Wednesday, 28 November 2018

WEDNESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2018

WEDNESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Australia—Queensland Legislative Assembly Ethics Committee, Delegation

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome the Queensland Legislative Assembly Ethics Committee, led by Mr Joseph Kelly, who are present in the gallery.

[Applause]

Motions

Women Voting in Aotearoa New Zealand—125th Anniversary

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to recognise the 125th anniversary of women voting in Aotearoa New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I move, That this House celebrate the 125th anniversary of women in Aotearoa New Zealand voting for the first time and acknowledge the work of the suffragists to make our country a world leader on women’s rights.

Motion agreed to.

Points of Order

Public Services—Stoke KiwiBank Branch and PostShop

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House for notice of motion No. 16, in my name, to be put without debate.

SPEAKER: Is that something that has been discussed?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): No.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action?

Hon Members: Yes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Probably not a good time to make that interjection.

Speaker’s Rulings

Written Questions—Replies

SPEAKER: I’ve received a series of complaints from members about replies for written questions relating to diary matters and briefings. In most cases, they were right to raise these issues with me, because the replies did not meet the required standards of accountability to the House. I’m aware that there was a proposal for the proactive release of ministerial papers and diaries. That will reduce the need for written questions, and Ministers may be able to direct Ministers to the source of the information they’re seeking. In any case, and certainly in the interim, Ministers are obliged to give informative replies to all the questions they are asked where it’s consistent with the public interest to do so. Speakers’ rulings 176/5 and 177/5 apply. I have been given too many examples where they have not.

Hon Amy Adams: Most transparent ever.

SPEAKER: And I might say to the Hon Amy Adams, support from her in these circumstances does not do the cause of her colleagues who raise these matters any good.

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 her Government’s statements and actions, including her statement yesterday when asked about geometric mean growth she said “when taking into account spreading over that period of time, spreading over the increase is a much more accurate way of taking one month out of the year”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. The premise of the member’s question is false and serves as proof of a poor understanding of basic facts. Her decision to try and explain that to a member needing numerical literacy was indeed a brave one.

Hon Simon Bridges: What did she mean when she said the geometric mean takes one month out of the year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The use of the geometric mean measurement provides an estimate of what the typical or middle household is paying in rent. It’s similar to the median in that regard, or the average in that regard. That’s what that means.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did she say yesterday that I had selectively chosen figures which showed the median rent has increased by $30 a week under her Government, compared to $12 a week under the previous Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because, unsurprisingly, the member came to this House with some false facts and thought to get them out in front of the public. Here are the real facts, though: if you go and look at, for example, 2017 rent increases, 4.8 percent; 2018, the first year of this Government, 4.8 percent; and way below the 5 percent when he was a Minister in 2015. That’s what it means.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, wouldn’t it in fact be selective to use anything other than the total rent increase under her Government with the total rent increase under the previous Government: $30 versus $13?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be well-known to anyone who is literate in both this issue, statistics, as well as the law or property that for many periods you have a long, flat period in rentals, then all of a sudden you have the spike. If you measure the spike and call it an average, you’ll come up with the conclusion that member came up with in the House yesterday.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t she simply overcomplicating matters with gobbledegook like “geometric mean” because she doesn’t want to face the facts of very significant rent increases in the last year due to her policies?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I do confess that I may have made a mistake yesterday in not referring that member, the leader of the National Party, to his spokesman on statistics in this country. Then he might have been better informed, rather than come down here, drag one month, call it 12, and come up with the cock-and-bull story in terms of stats he did yesterday.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statement in relation to whether banning letting fees will see landlords increase rents to cover the cost, that she hopes that won’t be the case?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister’s statement—and would be to this question as well—refers to the fact that the National Party is using selective data which varies significantly month to month. Everybody in the real estate market knows it, everybody in the rent market knows it, and the tenants know it, as well as the landlords. The Prime Minister described in the previous answer the benefits of the geometric mean, stating “arithmetic means are too sensitive to changes in the higher value.”

Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is getting worse for the Government.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I lost you a long time ago.

SPEAKER: That’s sort of like even. Start again, please.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she still have hope her policy won’t lead to higher rents when there are property companies emailing their clients telling them to increase rents by amounts such as $6 a week to recover the abolished letting fees?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the Prime Minister—on behalf of the Prime Minister; and as well as yours truly, but answering for the Prime Minister—have said that there could be a temporary rise whilst we try and get on top of the massive shortage in supply of housing built up over the last nine years. Now, there used to be a time the National Party understood supply side economics, but they don’t when it comes to housing.

Hon Simon Bridges: How much will the temporary rise be, or does she not know because she’s motivated by good intentions rather than any kind of evidence or good outcomes?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I can say on behalf of the Prime Minister is that being motivated by ambitious intentions and positivism has seen a sizeable rise in the support of the coalition Government and its parties, heading towards 60 percent, and if you want to ask what one of their coalition parties’ potential polling at the moment might be, well, it’s fully 3 percent higher than it was at election day in 2017—

Hon Simon Bridges: What’s your polling? Tell us about yours.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it’s very positive, actually, and that’s why we’re going to Christmas with a present we didn’t even ask for.

Hon Simon Bridges: How long will this temporary rise last, and how much will it be?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government admitted when it saw the mess and the dysfunctionalism between supply and demand in housing in this country that we wouldn’t be able to fix it up all in one year, or indeed two years, but because we were prepared to address a massive crisis in the housing situation of this country that there would be temporarily possibly a rise of an amount which we don’t know, but then because we would be building 100,000-plus houses, we’d get on top of this problem. Not like the previous Government, that denied there was a crisis until the day after the election, then they discovered one, in the same way Columbus discovered America—purely by accident.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released its December Quarterly Predictions showing that growth is expected to average about 3 percent per year over the next three years. The NZIER said that there are many favourable conditions supporting growth and that recent data points to solid activity, for example, in the retail, construction, and services sectors. They did warn about some risks to the New Zealand economy, including the international situation. However, the NZIER said they expect the effects of these risks on real activity to be muted.

Willow-Jean Prime: What did the NZIER say about business activity?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The December Quarterly Predictions said that activity indicators suggested demand was holding up, despite business confidence remaining in the doldrums. The NZIER went on to say: “Despite weak business confidence, firms remain optimistic about increasing their headcount.” They also said that wage growth is expected to pick up as firms invest to become more productive, leading to higher skilled jobs with higher wages for Kiwi workers.

Willow-Jean Prime: What other reports has he seen on actual business investment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday Statistics New Zealand released the latest merchandise trade data for October 2018. Westpac economists said that the imports data reflected some positive trends in domestic activity and said that firmness in demand has encouraged increased investment spending by businesses, with imports of machinery up 7.5 percent over the past year and imports of transport equipment up 10 percent. This is the real data which reflects real investment decisions made by businesses. In other words, there’s serious momentum in the economy.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he consider it part of his role as Minister of Finance to ensure that the collection and use of tax revenue is undertaken carefully and in the best interests of all New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Hon Amy Adams: As the Minister of Finance, does he accept that if the Government imposes higher taxes on the owners of residential rental properties, this will lead to higher rents for tenants?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, not necessarily. There is evidence on both sides of that argument internationally. What I do believe is that all New Zealanders should pay their fair share of tax.

Hon Amy Adams: So is the Minister of Finance really saying he doesn’t accept that higher costs on landlords are likely to lead to lower supply and higher rents for tenants?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I said was that internationally there is conflicting evidence on this matter about whether or not those kinds of taxes lead to an increase in rentals, which is the question that the member asked. What I do know for sure is that if you have a Government that for nine years fails to address the supply of affordable housing in the economy, that really is going to put pressure on.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the Tax Working Group that a capital gains tax would likely lead to increases in rents?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Tax Working Group—I presume the member is referring to their interim report—actually note exactly what I’ve said: that there is conflicting evidence on that matter.

Hon Amy Adams: So does he expect that the $325 million additional revenue that Budget 2018 says that this Government will take from landlords through ring-fencing losses is going to mean higher rents for tenants?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve said there is conflicting evidence on the impact of those sorts of policies. What I do know is that the fundamental thing that will change the rental market in New Zealand is increasing the supply of housing.

Hon Amy Adams: Why is it that we have a Prime Minister who can answer that she expects rents to rise, but the Minister of Finance doesn’t seem aware that that’s how the market works?

SPEAKER: Well, inasmuch as the member has responsibility.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can only refer to what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said on behalf of the Prime Minister, which is that there may be some temporary increases there—the point being that the failure to create supply in the market over the last nine years will take a little bit of time to correct.

Question No. 4—Health

4. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his actions and policies around the Northland meningococcal outbreak and all Government-funded immunisations?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, and in particular the swift response to the declaration on 8 November of a community outbreak of meningococcal W in Northland.

Matt King: When was the Minister first made aware of the meningitis outbreak in Northland?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have been made aware over time of concern around meningococcal W. The outbreak itself was first confirmed on 8 November of this year. I had the response brought to my attention last week. The fact that they had moved very, very quickly and secured what are very hard-to-get vaccinations very quickly for New Zealand, and will have the needles in the arms of children within weeks—I congratulate the district health board (DHB), Pharmac, and the Ministry of Health for moving so quickly.

Dr Shane Reti: When did the ministry first receive requests for a meningitis vaccination programme from Northland DHB, in light of the internal memo from the CEO on Monday saying, “We have been strongly encouraging the Ministry of Health for some months to approve this”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As the Minister who answered on my behalf said yesterday, there is a test for what constitutes a community outbreak. That was recognised on 8 November. But in answer to the member’s question, the Government has acted swiftly on that expert advice. The conversations between Northland and the ministry have been ongoing for some time, as concerns were raised about isolated incidents of meningococcal W, and it is appropriate that they have been discussing these matters for some time.

Dr Shane Reti: Why has the ministry missed a meningitis outbreak when their own nationwide public health surveillance data for meningitis shows four cases in January, 10 cases in February, more than 20 cases in March, nearly 30 cases in April, and nearly 40 cases in May, which by that time was already nearly double 2017?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the assertion at the beginning of the member’s question.

Dr Shane Reti: When officials say selected schools will receive the meningitis vaccination, who will decide which students will have a chance of protection and which students will miss out?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The programme is targeted at those aged from nine months to four years, because they are the ones most at risk—inclusive. Also, a focus will be on students aged 13 to 19, because teenagers are those who carry and spread the disease. That’s been identified as the best way to target and arrest the spread of meningococcal W, and that’s the basis upon which the programme is based.

Dr Shane Reti: How will the Minister and his officials reach senior students, particularly the 13- to 19-year-olds in the target group which he’s just mentioned, who have already left school for the year?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Members of the community will certainly be encouraged to participate. These are the problems that have presented in previous meningococcal and other vaccination campaigns, and, fortunately, in Northland they are experienced in dealing with these things. I congratulate the staff for acting quickly, and I know they have the expertise to handle this in the best way possible.

Dr Shane Reti: Was the Minister made aware of the increasing monthly cases of meningitis in his own ministry’s monthly notifiable disease surveillance reports?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: If the member wants to ask specific questions about when I was notified and on which particular outbreaks around the country—he will know there’s many; he’s a clinician—I would be happy to have those questions written down, and I will answer them.

Question No. 5—Health

5. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about capital investment in hospitals?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): More good news: last Wednesday, I joined the Prime Minister at Middlemore Hospital to announce that the Government has set aside $80 million to fix longstanding building and infrastructure issues at Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB). Earlier that week, I was on the West Coast to confirm a $20 million investment in the Buller Integrated Family Health Centre. Staff and patients in our public health service deserve high-quality facilities—this Government is committed to delivering on them.

Rino Tirikatene: How will the $80 million investment at Counties Manukau DHB improve facilities?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Well, the building issues at Middlemore, including rot and mould in the walls, will be well-known to members. The DHB can now plan with certainty for four important projects that will tackle those legacy issues and better position it to cope with a growing population with complex needs. Those projects are re-cladding the KidzFirst building, relocating the radiology department to a more modern and suitable building, establishing a radiology hub at the Manukau super-clinic site, and improving critical infrastructure at the super-clinic, including new plant room IT and medical gases. Further investment will be required at Counties Manukau in coming years, but these projects will make a real difference to staff and patients.

Rino Tirikatene: How much of the $750 million the Government invested in Budget 2018 for capital works in health has now been allocated or prioritised for specific projects?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is the biggest capital injection in about a decade into our health system, and in recent months we’ve announced $275 million for critical infrastructure at Auckland DHB, $200 million for a new elective surgery unit at North Shore Hospital, $24 million for new endoscopy and cardiac care capacity at Whangarei Hospital, $7.1 million for Bay of Islands Hospital, $8.4 million for individualised units for people with severe mental health and intellectual disability needs, and $21.3 million additional to the new children’s hospital in Wellington, and, of course, that’s all additional to the $80 million for Counties Manukau that we’ve just announced. So, in total, since Budget 2018, we’ve announced investments in our hospitals of more than $600 million. More will be needed, but this is a sign that this Government is committed to our public system and to our public hospitals.

Question No. 6—Housing and Urban Development

6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is he satisfied that the KiwiBuild programme will achieve good outcomes for communities?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes. KiwiBuild has four primary aims. The first is to increase homeownership as we build more affordable homes that require a smaller upfront deposit for the estimated 162,000 renters who could service a KiwiBuild mortgage; the second is that we want to increase the supply of homes that if not bought by first-home buyers will provide much-needed affordable warm, dry rental homes; scale and pipeline that will enable investors to invest in innovative construction methods like offsite manufacturing; and, fourth, to incentivise the construction of higher-quality homes, including through the KiwiBuild design standard, which will mean homes are affordable to run and energy-efficient.

Hon Judith Collins: Why is he supporting a KiwiBuild development in Marfell, New Plymouth, when a proposal had already been received by Housing New Zealand to build social housing on the site for around $100,000 less per house?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because our goal at Marfell is to regenerate and revitalise a neighbourhood that for the last decade was allowed to sit vacant. After neglected homes were demolished, that suburb was left isolated and vacant, full of social problems. Our Government is going to revitalise Marfell with warm, dry, affordable homes for young families, and we’re building 29 extra State houses in New Plymouth.

Hon Judith Collins: Is KiwiBuild offering a better product to the Marfell community than the alternative proposal received that would have included a rent-to-buy scheme targeted at low-income earners?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So we are building warm, dry, modern homes for first-home buyers—that’s the superior option. We’re revitalising a community that was left to languish for a decade under the former Government. We’re also working with New Plymouth city council to build a road that will connect Banks Street to Cook Street, meaning it’s no longer a cul-de-sac. It is a fine development and the superior option.

Jonathan Young: So will low-income earners in the Marfell community be better off now that three-bedroom houses are being sold for around $400,000 via a ballot, instead of in the low $300,000s, as proposed by a local rent-to-buy scheme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, there are very few low-income residents in the Marfell community because there are very few homes left in the Marfell community, because that Government left the land lying vacant for nine long years. Low-income families who want to have a crack at homeownership or public housing are going to get a better chance after nine years, because we’re building KiwiBuild homes and State housing in New Plymouth, and that member should be grateful for it.

Hon Judith Collins: Why does the Minister not agree with a local rent-to-buy scheme at around $300,000 for people who are low-income, rather than a $400,000 KiwiBuild scheme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I’m very gratified to see that the member, after nine years of denying there was a housing crisis, has now become an advocate for housing for low-income families. Welcome to the real world. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, you don’t need the point of order. Answer the question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: A hypothetical scheme—they never introduced anything.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It is a hypothetical scheme. That Government never did anything for nine years. We’re building KiwiBuild affordable homes and State housing in New Plymouth. That Government never built any State housing for nine long years. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member did, in the very beginning, address the question—very tangentially, I might say. But he did.

Question No. 7—Forestry

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Forestry: Does he stand by all his statements and actions regarding the One Billion Trees Programme?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Yes, within the context they were provided.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did he tell the House in August that the $485 million injection into forestry from the Provincial Growth Fund would lead to “at least 2,000 jobs.”, when his own department’s estimate is less than half that, with 1,000 forestry jobs replacing the unknown number of jobs that the land is currently supporting?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously, the member has taken a remarkably short period of time to focus upon given it takes 28 years for a pine forest to mature, 100 years for tōtara and kauri. So if he waits a bit longer, that figure will come true.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it possible that once we account for the job losses in the pastoral sector, if land is converted from sheep and beef to forestry, that there will be fewer than 500 genuinely new jobs for our $485 million investment—around $1 million a job?

Hon SHANE JONES: The vision of the right tree, the right place, at the right time embraces both the desire to see further farming practices take place—that in this case will include more trees. It is wrong to scaremonger that men and women are being driven off the land as a consequence of this visionary billion-tree strategy.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he told the National Business Review that we have to make sure that “We’ve got enough nephs or if necessary a few Melanesians to help plant the trees.”, what proportion of any new forestry jobs does he expect to be filled by Melanesians, presumably by the way of the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme?

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, well, from Melanesia we already draw a host of RSE workers and policy is being looked at, but the preference is to get the proverbial nephs off the couch. It is proving to be a challenge as a consequence of the last nine years of Kaikohe, Kaitāia, Gisborne, Hastings, and a whole host of other places—and I would remind the member that $50 million was put aside by his Government and not a single neph got off any couch, because they never spent any of that money.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was what proportion and he made no reference to anything like that.

SPEAKER: Right, I think the Minister can have another go.

Hon SHANE JONES: In terms of proportions between workers that may or may not come from Melanesia and the nephs, such a policy is under active consideration.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that the fame of this visionary policy has been so far-reaching that countries in the Pacific and Pacific Islands are now mustering their workforce to assist the member in the implementation of his plan?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Come off it. What a load of rubbish.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know you are.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Come on. That’s not how I like to be described.

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s well known that under the last regime the RSE scheme could have been expanded but it was thwarted, and there is considerable scope to expand the RSE as a part of our Pacific reset, and—who knows?—a significant portion of them would be very convenient in terms of the leaders’ aspirations of the Pacific to see a friend like New Zealand absorb some of their people whilst training our own indigenous people.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he think it’s a priority to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to provide work opportunities for itinerant overseas workers?

Hon SHANE JONES: More of this Epsom-based scaremongering. The policy associated with the billion-tree strategy has a clear focus. Along with my well-known social crusader colleague Mr Willie Jackson, and where necessary, as the industry seeks additional workers, if it’s appropriate we will find a way to blend both an indigenous workforce and a Melanesian workforce, but that policy is under active consideration—something that was sadly absent from the last nine years of Pacific RSE development.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he give the House an assurance that the 400,000 seedlings mulched after they couldn’t be planted on the Ngāti Hine site are the only ones purchased with Government money that haven’t been mulched or wasted?

Hon SHANE JONES: This reference to the 400,000 seedlings is best described as a hiatus. By and large, the majority of such seedlings were planted and it’s a sad consequence for the Crown’s partner Ngāti Hine that as a consequence of their enthusiasm they are going to bear a substantial portion of the cost of that $160,000, and it’s my expectation going forward we will not be applying Masport mowers to seedlings in the future.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He didn’t answer that question at all.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he did actually.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Really? OK, all right. If he is still worried about getting the nephs off the couch—returning to the couch—in Northland, why is he supporting his Government’s proposal to remove or weaken sanctions against beneficiaries who are not prepared to work?

SPEAKER: Order! That’s not the responsibility of the Minister of Forestry. Further question?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Could I reword it or not?

SPEAKER: Oh, have a go. I’m generous today.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I’ll reword it quite substantially. How does he think the jobs created by the $1 million Lake Ellesmere restoration project, for example, will be filled when up the road in Ashburton there are currently 500 job vacancies that employers are struggling to fill?

SPEAKER: That was more than a fine-tuning.

Hon SHANE JONES: In terms of Ashburton, I can only comment on the fact that his information obviously is coming from the member of that area, so I’m not confident that it’s fully accurate. Secondly, the Lake Ellesmere, Waihora kaupapa is well and truly supported by the community, the tangata whenua, and already great steps are being taken.

Question No. 8—Justice

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know, from our dealings with you as we lodge questions each day, that you are somewhat of a stickler for the grammar that goes into questions, so I wonder if you can give us some clarification about the meaning of this particular question? Is it a case where “for” should perhaps be “by”, or does it simply mean a ban on New Zealanders voting for prisoners?

SPEAKER: In this particular case I take full responsibility for the grammar in the question, which is about a quarter of the length of the one which was lodged.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, it doesn’t help us. What’s the question?

SPEAKER: No, well, it should be “by”, and it’s my fault because I took about three-quarters of the wording out of the question that was lodged. All right? I apologise to the member for embarrassing her in front of the House by rewording her question in a way which was not up to my normal standards.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Write it out a hundred times.

SPEAKER: Mr Finlayson, you can include that in your valedictory if you want to be in the House on the 18th.

8. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) to the Minister of Justice: Will he commit to overturning the ban on voting for people in prison?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court decision was that the 2010 ban on prisoner voting is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The first efforts of the Government to consider the Supreme Court ruling have regard to declarations of inconsistency. Every now and again, Parliament does pass a law that isn’t consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Earlier this year, Cabinet agreed in principle that the senior court should have the power to declare legislation inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and to provide a mechanism for the Government and Parliament to respond. We are continuing this work. On prisoner voting rights, while we understand the issue, the Government is yet to consider it, and it is not a priority for the time being. The Government is committed to reforming the criminal justice system, and this takes priority for now.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does the Minister agree with a 2014 statement from then New Zealand First justice spokesperson Denis O’Rourke, who said, “Prisoners should have the right to vote. When people are sentenced to prison, their punishment is imprisonment; it’s not the loss of human rights or democratic rights.”?

Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister, Denis O’Rourke is a good man, and I do agree with him, but, as mentioned, this issue is not our number one priority at this stage—reforming the criminal justice system is, and we look forward to working with the Green Party in really making a difference in this space.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does the Minister agree with his own 2014 statement on people in prison voting, “The current law, in our view is wrong, and it needs to be changed, and we will change it.”?

Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister, as an MP, of course I agree with statements I have made; however, speaking as a Minister, this Government has not had a discussion around this issue and therefore does not have a position.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does the Minister agree with National Party MP Harete Hipango, who said, during a 25 October public hearing of the Justice Committee, that she supported people in prisons voting, because the current law was an impediment to Māori engagement in the electoral system?

Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister, the decision in 2010 to ban all prisoners from voting was led by the National Government and the National Party. Therefore, I can only assume that the member is very disappointed in her own party. The legislation was passed despite no doubt very wise and considered counsel from the former Attorney-General but ignored, which is very disappointing.

Hon Judith Collins: Private member’s bill!

Golriz Ghahraman: Given support from across the political spectrum—

Hon Amy Adams: You’re the Government now; you can change it!

SPEAKER: Order! Both of you—two senior members. Start again, please.

Golriz Ghahraman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given support from across the political spectrum and the New Zealand Supreme Court’s unprecedented declaration that banning people in prisons from voting is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, will the Government introduce a bill to reinstate people’s right to vote?

Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister, as the Government has not had that discussion yet, it would be inappropriate for me to express a view on behalf of the coalition, but as stated, this Government is committed to broader criminal justice reform, which will have a positive impact—

SPEAKER: Order! We’ve had that before, and the member has answered the question.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to the Associate Minister of Health: Is she aware of the recent international study that highlighted non-existent or sub-standard testing on surgical mesh products; if so, can she guarantee those unsafe products are not being used currently in New Zealand?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am aware of a recent report highlighting concerns with surgical mesh and faulty medical devices, which, sadly, are not unique to New Zealand. Concerns about the safety of some surgical mesh products and particular procedures that affect women have led to this issue being a high priority for this Government and particularly for my work as Associate Minister of Health with responsibility for women’s health. That is why within two months of this Government coming to power, we took stronger action than the previous Government took in nine years. New Zealand is now one of only two countries in the world to have taken regulatory action, restricting the availability of some surgical mesh products which are deemed to be unsafe. We are establishing provider-led registries to increase oversight more quickly. We have established a credentialing standard to ensure surgeons are properly qualified. Thirteen district health boards are no longer undertaking the procedures due to the actions taken by this Government, and we are progressing rigorous informed consent processes for patients. I note that New Zealand is a small part of a large global market and that we will always have limits on our technical regulatory capacity, but I can assure the member that this Government is very engaged on the surgical mesh issue. We are progressing significant work that the previous Government neglected to undertake.

Hon Maggie Barry: Will the Minister commit today, as a matter of urgency, to establish a retrospective register for surgical mesh use, as National has committed to do, and as Labour and the Greens promised to do in the lead-up to the election?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’d like to congratulate that member and her party for finally recognising the need for action on this issue. It’s a shame they didn’t take action sooner. But when it comes to a registry, what this Government did undertake immediately was a cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of what was required to set up a registry. [Interruption] Perhaps the members aren’t interested in hearing the response?

SPEAKER: In fact, I agree with the member. That’s enough. Thank you.

