Wednesday, 26 September 2018

WEDNESDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2018

WEDNESDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen a number of recent reports on the New Zealand economy that demonstrate it to be in good health. Last week’s GDP numbers showed solid, real growth of 1 percent for the quarter, the strongest quarterly result since June 2016, and higher than Australia’s. Growth was broad-based, with 15 of 16 industries growing in the June quarter, the strongest being agriculture, forestry, and fishing, and the services industry. I’d also note that business investment is up by 0.7 percent on a year ago, largely driven by investment in the productive economy—investment in plant, machinery, and equipment.

Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on business confidence?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen an interesting report today, where the ANZ business confidence survey showed a lift in headline business confidence—up 12 points on the August result. Measures of businesses’ own activity rose by 4 percent to a net 8 percent of firms expecting improved conditions. While I welcome this improved business confidence, on this side of the House we won’t get complacent about that, and we will continue to focus on real data, showing a solid economy with good growth.

Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on employment confidence?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The latest Westpac McDermott Miller employment confidence survey today said that employment confidence remains fairly buoyant, and that households are upbeat about their employment prospects. However, I do acknowledge the survey’s finding that households are worried about wages, and that is why we have a plan to drive a more productive economy that delivers higher wages for hard-working New Zealanders. This is backed up by Treasury, which is forecasting wage growth to average around 3 percent per year out to 2022.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions relating to Derek Handley and the Government Chief Technology Officer role?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Using Mr Bridges’ standard measure, yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: When the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern was asked yesterday why she hadn’t disclosed greater communications with Derek Handley, why did she respond “I have mentioned that I’ve known him for a number of years and that we’ve engaged with each other and that I do have messages and emails from him. I mentioned that from the moment I was asked.”, given that when she was asked by me in Parliament whether “she had any conversations, emails, or texts with Derek Handley since she’s been Prime Minister” she twice responded that she’d received just one text from Mr Handley.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the questioner at the time—namely, the leader of the National Party—forgot to make the point that the first lots of admissions by the Prime Minister were to do with a position before the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) ever arose, and thereafter when it arose, no longer was it handled by the Prime Minister or mentioned. The distinction, of course, is that the member is putting a different question in the House today that they didn’t put to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been patently obvious about, and honest about, the matter.

Hon Simon Bridges: When the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern responded by text message to Mr Handley, “… I’ll talk to the team about how we can make use of you and your kind offer.”, does she stand by her statement in New York yesterday that finding a role for Mr Handley in New Zealand was “certainly not the expectation I was setting there. He wanted to catch up. That was simply responding to that request.”, and does every one of her friends who simply wants to catch up get a text response saying, “I’ll talk to the team about how we can make use of you and your kind offer.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, the Prime Minister is someone that does attract attention, unlike some leaders. Secondly, she’s a very kind-hearted person who seeks any New Zealander now wanting to swarm back home to the great country that we’re building, now that we’re making New Zealand great again. The third thing is, the member has got to get back to understanding some simple legal precis when he’s asks some questions: the facts matter and the CTO job was not raised.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of all the kindness the Acting Prime Minister’s just referred to, was the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern kind to Derek Handley?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me say that even with the assistance of the former National Party president, Michelle Boag—I am holding up Mr Handley’s comments right now. With the help of the former National Party president as his adviser, he says, “There’s no smoking gun.”

Hon Simon Bridges: When will the process of approving for release all communications from all parties in relation to Government’s Chief Technology Officer role be completed?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: An army of people are working day and night at the moment. The release is very imminent. The release is very imminent and I’ve no doubt that some people will extrapolate out truths which don’t exist and make up all sorts of statements in respect of this matter, but I can just say this: Mr Handley says, again—and he is our expert; not that member’s expert, and that’s the wonderful thing about this case—“There was nothing untoward or inappropriate.”

Hon Simon Bridges: Sorry, how is Mr Handley, “our expert”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, well, perhaps one could come to that conclusion after the member going on day in, day out, day in, day out, and getting himself exactly nowhere. If he’s not your expert, then why is he mentioned every five seconds to the media?

Hon Simon Bridges: When the Prime Minister’s chief of staff informed the Opposition last Friday that he would impose a 30 working day delay for the Official Information Act request made on 25 August about Clare Curran’s initial demotion from Cabinet, which means a release date of Tuesday, 6 November, 72 days after the initial request, did that provide an indication of when all the other relevant material will be released?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What happened there was the then Minister was giving an answer as to the parameters of the disclosure. But being the number one advocate for open and transparent Government, we’ve been able to move the date so much further forward. In fact, I would hold my breath because it’s not very far away.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is 72 days a good example of an open and transparent Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me make it very clear that is a very artificial announcement that that member has made, given my assurance that very shortly there will be the full release. But let me say this: you know, we’re talking about a party who in Government had to correct the oral and written questions in this House 966 times—966 times.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Prime Minister release every communication she has had with Derek Handley since becoming Prime Minister, to clear up the suspicion over the extent and the nature of their discussions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I think one could, with the greatest of assurance, say the Prime Minister is going to release all the information, which, being party to knowing what’s going on, will utterly and entirely exonerate her from these awful claims being made by the member. She’ll be totally exonerated from the claims.

Question No. 3—Employment

3. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Employment: Is he confident his Government is bringing “Mana in Mahi”; if so, how?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Can I first of all thank that member for such a wonderful question. We’re so pleased that the member is so interested in this Government’s employment initiatives. So to answer the first part of the question, absolutely I’m confident in our Mana in Mahi programmes, which aim to help young New Zealanders into real jobs and ensure they gain valuable, sought-after skills and qualifications. To address the second part of the question, since phase one of Mana in Mahi was announced in August, we have received an overwhelming response from small to medium sized employers that have indicated they want to participate in the programme. I will be working closely with the Hon Shane Jones and the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) to support our people with a $1 billion fund in the regions. Kia ora.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is it bringing “Mana in Mahi” to support an employer who has gone through hell over the last few weeks and wants to get on with the job, and does he think the employee might also have gone through hell?

SPEAKER: That may be the responsibility of Mr Lees-Galloway, but it’s not the responsibility of this Minister.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked in my primary question about Mana in Mahi, and have been careful, actually, to go through and check it off against the responsibilities of the portfolio responsibilities, which are around the functioning of the labour market.

SPEAKER: And then the member asked a question on industrial relations.

Hon Paula Bennett: What message does he think it sends to young people who are looking for work when an employer, with all the power, is supported and believed ahead of an employee?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, that’s not a good message.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe supporting an employer over a victim without having read an incident report and relying just on the word of an employer brings mana to mahi and improves labour market conditions?

SPEAKER: I’ll just say “ibid” for my previous ruling.

Jo Luxton: What has the response been from employers following the launch of phase one of Mana in Mahi?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora. Thank you for the question. I’m happy to inform the House today that so far during phase one of Mana in Mahi there have been 66 employer contacts created. The range of negotiation that is taking place ranges from general interest and eligibility queries through to finalising contracts. There are two contracts signed, with Wellington Hospitality Group and Vivo, and we are in contract negotiations with two national employers and three regional employers. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has also had discussions with 14 other organisations. They’re a mix of industry training organisations, associations, and recruitment agencies. To finish off, we will be making a further announcement over the next few weeks alongside Downer Construction in Auckland.

Hon Paula Bennett: Would he expect, in his Mana in Mahi programme, if an employer is in an incident with an employee, that they might actually apologise to that employee?

SPEAKER: No, no. Again, it’s not the Minister’s responsibility.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was actually in the context of an employer in the Mana in Mahi programme, for which the Minister is responsible.

SPEAKER: Yes, and the Minister is responsible for the programme and for the financial support of the programme. He is not responsible for the industrial relations part of it. That is the responsibility of Mr Lees-Galloway.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In this instance, would the Minister be responsible for the expectations and outcomes from the programme?

SPEAKER: He might well be.

Hon Paula Bennett: Just speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, I’ve dealt with the point of order—there isn’t one.

Hon Paula Bennett: Well, I just want to check for the future, if I’m asking a question, sir—is what I’m checking.

SPEAKER: Well, the member can have a go.

Hon Paula Bennett: So if, in the future, we have an incident with young people in one of the Mana in Mahi programmes, and there are incidences with the employer and they’ve placed young people in it, will we not be able to ask questions on that?

SPEAKER: That will be, in the end, a matter for the Government as to who answers the question. My expectation would be, if it’s an industrial relations matter, that the Government would transfer it to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, but that is their decision, not mine.

Hon Paula Bennett: In his Mana in Mahi programme, does he expect the young people that are placed in that programme to be safe and be under all employment relations legislation?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely.

Question No. 4—Housing and Urban Development

SPEAKER: Before I get the member to ask the question, I will inform the House that this question is substantially shorter and more direct than that which was submitted. I’d like members who are submitting questions to consider making sure that they do not have unnecessary material as part of them and to make sure that they’re not attempting advertising banners by way of parliamentary question.

4. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps, if any, is the Government taking to ensure Housing New Zealand is a landlord focused on tenant well-being?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): On Friday, the Government announced that it will legislate new social objectives for Housing New Zealand. These objectives will require Housing New Zealand to provide good quality, warm, dry, and healthy rental housing for those who need it most; to be a fair, compassionate, and reasonable landlord; to treat tenants and their neighbours with respect, integrity, and honesty; and to help sustain tenancies.

Paul Eagle: Why is the Government enshrining these objectives in legislation?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, Housing New Zealand’s report into methamphetamine contamination highlights that instructions to focus on its core functions as a landlord led to Housing New Zealand taking a hard-line approach that ignored tenant well-being. This legislation will prevent future Governments from instructing Housing New Zealand to ignore well-being and prioritise dividends over tenant well-being.

Paul Eagle: What will this mean to Housing New Zealand’s day-to-day operations?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: What it means is that Housing New Zealand will now reinvest its surplus funds into building more houses or improving services for their tenants, and will focus on sustaining tenancies. We know that stable housing is one of the most important things for the well-being of children. That’s why we’re focused on supporting families to stay in their homes.

Question No. 5—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

5. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): Yes, in the context they were made and taken.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: How does he reconcile his statement last Thursday agreeing that an important role of Te Arawhiti is to ensure that the Treaty is a successful partnership between the Crown and Māori with the statement of Winston Peters last week denying the existence of any such partnership?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It’s because it’s true that the Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti agency is there to strengthen the relationship to make sure the public sector is the best partner it can be with Māori.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Well, who’s right: him, who agrees that it’s an important role of Te Arawhiti to ensure that the Treaty is a successful partnership, or Winston Peters, who said last week that he never believed the Treaty is a partnership between Crown and Māori?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We both are, because we know that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a partnership between Māori and the Crown at the time, but also it’s about the relationship between the Crown agencies—departments of the Government—to make sure that we can ensure that Māori tribes, Māori groups, organisations, are successful in whatever they try to do so that we can work together to fulfil their aspirations.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: What did he mean when he said in the House last Thursday that one role of Te Arawhiti will be to “co-design partnership principles”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, exactly what it says. We will work together with Māori to design the principles around the partnership. I think it’s self-explanatory.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Do his answers to my questions today show that the Government really doesn’t have to justify the way it operates to anyone, be it on this issue or, as he said in the House yesterday, on the Meka Whaitiri scandal?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I was full of admiration for the work that the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations did, and the Māori/Crown relations portfolio is a natural extension of that work. It’s a pity that he’s now working and talking to undermine the very work that he did when he was the Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Whatever the relationship, is it a fact that he intends his new ministry to have a profound effect in the settlement of the Ngāpuhi claim, which has languished so long under the former Minister?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Much as the Minister responsible for employment can’t answer questions about employment relations, we think it inappropriate that the Minister for Crown/Māori relations, whether it’s a partnership or not, can’t answer a question about Treaty settlements.

SPEAKER: He was asked about—I think, paraphrasing—the input that his agency might have under that process and he can certainly answer that.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: My role is to support my colleague the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, in the fine job that he’s doing to settle the Ngāpuhi claim. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ho, ho, Billy Bunter.

SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Prime Minister—the Acting Prime Minister—actually, the Prime Minister, will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And the National Party can have an additional six supplementary questions.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Has he seen reports that “the cost of living is rising before our eyes”; if so, does he accept that this Government’s policies are increasing the cost of living for New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, and no.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the article from Stuff yesterday that states, “Fuel, rent, insurance, rates, electricity, cigarettes and food; they’re all increasing in price, and some as a direct result of Government policy.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are many assertions in that article and I certainly do not agree with all of them. I just caution the member, if she starts to talk about the issue of the increases in fuel taxes and rent increases, that I do have the Advertising Standards Authority complaints ruling about National’s previous attempt on that at hand.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, with petrol prices and rental prices now at record levels, does he think he should have paid more attention to officials’ advice that told the Government that their policies were always likely to have exactly this impact?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premises in that question. The median rent in New Zealand has been flat since February according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Hon Amy Adams: What advice did he seek on the cost of living impacts of the Government’s oil and gas decisions after reading the regulatory impact statement for those decisions, which said that energy prices can also be expected to increase as a result of those decisions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It may surprise the member but my focus is on New Zealanders today, not the possible cost of living increases in 2027 based on information about unknown unknowns.

Hon Amy Adams: With petrol prices at record highs, rent prices at record highs according to TradeMe, a number of other cost of living indicators clearly moving upwards, and firms’ pricing intentions also rising, does he now understand why consumer confidence is at a six-year low and business confidence remains at a 10-year low?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don’t think the member can draw all of those matters together. What we do know on this side of the House is that we are in the process at the moment of wanting to build a sustainable transport network, and part of that is the fuel excise duty going up, as it went up under the previous Government by 40 percent—40 percent.

Question No. 7—Energy and Resources

7. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by her reported statement that she will “consider giving the oil companies more time to fulfil their commitments on the permits”; if so, which permits are currently facing a “drill or drop” decision in the next two years?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes, I am in discussion with officials regarding the possibility of exercising my statutory powers, as the responsible Minister, to make changes to petroleum exploration permits. Any such change would be made on a case by case basis under the current law. There are 16 permits with “drill or drop” decisions in the next two years. More information about all active petroleum exploration permits, including “drill or drop decision” points, is publicly available on the New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals website. As the member is aware, our Government is committed to a long-term transition away from reliance on fossil fuels, and the introduction of legislation this week reflects exactly that commitment.

Gareth Hughes: Does she stand by the Government’s historic decision to halt offshore oil and gas exploration, and if so, does she think a long tail of up to 16 active permits undermines this decision?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and in answer to the second part, no. As we’ve been clear, the Government is committed to a long-term transition away from fossil fuel exploration and a clear plan for our future. We’re achieving this by issuing no further offshore exploration permits, while also protecting the existing exploration permits that cover 100,000 square kilometres, to enable a smooth transition over the coming decades. This is a sensible approach that allows regions, communities, industry, and the workforce a just transition to a low-carbon future and avoids sudden economic shocks like we saw in the 1980s.

Gareth Hughes: Does she agree with recent comments by our climate ambassador Jo Tyndall that this Government has sent a clear signal to industry that we are phasing out oil and gas extraction, and if so, does relaxing the work programme deadlines on permits undermine that message?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I do agree and am proud that we are ending offshore exploration and are committed to a just transition, and we’re not relaxing those conditions.

Gareth Hughes: If the Minister grants extensions to any offshore permits, will she limit their duration, and if so, what time frame will she use?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I indicated in my primary question, each of these needs to be on a case by case basis, and I will consider those applications on a case by case basis.

Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister commit to passing more wide-ranging changes to the Crown Minerals Act (CMA) this term to ensure New Zealand does transition away from fossil fuel extraction?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the member knows, the first tranche of the CMA reforms was introduced this week. This legislation is to give effect to the Government’s decision about the future of offshore petroleum exploration. Our intention is to begin tranche two following the passage of this legislation, and we’ve long signalled that tranche two will involve a comprehensive review of the CMA and will engage with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose as we make this transition. The Government’s decision about—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s enough. That’s enough.

Question No. 8—Conservation

8. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Conservation: Will she postpone the cull of tahr announced to commence this weekend until a more sustainable plan has been developed and consulted on with hunter groups and the Game Animal Council?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): The Himalayan Tahr Control Plan was approved by a former conservation Minister. Consultation took around two years. I will not postpone control work, because, unlike the previous Government, that allowed tahr numbers to explode, I’m committed to protecting our indigenous plants, particularly our alpine plants, and working with responsible hunting stakeholders to do that. The Department of Conservation (DOC) is not carrying out any tahr control work before the next meeting of the tahr liaison group. An operational plan will be confirmed after that meeting.

Hon Todd McClay: When she said in question time yesterday that further discussions were to take place with stakeholders, does she not realise this will be pointless if her mass cull goes ahead this weekend to start the slaughter of up to 25,000 tahr?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member is obviously not listening. The department is proposing to control 10,000 animals. Could I remind the member of what the former Minister of Conservation, the Hon Denis Marshall said, “If there were no tahr in New Zealand, I would not support their introduction into the wild.” If it was possible, eradication would be the preferred option, but it’s not currently possible. Once again, the National Party is flip-flopping from being concerned about indigenous ecosystems to protecting hunters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether this tweet is true, that the Minister is arming DOC rangers and chartering helicopters, and the cull starts this weekend? Is that National Party tweet true or false?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: There will be control by air, but there is a further—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The balance of this reply will be heard in silence.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I am meeting with a Professional Hunting Guides Association representative this afternoon. The Tahr Liaison Group is meeting next week. An operational plan will be finalised after that meeting.

Hon Todd McClay: Why has she instructed the Department of Conservation to cull bull tahr against the advice of representatives on her Tahr Liaison Group and tourism operators that this will cost the industry tens of millions of dollars?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: We are having to control bull tahr because the former National Government, through its neglect, through its underfunding of conservation, through its failure to control a ballooning tahr population, means that we need to step in now and address that neglect. The tahr population is estimated at 35,000—more than double what the plan approved under a former National Government allows.

Hon Todd McClay: Is the real reason she’s climbed down from her decision yesterday to push ahead with a mass cull of tahr this weekend because the Department of Conservation has advised her that she hasn’t properly consulted with recreational hunters, tourism groups, or the Game Animal Council?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: No. It is not a mass cull of tahr; it is a controlled operation by the department of 10,000 operators. All of the hunting interests that I have spoken to recognise that tahr numbers are too high and need to come down.

Hon Todd McClay: Is the real reason that the Minister has climbed down from her mass cull of tahr, announced in the House yesterday, because ammunition importers, who don’t support her decision, won’t sell DOC the ammunition that they need?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I have not climbed down; the control operation will proceed after further discussion with stakeholders.

Hon Todd McClay: I ask again: given that more than 20,000 people have expressed their concern over her plan to cull up to 25,000 tahr, originally starting this weekend, until proper consultation has taken place—

SPEAKER: Get to the question, please.

Hon Todd McClay: —will she postpone this until proper consultation has taken place, or at least until the Department of Conservation has enough bullets?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member exaggerates. The department is proposing to control 10,000 tahr. It’s working with stakeholders to see what they can contribute. It needs to be done this summer, before the tahr population explodes further. This Government is interested in protecting our alpine landscapes, not sitting on the side of an invasive species like tahr.

Question No. 9—Education

9. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Is she confident of the Government’s spending priorities in the education portfolio?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Acting Minister of Education): Yes, but is she confident in the previous Government’s spend—

SPEAKER: Order! What we’re going to have is that answer again—a straight answer without a flick.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Why did the Government prioritise $2.8 billion for tertiary students instead of providing adequate funding to get a settlement for primary teachers?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: First of all, there was no negotiation for a settlement for primary teachers at the time that this Government passed the $2.8 billion for students. Secondly, many of the students are actually teachers, and this Government believes that taking away crippling debt from our young people is worthy.

Hon Nikki Kaye: If primary teachers reject the Government’s offer today, will she prioritise spending for parents who can’t take time off work or find childcare during the strikes?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It would be pre-emptive of me to decide what the NZEI will do with the negotiations they are currently in.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not—

SPEAKER: It was a hypothetical question. There’s no requirement to answer it.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she reverse the Government’s new position regarding delaying maternity grants to teachers, given the harsh impact on new mums and dads?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It would be irresponsible of me to discuss negotiations in this House, and I would have thought a previous Minister of Education would actually know that.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will the Government prioritise additional spending to ensure parents do not face multiple primary and secondary strikes over the coming months.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It would be irresponsible for a Minister in this House to stand up and talk about negotiations and other money or any other thing while there are negotiations under way, and I would have thought a previous Minister of Education would have known that.

Jan Tinetti: What investment has this Government made to address the teacher supply pressures that had built up over nine years?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: When we took office, teachers were demoralised, and many of them had left the profession; the number of young people going into teacher training had dropped by 40 percent; and classrooms were regularly doubled up as teachers couldn’t be found to fill the places. To date, we have funded over 1,000 enrolments in the Teacher Education Refresh Programme to remove the cost barriers so teachers can stay in and return to teaching. We have seen the approval of almost 190 overseas relocation grants. We’ve expanded the Auckland Beginning Teacher Project to sixty places in 2018, and a further 60 in 2019. We’ve increased the numbers of new teachers training through Teach First to 80 in 2018 and in 2019 and made 300 teachers who started their teaching in 2018 eligible for the Voluntary Bonding Scheme. This is a start to what we are doing to assist to repair the damage done over the last nine years.

Question No. 10—Police

10. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements, if any, has the Government made to support crime prevention in our communities?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): One of the main priorities of this Government’s plan is improving the well-being of New Zealanders by supporting safer communities. Off the back of the single biggest investment in our police service through Budget 2018, we have announced that last Thursday the 11th recruit wing graduated since this coalition Government took office, with 98 new constables appointed all around the country, one of the largest wings in well over a decade. This brings the total number of new officers to 786 who are now out on the front line. The Dame Annette King wing, which started this week, has taken the total number of new recruits to start Police College to 940, which is the largest annual figure for new recruits in well over 20 years.

Greg O’Connor: How is the Government supporting the fight against organised crime?

Hon STUART NASH: Yesterday, we endorsed the Commissioner of Police’s decision on how to allocate the extra resources for organised crime, funded as part of the coalition agreement with New Zealand First. Areas of focus of these 500 specialist officers include disrupting transnational criminal groups, national and local gangs, cybercrime, money laundering, and child exploitation. This is the new front line of criminal offending. Increasing the specialist capacities of police is crucial in order to adapt to the challenges of 21st century policing.

Greg O’Connor: How is the roll-out of additional police officers and resources supporting vulnerable small businesses?

Hon STUART NASH: One hundred and twenty-one extra officers have been allocated to precision targeting teams. These teams target prolific offenders to strengthen community resilience. In addition, since I’ve made it a lot easier and cheaper for small-business owners to access the crime prevention fund, there has been enthusiastic uptake. In contrast to the one small business in the previous Government, latest figures show that 303 premises have installed fog cannons. These are an important deterrent and safety mechanism for our small retailers in the event of an aggravated robbery.

Chris Bishop: Why does his commitment to crime prevention and organised crime not extend to supporting initiatives like firearms prohibition orders, that are backed by the police, the Police Association, and Parliament’s Law and Order Committee?

Hon STUART NASH: Ah, that member should wait. There’s a lot of work being done in this area at this point in time.

Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety

11. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by his answer in the House last week where he stated he was confident the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, as reported back by select committee, had a parliamentary majority?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes.

Hon Scott Simpson: How then does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister’s statement on The Nation over the weekend that “We are working through some issues around employment legislation and continue to do so.”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, because what I also said last week was that should the Government see the opportunity to improve the bill in any way, we will take that opportunity at the committee of the whole House. We are a collaborative coalition Government. We’re constantly talking with each other about how we can form the very best legislation, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Hon Scott Simpson: So just exactly what aspects of the bill that were reported back after the select committee are still being negotiated with New Zealand First?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As the Prime Minister said, when it’s finalised, we’ll make it public.

Hon Scott Simpson: Why, after almost a year since the bill first went through Cabinet, and after it’s been through an entire select committee process with a Government majority on that select committee, can he not give any certainty to businesses in New Zealand or workers as to what the final version of his bill will look like?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Similar to when the previous Government passed the employment standards legislation and made significant changes at the committee of the whole House, there’s always an opportunity to make legislation better, and it would be a foolish Government not to take that opportunity.

Hon Scott Simpson: So in the Minister’s view, what are the specific improvements that can be made to the bill?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: There are always opportunities to make improvements, and when the details have been finalised and the Cabinet decision has been made, they will be made public.

Question No. 12—State Services

12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of State Services: How many incorrect statements have now been made by Ministers over the process, appointment, disclosures, and non-disclosures over the Government’s Chief Technology Officer, and who is responsible for these?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Acting Minister of State Services): In response to the second part of the question, in my role as the Acting Minister of State Services, I am responsible for statements made by myself and all other Ministers in respect of the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer (CTO). In response to the first part of the question, this is a Government that acknowledges its mistakes and focuses on putting them right, as I did yesterday by apologising to Mr Handley. I do note, for example, that both Minister Robertson and myself did correct statements made yesterday, and, of course, Ms Curran was incorrect in omitting her meeting with Mr Handley from a written question response.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is it that Derek Handley can publish all his texts and emails in two days, but Government Ministers, with dozens of staff and hundreds of officials, have still not been able to release all their texts and emails, despite first being asked for these in question time more than three weeks ago?

SPEAKER: All right. Now I am going to ask the member to rephrase the question so there’s a supplementary to the primary or the answer.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can you clarify in that the issue is around the provision of information. The issue is that we have had multiple mistakes over the provision of information, and I think it is a reasonable question, particularly—

SPEAKER: It might be a reasonable question, but the member has to link it either to the primary question—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: OK, I’ll try again.

SPEAKER: —or to the answer.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, Mr Speaker, I thought you’d be a champion for disclosure in this area.

SPEAKER: Order! The National Party just lost the additional supplementary questions.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is it that Derek Handley can accurately publish all his texts and emails in two days, but Government Ministers, with dozens of staff and hundreds of officials, can now, after more than three weeks from first requested, not provide this Parliament with all Ministers’ texts and emails?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I—yeah.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m happy to answer it.

SPEAKER: I’m not sure there was much of an improvement, but I will let it go.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m more than happy to answer it, Mr Speaker. Of course, Mr Handley is a private individual and not under the same obligations as a Government around the release of information. We had begun work preparing that raw material for a full release—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —later this week. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. This is an area of particular constitutional importance and a new area for consideration by this House. What I want is I want to be able to hear the answer, and I think other members should too. This reply will be heard in silence.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Handley is of course a private individual and not under the same obligations as a Government around the release of information. We had begun preparing materials for a full release later this week. On Monday, as the Acting Minister of State Services, I discussed the release with Department of Internal Affairs officials, and it was decided that State Services would liaise with Mr Handley regarding the release of his part of the correspondence. Of course, events overtook this. Furthermore, we are dealing with considerably more material than Mr Handley, as we also have internal communications to gather and prepare for release. We expect to release this information in the next day or so.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who was responsible for the Minister of State Services last week after dozens of questions in this House that were evaded and a very clear directive from the Speaker to bring all emails to this House for three significant emails being omitted?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I just indicated in the answer that I just gave, the Government has prepared the collating and redaction of the material for release to be consistent with its obligations as a Government. This is expected to be released in the next day or so.

SPEAKER: That’s not—no, I don’t need a point of order. That’s not the question that was asked.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The person that would be responsible would have been the Acting Minister of State Services last week, the Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does she stand by her answer yesterday, and I quote, “The Prime Minister did not communicate with Mr Handley by either text message or her private email address about the CTO role”, when Mr Handley has stated, and I quote him, “There were eight communications by text and email with the PM that I considered related to the CTO role.”? Who is not telling the truth?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I do stand by my statement, because, as Mr Handley makes quite clear in what is released, both the text and email regarding the CTO position that were sent to the Prime Minister were not responded to.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: No. No, the Opposition’s supplementaries have all been used.

Hon Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the member Chris Bishop stated that the police supported his Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill. They, in fact, do not—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Stuart Nash: —and I think he should stand up and apologise.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member knows that if a member has misled the House, there is an appropriate approach to take, and taking a point of order on it is not that approach.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, in advising the House on that last question, you made the comment that this was new territory, new ground—very important, etc. The Minister of Energy and Resources, in her answer, spoke about the Government having to take, obviously, a lot longer time than any private individual would because of the obligations that are incumbent on a Government. Now, we know up to this point what those obligations are, and they would not seem to be supporting a view that it should take a very long time at all to do these things. So I wonder: would it be reasonable to ask the Minister to table any new obligations that the Government now feels—

SPEAKER: No.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —in the release of these materials?

SPEAKER: No, no. The point that I was referring to was that I am not aware of a similar circumstance of ministerial communications from a former Minister not being immediately available to their successors. I think there’s an important point around the collective responsibility and the continuity of the ministry, and it’s an area which I haven’t seen any discussion on previously. I have made it clear, including in a way which was probably beyond my powers, that I think there is a responsibility for Ministers to obtain, as quickly as possible, the correspondence of former Ministers in order to ascertain what communications, and especially what obligations, have been entered into on the part of the Government by former Ministers. That is quite separate to the Government’s responsibilities under the Public Records Act or under the Official Information Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: A new point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, can we finish this one first?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That really is my point. The information given to the House over the last few weeks has been—the starting point was, well, all of Clare Curran’s papers are off to the archives, and there’ll have to be some sort of a negotiation with the archivist—

SPEAKER: Can the member resume his seat. I have made it clear in the House that the Chief Archivist does not override the powers of this House, and Ministers are responsible to this House, and not to the Chief Archivist. In fact, if the member read my letter, which I tabled in the House last week, I indicated that fairly plainly to the Chief Archivist.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My new point of order is that it is a custom, that you have carried on, that sometimes a Minister is not able to provide the information that’s sought in the question, and a Minister sometimes says, “I’ll provide that information for the House” or “the member”. You’ll be aware, over this four-week sitting, that there have been a number of occasions on this issue where reference has been made to that. What I’m seeking your guidance on is the timetable for that being met, because there are four specific elements where Ministers said they would provide information last week that has not yet been provided, and I was seeking your help to ensure that would be met by the end of this sitting, tomorrow.

