Tuesday, 6 November 2018

TUESDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2018

TUESDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

Pittsburgh—Condemnation of Attack on Jewish Community

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I seek leave to move a motion without debate that this House supports the worldwide Shabbat services condemning the recent horrific attack on the Jewish community in Pittsburgh.

SPEAKER: I just want to check that that’s been cleared through the whips. It has been. I’ll put the question that the member be given leave to move that motion without notice and without debate.

Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could he read it again? Many of us couldn’t hear it because the mike wasn’t on.

SPEAKER: It’s been cleared by the whips, and it’ll become pretty clear to the member soon.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for this motion, That this House supports the worldwide Shabbat services this past weekend condemning the recent horrific attack on the Jewish community in Pittsburgh and acknowledges that no one should be forced to live in fear in their daily lives, no matter their race or religion, for fear of terror or anti-Semitism.

SPEAKER: Now, what I’m going to do is, notwithstanding it being a bit of a repeat of seeking leave, I’ll take that as being the motion.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, in particular the statements that were made on Sunday in support of rolling out across the country 600 learning support coordinators to ensure that those with special needs in our education system have their needs met, that teachers are freed up to teach, and that all children get the very best education possible.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why was residency granted to Karel Sroubek by her Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, I’ve already thrown out the clarification around him already having residency and it being a deportation order, but, as the Minister himself has said in this House, since the decision was made, there has been contradictory information in the public domain. It’s only fitting that, therefore, we go back to Immigration New Zealand and seek further work to be done. Once that is complete, there will be more to say.

Hon Simon Bridges: Hasn’t the only right answer in this case always been to deport?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, the Minister can only deal with the information put in front of him. There has now been brought to light potentially contradictory information in the public domain. We have gone back to Immigration and sought—as fast as possible—clarification, and then, when we’re in a position to, we will give greater clarity around those points of contradiction.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware that one of the criminal charges Karel Sroubek has faced resulted in the police placing an entire family into New Zealand’s witness protection programme?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said many times, there’s a range of reasons why we have gone back to Immigration New Zealand to seek further clarification and work to be done. I do want to ensure that we can do that properly. When we are in a position to share more information around the case, then we will do so.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is this the sort of person her Minister should grant residency to for New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have spoken before around the basis of the original decision—keeping in mind, of course, that residency already existed; the decision put before the Minister was around a deportation order. He made that decision based on information put in front of him. There has now been contradictory information that’s been put into the public domain and we are now doing additional work.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is a criminal with charges so serious that an entire family went into a witness protection scheme someone who should have residency in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: While I won’t get into the specifics of this case while we are going back on it, because I do want to preserve the ability of officials to deal with this appropriately, what I will say is that member well knows, having been in Government, that there are some cases which I’m sure they wouldn’t want to go through and pick out information from selectively. Because there’s been over a hundred of these cases while they were in Government too, and this just happens to be one of the roles that immigration Ministers hold, and it is a very difficult part of the job.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has anyone, prior to Iain Lees-Galloway’s final decision on Karel Sroubek, ever discussed or made any representations in any form on the case to her?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I’ve had discussions with the Minister over this case, but again, I do want to exercise some caution here, because, as I’ve said, we are going through this case presently. I want to preserve our ability to deal with this case appropriately. When we’re in a position to share more information, we will.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has anyone other than the Minister ever discussed or made representations on the case to the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, obviously, I’ve had a range of discussions within my office about this case, but the most appropriate way for it to be dealt with is to go back to the source of the original information that went before the Minister—primarily that is held within Immigration New Zealand. That’s what we’ve done. We’ve seen and responded to the information that’s been raised in the public domain, and that’s what we’ve taken back to the department, and that is what needs to occur in this case.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has anyone, prior to Iain Lees-Galloway’s decision on Karel Sroubek, ever discussed or made representations in any form on the case with her?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she know who has made representations to Iain Lees-Galloway on the case?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister will have followed the same process that his Minister followed, and that is to deal with the facts of the case as it’s put before him. That’s exactly the process that his Ministers in the last Government would have done before they gave it back to officials.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister: does she know who has made representations? She hasn’t answered that.

SPEAKER: I think she answered that there were written papers or documents before the Minister, so it certainly has addressed the question.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she know who has made representations to Iain Lees-Galloway on this case?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My understanding of the handling of this case was it was dealt with in the usual, appropriate way that Ministers exercise their discretion in these cases.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why on The Nation did she express confidence in Iain Lees-Galloway but she wouldn’t in his officials?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I don’t accept that characterisation. I have expressed confidence in the Minister. But what I have said is that the Minister can only make a decision based on the information provided to him. That does not naturally mean that I am therefore placing blame on anyone else. The available information that was put to the Minister, yes, came from Immigration. That does not mean I am placing fault there. It does mean there are unanswered questions. I’m reserving any position on this until we get to the bottom of this case, and I’m allowing the space and time for that to be done but as quickly as possible.

Hon Simon Bridges: How long will it be until we know the outcome of the investigation into this Karel Sroubek decision by the Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The original time line that was given to the Minister last week was three weeks. We both discussed that time line and agreed it was too long. We’ve sought that it be completed earlier than that.

Question No. 2—Justice

2. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Justice: Is he considering making any changes to New Zealand’s electoral law in the remainder of this parliamentary term?

Hon STUART NASH (Acting Minister of Justice): The Ministry of Justice is currently considering areas of electoral law reform and will be providing advice to me on this shortly.

Marama Davidson: Will he consider implementing the Electoral Commission’s recommendations from—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry. Before the member continues, can we just have it clarified whether the Minister is talking on behalf of Minister Little or on his own behalf?

Hon STUART NASH: I am the Minister.

SPEAKER: OK. So it’s going to be provided to you, not to the Minister?

Hon STUART NASH: Yes.

SPEAKER: OK. All right. All clear.

Marama Davidson: Will he consider implementing the Electoral Commission’s recommendations from their report into the 2017 general election, such as allowing voters of Māori descent to change role type at any time?

Hon STUART NASH: The Ministry of Justice and the Justice Committee are looking at a number of areas of electoral reform, which includes many of the areas identified in the Electoral Commission’s report on the 2017 election. The Government will be considering these areas of electoral reform in due course.

Marama Davidson: Will he introduce a bill implementing the Electoral Commission’s recommendations from the 2012 MMP review, particularly as the Deputy Prime Minister said recently that considering the review’s recommendations was a “marvellous suggestion”?

Hon STUART NASH: The Ministry of Justice is currently considering areas of electoral reform identified in the Electoral Commission’s report on the 2017 election. I will be receiving further advice on this in due course, but there is a robust process that all change must go through before we’ll consider introducing any bill to the House.

SPEAKER: No, no. I’m going to ask the Minister to now answer the question that was asked. Does the Minister want it repeated?

Hon STUART NASH: No.

SPEAKER: All right.

Hon STUART NASH: There is a robust process that all change must go through before we would consider introducing any bill to the House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Government assure the House that no electoral law changes will be finalised or introduced as a bill before this House until the Justice Committee has completed its inquiry into the 2017 election, as has been the convention in this House for a very long time?

Hon STUART NASH: We have a legislative programme that the member will learn of in due course.

Marama Davidson: Will he consider overturning the ban on prisoner voting brought in by the last Government, given that the High Court, Court of Appeal, and the previous Attorney-General all ruled that the ban breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

SPEAKER: Order! Now, the member might want to rephrase the question. It wasn’t brought in by a Government—a Parliament.

Marama Davidson: Will he consider overturning the ban on prisoner voting brought in by the last Parliament, given that the High Court, Court of Appeal, and the previous Attorney-General all ruled that the ban breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It wasn’t the last Parliament.

SPEAKER: Oh, let’s—we’ll be flexible and let the Minister answer.

Hon STUART NASH: This Government is considering a number of areas of electoral reform, but, like everything, as mentioned, there is a robust process that change must go through before it can be implemented.

Marama Davidson: Will he consider increasing the transparency requirements in New Zealand’s donation disclosure rules, given the large amount of donations in New Zealand where the donor’s identity is anonymous, including over $3.5 million in anonymous donations to the National Party?

SPEAKER: Without the last bit.

Hon STUART NASH: I have instructed officials to look at electoral laws, including the disclosure of donations, so we can start a public discussion and conversation. We need to ensure that our system is robust enough to avoid the kind of allegations that we have seen in the last few weeks from, for example, Jami-Lee Ross.

SPEAKER: All right, sit down. Thank you.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week, the World Bank released its Doing Business 2019 report, ranking New Zealand at number one in the world for ease of doing business. The report specifically comments that the top three countries, led by New Zealand, exemplify a business-friendly environment. This is another real-life example of the strength of New Zealand’s underlying economic and business fundamentals. These are supported by the coalition Government’s business-friendly plan, which includes infrastructure investment, skills and training support for Kiwi businesses, and research and development support.

Tamati Coffey: What other reports has he seen on the Government’s role in the strength of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have seen analysis from a well-known commentator who said, quote, “For now the economy is holding up nicely, despite all the numbers around confidence, there is a $5.5 billion surplus, genuinely solid growth, there are … shortages in the workforce, interest rates are low, all the ingredients are there to argue economic credibility.” I can confirm to Mike Hosking that the Government is working alongside businesses and training institutions to address the skills shortages he references.

Tamati Coffey: What reports has he seen from Treasury on the future strength of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury’s latest set of forecasts, released at Budget 2018, showed forecast growth of about 3 percent on average—

Hon Member: They’re very unreliable.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —actually, they’re very reliable—over the next few years. Since these forecasts, we’ve continued solid underlying growth in the New Zealand economy, although there are increasing risks around the international situation which we need to keep an eye on. I can inform the House today that Treasury’s next set of forecasts will be released in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, alongside the Budget Policy Statement 2019, on Thursday, 13 December.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, as I did in question No. 1.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did the Government seek any advice on whether there would be demand in Wānaka for two- or three-bedroom homes in the KiwiBuild price caps; if so, what did the advice say?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is familiar with the demand in that region and the house prices in that region, he’ll understand that yes, there is demand there, and that work was done.

Hon Simon Bridges: If that is so, why did a KiwiBuild spokesperson say that “Some houses have received no entries and the developer has asked us to extend the ballot”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be familiar that with the ballot in Auckland there was significant demand. We found—from my memory—that some of that demand came in quite late in the ballot process. What we’ve seen in the South, as I understand, is that applicants have started the application process, but haven’t always completed it. The decision was made to give that additional time.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she confident the Government will be able to fill the 211 KiwiBuild houses in Wānaka, in the South Island, over the next two years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m very clear on where in the country there’s exceptional demand and exceptional house prices. The reason that we as a Government decided to step into the market—because it had failed—was because we had areas where business was saying they couldn’t get people because housing was unaffordable. We decided to step into those areas and fill that gap. That is what we’re doing. We’re proud of our agenda, and I’m confident as we roll out this programme that people will continue to take up those offers.

Hon Simon Bridges: If there’s such exceptional demand, as she says, why have only 20 people entered the ballot so far?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I already set out some of the reasoning for that. If the member is suggesting for a moment that there is no problem with our housing market, that there are available to first-home buyers homes at a price point that is realistic, then that is his prerogative, but on this side, we do not accept that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Government subsidising KiwiBuild houses?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we have constantly pointed out, KiwiBuild is not a subsidy programme; it is a programme using the Government’s scale and buying power to deliver what the market has failed to deliver.

Hon Simon Bridges: What will happen with KiwiBuild houses that do not sell through the ballot system?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is a hypothetical.

Hon Simon Bridges: How is a scheme where the Government is guaranteeing to buy houses that do not sell to the market at a price that is, by definition, above market price not subsidising those houses?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we have set out many times before, what we have done is accepted that 5 percent—5 percent—is the number of houses in the market currently that are at the first-home buyer level. That is not acceptable, given the demand that is out there. We needed someone to enter the market and build first homes for first-home buyers. That is what we have agreed to do.

Question No. 5—Education

5. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: What work has she done to deliver on the recommendations of the Education and Science Committee in relation to dyslexia, dyspraxia, and children on the autism spectrum?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Recommendation 33 from the Education and Science Committee report into dyslexia, dyspraxia, and children on the autism spectrum in 2016 recommended that the Government task the Ministry of Education with assessing the feasibility of funding full-time trained Special Education Needs Coordinators for schools with more than 200 students. The previous Government did not accept this recommendation. This Government has gone further and is committed to providing $217 million for a first tranche of 600 learning support coordinators based in schools in 2020. This new fully funded, stand-alone role will address a number of the other recommendations from the inquiry around strengthening professional development and support for schools to identify and respond to young people with dyslexia, dyspraxia, children on the autism spectrum, and other neurodiverse conditions, including giftedness.

Jo Luxton: When will the first 600 learning support coordinators be in place in our schools?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The first tranche will provide 600 learning support coordinators in 2020. We are changing the way learning support is delivered in this country, and there are a number of steps to do this. Step one is the roll-out of the new learning support delivery model, which has been piloted in a number of regions over the last year. We intend to have the new delivery model in place across the country by the end of 2019. Step two of this change is getting learning support coordinators in place. They are critical as a part of the new support delivery model. Consultation on the learning support coordinator role closed this week. We are now analysing feedback, which will determine the final shape of the role, the ratios, and how it will be implemented in both urban and rural settings. I will also continue to move on the other complementary steps, such as screening tools for learning challenges and the development of tool kits to support students once those challenges have been acknowledged.

Jo Luxton: What other actions is the Minister considering as part of the draft disability and learning support action plan that reflect the recommendations from the select committee?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: This Government wants to ensure children and young people with neurodiverse learning support needs are identified so that they can receive the support they need as early as possible. I will be reporting back to Cabinet in December on how I intend to address this and other priorities and the draft disability learning support action plan.

Nicola Willis: Does she agree with the Prime Minister who, in a May announcement about children’s early intervention services, stated that appointment waiting times of 74 days were too long, and, if so, does the Minister think it’s acceptable that since then, waiting times for early intervention services have increased from 74 to 98 days?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister. I do not accept that that is an appropriate amount of time. That is why this Government has modelled and piloted a delivery support action plan across New Zealand—it’s now being rolled out right now; why learning support coordinators, the first 600 will actually roll out into schools in 2020; and why, in the Taupō pilot of this model, we managed to cut down those waiting times. This Government’s actually taking action after nine years of inaction.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that the current funding for early intervention is the funding allocated in the 2017 Budget, and that the increase in funding that was allocated in the 2018 Budget starts at the beginning of next year in order to reduce the waiting times that are now being complained about?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I can confirm exactly that. This Government is on a roll, and we’re going to keep it going.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he consider consumer confidence to be an important measure of the strength of the New Zealand economy; if so, what does the trend in consumer confidence since the election say about it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Consumer confidence is an important measure of how confident consumers feel. Sometimes consumer confidence surveys are interpreted as current indicators of the strength of the economy overall. For example, in the latest ANZ consumer confidence survey, the current conditions index is said to be very strong, with a trend showing a rise in the latest month and at a similar level to that after the change in Government.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a primary question on notice, with two parts. He answered the first part, certainly; I don’t think he addressed the second.

SPEAKER: I mean, I feel like—no, I will ask the Minister. It’s sort of like a free hit really, but if the member wants it, then the Minister can have another go.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the question asks what the consumer confidence trend would say about the strength of the New Zealand economy, what I’d say to the member is that the New Zealand economy is extremely strong at the moment, and this Government’s very, very proud of the strength of it.

Hon Amy Adams: So how does the Minister suggest that the trend of the consumer confidence surveys shows strength of the economy when, in fact, since the election, the Westpac McDermott Miller index has dropped to a six-year low and the ANZ consumer confidence survey has dropped by 15 points?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, consumer confidence surveys survey aspects of how consumers are feeling. Within the current ANZ survey, we can see that people who are feeling better off has stayed pretty steady; those who think that bad times are ahead is at the lowest it’s been this year. But if the member is trying to suggest that the Government is the ultimate controller of that, well the last time we saw the levels in the ANZ consumer survey was when that member was a Minister—so, presumably, she was responsible for that too.

Hon Amy Adams: So is his plan to simply dismiss consumer confidence views as politically biased in the same way he’s dismissed business confidence?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, my plan is to make sure that we invest in infrastructure that was neglected for nine years, that we lift the skills and training rates of New Zealanders, that we get a billion dollars’ worth of research and development funding out in the community, and start to correct the mistakes of the last nine years.

Hon Amy Adams: So how much does he think consumer confidence is affected by the 30 percent of New Zealand households that are now reporting that even after the Government’s Families Package, they now have less money to spend on meeting essentials, because of rising costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have the information the member’s referring to in front of me. But if we do talk about the ANZ consumer confidence survey, it says that a net 33 percent of people say it’s a good time to buy a major household item, which has bounced back from last month.

Hon Amy Adams: What has this Government done for those New Zealanders who don’t rely on State support but are working hard every day and finding it tougher and tougher to deal with rising costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Among many things, we’ve increased Working for Families, which I don’t think the member is rejecting, although it appears this is yet another interesting place in National’s fiscal and policy stance—perhaps Working for Families is on the way out now as well. But we’ve supported Working for Families. But I just said to the member before: we’re now investing in infrastructure in a way the previous Government completely neglected. We’re making sure that there’s more money available for research and development. We’re making sure that there’s more money available for education. On this side of the House, we’re actually investing in how we grow the economy sustainably, not relying on population growth.

Hon Amy Adams: Would he agree that, in fact, the best explanation for the large decline in consumer confidence over the last 12 months is that costs are going up faster than households have experienced for a long time, incomes are not keeping up, and 1.7 million households are worse off under this Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No; I reject the premise of that question, and the member should actually look at the real data in the economy, which shows that it’s growing solidly. There’s a lot of work to do to undo the last nine years, but we’ve made a great start.

Question No. 7—Immigration

7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions in relation to Karel Sroubek, also known as Jan Antolik?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes, in the context of the information that I had available to me at the time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he satisfied that at the time he made his decision to grant residency to Mr Sroubek he had a reasonable summary of the criminal charges laid against him in New Zealand between 2009 and 2016, and of the outcome of those charges?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As the member is aware, there is an investigation under way into this matter. It’s important that I do not prejudice the investigation or possible further action as a result. Because of this ongoing work, it is not in the public interest for me to answer the question at this time. I will be able to provide more information at the appropriate time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did any member of Parliament advocate on Mr Sroubek’s behalf?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If it is appropriate for the Minister to say what information he didn’t have, why is it not appropriate now for him to say to the House what information he did have?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: For all the reasons that I’ve just explained.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If it isn’t in the public interest to answer certain questions prior to the conclusion of his investigation, will he commit to a full release of the investigation’s findings once it is concluded?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I will commit to the release of the appropriate information at the appropriate time.

Question No. 8—Education

8. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps, if any, has the Government taken to support teachers in classrooms?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government recognises the importance of the teaching profession, and we’re committed to lifting the status of teaching and ensuring that our teachers are respected and valued. Sunday’s announcement of 600 learning support coordinators in schools builds on the $40 million investment we’ve already been making in teacher supply and recruitment initiatives. We’ve abolished national standards, we’ve restored the right of teachers to elect their own members to their own regulatory council, we’ve got a task force working on reducing red tape and compliance workload, we’ve been listening to teachers, and we are taking action to address all of the concerns they have been raising.

Jan Tinetti: What else is the Government doing to support the teaching workforce?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s now no secret whatsoever that we have a serious teacher shortage. We’ve already provided funding for over a thousand teachers to refresh their training so that they can return to the classroom. Our international recruitment campaign has so far identified over 500 appropriate candidates ready for appointment to vacancies, and we’ve launched a nationwide mentoring programme to support new teachers to get their careers off to a great start. We are pulling out all of the stops to clean up the mess that we inherited.

Question No. 9—Housing and Urban Development

9. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his statement that if the KiwiBuild Buying off the Plans initiative targets are met, the total financial value may be between $3.7 billion and $4.7 billion over three years, and what KiwiBuild developments have been announced so far through the Buying off the Plans initiative?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes. The Government has announced 25 homes in Onehunga; 211 homes in Queenstown Lakes, with 10 KiwiBuild homes to be completed by Christmas 2019; 20 homes in Mount Albert; 175 homes in Te Kauwhata, with 10 KiwiBuild homes there to be completed by Christmas 2019; and 10 homes in Ōtāhuhu, with a further nine being built by June 2019.

Andrew Bayly: How many houses in the Buying off the Plans development in Wānaka did not receive any applications to purchase before the ballot close date was extended?

SPEAKER: Order! No, hang on. I’m just going to reflect on whether that question actually relates—oh, I’ll be liberal and let it go, but, in future, can the member make sure that the supplementary question relates either to the primary question or to the answer. Just saying “KiwiBuild” doesn’t get it there.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don’t have that number to hand, but I’m happy to get it if the member puts the question down in writing.

Andrew Bayly: What is he planning to do if houses KiwiBuild has underwritten in Wānaka and other such Buying off the Plans developments cannot be sold at the price agreed between KiwiBuild and the developer?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The nature of the Buying off the Plans scheme is that there’s an underwrite by the Crown. So in the event of a KiwiBuild home being unsold at the end of the contracted period, the Crown then purchases it and can onsell it.

Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm that KiwiBuild will not be permitted to sell houses at a discount to the original price agreed with the developer?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Question No. 10—Energy and Resources

10. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent reports, if any, has she seen on the state of the electricity market, and does she believe Government policy has the ability to impact the market positively or negatively?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I’ve seen the report of the Electricity Price Review established as part of the coalition agreement that found that, under the structures of the previous Government, the market is not working for everyone, and that a two-tier retail market is developing, leaving vulnerable people behind. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, this Government’s policies are already having a positive impact. We have introduced a winter energy payment, helping over a million Kiwis heat their homes over winter and we’re insulating thousands of homes under our Warmer Kiwi Homes initiative. We’ve begun the electricity pricing review to ensure prices are affordable for families, and we are leading a transition towards affordable, renewable energy like hydrogen and away from expensive and vulnerable fossil fuels.

Jonathan Young: So what is the average price for electricity futures per megawatt hour for December 2018, and how does that compare to the average of about $90 per megawatt hour for the last 12 months?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I can tell that member is that the short-term issues that we are seeing around our electricity network at the moment, which are due to vulnerabilities in the gas supply issue—

Jonathan Young: Point of order.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ll just finish the answer, Mr Speaker—in the gas supply issue should see—

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. If someone wants a point of order, they stand and they stay standing up. They don’t sit down.

Jonathan Young: Thank you sir. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question about what the average—

SPEAKER: Yes, yes, and the member hasn’t finished her answer yet. The member might want to take a point of order at the end of it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The short-term vulnerabilities that we are seeing at the moment in our electricity system due to problems in the gas infrastructure that is seeing around the $600 figure should return to the normal figure by December. The frequent reports that I am getting from officials are that these issues should be repealed. What I will also tell the member is that a new wind farm has a levelised cost of electricity around $60-70 per megawatt hour—

SPEAKER: OK, that’s enough, thank you.

Jonathan Young: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are often chastened by not getting to the point, and the answer never came, but we had a complete monologue of recent events. I asked a very specific question that the Minister should be able to answer within one sentence.

SPEAKER: And she did. It might have been buried in the middle.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. There is not any chance, Mr Speaker, that—

SPEAKER: A point of order, Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh thank you for the recognition. There is not any chance that any analysis you might do of that answer would come anywhere near being an answer to the very specific question that was put in front of the Minister, and I think it’s unreasonable to dismiss the efforts that have been to—

SPEAKER: No—sit down. Sit down.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, you—

SPEAKER: I’m requiring the member to sit down. He’s made his point of order, and if the member had—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, I haven’t. I haven’t finished.

SPEAKER: Well, you’ve made all the point of order you’re going to make at the moment. The Minister quite specifically said that she has been advised that electricity prices in December will return to their normal levels. If that’s not an answer—it’s not only addressing it; it answered it.

Jonathan Young: What is the average price for electricity futures per megawatt hour for December 2018, as can be found on the ASX, and how does that compare to the average of about $90 per megawatt hour for the last 12 months?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Given the complexities of what we’re seeing in the electricity generation system, I am not prepared to answer that question in this House at the moment, but if the member wants to put it in writing, I will provide him with a full answer.

Jonathan Young: Shouldn’t the Minister be paying close attention to the price of electricity futures given the signal they send about future retail prices?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I can assure that member that what I am doing is paying very close attention to all the conditions around the security of supply in our electricity system. What I can tell the member is that one of the most important things to be monitoring at the moment is progress on repairs to the gas infrastructure problems that we are seeing at the moment, that I receive frequent updates on. I can also advise that member that I am receiving frequent updates on the levels of the hydro lakes, and I’ll tell that member that hydro storage, as at 2 November, was at 62 percent of the historical average for this time of the year. The NZX energy data, however, that gives a daily update, indicates that over the past four weeks, up to 2 November, hydro storage was at 71 percent, and that is what a responsible Minister of energy should be monitoring.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a most fascinating answer from the Minister. Perhaps you’d like to tell the House what question she was answering.

SPEAKER: Well, I think we’ll go 1-all there. I won’t punish the Minister for her interjection during that, and I won’t punish the member for his disorderly point of order.

David Seymour: If the electricity market will be back to normal by December, why has Genesis Energy ordered four shipments totalling 120,000 tonnes of Indonesian coal to be delivered between December and February?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, the member knows that that’s not this Minister’s responsibility.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has made a claim that the current problems are due to a gas shortage which will be alleviated by December. I’m asking how she can reconcile that with other facts that she should be across.

SPEAKER: No, that’s not what the member asked. He said, “why”. He didn’t ask how it could be reconciled.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The “why” question goes directly to the prime purpose of having a Minister of Energy and Resources—it is to make sure that there is security of supply in the market. Now, the question is—and I think Mr Seymour’s hit it on the head—if there’s no problem, as the Minister said—

SPEAKER: I accept that—that point of order is a much better one than the one we had previously. The Minister will address the question.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Well, quite clearly, Genesis Energy does not have the kind of confidence in the infrastructure around the gas supply system that the Opposition and the fossil fuel industry seem to have. What recent events are showing us is what a precarious security of supply situation we’re in when we need to rely on gas for peaking. That’s why this Government is intent on building a resilient energy system with more resilient forms of renewable energy.

David Seymour: Will the Minister be taking any action to guide Genesis to make better investment decisions, given they’re clearly out of step with the rest of the market?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There have been decisions made already around the phasing out of using the coal Rankine units at Huntly. This Government is giving many signals and guidance to companies such as Genesis, such as carbon-neutrality by 2050. I think that provides more than enough system, and what this Government is doing in putting in place the long-term transition planning that is required.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What reports has he seen on banking culture and conduct?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): A review of bank conduct released yesterday by the Financial Markets Authority and Reserve Bank of New Zealand has identified instances of poor conduct by staff and weaknesses in bank processes to manage them. The findings of the report are a concern to the Government, as we want a fair banking system that is in the interests of all New Zealanders. Although the conduct and culture issues do not appear to be widespread, there are weaknesses within bank systems and controls that have resulted in poor conduct and instances of consumer harm. This is not good enough, and banks have their work cut out for them to address the problems of conduct and culture in the report and ensure New Zealanders have confidence in their banking system.

Michael Wood: What work is under way to provide reassurance to bank customers?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We have had work under way since we came into Government in terms of changes to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act to target irresponsible lending, the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill, and also the insurance contract law review. We’ve asked officials to begin work on where we should go post the report being delivered today if we need to take further regulatory action. The Government does have a role to play in strengthening the way the banks conduct, given their conduct within their own businesses. At the same time, the sector also needs to take a greater responsibility for ensuring that misconduct does not occur and needs to focus on long-term customer outcomes.

Michael Wood: What are the next steps for banks, regulators, and Government in response to the report’s findings?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government expects to see banks proactively address their conduct and culture issues. They will be receiving an individualised work programme from regulators and will report back in March, where they must provide their plan for addressing their shortfalls. I want to see better checks and balances in place to ensure poor conduct does not continue in New Zealand banks. The bottom line is that a New Zealand customer should get fair and appropriate treatment and consumers’ needs should be put first.

Question No. 12—Internal Affairs

12. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Which Ministers, if any, have been provided with a copy or executive summary of the final report of the Government Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, and when were those Ministers provided with those copies or summaries?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): My office delivered a copy to the office of the Prime Minister yesterday.

Chris Bishop: Does the report of the inquiry into the appointment process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police recommend that the appointment process be reopened?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I will not discuss any recommendations—for or otherwise—inside the inquiry until the full process of the inquiry, around its release, has been clarified.

Chris Bishop: Is she comfortable with the fact that the confidential versions of all information and correspondence provided by police, the State Services Commissioner, the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Justice, the Minister of Police, and Deputy Commissioner Haumaha will be suppressed until 2 November in the year 2068?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I think the member has misunderstood, as the members of the press have misunderstood, the chair’s posting up on the Internal Affairs website. That is around transcripts and information that was provided for her to actually write the report. That is what the suppression is: transcripts and so on. That is what was put inside the Inquiries Act by the previous Government to ensure that people who we need to come forward have confidence to give testimony in an inquiry and can be confident around their privacy.

Chris Bishop: Will she be discussing the report and the next steps the Government will be taking with the State Services Commissioner and/or the Solicitor-General?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: My office is currently taking legal advice around the process to hand over to the Minister of State Services and the process with which to do pre-releases to those who need to see the report—e.g. those who participated in it—and then when that report will be released. We are trying to release the report as quickly as possible.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for: consideration in committee of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill; the third readings of the Family Violence Bill and the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill; and the third reading of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Substantive provisions

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I’d like to take this opportunity in the debate on Part 1 to have a look at some of the issues raised by submitters during the select committee process, and highlight some of the changes subsequently made to the bill. With the title and commencement clauses—clause 2 being the commencement—some submitters requested that the commencement of the bill be delayed to allow for further consideration of the policy decisions that led to the bill. My response is that any delay in commencement would undermine the policy intent of the bill. Simply put, this Government is committed to taking the action and providing the certainty that we need, and the vast majority of submitters on the bill supported that approach.

In terms of Part 1, “Substantive provisions”, clause 4—interpretation—was something that was discussed at some length in the Environment Committee, and an issue was raised about the definition used for the onshore Taranaki region. In particular, this area follows the political boundary of the Taranaki region rather than the geological boundary of the Taranaki sedimentary basin. I’d like to make two points in response to this. The first is that the area in the bill captures all areas of current onshore petroleum production—so what is currently being drilled is already caught in that area. The second is that the intention around allowing exploration to continue in onshore Taranaki was to support a transition, which includes the potential for new discoveries, to make use of existing production and transmission infrastructure.

The other issue that was brought up at the select committee was clause 5, applications for permits, and clause 6, allocation by public tender—I’ll take these two clauses together. Some submitters raised an issue around flexibility and sought to retain greater flexibility for the Minister to exercise discretion regarding where and when permitting can occur. My view is that this flexibility would only lead to uncertainty around where new petroleum exploration could occur. The Government has taken a very clear position that there should be no new petroleum exploration permits issued outside the onshore Taranaki region. The only exception to that is for permits issued subsequent to an existing permit. This approach provides the most certainty around new exploration.

Other submitters raised issues around the matters which we were asked to take into account when considering permit applications—for example, that climate change could be a factor. Such a change would represent a significant departure from the status quo. Our position is that this bill is focused on giving effect to the Government’s recent changes to new petroleum exploration, and that changes that go beyond this are outside the scope of this tranche one of changes. So, they’re some of the changes that were outlined and have been effected, and I’m sure I will respond to more of those as we go through this committee stage.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much to the Minister for giving us that preamble. I guess, in some regards, when the Minister discounts climate change mitigation as a policy purpose for the bill, I want to just highlight in the commentary, in the second paragraph, “This bill is one of several initiatives that seek to aid New Zealand’s transition to a low-carbon economy in line with the country’s international commitments.” And so it can’t be separated. It can’t be divorced from that purpose. Certainly, I understand that to write that into the bill would be problematic; however, the policy purpose of these changes seems to be quite clear.

I want to come to the Part 1, clause 4, where section 2 talks about the onshore Taranaki region as being the area that’s constituted as that which is able to receive applications or bids through a block offer for expiration permits. It’s significantly unclear, in the bill and the preamble and any commentary that we have received prior to, the differentiation between offshore and onshore. To say that it’s maximising current infrastructure—well, of course, any company would want to do that. But we also understand that, in regard to the offshore 2018 block offer that people were expecting, there were nominations of around 39 different particular areas. So to say, as the Minister has said in the past and the Prime Minister has also said, that offshore block offers in the past couple of rounds have been poorly subscribed to—well, of course, that occurs, because it is more expensive. And, secondly, it is during a period of time where the price for oil went below $30 a barrel—quite significantly lower—and so it became an economic choice rather than a resource choice.