Hon Maggie Barry: Will the Minister follow the lead of Australia, the UK, and the EU, and direct that surgical mesh should not be used as the first surgical option, and go even further and apply Scotland’s approach and have surgical mesh offered only as the last available option?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’m not convinced that that member is exactly correct in her interpretation of what other jurisdictions have directed. Our understanding is that the United Kingdom has only put a temporary pause on the use of surgical mesh. I will reiterate that New Zealand is now one of only two countries in the world, with Australia, to take regulatory action on surgical mesh products, and we have progressed a work programme, writing to district health boards, requiring and setting up a credentialing of surgeons. We are doing everything we can to guarantee women are protected from unsafe products.

Hon Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe that the Minister responded to the question, and perhaps she misunderstood what the question was alluding to.

SPEAKER: I think right at the beginning—I probably should have stopped the Minister because she continued on for too long. Right at the beginning, she certainly did address the question.

Hon Maggie Barry: Does the Minister agree with the statement “I can’t understand why there hasn’t been a surgical mesh registry formed, and if there is a good reason, I haven’t heard it”—from Labour’s health spokesperson David Clark, in October last year?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Ah—

SPEAKER: Well, do you agree with it? No responsibility, but do you agree? So the member can answer it.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Now, I don’t think I’m responsible for that. That’s not my ministerial responsibility. But, Mr Speaker, if you would allow me to, perhaps I could give the member some indication as to—

SPEAKER: I’m only going to allow you if it relates to something that Dr Clark said.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I would like to let the member know what we are progressing, in terms of a registry. No? OK.

SPEAKER: Question number 10—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I want to ask the member a supplementary question.

SPEAKER: No, I’ve called question 10. We can’t go backwards. [Chris Penk gestures to member to sit down] Now, that member, if he does that, will be out. Sit down. Now, when I call the subsequent question, we don’t go backwards. Question number 10, Chris Penk—and the member is on a warning that only one of us is going to chair the House.

Question No. 10—Courts

10. CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville) to the Minister for Courts: Does he have confidence in the Ministry of Justice’s response to lightning strikes by court staff?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister for Courts: On behalf of the Minister, yes.

Chris Penk: Does he agree with the comment of the Chief District Court Judge that as a result of lightning strikes “there may very well be a miscarriage of justice arising out of undue delay.”, and if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH: That is the fine judge’s opinion.

Hon Simon Bridges: Put away the ring binder, Stu.

SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

Chris Penk: Does he agree with the Secretary for Justice that ongoing strike action undertaken by court staff is “irresponsible” and “unsafe”, and if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH: I’m not going to enter into any debate about negotiations that are under way at present.

Chris Penk: Has he seen the statement by the Law Society that a particular alleged assault that took place in a courtroom would not have happened but for the strike action undertaken by court staff, and if so, is he concerned for the safety of those in courtrooms as a result of ongoing strike action?

Hon STUART NASH: I haven’t seen that statement.

Question No. 11—Pacific Peoples

11. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What recent reports has he seen on the Pacific economy?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): At the Pacific Aotearoa Summit held on 13 November, the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, launched the Treasury report The New Zealand Pacific Economy, which highlights the significant contribution Pacific New Zealanders make to the economy. The report is the first of its kind, provides us with a rich source of information in understanding the actual scope and range of areas where Pacific New Zealanders make their contribution. The report is useful for Government ministries and agencies at both national and regional levels, including local government, to better engage with Pacific peoples.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What are some of the findings of the report?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Some key findings show Pacific peoples contribute $8 billion towards New Zealand’s GDP, that there are approximately 1,500 Pacific business employers and 500 not-for-profit organisations, with assets totalling $8.3 billion. The report confirms that Pacific peoples are active in almost every area of the New Zealand economy. The report also recognises the significant contribution Pacific New Zealanders are making to our cultural and community well-being. Pacific people spend at least 27,000 hours per week on voluntary unpaid activities that directly contribute to community stability, cohesion, and well-being.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What is the significance of this report?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: It highlights that despite the inequalities that Pacific people face in areas such as health, housing, education, and employment, they still make a valuable contribution to the economy. This report challenges us to consider how much more Pacific peoples could achieve for themselves and for our country if we were to work together to reduce the inequities and barriers they face. There is more to the monetary aspect of this report, as Pacific people define wealth more broadly in terms of family, faith, language, culture, and knowledge, and these broader aspects will be taken into account as the Government develops the well-being budget.

Question No. 12—Statistics

12. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Statistics: Does he have confidence in Statistics New Zealand’s handling of Census 2018 and does he stand by all his statements regarding Census 2018?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): In response to the first part of the question, yes; and in response to the second part of the question, yes, in the context in which they were made.

Dr Jian Yang: Does he still stand by his statement that “this census looks to be more successful than previous censuses”, when the release of census data will now be delayed for at least a second time?

Hon JAMES SHAW: In the context that I made that statement, I was referring to the response rates to the online census, which were substantially above the response rates that they were projecting—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Can the member just resume his seat. I’d like the member to make that answer again without the support from his right—my left—which is coming through his mike and meaning that people at this end can’t hear.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I just assumed they weren’t interested in the answer. So the context that I made that statement was in response to a question about the online response rate, which was substantially higher than projections.

Dr Jian Yang: What does he say to the Ministry of Education, district health boards, and others who rely on this data to budget for much-needed services?

Hon JAMES SHAW: We’ve had a delay in the census before. For the last census, there was a seven-year delay—sorry. It was seven years; a two-year delay, because of the earthquake, and all of the agencies were able to cope with the information that they had at the time. Statistics New Zealand are currently working with key stakeholders including iwi and other public agencies to make sure that any delay to the census data doesn’t affect their operations.

Dr Jian Yang: Well, does he now agree with former Labour Party president Mike Williams when he said the census was an “industrial strength fiasco” and the census should be “done again properly”?

Hon JAMES SHAW: No, I don’t, but I’d like to point out that the former John Key - led National Government received a quantitative risk assessment in 2014 that highlighted that the costs of the census would increase over the coming five-year period. Despite this, the John Key - led National Government cut the budget by 5 percent. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Enough from both sides. We will hear the balance of this supplementary answer in silence.

Hon JAMES SHAW: At the same time, the former John Key - led National Government signed off on a complete change in the census methodology, from a primarily paper-based exercise to a primarily online exercise, and, at the same time, they chewed through five Ministers in four years, which would have meant poor oversight by Cabinet. It also shows that they didn’t see the stats portfolio as a priority. So you had a Cabinet that completely changed the census methodology—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Five.

Hon JAMES SHAW: —cut the budget despite knowing what the risks were, and weren’t paying attention in a governance capacity.

SPEAKER: Right. There were four different members who interjected when they were told to be silent, all from my left, including one member who did it twice. Any further supplementaries now—they’ll come off tomorrow.

Question No. 10—Amended Answer

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister for Courts: I seek leave to correct an answer given on behalf of the Minister of Justice.

SPEAKER: The member seeks leave to correct an answer he gave on behalf of the Minister of Justice. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon STUART NASH: I can confirm that the Minister of Justice has seen the statement from the Law Society which Mr Penk referred to.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was to the Minister for Courts rather than the Minister of Justice.

Hon Stuart Nash: Can I—

SPEAKER: That Minister saw it too. OK? Can we accept that? Thank you.

Point of Order—Penalties for Interjections

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You just, I think, have indicated that we’re losing four supplementary questions—

SPEAKER: Five.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Five—five tomorrow. Well, of course, that, sir, would be because of your lack of acceptance of the outrage expressed by people on this side of the House at the very provocative answers given to questions by the Minister of Statistics. The reality is that it is his responsibility, and he had plenty of time to be able to ensure for himself that the census would go appropriately. It hasn’t, and he has to be responsible. For him to try and sheet that home to a previous Government is completely unacceptable, and for us to lose the opportunity to question Ministers simply because we expressed some degree of surprise that a Minister would be so audacious as to try and obfuscate his own responsibilities by pushing them off on the previous Government like this I think is extremely unfair.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker.

Hon James Shaw: Point of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): The fact of the matter is that laying out the chronology of events with respect to the decision making is surely not provocative. It was a plain statement of fact, and if the member can’t handle that, then he should find a new profession.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: With all due respect, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Well, does James Shaw have anything positive to add?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): I just wanted to point out that I have actually referred to the member Mr Brownlee before for using points of order to try and make debating points, and if he wants to have a general debate slot on the census, he’s welcome to do so, or if he wants to try and call an urgent debate—

SPEAKER: I think that member’s just compounding the problem. Now, the issue that I have is that in the initial part of the last supplementary answer that the Minister was giving, both sides of the House erupted, clearly with contrary points of view on whether a few months was a reasonable amount of time to correct what are alleged errors in the preparation of the census. There were different points of view, and members were expressing that quite loudly from both sides, to the extent where I was having trouble hearing the Minister. I then required members to be quiet, to be silent, other than the Minister in replying. That was understood by all members, up to a point where one very loud member, on a couple of occasions, and three other members made interjections absolutely contrary to what my instructions were. I’m at a loss what to do. Should I toss them all out? I mean, there might be a problem for a subsequent debate if I did. Or do we keep going on the basis that I did previously?

Maybe, seeing as it’s Wednesday, I’ll be a little bit reasonable and revoke my decision, but I do want to say to members that when I require silence—but I will also say to the Minister, when he is answering under that sort of requirement, he does have an obligation to cut down the politics and just stick with the facts a bit more.

Urgent Debates

Immigration, Minister—Decision on Karel Sroubek Residency

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Mark Mitchell seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the decision by the Minister of Immigration to revoke his residency decision in respect of Karel Sroubek. This is a particular case of recent occurrence—the Minister’s decision was announced at 1.03 p.m. today. The normal deadline for applications for urgent debate is one hour before the House is due to sit. However, where a matter occurs after the time but before the House sits, the Speaker may allow the application: Standing Order 389(1) and Speaker’s ruling 189/6 apply. This matter is clearly one that involves ministerial responsibility. The immigration status of Mr Sroubek has been a matter of considerable parliamentary and public interest. I judge it to be a matter that requires the immediate attention of the House, therefore I have decided to allow the debate to be held today. I call on the Hon Mark Mitchell to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Thank you very much for granting us this urgent debate. You’ve highlighted why it’s so important to a country that has watched the Government over the last two months make a decision that the Opposition clearly knew—back on 28 October when the Sunday Star-Times reported for the first time the case of Karel Sroubek and the decision by the Minister to grant him residency.

On 28 October, the Opposition came to this House, after consultation with my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who had been Minister of Immigration whilst we were in Government, and we asked the Minister about the decision that he’d taken in granting Karel Sroubek a pathway to New Zealand residency. We were very direct in those questions, and we highlighted the fact that, at that point, one day in, we knew that it was the wrong decision. In fact, just about the whole country knew that it was the wrong decision.

So what was the Minister’s response to that? What did he do? Did he come back to this House on 30 October and say, “I’ve gone away. I’ve had two days to review the case. I’ve had two days to speak to my officials. I’ve had two days to go out and use all the resources of Government to gather all the information.”—that he needed to recheck and go back and have a look at his decision. Did he do that? He came to this House—and I’d ask everyone to go back and actually pull up the Hansard or pull up the audiovisual file on that, and have a look at what the Minister said.

He came into this House and it looked like he came in with some humility, and he said to the House this. He said, “I’ve gone away and I’ve taken the time to review the file, I’ve taken the time to review it again, I’ve taken the time to speak to my officials, and I stand by my decision.” He said, “I stand by my decision.” So Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, after the Opposition had highlighted what a poor decision you had made around granting a pathway to residency for Mr Karel Sroubek, you had two full days—you had two full days on notice—to go away and seek the information and have a look at that, the information that the Opposition were able to get, in that same time frame, and come back here and tell the House “Actually, on the face of it, it looks like this could have been a poor decision and I need to review it.” You didn’t.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, the member didn’t. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member chose not to do that. He chose to come back to the House—

Hon Amy Adams: Because the member’s arrogant.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —well, that’s right. The only thing you can call it is arrogance and hubris—that he came back to this House and stood up and he restated and he stood by his decision. Mr Iain Lees-Galloway—the member should not continue as the Minister of Immigration. I can tell you now. The country has lost faith and has lost confidence in you and your decision making.

But it gets worse, because what happened when it was brought up and the Prime Minister became aware of it? You would think that the Prime Minister would go back with all her resources of the office and say, “I’m concerned about this decision. On the face of it, it appears to be a very poor decision.” You’d think that she would go back as a responsible leader of the country and she’d want to actually have that information before she came to this House. So the leader of the country—I don’t know if this has happened anywhere. We should go and check if this has happened at any Parliament anywhere in the world. She came back to this House, and she stood over there, and she said, “The country needs to read between the lines.” The leader of the country comes into this House and says, “The country has to read between the lines.”

Well, I can tell you right now, the country had already read between the lines. But it gets worse—it gets worse. And this bit really surprised me. We had the Deputy Prime Minister—a Deputy Prime Minister that normally would lead the charge against this sort of decision. He would be completely incensed with a decision like this. New Zealand First, they would never put up with this. The Deputy Prime Minister came to this House and he stood, and what did he say? He said, “I’ve read the file and I stand by the decision.” He stands by the decision. We’ve had the Prime Minister, we’ve had the Deputy Prime Minister, and we’ve had a Minister all come to this House and all tell the country that this was a good decision.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he told the truth.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The reason why—well, you’ll get a chance. You’ll get a chance, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to stand and respond and lay out exactly what did happen, because this House and the country are actually very interested to hear that. We want to hear what the explanation is, don’t we?

So let me very quickly put on the record this guy’s history. And when I go through this history, I just want to say—and I’ll come to it in a moment—the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway offered to give me a briefing. He offered to give me a briefing when this process and this investigation were over and he’d reported on them. So I’m looking forward to taking up that offer, and I’m looking forward to sitting down—or I hope that, actually, my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who isn’t here at the moment but is extremely experienced at making these decisions—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can’t say that.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —is able to—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. You’re right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I say that it is totally inappropriate, no matter how long or how recent a member’s been in this House, to refer to the absence of another one. And it’s even worse when it’s one of their colleagues. So would you bring the member back to acting within Standing Orders?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, thank you, but it is—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t need any help, thank you. [Interruption] I don’t need any help. It is also against the order of the House to take a point of order in order to interrupt a speech. I had already called the member to order over that matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Really?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I didn’t hear it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, because you were already standing up and looking elsewhere in the House. I call the Hon Mark Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s interesting isn’t it? It’s interesting that every single Kiwi this person has gone up in front of—whether it be the juries in the two trials; whether it be the Parole Board; whether it be the second judge—every single Kiwi, every single—oh, so he’s going to come back to the first judge, poor old Judge Roy Wade, that’s what we’re going to hear. Every other Kiwi that this guy has gone up in front of has thought what? They haven’t believed him. They haven’t believed one thing that he’s said and they’ve said, “He’s to go. He doesn’t deserve a residency. He shouldn’t be in New Zealand. He should be back in the Czech Republic.”

There was a huge mistake made. And if I was the Czech Republic, I’d be highly offended, because that is a country that is a NATO country, an OECD country, it’s part of the EU, and it’s got world-class policing and justice systems. They acted like they couldn’t send someone back because the State was going to hurt or kill him. What a ridiculous proposition.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read between the lines.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Read between the lines. You’re absolutely right, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Let me very quickly run through exactly what this character’s been up to since he arrived in New Zealand. In 2003 he flees the Czech Republic as a witness to a murder, enters New Zealand with a false passport in the name of Jan Antolik. He later gains residency and represents his new country as a kickboxer. Both entry to New Zealand and granting of residency were by the former Labour Government. And I want to highlight something here—I want to highlight something. The first time this case came in front of a Minister for a ministerial decision was Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. He was the first Minister to have a decision, and a ministerial decision, around the status of Karel Sroubek.

In 2009 Sroubek bought a house for $490,000 using mainly cash deposits made into his bank accounts, together with a mortgage. He funded the mortgage instalments through cash payments. How do you do that? How do you fund a mortgage through cash payments? Were they declared? No, they weren’t. No income was declared on Sroubek’s tax return.

Hon Nathan Guy: Read between the lines.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Read between the lines, that’s right, when you consider what he was charged with and what he’s currently in jail serving a sentence for—that’s the importation of class A drugs and significant quantities of class A drugs. In 2010 he was arrested with two Hell’s Angels gang members on aggravated robbery and blackmail charges; acquitted on all charges on a technicality. Charges meant an entire family were placed in the witness protection programme. He was arrested as part of Operation Ark—a covert investigation into ecstasy-like pills. You haven’t heard the end of Operation Ark. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. We want to know more about Operation Ark, because I am completely confused as to why a Minister who says we should trust his judgment made such a blatantly poor decision.

Why? Was there lobbying going on? I don’t know, but we’re going to find out. Make no mistake; we’re going to find out. Sroubek was found guilty of supplying false information to immigration—false information to immigration. I’ve had two cases this year that were valid cases, good people doing good things for this country, that had their residency declined because they’d made mistakes on their application form. That on its own is enough to have cancelled and sent him home if you’re going to have a level playing field and you’re going to be a fair and compassionate Government. It’s extremely dodgy.

In 2011, Sroubek was charged with being party to the manufacture of class C controlled drugs. He was convicted, but that conviction was quashed and a retrial never went ahead. You can see a pattern that’s starting to emerge here. An arrest warrant was issued for Sroubek in 2013 for outstanding criminal proceedings in the Czech Republic. So not only had he decided to become involved in organised crime, associate with gang members, import class A drugs, and be involved in aggravated robberies and kidnapping people; he had been doing it back in the Czech Republic.

Hon Amy Adams: We should read between the lines, right?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: We should read between the lines. We were told to read between the lines.

I don’t believe or accept for one minute—not for one minute—that he is in danger at all back in the Czech Republic, other than maybe a couple of his own criminal mates that he might have done over. You know what? Just be a big boy and go back to the Czech Republic and sort that out yourself. But to think that you’re going to hide here in New Zealand—it’s not going to happen.

I’m going to bring us back to the fact that I was asked in this House—Iain Lees-Galloway got one of the new backbenchers to stand in this House, in a very smug way, and ask him why he hadn’t received a letter from me for a briefing.

Hon Amy Adams: Arrogant.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: In a smug and arrogant way, he asked, “Why have I not received an official request?” So I sent an official request. It simply said this, and it was sent on 7 November 2018: “Dear Minister. This letter relates to the decision taken by you to grant permanent residency to Karel Sroubek. I believe that the briefing documents provided to you would have clearly shown that you should never have granted a residency pathway to Mr Sroubek.”—and I’m very interested, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, to have a look at that file and to actually see why you made that decision, because I believe that there’s going to be everything in that original file to show that you made a shocking decision. “I can make myself available for a meeting with you in this case, but must make it very clear it will be an unconstrained meeting, and although I will respect confidentiality regarding specifics and individuals I reserve the right to be able to speak publicly and indicate after the briefing whether my position has changed at all.”

I was goaded on the Mike Hosking show by the Minister of Police, the Hon Stuart Nash. He said, “Hey, Mitchell hasn’t sent the letter.” And Hosking said, “Is that true?” And I said, “Well, yeah, it is, actually.” He said, “Well, go and send the letter.” I said, “OK, I’ll go and send the letter.” So I sent the letter and I come back, and what do I get? I get, “Thank you for your letter dated 7 November advising you’re available to discuss the Karel Sroubek case. I note your intention to speak publicly and indicate after the briefing whether your position has changed at all. As there is an investigation under way into this matter, confidentiality is paramount. It is important not to prejudice the investigation or possible further action as a result. I have been advised that given the current status of the investigation, it would not be appropriate to provide a briefing at this point.” But it doesn’t matter, because he said here, “However, I would be happy to brief you following the completion of the investigation and related matters in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation as outlined.”

So, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, I am looking forward to coming to your office and having that briefing and having a look at the file.

Hon Nathan Guy: Will it be longer than 45 minutes?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that’s a very good question. Fundamentally, let me sum it up this way, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. This is what the Parole Board said—and he came in front of the Parole Board just recently, in the last few months. This is what they said about his character: “His responses were self-exculpatory, evasive, long-winded and ultimately in our view in many respects manifestly untruthful when measured against the facts set out in the Judge’s sentencing notes and other documentation.”

The fact of the matter is this—and the reason why I became involved at the start is that I’m proud to hold the justice portfolio. In the justice portfolio, your primary consideration and responsibility is public safety. That’s number one: public safety. The decision that you made, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, did not take public safety into account—not once through the process. I want to see where you measured the interests of Kiwis and public safety against the decision that you took to grant residency—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Not me.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —to someone that—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—the decision that the member took in balancing public safety against giving residency to someone that had been involved in organised crime and criminal gang activity. It wasn’t just in the Czech Republic; he decided to export it to New Zealand as well and carry on a lifestyle of organised crime and importation of class A drugs. Please explain, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the days following the publication of my decision to cancel Karel Sroubek’s deportation liability, information entered the public domain that appeared to contradict information that I relied upon in making that decision. As a result, I instructed Immigration New Zealand to review the veracity of that information. As a result of that review, Immigration New Zealand determined that Mr Sroubek may be liable for deportation on grounds that I had not previously considered. Immigration New Zealand sought Mr Sroubek’s response and prepared a case file for me to consider, detailing the potential liability, Mr Sroubek’s response, and other information material to the decision I was required to make. Some of that information was not available to me when I made the original decision—that included new information from Interpol confirming details of his convictions, the fact that he was present in court when found guilty, and that he appealed this verdict to the highest court in the Czech Republic.

Parliament, in passing the Immigration Act 2009 and its predecessor, the Immigration Act 1987, set a minimum statutory bar on who is entitled to come to New Zealand, including certain criminal convictions. Mr Sroubek’s visas, both temporary and permanent residency, were granted when his Czech convictions rendered him a person not able to meet that bar. Immigration New Zealand (INZ) did not know this because Mr Sroubek was using a false identity. This founds a new ground for liability under the Immigration Act 2009. I’ve therefore determined that Mr Sroubek is liable now for deportation.

I was clear with Mr Sroubek in my original decision that that decision did not affect his potential liability for deportation on other grounds. The effect of this new liability is that Mr Sroubek would have to leave New Zealand upon his release from custody and would be unable to return. Mr Sroubek has the right to appeal to the independent Immigration and Protection Tribunal on the basis of facts and on humanitarian grounds.

Whilst I’ve previously declined to go into the detail of my original decision, as I’ve said earlier today, it is now in the public interest that I do so. The case was presented to me in the usual way. An immigration official provided an oral briefing and I read the 12-page summary of the case. I then discussed the case with the official, who directed me to the relevant parts of the 398 pages of appendices to assist my consideration of the case. There were several matters that I had to consider. Mr Sroubek was liable for deportation, having been found guilty of importing methylene dioxy-methyl amphetamine into New Zealand and because he held a resident visa under a false identity. The Immigration Act allows the Minister to intervene in cases where they believe that deportation may not be appropriate. I had to consider if there was any reason why Mr Sroubek ought not to be deported.

Mr Sroubek and his legal representative provided extensive material making the case that his personal safety would be in jeopardy if he was required to return to the Czech Republic. He claimed that he was in danger from both the person who committed a murder that Mr Sroubek witnessed and, allegedly, from corrupt police officials. I considered the likelihood that these claims were misleading, or at least embellished, despite the considerable supporting material provided. However, there was one fact that I simply could not overlook, which was that Judge Roy Wade had accepted that Mr Sroubek’s life would be in danger if he returned to the Czech Republic. It is difficult to dismiss such a decision from our judiciary out of hand. Judge Wade had had the opportunity to hear arguments for and against the claim that Mr Sroubek’s life would be put at risk if he had convicted him, and he had determined that it would. Further, there were statements in that determination and in others that the Crown did not dispute Mr Sroubek’s claims.

Clearly, however, any suggestion that Mr Sroubek had returned to the Czech Republic would have severely undermined his claims. It is apparent in the file that he travelled in and out of New Zealand several times between 2003 and 2009. The file does not state where he ultimately travelled to. I asked if it was possible to determine where he had travelled to, but I was told that this was not information that INZ was able to access. Mr Sroubek’s return has, of course, subsequently become public.

INZ did not provide me with information relating to charges which did not result in a conviction or proceed to trial. That information was not relevant to my decision and would have been unfairly prejudicial against him. The standard of information for ministerial consideration is stringent, and this is a point that I want to make to the House and to members opposite. Ministers cannot go charging around googling irrelevant information, hearsay, and unsubstantiated claims and use those in making these types of decisions. To do so would put those decisions at risk and create a significant risk of judicial review and of having the decisions overturned. It is essential that Ministers rely on fact-based evidence provided to them by Immigration New Zealand.

Evidence that he did return to the Czech Republic was contained in those court documents that I was not given, and it was not accessed by Immigration New Zealand, nor was it easily accessible by Immigration New Zealand. This is one of the areas that will need to be considered in terms of future next steps. In the absence of that information, and given the weight accorded to Judge Wade’s determination, I found that I had to consider that there was a significant risk.