SPEAKER: I cannot and will not give that guarantee. We’ve had an undertaking from the Minister currently in charge of the area that release of the material is imminent. But the point that I will make to the member—and where I said we’re tip-toeing in new constitutional grounds—is the right of Ministers to obtain the records of previous Ministers. That is something which is not absolutely clear. In my opinion, it should be the case, and it should be automatic, and we might be developing a new constitutional convention as we talk about it. For that reason, I’m not in a position to make such a requirement.

General Debate

General Debate

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

It’s interesting to think about priorities in this House. We’ve seen more questions today about texts, emails, and goat culls than we have about the economy. There’s a reason for that. There’s a reason for that, and that’s because the National Party don’t like good news—they don’t like good news. They don’t like the fact that we’ve just had the best quarter of growth in two years. They don’t like the fact that Moody’s have said that our triple A rating stays and that they think that our prospects are better than most of the other 11 countries, who have a triple A rating.

The growth that we are now seeing in the economy is broad-based—15 of 16 industries growing in the last quarter. But we know, on this side of the House, that we cannot be complacent about that growth. We know that if we want a healthy economy, everyone in New Zealand needs to benefit from that, and that is why we’ve got initiatives like the Provincial Growth Fund. That is why we’ve got initiatives like the Green Investment Fund. That’s why we’re investing in research and development. And that’s why we’re investing in skills and training.

We know, on this side of the House, that the good news that we’re seeing about the economy today can only get better, and it will get better. It will get better because we have a long-term plan to do that. This is a Government not only focused on growing a productive and sustainable economy that delivers higher standards of living and better wages to New Zealand; we are also focused on being a compassionate Government as well, making sure that when there is a wrong we are prepared to stand up and right it. I want to congratulate my colleague Phil Twyford about what he did this week with Housing New Zealand on the meth panic and meth contamination issue. I want to contrast that with the bizarre backflipping over on the other side of the House, where we had Paula Bennett telling the House that it was something that they should look at—they should look at compensation, they should look at being fair—and then Simon Bridges lost control of the communications machine to Judith Collins. That’s what happened.

We can see the lengths that Simon Bridges is going to, to try and get back control of the communications. He’s using the tried and true write-it-on-your-hand technique. [Shows photo] That’s what he’s using. Now, we have had the best forensic experts in New Zealand analyse what is written on Simon Bridges’ hand, and I can confirm it says the following things: “Simon: good. Jacinda: bad. Where’s Judith? Don’t wash hands.” That’s the instruction Simon Bridges is giving himself, because Simon Bridges and the National Party are stuck in the first stage of the seven stages of grief: shock and denial—shock and denial. That’s all they’ve got.

I was wondering, when I looked at those words, whether it was actually a cry for help, because, in the past, people have written things on their hand, placed them against windows and said, “This is a cry for help. Let me out! Judith has me trapped here! Let me out of here!” The other option: we have had a close look and we believe it may contain the list of potential leakers. That’s what we think we may have here. [Shows photo again]. Now, it’s very hard to read; I can make out a “J”, but then there are no other letters. It does say, “Not me.”, although we’re not sure about that either, on this side of the House.

The National Party is now the dog barking at every single car that goes by. But the one thing they’re not barking at is the economy. On this side of the House, we know that the National Party came into this House in Opposition, saying that this side of the House would ruin the economy and this side of the House wouldn’t be able to see those growth rates, and now they’ve stopped asking questions about it. Now they’re not even prepared to get on their feet and mount a decent case about where they would take the economy, because it’s all about the goats and it’s all about the texts.

Well, on this side of the House we know that what New Zealanders want to hear about is how their wages are going to grow, the fact that they’ve got a Government that cares about them and their families and is prepared to invest in it, and the fact that they have a coalition Government that represents the majority view of New Zealanders that we can be a better country, that we can be a country that’s more productive, that’s more sustainable, and where we care about one another. That is what this Government is about. The National Party have forgotten all of that.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): Every day of the week, I wake in the morning and I think to myself, “Surely this Government can’t be any more chaotic today? Surely it cannot be as bad as the last day of chaos, of shambles—the last day, the last week, the last month?” Actually, the last few months, we’ve seen that every single day it is. That’s right; every single day. It’s not one issue, it’s not two issues, it’s not three issues, it’s not four issues; they’re an omnishambles. Every single day it’s dysfunction junction.

Winston Peters had it right about this shambles of a Government. Every single day, it’s “Which Minister’s going to resign or be sacked?” Every single day I wake up: “What wacky thing will Winston Peters say on Radio New Zealand this morning? What’s he going to say?” Every single day it’s: “Has the Government spent tens of millions of dollars on yet another inquiry, on yet another working group, on yet another pointless talkfest?” And every single day, basically—actually, it’s every second day—they have. It’s “yes” to all of these questions, and they’ve piled more costs and more taxes on ordinary Kiwis, on working families and businesses, every single day. Every day, I think Grant Robertson wakes up and says, “What industry can I ban today? What virtue signalling can I do today?” That’s the Government we’ve got every day, every week, every month. It is an omnishambles, and they know it.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Ha, ha!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Kris Faafoi knows it. He knows it’s his main chance at Cabinet, because he knows that once a week there’s going to be a new Minister going. That’s his chance. He’s laughing in guilt. He’s saying to himself, “I shouldn’t be thinking that, but I know it’s true. It’s my opportunity. It’s my opportunity.” Clare Curran. Meka Whaitiri. Billions of dollars in this economy lost from banning things all the time. Education summits—two of them, $1.5 million a pop. You’d think you’d get a discount on the second one. A justice summit—$1.5 million for croissants. You name it, they’re doing it. It’s stupid. It’s an omnishambles. It’s dysfunction junction; Winston Peters had it right. And all the while, Kiwis all around New Zealand are being hit in their back pockets with more taxes and more costs to pay for this Government’s incredibly wasteful spending.

Just take the last 24 hours. What were the headlines? I could give you 20. “Days out from tax increase, petrol prices hit fresh record high”—$2.40—shame! Shame on this Government. “NZ weekly rent hits a record high in August”—$480—an all-time high. Shame on this Government. “Rising fuel prices are not the only thing making life in New Zealand more expensive”: “The cost of living”, says the columnist, “is rising before our eyes.”, and across the board. “Fuel, rent, insurance, rates, electricity, cigarettes and food;”—here’s what he says—“they’re all increasing in price … as a direct result of Government policy.” That’s what they said, and it is all so that the party across the board there can increase prices and can feed the beast of this Government with wasteful spending. Three billion dollars for Shane Jones to sprinkle around. What a waste of money. What pork-barrel politics. A billion dollars so Winston Peters can be carried high as “Chief Walla Walla” in the Islands. Fees-free: $2.8 billion. Talkfests, working groups, inquiries at over $200 million.

If we have the privilege of being Government, if National has that privilege at the next election, we will have a positive plan for change. We’ll reverse the employment laws. We’ll cancel the disastrous oil and gas decision. We’ll change the overseas investment changes that have been made. We will cancel the regional fuel tax. We’ll make sure there’s no capital gains tax on New Zealanders, and we’ll do more—

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

Hon Kris Faafoi: Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. I’m sure the member appreciates the support, but I’d like to hear his speech.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve got some bad news for Simon Bridges: there’s been another leak. There’s been another leak from his caucus, and I’ve got it right here with me. It’s a little bit of advice he’s written to himself; I’ve got it here in my hand. It says, “Live every day like it’s your last.” That’s the reality for Mr Bridges, who sits in the leader’s seat at the moment, but we all know that, as the clock is ticking down for me, the clock is ticking down for Mr Bridges too. So “Live every day like it’s your last.” is the advice that I give to the Leader of the Opposition.

It’s been a year since the election, and what a difference a year makes. Bill English was the leader of the National Party a year ago; now we have Mr Bridges. A year ago, on election night, Mr English stood in Auckland, triumphant as if the National Party was going to win. “Nek minnit” something happened, and the direction of this country changed in a way that will make a difference for generations to come. I am proud to be part of this coalition Government, because, in the areas that matter most to New Zealanders—not the car toll, apparently, this weekend, Mr McClay—in housing, health, education, and making sure that New Zealanders get a fair go, in the last 11 months a lot has been done by this Government, made up of the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Green Party, that we are very proud of.

I’d just like to give the Opposition a little bit of assistance. I spent a bit of time over there, and I just want to say to you guys, “Stop being so angry. Cheer up. Stop being so angry.”, because being angry in Opposition gets you nowhere. Mr Macindoe and Mr Mitchell, who, I know, are positive people—people should look at those two for the way that you should be in Opposition. Be happy and don’t be angry, because that will get you somewhere. Stop being angry about the things that don’t matter to New Zealanders. What really matters to New Zealanders is that they can make sure they can live in a safe, warm house, and I’d like to commend my colleague Phil Twyford for making sure that we start building homes that New Zealanders can actually afford. That’s what New Zealanders wanted at election time, and we’ve got a coalition Government that is actually delivering that. We’re seeing homes that are being built that New Zealanders can actually buy. They can actually buy houses in Auckland, where the biggest problems of unaffordability were happening. So I’m really proud about that.

Also, the Opposition should cheer up. For about the last two or three months, they’ve been quoting anyone who has had anything bad to say about the economy. You name it, if they’ve said something bad—it doesn’t matter who said it—they’ve been quoting it. But, as Soul II Soul said in 1989, it’s “back to life, back to reality”. The reality is that last week we had the best GDP figures in terms of growth for the last two years.

Hon Mark Mitchell: This is a Cabinet Minister speech.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: That is the reality, Mr Mitchell; so you can argue and quote everyone you want, but the economy is going great guns. You can get anyone you want alongside to say that things are bad and employment’s going down. Unemployment is at 4.5 percent: some of the best figures since the global financial crisis. So cheer up, OK? Just because we’re over here doesn’t mean it’s all bad. We’re doing good things for people who want fairness for New Zealanders.

In health, I’d like to commend my colleague the Hon Dr David Clark, because he’s making sure that the hospitals that have been run down in terms of their capital investment for at least nine years are starting to get investment back in there. Is it too much to ask to have a hospital that doesn’t leak? Well, apparently, it was for the previous Government, but we’re making sure we’re investing where it matters. But we’re also a compassionate Government; so when that side of the House was trying to poke holes in what we’re trying to do with refugees, we actually did it. So what’s the problem? Fifteen hundred refugees—you guys didn’t do it. We’re a compassionate Government that actually says, “We’ve got a part to play in the global struggle to make sure that these people who are coming from war-torn areas have a place to live.” New Zealand is a great place to live. Instead of picking holes in the system, we just went along and did it.

Just to finish up, a bit of advice, OK? I spent eight years over there, Mr Mitchell—get comfy. Ha, ha! OK? Cheer up. If there’s something positive to say, say it, because that’s what New Zealanders want to hear. On this side of the House, we’re investing in health, housing, and education, and we’re doing things that’ve been overdue for more than nine years. That’s what people want to hear, and I know, in your caucus room, when you get the numbers, you’re hearing that too. The problem is that the guy in that seat is not resonating; so the leaker should just come out and say who they are and get rid of him.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my great pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party and deliver a dispatch from the cross benches of this Parliament, because, you see, it’s quite interesting to watch the way that positions change on an issue. Issue one: ANZ’s business confidence surveys. Only a couple of weeks ago, they were down and the Government told us that they were some sort of conspiracy by ideologically minded business people who simply did not like a Labour Government. Today, they’ve recovered slightly—still not very healthy—but we have the Government taking patsy questions, shouting from the rooftops how good the ANZ business confidence survey is.

But, just to be fair, take another issue: GDP. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Government was telling us that GDP didn’t matter very much. We don’t need to worry about GDP! In fact, Treasury, with its Living Standards Framework, is dreaming up whole new ways of measuring prosperity so that we won’t have to worry about GDP so much. My friends in the National Party, meanwhile, said that GDP was absolutely everything and must be taken with the utmost of seriousness. Today, GDP is looking pretty healthy. Anyone’s got to admit that 1 percent per quarter in a developed country is pretty good growth. Of course, the Government has suddenly discovered that GDP, after all, is everything, and the National Party has, of course, got less to say about GDP than they have had at any other time.

Here, in the little old ACT Party, on the cross benches, we’d like to focus on a few slightly more long-term issues, and here’s one—one that our country should be thinking about and that any Government should be thinking about. It’s this: in the next couple of generations, we are going to have about a billion people in Africa, Bangladesh, and India—low-skilled people who will work for nothing—entering the global workforce. That means that if you’re a low-skilled person, then your wages are going to be static and maybe will even go down over the next couple of decades. That’s really sad, but what makes it sadder is that we have a Government that spends about 150 grand on a kid’s education for a decade and one in six of them, 15 percent, come out functionally illiterate and innumerate. You put those two things together, and that is a real problem. That is a pathway to a country that is two-speed, that is divided, and then worse.

What is this Government doing to work on the problem of educational inequity? Well, the most substantial thing they’ve done so far is close charter schools—charter schools that, back on the theme of being on the cross benches, the National Party tolerated for six years and has since discovered were their cause célèbre all along, since they’re no longer in Government; charter schools that the Government closed without any such thing as a review. This Government reviews and consults on everything, but when it came to the one part of the education system that was showing some promise for disadvantaged New Zealanders, they closed it without asking. What have we heard from the Māori caucus in the Labour Party? Not a peep. And I’d say to those members: you’d better get in quick because of the waka-jumping legislation. It’s going to take a bit longer than the Government expected, but it’s going to go through, and then their ability to stand up for issues like that is simply not going to be there. They’ll have no leverage, because they won’t be able to leave.

Here’s another long-term issue: we pay Treasury to tell us, every couple of years, that we are going to be 200 percent of GDP in debt in another generation—worse than Greece—if we keep spending the way we do, if productivity doesn’t increase twice as fast as it has, and if we don’t start managing entitlements. But can we find anyone on the Government benches who wants to seriously confront the cost of superannuation, anyone who wants to do what every other country is doing and start adjusting the age of entitlement for superannuation, like every other country in the OECD is doing? Nope. The best you can get is the National Party, which wants to start doing it in 20 years’ time.

So we can go back and forth on the issues, and it’s fun to sit on the cross benches and watch National and the Government change positions week after week depending on the circumstances, but at some point this country needs a Parliament that is prepared to look into the future, confront our challenges, and take decisive action so that we really can have a better tomorrow. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have to admit that, after hearing the first and third speakers in this debate, I was feeling quite nervous because I’m nowhere near as funny as them, but after hearing that speaker, David Seymour, I’m feeling quite fine about giving this speech now, knowing that I’m not that funny and neither is he.

I was really excited that I was going to be speaking in the debate today, but the sad thing is that it is only five minutes long. I want to talk about all the amazing things that this Government is doing, but there’s no way I can fit it all in, in five minutes. But, anyway, unlike the Opposition, who’s sitting over there—they bark at every single car that goes past; I don’t know if they’re waiting for a pat, a bone, or something to be thrown at them, but unfortunately no one is paying any attention to them. On this side of the House, we are getting on with the mahi, getting on with the work.

We’re a Government that’s fiscally responsible, and we’re seeing that with our recent triple A rating. We are wanting to be transformed, and we are ambitious, we are future-focused, we are compassionate, and, most importantly, we are bringing kindness back to politics. We are seeing that by watching our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, doing us proud overseas and talking about that very fact: bringing kindness back to politics. She says there’s not one rule for leadership, and it doesn’t have to be based on ego and point-scoring; you can be strong and you can be kind. So I’m really, really proud of our Prime Minister, who’s leading the way on that front.

Anyway, I want to talk a little bit about some of the amazing things that we are doing, in particular thinking initially about our Families Package. We’ve got so many more families that are going to be so much better off under this package—around about 384,000 members of the public there—

Kieran McAnulty: How many?

JO LUXTON: 384,000, can you believe it? We’ve extended paid parental leave to up to 22 weeks. We’ve got a Best Start payment for all new babies that are born and for the next three years. Our senior citizens and some of our lowest-income earners are eligible now for a winter energy payment. So now, instead of our vulnerable people and elderly people having to make the choice between turning the heater on or saving some money, they don’t have to worry about that any more, and that speaks volumes. That is about compassion, and that is about being kind.

I also want to talk about some of the things that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni is doing in the Work and Income space. I’m thinking about the fact that she’s changing the way that people who work at Work and Income have changed their focus. I met with some Work and Income managers recently in the area I live in and they were telling me that they’ve been told, since this Government has come in, that the focus must now be on the client and about the client and what is best for the client. Actually, these people seemed very relieved and very, very happy that this was the instruction they were following now.

Kieran McAnulty: Happy with this Government.

JO LUXTON: That’s right—that’s right. I think about a time when I had to go into Work and Income when I was in a vulnerable situation and the person I spoke to made me feel terrible, made me feel inadequate, and I felt really, really distraught after my visit there. I’m really proud to see that our Minister Carmel Sepuloni is really focusing on listening to the clients and what clients are wanting and, from that, making the changes that need to be made in the Ministry of Social Development space.

I’m also really proud of what we’re doing in the education space. We’re giving the voice back to teachers on the Teaching Council. We are showing them that we on this side of the House actually trust them. We trust them to know what they are doing. We are not taking their choice away, and we’re not going to stand and say, “Actually, you know what, we know better. This is what we want you to do.” We are letting those people who work at the coalface make those decisions for themselves and look after their own sector.

Another thing I’m really proud of is the fact that we’re getting rid of national standards—national standards. No longer will our children in schools, particularly those who have learning disabilities or who are somewhat vulnerable, have to hear with every school report that comes out, “You’re a failure. You don’t meet those national standards.” Now they will hear how positive and fabulously they are doing in school. It will be a holistic look at how they’re going, and I say that I’m so proud that this Government is bringing kindness back to politics.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It’s one thing for the Green Party member and the Minister of Conservation to come to this House and say she’s listening to New Zealanders, but when tens of thousands of New Zealanders over a 24-hour period express their concern over her decision to go out and cull very large numbers of an animal that has importance in New Zealand, and, indeed, in the face of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who enjoy the outdoors recreationally who are hunters or who make a livelihood from tourism—for her to come here and say she won’t listen to them and she’s pushing ahead with this mass cull of up to 25,000tahr is not a good thing for democracy.

At least that’s what she was saying yesterday, because what we heard in the House in question time today is she’s now been forced to postpone the start of the cull of tahr in the South Island from this weekend until she’s done some more consultation. So yesterday she had consulted enough, she knew what was going on, she knew it would be best, but overnight more than 20,000 people have emailed her, have signed a petition; newspapers and TV have started to be interested in this issue; and today she’s come to the House and said the cull will not be starting this weekend, because she needs to go and talk to and consult a few more people.

The problem with that is that it’s not great for our hunters and tourism operators and the reason for that is she has not committed to consult with them or their representatives. That is the reason that there is so much concern around the country. Now, I’ve yet to meet anybody from the hunting or tourism industry and, certainly, the National Party, who is saying that this species—and other species—does not need to be managed; certainly it does. But the question the Minister hasn’t answered is why, on every other occasion under us in Government and earlier this year when 3,000 tahr were managed—were culled—she has instructed the Department of Conservation (DOC) to go out and indiscriminately kill every animal they can find as they fly around in helicopters, including the bull tahr that actually don’t add to the size of the herd. These are the animals that are hunted and others from overseas come and have the most interest in.

She’s received advice from representatives of the Tahr Liaison Group that she shouldn’t be doing that, yet she’s disregarded that advice and she’s just pushed on ahead. She said in the House today it wasn’t 25,000 animals that will be culled. Well, she’s wrong because if she goes and looks at her press release and the information that was put out—3,000 were culled earlier this year—she announced that 10,000 would be culled starting this weekend. Well, she’s postponed that. If the hunters themselves couldn’t manage the part that they are responsible for, DOC would do another 7,500 tahr before April of next year, and she’s also said that in the two estate parks she wants to have every single tahr—every single tahr—annihilated.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What would you do?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The member of the Green Party asks what we would do. We would go out and generally consult. We would talk to these groups. We’d go and talk to the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association, who have come up with a plan that the Minister has disregarded and won’t look at that says over the next three years these animals could be managed in a better way that protects their interests, protects a species that in most other parts of the world is now endangered and, at the same time, that means hunters have a say. What we would certainly do is listen, but I get how the Minister doesn’t want to listen because, actually, she knows best.

So, number one, why has she back-tracked today in this House compared to her strong position yesterday? Well, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has told her she hasn’t consulted enough and she could be in trouble. Number two, she’s heard that, actually, hunting groups have got lawyers and they’re about to start legal proceedings against her. So, all of a sudden, she said today “I’m going to consult a little bit more.” She’s come under huge pressure over the last 24 hours. There are more than 20,000 New Zealanders who are expressing very strong concern about her disregard for their right to have some say. She hasn’t consulted with the Game Animal Council properly. In fact, a month ago she was on Radio New Zealand saying she wanted to get rid of it. I’m glad that last week she put out a press release saying she may not, but the hunters don’t believe her.

The final problem that she’s got is that those who import ammunition from overseas have said they won’t sell it to her. DOC don’t have enough bullets. I’m glad she has suspended the cull just for this weekend. She needs to—

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

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Many of us in this House, from all sides of this House, understand exactly what it is like to have been in a precarious or vulnerable situation at one point or many more in our lives, and to have needed help. So, speaking of putting compassion back into this House, back into politics, and certainly back into leadership—and I really welcome the fine words of my colleague Jo Luxton—I’m really here to talk about how we need to change our support systems.

I welcome the work of Minister Carmel Sepuloni. What we are hearing is that even the staff and workers of Work and Income offices are welcoming a change in direction, a change in direction from this Government, which says, “We want to be a genuine support system.” We no longer want to focus on punitive punishment, because that also doesn’t work. And it’s not kindness for the sake of being kind; it’s because cruelty is not sustainable. Cruelty further degrades our relationships with each other, our relationships and sustainability for our families, and how we are going to look at and value what values we are upholding as a nation.

It’s warming to know that many of us know what it is like to need to go and get help. Here in this place, we are privileged and we are fortunate and we do not need that support, but we need to remember that still far too many people do. Far too many people today are still having to live lives without dignity, worrying about how they’re going to pay the bills, feed their family, or pay the rent; worrying about if they are going to be probed unnecessarily because they’ve had a couple of dates, or a Tinder date; worrying about what information they’re going to have to share about their personal private lives, because we have different standards. We have different standards for people who need some form of income support. We have different standards and levels of scrutiny for people because for far too long, and certainly under the entire term of the previous National Government, we upheld a narrative which said, “People who need that support are not worthy and have got themselves into trouble by their own predicament.” That has to stop.

That is why the Green Party, this Sunday, will be launching our plan to further push and support the work that is needed to change the culture of our social support systems in this country, which we have had a proud legacy of building in this country. We need to get back there because people need support and because punishment does not move people into dignified living situations, and certainly not into paid employment. We have to have a plan that recognises that people with disabilities need our help, that caregivers need our help, that people who are unable to maintain low-paid and insecure work need our help, that people having to face redundancy at the end of their careers need our help, that we all are not guaranteed to be sitting here for the rest of our cushy lives, and that at some time in the future, we, ourselves, may need help and support.

So the Green Party are very, very proud to be continuing that work to support, supplement, and further push the work of the Minister in overhauling the culture of our support system. That is because we reject the narrative that for far too long has said, “These people don’t deserve to live in dignity.”, and that “It is your own fault. You didn’t work hard enough, you’re not educated enough, and you are not healthy enough. You don’t deserve to live in a home that you can actually afford to pay the rent for, you don’t deserve to be able to feed your children healthy kai, and you certainly don’t deserve to turn your heater on during the winter.” These things can change, and here in Aotearoa there is absolutely no reason why they can’t, but it will take leadership from us to realise that the degradation of our support systems has not worked and does not create a good economy for our country. So we are going to fix that.

Everyone, come this Sunday to Auckland—12 noon—to the launch in the city, where I will be very proud to welcome speakers who are going to help with this plan and people who are going to help us get this right. The time is now. Kia ora.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, while the Prime Minister is offshore in New York, desperately trying to shake off the Meka Whaitiri and Clare Curran debacles, there is yet another political scandal she is finding it very difficult to shake, and that is the problem of the appointment of Wally Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner of Police. Let me outline what has happened so far.

The term of Deputy Police Commissioner Viv Rickard expired on 3 June 2018. Cabinet confirmed the vacancy on 7 May and applications closed just eight days later. The candidates were interviewed only six days later by Peter Hughes and Debbie Power of the State Services Commission and Mike Bush, Commissioner of Police. My understanding is that Mr Haumaha was asked, in the interview process, words to the effect of “Is there anything in your past that would embarrass the Government?”, and he said no. I can also reveal that Mr Haumaha was not the preferred candidate of the panel. The Cabinet paper proposing his appointment does not state that he was the preferred candidate, but he was appointed anyway by the Prime Minister. The big question is “Why?”, particularly in light of what happened next.

After Mr Haumaha’s appointment, the New Zealand Herald broke the news that an officer had told the 2004 Operation Austin investigation that Mr Haumaha had described Louise Nicholas’ allegations as a nonsense and that “Nothing really happened and we have to stick together.” An inquiry was, rightly, ordered by Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters. He must have hoped that the problem would go away. An email released to me says that the Government wanted a short and sharp inquiry. Officials originally suggested an $840,000 inquiry over three months. Cabinet wound that back to $150,000 over six weeks, with just one member.

The first attempt to start the inquiry was a disaster. Emails revealed to me that they couldn’t find anyone to do the inquiry until a few days before it was announced. Pauline Kingi was announced as the inquiry chair but was revealed to have endorsed the subject of the inquiry 23 times on LinkedIn. Finally, the Government did the right thing and appointed an independent QC to run the inquiry. Then further allegations came to light. Three women have accused Mr Haumaha of bullying while working on a joint justice, police, and corrections project in 2016. Those allegations are being considered by the Independent Police Conduct Authority as well as by the Scholtens Inquiry and, possibly, by the State Services Commission.

Here is the question: why will the Prime Minister not stand Wally Haumaha down? Meka Whaitiri was accused of wrongdoing and stood aside. Why will she not do the same for her own appointment? The answer, I believe, lies in the relationship between New Zealand First and Wally Haumaha. He was reported as being the New Zealand First candidate for Rotorua in 2005. The deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party, Fletcher Tabuteau, referred to Mr Haumaha as a member of his whānau in his maiden speech, in 2014. Mr Haumaha is the chairman of Mr Tabuteau’s marae at Waiteti. The links go further. Close Winston Peters confidante and uncle of Fletcher Tabuteau, Tommy Gear, is also a senior leader on the marae.

Let me talk about the special function on the marae in June last year to celebrate Mr Haumaha’s promotion to Assistant Police Commissioner. Winston Peters was there. He sat next to Wally Haumaha. He told Parliament, in a personal explanation, that he attended the function because he was invited by the police and the Government of the day. He was not. Documents from the police, sent to me, make clear that he could only have been invited by the marae itself. The question is: was he invited by Wally Haumaha or by someone close to him?

Today I can also reveal that Winston Peters rang Wally Haumaha after the inquiry into his appointment was announced. He gave him assurances, or words to that effect, that things would be OK. That is deeply, wildly inappropriate. Mr Peters needs to explain who invited him to the marae, why he rang Wally Haumaha to assure him that things would be OK despite an inquiry into his appointment, and why he thinks Mr Haumaha should stay in the role while he is subject to two separate investigations, with a third on the way. Until those questions are answered, this scandal will continue to dog the Prime Minister and her Government.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Last weekend marked the anniversary of the general election of 2017, and what a year it has been. I am so proud to be part of this amazing Government that is driving a strong economy while also showing compassion. In fact, we’re not just talking about compassion; we are showing compassion by being compassionate.

My colleague here, Jo Luxton, talked about the changes that we’ve seen in the Work and Income New Zealand offices. I have had so many people contact me. So many people have come through the door of my office, talking to my staff members about how much simple little changes are making to their lives, about how they don’t feel disempowered any more. They feel valued when they walk in those doors, just by even having the toilet available to them—something that this Government has thought about.

The increase to the refugee quota: in fact, last Tuesday, when I was coming to Parliament, I was listening to the radio, and I heard the Hon Simon Bridges saying that perhaps the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, needs to put her money where her mouth is and actually not just talk about increasing the refugee quota but actually show the country that that was happening. Well, perhaps the Hon Simon Bridges should have waited until that afternoon, because that afternoon we announced that we were actually increasing that number from 1,000 to 1,500.

Perhaps one of the most recent compassionate announcements that we have made has been on providing compensation to the almost around 800-odd families who were wrongly evicted from Housing New Zealand properties. And what did we hear in response to that? “Why would we give money to these meth crooks?” Are these meth crooks? Like this Tauranga man, who actually happens to come from the Hon Simon Bridges’ electorate, talking about how he was evicted from his housing. He had actually asked Housing New Zealand to come in to test his home for methamphetamine because he suspected that his boarder was actually using it, and on the basis of the results of those tests, which turned out to be positive, he was evicted. This man, who was evicted from his home, who was on dialysis and has a serious brain injury, who was not a meth user himself—would we call him a meth crook? Not on this side of the House. We will compensate him for the wrong that was done to him.

We are showing compassion through listening to those who are running our essential services. We are listening to our education sector, and I am so delighted in the work that the Hon Tracey Martin has actually put out to the sector in the draft Disability and Learning Support Action Plan. This was announced on Friday. Since then, I have spoken to principals in Rotorua and a group in Invercargill, and I have had heaps of feedback. In fact, out of anything in education, this is the one area that I have had the most feedback on in such a short time. And I just want to, with your OK there, Mr Speaker, read out a little bit of that feedback. One this morning said, “This is brilliant news and is a sign of the strong education policies of the parties in this Government. We welcome this.” Another—a major organisation—says, “It does show that this Government is actually listening to the educators and has taken our concerns about getting more support to both kids and schools. Our voices are being heard.” The last bit that I would like to speak about here is just this one that I read on Facebook, which says, “At last, some hope—some good news for those students that need it most. I’m literally sobbing. I’m crying my eyes out. This has been a long time coming. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.”