Currently, New Zealand has 50 percent of its resources offshore, 50 percent onshore. And so we would say that consideration around offshore and onshore, and the differentiation—it has been unclear why the Government has sought only to choose onshore Taranaki. Yes, I acknowledge that, in some respects, the Minister has talked about a transition—and, obviously, the industry is based there—but the industry has also looked beyond there in the past, and there is certainly enough evidence and enough data to suggest that there is opportunity beyond regional Taranaki.

When we look at regional Taranaki—perhaps some of my questions to the Minister will come as we go through this committee stage—we do understand that there is a very defined boundary for regional Taranaki, as is mentioned here in the bill. The Local Government (Taranaki Region) Reorganisation Order 1989 depicts boundaries, but what is interesting about Taranaki, and looking at this boundary between offshore and onshore, is that the first sightings of oil evidenced in Taranaki were actually in that middle space. It was on Ngāmotu Beach in Moturoa in Taranaki where oil seeps came through the sands. So, actually, making differentiation between onshore and offshore is—well, if you look back in history, to 1865, it’s really interesting that the first discoveries of oil were on the beach, in the border between. Significant discoveries have been in both particular areas. It’s known that, even in pre-European times, Māori discovered and saw the evidence of oil seepage not only in onshore Taranaki, on the beach, but also in other regions on the East Coast, as well. If you look at the history that New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals put up in terms of the history of New Zealand’s oil and gas discoveries, it’s particularly interesting.

It’s very clear and obvious to the Minister of Energy and Resources that the National Party opposes this bill. We oppose it on many grounds. But going back to some of these introductory remarks that are in the commentary, there is the issue there around achieving New Zealand’s climate goals. And I put it to the Minister and to the committee, and I would like an explanation on constraining exploration to onshore Taranaki: what will that do to achieve a climate goal for New Zealand, particularly when we understand that New Zealand produces around 131,000 barrels a day, which is mostly exported? If we were to cut off the supply of that, or reduce it severely—this bill’s final intention would be to do that; it would be to close it down and make this a sunset industry—then we would no longer be able to supply that to the world market. And will that make a significant difference to the goals of climate change mitigation?

The reality is that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries runs a daily excess of two million barrels a day. And it’s a little bit like this: if I put my hand in the ocean and pull it out—if I pull my hand out of the ocean—it will be filled instantly and there will not be left a gap. And it’s the same issue with New Zealand’s hydrocarbon exports. If we withdraw from the international market by trying to constrain only into the Taranaki region, excluding all other regions, excluding offshore, and think that that is going to make a dent in international demand and take up, we’re mistaken.

So what we have here is a bill that seeks to reduce the area where this activity can take place, with the intention that, as the Minister has said, it’s going to fulfil these wider and deeper obligations. But it won’t. And so, in a sense, all that we are achieving here is what this party says is virtue signalling. We are saying that we are prepared to create such pain, such disruption—we are prepared to end an industry for a goal that we will not reach. And I think that that is poor governance and poor decision-making and certainly is an effect of the lack of consultation that’s taken place through this whole process. At least in the committee stage we get to go through it clause by clause, and, hopefully, the Minister will be able to stand on her feet and answer the many questions that we have, to validate this piece of legislation, to try to convince not just us but New Zealanders why it’s so important when, in fact, it doesn’t achieve some of the big goals that she and her party and the coalition members are seeking to achieve.

I don’t know what the goals are of New Zealand First, because this is the party across the way that, in terms of the onshore Taranaki region—actually, they’ve now got a huge expectation. How can you find a replacement in terms of the just transition the Minister speaks about for 4,500 direct, and another 3,000 indirect, jobs that come from an industry that actually powers New Zealand’s economy? And if we don’t have them powering our economy, we will import the product from somewhere else. We’ll pay somebody else—give them our economic value. We will have higher levels of hydrocarbons just to get the product here. So, actually, we are defeating ourselves at multiple levels, and I look forward to contributions from across the Chamber. I certainly look forward to what the Minister has to say about these particular issues. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. The time caught me a little bit there. I rise to give my first contribution in the committee stage. I would like to draw my comments around, obviously, Part 1 and an area that Jonathan Young has already begun our conversation on this afternoon, and that is section 23A in clause 5, which is focusing on limiting exploration to Taranaki—in particular, onshore Taranaki. So the question that, I guess, sits at the core of our policy discussion this afternoon is: what are we seeking to achieve by this restriction? Now, the Minister of Energy and Resources is on record saying that this is part of New Zealand’s so-called leadership position in impacting global emissions from a New Zealand perspective, but she is particularly silent on global demand with respect to oil and gas. So my question to the Minister is, surely, when we are reflecting on whether we should constrain New Zealand’s economic potential with respect to extracting oil and gas, the first key question that we should ask ourselves is: what is the global demand for gas looking out into the medium term?

One would assume that if you hold a policy view that is to restrict New Zealand’s economic potential with respect to this extraction, it needs to be hung off some commercial advice with respect to the place of gas in that global demand. Now, the Minister may have different figures than what I am aware of, but I’d be interested to hear it. What I read is that looking out to 2040, there is a 40 percent increase in expected demand globally for natural gas—40 percent. In fact, by 2040, natural gas is going to be the single largest fuel source globally. Now, I’d like the Minister to challenge those figures and potentially table the advice that she has received that challenges that—that that is indeed the global demand with respect to natural gas. Our advice on this side is very clear: it’s a critical part of the global energy mix.

The reason this is so important is that if the global demand is demonstrably significant for natural gas, why is it that New Zealand would be constraining its ability, looking out over the next 20 to 30 years, to extract that natural gas and, obviously, make significant export receipts from that? It’s half a billion dollars, currently. We have reflected previously in the debate around this issue that if this proceeds, we are talking about $7.9 billion of lost export receipts, potentially as high as $23 billion.

So we need to be clear around what the policy objectives are here. If the view is that the natural gas, which we believe is a critical part, is not going to be a critical part, then we would like to have an understanding of that and to hear specifically from the Minister what data and assessment and modelling she is relying on that suggests that New Zealand, despite what we can see is happening around the rest of the world with other gas-producing countries—they see the opportunity in supporting natural gas as a positive. They see it as a commercial imperative for their people and their countries, and they see it as very much part of their climate change narrative. That in particular is an issue that I would like to return to as we reflect on, I guess, a series of core questions that Part 1 brings into sharp relief, which is: what actually is the policy objective here in simply constraining oil extraction and gas extraction to onshore Taranaki? They are my first series of questions. I have many more others to come.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a couple of clauses that I’d like to talk on in this, Part 1 of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. One is a clause that was introduced during the select committee process, and that’s clause 6A. It’s going to amend section 25 of the Act, and what it does is it restricts what the Minister may do. Now, in clauses 5 and 6 of the bill as introduced, a number of restrictions were introduced as to who might apply for an exploration permit and what tenders the Minister might accept. So you might think that that was sufficient protection to stop ongoing offshore oil exploration, but the committee, on the advice of officials, elected to take a belt and braces approach and to add clause 6A, which amends section 25. As well as restricting who may apply for a permit and the offers, and which tenders the Minister may accept, it also says “The Minister must not grant a permit for petroleum in respect of any land outside the onshore Taranaki region”. So, that does restrict the Minister’s actions.

I’m quite interested to hear from the Minister what her views are on this belt and braces approach, as to why we needed this additional restriction in the Act—so not only who might apply for a permit, and which tenders the Minister might accept, but also that extra restriction on, actually, what permits the Minister might not grant. So it’s a restriction on the Minister’s activities, and it does add a real extra layer of protection. I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

One other issue was raised extensively by many people who supported this bill in submissions, and that was their concern for the protection of the great treasure in Taranaki, the maunga, Taranaki the mountain, which the residents of the province—and indeed I, as someone who was born and bred there—hold in great affection and very high regard, and not just the maunga, but also the Egmont National Park. Many, many people who made submissions were concerned that—well, even if onshore exploration is going to be permitted, they absolutely wanted to be assured that the maunga was protected, that there would be no exploration and no drilling under that great treasure, Egmont National Park, which cloaks Taranaki and the maunga. So I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

Now, the Environment Committee didn’t introduce any changes in that regard, because we felt that the protections that were there were sufficient, that there is restricted access to conservation land, and that access to Egmont National Park is, in fact, already further restricted by the Minerals Programme for Petroleum. What it means, by the time you have that minerals programme as well, is that no prospecting, exploration, or mining activities could occur in the National Park. But I think that people at home and people listening along to this, particularly the people who submitted on this bill, would appreciate hearing from the Minister that that protection for Taranaki’s treasure is guaranteed under this bill and under the resulting Act. Thank you, Madam Chair.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I’m pleased to take a call on this bill. I’d like to take a slightly different tack. Part 1 clearly is the substantive provisions of the bill—who can apply for a permit and where—and the submitters that we heard from in the Environment Committee spoke quite clearly and in unison around the process and the lack of time that they had to submit, and the lack of time they had in select committee to give their views around this, Part 1. I’d like to speak about one of those in particular which I found quite concerning, and I want to hear from the Minister in the chair about what she thinks of the process and whether or not we need, perhaps, to go back to select committee. There was a gentleman that came to speak to us by the name of Paul Rishworth, chairman of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—the body responsible for advising Parliament on policy and legislation.

He raised serious issues with the bill and the bill’s process. In his submission he said that the submission process around Part 1 was inadequate, and further said that “There is no suggestion that an extra week or two in the legislative process or in the select committee process would have [had] a major adverse effect.” So my question to Minister Woods is, really: why wasn’t it considered that there were an extra couple of weeks available to us to hear from more submitters and to hear for a longer period of time from submitters around this substantive part of the bill?

The submission from Paul referenced Treasury’s analysis of the bill, which said, “[D]ue to the time limitations and analytical constraints arising from Cabinet’s previous decisions, MBIE did not consult the petroleum industry and the public on the proposals.” His submission pointed out that this showed the limitations and constraints of having such a short consulting period. And we saw this in submissions from others—many others—who complained of a lack of time to prepare and the very short time that we in select committee allowed for them to be able to present, either five minutes or 15. Frankly, it was embarrassing. I felt, and members on this side who sat in on that process felt that to be hearing from CEOs of major companies and major industry bodies who only had 15 minutes to present and to answer questions, and to cut them off at the last second was, frankly, embarrassing.

The Minister was quoted in the media as saying that there were a couple of thousand submissions, and therefore the short time frame was fine and those who wanted to have a say got to have a say. She was quoted in the New Zealand Herald as saying, “This is something [that] we announced in April. The Prime Minister and I have been meeting with communities and the industry since April and have been having discussions about it.” Well, this flies in the face of what submitters told us in select committee. They said that there wasn’t enough time, that there were a lot of people that they knew of that didn’t have time to submit, that because we didn’t go to Taranaki there were people in Taranaki—businesses and individuals—who didn’t get to have their say, and that the time they had to make their submissions was far too short.

Powerco said in their submission that “The Government did not consult with stakeholders prior to making its announcement on 12 April ... Nor has it consulted on the development of the Bill”—despite what the Minister said. “The Bill [was] placed into urgency,” which means the select committee process “has … not allowed for meaningful consultation with [the] affected industry or the public.” That’s what Powerco said. So there were a number of industry organisations, and businesses, and submitters who felt that they hadn’t been consulted, despite the Minister’s claims. So I’d like to ask the Minister whether or not she feels that this process has been fair to the industry and to the people of Taranaki, given that we didn’t go there, given that we only gave them two weeks to take a look at the bill and to make submissions, given the fact that we only gave them five or 15 minutes in select committee, and given that the overwhelming feeling of all of the submitters against the bill was that the process was flawed and was undemocratic.

One of the things that the Prime Minister and the Minister have said is that they rushed this process because of the block offer, and I’d like the Minister in the chair, Megan Woods, to advise us whether or not she had had representations from the industry and the industry bodies to say that they actually didn’t mind if that block offer was put off in order for the select committee process to be pushed out. What we heard from many of the industry organisations was, in fact, that they didn’t mind whether the 2018 offer was, in fact, pushed out. In fact, we learnt that the 2018 block offer wasn’t even going to happen in 2018. In fact, it’s not happening until next year. So the question for the Minister in the chair is: why the rush? We didn’t need to have all of these submitters complaining about this undemocratic process and the shortened time frames, because in the end the block offer isn’t happening until next year, and the industry is more than happy for that to be pushed out. I would like to ask the Minister in the chair: why the rush? Why did we need to be in this situation, having CEOs of companies being cut off to the second by the chair in an embarrassing and appalling manner, when there was no need for this rush—when there was no need for urgency? That was made quite clear by the industry bodies that came to talk to us. They were more than happy to have that pushed out.

Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister in the chair—we know that advice wasn’t gained by the Minister prior to the announcement. We know that the regulatory impact statement came after the announcement. We know that there’s been no cost-benefit analysis. We know that there hasn’t been a lot of consultation done in Taranaki. I’d like to ask the Minister in the chair whether or not she thinks that this process has been a good, thorough, democratic process, and whether or not she thinks that the Minister needs to, in fact, get far more information around the lack of investment that’s going to be happening in Taranaki and the loss of jobs.

Carbon leakage—we asked that question in select committee about carbon leakage, about what would happen when we would be, in fact, importing more oil and gas from overseas, from countries which, frankly, don’t have the environmental standards that we have in this country and what that would mean to global emissions. One of the things brought up by the submitters was the fact that although this sounds nice, the effect, in reality, is that global emissions are likely to rise from this policy—and that was actually made clear by MBIE as well—because it’s not doing anything with demand. That was something that came through quite clearly in the submissions, as well. I’d like the Minister to actually talk to us today about what is going to happen with demand, because she’s said quite a lot about the reduction in global emissions from this bill, but, in fact, the advice has been to the contrary. With the uptick in petrol tankers and the uptick in importation of natural gas to this country, it is most likely that global emissions will rise, and that’s what carbon leakage is all about. Just because we stop producing it here—it’s got to be produced somewhere else, and the likelihood is that global emissions will rise because of that.

So there are a number of questions for the Minister, mostly around process and whether or not she thinks that in fact, because of the thousands of people that we didn’t get to talk to and that didn’t get to submit in Taranaki, that haven’t had their say—should we go back to select committee? Secondly, should the Minister now get a lot more information, especially around carbon leakage? We asked that question, and an answer hasn’t been forthcoming. Is she going to get more of a cost-benefit analysis? And does she have information around the potential job losses and lack of investment in the Taranaki region? We have yet to see that information. We’ve been asking, and we haven’t seen it. It’s all been nice words and virtue signalling and fluffery, but what we’re asking for are the details. We’re talking about a huge region, thousands of jobs—highly skilled, highly paid jobs—and a bill that is, in fact, most likely going to have the opposite effect to its intent. I would be keen to hear the Minister’s answers to those questions, and I will be back for more shortly. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this bill, which is a distressing one for many of us on this side of the Chamber, because it will have such an impact on our economy, on our living standards, and in particular on the region of Taranaki—all for very unspecific and unthought-through potential goals. So we’re looking at Part 1 here, which stops the exploration offshore anywhere and retains some work onshore in Taranaki.

If we go back to this whole process, it was announced on the fly by the Prime Minister a couple of days before her intended global audience to announce it. There was no broader cost-benefit analysis, or any analysis whatsoever underpinning that judgment and that decision. And then, after the decision was made and it was announced, the Government decided to go through the process of actually legislating and consulting with the industry affected, which is an appalling way of doing things. I struggle to remember such an egregious example of Government behaviour in recent times. And so this whole process has been a sham.

The select committee process, which has been truncated by this Minister, Megan Woods—truncated by this Minister to the point of ridiculousness—has been carried through, and this whole process has been carried through, in a sham-like way because the Government has already decided what it was going to do. You might say, “Well, does that matter?” Well, it does matter. Look at the eye-watering potential costs—I’m holding the regulatory impact statement, which does various modelling and thinks that the potential cost in terms of just the revenue that the Crown will be forgoing might range between $1.8 billion and $26 billion over an extended period, with the mid-range being about $10 billion. That’s the fiscal cost to the Crown. Then it may be, in terms of the company profits that could be affected by this, somewhere between $200 million and $2 billion.

But what about the broader economic costs for the New Zealanders employed in the industry, the economic costs of more expensive energy, and all the many potential ramifications of this decision. Well, they haven’t even tried to calculate that. The regulatory impact statement says, “Well, we didn’t try to do it, but they could be substantial. The broader economic contribution of the petroleum sector to the national economy has not been modelled, and we can’t work out just what this is going to cost.” So here we are, blundering in—for the sake of a speech from the Prime Minister—to a decision, the costs of which we have no idea, but they certainly run into the billions and billions of dollars. Now, OK, you might do that if there is a clear benefit—

Todd Muller: Billions.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Billions—that’s right. “Billions.”, as Shane Jones would say. You might do that if there is a clear and obvious benefit, but all the indications are that this decision will lead to higher climate global emissions from the New Zealand economy. Why? Because this bill does nothing to have any impact on the behaviour of New Zealanders using the energy. It makes no impact on what energy they use; it only makes an impact on what we produce. If we continue to use as much energy, we’ll just have to import it from somewhere else, and the net impact is worse for the climate. So it costs a huge amount—potentially a colossal amount. There are no clear benefits whatsoever other than virtue signalling by the Prime Minister in front of audiences around the world.

But the final thing is the wider cost to New Zealand’s reputation and attractiveness as a place of investment, because New Zealanders will only get the opportunity to have good quality jobs and to live fulfilling successful lives if we have a strong economy. That strong economy relies on investment—investment coming domestically, but from around the world. Well, who is going to invest in this country from around the world if you have a Prime Minister that’s prepared to chop off at the knees a major industry without any proper process and without any analysis before she makes that decision? Anybody might well ask, “Well, I’ll invest in another industry, but who knows what the Prime Minister might decide to knock out next.” And that sense of uncertainty and unpredictability that this Government has demonstrated since it’s come into the office is the biggest cost of all, and on that basis, I’m shocked.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The first question that I have for the Minister in the chair, Megan Woods, is: can she recite any decision in any portfolio area as important as is in Part 1 of this bill, in which a decision has been announced without any Cabinet process whatsoever? Can the Minister cite me any example in the last 20, 30, 40 years where a Government has announced such a huge change in public policy without even going to Cabinet?

I was gobsmacked when my colleague from New Plymouth said, when the Government had made the announcement, that it hadn’t gone to Cabinet. I said, “Hey, Jonathan”—Young; Jonathan Young, the MP for New Plymouth—“be careful. I’ve sat in the Cabinet room for 12 years. I’ve never heard of a Government making a decision without going to Cabinet. I don’t think that can be true.” And when I found out that what Jonathan Young said was correct—that the Government was prepared to make a decision with implications of over $23 billion and not even go to Cabinet—I said, “Has this become a sort of banana republic? Have we become some sort of laughing stock, that we are prepared to give up basic processes of Government?”

I see Mr Kris Faafoi’s in the Chamber. He might be able to answer me. Can he recall any decision of the scale of what we have in Part 1 of this bill that has been made without even a discussion or a paper in Cabinet? I say that’s extraordinary—I say that’s extraordinary. I say that’s an embarrassment, and I want the Minister in the chair to answer: why were these decisions in Part 1 of this bill never even considered by Cabinet?

Then the second question I want to come to, and I’m just flummoxed by this: anybody who’s been engaged in the debate around climate change realises that the number one issue for us is around coal—that coal has the highest level of emissions, that coal historically has played the biggest role in the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and in the global warming that has occurred to date and in the global warming that is projected to occur into the future. So why, when coal is the biggest problem, is the Minister in the chair preoccupied with shutting down gas? It just makes no sense. In fact, if we look around the world to where the most progress has been made on climate change it has been where we have expanded natural gas to reduce the amount of emissions from coal. That’s what’s occurred in the United States with the development of the new gas industry around fracking. That’s what’s enabled countries like the UK and Germany to make some of the best progress of any country in reducing emissions.

So where I am completely lost, as one who takes the issue of climate change so seriously, is why do we want to shut down gas when, actually, it is such an important transition fuel and when our number one priority should be in terms of reducing the use of coal? To put it quite simply, we’ve got large numbers, and my colleague Barbara Kuriger—a person who comes from the dairy industry—would know that a good amount of the dairy industry’s energy sector comes from coal. And if the Minister in the chair was promoting a policy that would substitute that coal with natural gas, my colleague could understand it, I could understand it, my good friend Jonathan Young could understand it, but to shut down natural gas, as is proposed in clause 6 of this bill, simply does not make sense.

The third issue is that the entire slogan of the environmental movement has been “Think globally, act locally.” Where is the global thinking in this provision? If New Zealand just imports its petrol, its diesel, and its gas, we don’t achieve one iota for the issue around climate change. All we’re going to do is damage our economy, import our petroleum, and do nothing for climate change. And I will not have a bar of such loopy policy.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I stand today to speak to the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. I want to make it really clear from the outset that this side of the House does not support this bill.

I’m talking today to Part 1, section 23A, amended by clause 5, regarding the application for permits. Now, we’ve heard a lot about the process of the development of this bill and the select committee process, but in response to the Hon Nick Smith’s contribution, the revelation that Cabinet did not even consider this leaves me wondering: how did the whole of Government find out about this? Was it actually at the announcement when the support parties were actually informed about this? This is a shocking process.

Hon Shane Jones: Democracy! Democracy!

MAUREEN PUGH: Shane Jones yells out, “Democracy!” You ask the people of Taranaki if they feel like they’ve been part of a democratic process. I can tell you that they do not, sir. They do not.

Now, this Government is not only turning off the tap—quite literally—for the Taranaki region, they are actually making it a sunset industry for the whole of New Zealand. There are other areas in this country that are closing the door on this and the next provincial success story that could come out of natural oil and gas. There are areas around this country that are not even explored yet. Where are we going to find the next success story like Taranaki? Well, actually, we don’t know, because this Government has put a doorstop on it. Does the Government know what lies off the south-east coast of Ōāmaru, 60 kilometres out? I’ll tell you what’s offshore there: 5,700 jobs, $32 billion in royalties to the Crown, and that community will now never realise the opportunity to bring that to fruition.

If I think about my own area of West Coast—Tasman, where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Where there is coal, there is usually gas. Sometimes coal gets a bit of a bad rap, but out of those coal seams comes coal seam gas. The Minister in the chair, I’d like to ask: this bill, in effect, prevents the capture of that coal seam gas, so what is going to happen to that as a by-product of this bill going through this Parliament? I suggest that the gas now has to be released into the atmosphere. What on earth does that do for our global emissions, our carbon emissions? Absolutely nothing. In fact, it makes it even worse. And these are the types of situations we find ourselves in when we have not had the expert input into the development of this bill from the very outset. So, Minister, I would be very keen to hear from you about what the proposed intention is around the capture of coal seam gas, because there are a number of prospective resources on the West Coast.

Now, the venting of these gases into the atmosphere is a total waste of a resource when, in fact, we could be turning that resource into electricity or heat generation. And it’s not dissimilar, I would argue, to the Nelson situation, where they capture their landfill gases and they use them to heat the hospital boilers. That’s just an example of what happens when you truncate a process and when you don’t involve the experts, and we are left in a situation of unintended consequences simply because there was a priority to make a grandstand announcement on the global stage.

We have heard today already about the energy crisis coming to this country, and even a question today from David Seymour relating to the 120,000 tonnes of coal that is on its way from Indonesia to fill what could be a gap in our electricity supply by the end of this year. This is a nonsense bill, and I’ll be back to talk about other parts.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call Andrew Falloon to take the next call, could I ask an honourable member, please, to do something with the unattended file boxes that are sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to be joining my colleagues this afternoon on this side of the Chamber in opposing this bill. I sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and, unfortunately, we weren’t called on to consider this bill. Usually, we do look at Crown minerals bills; in fact, we have a Crown minerals bill before us at the moment. But, unfortunately, this bill went to a committee where the Government has a stronger majority. So this is the only opportunity that I’ll have during the committee stage to scrutinise the legislation. I intend to take numerous opportunities to do so.

I want to focus my initial comments on Part 1 of the bill, clause 5, which inserts a new subsection (2)(b). It says, “a person may apply under this section for a prospecting permit for petroleum, or a mining permit for petroleum, in respect of any land in the onshore Taranaki region only:”. And so my first question to the Minister this afternoon is: why have they specified Taranaki and not included any other regions within that? I understand why the Minister has probably done that, and I guess I support it to an extent that there is a very strong and functioning oil and gas industry in Taranaki. It accounts for about 41 percent of their GDP. So to safeguard some of that for the time being, I think, on this side of the House, we do have some support for, but the concern that we have is that no other regions have got the opportunity to do that.

My colleague prior to me, Maureen Pugh, mentioned the Barque gas development off the coast of North Otago and South Canterbury, and my concern as the MP for Rangitata is the impact that this bill will have on somewhere like Timaru. If that gas development had gone ahead, it would’ve be a huge boon for the South Canterbury and Timaru area. And so to have this bill, which specifies only onshore Taranaki and leaves out every other region in the country, is, in my view, wrong. And in a debate just a few days ago we had the Government accusing this side of the House of picking winners. Well, my concern is that they’re picking some regions to be moderately successful in the short term, and leaving other regions like South Canterbury out in the cold.

My next point I wanted to make was that during the debate on the first reading, we had MPs on the other side talking about the environmental impact. This is the reason for this bill, apparently: the environmental impact of oil and gas on climate change. And we had Deborah Russell, during that debate, accusing us of backing the burning of the planet. She mentioned several times that we supported the burning of the planet. Well, my question to her, and, I guess, for the Minister as well is: what is it about onshore Taranaki petroleum that doesn’t affect the environment? Because what they’re saying is that it’s fine for onshore Taranaki to continue to have permits allowed for, but not for any other region in the country. So I ask the Minister in the chair, and any member opposite who’d like to take a call: what is it about Taranaki onshore petroleum that doesn’t have an impact on the environment?

The second point I’d like to make in relation to environment is just what impact this bill will have. We’ve heard at length from members opposite that the reason they’re doing this is because we need to be a world leader in climate change and we need to substantially reduce our carbon emissions. And I think, on that latter point, most members on this side would agree with, but this is not the bill to do it. And the reason for that is that this bill will lead to an increase in the short to medium term of carbon emissions. And the reason we know that is because it sees it and the Government’s own advice. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s own advice to the Government literally quotes “The net impact on global emissions is uncertain but more likely to be negative than positive.” So emissions in New Zealand will actually increase with the passage of this bill.

And the reason for that is very simple, actually: it’s because we’re going to rely more on coal. And my good colleague Maureen Pugh down there is screwing up her face because I know she’s a big supporter of the West Coast coal industry, as am I. But there’s no doubt that coal has a greater impact on the economy than natural gas. The Government opposite are talking about banning the exploration for gas and, in the short to medium term, that’s going to lead to an increasing reliance on coal and will increase our emissions—as the Government’s advice says to them and, unfortunately, they haven’t listened to it.

So this bill doesn’t stack up from an economic perspective in Taranaki where they’re going to shut down all offshore what exploration. It doesn’t stack up from an economic sense for any other region in the country. And nor does it stack up from an environmental perspective, because the Government’s own advice says that it will lead to an increase in carbon emissions in the short to medium term.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to make a couple of points on Part 1 of this bill, and a particular reference to the commentary on this bill and the introduction, which kind of goes, really, to what the heart of this bill is—and it says it in black and white—which is that it’s one of several initiatives. So it’s not the only initiative to aid New Zealand’s transition to a low-carbon economy, in line with the country’s international commitments. The other key word there is “transition”, which, I think, is a pretty important word. And listening to the debate coming from the other side of the Chamber this afternoon, one would think that this is all happening tomorrow.

So the points that I want to just quickly touch on are that this is the first tranche of it. It’s a bill which has a narrow scope. It’s the first tranche of a review of the Crown Minerals Act and is only to give effect to the Government’s decision about oil and gas permits. Listening to the flowery, over-the-top language coming out of the Opposition, on the other side, one would think that it was all about to happen tomorrow. Tranche two is a much wider review of the Act that will enable stakeholders to take part in future-proofing the Crown Minerals Act.

It was also strongly signalled. The Prime Minister said in one of her first interviews after being elected that this might be the last block offer. It’s also very strongly about leadership. It’s the right thing to do. We’re not going to stick our heads in the sand like the previous National Government and the existing National Opposition. And, really important, it’s a carefully managed transition over 30 years.

One final point is that, with regards to the submission process, with all of the 95 submissions that were heard, many of them came in through technology—this thing called “technology”: through Skype, through video link, through telephone link from other parts of the country. And people did get a good hearing. They were treated very fairly. And just reinforcing that this bill has a narrow scope, and it was strongly signalled.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to take a call to respond to some of the questions that have been put by members in the committee. The first question that was asked—one of the fundamental questions that has been asked—was what is the policy objective that the Government is trying to achieve here. Well, that’s something that is very straightforward and something that we have been talking about since before we made the announcement back in April of this year, and that is that we cannot afford an economic shock in this country. What we need to do is we need to put in place the long-term transitions where we know there are economic changes ahead that climate change is bringing, and that is what this is about. This is about making sure that we don’t pull the rug out from underneath communities and individuals, but instead we are putting in place now the planning and we are starting that transition. One of the things that we are very aware of as a Government is that a transition has to start somewhere. A transition isn’t just a continuation of the status quo. A transition means that things need to change.

Members on the other side have, rightly, raised questions around the jobs and where jobs are going to come from. The member from Taranaki, Jonathan Young, has talked about the 4,500 people who are directly employed in the Taranaki region, and the 11,000 indirectly employed. Well, one of the things that I know that that member is aware of is that, actually, this is an industry—particularly the indirect jobs—that has been shedding jobs over the last few years. We have seen a number of engineering works shut down in the Taranaki region as a downturn in a market as volatile as the gas industry hits. So what we want to do is make sure that we don’t go through what this country went through in the 1980s by not putting in place the planning early enough, but that we can get on the ground in Taranaki—as we are—and we can put in place the replacement industries.

That goes directly to one of the issues that both Maureen Pugh and Andrew Falloon raised. They talked about lost opportunity in relation to the Barque prospect. I think one of the things that I would like members in the Opposition to understand is that all the existing exploration permits will be honoured, and that includes the Barque prospect. It means that that can still be progressed from exploration to mining.

Now, I have also made some comments in recent weeks about how we will work with individual permit holders around hitting a bit of a pause button on the drill or drop provisions. We understand that there has been some change and that companies might need a year or two in which to readjust themselves to the new environment. I have invited all permit holders to get in touch with us—and many have—around hitting the pause button around those.

So, in terms of the concerns of those members, I can understand those concerns that Maureen Pugh and Andrew Falloon were outlining, but I’d like to reassure you that those permits will not be dropped. I think something everybody has to realise is that we could still see drilling for oil and gas from the 100,000 square kilometres that we already have in exploration permit off the coast of New Zealand for decades to come, and that’s something that we have to bear in mind.

Now, another issue that was brought up was the issue around the security of supply. The Opposition members seem to be labouring under a false assumption that this Government’s plan once we stop using oil and gas is to burn other fossil fuels. That certainly isn’t our plan or our intention, but what we are embarking on—and the Government is doing the work—is around making sure that we are putting in place the planning to get to 100 percent renewable electricity. I would point members to work that has been done, like a recent meta-analysis of 18 large-scale post - carbon economy transition strategies. It found that looking at 18 of these in a meta-analysis way showed that technology and costs are not the key barriers to making these transitions. They listed three of the major roadblocks as being climate change denial, the fossil fuel lobby, and political inaction, and those are things that we cannot be guilty of in this country.

We’ve heard Nick Smith talking about what happens in the UK and Germany. Now, New Zealand is in a very, very fortunate position in the abundance that we are blessed with in terms of the access to renewables. Not only do we have the hydro, which has been invested in over many decades in this country, but we also have wind, we have solar, we also have geothermal, and we actually, at times, have an abundance of renewable energy, which opens up real economic opportunity for us in things such as hydrogen. Countries that have an abundance of renewable energy can certainly make use of those. Todd Muller brought up the lost—

Hon Members: “Mull-er”.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Muller—sorry to the member. He brought up some of the lost opportunities there in terms of the ability to export. Well, I’d like to just point out to that member that at the moment, we don’t export our gas. We do not have LNG facilities in New Zealand, and, in fact, the latest LNG facility that was installed in Australia cost tens of billions of dollars. Now, in the entire history of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand, no one has been willing to invest in that infrastructure to put in place an LNG facility so that we can export. So I think to say that these are things that sit out there in the never-never is something that we need to move past.

But what I also want to address is a really real issue, and that is the issue around the fact that somehow we’re too small to do anything as a country in terms of—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Never said that.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No. Jonathan Young, in his contribution, said that we were very small and what we did didn’t make—well, what I’d like to point out to Jonathan Young is that the 197 countries who signed the Paris Agreement create less than 1 percent of the world’s emissions, but together, collectively, we make up 20 percent of the world’s emissions. That’s as much as Europe or China. No country can sit back and say they don’t have to do their bit. [Interruption] Well, Jonathan Young was saying that we were too small to matter.