Against that, I of course had to weigh the potential risk that Mr Sroubek posed to public safety in New Zealand. He had been convicted of importing a class B drug. Although it appears to have been a one-off, according to the evidence available, it was a large quantity. He had also been involved in violent offences. There was clearly cause for concern. However, the file contained several points in his favour. In official documents, he was described as having no history of violence in New Zealand, having no gang associations, and as presenting a low risk of reoffending.

In addition, he had secured several letters of support. I gave weight to one in particular, that from his wife, who spoke highly of him and stated that even though they had separated, she was still supporting him financially and mentally. I have seen media reports that his wife may have concerns about him being released from prison. His wife has declined to participate in the investigation of that material. He also had job offers and had taken the opportunity to upskill while in prison to improve his chances of employment upon release.

The picture presented to me was that his violent offending appeared to be in the past and that his risk of reoffending was low. I did accept that there was some risk, however, and that meant that there would have to be conditions in the event that I did allow him to stay in New Zealand. In the end, I did make that determination that there was a potential risk to his safety should he be deported and that the risk he posed to public safety in New Zealand was low. However, I reached those conclusions relying on the information that was presented to me at the time. I am concerned that the case file prepared by Immigration New Zealand may not have provided a complete picture. More information on Mr Sroubek’s travel history and criminal past would have assisted in my decision making.

I followed a process established by my predecessors, but, ultimately the responsibility for the decision is mine. I spoke to the Prime Minister last night to explain the circumstances and convey my apology. She has accepted my apology and my assurances that I will work to fix the process. I am not going to run away from this; I am going to sort it out.

My top priority now is to restore public trust and confidence in the process for dealing with these cases. All parts of the immigration system must have integrity, and I am acutely aware that trust and confidence has been damaged by this episode. This case has exposed potential limitations in my approach to casework, the material that is prepared for me, and the overall policy for cases where ministerial discretion is applied. I will immediately change my approach to casework. I will now receive the file in advance of meeting with officials and take as long as I need to scrutinise the file before that meeting takes place. This will undoubtedly slow the process, but it is important that the proper time is taken to get these decisions right every time.

Immigration New Zealand is conducting a review of the process immigration officials follow in preparing the case files. That is expected to be completed in March. I have also instructed the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to begin a process to determine if the current decision-making processes are appropriate and to recommend any changes that may be necessary. That will be a longer piece of work, and I expect initial advice in the near future.

I want to address one matter that Mr Mitchell raised, and that is the question of political interference or some outside interference in this matter. I have seen some of the scurrilous scuttlebutt that has been put out about this, and I want to put on record today there was no outside influence.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Address it. Address it then. Address the scuttlebutt. Tell us.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am addressing it right now, Mr Mitchell. There was no political pressure. There was no pressure. So, let me make this absolutely clear: no person—Mitchell, shush and listen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, the member knows—

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yep. Mark Mitchell, listen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the Hon Mark Mitchell. His full title he’s entitled to.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The Hon Mark Mitchell might want to listen to this. I received no verbal communication—[Interruption]

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you’re going to apply that rule, you need to apply it consistently. Mark Mitchell all the way through his speech referred to Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. If that ruling is to be applied, he should have been referred to as the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway all the way through his speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a correct point of order; however, I heard Minister Iain Lees-Galloway on several occasions. So if I missed that, I’m sorry. But in fairness, the Minister on his feet began in a manner that was not parliamentary, with not even a first name.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: So I received no verbal communication from anybody on this matter. Nobody approach me on this matter. In the written material that was in the case file not one of the letters came from a person who was known to me or that I am aware has any political connections, certainly not with the Labour Party anyway. I want to make that point absolutely clear. I used, appropriately, the information that was provided to me in that file by Immigration New Zealand. I do accept that public trust and confidence has been damaged. As Minister, I take responsibility for that. I also take responsibility for fixing this process, restoring that trust, and that is exactly what I’m going to do.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I just say that what’s astonishing about this debate today is two things. First, the National Party will not tell us who its informant is, or should we tell the country now? That’s number one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I’m not quite sure that that is to the subject that is on the floor at the moment.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know what the subject is. The subject is—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The subject—the matter of public urgent debate—is the Minister’s decision.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s right—about Mr Sroubek being allowed to stay and now having that order reversed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am positive what I’m talking about, and I’ve only opened my mouth for the first sentence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I would like you to address the issue of public importance.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you will, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the fullness of time. But I will not be browbeaten into conducting the debate the way you want it. Now—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, actually, you will, because I’m the Speaker. And I am asking—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You’ve got to have a reason.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s exactly right. I’ve explained that to you. If you would like to elaborate, then do so. But relate it to the matter of public importance.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ll elaborate because I need time to do that. I can’t get it out in the one sentence. What’s interesting about this debate is two-fold, two things. One is: who is the informant behind the information that’s coming out in the debate today, which is a perfectly reasonable question; and the second one is: was there any evidence ever given to the Minister of Immigration of the person in the case before him having travelled back to the Czech Republic? And the answer to that is no. At no point did he get the critical piece of information.

And here’s the other thing—here’s the other thing. This man lied from the time he first came to New Zealand, because had he confessed of that application in its honesty and not come in under an assumed name, then he wouldn’t have ever been here in the first place. What we’ve got here, of course, though, is a fascinating argument by the National Party, whose Minister, after 2014, never made one of those decisions by himself. He left it to the bureaucracy. And guess what the Minister on this side of the House inherited? The very bureaucracy that saw a number of people get into this country, who had the following aspects about their behaviour. What’s astonishing about this here is that you had all sorts of people coming to this country, left here by, for example, the then Minister, Mr Woodhouse, and they had these following features: sex offenders; rapists; serial sex offenders, again; a woman who killed her husband; a man who killed—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member to come to the point of the urgent debate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My point is to lay out the background of the decision-making process, which the Minister today has said is unsatisfactory and he’s going to fix it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I accept that, but that is a minor point. Would the member come to—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it might be in your—look, if you’re not a lawyer you might think that, but you’re not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The cheek of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I do have the cheek, because I am in the Speaker’s chair. Now, I am being very tolerant, and I am asking the member to come and debate here—I’ve stopped the clock—the matter of public urgent debate, which is the Minister’s decision. Now, you can refer to the process—I accept that—but that is a minor part of the debate on the floor.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a 10-minute response from this side of the House. That means one has the full 10 minutes to go at the various aspects of this case which led to this decision which has now been reviewed—over those full 10 minutes. For you to say it’s a minor matter—with the greatest respect, what are your qualifications, or, more importantly, the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings which give you evidence to say that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is really testing the role of the Speaker in this case. I have stopped the clock. I informed the member of that. In this debate the Minister has the right of response to layout the case as he has done. I’m merely asking you, sir, to stick to the debate on the floor.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I’ve just ruled on that point of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, I know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you challenging it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But I want—point of clarification. I’m not challenging you. I’m asking you now to lay out what would be the areas that one could cover in a debate of this kind, because this debate is about the propriety of a Minister’s decision and that Minister’s been asked to resign. I’m putting up a defence, and over the next 10 minutes I intend to lay it out as to how we got there in the first place. What matters to me, of course, is how did this man get to New Zealand in—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that’s no longer part of the point of order. Is your point of order finished?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no—I want you to lay it out. If you’re going to give that judgment, you describe—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —what the criteria might be.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. I don’t have to. I don’t have to. I have ruled. You now have seven minutes and if you wish to take advantage of that I would suggest you get on with it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have got on with it, and I’m getting on with it, and I’ll carry on getting on with it. For example, if you’ve got—

Hon Maggie Barry: Make sense, then. Try and make sense.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, no one could make sense to you, because you haven’t got the intelligence or the background.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, don’t bring me into it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You’ve had a grandfather killed in a road rage attack and several rapists, and Mr Woodhouse from 2014 never handled one case. So here you’ve got the preparation of a case going before the Minister. It’s part of how the decision was made and how it was erroneously made at the Minister’s own confession. The reality of the matter is that he never ever saw any evidence.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He never read the file.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, the file did not have it on it. That’s what the Minister just said. [Interruption] No, the Minister said that nothing in the ministerial file had any reference with respect to going back to the Czech Republic. He did say it was a part of the court documentation which had not been prepared by the ministry officials. Those are the facts, so here comes the Minister—and look, I was the Acting Prime Minister at the time who said that the Minister had rightly put caveats on his decision. He had put caveats on his decision, but the biggest caveat on this decision has always been that if you lie to New Zealand’s officialdom in a passport or a residency case, then your long-term permission to be here is always open to question. The moment a discovery like that is made, the original decision to allow someone to stay can be rescinded. That’s in our law. That’s the betting matter that I want to put in front of the House today, and we are not going to be browbeaten out of putting the facts out there just because it doesn’t suit somebody’s ill-formed narrative.

Chris Penk: What about—maybe he filled out the forms wrong like you do.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say to that member that there is a court case coming up in November next year and we’ll find out who’s right or wrong. Mr Penk, you know so little about these matters. The best thing that member could do would be to hold his mouth shut, breathe through his nose for at least three more terms, and he might do something. Here and now, nobody knows what he’s doing in the first place here.

Now back to my point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s it. I’m sorry. The member’s time has expired. Now, I have given plenty of warnings, but that is nothing to do with the topic.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just say that you made a ruling at the beginning. You were asked to give some clarity as to how you were making it. You regard the parts of the debate which go to the very core of this decision-making as being irrelevant. I think that’s a darned disgrace.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And on that note, I’ll ask the member to leave the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A member speaking is entitled to respond to interjections. There have been a lot of interjections during this debate. In fact, the Minister was incredibly restrained in his contribution when he was faced with not just interjection but a barrage of abuse through his contribution, which was clearly a well-set-out and well-considered contribution to the debate. I think the Deputy Prime Minister was responding to interjections that were irrelevant, but the fact that the interjections were irrelevant—he’s still entitled to respond to them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I accept that, and if he had merely just responded to them and moved on and if we hadn’t had all that beforehand I would have been very tolerant.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand up and I don’t do this lightly—in fact, it’s after some consideration—but the Minister is not fit to be in his job due to the decision that has been made. I’m sorry, but we have not seen the right judgment made, right from the very beginning. The fact is that the Minister had a file that came before him and had someone who had drug-dealt in New Zealand—so had been drug dealing—was currently in jail, and had proven fraudulent lies that they had told repeatedly at the most serious level, and this did not raise his radar even big enough for him to read the file.

Brett Hudson: Oh, you wouldn’t read it, would you!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It’s actually deadly serious. So his judgment was such that with that file sitting in front of him, with a man currently in jail known for lying and fraudulent behaviour, and even the Parole Board had not actually given him parole because they were still so concerned that he was not ready to be released into the public—the Minister’s judgment at that point was to not even read the file. Within 45 minutes, that man—that man being the Minister of Immigration—had decided that this convict was good enough to get residency.

So the decision itself, quite frankly, I’m appalled at, and even he quite quickly then came to the conclusion that he’d made the wrong call—there’s no two ways about it. But the fact that his judgment was so poor to not even read the file means, I’m sorry, that he cannot stay in the role. It means that the public will not and do not trust the decisions that he is making in their best interests, and that is deadly serious and that is something that, actually, the public deserve more respect on.

We saw an arrogance today, quite frankly, from the Minister of Immigration after barely nine months in the office that we usually expect from someone after nine years. And we see an arrogance that actually shushes another member down when they’re a Minister standing in front of the Chair. And there is—there is more expected from a Minister than there is from other members of Parliament. That’s why, actually, Ministers are paid twice as much. It’s why they’re given so much responsibility. The fact that his judgment was so poor to not even read the file is absolutely incredible to us all.

The Prime Minister herself said we shouldn’t judge the Government on how it’s handled the affair so far; rather, how it fixes up the mess—yeah? So the Prime Minister said we should not judge the Government on how it’s handled this affair so far; rather how it fixes up the mess. There are no signs of this mess being fixed up.

So what we have is a Minister who is standing here now subtly throwing the officials under the bus. So it’s now more of the subtle throwing under—that he’s going to fix the system. The only system that was broken was that Minister’s decision originally to grant residency to a fraudulent, lying, criminal drug dealer who was still in jail and did not even get parole. He should stand in this House and offer his resignation for having such poor judgment, or at least have the courage of his convictions to actually stand there and admit it. Instead, what we got was excuses, him going to “fix up” the system. It’s not the system that’s broken, Minister; it is the Minister’s judgment himself on allowing this person residency in this country. And quite frankly, we in the Opposition—and I stand on behalf of so many of the public who cannot believe the decision that the Minister has made and that he was able to actually justify it.

So the Prime Minister—remember in the early days—told us to “read between the lines”. Yeah, we were told to read between the lines. The most open and transparent Government didn’t actually have the courage of their convictions of making these decisions—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind the member to be careful.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Sorry, yeah—and I do mean it around the convictions. So he did not have the wherewithal to actually give the public the right information. But it’s OK to now—yeah, perfectly acceptable to read through the file and give bits of the file out now. That’s OK! That’s all right because it suits their narrative. However it did not suit their narrative a month or so ago when the decision was made, but it’s perfectly acceptable now. Privacy doesn’t matter. They can just put everything that they like out there about the file and read parts of it, even. A shame they didn’t actually read it four weeks ago, but he’s reading parts of the file out to us. I do find it ironic from the member who has spoken before me, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that, actually, in his role at first he said he could not pass judgement on whether or not the right decision was made, then openly and publicly said he had read the file and he stood by the Minister’s decision. Yay—someone finally read the file! That’s the good news about that. Again, we have a poor judgment as to whether or not residency actually should have been given, but we had the then Acting Prime Minister, Winston Peters, able to stand there and say that he had read the file and that he was very happy with the decision that had been made.

So we see absolutely poor, ill-thought-out, and, actually, dangerous judgment, originally from the Minister, in allowing this person residency to potentially go out there and hurt our children again, and the Minister cannot stand in this House and say that he believed that he was of good character and good enough to get residency, when the Parole Board, just a matter of weeks earlier, had said that he was not actually of a character and standard to be allowed to be released back into the public. At least one group of people were obviously able to make the right decision—a Minister was not able to do that.

I’m sorry, but I am going back to my original point: I find it absolutely incredible that a Minister could get a file in front of him that says “Here is a fraudulent, drug-dealing person that’s currently in jail.”, and not think they had to read the file, and think it was acceptable to actually give them residency. So at the very least he has then grappled around nervously looking for a reason to correct the decision that he actually should have made originally—to actually find a reason to deport him, to find a reason to not give him residency—and he has scrambled, and those officials have scrambled, and in the end they’ve done a good enough job, because everyone knew more than he did and everyone knew more than those officials did, it seems. I mean, others knew that he’d been back to the Czech Republic, others knew that he was a risk, others were able to just kind of see that there was absolute danger and hear the cries of an ex-partner who sounded, from what I could hear in the media, extremely scared of him—others knew all of that, but the people that were making the decisions, evidently, didn’t feel that. And I find that appalling.

So I’m sorry, but to the Minister: your judgment has shown that the public can no longer have trust in the decisions that you’re making. To the Minister I say that this is probably one of the most serious issues that I’ve seen. The right thing to do is to step aside—at the very least from that portfolio. I think it means that, actually, it’s a standard that means you’re not ready to actually be in Cabinet. It doesn’t mean there’s not a path back. You know, this place can do this, but this is about public safety, this is about a Minister’s judgment that has been shown, at the very least, to be negligent and poor—

Greg O’Connor: Taupō truck stop!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —but is very, very dangerous when it comes to people’s actual—you can throw out your little personal insults to try and throw me off, Mr O’Connor, but that won’t do it. This is a Minister who has actually put public safety as a second thought, did not have the judgment, or his radar did not go off well enough, to read a file in its totality, has given residency to a man who never should have got it, has scrambled around, because the Prime Minister probably told him to, to find a reason to deport him. Officials have finally come up with one. We’ve seen a decision that should have been made four weeks ago. We now have the real risk of going through the courts and more expense for the taxpayer when we need not be in this place. The right decision could have and should have been done and made weeks ago.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Just to go off the point that was just made: the Minister just stood in this House and took responsibility. He responded to new information and acted swiftly to rectify the situation. It has been acknowledged and accepted that public confidence has been shaken by these events, and there has been a commitment to being upfront and fixing this situation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): That 30-second contribution from the Greens shows the level of the rot, the level of incompetence, and the level of arrogance that exists in the coalition Government over this Sroubek matter.

Let’s start by giving context. Just a year ago, parties opposite were saying that New Zealand needed to cut its immigration numbers—the numbers that were given residency—by 30,000 people, in respect of the Labour Party, and by the New Zealand First Party, by 60,000. They were going to be really tough on immigration. And let’s be clear: the decision to grant someone residency of this country is a privilege, and it is one of the most important decisions that Ministers and Governments hold. Our issue is the incompetence of the Minister of Immigration, that dismissed the very real danger and the very integrity of our immigration system in granting New Zealand residency to Karel Sroubek.

I have served this country for a couple of years as immigration Minister. I have dealt with hundreds of cases. I acknowledge that Ministers sometimes have difficult cases to weigh up—humanitarian considerations, family considerations—but I don’t think any member of this House would, with even just a scant review of this file, consider this anything other than a very straightforward case. I see children in the gallery. I think any child in New Zealand could have reflected very simply on this file and said, “This is a no-brainer. This is a no.”

Let’s just review Mr Sroubek’s file. This is a man that lied when he came into New Zealand in 2003. This is a man who, in 2009, with Hell’s Angels associates, was arrested for kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Does he sound like the sort of nice guy that we want to give the privilege of being a New Zealander? Then, in 2011, he is convicted for providing false information—so the courts have decided that this man is dishonest. And then, in 2016, Mr Sroubek is convicted for importing 4.9 kilograms of ecstasy—4.9 kilograms is a very serious drug dealer. Did the Minister give, for a moment, consideration to the misery that that nearly five kilograms of drugs in the New Zealand market would have caused to hundreds and, potentially, thousands of families? The court considered it to be so serious that they sentenced him to five years and nine months of imprisonment, and that information was known to the Minister.

So I say again: does this sound like the sort of nice person that we would like to grant New Zealand residency? And, just for the record, let’s note that before he left for New Zealand, he had convictions in the Czech Republic for which he had been sentenced to more than four years of prison in that country. So I say I am yet to hear any explanation from the Minister or from the Government as to what planet Minister Lees-Galloway was on when he decided to grant this dishonest gang-affiliated drug dealer residency in our country. The only signal that that has sent is that this is a Government that is soft on crime, that is soft on drug dealers, and that is soft on maintaining the integrity of our immigration system.

But it’s worse than that. Let’s just remind ourselves of the events that transpired. I remember picking up the Sunday Star-Times on 28 October and reading about this case. Actually, I immediately got on the phone to my colleagues Mark Mitchell and Michael Woodhouse and said, “This cannot be for real.” And then, on the Tuesday, when my colleague Michael Woodhouse asked the question of the Minister, the Minister said these words: “I have reviewed the file thoroughly.” And do you know what I said to myself? Do you know what I said to myself? Thank goodness he’s going to stand up in the House and state the bleeding obvious: “I made a mistake and I’m going to fix it.” What did he say? He doubled down—he had got this absolutely right. So when he stands in the House this afternoon in contrition, I’d say what’s changed over the four weeks when he stood in this House and not only defended the decision but attacked my colleagues who dared question whether, in fact, he had exercised proper judgment?

But it got worse than that. The part when I nearly choked on my Kornies was when I heard Winston Peters on the radio, defending granting residency to a convicted drug dealer who’s locked up. Winston Peters for 30 years has characterised his career on being “Mr Tough on Immigration”. Well, if “Mr Tough on Immigration”, Winston Peters, thinks it’s OK for convicted drug dealers, dishonest drug associates, and gang members to be granted residency, I know there will be—and I know it’s a diminishing number—New Zealand First supporters around this country saying that the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has truly lost the plot.

Then we had Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The line that I enjoyed from the Prime Minister when this case blew publicly was, “Of course the Minister had got it right”. Here we had every member of this House dropping their jaws at the decision, you had seen media all over the country saying that this decision was a doozy, but we had the Prime Minister giving appalling political judgment, as well as judgment for New Zealand, in defending this dumb and stupid decision from the Minister of Immigration. But here are the words from the Prime Minister that I enjoyed: “No, New Zealanders; no, Parliament—you can’t have the file. Read between the lines.” Hang on a moment. This is the Prime Minister that has said this is going to be the most open, transparent Government ever. So when it’s the most open, transparent Government ever, why can’t it answer and why has it not answered, even to this day, the basic question as to why in the good Lord’s name did Minister Iain Lees-Galloway ever sign residence for Mr Karel Sroubek?

Then we’ve seen the ducking and diving. The first ducking and diving was attacking colleagues—Mark Mitchell and Michael Woodhouse. How dare they ask questions about why this drug dealer had been granted New Zealand residence. Then the next stage was, “Let’s throw the immigration officials under the bus. It’s all their fault.” But hang on a moment. The Minister had not even read the file that was provided by the New Zealand Immigration Service, and, secondly, the file made it absolutely plain that this was a bad bugger which this House and this country would not want a bar of.

I want to join with colleagues and say that Iain Lees-Galloway must go. The reality is that him staying in the portfolio completely blows New Zealanders’ confidence in our immigration system. All of us MPs deal with hundreds of cases of good people that want to come to this country, and his management of this file has completely damaged not just his reputation but the reputation of the Immigration Service and the reputation of this increasingly incompetent Government.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Immigration): There is just one comment that the Hon Dick—Nick Smith, sorry; apologies—Nick Smith made at the beginning of his speech that I will agree with, and that is: if you have ever had the responsibility of the ministerial discretion for the immigration portfolio, you are tasked with some very difficult decisions. This, obviously, is one of them. That is all I agree with in the former Minister of Immigration’s speech in total, because I do want to stand in support of my colleague and friend Iain Lees-Galloway for the change and the review in process which we must have as a result of this case, to ensure that the information that is in front of those who have ministerial discretion in the immigration sphere is right.

I’ll tell you one thing, and the former Minister will agree with this too: you only make decisions on the information in front of you. I will agree with some of their comments that Iain Lees-Galloway said: if the Opposition want us to be making the foundation of making our ministerial discretions on Google and the front page of the Sunday Star-Times—they would be up in arms. That is exactly what they are saying to us today. There has to be a process, and I think that it is the right thing that there is a review of the process that comes together to give us the information that we need to make sure we are making good decisions and informed decisions in and around immigration.

I look around this House today, and I look at the members of Parliament in this House, and I can pretty much guarantee that nearly every one of them has asked me to make a decision of ministerial discretion. Every time they ask, their requests go through the same process that the Minister had to deal with for the Sroubek case, and Immigration New Zealand assesses those files and finds out information to the best of their ability. It’s clear in this case that the process here did not give the Minister the information that he needed to make the decision that he has come to today.

I would just hazard caution to the members across the Chamber, because their Ministers were in exactly the same position. I would like to reinforce the position and the point that the Deputy Prime Minister made before he departed the Chamber, and that is that at least we’re taking responsibility for the hard decisions that are put before us. A former immigration Minister on that side of the House delegated nearly all of the very difficult cases in and around immigration with high-level crime to decision makers. The Minister did not even make them himself. So look at how the former Government dealt with these cases, washing their hands of the ministerial discretion responsibility. We are actually making the decisions.

There’s an issue in the decision-making process, and that is with the information that is put in front of us. We can’t make decisions based on incomplete information, and I would like to congratulate the Minister in noticing that point and making sure that there is a review in and around the information processes for those case notes. That process will change for every ministerial discretion request that comes from MPs in this House, and anyone else that asks for ministerial discretion outside of this House as well. So the process is going to change for each and every one of you now to make sure we’ve got complete information. I think that is a good thing.

I’d just like to go back to the very beginning. They are hard decisions, but we can only make wise and good decisions if the information in front of us is complete. As a result of this decision and this case, things are going to be reviewed to ensure those files are complete. That is the right thing to do. The process that is in place at the moment has not changed for over a decade. If we want to make sure that there is integrity in the system, as the Minister has said, we obviously need to have a review of the system to make sure the information that we have in front of us is complete so we can make solid decisions. I want to congratulate the Minister for doing that, because this has obviously been a test case for the process and the information gathering of Immigration New Zealand to make sure those who have ministerial discretion, like myself, can make good decisions.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Today, we are told that the Minister of Immigration has apologised to the Prime Minister. He has apologised to the Prime Minister for the terrible decision of giving residency to a convicted drug smuggler. Well, he should apologise to New Zealand. He should apologise to New Zealand for his failure of judgment and care. He should apologise to New Zealand for putting their safety at risk, and he should apologise to New Zealand for likely costing us millions of dollars in legal fees down the line. But has he done that? Has the Minister of Immigration apologised to New Zealanders for this debacle? Has he even considered resigning? No, he has not. In fact, we have had the indignity of members opposite—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Deputy to Mitchell—Mark’s deputy!

