit of cooperation: “ Let’s deal with this biosecurity incursion together.” No, it’s not like that anymore. What it is now is, “We’re going to legislate for you. We’re going to legislate against you. Our big stick that was shown at the meeting down south in South Canterbury has just got a whole lot bigger and more powerful, because we will come on to your property without notice. We will come into your home without a warrant, and we will search what we believe we need to.” So that spirit of cooperation—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): For the last one and half minutes—if the member can turn her attention to the actual clause 9 or relate her story to it.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes; thank you, Mr Chair. I am making my comments in the context of stock movements, which are in regulations contained in Part 2, but I’m just weaving a bit of a story around it.

The point I want to make is that in the climate of fear and concern that is current in South Canterbury, North Otago, and in those farming families that have been affected by M. bovis, the kind of the big-stick approach in this piece of legislation does not engender confidence in MPI, and without that confidence and spirit of being able to work through the issues together, then things are just going to get so much harder for those families.

I have had, as have a number of colleagues, a number of situations where I have had to keep the box of tissues very close by as farming families are explaining their frustrations, their fear, their loss of income, the loss of their reputation, the loss of their business, the loss of the cows in their herd—which they know by name—and their daughters, and their daughters, and their daughters. Now, they matter too, and I would like to see some acknowledgment by the Minister that they matter too in the promulgation of this legislation, which gives NAIT and MPI a very, very big stick to clobber them with.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to first of all thank the Minister for answering those questions, but I also want to pick up on the one that he hasn’t answered, and I hope for an answer to that as well.

The first point is on answering the question around the lifestyle movements. I just want to say to the Minister, there’s got to be an issue of practicality here. I gave the example of a vineyard grazier putting 30 heifers on, and he goes to move them, and one is missing and there are only 29. How can he possibly record that movement—because there are no cattle yards and he can’t get them in in any way to scan them. And I know what that farmer will do. I’ll tell you the only practical way he can do it. If he is asked to record the next movement from one vineyard grazing block to another, what he’ll do is he’ll record that he’s moved 30 when he’s only moved 29, and the next movement will be much the same, and he will be forced to put incorrect information into the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system for as many movements as he makes before he can finally get back to his own home farm where he has the facilities to put those cattle into a yard and to scan them and identify which one went missing. There is no alternative way to do it.

I just say to the Minister, who had some experience as a farmer, would he please remind his officials, most of whom have no experience as a farmer, that in enforcing legislation they need to keep in mind practicality. I gave a very simple example of where legislation, well-intentioned, won’t work because of impracticality.

The question that didn’t get answered was about those movements to a calf day. A very valuable part of our rural community is the opportunity for kids going to a school to take their pet calf to calf day, to pet day. I suspect what the Minister is going to tell me, but I want it confirmed—again, under the current legislation, and the amended legislation: is the farmer expected at 8.30 in the morning, as he puts the calf on the back of the ute, to record a movement from the farm to, say, Duvauchelle School on Banks Peninsula—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Calf days are exempt.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I’ve now got an answer: calf days are exempt. If it was a calf two-days, because some schools then run it—

Jamie Strange: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, they do. Jamie Strange doesn’t live in the country, but some people make a really big thing of calf days.

Hon Peeni Henare: I won a calf day.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: The Hon Peeni Henare knows what I’m talking about. He actually won a calf day. That’s about the only win he’s ever had in his life, but anyway, I now want to move to a really worrying question. I’m referring to clause 10(2). It says, “In regulation 5(5B), replace ‘transport or droving between 2 NAIT locations’ with ‘any animal movement’ ”. I just want an explanation as to the reason for that amendment, because it seems to me that if you’re moving cattle from one location to another there’s only two ways to do it. You either put them on a truck, in which case it’s “transport” or you walk them, you drove them, like they used to in the old days. I don’t know of any other practical—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Have you heard of a ute? Have you heard of a ute?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Yeah, I’ve heard of a ute. The member said, “Have you heard of a ute?” If you put it on a ute, that’s transport, Minister. Utes have four wheels and they go on the road, Minister. I know it’s new for—well, he’s from the West Coast. We should recognise that. That’s called “transport”.

Hon Damien O’Connor: You said a truck.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: The Minister interjected and said I said a truck. Well, let’s be clear. It could be a truck, it could be ute, or, if it’s a small calf, it could be a four-wheeled quad bike with a trailer behind it—they’re all transport. So let’s tidy that up without being smart, Minister.

I haven’t had a chance to explain my question. We’ve now decided we’ve defined all modes of transport—and I’m sure the Minister has some memory of droving cattle from one location to another, so can I have an explanation, please, as to why, in urgency, we’re rushing this legislation through? It doesn’t need to be in urgency. If it had been managed properly, it could have been done with a select committee examination and still have met the timetable.

Hon David Parker: It could’ve been done years ago if it was managed properly.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, the Hon David Parker has arrived. He said, “It could have been done years ago.” It could have been done years ago; it was done years ago. It hasn’t been complied with properly. We all know that, Minister. We’re here to assist the Government to sort it out, but why does it have to be done in urgency, Minister? Maybe the Hon David Parker can answer that. Why the urgency? Why can’t it go to a select committee so these questions can be investigated properly? Silence now from the Hon David Parker.

Hon David Parker: Why wasn’t it done years ago?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, it was done years ago.

Hon David Parker: Not properly.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: We’re amending legislation, I say to the Hon David Parker, that was passed in 2012. That’s when it was done. I know his maths isn’t good, but that was done six years ago. It was done. The question now is around compliance, and every speaker on the side of this Chamber—because there’s been very few from the Government—has agreed there is an issue around compliance. You can take the politics into the argument and say it’s all the fault of a Minister—is a Minister meant to be sitting in the Beehive office, going on to NAIT and checking whether movements all around the country have been complied with? If Minister David Parker is suggesting that, he’s an idiot. If he’s suggesting that, he’s an idiot. First of all, the Minister doesn’t have access to all the data on the NAIT base. That’s part of the problem we’re trying to fix, I say to the Hon David Parker.