The other question that has been put is about carbon leakage and the fact that we’ll simply transfer production from New Zealand to a country where there are higher levels of emissions. Now, this is an argument that’s come through a lot in this debate, both from the Opposition and from the oil and gas industry, but I think one of the things that we have to realise is that the world is changing, even from 12 months ago. What we see is that China is currently trialling seven different versions of emissions trading schemes, which they have said will move to be comprehensive schemes in a very short space of time. China is ahead of its Paris peaking target and is already moving to shut down coal in some of its cities. I think what we have to move to understand is that when China does roll out its comprehensive cap-and-trade system—which will be in place by the time that New Zealand finally gets to not be producing oil and gas—what we won’t be able to do is simply put in place production in China without taking something off, because they will have that cap-and-trade system, which, in many ways, is more comprehensive than our own emissions trading system, which does not have a cap on it.

So there are many reasons for us to be very optimistic about our future and to think about what opportunities sit in front of us, and renewable energies offer us key opportunities. But one of the things that I want to leave this committee of the whole House with is to realise that transitions have to start somewhere. They aren’t just the continuation of the status quo. Continuing to do the same is not a transition; it’s just keeping on doing the same. What we are doing in this Government’s bill—what our object is—is to make sure that we are beginning that long-term, managed transition.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Parts of that contribution from the Minister were absolute gobbledygook, and I know that some of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber and I were listening intently, trying to make sense of what she was saying. It was clear at one stage, when she was shuffling through her notes, that she’d got herself completely lost and utterly tied up. Well, I say to that Minister: if that was an attempt to answer some of the very serious and well-informed questions that have been put to her by members on this side of the Chamber, she failed dismally. Even more importantly—and I’m sure that people listening throughout the great Taranaki province at this moment will be saying to her—if that was intended to give assurances to that province, they will be deeply disappointed in what that Minister had to say.

Now, I am not a member of the Environment Committee, and I’m not a Taranaki member of Parliament, but as a proud member of the neighbouring region, the mighty Waikato, I feel very proud to stand up today in support of our sister province, in defence of one of the most important industries not only in their region but which their region is able to show leadership for throughout our country. I’m particularly pleased—I say this while Jonathan Young is in the Chamber—that both his great province of Taranaki and mine, of Waikato, have had a recent run with the Ranfurly Shield. So sorry we took it away from you! But we won’t go any further—we won’t go any further.

Let me get back to Part 1 of this particular bill, because I want to pick up on a couple of the things that have been covered and, in particular, to emphasise what an outrageous, truncated select committee process the Parliament and the country have been treated to. This is a very important issue, and members of the National Party have fought a very good fight in recent times to try to stand up for the interests of that region, of that industry, and of our nation, and it was with absolute disbelief that we heard that this whole process was being truncated, rushed through the House, in such a cavalier fashion. Industry bodies have asked—and deserve answers to—the question of why they were treated so shamefully. This was not only a process that had been rushed; it was shambolic. It was disingenuous on the part of this Minister and her Government. It is potentially very damaging for our climate change efforts, to which we are commendably subscribed as a small country. It is hugely damaging to Taranaki’s economy and to our overall national interest, and the Minister has not answered any of those very real concerns in her contributions so far.

As the Hon Paul Goldsmith noticed, this was a decision that was announced on the fly by the Prime Minister on the eve of her international trip. It was all about appearances on the world stage, and what a shameful thing it was to put our national interest at risk for a photo opportunity on the world stage. With no cost-benefit analysis having been undertaken, or even requested, it seems—not even requested—and in a manner that even by this Government’s inept and disastrously low standards makes New Zealand not admirable on the world stage but a laughing stock. To act in such a cavalier, irresponsible fashion which will lead to increased global emissions is not just embarrassing but disgraceful.

Now, the Hon Clare Curran a few moments ago seemed to think that by arguing that this is “not the only”—I think I wrote her words down correctly—“but one of several measures to reduce carbon emissions” makes it defensible.

Hon Clare Curran: It’s what the commentary says.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: It may be what the commentary says, Ms Curran, for your particular point of view; it does not in any way deal with the very real concerns of people affected by that decision.

Ms Curran went on to describe Opposition speeches as being flowery and over the top. Well, I say to that member that I have heard this afternoon, for the last hour or so, very well-informed and strongly argued contributions from Jonathan Young, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, Todd Muller, Erica Stanford, Andrew Falloon, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and Maureen Pugh. I think I’ve got them all—yes, Maureen Pugh. All of them—all of them—have been extremely strong and well argued. None of them have been flowery, none of them have been over the top; they’ve all been focusing on the very, very real, very serious concerns that this disastrous measure places before the committee. So for Ms Curran to suggest that National’s reaction to such a rushed and undemocratic announcement was over the top adds insult—[Time expired]

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s with great pleasure that I speak to this bill. I hadn’t intended to today, but as I reflected on my first year in Parliament, I have to say that this is the worst piece of process and legislation that I’ve seen in this House—the worst process, the rush, and the lack of any proper analysis. Minister, with the greatest respect to you and your position, there is no pathway from an energy perspective in this decision.

We’ve been hearing questions in this House, today even, about peak electricity prices. The Minister Megan Woods answers those by saying there is a problem with the infrastructure. Well, there will be a problem in New Zealand, all right, when there is no gas whatsoever. It won’t matter what the infrastructure is. What we’ve got today is just a small example of what could happen in the future. When we have no gas—and I hear the Minister saying there is plenty of prospecting—New Zealanders will face a choice: blackouts or importing more coal.

So far from this current Government, I haven’t heard that there is a ban on coal importation into the future, or that somehow we’re going to stop all the exploration of coal, because what we have in this country is, on best evidence, 10 years of gas supply at its current usage. Yes, there may be permits and there may be exploration, but it takes a long time for that to come on stream.

In my view, this process has been corrupt. On this side of the committee—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I caution the member.

LAWRENCE YULE: My apologies, Madam Chair. On this side of the committee, we are willingly and with the best of intent seeking to get an accommodation and agreement with the current Government on a climate change commission. My colleague Mr Todd Muller is working hard to achieve that with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. If this process had any integrity, this very decision would have waited and gone through the climate change commission. It could’ve probably been looked at by the technical experts that are going to be put into this commission. If at that point the commission had then said it made sense to ban oil and gas from a time in the future that was agreed, then this side of the committee would not be having this argument.

The problem is, in this very instance, the Prime Minister went overseas, made a decision pretty much the night before, which even shocked the Hon Shane Jones—which is quite a difficult thing to do, but it even shocked the Hon Shane Jones—and now we know: no Cabinet paper, and the analysis from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment simply says that in the medium to short term this could be worse for the environment than the status quo. So in my view, all this is about is blind ideology.

The Minister did not like what I said about the process, and it might be on the margins, and I apologise for that unparliamentary language. But my point is this: when there is no integrity in the process, then you end up with a result that is not in the best interests for New Zealand. It is my view that that’s exactly where we’re going. That is the path we’re going down. We are going to ban oil and gas exploration in this bill. At some future time when this bill kicks in, when all the investment has been scared off and when we run out of gas, guess what’s going to happen. The New Zealand public is going to have to deal with a very difficult choice: do we import more coal or do we turn the lights out?

Gas, particularly from my perspective, is a great and fundamental transitional tool. Yet we’ve lost an opportunity to use that in seeking out our energy futures, and, quite frankly, the answers that the Minister in the chair has given today have given me no confidence whatsoever that this has been thought out. This side of the committee is thinking about the future of New Zealand—the future of New Zealand—where that very difficult trade-off will have to be made, between turning the lights out and importing more coal.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I, firstly, want to respond to the naivety of the Minister Megan Woods in her assessment of the impacts of Part 1 on the oil and gas industry. What the Minister said is, “Hey, don’t worry that we have arbitrarily cut off at the knees any exploration, because we are still going to allow the development of petroleum through mining and through development petroleum permits.” Minister, here’s the problem: if the Government can wake up one day, without any Cabinet process, and just arbitrarily cut off exploration—why would any business invest tens of millions of dollars in a permit when the Government could wake up tomorrow and decide to do with petroleum permits what it’s done with exploration permits? They just don’t get it. They don’t get the idea that when you make arbitrary decisions, you completely undermine business confidence—not just, Minister, in the area of the oil and gas sector but, actually, right across the economy. On that, you are wrong, you are naive, and you are doing enormous damage to jobs—

Hon Shane Jones: Fake news! Fake news!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and the New Zealand economy.

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The second point is so relevant, in hearing Mr Jones chip in. He said that this was a democratic decision. Well, let’s test that. Can I ask Mr Jones: did he campaign in the 2017 election on ending oil and gas? Do any of my colleagues recall that? Mr Jones, was that your position at the last election? In fact, I remember Shane Jones saying, “New Zealand First will stand shoulder to shoulder with the oil and gas industry.” That’s what they said. Well, can the member opposite count? Actually, with the Opposition and the party policy positions of the National Party and when New Zealand First was being true to its word—actually, a majority of people voted for parties that are opposed to the very policy that is here in Part 1, and it is anything but democratic for the dodgy deal that’s been stitched up with the Greens. Let’s be upfront here: there was a quid pro quo. New Zealand First got the waka-hopping and the Green Party got the ban on the oil and gas industry, and that was anything but democratic.

Now, the third part of Part 1 that I want to refer to is just for the Minister in the chair to acknowledge the scale of what is being done. Does she agree with my assessment that clause 6, effectively, is going to ban exploration in 4.3 million square kilometres of New Zealand—4.3 million square kilometres?

Now, I know the Government’s trying to shut down this debate, but we should be very clear in this committee that we are talking about banning any exploration in an area that’s 20 times the size of the land area of New Zealand. We’re talking about the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. This isn’t tiddlywinks. This is truly massive, and the exemption provides for only 7,300 square kilometres. It’s not 1 percent. Effectively, the Minister in the chair is banning any oil or gas exploration in 99.9 percent of the realm of this country. That comes with an economic cost of nearly $24 billion, and I want to see some acknowledgment from the Minister of the scale of what is being done in Part 1, because I haven’t seen any of that in her contribution. I hear naivety.

It reminds me that the last Labour Government promised to reduce emissions. They went up by 20 percent. They promised to be carbon-neutral. I compare that with our own record in Government, where renewable electricity increased from 65—[Time expired]

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to come to clause 7 and speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 150 in my name. As I go back to the announcement on 12 April, the Prime Minister released a press statement, and attached to that was a fact sheet. In that fact sheet, she said—and the Minister in the chair has said it time and again—that permits will be protected. In that fact sheet, it said “Oil and gas permit holders have a number of existing rights under law which will continue following today’s announcement, including:”—and I’d just like to highlight one in particular—“Extensions of land to which the permit relates”.

Now, there is a provision in the petroleum programme which states that if a permit holder has made a discovery, the Minister will grant an extension of your land. So if you can imagine that they have a permit area, for example, the size of the Table in front of you, Madam Chair and Minister, and there was a discovery at the very edge of that. Then, that company could go to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals and go to the Minister and ask for an extension of land for that permit, because the discovery of that field would extend beyond the permit. This says here, in 12.4 of extension of land area of permit: “(4) If the permit holder has made a discovery, the Minister will grant an extension of land, subject to the holder agreeing to an appraisal work programme that is satisfactory to the Minister, where the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the discovery extends beyond the boundary of the permit area,”.

Now, what we have is a promise from the Prime Minister, reiterated by the Minister of Energy and Resources, that now that we have a very constrained area, which is onshore Taranaki region, if there was a discovery on the boundary of that region with a field that extended beyond it, it, essentially, means that they cannot fulfil their obligation and their word to the industry. So what I am proposing in this SOP is that the Minister may grant—if I can read out what I have in new subsection (2A): “However, the land to which a permit for petroleum relates cannot be extended to include any land outside the onshore Taranaki region”—that’s as it currently reads—“unless—(a) the extension only relates to land that is contiguous to the onshore Taranaki region;”—so that is land that is immediately connected to that boundary—“and (b) the discovery originated from permitted activity within the onshore Taranaki region.”

Now, this is the status quo—this is as it presently is. So what I am saying is that that boundary of the Taranaki region ought to have some flexibility ascribed to it, rather than be hard and fast, in keeping with the Prime Minister’s promise and the Minister of Energy and Resources’ obligation that permit rights will be protected, as was stated in the fact sheet attached to the Prime Minister’s speech on 12 April.

I don’t think that is unreasonable to ask. It’s extending what the Minister has prescribed in the bill, but it’s creating an ability for consideration. In fact, in 12.4 of the Petroleum Programme, it actually implies there that the Minister does have an obligation, because what it states is that if a permit holder has made a discovery that extends beyond the boundary of a permit area, “the Minister will grant”. There is a further section that says that if a permit holder’s application to an extension of land is based only on seismic or other geotechnical information and not an exact discovery, then “the Minister may grant” and gives a lesser sense of obligation, but certainly an obligation to consideration.

So I am asking the Minister to consider this. This is a serious Supplementary Order Paper, which I believe would give a degree of flexibility. The problem is that if they don’t have this, then will they explore within the closeness of the boundary? Probably not.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I’d like to take a very quick call to respond to the member Jonathan Young on his Supplementary Order Paper 150. I advise the member that we won’t be supporting that Supplementary Order Paper, and that is for a very simple reason. Our policy has been very clear that the purpose of this bill is to restrict the offer of further exploration permits to onshore Taranaki.

Now, the member advances an argument that the oil and gas industry have also brought up with me in the time since we made the announcement in April. The conversation that I have had with them around that is that what we are doing in this bill are the things that we are required to do to give legal effect to the decision of the April announcement, and this is what we are calling “tranche one”. Tranche two of changes to the Crown Minerals Act will be more broad-reaching, where we will consider a range of things, and I have invited them to continue the conversation, both with myself and with officials, around that very point.

So I invite that member, in terms of thinking about that and in terms of contributions he might want to make to any work that we do around tranche two changes to the Crown Minerals Act, but in these very restricted and tight changes that we are making in tranche one of the amendments, we won’t be accepting that Supplementary Order Paper.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you—finally—Madam Chair. It seemed like I wasn’t going to get a call, but thank you for recognising me and giving me an opportunity.

Right at the beginning, I would like to flag the fact that I want to have a conversation about the “offshore” definition in clause 4 in Part 1. But before I get to that, I’d like to speak or at least react to the comment that was made earlier by Minister Megan Woods in relation to what this Government and her announcement in relation to this particular bill was. I think she actually said something along the lines of “The decision was to prevent economic shock.” I was floored by that comment. I thought that when a Government makes a decision and makes an announcement on policy that wasn’t even consulted with the industry or the region, or that even had a Cabinet decision on such a big issue, it was going to create an economic shock—that it was going to create the loss of thousands of jobs, and I think someone even mentioned that the indirect job loss was going to be more than 10,000 jobs. I was floored by that.

She talked about wanting to be more, I guess—getting away from coal-powered generation. I think I remember, in a speech that I made, that when we look at alternatives to coal—I’m not suggesting we stick to coal, but the thing is that there needs to be a plan. I know that Maureen Pugh is a huge supporter of the region, and I understand that, but we need to actually grapple with the issue of security of energy in New Zealand

One of things that I actually mentioned was that in order to create one wind turbine, for example—and I know the Minister actually mentioned wind as an alternative—it needs 270 tonnes of steel; 270 tonnes of steel to create one wind turbine. And to create that amount of steel needed to create one wind turbine, it needs 300 tonnes of coal to make that amount of steel. You sort of wonder whether it is really an alternative that is actually very green.

I remember, earlier—my colleagues have actually mentioned about the process and the lack of process at the Environment Committee. Companies have actually invested millions of dollars, and wanted to come to the select committee to present their case in opposing this legislation and there were literally—

Maureen Pugh: 10 minutes.

MELISSA LEE: 10 minutes in select committee. I would have thought that when people come from all over the country, wanting to comment about a particular bill—I just wonder what the rush was by this Government in order to actually hurry up. I digress.

I wanted to talk about clause 4—the definition in relation to the “onshore Taranaki region”. There are a number of parts of this definition that need the examination of the committee. The Crown Minerals Act 1991 defines “offshore” as “anywhere that is the seaward side of the mean high-water mark”. This seems to be a very pretty straightforward definition. However, I sort of wonder—I mean I’m not much of a sea-going person. I don’t really know what that “mean high-water mark” actually means.

I guess, you know, when the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has a paper titled “Guidance Notes for the Determination of Mean High Water Mark for Land Title Surveys”, I guess what it actually means is “the line of medium high tide between the springs and neaps”—I have no idea what that actually means. I wonder if the Minister understands what that mean high-water mark actually means to everyone. I think one of the definitions is “the foot of the cliff”; another one is “the toe of the bank”—the “edge of vegetation”. To a layperson, who doesn’t really know much about what that mean high-water mark actually means, I would like an explanation of what the Minister actually understands to be the definition.

And just to—I’ve got 24 seconds—for the benefit of my colleagues who actually quoted Mr Shane Jones for his support of the democratic process that this Government apparently took, when the announcement was made by the Prime Minister, I would like to quote the honourable member—[Member puts head in hand] How do you quote that?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): We have heard a large number of claims about the process in the Environment Committee. A number of members, including some who actually weren’t even in the room, have been commenting on the process and claiming that it was difficult, unfair, and that people were cut off short. I just want to clarify some of what happened in the committee so that we need not traverse this ground again.

First of all, the claim just recently from the previous speaker—that submitters were allowed only five minutes for individuals or 10 minutes for groups. In actual fact, we allowed five minutes for individuals, as is usual with select committees, and 15 minutes for groups. So that was quite a generous time allowance. I’d also like to point out that, as a way of trying to be as fair as possible to submitters, as chair of that committee, I did keep people very carefully to that time. I warned them that I was going to do so. As their time came to an end, I asked them to finish and I did move them on very quickly. I did this because opinion was so polarised on this bill. I knew that I couldn’t extend people’s time, because it would be seen as unfair; so I made sure we were as fair as possible to each submitter.

In fact, Opposition members on that committee actually commented to me at the end of it on how fair and reasonable a process I’d made. So I am mystified at the claims that are being made in the Chamber right now. And the people who were in that room will know the truth of that claim. But for those who weren’t in the room, I would like to remind them that the submissions process—the hearing process—is all live-streamed on Facebook, so there’s actually a record of what happened in that select committee room and of the way that we tried to treat every single submitter with fairness and respect.

So, in light of all the claims that have been made about the process in that room, in light of all the claims have been made about whether people who wanted to make oral submissions were heard, I’d just like to put what I recall of the process there and say that we heard from every single submitter who asked to be heard. We made every single effort to hear them, to bring them in from all around the country via technology to give everyone their opportunity. And so with respect, Madam Chair, I think that this matter has been dealt with sufficiently.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Madam Chair, I would like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 148. It is similar to the previous one but has a slightly different application to it. As the bill states in clause 8, then down to new section 50A, “Restricted access to Taranaki conservation land”, in subsection (3), “However, this section”—which restricts access to Taranaki conservation land—“does not prevent prospecting, exploration, or mining carried out below the surface of Taranaki conservation land in accordance with section 57.”

I’d like to apply that same parallel to where there is ordinarily schedule 4 land, which can’t have access, and here this bill creates an opportunity for exploration mining as long as it is below the surface and does not impact the surface at all. In Supplementary Order Paper 148, what I am seeking a consideration for is that the Minister may grant a permit for petroleum where the mining operations are entirely located on land within the onshore Taranaki region, regardless of whether the petroleum being mined is located within or outside the onshore Taranaki region.

Once again, looking at that previous Supplementary Order Paper, which talked about how a field may extend, we know today that there are huge scientific improvements and technological improvements in terms of drilling technique. It’s often called “horizontal” drilling. We know that, for example, at Pohokura there’s been horizontal drilling to Kupe, to Maari, and to different places, where a drilling platform may be in one position but may target another position that could be three or four or five kilometres away.

So if we are prepared to say in this bill and the Minister is prepared to allow conservation land to have that style of exploration take place under it, although not on it, why would the Minister not allow for that type of exploration and that technical horizontal drilling to occur beyond the Taranaki border, even though it is located within the Taranaki onshore border? Because that might be a solution to the issue that I raised before, where it comes to a field, a reservoir, or whatever, that seismically has been located beyond the onshore Taranaki region.

Once again, it is ensuring that those activities that actually seek to do that exploration occur within the Taranaki region, but what is subsurface can be a different thing. I’m not suggesting that that subsurface go to offshore, because it’s explicitly in the bill that that is not a consideration, but some flexibility—whether the Minister is going to respond by saying “Well that may be part of consideration of tranche two.” or not—I do think is worthy of consideration, considering we have an exemplar here of what will occur or could occur in conservation land.

Surely, sort of rough Taranaki scrubland is no more important than conservation land. And so I’m proposing that we look at this amendment here in Supplementary Order Paper 148 to grant what’s considered to be “running room”—a current practice, a current understanding, a current process by which the hydrocarbon sector can operate, and currently a regime that is in play with New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals.

It doesn’t seem to me to be outrageous or outlandish; it seems to be reasonable, and I would invite the Minister to consider this Supplementary Order Paper, because I believe that what it does is create that flexibility that will enable that investment that companies make to be able to be protected. And one of the things that she has said in terms of part of her policy background of this is to maximise the infrastructure and the investment cost for the sake of New Zealand and those companies. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s with pleasure that I will make a short contribution on the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, whether for five or 10 minutes—the latter being urged by Andrew Falloon, but perhaps he’ll be urging me in a different direction once he’s heard the content of what I have to suggest, along with some other members of the House, perhaps.

I’d like to focus on clause 4 of the bill, which relates to section 2 of the principal Act, which is in relation to interpretation and more particularly the phrase “onshore Taranaki region”. Now, in the bill it’s proposed by the Minister of Energy and Resources and her Government that this be defined in a certain way, which I’ll come to quite specifically in a moment. My colleague Melissa Lee asked some very intelligent questions about exactly the meaning of some of these words, and it is significant because the application of the Act, as amended, as it will become if this passes, will be affected by exactly the areas that we’re talking about.

So onshore Taranaki region, then, “means the Taranaki region as constituted by clause 4 of the Local Government Taranaki Reorganisation Order 1989, but excludes any part of the region that is offshore”. I emphasise the final word “offshore” because the meaning of that isn’t actually particularly clear in this amendment bill. And so we can actually look, of course, in the Act itself, and we see there a definition of offshore as being, and I quote, “anywhere that is on the seaward side of the mean high-water mark.” Seaward, meaning on the side, of course, of the sea rather than the land, in the same way that leeward and windward are opposites.

I’ll just pause for a moment to note that this is an area of my life which I have in a previous professional life spent some time agonising over as a navigator with the navy. So I appreciate and understand that actually lives are at stake when it comes to understanding exactly the definition and understanding of where water and land intersect. So what then is offshore? And we have that definition in the Crown Minerals Act, but that, in turn, leads us to ask the question: what does the phrase “mean high-water mark” actually mean?

Some concerned citizens and I have been looking into this question with some enthusiasm, and we’ve noted that there’s a paper from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in the early 1990s that provides guidance along those lines. It was published by the professional development committee of the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors. It actually goes back to the common law cadastral boundary definition, so as between, again, the land and the sea, as being, and I quote from a case in 1854 between the Attorney-General v Chambers—whoever or whatever “Chambers” might have been. “The line of medium high tide between the springs and neaps”—“springs” being the tides which are at their greatest or lowest extent corresponding to full moons or new moons, and “neaps” being all those other tides. So on a sine curve, such as we can use to represent tides coming and going over the course of a year—our springs being at the greatest extent.

So again just reminding you, Madam Chair, and anyone else who’s still following with interest at this point, we’re talking about the definition of “offshore”, which specifically helps to define the exclusion within the “onshore Taranaki region” definition in the bill. And so we’ve got a legal definition by that particular item of case law from a century and a half ago but also some advice of chief surveyors that talks about the foot of a cliff, the toe of a bank, the edge of vegetation, or, my personal favourite, a line of driftwood as being indicators of where the mean high-water mark might occur.

So my question to the Minister then, noting all these possible different understandings, is whether she agrees with any of those types of definitions for what a mean high-water mark might mean. Bearing in mind that that in turn will define what will be “offshore” for the purpose of section 2 of the principal Act in defining onshore Taranaki region. So if she can give some guidance on that. No doubt there won’t be any changes to the legislation on the basis of me having asked these questions. I don’t seek that; I merely seek some clarification so that the record will state when this bill comes into the law, as amended, as it inevitably will—it seems then we’ll at least know what we’re dealing with.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): 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 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 151 in the name of Gareth Hughes to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of Jonathan Young to clause 6A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jonathan Young to insert new clause 6B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 150 in the name of Jonathan Young to clause 7 be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

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 Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Further provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members, we now come to Part 2, the debate on clause 9 and the schedule.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you, Madam Chair. Like I did with Part 1, just with Part 2 of this bill I want to go through some of the changes that were made to this legislation by the select committee. In this part, which is a new clause 22 being inserted into schedule 1 of the Crown Minerals Act—if we look at that first, it is new clause 22, “Interpretation”, new clause 23, “Existing permits unaffected”, new clause 23A, “Applications for subsequent permits unaffected”, and new clause 23B, “Subsequent permits unaffected”.

The Environment Committee made a number of very technical changes to the new clauses 22 and 23, and these changes were to further clarify the Government’s policy position that the changes in the bill are only intended to apply to new petroleum permits and not existing permits. The policy intention of the bill, as we traversed in the debate on the last part of the bill, is to ensure that those with existing petroleum permits, with subsequent permits to their existing permits, and with applications relating to either, are unaffected by this bill. I think that’s something really important that we spelt out as explicitly as possible in these provisions in the bill. As such, new clause 23 was amended and new clauses 23A and 23B were inserted to make that even clearer, and I thank the committee for that work.

This is incredibly important, because what we have to realise is that this bill does not signal an abrupt end to petroleum exploration in New Zealand. What it does is signal a managed and long-term transition to the end of petroleum exploration in New Zealand, and when we say “managed and long-term”, we are talking 20, 30, 40 years down the track. Indeed, there are a number of exploration wells that are to be drilled in the coming years, and one is currently being drilled. If these are successful, permit holders will have the same rights and privileges as they do now, before this legislation has passed.

The other change that was made here was new clause 24, where existing applications for permits for petroleum were determined in accordance with the Act as amended. Some submitters raised a very valid issue around the retrospective application of this new provision, and I think it is important to be clear about what this provision does and why. The provision does not affect existing rights, but, rather, affects the outcome of any application process that might already be under way. I’m advised by my officials that there are currently no such applications, but there is always potential for an application to be lodged at any time. Should an application for a new permit be made today, for example, it would have been made with awareness of this bill, and, as such, it would be considered under the Crown Minerals Act as amended by this bill. The provision reduces the potential for the policy intent and objectives of this bill to be undermined by people rushing before the new provisions commence to make applications on the basis that the old law would apply to those applications.

New clause 26 is a very specific provision, and this clause allows current proceedings in the High Court between Greymouth Gas Turangi Ltd and the Minister of Energy and Resources to continue as if the amended Act had not been enacted. The bill as introduced included an incorrect reference to these proceedings, which was, helpfully, corrected by the Environment Committee—so thank you very much for that.

New clause 27, “Changes to the minerals programme”—the minerals programme set out, of course, how a Government will exercise specific powers or discretions and will interpret and apply specific provisions in the Crown Minerals Act and the associated regulations. They are intended to provide guidance and support the implementation of the Act. The intention of this new provision is to enable a minerals programme to be updated with only those changes necessary to give effect to the bill without triggering the obligation to provide the notice and consult provisions under sections 17 and 18 of the Act. It was never intended to enable the introduction of new policy; it is simply around the provisions in this legislation.

However, some submitters raised issues with the way the provision was worded and whether the word “Consequential” might lead to new policy changes being made as a consequence of the bill. The Environment Committee tightened the wording around this provision to ensure that it can be used only in the way that was originally intended—that is, around the provisions of this bill and not further policies. Under the revised bill, the only changes affected by this provisions are those that insert information into the programme to explain the effects of the amendments made to the Act by this bill.

So I thank the committee for the work that they did around these very technical clauses that we’re going through—very technical and very specific clauses—in Part 2 of the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your comments in terms of managing long-term transition. Before I just come to some substantive comments around Part 2, can I say that this transition has been taking place for a considerable period of time, and the hydrocarbon industry certainly engaged in that and have been for some time. So while I appreciate that the Minister is saying 20, 30, or 40 years down the track, there has always been a commitment—especially in latter years—to consider the issues around climate change and to reduce emissions, particularly in the exploration and the production sector, which is what we’re looking at, who currently generate about 2 percent of New Zealand’s emissions.

Coming to new section 23, “Existing permits unaffected”, and subsection (2): “Existing permits (including any conditions to which the permits are subject immediately before the commencement of the Amendment Act) continue to have effect according to their terms (unless and until those conditions are amended, or those terms are changed, in accordance with this Act as if the Amendment Act had not been enacted).” Yes, that may give assurance to current permit holders. Can I ask the question, therefore, that, as I raised under Part 1, an existing permit holder who applies for an extension of area for their permit because the discovery, the reserve, the resource that they have discovered is beyond their permit area—that that will be considered under the current conditions upon which they gained the permit in the first place, where in section 12.4 of the Petroleum Programme, if they have had a discovery and apply for it, the Minister will grant them, under some obvious conditions, and that that would take place. Is the Minister saying that, yes, she would, because this is what this provision says in Part 2—that she would honour existing conditions to permits? Is she saying that she will curtail that to within onshore Taranaki region, so there will be, in fact, a limitation of those conditions? I think just some clarity would be appreciated, because we’re not talking about new permits; we’re talking about existing permits which she and, of course, the Prime Minister have made those commitments to—that they would be unaffected. “Existing privileges unaffected”—that is the heading of new section 25. So I do think that it’s important and opportune for us to have some clarity around that specifically.

Can I also say that as we look down the track, it’s—as the Minister said—a managed and a long-term transition: 20 to 30 to 40 years down the track. At present, we have 100,000 square miles of offshore opportunity for existing permits that have already been permitted for that exploration to take place. We were informed by the officials and informed through the regulatory impact analysis that in their assessment, based on past information and how it has occurred, in that 100,000 square kilometres they would expect—how many wells would you expect in 100,000 square kilometres? It could be 100,000; it could be one well per square kilometre. But Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials stated that they expect, on past experience, a total of four—one per 25,000. Of those four, I’m assuming that we’re looking at the Barque and the Carvell prospects offshore, Timaru, where Andrew Jefferies has been quite clear and quite pronounced in his comments in the public media that because of this bill—they previously had some interested parties who would go into a joint venture with them, but now they’ve all turned away, and it is looking increasingly difficult for them to proceed.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a call on Part 2, which actually, I think, should be better renamed “Speaking out of both sides of your mouth”, because for Part 1, what we’ve heard from Minister Woods is a justification of why her Government wants to take the lead in climate change and the lead in banning and constraining our opportunity with respect to oil and gas, and we’ve had a significant number of times where she has got to her feet and talked to the opportunity that must be grabbed by New Zealand to show leadership. Then, of course, she stands up in Part 2 and says, “Oh, but, actually, we still want to continue with some exploration—particularly those who have existing rights.” It talks to the dichotomy that exists, actually, within this bill.

As we’ve discussed previously, this is an optics symbol bill. On the one hand, depending on the audience, they will talk up the constraints that they are putting on our export opportunity with respect to oil and gas, and this is the section in which they say,

“Oh yes, but onshore Taranaki, your existing rights are unaffected, and so don’t really worry about it.” On the one hand, we have a conversation around “Well, the oil and gas is heading to be a sunset industry, anyway. You already had a thousand jobs lost off it when the price dropped.”, but then, in the same breath, is “Oh, yes, but, you know, we still want to be there for a just transition and to manage a transition for the region and the economy.”

So the question to the Minister, when we look at these issues with respect to protecting existing rights, is, please, Minister, could you explain to us—those few who are listening and not watching the Melbourne Cup—what does “just transitions” actually mean, because—

Erica Stanford: It’s not a racehorse name.

TODD MULLER: Yes, it’s not a racehorse name. It could be, actually. We hear it all the time—“just transitions”. I’ll tell you what this party thinks “just transitions” means: unemployment and severe dislocation cloaked in the language of empathy from our Prime Minister. That’s not just transitions; that is letting this country and regional New Zealand down.

So let’s hear what a just transition actually means, and I’m sure the Minister will say, “Well, this Part 2 is part of a just transition because a small part of the industry that currently exists onshore, they may continue.” Offshore, you can’t; onshore, you can. The assumption here is that, of course, onshore, those opportunities will continue unabated, and as Jonathan Young has very eloquently voiced this afternoon, actually, when you dig into—excuse the pun—how this sector works, it is not anywhere near as optimistic as the Minister has outlined.