NICOLA WILLIS: —congratulating him—congratulating him—for his performance on this case, Minister Faafoi.

Instead, we have seen a disgraceful blame game being played: blame the process, blame the officials, blame the judge. Minister Iain Lees-Galloway made the decision. The failure is his. This is his responsibility. When Ministers are appointed, they are appointed to exercise the utmost care in making decisions on behalf of New Zealanders. They are appointed to positions of great responsibility because we trust them to exercise discretion and judgment on our behalf. So let us consider the judgment that was applied in this case.

We have the case of a convicted criminal coming to New Zealand on a false passport. He engages in criminal activity. He is convicted and sentenced for five years for importing illegal drugs. His case ends him up in prison, and then it comes to Minister Lees-Galloway to consider his deportation. And what does Mr Lees-Galloway do when the case comes before him? Does he say “This one smells a bit off. This guy doesn’t really seem like the kind of guy that New Zealanders would like amongst them.”? No, no, no. What he does is he intervenes to overturn the deportation order and grants residency. He does it, he says, with careful consideration, in the words of the Prime Minister. Well, let me tell you what the Prime Minister thinks counts as careful consideration. He gave it 45 minutes. He did not read the file. He did not ask the right questions. He did not ask for more information. He said “This is a simple one—45 minutes. I’ll get the letter out by 5 o’clock tonight. Time for a drink.” Well—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No, it’s inappropriate for the member to say that the honourable Minister is about to have a drink. OK?

NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Assistant Speaker, I’m sure it was a cup of tea, and I would not infer otherwise. Now, what he did was he leapt to judgment—that’s the challenge that I have—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. [Interruption] Order! I made a ruling. The member does not make a comment about it. She can carry on if she wants to.

NICOLA WILLIS: What he did was he leapt to judgment. He didn’t have the judgment to see that this was a case that required more than 45 minutes’ consideration. This was a case that required thorough examination on behalf of New Zealanders, and he did not do it. He had to weigh up the rights of a convicted criminal against the danger to the New Zealand public, and in weighing up those rights, who came up trumps? The convicted drug dealer came up trumps. That’s who came up trumps with this Minister of Immigration.

Today, we had the great revelation from the Minister that in future he’ll take more time, he’ll change his approach, he’ll do it a little differently. Well, it is too little, too late. Trust and confidence in New Zealand’s immigration system have been damaged. The reputation of good officials here in Wellington has been damaged. New Zealand’s residency standards have been compromised. It took him 45 minutes to make the decision. It’s taken a month to review. It will take years and years to undo the damage. And what are we told today in this House? We are told that it’s simply a matter of fixing the process.

Well, you can’t fix a Minister’s judgment, and that is what is actually at fault today, because it does not matter how tight the process is, it does not matter how many steps there are in it, if a Minister can’t smell a dog when one’s right in front of him, then New Zealanders should not have to expect him to have a warrant. This is the Minister’s failure. The Prime Minister should hold him accountable. Members opposite should be disgraced. New Zealand has been let down once again by the Labour-led Government.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): At 1 p.m. today, the Minister came to a decision and made that determination and made that announcement to the media and to the New Zealand public. At 3 p.m. today in this Chamber, the Minister walked through his considerations both at the time when he made his determination, the information that was available to him, and every single subsequent action that he took since he became aware that there was perhaps further information that he needed to turn his mind to.

I want to take up the comments that the deputy leader of the National Party made earlier. She focused on the fact that we have said that one of the benchmarks that we will hold ourselves to is not necessarily the errors but how we fix up the mess. Now, as the Minister said today in this Chamber, he accepts that there has been a dent in public confidence as a consequence of this determination. He acknowledged that. He accepted that. What he did was front, and he said in this House “I will not run away from my responsibilities and my obligation.” That there is a Minister who has worked hard to ensure that the safety and the best interests of New Zealanders are maintained.

So I think our colleague rose in this House during what has been, no doubt, a time of tribulation and took responsibility for the decisions that have been made, and he has made every single action since that time to ensure that the trust and confidence of the New Zealand public will be restored as a consequence. So he’s committed to fixing the process—fixing his processes and ensuring that that determination is the right one from this point on. So we conclude this debate—what do I say at the end of an urgent debate? That’s it—thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to rise in this general debate. Well, my goodness! What an interesting afternoon we’ve had. We’ve had a Minister come to the House and tell us all that he takes full responsibility for reading a file about a convicted drug dealer who was refused parole and who was associated with the Hell’s Angels gangs—he is someone who is clearly quite a dangerous person—and he has taken full responsibility for not spending any more than 45 minutes reading the file and coming to a conclusion that he has now overturned.

Well, 45 minutes. Gee, we’ve spent more time on the debate than what that Minister spent on that file—more time. We’ve spent over an hour, and he now tells us he spent less than 45 minutes. Could have been 15, could have been 10—who’s to know? What we do know is that for some reason he granted Mr Sroubek, or whatever other name he’s using these days, permanent residency, even though he hadn’t even asked for it.

As an electorate MP, I, like many others, am constantly putting in requests for residency for people who are genuine but who have at some stage overstayed, or there’s some other particular reason—because of their age or whatever—that they’re not wanted by the Department of Immigration. These genuine people look askance and they ask us, “What do we have to do?” The best advice, obviously, is to become an international drug dealer, to be connected to the Hell’s Angels, to get yourself imprisoned, and to find a soft touch like Iain Lees-Galloway. That’s pretty much it, really, and I say that with all cynicism, because, frankly, that’s pretty much it. I am appalled by that.

Having said that, I’m also appalled by the nonsense that is KiwiBuild—the ridiculous situation where, in the Marfell suburb of New Plymouth, a community housing group wants to build houses and make them available at just over $300,000 to people on pretty low incomes so that they have a rent-to-buy scheme to help people to become homeowners themselves. I would have thought that’s something we would all want to see. I’ve seen these schemes operating elsewhere, and they do work. They take quite a lot of management. They take quite a lot of wraparound service, but they do work.

Instead, what we’re told is Housing New Zealand’s rejected all of that. Instead, they want to have houses built for over $400,000 to sell them to middle-income earners or quite high-income earners for over $400,000. What has gone wrong here when a Government that says—and it should be—it’s for the people, full of kindness and everything, rejects an opportunity for community housing to come in to help people to get their little stake of New Zealand that is theirs and that they can leave to their children? What is wrong?

Then we have what’s happening up North with the meningococcal outbreak—and I say that because it’s very hard to say, I have to say. Particularly even after just a glass of water, it’s very hard to say. But what we do know: one of the things I can say that the National-led Government, in the last nine years, did really well was focusing on immunisations. I particularly remember the work that was done in the Counties Manukau district around immunisations, particularly for populations that were under-represented in immunisations at that stage. I well remember that we refused to have different target rates for different people. We decided that every population group should be treated the same and every population group should have the same target, which was around 100 percent. Then we published those targets and we published those results, and we ended up with almost all children—some of the highest immunisation rates were with Māori and Pasifika children, who had previously been at the lowest end.

That’s what we need in Northland. We need a National-led Government again. We need to acknowledge the great work, for Dr Shane Reti, that he has been doing in bringing this issue to the House, and the total lack of commitment from the Government to those young people, those children and families, when they knew about this situation for months and they’ve only now told the families what’s happening and they’re only now getting the vaccines in. We can give $10 million to Papua New Guinea for vaccinations—and I do support that—but how about we start at home? Northland would be a great place to start with vaccinations. And, by the way, let’s tell people what’s going on in their community. Instead of just telling the health professionals, tell the people who likely or possibly will become infected. Let’s look after them first.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): It is a good day to be in Government. Today is a very good day to be in Government. This is a Government focused firmly on fixing the mess that we have inherited around this country’s longer-term problems: the housing crisis and the under-investment in our social sector and in health and education.

I want to canvass a few things that I’ve seen over the recess in the media, just to see what people out there are saying about the progress of the Government and what we have ahead of us. It is good news. I’ve had a wonderful recess, with the opportunity to announce some of the Government’s cornerstone investments in our health system—in the buildings in our health system. Good news—to repair, after a decade of under-investment in our health services.

I’ll return to that during my speech, but first I want to dwell for a second on comments I read in a transcript from an economic commentator who said, “I think we can all agree”—and this was this week—“there’s serious momentum there”—there is serious, serious momentum there. This commentator was commenting on the New Zealand economy: “whether it’s the high employment, the low unemployment, the GDP”—it was serious momentum. That comment was repeated later in that interview. Then the commentator went on to say, “Frankly, we’re in a situation where almost anyone who wants a job today can get [one]”. That praise for this economy, of course, was coming from that commentator that we all know in this House, Simon Bridges. On this side of the House we’re all hoping, of course, that he can keep up some serious momentum himself so that he can lead that Opposition into the next election and the one after. That commentator singing the praises of the economy—well, we agree with him on that. This is an economy with serious momentum. Simon Bridges is absolutely right on this point.

But it’s not just the economy where we’ve got serious momentum. We’re making huge progress in housing, in education, and in health. We’re making a real difference to people’s lives. We’ve lifted the incomes of over 350,000 families with the Families Package, provided Best Start support in a child’s early years, provided the winter energy payments for those on benefits or super, and increased the minimum wage.

We’ve got a strong focus on the economy because we want to see a shared prosperity. We want the economy to grow so we can share the benefits of the growth in our economy with all New Zealanders. We’ll keep that focus, because we believe in the value of a strong economy and we have a plan for growing that strong economy.

That strong economic growth allows us to do things like fund the meningococcal W vaccine we announced this week—10,000 doses. This is a news announcement. No press release has been put out. It’s delightful, in a general debate speech, to be able to make this kind of announcement: 10,000 doses are already in New Zealand. It’s less than a month since it was decided that we actually had an outbreak in New Zealand by the expert panel. We’ve got the doses in New Zealand, and, within a month, we will have injections in children’s arms to immunise against this, in a situation where around the world there’s a competition for this vaccine. The district health board (DHB), Pharmac, and the Ministry of Health have worked together to quickly bring this in to make sure we have a ready response, and we can afford to do that because we had serious momentum in our economy. We can move when we need to move. Simon Bridges is right: that serious momentum’s there, and we are going to make sure New Zealanders get the healthcare they need.

On top of that, of course, in the past week I’ve been able to announce more spending for Counties Manukau—$80 million dollars—to address the rot and mould in the walls that we inherited as a Government as a legacy of under-investment in maintenance in the DHBs. We’ve also announced previously that we put $275 million into the Auckland DHB to address significant infrastructure challenges. We’ve put money into the North Shore Hospital—$200 million—for elective surgery capacity. I could go on. We’ve made loads of investments in our capital assets, and we can do that because of the serious momentum in the economy.

Finally, I want to cover off the fact that we saw an industrial settlement announced this week that will lift the wages of some of our lowest-paid workers. It is a real pleasure to see the new multi-employer collective agreement agreed between DHBs and E tū will see many public hospital service workers get pay rises of up to 40 percent over the next three years. These are those who are paid the least but do some of the most important jobs in our hospitals. As Sam Jones from the E tū put it, “This is a fantastic outcome for members who have struggled with costs rising faster than their low wages,” and, “It’ll be easier for people to pay the bills and feed their families properly [so] they’re healthier and happier.” Serious momentum in our economy—it’s a good day to be in Government. We’re investing in New Zealanders.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It’s an absolute pleasure and, actually, slightly unexpectedly that I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First. What a contrast we have seen in the two contributions to date. We saw, leading off for the Opposition, the Hon Judith Collins—normally their strongest debater, their most enthusiastic, spirited advocate. What did we hear? Virtually nothing—a dispirited, flat contribution in contrast to Dr Clark’s enthusiasm and the message that he had to bring.

It all comes from the top, of course. Simon Bridges, as leader, is struggling. After $100,000, going around on the taxpayer dime introducing himself to New Zealanders, they just do not like him. They’ve had another six months, and in every poll that comes out they like him less and less. The National Party are struggling badly.

In fact, in the latest Hamish Rutherford piece—no ideas. No new taxes, I think, was the promise, but we’ve heard that before, haven’t we? We heard that from John Key, but, of course, then he went and raised GST—a particularly regressive tax. He looked after the big end of town and threw the little guys under the bus. There were rises in tobacco taxes on a regular basis, as there was on the fuel excise taxes. There was a brightline test, which sounds suspiciously like a capital gains tax, but, apparently, it’s not. But that was the extent of their imagination, and that’s the extent of the new ideas that are coming forward from the National Party: that they won’t raise any taxes. But we’ve heard it all before in this House.

They also did things like stop the super fund contributions. That cost us something like about $20 billion in opportunity cost. Then they had the temerity to claim that they are good economic managers. They flogged off many of our State assets, often at fire-sale prices—short-term thinking for long-term pain. They’ve starved our public services. Our hospitals—Dr Clark at Middlemore during the week, having to—mould and sewerage in the walls. Absolutely third-world stuff. That is what under-investment did. The nurses, the teachers, and the police—they’re all lining up now because they know that they’ve got a Government that will appreciate them and won’t be screwing them into the ground, and we are looking to get fair and equitable outcomes for those valued public servants. The running down of our rail system and that core infrastructure—we’re out there at the moment, Matua Shane in the Manawatū last week, investing again in our rail service. And we can, because we’ve got a $5.5 billion record surplus that we’ve just delivered, 3.9 percent unemployment, and an economy that grew at 1 per cent of GDP in the last quarter. So we have got this economy absolutely flowing.

I see the Minister of Agriculture come in here, and what a great story we’ve got to tell in agriculture at the minute as our exports are going gangbusters. And, of course, we’ve got 17-year-low interest rates as well, so it’s a great time to invest, and that’s what we’re seeing: businesses out there investing. We heard today that equipment sales are up nearly 8 percent, and that is businesses out there investing. That is real money. These are businesses investing in themselves, as opposed to the confidence surveys that the Opposition likes to throw up—but all the real data points to this Government performing strongly in this economy, going very well.

Of course, we’re back in the regions, and while Dr Clark is still here, kudos for the investment in the Buller hospital: $20 million. That was a facility that was in serious decline. Matua Shane and the Prime Minister will be on the West Coast tomorrow announcing a significant contribution from the Provincial Growth Fund to that West Coast region that, like so many other regions—like Kiritapu’s region on the East Coast—have been neglected by successive Governments. In this Government, we’re back out there in those regions with significant funds, investing alongside the local citizens, businesses, and civic leaders. So this Government has an absolutely fantastic story to tell. We look forward, I would say, judging by the polls, to telling it for a very long time into the future, and New Zealand First looks forward to being an absolutely core part of that team. And what a good team it’s been.

We saw that Opposition was looking for us to fall apart over the employment relations stuff, and look how we pulled that together. We talked, took our differences, brought them together, and we came out of it with a great package, indicative of a great MMP Government. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I take the next call, can I just remind the speakers to use members’ full names. And, for the record, I’m pretty sure “Matua Shane” means the Hon Shane Jones that the member was speaking of, just for the record. I call—

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): A point of order, Mark Patterson. I hope you’re not going to relitigate my ruling.

MARK PATTERSON: Yeah, I probably was.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Today is 125 years since the women of Aotearoa voted for the first time. In my contribution this afternoon, I’d like to talk a little bit about that event and some of our history that I’ve been learning over the last few years, and particularly this year.

I grew up having this idea of a linear sense of history, moving forward towards more and more rights for women. But it’s been over the last few years that, actually, I’ve been learning that’s not exactly true and that the history of suffrage in this country and women gaining the vote is not exactly a simple story, particularly for Māori women. So that’s what I want to share in this contribution today, because I think it’s important that we understand our history, and I want to acknowledge, for me as a Pākehā woman, that I actually haven’t understood our history properly in this area, and I think it’s something worth sharing.

I recently visited my local art gallery, Pātaka—I live in Porirua—and in there there’s an amazing suffrage exhibition that I’d encourage anyone in this area to go and visit. In the exhibition, the first three stories are of local women that were really active in the 1700s and the early 1800s, who were powerful Māori women leaders.

I just want to share the story briefly of Waitohi, Te Rauparaha’s sister, to put the suffrage debate into context today. So she was an important rangatira and trusted strategist and peacemaker of this area, invaluable to Ngāti Toa rangatira in those early 1800s. When a Waikato war party was seen on its way to attack Ngāti Toa, Waitohi recognised some of her relatives and pleaded with them for peace. Her words were heeded and the attackers returned. Waitohi journeyed south to Porirua with her brother Te Rauparaha to settle on Kāpiti Island.

It was Waitohi who persuaded Ngāti Raukawa and other iwi kin to join Ngāti Toa there, settling on Kāpiti. The leaders of those iwi noted that they came because Waitohi invited them; that if Te Rauparaha had called, they would not have come. This woman, she used her diplomacy and intelligence to apportion the land to these iwi who had arrived from the north. Such was her power that this was not about a vote that then invested power in other men to make decisions; this was a supreme leader over multiple peoples and countries, in effect, who was a Māori woman in power in the early 1800s. So for Māori women, gaining the vote in the late 1800s must really be put in the perspective of what had been taken from them in those intervening years, that the right to invest a man with the power to make decisions for all the people in this country was a pretty sad recompense, actually, for what was taken away.

I also want to finally acknowledge that today, while we celebrate that first vote for what it was, it was for mostly non-Māori women who cast their vote on this day, and most Māori women first got to cast their vote on 20 December, though it was split and it was decided that half-castes could vote on the general role on this day, but Māori who had no other lineage had to wait until 20 December. That was for Māori seats, and those votes weren’t even private. They were in both languages, and this history—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Today, I’m sad and angry for the meningitis outbreak in Northland. I’ll be able to salve that sadness by doing everything I can and, hopefully, joining others from around the House to work with Northland District Health Board (DHB) to get a good outcome. Here and now I’ll salve my anger by holding this Government to account.

I want to start that by setting the framework of incompetence that feeds through, that is symptomatic of the management of this outbreak, with what we just heard from the Minister. He said, “Today, Northlanders will be pleased that they will get meningitis vaccines in their arms.” He also said the same in oral questions: “Very shortly, Northlanders will be able to see the meningitis vaccine in their arms.” Here’s the problem: you don’t give it in the arm for young children; you put it in the thigh. If the Minister had bothered to know his own immunisation schedule and read his own immunisation handbook, he would know that, in young children, you don’t put it in the arm—vastus lateralis. So, please, Minister, don’t encourage vaccination for young children in the arms of Northlanders; you will make them more ill.

Now, there’s two parts I want to talk about. I want to talk about the missed response, and then I want to talk about the poor response. I contend that this outbreak was actually known many months ago—at least 6 months ago, right back through to May—and I’d make that case on several grounds.

Firstly, looking at the ministry’s own public health surveillance information shows us several things. First of all, in January this year, there were four cases of meningitis. That doubled a month later—in February, 10 cases. It doubled again a month later—in March 2018, 22 cases; in fact, two died in that month. In April, another 10 cases—up to 29. And in May—which is when I stopped looking, because that’s when I believe the ministry knew—there were 39 cases of meningitis on the ministry’s own site; their information.

Now, initially, at the beginning of the year, it was general strains of meningitis. We’re interested in meningococcal W. Well, in April the ministry was first flagging that 50 percent of their cases in April were actually meningococcal W, and the following month it was 100 percent. So way back in May, the Minister and the ministry knew that there was an outbreak for meningitis in Northland and in New Zealand. In fact, the first two deaths occurred at least as early as March.

We shouldn’t be surprised then that the microbiologists from Northland DHB in May—about the time, I believe, the ministry knew there was an outbreak—also said to his staff, be it right or wrong, “I’m concerned. I suggest you vaccinate.” Back in May, the Minister and the ministry knew—or they didn’t know, which is their fault—there was information that there was an outbreak of meningitis in Northland. The Prime Minister agrees, from her statement yesterday when the question was raised, “If the microbiologist was advising staff, do you think the ministry should have done something?” She said this: “on the face of it, it should be a trigger to speak to the ministry about a public message.” So there were others also saying the red flags were clear and something should have been done.

I think really the icing on the cake is the CEO from Northland DHB writing to his board members on Monday saying, “We have been strongly encouraging the Ministry of Health for some months”—not some weeks or a few hours; I picked up the phone yesterday—“to approve this campaign as it’s the only truly effective preventative measure for our population,”. This ministry and this Minister had the information as far back in May that there was a meningococcal outbreak in Northland, that it was meningococcal W. They also know—which is what we’re not hearing—the other areas that have some involvement. For example, we should have concerns for our neighbouring DHBs to Northland, particularly the South Auckland DHBs. I know how many of you per month developed meningitis in Counties Manukau, Waitematā, and Canterbury have also had cases. None of that is being discussed here.

So there are several things with the proposed solution. Minister, not all schools are going to get the vaccine. Which ones are going to be selected? Who’s going to make it? Who’s not going to make it? And what are we going to do for our people at risk—particularly Māori and Pasifika—in South Auckland? Do something, Minister. This needs to be a wider response.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): If ever there was a speech in this House that characterises the hypocrisy that this Government has had to sort out, it’s that from a pious GP from the Opposition standing up and preaching to us about healthcare, when he sat on his hands and said nothing while his mates ran down the health system, took away houses from poor, young New Zealanders, from the infants, and ran down the system so that now, the Minister of Health is not only having to come in and fix up hospitals, but actually lay out some basic healthcare services.

It’s a great time for us to be in Government. We’re prepared to take on the challenges left to us by the previous Government and the people that sat on their hands while they ran down the health system, the education system, the housing stock in this country, and even across the primary sectors.

There’s a survey been put out recently that said 68 per cent of sheep and beef farmers are very, very positive about the future for their sector. This is not a sector that’s traditionally Labour, so they’re not saying that because they support the Government. They have some concerns. In fact, 32 percent of them, obviously, have a serious problem. They think things are negative. Well, I’d suggest that’s about the right number, and the same number that end up going to National Party meetings in the rural sector. So if they stopped going to the National Party meetings, they might feel a little more cheery.

In fact, as I go around the country—and I had last week in Southland and I’ve just been up to the Waikato—I have to say that farmers are generally in a very positive frame of mind. Next year they will, hopefully, collectively produce about $43.8 billion of export revenue for this country. Thank you each and every one of you for that as farmers. We appreciate that. But there are some challenges—and they’ve said there’s some uncertainty. Yes, there is. We live in a world of uncertainty, but what we have attempted to do as a Government is to give them some certainty. They don’t like all of it. It’s a new phenomenon for some. And we said, “Yes, we want clean water. We want clean rivers. We have an international obligation to meet our emissions target, and we’re going to get on and do that, and we will help you with that.”, unlike the previous Government that simply put its head in the sand and tried to kid its mates in agriculture that there was no need to change anything.

The reality is that our customers—who appreciate the high-quality produce that most companies produce in this country—want to know that we’ve got the best systems in the world, and indeed, for the most part, we have. But, actually, we’ve got to ensure that we’re not dragged down by the lowest common denominator. The 25 farmers supplying Mataura Valley Milk are doing so on the basis that they don’t supply palm kernel expeller to their cows, and that nutrition will go into the top end of the China market and others. The $100 million development at Darfield that Fonterra’s put in to create cream cheese to go into the high-value markets in China—they too have assurance systems that say “We’ve got to produce this in the way that protects the environment, the way that looks after the animals, and the way that pays our staff properly.” That’s a new paradigm, and one that the National Government failed to implement and encourage and support their farmers to do.

I have to say that yesterday at the KPMG - BNZ forum in Karapiro, farmers were asking about certainty, about where we’re heading, and they were told that, actually, our customers demand the high standards, and they want to know what Government’s doing. Well, we are doing a lot. We’re going to roll out an extension system within the Ministry of Primary Industries. We’re going to assist them with a planning process that means they can have a template and get on and do the things that they need to do to be able to continue to farm. The previous National Government let down their rural constituency. They misled them, and it’s up to us, in an honest and upfront and forthright way, to say “This is what we need to do to continue to survive and make a profit, and we will get in there and help you.”

In the rural sector, with the thanks to my colleagues across the three parties, we’re getting out there in an honest way and helping them to a better future—one that’s more profitable; one that encourages more young people into agriculture, because under the previous National Government, we saw a rapid decline in the number of Kiwis interested in agriculture. That’s not sustainable. It’s not good for our country. We’re going to change that, and we’re getting out to work with farmers and the rural communities to make a better life for each and every one of them. Kia ora.

JO HAYES (National): I’m angry, I’m gutted, I’m in complete disbelief over the latest statistics around the meningococcal W outbreak in Northland—24 cases nationwide, or so they would like us to believe, but it’s more than that, as my colleague Dr Shane Reti has outlined in his speech today. There have been six deaths, half of those in Northland—and one in particular, our youngest, 7-year-old Alexis Albert—so why didn’t the Northland District Health Board (DHB) tell the rest of the Northland population about this outbreak when it sent an internal memo to its staff? Why didn’t they say something? Why does it take the death of people, of a gorgeous little girl like Alexis Albert, to actually bring this disease to the head of everything that this Government is not doing for Māori?