We are proud to bring compassion to the work that we do. While the Opposition, the National Party, tweets into the void and barks at the passing cars, this Government is getting on with the things that matter to Kiwis. We are building houses, restoring our public health services, fixing transport, and, in the area that I am so passionate about, we are restoring a strong public education system and we are modernising our schools. Thank you.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the lessons that new Labour list MPs from the South Island need to learn is that they’ve got to say with some passion what they really think, and if they want to make apologies for the Government, then they need to say it with sincerity and passion and not just sort of pretend that they’re reading a speech that’s been prepared by their research unit, giving them an indication that they should be somehow building an aura of a Government—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He’s not going to reflect on me, because, of course, if a member was reading a speech, I would stop that member, although I didn’t do it to the member on his left, because I think he was being considered.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I won’t spend any further time on the previous speaker, because she was trying to defend the indefensible, and that’s a job that’s going to become increasingly more difficult for Labour list backbenchers. In the 1970s, when trade unions dominated the industrial relations scene, and in an environment that this Government wants to take us back to, there were a number of words that were used regularly every day. They used to come across the newswires, across the newspapers, and one of them was the word “demarcation”, and it was usually in reference to unions fighting each other.

In fact, that was the reason that the Māngere Bridge took 10 years to build and the BNZ building in Wellington, here, took about 10 years to build. Most of it wasn’t employers fighting with employees over workplace relations and issues to do with employment and remuneration and conditions; it was actually unions fighting with each other. It was whether members of the Boilermakers Union or the fitters and turners union should be the ones that did the welding on the construction of the Māngere Bridge.

So too it is now that a repeat of the word “demarcation” has crept back into the New Zealand news lexicon, and, of course, we’re seeing that now not in relation to unions fighting each other but in relation to the coalition parties fighting each other. There are demarcation disputes between the political wing of the trade union movement, which is the New Zealand Labour Party. They have an issue that they want to progress legislation through the House that will take us back to the 1970s, and the Labour Party wants to do that and move it through, but the demarcation dispute occurs because members of New Zealand First don’t really want that to happen. We know this to be true because the Minister, Iain Lees-Galloway, in answering questions in the House, seems not to be able to confirm to this House or the Education and Workforce Committee that considered his Employment Relations Amendment Bill that the bill that the select committee signed off on and reported back to the House is not going to change in some considerable way. And, clearly, it is, because the demarcation dispute between the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the trade union movement is in full fight at the moment.

Now, we know this to be true because we can see from news reports, just last week, that the unions are concerned that Winston Peters might hijack employment law reform. It goes on to say—this report from Tova O’Brien—that Labour is under fire from the most unlikely of critics: its staunchest allies, the trade union movement. They’re saying they’re raising concerns about the rising dominance of New Zealand First. Now, we all know that since the Labour-led Government came into Government, it’s actually been New Zealand First that’s in power, and this is what the trade unions are scared about. Two of the biggest unions—FIRST Union and the Council of Trade Unions (CTU)—are fearful that the Government’s employment law reforms will be hijacked by Winston Peters. The Labour Party and the unions used to be bedfellows, the report goes on to say, and right from the beginning, but FIRST Union’s Robert Reid is surprisingly scathing, and he says we’re worried in the union that the dominance on a number of issues that is coming from New Zealand First will win out. And so the CTU and the FIRST Union are worried, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious that they’re not going to get their way.

So the Prime Minister needs to answer questions about what it means to this piece of legislation when the Rt Hon Winston Peters says it’s still a work in progress. Does it mean that the unions’ free access to workplaces is going to be done away with? Does it mean that paid union delegates are going to be not paid by employers? Does it mean that union information is not going to be handed out? Does it mean that Meka’s multi-employer collective agreements are not going to be forced into place by this legislation? So there are big unanswered questions. The demarcation dispute is well in swing here between the trade union movement, the political arm of the trade union movement, the New Zealand Labour Party, and New Zealand First.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kua hinga te tōtara i te wao nui a Tāne. Kua hinga he rangatira o ngā reo irirangi o Aotearoa. Ki te whānau pani, ki te whānau whānui o Merv Smith, ka nui aku mihi aroha ki a koutou. Ki a koe Merv, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā. Haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki te hunga ora, tēnā koutou katoa. Mā Te Atua tātou e manaaki, e tiaki, e arahi ki te ara tika i ngā wā katoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. A tōtara has fallen in the great forest of Tāne. A great leader in New Zealand radio has died. To the bereaved family, indeed to the wider family of Merv Smith, I extend to you my deep sympathy. To you, Merv, rest in eternal peace. Farewell, farewell, farewell. To all of you who remain, I offer you my greetings. May God always bless us, look after us, and lead us all on the right pathway. Greetings to one and all.]

We live today in a society which is very much celebrating the celebrity culture, a culture that has coined the phrase “famous for being famous”. Once upon a time, fame was a by-product of actually doing something that was impressive. Back in his day, Merv Smith was very famous. He was probably the most famous radio broadcaster this country has ever produced. Being on radio and television was his natural place to be. He was a by-product of incredible talent. He was sharp witted and had an amazing ability for mimicry. But, also, there was this natural kindness and a jolliness about him, and those features enabled his listeners to connect with him. He was relatable, and that’s an absolute skill that broadcasters who are at the top of their game are able to bring. They are able to connect with their audience, and Merv had that. But he was more than that.

For 48 years, Merv Smith read stories and recorded books for the blind. What a great contribution he made. Also, in Auckland, he set up a radio station. It was a country radio station. Now, in radio we would have a bit of a joke about that station, because it played two types of music: country and western. He was most loved indeed, was Merv Smith, and he also had some amazing qualities. He didn’t have any sense of entitlement, he didn’t have an inflated ego, and he didn’t seek the limelight. Fame, for him, was a by-product of being a good and decent man, and he had so much to give our society. If anyone in broadcasting should have received a knighthood, it should have been Merv Smith. So, farewell to you, Merv Smith. You will be missed.

The radio industry really is a different beast to the days of Merv Smith. We’ve had to adjust to a global media landscape. But radio has thrived, interestingly, as traditional media, though, generally haven’t so much. So I turn my mind briefly now to community radio, Te Whakaruruhau o Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori, our iwi radio network. They are doing some amazing work in the communities they are connected to. They are protecting the taonga of Te Reo Māori, and they are ensuring that the dialects are preserved for our language preservation for us and our tamariki into the future. So I’d just like, today, to acknowledge the contribution that iwi radio has made and to congratulate all those who work inside that industry. You are the backbone of radio, and you’re really our last bastion of community radio. New Zealand First is very proud to support iwi radio.

Speaking of radio, everyone needs a theme song, and so I’d like to finish my contribution by making a suggestion or two about theme songs. Just to cheer up the Opposition a little bit, I’d like to suggest a theme song for the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Simon Bridges. Now, we’re not talking about Eminem or anything Eminem-esque at all or any “pretty legal” rendition whatsoever, and even too with his gangsta fingers—the finger guns that he’s been pointing lately—no Wiggles song for him. No, I would like to suggest something really Kiwi for the Leader of the Opposition. Bearing in mind that they’re dealing with the leak and the boat is no longer going in the right direction—probably about to sink very fast—I would like to suggest the 1982 hit song from Split Enz, those boys from Te Awamutu, “Six Months in a Leaky Boat”.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): This is Chinese Language Week. I will say “I wish you all the best.” in Chinese: “Zhu ni wan shi ru yi.”—祝你万事如意.

Just one year and three days ago we had an election, and a few weeks later we had a new coalition Government, so it’s about time to think about the celebration of the first anniversary of the Government. What will they be celebrating?

Well, for New Zealand First, they may well be celebrating the anti-democratic waka-jumping bill. I see this as a forced marriage—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I just want to make it very clear to the member that that bill is on the Order Paper. It can be debated at that time; that debate cannot be anticipated on the same day.

Dr JIAN YANG: OK.

Kieran McAnulty: Oh no—what’s on your hand? Check your hand.

Dr JIAN YANG: OK—that’s OK. But there may be—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Dr JIAN YANG: There may well be—

SPEAKER: No, no—sorry. I do apologise to the member. Who’s referring to my hands?

Kieran McAnulty: Oh, yep—my mistake.

SPEAKER: Well, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. He’s a whip. He needs to get his interjections in order.

Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Dr Jian Yang—now, we’re going to start this again. Start right from the beginning—five minutes.

Dr JIAN YANG: OK, thanks, Mr Speaker. Again, I wish you all the best: zhu ni wan shi ru yi—祝你万事如意. This is Chinese Language Week.

It is one year and three days ago that we had the election, and we were the largest party, but in the end, well, we had a new coalition Government. So it’s about time to think about the celebration of the anniversary of the coalition Government. What will they be celebrating? I’ve thought about this. Well, New Zealand First—I’m not talking about the bill—may think about celebrating the billion trees. They’ve talked a lot about the billion trees, but I haven’t seen many trees there. But they will be celebrating anyway.

The Greens may be celebrating the ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration. Well, it will cost the Government a billion dollars in terms of lost revenue and thousands of jobs for ordinary New Zealanders, but who cares? We’ll be celebrating the empty principle at the cost of the New Zealand economy.

Then the Labour Party—well, a wave of strikes. They’ll be celebrating the strikes. Just now, before I came into the Chamber, I saw the report that primary school teachers and the principals have rejected the proposal and are going to have a strike, and then Wellington bus drivers are going to have a strike indefinitely. So this is the Labour Government: a wave of strikes.

But this is Chinese Language Week, so I paid special attention to the achievement of the Labour Government in matching the numbers with Chinese culture. You know, eight in China is a very good number. Eight means rich—well, Labour has done a lot to match eight. Firstly, one-eight, which means getting rich: what have they done to match one-eight? Eighteen KiwiBuild houses—18 KiwiBuild houses, right; 18—to get rich.

Then, two-eight is also a good number—two-eight. What have they done? Free tertiary education—$2.8 billion wasted. So $2.8 billion has been wasted—so one-eight, two-eight.

And they have other numbers, right? One-six-eight is even better, which means you will get smooth and get rich, all the way—one-six-eight. Yi lu fa—一路发. What have they achieved there? One hundred and sixty-eight working groups. Actually, they have passed 168, and they now have 172. There are going to be 178 before too long. So there’s one-seven-eight.

There’s another number which is even better—that is, four-eight. In Chinese, it’s si fa—死发—which means you are going to be extremely rich—four-eight. Well, what have they done for that matching number? The rental price: this week, the average rental price is $480 a week. That’s a record high rental price, so Labour has done so much to match the Chinese magical number eight. So this is the Government.

Now you come to another area which is, of course, business confidence, which is now at a 10-year low. In 2016, business confidence was the second-highest among OECD countries. Now it’s the second-lowest among OECD countries. What does it mean? It means a lot to business, particularly small business.

I was on my way just a few weeks ago from China back to Auckland on a plane, and I met a Chinese businessman, a restaurant owner. He was complaining about how hard it is now to do business, and that is not an exceptional case. There are many cases—many, many examples.

I would like to emphasise that this coalition Government has done a lot to match the magic numbers. The eight in Chinese means wealthy, but for the Government, it may be wealthier because of more tax. But for ordinary Chinese and ordinary people in New Zealand, they are not getting wealthier. They are getting poorer. So this is the Government which is going to celebrate without caring—

SPEAKER: Order! The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Remuneration Authority is required to release an annual determination that sets out the salaries for members of Parliament according to a formula set in law. The 2017 Parliamentary Salaries and Allowances Determination expired on 1 July 2018. The authority is due to release the 2018 determination, which proposes, according to a formula set in law, an increase of 3.08 percent for the salaries of members of Parliament.

The formula for determining MPs’ salaries was introduced in 2015, and it increases MPs’ salaries by the percentage average growth in public sector wages as measured by the quarterly employment survey, removing any superannuation subsidy and personal benefits received from allowances. The formula has resulted in higher than expected percentage increases to MPs’ salaries. Given the level of pay that MPs receive relative to the average wage in New Zealand, a high percentage increase can result in a significant increase in the total amount that MPs are paid. For example, a 3 percent increase for the median annual income in New Zealand of $52,000 would result in an additional $1,500 pay, whereas an MP earning $163,961 annually would receive a further $5,000, which is over three times more in real dollar terms. These significant pay increases are unfair and unjustifiable, and they contribute to the growing imbalance in pay between those on highly remunerated salaries and the rest of New Zealand. This is not acceptable to the New Zealand public.

Since the formula’s introduction, in 2015, pay increases for MPs have ranged from 2.46 percent to 4.06 percent. The repeatedly high level of annual increases in pay set under this formula calls into question whether the settings for determining MPs’ pay are fit for purpose. It is critical that the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 be amended in order to stop this significant pay increase from progressing while work can be done to improve the way in which MPs’ pay is determined. This bill amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 to freeze MPs’ salaries and allowances at the current levels set out in the 2017 determination, and the superannuation subsidy as set out in the Parliamentary Superannuation Determination 2003 until 30 June 2019.

The bill also makes amendments to the relevant provisions in the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013 to reflect that no determination must be made for salaries or allowances during the same time period. The bill does not impact on how MPs’ services are determined for this time period. MPs’ services are individualised and need to be responsive to the differing accommodation, travel, and international travel needs of different MPs and Ministers. Work will be carried out to examine whether changes to the way in which MPs’ pay is determined are required. If further amendments to the Act are proposed as a result of the outcome of that work into how MPs’ salaries and expenses are determined, these will be made ahead of the 2019 determination being made. The Remuneration Authority will be consulted to test and ensure that any proposed changes will be fit for purpose.

In conclusion, this bill puts in place an immediate freeze to MPs’ salaries and allowances and will maintain them at 2017 levels until 30 June 2019 while work is carried out into the settings determined for MPs’ pay. This bill is a critical first step to ensure that MPs’ future salaries and increases are reasonable and justified in relation to those increases received by hard-working New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill with a sense of déjà vu because the last time this legislation was amended, in 2015, I was the Minister responsible for passaging it through the House. I recall, actually, that the bill was passed in the same manner as we are doing today, on 17 March 2015, to which my colleague Jonathan Young quipped that it was appropriate to be passed on Saint Patrick’s Day, because it was a rather “Irish” thing to do. But we will support it.

I would also want to wish the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety all the very best, actually, in deliberating, and, I hope, with something of a bipartisan nature, on what the appropriate methodology for the setting of remuneration for members of Parliament will be. I say that in the spirit of goodwill, because I and my Cabinet certainly grappled with this particular problem in 2015, when it became apparent that the Remuneration Authority, independent of members of Parliament, was going to increase remuneration by, I think from memory, 3.5 percent or 3.6 percent, and there were some other changes on top of that, which made it look like even more of an increase.

But more than that—and without disrespecting any members of the Remuneration Authority at that time, who do a very good job—there seemed to be a trajectory, a momentum, at that time, in the wake of coming out of the global financial crisis, of increasing the remuneration to a degree that I and my Cabinet and my Prime Minister were uncomfortable with. It’s worth bearing in mind that that 3.6-odd percent increase was adjusted downwards using the formula that is presently in law, to about 1.5 percent, and that was deemed to be a much more appropriate comparator with general wage inflation at that time. It was lower than wage inflation but slightly higher than the Consumers Price Index.

Now, this is relevant in the sense that I think we have the model correct. I think it’s appropriate that there be an independent remuneration-setting process; although, I do also recall Mr Hipkins, in his second reading speech, saying something to the effect of “Well, if it’s possible for MPs to legislate to reduce their salaries, what’s to stop MPs from legislating to increase them?” And the answer I gave him was “Nothing.”—except the normal tensions and disciplines that we have. Actually, no single party has ever, under MMP, formed a majority, so I think it is unlikely, but he was technically correct that that is possible.

That said, I do think it is necessary—and, hopefully, we’ll get there—to prevent the two- or three-yearly cycle of reflection, review, and downgrading of the recommendations of an independent body, because I don’t think that’s helpful in the long run. In fact, you, Mr Speaker, will have more knowledge than most of the framework prior to the 1990s, when it was this House’s prerogative to actually set its own remuneration, and that was both highly inappropriate and highly problematic. When the Minister and I visited the United Kingdom on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trip in 2009, we arrived in Westminster—and the Minister will remember—in the middle of an absolute media firestorm because of the revelations in a daily paper of 30,000-odd pieces of paper that reflected MPs’ expenses, including things like duck islands, moats around castles, and things like that, which were being paid for by the British taxpayer, which led to a furore and the first resignation of a Speaker in 400 years of parliamentary democracy. We were there when John Bercow was elected the Speaker of the House of Commons over there, and he still is, I believe.

I raise that because it is a salient lesson in not going back to that kind of influence. We are kind of influencing it now by doing this, but the reason that I think they got into such a tangle was that, in this very financially deprecating manner, they would stand in the House of Commons and say, “No, we can’t possibly give ourselves a pay increase this year. It wouldn’t be inappropriate.” and yet, through the back door of expense reimbursement, a remuneration of sorts was being achieved, and that is entirely inappropriate but understandable given the long period of time between pay increases.

It is also, I think, important to make sure that we do have remuneration that encourages good people of high quality and calibre to stand in this place. I absolutely believe that we have that in the main, and we want to make sure that we continue to attract people for the right reasons. The setting of remuneration that is neither attractive nor unattractive is going to be a bit like the search for truth or wisdom that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will have. So, in supporting this legislation, I wish the Government all the best, and I look forward to all parties in Parliament having a contribution to make to that, because I do think it is important that we come to a formula that doesn’t require the Government to continue to nip and tuck and tweak every two or three years.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill. This bill, effectively, implements the Government’s decision to freeze MPs’ salaries, superannuation, subsidies, and expense allowances at the current rate for the next year. The rise comes about because of what we heard from the last speaker, Michael Woodhouse, which was that 2015 change. On the advice I have received, the pending 2018 decision this year would increase MPs’ salaries by 3.08 percent and our expense allowances by 1.5 percent. That change comes about because of how it was indexed to the public sector wages measured in the quarterly employment survey.

Look, we’ve got to be frank. It’s failed in what I believe its original intent was: to restrain MP pay rises. That decision is still delivering MP pay rises at a time when kids are still growing up in poverty, homelessness is still on the streets, and we are seeing our families facing energy poverty and high costs of living. So while this freeze is in force, it gives the Government time for a process to be worked out.

Now, the Green Party has long questioned how MP salaries are set. We heard from the member that, in the 1990s, it was MPs themselves who set that, and I think any reasonable member would say that it’s simply unacceptable for those who benefit to set the decision. But, equally so, what we need is a formula—a transparent, simple, understandable formula—that everyone can get behind. That’s why we’ve always proposed the idea that our salaries be set to the nominal median wage. Don’t set it to the average wage: a more accurate reflection of how New Zealand and New Zealanders are doing is by linking it to the median wage.

Now, importantly, it shouldn’t be linked to the percentage rise; it should be linked to the nominal rate. Here’s the kicker, right: if the workers’ median wages go up by 200 bucks a year, MPs’ should only go up by that amount. If you do it by a percentage, you’re going to see that growth. Now, the fact is that I asked the Parliamentary Library to do some research for me, and what we know today is that our salaries are 2.7 times the average ordinary wage and 3.2 times the median salary. That’s a slight decrease from 2003 on both criteria. We also know that we are, according to Parliamentary Library research, amongst the top 10 paid members of Parliament in the developed world. Now, it can fluctuate because of currency changes. But, look, I think what the public want to see is us having a formula that is fairly remunerated.

I do take umbrage with the point made by the last speaker that we want to attract high-quality people. Of course we want high-quality people in this Parliament, but if your definition is people who will only do it for a salary of an appropriate level, that’s not a definition of high quality; that’s a recipe for making sure we get more wealthy people in Parliament. What we want is a diverse House of Representatives. What we want is people coming to this Chamber not for the salary but because they want to serve their country. When our salaries are in the top 10 of the developed world, I think what we need to make sure is that we do have a fair, simplistic, and transparent formula that everyone can understand.

So we are very happy to support this. The proof is going to be in the pudding—that formula that comes out once the freeze is lifted. I do note that the Green Party did work with the previous Government back in the time of the global financial crisis, and we reached an agreement on that MP freeze. What we need to find is a durable, robust, and enduring framework so we aren’t constantly bringing this legislation to the House. I don’t think the public want to see MPs talking about themselves; they want to see MPs coming to this House, talking solutions. It might be a little bit easier and more palatable when we’re freezing our salaries, but they want to see us talking about dealing with child poverty, dealing with energy poverty, dealing with the costs of living, cleaning our environment, and delivering a richer New Zealand. Kia ora koutou.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I’ll just take a very short call on the bill that we’re discussing right now. It was with great pleasure that the New Zealand First caucus just unanimously, without a moment’s hesitation, agreed to support this piece of legislation. I think everybody across the House recognises that the nation has some challenges, and this is not the time for us to accept a pay increase, considering that we are well paid for what we do.

I do want to make the point that I often—I’m sure we all do—have conversations with young people about how this place works, what parliamentarians do, what politicians do, because it is a mystery to many people, interestingly enough. One of the things they ask about is how much we get paid. So I tell them. And then one young man, particularly, I remember, said, “I heard you get free travel.” I said, “Yes, that’s right. We do.” And he sort of rolled his eyes, and I said, “But the next question is to ask why.” And it does go to some of this conversation. I said to him, “If somebody from Invercargill had to fund their own travel, there would be less people from Invercargill in Parliament—”

SPEAKER: Fewer.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Fewer. I beg your pardon. Thank you, Mr Speaker—obviously, a very highly regarded previous Minister of Education. There would be fewer people from Invercargill than there would be politicians who are living just down the road from Parliament. There would be fewer people from, perhaps, those representative communities who are not as wealthy as some other communities. And that is why some of the structures around the salary are probably more important than the salary itself, because it makes sure that we remain—well, we try, and we fight to be—a representative democracy. I often say to young people that if you can’t see yourself here or identify with somebody in this House, then it’s not doing its job.

So this is a good thing. New Zealand First 100 percent supports this, no hesitation at all. We do look forward to working constructively, obviously, across the House to come up with a new way to calculate in the future. But right now this is the right thing to do. The whole of the Parliament agrees, so New Zealand First supports it. Kia ora.

Bill read a second time.

SPEAKER: In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading forthwith.

Third Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 25 September.

New clause 7 Gazette notice following a vacancy (continued)

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. The point that I was making on this new clause 7 when the House was adjourned this morning was that it introduces an extraordinary situation where we have a constituency member of Parliament, who’s been elected by the, typically, 45,000 voters in an electorate, where that community has made a democratic decision about who is to be their member of Parliament, and we’ve chosen to provide this Draconian power to a single person—a party leader—to override the wishes of those 45,000 voters and dismiss that member of Parliament. That is extraordinary. That goes against everything that this Parliament, over its previous 160-plus years, has stood for. What this clause deals with is the by-election that would then result in that constituency, consequential to the party leader exercising those new section 55A powers.

So what the National Party is saying with this amendment is that the constituents in that area, who are having their decision over who they’ve elected as their member of Parliament overridden, should have to have the notice and the reasons for why they’re having a by-election. In fact, I’m sure members opposite would know that, whenever we have a by-election, many of the public say, “Well, why? We made our decision. We’ve elected our member of Parliament to serve us for the three-year parliamentary term. Why are we being forced back to the polls?” So, with this new clause 7, in the name of my friend and colleague Simeon Brown, we’re saying the Gazette notice needs to say who—who—it is that has used these Draconian powers to fire that member of Parliament and send him back to a by-election in his electorate.

The second thing we’re saying in this new clause 7 is that the reasons for that dismissal should be notified. If we look at the history of where members of Parliament have fallen out with their party leaders, whether it be Marilyn Waring over the issue of the nuclear question, Jim Anderton over an approach to economic policy—we can think of the Derek Quigleys or the Tariana Turias or the Hone Harawiras—we are saying that the electors in that constituency have a right to know why it is that they are being forced into having a by-election and for that to be included in the Gazette notice.

I have to make plain, Madam Chair, that members on this side of the Chamber actually object to the provision. We say that, when a member of Parliament is elected for any one of New Zealand’s 70 electoral districts, those members have a right to reside in this House and to continue to advocate for that community and that electoral district all the way through to the next election. We really worry about the change of culture that will occur when a party leader has a power to hold a gun to the head of that member and say, “You kick up a stink about those West Coast forests, or you kick up a stink about pollution in your local river”—the local member, who’s advocating for their community. They will face the threat from their party leader: “Don’t you go advocating for those causes.” That is why members on this side of the Chamber strongly object, and object even more strongly around the issue of constituency MPs being able to be dismissed by a party leader. Our plea to the committee is that, if we are going to go down this road, then at least be upfront in telling the voters of that electoral district why it is—who was the party leader who made the decision to dismiss that constituency member of Parliament and what were the reasons that were given to the Speaker for that member being dismissed from the House?

I do want to expand on the sorts of reasons for, and importance of, that Gazette notice. We know that the clauses that the committee stage has agreed to are most closely paralleled in the world by the Parliament of Zimbabwe, right? So let’s look at Zimbabwe and say, “For what sorts of reasons have MPs been dismissed?” Well, we know there is the example of a member of Parliament in Zimbabwe who raised allegations of corruption of the Mugabe regime. He got dismissed from Parliament under these provisions. So what we’re saying, with this Gazette notice, is: shouldn’t the electors of that electoral district know what the reason was? And if they were dismissed for raising reasons of corruption, then the people in that electorate would be able to decide whether indeed that was a fair reason for that party leader to dismiss them.

Can I give you another example, Madam Chair? An example in Zimbabwe, which has the same provisions that the Government wants to impose on our Parliament, of a member of Parliament who dared to hold a press conference without the permission of his leader.

Dan Bidois: Shocking.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Shocking, eh? And so he got dismissed from Parliament. So what this clause would require is the Gazette notice to say that member of Parliament “X” was dismissed from the Parliament because they’d held a press conference without the permission of their leader.

But there’s a third example from that wonderful democratic Republic of Zimbabwe, which we’re following under this Government with this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, and that is a member who did not follow the whip on the way he voted. Now, that could be the reason that a member of Parliament has been dismissed, and if we are going to be true to the claim from members opposite that we’re going to have the most open, transparent Government ever—and I’m not sure how you reconcile being the most open, transparent Government ever with the Draconian powers that are being proposed in this bill to dismiss a member of Parliament, but if you are—then, at the very least, that transparency should require the Gazette notice that my colleague Simeon Brown proposes with this new clause 7.

So I do challenge the members of the Green Party, who have said this bill is undemocratic, who have said this bill is a threat to our democracy: at the very least will they support us on this amendment so that an electorate may be told why it is they are having an early by-election and why that member of Parliament has been dismissed? It’s interesting that Mr Gareth Hughes has just indicated to me, in the House, that he’s not going to support it. Here’s the interesting part: do you know how many calls the Green Party has taken in the 11 hours of debate on this bill?

Chris Penk: Three?

Simeon Brown: Twelve?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague says, “Twelve.” I have another colleague who says, “Three.” Answer: zero. Not one call—not one call. So the Green Party members, who claim that they are the champions for human rights, who will go to Palestine, who will go to Africa, who will go to the United Nations, who lecture people all over the world about liberal values and democracy, will not take the time to take a simple call on this bill, of which every expert says breaches the Bill of Rights, breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and breaches the United Nations declaration on human rights. And so I come again back to this clause and say: why would any member object to the people of an electoral district being honestly, up front told why it is that their MP has been fired and why they’re being required to go back to the polls?

And here’s the really important part: shouldn’t the people in that electoral district know who the party leader is who has decided to veto their decision about who their elected representative is? Isn’t it the right of those people, whether it be in Pakuranga, Nelson, Waimakariri, North Shore—surely the 45,000 voters in that community need to know who it is who says that they and not the electors of that district have made a decision to fire that MP?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members, I am going to give the next call to Simeon Brown, but I do want to just remind members that we have had many hours of debate, and some of the arguments and debating points that are coming up in the speeches have been well and truly traversed. So we are looking for some specificity around the Gazette notice and the Supplementary Order Papers if I could ask for members’ indulgence. I call Simeon Brown.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper 72 on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, which seeks to add a new clause 7 which will require, if a vacancy has arisen under the provisions of this proposed legislation, there to be a “… notice in the Gazette issued under subsection (1) [which] must include—(a) the name of the party leader who issued the notice to the Speaker, and (b) the details of the reason for the vacancy as provided in section 55D.”

Now, there are a number of reasons why this provision should be in place, but let me just start by saying that we on this side of the House have been seeking for hours and hours to try to persuade the Government to make some small changes to this piece of legislation, to improve it in small but significant and important ways, and that is what is our Supplementary Order Papers seek to do, and that is what my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to do right here. Because what we have is a Government which has come to power and said they’ll be the most open and transparent, and yet they vote against Supplementary Order Papers which seek to bring some openness and transparency to this legislation.

So let me talk about what this proposed new clause will do. This will require, if a vacancy has arisen for constituency-based MPs, for electorates to know what the name of the party leader was who issued the notice to the Speaker, which is required under the provisions of this legislation, and the details of the reason for the vacancy. If members were to look at clause 5 of the bill, at the proposed new section 55D, it says here that a statement “must be in writing and signed by the parliamentary leader concerned and must—(a) state that the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation … as determined at the last general election;”.

Now, what this section does not do is it does not actually require the leader of that party to describe what action that member of Parliament has done to distort the proportionality of Parliament and how that member of Parliament is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of the political party representation in Parliament. So we are left, particularly for constituent-based MPs, facing by-elections up and down this country as a possibility under this legislation. The Minister might say, “Well, there’s a likelihood of maybe one every term; maybe two.” He’s not sure and that’s probably the answer he’ll give. Regardless of the number of by-elections which may be forced upon New Zealanders under the provisions of this legislation, I believe that the constituents and the voters in those electorates have a right to know what the reasons were.

I would put it to you that in some instances it would be quite clear, publicly, based on statements that that member may have made or actions in terms of crossing the floor, as to why the party leader might, under the provisions of this legislation, decide to take action and use the provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, but not in all instances. In some instances it may not be clear. It may not be clear why a party leader is pursuing that course of action, and we understand that different parties have different caucus structures, different rules, and different leadership styles.