Indeed, we heard through the select committee from a number of submitters over the chilling effect that this was already having with respect to those businesses who have interests in oil and gas in New Zealand, including the opportunities that are supposedly enabled in Part 2—the existing permitted opportunities. OMV talked about the fact that they have a third of that, as I understand, and if they don’t have a find by 2018 or 2019, they’re likely not to continue with any exploration.

So this came up time and time again in the select committee—a complete misunderstanding from the other side around how this sector actually works, the long-term view that investors take, and the chilling effect with respect to their investments, particularly for those existing opportunities that sit in the ground. The Minister, I am sure, will stand up and say “Don’t worry, we will have supply security because all of this onshore opportunity will be realised.”—that is nonsense. The data doesn’t support it. Jonathan Young, with huge experience from that region, has already talked to the fact that we will be exposed here from a security of supply perspective, and this Government simply wipes that critique away, thinking that somehow those with capital are going to magic up an opportunity, despite the constraints inherent in this part.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Crown minerals bill. Now, this bill is plain madness, and we will reverse it when we get back in 2020. It does not reduce emissions, it does not speed up the transition to renewables, and it does not help climate change. Now, they talk about a transition, but what’s the plan? What is the plan to transition? You can’t just kill the supply without dealing to the demand.

Now, hydrogen—they talk about hydrogen. I’ve heard the Ministers talking about hydrogen. Well, hydrogen is not a fuel in itself; it’s a means of storage. It takes energy to create hydrogen, and it’s a means of storage, so that’s not a fuel. Hydro—we have nowhere near enough hydro, and can you imagine the Greens allowing us to dam some more rivers? I don’t think so.

Geothermal: we’ve got beautiful geothermal power in Northland, but nowhere near enough geothermal in the whole of the country to meet the demand. Wind farms: I’ve heard the Ministers talk about “Oh, wind farms are going to solve the issues.”, but we would have to build four wind farms a year for 20 years to cope with the growth and deal with the energy demand for New Zealand.

So their plan is really to kill the oil and gas industry, and then hope and pray that technology delivers the energy we need. Well, in South Australia, they did that. They have a few numpties making a few decisions, and they got blackouts. So are we going to get blackouts?

The Crown is looking at somewhere between $7.9 billion and $23 billion in lost revenue from this decision, and that’s just Crown revenue—that’s not the wider economic costs. Well, for $7.9 billion, the Labour-led Government could have had their Auckland light rail, and we could build Waterview, Transmission Gully, Dunedin Hospital, the “Kiwi hoax” programme, and Christchurch Stadium.

Gas supplies 15 percent of New Zealand’s electricity generation. It covers our peak times when we have dry summers and dry winters, so it’s a vital part of our energy system, providing the back-up for our beautiful renewable energy grid. But there was no Cabinet paper, no consultation with the industry or the Taranaki people, and no cost-benefit analysis. Those members did not campaign on it and there’s no mandate, and they didn’t even give it to the experts on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. They gave it to the Environment Committee, which also, incidentally, has a majority with the Labour-led Government.

So it’s a major contribution to failing business confidence, and it hangs out the sign to overseas investors that we are closed for business. Anyone that understands oil and gas and investment knows that it’s a long-term strategy, and if they think that the Government wakes up one day, gets out of bed, and changes the rules, they’re going to get the heebie-jeebies and get out of here. It makes us look like a banana republic.

Oil and gas accounts for 54 percent of New Zealand’s primary energy needs and provides 4,600 jobs in Taranaki and 11,000 jobs indirectly, and it adds $2 billion a year to New Zealand’s GDP. The oil and gas sector is a major contributor of foreign direct investment, and do you know what? We had the bill at select committee for a month, two weeks of which was when we weren’t even sitting. So they had two weeks for an industry that’s worth billions of dollars to New Zealand to put their story across and give their submissions. I think that is pretty damned rude. To shorten what is traditionally a six-month process down to one month—I think that’s a slap in the face for the industry. And they even blocked the select committee from going to Taranaki.

Submitters said this will increase energy prices, increase electricity prices, increase the cost of living, and affect the very people that vote—I mean, a lot of Labour voters, the low-income New Zealanders. But I quote from Minister Megan Woods: “We are a Government that listens, then acts. That consults widely, thinks [about] issues deeply and seeks to forge consensus on how we can take New Zealand forward together.”—what a joke. This will be devastating long term for New Zealand. Like with charter schools, it’s blind ideology versus plain old common sense.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call, although I am conscious that at 1 minute past 5 on the first Tuesday of November there might be quite a few dozen people who would usually watch Parliament TV who have probably switched over—and it has nothing to do with my colleague Matt King taking the call right before me.

I did just want to thank, actually, a couple of speakers who have come before me: both Deborah Russell, who is the chair of the Environment Committee, for taking a call—and I’m sure there’ll be plenty more opportunities for her to do so as we roll into this evening—but also, too, the Minister, Megan Woods, who has, I think, been quite good at responding to some of our comments today. But I do just want to pick up on a couple of comments that she made in some earlier comments, and they do relate to Part 2 of the bill. She mentioned that this bill, and particularly Part 2, would allow for a just transition away from oil and gas, and she specifically said they are “not pulling the rug out”—not pulling the rug out. Well, tell that to people in Taranaki. Tell that to the 15,000 people whose jobs will be affected by this bill progressing through Parliament. That’s 15,000 people, 15,000 families, who rely on a pay packet from the oil and gas industry.

And if members opposite want to repeat the line that’s been used many times this afternoon, that it won’t affect anyone who’s currently in work—well, go and talk to the people at Fitzroy Engineering Group, a company in New Plymouth which employs 400 people, who on the day this bill was announced implemented a hiring freeze. That’s an absolute example of where a company who is related to the oil and gas industry has said, “As a result of this legislation, we are going to hire no more people.” And that will be replicated across the industry. It will be replicated across the oil and gas sector, and replicated across all of the industries that are related to it.

She also went on to say, in another quite incredible comment, that the Barque development, which is off the coast of North Otago, would still go ahead. My area of Rangitata would benefit hugely, actually, from the Barque development, because they’ve been in discussions with PrimePort—the very large port in the central South Island—about bringing the gas ashore to Timaru. So a huge number, 3,100 jobs that would be created from the Barque gas development would be in Timaru. So parts of the bill, as it stands, say that current permits wouldn’t be affected, and that’s something that the Minister repeated this afternoon. She said that the Barque development can “still go ahead”. Well I just want to point the Minister to the permit holder actually, which is New Zealand Oil and Gas. In their submission to this bill they said, “the Bill makes development of this prospect materially less likely.”—materially less likely. So what that means is that those 3,100 jobs that would be created in South Canterbury and in North Otago from this gas development are less likely to happen because of Part 2 of this bill and because of this bill progressing into law.

It’s not just those 3,100 jobs, though; it’s also the billions in taxes and in revenue that would be created by that development. And it’s not just that and it’s not just the jobs; it’s also all those pay packets—those 3,100 pay packets that would be spent in Timaru, that would be spent in South Canterbury, and would be spent in the South Island. This bill, according to the permit holder, and particularly Part 2, is going to make that development materially less likely to occur because they can’t find the international investors to invest. They specifically highlight some of the comments that have come in from offshore, because they are a reasonable player in the oil and gas sector in New Zealand. But, of course, for a development like this and for bringing down a rig, for example, it is a very expensive enterprise to do.

So they have provided some comments from some of the potential international partners who had expressed an interest previously. One of them says, “Looks interesting but given state of play in NZ at the moment I don’t think we will get much airplay internally. So will pass on this one.” Another one said, “It’s been an education for me seeing the reaction by even discussing NZ here! … the NZ government has thrown a spanner in the works stopping future exploration licences.” The last one, which is my favourite, says, “I’m sorry to inform you but we excluded New Zealand from our area of interest for new ventures after series of opportunities review and recent political issues.” It is a direct—direct—result of this new Government and this Government bringing this piece of legislation in that that development off the coast of South Canterbury and North Otago is materially less likely, and it’s because they can’t find investors.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I usually say that it’s a pleasure to rise and speak in these debates, but I have to tell you that this one’s just not so good. It really is not good to be standing in this Chamber in a committee of the whole House that has been asked to go into an extended sitting in order to examine this bill as reported back from the second reading, because—well, it’s just a bad piece of legislation. The individual parts and clauses—specifically, a new Part 2 is being inserted into schedule 1 of the Crown Minerals Act—actually go to the heart of a lot of confusion that this bill has created, not just in this Parliament and not just in the local industry but, actually, globally about what exactly this Government’s intention is. You see, they’ve come back—if you look at, for example, new clause 23(2) being inserted into schedule 1, which says that existing permits continue to have effect—and it appears that what the Minister is trying to say is that permits could also be extended if they currently exist.

This goes to the central paradox of this bill, which is that on the one hand, the Government would have us believe that it is engaging in a nuclear-free moment and that New Zealand is leading the world, that it is going to transform the way that energy is used and consumed throughout this country, and then from here, beyond, to the rest of the world—that is the rhetoric on the one hand. That is the intention of the bill that we heard from members at the second reading.

Then, on the other hand, we ask ourselves, well, does the clause and the specific text that’s being brought back from second reading actually reflect that intention? What it seems to say is, “Well, maybe if you have an existing permit, extensions will still be allowed, and maybe your existing privileges granted will still be allowed.”, and that leads us to ask the question: does the Government really believe that it’s implementing a nuclear-free moment? Or, actually, what this Government is doing is trying to have a bob each way, because whenever they’re challenged—whenever the Government is asked about petrol prices, for instance, or what its intention is for the Taranaki region—they turn around and say, “Oh no, it’s not that bad. Most things will continue as they are. We’re not really making much change here.”

So what I want the Minister to stand up and answer is: when she puts in this new part of the schedule for all of these provisions for existing privileges, for existing permits, which one is it? Is the Minister taking us in a bold leap forward that is going to transform energy worldwide, or is it actually the truth that not much is changing here—that there’s nothing to see—because I think, if we’re going to be certain that this bill before us truly reflects the Government’s intention, she needs to tell us. What does she say to the Fitzroy Engineering that we just heard about from Andrew Falloon? What does she say to the global investors? Is she saying that “This is a nuclear-free moment and the time that New Zealand changes everything.”, or is she saying that “Actually, there’s nothing to see here and existing permits will continue.”, as the new Part 2 inserted into schedule 1 by this amendment seems to suggest?

I think the committee needs to know, because if it’s the case that, actually, this Government is trying to transform the world, then perhaps they need to be bolder. Perhaps they need to remove some of these protections and privileges that will allow—as they tell us—everything to carry on as it always has. But, on the other hand, if they are not trying to ruin people’s property rights and destroy New Zealand’s international reputation, then maybe what they actually need to do is give greater protections to people investing in the oil and gas industry in New Zealand.

So if the Minister could stand up and tell us which one is it—a nuclear-free moment, or “nothing to see here”—I think the committee would be greatly aided. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Speaking to Part 2 now of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. I’d like to focus specifically on new section 26, being within the schedule that will be the new Part 2 inserted into the Act. In particular, I’d like to highlight what I think is some matter of drafting, actually, if nothing else, that could be tidied up, and perhaps the Minister might have a view on some of the suggestions that I’m about to make in that regard.

New section 26 is called “Specified proceedings unaffected”. So this is, basically, setting out that the bill will not affect a particular matter that’s before the courts at the moment. If you’ll indulge me for a moment, Madam Chair, I’ll quickly outline the words of that, and that will give me a better position from which to be able to highlight what I think are some limitations in the way that that’s been set out: “The proceedings in the High Court between Greymouth Gas Turangi Limited and the Minister of Energy and Resources”—and then, within brackets, a number related to the particular case—“may be continued, heard, and determined, or settled, as if the Amendment Act (other than this clause) had not been enacted.”

There are a number of difficulties that I have with the way that this has been constructed. The first is that, of course, this particular case that’s referred to might actually not still be going on by the time the bill is enacted, or indeed given Royal assent. So if the legislation—the bill—referred in some way to that possibility, perhaps by saying “the proceedings that are taking place as at 6 November 2018” or “at the time of drafting” or “at the time of the committee stage of this bill commencing”, or so on, then that might be helpful for the sake of clarity.

It’s also something of a concern to me that this doesn’t actually refer to the fact that the case might be appealed. So if this matter which is referred to in the legislation has been a proceeding before the High Court, in this particular matter, it might actually be subject to appeal, which would be the normal legal right of one or other of the parties to seek leave to appeal. And if that’s the case, then it’s not actually clear whether the exclusion that’s currently set out in new section 26 would actually continue to apply. I suspect it would, and perhaps at least for the sake of clarity for those who are particularly affected by that case, the Minister might be able to provide a view to the House for the sake of the record.

Similarly, in relation to the case itself, there might be ancillary matters, there might be related proceedings, there might even be different entities that become a part of this legislation—they might get joined at some other point in the process. It might be also, just off the top of my head, that the particular company that’s listed there as one of the parties might—and I suggest this not as a real possibility with any knowledge of that possibility—in general terms go into liquidation or receivership and, therefore, might be somewhat outside the effective definition within this Act of that matter that is excluded from its effect.

Similarly, the Minister of Energy and Resources might become a different entity by reason of—and I don’t mean the person herself in this case, but it might be that a different ministerial portfolio is created such that, actually, a different party to the proceedings would, effectively, be substituted. And I think that in the Act, if we’re going to go to the trouble of spelling out for very good reason that a particular set of proceedings is excluded, we might as well be precise about that.

Another related issue arises, which is to say that similar issues to this with the same justification for exclusion might arise, bearing in mind that this bill amending the Act will, basically, come within the limitation period for such issues. So I wonder if the Minister can advise whether she has given any thought to, or her officials might be able to give any advice on, whether similar cases to that might be precluded similarly.

Finally, as we’re competing for attention with the Melbourne Cup, I’d like to finish with a few more general remarks. It seems that the Government has its blinkers on. We can talk about that till we’re hoarse but, effectively, it’s an exercise in unbridled power, the way this has gone through. They’re jockeying for position on the world stage. It’s policy on the hoof. They should be reined in. They’re looking a gift horse in the mouth for this part of our economy. That’s seven horse puns on the trot—sorry, now eight—and I’m happy to be one of the “neigh-sayers”.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Megan Woods with some trepidation.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): With some trepidation! I’m not going to continue the puns, but well done to that member.

Look, there are a couple of questions that have been raised in this part of the bill that I want to address. I’m going to start with one of the last ones that was raised by the previous speaker that just sat down, Chris Penk, which was around new section 26, in terms of whether another Minister could be substituted into there. I’d like to reassure that member that that’s a very specific clause that is actually about proceedings that are currently under way. So it’s related to one very particular set of circumstances.

Some other questions have been asked about what a “just transition” is. Well, I think that it is actually worth spending a bit of time talking about that and how it relates to this part of the bill, because a just transition is a transition where a Government is taking a long-term, managed approach; it’s not waiting for things to magically happen. It’s seeing that there is change coming down the economic line. We can see that fossil fuels are coming to an end in our economies around the world, and Governments all around the world are grappling with these questions. We have the opportunity here in New Zealand to get on the ground along with our regional economic development programme and plan for what the future industries are that need to replace those fossil fuel industries that are going to be displaced.

Not only can we think about what the regional economic development is that we have to do in that area—what are the businesses that we need to encourage, what does the Government need to stand alongside, what does it need to do to help, and we’ve already seen some small investments through the Provincial Growth Fund in this area—but we also can think very carefully and in a very managed way around what skills training requirements are going to be in that area. Although just about everybody who currently works in the oil and gas industry will be able to finish their careers working in the oil and gas industry, we are planning for future generations and the fact that we need to make sure that new industries—that we are planning for in that area, so that Taranaki can continue to be an energy leader for New Zealand, and that we have a population that is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities that are coming down the line.

I’m very pleased to say that this Government has already established a Just Transitions Unit. It’s on the ground, it’s working away, it’s doing some incredible work, and we’re seeing some really positive things come out of there.

I’d like to also address the question that was asked by a couple of members, but by Jonathan Young firstly, around clause 23(2)—and I think David Seymour also asked that—asking whether existing permits would be able to apply for applications. Now, it’s existing permits as they exist—that’s exactly what the clause says. So it’s very explicit there. I mean, new permits, obviously, will be treated differently. So the current conditions are that an application has to be made on very tight, very specific grounds in terms of applying for an extension of a permit. We set out, in terms of this tranche one of the changes, to do the bare necessities to put into effect the announcement we made. One of those was that existing permits would be honoured. So the member is correct in his assessment of that.

So just to clear up any discrepancies that might be there: under the current work, existing onshore permits can extend offshore and onshore —that’s under the law as it stands before the amendments are made. An existing offshore permit can extend offshore and onshore. But, under the amended legislation that we’re debating here today, a new permit cannot extend offshore, but a new permit can extend within the onshore area as per the clause in Part 1 of the legislation.

Now, we had some members say that this meant we were talking out of both sides of our mouths. This was saying that we were talking big, but we weren’t actually doing what we were. I thought David Seymour was about to table an amendment for us to go further, as many of the submitters who came ahead of this this bill did. But we made an absolute commitment to permit holders at the time of the April announcement—and, actually, before the April announcement, when the Prime Minister was talking publicly about this and I gave a speech to the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand conference prior to that announcement—where we talked about change coming, but that existing permits would be respected. That is exactly what we’re doing here with this legislation today. What we’ve also said is that there is tranche two of changes, where there does need to be a conversation within the new environment that we can manage permits. That’s a conversation that we’ve talked a lot with industry about, and that we’re willing to have under tranche two.

Now, Andrew Falloon, being a local member of Parliament, also raised a very local issue for him about some concerns that were raised around further investment in some of the exploration prospects and the ability of investors to invest in them. Well, I’d like to reassure that member and other members that I have met with many of the current permit holders. They have told me that they are getting some signals from the international investor community that they’d like to get some clarity. The Prime Minister and I both agreed that we would write to individual permit holders, spelling out exactly what the decision was and the fact that existing permits were to be honoured. This was appreciated by the industry and it has been proven useful.

What Andrew Falloon was also addressing in there was something that I have talked about with a number of permit holders in the industry body now, and it’s the reason why I’ve agreed to—on a case by case basis—consider a two-year-type pause on the drill or drop provisions so that there is more time for people to consider their options and to reconfigure the way in which they do things. That is something I have invited permit holders that would like to consider that to do—to come in and make a case and we can see if there is anything we can do. This is not about an indefinite extension. This is about a two-year - type extension where a business can reorganise itself for that smooth transition. We know that in order for this to be a smooth transition, we need to be making sure that we are working with not only the industry but also communities and wider stakeholders.

One of the things in this debate that I think is a bit regrettable is that there seems to be a perception that industry is the only stakeholder. I think we saw from the number of submissions to select committee, the thousands of submissions overwhelmingly in support—with a majority in support—of the legislation, that there’s a very wide range of people who feel they are a stakeholder in this issue, and that is something we need to consider. So they’re the questions that have been raised within this part of the bill, and I look forward to the debate continuing.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I’d just like to add to Mr Chris Penk’s puns. I think this Government’s actually having a bob each way!

I was trying to look at the different parts, as I wasn’t part of the Environment Committee and was wanting to get myself familiarised with the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. Looking at Part 1 and Part 2, I’m sort of at a point where I think that, in one corner, the Government wants to end exploration; on another point, they want to continue. And I’m sort of thinking: which one are they actually talking about? I was getting a little bit confused.

In terms of what the Minister actually talked about when she said “just transition”, I guess it’s about where one looks from—where the perspective is actually coming from. When the Minister talks about the transition to an industry that is going to be hugely impacted, I don’t think anybody will be using the terminology “just”. You cannot have a just transition when there is a huge loss of jobs. And the question that I’d like to pose to the Minister, in terms of how little the impact to the economy is that she’s actually suggesting—that the economic impact of this decision is actually not going to change or impact on Taranaki, she says—the Taranaki region has the highest per capita GDP of any region in New Zealand; can she guarantee that the decision that she’s actually made and the decision that this Government has made is not going to impact on Taranaki having the highest per capita GDP of any region in New Zealand? It’s the best.

What about the Taranaki region having the highest average wage of any region in New Zealand? Can the Minister guarantee that the decision to stop—this particular legislation—is not going to impact on Taranaki having achieved so far the highest average wage of any region in New Zealand? Can she also guarantee that oil and gas actually accounts for 54 percent of New Zealand’s primary energy supply? How is she going to replace that? She says she’s actually going to be replacing it with clean energy. Considering the fact that earlier, during question time, I think it was, Mr David Seymour talked about 120,000 tonnes of coal that is actually coming in from Indonesia, I wonder how she can explain that when she talks about how, when she ends exploration, she’s going for the clean energy option, and we’ve got a situation where companies are importing 120,000 tonnes of coal. Oil and gas actually currently accounts for 54 percent of New Zealand’s primary energy supply. I’m not so sure whether this legislation is actually a good option to actually go clean. I don’t think she can actually guarantee that.

How about the oil and gas sector generating 4,600 jobs directly and supporting 11,000 jobs indirectly? Can she guarantee that those 4,600 jobs will not be canned? Can she guarantee that 11,000 indirect jobs will not be canned as a result of this Government’s policy on the hoof? I’m not trying to make a pun here. This seems to be characteristic of the decision that this Government makes: no Cabinet decision, no cost-benefit analysis by officials. I think one of the things that I actually read was that the regulatory impact statement assessment shows that ending offshore block offers is likely to cost this country $7.9 billion in lost revenue and, potentially, up to $23.5 billion. That’s actually more than two Auckland Harbour Bridges. Can the Minister actually guarantee that we are not going to lose that kind of revenue—the revenue that this country so needs to cover at least 316,000 hip replacement surgeries just for $7.9 billion? That’s actually a home for every homeless person in Auckland.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to take a call to speak directly to the comments that the Minister in the chair, Megan Woods, made when she last spoke. It was in the context of a question around a just transition, and she said that the whole purpose of a just transition and, indeed, the policy intent that sits at the core of this legislation is for the Government to look ahead and see where the changes, the big geopolitical and environmental and economic changes, are going to occur and get in front of that, and to assist the economy to move at the pace necessary to do that in an appropriate way. She said—and I quote—“The era of fossil fuels is coming to an end.” That, I think, is the most explicit statement today around the Minister’s and this Government’s view around the place of oil and gas not only in the New Zealand economy but in the global economy, despite the fact that the data is so clear that the demand for oil and gas, in particular, is going to be significant over the next 20, 30, 40 years.

So what this actually is is not a conversation around climate change or managing emissions; it is “We are opposed to the extractive industries and, in particular, we are opposed to the future of hydrocarbon.” There is no reference in this bill to the opportunity for innovation to be applied to the sector to enable cheap energy to still be a part of the mix globally but to have a reduced emissions profile. We get touted hydrogen as the solution. It may well be part of the mix; I expect it will be. But to assume, as she has said here this afternoon, that oil and gas have no future—and that is the intellectual rigour that is underpinning this bill and her comments—quite frankly is a disgrace. Show me data, Minister, which says oil and gas will not be a part of the global economy in 2050. Show me it. Table it. Say, “Look, New Zealand. This is the future we’re prepared to anchor your lives and economic opportunity to.” The data doesn’t exist.

She will show you a build in renewable energy—that’s fine from a very low base—but that same data will say that gas is a critical part of the global energies mix in 2050. Why? Because all those developing countries will be moving from coal to gas, a huge commercial opportunity for most gas producers in the world, now except New Zealand—now except New Zealand. The Government’s view of just transition is some two or three bureaucrats in Wellington coming up with $50,000 grants that Shane Jones can wave around. With respect, that is hopeless. We are not talking here about some sort of theoretical exercise; these are people. This is an economy, OK? This is an economy that will continue to be requiring hydrocarbons. There is no impact on demand; in fact, when petrol prices rise to $2.50, the Prime Minister says, “This is appalling. We need to look at the margins, because everyone’s hurting.” Goodness me. There is no intellectual coherence at all in this debate from the Government side. “We’re anti oil and gas. We see no future for hydrocarbons despite the fact, actually, that global demand is clear.”

A just transition? A just transition—having a couple of public meetings, eventually, in Taranaki, saying, “Oh, look, we’ll try and find a cycleway, $50,000”—

Lawrence Yule: A church.

TODD MULLER: A church. I mean, with respect, how on earth can you frame up a policy response to one of the more critical issues of our time—climate change—and frame it like that when the impact on this country’s emissions will go the wrong way? Our ability to contribute to the developing countries’ world emissions profile and improve theirs—we don’t participate in that, because we’ve ceded that opportunity to all the other gas explorers of the world. As they say, there is no rigour in this at all. There wasn’t when the decision was made. There’s no supporting analysis from officials that says that we should be doing this. This is just sloganeering, and when actually put under the test, the Minister stands up and says, “Actually, from our perspective, there is no future in fossil fuels.” Well, tell that to the other 190 countries out in the world.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following some of my colleagues’ comments—because I do think this is at the very core of what this bill is about; it’s the process of transition—I think that what New Zealand needs is not a “just” transition that everybody is confused about, but we need a “smart” transition. We need a transition that is comprehensive in its planning and in its consultation. We look to exemplars around the world, like Norway, who have very high uptake around electric vehicles, who have 100 percent renewables, and they do all of this on the strength of a hydrocarbon industry, who are now using those resources to invest and become international leaders in offshore wind generation, and from that the development and the production of hydrogen that will flow from some of those redundant offshore platforms in the North Sea. So people are using smart opportunities. People are consulting.

If you go and look at the definition of “just transition”, it says at the very beginning, at the front end of this, is a thorough consultation process. That is essential, because what we have today is a bill that protects the past but completely changes the future, hoping that this will make a way for Taranaki. But it’s through the people in the past—the Statoils, now called Equinor, who now are not just a hydrocarbon company but an energy company—that we see those transitions take place; that happen not driven by legislation—

Kiritapu Allan: What’s the reference to Part 2? It’s very narrow.

JONATHAN YOUNG: —we are talking about what the Minister raised—but that happen because of a desire in companies to be relevant, to be purposeful, and to support their countries and economies. I think it’s a really important thing that we look at this.

I think that, in many regards, yes, I am pleased that there are provisions to protect those past permits and those companies that will, to some degree, be able to carry on with their permits in a business-as-usual case. But what we have are existing operators—people like Methanex, people who want to bring in carbon capture technology. They want to be able to better utilise the carbon dioxide that comes from their processes, and they want to be able to convert that into methanol and be able to not have those types of emissions happening in our climate and in our atmosphere.

So what is important is not just a just transition for the workforce, but if we were to do exactly what a just transition says, and that is to do a thorough consultation before—before—decisions are made, what we might learn is that there are technologies and that there is potential investment to achieve the very goals that this bill has as its policy statement, as its background. In order to do that, what it takes is it takes a Minister and it takes a Government to have the willingness to consult.

I’m very pleased to hear that there will be a thorough consultation around tranche two. I think that what people wanted was the thorough consultation around tranche one, and I think that if we had had that, then we would’ve had probably a far more steady process and a situation where companies would see a stronger future heading towards a low-emission economy, which everybody supports. I think that we have lost an opportunity—we have lost an opportunity—because the Government have rushed at this. They haven’t done the consultation that a just transition predicates.

What we need is a smart transition. We need a transition where people can stop, take a breath, think, consult, and consider. None of this has happened, and what we are left with, with all due respect, is poor legislation. It might be taking a hammer to a walnut, crushing it and thinking that we have made some significant difference. We have made no difference. All we are doing, when it comes to a high-cost transition to a low-carbon future, is making this country and people poorer. We won’t achieve it.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make a short contribution on Part 2, so I’m grateful for this opportunity. Part 2 talks to a provision to protect existing or lodged applications for mining consents or exploration consents, and it talks to the existing permits and says that they continue to have the same effect as if this bill was not enacted. However, it talks also about applications that were submitted but not processed, and they’re being determined—so applications that were lodged or submitted but not determined before the commencement of this bill are going to be treated as having been withdrawn. So any applications that have been in the pipeline that haven’t actually been processed are going to be withdrawn.

Now, I thank Minister Megan Woods for her feedback on some of the questions that we have had this afternoon during this debate, but there was one outstanding one that wasn’t addressed, and that was my referral to coal-seam gas. That was an issue that was raised with me locally—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s Part 1.

MAUREEN PUGH: —and so I’d appreciate the Minister’s feedback on whether coal-seam gas is going to be captured by this bill and be disregarded.

I do also want to point out that in 2013, there was a visit to the wealthy sultanate of Brunei during the East Asia Summit by the then Prime Minister John Key. Back then, he said to us that “This is a country, that’s national income is dominated by the fact that it has very large oil and gas reserves,”—he was talking about Brunei, the fifth-wealthiest nation on the planet. Then he went on to say “We have 18 basins (in New Zealand) that are prospective from an oil and gas perspective and only one of those [are currently being tapped] into.” That is the potential of the sector to New Zealand that we have just had the curtain pulled down on.

Now, when you drill down into it, the world is not always seen through green-tinted spectacles, and we don’t all have the luxury to be able to do that. Some of us actually live in real New Zealand. We live in provincial New Zealand, not in the suburbs of Wellington, and certainly not in Auckland City. In regional New Zealand, in the provinces, we make a living by working hard and extracting something, farming something, or producing something. That’s real New Zealand. Now, that’s the real world, and it’s a very long way from the safety of Victoria University, where the Prime Minister chose to make this announcement. But by shutting down this industry here in New Zealand, we are shutting down the potential for our country to be prosperous.

Now, I do want to make note of one submitter in reference to Part 2 of the bill about existing permits. As has been well articulated already today by some of our colleagues on this side of the Chamber, it’s all very well to say that if you have an existing exploration permit, that is safe, but the cold hard reality is that there will be no investment partners who will come and invest here in an industry that has so much disorganisation and uncertainty associated with it. In fact, one submitter even took the opportunity of giving notice of their intention to sue the Government for the $104 million worth of their assets that are now going to be abandoned.

So we are very concerned about the ideology that is driving this, especially from a party and a Government that has so many times professed to be the most open and transparent Government this country has ever seen. Well, we are still to see that realised in the real world. It’s another ad hoc, on-the-hoof decision that’s been made. It’s going to have overwhelming impacts for this country. It’s going to deliver no benefit to the environment.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): 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 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Gareth Hughes’ amendments to the schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 151 are out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill as agreed at second reading.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement aspect of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. I’d like to focus on the commencement date, and, in particular, the fact that some urgency has been indicated by the Government in proposing a bill that will, in becoming an Act, come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

The first observation to make about that is that, clearly, the Government feels some urgency about that. That makes sense as far as it goes, in terms of their position that this is a matter of some urgency, but I would ask the Minister Megan Woods to consider whether she might be willing to accept, perhaps, a Supplementary Order Paper, if that were to be lodged, to provide a different time frame for three particular reasons that I will now spell out.

The first is that the date is uncertain in the sense that we will not know until the bill receives Royal assent when it will come into force. Obviously, at the point that it does receive the Royal assent, there will be certainty, because it will simply be the day after that that the Act will come into force, but that will allow very little time indeed for those who are affected by it to be able to respond appropriately to its provisions.

For that reason, I am wondering if the Minister would be able to provide some guidance on whether she’d be amenable to a different type of commencement, such that the Act would come into force perhaps a certain number of days or weeks or, perhaps, months or even a year or years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. That at least would provide more certainty in the sense that from the time that Royal assent was given, those who are affected most by it would have the maximum opportunity—or at least some opportunity—to arrange their affairs such that they will have the adverse effects mitigated somewhat. It seems to me that that would tie in with the Government’s stated goal more broadly of achieving “just transition”, such that those who, effectively, will be bearing the burden on behalf of all of New Zealand—and if we’re going to have a “Kumbaya” moment for the world, then at least we can have less unfairness in the sense that they will have a reasonable opportunity to move forward.

The reason this is particularly important in this bill is because of the significance of the time frame within the Act, as it will become, as mentioned in new clause 24. Now, I appreciate that’s in another part of the bill, but it’s particularly in relation to the commencement date—which I’m allowed to speak about at the moment—that that has significance. In particular, I refer to the fact that an application or a tender—an application being defined as an application or a tender—will be treated as having been withdrawn and relodged at the point that the Act comes into force. So, actually, it’s not just a matter of the timing of the bill being significant from the point of view that the various players involved need to know what’s happening generally so that they can react; it’s also that they might work proactively to act in a certain way—for example, in particular, by lodging an application in the hope that it will be viewed in one way and not the other.