Alexis Albert had her whole life ahead of her. She had a beautiful life ahead of her. She was one of the lead people and won a number of athletic competition prizes. She had a beautiful life ahead of her, and it was cut short. It was cut short because those that have the knowledge, those that have the power, those that have access to the resources to have helped this little girl did not come forward early enough with the vaccination treatment.

It is because of this—and, I might add, for Māori health and also for Pasifika health under this Government—we find Māori are always last on the list. We’re at the bottom of cancer treatment, we’re at the bottom of vaccinations; you name it, we’re right at the bottom. And it takes a big-mouth, steely person like myself to actually stand up to such horrible and misinformed information that comes out of our DHBs.

When the Labour Government was last in power, my mother needed to have a hip operation. I went to the district health board and asked the district health board why she wasn’t higher up on their list. Did you know, all the Māori patients that were supposed to have hip operations at this district health board weren’t even on the list? So I had to fight to get her on the list to get that operation, and a number of her kaumātua friends missed out until she got it and then they came on the list. That was under the previous Labour-led Government.

What is up with Dr Lance O’Sullivan? Why is he so concerned? Why is he calling for a Minister for Māori Health? Why is he making moves to iwi, asking them for $5 million a head to set up the Māori unit? It’s because he is so disillusioned with the way this Government is treating Māori families in this country. Education and health—they are really key to our survival, and those are the two main areas in which this Government is letting Māori down.

I can tell you now, for each Māori life lost goes the richness of Aotearoa and the culture that we have here—every Māori life that is lost because of the inability of this Government to actually service them. We have lost that culture. If international communities actually recognise and support Māori culture, then why doesn’t this Government? Why doesn’t it recognise the beauty and the richness that Māori bring?

Northland has the largest Māori population in this country. The next one is the East Coast of the North Island, and third is Lakes District. So why hasn’t there been more investment of health dollars from this Government in those areas to combat these diseases? Today might be the first day that women were able to vote in Aotearoa New Zealand, and yet our babies are dying. They are dying from diseases that if they had access to those medications they would be alive today.

Are Māori lives not worth saving? This is the question that I ask this Government. This is the question that I ask this Minister. This is the question that I lay on the floor in this House for everybody within the Government to respond to. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Well, the Opposition is having a hard day over there. They’re having a hard time, and they are angry, and they are sad. They are trying to put it on this side of the House for being woeful and neglectful for X, Y, and Z, but I have to say that it is because of their own incompetence for nine long years of having absolute disregard for the people of communities like mine, Tai Rāwhiti, where that fine member that just spoke prior, Jo Hayes, says she is proudly from.

Well, Te Tai Rāwhiti is the first place in the world to see the sun, but the sun didn’t shine while the previous Government was in. But you know what they’re saying out there on the streets in Gisborne? They are saying that they feel like there is a real sense of partnership. I heard that from a paid-up Tory party member. He came to me and he said, “I had no idea that this is what true partnership”—and he’s a real community leader up there in Gisborne—“and absolute partnership feels like when a Government hears you and when they work alongside you.”

As we can demonstrate, the $153 million announcement—that came as a consequence of what we refer to as the “coalition Bible”, our coalition agreement. In that coalition agreement, what does it say? What did it do? It said that we will prioritise the regions through 3 billion bucks. The “First Citizen of the Province”, the Hon Shane Jones—not to be known as “Matua Shane” but as the Hon Shane Jones—is going out there and listening to people along this side of the House and that side of the House. The leaders in our communities—they’re feeling heard and they’re feeling seen. So that takes us to our next point.

There’s a real momentum. There’s a momentum out there, guys. There’s a momentum. You know how we know that? It’s because it’s not just our own that are saying that—it ain’t just our own; it’s your fullas’ guys. It’s the old hashtag—the right honourable Simon Bridges. Save Simon; he’s a fantastic leader. I couldn’t applaud him more, because his analysis is spot on. There is a real momentum that is coming from this side of the House and our Government—kudos to him. So where is that momentum? That momentum, as I’ve said, is being felt out there in the regions. When we came in, there was a -2.9 percent of the proportion of the total economic output for the regions. Right now, like I said, 3 billion bucks is being invested all throughout those places that didn’t feel the sunshine. But where else is it being felt?

Now, the member opposite me right now, she’s a fantastic woman, Barbara Kuriger. She will know this, because she is a leader within her community out there in the regions. Now, she will know that in the primary sector, there is a real warmth and there is a momentum for what this side of the House is doing in the primary industries. Now, there was a commitment when we came in, and that was right in quite a tumultuous time. It was the seeds of an outbreak, a biosecurity outbreak, the causes of which we don’t need to go into. But what there was was that for many families up and down this country, they were enduring an outbreak of M. bovis, and what did this side of the House have to do? Very, very quickly, it had to sit down alongside a lot of folks who didn’t really believe that we were going to walk alongside them as communities, and we did just that—leaders within the industries; we walked alongside families out there in the streets. You had the Prime Minister and you had Ministers out there meeting with families to ensure that we could come up with a regime that would ensure that we got through that M. bovis outbreak, and that was one of the most tumultuous things that we could’ve come into straight away.

What else have we been doing out there in the primary industries? Well, we’ve launched the Sustainable Food & Fibre Futures programme. That has been received exceptionally well across both sides of the House, and I know that the member across the pathway, Barbara Kuriger, knows that as well. I mean, it’s got to be said: probably the biggest achievement that we can say on this side of the House, when we’re looking at economic growth in this year, when we’re looking at a 3.7 percent unemployment rate, and we look at the kids that are going into new industries like forestry because we’re planting 1 billion trees over the next decade—and I think we’re up to about 70 million or something like that. The tree-counter is on. The sun is shining and there is momentum on the streets. Hear, hear!

MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’ll change it down a couple of pegs from the previous speaker, Kiritapu Allan.

As the Northland MP, I read in the news about the meningitis outbreak in Northland before the Government actually told us so. Actually, just out of interest, I had a survivor of meningitis in my office today—this morning, actually: Horowhenua District councillor Victoria Kaye-Simmons. Now, she was lucky enough to be diagnosed early and receive treatment, but nationwide this year, we started off in January with four, then it went up to 10 in February, 22 in March, and we had two deaths. It got up to 29 in April and 39 in May. This is serious stuff.

We have children in Northland dying from preventable diseases, and the Northland District Health Board (DHB) asked the Ministry of Health about a vaccination programme. They pleaded with them months ago, and the Government only launched an urgent programme on Monday of this week, and they only ordered the vaccines two weeks ago, give or take. It’s just not good enough—not enough vaccines and only selected schools.

So who wins and who loses in this process? We have three dead Northland kids. Take the teenage boy from Kerikeri—I won’t say his name, but he’s widely known and loved in our community. He goes to the same school as my daughter, and he is the same age as my daughter, and he died a little over a month ago from this deadly disease. Now, this Government says it responded swiftly to this outbreak, but I don’t think so. Sorry, but they haven’t. I know that the DHB chief, Dr Nick Chamberlain said—and I quote—“We have been strongly encouraging the Ministry of Health for some months to approve this campaign as it’s the only truly preventative measure for our population.” The Ministry of Health apparently have been discussing with him for some months now. They only came up with a plan in late October, and only now are the wheels in motion. What does it take to get some action on this? This delay is totally unacceptable when we’re talking about our children. It’s going to cost our DHB close to a million dollars. Our budget is stretched in Northland; this needs to come directly from Government.

The Northland DHB have been warning since May, and you would think this would have stirred this Government into action. The DHB advised their own colleagues to get their children vaccinated. Surely—surely—this information should’ve been made public, but the Government only warned us in Northland on 6 November. This is not OK. This Government claims to be the people’s saviour. They claim to be the messiah from heaven, but they can’t even get the basics right. They made big promises to the public prior to the election: 100,000 houses—that ain’t going to happen. One billion trees—I hear that all the time. That’s a laugh. Every child out of poverty—well, let’s start by saving their lives.

But what about Northland—what about Northland? We are at the bottom of the pile. Our stats are the poorest in the country, and if you don’t believe me, come north and speak to our people. I do every day, and I hear it endlessly. Our children are paying the price. When our people call, this Government needs to answer our SOS. This Government talked a big game. They have talked a big game, and they continue to talk a big game, this Government. For every child’s sake, they should deliver on what they promised. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It’s a terrible thing when you wake in the morning and hope that everything’s gone wrong because it’s the only hope you have in your life. I heard a commentator, and I understood how close he is—I’m talking about Mr Michael Hosking—to the National Party, because the Hon Mark Mitchell, in the previous debate, talked about speaking with him on air. He told him to do something, and he said in this House that he went and did it. That’s how close he is.

Actually, Mr Hosking was speaking to a commentator, and he said that the headline had been “Stocks are down” and there was some quite bad economic news, and the glee in his voice was—“The rubber’s hitting the road” was the expression he used. This was good because it was bad news, but, unfortunately, the correspondent he had on said, “Actually, no. That’s overseas news. The New Zealand news is good.”, and he went through the corresponding bond prices, the stock prices, etc., for New Zealand. The gloom that entered Mr Hosking’s voice by the end of the interview—he’d moved on.

I had a conversation with a very rabid National Party supporter later that day, who actually said the same thing: “I’m waiting for everything to go bad just so I can prove how bad you are.” This is what permeates, so it’s a terrible thing.

So those opposite—there are some good people over there, intelligent people, but it’s a terrible place to be where you’re hoping and you’re looking and you say, “Ah! Petrol prices—ha, ha! We’ve got you there—whoops! I think I paid $2.02 for a litre of petrol last week.”, because what we do in New Zealand, that’s nothing to do with it. Petrol prices are coming down, and that’s taken away a lot of their debate. Oh, that’s stymied. “Oh, hold on, we’ll move on to crime figures. They’ll get—oh no! Victimisation figures are down. We’ll move on. There’ll be something—there’ll be something we can find.”, and then it goes through the doom and the gloom. The news just gets worse over there, because economic growth—“Oh, we’ll get them on that. Oh no, economic growth figures are good: 3 percent, 3.5 percent. They’re coming through. Interest rates stable.” That’s the Hon Amy Adams over there, every day.

But she’s got one—she’s got one. Every day, it’s “Business confidence—we’ll get ’em on this.”, and I see it over there. I’m sitting quite high up the back, and I can look down on them. They say, “Business confidence”, because there’s nothing else. There used to be other things written on the bit of paper, but all she’s got “Business confidence”—that’s the only thing they’ve got. Sad news—sad news—because the businessmen I know, now, are getting it. They’re starting to understand that we’re in good, and so even that one—the last hope that they had over there—is actually being taken away from them.

But then there are always farmers. The old farmers—farmers. They’ll be gloomy. They hate Labour. They hate anything—well, in most of those rural electorates, you could put an old goat up with a blue ribbon around it and they’d vote for it. They’ll be right. Bad news—bad news for the Opposition, sorry. Business confidence: 68 percent of sheep and beef farmers said that they were confident about business in the future—sorry. So that light at the end of the tunnel—they thought the light at the end of the tunnel was going to be farmers and the rural sector, who were going to be on their side. No, the light at the end of the tunnel—

Matt King: Stuart Nash, put us out of our misery, please!

GREG O’CONNOR: —sorry, Mr Matt King—it’s the train coming the other way. You haven’t even got that one.

But, all levity aside, can I just start to have a look at—when you just remember, many of the other side do represent electorates. But all this hope you have, all this dream you have, all this negativity, going around meetings, saying how bad and how terrible things are—actually, you’re talking about real people in your own electorates. They should get just a little more positive, because the things that we are doing—KiwiBuild and all those things—are going to be things that are going to be good for those in your electorates. So don’t just listen to those few, those ones who pay for your elections, the ones who put in $14,999 and you get it back—don’t listen to them. Listen to the people actually out there who are benefiting from this, and the people that are benefiting from this are going to be in your electorate, as well.

So don’t wake up tomorrow morning gleefully hoping there’s some bad news that we can throw here. Actually, think about your own people. Think about the people you actually represent out there, the vast majority of whom are actually doing very well under this coalition Government, like it or not. So just get on with it.

I mean, I know that it’s lovely to wake up and think that everything’s crashed, but it isn’t going to happen, because what you’ve got on this side of the House are people who are determined, firstly, to make sure we have a good economy. We understand that you need a good economy and we understand you need business on board, but we understand too that there is no such thing as trickle-down. Trickle-down is simply—as I think someone a lot smarter than me said—those with money urinating on those without money, and so we can’t actually have it that way. It’s only good Government policy that will allow many of yours and ours in our electorates to actually—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Well, with a contribution like that from the member for Ōhāriu, it is clear that he is auditioning for a career in the drama world, because that was an appalling speech by the member for Ōhāriu. But I’m here because school is clearly out and it seems like everybody is on strike.

We have had rolling strikes from people in the primary school industry. The secondary school teachers have announced that they’re going to be going on strike later on next year. We’ve had nurses go on strike, bus drivers, train workers, junior doctors, Ministry of Justice workers, St John Ambulance workers, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and IRD workers, anaesthetic technician workers, midwives. The police have wanted to strike but they can’t, and now a court strike—court staff want to strike. Have I missed anybody? I’m sure I have, because under this Government, we’ve got a lot more strikes than under the previous nine years of the National Government.

Now, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Iain Lees-Galloway, won’t be up front on how many people have striked under this Government, but our estimates put it at anywhere up above 65,000, with far more to come under this Government and under the changes that they are proposing in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This bill is payback for Labour’s union mates. It aims to grow union membership and strengthen union power—everything for unions in this bill, but nothing for the workers of New Zealand. This bill does everything for the 17 percent of New Zealand workers that are part of a union, but nothing for the 83 percent of New Zealand workers that are not.

New Zealand First will sit here and say, “Well, hang on a minute. We got some concessions from this bill and some concessions that are going to make this far better for businesses in New Zealand.” The truth is they got diddly-squat. Let me run you through the changes that they got as part of the bill. Firstly, they’ve got a small delay in the introduction, and they got a delay in the way union reps can access the workplace, and those changes just favour the unions.

What else can I just run you through? We’ve got some things that the New Zealand First Party has trumpeted—for example, stuff that’s around giving access to unions in the workplace for those on collective agreements, but we know that if you’re on a collective agreement and if your employer is under a collective agreement, then of course the multi-employer collective agreement still applies to you and you cannot opt out of that. You’ve got a lot of other cosmetic changes in this bill and, in summary, the New Zealand First Party got diddly-squat from their employment relations changes.

We fundamentally oppose the purpose of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. We rank fifth in the world, according to the World Economic Forum, for labour market efficiency. We rank sixth in the world for the cooperation between labour and employment relations. Why mess with a good labour market system which has already produced fantastic results and results that this Government is trumpeting: 3.9 percent unemployment and high labour-force participation rates. Strengthening the aggressive, combative unions is not the answer. Unions do not represent the workers of New Zealand, with less than 17 percent signed up to unions, and that’s down from 34 percent in 1991.

These changes are going to hurt New Zealand businesses, they’re going to destroy jobs, and they’re going to harm our economy. We here in the National Party want a future where our labour market is flexible, where we give Kiwis the opportunity to work where they want, when they want, and how they want. We want an employment framework that is simple and worker-centric, not union-centric. We oppose the employment relations changes. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, I think, after that depressing speech, it’s time for a bit of cheer. It is my pleasure to take a call in this general debate this afternoon for a number of reasons, but at the top of my list of reasons is the fact that this has been a tremendous year of relentless positivity, relentless compassion and kindness, and relentless hard work.

While we’re a couple of days shy of 1 December, I thought this may be my only opportunity to talk more broadly in the spirit of Christmas. My contribution this afternoon I’ve named “Twelve Achievements of Christmas: The Auspicious Government Remix”. So here goes. I’ll try to get through as many days as I can in the time that I’ve got, and I’m really sorry to disappoint you, but I won’t be singing.

On the first day of Christmas, our Government gave to Kiwis the first 18 KiwiBuild homes and a cute little citrus tree.

On the second day of Christmas, our Government gave to Kiwis an extension of paid parental leave, 18 KiwiBuild homes, and a commitment to give children the best start in life.

On the third day of Christmas, our Government gave to Kiwis the guarantee of a healthy home, an extension of paid parental leave, the first KiwiBuild homes, and a commitment to making sure all rentals are warm, dry, and affordable. Why? Because every New Zealander deserves a healthy home to live in at Christmastime, let alone all year round.

On the fourth day of Christmas, our Government gave to Kiwis first-year fees-free post-secondary school study, the guarantee of a healthy home, an extension of paid parental leave, the first KiwiBuild homes, and a commitment to making education more affordable and accessible.

Chris Bishop: What happened on the fifth day?

JO LUXTON: But wait there’s more, Mr Bishop. On the fifth day of Christmas, our Government gave to Kiwis $3 billion of investment in the regions through the Provincial Growth Fund, first-year free study, the guarantee of a healthy home, an extension of paid parental leave, the first KiwiBuild homes, and a commitment to grow and support productivity in our regions.

On the sixth day of Christmas, our Government gave to Kiwis a restart of super fund contributions, a $3 billion investment in our regions from the Provincial Growth Fund, a year’s fees-free study, the guarantee of a healthy home, an extension of paid parental leave, the first KiwiBuild homes, and a commitment to investing responsibly to enhance the long-term well-being of Kiwis.

Chris Bishop: What happened on the seventh day?

JO LUXTON: On the seventh day, Mr Bishop, our Government gave to Kiwis $1.5 billion to regenerate and revitalise Porirua, restart super fund contributions, $3 billion investment in the regions through the Provincial Growth Fund, first-year free study, the guarantee of a healthy home, an extension of paid parental leave, the first KiwiBuild homes, and a commitment to working alongside iwi and community to support healthier, safer, and connected communities.

On the eighth day of Christmas, our Government gave to Kiwis 3.9 percent unemployment, $1.5 billion to regenerate and revitalise Porirua, restarted super fund contributions, a $3 billion investment in the regions through the Provincial Growth Fund, first-year fees-free study, the guarantee of a healthy home, an extension of paid parental leave, the first KiwiBuild homes, and a commitment to supporting young people into education, employment, or training, particularly through programmes like our Mana in Mahi initiative.

On the ninth day of Christmas, our Government gave to Kiwis an $80 million investment to fix one of our major hospitals, 3.9 percent unemployment, $1.5 billion to regenerate and revitalise Porirua, restarted super fund contributions, $3 billion investment into the regions through the Provincial Growth Fund, first-year free study, a guarantee of a healthy home, an extension of paid parental leave, the first KiwiBuild homes, and a commitment to improving access to high-quality health services and providing world-class facilities in our hospital.

I think I’m going to run out of days, unfortunately, because my time is just about up. I know you’re really, really disappointed, but, you know, I can send it to you.

On the twelfth day of Christmas, our Government gave to Kiwis a renewed sense of hope, aspiration, ambition, and an opportunity for them to realise their worth and to live out their vision, supported by a Government that governs from a place of integrity, compassion, and kindness.

SPEAKER: I am going to remind members about disorderly behaviour and especially disorderly behaviour for people who call people by their first names.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill be now read a second time.

I firstly want to acknowledge MP Brett Hudson and the other Labour and National members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their work in hearing submissions on this bill, carefully considering it, and unanimously recommending its passage. I wish to also thank the work of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and Department of Conservation (DOC) officials and those of the Clerk’s Office in helping the committee with its deliberations. The committee received 137 submissions on the bill, and it was good of the select committee to travel to Richmond to directly hear from the people affected, both in Nelson City and the Tasman District.

This bill is about facilitating the construction of the Waimea Community Dam by enabling the Tasman District Council to purchase 1.4 hectares of LINZ riverbed and to obtain an easement over 9.7 hectares of public conservation land in the Mount Richmond Forest Park. The evidence that was heard by the committee was compelling on the significant water problems in the Waimea River over minimum flows and water quality, and that the dam was the best solution. The position was advanced in submissions by both the Tasman and Nelson councils and supported by technical advice from Tonkin and Taylor, the Cawthron Institute, Landcare Research scientist Andrew Fenemor, and former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Morgan Williams.

It was actually unusual to hear Fish & Game supporting a water storage dam. The fact that we did not hear from a single water-quality scientist or river ecologist who disputed that this scheme was necessary and beneficial for the river is very telling. The submissions were equally powerful on the economic benefits of this dam to the Nelson-Tasman region. Too few people realise that secure water supplies are needed for major industries like wood processing. Nelson Pine Industries is one of Nelson’s largest businesses and largest employers, where it processes over a million tonnes a year of logs at the biggest medium-density fibreboard plant anywhere in the world. It processes products into laminated veneer and is dependent on that water. We should not put those sorts of jobs and industries at risk. So too for crucial businesses like Waimea Nurseries, which is New Zealand’s largest commercial nursery, employing over 200 people.

Some people may be unaware that the boysenberry capital of the world is Nelson, where over 30 percent of global production and over 60 percent of New Zealand’s production occurs on the Waimea Plains. So too for apple growers, vineyards, hop growers, and many others who generate millions in exports who are totally dependent on a secure supply of water. The committee did hear from opponents to the dam, which were primarily focused on its $100 million cost and how that might be shared between Government, council, and landowners. It is true that the cost is a stretch, but the problem with those submitters opposed is that there was no alternative, or credible alternative, that was presented for fixing these longstanding problems in the Waimea River and on the plains.

The bill has been amended by the select committee in response to submissions from Fish & Game, Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand, and the Walking Access Commission. Their issue was that we needed to maximise the opportunity to improve public access. This has been achieved as far as it is possible within the constraints of the scope of the bill, which is only able to deal with the land that’s covered in the legislation. But I would add that as a consequence of the committee’s work, a letter was provided by the Tasman District Council assuring Parliament that they would go to every effort to further extend public access.

The other substantial amendment in the bill is with respect to the date that construction of the dam must begin. My original bill set that down for 1 January 2020, but the committee, in response to submissions, decided to give the project’s advances a more relaxed timetable of 1 January 2025. There have also been technical amendments to the bill, which I would describe as belts and braces, to ensure that Treaty settlements’ first rights of refusal are honoured, and that if the dam does not proceed or if it is ever decommissioned in future, the land reverts to its original purpose. Now, in the changes that have been made around the rights of first refusal by the select committee, there is a process of consultation with the eight iwi in the Nelson region, and it is my intention to work with officials and with Government members to ensure that those provisions meet the belts and braces definition. What we want to ensure is that those rights of first refusal are not in any way compromised by this bill.

Now, the rhetoric of some—particularly the Green Party—would have New Zealanders believe that all dams are bad. This is as simplistic and wrong as those that say all dams are good. Well-designed dams in the right place are part of the solution of New Zealand’s freshwater challenges. We need reminding that New Zealand has an abundance of a freshwater resource, that we only extract 2 per cent of the resource, and that our problems with shortages are in quite distinct areas and at particular times of the year. Storing some of the huge water flows from winter and releasing it in summer in cases like Waimea is a smart way in which to improve the environment and secure our economic well-being.

The most contentious issue about the dam, as I noted, is the cost. Some critics claim that the way the $100 million cost is being shared between landowners, ratepayers, and the Government is unfair. I wish to make four points on this. Firstly, it makes far more sense for water projects to be done together, rather than the council for its town water supply, the irrigators for the water that they need for their horticulture, and for that which is required to lift the minimum flows in the river. If each did their own thing, it would cost everybody a lot more. A figure I found interesting in the select committee process is that if the size of the dam was halved to a 13 million cubic metre project, the costs would actually only drop by 15 percent, reinforcing the economies of scale that are so common with water projects.

Secondly, I know of no council water project that has been as generously funded by central government. I have worked hard to maximise the contribution, and I particularly want to acknowledge Crown Irrigation for the way that they have come to the party with funding. Thirdly, it is entirely appropriate that the public purse contributes towards the portion of water stored for enhancing minimum flows and the public-good elements, like improving fishing. Finally, I’d say it’s too simplistic, when you’re working out the cost of these projects, to simplistically say how much each party gets of the water, because with water, as for electricity, security is everything. The law states that domestic water suppliers must always take priority over others, and that is why it is appropriate for the ratepayers and those householders that enjoy that security to make a contribution.

The last issue I want to make is around use of public conservation land. This Parliament needs to be pragmatic. We need to realise that when DOC was formed, an assortment of land was allocated to them, as much because nobody else wanted it rather than necessarily that it was the highest-value conservation land. If such a dam was being proposed in the Abel Tasman National Park or Fiordland or some other piece of our premium conservation land, I would take a very different view. Parliament does need to take a pragmatic response if it’s going to be able to deal with issues of infrastructure for tourism, and if it’s going to be able to deal with issues of water and sometimes transport issues around how that land is used.