If you look across at the other side of the House, there is a coalition with three different parties, with three very different leadership styles. We’ve got the Labour Party, which has quite a clear style and we understand how they work; you’ve got a Green Party, which has a co-leadership style, so which leader is the one who is putting it forward actually matters. So in this proposed new section 55D(a) the name of the party leader matters, because it could be Marama Davidson, or it could be the other guy, James Shaw. It could be either one, so you’re never quite sure which of the two. I’ve got some more points I’d like to add to this as well, Madam Chair, so I will be seeking another call. Then you’ve got the New Zealand First Party, which, from all appearances, seems to have one very clear leader and eight people who sort of follow on—and Madam Chair I will be seeking another call.

But the other point is that with these three different leadership styles it’s important to know who the party leader is, but also, when you look underneath that, you realise that sometimes the way these parties actually manage themselves will be quite different. So sometimes what happens behind closed doors might be the reason why an MP is forced out, rather than what happens clearly in the face of the public, whether in the media or in the House here by a member of Parliament exercising their ability to cross the floor and vote with the other side. So actually it’s important for the electorate in question to understand the reason for the vacancy which has been forced upon that electorate.

I guess the next point that I think is also very important—and it is important because, for electorates, when they have a by-election, the costs of those by-elections are approximately around $1 million. The cost of a by-election is very expensive—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, but we are not dealing with the costs of the election; we’re dealing specifically with the Gazette notices.

SIMEON BROWN: I understand, Madam Chair, but whenever a by-election happens in New Zealand, the voters want to know why they’re going to the polls, and the cost, therefore, is something which is in their minds, because they’re forced to go to the polls and they want to know why. That’s the first question that voters will ask: why are we having—and look, we’ve got Michael Wood across the other side of the Chamber. He came into Parliament through a by-election. Phil Goff, the previous member, was elected as the new Mayor of Auckland, and Michael Wood was then elected as the new member of Parliament in a by-election. The people in that electorate understood very clearly the reasons why a vacancy was created and then had the opportunity to vote for a new member of Parliament. But in some instances we don’t understand, and in other instances the provisions of this legislation open up the possibility for the parliamentary leader to write to the Speaker and state why he believes or she believes that the proportionality of Parliament has been distorted and is likely to continue to be distorted, and then that information is not published. That information is not provided to the public, who it will then affect, because there will then be a by-election, forced by the actions of that party leader, in conjunction with the two-thirds confirmation of their caucus.

So the voters in the electorate, and I think the voters in electorates up and down the country, will be wanting to know why these by-elections may be forced upon them. This Government should be standing on the side of openness and transparency—they have made numerous claims that they will be the most open and transparent—and give voters the opportunity to know what those reasons were and the name of the party leader who issued the notice to the Speaker. The Gazette is the way by which that can be done. The Gazette is the official publication of those notifications of by-elections, and this allows for that to be officially put down as to what the particular reasons were, so all New Zealanders, and in particular the people who will be having to go to the polls to vote for a new member of Parliament, will be able to know exactly what those reasons are.

So my question to the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, is to explain how, under the provisions of this legislation as it currently stands, voters in electorates who are forced to go to by-elections will know what the reason is, other than that apparently the party leader has come to the view that proportionality will be distorted. That’s a very subjective test, and that is something which can be hidden behind words by just saying, “Look, I’m exercising the provisions of this legislation.” with no public scrutiny, with no public explanation as to what the reasons are for why he is deciding to use the provisions of this legislation. How is the public going to know why they are having an election and why they are going to the polls? Why are they going to have to face a million-dollar cost for a by-election because the party leader has decided that a member of Parliament has, in their view, distorted the proportionality of Parliament or is going to distort the proportionality of Parliament? How will the public know and be assured of the reasons? Because then the public is able to make a political judgment on the decision of that parliamentary leader as to what their view is and whether that has been done justifiably, and a party leader can take responsibility.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I just want to respond to the points made in relation to these proposed changes here, and they can be dealt with very swiftly because there’s not much in these proposed amendments on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 72 and on Nick Smith’s amendment. So these amendments are calling for the Speaker’s Gazette notice to include the name of the leader of the party that the member who’s lost his or her seat—whose seat is now vacant—comes from, and the reason for the vacancy. This adds absolutely nothing to the process of setting up a by-election, and there are problems with it, as well.

First of all, there is no more reason to include the name of the leader of the party from which the member who has lost their seat comes than there is to include all the names of the two-thirds of the caucus, at least, that voted to support that decision or to make that decision. [Interruption] If the members opposite are concerned about poor transparency and the voters knowing what’s going on, then you ought properly to include all the names of the members, but those members have also asked for a secret ballot. So they are contradictory and inconsistent, and it shows that this is really just a complete boondoggle for them. They don’t understand what they’re actually doing.

The second part of these two amendments requires a reason for the vacancy. Apart from leading to the obvious response—what would that reason be? Well, “by operation of law under sections 55A to D of the Act”: that would be the reason given. But if they want, as they describe in SOP 72, detail, they are then requiring the Speaker of the House to delve into individual party matters to understand the reason. That is not the scope of the Speaker’s task. What the members opposite are asking for—Simeon Brown and Dr Nick Smith—is a constitutional outrage, and it should not be allowed. These must be voted down for that reason alone.

I might just add this as a general point: the difficulty I think the members opposite are having is they think, and they’d like to create the thought in the minds of those members of the public who are concerned about these issues, that any act of disagreement or dissent immediately precipitates the provisions under this bill. It didn’t the last time this was on our statute book, for a period of three or four years. It didn’t cause that at all. There were, as there will always be, robust disagreements and arguments between members of the same party; long may that continue. Members will continue to cross the floor without punishment. They certainly have on our side of the House, because we truly embrace the principles of liberal democracy in a way that we don’t see demonstrated—certainly articulated, but not demonstrated—by members opposite.

I think people can be reassured that simply having on our statute book a law that underpins the fundamental principle of MMP, which is the pre-eminence of party proportionality in Parliament, is not dangerous, is not threatening, and is not frightening. It is just what our constitution requires. That is what MMP does, and we should not fear it one iota. So on that basis I’ve disposed of the issues raised in these two amendments.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate it. Could I begin by acknowledging the Minister, Hon Andrew Little? This has been a very long debate, and while he knows that we absolutely despise this legislation, I do want to acknowledge the way in which he has engaged with us and done his best, I think, to answer many of the concerns we have raised. Madam Chair, I’d also like to acknowledge the presiding officers. I don’t wish to bring you into the debate, but I think all of the presiding officers have been very fair in the way that they have dealt with what is a very challenging committee stage, on a very contentious piece of legislation.

I’d now like to move on to discussing Mr Brown’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). While the Minister has just said that it’s not needed, and he has given his reasons for that, I want to suggest that it absolutely is needed, and I commend Simeon Brown for the fact that he has brought SOP 72 to the House. We’re dealing with an amendment to section 129 of the Electoral Act so that, where a vacancy has arisen under the new expulsion provisions, one of the two things that must now be included is the details of the reason for the vacancy. I’d like to reflect on my knowledge of constitutional history and, in particular, electoral experience in New Zealand to suggest that there are some very, very important reasons for that.

The first is that the public may genuinely be unaware of the circumstances that have led to the expulsion. We’ve heard talk in this debate, particularly over the last 24 hours but in previous weeks as well, of the experience of Brendan Horan, a former New Zealand First MP, who, I would say, through no fault of his own, found himself completely offside with his leader and, literally, sent to Coventry up in that back corner of the Chamber, feeling he was the victim of a massive injustice. Now, it was possible for his leader—

Chris Bishop: He was cleared.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes, he was cleared, Mr Bishop; you’re quite right. But it was possible for his leader to make some outrageous assertions, or at least inferences, in this House, under the protection of parliamentary privilege, from which Mr Horan never really recovered. It, effectively, brought his career to an end. He felt a great sense of injustice. He was subsequently exonerated in the public arena, and yet his career was over. Had Mr Little’s position prevailed, then he would never have had the opportunity to have the real reasons being put into writing, and I can guarantee that the reasons that would’ve been published would not have been the ones that were left floating in this House as the suggested reasons for his departure. So that’s number one.

The second reason why I think the details for the vacancy must be published is that the party from which the member has been expelled may have fundamentally misrepresented the position. Now, Mr Horan is, again, an example of that, but I want to go back to the collapse of the first New Zealand First - National coalition, in 1997. The fact of the matter—

Rt Hon David Carter: I remember.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes, the Rt Hon David Carter was here, and so was the Hon Dr Nick Smith. There aren’t many members of our caucus who were, but I was around. Even at that stage, I was actively involved in politics; it was just another 25 years, I think, before I got here. The important thing I remember, though, was that Dame Jenny—

Chris Bishop: But you’re making up for it, Tim.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —thank you, Mr Bishop—Shipley had taken over the leadership of the National Party and, by virtue of that, became the Prime Minister. Almost from the day she took office, the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, was undermining her. He purported to say to the public at large that the reason that the coalition collapsed in late 1997 was because of a deal over Wellington Airport that hadn’t been properly articulated or agreed in Cabinet. That was a smokescreen for what he was really trying to do. The fact of the matter was that that coalition was deeply unpopular, and I say that as a National Party MP. I know, as a National Party activist, the sort of feedback we were getting out in the electorate at the time. He was trying to distance himself.

Now, all of the New Zealand First caucus were caught up in that, and half of them, effectively, left Winston Peters behind. He was able to say that they were the ones who were the renegades and, therefore, they should’ve, effectively, been expelled, but what they would say was that they were the ones who were sticking true to the coalition agreement that they signed up to in 1996, and I believe that they were right. So you would have a fundamental difference of opinion, even today, as to what caused the breakup and who was in the right. I firmly believe that the New Zealand First MPs who broke away from Winston Peters and who stuck with the coalition under the leadership of Dame Jenny Shipley were the honourable ones who stuck to the agreement that the electorate had signed up to. So that’s the second reason.

The third reason why I believe it’s very important is that the public may not ever have had the chance to hear what the MP’s views and actions were that led to this particular decision to expel that particular member. [Time expired]

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 69, that would form new clause 7 within the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. Other colleagues have spoken about the aspects of a by-election, in particular, being involved and the reasons needing to be given and the fact of the party leader’s name being expressed. I would like to focus, however, on the fact that it would be a Gazette notice, as opposed to some other method of publication that would be brought into the law as a procedural requirement—admittedly, after the fact—that would be brought in by this proposed amendment.

The first thing I’d note in that regard is that having a Gazette form of publication of these details that’ve been referred to provides external scrutiny. The fact that the reasons that have led—the reason, in fact; singular, as expressed in the SOP, but it could be a multitude of reasons, I suppose. The reasons that have underlain the action of the party leader and his or her caucus, to be fair, would need to be subject to external scrutiny, and so it’s appropriate that it is a Gazette notice rather than, for example, a memo or something on the parliamentary intranet or something that is less easily accessible. So for that reason, I suspect, my colleague Simeon Brown has used the Gazette mechanism, but I’d be interested in the Minister of Justice’s views as to whether he regards that as a valid way of notifying these matters.

The second reason is that providing this particular method of publication would allow consistency with other official notices in the publication, using this form that, again, the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, has actually referred to and acknowledged is already a legitimate means of publicising such information. Well, this would absolutely require—and it would not merely be a matter of discretion—that such matters would need to be gazetted.

The next point I’d like to make in relation to the Gazette aspect of this Supplementary Order Paper is that it doesn’t preclude other methods of publication. It doesn’t preclude other forms of communication about the events that have led up to the expulsion, and, indeed, the expulsion itself. For example, there is nothing to stop the relevant party publishing a press release, there would be nothing to stop the relevant party posting on social media, there’d be nothing to stop the party publishing blog posts or, indeed, third-party—so to speak, if I can use that word “party” with a lower-case “p”. With the indulgence of the Hansard folk, I’ll ask them to navigate that particular syntactic minefield that I’ve stepped into and from which I’m now trying to extract myself—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Moving right along.

CHRIS PENK: My point being—and moving right along, as my colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe helpfully recommends—there are a number of different ways that the information that is necessary for public disclosure and confidence in the democratic system can be exposed to the world, by which I mean the New Zealand voter and all those who are interested in and, indeed, affected by the laws of this place. The fact that this Supplementary Order Paper requires a gazetting of the reasons and the party leaders’ names doesn’t preclude those other forms of discussion, and to me that’s a point worth making because it does speak to the genuineness of the need for this information to be out there. So I’d welcome the Minister’s comment on that as well.

Finally, if I may, one of the key aspects of a gazetting system—that we already have, and the reason, I think, that Mr Brown suggests it be applied to this particular suggestion—is that it provides a degree of permanence that we don’t see in other methods of online publication or even hardcopy publication, whereby there is a particular legal requirement that Gazette notices remain on the record for a long period of time. That’s important for two reasons, I submit. The first is accountability, so that there is assurance that we will always be able to find the reasons and, indeed, again, the party leaders’ names that underlay the action back in 2018, or whenever it might’ve been, but also to develop a jurisprudence, to develop a body of work that says these are the reasons that these actions have been undertaken in the past. It might be a useful resource, indeed, these Gazette notices, for courts, who may or may not be considering the actions taken in accordance with this law. No doubt it will pass into law despite the objections of this side of the House, but at least it could be done in a way that preserves at least some sort of electoral and democratic integrity.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise, I suppose with pleasure—is that the word?—to talk about this bill and, in particular, new clause 7. I was leafing through this terribly misnamed bill—I mean, it’s a paltry thing at four pages, and yet the enormous influence that it’s going to have on the changing future of New Zealand’s Parliament and its ability to represent the people is just an extraordinary thing.

We have spent a great deal of time—11 hours, as the Hon Dr Nick Smith said—on this particular element, and we’ve looked at a number of ways to try and improve this awful piece of work. It is not supported, of course, on this side of the House. It is a complete disgrace that the Greens could not get to their feet and give even a single call. What a bunch of wimps. What an extraordinary—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! This debate has actually been conducted with some decorum, and I’d like to continue that way. Also, I’d like to bring the member to order in that I’ve already said to the committee that we don’t want repetition. This is a very narrow clause, and it’s about the Gazette notice, and I would ask the member to confine her speech to those specific issues. Thank you.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Certainly, Madam Chair; thank you. I guess we do get carried away sometimes because we are so exercised about this bill. I think the Gazette notice, which is one of the elements that has been proposed in this new clause 7, is the bare minimum.

I stand for the North Shore. I have been an elected representative there since 2011. I am very well aware of the strong depth of feeling that my electorate have. If I, for example, as a member decided to cross the floor on a particular piece of legislation, for example, as Labour has done with Rino Tirikatene, with Damien O’Connor—the idea that a Labour leader would then evict that person from Parliament because they exercised their conscience is a clear example of where this bill could head. So how would I, for example, go back to my electorate and say that I was not allowed to cross the floor to exercise not only perhaps my own conscience but also the will of my electorate—the people who had bothered to go out and vote, the people who are exercised by the democratic process and want to continue to be able to do so.

Under the law as it stands—this proposed law, which tragically looks likely to go through—there will be no solid information to my own electorate as to what reasons there might have been for my leader to expel me. So how would I go about explaining it? A Gazette notice, which has been proposed here in new clause 7, would certainly give the name of the leader of the party, because I think the notion that there’s some two-thirds vote and somehow it’s the will of the caucus is a nonsense; it is about the leader and that leader needs to stand up and be accountable. But also to understand the reasons and the rationale behind it, because we do live in a functioning democracy—or we will until this bill is passed—and until it is at the state where it is under enormous threat, I think it’s extremely important that the voters, the people that put us all here to some extent or another, know and understand exactly what’s gone on in this place.

We are trying to be more transparent. We publicise and make sure that our select committee hearings are being heard. We make sure that we travel the country to hear people who are submitting. I’m not quite sure of the ratings for the parliamentary Chamber on an afternoon such as this. They may not be enormous, but none the less it’s the quality of the engagement that we focus on and the transparency and accessibility of the people of New Zealand to this Parliament. So the idea that there would not be a publicly demonstrated and explained in some detail gazetted notice as to the name of the party leader and the details for the reason for the vacancy—because having a by-election for no given solid reason will have enormous backlash effect, I believe. I don’t know how my electorate would behave—I suspect quite badly—and I think that they would probably take that out on the leader of the party that dared to expel unless the reasons of course were very good.

We have heard the Hon Nick Smith demonstrate that in Zimbabwe there were three occasions: where a member had the temerity to order a press conference; where there were allegations of corruption; and there was a further one as well—oh yes, the whip’s advice was not followed. Now I’m sure that if anyone on our side didn’t follow Barbara Kuriger’s advice we would feel the full wrath of the party caucus and the whip discipline—

Barbara Kuriger: That’s right.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: That’s right. She smiles, but it’s a smile that didn’t quite reach her eyes, and I think the idea that whip has control of what goes on in a disciplined way is important. That would be under threat with this bill.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): 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 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of Simeon Brown be agreed to.

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 Dr Nick Smith be agreed to:

after clause 6, insert:

7 New section 134(1A) inserted (Supply of vacancy of seat of member elected from party list)

After section 134(1), insert:

(1A) If the vacancy in (1) has occurred as the result of a notice presented by a parliamentary leader of a political party under section 55A(3)(b), any notice in the Gazette must include the name of the party leader who presented the notice and the statement provided under section 55C(c).

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.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Maritime Powers Extension Bill

Third Reading

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister of Customs: I move, That the Maritime Powers Extension Bill be now read a third time.

This bill amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to provide a clear domestic legislative framework for responding to drug-smuggling activity in international waters beyond New Zealand’s territorial sea. There is a simple reason for this bill, and it is a reason that has the agreement of both sides of the House: we do not want illicit drugs entering this country of ours. New Zealand has made commitments under international conventions to suppress the smuggling of illicit drugs. The absence of a domestic legal framework and relevant smuggling offences has made it difficult for agencies to fulfil our obligations in situations where there is clear evidence that a smuggling operation is under way.

Agencies such as the Customs Service and New Zealand Police do, of course, have other options available to respond. They can wait until the drugs come into New Zealand’s territorial waters or, as is happening increasingly, they can work closely with offshore partners to stop drugs from leaving other countries. This bill addresses the gap that currently exists between these two points: the vast expanses of ocean that separate New Zealand from the rest of the world. It provides the tools for customs and other agencies to proactively target transnational organised criminal groups that are targeting New Zealand, including those that remain in international waters.

Firstly, the bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to make drug smuggling in international waters an offence under New Zealand law. Secondly, it amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to allow customs to board and search ships and take action against individuals that are suspected of committing these offences. The bill includes safeguards to ensure these powers are used appropriately.

New Zealand is taking a health approach to illicit drugs, but that does not mean we are neglecting the supply side of the problem. Without the job that customs and police do in controlling the supply and stopping the criminals responsible, both in New Zealand and offshore, the problem will be much worse. We already have much work under way, with police working on organised crime and investing in our ability to target drug smugglers. Budget 2018 invested $54.2 million of operating funding over four years to significantly enhance customs’ capabilities to attack these criminal networks from all angles. This includes an additional 127 customs staff both here and overseas.

This bill provides agencies with an additional tool to protect our borders and minimise the harm caused by illicit drugs. I welcome the support of both sides of the House for this bill. We also want to thank the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee once again for the constructive and expeditious way that they approached the consideration of this piece of legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand and take a call on this, the Maritime Powers Extension Bill. You know, the timing of the bill is very good, obviously, in terms of the challenges that we face as a coastal nation, and the fact that we’ve seen some very high-profile recovery of drugs and illicit contraband that has somehow been smuggled and actually dropped offshore. I know we had a very big recovery of a large quantity of drugs in Northland last year.

Can I just go back and acknowledge the Minister that took the first call, Peeni Henare, and just support his comments around the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Although I don’t sit on that committee now, I was a member of that committee, and I want to acknowledge the work that they have done on this. I know that they are a very bipartisan committee and that they would have been working very hard to make sure that a good bill was brought back to the House, so could I please acknowledge them.

Like I was saying, this bill is important because it, effectively, means we are strengthening the ability to actually protect our borders. Whether we like it or not, even though we’re a relatively small trading nation down the bottom of the world, we are not immune to the global challenges, especially around the trafficking of illicit drugs and contraband. So it’s very important that we have strong, cohesive legislation that allows our Customs Service to have all the tools, all the legislation, the services, the training, and the personnel that they need to be able to manage and protect our borders.

Like I said, recently there have been some very clear examples of, actually, the people, the criminals, the organised groups, the organised crime groups that dedicate their lives to finding ways of defeating our border patrols and our border security. They have been successful in being able to actually find different and inventive ways of trying to get these illicit drugs and contraband into the country, so I think the timing of the bill is very good.

I just want to finish by, again, acknowledging the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and I’m very happy to recommend this, the Maritime Powers Extension Bill, to the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Maritime Powers Extension Bill. I would like to echo the comments of the previous member, Mark Mitchell, around the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, of which I am a member. I would like to acknowledge the chair, Simon O’Connor, who does an excellent job leading a very bipartisan and positive committee. Thank you, sir.

Look, this is a very important piece of legislation, and we have agreement across the House, which is fantastic. The Maritime Powers Extension Bill would amend the Customs and Excise Act 2018 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It seeks to incorporate into domestic law two provisions in international treaties to which New Zealand is a party. The first point there is around article 108 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This obliges signatory States to cooperate in suppressing the maritime transit of illicit substances. Now, these illicit substances, particularly meth and cocaine, are two of the major ones. If we can stop these drugs coming into our country in the first place, we go a long way to help make our society a lot better.

Another aspect around this is working with our Pacific neighbours, because we’ve got vast expanses of ocean out there, and some of our Pacific neighbours don’t quite have the resources that we may have—for example, Kiribati. The small island of Kiribati has an economic zone the size of the United States of America. They’ve got one ship to patrol that whole zone. With us working with countries like Kiribati, like Tonga, Samoa, and all of those Pacific nations, we can work together around this fight on drugs.

This bill does a number of things. Firstly, it provides a framework for customs to board, search, and take enforcement action in international waters. At the moment, customs can only operate in our 12-mile radius. However, this bill gives them the opportunity, when they recognise the drugs are there, to search and take enforcement action. Secondly, it amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to establish offences relating to drug-smuggling in international waters outside of New Zealand. Some of the key things that it allows customs to do are to stop, board, and search suspect ships. It gives customs the power to arrest individuals. It allows the detention of a ship, including the power to direct, and the seizure and forfeiture of prohibited items, controlled drugs, and precursor substances, as well as the ship if detained under clause 7.

This is an excellent bill because it’s another step in the war on drugs, and it’s another step around collaboration with our Pacific neighbours. It’s about working together to keep our country and their country safe from this plight of drugs. I acknowledge the Minister and all of those who have worked hard to pass this bill through the House. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to be taking a call on this Maritime Powers Extension Bill as we now enter its third reading. I’m sure, like the member who has just resumed his seat, Jamie Strange, and along with other members, it’s feeling all quite familiar because we’ve spoken on this quite frequently.

I apologise, obviously, to the members of the House and those listening if this is somewhat repetitive. Normally, we have weeks if not months in between our speeches—in a sense, an opportunity to provide some new material. Why we are repeating, if you will, ourselves somewhat quickly is because the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee realised, along with the various Ministers who have been responsible for this bill, that this is an important piece of legislation not only in its own right, which I will elaborate on, but it’s also important that we get it in play as soon as possible.

The committee agreed informally—and I might stress why that was important—to expedite or speed this bill through the select committee process. I think it’s been recognised from the Government side, too, that we should keep bringing this up the Order Paper to debate it, so that what’s been proposed in this bill can come into law very soon and, ultimately, help with New Zealand’s continued efforts, along with its Pacific allies and, actually, allies in the wider world, around the stopping of illicit drugs.

Why I say it was an informal agreement is it was really important from the select committee point of view that we made sure we did listen to everyone who wanted to be heard and we took the appropriate time to engage with the official advice. As I had mentioned in a second reading speech a couple of weeks ago, we received only three submissions on this, and they were relatively brief. In fact, one was really just two words in agreement with the bill.

I just want to put it on the record that while the committee moved very swiftly, this was not to rush the process. This was, instead, to just ensure that we didn’t have to slow it down in any way, and nor did we just have to wait the sort of requisite six weeks of hearings and so forth.

So my thanks once again go to the committee members for their work on this bill. As the member who has just resumed his seat noted, the committee works very well—bipartisan, even. It’s probably tripartisan, strictly. There are three parties formally on the committee at the moment, and I think we all understood right from the start that this was an important and useful piece of legislation.

So, again, can I acknowledge the Ministers who have been involved with this—speaking later, I’m sure. Tim Macindoe—while this was not his legislation, it will be something that he was very familiar with. We’ve then, obviously, had further Ministers, now in Government, who have championed this. As has been articulated by previous speakers, this is a bill which enables New Zealand not just to stop vessels on the high seas but, really, and importantly—in fact, fundamentally important is the ability for New Zealand to then prosecute those vessels, those owners, those who were actually bringing the drugs in.

As I’ve highlighted in earlier speeches, there’s a potential loophole in the current law. I say “potential” because it hasn’t been tested in the courts, and I think the Customs Service, rightly, don’t want to have the potential loophole tested in the courts, and that’s, fundamentally, that under various UN conventions such as UNCLOS, which is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, New Zealand is able to stop—often the term used is the term is “interdict”—vessels on the high seas, be they flagged or non-flagged. So flagged, very simply, means they’ll have the flag of a particular country. We are able, when we have reasonable suspicion, to stop those vessels, and similarly for vessels that have no flag, our navy in particular is able to stop those vessels.

Again, we don’t just stop vessels on the high seas, or in international waters, for no reason. There has to be a certain degree of suspicion. But in cases where we are suspicious of those vessels, usually because of intel that’s been gathered by the likes of the New Zealand Customs Service, we can stop those vessels, board, and search where it does happen, and it happens, sadly, often enough, that illicit drugs precursors are found.

There was a question, then, of whether we could actually prosecute those people under New Zealand law. And so, fundamentally, this piece of legislation says, “Well, actually, it will be domestic New Zealand law.”, and if such a ship is interdicted, those smuggling the drugs, smuggling the precursors—in fact, probably any illegal substance or material—can be prosecuted in a New Zealand court of law. So it is, I think, a very positive piece of legislation.

The member who resumed his seat talked about the Pacific. New Zealand has always had a very strong connection to the Pacific—that goes without saying. We happen to be in the Pacific, which makes it sort of a non sequitur, but we have a very strong relationship. It’s been ongoing and continuous, and it’s good to see that this current Government does continue that. Very little has actually changed. We continue our engagement there, but, importantly, part of this legislation enables New Zealand to engage with its Pacific neighbours. As members will know and understand, obviously, a lot of those countries do not have large or significant navies. They don’t have the intel abilities and the sophistication of the New Zealand Customs Service. So we’re out there assisting to protect not only New Zealand’s borders and New Zealanders but also our Pacific neighbours. And you think of the likes of Fiji and Samoa and Tonga, and in the much wider context, of course, we engage with the United Kingdom and the likes of France, particularly around our military and customs coordination.

It’s not just about the New Zealand Customs Service, but can I acknowledge them for the important work they do. They were very clear to us that we’re entering a somewhat busy season around drug smuggling. Hence—well, it probably then becomes obvious to the House why we’re wanting to pass this legislation now, as we anticipate and enter the busy season. Can I thank them for the work that they lead—importantly, too, acknowledging the Minister of Defence here, as I have before, and the work of the New Zealand Defence Force, particularly the Royal New Zealand Navy. They do a tremendous job, and it’s their assets which the likes of customs use. And on the side of this, but always in full cooperation, we have the Ministry for Primary Industries as well. So this is a cross-governmental agency approach, and they’re doing a fantastic job there.

It’s really, I suppose, a fundamental principle which is trying to be applied here. I mean, first and foremost, making sure that we apply the laws correctly, as you would expect, but, even more importantly, it is better to stop these illicit substances, these drugs, reaching New Zealand shores in the first place. We could, arguably, just sit here behind our border and see what comes in, but, actually, it’s good if we can get out there—in this case, in the international waters, outside of our exclusive economic zone—and interdict these drugs earlier, or, importantly, if these non - New Zealand flagged ships are in our waters, that we can also engage them there. I do know, quite rightly, that we have already some assets in other countries who are, effectively, providing intelligence so that we can work out where the drug smugglers are operating from, and I think that’s vitally important. Basically, everything that we can stop coming to our shores is a problem that we avoid.

Fundamentally, we’re avoiding problems that affect New Zealanders, because, at the end of the day, when these drugs come into New Zealand they cause harm. There is no good in these illicit substances, and I know there are some in this House who argue simply that these drugs should always be treated as a health issue. I think that’s terribly, terribly naive. There are health aspects to drug use, but there are also criminal aspects to drug use. In fact, when you ever hear those who are arguing that we should treat pretty much all drugs as a health issue, what they’re fundamentally saying is that, basically, certain individuals should be able to do whatever they want to do without consequence, and we—the rest of New Zealand—will have to pay to fix them up. And, actually, I don’t think that’s right or just.

So, in concluding—and it is somewhat breaking the concord of the committee—I am disappointed, and they all go quiet for a second. It’s the disappointment that New Zealand has not, in recent days, agreed to join America and most other countries in the global call to action around drugs. I think there’s cheap politics at work in that, unfortunately, because this is not, arguably, a continuation of the war on drugs but, actually, a coordinated effort by, I think, well over a hundred nations, led by America, to work at stopping the illicit drug trade, and particularly doing things very similar to this bill, which is, “How do we interdict and stop drugs crossing the border?” So, sadly, it is a missed opportunity there. I don’t think it’s a great sign of leadership in that regard, but I would ask the Government and the Minister in particular to re-look at that, to talk to our Prime Minister and say, “This should have been signed up to.” But I commend the bill, at its final reading, to the House.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. I rise to take a short call—

Simon O’Connor: No, take a long one!

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Well, Mr Simon O’Connor, you have made such a valiant effort and have gone into such depth and detail, that a short call is what is needed at this point on the Maritime Powers Extension Bill, which gives us, basically, a clear legislative framework so that we can intercept and respond to drug-smuggling activity in international waters.

There are two simple reasons why we need this bill. The first is that the one thing we can all agree on from different sides of this House is that we want to stop drug smuggling, or drugs from entering New Zealand, and so we need to address the supply side of the issue. The second is that we want the Customs Service to have the powers to intervene when ships are in international waters, because at the moment they don’t. The tools that they have allow them to intervene when these ships are in New Zealand territorial waters but not international. So it’s not good enough for us to wait till ships and individuals reach New Zealand and intercept them; we want to get in there early. This bill does two things. It amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to make drug smuggling in international waters an offence. Secondly, it amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to allow customs to intervene, as I just mentioned.