The significance of that is—in particular, I’m thinking of a situation where a time frame might allow a judicial review of an application that is denied. For example, a party might apply and have such an application rejected by the Minister, or however that is considered—and I must confess I’m not on top of that detail, but I know that judicial review in general terms is available where a decision maker is said not to be reasonable. Now, if the time frame was such that that review were to be still ongoing when the Act came into force, then I think that the interests of justice would dictate very much that the applicant’s permit might actually be more appropriately considered to have been passed at that point, if the High Court—as it would be—would consider the application for judicial review, decide that the decision should be set aside, and then the Minister subsequently decides that it should be approved or determined in a positive manner.

So that is the significance of the timings as far as I’m concerned. I look forward to any comments that the Minister might have in terms of the commencement date and whether that could be pushed out, or have a specific calendar date maybe, so that there’s some certainty for all involved.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My apologies. I’ll make it clear we are debating clauses 1 to 3.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Clauses 1, 2, and 3—so I’m going to just touch on clause 2 at this point in time, which is the commencement. What I’m proposing, through Supplementary Order Paper 152, is that instead of just having a commencement date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council, we extend that to either 1 January 2021 or “Before the Governor-General appoints a date under subsection (1)(a), the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources must—(a) release a discussion document on the ‘no new mines on conservation land’ policy” and also that they complete a series of consultations, as they have stated.

The reason why I say this is because in this bill there is a provision to restrict access on conservation land for only minimum impact activity, and this seems to pre-empt the consultation process that the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources have committed themselves to—in the mining sector—take place. I think that it’s important that we ensure that that process and that timing is put in the right order, because the potential is that a company may apply for a permit in the onshore Taranaki region that actually also has some overlap in the conservation area—prior to the consultation that the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation have undertaken with the broader sector. This bill is pre-empting that and, as such, I do not think that we can afford to have such pre-emption before there’s been a thorough consultation around access to conservation land.

We all know that the Speech from the Throne says no new mines on conservation land, and so this is the policy statement that the Minister of Energy and Resources—and she spoke to the Minerals Forum in Queenstown, at the annual conference, about this consultation. Suffice it to say, there is quite a high level of alarm and concern in the resources sector about the inclusion of this provision in this bill around restricting access to conservation land, so what I’m proposing for the Minister and others to consider is that we delay the commencement of this bill until that consultation has taken place—until the consultation that the Minister has committed to and that she has given in good faith, with assurances that she will listen to the minerals and the resources sector, takes place—and the consultation is with the mining sector and iwi in affected areas.

We already understand that this bill has breached Treaty obligations through Te Ātiawa’s settlement process, where they have had a commitment by the Crown to consult on such matters, and they raised that, of course, in the select committee process. So consultation with iwi, with local government groups, with environmental groups, with community groups, and with interested members of the public—this is so important.

So I would suggest and put forward that the rest of this Act come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, but that the Governor-General appoints a date under new subsection (1)(a) after the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources have actually undertaken what they have said they will do. I think what this does is it puts into place the correct order of things.

I don’t think that the Minister in the chair, Megan Woods, wants to be accused of a lack of consultation with the minerals sector or the other sectors, so putting this provision in the bill creates that apprehension. The Minister may have an answer to that—I’d be keen to hear. But what I’m suggesting is that if this bill proceeds in the way it does, then it actually takes away an existing right, or an existing business-as-usual situation where a company who want to explore and who want to drill a hole in that exploration may want to produce and can no longer do that. At the present, there are 20 companies that do that, and it is taking away a provision.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I’m going to take a very quick call just to respond to Jonathan Young, the member who’s just taken his seat—Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 152—to let him know that we won’t be supporting this SOP. I consider it largely unrelated to this bill. In fact, the provisions that are set out in this amendment aren’t in clauses 1 to 3, but I will respond to this because the bill is actually intended to avoid the conflict between various work streams. So that is the purpose of the provisions that are in the Act. The work programme related to the Government’s work around having no new mines as set out in the Speech from the Throne is separate, and there is no need to delay to coincide those work streams.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, gosh—

Lawrence Yule: Lawrence Yule.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Lawrence Yule.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Madam Chair, it’s a pleasure—it’s nearly dinner time, and I understand that. Look, the question I wish to raise is actually around the title, because what this bill does is amend an Act, the Crown Minerals Act 1991, which is the principal Act, and then it inserts the word “(Petroleum)”. In my view, it’s too narrow a word. What we are talking about here is fundamental change to the energy that powers New Zealand. You can change oil and gas, and you can ban oil and gas, but there are implications for other forms of energy or for how we’re going to power New Zealand.

In my mind, we should simply say it’s an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and take out the word “(Petroleum)”, because I think that it’s too narrow a definition for the scale of what this Government is intending to do. Even though we’re opposing it—I understand the numbers and I understand how they work—in my view, simply talking about “(Petroleum)” does not signify what this is. We are changing a fundamental Act—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt such an eloquent member—Lawrence Yule—but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. We will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Colleagues, when we rose from the dinner break we were considering clauses 1 to 3 of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. Lawrence Yule had the call and has three minutes and 49 seconds remaining, should he so wish.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Madam Chair, Mr Yule is unable to be here. I would like to speak on the title of this bill. The bill is called the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. We understand, of course, that hydrocarbons produce more than petrol. It may be confusing to many people but there are many products that come from petroleum.

I would prefer to call this bill the “Crown Minerals (Hydrocarbon Hijack) Amendment Bill”, because the Minister took everybody by surprise. She may have said that it was well signalled but I was at the petroleum conference when she said to them “We are the 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.” That statement probably reflects the principles of a just transition. But while they were waiting for the consultation to commence, they were informed on 12 April of the Prime Minister’s decision as she spoke to other coalition leaders. In fact, that this decision was made by three political leaders without a Cabinet paper going through Cabinet, and with, I would say, incredible repercussions through New Zealand—certainly in the short and medium term—then that is a hijack. A hijack is when something happens by surprise and suddenly you find yourself poorer. I think that New Zealand has been ambushed. I think we find ourselves poorer because of this.

You know, we all, I think, generally agree that we want to head into a low-emission economy and into a future—in fact, the Productivity Commission’s work was initiated by the Hon Steven Joyce. So that was a work that came out of the prior Government. But I think that when it comes to entering a low-emissions future—and every commentator would agree with this and say this is correct—it’s going to be costly to the economy. Look, it’s a very important goal for obvious reasons, but we’ve got to be able to get there. The Productivity Commission warned us that if the costs were too high it would deter New Zealanders from embracing that pathway. I think this bill, this hijacking, this ambush, this surprise, has dissuaded many, many New Zealanders who ordinarily might have thought “Yes, we need to progress systematically with good planning and, obviously, making incremental gains as we head towards that future.”

So I don’t call this a just transition; it’s really a shock transition. What I think this country needs is a smart transition, where we have thorough planning, thorough consultation, and we can put together the energy mix that we need in this country to remain economically secure, when we can put it together very carefully, rather than killing off one sector hoping that another one will grow in its place, because, essentially, this is what this bill is trying to achieve.

I think New Zealanders have been duped by the Government. A big smile and words of empathy, a sweet camouflage for what has been described as a “kick in the guts” by the mayor of New Plymouth, or a “symbolic beheading” by one of New Zealand’s leading energy reporters. New Zealanders are being tricked that this is good for us, that this is what we have to do to stop climate change. And yes, the Minister was challenged for research to back up that this is what it will achieve for New Zealand, and I don’t think it does. I do not think that this achieves this goal for New Zealand. I think New Zealanders are taken by surprise that such a powerful and disruptive piece of legislation designed to head us towards a low-emission economy actually makes no difference to our domestic emissions or our global emissions. I did wonder today, when the Minister accused me of saying “New Zealand was too small to make a difference.”, whether she had read the advice that came from her officials, because the officials said—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Clauses 1 to 3—1 to 3.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Beg your pardon, Madam?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): 1 to 3.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Clauses 1 to 3. Right, so coming back to the title—thank you very much. “Hydrocarbon Hijack” or “I Don’t Read My Official Notes” could be another subtitle to this bill. I won’t go there.

So what we see here, I believe, is an effect on New Zealand’s economy. When I talk about hydrocarbon hijack, whenever there’s that type of approach to legislation, it bruises people, it injures people, it makes people worse off and poorer. It’s not just the oil and gas workers in my region; it’s where they now no longer spend their money. So it’s the chap down the road who might sell them a suit; it’s the people who work in the restaurants who might feed them and make them a meal. Those are the sorts of people who get affected by this.

I call this “Ultimate Nimbyism (Not in My Backyard”—[Time expired]

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I gave the member the courtesy of waiting to the end of his contribution before I raised this point of order; however, I am aware that contributions on the title clause must not provide suggestions that are clearly a critique of the contents of the bill. I would argue that that suggestion was exactly that. I would hate to see this debate go on unnecessarily and see the other side of the House suggest things that weren’t consistent with the Speakers’ Rulings.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, but the Speakers’ Rulings also states that it’s the Chair who decides that.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’ll be a pleasure to speak in any way that you should feel appropriate in relation to the clause—

Hon Stuart Nash: Just follow the rules.

CHRIS PENK: I will follow the rules. I’ll follow the rules so tightly that you will be, no doubt, very impressed with the number of different title observations that I have to make including—well, let’s get the obvious out the way—the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. It will amend the Crown Minerals Act 1991—so far so good. But what’s in the brackets there? The word “(Petroleum)”, I would suggest, could be actually usefully substituted to provide a clearer description—and not for any other purpose, Mr McAnulty—and I have a number of different suggestions along those lines.

The first could actually be the phrase “(Nuclear-free Moment)”. It could be the “Crown Minerals (Nuclear-free Moment) Amendment Bill”. That’s something of an olive branch that I would offer to the Government benches.

Simeon Brown: An olive oil branch?

CHRIS PENK: That’s something that they feel is appropriate to the nature of the bill. Ha, ha! An olive oil branch has been suggested. Well, I think that’s probably a gratuitous attempt to get the word oil into the bill. So I’ll ignore that comment from Mr Simeon Brown and not allow myself to be distracted and waste any of the House’s time on that.

But the significance of the “(Nuclear-free Moment)” suggestion that I made is that, actually—well, ironically—if nuclear energy were the substitution, that is not provided in this bill, then we would be, perhaps, not having the pyrrhic victory that we’re going to have in relation to carbon emissions, as has been previously outlined on this side of the House. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that necessarily—that would go to the content of the bill, and not the title—but I think “(Nuclear-free Moment)” would have that nice little double meaning, perhaps, according to which side of the debate one finds oneself.

Another suggestion would be something along the lines of “(Investment Implications)”—so the “Crown Minerals (Investment Implications) Amendment Bill”. There are significant implications for the emotional investment and the political investment that the Government has placed in this bill, and, of course, investment in the more literal and obvious sense in relation to extraction industries that have served us well as a country, both in terms of energy supply and, indeed, in economic terms is obvious too. So, again, I’m making a suggestion that I think might find favour on both sides of the House by offering something that could be viewed as a positive no matter which angle one approaches this bill from.

My next suggestion is the word “(Coal)”, and, just to be clear, I’m talking about the substance that’s used to burn energy. Charlie—

Dan Bidois: Not talking about “coalition”?

CHRIS PENK: No, not talking about “coalition”, actually, funnily enough, or indeed the acronym “COL”—Charlie Oscar Lima—which I won’t go into on this occasion; it wouldn’t be appropriate. So just “(Coal)” on the face of it—the coalface of it, so to speak.

So moving on, finally, to a couple of other suggestions, perhaps, it could be called the “Crown Minerals (Climate Change Impact) Amendment Bill”. Again, in the spirit of bipartisanship, recognising the significance that both sides of the debate place upon this bill, well, there will be some sort of impact, and we can all agree on that—whether it is substantial or insubstantial is a question of debate. But, actually, more significantly, in relation to the discussion we are now having in this committee, on this side of the Chamber we believe actually that the impact will be real but will be adverse. The reason for that is outlined much more eloquently than I’ll be able to manage—but, briefly, to make sense of my title-related suggestion is simply that the impact will be adverse because we’ll end up as a country importing energy from overseas that is less clean than that which we are extracting and supplying and consuming locally already. So “(Climate Change Impact)” would be a suggestion to allow both sides to claim some sort of moral victory.

Then, finally, the “Taranaki Economy Impacts Bill” would be another way of characterising this piece of proposed legislation. The disappointing aspect of that is that that can only mean one thing: it could not be, in this case, both positive and negative in a Schrödinger’s cat kind of way but actually only could be negative. It couldn’t be anything else inside that policy box; it could only be a negative effect on a part of the world that has actually served our country very well and, indeed, other parts of the world in splendid fashion too. If we’re considering climate change or global warming as a global problem, we need to see it in these terms, not just in view of New Zealand’s emissions, but, none the less, I am sad to report, as my various title suggestions make clear, that I think that these will not be served well in that regard either.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to be taking a call tonight on the title clause of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. I do so with some hesitation, actually, because I don’t typically take calls on title clauses, but I genuinely think tonight that they have titled this bill incorrectly, because there is no suggestion in here of what the bill does. It mentions petroleum, which is fair enough, but it doesn’t talk about the fact that permits will be ended. It’s not very specific at all in what the bill’s intent actually is. So I’ve got a few suggestions which I’d like to put before the committee for consideration.

The first one of those is the “Crown Minerals (Effect on Regional Development) Amendment Bill”. And the reason for that is that I think even the members opposite would appreciate there will be an effect on regional development, not just in Taranaki, of course. My good friend from Taranaki, Jonathan Young, has been talking about the impact on Taranaki, where there’s something like 15,000 jobs that are reliant on the oil and gas sector. And so I think that to adequately portray what this legislation does, we do need to be talking about the effect on regional development in Taranaki and also in other parts of the country, because it’s not just Taranaki that it will affect; it will also be other parts of the country. As we know, the legislation does lay out that Taranaki onshore will be protected for at least the short term, but it’s silent on—in fact, it bans—any other development in any other part of the country.

The example I used earlier in the debate was my area of South Canterbury, which will be affected, and this bill will affect it and that’s why I think it does need to be talking more about the effect on regional development in the title of the bill. There are 3,100 jobs on the line—the Barque development would create 3,100—and so that will have an impact on regional development if that development doesn’t go ahead.

The second one I wanted to point out was just in relation to the consultation process that we’ve gone through on this bill. And so the second title I’d suggest would be the “Crown Minerals (Four Weeks’ Consultation) Amendment Bill”. And, again, I think that would quite adequately portray the process that we’ve gone through, because, again, I think members opposite would appreciate that it has been a truncated process. Generally, legislation goes off to select committee for about six months. This select committee, the Environment Committee, had just four weeks to consider it. That included two weeks of hearings and two weeks of consideration.

Barbara Kuriger: Hearings but not much listening.

ANDREW FALLOON: And so, as part of that, they didn’t go off—exactly; not much listening—to Taranaki, for example, which is very disappointing when the majority of jobs will be lost there. So I think that if we are to properly portray what process this legislation’s gone through, we should consider changing the title to the “Crown Minerals (Four Weeks’ Consultation) Amendment Bill”.

The third one I’d like to put on the table for members to consider is the “Crown Minerals (Environmental Impacts) Amendment Bill”. Again, I think members opposite have talked at length today about the environmental impacts of the oil and gas sector, and I don’t think they’d get too much argument from this side of the Chamber. Of course there’s an environmental impact from the oil and gas sector. Again, as my colleague Jonathan Young has pointed out previously in the debate, there is already transition under way. Most companies and others are transitioning away from fossil fuels, and you see that with the likes of Fonterra moving away from coal. And so when we talk about this bill—in particular, when we talk about the title of the bill—we should be considering what the environmental impacts are.

We look at the advice that the Government’s received, and I just want to point to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE’s) advice, where they made two particular comments. The first one is that the net impact on global emissions is uncertain but more likely to be negative rather than positive. And that’s quite an important point, which I think should be reflected in the title of the bill, rather than just calling it the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, which doesn’t talk to the reasons that the Government’s putting the bill up. They’re talking about the environmental impact, so that should be reflected in the title of the bill. And unfortunately, as MBIE’s own advice has pointed out, the environmental impacts are negative.

The second thing they go on to say is that it will result in a likely increase in global greenhouse gas emissions in the short to medium term, and that’s the advice I found particularly remarkable. Again, it should be reflected in the title of the bill, because what members opposite haven’t done, simply by putting “(Petroleum)” in the title, is talk about the fact that the impact on the environment in the short to medium term will be negative rather than positive.

So I think any one of those three titles would more adequately reflect what the content of the legislation is. Simply putting “(Petroleum)” in the title doesn’t talk about the economic impacts on regions, it doesn’t talk about the process that we’ve gone through to get here, it doesn’t talk about the environmental impacts, and it certainly doesn’t even talk about the fact that we’re ending permits for offshore oil and gas exploration. Thank you.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): 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 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 152 in the name of Jonathan Young to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

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 clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 2 agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill

Third Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

This bill reflects this Government’s commitment to strengthening the partnership between New Zealand and our Pacific neighbours. In particular, we want to recognise the close constitutional ties we have with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and the contribution people from these nations have made and continue to make to New Zealand. This bill enhances our already strong ties to these nations. By providing greater pension flexibility for people who wish to live in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, this bill reflects how we want to work together toward greater social and economic development in the Pacific.

New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension are our main forms of income support for older New Zealanders. New Zealand superannuation is payable at age 65 to any New Zealand citizen or resident who is ordinarily resident in New Zealand when he or she applies, and who has been resident and present in New Zealand for 10 years over the age of 20, and also five years over the age of 50. Veterans pension is the alternative pension for veterans and their partners who qualify for New Zealand superannuation based on veterans’ Qualifying Operational Service.

Current pension portability arrangements allow people to take their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension to one of 22 Pacific countries and territories, including the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The provision that makes this possible is called the Special Portability Arrangement. Under the arrangement, New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension is paid at a minimum of 50 percent after 10 years’ residence in New Zealand, rising to 100 per cent after 20 years’ residence. Generally, to be eligible under the Special Portability Arrangement, a person must be resident and present in New Zealand on the date of his or her application. An amendment to the Special Portability Arrangement introduced in 2015 allows people resident in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to apply for New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension from the Islands, rather than needing to be resident and present in New Zealand at the time of their application. The intent of this change was to remove a disincentive for people to return to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to live. However, the change has had a smaller take-up than expected. It is now evident that the 2015 change, while removing some disincentives for skilled people to return to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau during their working lives, did not really achieve the desired effect of encouraging people to move back to and remain in those countries.

The Governments of the Cook Islands and Niue have expressed concern that the five years over age 50 residence requirement was the reason for the low take-up of the amendment made in 2015. They considered that the five over 50 residency requirement was deterring skilled people from returning to and contributing to their countries. They also expressed concern that the five years over 50 residence requirement may actually induce some people to return to New Zealand in order to ensure that they will be able to claim New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension later on.

This bill will remedy these concerns by allowing the requirement that a person have five years’ residence and presence in New Zealand over the age of 50 years to be met instead with residence and presence in either New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, or any combination of these countries. This Government also wants to ensure that superannuitants have as many options as possible as to where they choose to live, by allowing people to use residence over the age of 50 in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, or any combination of these countries to qualify for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension. This bill will achieve both these things.

The change is for the Realm countries, because this bill is about recognising New Zealand’s close constitutional relationships with these Pacific Islands—the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—which do enjoy shared citizenship with New Zealand and unique legal arrangements. Tokelau is a non - self-governing territory of New Zealand. Both the Cook Islands and Niue have adopted constitutions enabling self-government and free association with New Zealand. Free association is a status distinct from that of full independence in that it allows the Cook Islands and Niue to maintain New Zealand citizenship while administering their own affairs.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill is also about ensuring the economic and social viability of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Depopulation and its related social and economic consequences is a longstanding issue for the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The current five years over 50 in New Zealand requirement has been described as a disincentive for Cook Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans established in New Zealand to return home before the age of 55. Removing this disincentive would potentially help boost economic development and human resource capacity in these islands through an increased return of experienced people able to effectively apply skills acquired in New Zealand in their home communities. People returning in their 30s, 40s, and 50s would have the capacity to contribute to the workforce up to 35 years in advance of the age of qualification for New Zealand superannuation.

I really want to acknowledge the support for this bill from members of the House. I also want to acknowledge the support for this bill from Realm countries. I particularly want to acknowledge the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, who has been a strong advocate for this change to legislation and, in fact, was here with us during the first reading of this bill in the House here.

Can I also acknowledge the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who announced this alongside myself and the Prime Minister in the Cook Islands earlier this year. I really want to acknowledge the opportunity that we had to announce it there in the Cook Islands, which was a very special announcement given how many people have been fighting for this change over a long period of time.

I also want to acknowledge that this really is absolutely aligned with this Government’s commitment to a Pacific reset—a reset that will see us treating and working with our Pacific Island neighbours as true partners. And this is indicative of that, given that this is a request put to us—that we value the contribution that Pacific people have made in New Zealand, but we also absolutely respect the contribution that they should be supported to make in their home island countries.

I want to acknowledge the support for the bill across the House. I’m pleased that we can come together to support this bill and make positive changes for people in our neighbouring Pacific nations. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. It’s a proud day for myself, being a descendant of the Cook Islands, and also too I want to acknowledge Poto Williams, the Assistant Speaker, who also is a descendant of the Cook Islands, as well. I want to acknowledge the Hon Kris Faafoi, who is a descendant of the island of Tokelau, and being that there’s no one in the House of Niuean descent, I might just claim that, because my wife is half-Niuean as well—from the beautiful island of Niue, the village of Mutalau, and from the Fuemana family.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: So is my son—from Mutalau.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Oh sorry, I want to acknowledge others on the other side that may have some connections, as well. Those three nations are acknowledged as nations of the Realm and they have a very special relationship. In fact, it’s so special that when people sing the national anthem, they may think that in the words where it says to “Guard Pacific’s triple star”, those are the three nations of the Realm that are regarded in that vein, because it is not only a protectorate relationship but also a provision of support right across not only the House but also too in our relationship throughout the Pacific region.

This bill is significant, and I want to commend the Government of the day for supporting this work, which actually began in 2014. At that time, the Hon Murray McCully had been petitioned for some time and he was asked about changes that could be made around the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act of 2001 and also the Veterans’ Support Act. He was asked if they could be amended, be changed, in order to give portability of the pension, especially around the issues of depopulation for those particular three Realm nations, where the impact to the economy and the impact to the social fabric of those communities and those very small Island nations was dependent on a return. That was the hope—that they would return back someday to their homelands. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case. So the hope of this bill, of this change, and of these amendments is to try and address those issues. I put that on record, and I think that’s critically important.

I also too want to acknowledge that the changes that were made in 2015—and I was fortunate to be able to chair the Social Services Committee at that time. I have to say on the record that I’m not sure whether in this Parliament we have actually ever had two heads of State—we had the Hon Henry Puna from the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue, the Hon Toke Talagi, who came and presented their submissions to the select committee. Again, I think it’s a rare occasion, but on that occasion, they made their submissions, and their submissions were based on the principle that this portability of the pension would allow their people who have left the Islands to return back home and, again, bring back with them experience, expertise, and qualifications that would benefit the welfare, the well-being, the prosperity, and the peace of those Island nations as well. So that’s why it became critically important to us in this regard.

I think what’s also important, again, is that this relationship has been valued to the point that in 2017, the Hon Murray McCully actually wrote a letter to the Minister for Social Development at that time, and I actually think it might have been you, Madam Deputy Speaker, at that time, which—I’m not wanting to bring you into the debate. But it was to actually petition the cause that when the Act came into force in 2015, there was a provision to review that within two years. Now, the costing around that—potentially, it would have cost the New Zealand taxpayers around about $5 million. In fact, over two years, it only cost a million dollars. So on that principle also too, with added lobbying from the three Realm nations, it was felt by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time that we should actually make the changes to remove the ability to be present and resident in New Zealand, so that those of the Realm nations could return back, having served 10 years of residency and having been present in New Zealand, and could then actually serve the rest of those five years to be eligible for the superannuation in those realm nations—in fact, the bill actually states that it can be a combination of all three of those nations, as well.

So I want to state that I think and believe that that’s critically important, and this bill has had a long history. It’s a history that we would say can be shared right across the House now, because this current Government is now continuing on the roles that are really important in that regard as well.

I want to also too put on the record that in recent times, people have questioned the contribution of those in Pacific. In fact, not just in recent times but over a number of years, people have asked what is the contribution to the Pacific nations and what have they actually contributed to both New Zealand as a society and also its history and its heritage.

I go back to the fact that in 1917, and, in fact, in this very House—and the Hon Peeni Henare was here when we re-enacted the service that was held there in this House, in this Chamber, to acknowledge the Rarotongan regiment, the contingent, that first came through here. It was acknowledged—the fact of their contribution—when Sir Māui Pōmare realised after Gallipoli that there was a shortage of those who could contribute to the war efforts of World War I, so he went across to the Realm nations. He went to the Cook Islands, where they contributed up to 500 throughout that period of time over the next three years. He then went to the island of Niue, where they contributed over 147. So if one was to calculate per capita what the Pacific contributed, even though New Zealand contributed over 100,000 and lost 18,000 men and women over that period of time, the Pacific region, per capita, contributed more. I want to acknowledge that and I want to put that on record. So its contribution is actually one that should be noted, and it has contributed over that period of time.

In World War II, when there was a workforce shortage, again, it was New Zealand that went across to the whole of the Pacific region, and one will see that from the migrations from 1946 right through to the 1950s and 1960s, we had a number from the Pacific region who came and made a contribution. So we would say that at that period of time, the contribution to the workforce and to the development of New Zealand was contributed by our Pacific neighbours, who came along as well. So they certainly deserve to be able to be acknowledged and recognised, and this also recognises the special relationship that they have, as well.

During the submission process, it wasn’t all plain sailing. There were a number of submissions that actually started to question the impact that this would have. I want to note that from the island of Niue, one of the concerns was the fact that more Niueans may return back to New Zealand and serve 10 years after turning 50, which would adversely affect Niue itself. Niue has a population of around 11,000 to 12,000. There were concerns that they would return to New Zealand and that Niue would depopulate to the point where their public services would actually suffer, and so forth. However, what was confirmed with both the officials and with our response through our select committee report was that we didn’t believe those concerns would actually materialise, because we believed there were a number already here in New Zealand—Niueans who had come to New Zealand to gain qualifications, development work, and expertise—who would return there. In fact, that is currently the case. The population of Niue has stabilised and, in fact, has actually increased over that period of time. So we think that is an important contribution, as well.

One of the other impacts that was talked about was just in regards to other New Zealanders that were overseas that may have been from the three different nations of the Realm and what would be the impact upon them. The fact is that they had lived overseas over that period of time. What we can say from the officials’ advice that we’ve been given is that as long as they are in countries that have a reciprocal social security agreement, then their period of time of residency in those places will be counted in the 10 years after the age of 20 and before the age of 50, and then it could also be contributed to their five years after turning 50, as well. We wanted to put that on record so that it allayed some of the fears over there, as well.

I think that, again, right across the House, we would agree that this is an important bill. It’s a bill that recognises for those small Island nations the importance of the roles and responsibility that they have.

In the last few speeches in this House over the last week, I’ve been noted to be able to bring a song with some words to the speech, and I want to continue that. I may not sing the song, but what I will do is—there’s a Cook Islands song that actually was brought to light and it was sung over many times, often at parties and in places, and everyone thought it was just a party song, a great love ballad, but, in actual fact, the song was actually written during World War I. It was written by a wife who was actually serenading her husband as he went off to war. The song talks about: “Aue tāku tane, aue taku ‘inangaro” [“Oh my dear husband, oh my love”].

So what it talks about is “Oh, to my beloved one. As you go out to the seas, we ask that you will return one day”. What they used to do in the tradition was they would have two leis that they would give—leis with flowers. They would put one on their beloved one and, as they went off, they would throw the other one out into the sea. The belief was that one day, if the other lei returned back, they would return back to them.

So this bill talks about the returning of Pacific nations, Pacific people, back to the homelands to contribute to the welfare, well-being, peace, and prosperity of the Island nations. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a brief call on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. I’m heartened that throughout the entire process of this bill, the sentiment and the stories of history told in relation to the contribution of the Islands of Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands to New Zealand Aotearoa, and of course the war effort, as mentioned by the Hon Alfred Ngaro. I think that serves as a timely reminder for one and all in Aotearoa New Zealand, and indeed across the islands that this bill pertains to, just exactly how we are joined together. We’re tied together by history, and in this particular bill, we are also tied together in the future prosperity, as the honourable member Alfred Ngaro has already mentioned—the future prosperity to allow our people, Pacific Island people of Cook Islands, Tokelauan, and Niuean descent, to return home.

I want to endorse the words of the Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who, in pointing out the parts of this bill, also talked about a broader agenda around the Pacific nations and the agenda of this Government. Indeed with the support of the relevant Ministers, we’re able to have these conversations for meaningful development in those islands, but just as much for in those islands, meaningful development of those communities here in Aotearoa New Zealand. So, look, without further ado, with support right across the House, I want to commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure this evening to take a call on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. As my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro mentioned, today is, in fact, a good day. This moment is a good moment because we have, for the last few hours, been opposed to some legislation in the House, and at this moment the House stands in unison for this bill, which is going to make a fantastic contribution to the Islands but also New Zealand as well. The National Party certainly endorses this bill. We recall the former Prime Minister Bill English and his visit to the Pacific Islands late last year, in which he certainly endorsed this bill as well.

I’d like to acknowledge, first and foremost, my own family members who come from the Cook Islands: my half-brother James Asekona, and also my godson Zion Bidois and my niece Astyn Bidois—thank you there. I’d also like to acknowledge our colleagues from both sides of the House who have some connection to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau: Poto Williams, the Hon Kris Faafoi, and the Hon Alfred Ngaro, to name all that I can that I have knowledge of at this stage.

The purpose of this bill is very, very simple. It is to enable the residency requirements for New Zealand super and for the veterans pension to be met with spending time in the Realm—that is, in Tokelau, Niue, or the Cook Islands. In terms of that requirement, it’s simply the 10 years over 20 and also the five years over 50 requirement. This is about fairness. It’s about making sure that those that are contributing to New Zealand’s economy are fairly rewarded. It’s also about flexibility and about fulfilling the requirements for the New Zealand superannuation in the Realm and providing that flexibility for people to do so. But it also is about the contribution that these people could make to the Realm in terms of their local activity, and also remittances as well.

I would like to acknowledge the Minister Carmel Sepuloni for her encouraging words in this bill and throughout the select committee process in the Social Services and Community Committee. It is, in fact, a really good bill to go through.

In the past, I’ve talked about the unique relationship that New Zealand shares with the Pacific. We are a part of the Pacific Islands. Historically that has been the case, and today, but also from a political perspective. From post World War II—from 1946—right up until today, we have had a political relationship, starting out with the South Pacific Commission and going right up to today as well. Then, finally, we have had an economic relationship, in terms of citizens who are from the Realm who come and contribute to New Zealand’s economy but also vice versa: New Zealand citizens that are in the Realm and are able to provide an economic contribution to that as well.

In terms of what this bill is trying to do, it’s really—when you are a New Zealand citizen and you move abroad, there are currently three ways that you’re able to obtain the New Zealand super or veterans pension. The first is through a reciprocal agreement, where a New Zealander moves away and receives the pension in the country that they move to, and the New Zealand pension, and that’s kind of a mixed scheme. The second is through a special portability element, which is where somebody who moves overseas from New Zealand is able to also claim the New Zealand pension, and that’s in a sense portable. And then the final case is through general portability, in terms of being able to get the pension wherever you move to as well.

The problem that this bill tries to solve is that those who are from the Realm who’ve moved to New Zealand, who have contributed to New Zealand’s economy but have a desire to move back to Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands, are able to continue to fulfil the requirements for New Zealand superannuation and also contribute to the economy and also maintain a connection that they have as well.

In the select committee process, we received a grand total of seven submissions. We had two of those submissions that were oral submissions, but there were a number of issues that came up that I wanted to just outline for the people watching at home today, as I know many people do. The first is that this bill may, in fact, discriminate against those that are from the Realm, because it, essentially, provides a case where others can get it as well. I want to just say very clearly that this bill doesn’t discriminate against people from the Realm. It applies to New Zealanders who have spent time living overseas, and those provisions apply to those New Zealanders, as well as those that are from the Realm.

The second issue that was raised is that there was a concern that it would, in fact, unfairly advantage those citizens from the Realm. I just want to say that it, in fact, does not do that in this bill. In fact, anybody who is a New Zealand citizen who has lived abroad is able to, essentially, use this bill and go to any country in the Realm and fulfil their residency requirements. So it’s not just restricted to people from the Realm; it’s also much wider than that as well.