Hon David Parker: It’s been a debacle.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: He says it’s been a debacle. I semi-agree with him. The compliance levels have been low. So why have we had to wait to rush legislation into the House under urgency if it’s been a debacle? The Government’s been there for 10 months. Why does it have to be done under urgency? At least he’s stopped interjecting.

So I go back to the very question I’ve asked, and it is in Part 2, subclause 10(2): “In regulation 5(5B), replace ‘transport or droving between 2 NAIT locations’ with ‘any animal movement’ ”. I don’t see the logic for that change. There may be a very practical reason. Let’s have it. Let’s have it. Why have we changed what is quite specific in the original legislation to make it far broader? Surely we can have an answer to a question like that.

It wasn’t our decision, Minister, to put this in the House and try to rush it through under urgency. We said we’d cooperate with a brief select committee process over the two-week recess. I’ve even suggested that if it had been managed properly and time was of the essence, it could have come in on Tuesday, we could have had the select committee process on Wednesday, and it could be back here today, meeting exactly the same timetable. But, no, it’s had to be rushed through under urgency, without giving the opportunity for the Opposition to ask these questions.

The only opportunity we would get now is in this committee stage of the House. And as National has said, it wants to support the legislation. It will vote for the legislation—with a heavy heart, because it hasn’t been examined properly. We recognise there is a serious issue in our rural community because of Mycoplasma bovis. We have agreed that it’s not an issue we want to play politics with. We’re trying to work constructively with the Government. We don’t agree with the urgency process. It didn’t have to be done that way, but on the issue of M. bovis and on the issue of getting compliance with NAIT, we want to work constructively, despite the interjections I’ve received from the Minister on the other side of the House.

So a simple question: please, Minister, can I have an explanation for the amendment in clause10(2)?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Mr Chair, I’ll just take a brief call. There are a couple of reasonable questions there and points made. Regarding cattle yards—no cattle yards; I accept that is a practical challenge. I guess trucking and technology and changes that we will bring to the House and that will roll through the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system mean that technology will allow us to track those animals, whether they get on or off a truck. On the issue of changes in clause 10, “transport or droving”, the reality is that any animal movement—farmers are very creative. I’ve seen them in cars; I’ve seen them in utes.

Rt Hon David Carter: Are you sure?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No—we’ve just got to ensure that we cover all those bases. I think this is a technical move. It is kind of a tidy up, but if there’s ever a loop then people are going to drive through them. So that’s what we’re doing here—trying to tidy up the technical amendments to ensure that any animal movement is legitimately recorded in the NAIT system.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on this, Part 2 of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill, drawing particular attention, of course, to clauses 9 and 10. Now, essentially, the amendments to these regulations widen the scope in which they can be applied. They’re intended to clarify farmers’ obligations under National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) to support investigation and management of non-compliance. So it’s very important, if they are to achieve that intention, that we can be sure in this House that they will in fact be clear to farmers.

So I want to put a question to the Minister in the chair today, around these regulations, specifically in relation to the exemption for calf shows that has been discussed in this debate. What the Minister has assured us is that when people are bringing their animals to school for calf competitions and are trying to go in the draw to win a prize—just like Peeni Henare was successful in doing as a young lad back when he was a winner, back before he joined the other team—that when they do that, it will be exempt from this regulation. What I’m unable to see when I look at what’s here in the law, which we intend to pass in this House, is where that exemption in fact lies. Of course, what the law says here is that this will be for a “NAIT location” or “other location”.

“Other location” to my mind, and I’m sure to the mind of many reasonably minded and pragmatically minded farmers, would include a school. So if there is to be an exemption of the sort that the Minister has assured the Chamber about in this debate today, it’s important that that is on the record. Of course, this goes to the very heart of what regulation is about, because it is one thing for us in this House to regulate, to allow for regulation, but actually the practical import of that regulation is how members of the public are informed about it and how it is enforced.

Of course, it goes without saying that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is one of the departments in the New Zealand Government that has the most amount of legislative instruments under its control. That is for good reason—because the Ministry of Primary Industries is controlling food safety and other things—but we have to be realistic about what clauses 9 and 10 mean, because if NAIT is going to work effectively into the future, farmers need to understand very clearly what it is. So I just put that question around the exemption.

I also note that the expectation is that these regulations are not expected to be controversial, because the intent is that their impact be on those who are already not complying or who are suspected of not complying. If that is the case, I think it would be useful for the Minister, for the record, for Hansard, and for farmers who may show particular interest in these matters—in fact, for agribusiness advisers who, once this legislation is passed, want to be informing members of the community about how they comply with it. Because of those reasons, I think it would be useful for the Minister in the chair to give us a couple of examples of instances where officials have been unable to prosecute or begin a prosecution for someone because these regulations haven’t been wide enough. On a pure read of them as they stand, the description of a “NAIT location” and the description of “transport or droving” seem broad enough to carry scope so that any breaches could be prosecuted currently.

So some clarification of the difficulties that the ministry has had would be useful so that farmers and those affected by this law have a better idea of what it is that these are intended to capture. Of course, what we are not trying to do with this law is make life harder for farmers. What we are trying to do is support them to support the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis, to ensure that they’re operating in a regime that allows for the effective tracing of animals.

At that, I just go back to the point I touched on earlier, which is to say that these clauses 9 and 10 will only achieve their intention if indeed MPI put the information campaigns and enforcement behind them to ensure that this is a real and live regime that actually supports the work of the National Identification and Tracing system. It is one thing to amend the law; it is another to ensure that people know how to comply with it, and when they don’t there is enforcement. So if the Minister would be so kind to tell us a bit more about his winning calf and to answer those questions, I’m sure that the committee would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thanks very much for the call on this. This is quite an important part—not as important as Part 1 or Part 2, but, certainly, the title and the commencement and the principal Act are still important. In terms of the title—well, it could be the “National Animal Identification and Tracing (Wide-ranging Powers) Amendment Bill”; it could be the “National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT Officers on Every Farm All of the Time) Bill”; and the list goes on. But, indeed, I’m not going to spend a lot of time debating the titles.