Finally, this bill is on a tight timetable. There are very significant financial contracts for tens of millions of dollars. It is my ambition to try and have this bill passed by Christmas and seek other members’ support. Finally, can I thank Labour and New Zealand First members for their support for this bill. This is the best opportunity in a generation for the people of both Nelson and Tasman to be able to address these longstanding water issues on the Waimea Plains. I commend the bill to the House, and, again, I thank the select committee for their deliberation.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is a pragmatic piece of legislation and we do support it, but we support it with one caveat, and Dr Smith has alluded to this; we just need absolute clarification before we’re going to take it all the way through. That is that it will depend on ensuring that there is documentary evidence to demonstrate that the eight iwi affected by this bill will have formally endorsed it. Under the Treaty settlement, these eight iwi have been given the first right of refusal, as Dr Smith alluded to, on land covered within this bill. Therefore, the expectation from Labour members is that the sponsoring member of this bill and the Tasman District Council will provide evidence that formal endorsement has been received from the eight iwi boards.

The House needs to be assured that it is not creating a new grievance or potential breach of a Treaty settlement by supporting this bill. I’m assuming—I’m hoping—that this will be very easy for the honourable member to obtain and that he will present it to this House, because the honourable member did outline the fact that this needs to pass before Christmas. That is obviously up to the—

Rino Tirikatene: Iwis up.

Hon STUART NASH: Iwis up? OK, well, that sounds good. My colleague Rino Tirikatene has said that that has come through, but we just need to see documentation, that’s all. Not that we don’t trust you, at all, but we just need to ensure, as the honourable member will be well aware, that this is actually signed and sealed and we’re not going to end up in a position we don’t want to be.

A lot of our places and a lot of the really beautiful, sunny places around our country—the rural places like Hawke’s Bay, like Tasman—grow fantastic wine, have brilliant tourism, the highest sunshine hours in the country, but also because of those variables we have industries that require a whole lot of water. In these regions, there are, basically, three things that we have absolutely no control over. One of them is the climate, the second one is commodity prices, and the third thing is exchange rates. Again, Nelson’s very much like Napier. If the climate is right—i.e. you get the right amount of rain, there’s no frost—if exchange rates are favourable and commodity prices are high, then the regions absolutely boom, and it’s fantastic. It’s happened in Hawke’s Bay in the last couple years and it looks like it’s going to happen again.

But the problem is, if you get those variables, if there’s no alignment or if even one of them is out of sync, then it can have quite a significant effect on the domestic economy of the particular region. Now, if we can mitigate the risks around climate, then what we can at least do is mitigate the risk of a regional slump, because what happens is horticulture, you know, can’t—you get a drought and basic things don’t grow. That’s the bottom line. This is mitigating that risk and that’s why we support it. The Waimea Plains is one of New Zealand’s major horticulture areas highly dependent upon irrigation and, currently, freshwater resources, I understand, in the Waimea Plains are approximately 64 percent over-allocated.

It doesn’t matter whether you get one or two or three years of sufficient rain; that is just not sustainable. It is just not sustainable. So if we can do something that is economic—you know, we can’t create a millstone around the neck of ratepayers—and environmentally friendly, because, again, we can’t end up building something that destroys the environment or has an adverse impact on the environment, and also creates jobs, then we should be looking to do this. I think this is one of those schemes that have great potential to tick all of those boxes.

Without the dam, based on the potential cuts to water allocations, the productive, irrigable—sorry, irrigatable land, I apologise—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Irrigatable or irritigable?

Hon STUART NASH: Oh, it depends if it’s Dr Smith or it’s—yeah. It’s estimated to possibly reduce from 3,800 hectares down to 705 in a worst-case scenario. So we’re talking about business as usual down to a significant drought, and if we believe climate change is real, and I absolutely do, and obviously Dr Smith does—

Hon Nathan Guy: What about Ruataniwha?

Hon STUART NASH: Do you want to talk about Ruataniwha? Am I allowed to address that, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, there was an interjection, but as long as the member doesn’t take too long over it.

Hon STUART NASH: The member makes a good point. The thing about Ruataniwha is that there was no economic business case that said that this was going to be sustainable. There was no economic business case. If there had been an economic business case that said “Yes, this is going to create value, it’s going to create jobs, and it’s going to be good for the environment.”, then we would have supported it. I was asking for this for five years and no one could give me a simple business case that said “If this is not going to create a massive debt that the ratepayers of Hawke’s Bay are going to have trouble”—

SPEAKER: OK. Now back to the bill.

Hon STUART NASH: OK. Now back to the bill. Dr Smith alluded to this as well. The Hon Shane Jones, the first—whatever he calls himself—member of the regions or whatever—

Chris Bishop: Matua Shane.

Hon STUART NASH: Matua Shane. We were after forestry. One of the things we know about forestry—and you just have to go down to the wharf here in Wellington, let alone any wharf around the country—is that there’s a whole lot of logs heading across without a cent of value being added. I have visited Nelson Pine Industries probably three or four times, and it is an exemplar of how to take raw logs and add significant value. They employ over 200 people, even though it’s a state-of-the-art mill. It is a fantastic piece of regional infrastructure, and it shows that you can do things incredibly well in the regions—

Hon Ruth Dyson: If you do it properly.

Hon STUART NASH: If you do it properly—good point, Ruth Dyson. What they have said is that without the dam—and, again, we’re talking worst-case scenarios, but in this era of climate change and, certainly, inconsistent climate—they face up to 100 days a year with insufficient water to operate. You don’t have to dig very far or have a vivid imagination to understand the impact that would have on the region’s economy, let alone a major piece of regional infrastructure, let alone on wood processing.

I do think that perhaps Dr Smith glossed over a little bit of some of the significant criticism that the select committee heard on this—because there was criticism, and let’s be open and honest about this. The criticism came from the fact that there were people who believed that the council had not adequately consulted. It’s my experience that it doesn’t matter what councils do, if someone is against a project or there is a group that are against a project, it is a very easy charge to throw out there that the council hasn’t consulted. What I do understand, though, is that the council has said that they held over 200 public meetings and, let’s be honest, there has been about 17 years of consultation on this. So there’s been a lot of consultation. It’s been through the wringer more than once—in fact, as we know, the council actually voted this down. I think, on 28 August this year, they voted it down. There was such a hue and cry that the council thought “We’d better take another look at this.” They came up with another funding model and then it snuck through with a whisper.

The fact that it wasn’t unanimous on the council—in fact, they lost the initial motion on 28 August by one vote, and I think they won it by one vote when they re-voted. So there are a number of councils who, you would argue and you would hope, are incredibly engaged in this, who have got all the information in front of them and who have gone through all the modelling. There were still a number of councillors who had reservations to the point where they did not vote for this bill, but what we do know is that the select committee said they accepted the fact that there had been enough robust consultation to satisfy, in their minds, that it didn’t need to go back any further. So that was good to hear.

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society was opposed to the bill because of concern over the precedent around the use of conservation land—obviously, they had a big win at Ruataniwha. This does set a precedent, but I’m not uncomfortable with that. The reason I’m not uncomfortable with that is that we need to, where practicable, take a pragmatic approach to this—i.e. if the conservation land is of significant value, then we don’t want to give that away. There is no doubt about that. But where it’s conservation land and it can be supplemented with other land or swapped, or where there is a pragmatic solution, then we should always look to find that common ground, especially when we’re talking about a scheme that is going to enhance economic productivity and growth in the provinces. Of that there is no doubt, but I understand Forest & Bird’s stance. They came in and said “We’re not against this”—which was good of them—“but there’s the principle behind this.” They are a very principles-based organisation. The committee heard their view. The council heard their view and decided that, OK, this needs to move forward from that perspective.

There were others, of course—Fish & Game New Zealand. Dr Smith said that Fish & Game were for this. They did have concerns about access to the land—and, again, I know that at Ruataniwha it was one of the major concerns as well—is the public going to have access to land that, perhaps, they had access to beforehand? [Speaker yawns] Sorry, I hope I’m not keeping you up, Mr Speaker!

SPEAKER: Well, I think it’s fair to say that the member’s not very exciting.

Hon STUART NASH: I’ve spoken for 10 minutes on this. All I would like to say is that we are supporting this bill. It is a pragmatic bit of legislation. As mentioned, my fellow member Rino Tirikatene said that condition had been sorted. That’s all good. Let’s get this through and let’s get Nelson humming.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): I hope that my contribution will excite you! This is a very exciting bill; it’s well worth a read. I just want to follow up on some of the comments that Stuart Nash has made. It’s ironic that he’s so positive about this scheme when, right now, in his region, they’re crying out because of a shortage of water. We know, on this side of the House, that in New Zealand we only collect and store about 2 or 3 percent of the rain that falls in this country. So water storage has got to be a way forward, but the politics about this particular issue are that the coalition Government doesn’t support projects outside of this one. The reason they support this one is that it was already pretty much contracted and they couldn’t weasel their way out of it.

Importantly, I want to acknowledge Dr Nick Smith for supporting this local bill on behalf of his council and his community. The Waimea project has been around for 18 years. I want to acknowledge Julian Raine, Murray King, and other leaders in the community who have stuck with this project, because water storage projects take an incredibly long time until the first drop of water comes out of the pipes. The significant point about this project is that it pretty much touches all of the important aspects of water storage. It is not well understood.

The first one is the economic considerations, and those are real. This area in the Waimea Plains and around Nelson is pretty much the fruit bowl of the South Island. They produce apples, hops, and other berries. They generate about $400 million. But, of course, what happens in the summer is that there are significant water restrictions placed on them. This project will generate an extra $100 million for that region. The other important aspect is social. So this water from the Waimea dam will support those communities—i.e. drinking water. The other aspect is environmental, and what was really telling is that any water scientist in New Zealand could come and submit on this project. You would expect the critics in New Zealand about water quality to line up in their droves and submit against this project. Not one water-quality scientist submitted in a negative way towards this project—i.e. they came in and said, “This ticks all the environmental boxes.” So that is a huge positive for this project.

Two other very important points: I acknowledge Crown Irrigation Investments, who have worked tirelessly with the council and the community to get this project across the line. They’ve moved their terms of the contract—it’s about $35 million—to get it across the line. I acknowledge those leaders in the community for staying with it right through to this point.

The final comment I want to leave you with is David Parker’s contribution on the first reading of this very important bill—actually, Stuart Nash touched on it right now, and that is the land swap to do with the Department of Conservation (DOC). The Minister David Parker acknowledged in his first reading speech that the Parliament is going to have a look at these issues one day. Well, actually, they need to have a look at them now because to get water storage projects across the line, often it requires a land swap deal with DOC, and that process needs to be better than it currently is. We’ve just heard from Stuart Nash, who said that there needs to be a pragmatic solution found and it needs to be based on common sense.

So with those comments, I support the bill. I acknowledge Dr Nick Smith for bringing it through, and it’s been a good, robust select committee process. I look forward to the debate this afternoon. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important bill for Nelson and for the Waimea Plains. I was lucky enough to be one of the members of the Governance and Administration Committee who travelled to Richmond to hear submissions for one full day from the community in terms of those that were going to directly benefit from this scheme and also those who were opposed. So I’m thankful for that opportunity and for those of the community who took their time to come forward and give their views.

On the day, it was interesting to hear the background of this piece of legislation and the fact that there have been low water flows for some time in that river catchment, which is well known as being the fruit bowl of one of the main areas of Nelson, and has sustained, through those aquifers, many agricultural industries over decades and decades within Zealand. It is those aquifers that are, we are advised, under threat as a result of water depletion, and that provides a threat not just to residential households having a security of supply of fresh water but also a lot of those agricultural businesses which people rely upon for jobs and much of the community relies upon strongly over a long period of time.

So this bill enables the construction of a dam that would enable that water to be built up and to replenish those aquifers. In fact, 13.4 million cubic metres of reservoir are located behind the dam, and that can be, in fact, released in a controlled manner during periods of high water demand and of low and natural river flows. It’s intended to be able to, I guess, replenish the Waimea Plains over that time. It has been noted already today that the expert advice we received indicated that this was beneficial for the long term of that security of freshwater supply in that area.

In the transfer of land, it’s interesting to note—and my colleague Stuart Nash has already mentioned—that there is an impact on iwi that still requires final confirmation. So the iwi affected within Te Tau Ihu are Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne o Wairau, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui. Those eight iwi need to have full written consent provided back to the Government to make sure that when you transfer land, as this piece of legislation provides to do, from Crown ownership, which has a right of first refusal, that can be triggered. So that land is being transferred to the Tasman District Council, and the right of first refusal will be transferred along with it to local government. So we need to be reassured that those eight iwi are comfortable with that transfer, and that that does not provide any side issues or any other concerns around Treaty rights in that space.

It was really interesting to sit in in Richmond during that day and hear the full range of submissions, and I would like to say that it was a pretty charged-up day. There were some pretty fired-up people there—and the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s nodding, because he actually took on a few difficult people who were not so happy with the bill on that day. I was surprised he was still smiling at the end of the day; there was some pretty rigorous opposition to the construction of the dam in that area.

So the main argument made in support of this bill was the fact that it sustained the strong agricultural base that has been operating within this area for a long period of time and that that would be addressing critical water shortages. That was seen by submitters as the best solution to provide security over the next 100 years and more in that area. The economic cost to the region of not proceeding with this scheme was also highlighted by a range of submitters, and the concern that many of those businesses—orchards, apples—would not be able to continue to thrive without that security of water supply.

Also a clear point that was made was ensuring that the needs of stakeholders in improving water quality would be reassured—that by having the dam in place and replenishing those aquifers, it would ensure that there was a high quality of water. Another point made by, I think, Fish & Game, if I remember correctly, was that while this legislation provides to transfer conservation land, the Crown land, it is relatively small and of limited conservation value. One of the changes that was recommended and has been carried out is to ensure that there is access to the public. That was raised by submitters on that day, and we’ve made sure that all possible actions are taken to ensure public access to that land.

It was interesting to hear from farmers who had been third and fourth generations who had continued to make a living on that land, and to hear their concerns that they wanted to make sure that their businesses would continue to thrive in the future. There were views from those who had businesses that there was adequate consultation carried out by the Tasman District Council, but that, funnily enough, was the main protest point of those who did not want this bill to proceed. There were deep concerns that the consultation process undertaken by the Tasman District Council was insufficient, and 67 submissions, in fact, raised concerns about that consultation process.

There was very strong opposition to the fact that people did not want this dam to proceed, and I acknowledge those who took the time and were really passionate about this for the area, not wanting to see it proceed. A key component of that concern of not wanting the dam to proceed was opposition to the financial impact of the dam. So submitters note that in recent years the estimated cost of building has surged from $26 million to $102 million, and they are concerned that that will be borne by ratepayers who won’t directly benefit from the construction of this dam. In the words of some, it was seen that those farmers on the land were benefiting from the ratepayers’ contribution to a dam that they would not see a direct benefit from.

The Waimea scheme is for the benefit of urban and commercial water supply and will have economic and environmental benefits for the local community, particularly within the Tasman District Council area but also in the Nelson City Council area as well. We take the view that if the Tasman District Council wishes to proceed with this, and this is a local issue which has been voted on, it is for the local community to determine the best way forward.

So the Waimea scheme has been controversial—that’s well noted, and I saw that up close and personal on the day, especially as to that cost. But Labour’s position has been that the future of the scheme is in local hands, with it being over to the Tasman District Council and other local interests to decide whether the scheme proceeds or not. This has been resolved by the Tasman District Council vote, and I note that two votes were taken: on 28 August 2018, councillors voted by a narrow margin to abandon the project over the ballooning price, but on 6 September 2018, councillors voted 9:5 in favour for the dam to proceed in light of the new funding model that had been reached after working with investors.

So the Government’s financial support for the scheme is subject to normal contractual conditions being met and to financial close, as has already been noted, being reached by 15 December, and details need to be reached to work through this. So it will be interesting to see whether we can continue to get all the paperwork completed in time and the final requirements for this bill done in the final members’ day of this sitting session. So without further ado, I wish all of the people in Tasman and the Nelson area all the best for the future with this exciting proposition. I think it holds great promise for jobs, for industry, and for those that have farmed the land for a long time. I commend this bill to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of this Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill in its second reading. Actually, I’d like to thank and congratulate fellow members on the Governance and Administration Committee for their very ready agreement to travel to Richmond to hear directly from local people their views on the bill. Most people, we are aware, are supportive of the scheme, but it also gave an opportunity for those that are less favourable to it to have their voices heard as well. We chose, as we have done several times, to not only hear submissions in the provinces but also to do so on a non-sitting day, and I’d just like, by way of quick reference, to thank the Business Committee for on another occasion recognising the work that our committee is doing and permitting us to attend a hearing in another part of New Zealand on a sitting day.

I think this approach we have been taking really does open democracy up to New Zealanders right across the country, and where we have visited other places—Richmond being the case in point here, but also Thames, Coromandel, and also Gore recently—we’ve been warmly welcomed, and it’s been very clear from those submitters that they appreciate Parliament travelling to give them a local voice.

This scheme is a very pragmatic and sensible scheme for the area. It’s one that will provide security of supply for urban water users as well as, principally, horticulturalists in the area. As other members have said, it’s a way to address possible risks of nature by ensuring that in times of need there is still plenty of water not only to produce, obviously for the local economy, from the land but also to make sure that urban users have the supply they need. Along the way, and along with that, it will also help improve the quality of the river. So it’s a situation where in almost every respect, one would argue that everyone wins.

In fact, on a small but still related piece to that, the commitment the council has made to working to get public access to land around the dam and, indeed, access to that, also goes some way, or a very good way, to making sure that those that wish to use the conservation land and area around the proposed dam have freedom of access to enjoy nature and to recreate the way that they wish to.

So the process itself was hugely beneficial and enjoyable for the committee members. I trust—I hope—that those members of the public that chose to submit in Richmond also got something useful from the process. I’m absolutely convinced that residents of Nelson and Tasman will definitely benefit from this dam when it is implemented and in action, and I commend this bill to the House.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First for this Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. I’m much more enthusiastic than I may have appeared just previously when I missed my call, because this is, actually, a really sensible and constructive bill. It does allow that transfer of 1.35 hectares of Crown-owned riverbed and the approximately 10 hectares of Crown conservation stewardship land to be utilised for this Waimea dam, which will have significant benefits for rural and urban people in the Tasman district and Nelson City itself, both economic and environmental.

Of course, it seeks to irrigate some 1,200 hectares of horticultural land, mainly. I believe there are about two dairy farms in that particular area. So I think the widespread concern around irrigation, as has been mentioned by previous speakers—much of it a little bit overblown, but in this case, certainly, there is no particular environmental danger. In fact, the benefit to the health of the river through having this water storage and being able to keep the flows going through the often dry summer months will far outweigh any environmental impact that the dam may have from nutrient loss. Of course, there are very strict regional council rules around that stuff anyway, so it really is a win-win scenario.

I note that all the consents are in process. It does have the combined support of the Nelson City Council, Department of Conservation, Fish & Game, and Forest & Bird. It’s good to hear from our colleague over here, Rino Tirikatene, that iwi are now on board. There was some debate, a little bit, about that, and hopefully that’s the case, because there was just a shadow of doubt there that that was confirmed. But the Tasman District Council, of course, who have led this and have brought this forward, deserve some credit for pulling all those entities together, I guess.

Of course, it hasn’t been an easy political process. It did get the speed wobbles there in the first vote, and I think it was voted down. But, of course, they reconfigured the costs and the way that the costs would be covered, and a few days later they did reverse that decision. I note there is another vote, a final vote, coming up next week, I believe. So the ball will be, hopefully, after this, firmly back in the court of the Tasman District Council.

This has been, I think, close to 20 years in the making, and the Government has contributed pretty strongly here—$35 million in a concessionary loan and $7 million from a pool of money set aside for grants. The $35 million—I just want to emphasise that. It is a loan. Often in these schemes they are considered to be handouts or subsidies to farmers. They are, in fact, not. They are a loan. They’re essentially bridging finance to make sure the scheme can be built so it’s fit for purpose and futureproofed—not nickel and dime.

So it’s actually really good value for taxpayer money to be extending this loan, and, of course, the farmers will pay it back over time, because this is a multi-generational decision—to go into investing in irrigation. The farmers themselves are actually often the very last people to benefit, because they take on vast quantities of debt that they have to pay off, often over a generation. Many of these farmers, I’m sure, as mentioned in Ginny Andersen’s contribution, will be multi-generational farmers who will be doing this for the next generation, not themselves. But the communities themselves, they’d benefit straight away. The earth movers and the builders and the towns, they benefit instantly from this injection—and significant injection—of capital.

Of course, this is the perfect time to invest. I think the Government bond as of this morning was sitting at about 2.67 percent. In fact, interestingly, the US Government bond sits at over 3 percent. So for the first time—and probably almost unprecedented recently, no doubt because of the competence of this Government—we actually see the New Zealand Government being able to borrow money at less than the US Government, which is an absolutely extraordinary circumstance. It is a great credit to us as a nation, our fiscal responsibility.

So this is a good time to be doing long-term infrastructure investments like we’re doing now. The $103 million, it does seem like a lot of money, but in 10, 15 years’ time it will seem like peanuts, and the benefits will be flowing—both economic and environmental—from day one. So New Zealand First is actually a really big supporter of water storage. We have been proactive in that space and have been encouraging the Government to meet its commitments that we made in the coalition agreement, and we have done that.

I would like to commend Mayor Kempthorne. I actually had the pleasure, as a hard-working South Island - based list MP—I was actually in Nelson and Tasman during a recess, meeting with business leaders, the chambers of commerce, and Mayor Kempthorne out at the ports of Nelson, and, to a person, they were enthusiastic about this project. They saw the necessity of it to futureproof not only their horticultural production but also their town water supplies. Of course, this is a fast-growing region with great prospects, so that infrastructure and that water that the infrastructure needed to deliver is going to be absolutely critical for the Nelson and Tasman region to fulfil its potential.

Of course, being a good New Zealand First member of Parliament, I wasn’t just talking to the big end of town. I went to the ratepayers association meeting that night, and I did hear the other side of that debate. That’s something that we should not take for granted: that, especially for those on low and fixed incomes, particularly pensioners, whilst we might see a rates increase of approximately $150 a week—I think for some; $129 for others. I’m not quite sure how it’s delineated. I think it depends if you’re in Tasman or Nelson, and I learnt that Centennial Avenue is quite a significant road, because it’s like Northern and Southern Ireland on either side of that. That $150 a week—sorry, a year—at the top end, is $3 a week, and I think, even though we’ve got to be very mindful of those low-income, fixed-income people, that $3 a week for a significant piece of infrastructure to futureproof your community is a very modest outcome in the grand scheme of things.

I would encourage the Tasman council to be brave. It is hard when your ratepayers are, many of them, on fixed incomes, struggling, but I think you’ve got to look sometimes to the bigger picture.

Of course, it fits in with the coalition’s aims to lift that value in our primary exports, and the horticultural sector is one that is going extremely well. I think we’re nearly at $6.5 billion worth of horticultural exports now. I actually didn’t know that the Waimea Plains was the boysenberry capital of the world—30 percent of the world’s boysenberries, which is really, really impressive, and 60 percent of New Zealand’s boysenberries. So it shows we’re a major player in that market, and Waimea Plains is the epicentre of that. Of course, that contributes to that $932 million that the Northington report showed would be the economic benefit from this scheme. If you look at that over 25 years, my calculation is that that’s somewhere around $37 million dollars a year. If you look at the $103 million that it costs to set up the capital cost, and you’re getting $30 million - odd a year of economic gains from that, that’s a pretty significant return on investment.

I’d just like to conclude by commending, actually, the member Dr Smith for shepherding this bill forward and all the members at the Governance and Administration Committee that, obviously, travelled down to Richmond and heard the submissions. I think it’s great that the Parliament can be behind this bill with a degree of confidence. We haven’t had all the parties speaking, of course. The Green Party, hopefully, will see some merit in this bill, but, if not, hopefully, as a Parliament we’ve got the numbers to pass this very sensible piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Paul Eagle: Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon Ruth Dyson: That was very well observed.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Oh yes, ever observant—the “eagle” eye that I have, Chief Whip. I haven’t used that line before—ha ha ha! Look, it is the second reading. We’ve heard that from every other speaker here this evening. I want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee—a hard-working committee if not, probably, the best select committee. No one’s listening—that was a test of who’s listening.

Marama Davidson: Come on, Mr Eagle!

PAUL EAGLE: Oh, there we are—there we are.

We’ve got the deputy chair in front of me, and she’s fairly feisty, and she keeps all the members, including those from the Government benches, honest and hard-working. That’s Ginny Andersen, the list MP based in Hutt South.

Can I thank the local member, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. A local bill is important. These are things that are generally not put forward lightly. With my council background, I certainly remember local bills going through. In fact, I can only remember one, and that was for the Wellington town belt. So these are important.