The final thing was that this bill may, in fact, take away economic value from these countries. I just want to say again that the advice that we’ve had, and it’s very clear to note, is that economic contributions to these countries will, in fact, increase because these people will be going back, taking the skills that they’ve learnt and they’ve honed in New Zealand back to their local economies. They’ll also be taking remittances back to these economies, so there’ll be other economic contributions in that front as well. So there we have it: essentially, the issues that were raised in the select committee process—I’ve been able to demonstrate that we’ve had a commitment that, in fact, this bill will not have anything amount to those in the bill itself.

So, in terms of final remarks on the bill, it is a very important bill because New Zealand is part of the Pacific, and I think we stand with our neighbours in saying that if you meet the residency requirements and the 10 years over 20, you’re able to do the five years over 50 and contribute as well. We also want others to be able to contribute to the countries of Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands. Finding ways like this bill that encourages people to go back and contribute to their economies is, I think, a really important thing as well.

The final thing I’d like to say, certainly on the eve of Armistice Day, is that I’d like to thank all of our veterans for their service. I’m actually sitting next to one of my colleagues here, Chris Penk, who has served in the navy, but for everybody in my electorate of Northcote who has served, it’s quite appropriate because this bill does actually affect them as well. I just think it’s really important that we note on the eve of Armistice Day the service that these people have given throughout the years, which is a very important 100-years occasion since World War I. So I’d like to make that a final thing there, and I just want to say that this is a good bill. It’s something that is going to receive good support in the House, as opposed to the bills that we were debating earlier today, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. It’s a delight and a privilege to be here at this third reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill and to indicate to the House, as we have right from the outset, that New Zealand First will be supporting this.

I want to congratulate Minister Sepuloni for bringing this legislation through. It’s a piece of legislation that New Zealand First has campaigned on, I think, ever since the Rt Hon Winston Peters did the most sensible thing and left the National Party, formed New Zealand First, and set out his policy goals and objectives for a better New Zealand. I think a couple of things that stood out very clearly, given the rather interesting speeches tonight coming from the Opposition benches, is that this proposition was put up first in the coalition negotiations with National in 1996. They rejected it. This proposition, I have to say, was also put up during other coalition negotiations with another party and Mr Michael Cullen couldn’t see his way forward either. I have to say that we campaigned on advancing such a piece of legislation over many election campaigns only to be told time and time again “It’s unaffordable, unnecessary.”, and yet here tonight I rejoice in listening to the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s speech, where he gave all the compelling reasons as to why this legislation should be supported and indicated that he is very grateful and pleased to be supporting his whanaunga, in particular in the Cook Islands.

I’m very happy that the National Party has finally fallen in. I detected, reading between the lines of what he actually said, that he as a Minister in the last Government actually wanted this legislation passed. He did say that one of the reasons that it wasn’t put forward was because of the huge cost, which he then said in his speech—and I was watching him on the TV there tonight—was costed at $5 million. Then he said that subsequent to this bill being tabled by this very good Government and the select committee process, it was ascertained that the costs never reached that—that the costs were only $1 million. So it now begs the very interesting question, in the light of all the other wonderful things that have been said by the National Party Opposition, who were the Government who rejected the New Zealand First Supplementary Order Paper on 29 April 2015 to do this very thing—in fact, Mr Alfred Ngaro voted it down—what is the price of their value in the Realm States? Because now we know that the Realm States are not worth $5 million. We know that because Mr Ngaro said that the legislation—and he gave all the great reasons as to why it should have been supported, but despite all of that they rejected it because it was going to cost $5 million.

Well, there was a flag referendum, ladies and gentlemen, touted by that Government of the day around the country that cost $27 million as far as we can ascertain—because the full and direct costs have never come out. So, on the one hand, we stand here tonight and applaud ourselves and pat ourselves on the back for passing—

Mark Patterson: What about the sheep in Saudi Arabia?

Hon RON MARK: I haven’t even mentioned the sheep farm in Saudi Arabia. They saw more value in a sheikh with sheep than they did in the citizens of the Realm States like the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, who, he said, gave disproportionately in blood to the freedom of the world through their contribution in World War I. I detect the smell of a certain word that I will never utter in this House. But it actually says to me that the National Party put a price on the value of the Realm States and it was $5 million. And it tells me something else: see, in this Government, we get advice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like you to talk to the bill.

Hon RON MARK: Narrowing down to the bill—this has happened to me before. One of the things that this Government did in making this decision—and Mr Ngaro is absolutely correct to point out that in the select committee process the costings were looked at. It turned out that the costings were nothing like those that were given to the National Government of the day. And I detect that he regrets listening to that advice, but that’s the difference between Minister Sepuloni and that Government.

Minister Sepuloni looked at the legislation, took the advice from officials, and had enough wisdom and judgment to see through advice to see exactly what it really would mean. That is the level of governance and the quality of Ministers one needs if one is to govern responsibly. And I really felt sorry for Mr Ngaro as he sat there in that select committee and heard evidence that totally contradicted the evidence that he received on this very same matter, on something that he actually wanted to do as a Minister but was prevented from doing. So I’m going to congratulate the Hon Alfred Ngaro for his speech tonight—for its honesty and for opening a window and allowing us to see inside of what actually happened in that administration with respect to section 8(c) of this Act.

The National Opposition—and, I would say, led by the Hon Alfred Ngaro—has come to exactly the right position on this piece of legislation, and on New Zealand First’s side we thank him for that. We genuinely thank them. We regret that it took three years. I know that the cost they predicted was huge. From 2015 to 2018, on their projections, on the advice they took, it stood to cost, what, $15 million? But I would propose—New Zealand First would propose—that even $15 million is a cheap price to pay for the loyalty and for the people of Tokelau, Niue, and the Cook Islands.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the House on this bill. We support the legislation and look forward to hearing the votes on this, the third reading, and I finish by once again congratulating Minister Sepuloni for a wonderful piece of outstanding work. Thank you.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. What we’ve just heard was, I think, a very good pitch for the deputy leadership of the New Zealand First Party. In his first minute, he managed to get the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ name in there. I guess maybe that’s part of what New Zealand First MPs sign up to when they become members of the New Zealand First Party. But let’s talk about the bill.

Unlike what the previous speaker, Ron Mark, was talking about, let’s talk about this excellent piece of legislation, which is being progressed through Parliament unanimously here tonight. If you’d just been listening at home to that speaker, you may have thought this was about something completely different, but this debate is about the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill, and it is about bringing equality to the Realm when it comes to the social assistance, the superannuation, and the veterans support benefits which are available to all members of the Realm of New Zealand.

I think it’s important at this point to note that New Zealand is a Realm under our Queen, Queen Elizabeth II, and the countries which make up that Realm are New Zealand and the two countries which are in free association with New Zealand—the Cook Islands and Niue—and Tokelau, which is a dependency of New Zealand. Those three countries, alongside New Zealand, are the Realm of New Zealand, and therefore we have a special relationship and a special bond with those countries, which I think is very important and something that this bill does a lot to secure and to solidify and to imbed further in as we look to the future of our closeness as countries.

So this bill here does some very important things. Primarily, what it does is ensure that those who are eligible for New Zealand superannuation have the same access to superannuation, not depending upon where they live. Currently, what is required of those who are born in the Realm countries—in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau—is that if they come to New Zealand and work for 10 years, they then become entitled to New Zealand superannuation, and then if they go back to their Realm countries and want to be able to secure that New Zealand superannuation, they must, after the age of 50, come back to New Zealand and work here or live here for another five years.

Essentially, what this bill does is it takes away the requirement for them to be in New Zealand for those five years. They are required to be in one of the Realm countries—it could be any of the Realm countries or it could be a mixture of the Realm countries—for five years before they are entitled to New Zealand superannuation at the age of 65. And what this does is it ensures that they are all on the same playing field. They have the same rights to the superannuation that they’ve worked for. And I think it’s important to note that these people have come to New Zealand for a variety of reasons, often to work, to raise money that they can send home to support their families and to support those back in their Realm country where they come from, to be able to send remittances home, and to be able to make a contribution for a variety of reasons. They come here to gain skills, they come here for education, they come here to contribute to New Zealand, and then they have the opportunity, under this legislation, to go home without being required to then come back to New Zealand and contribute or be here for any longer period.

And the important point that that makes is it means that those who do come here and do make that contribution to our country then have that opportunity to be able to retire back to one of the Realm countries, to be able to then continue that contribution back in their own country without having that disruption which is currently required by law part-way through their life or as they are planning their retirement—that requirement to come back to New Zealand, to be back in New Zealand society for five years. And often what we see is those people will stay in New Zealand rather than then return back as their intention might have been. Their family might be here, their employment might be here, their foundations for their life are further built here in New Zealand, which takes away the incentive to go back to Niue or back to the Cook Islands or back to Tokelau to retire there and be able to contribute back into the economy.

So what we see, then, are fewer people doing that and the populations of those countries continuing to decline. And what that means for their future, for their economic well-being, as countries in their own right, is it becomes more and more challenging as they seek to build their own prosperity and to build their own future as a country in this world. And so what the hope and the aspiration of this piece of legislation is is that this will encourage and incentivise these people to be able to go back to their country at an earlier age, to be able to build their lives, to be able to then retire in those countries, accessing the New Zealand superannuation which they have worked for, which they have contributed in New Zealand to, and which they are entitled to. And I think, as the point has been made, not only is it superannuation but it is the veterans support allowance as well. I think that’s a vitally important part of this legislation, because we do have to acknowledge those who serve in our defence forces and serve for our country, and if they serve in New Zealand, that also entitles them to be able to do the same.

It did disappoint me to see the Minister of Defence spend his seven or eight minutes in the House trying to score political points rather than trying to talk about the important facts that this bill does in actually allowing those who have served in the Defence Force to be able to go back to the islands. [Interruption]

Chris Penk: Oh, they’ve woken up!

SIMEON BROWN: And yes, I think it’s an important point that Mr Penk just made. They have just woken up across on the other side of the House. It happens once or twice a day but we enjoy it when it does happen, because there’s really not a lot of spark on the other side of the House these days. I mean, it is Guy Fawkes at the moment, but just not much spark on that side of the House, which is a little bit unfortunate.

Hon David Bennett: That fella from New Zealand First—I can’t remember his name—he’s pretty sparky.

SIMEON BROWN: Yeah, I can’t remember his name, either, and I don’t want to remember their names. There are so many other, more important things to remember around this place, David Bennett, rather than remembering the names of people in the New Zealand First Party.

So I think this bill does an incredible job in trying to build that relationship to solidify our place in the world, supporting our Realm countries and ensuring that we aren’t continuing to allow the depopulation of these countries. We are sending a message that we want to support them economically. We want to ensure that those who come to New Zealand have a pathway back to their Realm country to be able to continue to live there, to support their families there, to be able to contribute to the economy of those Realm countries, and to ensure that we, as New Zealand, are able to play our part in that.

So I’d like to, in conclusion, acknowledge a few important people. I’d like to acknowledge Sir Bill English, who started the process, and who, as the Prime Minister at the time, travelled to the Cook Islands and Tokelau and Niue and made this commitment. I’d like to acknowledge all members of this House, who are all voting for this bill. And I think it’s important to note, despite the interjections from the other side of the House by someone who used to be a member of the National Party—a branch chair of the National Party, I actually understand; he was quite an important office holder in the National Party. I think, from the interjections that he’s making, he’s obviously quite disappointed and he’s still going through the grieving phase of leaving. But, you know, he’ll get over that, but he’s not welcome back; so that’s OK.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: He wasn’t good enough to get pre-selected.

SIMEON BROWN: He wasn’t good enough to get pre-selected, which Chris Finlayson said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill. Come to the bill.

SIMEON BROWN: But the point I was trying to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I got interjected on rudely by the other side, was that this bill is being passed unanimously in the House. And, I think, when we do come together as a House to make a change to our law and we do it in a unanimous way, that’s something that should be celebrated. And I think that too often people look at this debating chamber and they listen to the interjections and they hear the comments that have just been made, but what is true is that so many times Parliament does come together in a unified way to pass legislation not only for the good of New Zealand but for the good of our Realm, to make a real, positive difference. This bill is one such bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is with a sense of privilege and joy that I rise to offer the Green Party’s support for the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. This is a piece of legislation that is long, long overdue, and it’s really nice to be able to stand in support of it in the House this evening.

I don’t think I feel compelled to keep on drawing out my speech; it’s actually quite a simple piece of legislation. What it does is it enables New Zealanders who have spent 10 years here, after the age of 20, to spend their last five qualifying years before they can get access to superannuation or the veterans pension in any of the Realm countries—so that’s the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, or New Zealand. So it’s just building in that consistency and making sure that we’re treating all our citizens fairly and consistently.

This is something that’s been called for by the leaders and the people of those nation States, who are really struggling to bring people back to be able to keep their countries thriving. These are beautiful, amazing countries and communities who are very small. The populations of—I think Niue is around 1,600 people, Tokelau around 1,300, and the Cook Islands is only around 17,500 people as a population. So when you think about those numbers and the tasks involved in running an economy and looking after families and, indeed, the Governments in those countries, you can see how important it is that we support them in bringing their people home. So this is a really important and simple measure on that basis.

I do just want to congratulate the Government for making this a priority. This was announced by the Prime Minister on the Pacific tour in February or March this year, which makes this one of the really early acts of this Government, and it sends a very clear message, I hope, to people in the Pacific that we are listening, we have been listening for years, and we are prioritising this work because it deserves to be prioritised. Kia ora.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Along with my colleagues all around the House tonight, I stand in support of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill in its third and final reading. I believe that it’s a privilege for me to be speaking to this third reading in appreciation of the years of discussion and consideration that this concept has had around the portability of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension.

I do acknowledge the early work of the former National-led Government and the support that was given to the background of this bill by our former Prime Minister Sir Bill English when he made his announcement in the Pacific in June of last year, and that was well articulated this evening by the contribution of the Hon Alfred Ngaro.

At this time, I’d also like to acknowledge the work of the Social Services and Community Committee. Generally, this is a very good working group of people. It’s very well led by Gareth Hughes, very conciliatory chairman that he is. He has guided us through some fairly tricky pieces of work through that select committee—this one not so tricky, but I do acknowledge the work and the contribution of all of those members.

Now, I would imagine that some people who are watching this debate tonight may be wondering why we are granting this portability of pensions to the people from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The reason is quite simple: it’s because those people are also New Zealand citizens, and so we do have a constitutional responsibility for all of our citizens in the islands and here in New Zealand, including those in the Pacific countries.

Now, the main change that this bill addresses is the requirement for residency. Currently, anyone from the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau must reside in New Zealand for 10 years after they reach the age of 20, and then after 50 they must also have been resident for five years in New Zealand. Now, the rationale, I imagine, for that requirement was so that they had made a contribution to New Zealand and that they also had a legitimate connection to this country. So the residents of any one of those islands who may have spent time here in New Zealand, perhaps to further their education or training, who had accumulated 10 years of residency here after the age of 20 could go back to the Islands and take their skills with them and support their homeland to prosper and to make a contribution to the economic viability of the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau.

But one of the challenges of the requirement of five years after 50 was the risk of the depopulation of those islands, and we heard that from some of the submitters who came to speak to the select committee. Having to come back to New Zealand for those five years after 50 was meaning that they were also bringing their skills and their training away from the Islands. Simply coming back to New Zealand for that provision, to qualify for the five over 50, was simply to qualify for superannuation, and so it disrupted the residency that they had in those islands.

This bill will mean that those people who are eligible for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension can now remain in those islands and contribute to their local economy without having to return to New Zealand simply to qualify for New Zealand super or a veterans pension. So it does help to mitigate the risks of depopulation in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau by allowing the rule of spending five years after 50 to be spent in any of those islands.

This was a real challenge to the Islands in the past, because there was a deterrent to having skilled people returning to and contributing to the Islands after they had been here for those five years after 50. I have to say that, you know, from my own experience, once you get to that age and you settle somewhere it’s very difficult to uplift yourself from family, etc. So this is a very common-sense and convenient way of ensuring that we support, in an ongoing way, the population to be maintained in those islands.

It is a real issue, because back in 1960 in Niue, the population there was around 5,000 people, but by 2006 the population had dropped to a little over 1,600, while the New Zealand census recorded at the same time that the number of people who associated or claimed to be from Niue was nearly 24,000, and 79 percent of those were actually born here in New Zealand. So there was a real issue with depopulation, and I believe that this bill will go a long way to mitigating that issue.

There were concerns that we’ve spoken about and that were raised during the submission period about whether this bill actually did comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That was really strongly argued by one of those submitters, who had actually taken a case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. But the advice that the select committee received was that this bill does appear to be consistent with New Zealand rights and freedoms, and so, as a result, we made no changes to the bill.

One suggestion that another submitter had was that all of the Pacific Islands would be included in this five over 50 requirement, and that that could be spent in any of the Pacific Islands. Unfortunately, it was beyond the scope of the bill at the time, but I thought it was an ambitious suggestion to make.

One other submitter also pointed out to us about the growing fiscal risk from immigration to New Zealand in later life. I have to say, I did have some sympathy for the submitter, because if we’re going, as it were, to have to spend five years after the age of 50 back here in New Zealand, what we were doing was encouraging people to come back later in life. As we know, the risk of health issues and more dependence on the health system accelerates as we age, and so this requirement to come here after 50 for five years was also bringing in some significant fiscal risk. So I think that in terms of mitigating that, this bill actually does address that issue as well.

As I said in my second reading speech on this bill, I actually thought that we may have delayed the final reading of this bill, given that Mark Patterson from New Zealand First has actually had his member’s bill drawn from the ballot, and it is in conflict with this bill that we are debating here for the last time tonight. Now, Mark Patterson’s bill, which is named the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill—what that bill actually suggests is that the residency requirement be extended to 20 years after the age of 20. That bill is going to be debated in this House before too much longer, and it’s going to be in conflict with the bill that we have already been debating here.

This bill is unchanged from the original. Even though we did have great contributions from our submitters, we have not made any changes to the bill. It was so well-written in the first place, and I commend it to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia orana katoatoa. Fakalofa lahi atu. Malo ni. Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is an absolute privilege to stand here tonight to contribute to the third reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. It would be remiss of me not to respond to the last speaker, Maureen Pugh, where she acknowledged the dinosaurs who are no longer in this House and who took their time to make a decision on this very important bill.

I’d like to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni on the journey of this very important bill, as part of this coalition Government’s Pacific reset. Why do I say that? Why do I acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni? Well, her leadership in navigating this bill in terms of courage—courage to do the honourable thing. If we say that people in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau share New Zealand citizenship, then why shouldn’t every New Zealand citizen that qualifies receive this very important opportunity where, in doing so, it seeks to provide greater pension flexibility for people who wish to retire in any of those islands—the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, or New Zealand for that matter?

So this is not just for the citizens of Tokelau, Niue, or the Cook Islands; this is also for the citizens of New Zealand. On that, on behalf of all the citizens, I want to thank the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. In the languages, I would like to say whakawhetai koe, which is in Te Reo; Fakaaue, fakaaue lahi koe, which is Niuean. Fakafetai is thank you in Tokelauan; and meitaki maata in Cook Islands Maori. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a short call on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill at this third reading. Like my colleagues on this side of the House, yes, we do support this bill. It has been a long time coming, and I admit that, but I think the work that Sir Bill English did while he did his tours last year to the Cook Islands was the setting of this particular bill, and it was some of the hard work that went in behind it. It’s all very well having a bill come, but it needs a whole lot of work done behind the scenes, and this is what this side of the House did pre-election.

The purpose of this bill is “to alter the residential qualifications for New Zealand superannuation and the veteran’s pension”—as mentioned before—“to allow the requirement that a person also have 5 years’ residence and presence in New Zealand over the age of 50 years to be met instead with residence and presence in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, [and] Tokelau, or any combination of those countries”.

I think this is a very good bill in that it recognises our relationship with those Pacific nations, with our Pacific brothers and sisters from the Cooks, Tokelau, and Niue. It also recognises that, yes, they are also taxpayers of our system as well, and that they too should also have access to our New Zealand superannuation. I guess what I’m saying here is that even though there are the time frames of 10 years’ residency over the age of 20 years of age to be able to move back to the Cooks or Niue or Tokelau, spending five years post 50 years in those particular countries and Islands will qualify them for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension. It actually shows the relationship and the closeness of that relationship between New Zealand and those Islands.

Very quickly, I just want to talk a little bit about the couple of options that were considered by the Social Services and Community Committee, who did a very good job on this. It was option one, where “Applicants who move or return to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau after … 10 years residence in New Zealand can be eligible for [New Zealand super] after completing five years”—as I’ve said—“over … 50,”. Option two, though, which was never considered for many reasons, was that “Applicants would need 10 years residence in New Zealand over the age of 20, if applying from the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau.” There are some slight differences around that: “In this instance the ‘five years over 50’ rule would not apply to residents in the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau, and 10 years in New Zealand would be all that is required.”

So when we start looking at the two options, it was obvious that option one was going to be considered the best option. It was fair, it was affordable, and it reflected the contribution of people, which I talked about just before, who have connections to New Zealand and the Cook Islands and Niue and Tokelau. The core residence rule of New Zealand superannuation would not be compromised. These were some of the tests that actually chose option one. Option one would also address the problem by making it easier for people to receive New Zealand superannuation in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.

As some of my colleagues over here have also said, a person who has accumulated 10 years’ residence in New Zealand after the age of 20 years would be able to live in the Cooks, in Niue, or in Tokelau, and would be able to use the residence after the age of 50 in those particular Islands to allow them to also qualify for New Zealand super, thereby mitigating the depopulation of those Islands that they were suffering through the previous rules. So once this bill reaches its Royal assent, then these rules will start to set in, and the families or the members that will qualify for superannuation or the veterans pension will be able to stay in those Islands, thereby mitigating depopulation.

So I too on this side of the House support the bill. I think that it’s good that the member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has been able to pick it up and carry it through and that the Social Services and Community Committee have been able to shepherd this right through to this stage. So it is my pleasure to say once again to you that I wholeheartedly support this bill and commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always good when you have a bill that everyone in the House supports—and I’m sure that those at home are thinking that, as well—especially one that is seriously recognising the importance of those constitutional relationships between New Zealand and Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau. This feels to me as if it is a real recognition of those constitutional relationships. It is also a genuine recognition that depopulation and its social and economic impacts are a real issue for those nations as well.

The only other point—I can’t really add to all of the good words that have been said on this bill tonight, but I do want to just point out that those changes that were made in 2015 to the special portability arrangement were really important. I acknowledge the work that was done by the previous Government on that, but the take-up of that wasn’t as high as expected, and that’s why this change is so important. It is important because it allows people over the age of 50 to remain in the Islands when they need to in order to be entitled to those social supports, and that’s the bottom line. So it feels as if we’re doing the right thing in the House tonight, and it’s going to make a difference.

I acknowledge the work by the previous Government. I acknowledge absolutely the work by my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and also the very strong commitment by this Government through the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister to the Pacific reset, and this is a manifestation of that.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Mr Speaker, I don’t mind queue-jumping. It’s a delight for me to take a call on this bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his Pacific reset. It was an excellent move and it has got huge support amongst the Pacific nations that we are so close to in so many ways. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and the work that she has done to bring this bill to the House, and it’s so rewarding to see the across-the-board support that the legislation has gained, primarily due to the hard work that she’s put into it.

In this Parliament, when we were all sworn in, I think we had seven languages used, which is a bit of a tribute to the increased diversity of this House. But I want to particularly acknowledge Poto Williams and the Hon Alfred Ngaro for their Cook Island connection. They’re both very proud Cook Islanders and they demonstrate that frequently in this House. Without wanting to bring family members in, I can do so because the Hon Alfred Ngaro did acknowledge his wife is Niuean, so I want to recognise that connection as well. We have our Tokelauan brother, the Hon Kris Faafoi, and the Hon Carmel Sepuloni also has a family connection to Niue. So this bill has personal relevance and, I guess, is more passionate as a result.

So with the Pacific’s triple star, the Realm nations of the Cooks, Tokelau, and Niue, the change that we are introducing in this legislation will, I’m sure, be very welcomed by them. It has been a long time coming. For those people that will now be able to live in any of the Realm nations or New Zealand after they turn 50, this will be warmly welcomed. So I don’t want to delay its passing. I commend its progress to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Family Violence Bill

Family Violence (Amendments) Bill

Third Readings

Debate resumed from 1 November.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is indeed a privilege to rise and speak in support of the family and whānau violence legislation at its third reading. This is legislation that significantly amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995, and it is actually a piece of legislation that is incredibly needed. In 2016, there were about 118,000 incidents involving family violence that police responded to, and yet we know that about 76 percent of family violence incidents are not reported to police.

Our statistics in New Zealand are horrific. Between 2009 and 2015, 194 New Zealanders were killed as a result of family violence. Our family violence homicide rate per capita is two times that of Australia, Canada, or the UK—the countries that we commonly compare ourselves to. Children are present at two-thirds of all family violence incidents that are attended to by police. Children who experience—and we know this from the research that’s been done—family violence are two times as likely to be victims of sexual violence, four times more likely to commit sexual violence against a partner, and three times more likely to attempt suicide, and 57 percent leave school without a qualification.

Now, what this legislation does is provide a framework to support the cross-Government response to family violence that is so needed—that is something that this sector has been crying out for. There are quite a few bits of this piece of legislation that I would like to draw the attention of this House to, but I want to focus on two, because I think the thing that most excites me about this piece of legislation is the fact that it recognises that one size doesn’t fit all—that domestic violence manifests differently in different communities.

There are two points specifically that I want to make and to draw our attention to. This piece of legislation makes forced marriage an offence, and it also amends the definition of family violence to explicitly include dowry-related violence. Now, dowry is actually a practice that has changed over time. It started out as a sum of money, typically, or assets, that were passed to a bride. It was meant to keep her safe. It was meant to keep her financially independent, but that changed over time to become a sort of “bride price”, and it is a practice that happens here in New Zealand as well, but one that many haven’t heard of.

This is a sensitive topic to many of our ethnic communities, and for good reason too, in a sense, because for many years, historically, our communities haven’t talked about family violence because there is a huge amount of fear that the entire community would be tarred with the same brush. But of course we know that not all families practise this, and yet there are some that do, and there must be remedies for those who are victims of this form of family violence. It’s no longer a cultural practice. It was outlawed in countries like India back in the 1960s. So it is a form of family violence, and we need to speak about it in a way that is sensitive, because if we don’t—and if we get the backlash that I often do when I talk about these issues on social media, which is to say “Let’s keep migrants out.”—then that is unfair, it’s an inaccurate portrayal of what happens within these communities, and it’s dangerous to the women who are seeking to end those forms of violence as well.

Violence exists everywhere. Many of the tools of power and control are the same, but some differ, and we must have this conversation in a way that recognises the issues that are specific to some communities so that we can address them and keep people safe without marginalising communities that often already feel like second-class citizens.

I want to thank everyone—the former Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams; the current Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little; and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Jan Logie; submitters; officials; those who have advocated over decades; and the Justice and Electoral Committee that addressed this legislation—for the work they’ve done.

As we stand here today and celebrate the festival of Diwali, which celebrates the triumph of light over darkness, knowledge over ignorance, strength over weakness, and good over evil, I am proud to support this legislation, which will go a long way to dispel the darkness that is family violence. I commend this legislation to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just following on from that last speaker, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, there will be support across the House for this bill. It is something that all New Zealanders and all politicians take very seriously. For those that have constituents that have suffered from family violence, it is something that when, as politicians, we have the ability to assist those families in those communities, and especially the children involved, it will be something that makes a big difference to our communities and something that all members of this Parliament, I’m sure, will be in support of.

This is a bill that has its genesis in the previous Government. A lot of work had been done at that time and has been followed on in the current Government. There have been some changes to this bill made by the current Government. Some of those changes National supports and some of them we don’t necessarily think are an addition to the bill, but they are part of what the Government has put forward for this legislation and will be debated in their entirety as part of this bill.

Some of those changes that we have seen coming through relate to the duration of public safety orders from five days to 10 days. The current maximum length was five days and now is going to go to 10 days under the bill. That’s something that National will be able to support and live with. It’s not something that was in the original concept of the bill, but it is a change that has been made and, in the end, is something that will be supported through this House.

There was another change in the patterns of behaviour to clarify what may be seen as cumulative in those behaviours, and that is something that will, of course, be supported as we look at those cumulative actions rather than just one-off actions that an individual may engage in.

There are other principles relating to patterns of behaviour, clarifying that family violence often includes coercive or controlling behaviour. Again, that’s another change that, in essence, is something that all members of this House will agree with as something that will assist in how we apply this bill.

We had another change in regard to dowry-related violence in the definition of family violence. The last speaker spoke passionately about that from her connection with the Indian community. And we take on board the comments made. That is something that I think members of this House will want to see: that that cultural awareness is there in the legislation to make sure there is that protection in all our communities throughout New Zealand.

There’s another change in regard to carers and the recipients of care. That’s something that hadn’t actually been promoted in the original bill, and it’s something that has been added to it. It does take the bill to another level, in the sense that it includes a wider group of people in that relationship issue. We understand the reasons the Government may have sought to do that; however, it is one of those areas of a point of difference between the parties as to whether that extension is required.

Another one where there is a point of difference is requiring family violence assessors and provider to take into account a victim’s views—that’s safe and appropriate; we do support that—but the amendment of the title of the bill is something where there is a bit of a point of difference between the parties.

So this is to repeal and replace the Domestic Violence Act with a more modern, accessible Act, which is definitely needed. But it also amends the jurisdiction in which police safety order breaches are heard: from the civil court the criminal court. And that’s another issue where we did have a point of difference, the civil court being the appropriate court to hear this, and that was what submissions and the intention of the bill originally was. But the current Government has moved that to the criminal court as the mechanism.

There’s another change or two in regard to the Minister of Justice being able to issue codes of practice—

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

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe the member’s time has expired. We got off to a false start because at the very start of this, when you reintroduced the bill, you should have announced that Raymond Huo had eight and a half minutes—

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. It’s not been the practice in the last year where members who are absent are called. Chairs or I, certainly, have always looked to see if the member’s absent. I haven’t drawn attention to the absence of a member. When the bill was being called, the next person just takes a call. If the member really wants to have another five minutes, I’m prepared to seek the leave of the House for that to happen. But I will remind members to stay alert to the fact that they should take the call. I seek the leave for David Bennett to have another five minutes. Is there any objection?

Michael Wood: Yes.

SPEAKER: There is none. David Bennett.

Hon David Bennett: Mr Speaker, there was objection from Michael Wood.

SPEAKER: No, no, there wasn’t. I think it was just—[Interruption] Order! Order! Did a member object?

Michael Wood: Yes, I did object, Mr Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you may well be correct in your understanding of the practice of this House but I can tell you that the other presiding officers have continued the practice of announcing that there is some time to go and then checking whether the member wanted to continue the call.

I would also further add that a change of that nature is usually set out in some kind of announcement or amendment to Speakers’ rulings. I’m not sure that the House has actually seen that.

SPEAKER: Well, I certainly haven’t announced that. I just work on the basis that a member who isn’t here can’t take the call. It’s relatively simple. Unless it’s a Minister who is in charge of a bill, and that is a different situation because the Minister’s time, of course, can be picked up by another Minister. Now, and I know it’s an unusual practice and it’s irregular, I’m going to look at Michael Wood and I’m going to put the question again and seek leave for David Bennett to have a further five minutes. Is there any objection?

Hon Member: Go, Michael.

SPEAKER: Where did that come from? I call David Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I find myself in a very unusual position in this House of thanking the Speaker. Maybe it’s because of the bipartisan nature of this bill that parties come together, and even the greatest enemies can come together and share a moment of hilarity. But it won’t last—I’m sure of that. But thank you, Mr Speaker—back to normal tomorrow at question time.

SPEAKER: No, just speak to the bill now.

Michael Wood: This is torture—I wish I had objected!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes. But I was nearly finished, Mr Wood. I was on the last point, so I won’t take too much longer. Your objection wasn’t really needed; it would’ve been a short resumption of the call anyway. I had been aware it was a 10-minute call, so that’s why my guidance as to the timing wasn’t so important.

When we come to the Minister of Justice—this is the last change—having the ability to issue codes of practice relating to service delivery, that’s something that on this side of the House we didn’t think was, ultimately, necessary as part of the review of this bill.

But, in essence, I think there will be a lot of people in this House and in the communities that we serve that want to see change in this area. It is something that creates so much harm in our community. It can lead to so many lives being lost, in the sense of opportunity and chances for people to succeed and actually become the best they can, through family violence. So I think anything we can do that is jointly supported through this House is a good move and a good sign to New Zealanders that we take this issue very seriously and wish to have the best solutions for our communities that we can.