In particular, I want to talk about the commencement. It would be useful to hear from the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor: is the Governor-General ready and supportive of this bill to sign it off? Indeed, what about the principal Act that we are changing? Are we all comfortable with that on page 2? So let’s have a little bit of a discussion about that. We know that it commences and comes into force the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent. We know the principal Act amends the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act.

What’s also come into my mind in the last few moments is that I was just having a look through the media clippings on this particular bill, and I thought it was—because we’re still in urgency, and we’re going to debate that, as we say, until the cows come home, because we are concerned that this bill should have gone to a select committee. When I had a look at the clippings on this, I saw in—I think it’s the Wairarapa Times-Age; is the member for Wairarapa in the House? No. I’m pretty sure that’s what the paper’s called. And I saw that the Minister had—whether he’s put out a press release or talked to a journalist up there, I’m not sure, but, certainly, there’s some comments about the need for this amendment bill.

The reason I raise it is not so much about the comments that the Minister raised in this particular article, but there was a very telling point from the president of Federated Farmers, Katie Milne. What she said was that she had been in to see Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials to talk about the concerns that Federated Farmers have about this particular bill. I thought, well, wouldn’t it have been appropriate to have pushed out the commencement date on this and had it go to a select committee? Because instead of Federated Farmers and others—Dairy New Zealand, Fonterra, Beef and Lamb, and there’ll be others: it could be the stock and station agents; it could be the International Transport Federation—coming along and submitting to a select committee, they haven’t been given the opportunity. Instead, like the Minister did, putting up his officials to us during the week—and I want to thank him for that—but there was Federated Farmers, who had to trundle off and meet MPI officials.

Now, what about others that are just waking up to the fact that we’re in urgency and this bill, potentially, is going to pass into law today? Why weren’t they given the opportunity to sit down with MPI officials? Why couldn’t this commencement date have been pushed out to allow a select committee process? I mean, these are all pretty fair questions, because there’s the Federated Farmers president, that obviously got a copy of the bill when it was introduced, read it, and thought—and she actually knows quite a bit about TBfree and how all of that works. She knows quite a bit about the National Animal Identification and Tracing system. She had enough concerns to pick up the phone—whether she rang the Minister, texted the Minister—and say, “Look, I need time with your officials to understand it.” I think, actually, they’ve still got concerns with it. So if Federated Farmers have concerns, what about those other organisations that’ve potentially got concerns? Why weren’t they given the opportunity for a sit-down and a cup of tea with MPI officials? That’s what we don’t know, and I’d like the Minister to explain that. What about farmers? What about those that’ve been on the end of this process—and in all this debate, over several hours now, we haven’t had any real examples that the Minister has been able to give us. So I would like clarity on that, please.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair—good choice. It’s wonderful to be taking another call on the title and commencement, this time, of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. Look, I do think that the title isn’t really appropriate for this bill. As we all know in this House, when Ministers and even members do have the opportunity to come forward with bills, they do have the opportunity to, I guess, for want of a better term, put brackets in the bill name to describe within the title what the bill does, and I don’t think the title, as it stands, adequately reflects what is in the bill. Let’s not beat around the bush—we all know why this bill is being brought forward to this Parliament: it’s to deal with Mycoplasma bovis issues. And the only reference to M. bovis in this bill is buried deep, in one very brief reference, in the bill’s explanatory note.

So my view is that the Minister could’ve done a much better job—or officials, even, could’ve recommended to him that he do a much better job—in adequately describing what this bill does, because, let’s be fair, M. bovis is a hugely important issue for many communities around the country at the moment, and the bill, as it’s titled, I think comes across as, frankly, a bit heartless. In some areas of the country where M. bovis has been found, parts of the community have turned quite negative. There’s been issues with threats of physical violence and kids being bullied at school. In one instance, a child had disinfectant thrown over them because they were labelled as “infected”. It’s a pretty awful reminder of how people can behave, and I don’t think that this bill, as it’s currently titled, reflects the huge concern out there in the community, and, as I say, it comes across as a bit heartless.

It could’ve been an issue that was resolved at select committee. We could’ve sent this bill off to select committee for a short time—as has been said, a truncated period—to discuss the title of the bill and wider issues within the bill. As has been reflected by a number of contributions throughout the morning, the bill is insufficient in a large number of areas, particularly with the title, because the title doesn’t reflect what the bill does or, at least, what it’s aimed at achieving.

I now want to turn to the commencement, and Nathan Guy has given a very good contribution, again asking or questioning why the haste in putting this bill forward and having it come into effect on the day after it receives the Royal assent. I have to confess to being a bit conflicted about this. I think the Hon Nathan Guy put forward some very, very valid views on why the bill could’ve been held back and debated for a bit longer, and I agree with him on that; but when it comes to putting the bill into effect at the earliest possible opportunity, after it’s been passed by this House, I’m actually supportive of that, because, as I’ve mentioned in a previous contribution, there have been many, many delays when it comes to the response around M. bovis. I don’t want this bill to be held up any longer than it needs to be by Parliament, in going forward to the Governor-General, when there are a huge number of issues out there in the community when it comes to the response to M. bovis. The idea that we would extend out the date by which it comes into force by, perhaps, days or weeks or months, I’m not supportive of, because there’s a huge number of questions out in the community about how we deal with M. bovis. The idea of delaying it unnecessarily just for the fact that a few politicians want to debate it a bit longer—in fact, not even that, because it wouldn’t even be debated in this House any longer. The idea that it’d be unnecessarily delayed just because a few people might think it improves process, I don’t think is a particularly good idea. It should pass into law or become law as quickly as it can after it’s been passed by this Parliament, to give people certainty about what’s going to happen—for them, for their families, and for their farms.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to support the Hon Nathan Guy’s call for a review of the commencement date and to have that date pushed out, for a very good reason: it is my belief that farmers are being left behind as a result of this legislation.