I want to just acknowledge the members of the committee who went down to Nelson and listened to the locals, really. This is the big dynamic when it comes to building big infrastructure at a local level: that, often, locals get nervous. The deputy chair of the committee said that there were some hungry hippies who certainly weren’t too happy with what was going on, but that is expected. I think one of the things you learn in local government—and I can see three colleagues across the House there who have been leaders in local government—is that you do have to make the calls around the big infrastructure. This is core infrastructure too: water. I’m not going to divert into water and the issues with that.

I can well imagine—there was so much competition to travel to Nelson to listen to these submissions that I missed out, but never mind. I do want to say that I can just imagine what some of the conflicts would be from the locals. Those are valid concerns. I think too often we try and play a wee game where we pit the corporates or business versus locals, and I think one of the keys to a good local authority is the ability to strike a compromise.

I note that in some of the progress around Tasman District Council making a decision, the margins of voting have been narrow—they’ve been tight—but, certainly, in early September they were able to vote 9-5. Look, you never get a full vote on these projects. You can imagine that those councillors who are more intimate with their communities or who live in the communities where people have expressed concern about this won’t vote for it. But 9-5 is a good, decent vote that gives the level of reassurance, I think, that, yes, there’s been some conflict around what people want but, overall, that new funding model that was presented and was reached with investors showed confidence. That’s different to the 8-6. Another local councillor obviously looked at the detail, and that’s good, and got the project—positively voted for it.

I just want to note the economic and environmental benefits for the community. Previous speakers have certainly spoken about it, but water supply—I heard the member for Nelson talking about the need for big business. Certainly, I think it was called Nelson—the people make medium-density fibreboard (MDF)—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Nelson Pine.

PAUL EAGLE: Nelson Pine—there we are. Thank you. The member spoke about their need to ensure that there’s a constant water supply. Look, when you break that down into simple economics, that’s jobs. That’s ensuring that they’ve got the water supply to make the MDF to make sure that the people who work for Nelson Pine have a job—that they are not laid off or not put into a holding pattern while they sort out core infrastructure.

I can imagine too—look, Nelson is the playground of the Wellingtonian, like Coromandel is, or once used to be, for Aucklanders, and from the Waikato it still is. So I know that that council, Thames-Coromandel District Council, had the same issue with their water infrastructure: just, really, an increasing demand on that core infrastructure supply.

They’ve listed some growing urban communities here: Richmond, Nelson, Brightwater, and Māpua. The comment there is they want to avoid water shortage. You don’t need to remember back far to 2001, when they had the “Big Dry”. Certainly, this will stop that. This will ensure that the water supply will be consistent. And, look, sometimes we forget that it is Tasman but there’s also Nelson, and one of the things I notice on visits down there is that there’s more collaboration between Nelson City and Tasman District, and I think that’s good.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

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

PAUL EAGLE: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, it’s always a privilege to—

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Make it a brilliant three minutes.

PAUL EAGLE: Absolutely. Look, there’s just still so much to talk about. I don’t want to recap but what I do want to say is that the one thing I will recap on is that this is a major decision for a local authority. I said it was about being bold, and, therefore, it would offend and you will get that. We saw what the voting record was like: 9-6. Later in the year, after getting a better deal or a new funding model, that was 9-5. I think that’s important. They are the elected members of the district. They are taking a risk, but it is core infrastructure, and it’s certainly a risk worth taking. I didn’t want to divert into water, and I won’t, but I will come back to that at a later speech and talk about the importance of getting core infrastructure like water in place.

Often it is the smaller district councils—I said that they had a great relationship with Nelson City. I’d hate to think that I was going to suggest they should amalgamate but I won’t. But there’s no—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I will.

PAUL EAGLE: The local member for Nelson maybe—that’s for another day too. We had a former chair of the Greater Wellington Regional Council, Fran Wilde—she was an expert at amalgamation; you might want to talk to her. But I digress.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: She’s a goody.

PAUL EAGLE: Absolutely. I do just want to acknowledge or echo the words of my colleagues and others who have said “Look we do need to keep with the concerns of iwi.”—keep in mind, sorry. All keen, all for it. As the select committee has gone through and made the changes, I think the real issue here is just making sure that the iwi groups and Te Tau Ihu are aware of what those changes are, what they mean, and they can come back to the table confident. At the end of the day, this is a confidence arrangement where people are saying, “Look, we are partnering. We’ve got a council-controlled organisation in there.” It’s a big deal for the people of the Tasman district.

The member for Napier talked about having documentary evidence—something in writing, really—that and doing the old-fashioned face-to-face and making sure this deal gets across the line. It has been many years. I’m sure someone will remind me how long it’s been to get from someone first saying “We have a problem here, Houston.” to now, where the deal is on the cusp of going ahead.

I’m proud that the Labour Party is supportive. We are a party that is keen on infrastructure. We could talk about housing and a whole lot of other key infrastructure, too—transport, for example. It’s my pleasure to commend this bill, the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme)—what a mouthful—Bill to the House. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): On behalf of the Green Party, we will not be supporting the Waimea water augmentation scheme bill. I want to acknowledge the merits that have been raised by other members of this House. We simply are a voice for the many locals that have opposed this bill.

I wanted to pick up firstly on the fact that this is its second reading, so I went through the report back from the Governance and Administration Committee. I agree with other ratepayers and citizens who highlighted that it was quite difficult to get an accurate number of exactly how many submissions were opposed and how many were in support. There were, apparently, 137 written submissions, and the report from the committee went through groups and names of organisations who were in support. But I wasn’t able to get any clear understanding of the weight in terms of the locals—and I know some were opposed; I’ve already heard that through some of the members—who were opposed to this. I’m not part of that committee; I wasn’t able to get a clearer sense than that. So I agree with those submitters who went back and also read the report back from the committee and were concerned that they also couldn’t find that clarity.

So there are a number of reasons why we cannot be convinced to give our support to this bill. Yes, there are longstanding water issues in that region, but for the Green Party, we will always ask, “What is the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of those water issues?” We will always want to go back to looking actually at sustainable water supply, water storage, allocation issues, and, actually, the core economic infrastructure that has led to some of the dilapidation of aqua tables and water tables in the first place.

I think that’s part of the admirable position that I’m really proud to be able to take today—actually wanting to look at what is truly, truly behind some of those longstanding water issues. We feel strongly—and, again, I acknowledge the different characteristics and dynamics of this particular dam. Of course, everyone knows that the Greens have been clearly vocal and have it, actually, in our confidence and supply agreement that we generally oppose large-scale irrigation plans. So this will be no surprise to any member in the House. However, we—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Mr Eagle, could you resume your seat. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: I’m just giving a really, really brilliant speech here, Mr Eagle.

I do acknowledge that certain dynamics of this particular augmentation scheme have been put on the floor tonight, about different reasons why this is particularly different for a large-scale and commercial irrigation scheme. So I am not even going to pretend that I haven’t heard those reasons. However, there are still a number of valid concerns that we hold and that I’m happy to stand here and represent on today.

I did want to pick up on—actually, I will say that I am pleased to see from the Tasman District Council in its submission and in the workings of this bill that the council will make a biodiversity easement, and that the council will make, as part of its resource consent, a condition for the dam around protecting diversity rights. I did want to raise that as one of the wider and longer-term concerns that the Greens absolutely will have as part of this augmentation scheme.

Just recently, we had the UN Convention on Biological Diversity—I think just last week, actually—held in Egypt. That convention and that meeting of parties wants to see ambitious global targets in the next two years to protect the organisms that are vital for global food production, clean water, and the removal of carbon from the atmosphere. I wanted to raise that because with schemes like these, we need to be absolutely clear, without any doubt, that we are not going to continue to contribute to the ongoing loss of plant and animal diversity on Earth. A fundamental worldwide extinction crisis is happening and has been happening. Actually, there’s less awareness of this, I believe, generally, than there is of climate change.

Coming back to the bill, this is what I wanted to raise as one of our reasons for opposing. This extinction crisis is deepening every year, and we are severely impacted by it. In New Zealand, of course—and I acknowledge the council’s biodiversity investment—we’re losing our indigenous biodiversity at an alarming rate. I saw that the council will make these investments, and we will want to keep a check on this. We all want to keep an ongoing monitor of the types of resource consent conditions that the council are proposing they will make—for example, the salvage, propagation, and establishment of at least three new populations of the nationally rare New Zealand shovel mint. These are the sorts of precautions that the Green Party will be keeping an absolute monitor on, and it goes to the core of some of our concerns with this scheme. I know that not many of the other members in the House have picked up on, particularly, the concern for biodiversity. So that was one of the main points that I wanted to raise.

I acknowledge—and I believe it was one of the original reasons why at first there was a No vote from the council—the concerns about the funding model, and I also understand that because of those very concerns, the funding model was changed, but still, even with that change of the funding model, some locals and people of that region and community are still concerned with the share, the equitability, and the distribution, and who will be picking up the tabs. I acknowledge that over the long scheme of things, we can say it may not seem like a huge, huge amount for individual ratepayers, but I think people are also concerned at the council and ratepayer overall investment. So I acknowledge those concerns as well.

Of course, there is the situation of using conservation land for commercial purposes, and we absolutely want to remain cautious, and very principally so, on that as an issue. I understand that this has been picked up for two reasons as being viable to push through that conservation land: because it is of lesser conservation value, and also because it’s being seen as a pragmatic solution. I just want to make sure that we actually get that balance right—that we actually truly understand the transformation of the economic model that we have operated on all around the country to date and whether or not we have got that right in this augmentation scheme.

So those were some of the main rationales for the Green Party’s opposition to this bill, which I am very proud to put on the floor in this House tonight, and I’m particularly picking on the fact that there was not a clear mandate and consensus from all of the local community, and that there was actually clear local opposition to this bill, and I stand absolutely to acknowledge that opposition and the reason that they raised their opposition. We understand that this bill will make its passage through the House because it’s got the numbers, but we will be keeping check on all of the valid concerns that we are raising, particularly into the future of this development, including the financial monitoring of this budget—whether it blows out or not—and who ends up bearing the impact on that. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I have great pleasure tonight in standing up and speaking in support of the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill in its second reading. I have a great affection for this scheme, and I also share a little bit of ownership with it, because half of the lake is going to be in the electorate of West Coast - Tasman, and it’s going to serve the people of the Tasman area extremely well.

I acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee for the unanimous support of this bill. I think that was a great partnership and a significant step in making sure that this bill actually reaches its desired conclusion. I’d just like to take up a couple of points that the previous speaker, Marama Davidson, made around the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause, and the reality is that the reason that we need this water augmentation scheme bill is because it doesn’t rain all day every day, it rains at the wrong times of the year, and we need to capture the water that falls at the times of the year when there are not as many demands on that water. So in the Tasman and Nelson region—very hot, dry summers with a fantastic horticultural sector there that needs the guarantee and the surety going forward that they’re going to have water.

So the cause of the need for this is purely because we need to ensure that there is security of the water supply. I can assure the former speaker too that there are going to be no shortcuts taken in the monitoring of this development and that the people who are engaged by the Tasman District Council to monitor biodiversity are experts in their field—they’re are highly qualified and we can trust them to do an open and transparent job of the monitoring of this scheme.

The big winner of this bill is the river—the Waimea River. We know that the issues that we have with water quality are when the river flows are extremely low, and so we have the algae build-up, we have the fish dying. This scheme is a fantastic support to that biodiversity and to ensure the river health. I’d just like to quote from a submitter to the process—the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Morgan Williams, who said, “You don’t keep a river alive unless the water is flowing through it. With a dam, it allows you to keep the river flowing, keep the river alive, keep it healthy. And also keep the aquifers topped up. Rivers by definition, if they are going to stay healthy, they need to keep flowing”.

That is what this bill is about. It is about ensuring that we can maintain river flows, but it is also about maintaining the economic biodiversity and the economic viability of established businesses in the Nelson and the Tasman area, and ensuring that those workers who have committed to their roles there and who have moved there to support those industries have a viable future. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. I’d also like to pass on my thanks to Brett Hudson, who is the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee on which I sit. As a recent member of the committee, unfortunately I couldn’t travel to Nelson with the committee.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We missed you.

JAMIE STRANGE: But it’s important—yeah. I’m certainly there enough as well, as the Hon Dr Nick Smith knows, whose house is overlooked by my parent’s house, but we won’t give away geographic locations.

Back to the bill. So the key point here is that I believe we can have a clean environment and a strong economy. So this Government is certainly focused on improving the infrastructure that we have, and it can be a challenge at times for councils around infrastructure. Water infrastructure is particularly important because water is the lifeblood of any region. The Nelson region—as people in this House who live there know only too well—can be prone to drought. In 2001, there was an extreme drought in that area, and having a dam like this will help to mitigate the risk of droughts like that.

So some of the key points here that I’d just like to highlight, and then I’d like to touch on a couple of the submissions—so the Waimea scheme is for the benefit of urban and commercial water supply. We’ve heard a bit about the urban. In terms of commercial, a key point highlighted there is around horticulture. A couple of submissions came through around this area of horticulture which is absolutely vital for our economy—both the local economy in the Tasman area in which I was born and the New Zealand economy.

So let’s have a look at Boysenberries New Zealand. Boysenberries New Zealand submitted on this bill, and I think they made some really good points here. They said they “support the Bill in its entirety as this enables the Waimea Dam to be constructed and operated. The dam will provide surety of essential water to the community for its ongoing urban, commercial and industrial needs.” Now, Boysenberries New Zealand rely upon water to run their services. They were formed in 1989 as a grower-owned co-operative and they sell approximately 60 percent of New Zealand’s boysenberry crop, and they’ve said quite specifically that this dam is absolutely vital for them to continue to run the excellent business that they run.

Another submission along the same lines was from Nelson Pine Industries Ltd. They mentioned that they are currently dependent on the Tasman District Council water supply to run their plant and that having this dam will give them the surety of operation. Another one is around Fresh Fruit Company of Nelson, who pretty much said the same thing: that the importance of having a secure water supply to these businesses cannot be overestimated. So I’m very pleased that this Government’s partnering with the Tasman District Council in order to provide leadership and to provide that surety of water supply for both urban and commercial users.

The committee has recommended a couple of changes to the bill. One of them is around improved public access, and I think this is important because when a piece of infrastructure is owned by the public, like this dam will be, it’s important that the public have access to it. The committee received a number of submissions seeking improved public access provisions, so the committee recommended changes of wording to the easement provisions in the bill over the areas of conservation, and to reverse the presumption in favour of public access, except in the interests of public safety. The committee also amended the date, and there were a couple of technical changes there as well.

We heard a lot of submissions, and I think it was fantastic that the committee travelled to Nelson, and it’s wonderful to see that committees are doing more and more of that, getting around the country. I think this committee also went to Gore recently, which I had the pleasure of being involved in.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Say it properly!

JAMIE STRANGE: No, I thought I did! There were 137 written submissions and 26 submitted orally. There were a few who were opposed to this, but by and large people understand the importance of having security of water supply, because if we have another drought, there are going to be huge issues in that area, and the surety is obviously important for both residential and commercial users. So in terms of progress, we absolutely support this bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I obviously haven’t taken any part in this discussion to date, and I just want to congratulate the Hon Nick Smith on bringing a bill to the House that really will, I guess, last—well, outlast him, for sure, but the result of it will shore that district up for many years to come. I think that’s a pretty significant thing to do.

I want to comment on one or two other things with respect to water storage and related to this bill. I had the opportunity to drive up the valley and through to the West Coast a few months ago and just sort of observe what goes on in that part of New Zealand, and it’s amazing, the amount of opportunity there is not just for agriculture, interestingly, or for food production but for recreation, to shore up the values of that river and to create an amenity and an area that that community will benefit from for many years to come.

I also want to make a comment on the conservation land and the issue we have of using conservation land for what some in the House term “commercial purposes”. In fact, when you use conservation land for a thing like a dam, it’s actually using conservation land for conservation purposes. You could easily argue that, because I think that the value of these types of projects goes way beyond the value that perhaps commercial businesses might get out of it and extend into the recreation and into the amenities of the area and become of huge value to the people that live in those areas.

So I think that it’s a great project. It’s a project that we should be replicating throughout New Zealand, and I think it’s a sad thing that we’re not. It did occur to me, and I was thinking about water storage, and when you look at the greatest water storage we’ve got in New Zealand—you can probably call Lake Taupō that—Lake Taupō, of course, didn’t require a resource consent to build it; it just needed a slight explosion, and, actually, that’s how we got our biggest source of water in New Zealand. So I don’t think it’s any mystery, the fact that we should be looking at every opportunity we can to put propositions like this in place, and I think it should be a much easier process than it is.

When you think of the length of time that this has taken Mayor Kempthorne and his team to put in place, it’s pretty extraordinary that they would persevere for so long, but the result of that perseverance will be significant. I just hope that we can get this type of project operating in many other parts of New Zealand, and perhaps without the kind of grief that we’ve had, certainly, in one or two of the larger water storage proposals of the last year or two.

So I don’t want to add any more to the discussion, other than to congratulate the Governance and Administration Committee, the community, and certainly the member who brought this bill to the House. I look forward to it getting through by Christmas, and I also look forward to the next time I drive up that valley—and I think someone said earlier that it was the biggest boysenberry-producing part of New Zealand. I look forward to going up that way sometime when there are a few boysenberries for sale on the side of the road. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am delighted to add my contribution in support of this bill, the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. Yes, this is a very welcome bill. Can I acknowledge the member who brought this bill to the House, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and all the other local members: Maureen Pugh, the Hon Damien O’Connor, and, of course, yours truly—myself—who are local members. In fact, I can proudly say that the entire water storage lake of the Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme is in Te Tai Tonga, my electorate, so I too am very proud to stand in support of this bill.

Can I acknowledge also the Governance and Administration Committee for the thorough work that they’ve done, with assistance of officials, in doing some fine-tuning of the bill at select committee stage, and also being able to hear from the many submitters that took a keen interest in this bill.

This, as we have heard, is a long time coming. This project has been desperately needed in the Waimea district for many, many years, and, in particular, to support and assist the vibrant horticultural sector that is there. I’ve heard many contributions tonight talking about the boysenberries that are produced through the take from the Waimea, and I can attest that they are truly wonderful boysenberries. They are absolutely enormous. If you ever get the chance to go there, they are enormous boysenberries, and they make a pretty nice boysenberry schnapps as well.

There are a lot of businesses—whether it’s in the forests, the wood product processing sector, dairy interests, farms, and also, obviously, the horticultural sector—that will greatly benefit from this scheme. Likewise, the Nelson city, as well, will also benefit—Richmond, and the other parts of the Nelson city. So it’s a long time coming.

It’s a very welcome project. Sure, there has been a lot of opposition from certain parts, but when you think that there have been over 200 public meetings on this project—I think 200 public meetings is a pretty good thrashing of the issue. I want to acknowledge the Tasman District Council, led by His Worship Richard Kempthorne and his team of councillors, for being bold and for moving on, making sure that we can pass this legislation so we can get this project under way.

As the member for Te Tai Tonga, I represent and am very proud to represent all of the Māori that reside in the district concerned but also those members of the great tribes of what we call Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Māui—the prow of the canoe, the waka a Māui. So I’m very, very proud to represent all of those wonderful tribes of the north and their descendants that are on Te Tai Tonga roll, and I want to just highlight the point that, actually, there is only one specific iwi that actually has land interests which are directly affected by this scheme, and that iwi is Ngāti Kōata.

I was talking to Ngāti Kōata today—their board members. They are absolutely 100 percent supportive of this scheme, and what’s good for iwi, what’s good for Māori, is actually good for the region and good for the country. So they are 100 percent supportive of this scheme, and the other iwi in Te Tau Ihu, whilst they might not have actual land interests which are impacted by the scheme, they are supportive as well. They have been supportive prior to the bill’s introduction, and I am sure they will be extra supportive once they are able to fully take in the extra belt and braces, as Dr Nick Smith has mentioned, which gives those iwi which have rights of first refusal under their settlements in Te Tau Ihu—those rights are preserved on the occurrence of this scheme being decommissioned.

So with the preservation of those rights, I am certain that there will be wholehearted iwi support. In fact, it did come through at the last Te Wai Pounamu Te Tau Ihu iwi leaders’ meeting, and I’m sure that is just a mere formality which needs to be followed up prior to the final readings of this bill. So Ngāti Kōata are absolutely behind this 100 percent.

Interestingly, there isn’t actually too much historical Māori land in the Waimea—that’s another story I won’t go into—as opposed to the Motueka-Nelson reserves and the likes. But there actually isn’t what you would call historical or traditional Māori lands, present day, in that area apart from Ngāti Kōata and their lands, which were former Crown forest licensed lands which they acquired under their settlement. So as far as Ngāti Kōata are concerned, they wholeheartedly support this. They are leasing their lands into the scheme, and they also have a board seat on the company which will be operating the scheme. So they are very excited as to what the future will hold for them and the benefits that will accrue to the region as a result of this storage and the Waimea scheme.

So this is good for Māori and this is good for the local iwi. It does have the support of the iwi, and there are eight in the top of the South, right over from Rangitāne and Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Rārua—there’s a lot of iwi right across the top of the South, so it’s important that we do ensure that those that have the rights of first refusal are given due regard for that.

One interesting point that’s just come to mind is that as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, we deal with a lot of Treaty settlements, and these rights of first refusal, which are usually granted over commercial property, only last for 175-odd years. So, in this instance, those rights will be held in abeyance, I guess, until the future possibility, which might eventuate hundreds of years, maybe, down the track, whereby the water scheme is decommissioned, in which case those rights are preserved. So I do acknowledge the officials and the select committee for incorporating that into the bill, and I think it shows the honour of the Crown in making sure that they do honour those rights of first refusal arrangements. So I commend the inclusion of that in the bill.

Just to conclude, yes, this is a wonderful piece of legislation. This scheme will have huge benefits for the region, whether that’s economically but also the ecology of the river. Mrs Pugh was correct: this is all about the river—the mauri of the river. By ensuring that we have this water storage and that we can get consistent flows, it’s good for the river, good for the district, and good for the country. Kia ora tātou.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to make a brief contribution. First of all, I thank my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his contribution but, most importantly, he’s one of the most experienced MPs and also most committed to his electorate, and he also has a PhD in civil engineering.

The purpose of this bill is to authorise access to the Crown land to enable the Waimea Community Dam to proceed, so this, according to Dr Smith, is a no-brainer. I did some research online, and my conclusion is, indeed, that this is a no-brainer. This project has been under discussion for decades. In 1979, a study was commissioned, and then there were also proposals for other small dams in the area and in the region before 1993, but it was the severe drought in Tasman in the year 2000-01 that highlighted the magnitude of water shortage in the region. Ever since then, of course, there has been more discussion and debate, but eventually, the Waimea Community Dam was selected.

The dam has many benefits. First of all, it will improve the flow of the Waimea River, which means a healthy river ecology because of the normal flow of the river. It also means that this normal flow will ensure a steady supply of water for urban and rural needs. Economically, this dam is also very, very important, because horticulture is particularly important to New Zealand, and that region is really a base for horticulture in New Zealand. So it has national strategic importance.

In terms of GDP, there is a figure here: the dam could increase the region’s GDP by over $900 million over 25 years. So it is, indeed, a no-brainer. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 8

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Bill read a second time.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just ask your indulgence for a moment around a practical issue associated with this bill. There are significant commercial contracts that expire on 15 December, and the House has only one members’ day prior to the end of the year. My preference would be to seek leave for the committee stage and third reading to be set down for the next members’ day, and so I seek leave to do so—that is, to be clear, that the committee stage and third reading both be set down for the House’s last members’ sitting day on 12 December.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. We have that clear.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I’d just make a suggestion to Dr Smith that he put that through the Business Committee—the normal practice.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Madam Assistant Speaker, I’m happy to take that. I just did want to give members notice that we do have that practical difficulty, and if we could work together to find that solution that would be sincerely appreciated.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): So can I clarify—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can I clarify I will not put the leave today, but I’ll give notice to the House that it would be my intention either to seek leave or seek approval of the Business Committee to be able to manage the issue in that way. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): That’s perfect. Thank you very much.

Bills

Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill

Third Reading

GARETH HUGHES (Green): I move, That the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill be now read a third time.

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. So I’ve been a vegetarian my entire adult life, and this year I found myself in the odd situation of going through supermarket chillers, rifling through packs of bacon, looking at the labels. Looking at all of those labels, what I’ve discovered is it’s impossible.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, come back to our side. Come back to the good side.

GARETH HUGHES: It’s impossible. I’m a committed vegetarian. No amount of bacon cooking will persuade me. But anyway, what I want for those people who do eat bacon is that when they look at the labels they can work out where that bacon comes from, because the fact is when you look at bacon or pork or a whole bunch of other products in New Zealand it says “Made from local and imported ingredients.” Given that 85 percent of New Zealand bacon is imported, 95 percent of that is from countries with terrible, much worse animal welfare standards, our consumers are none the wiser. And it’s not just a problem with bacon; it’s a problem with all of our foods. It’s a problem with our food labelling laws, and that’s what we’re here to fix tonight.