This bill is not controversial. There is support from both sides of the House, and it sits well within this Government’s strategy to address drug harm, completely contrary to what the member who just resumed his seat, Simon O’Connor, has said. Although this Government has an evidence-based focus on reducing drug harm by treating it as a health issue, it does not mean that we don’t want to interrupt the supply side of the issue. That’s what this bill does.

I acknowledge the current Minister, the former Minister, and all those who have worked on this bill to get it to where it’s at now, and the select committee as well for their work. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Peace and harmony have broken out across the House once more, and I am struck by the irony of the fact that I think I’ve spoken in the House today more often in a single day than I have ever before in my nearly 10 years of a political career, and for most of the day I have been railing against a bill that I have truly despised and have done my level best to stop, and now I find myself, ironically, in the position not only of welcoming this bill but of wanting to thank the Government for bringing it to the House, because, as has been alluded to by one or two of the previous speakers, this was a bill that I was working on in my brief time as Minister of Customs. I am truly delighted to see that it has reached this point and am impressed that we are now dealing with the third reading of it.

If you’ll allow me to digress just for a moment, there is a point to this. Yesterday, there was an investiture ceremony at Government House, and I am particularly delighted to see that among the recipients who received their honours yesterday was Sir Bill English. I want to acknowledge him for his leadership of our country and also the fine support that he received from his lovely wife, Dr Mary English, and I’m so thrilled that members of the family, including some of their delightful children, were able to be there to acknowledge that.

The reason I bring that in, apart from the fact that I want to acknowledge Bill, of course, is the fact that while he was the Prime Minister, this was a bill that I and others were working on very much with his encouragement and with his understanding, because Bill English understood just what incredible harm illicit drugs and, particularly, serious drugs such as methamphetamine are doing in communities the length and breadth of this country. And so I know that Sir Bill English also would be delighted to see that we’ve reached this point today, and that is why I was particularly pleased to have an opportunity to acknowledge his investiture.

As Jamie Strange mentioned a few moments ago, when he was speaking, one of the great challenges that we face in New Zealand is that we’re a small country with vast areas of water to patrol. It’s been well explained that a major limitation that our Customs Service and other enforcement agencies face at the moment is that they can only go so far out, and yet the threat is coming from much further out, and it’s coming from so many different directions. I don’t want to name the countries from which some of those drugs are coming, but I can tell the House that members might be surprised to hear where some drugs originate from. And I can see the Minister of Defence nodding because he will be aware—as the navy is, obviously, a part of this equation—just what a huge challenge that faces.

Hon Member: Hamilton.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: No, sir, they do not come from Hamilton. Although, sadly, to the best of my knowledge no illicit vessel has ever made its way down the Waikato River out to sea at Port Waikato, and, if they had, I’m delighted to assure the member that they would have been well within the territorial zone that already is under our ability to enforce our illicit drug seizure powers. But I thank him for his intervention none the less, and I apologise if I’ve embarrassed by picking up on his interjection.

But Jamie Strange is right in making that comment. We do have to ensure that we take every step we can to deal with the changing realities. These incursions were few and far between only a few years ago; now they are increasingly frequent. Every time one of these incursions is successful and these appalling drugs land on our shores, there are victims in our communities, and we see that happening. Every day, lives are destroyed by these drugs, so everything we can do to empower our enforcement agencies to get on top of the problem or at least to reduce the damage is good for all of us.

So I do want to acknowledge particularly the fine folk at the New Zealand Customs Service. I’ve said it before—I’ll say it again—I was so proud to be their Minister, and, in the brief time I had the opportunity to get alongside them and to study all aspects of the work they were doing and to help advance the initiatives that they brought to my attention that were so important, my admiration increased on a daily basis. They do a fine job for us, and we’re so fortunate to have their services.

I congratulate the Hon Kris Faafoi on being confirmed in the role, but I also want to acknowledge the Hon Meka Whaitiri, because she did do a lot of this work that she picked up from the previous Government and converted into a legislative form, and here we are today dealing with it at its third reading. I know that it’s widely supported around the House, and credit is due to her for the work that she did during the time she was in this portfolio on this particular challenging issue.

In my second reading speech, I made the point that there were only three submissions to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on this particular bill. That, in itself, would indicate that there certainly wasn’t much opposition to it. It may, however, of course, have indicated there wasn’t a great deal of awareness of it. But two of those submissions were very broadly in support. One was much more guarded and was, effectively, suggesting to us that we should be focusing our efforts more on boosting resources domestically—in other words, as the drugs are coming into the country. There’s no question we want to be doing everything we can to intercept the drugs as they arrive in New Zealand. Again, the different agencies that do that work are very successful, but we don’t know what slips past them, because, obviously, we don’t know what we don’t know, until we see the consequences of drugs ending up in our small communities. So I’d simply say to the submitter who was arguing that we shouldn’t be moving in this direction but rather putting the emphasis on more domestic provision that while I respect that view, I would argue that circumstances are changing. We know that we are under increasing threat from the high seas and, therefore, this is an appropriate move for us to be making.

As a committee, we were naturally privileged to receive very detailed official advice, and, as this is a third reading, members of the public who may be listening—either in the gallery or watching on television at home—would want to know why this Maritime Powers Extension Bill is needed and what the problems are that we’re trying to deal with and what is hoped that we will achieve.

So, if I may, I’d just like to quote from some aspects of that official advice: “It is critical to ensure that law enforcement agencies have access to the full suite of options to disrupt and dismantle the organised crime groups bringing these substances into New Zealand.”—for organised crime groups they are. And one of the things that frustrates me—and I imagine this is a view probably shared across the House as well—is that it’s relatively easy to catch the low-level criminals. Often, they’re the ones on the ground here in New Zealand receiving and distributing the drugs. It’s much harder to catch the very sophisticated, high-level criminals, who are pretty clever and know how to escape detection. “Without constraining the availability of illicit drugs in our communities, it will be difficult for demand reduction and treatment options to be effective.”, and yet long term this is all about trying to minimise the harm that serious drugs do in our communities.

There has always been a risk of organised criminal groups evading border controls through the use of dedicated ships to transport illicit drugs into New Zealand. However, over the last two years it’s become clear that criminal groups are increasingly using this method to smuggle drugs into New Zealand and more widely across the region, and so that is why this bill is absolutely crucial.

We are, in New Zealand, a party to international conventions which require us, oblige us, to cooperate in the suppression of drug trafficking by vessels in international waters and to take the necessary legislative and administrative measures to address the problems effectively, and that’s what we’re doing here today. So this bill will gives customs, in particular, the clear ability to deal with vessels trafficking drugs through international waters with New Zealand as a target, with the objective of stopping these drugs from getting into New Zealand, and it will also ensure that any drugs or other evidence can be seized and individuals can be arrested and prosecuted in New Zealand, and that’s why the commensurate piece of legislation that’s the other part of this equation is the amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

In the final minute that is available to me, can I just return to the point with which I started and say that I am truly delighted to welcome this bill back to the House. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Simon O’Connor and all of my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for the considerable energy and focus that they brought to this particular work. Again, I pay tribute to all of the officials who have helped to advise the committee, to draft the legislation, and to all of the Ministers who have played a role in bringing this legislation together.

This is a bill that matters in each and every one of our communities in New Zealand. This is a bill that will make a real difference to reducing the harm done by hard drugs. So that is something for us to celebrate; that is something that, naturally, we have an obligation to support our agencies to enable them to deliver the best results they can for us. So congratulations to everybody involved. As I said, peace and harmony has broken out. I hope also that the incidence of drug importation and abuse in our community will go down accordingly.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you. It is always delightful when a bill actually comes to us in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and it’s generally also pretty exciting, because we get to connect this Parliament and New Zealand to some exciting developments in international law, as we are doing in this bill. We’re bringing New Zealand’s law into line with a couple of UN conventions that we’re signed up to. We will be, after this bill is passed, compliant with article 108 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and article 17 of the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. So it’s nice to know that we’re doing our fair share internationally and, in particular, in the Pacific to monitor and to bring the international rule of law to life. Obviously, the trafficking of illicit drugs is a problem that this Government is concerned with, and this is just one part of a plethora of mechanisms that we’ll be using to keep our communities safe.

This is a technical bill. It amends a couple of different Acts: the Customs and Excise Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. While we were hearing from those three submitters and also from the officials—and I think we pushed those learned and talented officials a little bit, because there were a few of us, unfortunately for them, who were lawyers, and so we really engaged with this very technical bill—for me, one of the things that was important was to know whether or not we were actually extending customs’ powers to search, or whether we were, in fact, doing what we intended to do, which was just to extend the geographic area that comes under their jurisdiction now. I was happy to find that, actually, the search and seizure powers of customs were still going to be regulated stringently. So the power remains as it ordinarily is, which is the power to board and search a vessel if the customs officials have the reasonable belief that a crime that already comes under their jurisdiction has been committed on that vessel.

The reasonableness standard makes it objective; so they would be able to be tested—were their power to search challenged in a court—and they would have to show an objective basis for suspecting that the vessel was involved in committing one of these crimes. That’s important, because we don’t actually want to extend the power to search beyond that reasonableness standard, and the word “belief” actually places it at quite a high standard as well—so it goes beyond just a mere suspicion. That was important to me because, of course, we still have to uphold the rule of law in those terms as we are extending our application of the rule of law geographically. So I was pleased to know that we’re still maintaining those high standards.

As others have said, this work will be really important for our Pacific neighbours. We know that a number of our small Island nation neighbours in the Pacific are currently being used as between points for drug traffickers, and we know that drug trafficking brings with it a range of other drugs. So it is dangerous for the Pacific, and this is part of New Zealand doing our fair share of that monitoring work. For my sins, I also hold the defence portfolio—which I actually love—and, as part of that work, I’m well aware of the massive amount that our defence forces already contribute to monitoring in the Pacific, whether that’s for environmental reasons or whether that’s monitoring of this kind. It’s nice to know that we’re going to be contributing even more in this way, and I think it will be appreciated.

To put this into perspective, in terms of the problem that we’re helping to solve, at the close of the last year that the measurements were taken for—so, 2017—New Zealand interdicted among its close neighbours, which are New Caledonia, Australia, and French Polynesia, and we stopped around 501 kilograms of methamphetamine. Now, we know, again, from the last annual reports on justice that came through this House, that methamphetamine is a drug that’s about to overtake even cannabis in its prevalence in our courts and our criminal justice system, and that’s not just to say, you know, mere possession charges. That actually is the most serious of charges: the supply, the manufacture, and the importation of methamphetamine, a class A drug. Basically, our High Court has no more capacity to deal with other types of serious crime; certainly, in Auckland, much of what they do is serious methamphetamine-based crimes. We’ve tried upping the sentences to life imprisonment, and, in fact, the proliferation of that type of offending has only been done faster and at a much higher scale as we’ve upped sentences. Now, regularly, people are being sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. That’s not working. But part of the package of keeping our communities safe will be stopping drugs being imported into New Zealand, at least.

The other side of that, of course, is important to keep in mind, because this isn’t the only way that we’re going to stop drug crimes, and, in fact, if our focus is on stopping harm that might be caused by drugs, our focus has to be on that demand end. It has to be on the types of social issues that cause addiction and on actually treating that addiction. We know that’s going to involve a lot of investment in things like mental health services. We know drug addiction is often underpinned by mental health issues like serious anxiety, PTSD—these are the kinds of people we’re locking up. We’re spending billions of dollars on that, and it has failed. So we will be stopping drugs entering New Zealand and, at the same time, we’ll be investing in social services and addiction treatment, in mental health care, in jobs, in actual healthcare, and in housing to keep that kind of social security that will keep our communities healthy and drug-free—if they want to be! But, at the same time, not only is it really important that we do our fair share to keep our broader Pacific community safe and ourselves safe against the importation of drugs, it’s also important that, with the passing of this bill, New Zealand will contribute to upholding the international rule of law. So I commend the bill to the House.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you, and it’s a pleasure to rise and speak in this debate. It is an important piece of legislation. It provides important tools to New Zealand’s Customs Service to protect our border and to be able to push out through the 12-mile zone to make sure that where there are ships on their way to New Zealand or leaving New Zealand that could cause New Zealanders harm through the importation of illicit drugs or peddling drugs passing through New Zealand to other nations, they will have the tools to stop these ships, to hold the people on board to account, and to take necessary action.

Why is this important? If I go back and think of the evolution of drug trafficking in New Zealand over a period of time, we have seen it escalate. Those who are bringing illicit drugs to New Zealand with the sole desire of profiting from the harm and misery they cause New Zealanders have found new and innovative ways to bring these poisons, these drugs, to the country. Indeed, we were told, when we sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, that there’s around $1.8 billion worth of social harm done every year in New Zealand to New Zealanders as a result of the consumption of illicit drugs.

Hon Member: How much?

Hon TODD McCLAY: There’s $1.8 billion worth of harm. If we go back to 2015 and look at what was imported, or at least what was confiscated by our Customs Service and our border officials—who work very hard on our behalf—customs and police intercepted 293 kilos of illicit drugs, compared to 2014, which was just 105 kilos. So we’re seeing, as early as 2014-15, more than a doubling—almost a tripling—of illicit drugs being confiscated at our borders.

In 2016, there was a whopping $875 million worth of potential harm restricted or stopped at the border, when illicit drugs were stopped. Indeed, at that time, I remember saying, when we were in Government, that, actually, we needed to redouble our efforts to give the tools to our services to police our borders better. In 2017, that was $1 billion worth of harm—897 kilograms of drugs were stopped at the border. The vast majority was ephedrine for the manufacture of methamphetamine, or P, and also methylene dioxy-methyl amphetamine, cocaine, cannabis—a raft of drugs.

Interestingly, psychoactive substances started to show themselves again in the work that our police and our officials did, so it was important to give them the tools. Of course, when we had the committee stage of this legislation and I had an opportunity to talk, I canvassed, actually, the origins of this legislation. It was introduced by the last Government, the National Government, and, as we’ve brought this forward, I’m very pleased that the new Government has decided to continue it, to put it into law. It’s a shame that it’s taken more than a year, because these new abilities and tools have been necessary for some period of time.

So what will this allow our Customs Service to do? Well, at the moment, if they believe there is a ship coming towards New Zealand that is involved in the transportation, the manufacture, or the illicit control or possession of drugs, they are really only able to intercept that boat or that ship when it comes into our territorial waters, which is 12 nautical miles. Outside of that, there have been questions raised, based on other conventions we’re in, about exactly the legal jurisdiction we would have. Well, what this legislation does is it extends the ability of our Customs Service out through the territorial waters, into the contiguous zone of New Zealand, up to 24 nautical miles offshore—so that’s from 12 nautical miles to 24 nautical miles.

There are a number of checks and balances we’ve put in place to make sure that these powers are used properly. Customs must have reasonable cause to suspect that drug-smuggling offences have been, are being, or are likely to be committed, and, in the case of a foreign ship, the flag State of that ship have authorised actions in accordance with the drug-trafficking conventions that New Zealand has signed. We need to establish clear jurisdiction over drug-smuggling offences committed in international waters, and this legislation also does this. It allows our officials to seize not only the illicit drugs and for any paraphernalia used to store or produce drugs to be forfeit, but the ship itself can also be forfeit. So we’re talking about controlled drugs or precursor substances.

I think it was last year that we heard from our media that police and customs had intercepted boats on their way to New Zealand as they came up on the shore with significant amounts of precursors to manufacture methamphetamine—a horrible drug that does nothing but harm, that poisons, and that ruins lives all over New Zealand when it is sold and when it is consumed. Of course it’s important that our officials, through intelligence and other means, were able to intercept them when they got on the shore, but it would be much better if they were able to do so much further from shore, so that we can ensure that there is much less chance of these poisons, these drugs, arriving here.

I commend this bill to the House. I’m glad it’s going through its third reading. It is an important piece of legislation. One of the previous speakers in this debate, the Hon Tim Macindoe as the former Minister of Customs, can be proud of having brought the legislation to the House. The previous National Government can equally be proud to have brought the legislation to the House. The House should know that it is doing an important thing to help protect New Zealanders by passing this legislation unanimously today to give tools to our hard-working border officials, and to stop the merchants who peddle illicit drugs in New Zealand and who harm New Zealanders. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call of five minutes. I call Jan Tinetti.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Interestingly enough, even though I’m not on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that looked at this bill and investigated it—although, I have filled in a couple of times—I got to speak on this bill in the first reading, as well. Strangely enough, at the weekend, I was meeting some colleagues that I hadn’t seen for quite some time, and they said that the one speech they had seen me do in this House was on the first reading of this bill. So, hopefully, they’re watching again tonight. Ha, ha!

Hon Member: Made such an impression.

JAN TINETTI: Made such an impression.

I tautoko everybody else and what has been said by everyone else in the House here this afternoon about the importance of this piece of legislation. I want to speak about it, particularly from a personal point of view, and despite what was said in the general debate, being accused by the Hon Scott Simpson of coming from the South Island—I actually do come from Tauranga—this is a big issue for us in Tauranga around the smuggling of illicit drugs. That was brought to a head to us in November last year when we had a $20 million load of drugs that was seized at the port. Now, we do some wonderful work, and our customs staff do some wonderful work, at that port—absolutely exceptional. But this bill adds another tool for those particular wonderful people that we have, to ensure that we can work even harder on that war on drugs.

So I’m pretty excited for the people who are really working at that coalface every day to see this particular bill going through. I’m excited that it has the support of both sides of the House, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Chris Penk—five minutes.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to speak in the second half of the split call—a game of two halves, so to speak—which I share with my colleague across the House, Jan Tinetti. Like many across this House, I’m pleased to say that I support this bill, of course, as a member of the National Party, which is supporting this Government bill in this space, which is essentially one of customs but also does involve other elements, as we shall come to.

I propose to make my remarks in a way that befits the nature of a third reading speech, which is essentially to summarise some of the key elements in the hope that by reading into the record my thoughts on this, we’ll have a handy summary in a five-minute form—if anyone should be interested in that in the future, then they might pick my contribution above those of some of my colleagues.

So with no further ado, I will launch into my summary, which will take the form of, first, talking about why; second, what; third, when; fourth, where—you’ll probably see where these are going—and, finally, my fifth and final point would be how, so talking about the way that the bill achieves its various aims.

Jamie Strange: It sounds like an essay.

CHRIS PENK: So first the why. I note that across the House, a former teacher remarks that it sounds like an essay. Well, I hope I can achieve something near full marks. Speaking as to the why—well, the reason that we have had this bill come to our House really exists on a couple of different levels. The first is that, as stated in the introduction, it is to incorporate into domestic law a couple of international instruments, namely the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, known to all its friends as UNCLOS, and also the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. So on one level, that’s the purpose of the bill: to bring into domestic law and to ratify those treaties. But on another level it is, of course, to recognise and deal with the harm that drugs do on our shores and to take steps beyond our shores to prevent the further incursion of those.

My second point is what. So what the bill does is to make a number of changes to existing law. In that sense, it is an amendment bill; it will be an amendment Act. The word “Extension” is used, because, of course, it is existing powers that are being extended, but it’s also worth noting that there are a couple of different current Acts of Parliament that will be amended in that way, namely the Customs and Excise Act 2018 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Moving now to when—briefly, then, on the commencement date. I note that it’s unusual for such a short commencement date, certainly, by way of a particular calendar date being specified—1 October 2018 is not so very far away. At the committee stage of the passage of this bill I asked the Minister in the chair to comment on why it was such a short period of time. He gave a very good answer in relation to other legislative and regulatory requirements being aligned. I can’t improve on that answer; I don’t intend to do so, so we’ll move on forth from the when to the subject of where.

Obviously, in the maritime environment, as the name of the bill implies—and so just to pause and reflect by way of a footnote, that means, of course, not only the Customs Service but also the New Zealand Defence Force, including our navy. And I note the presence, again, of the Minister of Defence, appropriately enough, and also the Ministry for Primary Industries, as my colleague the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Simon O’Connor, has mentioned, perhaps among others as well.

So, having covered the where, and without needing to go into the more specific detail about the high seas, New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone, or the EEZ—seeing as I’m doing the abbreviation thing—but also the EEZ of other States, we move, finally, to the how. Well, that much is probably readily enough ascertained by anyone reading the bill, so I don’t intend to go into that in too much detail. But suffice it to say a few definitions are set out that are useful for understanding where exactly the bill applies; also, the establishment of offences, so that if the mechanisms of the bill are used, such that a drug smuggler—to use a non-defined term—is apprehended, then they can be dealt with accordingly in a New Zealand court; and, of course, providing the specific powers for our agents to do these things on the high sea on our behalf. So I commend the bill to the House, and look forward to its passage.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of the Maritime Powers Extension Bill. It’s great to see agreement from both sides of the House in a particular area where we want to see change, and that is the fact that we do not want illicit drugs coming into New Zealand, for the harm they cause to people in New Zealand, and to our communities, that we see in all of our own areas.

Methamphetamine, in particular, is a significant substance that we see coming in through New Zealand waters. And when we have a look at the amounts of methamphetamine that have been intercepted on those open waters, the amounts are really quite significant. The one that we’ve seen most recently is the 500 kilos that came in on the beach in Northland, but further out—further in those areas where we’re able to now reach, once this legislation has been passed—there are significant amounts. Off the coast of Australia, we’ve seen 200 kilos of methamphetamine intercepted; and 1.4 tonnes of methamphetamine in another interception in 2017. So this is where the real opportunity lies for the New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs Service to work collaboratively with their partners in other countries to make sure we’re working together to get those big amounts before they even reach New Zealand’s shores. And that’s where the real benefit of working collaboratively lies. We can make sure that the harm that lies within those drugs doesn’t even reach our shores.

We have a real advantage in the fact that we are an island nation. We do not have the same situations as European countries, where trafficking drugs across borders is far easier. This legislation plays strongly to our strengths as an island nation to make sure we make our country as safe and as healthy as possible.

Noting that, I’d like to acknowledge those members that have already acknowledged the good work that needs to be done in terms of therapeutic treatments. So while it’s very important to control the supply of illicit substances, it’s just as important to control the demand—and that’s enabling anybody with addiction issues to be treating them as a health issue, and enabling them to access services, whether they be in prison, in the community, or any other part, and they should access them quickly when they ask for them. That is a priority of this coalition Government as well.

Without further ado, I would like to commend this bill to the House and thank all those for the work they’ve put into it.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Just before I start, I’d like to acknowledge the old MP for Clutha-Southland, Sir Bill English, who was knighted last night. It’s great to see Bill get knighted for his services to—

Simon O’Connor: Sir Bill!

HAMISH WALKER: —sorry, Sir Bill—our country. He took over at a time in 2008 when we were in the middle of the global financial crisis, and then we had the Christchurch earthquakes. He will go down as one of the most courageous politicians of his time with his approach to social investment and to complex social needs. His social investment approach will truly go down as a great mark to him.

Can I also acknowledge the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, who this bill has gone to. I’d like to acknowledge the chair, sitting here to my left, Simon O’Connor. You’re doing a wonderful job, Simon. I was just going through the submissions to the select committee, and it’s a shame there were only, I believe, three submissions made. There were some very good points in those submissions, and I thank those submitters for taking the time and raising some very valid points.

I’d also like to acknowledge a previous customs Minister, the Hon Tim Macindoe, who was here earlier. I was a wee bit concerned: he was talking like he knew a lot about the drug-trafficking industry, and I’m sure he got that knowledge from—

Chris Penk: Too much!

HAMISH WALKER: —his work—too much about the drug-trafficking industry! I’m sure he got that knowledge from his time as the customs Minister.

This bill, the Maritime Powers Extension Bill, is around the powers that customs and police can use to search vessels coming within New Zealand waters, but, more importantly, outside those New Zealand waters. So, currently, under the law, they can get outside the 12- to 24-mile zone, and then once they’re in international waters, the laws are a wee bit murky, a wee bit muddy. This bill seeks to clear those and also give police and customs more powers.

I just want to acknowledge the great work that those customs officers and police officers do for our country. It is a shame, at the moment, that between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. at Auckland Airport, the working dogs of the Ministry for Primary Industries have been taking a bit of a snooze, but it’s great to see the Minister is getting on to that.

The Customs Service is the oldest New Zealand public Government department, and even though they are the oldest, they are now one of the most tech-savvy. Technology has moved on greatly in the last five or 10 years, and it’s great to see the Customs Service using that technology. For example, you can walk down an international terminal now, and they have sensors which can, basically, sense whether or not you’re carrying drugs. It saves a huge amount of time. But the problem is that the attempts to smuggle drugs into New Zealand have been increasing over time.

You would have remembered, Mr Speaker, back in June 2016, there was some excellent work by the New Zealand Police and by the Customs Service. They intercepted a shipment of 450 kilograms of methamphetamine, and it’s very interesting to see how they did that. They, basically, intercepted the boat once it reached Ninety Mile Beach. It did go outside 20 miles to a mother ship; they transferred the drugs from the mother ship on to the boat and made it to shore. Two men were caught with 449 kilograms of methamphetamine in their caravan, and they found around about 50 kilograms buried at Ninety Mile Beach. If it wasn’t for the tremendous work and surveillance of the Customs Service, of the police, these offenders would not have been caught.

Similar to the World Trade Organization—the World Trade Organization was set up to give a sort of framework for countries trading with one another, and if there is a dispute with trade, there are clear guidelines and a framework that the Governments contesting the trade can refer to. So this bill here will beef up the search and surveillance rules and regulations for customs, which is needed, because you just need to look around to see the different damage that P is doing to the communities. On that, I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Acting Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded to the first reading and referral to select committee of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill.

The use of urgency for the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill is largely technical: to enable it to come before the House today when it would not otherwise be available until tomorrow. The bill is a simple one that gives legislative effect to the policy on petroleum exploration announced in April. It must pass by early November to ensure that Block Offer 2018 can proceed in a timely manner. The use of urgency will make it certain that the bill can be referred to a select committee before the adjournment, thus enabling the public and industry to have their say on the bill. The urgency motion includes the debate on the terms of the referral to the select committee.

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 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: Urgency will be accorded, and I’m going to use my poor eyesight to say it’s now six o’clock and to indicate that the House will resume after the dinner break at 7.30.

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

Bills

Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move, That the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider this bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move the bill be reported to the House by 29 October 2018 and that the committee has authority to meet at any time, except during oral questions, during every evening on a day where there is—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I apologise to the Minister. The wording is not quite as I have it here.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Right. OK.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m happy to share the wording that I have.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: OK. No, I’ll—no, I have it here too.

I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 29 October 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —except during oral questions, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I am incredibly proud to rise to speak on this bill today. This bill is about having the courage and a vision as a Government to lift our eyes above the three-year electoral cycle and to think about the next 10 years, the next 20 years, the next 30 years, and the next 40 years. In April, the Prime Minister announced that this Government would not be granting any new offshore oil and gas exploration permits but that we would be protecting existing permits and the rights associated with them. With this bill we make good on that commitment. With this bill we are taking the first steps on a 30-year to 40-year journey: a planned, measured, just transition towards a low-carbon economy. The bill contains amendments to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 that will give effect to the Government’s policy announcement on the future of offshore petroleum permitting.

The long-term picture is this: the world is changing, climate change is happening, and with that change our planet and our economies are changing. The world is racing to adapt and to stop its most damaging effects. This means that the same old ways of doing things don’t work anymore. We cannot expect to rely on fossil fuels for our jobs and prosperity for ever. The world is moving away from them, and we, as a country, have to be ready. If we don’t change, if we keep relying on these fuels, we’re going to be left behind.

We’re setting ourselves up for economic shocks. We’ve seen this happen before when the economy changes over night without a plan. We saw it in the UK in the 1980s when coalmines closed overnight and, with it, the devastation of communities. We saw it here in the 1980s in New Zealand with the radical reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. I saw it in my own community, growing up in south Christchurch. Parents of my friends lost their jobs at the Addington rail yards. With that they lost their hope and their dignity. I will not be part of a Government that refuses to put in place the long-term planning to ensure New Zealanders never have to endure that again.

When economies undergo rapid changes without a plan, businesses suffer, communities get hurt, and people are left on the scrap heap. We won’t let that happen again. This Government will not allow New Zealand to become a place that pulls the rug out from under workers and businesses and communities because we don’t have the foresight or the courage to plan ahead. And that’s why we are acting here tonight. We are planning a long-term, managed transition over the next 30 years to 40 years towards home-grown clean energy that will create jobs. That will ensure that regions and communities which currently rely on fossil fuels for their prosperity have a path to prosperity for decades to come.

This bill is an important part of that plan. It gives legal effect to the Government’s 12 April decision. It will limit new petroleum prospecting, exploration, and mining permits to the onshore Taranaki region only, and it guarantees the protection of existing permits, as we promised to do—permits that cover over a hundred thousand square kilometres of existing acreage. If a discovery is made that is commercially viable, existing permit holders will still be able to apply for a subsequent petroleum mining permit in accordance with the Crown Minerals Act as it was prior to this bill coming into force. Existing rights and existing privileges under the existing Crown Minerals Act will be preserved. Preserving the rights and privileges of permit holders provides certainty to the industry around the Government’s managed transition. Under this bill, new onshore petroleum exploration permit holders will have their access to conservation land restricted to minimum impact activities. Permit holders will still be able to carry out activities below the surface of such land and in accordance with section 57 of the Crown Minerals Act.

I want to thank New Zealand First and the Green Party for the support of the policy that underpins this bill. This coalition Government has found a pathway that protects existing permit holders while signalling a long-term transition away from the exploration and production of fossil fuels. To assist that pathway, the Government has established a just transitions unit within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to help prepare New Zealand for a future that will look different than it does today. Alongside this, our support of the regions includes the $3 billion investment through the Provincial Growth Fund for new jobs and opportunities, obviously being well shepherded through by the Hon Shane Jones. We’re also supporting investment in smart low-carbon industries through the Green Investment Fund. With a Government kick-start investment of $100 million, it aims to stimulate up to a billion dollars of new investments in innovative, low-emission industries, and that is work that the Hon James Shaw is leading.