They are being left behind, first of all, because they’re not being consulted. They’re not being consulted because this bill is being passed under urgency. Why is this bill being passed under urgency when the impact on farmers and lifestylers and people on vineyards, who will be impacted by the changing regulations and requirements of National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) and reporting—why aren’t they being consulted on these major changes? Least of all, now, is the ability for NAIT officers to enter a property without a warrant. Those are stronger powers to NAIT officers than are granted under the search and surveillance legislation.

How can that possibly go through this House, under urgency, without at least a weekend or a week? I’d come up to Wellington and sit on the select committee that was considering this bill. I’d put everything aside to come and sit on the select committee if there were a select committee process, because what I would be doing—and I can guarantee Andrew Falloon would be doing the same, and I can guarantee that Stuart Smith would be doing the same—is hearing from and listening to those farmers who are being considerably impacted by this legislation.

So I want to see—and I call on the Minister of Agriculture and I call on the Government to tell the House, to tell the people here today, to tell the people watching and listening from their farmhouse kitchens, who are very concerned about this because it will impact on them, just why it is that this bill is going through under urgency and is not giving them a chance to have a voice. The farmers are not only losing their voice; they’re also losing some rights. They are losing the right to be masters in their own homes, because, now, a NAIT officer can knock on the door—I presume they’ll knock on the door; they don’t have to, because they don’t need a warrant. These powers that NAIT officers have been given are more substantial, more far-reaching than the search and surveillance legislation. Is Labour happy? Are the Greens happy with this? Don’t I recall the Greens being the party that marched in the street around the search and surveillance legislation? Why is it different for farmers? That is why we need a select committee process, and that is why I would like the Minister and the Government to tell the House why the commencement date shouldn’t be pushed out.

I want the Green member Gareth Hughes to stand up and explain to the House why it is that they marched in the streets against the search and surveillance legislation? I remember it well. They marched in the streets against the powers. Well, are they marching today? No. They’re like little lambs now that they’ve had a little taste of power, aren’t they? Their principles have been completely put aside, and now they are actively arguing for—Gareth Hughes earlier in this debate—and voting for stronger powers for NAIT officers than are allowed for in the search and surveillance legislation. How can that even be, Green Party?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Title and commencement.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I would love the party to stand up and explain that in the context—Madam Chair, and thank you.

My view is that the commencement date of this bill should be pushed out. It should be pushed out to allow for a comprehensive—don’t mind if it’s truncated, don’t mind if it’s weak. I know David Bennett will put everything aside so that his select committee can hear from—

Rt Hon David Carter: He’s got nothing in his diary for the next two weeks anyway.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yeah—can hear from the farmers. We are prepared to put everything aside—we don’t care—just for a week to hear from those very people for whom this Draconian piece of legislation is intended.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That the question be now put.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I have two brief questions to ask of the Minister in regard to clause 2, “Commencement”, in the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. My first question is—if we think about the wording of clause 2, the Act comes into force the day after the date at which it receives Royal assent. So let’s assume the Governor-General’s readily available tomorrow, or, perhaps, over the weekend, because there’s obviously real urgency about this. This could become effective law by Monday or Tuesday next week—and the Minister nods his head and says that’s about the timetable they want.

My question, in relation to commencement, is: what communication will the Government or the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) undertake with the farmers of New Zealand to tell the farmers of New Zealand of this extraordinary power that has been given to an MPI officer? As we’ve heard, through the search and surveillance legislation, they will now have the ability to do a warrantless search. They’ll be able to pick up anything off that farm without a warrant—effectively giving an MPI officer more powers than a police officer.

So I want to know the programme the Government’s embarked on in regards to communicating this message to New Zealand farmers. Because I know—I’ve got a farm situation; quite a long drive. I can see who’s coming up my drive. And if it was a policeman, I’d be worried. What have I done wrong? What farmers have to get to grips with is that it’s not the policeman that might be coming up the drive; it might be an MPI officer who has more powers of seizure and confiscation than a police officer has. So it’s a very legitimate question. Farmers are going to be shocked, shocked to the core, when they hear about the strength, the Draconian nature, of this legislation. I simply ask the Minister, in light of such an immediate commencement date, what communication process will he instigate to let farmers know?

There is an alternative if he needs time: he could delay the commencement date. He could delay it a week to get a media programme organised. Because I’m sure he’s rural proofed this legislation as it went through the Cabinet process—I’m sure he has. He says he rural proofs everything!

Hon Nathan Guy: Good question.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, I forgot to ask it when it was appropriate, but I suspect it hasn’t been rural proofed, because we all know that’s a load of rubbish.

The second question I had is a very serious question. We are clearly going to have a lot more movements going through the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system. That’s clear from the answers given by the amendments that are being proposed and the answers given by the Minister. We had the opportunity to have the chair of NAIT before the Primary Production Committee this morning, and I asked him about the structure of the NAIT database, and he said, “It is stressed.” So it’s stressed under the current load of movements that are put into the NAIT system. Can the Minister assure me that come Monday or Tuesday of next week, when farmers are required to do substantially more entries into the NAIT system, the computer system won’t crash?

We know it’s under stress. We’ve heard that from the chair of the Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) board this morning. If it’s under stress already, will it cope with this additional workload? Because I can tell that Minister, he’s going to be very, very embarrassed, having rushed this legislation through the House in urgency when he didn’t need to do so, if we now get it passed and it gets Royal assent in the next few days, becoming law effective Monday or Tuesday; farmers then attempt to comply with the new law, fearful of that MPI officer coming up the drive with more powers than a policeman—if the farmer then attempts to comply, and, all of a sudden, the NAIT database crashes. So I do hope, for the Minister’s sake, he’s done his homework, he’s talked to OSPRI, and he’s assured that the system will cope with these changes.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to follow on from that very good speech. And, yes, the commencement date is the real issue here in this part of the debate. The title—well, it can be anything, really, but the commencement date is the fact that we are going through urgency in this debate in committee, and then we are looking at an immediate effective commencement date for the New Zealand community.