So, once again, thank you, Mr Speaker. We will resume our normal code of practice tomorrow.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the family violence legislation. In order to look at the issue of family violence—but before I say that, maybe I should comment on the fact that it’s really heartening to see agreement across the House on these bills, because these are incredibly important pieces of legislation for New Zealand’s future. This Government has been loud and clear in its commitment to making New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child—and how important it is in a child’s life to grow up free from violence.

Probably the most damaging thing that we can see in our homes is that not only are children exposed to violence and abuse in our homes but they’re also witnessing it. And as a former employee for the New Zealand Police, the number of accounts of times when children hadn’t been direct victims of family violence but they had witnessed family violence on an ongoing basis—and these are the sorts of things that create a next generation where there are issues that are really difficult to get to the bottom of and to address and to enable everyone in New Zealand to do the best they possibly can. So to have legislation that really goes to the heart of who we are as New Zealanders to try and give our kids the best possible start in life—it’s great to see strong support from both sides of this House.

One of the important things that this bill does is it really focuses on early intervention, and that’s what is probably the best way of getting to the heart of giving kids the best start. It’s early intervention that enables police, other services, NGOs to get in right at that early stage to prevent ongoing instances happening. And so what we had in the past was a PSO, the police safety order, which enabled a member of the police to come at a point in time that was heated, to ask the person who was, typically, the one accused of offending to vacate premises for 24 hours, 48 hours, for a period to cool off. Typically, that is a male in the household, and what has been happening in the past, from front-line experience that I’ve heard, is that typically that person goes down to the pub and they drink further and they cause further issues that the police then pick them up again for. So the underlying causes of that family violence aren’t being addressed by simply telling someone to leave their home—in fact, it can even make them more angry or not address underlying addiction, anger, or other mental health issues that might be contributing to that family violence.

So what this bill does is it actually goes further and it requires police to order the offender to undergo a risk and needs assessment right at that first instance to see what else can be wrapped around that person to give them the most support possible for that family to start healing and to be working together in a better way than they have. And it also enables the victim at that point in time to go through a risk and needs assessment. So I think that’s a huge improvement from the current situation. It enables NGOs and other services to be able to provide that sort of assessment that can look at why the offending is happening in the first place, to try and stop that from being a repeat issue, and to stop children from repeatedly being exposed to family violence instances within their own homes.

The other key area that I’d like to speak about is the definition of family violence. Now, this has been one that has perplexed people for a long time, in terms of officials and different agencies: how we actually look at what family violence means and defining it. It includes coercive and controlling behaviour—so not straight out violence but looking at the behaviour of offenders to see what classifies as that. It’s really important to recognise that people can be controlled through the restriction of finance, of food, of love, of conversation, and controlled through hurtful words. Those are all very much controlling and harmful behaviours that are working at the same time as violent acts, and it is important that these pieces of legislation acknowledge that there is more to family violence than just straight out violent action.

It’s important to show that we are recording the statistics of family violence in a really clear way. So having those definitions enables the Government to better record what’s happening in New Zealand homes. And some recent research that’s been publicised by the Women’s Refuge has shown the extent of how depression and high rates of self-harm and even suicide are very much prevalent in those people who are victims of ongoing family violence. So in order to make sure that we are on top of it, as the Government understands what’s happening in people’s homes, it’s really important we record those statistics accurately to know where things are happening.

Just as an interesting point, it was only when on the first family violence form that was filled out by police when this was happening, like eight or nine years ago now—for the first time people were asked about strangulation and it was very surprising how much that was happening. Previously, we did not know how much strangulation as a violent act was happening within family violence occurrences. And so there is a new offence created that takes that even further, a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, and the evidence shows that it is a common tool of abusive and coercive behaviour. So adding that to the offences within this legislation assists police and other agencies to accurately respond to instances and to hold offenders accountable. But it is more important to say that it’s great to see that we’re having a coordinated response—that NGOs, that police, and that all agencies are working collaboratively together to make sure we do the best possible job to reduce all instances of family violence in New Zealand, and I’m proud to see that this bill goes again. So I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, our adjustments earlier have, I think, probably resulted in two National Party members thinking that they’ve still got the call. And I want to indicate that I will call both of them before—[Interruption] No, we’re not taking that approach. I will call both of them—full calls—in a row before we revert back to the last speaker.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E Te Māngai, good evening, sir, and to members of the House. I’d considered that this was going to be a brief call, but if I am permitted some extra time, I’d certainly be indulged. So having dedicated a good part, or a significant part, of my professional working life as a lawyer to helping others in this space—children, youth, women, men, families, communities, victims, the afflicted, and perpetrators of violence—it is somewhat poignant that I do have the ability to be able to address the House this evening.

So, Mr Speaker and members, what started out at the first and second readings as the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Amendment Bill has since been changed through the committee of the whole House, as everybody is well aware, and been divided into two pieces of proposed legislation, or bills. So we have the Family Violence Bill, which is an overhaul of the Domestic Violence Act 1995, and then we also have a Family Violence (Amendments) Bill. That’s an omnibus bill of amendments to the Bail Act, the Care of Children Act, the Crimes Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Evidence Act, and the Sentencing Act—all pieces of legislation that I’ve represented clients under. National supports these bills, as is well known, this evening.

So this third reading is a debate and a speech summarising the bill. However, with the indulgence of the Speaker this evening, and prior to commending the passage of the bill into law, I reflect back to a passage in time 23 years ago, one year before the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act. It was a time when the New Zealand public—our consciousness was confronted and challenged by an epic New Zealand movie, exposing a brutal and raw face of violence in New Zealand society. A number of us may remember Once Were Warriors. It exposed to a sanitised New Zealand mainstream the raw and repugnant, vicious brutality of violence in Aotearoa New Zealand, in our landscape and in our “familyscape”, and this is the scape that I’ve committed and dedicated my professional working life to. So this movie, many people deemed to be a fiction. However, it was so real and so raw for many families in Aotearoa, and perhaps for some of us as members of Parliament who have experienced that, if not directly, indirectly through our family lives.

I now turn to the bills. So, as was stated, the Family Violence Bill is an overhaul of the Domestic Violence Act. Twenty-three years, that has been in the making. So the key messages that come about are that the reforms contained in the bill strengthen family violence laws for a better understanding and response, and that response is about earlier and more effective intervention, better services to reduce and prevent future violence, and keeping victims safe. Undoubtedly, family violence has a devastating impact on our society.

So, in summary, the changes in the bill are about making it easier for victims to apply for protection orders. Over the decades, I represented many women and, at times, men—but seldom—applying for protection orders, and sometimes children, as counsel for the child. The bill is also about clarifying that the protected person can consent to contact with the respondent or the perpetrator of the violence, whilst supporting the victims and their children to have ongoing relationships with the perpetrator if they choose. This is something that, again, having advocated and represented children, as well as women—when those orders were made, it would often be a blanket prohibition for children, preventing any form of supervised contact with the perpetrator, and that in itself often victimised a number of child clients or children.

Another element of the bill is about improving the effectiveness of parenting orders to better recognise the risk of violence and protect the victims. Also, I’ve noted within the bill itself that it states there is a purpose and there are also principles. When I glanced at this, the format, the formula, was very similar to what had been outlined in the Care of Children and previously the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act at a time when I was representing and advocating for clients. So there’s a particular provision under clause 4 of those principles, and paragraph (l) is about increasing the provision of tikanga-based and culturally appropriate services for victims and whānau experiencing family violence. This was not an element or a principle previously within the domestic violence legislation. So clause 4, paragraph (l) talks about: “responses to family violence should be culturally appropriate and, in particular, responses involving Māori should reflect tikanga Māori (Māori customary values and practices)”.

Importantly, also, in the principles under the bill, there is recognition that decision makers should collaborate, and something that I experienced, again in the time when I advocated and practised, was the difficulty in accessing information from respective Government departments that would be of benefit as evidence placed before the court, in terms of a child’s interests and welfare. So, “decision makers should collaborate, whenever appropriate, to identify, stop, prevent, and otherwise respond to family violence”. Importantly, clause 4, paragraph (o): “access to the court should be as speedy, inexpensive, and simple as is consistent with justice”—such significant principles to change the shape and the face of what previously were our domestic violence laws.

So may I, just in closing, share with members of this House and our public the simple message that I put out to us all—a simple yet powerful message:

Kaua e patua. [Stop the hitting.]

Kaua e mamae.[Stop the hurting.]

With that simple yet poignant message, may I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you for the opportunity also to speak to the Family Violence Bill and the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill. Sir, you’ll be aware, and the House will be aware, that we are, at this particular stage now, as a result of Supplementary Order Papers at the committee stage of this bill, dividing the original legislation into two bills. The fact that that has been necessary is, I think, not just an interesting aspect of parliamentary procedure, but in relation to all the different amendments that are needed to other Acts, that indicates, actually, something significant in itself, which is the breadth of reform that is needed across our legislative framework and, indeed, the challenge to our social framework in all the different ways that we need to consider how the scourge of family violence affects our law and our nation.

I’ll take a minute as well to acknowledge the Minister presiding over this bill, Andrew Little, his colleagues, and also his predecessor in the role of bringing this legislation to the House, the Hon Amy Adams. I also acknowledge and thank those who have contributed to the broader process of discussing what is needed to conclude this item of work—those who have shared knowledge generously. I’m sure that many who have considerable knowledge of family violence wish that that were not so, but nevertheless they are prepared to speak of their experiences and share those with us in the hope that together we can do something to at least allow a framework such that there will be less violence in our society going forward.

I acknowledge speakers in this House who, from lives previous to entering Parliament, have particular knowledge. My colleague Harete Hipango, for example, has spoken of her expertise, and earlier we heard from Priyanca Radhakrishnan with her particular experience and knowledge in the area of dowry violence, among others—those encapsulating the bill, but they have been well covered already by those other speakers, so I don’t propose to do so again in my time.

So, having referred to the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill that, in turn, amends various other Acts, I’ll just touch briefly on some of those, in particular the Bail Act, the Crimes Act, and the Evidence Act. It is partly within the realm of criminal law that family violence legislation does sit, so it’s appropriate that those are amended to take account of this new framework; however, it’s not only in the criminal sphere, of course, but also the civil sphere and the family sphere as well. The dates of some of those provisions coming into force are different according to different Acts, for reasons that have been well canvassed at previous stages of the legislation.

As for the substantive work in the Family Violence Bill, amending and overhauling the Domestic Violence Act, I’d like to focus on a few aspects that seem to me particularly important as we’re at this third and final reading, and hence the concluding stage before this becomes law.

One is to note, just in general terms, that the aim is very much to break the pattern of family violence and reduce the harm and cost inflicted on those who suffer as a result. And one word that seems to me very significant in that is the word “pattern”, and it’s quite deliberate and meaningful that within the legislation the notion of patterns of violence and not mere individual acts that are significant in themselves is really a key item of understanding whereby the legislators, including ourselves and also those who’ve contributed more broadly to the process, are trying to understand the way to break the cycle. The number of ways that that happened, I will come to if time allows.

But, first, let me just mention, at least in passing, the bipartisan nature of the process that we’ve embarked upon. I don’t believe there’s a member in this House who wouldn’t support the general aim of reducing family violence, but it’s pleasing too that we appear agreed on the way in which this can occur here today.

The reason I think that it’s important is partly symbolic. We’ve got a non-adversarial process for a piece of legislation that’s designed to reduce violence, and that, perhaps, is significant in itself. I think of the phrase that we might be said to be “giving peace a chance”. And just as the word “peace” can be defined either narrowly, in the sense of being the absence of war, we can also take a more holistic view and talk about serenity in general. And so it is too that the abuse that’s defined within this legislation and prohibited and precluded by this legislation is not just abuse in, perhaps, the traditional understanding of physical violence, but also psychological violence and other forms of violence as well.

Particular emphases of the bills that I’d also like to touch on include the emphasis on early interventions—the early stage of the intervention, of course, being very much directed at reducing harm. And that’s important not only in so far as the actual harm itself, whether physical or psychological is concerned, but also recognising the fact that the longer harm is allowed to continue within that environment, the higher the stakes become in the sense that justice, in the traditional way that we say must be seen to be done, really elevates the seriousness, in a way, of offending that is being carried out. So, if you’ll excuse me—resorting to cliché—prevention is better than cure, and so too a cure of a relatively minor harm must surely be better than reducing further harm if it is allowed to flourish?

Part of that, in terms of what the bills actually state, revolves around police safety orders. These are, obviously, an important mechanism that already exist within our system—the idea that we can take a person out of a violent environment, typically, or inevitably the person causing such violence, whether male or female, and that’s an aspect, again, that my colleague Harete Hipango has touched on. Discussion was had at an early stage about the length of that. On this side of the House, we did express some hesitancy about the fact that the maximum time frame for which a police safety order would apply was being increased from five days to 10 days. That point was acknowledged by the Minister in the chair at the committee stage. He did acknowledge, as I say, the fact that that is a considerable curtailing of a person’s liberty and it’s not a step that is being taken lightly as this bill progresses with that particular change being made.

However, he did point out—and I think in a way that was ultimately acceptable to this side of the House—that, in balancing the particular harm of family violence with, on the other hand, the curtailing of a person’s freedom in a way that hasn’t been through a full judicial process, was a reasonable balancing act in the way of preventing and reducing the harm that I’ve already mentioned.

Part of the other rationale for the police safety orders, it seems to me, is reducing the fear of violence. And the fear of violence, in the way that psychological abuse is abuse no less than physical abuse is, could be said to be a form of violence in itself. And if it’s true that fear is itself to be feared, if you’ll excuse the nod to Roosevelt, then so too we should fear a situation in which our people in New Zealand are afraid of their loved ones—and I use that term deliberately, understanding that oftentimes, in fact, inevitably, in a family violence situation, the persons concerned are loved ones to each other, or at least should be. And it’s the exceptional nature of family violence and the desire to bring back the norm such that family members would be loved ones to each other and not abusers and abused that we must work so hard to ensure that these provisions will be successful.

Please allow me to finish by noting in particular the comment that I made before, regarding patterns of behaviour and, more particularly, the fact that these bills contain definitions that recognise patterns of behaviour that might appear trivial in isolation but the cumulative effect of which is clearly abuse. And so too acknowledging that coercive or controlling behaviour can be abusive in the way that it subjugates and subjects the person who is being abused and is restricting them from being free in the way that we would expect and hope our children and adults of this country should demand and we should demand on their behalf.

So, with that, I think I’ve covered enough detail to illustrate the more general points that I’d like to make and that others have made. I commend them for doing so. I commend those who have contributed at earlier stages of the process. I’m very pleased to join others in this House in supporting and, indeed, commending its passage, and I look forward to the day that we will have to spend less time discussing this but, in the meantime, it’s been a very useful exercise and I congratulate all involved.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity in concluding the speeches on these particular bills—excellent bills. I want to congratulate the work of Jan Logie and, of course, the Hon Andrew Little for ushering these bills through the House. It is a momentous occasion for this country, when we can actually take these matters very seriously. So I do want to commend these bills to the House.

Bills read a third time.

Bills

Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): I move, That the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill before the House is an outcome of the statutory review of the Telecommunications Act 2001 and many years of policy development and consultation. The passage of the bill has consistently received unanimous support from the House.

Can I begin by acknowledging the education and science and, I think, infrastructure—

Jonathan Young: Economic development.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Economic development—your committee—for their consideration of the bill. The member’s committee, sorry—the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. Can I also begin by acknowledging the work of the Hon Clare Curran, who held the position that I hold now before and, in essence, did predominantly most of the heavy lifting over the last 12 months. I’d like to acknowledge the work that she did in conjunction with our coalition partners, New Zealand First, in terms of the 111 vulnerable consumers aspect of this bill, the Chorus anchor price, and also for working on the regulatory framework and the additional Commerce Commission funding that was done under her tenure as Minister.

The bill provides for the modernisation of the Act and improved regulation of the New Zealand telecommunications sector by, in essence, doing six things: first of all, introducing a stable and predictable framework for the regulation of ultra-fast broadband (UFB) or fibre; secondly, removing regulation of copper fixed-line services where consumers have a choice to move to regulated fibre services; third, keeping regulation of copper fixed-line services where no alternatives are available; also, establishing and extending consumer safeguards, and providing more regulatory oversight of the quality of retail services; fifth, streamlining other regulatory processes to enable a rapid response to any competition problems; and, finally, repealing irrelevant and outdated provisions.

The whole environment in which the communications industry operates has changed radically over the past 10 years. By June this year, 70 percent of New Zealanders had access to UFB fibre, and uptake had reached 44 percent. The structural separation of Telecom New Zealand has led to a much more balanced market structure, with a flourishing retail sector. The new regulatory environment responds to these changes.

The wider consumer protections that the bill affords are a particularly important aspect of the bill and warrant further emphasis to the House. The bill establishes a wider role for the Commerce Commission. It will require the commission to monitor retail service quality and allow the commission to develop consumer codes for retail services, and to assess dispute resolution processes in the telecommunications sector. It will also establish a specific Commerce Commission code that requires retail service providers (RSPs) to identify vulnerable consumers, based on criteria specified in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) introduced in the committee of the whole House stage relating, for example, to health conditions. It will also provide options such as battery backup or alternative emergency calling providers for these consumers—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I am going to remind the Minister of the prohibition on reading speeches. This is not a technical matter. It is not a first reading. Members are not allowed to read speeches.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance. Also, the third criteria around retail service providers is to meet the expense of providing these options to vulnerable consumers—these things are very technical, Mr Speaker.

These are new roles for the Commerce Commission, and the bill augments the regulatory tool kit that the commission has available to it to protect New Zealand consumers. I, for one, am pleased, as the Minister, to report to the House that the Commerce Commission has been allocated a significant amount of funding—$12.3 million, in fact; I’m glad I have that information in front of me—over three financial years to implement the new regulatory framework that will be enabled by the bill, and has started the process of developing the rules that will govern the new regime.

The bill also provides new enforcement powers to the commission to ensure that the new codes may be progressed and enforced on a timely basis to meet consumer needs, and that new information disclosure obligations will be complied with.

Last week, during the committee stage of the bill’s reading, I did introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that ensures vulnerable consumers do have protection and the ability to make phone calls. If they are fibre-only consumers, in a power outage they may find themselves without any phone coverage to make a 111 phone call. I would like to acknowledge the member beside me, the Hon Tracey Martin, and New Zealand First for their work in advocating to make sure that those vulnerable consumers do have the ability to make a phone call, as I mentioned earlier, if their fibre is out and they don’t have those services available to them. So they will have a battery backup or, potentially, a mobile phone provided by the RSPs so that if there is an emergency, predominantly around health, they will have the ability to call a 111 service.

As I mentioned earlier, I want to thank both the Green and New Zealand First parties, our partners in Government, for ensuring that the most vulnerable consumers in our society have the ability to look after themselves in an emergency when they need them. This demonstrates that this coalition Government is committed to ensuring that the well-being of New Zealanders is at the heart of all we do.

There have been some concerns expressed about some of the provisions in the SOP that was tabled in the committee stage last week. The nature of the risks has been raised, and I think these need to be clearly understood. I will refer to my notes here, because I want to make sure we put this on the record in plain English: Enable, Ultrafast Broadband, and Northpower, who are three local fibre companies (LFCs) here in the country, face more competition than Chorus, and they face some competition from Chorus as well as players such as Vodafone and other RSPs. Therefore, they will not face price regulation in the first instance, and they may never face such regulation. Instead, they will be subject to information disclosure, a similar regime that operates under Part 4 of the Commerce Act, which our airports are exposed to. We believe in a light-handed form of regulation which requires them to share information about their businesses with the Commerce Commission. They will only be subject to more intrusive regulation if the Commerce Commission advises me that they can exercise a substantial degree of market power.

I would like to end my contribution again in the fashion that I started, by thanking the former Minister, the Hon Clare Curran, for a lot of the heavy lifting that was done during this process. As I say, it was a review of the Telecommunications Act 2001. Some work was done by the previous Government, but in our term of Government the heavy lifting was done by the former Minister, and I would like to extend my thanks to her for the way that it was done, especially in and around the anchor price for Chorus. That will give consumers certainty around the price of the anchor service around UFB for years to come—also Chorus some certainty—and I think that is one of the main benefits out of the work that was done in our time of Government, during the shepherding of this piece of legislation through the House. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to it, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Before I call Jonathan Young, I will draw the member’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 46/6, which I think is a very wise ruling.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I say thank you very much for that very spontaneous speech delivered by the Minister, and can I also say thank you for your kind remarks to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, who did work very hard on, actually, quite a complex bill. I’d say it is quite difficult to criticise this Minister, because we are both members of the parliamentary cricket team, and that creates—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Stop reading your speech.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Ha, ha! And that creates a collegiality, which I think sometimes is quite healthy for how Governments operate. He gets more runs than I do, and so I always have to hold him in high respect.

Kieran McAnulty: Yeah, but you fall over more.

SPEAKER: Order!

Kieran McAnulty: I apologise.

SPEAKER: It’s been a very long time since I played for the cricket team.

JONATHAN YOUNG: That’s right. I missed that remark but I sense I should be offended.

SPEAKER: No, I’m offended on our behalf.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Right, thank you very much. So anyway, you know, we do support this bill. As the Minister said—and I’ll just acknowledge the Hon Clare Curran for her work—this has been a work programme that has been across parliaments. It’s absolutely critical for New Zealand, going forward, to have state-of-the-art connectivity that’s going to enable us not just to be able to enjoy that connectivity but to have very effective opportunities when it comes to education, when it comes to services that our communities and our Government provide for our communities, and also in the area of commerce—it’s incredibly important to be able to have that connectivity, not just domestically across New Zealand, but across the world.

It’s good to see that New Zealand is doing well in this particular area, and that comes through the effort of different parliaments, different Ministers, and different select committees. We all appreciate the fact that we can enjoy these things.

This past weekend I was visiting a town in the southern part of my electorate called Ōpunake. In fact, my wife and I stayed there for the weekend. We had won a prize at a fantastic bach that won New Zealand’s Bookabach national award just recently. So we went down there to enjoy small-town New Zealand, and as we drove into that town, there was a big sign that said “Ultra-fast Broadband (UFB) is coming in February 2019”—UFB is coming in 2019. So that’s the relevancy, sir, to say that here we are in small-town Taranaki with 1,000 people—the reach of this technology is going far and wide. That has got to have benefits for our high schools, our primary schools, our doctors, our medical centres, and our farmers who are out there who want to be state-of-the-art operators on our land. All of this is so important, and it’s one of the best things this Parliament has done for New Zealand homes, families, enterprises, schools, and hospitals, to create this connectivity to get information flowing.

I think, just as a brief comparison, where we sit in the world—I think it is interesting to know that we are doing reasonably well—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to interrupt the member and to remind him we are on the third reading of this bill. It is not the second reading. It’s not a general discussion about UFB. It’s a discussion on this bill—maybe some comment on its progress through the House, but certainly, most of it should be on how the bill has emerged from the select committee. The member’s weekend or what happened in the rest of the world is not in this bill.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you for your guidance, sir. I do think New Zealanders are interested in what’s happening in small-town New Zealand; however, I will continue on, looking at the bill as you have suggested.

SPEAKER: Oh, the member’s tempting me.

JONATHAN YOUNG: One of the issues that this bill addresses is the balance between return on investment and also quality of service. It’s very, very important that we get this balance right, because we need to have the investment to get quality service, and it needs to be at a price where New Zealanders can afford it. So the anchor product is very much part of that—that we ensure that as many New Zealanders as possible can afford this service.

One of the things that we discovered through the progress of this bill was the issue in terms of poor consumer experiences with telecommunication services, which this bill goes some way to address. Consumer New Zealand’s recent survey highlighted that slower than expected broadband speed is quite frustrating. Secondly, disconnections or dropouts of internet services are also an issue. So these were some of the quality issues that this bill starts to address. It’s all well and good to have an ultra-fast fibre network, but it’s got to work, it’s got to be affordable, and it needs to be able to deliver the services to New Zealanders at an affordable price. So managing all of those tensions—and also managing the tension that corporations like Chorus face, in terms of having capability, wanting to stretch further into the retail market, but in doing that, because of their size and scale, threatening that retail market—is certainly an issue that this bill addresses, in terms of that line of division between the wholesale and retail market.

I’m very pleased to stand in support of the bill. I thank the Minister for the fact that they have highlighted vulnerable users. Yes, it’s a very important addition. I just want to acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin for her advocacy in that particular area. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

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

TUESDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2018

(continued on Wednesday, 7 November 2018)

Bills

Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and take a call in the third and final reading of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill. While many of my colleagues across the House, and perhaps some people listening out there—their eyes may glaze over when one talks about telecommunications regulation, but actually, I feel quite passionate about it. I want to give a little bit of a brief history of the bill, which goes back to 2012, when the ultra-fast broadband network was getting well under way, and when it became pretty clear that there needed to be a regulatory framework post-2020, when the contractual arrangements for the delivery of this new highway of the future were actually complete.

Extensive consultation was entered into, particularly between 2015 and 2017, and this work, this bill before us today, is the result of that extensive consultation. It has also included the work of seven Ministers in this House, going back to Steven Joyce, Amy Adams, Simon Bridges, myself, and, now, Kris Faafoi, who’s shepherding it through the House. I just want to acknowledge all of those Ministers for the work that’s been done and also the telecommunications industry generally, which can be a fairly fraught environment. It’s very competitive. It’s had its issues over the years, in terms of monopoly players, but what we’ve had and what this bill signifies is major disruption that has occurred in a sector, with the replacement of one technology by another—that being fast fibre ultimately replacing our copper network system—in a way that has the industry largely, not completely but largely, on side and has involved two major parties working cooperatively.

Of course, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee have done a lot of the grunt work on hearing the submissions. I also want to acknowledge the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials, and particularly Osmond and Tim, who did an awful lot of work to get this to the point that it is at today. I think it’s something that New Zealand can actually be proud of.

While the eyes may glaze over when one thinks about regulatory frameworks, they are the underpinning of our system working well. This is a utility framework, such as electricity or water. If you were playing Monopoly, you’d be landing on the utilities square and you’d be thinking that we’ve got the fibre regulatory system pretty much right for the future. I think that we should be pretty proud of that. There’s still more work to do, obviously. There’s more disruption coming in the 5G space, and there’s more work to be done to ensure that fast fibre gets out as far into our country as possible, and that we sort out our rural broadband situation so that we don’t have a two-tier system in the country, where people living outside the urban areas are basically struggling to function in the modern world because they can’t get fast fibre.

I want to spend a couple of minutes just talking about three or four of the main parts of this bill, where work included in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 118—which is the work that was done post coming out of select committee—tried to tweak this bill to be the best bill it possibly could be. The first matter is around the anchor pricing. That is the base price at which fibre post-2020 will be. That ended up being sorted in a contractual arrangement rather than through a legislative instrument. So I think, actually, that’s good law, not to put an actual legislated price into the legislation. Instead, a contractual arrangement was entered into with Chorus, particularly, to make the base figure $46.

That means that the consumer out there will not be faced with price shocks, which would then disrupt the industry. While it is not quite as low as some would have liked, it actually does provide a certainty, I think, for all: for the whole of the industry, for the retailers that can then offer the services above that anchor price, but also, and most importantly, for the consumers, where their monthly bill, which is usually now a bundled bill that includes fibre, phone, and Wi-Fi, all of those services—going forward, they will know that they aren’t going to face price shocks. So I think that was a pretty good outcome.

The other one is the line of business provisions, which, again, sounds pretty boring but actually is pretty important. What that does is it ensures protections against ending up with a vertically integrated monopoly in New Zealand again, such as we used to have under Telecom. So that means that Chorus has to provide the wholesale service, rather than being able to get back into being that vertically integrated monopoly. But you can go too far in these things, and you can restrict business services so much that it actually means that the company has nowhere to go. So the SOP actually provides for some tweaking of that to ensure that some innovation can occur around the edges, because disruption and technological change is happening so fast that every technology company, every provider of services, is morphing into something else before our very eyes. So there are provisions in this SOP for the Commerce Commission, as the regulator, to approve some line of business service changes around the edges.

The third thing I want to mention is around the definition of “telecommunications”, and while I don’t think anyone’s mentioned this yet, this is actually pretty important. On the face of it, it doesn’t seem that important, but what it does is it brings “broadcasting transmission” within the definition of “telecommunications”. What that means is that the regulator, the Commerce Commission, can actually have some powers in that area. We won’t see the impact of that for a while, but it means that broadcasting transmission is no longer in an unregulated space, which was a ridiculous anomaly in our system.

Finally, the 111 service being available to consumers who are on fibre when power cuts happen and they don’t have a mobile phone—particularly elderly people. I really want to acknowledge New Zealand First’s Tracey Martin for the work she did on that to ensure that this bill had provision for them. Protecting older people, vulnerable people—that’s what a good coalition Government that cares about people does, and I’m pretty proud of it. Overall, I’m pretty proud of this bill.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I was just looking at the clock and it had four minutes. I was wondering what was actually—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes, I apologise. There was a technical issue, completely caused by myself.

MELISSA LEE: Thank you very much for that clarification. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on the third reading of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the member who just took her seat, the Hon Clare Curran. It was under her, when she was the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, that this bill actually came back to the House. I thank her for the acknowledgment of all of the communications Ministers before her who instigated this work, which resulted in this bill that we had to look at in this Parliament. So I thank her for her work and for her passion. I guess, you know, we may differ in the broadcasting sector, but we do actually agree in the communications sector and in the desire for New Zealand to be more connected in the utilisation of those telecommunications—ultra-fast broadband, ultimately, and also the 5G network that is coming—and in wanting to watch New Zealand develop into a nation that is actually leading in this field. So, I thank her for her work.

Also, I thank the member for the descriptions of the results and the discussions that we’ve had under this bill. But there are a couple of areas that I’d like to, sort of, go into. I guess one of the things that I was particularly concerned about as the committee stages happened, and when there were certain areas of the legislation that were brought to my attention which may potentially create a problem for companies—such as ultra-fast, which the former member has sort of mentioned—was in terms of the definition of, I guess, things like access points, which I’ve mentioned. So I will get into that later on, in terms of the fibre network definition, which I was hoping that the Hon Kris Faafoi might actually address in his final reading, but I believe that he hadn’t quite got there. So I have to say I’m slightly disappointed, and I’m sure that members of the public, who were actually hoping to get a little bit of clarity from the Minister, may be disappointed in that fact.

But 257 written submissions were given to the select committee, and 31 were actually debated. One of the things that I want to clarify is that we want laws that are fit for purpose. We actually want to make sure, as Clare Curran said, and I support, and I think all of us in this Chamber want—we want New Zealand to be a leader in this area.

Throughout the consideration of the bill before the House, many people expressed concern—and, actually, some of it was out of scope, but there were concerns raised regarding the health concern. It wasn’t part of the remit of the bill, but they were talking about issues raised as a result of mobile phone technology, particularly looking into the 5G technology that’s coming forward, and also the Mobile Black Spot Fund programme that the Government is delivering, which began under the National Government.

It was important, during the consideration of the bill in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, to make sure that we addressed some of these concerns. We even had advice received from the health advisers—the Ministry of Health. It is actually on page 26 of our departmental report, which, basically, says—and I quote—“There is nothing in the research which would indicate there is a need to change current policy on the health effects of radio waves.” I am very satisfied with that answer. They are the experts, and I believe that throughout the process of this bill going through select committee, through the committee of the whole House stage, and now in the third reading, we are, in fact, answering the concerns of the public who have raised this with us. I feel quite satisfied that we’ve come to the right place on that.

Another important issue that members of the public raised was in relation to the copper landlines being withdrawn and the advancement of fibre. I guess, you know, the Hon Tracey Martin talked about the 111 code, and we’ve also discussed this: that nobody in this Chamber or throughout New Zealand wants to deny anybody who has vulnerability the ability to access 111. Nobody does that. Having said that, to blame fibre or the withdrawal of copper for people’s inability to contact 111 is actually false. It is actually the electronics that are the problem; it’s not a copper versus fibre issue. I think we need to make that clearer, but I’m glad that we’ve actually put something in the bill to make sure that the vulnerable people are addressed, and the very fact that copper is still going to be maintained in areas where newer technologies are not available is something that many people in New Zealand will be very happy about from 2020, I guess. When there are no new technologies available, copper will still be available, so people can rest assured. Some constituents have actually also raised concerns about the old copper network. You know, they want to make sure that when emergencies happen—they don’t want the system to go down.

A couple of weeks ago, I had an opportunity to tour the major telecommunications network exchange hub in Christchurch to discuss what it was actually like during the earthquake, for example. I had an opportunity to look around the actual cabling in that network, and it was extremely, I guess, eye opening to see the old system. It was almost like a walk through a museum of old telephony, with the circular dial and—I don’t know what you actually call them—those wind-up phones that you used to have. To actually see the new technology being developed and how much cabling there was for copper versus how little there is for fibre—it was, in fact, quite an eye-opening experience.