We’re already seeing this plan pay dividends for our regions. The Provincial Growth Fund has already earmarked more than $21 million in funding for Taranaki, including support for developing hydrogen as a zero-emission hydrogen fuel and transitional economy general manager.

We know the same old arguments that will be rolled out from those who refuse to accept that the world is changing. The Opposition and the oil industries, they roll out the tired 20th century arguments as we are well into the 21st century. They will tell us that New Zealand doesn’t have to be a leader on climate change. They will say we can bury our head in the sand and lower our sights and just keep on doing the same things together. They will ask us to ignore the opportunities that come from a low-carbon economy, like the fact that renewable energy is some of the cheapest in the world to produce and where the economic opportunities of the 21st century lie. They will tell us taking action will only drive production offshore, asking us to pretend that the rest of world is standing still. Well, the truth is that countries around the world are racing to tackle climate change.

But on this side of the House we are not wedded to the tired arguments of the past. We know there is a better way. This is a Government with a long-term economic plan, a plan for inclusive sustainable growth in the decades to come. The bill is an historic first step in helping move our economy towards 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035 and to a net zero economy by 2050.

I will remember how proud I felt as an 11½-year-old in 1985 watching Prime Minister David Lange on the world stage arguing for the power of humanity over the power of nuclear weapons. As our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has said, climate change is this generation’s nuclear-free moment, our opportunity to once again lead the world, to follow in this proud tradition of New Zealand as a bold visionary and progressive country, and to begin the transition to a low-carbon economy that will create jobs and ensure prosperity.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Thank you. Your time has expired.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): It gives me little pleasure to speak on this bill, because this bill is actually a retrograde step for the climate goals of this country. Not only will they ban offshore but they’ll ban outside of Taranaki, and do you know what they’re banning? They’re banning innovation. They’re banning ideas that come through the hydrocarbon industry. We hear that there is $1.2 billion of investment lost that would reduce emissions in Taranaki. We hear that overseas there are developments of natural gas power peaker plants, which Transpower say we need five to six more of in order to keep the lights on in New Zealand. This peaker power station has zero emissions, and suddenly this Government knows better. They say, “We’ve made a plan for 30 years.”

At least James Shaw talked to Todd Muller. I would say the Minister has never ever picked up the phone to talk to me about whether we can be part of a 30-year transition. I’ll tell you why: because they will be there for three years. They will be there for three years. They may take the first step, but not the second or the third. You know, what’s happened through this whole process is that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) have come up with, actually, some brilliant ideas. They’ve found a spot that could work in this Parliament, in this Government, and in this country, but this Government over here has completely rejected it, because they are hard-wiring in a ban.

And when I say “a ban”, it is not just a ban on activity; it’s a ban on an idea and on innovation. They have thought that they have attacked a problem, but they are attacking people who understand hydrocarbon. They’re attacking the people who have innovation ideas, some of the best hydrocarbon chemists in the country, and they’re basically saying, “Your industry has an end date.” And guess what’s happening? We are seeing people leave the country who have got the intellectual know-how and background to understand this industry. We are exporting our knowledge, and we’re going to become recipients in time to importation of gas—four to five times the cost, and 40 percent higher greenhouse gases. That’s what’s going to happen. That’s what’s going to happen.

Let me tell you something about this bill. This bill has come before this House under the intent to give effect to the Government’s policy announcement on 12 April to ban new offshore exploration, but what they are bringing into this bill are two unexpected provisions. They are saying the bill includes a provision that will prohibit a permit holder from accessing conservation land except to undertake minimum-impact activities, which is not drilling and which is not seismic. So, you know, oil and gas explorers—you’re off that part of the land.

Also, they’re bringing in a provision that will ban the giving of onshore permits outside of Taranaki.

You told us, Minister—you gave us, Minister—

Hon Stuart Nash: The Speaker didn’t tell you.

JONATHAN YOUNG: —I understand—a three-year moratorium on onshore permits and a review. James Shaw, of course, came back and said that actually that three-year moratorium is actually a phase-out of onshore. And suddenly we find in this bill that every other part of New Zealand’s terrestrial territory is now off the board. So that’s a Northland. That’s an East Coast. They’re gone. We see in Taranaki the region that has the highest per capita GDP of any region in New Zealand. The Taranaki region has the highest average wage of any region. The oil and gas sector generates 4,600 jobs in Taranaki, and supports 11,000 indirectly. And so this Government is saying to Northland, to East Coast, “Sorry, we are not going to allow those benefits ever to come your way.” Some of those regions are the regions with the highest levels of deprivation, where they could see huge industries developed, huge skills, huge opportunities for people to come to be employed. I think that that is a real disappointment and a travesty.

There are many significant failings of this Government, and none so significant as in this decision to ban new offshore exploration permits. There’s been a thorough—thorough—lack of process. What is most galling is the Government claims to have consulted industry, except everyone they said they’d talked to denies they’d ever had a conversation. And we are seeing this happening right now. We are seeing this very short, truncated select committee process taking place. You know, I would come back to what the Minister said as a general final statement to the petroleum conference in March in Wellington this year. She said this, and we took her words in good faith: “We are a Government that listens, then acts. That consults widely, thinks through issues deeply and seeks to forge consensus on how we can take New Zealand forward together.”—a great statement.

That is a statement that I think any Government would be proud and pleased to make. However, in the regulatory impact analysis released by MBIE this week, it stated this: “Consultation with the public and the petroleum sector has not [taken place] due to the preferred approach of Cabinet and the Government,”. I am very disappointed at that. I’m disappointed because the good people not only of Taranaki but right around this country have got a contribution to make, and, yes, you give a four-week process, but, you know, I think it would have been far better if you had talked all along the way than been very selective—been very selective—in your process. It’s not only the petroleum sector who are wanting to be consulted.

The regulatory analysis went on to say, “major consumers of natural gas such as Methanex and Ballance Agri-Nutrients, electricity generators, the Port of Taranaki, engineering and service firms in Taranaki,” and the local government in Taranaki are “stakeholders directly affected by the proposed changes.” MBIE has not been directed to undertake consultation with these groups on the Government’s final policy decision. “All … these groups have expressed concerns about the decision itself, the impact on investment certainty, future gas supply and jobs, and the ability of firms that have invested to be able to fully benefit from those investments.” And so this is a systemic disregard of people in the region that I love and am proud of, and I am disappointed—very disappointed. I hear the Minister talking about a plan—a 21st century plan. Well, the Mayor of New Plymouth said yesterday the Government has no plan—no plan—to see what’s going to happen in Taranaki in a post - oil and gas world.

The interesting thing is that in that oil and gas world we are seeing far more innovation and ideas come through that reduce emissions. The other side of it is that only about 50 percent of oil ever ends up as a liquid fuel that gives emissions. The rest ends up, for example, in asphalt, in the roads that we drive on. It ends up in all sorts of products—household products. Methanex, who use 45 percent of New Zealand’s natural gas and make methanol, is becoming a liquid fuel of choice in the marine industry because of its zero sulphur emissions and low oxides. It’s a very, very clean fuel. There are huge advantages. You know, we see that the United States of America, the country that has brought emissions lower, percentage wise, than any other country in the world has done it without regulation. They’ve done it because they’ve used natural gas to replace coal. And I think that, you know, there are examples around the world that show innovation and progress that will see the emissions that people are concerned about reduce in our world.

Can I say in my last couple of minutes that there are some great opportunities to actually see an industry that has brought great benefit and wealth and progress to nations around the world to handle this in a more finessed and careful way. The Minister says that this is a bygone era, yet the International Energy Agency, which New Zealand pays $150,000 a year to for membership, tells us that natural gas is going to increase by 40 percent by 2050, and is going to become the fuel of choice. And so what we have said, or what this Government says, in this country is that we see an end to gas.

We have some big, big concerns about energy security. MBIE raised those matters—big concerns about whether we can have the capacity to keep electricity cheap and keep it secure. At the moment, gas provides 15 percent, and Transpower tell us that our electricity generation needs to more than double by 2050. You know, we need to have solutions to these sorts of things. It’s not good enough—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member; your time has expired.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This is a short, short bill; just five pages. It’s simple; it expresses some really simple ideas. It is short, it is simple—it is huge. It is a huge bill because it is a bill about keeping promises, about keeping promises and commitments to ourselves, to our children, and to our children’s children to leave them a better world. That is what this bill is about. We are keeping the promise we have made to take climate change seriously, to take action with respect to climate change, to make a start on dealing with the nuclear-free moment of our time: climate change.

You see, the problem of climate change is real. It is absolutely real and it is imminent. In a study which was written about in The Guardian just this week, we found repeating science, that has been peer-reviewed and published in a journal, that talks about the likely outcomes from climate models, and the really wretched thing is we are on track for 3.4 percent warming by 2100 if we do not change our ways. We are burning our world up, and the people on that side of the House want to keep on doing it. They should be ashamed of themselves. Climate change is real, it’s happening, and we need to make a start on addressing it, and that is what this bill does.

I guess the only thing is it is the smallest of steps, but it is a start. All it is doing is saying that we will not issue more exploration permits—we will not issue more. The existing permits remain in place—an area the size of the North Island remains available for exploration offshore. We can continue to do onshore exploration in Taranaki. So there is real continuation for business. Business has plenty of time to plan, business has plenty of time to restructure, and this caring Government on this side of the House is in there helping to them to do it. It will walk with the people of Taranaki and with the people in the industry to ensure that they are able to transition to new jobs, new employment, and new ways of earning a living, but what we will not continue to do is burn the world up.

We are serious about our just transition, and I can tell you why: we remember the 1980s and the 1990s when there was a shocking transition forced upon, in particular, the rural sector, where there were suicides, where people lost jobs overnight, and where the changes were absolutely wretched. So this Government has given a long, clear signal well in advance—plenty of time to plan, plenty of time to make those transitions, and we’re in there supporting it on the way. That’s what our Provincial Growth Fund is about. It is what our Green Investment Fund is about. It is about making that just transition to give people time, and we have consulted widely about that just transition. Part of our major plan with respect to this bill is to consult widely about how we engage in that just transition, exactly what we can do to help people, how we help people to manage. We are committed to that, and we will continue to be committed to it.

As for the fossilised arguments from the other side of the House—the fossilised arguments—the demanded ongoing commitment to fossil fuels, it’s extraordinary how committed they are to “drill, baby, drill”.

Let’s talk about some of the claims—the claims that perhaps we should be pursuing natural gas. Look, one of the reasons why the rest of the world pursues natural gas is that it’s less bad than coal. It’s not good; it’s just less bad than coal. Of course, the fossil fuel industry wants to persist with natural gas, but let’s look at what respected business commentator Rod Oram has said. Respected business commentator Rod Oram says, “our gas sector keeps doubling down on its claims it can help us and other countries drastically cut carbon emissions in the decades ahead, while deriving great GDP benefits on the way.”, and then he goes on to say, “None of those claims stack up on economic or environmental grounds.” That’s what Rod Oram tells us, and he has a detailed analysis showing how none of those claims stack up. So, yes, natural gas is part of a transition to a zero-carbon world, but that’s all it is, and it’s there because it is less bad than coal. It can help us on the transition, but it is not the end product and it’s not where we want to end up. We’ve got some worries. We do have ongoing use of gas. We will continue to be committed to using gas because it is there and it is available to us, but we are simply shutting down the exploration of this.

One of the things I really want to challenge the Opposition benches on is just on how blue-green they really are. You know, the Opposition have been telling us and telling the people of New Zealand that they are committed to the environment, that they want to take action with respect to climate change, and that we should consider voting for them because, after all, they will look after the environment too. Where is the evidence? This first simple step—they cannot even go that far. I say that calling themselves blue-green is an utter charade, and they should just stick to their knitting and promote “Business, business, business; drill, drill, drill—we don’t care about the future.”

We’ve heard from the Opposition that we are not running a decent process. I tell you, I will run the best select committee process I can. It will be open, we will consult widely, and we will take as many submissions as we can get. We will hear from them all, we will take them seriously, and we will take them seriously from all parts of the community, from people who are committed to the environment to people who are part of the fossil fuel industry. We want to hear from them all, and I invite those people to please send their submissions in. We want to hear from them, and we will respond to them sincerely, honestly, and openly, because that’s kind of select committee I run. As part of that, Ministers will be meeting with people in Taranaki; our Prime Minister will visit Taranaki. We are committed to consulting widely and making sure that we run a decent process.

Just to bring to a close my speech on this insightful, excellent piece of legislation, presented to us by a Minister who cares, I just want to go back to something that the previous speaker, Jonathan Young, said. He said that on this side of the House we have a systematic disregard for people. He accused us—this side of the House; a caring Government that generally sets out to help people and is committed to kindness—of a systematic disregard for people. I say again: the party in this House which has a systematic disregard of people is the party that wants to burn the Earth. I reject those arguments, and I support this bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. That truly was an extraordinary speech from the previous speaker, Deborah Russell. I think every New Zealander who’s driving home in their car this evening has just been maligned by that member as somehow being an evil person who wants to burn the Earth, when most people just want to go home to their family and to their loved ones and have their dinner, but not according to that member.

The most simple thing that any New Zealander can expect from their Government is that when that Government makes a major decision that affects their lives and their ability to earn a living and has big consequences for the economy, which sustains jobs, the ability to afford healthcare and welfare for those in need, the education system—decisions of major economic consequence—the only thing that people can expect from their Government is that that Government will take those decisions seriously and will ask for basic advice about what we are going to get as a benefit, as a result of that change, and how much it is going to cost the economy. That’s the most basic thing that New Zealanders can expect from their Government, and on this bill this Government has failed all New Zealanders by that measure. This bill is an act of economic vandalism by a Government that cares only about what the Prime Minister will look like in a global photo opportunity. We have often wondered how much Jacinda Ardern is prepared to pay for a global photo opportunity, and we now know what the answer to that is $8 billion. That is what she is prepared to pay for her global media opportunity.

Let’s go through the risks and the things that you would expect the Government to be asking their officials to quantify and work out. They made the announcement, they said they were going to do it, the week before the Prime Minister went offshore, and now we have legislation that is implementing that decision that they’ve announced. They didn’t take it through Cabinet at the time they announced it, when they committed to it. The previous speaker talked about keeping promises; well, there was no promise during the election that they were going to do this. The New Zealand First Party, which is part of the coalition—it’s not the leader of the coalition but it’s part of the coalition—certainly said anything but that they were going to cut down oil and gas. So there are no promises being kept here in this legislation; it’s something that’s been dreamt up.

What are the things that they need to check? Well, there’s the opportunity cost to the Crown in terms of forgone royalties. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials went away after the decision was made and had to go and do a regulatory impact statement to work out these costs. It’s very hard to determine the exact figure, but the middle range is about $7.9 billion lost over the next 30 years in terms of Crown revenue. OK, so that’s not insignificant, I would have thought—quite a significant sum. Secondly, there’s, obviously, the cost to the petroleum producers in terms of their forgone profits, and I suppose the Government doesn’t care anything about them. Then, thirdly, there’s the cost to national and regional economies in terms of the economic contribution of the petroleum sector. We’ve heard of the thousands and thousands of jobs—good paying jobs—that are sustained by this sector, and they are being put at risk.

Time and time again, we hear from the Government “Oh no, there’s nothing to worry about here. There’s still all this area that is open for exploration, and we’re only talking about the new areas that we’re not going to do.” But they surely don’t believe that, because what has happened with this decision is that a signal has been sent—a very powerful signal from this Government—that they do not want oil and gas. We’ve heard from the speeches on the other side that this is all about burning the Earth and that fossil fuels are evil and we’re not going to support them. So any prospective driller or prospector for oil and gas based throughout the world—they’re global companies; they’re looking about where to invest their next dollar, and there are many places that they can do that—looks at New Zealand and sees a difficult geology miles away from anywhere. They were prepared to make that investment when they had a Government that was predictable and supportive of the industry and reasonable, but they see this Government and they see anything but that. They see no process, they see a rabid Government which is only concerned about virtue signalling, and they think, “Well, why on earth would we make any extra investment in this area when we don’t know, even if we find any oil, the next decision-making process? It’s opaque and vague and cannot be trusted.” So that has a real chilling effect on future investment in this sector.

Of course, you’ll hear from some of the players that are invested in the industry right here, right now. They’re not going to turn around and say that the world’s going to come to an end, because they need to keep working and they need to keep maintaining the investment they’ve already made. But make no doubt: this will have massive consequences for the Taranaki economy, particularly. I’m staggered and shocked to see the New Zealand First members in the House supporting this bill. We hear Shane Jones trumpeting around the provinces like an elephant, as he does, claiming to be the champion of the regions and thinking that handing out $50,000 here and $100,000 there to look at hydrogen is somehow going to make up for the millions and millions of dollars that have been sucked out of the Taranaki region and put at risk by this decision making—this decision making that they supported only in return for the waka-jumping bill, that we’ve had the shambles of today, to be carried through this House, another dirty deal in this Government.

Then we have to deal with the question of security and affordability of supply. Every New Zealander who struggles right now to pay their electricity and gas bills and to get through the long winter and figure out how to make ends meet has to be aware that this decision right here, right now—this bill—will undoubtedly make their energy bills higher in the years to come, because it reduces the potential—

Hon Dr David Clark: What a load of rubbish!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It’s not a load of rubbish. So the Minister of Health, who goes on about people’s health and well-being, is supporting a bill which will make it more expensive for frail and struggling New Zealanders in their homes to keep their homes warm.

Hon Dr David Clark: What rot!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It’s true. It is absolutely true, because if you are determined to withdraw, over time, gas from the production of electricity in this country, then where will it come from? Are we going to build more dams? I’d be interested to see how that’s going to get past the Greens. Are we going to build more dams? We might have a bit more geothermal electricity but that’s not going to fill the void. You might have a whole lot of wind turbines on every hill in the country, but that doesn’t help you when the wind’s not blowing, does it? So how on earth are we going to get the electricity? Well, you have to massively overbuild electricity generating capacity.

We could perhaps cope with all this if there was an overwhelming benefit to the economy. I started off by saying that what you would expect from any half-respectable Government, before they made a major decision like this, is that they would get decent analysis working out what the cost is going to be, which they haven’t, but at least they’d also have some decent analysis working out what the benefits would be. And what are the benefits? Well, none—none whatsoever for the environment. What we see is that it’s more likely to lead to more global emissions. Why is that? If you’re concerned about reducing New Zealand’s impact on the environment, then you focus on the demand side. You want to reduce the demand from New Zealanders for fossil fuels, and that’s what you would focus on if you were trying to reduce New Zealand’s impact, but that’s not what this bill is about. It’s trying to squeeze the supply.

Well, if New Zealanders still want to drive their cars and they still want to use their electricity based on gas and they still want to cook their dinners based on gas, the only consequence is that we’ll have to import that gas from offshore. And that will lead to more emissions as all that gas is carried at great expense across the Tasman from Australia or wherever. And then, if we can’t produce the methanol, which has created many, many jobs, well, then it will be produced somewhere else based on gas. So the analysis that was done—a pretty short analysis; it should have been done before the decision was made—shows that it will have a negative effect on the environment.

So what have we got? We’ve got a bill that is going to cost New Zealanders billions and billions of dollars, remove opportunities from New Zealand families to get ahead, make it more expensive for them to live their ordinary lives, and with no decent environmental outcome. I cannot understand why anybody on that side of the House would vote for this bill, and if they do—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak this evening. I also thank the member Paul Goldsmith for his contribution, because his compatriots who were speaking before him were on message, online, and, to be fair, they were making me angry. But then Mr Goldsmith got up and he just took the wind out of the entire side of the argument on that side of the House. That member, Mr Goldsmith, spoke about vandalism. Well, the only vandalism that I can speak to and attest to, of any member in this House, is Mr Goldsmith’s vandalism of his own hoardings in not the last election but the election before. That’s the only vandalism we have on record in this House, so it is a bit rich for the member to use those particular words.

Brett Hudson: Yeah, selling out the regions by New Zealand First.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yeah, well, they use the words “selling out”.

What I do have to say this evening is congratulations to the National members on the other side of the House, because their fearmongering has been incredibly effective. I have been into New Plymouth and Taranaki many times, before and after the announcement from the Prime Minister, and the engagement has been fantastic and the conversations have been incredibly positive.

So let me put this in perspective for the members of the New Zealand public who would actually like to hear the actual situation. So, for the benefit of those members opposite, the announcement was made to enable a transition period from gas and oil. This is a transition strategy that will more than likely take 30 years—30 years-plus. Yet what we’ve done here is, as a Government, said and acknowledged that we cannot rely on this source of energy long term. Let’s acknowledge that, let’s discuss that now, and let’s develop a legislative strategy going forward. This is a generational solution where we transition, and that seems to be lost on the members opposite.

Since the announcement, for example, there has been more than $100 million invested in Taranaki and the oil and gas industry by the oil and gas industry of Taranaki. They have invested in oil and gas, in the gas solution, because they know, like we do, that gas is a transitional energy that we need to take advantage of, as the member Mr Young himself pointed out in his contribution. Yet the members opposite seem to close their eyes to the fact that this is not the book closing now; this is merely a turning of a page, where we will continue to work on this for the next 30 years. Thankfully, New Zealand businesses—and overseas business, actually—have invested more than $100 million in Taranaki post the announcement from the Government, because they agree with us: this is a transition energy and we need to make sure that we take advantage of it.

The fearmongering of gas prices for cars is abhorrent. This Government is also working on solutions for alternative energy vehicles. We’re looking at the electric vehicles. I’m personally doing a lot of work in the foreign affairs space. I’m trying to engage overseas investment in hydrogen, so that we can look at hydrogen as a solution for large vehicles or transit vehicles in New Zealand. Already, there are examples of that around the world, whereas those members opposite seem to close their eyes to the fact that China themselves, India themselves, have declared openly that they cannot and will not continue to rely on oil and gas and coal as their energy solutions. They themselves have said they are making rapid progress towards their own low-carbon futures. They themselves, who those members opposite seem to insinuate we’re going to source our energy from, have made those brave decisions about what the future of energy looks like.

Jonathan Young: You were already doing it before you made this decision.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: So this—yeah, we’re already doing it. Good on you. Yes. Yeah, we’ve got an acknowledgment from the other side of the House that we are already doing it and we are on the road to transition.

I would like to add to that that this is not the end of anything. As the member from the area knows all too well, I have been into his electorate many times, and the conversations with those big exploration companies—and they know it: if it’s there, go and get it, go and get it, and if it’s as big as Māui, if we’ve got 30 years out of it or 50 years out of it, long may that continue. But the industry knows that we, this Government, will support that exploration. We are giving them years to have confidence and make that investment, and I have heard that first-hand from those who would make those critical decisions to gamble those tens of millions of dollars.

It is a very big gamble for those companies, and I appreciate that. It is their money that they are gambling with, so this side of the House says, “We will give you the time you need to make those decisions, to invest, to take the gamble, and, by goodness, you will make some money out of it.” And fair enough, because it’s a risky business and we want them to do well in it, as long as New Zealand is benefiting from it and as long as they do it safely, sustainably, and comply with our environmental laws—and all the while, security of supply and solutions for the transition from oil and gas.

Actually, just to use a couple of minutes up, there are examples around New Zealand already of industry that were, as of a year ago, looking at gas as their main sources of energy. I won’t go into who it is and what they are doing—it might be confidential and I don’t want to give anything away; they gave me a briefing. They themselves, before there was any question about this announcement or any of this—I don’t know how to describe it politely—nonsense from the other side of the House, were making their own decisions to say, actually, even gas probably isn’t the transition fuel for them, that they needed, themselves, to look at alternative energy solutions for their operations. We’re talking tens of megawatt operations, and they are going to move away from gas. The Government didn’t ask them to; the Government didn’t say they had to. They, as good citizens of the world, have said, “As big business, we need to go beyond this now.”

So New Zealand First, as a party to this coalition Government, stands in full support of this legislation. Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think someone should get some help for the previous speaker, Mr Tabuteau, because I think, right now, that Mr Tabuteau is probably choking on the big dead rat that he had to swallow. What I will say for Fletcher Tabuteau is that at least Fletcher Tabuteau stood up in this House and talked about some of the other options that may be available on transition, and that’s something that I’ve heard from that member that I’ve not heard from any other speakers that have got up tonight. We’ve heard about burning the earth and all this scaremongering stuff that’s going on, and Fletcher Tabuteau’s contribution was much more constructive than that. I would imagine that if Fletcher Tabuteau was in Cabinet and not an under-secretary, then maybe Cabinet might have paid a bit more interest in this decision.

We have actually witnessed something that has been disastrous for Taranaki. We have witnessed it being disastrous for New Zealand. It is disastrous for climate change, and we didn’t even get the opportunity for Cabinet to debate it, let alone any consultation along the way.

Now, everyone talks about the oil and gas industry and how this Government’s going to transition it. Doesn’t this Government actually think that the people with the knowledge to do the transition might be in the oil and gas industry? We’ve got a whole oversupply of sudden experts over here, who know so much about the oil and gas industry that they’ve decided that this is not going to be a transition; this is going to be the big bang theory. New Zealand is closed for business, and they can talk about the 30 years and the permits and all of this other stuff that they bang on and rattle on about as members on the other side, but, actually, when you put up a sign that says “Closed for business”, people start looking elsewhere.

Transition actually means that we have to start from where we are today, and we have to end up going to some other place, and you don’t do that by announcing the stopping of what we’re doing now. As a knowledgable member on this topic, Jonathan Young, said, you’re actually banning innovation. You are banning innovation. You are attacking—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I just want to encourage—please.

BARBARA KURIGER: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER: The Government is banning innovation by attacking the very people who have the ability to make a transition. And guess what: there will be no one more interested in a smooth transition to renewable energy than the people who are in the industry of energy. Because, guess what: if they don’t, they will have a dead business, and this is exactly what this Government is doing to them.

I think it’s rather rich that the Prime Minister made this announcement and then travelled off overseas on jet fuel—travelling off overseas again on jet fuel—and it is all about making an announcement on the global stage about how good New Zealand is and how great we are and how we’re going to deal to climate change. Well, guess what: every piece of advice on this has been ignored around climate change.

You can talk about this being a climate change issue—an environmental issue. Well, apart from being an economic disaster and a job-loss disaster, this actually is likely to be the thing that’s going to reverse the climate change. And then guess what, Ms Russell: the earth will actually start to warm up. So watch out.

It’s been a very bad process. This is a Government that has 153 working groups, I think I counted last time; it may be more than that now. And this major, major, major decision was not even put through Cabinet. One person I will commend within the Labour Government was the Hon Andrew Little, because Andrew Little is the only person in the Labour Party that has made the effort to front up to Taranaki. We heard before about the Prime Minister coming to Taranaki. Well, it was a closed meeting not a public meeting, so what does that say? How proud is the Prime Minister about that announcement when she can go and stand on a global stage and make a big noise about how wonderful this Government is and she can’t even come and front up to the people of Taranaki? So I do commend Andrew Little for that. At least he stood in that seat a couple of times. At least he’s committed to Taranaki. Ms Russell hails from Taranaki as well, so she might want to come back and actually come and explain why there was no consultation process with this whole announcement.

So I wonder what this Government’s going to do when the lights go out, because when the natural gas doesn’t flow from this country any more, we will have to import some, because we are in transition. But what happens when we’ve got a whole country of electric cars? How many more dams do we need to build?

Jonathan Young: Twenty-two Clydes.

BARBARA KURIGER: Oh, about 22 Clyde Dams we’re going to have to build to drive a country full of electric cars. Has the Government thought about whose backyard these dams are going to be built in? We all know the story about water storage. We all know the story about irrigation. We all know that nobody wants anything like that in their backyard. So what’s going to happen when these electric cars won’t go, and what’s going to happen when the lights don’t go on? This decision has been based on paper-thin evidence, because all of the evidence that’s been offered by officials to this Cabinet and this Government has been ignored. It’s been done against the advice of the officials, and our mayor, Neil Holdom, did say publicly on television a couple of days ago—and he has said it before—that “The Government has no plan.” A transition involves a plan, and this Government has no plan.

It beggars belief, for me, that this decision has nothing at all to do with climate change; it’s virtue signalling to the world. It’s just being out there on the world stage. It’s always nicely timed so that we can make these big global announcements, but we know that to be economically and environmentally effective, we have to run with the world—we can’t go ahead of it. What’s going to happen is we’re going to start seeing countries burning more coal. We’re probably going to have to start burning more coal ourselves. We already have to burn coal in very cold weather because we haven’t transitioned enough to get away from coal. So how are we going to effect that transition? It’s something that I’d like to hear from one of the members—at least one of the members—when they get up on the other side of the House. If we’re already, in the last winter, going back to burning coal because we’re running out of energy on cold days, how without natural gas are we going to get away from burning coal in the future? It’s just worth a thought or two. I’d also like to ask them how they’re going to go through the process of resource management when they have to build something like 22 dams.

So, look, if I look around Taranaki—and I don’t know how many of you people have been there; I know that Ms Russell came from there, and Andrew Little spends a bit of time in Taranaki—you’ve only got to go around Taranaki to know what good, social, corporate people our oil companies are. There are plaques and signs everywhere to infrastructure. They have spent a huge amount of money on infrastructure. They do have a massive social heart. They do have an interest in the environment. They do have the funding to be able affect it. I wonder how this Government is going to effect so much change with $8 billion that’s going to come out of the Government’s funds. That’s not counting the money that’s going to come out of the industry funds. It’s not counting the money that’s going to come out of job losses, out of the communities. It’s all very well to say, “Oh, yeah, you know, it’ll be fine. Business will carry on.” I can tell you that in Taranaki every little coffee shop, every little business, and every person in Taranaki that I’ve talked to is extremely worried about the future of Taranaki, and we’ve got some potential to take this future and do something with it and help the climate change on this planet.

So I would ask this Government to open their eyes, and if they really want to do something to help—

Brett Hudson: And open their minds.