I suggest that the request of the last speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter, is answered by the Minister as to what he has actually done to ensure that legally he’s able to have that commencement come into force. Because I would hate to see a situation where these rules were applied to a situation in the near future and that member of the public then challenged the legitimacy of the rules because of this commencement time.

Because there has been no public scrutiny of this bill—there has been no attempt or ability for the public to make their views known—legally, would this, then, be seen as a breach of human rights, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, or other requirements that may be enabled or used by someone in a defending position, should they actually be subject to these rules and wish to avoid them actually applying to them? So it would be important that the Minister has actually determined whether this commencement date—relative to a very short process in this House, a matter of less than 24 hours, for a bill to be passed which has such Draconian powers.

You know, the Search and Surveillance Bill was a bill that took a lot of debate in this House when it first went through. There was a lot of contention between Opposition and Government parties. It was something that the public was fully aware of—in the public arena. There was the ability for a process to determine the implications of that for the human rights and the privacy and property values of individual New Zealanders. We do not have that in this case.

I just seek an assurance from the Minister that he has got the Crown Law Office to check this out to make sure that whatever they are doing today is actually going to be viable, and that there would be no issue if someone thought to challenge the approach taken by a National Animal Identification and Tracing officer on the basis that this didn’t go through a full and fair process.

It is Draconian legislation, in the sense of the search and surveillance, that somebody may use if they are in a position of difficulty, and wish to use that against the Minister. So it would be helpful if the Minister just clarified for this committee that he has done the necessary research to make sure that there is no problem in going ahead with the commencement date that is immediate and effective, essentially, as the last speaker said, potentially from Monday.

To the people out there in our communities that are listening, they need to be aware of what this actually means, as well, because, potentially from Monday, they will be subject to these rules. And there may be some person that doesn’t know that, and then, basically, as that officer is driving up the road and coming into their farm, doesn’t think that they have to deliver that information or allow that search and surveillance. What will be the situation then, because the commencement’s immediate? How will the Minister be instructing his officials to act in this regard? Are they going to be instructed to probably have a little bit of leniency with people initially, so that the word gets around, you could say, that this is of immediate effect and there are these powers that people had not perceived those officials having in the past? That would be something that the Minister probably needs to address, as well, as to how, on the ground, he actually intends to implement an immediate commencement date—whether he is expecting there to be leeway from his officials in regard to just genuine unawareness of certain farmers or certain landholders that may be captured by this legislation in the future. So it would be great if the Minister could address those two questions and explain to the committee.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to talk about the commencement date, but it really is in relation to the title of the bill, as well, in clause 1. What we’ve found out this afternoon is that schools and calf shows are going to be exempted from the bill. Now, it’s not in the bill—it’s nowhere in here—so this must be under regulations. So when are these regulations going to be drafted? Are they being drafted, are they ready to go, so that the date—

Tim van de Molen: What about A & P shows?

STUART SMITH: Yeah—well, A & P shows. That’s a very good question, Mr van de Molen has just raised: are A & P shows going to be exempted? I’m all for calf shows and those sorts of things to be continued on, but they are a biosecurity risk because those calves do commingle, and that’s one way we know, with M. bovis and a lot of diseases, in fact—you know, nose to nose contact will be a very easy way to transmit a lot of those diseases, so it is a serious risk. But what, in terms of the regulation-making power—when are the regulations being made? Is it going to be coming in, all sitting there ready to go? Because what other regulations are there that we don’t know about?

I do support the concept of having some time for everybody who’s affected by this bill—and it’s a much wider group of people than we originally thought. It’s not just farmers. It is people who have a vineyard, say, for example, that could be grazing stock, or an orchard that could be grazing stock on there, or a lifestyle block; they might not own any stock but have stock grazing on those properties. They are going to be impacted by this bill. They may want to change the way they operate as a result of that. But do they know this is coming? Of course they don’t, because we’ve only just found out. So when’s the opportunity for these people to arrange themselves in such a way that they won’t be breaching and be captured by this new bill? I think that’s something that hasn’t been talked about. It is being rushed through.

Look, everybody understands the M. bovis issue is a problem, but I don’t think these two things need to be conflated together as much as they are, because we all understand M. bovis is a problem. If this had to happen just as a result of the M. bovis outbreak, why wasn’t it done months ago? So that’s not the case. This is really, as we know, pushed by the officials to get this bill drafted, and we know that public servants—it’s just in their nature—will overreach; they’ll push the boundaries of what those regulations allow them to do.

This is why the name of the bill—it looks very innocuous. So the title is the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Act 2018. Well, that’s a very innocuous name, but as we’ve heard this morning—warrantless searches, seizure of goods, copying of records without permission. All of those things—as, I think, the MP from Ōhāriu Brett Hudson mentioned this morning, it’s greater powers than we would have in the event of a terrorism threat. So this is hugely wide ranging. Most people will have no idea that this is coming their way. And, as has been well stated, the farmhouse, the family home, is the office. All of these things are being impacted on that. And this name, this title, doesn’t cover that.

Where people need to be able to understand what they’re going to be liable for, what they’re being exposed to—and we’ve rushed this through this process. We’ve fought it all the way because, albeit that we voted for the bill, we wanted a full process so this could all be teased out, so the public have an opportunity to understand what this really means. That opportunity has been taken away from us and from the public. And with the Act coming into force the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent—we don’t know when that’s going to be. If that’s immediate, then the people will not have the opportunity to understand that they could well be breaking the law through ignorance, which is no defence. I think that’s a great shame and it should be addressed by the Minister.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement provisions within the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. Like others, I would like to speak about the commencement date, Madam Chair, but with a slightly different perspective, you will be relieved to know—first, from the perspective of the constitutional requirements that law be accessible, and an aspect of that is that it’s easy to find. In the case of this piece of legislation that has been put together at somewhat short notice—certainly introduced to the House in that manner—it could be argued that the part of the bill that is least accessible, least easy to find, perhaps, if you are on a farm and therefore most deeply affected by it, is the date that it will come into effect.