During the visit, I guess I saw first-hand how much effort the companies have actually put into ensuring that telecommunications systems stay operational at such times when there is a power outage following a natural disaster. As I said, the significant difference in size and capacity that fibre versus old copper technology showed was, in fact, very educational. I urge anyone who has an opportunity to go and actually see and visualise the new technology—I would suggest that they also do so.

I guess I’m satisfied that the telecommunications operators know what they’re going to be doing in the long term, in terms of the phase-out of the copper and also replacement with fibre, and the mobile-communications - based digital world of our future. To me, the upgraded telecommunications network being put in place around New Zealand is, essentially, for the betterment of New Zealand’s future, New Zealand’s communications, New Zealand’s digital sector, and New Zealand’s advancement in digital entertainment, even. We actually need to be in the forefront, and when people are developing new apps and new digital artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and augmented reality, I think we need to make sure that we have the right framework designed and delivered for people to be able to work and lead in those areas.

Despite some concerns that were raised by stakeholders, as I alluded to earlier—concern about the access point issue—I guess, like any legislation or any bill that is being debated in this House, when all stakeholders are happy—it never happens. It’s never going to happen. That means that the Government has, actually, perhaps not done their job if everyone’s happy. I think when stakeholders on both sides of the debate are slightly happy on either side, I think you have to sort of say that we’ve created a bit of a balance, and as long as they’re not too concerned, I think they’ve done well—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m sorry, your time has expired. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Infrastructure): Tēnā koe. I stand to take a call on this particular bill, which, obviously, New Zealand First supports. My thoughts actually go back to the troubled time when an erstwhile colleague David Cunliffe had some measure of influence over this sector. In those days Theresa Gattung, if I’m not mistaken, was the CEO of Telecom, and Roderick Deane was the chair. We were concerned about the inordinate amount of influence and power that that entity, Telecom, enjoyed—monopolistic power. The virtue of this bill is that time has passed, and now what we’re doing is we’re looking at and surveying a situation where there’s more competitiveness, but within that more competitive structure there are still unfinished issues.

One of those does need to be elaborated upon, partly because it was championed, as my colleague Clare Curran has referred to, by Minister Tracey Martin, and that was to ensure that stranded communities or legacy communities—given that I’m 59, I’ll soon be over 65, if my former rugby injuries don’t blight my prospects in the future. The reality is that not everyone is as comfortable or as adept as the new generation in using

technology. So we developed protections in this bill to ensure that emergency calling was not left to the whims of arbitrary decision makers in these organisations, and to ensure that communities in rural New Zealand and, in particular, communities of the elderly, aren’t forgotten about.

As we are further rolling out ICT services through—I digress for a minute—the Provincial Growth Fund, we’re actually building upon something that I personally agree with what was done. You can debate whether or not the former Minister Steven Joyce took the right approach, but he most certainly put the proverbials on the line and committed the Crown to an enormous amount of capital expenditure. In my part of the world, we’ve actually seen that model roll out quite well, certainly in Whangarei—not so good further north.

So, whilst it’s had a long-term gestation, we won’t have a modern economy with what we expect for this generation and future generations unless we get the right balance between investment and a strong regulator. I’m very happy to see that the bill does not cancel the levy. I quite like the model of a levy and look forward to applying it to other parts of the economy. If it’s good enough for the telecommunications part of the economy, I see great prospects in the banking part. That, unfortunately, lies with another Minister; however, my advocacy will not be quelled.

So without further ado, our party supports this bill and commends its expeditious passing through the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me pleasure, following the previous speaker, Shane Jones, and the two or three people who spoke before that who knew what they were talking about with respect to telecommunications. As a true resident of the provinces, it’s a pleasure to follow the previous speaker.

I guess my concerns about telecommunications and the way we deal with it are not so much related to the speed at which we can regulate it to ensure that our economy is able to develop in the future but it’s about the people that get left behind by the development of this kind of technology. One of the challenges that we have as a country, because of the very nature of us, our geography, the people that live in it, and, interestingly, the fact that the large majority of our income comes from parts of New Zealand that struggle the most with telecommunications, with electricity provision, and all those sort of things—so our challenge as a country, whoever’s in the Government, is to actually get services to those regions where the productivity comes from. That’s, I guess, one of the key reasons that we have to regulate both the telecommunications industry and the electricity industry, because both of those are vital parts of the potential growth of our productive economy, and they’re certainly important to us in the future.

The other interesting thing that has happened in New Zealand, and I think it’s because of our geography and because of our location in the world, is that we have people moving to New Zealand with very interesting business models, and they move to parts of New Zealand where we have great difficulty providing services but nonetheless they bring significant income to the country. They bring a whole lot of value to the country in the form of new technologies, business, and things like that. So they move here, and they go to parts of New Zealand that are, without question, the most beautiful parts of the world, actually, but, none the less, places where we as service providers and as a Government struggle to get communications into that area. So the issues that I’m interested in, with respect to this bill, are particularly issues that cover those areas that struggle for services.

We, of course, support this bill. I want to talk about one or two things within the bill that I think are interesting and probably debatable, and one of them is the deregulation of the copper services. Obviously, we’ve relied on them in all parts of New Zealand—morning, Goldsmith. Nice to see you. We’ve certainly relied on copper for all of our services in rural New Zealand, from the days when you used to—I think our phone number was 12D, and it was sort of like two longs and three shorts. Now, not many of you in this room, with the exception perhaps of the previous speaker, will remember that time, but I most certainly do. Of course, you could also pick up the phone and listen to your neighbour, provided you knew who it was—you could pick up the phone and listen to what your neighbour was talking about. So, really, the protection of our privacy and all that sort of thing nowadays is nothing new, because in those days you knew everyone down the line and who they were talking to and what they were talking about.

None the less, the world’s changed for most people but it hasn’t changed for some people in New Zealand, and that’s one of the challenges of the deregulation of the copper services and the threat that that, to some extent, provides. I realise that the bill goes to lengths to give the Commerce Commission the ability to review the provision of copper services and when they should be, or when they’re entitled, I guess, to no longer be provided. I live in one of those areas and have just moved, and I still live in one of those areas, and, interestingly, I can throw a stone and hit one of our major defence bases but, none the less, still don’t have a fibre line to my house.

So it’s a massive problem for New Zealand, and it will last for some time to come yet. Despite the effort, as the previous speaker said, of the previous Government and the significant resource that the likes of Steven Joyce and Amy Adams put into this on behalf of that Government, this is going to be an ongoing process, and I’m pleased to see this Government continuing to speed that process up as quickly as they can. Of course, technology enables changes to happen very quickly, and, as with all large entities, Governments lock themselves into contracts. We, interestingly, find ourselves locked into contracts nowadays not only in the telecommunications area but many others where the technology has gone right past those contracts and goes past them very quickly. So it’s an area that I think is hugely complicated, and it’s an area of risk for us, and it always will be.

The other thing that this bill talks about is greater consumer protections, and, despite the very best efforts of our legislators, and however we might go about that, we are never going to get the perfect system of consumer protection. I think that it’s all very well to have consumer protection in place, and you can take an average of or a view of what that consumer protection might look like, but you certainly can’t get a broad scope of consumer protection that protects everyone equally.

Another issue I was interested in talking about, and I note that Clare Curran raised it earlier, was the issue of vulnerable and older people. As we go to change all sorts of legislation—I notice the tax legislation just going through the Finance and Expenditure Committee today is dealing with changes to our tax department which are very clearly putting more emphasis on the use of technology and the way we deliver those services—for old people and the more vulnerable in our community, it becomes a threat, because some of us, as I said earlier, are used to the 12D phone line where you’ve got the long, short, long, and suddenly we’ve got to use telecommunications to deal with our tax issues, with our banking, and with all sorts of things. As those organisations and, indeed, the Government move to provide more and more services online, that becomes a greater threat.

So the very careful regulation and regulatory framework that we operate under is hugely important to those people and certainly makes it more important that we’re able to not only regulate and provide services to those people, but the other challenge we’ve got with this stuff is making sure—and if we’re a Government department we’ve got a significant challenge—that we provide the information and the ability for them to deal with those issues in a manner that is equitable for them.

Interestingly, the consumer survey on this kind of thing done not so long ago reported that 11 percent of our people have problems with both online services and with telecommunications services. It’s all very well for us to say 11 percent of them, but, as I said earlier, the 11 percent might be a very large part of our productive economy. So we can put things in percentages and it doesn’t sound like it’s many people or a very large part of our economy, but it certainly is. So it’s hugely important that we keep working to lift the responsiveness and services we provide for those people and make sure in the course of that that we do our very best to regulate the opportunity for those people to receive those services and to use them as part of their ongoing life.

It’s interesting that the Commerce Commission has got responsibility for understanding this bill, for declaring which geographic areas are specified fibre areas—in other words, where the copper lines can be either removed or run down. That will be a challenge in itself, because, as I said earlier, I live in an area where fibre goes past my gateway but it doesn’t go to my house and it’s not accessible. So regulation is required to ensure that these things are accessible, that people can get at them, and that they work well for us.

So I, like the National Party, support this bill. It’s necessary. It won’t be perfect, because the scene we’re living in changes so quickly. As I said earlier, I guess my greatest fear in the whole of this process is that we continue to provide the very best services we can to that productive part of our economy and the isolated part of our economy that needs those services. But they most certainly also need the support of a regulatory framework, and we’ve seen in the electricity industry that that is fraught and a very difficult thing to do. It’s easy to regulate for the major centres of population but very difficult to regulate satisfactorily for our broader and more sparsely populated parts of New Zealand.

So, certainly, we support this bill and I look forward to seeing how it operates, and I’m pretty sure there’ll be another amendment bill back in the House within a very short time. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Mōrena. Ata mārie koutou katoa. Actually, the previous speaker reminded me of a quite relevant—sorry, I think that’s you, Mr McKelvie. I haven’t got my glasses on this morning. [Interruption] Yes, all good—yeah, I might need yours. In Ruatōria, I reckon about 11 years ago, Nanny Ruby—who grew up all her life and lived in Ruatōria—came to Wellington. And in Ruatōria the telecommunications system there, and what she was used to, was exactly what Mr McKelvie was referring to. So then she came to Wellington to stay with us. She picked up the phone and dialled a wrong number. She was waiting to speak to Auntie Puti, and the person said “No, no, no. This isn’t that number.” She said, “Well what’s Auntie Puti’s number then?” She was just used to everyone in the community knowing that you could ring anyone up and they would know everyone else’s number, but it was also her, I guess, use of the system of the shared phone lines, or whatever it was—I don’t understand it, but you actually shared a phone line and could talk to various people just by picking up the phone.

Ruatōria has gone through a lot of change since then, and, actually, it might sound like a bit of an anomaly, but when I moved to Ruatōria, I think in 2007-ish, from Botany, Ruatōria had a faster internet than I was experiencing in Botany. Now, I remember at that time that actually all up and down the East Coast Chorus were renting people’s homes up and down the East Coast to get the fibre rolled out. So I actually think that that’s what was happening at the time, and they were starting to open up those very isolated—very isolated—communities, and that was good that we were getting super-fast broadband out to those communities.

So it is, of course, that I rise today on behalf of the Green Party in support of this bill, which also is about introducing a regulatory framework, a check, and for us that is principally around making sure that the benefits of information communications technology, ICT, are shared fairly in a way that is just among people.

Actually, I want to acknowledge Gareth Hughes, our spokesperson on this. Particularly, I cast my thoughts back to 2013, when right back then the Greens, Labour, and New Zealand First actually weren’t wanting to support some legislation which would override the Commerce Commission’s upper internet price ruling, and there was legislation that was going to protect profit, to put it simply. So I am very glad that we are seeing, I think, the next steps and some solutions around having a regulatory framework, a check and balance, but that isn’t also too restrictive, as we’ve heard many speakers refer to. We’re just trying to get that balance, still allowing for innovation and creativity in the sector, allowing for that innovation particularly to benefit consumers across the board and to all areas of our country, but also protecting consumers as much as is practicable. So supporting ultra-fast broadband for New Zealand and seeing it successfully rolled out—I know that this legislation is part of the steps of helping us to do that.

I was supposed to take a short call, but I wanted to actually pick up on the disability and inclusive technology. And then, of course, Melissa Lee rose to touch on that quite a bit. I took note that there is perhaps some concern particularly from Enable New Zealand, who facilitate and deliver quality access to resources for people with identified health and disability support needs, particularly in the telecommunications sector. So I think it’s fair. Local fibre companies like Enable will face only light-handed regulation in this legislation, is what I’m seeing, and Enable will only face price regulation if the Commerce Commission finds that it has substantial market power. So that is a substantial safeguard, but I think it’s fair for us to keep a monitor on that, to keep a monitor on how this regulatory framework will impact on various different companies, service providers, making sure that those who have bigger, more massive market power and those who have lesser market power are being treated in a way that is just, and particularly if it’s going to impact on people with a disability.

I actually did want to pick up on the point that Melissa Lee made—you know, it’s something I’ll look into a little bit more so I can understand a bit more of it—that when it comes to effective ICT, particularly for people with a disability, the debate is around the efficiency of the electronics system itself rather than copper versus fibre. It’s something that—I’m new to this debate in that particular aspect—I’m interested in picking that up and keeping an eye on it.

Again, I welcome this legislation because historically, yes, it appears the broadcasting transmission platform was totally unregulated, and I was thinking about a bit of a parallel. I think that if we’re getting this put in place at this stage, it will, hopefully, allow us down the road to not get into some real trouble, particularly for consumers and just ordinary people around the country—the likes of which we have seen, for example, with what the Lines Company are doing for power distribution around the country and how that is not fair right now. So I think this is a good step.

I did want to acknowledge that InternetNZ support the bill, saying that it will protect consumer interests. They are a non-profit organisation and they have principles along the sorts of value statements of ICT needing to be shared among everyone, and that it should be used to enhance productivity and reduce resource use—those sorts of values statements. They are giving a signal that it will protect consumer interests and lead to better service quality and fair prices for users, which is an important flag from them.

Also, we’ve got—I think it is—the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand, and they’re another telecommunications user group who have said they supported this bill. I wanted to acknowledge one of the criticisms that they make, which is that the bill doesn’t address the inequality of resource for consumer voice research and advocacy in New Zealand when compared to other jurisdictions such as Australia. So we might want to pick up on that as some of our next steps and reviews, because I think it’s a fair enough issue to pick up.

I think, overall—and we’re all supporting this here in this House today; we’re doing some good work this morning—it really just goes back to understanding that the communications sector is going to be vital, can offer incredible promise for some of the visions that we actually need to be able to achieve for our country, for our people, for our environment, particularly in reducing waste, reducing travel in the way that we go around our work. So I am really welcoming this legislation to enable us to get on with the job. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to join with the widespread support across this House for this legislation, the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill, which we’re now putting down for its third reading. The bill amends the Telecommunications Act, as we know, to establish a stable and predictable regulatory framework for fixed fibre line access services in New Zealand—[Interruption] Thank you very much.

It’s work that the National Party began in the last Parliament and which had made some progress under the previous Government and is now being continued on by this Government—good, sound legislation, backed after careful scrutiny and communication with the broader industry that it affected. I hesitate to make the contrast—but I will—between some of the previous bills that we’ve been speaking about in the last day or two, most notably the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, which dealt with the offshore exploration in the oil and gas sector, which displayed none of those basic attempts to understand what was really going on and to liaise effectively with the industry affected. But this is how you go about doing quality regulation.

So what we’re talking about here is the regulation of the ultra-fast broadband services that the previous National Government invested about $2 billion in laying out across the country. It is a key part, now, of the national infrastructure that we have. It’s almost as important as roads and other fundamental infrastructure that we have, in terms of power and other things that are essential to the workings of the economy. Of course, it didn’t exist 20 or 30 years ago, but with the development of the immense computing power and the connectivity that we have within the country and all around the world, the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband, we thought in the previous Government, was something that the Government needed to have a hand in and could usefully contribute to the investment in so that it would happen more quickly than it would otherwise have.

The various countries all around the world have gone about this in different ways. The only point I’d make is that, in this particular respect, I think we’ve done a better job than our friends across the Tasman, who have spent billions and billions of dollars on their scheme with far less effect and success than we have in New Zealand. So under the previous National Government settings, we were on track to have 87 percent of New Zealand households connected to ultra-fast broadband by 2020, and maybe even earlier under ultra-fast broadband phase two. The point I would make—and we have the Minister for Regional Economic Development here talking to one of my colleagues, Ian McKelvie, which is a little bit concerning. He’s concerned about regional development—well, there was no more useful regional development than the investment that we have made in ultra-fast broadband and in the Rural Broadband Initiative, the RBI, in order to get the many different towns and hamlets around this country connected to ultra-fast broadband.

This legislation is about coming up with a regulatory framework, particularly in relation to Chorus, which owns much of that fibre network, to ensure, as it, essentially, has control over that critical piece of infrastructure, that it’s not able to take excess profits at the expense of consumers, and is, ultimately, regulated about the price cap that it can have. So Chorus will be subject to a revenue cap, but, most importantly, the company will be required to provide certain anchor services to its wholesale customers. As you can imagine—not you, Madam Assistant Speaker, but listeners—there are all sorts of complications around the arrangements between the provider of the core service and the many different innovative companies that are operating, using those services, and providing, as intermediaries, those services to New Zealanders.

We want to see innovation flourish. We want to see different companies coming up with different ways of delivering the ultra-fast broadband, whether it’s super-fast for people who are prepared to pay for it, or just medium speed, and all the various combinations and permutations of that. We want that innovation to flourish, and for that to happen, those companies need to have access to the core infrastructure in a way that works for them and is predictable and is based on a set of rules that everybody can make long-term investments over. That’s what this legislation seeks to put into place.

So the revenue cap gives Chorus the flexibility in how it sets its prices for most products but also ensures that Chorus can’t earn excess returns. The safeguard built into the system is that Chorus will be required to supply price-regulated anchor products. They’ll initially be at the entry-level broadband product, about 100 megabits per second upload and 20 megabits per second download, and voice-only products.

The purpose of this is not simply so that we can all get better access to Netflix and Lightbox and all the other streaming services that New Zealanders have shown great enthusiasm for over the past few years. It is partly that, and why not—there’s some good stuff on—

Dr Duncan Webb: House of Cards.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes. Bodyguard is the one I’ve been watching recently—very good—on Netflix. So that has enabled all sorts of different ways of entertaining ourselves. But, the power of broadband, of course, is much more significant than that. The ability for all the classrooms in New Zealand to be able to stream video and connect anywhere they are in the world is a massive, massive boon for education if teachers and the education system itself are innovative enough to make use of it. Also, for our businesses right throughout the country—being able to connect with global marketplaces such as Amazon and Alibaba and all the different global marketplaces that rely on having excellent internet connections, but also just trading with companies and consumers all around the world.

The previous Government invested heavily in providing this infrastructure, and we continue to invest throughout, in the technology space. In fact, just this morning I was over at Greta Point, at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), with Minister Megan Woods, at the opening of the latest supercomputer that NIWA has bought in order to crunch the numbers in terms of its climate modelling. Interestingly, that computer is the third supercomputer they’ve bought. It is 1,000 times more powerful than the first. The incredible ability to make a difference, in terms of understanding our world—it’s all just part of the investment that we’ve continued to make over an extended period, and I commend the current Minister, Megan Woods, for their ongoing commitment to that investment in infrastructure.

The final point I want to talk about was the deregulation of copper services. It is important that all Governments should demonstrate regulatory restraint, and so when there was one single copper line around the country and it was a monopoly, it was regulated in order to ensure that consumers weren’t—like every monopoly, the Government takes an interest to ensure that consumers are getting a fair go. As soon as it is no longer a monopoly, then it is appropriate that we step back and allow normal competition to rule. So copper is not the only way you can get a telephone service to a house. Obviously, you’ve got cellphone coverage, and we’ve had it for a long time, but now, through fibre, you can have digital audio phone calling. So there’s no longer a monopoly with the copper line, and so we no longer need to regulate it, and as soon as we don’t need to, we shouldn’t. The normal competitive forces of the economy can be far more effective than any regulator based in Wellington. That’s why we step back in conditions where ultra-fast broadband is available. People can have a choice, and then the normal market disciplines apply. But of course where there isn’t yet that choice, then we still have to deal with the situation with copper. So this is a sensible and pragmatic move, but it is part of a mind-set which says that when you no longer need to regulate, you shouldn’t, in order for investment to flow as rapidly as possible.

So, all in all, it’s good to see this legislation, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call—5 minutes, Dr Duncan Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It appears that peace has broken out. Indeed, Mr Goldsmith was right: when we don’t need to regulate something, of course we shouldn’t. It is an interesting and very useful piece of legislation, though, because what we have is a huge and largely Crown-funded investment in infrastructure. What we see here is technology moving very, very fast indeed—not only from copper to fibre, but we see very near on the horizon 5G, which may indeed make some of the infrastructure we have largely redundant.

One of the real challenges of this legislation was how to deal with the fact that these businesses—Chorus and other local providers—have put huge amounts of fibre under the ground at hundreds of millions of dollars of cost, and yet now they’re being asked to provide those services to cellphone towers, which may, in fact, be undercutting their own market. Now, that was a real challenge, and I must say that the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media took that on and has done a very good job in, essentially, saying that there won’t be price regulation in respect of those ultra-fast broadband services in those non-Chorus settings. There are contractual arrangements for Chorus, but in the other settings the decision has been made to say, “Look, there is the shadow of regulation but no price regulation at all.” so that there can be some flexibility, some versatility, in terms of facing these new challenges about how you price something which was designed to go to business premises and household premises but now may well be going to cellphone towers which themselves serve 200 or 300 homes. There are some really difficult technical challenges in there, and I must say that I commend both the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and also the Minister for engaging with industry at every level to address those very, very difficult issues.

So, in sum, this is a piece of legislation which addresses competition issues where monopolies tend to emerge in a rapidly changing technological environment. It’s a technical piece of legislation but an absolutely essential one. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Madam Assistant Speaker, it’s my pleasure to take a short call on this Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill. I like the fact that the whole of the Parliament agrees on this. It’s a very sensible and pragmatic way forward, and that’s because it’s been worked on by a number of Ministers over a number of years and a number of Governments. I likened it to one of my former colleagues, who said, “What we do with technology is very similar to what New Zealand has done with the roading network, what we have done with the power distribution network, and how we provide water to people. This is the next realm.” Our ability to communicate and our ability to share information across the globe has been transformational on the global economy, and this work, really, simply brings us up to date and puts us in a forward-looking way that we can make the best of the new technology. So I acknowledge the work from the former Minister the Hon Clare Curran and the work by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that has brought this to this point.

What we have on these machines is transforming our lives, and, as we seek to use them more and more, we have to look after the advancing needs of New Zealanders, but we also have to look after people like my mum, who’s got limited ability to use these things but is also worried about the security of what the former system offered.

I wish to acknowledge the work of New Zealand First in looking after some of our older and more vulnerable people in bringing changes to the legislation—something that I personally support, and I know many people in our community, who feel vulnerable with the pace of change, will personally support.

I like the balance that is in this legislation and the change, because what we’re really saying is that we can keep the old where the new is not available—in other words, where there is not fibre and all the technology that goes with fibre, there is a requirement for copper to be provided. Over time, that will be phased out, but there may be some places that it’s probably never going to be viable for fibre to be run. There will be alternative solutions, but, in the meantime, copper must be provided.

I want to touch on a comment that was made by my fellow colleague Mr Ian McKelvie. It is amazing to me that in his own farm and his own situation, he cannot get broadband to his home, right next to a large air force base. We have some significant challenges, and while where I live and work, I have the availability of the best type of technology and the fastest type of technology, we do need to acknowledge and we need to keep incentivising and working to make sure that broadband and fibre is made available to as many New Zealanders as can possibly happen.

It was a mission of the last Government, and I’m pleased it’s carrying on with the next Government, to try and make broadband as widely available as possible by various incentives and investment options. The change that is being made here is simply a reflection on changing times.

For me, this has been one of the better processes. I’ve watched a Supplementary Order Paper being brought in. I’ve watched New Zealand First work on natural concerns they had. I think this is a very good framework for New Zealanders to go forward. I think we can have the best of both worlds. 5G technology is going to fundamentally change how things are delivered, yet this bill allows for the best of every world. From what we had—and I think other people have referred to the “Ring, ring! Are you working?” type of party line system—to where we’re going to go in the future is catered for in this bill, and I think it strikes the right balance across New Zealand.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. This is the third reading of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill, and I’m very pleased to be taking a short call on it. I wasn’t part of the select committee that dealt with this bill, and I have to admit, when I was first reading through the document, my eyes did start to glaze over as I learnt more about copper fixed line services regulation than I ever thought I needed to know. But this is obviously a very important bill, as we have heard from our wonderful colleague Clare Curran as well.

I’d like to commend the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the great work that they’ve done on this, because this bill modernises the Telecommunications Act, ensuring that we have a stable framework for fibre access services in New Zealand and enhancing New Zealand’s connectivity.

On a personal note, I share the sentiments expressed by Ian McKelvie. My family too lives rural, and at first it looked like we couldn’t get internet at all. We did eventually get some broadband, but it’s over copper lines, and we might as well be on dial-up. It’s so frustrating. So I know, on a personal note, that my family is welcoming this legislation.

Look, I’ve very little to add after Clare Curran spoke so eloquently about the issues in this bill, explaining what it is about and explaining the important changes that the Supplementary Order Paper is making after the feedback to the select committee. So I’d like to end on the fact that this bill, obviously, gives certainty to the industry. It encourages further investment by network providers, but, at the same time, it also protects the consumers. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be taking a call on the third reading of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill. This bill has been progressing through the House for quite a long time, but I do just have a few comments I’d like to make on the process that we’ve gone through in passing it. I do sit on the select committee that considered this bill—the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. We are a split committee, so we do have to act in a very collaborative and cohesive manner. We are represented by the three governing parties and also, obviously, by the National Opposition. We are very ably chaired, I think, by Jonathan Young. Also, we’ve got some subject matter experts on issues like this, in people like Gareth Hughes, and I’d like to acknowledge his extensive knowledge in this area and thank him for the advice that he gave us throughout the process.

I mentioned that there has been quite a long gestation to the bill, so I just wanted to cover off some aspects of that. It’s been quite adequately covered earlier in the debate by Clare Curran as well, because this bill has quite a history, and it does go back a long way. There are quite a few Ministers—in fact, she mentioned Steven Joyce, and that was quite a few years ago. The one I was going to start with was with Amy Adams, who released the results of the telecommunications review back in 2016—so a couple of years ago now—and that set out a new direction for regulating broadband and phone services. Not long after that, in 2017, the new communications Minister, Simon Bridges, set that new direction into a bill, and introduced that piece of legislation on 1 June 2017—so nearly a year and a half ago now.

I do just want to point out, though, that even though it has been a long gestation, that is not a criticism of either the previous National Government or the Labour Government, because, as we found during the debate in the select committee on this bill, this is something we do need to get right. Members on both sides of the House today have pointed out the reasons why that is. I would like to acknowledge, as well, the two Ministers that this bill has been under on the opposite side: Clare Curran—thank you, Ms Curran, for the advice that your officials gave the select committee during our proceedings; it was most appreciated—and, of course Kris Faafoi, who gets the good fortune, I guess, of having the bill passed in the final reading under his name. I’m sure that will put him in good stead when the next Cabinet reshuffle does occur.

We had to consider a number of different aspects of the bill. There were two issues in particular that the select committee grappled with, and I think they’ve been, again, fairly well covered on both sides of the House today. The first one is around the debate between new technologies and innovation, on the one side, and then, on the other hand, ensuring that people remain connected, particularly in rural and isolated communities. That’s something that we debated at length, and it certainly came up in the submissions. We had 257 submissions on the bill and heard 31 of those in person. So there was quite a lot of debate around it. It got quite technical at some stages and, again, it was useful to have people like Gareth Hughes, who has a long history in this area, and also, of course, the officials who guided us through.

So we had to have that debate around, of course, making sure that we’re making the most of innovation as it develops and as new technologies emerge, but also ensuring that when we embrace those new technologies, we’re not unfairly or unreasonably cutting off people’s access to important telecommunications services, or even just being connected to their local area. There’s been some discussion earlier in the debate about the work that New Zealand First did on 111 services. I’d like to acknowledge their work on that as well, because that, of course, was a particular area of concern for people in rural and isolated areas.

The other issue that we grappled with at length on the committee was just in relation to the health impacts, or potential impacts. Quite a number of those 257 submissions, and certainly a number of the 31 oral submissions that came to us, were concerned about the potential health impacts of moving away from copper fixed line to new innovative technologies around fibre. We certainly heard those out. I think it’s fair to say that most members of the committee were a bit sceptical about some of the claims that were put forward and some of the dubious research that was quoted from offshore about the effect of these new technologies on health, but we certainly looked into it. We sought advice from the Ministry of Health, and they came in to brief us on the bill. If there were any concerns in the select committee, they certainly satisfied those and said that there was next to no risk of these new technologies impacting negatively on people’s health.

I think it’s fair to say that the people that submitted on the bill who were concerned about those aspects probably won’t be satisfied by the Ministry of Health advice, and, certainly, if they’re not satisfied by that, they won’t be satisfied by what I’m saying in the House today. But I do think that they were heard. Jonathan Young, as our chair, was very respectful in the way that they were heard. Certainly, it got a little bit interesting during some of the debates, but he was very fair in making sure that they had the ability to have their say.

My colleague Ian McKelvie earlier mentioned the fact that he comes from quite a rural area, and he mentioned that he is not far from, I think, a reasonable-sized defence establishment in the central North Island, and mentioned that he doesn’t have fibre anywhere near his house. There is that debate, I guess, ongoing at the moment about where it is and where it isn’t, and, certainly, as a provincial member of Parliament, I find the same thing, where it’s certainly present in some of our larger towns, and I think of the likes of where I used to live in Ashburton—certainly it’s fully fibre there. But then there are other communities where it’s being rolled out, like Pleasant Point, where I live now—unfortunately, even when it is rolled out, it still won’t come quite over the hill to my house.

I’m conscious of the fact that we have Nicola Willis, one of my colleagues—she has talked to me at length many times about Karori. Karori, I understand, is the largest suburb in the country, and it doesn’t have fibre yet. Small communities like Pleasant Point will probably end up with fibre before Karori does. So despite Nicola, I think, pushing very strongly on that issue in caucus, unfortunately that’s unlikely to occur for a couple of years yet, and that, of course, comes back to the commercial reality of when the providers can install it.

I just want to spend the final couple of minutes speaking in relation to the process again, and that’s about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was brought forward during the committee of the whole House stage. This has been a collegial debate, and I don’t wish to, I guess, insert a negative note to it, but it did certainly leave a bit of a sour taste in my mouth, because we did consider a lot of these issues at length on the committee. It did disappoint me, I guess, that the Minister brought forward an SOP at the 11th hour to make changes. I do think they were positive changes—certainly with the elements I spoke about earlier, with the 111 connectivity for rural and isolated areas. That makes absolute sense. But it did disappoint me that the select committee didn’t have the opportunity to consider those amendments. The Minister could have quite easily sent a draft SOP to us while we were considering the bill, and we could have considered those amendments alongside the legislation. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen, so it was tabled at the 11th hour. As I say, they are good changes, but it was unfortunate that there wasn’t that level of democratic oversight, or certainly not the ability for submitters to make their feelings known on what those amendments were.

I did mention during the committee of the whole House stage that we could consider sending it back to select committee for a short, truncated period. That, obviously, didn’t happen. I am conscious that this bill has been going through the House for a very long time, so I don’t wish to hold it up any longer. That was a suggestion that that would have, obviously, elongated the process by a couple of weeks, but I think it would have provided a good opportunity for us to consider those amendments. So the only opportunity we had to do that was, of course, the committee of the whole House stage, which we did at length, and now during this third reading as well.

So I don’t wish to hold up the debate any longer. I’m very aware that there are a large number of, particularly, industry players out there who are very keen to see this legislation progress. So I commend it to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just rise to take a really short call in support of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill. One particular part of this piece of legislation that I particularly like is that it puts a framework in place that’s going to support long-term investment, and ultra-fast broadband providers are not going to be able to make a large profit at the expense of the consumer. I think that’s one of the key things about it—that it’s really important that the consumer is protected here and has better protections, at least, anyway, because we know that the internet is no longer a “nice-to-have”; it’s actually an “essential-to-have”. We use it in our education system. We have businesses that rely solely on that type of function, through internet—that’s just how their business operates completely. We find that more and more people are actually working from home and, therefore, it’s really important that they have the good connectivity that we have.

So as I’ve said, it’s no longer a “nice-to-have”; it’s actually an essential thing that we need to have. Again, I think it’s imperative that the consumer is protected, given those reasons. So I’m not going to take up any more time, and I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 10.10 a.m. (Wednesday)