BARBARA KURIGER: And their minds; thank you, Brett. If they want to do something to help climate change in this world, then they should actually reverse this decision.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. Your time has expired.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. What doom and gloom merchants the National Party are. Not content with talking down business confidence repeatedly, they are now talking down the future of our country. They are so pessimistic. They have so little faith in the ability of Aotearoa New Zealand to provide an alternative future—one that is carbon-zero; one that doesn’t rely on coal—it beggars belief. The previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger, was talking about the lights going out, about the end of gas. The previous speaker doesn’t seem to recognise that Todd has got a $100 million investment in gas peaking, that Methanex is extending their gas supply into the late 2020s at least, or that Genesis Energy has recently confirmed that they are certain of gas supply into at least the 2030s. Deal with the facts, National. Have some more optimism about the future of our country.

That pessimism, and the thought too that we will need 23 dams—National obviously hasn’t heard of investments in solar, in wind, in the capability of investment in bioenergy, all of the technology development and resource consent applications for wind. And so we hear again and again from National that this bill—Mr Goldsmith said it was “an act of economic vandalism”. The Green Party is very pleased to support the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, because what we are hearing from National are tired, hackneyed lines that they want to support the oil and gas industry at the expense of the climate—

Matt King: And you know best, eh? You know best!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order, Mr King!

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: —propping up the oil and gas industry, and not thinking about—there is no point in protecting the revenues of that industry if we are going to fry the climate. You cannot have a business if climate change is inundating the world with more severe storm events. The National Party seems to have its eyes closed to the events recently in the Philippines, the more severe typhoon events. That is a consequence of a changing climate, yet National wants to continue with business as usual. Despite having signed up in Paris, it doesn’t want to make the change.

This bill is about initiating a fair transition. It’s about signalling that we have got to make significant changes in the way we do business and in the way we generate energy if we are going to get to carbon-zero by 2050 and if we are going to shift our economy on to one that protects the climate rather than undermining it by promoting further oil and gas exploration. It’s sending a very clear signal to the industry, and that’s because on this side of the House we’re about a sustainable, productive, and inclusive economy, not one that belongs in the 20th century and further back.

There have been huge cyclical changes in commodity prices in global exploration. We saw a major decline in that in 2014, after the sharp drop in oil prices. That causes job losses, and that creates uncertainty in regions like Taranaki. We want a future where people can depend on ongoing jobs. That future is in sustainable energy. That future is in diversifying our economic base. That future is in a billion trees and the economic opportunities that that provides. That future is in some of the alternatives that the Provincial Growth Fund has been investing in. Yet National is still business as usual, business as usual, not making the transition.

We heard from Mr Young about how he was concerned that the bill prohibits anything other than minimum activities on conservation land. When I have been to Taranaki—several times, recently—what I hear is enormous enthusiasm for the Taranaki Mounga Project, which is the partnership between iwi, the Department of Conservation, community organisations, and landholders around the mountain in getting rid of predators. This Government isn’t opening up conservation land to big new mining as Gerry Brownlee wanted to do under the former Government. Mr Young, I’m reminded of the 40,000-plus people who walked down Queen Street protesting about your former Government’s plans to have mining in national parks. This Government recognises that protection of our public conservation lands is about protecting the landscapes which sustain our tourism industry and is about protecting Brand New Zealand and the marketing of our primary sector and food and fibre products overseas. The public expects public conservation land to be protected, not open to oil and gas exploration, and not open to drilling and more mining.

This is a reforming Government. National is stuck in the past; it doesn’t want to make the change. This bill is about ensuring that there is a transition, that there is a smooth operation of the block offers in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and making that major change: no more deep-sea oil and gas exploration and only onshore exploration in the Taranaki region. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Mr King, would you not have conversations across the Chamber. I apologise.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: This is the first part of changes to the Crown Minerals Act. The Green Party is looking forward to the second tranche of changes. We want a change to the purpose of the Act, because, at the moment, it gives favoured status to the minerals industry because the Act talks about promoting. It’s got a purpose of promoting prospecting and exploration of Crown-owned minerals rather than regulating the industry, so it is not a level playing field by any means. And this bill is the first stage of those changes.

It is a major achievement. It’s a major line in the sand for this Government in saying we take climate change seriously. We want to protect our country’s long-term future. We want to signal clearly to the industry “No more deep-sea oil and gas exploration.”, because there are multiple scientific reports showing that at least two-thirds of known oil and gas reserves need to stay in the ground if we are not to fry the planet. And yet the National Party seems to be in denial about that. So it’s just tired, tired lines from the Opposition—a pessimism about the future of our country, a pessimism about the enormous capacity that New Zealanders have for innovation, for change, for moving to more sustainable energy sources, and for finding different sources of employment and investment from oil and gas in Taranaki and other regions.

I commend this bill. The Green Party is very pleased to support it. There will be four weeks of submissions, and it is total nonsense of the Opposition to say that Cabinet did not discuss this bill. Legislation does not get to this Parliament unless it is agreed by Cabinet committees and Cabinet. There has been full discussion of this bill, and there will be further discussion at select committee. The myths and nonsense that the National Party is putting around are all because they are in denial. They don’t want to innovate. They belong in the past—that’s why they’re on the Opposition benches.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to join my colleagues this evening in opposing the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. I oppose it not because I don’t care for our natural environment. I oppose it not because I don’t believe in climate change. I oppose it because I care about our regions and the impact on their economies.

I rise tonight with a real sense of sadness. I speak tonight on this bill, which will have such a profound impact on our regional economies. When we speak about the economy, it’s important to remember what that means. An economy isn’t some abstract theory; an economy is jobs. As we know, jobs are so important—not just for a regular pay packet, which keeps a family fed and housed and with the lights on. A job is a sense of purpose. Every study, every piece of research ever done, shows the importance of having someone in a household in work. It impacts massively on criminal offending, on truancy, on health outcomes, and on ongoing welfare dependency. As Willie Jackson and Shane Jones will be finding, it is so much harder to get a young person into work if the concept of work is foreign to that young person.

This bill has affected business confidence. It’s not just this bill, of course; it’s the compounding impact of employment law changes, of increased taxes, and of cutting $5 billion out of the State highway network. But business confidence is now at historic lows, and, despite what the members opposite say, that has had an effect. We’ve seen it already on employment. When National left Government, we were creating more than 10,000 jobs every month for more than two years. That’s dropped now, and the reason it’s dropped is because business confidence has dropped, and that will affect places like Auckland and Wellington and Christchurch. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. I have already asked the House not to have conversations across the Chamber. Members on both sides will cease and desist from doing that.

ANDREW FALLOON: But where the impact will be felt most of all isn’t in those main centres; it’s in regional New Zealand. My colleague Jonathan Young has already spoken about the impact in Taranaki, but I urge members opposite to go to the West Coast and discuss with people there the chilling impact that this legislation has had on business confidence on the West Coast. My colleague Maureen Pugh is exactly right: they won’t do it; they won’t be seen there. Taranaki is all about oil and gas. It’s a $2.5 billion industry nationwide. It employs 11,000 people—that’s 11,000 pay packets, 11,000 families fed and housed, and 11,000 families who won’t end up on the wrong side of statistics. The majority of those 11,000 people are employed in the Taranaki region. Oil and gas accounts for 41 percent of Taranaki’s GDP—41 percent. Members opposite claim that no jobs will be lost—no jobs will be lost. Absolute rubbish.

On the day that this announcement was made to ban exploration offshore for oil and gas, Fitzroy Engineering, the largest engineering company in Taranaki, instituted a hiring freeze. They employ 400 people, but they’re not hiring any more. The industry in Taranaki will be slowly strangled over the next few years, and those 11,000 jobs will be lost.

I’m speaking, of course, about the industry now, about the jobs lost that exist now, about the GDP lost that exists now, and about the export revenue lost that exists now. I haven’t spoken about the potential. There is huge potential for other regions around New Zealand with oil and gas. In Southland, where my good friend Hamish Walker is the MP, there is massive potential with the Great South Basin; on the East Coast, where we have the hard-working MP Anne Tolley; and in Northland, where the MP is an interesting chap named Matt King.

In my electorate of Rangitata, the Barque gas development would have created 3,100 jobs—3,100 jobs. It was projected to deliver $32 billion in taxes and royalties alone. But those 3,100 jobs are the most important things that we’ve potentially lost as a result of this announcement—3,100 pay packets that would have been spent in local shops, and 3,100 families fed and housed in one of the most beautiful parts of the country. As we’ve seen in Taranaki, those are some of the most high-paying jobs that any industry can create in New Zealand—often in the range of six figures. That would have been a huge boost to Timaru and their efforts to attract more people to the town and, particularly, to encourage young families to move there.

It’s the sort of boost that we’ll never see from a Shane Jones billion-dollar fund. That was a sop to New Zealand First for all the anti-growth policies that they’re having to vote for, and it’s a drop in the bucket when you add up all the losses across all the industries that are being affected by those policies—that is, if we ever see any of it. More than 95 percent of that fund has been spent in the North Island—95 percent—and spent overwhelmingly in one region alone, which is that of Northland, the home region of Shane Jones. Not a cent—not a single cent—has been spent so far in mid-Canterbury or in South Canterbury, and for what? We ask ourselves: for what? Why is the Government passing this legislation?

They’ve spoken opposite—particularly Deborah Russell, who has spoken very eloquently—about the fact that we’re burning the planet and we’re burning the environment. Well, what does the Government’s own advice tell them? I turn to the report from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—their own advice—which says that the “net impact on global emissions is uncertain but more likely to be negative than positive.”—more likely to be negative than positive. They go on to say that there’s a likely increase in global greenhouse gas emissions in the short to medium term. So when members opposite try and lecture us on burning the planet, all they need to do is read the Government’s own advice, which says that this bill, this piece of legislation, will increase global emissions in the short to medium term.

This bill—the announcement was made several months ago, before the Prime Minister went overseas. As has been said by other members, it was done without any sort of Cabinet process. It was literally a phone call from the Prime Minister to one of her colleagues before she flew out the following day. That poor process has continued. They’re now proposing to send this bill off to select committee for just four weeks.

Maureen Pugh: How many?

ANDREW FALLOON: Four weeks. This bill will literally shut down an industry in Taranaki, and they’re proposing to take it out for consultation for just four weeks. It’s absolutely outrageous. It’s an absolute sham of a process to give people four weeks when it’s going to impact on 11,000 jobs—11,000 families. To give people just four weeks to make their feelings known, to tell this Government why it shouldn’t be passed, is absolutely outrageous. We will oppose this bill at every opportunity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. If there’s ever an example of the difference between the previous Government and this current Government, it’s this bill here. The previous regime, to quote their leader John Key, said the Government would be a fast follower on climate change. This Government will be a leader on climate change. We aim to take a lead. Yes, we’re a small country, but we can be an example to other countries around the world. This is about vision.

We had a briefing here by Meridian Energy recently at Parliament, and they said that if the temperature of the world increases by 3 degrees—3 degrees—then we can only sustain 1 billion people. So if we increase by 3 degrees, the population somehow has to go from 7 billion to 8 billion down to 1 billion.

Climate change is the number one issue facing our planet. It’s bigger than war and famine, which are the usual challenges we’re facing, and it’s linked to those, as well. So I’m proud to be part of a Government who are taking a lead on climate change. I’m proud of our Minister Megan Woods, who stated before in her speech that we’ve begun the 30- to 40-year journey to a zero-carbon economy. There’s a clear plan in place: a managed transition to clean energy.

We heard from Paul Goldsmith around heating costs. He said that this will increase heating costs. The reality is that if we don’t look after our planet and we’re all dead, you can’t warm a corpse, anyway. The economic benefits—there’s no economy if there’s no planet.

So this is an example of a Government taking a lead, having vision, treating climate change with the respect that it deserves, and making a difference. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Lee—Erica Stanford.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also answer to “Denise Lee”.

This is a Government that loves working groups—150-odd, or one every couple of days. They love them. They love spending tens of millions of dollars on consultants, bureaucrats, experts—they love spending up large on consultation. What, $1.5 million for a justice summit? The next one’s going to be much the same, and $3 million on a couple of education summits. They’re not afraid of a committee.

They’re not afraid of spending money. In fact, they love it, except when it comes to the environment—or except when it comes to this bill, in fact—except when it comes to an industry that pays really high wages, employs really skilled people, and provides us with a pathway to transition to a low-emissions future, and except when it comes to facing up to our emissions profile and making good, evidence-based decisions on the best things we can do to transition to a low-emissions economy, because when it comes to these things, this Government is woeful.

When this decision was made—when Jacinda Ardern came out and made this statement—we had not a single working group. Not a single dollar had been spent on a summit—not a single croissant, not a single report, not a single industry group consulted, not a single Cabinet paper brought, not a single cost-benefit analysis, and not a single piece of evidence about how this bill would reduce global emissions, not even our own—and we have to ask ourselves why that is.

Why is it that our environment and this bill get such a raw deal when, at the same time, this Government is spending millions of dollars consulting out there? It is spending millions of dollars on its flash online campaign when it comes to the relatively simple task of banning plastic bags, yet for something that is our nuclear-free moment of our generation, to quote our Prime Minister, proper process is not important—not important at all. Consultation—not really important. Working groups—not important. Summits—not important. Proof or evidence of emissions reduction—not important. So if these things aren’t important for this bill, what is important?

What is so important that we are willing to risk our environment by having such a substandard process—what is it? It’s quite simple, really. It can be summed up in one word: image.

It’s April 2018. Jacinda Ardern is heading to Europe to meet with Macron, Merkel, and May, and you can imagine the people in the Beehive: “We need to make her look like an eco-warrior. We need to make her look like a champion of climate change. We need something to make her live up to all that pre-election puffery. We need that photo op.” So we ended up with the infamous April 12 announcement of no new offshore oil and gas exploration, which has resulted, six months later, in this bill.

This bill and a lack of process is not only economic vandalism; I would argue that it is environmental vandalism. It’s total and utter virtue signalling, symbolic rubbish that from a policy perspective is going to be detrimental to New Zealand—from an economic and security perspective, and you’ve heard that from speakers before me—but, most importantly, for me, this is detrimental to New Zealand from an environmental perspective. Labour and the Greens are misleading New Zealanders into believing that this decision is somehow going to be a fundamental shift into benefiting our environment. The reality is that with the absence of any proper research and any proper process this Government has brought forward a bill that will not reduce a single emission—in fact, from their own officials, we get a report that says exactly the opposite.

The net effect of this bill, in fact, will be an uptick on the number of tankers coming into Marsden Point, because this Government are not focusing on what is important, which is the demand. They’re not willing to invest in vehicle efficiency. They’ve done nothing about fuel efficiency. They’ve been woefully inadequate in improving the uptake of electric vehicles—49 percent of our emissions come from vehicles. This Government should be focused on fixing the demand problem. Cutting the supply will only increase the number of tankers coming into Marsden Point. Not only that; they’re now demanding that the production is done overseas in countries that don’t have resource management Acts, don’t have exclusive economic zone Acts, and don’t have an Environmental Protection Agency. All we are doing is shifting production to where quality and environmental oversight is far worse, and the environmental outcomes are far worse.

To quote Brian Fallow, just to finish off with, “This policy is self-righteous … [virtue signalling,] environmentally pointless, economically costly … politically counter-productive to the Government’s own agenda of climate change.” But, hey, Jacinda Ardern got that photo, and I’ve heard that she’s got a speech in the UN tomorrow, so luckily we’re in urgency to complete this first reading. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This next call is a split call. I call David Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to talk about a New Zealand where this Parliament does things right, where it makes laws that will stand the test of being measured not by their intentions, which always sound good from this Government, but by their outcomes. I’d like to spell out, in the faint hope that the Government will get it, what is wrong with this bill and the policy announcement from back in April behind it—not based on its intentions but its outcomes.

We’ve heard what the intentions are—that New Zealand will be seen as a leader in the world, that New Zealand will be seen as a country that is prepared to take bold action to solve global problems, and that our esteem as a nation will increase, whilst, at the same time, we introduce legislation in this House and policy from this Government that will take us into the future, to a more technologically sophisticated future, with lower emissions. Those are the intentions: a leader on the world stage with better environmental outcomes. Sadly, the outcome, in reality, is that we look like fools on the world stage, we are viewed as a place that is dangerous to do business, and we find ourselves, if anything, ending up with higher environmental impacts from the same activities that we would have had otherwise.

Let me just explain how this works. You see, only a Government like this would ban looking for more oil and gas resources about seven or eight years before the biggest field we have runs out. It’s been said by the great economist Thomas Sowell that a lot of policy making is simply being prepared to relentlessly ask the question what happens next? So what happens next when the known reserves run out? Well, the Government says that there will be new renewable energy sources. Well, I happen to be the only trained electrical engineer in this House, and I can tell you that there is nothing on the horizon that is going to replace the need for peak load generation from gas.

The facts are that having not let anybody look for oil and gas reserves in New Zealand for the past decade or two, we will one day find ourselves in a position where our alternatives are switch out the lights—you just have to ask Australian Prime Ministers what the political implications of that are—or the implications might be to dig up something else that is readily available that we have lots of but is not so good for the climate, and it’s called coal. Or another alternative, as we’ve just heard from Erica Stanford, might be to import oil and gas resources at great expense from foreign countries where they do not have the same environmental protections that we do.

If you doubt that, you only need to consult the regulatory impact statement. I’m proud to say, as a former parliamentary under-secretary for regulatory reform, I helped design those templates, which have shown up quite how bad this Government is on this particular policy. They will tell you—and Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—that actually there won’t be environmental impacts, in a positive sense, from this policy. So let’s just get this straight. The intention is we lead the world in environmental policy. The outcome is the world thinks we’re foolish idiots in a kind of banana republic that can’t make laws in a predictable, principled, or stable way, and, at best, a whole lot of new technology will come along and make this legislation redundant, because no one will want to dig up anything they find anyway. At worst, we end up either burning coal or importing dirty oil and gas from foreign jurisdictions.

I mean, it’s actually difficult to get through to this Government quite how stupid this bill is. What a shame. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m delighted to speak at the first reading of this bill. This is a momentous piece of legislation, and this is a momentous day for our country. I want to acknowledge Minister Woods, the Minister of Energy and Resources, for taking the bold move, taking the big first step that we are doing, and upholding our commitments as a Government that we’ve laid down in introducing this bill to the House. This is so momentous for so many reasons. This bill is being lauded by many folks up and down the country but especially by Māori. I want to just use my opportunity to speak on this reading to acknowledge all of the Māori groups that have stood for kaitiakitanga, that have stood for their customary rights in the moana and on their ancestral lands, and who have been standing up against the fossil fuel industry, especially.

In the time that I have, I want to acknowledge and I want to do a big mihi out to my whanaungas up in Te Tai Tokerau, up in the North—in particular, Te Rōpū Taikaha. I acknowledge the huge mahi that they have put in over the years, in particular, Mike Smith, Hinekaa Mako—I know Hinekaa comes from a very fine whānau—and Te Wāni Ōtene. They’ve fought for many years, protesting oil exploration in the Te Reinga Basin, and I know that they will be watching and tuning into this, so I mihi to them this evening.

I want to also acknowledge the iwi of Ngāti Kuri, Ngāti Kahu, and Te Rarawa up in the Far North, up in Mr King’s territory, who have also joined in those efforts, along with Te Rōpū Taikaha.

I want to go to the Tai Rāwhiti, to the great East Coast, and acknowledge Te Whānau-a-Apanui and Ngati Porou, who protested the Petrobras permit. We know the efforts that they went to, under great persecution from the previous Government too, I might add, back in 2010, when they even had the police and the navy turned on them—all for what? For standing up for their moana and activating their mana whenua, mana moana, and kaitiakitanga rights. So I mihi to our whanaunga on the East Coast—in particular, Dayle Takitimu, Adelaide Waititi, and the whole whānau of Te Whānau-a-Apanui. They are active leaders—active leaders—in this area, who brought that massive petition of 140,000 signatures to this House back in 2012. So I acknowledge them for all of their efforts.

And, of course, moving to the south, to my great electorate of Te Tai Tonga. I want to acknowledge all of the folks up and down the great Te Wai Pounamu who have also had their share of protest—the likes of the groups that were in New Brighton beach, braving the icy winds, last year, but also my own whanaunga down in Ngāti Kuri, down in Kaikōura. We know how special Kaikōura is, and we’ve put in special legislation to protect marine mammal sanctuaries and the beautiful taonga that they have there. And I know that they are celebrating the first reading of this bill tonight as well. Last but not least, I want to acknowledge the iwi of Te Tai Hauāuru, Taranaki, in particular Ngāti Ruanui, who have been very active in this space over many years, not only on the oil and gas but also with the seabed mining as well. So, you know, this is an opportunity they can all share in, and they can rejoice that we are bringing this legislation into the House this evening.

As we know, we are introducing a just transition to move away from oil and gas exploration. We’re not cutting it off at the knees as we speak. No, we’re not. All we’re doing is changing the settings for the next block offer, and that’s why we need to hasten the passage of this legislation—so we can bring that into effect. We will not be offering new offshore oil and gas exploration permits, but the existing permit holders will be able to run the course of their existing permits, and, likewise, we will continue block offers, but they will be limited to the onshore parts of Taranaki.

So that is a very sensible approach that we’re taking, but we are taking a leadership position. We are looking to the future, and we know that that future will be carbon-zero. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I too stand tonight to speak to the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I have to say that this is a sad day for us in this Parliament. To be dealing with a bill like this and the potential impacts for this country is very sobering. We’re literally rushing through yet another piece of legislation. What this bill is going to do is effect a ban on oil and gas exploration, which was announced seven months ago by the Prime Minister and the Minister, and only discussed within Cabinet two weeks ago. The effect of this bill is going to be that we are going to cost this country tens of billions of dollars in revenue, and we are also going to end up with an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

The reason we have this bill in the House is because if the Government had actually tried to push on with the ban under the current law, it actually would have found itself at risk of being challenged in court, because the Crown Minerals Act’s purpose is, and I quote, “to promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand.” Well, unfortunately, those principles are being thrown out the window with this new bill. And what it’s done, in effect, already, is it has scared away the potential investment into this country, and that’s because of the uncertainty over long-term gas supplies.

The oil and gas sector in this country contributes $2.5 billion a year to our GDP figures. Now, the ban also shows the arrogance of this Government, because it has ignored the advice and it has absolutely no idea about long-term investment cycles. Now, to give you an example about the impact of this caution that is now in the sector, Ballance Agri-Nutrients—they’ve this year decided to can a billion-dollar rebuild of its Kapuni factory, and that’s a direct result of this bill. Methanex, the second major natural gas consumer, has halted its new investment, putting on hold a $100 million expansion of its Taranaki plant.

This is the kind of bill that stifles the very innovation and advances that the Productivity Commission actually says should be part of our response to climate change. It’s stifling that investment. It was well articulated before by my colleague Erica Stanford: where is R & D that actually goes into the investment into the technologies to reduce emissions? I come from the West Coast and I’m a very proud West Coaster. Over there, extractive industries are a huge part of our economy and a huge part of our history. There is absolutely nothing wrong with mining coal, mining gold, or mining oil; it’s what we do with it afterwards that causes the problems. Why not invest in the technology that actually reduces the emissions from those products?

Now, the Minister has very generously given this bill a four-week submission period—four weeks. Now, if we were going to make changes to the Dog Control Act or something quite minor, we’d actually go out to the community for six weeks, as a typical open, transparent Government would.

I’ll mention a Mr John Kidd from Woodward Partners. He was quoted in the media recently saying that the reason that this is being rushed through is so that Block Offer 2018 can proceed, but what it’s actually going to do is cause so much uncertainty. He’s actually said publicly that holding up the block offer as the reason to fast track this legislation review is, therefore, and I quote, “disingenuous and serves only to mask the true objective of seeking to minimise public discussion and critique”—this is for the most open and transparent Government ever. Now, how many times have we heard that quoted back to this Government, about the most open transparent Government? There is never a day goes by now that we don’t find a reason to criticise them for being the most open and transparent Government ever! Well, Mr Kidd went on to say that the Government should actually can Block Offer 2018 and take time to get the legislation right and then carry on with Block Offer 2019.

Now, both of the projects that I talked about before would have helped reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, but, unfortunately, this Government, in its ill-conceived ban on oil and gas exploration, is having a major impact on the innovation and technology sector. So, unfortunately, this Government doesn’t seem to get the point about the long lead-in times that some industries need and rely on. So what this Government is doing, in effect, is giving the sector cold feet. And they’re going to vote with their feet. Now, I can tell you that National will overturn this ban when it’s back in Government in 2020, and it’s going to make sure that there will be room to meet the challenges of climate change, as well.

We’ve also talked a lot about some of the other projects going on around the country, but I’d like to mention the one off the east coast of the South Island, and that’s the Barque prospect. That will be lost to New Zealand for ever if New Zealand Oil and Gas cannot find themselves a willing partner. Well, actually, who would want to? Who would want to partner now in an industry with so much uncertainty hanging over its head? I think this is going to be the demise of this country. We’re going to see the losses from these potential businesses, and when I’m talking about the Barque one—that’s actually a transformational project down there—that’s thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue. Just think about how many more schools, hospitals, social services, and how much more infrastructure we could build in this country with that kind of income.

Now, this Government is so naive and so arrogant that it’s actually turned its back on its own officials and expert advisers. It’s laughable if it wasn’t so jolly sad. How many of these profits from these companies and these potential businesses have they lost for this country? Well, we know now, from the Government’s own experts and advisers, that it’s around $8 billion lost in this particular offshore project. Those profits are only to the Government’s finances. It doesn’t include the companies’ profits, it doesn’t include the wages, and it doesn’t include all of the trickle-down businesses that support that industry.

What it’s going to do is have an impact on energy prices, as well, because we’re going to have to import them. We certainly can’t import them cheaper than we can produce them here in New Zealand, down on this little group of islands at the bottom of world, so how are we going to fill that energy void? Some of the figures that I’ve seen indicate that in about 18 months, the supply of gas in this country is going to be in decline, and those exports will be necessary then. So perhaps we’ll build more solar or perhaps we’ll build more dams, but, of course, they all take steel and concrete. Where are we going to get that from? We can’t take the coal out of the ground and we can’t get the steel, and where are we going to get the copper from to run the electricity out to all those plugs that we’re going to park our electric vehicles at and charge up? All of those things are coming from the extractive industries.

This ban is about real people. This isn’t about a just transition; this is just ruination.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): If ever there was an example of the difference between the National Party and this coalition Government, we are seeing it tonight. This conservative, negative, backward approach to how we’re going to go forward in this country is evident on that side of the House. What we are seeing tonight is the attitude that this country saw when the Labour Government wanted to ban nuclear activity in this country: no nuclear war ships, no nuclear activity, making a stand on the world stage, and the National Party stood against it and said that it would ruin this country, that it would undermine our relationships with our overseas partners. Did it? Did it jot! It strengthened our place in the world, and that is exactly what this decision is going to do.

We have heard tonight that this is going to be the demise of this country. If this bill was going to be the demise of this country, I ask a very simple question: would the Opposition roll out Maureen Pugh to put forward their arguments? Absolutely not. Would the Opposition bring out Andrew Falloon to put forward their arguments? No, they wouldn’t. Where is their leadership? Where are the senior members of the National Party to put forward their argument about something that’s going to be the demise of this country? What a joke. Those members over there do not believe what they’re saying, because what they’re saying is not true. What we heard from Maureen Pugh was that investment was running away from this country because of this bill.

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The suggestion that the member just made was totally inappropriate and brings this House into disrepute. I ask that he withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which comment?

Tim van de Molen: Well, I’m not sure that I should be repeating it, to be honest, Madam Deputy Speaker. The comment that speeches made by this side of the House—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are not telling the truth?

Tim van de Molen: —were untrue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon. You’re quite right. I will ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

KIERAN McANULTY: I withdraw and apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let’s look at the list of investments that contradict the statement that was made by Maureen Pugh. Maureen Pugh stated that investment is being driven out of this country because of this bill. Let’s have a look at this: $100 million in gas peaking confirmed by Todd after the announcement of this bill. Look at Methanex confirming a gas contract to the 2020s—after the confirmation of this bill. Now, if all that the National Party has to contradict these facts is a point of order, I think we’re going to know who’s going to come out on top of this argument. What about Genesis Energy confirming publicly that they have gas certainty until the 2030s—after the confirmation of this bill? Just last week, there was new exploration activity in Taranaki, and this is supposed to be the region that will be absolutely distraught and decimated as a result of this bill.

What this bill says to the world is that New Zealand is serious about living up to the commitments that the previous Government signed us up to—that the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the New Zealand First Party actually take those commitments seriously. When our Prime Minister goes overseas and portrays this country to the world, she’s doing it on a platform of truth. I remember John Key, the previous Prime Minister, going over to the UK and portraying New Zealand as “100% Pure”. He took on a commitment with the BBC on HARDtalk and he was absolutely humiliated, and so was the country as a result. Because at no point could he provide any example and any evidence that this country is living up to our commitments in terms of climate change and living up to our “100% Pure” image.

This bill is going a long way to us living up to that commitment. This will help rural New Zealand. It will help our primary industries to live up to the image that we portray to the world. If the National Party think that the future of this country is to try and produce more agricultural products when every other country is trying to catch up, instead of actually getting value-add and high-end products to the most discerning in the world—if we produce those products and we don’t live up to our “100% Pure” brand, no one’s going to buy them. It’s the National Party that will then blame themselves for not supporting what we have to do to actually take a leading role in climate change in this world. I have absolutely no hesitation and am very proud to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill be now read a first 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 first time.

The question was put that the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill be referred to the Environment Committee.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move, That the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 29 October 2018, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions; during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I accept any speakers on this, can I just advise the House—because I think it’s the first time we’ve had this—that the debate is 10-minute speeches, and it’s quite a narrow debate. I refer anyone to Standing Order 290(3).

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Madam Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call—oh, you’ve just—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Yep—I’ll take a call, as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’ve actually sat down, Minister.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Oh, OK.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can’t even begin, although I’m going to try, to express what an outrage this is, and I’m going to do it in reference to some recent practical experience of select committee consideration of bills under time pressure under this Government. I refer to the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. You see, much as with this bill, that was a bill that had to be considered, due to external time pressures, in a truncated period. In that particular case, it was due to pressure created by the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. It was also a bill that had been hastily put together and badly drafted, and let me tell you what transpired.