I’ll give a brief little anecdote if I may about another piece of legislation, and only briefly for the purpose of remaining relevant to this bill. I was recently contacted by a lawyer in relation to another bill that was passing through the House, who wondered when it was likely to come into effect, and my point is that even for those who are pretty well equipped to be able to understand the construction and the arcane details of legislation, such as the meaning of the Royal assent and how the different stages of legislation being passed can play out, it can be difficult to understand these matters.

In the case of this particular bill—or Act, or part of an Act, as it will shortly become—I would like to raise a challenge to the Minister to explain how we are going to avoid a situation where the legislation is effectively retrospective. By that, what I actually mean, Madam Chair, if you will allow me the chance to explain, is that if a bill comes into law so quickly that those who are affected by it do not have the chance to become aware of it and make provisions to comply with it, then effectively they are being asked to comply with some of the law of the land that they haven’t had a chance to know would affect them.

I know that that might seem like a pretty narrow and technical sort of point but, actually, I think it is in fact a very real one when you consider the circumstances in which the provisions of this bill might be enforced. Others on this side of the Chamber have spoken about the need for practical measures to ensure compliance, and I wonder, therefore, in relation to the commencement date being such a short period of time after the Royal assent, if we won’t have a situation where the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officers might turn up, as they are perfectly entitled to do in accordance with this new legislation, and state to farmer Joe or farmer Jane, as the case may be, that they have the right to turn up and do certain things, including to enter and to search and seize and so forth. And said farmer might actually challenge their ability in genuine ignorance of the fact that this law has now been passed, and an unpleasant situation might well arise. It doesn’t take too much imagination to contemplate how it would happen, whereby the farmer in question politely requests—indeed, farmers in the Helensville electorate and across the land always do phrase questions in very polite terms—that the MPI officer might cease and desist from being on the property. That might be a genuine misunderstanding because it might be that the farmer in question was a bit busy this week to be tuning into Parliament TV, or perhaps didn’t realise that at 12.30 on a Thursday afternoon we would be still in this phase of the legislation.

Perhaps I might finish my remarks on the commencement date, again focusing on the short period of time between the Royal assent and the bill coming into effect [Member’s phone rings], and I will do that with some competition from across the Chamber—I’m not used to being heckled electronically. I just note that the more significant a matter is—and we are talking about fundamental freedoms in the case of legislation that gives powers of search and seizure—the more time should be given for the implementation measures that are required under that. So a greater ability to comply should accompany the seriousness of the compliance requirements—that is my point there.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I’ll just answer a few of the queries that have come from clauses 1 to 3. This bill has been introduced under urgency because there is urgency to get the changes. It is a technical bill. That is, it deals with technical issues, not policy issues, and they are, I guess, flaws in the bill that have been exposed through an extensive programme that we have to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. We’re working through on-the-ground controls. We’re doing an investigation into some of the possible sources of infection and then trying to ensure that people comply with the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system.

The changes that we’re making, all the way through this bill, are to ensure that people comply with the NAIT system and that they don’t spread Mycoplasma bovis. The commencement date should be as soon as possible, and delays in this House mean one more day or a few more days where people will be, arguably, non-compliant with the NAIT system, and that puts at risk every taxpayer, every farmer—

Hon Nathan Guy: It should go to a select committee, though.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —everyone who’s committed to the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis. Look, I’ll just say that we want to move through this bill. There will be more substantive one—it will go through the complete process.

Hon Nathan Guy: Is that going to select committee?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: All I can say is it is really important that we have proper legislation, we have proper processes—

Hon Nathan Guy: Proper process. This isn’t proper process.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —and unless we pass this quickly, we can’t guarantee that everyone’s going to comply with it. So I encourage that member to commit to things. I’m not going to commit to him anything around what happens with the next bill. We’ll deal with that as it comes along. I’d just like to see this bill passed as quickly as possible—and cooperation from the National Party, which put in place the NAIT Act and oversaw the process for quite some time. We’re making the changes to bring it into line with what is required to enforce the NAIT system.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): If ever there was a piece of legislation that the National Party—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Would the honourable Minister please put the motion to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move the third reading of the National Animal—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just a moment—we’ll get the words to you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move, That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Fantastic.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I appreciate process in the House here, but I guess the reaction from the Opposition identifies what we are challenged with here. If ever there was a bill that the National Party should support, it is this bill. We are trying to fix up an absolute mess left to us through a National Party piece of legislation that was never enforced by a Government that didn’t want to offend its mates—there was one infringement notice in five years from a system that was absolutely flawed and failing. Their mate chaired Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI), and he’s long gone, and they refused to take any action that might offend any one of the National Party’s mates. It is outrageous. We have worked through what is a real crisis. M. bovis—I’m not going into the reasons why it might have come into the country. I think they will be exposed as we move down the track. The challenge we had is that we had had a Government that had taken little action early on, and we came in with a growing number of infected herds and animals and we had to take quick action.

We, indeed, have done as much as we can, as quickly as we can, but we have been hampered by some technical issues. In fact, there was a review of the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Act that one of the speakers had said he’d initiated, but then sat on for 12 months—12 months of refusing to release the 38 recommendations that would have allowed us to have a better system in place now and save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. The fact that the National Party were wanting to procrastinate on the bill here and filibuster and drag it out is costing taxpayers, and every one of them should be infuriated.

We have committed, as a Government, $886 million to clean up M. bovis, and if the NAIT system had been operating as it should have, it’d probably cost half that. We didn’t know where animals had been moved to, and the previous National Government had refused to implement the legislation that should have identified those movements. And we’re making changes here to try and tidy it up. There will be more to come, because there are many clauses in the NAIT legislation, as the 38 recommendations point out, from the top at governance all the way through to the NAIT tags, and we will work through those systematically.