We had 220 submissions, almost all of them from the business community, almost all of them substantive and intelligent submissions about the effect that this bill would have on their industries. I think, for that reason, that the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill is a very useful benchmark for what might be a reasonable expectation for a select committee to hear about a major regulatory initiative that affects long-term investment in industry in New Zealand, particularly foreign investment, and so I’d like to tell you a little bit more about it.

You see, sometimes things sound simple, but once you get into the detail, they are not simple at all. The basic intention of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill was simply to prevent foreigners buying residential property, just as, in the case of this particular bill, it sounds simple enough: it’s to ban future exploration for oil and gas. What transpired was there were all sorts of difficulties. For instance, what defines a foreign person who might invest in a residential property, and what defines a residential property? Well, it turned out that the definition the Government had chosen in its drafting was a 25 percent offshore stake in ownership, and it turned out that a whole lot of companies that weren’t even considered by most New Zealanders to be foreign met that criteria. And so the committee had to hear from a much wider range of people who were affected than they ever could have anticipated.

I put to the House that the range of people who are affected by this legislation will be much broader than currently anticipated, just as it was with the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill just a few short months ago. I’d put it to you that the nature of the oil and gas industry, ironically enough, is that it is an ecosystem. There is upstream; there’s downstream. There’s the service industry around it. There are the suppliers. There are the people that process the products, not only for energy but into a range of other products. The range of people that will want to have a submission on this particular piece of legislation will be vastly wider than even the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. Remember, we heard 220 substantial submissions on that bill at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. So that’s the first point: the range of people likely to be affected by this bill will be completely impractical to hear within four weeks. It is an outrage.

But secondly, the complexity of issues that get created will be much greater than what is anticipated by the Government as it goes into these legislative processes, again because we’re mainly dealing in unknown unknowns. We don’t know what the complexity will be with this bill, but let me tell you a bit more about what happened with the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. Just a few short months—same issue: major regulatory initiative, overseas investment involved, very tight time frames, Government trying to legislate at haste and repent at leisure, and what happened was that we on the committee discovered there were all sorts of unintended consequences. For example, who would have thought that telecommunications companies have to buy residential land in order to put up cell towers every time there’s a new subdivision? So as a result the committee had to consider that, and we ended up exempting registered telecommunications companies from the bill.

But it gets worse. Of course, all of the same arguments, it turned out, applied to electricity distributors. Then we found that, actually, one of the biggest, I guess, safety valves on the demand for housing, or the pressure on the supply of housing, was actually older people in the community moving into retirement villages. Well, as it turns out, all of the big retirement village operators have more than 25 percent foreign ownership. So the Government had inadvertently banned the development of residential property by retirement villages, even though most of those brands—Ryman Healthcare, Metlifecare, etc.—would be considered by most New Zealanders to be New Zealand companies.

This is the kind of complexity that we are going to have once we start to examine this bill. I defy anybody to hear that level of complexity from that number of submitters—which I think will, if anything, be greater and more complex than the nearest equivalent we have to compare this bill with this year. It will not just take more than four weeks; it probably would be reasonable for it to take more than the usual six months.

Here’s the other reason why this House might want to extend the sitting—actually, the last time I had a bill in this House I recommended nine months, and I recommend that nine months would be the right amount of time for this bill if it’s going to advance at all.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Will it get 35,000 submissions?

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, you never know. It just might. Maybe, if the churches are opposed to this bill, it just might. But the fact of the matter is that one of the things that we are responsible for in this House is that we are custodians of New Zealand’s international reputation. The basic view in the oil and gas industry around the world is that New Zealand is pretty hard yakka when it comes to the amount of reserves and the accessibility of them. It would be easier to go to a place like, say, Venezuela, where it basically bubbles out of the ground and you don’t have to do much.

But one thing New Zealand does have, unlike most oil-rich places in the world, is a stable set of institutions and laws, so people know that if they make an investment in New Zealand, it’s not going to be whipped away from them Hugo Chávez Venezuelan style. That is one of the most important capital assets that this country has in the world: it is trust. I’d invite the House to reflect carefully on the impact that we’re going to have if we decide tonight that we don’t want to have any practical opportunity for a highly complex industry—an ecosystem of businesses—to be heard on a highly complex matter, such as what the lead times are and what happens when all of a sudden an important stage in the business cycle for this industry is no longer there.

There are people in Taranaki who have things to say. I visited Fitzroy Engineering, just to give an example, a few months ago when the Government made this initial announcement. Those guys have to think very carefully about whether they invest and upgrade their plant with multi-decade time frames in order that they can continue to be maintainers of assets in the oil and gas sector. Now, what message are we sending to the rest of the world when we say we are this tinpot little country where Parliament doesn’t even understand basic things like that—that people have to invest in the long term in order to accumulate capital assets and raise our standard of living?

I put it to you that people in the business community around the world are looking at New Zealand and they’re thinking, “What on earth are those guys doing? Are they in a state of transition? Are they going from being a First World, sophisticated country that is a democracy, that listens to people, and follows due process, and turning into, sort of, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela? What are they up to?” Well, this House has the opportunity to send a signal tonight that we’re still a proper open democracy by giving nine months for submissions on this bill.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s proper, during this debate, that the House hear the reasoning from the Government for the early report back that is proposed in this motion. The reason why the Government is seeking this early report back is to ensure that the changes in the Act can be made to allow for the 2018 block offer consultation process to be completed before the end of this year. The shorter-than-usual select committee process will allow the public and the industry to have their say on the proposed changes to the Act and will ensure that tender documents for the block offer can be made available in early 2019.

As the Minister of Energy and Resources said during her speech, this bill will give effect to the new offshore petroleum exploration permitting policy while preserving the rights of existing permit holders. It will also ensure the block offer for onshore blocks will take place in Taranaki. The bill will also prohibit access to conservation land as part of this block offer process, except for minimum-impact activities.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I take a call in this debate because I am horrified at the fact that we’ve had a truncated process imposed on us with the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. Whilst I realise the debate is very narrow, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you referred earlier to Standing Order 290(3), the particular part I want to object to is the fact that the Government is giving an instruction for this to be reported back by 29 October, just over a month away. On a day when I think we’ve seen one of the saddest days in this New Zealand Parliament, when we’ve passed the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, which is an absolutely disgraceful piece of legislation supported by the Green Party, now we have this piece of legislation before Parliament tonight in which the Minister herself gave the perfunctory speech of the night around the date of 29 October and the instruction that select committee could meet at times outside normal—and I don’t object to that part. The part I object to is 29 October, and let me explain why, because the Minister herself, the Hon Megan Woods, was not prepared to do so.

The announcement of this legislation was made on 12 April this year. It has taken this Government six months to get the legislation into this House, and we know that, when they made the announcement on 12 April this year, industry had not been consulted at all. Industry had not even been consulted. It was a huge shock to the petroleum industry, and I know that many of the people involved in that industry want the opportunity to make a submission to the select committee. It is worth us noting tonight in the House that tomorrow we go into a two-week recess; many members of Parliament have made their plans to return to their constituencies for the next two weeks and work hard amongst their constituents, both Government members and Opposition members. What we have, effectively, with the instruction in this House is that the select committee will call for submissions and have the opportunity to hear them for approximately two weeks. I think that is a complete degradation of the responsibility by this Parliament, led by the Labour-led Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that I will shortly return to the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva. I know you’ll be aware that I’m travelling there, and I know that when I was last there New Zealand’s democracy was held in the highest regard, but I know that when I go back there this time it’ll be with examples like this, where the Government’s deliberately truncating the chance for industry to have a say on some of the most dramatic and some of the most important legislation to the petroleum industry that we’ve seen in this Parliament in the time that I’ve been here.

I noted the speech from Kieran McAnulty. He compares this legislation to Labour’s nuclear-free legislation in 1980.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: That’s what he said. He said this is as important as New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, which I supported the Labour Government doing in the 1980s. But would they have done it in the 1980s, Kieran McAnulty, and not have been prepared to have a reasonable select committee process? No, they would not, and Kieran McAnulty holds his head in shame. He knows how outrageous it is, and the fact that he was prepared to compare it to the nuclear-free legislation of the 1980s shows that this legislation deserves a reasonable chance.

He talked, in his contribution, about Genesis Energy, about Methanex, and about Ballance Agri-Nutrients having a vested interest—an extreme interest—in the ramifications of this legislation. So I say to Kieran McAnulty and I say to Dr Megan Woods and I say to Iain Lees-Galloway, who then gave the perfunctory speech that Dr Megan Woods wasn’t prepared to give: those companies deserve a chance to have a say before a select committee. They’ll need more than two weeks to have a say, and I will guarantee to Kieran McAnulty that there will be a large number of submissions. I think there’ll be a submission from the Mayor of New Plymouth. He’s been very vocal lately about the effect this will have on the economy of New Plymouth and on Taranaki. What chance will all these submitters have of having a fair hearing before a select committee when, effectively, it will run for two weeks? So I say to Kieran McAnulty: if he’s so, so proud of what a former Labour Government did with the nuclear-free legislation, why won’t he allow people to have a say—a reasonable say—on this?

Kieran McAnulty: Oh, they’ll have plenty of time.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: He says they’ll have plenty of time. Today is 26 September, and the Government has demanded a report back by 29 October. Is that plenty of time for a piece of legislation that is as dramatic and as significant as the nuclear-free legislation, Kieran McAnulty? I don’t think it is. I don’t think it is, and I don’t really believe that Kieran McAnulty thinks it is.

This is a truncated process. It’s an unnecessarily truncated process, because this announcement was made in April. Why couldn’t the legislation have been introduced after the announcement by Jacinda Ardern, or was it rushed because of her appearance in Paris? Well, that’s what the media said, and I’m inclined, on this occasion, to agree with them. But, having made the announcement in April, on 12 April, get the legislation into this House, give the people of New Zealand a chance to fairly submit. Instead of that, we are having this very rushed process. And do you know what really amazes me? It is the money potentially involved. We had a Treasury report saying that the cost to New Zealand is, at a minimum, $7.9 billion but potentially in excess of $23 billion. And Kieran McAnulty says that deserves about 30-odd days of parliamentary consideration. It is wrong, and the member over there on the other side of the House knows it is.

I’ll give him one last reason why it’s wrong: the very reason the Government claims this legislation’s been introduced into the House is to cut greenhouse gas emissions internationally. And what we now have is clear evidence—a clear dispute to that claim—that this will actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions. So I say that this legislation—

Raymond Huo: What’s your evidence?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Raymond Huo finally interjects. We’ve heard from him! We’ve heard from him and he says, “What evidence?” I don’t have any evidence tonight, Mr Huo, but that’s the process of a select committee inquiry. That’s why you send it to a select committee, Mr Huo, so you that can collect the evidence and you can make a rational decision about the effect of this legislation long term on the interests of the New Zealand economy. That’s the purpose of a select committee.

But if you’re a Labour Government member and you’re concerned that the evidence may debunk the very reason for this legislation, what you do is you truncate the process, and that’s what’s happening here tonight and that’s why I think there should be a strong debate. I’m particularly wounded by the fact that it’s happening on the same day that we have passed the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, and I’ve got to go to Geneva shortly and try and explain to other international colleagues why New Zealand is suddenly having so little regard for democratic process under the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government. Tonight’s motion is a disgrace.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that when the Rt Hon David Carter goes to Geneva he extends his memory back to 2010. He’s calling this an abuse of democracy. There was an abuse of democracy back in 2010 with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. That went through this House and removed elected councillors at Environment Canterbury without even going to a select committee. The National Party doth protest too much. That bill removed democratic representation. It put the kibosh on Cantabrians electing their councillors for years. It was done under urgency—no opportunity for submissions. This bill is going to a select committee for four weeks.

The National Party is also being hypocritical because over and over again it talks about providing investment certainty—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! First of all, you can’t make that—it’s not a use of parliamentary language.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Secondly, I did start this debate by pointing members to Standing Order 290(3). It is a very focused debate on the process; not the bill itself, not the principles of the bill, and certainly not the history of voting in this House. As long as it’s related to the actual process around this bill, I will allow it.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I withdraw the “hypocritical” remark.

The four weeks that are being allowed for submissions on this bill, given the short, small size of the bill, will be adequate. They will enable submitters in the industry to make submissions, and when others say that investment certainty is needed for industry, that is what the bill is doing and signalling, and ensuring that the 2018 block offer can be conducted. If it’s going to be conducted, this bill needs to pass the Parliament. If it’s going to pass the Parliament, it needs to have a shortened select committee submission period. There is still—in four weeks—time to make submissions, so I think the National Party doth protest too much.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your directions to the last speaker that the debate should be contained, but recognise also that there was a minute and 50 seconds of onslaught on matters that apparently pertain and were allowed to be listened to. What I just want to tell that member is that the hordes and masses in Canterbury were overwhelmed by this decisive nature of the canning of Environment Canterbury using properly the urgent process in this Parliament. Twenty years—20 years—that council had, to bring down a water plan for Canterbury, and they hadn’t got around to it. The most important thing for the region—the water resource—and all the well-meaning greenies and environmentalists on the regional council, over all those 20 years, could not bring down a water plan. That’s when urgency needs to be used, not on something like this—not on something like this.

What’s worse, I notice that in the motion moved by the Hon Megan Woods—who did not speak to her motion, did not want to defend her motion, and decided that she would just allow the House to have a discussion about it and then imperiously expect that the House would vote it through—that motion does not require a select committee to meet during the recess. Now, it would be, I think, a reasonable expectation, given that the Government has tried to make a case that this legislation needs to move through very, very quickly, that the select committee might take more than two of the four weeks to hear submissions. What we’ve got is the usual sort of Labour Party approach to it, as is now the way of the Labour-led Government: let’s all have a holiday at the end of the exhausting four weeks of House activity, and then we’ll cram everything into two weeks and report it back to the House. Well, that shows scant regard for the value of this activity to the New Zealand economy and, frankly, to the goals that this country has for the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions.

I can’t see anything on the horizon that, in any time necessary to reduce those emissions in a large way, is an alternative to oil and gas. We are going to be importing oil and gas into New Zealand at huge cost, and if people think $2.50 at the pump is outrageous today, well, let’s just see where it gets to in two years’ time. The essence of this motion is that this legislation is going to progress at such a pace that those unwitting consumers out there have no time to put their case—no time at all. So I am asking for the Minister to take the opportunity—or anyone from the Government. I thank the Hon Eugenie Sage for making her comments, her veiled attack—no, actually, it wasn’t even a veiled attack—on the Opposition, supposedly in defence, saying “We’re doing it because you did.” That’s always a great defence, isn’t it? But no one else from the Government appears to want to justify—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I did.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —what they’re doing here. Oh, Iain Lees-Galloway has said that he’ll take a speech. Well, I’ll tell you what—it’ll be one of the usual speeches that we get with him, and it will probably be five words long: “I move that the question be now put.” That’ll be all he says. That’s all he’ll say, because they don’t have a lot of respect for process. If they did, they wouldn’t be asking the House to approve this arrangement today.

I think it’s worth, just for a minute, considering what a select committee does with a bill. The first thing is the committee takes a lot of advice from those officials of the State who have been, I suppose, most engaged in the area that’s under discussion in the particular bit of legislation. In this case, it will be the Crown Minerals people or minerals New Zealand inside the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. We know already that the advice that they’re going to give that committee is, “This bill isn’t too good for us. This bill doesn’t look good.”

There will be advice that’s sought from the Ministry for the Environment. Now, they’ll be conflicted—very conflicted. They’ll say, as everyone agrees, “If fossil fuel emissions were to fall, then that would have a positive effect on greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.” But what they’ll also recognise is that if we haven’t got an alternative—and there is nothing on the horizon. Don’t talk about electric cars or hydrogen fuel or anything else; it’s not there in the numbers or volume necessary for not only the transport application but also all the industrial applications, the home heating applications, and, frankly, still, a large chunk of electricity generation as well. So they will make a case that, yes, it’s not a bad idea, but don’t go too quickly, because if we end up importing gas, importing more fuel than we net export at the moment, then we’ll be in a worse position.

So those are two pieces of advice that we know a select committee should consider. But in this environment, where it’s all being done so quickly, there’ll probably also be quite a bit of activity from the chair of the select committee, containing the way in which officials are able to advise on the bill, and funnelling it, as we are seeing more and more from this Government, through the Minister’s office for a departmental report that reflects much more on the policy desires of the Government rather than the good of New Zealand. So we’re seeing, I think, just the start of a Government that does not want to have ordinary New Zealanders, or New Zealanders who have some expertise in this area, having an opportunity to represent their position to a select committee.

Then I think that bringing a motion that’s got all those fine words in it—“the committee may meet during the sitting of the House, during any hours except on a Friday, or even on a Friday when the House is sitting”—tends to hide the fact that the House is about to go into two weeks of recess. So during that time, this motion actually excludes the select committee from sitting. So even if it were to be referred in the next day, the particular select committee, theoretically, can’t get to it in a meeting until 17 October. That means that this is not a four-week process at all; this is around about an eight-day process. And that, I think, also tends to indicate the sort of deception that the current Government is prepared to perpetuate in the name of, apparently, being transparent, open, and honest. Well, this—don’t make any mistake about it—is a procedural motion designed to hide the worst effects of what, ultimately, is a very bad policy.

Now, I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were giving me the eye that says “Don’t stray into that policy area.”, but it was very—

Hon Tim Macindoe: She wasn’t giving you the eye!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, I didn’t mean it like that, honestly. We’re very old friends.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: She’s only human.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, let’s keep it serious.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring the Speaker into it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Keep it serious, because it is a serious matter. The reality is that when something as big as this, such a huge change to the way we do things, is made, and it’s just flicked to a select committee for a cursory glance, then it will lead to mistakes in that legislation, and it will lead to very significant losses to individuals who are currently involved in that industry.

One thing that a lot of people don’t know is that the exploration industry itself each year is worth several hundred million dollars to the New Zealand economy. And everyone talks about Taranaki. Apparently it’s going to be transformed, Taranaki. It’s going to become some kind of agrarian capital for the world, and it’s not going to be involved in this any more. This is a dreadful move by the Government, it is a cynical move by the Government, and it, most of all, is a hugely disrespectful move by the Government—disrespectful of an industry that’s incredibly important to the viability of the New Zealand economy, an industry that, perversely, can contribute a huge amount to the reduction of greenhouse gas in New Zealand, and an industry that is totally necessary to keep people in their homes secure, warm, and comfortable during the colder months of the year. This is not right.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say, I nearly fell out of my seat when I heard the intervention from the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway in his explanation on behalf of the Government as to why a shortened report back was necessary. Quite paradoxically, I’m sure I heard him say the words that the reduced process will enable submitters to be able to be heard in a timely manner. Now, nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, the track record of the Labour Government on shortened report-backs is, by any measure, a poor one. I well recall being in this House late last year when the Government moved a similar motion—David Parker was the Minister who did so—on the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. It was in the dead of the year, in December, when, actually, I recall, most legal firms who would have been submitting on the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill were getting ready to up sticks and go on holiday for about four weeks. That Government said that that was going to be plenty of time. I can’t remember the exact report-back date—it was sometime in late January or early February. They believed—and the words that Mr Parker used were very similar to the words that Iain Lees-Galloway has just used tonight—that that was going to satisfy the expectations of this Government for reasonable submissions to be prepared, then tabled, and then heard. But it is now a matter for the record that the Government had to come back early this year and extend the report-back date for that bill because, quite patently, it was not sufficient to be able to give those submitters time to submit and, indeed, the Government and their officials time to consider those submissions.

I suggest to you that there is a very, very strong nexus between the experience of a shortened report-back date in the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill and the motion by the Government to do exactly that on this bill. So it’s for that reason, and based on that experience, that I am going to table an amendment to the motion of the Hon Dr Megan Woods that the words “29 October 2018” be replaced with the words “1 March 2019”, because I believe that is the absolute minimum that is required for this House and the select committee that will hear the submissions on this bill to give their due consideration.

I’m going to explain why that’s going to be so important to the people of the area of this country that I represent, in Dunedin and Otago. Off the coast of Otago is a massive—massive—potential field of gas, and it is a matter of record that that has been explored, through permits that have been granted by the bloc offer process, over the past few years. Now, it is also true that the life cycle of these block offers and the time that it takes to take a survey to a viable exploration, to commercial realisation of that, works in a cycle of decades—not weeks. And the fact that the Government would consider that it’s appropriate for these companies, who are affected by the decisions that this bill when passed, if passed, will impose on them, to somehow conjure up a meaningful submission to this Parliament and its select committee that will enable the Government to consider carefully what it means for them, the people that work for them, the constituents in Otago, and, ultimately, the people who will benefit from that gas exploration—because I am a firm believer, and I’m not going to sway into the policy areas, that gas is a very important transitional fuel in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions globally. It is very important that we consider whether or not there is merit in making this change, and the only way to do that is to extend the report back and enable the stakeholders, who are, in my view, negatively—very seriously negatively—affected by the impacts of this bill, to be able to consider carefully and articulate clearly to the select committee what those impacts are.

It behoves us in this House to make sure that we have a robust process to enable that to happen, and I cannot imagine how any report-back period that is shorter than the time between now and 1 March 2019 goes anywhere near achieving that goal. And it is somewhat poignant, I think, that on a day when democracy, in my view, is under attack by the bill that was being debated for days and completed in the committee of the whole House today, we are now, once again, undermining the very important democratic process of enabling the public to have a fair say on what—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

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

WEDNESDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2018

(continued on Thursday, 27 September 2018)

Bills

Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. When we broke last night, there was a debate on the instruction to the committee in relation to the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. The Hon Michael Woodhouse was speaking, and he has four minutes, 21 seconds remaining.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to take those four minutes and 21 seconds. I must say, the Hon Paul Goldsmith was very exercised at the fact that I got the call ahead of him late last night, and I know that he will be wanting to make a contribution to this debate, as will Jonathan Young—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is he out of bed yet?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —you can’t reference that—that hard-working member for New Plymouth, and many others, I have no doubt. This could be a very robust debate.

SPEAKER: OK, all right. And what we’re going to get to straight away is relevant matters. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I started my speech last night, I made reference to an amazement that I had at the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway’s comments in explaining why the Government is moving this motion. I paraphrased it, and he looked very confused at my confusion. So I went back, and I had a look at what Mr Lees-Galloway actually said. He said, “The shorter than usual select committee process will allow the public and the industry to have their say on the proposed changes to the Act”—that was the bit that confused me. That needed to be read in conjunction with what he then said, which was it “will ensure [the] tender documents for the block offer can be made available in early 2019.”

The presumption there is that it’s absolutely imperative that this legislation be passed by early 2019, and the best that the Government can do is have a shortened select committee process. Now, what that presumes is that there is no choice but to pass this legislation in a hurry.

Now, I contrast that with the comments of Dr Megan Woods in her first reading speech, when she railed against the history of ramming change through. She talked about the Thatcher Government in the 1980s.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. We are now on a very narrow motion—a very narrow motion. I listened to the debate last night, and I think it’s fair to say that my deputy was kind and generous to members, including a very senior member of the House. This is a very narrow debate. It has gone on much longer than is normally the case, and I’m going to ask the member now to get right to the question before the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The question for the House is this: if the Government is so keen to avoid the ramming through of changes and taking, as Dr Woods said, a 30-year time frame for this—a measured change—what on earth are we doing in urgency on a Thursday morning debating a shortened report-back date on a bill that the Government says is going to set the agenda for the 21st century? Those were the Government’s own words.

I cannot believe we’re doing that. It’s an outrage, and that’s why, at the end of this intervention, I will be proposing an amendment to the motion, which is to extend the report back to change the words from “29 October 2018” to “1 March 2019”, because that is five months. Actually, as Mr Seymour said, what we probably should be doing, given that we are talking about a change that will be for the 21st century—for the next 30 to 40 years, as Dr Woods said—is giving the public a longer period of time, not a shorter period of time, in which to debate this extremely important bill. It is going to change things in Taranaki, and it is going to change things in Otago, where there are massive gas reserves that would create a very important contribution to a transition to a carbon-free economy in the second half of the 21st century. These are vital things that we need to hear about, and it is without doubt, because it is already affecting people’s jobs and livelihoods—the very thing that the Government said, in a 30- to 40-year time frame, they wanted to avoid. We have to give the public the chance to contribute to this and hear from them about why that is important.

So, for that reason, I move, That the date “29 October 2018” be replaced by “1 March 2019”.

That is the shortest possible time within which we can hear from the public, give them the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to this extremely important change, and make improvements to the bill, because that’s what the select committee process is about, and I cannot see how we could possibly do that in four weeks.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, sir. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this motion to have a report-back date of 29 October.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. I should actually have put the question. We’re now speaking both to the question and to the amendment, so the question is that the amendment as well as the motion be agreed to.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do support the amendment of 1 March 2019. I believe that the shorter period is going to restrict the opportunities for New Zealanders not only to have their say but for the Environment Committee to be able to analyse and request any further information that they may require in order for them to make, I believe, responsible recommendations back to this Parliament.

What we understand in this industry is that it is highly technical. We noted just a couple of days ago how the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy and Resources were struggling to understand the analysis that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment had made regarding potential losses of revenue. The Minister said it’s like gazing into a crystal ball. How is it possible for the committee to fully understand the technicalities of analysis of projected earnings, not only for the Crown but also for the industry, in such a short period of time? The select committee process is not just for the public and the industry to have their say; it’s for the committee to be able to investigate what they do say, and I think that is incredibly important.

I think it’s important to say at this point in time that the industry—led by the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand (PEPANZ), who viewed the debate yesterday evening—have come out to say that they do not want to participate in the 2018 bloc offer without a thorough democratic process. So if the rationale for shortening this process is to be able to present a 2018 bloc offer, then they’re not going to participate in it, because they want that process to be factually based and scientifically analysed, they want people to have their say, and they want the committee to be able to do a thorough job on this.

It is highly technical. Since the April announcement, it’s been a torrid time in this particular area, and I think it does not serve our democracy well—nor does it serve this Parliament well—to rush this through too quickly. I understand that the Government wanted to be able to offer a 2018 bloc offer. Ordinarily, a bloc offer would come out in March or April. The last one was March 2017. So if the Government are going to present the 2018 bloc offer in January 2019, what’s the process for the 2019 bloc offer, especially since they have said there’s—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you, sir. I understand what you’re saying.

SPEAKER: No, no. The member has to sit down when I stand up. I think, from the look I’m getting from him, he does understand that I’m going to rebuke him for going beyond the questions before the House now.

JONATHAN YOUNG: I understand that.

There are elements of this bill which are going to require quite significant investigation, and those elements of the bill are going to be around the fact that other regions outside of Taranaki are now going to be excluded from being able to have permits. So you’ve got regions like Southland, Northland, and the East Coast, where there’ll be industries who would want to submit and there will be councils—district councils and regional councils—who will want to submit, one way or the other, that now, given this new unexpected addition to the bill, will want to gather information, will want to have it analysed, will need to call council meetings, and will need to have debates, perhaps also engage with their communities, and to come to a position on whether they want to submit to this process. When we look at the Taranaki region, as you know, the results of having this industry there has brought great benefit.

These councils—regional district councils—may wish to submit and say that they object to their region being excluded. Now, this provision in this bill was not forecast, and so this is something that has now come to their attention unexpectedly. So to give them—it’s not just a four-week chance for submissions; the committee have to report back within four weeks. That means that they’re going to have to have departmental reports prepared. That brings right down a constraint of time for councils to be able to do the work that they want to do in a very rational, reasonable, and responsible way. For that reason, and also for the reason of PEPANZ’s comments, I actually think a 29 October report-back date is unreasonable for such an important piece of legislation.

Can I also say that another aspect of the bill, which was a surprise addition, is the referral to conservation land. It means that for the industry in Taranaki to be able to analyse all the conservation land and all the different portions of conservation land from the schedules in the Crown Minerals Act and also schedules in other Acts which the bill refers to—and ascertain whether they have any seismic information on that, perhaps even go and physically inspect, to see whether it’s actually high-value conservation land or whether it’s just land that the Department of Conservation received back in 1987, when they were formed, that is unwanted land, and whether there is prospectivity there.

If you talk to anybody in the industry—you can’t do that in four weeks. It’s impossible. So, what this provision in this bill does is it just automatically creates an exclusion, and that is unjust. There needs to be a natural justice in the process, where people are given the amount of time that they need—not sitting on their hands, but actually, if the time is so truncated that they cannot do the necessary work—whether it’s a district council or a regional council, and whether it’s to have a reasonable and thorough investigation of land that the Crown owns and whether that has any prospectivity on it. So what it does is it actually makes this process look like it’s an exclusion all the way through, rather than actually putting it before the public and saying “This is what we are proposing. We want the committee to have the time. If they need to ask officials for further information, then the officials have got the time to collect the information.”, so that we end up with an informed decision, so that we don’t end up with statements—“You are burning up the earth.”—that sound to everybody just a complete bias.

We want to have a Parliament that the people of New Zealand can respect the process of. It needs to be sound, and rushing through things like this that do not give people the adequate time to do the work, to present the information—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m now going to warn the member, having listened to the debate last night. He is now becoming quite repetitive. I want new argument.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you, sir.

Finally, in my closing couple of minutes, I do think, and I would like to say, and I think it needs to be said—even if it’s repeated, sir—that this Parliament ought to be respected by this nation. I think that’s a serious statement. I do think that this bill, or the process through it, from the announcement through to the claims of consultation, has brought great disrespect to the process. I was strong enough to say that it was systemic disregard, and I would not like that to be known about this Parliament. So if it is, in fact, the case that the sector are not going to participate in Block Offer because they feel that it’s undemocratic, then why would not the Government actually decide to—for example, coming back to Michael Woodhouse’s proposal—have a report-back date of 1 March 2019 and just have a Block Offer 2019 and forget 2018. The 2018 bloc offer has been just a misery of an absolute, I guess, travesty of process.

So in my final comments—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now the member once again is debating the bill and not the motion.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Well, the reason why I said that is because this is why I believe we need to extend the report-back date. I support Michael Woodhouse’s amendment and commend that to the House. Thank you, sir.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

SPEAKER: Yes, I’m absolutely convinced that the members know which way they’re going to vote on this and the House has heard a lot of argument.

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 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to the instruction to the select committee be agreed to:

replace “29 October 2018” with “1 March 2019”

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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 29 October 2018, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions; during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 9.17 a.m. (Thursday)