The reason we brought this in under urgency is that it is just a few technical amendments to what is a huge challenge to improve the NAIT system and biosecurity management through New Zealand. We’ve been left a big, big challenge, not just with Mycoplasma bovis but with a system that is arguably under-resourced. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is an organisation with too many responsibilities. We created a business unit, Biosecurity New Zealand, we’ve said to the individuals, “Get on with the job.”, and now we’re working through the changes in legislation, which this piece of legislation is part of, to ensure that we can protect our country into the future. It’s not just the farmers; it’s about our whole way of life.

In terms of the technical amendments here, what they are doing is aligning the powers under the NAIT Act with the Search and Surveillance Act—no more, no less. They are necessary for people to investigate where non-compliance is suspected. That’s all. We have then ensured that when movements take place around this country, farmers are obliged to notify and register those movements, and because of the technical deficiencies in the NAIT Act that the previous National Government passed, these things weren’t occurring. We had between 30 to 50 percent compliance when farmers were moving animals from farm to farm around this country. If we’d had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease—God help us—we’d be finished, because the system would have completely failed. The fact that M. bovis is an animal-to-animal disease means we had been able to try to catch up to, and make up for, a failing NAIT system.

The National Government not only implemented a flawed Act, and Federated Farmers resisted the implementation and the passage of that all the way through—and I spoke to Katie Milne yesterday, who had concerns about this piece of legislation, and it was fair enough to raise those—but actually I have zero tolerance for organisations that are expecting Government to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars and who are resisting the improvements needed to ensure we have a robust NAIT system in place. We need to make the changes, and I have zero tolerance for anyone who resists on the basis of some flippant political response or filibustering in the House. We want this in as quickly as possible.

The flaws in the NAIT system were suppressed, leading up to the last election. No one knew how bad it was, because the review report identifying the 38 recommendations was buried. Why hadn’t the previous Minister ensured that that was out in the public arena so we knew what to do? We had to dig that out, and I had to almost threaten OSPRI and NAIT with legal action to try and get that report released—literally. The National Government’s approach to animal tracing has been abysmal, and I was disappointed with their filibustering in the House, because I want to get on and do this as quickly as possible. We need to, and unfortunately they once again displayed the reaction, the resistance, the reluctance, and, in my view, the Neanderthal thinking that is looking backwards and not realising that unless we have robust traceability, we won’t be able to trade products into the future. This is about the future of New Zealand agribusiness, and I call on leaders from top to bottom across the agricultural sector to understand that reality and to ensure that we put in place a very, very good system, and it’s not, and we need the changes, and we need them quickly.

We’ll have great debate on the policy changes, and there will be some of them, we accept, that we’re going to have to shift some of the direction and policy issues around NAIT, but, in terms of the technical ones, if we can’t get on and do those quickly, then, clearly, we’re failing not only the farmers but the taxpayers who, in terms of Mycoplasma bovis, are picking up and footing the bill for the failure of a system that they thought was working. And the members on that side of the House knew it wasn’t working, and they refused to take action. And when we take action, to be resisted by that party over there is somewhat disappointing. I still hope that they can vote this through on the basis that they see the wisdom of this, but getting it through as quickly as possible would have been a sign of good faith and a sign that they realise how important the NAIT system is, and making it effective and functional and efficient is really, really important.

Can I say that as a Government we are committed to supporting the rural sector, from top to bottom—from top to bottom. And can I say that all I hear from the National Opposition is resistance to change. They’re backward-looking, unfortunately, and I have to say that instead of supporting the people who are showing some vision, and the officials—and I heard criticism of MPI officials in terms of their M. bovis presentations. That is outrageous, because all the farmers I spoke to who went to those presentations were very grateful. While they didn’t like everything they heard, they appreciated that MPI officials were tabling—as I did, whenever I could—all the information that we had, in front of those farmers. I’ve been upfront with farming leaders, upfront with the banks, upfront with everyone across agribusiness, because honesty’s the best policy. But can I say that the system that we have around NAIT is still not good enough.

And, yes, if farmers aren’t going to comply, we will prosecute. We’re not going to prosecute some farmer who can’t access the system, or who’s confronted with a technical glitch. We will help them through those issues. But where we have blatant misreporting, where we have people who refuse to engage in the NAIT system, then they should be prosecuted. And do you know what? The farmers up and down this country are asking us to do that, and we will. And we’ve got investigations under way, unlike the previous Government, which prosecuted one person for non-compliance with the NAIT system when, at best, 40 to 50 percent of them were complying with the system. I don’t blame the farmers—the signals that went through from the previous National Government to the farmers was “Don’t worry about it. It’s not really important. It doesn’t matter whether you register your movement or not.” Well, I’ll be upfront: you must register movements. The Act is clear what movements are. We’re clarifying some of the technical deficiencies in the NAIT Act to assist farmers, but the message is very, very clear. And members over there who are trying to rewrite history when they should be admitting that they got it wrong, right up front, and that they were too soft in their implementation—that would be something that I would appreciate, and so would the farming sector across the country.

Can I acknowledge the support of our coalition partners, the Greens and New Zealand First. They do understand the importance of moving this through as quickly as possible. I can acknowledge mistakes made in legislation—I think any one of us here knows that there’s hardly a law that is perfect—but when we identify the flaws, then we do have to move on, accept them, and make the changes as quickly as possible to enable the system to work.

I welcome the passage of this legislation in the hope that it will bring a better NAIT system and help the farmers of this country. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That Minister, Damien O’Connor, has devalued his role within the New Zealand agricultural sector. He has shown that he has no respect for the agricultural sector and he has taken advantage of this House in the last 24 hours to put the boot into the agricultural sector in New Zealand, and he is smirking in this House because he knows it’s the truth.

He’s smirking in this House as I say those words, and the reason is—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m looking at the Minister and he is not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s a debatable point; that’s not a point of order. Sit down [Interruption] Sit down.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, look, that was the Hon David Parker, and we all know his influence in this House.

Rt Hon David Carter: He’s lemon sucking and he hates farmers. Sour. Sour.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: He is—he is. People don’t have to necessarily exactly see it, Mr Parker. They will see this legislation and they will see the effect of what has happened in this House today, and how the Minister has gone around in this debate and been so cute about this debate in saying, “Oh, this is only a technical issue.”

Now he’s smirking again—a technical issue. He is smirking, though. Ha, ha!

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon David Parker. I hope it’s not going be the same as last time, because that is not a point of order.

Hon David Parker: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is your duty to protect members in this House from inappropriate insult. That is incorrect. You can see that the Minister is not smirking—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry. Sit—

Hon David Parker: I think the member should be called to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. If accusing someone of smirking becomes unparliamentary, this House will go into mourning. I call the Hon David Bennett, and let’s not have any more interruption.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you. That Minister has gone around saying it’s a technical issue. This is not a technical issue. This is the greatest intrusion that you can make into somebody’s personal and property rights. The search and surveillance legislation was put there for a reason. It is the most intrusive tool that the Government has for its agencies, and now farmers are subject to that.

We repeatedly asked the Minister to explain other legislation that has the same ability to go in there with that search and surveillance legislation, and he referred to these other laws, but he could never confirm that they had these unwarranted abilities to go in. That will now be on New Zealand farmers and agricultural producers.

They are now subject to a threshold that is higher than any other law in New Zealand, apart from that search and surveillance one, which was there for a different reason. The Minister has used the guise of M. bovis to attack New Zealand farmers. That is what is happening in this House.

Why would you go into urgency if it was not to do that? The whole purpose of going into urgency is not because this is an immediate problem that needed to be dealt with today. That Minister has been there for 10 months. In all those months of dealing with M. bovis, have we heard him come to this House and say, “I need to pass legislation this week to control National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT).”? No.

But suddenly it becomes part of the legislative programme of this Government, and, within 24 hours, they seek to pass it. That is because they are hiding behind urgency because they are bringing in search and surveillance laws that no other New Zealander has to face, because they don’t like farmers. That is the right of it—

Hon David Parker: You’re voting for it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: David Parker, don’t come into this House and tell me how you love farmers. Don’t tell me how you love agriculture and trade.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Mr Parker was railing against trade for his whole time in Opposition.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Great rage! Get wound up! Get wound up! Come on! Come on! Wind up! Come on!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Oh, Ruth Dyson as well—the great friend of the farmer she always has been!

And the New Zealand First Party there—sitting there meekly. Well, New Zealand First, listen and learn what’s going to happen to your party in the next six to 12 months as your members go around and meet farmers. Farmers will say to you that these rules are intrusive. They’re intrusive, they are extreme, and they’ve been put on to us in our point of weakness. They’ve been put on to us in our point of weakness, and that’s what happened in this House here today.

The Minister has said that there’s more to come. Well, we wait to see that. Hopefully, he reflects on the pitiful process that they’ve gone through here today and take a real process which is engaged with those people that are affected by it. That is the same Minister that voted against the search and surveillance legislation when it came into this House, and the other Opposition parties, especially the Green Party at that time, were very much against that legislation and saying that it was an intrusive and Draconian part of New Zealand legislation. Yet, today, they use urgency when there is a crisis within the agricultural sector to pass it in there. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the commitment to the rural sector if they can’t even talk to them? They can’t even be bothered to give them a chance to have a say on this.

This bill is something that has been used by the Government of the day to put extra requirements on New Zealand farmers. Now, I think there’s something else that they’re doing that for. I don’t think it’s just for M. bovis. I think they’ve got some other plan, and I’d love to see the next stage of the NAIT regulations, because once the search and surveillance has been passed in this bill as it is, and then the extension of NAIT goes beyond what we currently have in NAIT, there could be the potential there for farmers to be subject to very strict rules, which they have no comeback in this House and no way of discussing and going through to deliberate with the Minister on.

The Minister says the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has too many responsibilities. This is the very Minister that split MPI up—that’s taken away their ability to deal with many issues. This Minister’s hidden behind things like M. bovis and biosecurity issues to take apart one of the great institutions that we need in our agricultural sector. MPI needed to be as strong as it could be. It didn’t need to be divided, and we don’t need to continue to divide them and take advantage of cases like this with M. bovis to enable that Minister to just put through his political rhetoric.

We put up amendments that would’ve challenged the timing of this bill; that would’ve enabled a fairer process to be had. We committed to doing a select committee process that would’ve been fair and open and truncated and would have met any time frame that had been set by the Government, and yet none of those opportunities were taken up.

That is because the Government didn’t believe in actually having consultation around this. I can’t go past the fact that there is no urgency at this point in time. The urgency around M. bovis has been there for eight to 10 months and, this time, suddenly, in 24 hours, we have to deal with this. The peak of M. bovis may have been, or it maybe yet still to come, but at this point in time there is no urgency out there, apart from the urgency of one Minister wanting to put extra powers into that industry so those people in the agriculture sector are subject to a much higher threshold than any other sector in New Zealand. That is unfair on farmers and it will not work.

The reason it will not work is because farmers will react the other way now. Instead of being alongside MPI and working with them, there is a real prospect that rogue farmers will actually do the opposite, because they know that these rules are out there and instead of engaging with MPI and other Government officials to make sure we have the best biosecurity system in New Zealand they will hide their tracks and take advantage of it.

A Draconian piece of legislation like this never works because if you take that approach then that only incentivises people to do the opposite. When people do the opposite, the programme doesn’t achieve its full potential.

So in this House we all understand what M. bovis means to the New Zealand economy, and the Minister is not correct in saying that this Government is spending $800 million on it. In fact, the New Zealand farmers are paying a great deal of the proportion of that money. So be honest in this House and tell New Zealanders—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the Government has indicated that it no longer wishes to continue with urgency. Therefore, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Thursday)