Now, people care about where their food comes from for a variety of reasons. Maybe it’s labour conditions; maybe it’s for ethical reasons; maybe it’s to avoid antibiotics, pesticides, or genetic engineering. No matter the reason, I believe consumers have the right to know where their food comes from. They don’t even need a reason. Maybe they just want to know where their food comes from. The problem is you can’t exercise your consumer power if you don’t have the information provided. So 55 other countries around the world already have country-of-origin food labelling, including the US, the UK, and Canada. Australia has a comprehensive regime that even indicates the percentage of Australian-grown products within the food. Now, I would have preferred New Zealand to be the first country to introduce this, but we will be, hopefully, after tonight the 56th. We’ve required country-of-origin labelling on footwear and clothing since 1992 but not for food. Opinion polls have shown Kiwi consumers overwhelmingly want to know where their food comes from.

Now, the Green Party’s long been a champion for country-of-origin food labelling, and we have many of those champions in the House tonight. I want to acknowledge the longstanding advocacy of former Green MP Sue Kedgley and former Green MP Steffan Browning. These are two tireless champions for food safety, for food quality, for organics, for regenerative agriculture, and for animal welfare. It’s taken 16 years, multiple MPs, two select committee hearings, a select committee inquiry, a massive petition of 36,000 people led by Sue Kedgley, but I guess you could say sometimes good things take time. I think you could also say Green Party members are sometimes out in front and we’re ahead of the times. A lot of other groups have worked to get to this point, and I’d like to really single out Consumer New Zealand, Horticulture New Zealand, New Zealand Pork, and many others.

The bill passed its first reading—it was shepherded by Steffan Browning—and it went to the Primary Production Committee. It then went through two tranches of submissions, and I’d like to thank everyone. There were hundreds and hundreds of people and multiple groups who made a submission. I want to thank them. I want to thank the members of the select committee, including the chair, David Bennett, for their constructive engagement.

Going through the submission and consideration process it was clear some amendment to the legislation was needed to make the bill more workable and to achieve cross-party support. For example, rather than the original stand-alone Act how it was drafted, it was amended so that food labelling could be achieved through the existing Fair Trading Act. This was to avoid the confusion of having multiple regimes and requirements spread across different Acts, but it also is quite useful in the sense that it gives an existing regime to include or exclude a penalties regime and a regulation-making regime.

Now, in the select committee we heard some legal red herrings raised by some large corporate submitters. They would say that the risk was that country-of-food origin labelling would somehow breach our international obligations, disregarding the fact that many of our international trading partners have this. Now, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade came to the select committee and advised that it is possible to draft and propose the regime in such a way that it’s consistent with our international obligations. At this point, can I thank the officials who advised the committee.

Now, personally, I think the trade concerns were less about the legality and more about a campaign from some food producers to try and persuade other countries to weaken their labelling laws. Can I respectfully suggest to Fonterra, Federated Farmers, and Beef and Lamb, a more profitable food future for New Zealand producers is embracing our New Zealandness, highlighting our national food story, because we’ve got a fantastic story, rather than hoping to weaken other countries’ labelling regimes to export bland commodities.

Now, the biggest question the committee faced was whether it would bring home the bacon and include bacon in the legislation after being disregarded. Given, as I said, 85 percent of our pork products come from overseas, 95 percent of that with terrible animal welfare standards, it’s been odd for me as a vegetarian to be advocating for New Zealand Pork. It probably killed my vegetarian street-cred that New Zealand Pork put a press release out saying they thanked me for my advocacy. But I genuinely believe that if Kiwi consumers want to avoid poor animal welfare standards—

Hon Stuart Nash: Just try it, man. Just try it. It’s fantastic.

GARETH HUGHES: —they should be able to have the information—ha, ha! I’m sure it’s fantastic. I know it’s fantastic. It’s not the taste. I’m not eating it. I’m grateful that the committee did listen to the advocacy of groups such as New Zealand Pork and the overwhelming majority of submitters, and bacon was included. I thank the National Party in particular for that inclusion.

The original bill covered all single-component foods and was amended by the Primary Production Committee to only include “single-ingredient minimally processed foods”. The rationale for this was the committee wanted a scheme that was simple to implement, with the least cost, and to avoid confusion around definition. That’s why they proposed it be for fresh, frozen, unprocessed, minimally processed—for example, minced, cut or filleted. In some respects the bill was improved. But I believe by limiting the scope of foods covered it might disappoint some Kiwi consumers and confuse them about why some products are in and others aren’t. For example, it means that dried, cured, and pickled foods are out; nuts, grains, and seeds are not explicitly in at this point. I think people out shopping will be wondering why tomatoes are in but canned tomatoes are out; fruits are in but nuts are out; a cucumber’s in but a pickle’s out.

The line had to be drawn somewhere and the committee drew it there, but I hope over time the list of foods can be expanded so we can get closer to the Australian comprehensive regime. But still this bill acts as a great first step, a flexible first step, and a foundation for which further foods can be added through regulations in the Fair Trading Act. The ball’s now in the court of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, and he’ll start the process of consulting on the regulations under section 27 of the Fair Trading Act to set an information disclosure standard for country of origin of food. I hope this can happen as soon as practicable, and the legislation directs that it has to happen within 18 months. I hope he can take an expansive as possible approach to which foods require labelling. I’d like to also now take the opportunity to thank the Ministers Faafoi and O’Connor for their very positive approach and engagement throughout this process.

Now, the question for the country is what’s next for food labelling? I hope we can take this as a first step and maybe start to have the conversation about palm oil, whether that should be labelled—whether we should be modernising the dietary labelling information on labels. For fizzy drinks, why on earth don’t we have the number of teaspoons of sugar which are in a bottle of fizzy drink? But that’s for the future, and tonight this is about celebrating the passing of this legislation with the vast majority of support of Parliament—fingers crossed.

Thank you very much to everyone who’s made this possible: Labour, New Zealand First, and National. Passing this bill is a very positive first step, and it does give consumers more information power. It aligns us with other countries. The cost is likely to be absolutely miniscule for consumers, given that labels are changed all the time. It’s a great foundation for the Government to build on, and adding foods through the Fair Trading Act regulations means many more can be included.

I want to make sure that when those Kiwi consumers—if they’re in the bacon chiller at the supermarket or anywhere looking at a label—want to know where the food comes from, they’ll be able to get that information. I want to make sure that Kiwis have consumer power. We’ve got some of the best food in the world and such a great national story. We should be sharing it. Why on earth would we want to hide that away? Thank you very much to the parties for their support. Kia ora koutou.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I want to acknowledge Gareth Hughes and his contribution in the House this evening. I also want to acknowledge Steffan Browning, who brought the bill in and got it past its first reading in—when was that? That was way back in April 2017.

For us in the National Government at the time, that required quite a bit of soul-searching over whether we wanted to support the bill to the select committee. We did indeed vote for it in April to send it off to the select committee, and I remember at the time being briefed by Ian McKelvie, who was chair of the Primary Production Committee, and who was saying that this bill was pretty much a dog, the way it was originally drafted, and it needed a lot of resuscitation to get it to where it is today. About 400 people submitted on the original bill, and it wasn’t until we got the officials in front of the select committee—according to Mr McKelvie—that they realised that this bill was indeed a problem because with the way it was designed, it was indeed towards a single Act.

So what happened then was the committee decided to, effectively, gut the bill, and that’s covered in the bill. It talks about recommending that all provisions in the bill be deleted excluding the title, commencement, and purpose clauses. Indeed, the bill required a huge amount of panel beating, but—to give some positivity to the debate this evening—it was important that that did happen.

So then it got to the point of, effectively, being redrafted and put back out for further submissions, and we got almost another 400 submissions—386. There were a lot of consumers concerned about it and wanting to know where their food does come from, and the focus on the bill that we are debating this evening—and it looks likely that it will pass this evening—is more on the Fair Trading Act. It gives the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the ability to regulate to set these country-of-origin food regulations exactly under that Act. So the Minister, in time, could choose to set more food ingredients—single ingredients—through the regulations. At the moment, it is very focused on single ingredients that are fresh or frozen or, indeed, unprocessed, or minimally processed—what I mean by that is cut, filleted, or minced.

Like Gareth Hughes, I go to the supermarket and do quite a bit of shopping. Normally, I get given a list by my wife, and I spend a lot of time at the meat part of the supermarket—unlike Gareth Hughes. Yes, I heard the comments of New Zealand Pork in the select committee, and I understand that, potentially, there’s an advantage for New Zealand pork producers—knowing that a huge amount of our pork comes from overseas countries—so I get the fact that consumers want to know where their food comes from.

There’s a very important point: this bill is not about food safety; it’s about the origin of food and where that particular food comes from around the world. We shouldn’t cloud the fact that this bill is not focused on food safety, because New Zealand has world-leading food safety standards. They were strengthened when, indeed, we had the whey protein concentrate issue with Fonterra, which was a false alarm. So the food safety Act was strengthened as a result of that, and we should be proud of the fact that New Zealand produces premium food products that are exported to around 130 countries around the world.

So, in summary, we support the bill. It took a lot of work for the select committee to get comfort as to producing a bill that was simple and that was practical so that consumers know where their food comes from.

The final point that I want to make—and Gareth Hughes touched on it—is we were very focused on the fact that we didn’t want this bill to be a non-tariff barrier—in other words, a piece of regulation or law that could be used against us in international countries. We interrogated Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials, the Ministry for Primary Industries, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to give us some comfort that the regulations will be drafted in accordance with and that they meet our international obligations. So, with those particular comments, the National Party supports this bill.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege and an honour to rise and stand in the House tonight to speak on this bill. It would be remiss if we didn’t truly honour the whakapapa of this bill—those stewards that have over many, many years advocated on behalf of consumers and on behalf of New Zealand produce for New Zealand’s story to be told, so I pay my respects to and honour Sue Kedgley, who, I think, originally introduced this bill in 2007. It didn’t get past the first post at that time, but then it was picked up again by the Green Party member Steffan Browning. Steffan Browning in the 51st Parliament got it a fair way along. It was intended as a stand-alone bill and then it was picked up by my good friend and fellow East Coastian—it must be where all good things are from eh, Gareth, but the member—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

KIRITAPU ALLAN: —Gareth Hughes, the honourable member Gareth Hughes, from the mighty East Coast, Tai Rāwhiti.

But to see the passion and the enthusiasm with which you picked up that task—and it wasn’t an easy task which you were required to do. Some say it might have been a little bit like herding cats to get to the end point. But I do want to acknowledge just the way that you respectively worked with all the various considerations and constituencies across this House to get this bill to land where it has.

I want to also, too, acknowledge the advocacy of those in various industries: Eric Roy, New Zealand Pork. You know, it was at quite a late stage when cured meats came into the final product of this bill, and as we know—actually, I didn’t know at the time, until it was from strong advocacy from the likes of Eric and those within the industry that informed me that over 80 per cent of cured meats in New Zealand are imported. Now, I don’t know if a whole heap of folk really know that. I know I personally didn’t myself. So thank you for your advocacy on behalf of your industry to ensure that New Zealanders as consumers have the ability to identify and know where our good old Kiwi pork comes from.

One of the challenges, too, which we had substantive debate on over the course of this bill as it progressed through the various stages is that in New Zealand we have a very high expectation of our farmers and our agricultural sector with regards to our animal welfare standards, and we know that that contributes to “Brand New Zealand” and the way that we are portrayed and perceived around the world. Now, when those standards aren’t required by competing countries and you’re a New Zealand producer trying to produce a premium product but the consumer doesn’t know that there are those competing tensions and wonders why there’s one product that’s a whole heap cheaper than the other, it’s this bill that plays a significant role in ensuring that our farmers in New Zealand can maintain their competitive advantage at a domestic level. So to those within the industry, I commend you.

I also, too, want to acknowledge the likes of Mike Chapman from HortNZ. They too have been very vocal advocates on behalf of the horticultural industry. That’s particularly for fruit and vegetables, but fruit and vegetables that are consumed that do have competitive tensions with imported produce. Again, they contributed very effectively over the passage of this bill as it has been through its various heads. I do want to acknowledge the comments of the Hon Nathan Guy—the bill did require a little bit of panel beating, as I think he called it. Just to all the members on the Primary Production Committee over the period of that panel beating, but in particular to the officials who really came on board and, effectively, had to pull a bill out, completely amend it, and to the officials in the Hon Kris Faafoi’s office, as well, where it was brought under the fair trading scheme—I really just want to acknowledge the collaborative efforts of those various officials.

When we turn to the substance of the bill, for the Labour Party, it’s been our position for some time. It’s been interesting talking to various constituents who have advocated for country-of-origin labelling for many years, and talking to some of my senior colleagues over the course of this bill as it’s progressed through the House, understanding, again, the whakapapa, why things progressed and others didn’t, at a particular time. I guess we have to acknowledge the competing interests across industry within the primary industries. I don’t know if there’s universal consensus for this type of labelling, but I do know that for some of the smaller industries where there is extreme competition with imported produce against domestic produce, this will have a very significant effect.

I want to pick up, too, on the comments made, probably across the House but in particular made well by the member Gareth Hughes, that, yes, cucumbers are in but pickles are out, and we had to draw the line at some point. I want to acknowledge, for example, frozen vegetables. I remember quite an interesting discussion in a select committee one day, and I don’t think I’d ever really turned my mind to the life length of frozen broccoli and the impact that it would have if we had a universal commencement date for all produce that this bill intended to collect. If you think about it, if you’re a supermarket and you’ve got a whole lot of, well, frozen broccoli or peas, it’s going to take some time for that produce to sell. So there was, I guess, some sound reasoning as to why we extended out the time frames for the commencement date for frozen vegetables, for example, to come into the Act, and that’s around about—I think it’s 18 months, off the top of my head.

We placed a significant emphasis, or recommended replacing—[Bell rung] Oh, there we go. No, I’m good. I thought I was getting sat down already. I was just getting into it. Sorry, where was I? When we were going through our discussions in the select committee, I guess one of the extant issues for us to really work through—and I acknowledge again the advocacy of the various industry and the lobbyists that have discussed this point with us at some length—for this bill to have full effect, there obviously needs to be the design of the regulatory system that goes around and supports giving effect to the substance of this bill.

The consumer information standard that would be created through the regulation is going to require the country or place of origin of a regulated food to be disclosed by referring to where it was grown, caught, or raised, rather than simply where it was packaged or processed. I think that that was a substantive point of discussion over the period of time. The regulations are also going to require that the commencement date be six months after the date of its notification—that’s for the fresh foods—and 18 months after for the frozen foods.

Now, the definition for regulated foods—that caused a lot of discussion. I won’t cover that off again; I think Gareth did that pretty well. But I think a really big concern for a lot of people was making sure that we could remain consistent with our international trade obligations. So the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did advise us that this bill could be implemented without breaching any of our international trade obligations, and right now, given the current trading environment that we’re operating in, and given the fact that we have things like the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which will have immeasurable impact—anyway, it’s been a pretty interesting journey—

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

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. If there’s one sure thing in life, it’s that you always get caught out in the end. I’d spent a whole lot of time in the early days of this bill telling Steffan Browning what a wonderful bill he’d designed and how great a job he’d done of bringing it to the House, and I get stood up by the ex-Minister Nathan Guy and told it was a dog of a bill, and probably it was. Fortunately, the last speaker, Kiritapu Allan, backed me up to some extent, but I do apologise to Steffan for leading him astray if he’s in the House, because it did take a little bit of getting into shape.

I also want to acknowledge Gareth Hughes, who got this bill through the House after Steffan left. Like him, I have a bit of an interesting time with bacon too because, whilst I’m not a vegetarian, I don’t like shiny meat, and many will know the reasons for that: actually, shiny meat has got a whole lot of additives, so how can it be a pure product? It can’t be. Anyway, that’s a little beside the point as well.

I just want to make a couple of comments on this, and one of them related, I think, to discussions that many people in this House have had in the course of the progress that we made with the geographical indicators bill, where this topic came up time after time. Interestingly, the chairman of New Zealand Pork is in the House as well tonight, and he would’ve been part of that very same discussion—so there’s a lot of people in this House who have had a discussion on this issue. I think there was a will right throughout the House to try and make this sort of thing work, and so I want to congratulate the Primary Production Committee on getting to where they got to with it, really, because I think they’ve done a great job of it. And I want to congratulate the House on getting to that point, too, during the discussion in the committee stage. So I think it’s an excellently put together bill in the end.

I also think that, when you look at the international market place, almost everywhere you go in the world now, you’ll see country-of-origin labelling—not used, as Nathan Guy said, to mean food safety or any better than anything else; but it’s sold by country. You’ll go to a supermarket in the United States, for example, and meat is sold by the country it comes from, not necessarily by how good or bad it is, but it’s how it’s labelled. And you see that in Singapore and right throughout Asia as well. So it’s becoming very prevalent. And I also think that we’re going to see this bill being the forerunner to many alterations to this in the future enhancing this type of labelling, and that’s because consumers want to know about it.

The last point I want to make, and it did relate to the geographical indicators bill, is that there was a lot of talk about the fact that this could be used as a trade barrier. There was never an intention for that to happen, and I don’t think there’s any danger of that happening, either. I think it’s purely information, really. It gives people information about where their food comes from and that gives them comfort to continue down the path and use that. So that’s pretty much all I want to contribute to the third reading of this bill. I congratulate all those who are associated with it. I think it’s quite exciting that it’s got through the House. Thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First as we bring this Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill home in its third reading, and what a long time this gestation period has been.

I would like to acknowledge some of the early proponents of this bill—Steffan Browning and Sue Kedgley and, of course, Gareth Hughes, who has done such a fine job shepherding it through this 52nd Parliament. Of course, New Zealand First have also been long-time proponents of this bill, and I think Richard Prosser spoke fairly decisively in favour of the bill at the first reading. It has been a longstanding position of New Zealand First. Of course, there’s no point in being New Zealand First if you’re not totally in favour of New Zealand products, so it’s totally in our space. We like to see New Zealand products showcased to the absolute premium and maximum of their potential, and this is what this bill will allow consumers to know; New Zealand products are able to be showcased and consumers will know that they are getting the very best produce in the world.

It’s not only the quality of the food; it’s the provenance of the food. And, of course, there are big drives on at the moment to lift our environmental standards and certainly our animal welfare standards. And, of course, we have the highest of food safety standards. I think those are the things that consumers actually really do want to know, and consumers in 55 other countries know this already. We normally pride ourselves on leading the world in this sort of thing, so it is a pity that it’s taken as long to come through as it has. I am pleased that the National Party are supporting this, but it has been like pulling teeth over time. So we finally got them on board and are getting unanimous support for this bill.

Of course, as has been traversed, we did have to make some changes in terms of how we brought this bill forward. We’ve had to create a consumer information standard under section 27 of the Fair Trading Act 1986, and it covers produce that is grown, caught, or raised in whatever country that it is—it will have to be recorded, in terms of single-component foods, at point of sale. As supportive as we were as a caucus, the clear direction I got from the senior members of the caucus who had been through several iterations of this bill was to keep it as simple as possible in the first instance, because it does—and as we discovered through the select committee process—get very complicated very quickly.

So this has very much got to be seen as foundation legislation. It’s the framework which we can build upon, and I think we will probably build upon it quite quickly. I think the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, who will have the power of regulation to expand the bill as he sees fit, will do so in time because the traceability is just getting so much more advanced. Technologies like blockchain—just massive amounts of information are able to be condensed down and processed incredibly quickly. So I think this is getting easier all the time, to do this traceability. As we’ve seen through the consumer studies, actually, I think 78 percent of New Zealand consumers wanted this legislation coming through.

There are also some teeth in this. There’s a $10,000 fine for an individual or $50,000 for a company that transgresses this particular Act, so that’s good. We need to have some back-up.

I would like to showcase the cured pork carve-out because that was one—and I’d also like to acknowledge the chairman of New Zealand Pork, Eric Roy, who’s here tonight, and Francis Parker, who’s been, actually, a stand-out advocate. I actually would like to say that the pork industry, out of all the primary industries in my short time at Parliament that have lobbied us, has probably done the best. They represent something like 93 farmers—they’re a very small industry in the grand scheme of things, but they actually do it really cleverly.

Hon Ruth Dyson: They bring home the bacon.

MARK PATTERSON: They bring home the bacon—well, they certainly have tonight. But I think they are actually an exemplar of how you don’t have to have a big budget to engage constructively with Parliament. Of course, almost two-thirds of our pork products are imported and 85 percent of those come from countries that don’t have animal welfare standards that would meet our own. Whilst we have to be very mindful of the non-tariff barriers and imposing those—and that has been discussed earlier—as an exporting country where we export 90 percent of our food, we cannot be placing non-tariff barriers, or being seen to, so we had to dance around that and make sure that we ticked those boxes very, very carefully, and we certainly did that. It has been to the detriment of the pork industry, the waves of cheap imports, but many of them do not have the same compliance regulations as our local products do. So I’m sure all New Zealand consumers will be getting out there and supporting their New Zealand - raised pork. Well, perhaps not Mr Hughes, but he’s probably earned his exemption from purchasing. Also, I think 20 percent of beef in the winter is imported from Australia, mainly, and I think that’s something that consumers wouldn’t necessarily know.

Just going on to Mr McKelvie’s statement before about how consumers around the world do have access to this information already, and it is a big showcase. I recently, over the recess, had the privilege of going to Taiwan with a couple of my parliamentary colleagues—Kieran McAnulty and Priyanca Radhakrishnan, for those that are interested; it was not a junket, we were working hard—and one of the things you do when you go on those trips is you go to the local produce markets to see what New Zealand produce you can find. We went to this particular delicatessen where we found some Zespri kiwifruit. All the product there was beautifully presented—absolutely beautifully presented. We saw some beef steaks from Japan, wagyu beef that was selling for the equivalent of $190 for what looked like about a 300-gram steak—just for a single steak. That’s what you can do if you really showcase your product, if you’ve got a premium product and you can really position it in the market. I think if we’re doing this domestically, it’s going to help us doing it overseas.

I back up the comments, I think, that were made by Kiritapu Allan earlier, that the New Zealand entities that probably showed some resistance to this in the select committee process, some of the bigger export lobbyists or lobby groups, are actually missing the point totally. It is a real opportunity for us to be really proud of what we export, and we shouldn’t be at all concerned that that may be imposed on us overseas, and, in fact, it is already, of course, in 55 other countries.

So, in conclusion, I think it has been, actually, a really good example of the Parliament working well. I have considered long and hard whether I’m prepared to put this on the Hansard, but the Hon David Bennett actually did a pretty fair job of shepherding it through as the chairman of the Primary Production Committee. He’s done some pretty woeful other things but on this particular occasion he was pretty competent. It shows when you’ve got a will to get something through as a committee and as a Parliament that you can make anything happen, even some relatively complicated legislation like this.

I’d also like to commend the officials. We did get really good support. It was quite a complicated process, and, again, the Parliament is well served by our officials, as we were in this case.

So without further ado, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like, on behalf of New Zealand First, to once and for all commend this Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill to the House. Thank you.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, it was clear to see the National Party heritage of that member, Mark Patterson, coming to the fore again as he commended—the tone in his voice as he admired—the Hon David Bennett. Fantastic work—come on over, son. Come on over.

Now, look. Let’s delay no more. The time is here. This bill can now progress. It can be released into the legislative wilderness to commence its merry journey. We’ve heard from the other side of the House how it has taken some time to reach this point, and I encourage them to delay no more. Seize this opportunity. Shorten your calls and advance it forthwith.

So, clearly, we’ve heard, it gives the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the right to include regulatory powers to capture some consumer information standards. Yep, those are appropriate on certain foods, and that’s around single ingredients. That was one of the big complicating factors here: how do you assess a country of origin if there are multiple potential ingredients—etc., etc. So we’re talking fruit, vegetables, meat, and seafoods—captured in fresh or frozen state—able to be included under this.

Now, one of the concerns we’d had, and it was voiced by the Hon Nathan Guy initially, on this side was around the potential for this to become a non-trade barrier, and given trade is so important for New Zealand, that was a big concern for us. That’s been alleviated, though, and so we’re happy to support it at this stage.

It’s important to touch on—and I don’t think I’ve heard it, actually, in tonight’s debate—that this is for retail sale of food products. So where they’re sold in supermarkets, for example, it would be required to have this country-of-origin labelling, but if food is sold in a presented state in a restaurant, for example, then that is not required—also any food being sold at a fundraising event. So you can imagine a local community group going along to their local Bunnings Warehouse store, for example. They’ve got enough to worry about with trying to determine whether onions should be on top or underneath sausages, without having to then worry about trying to include an origin for that particular product. So on that basis, this side of the House commends the bill and encourages the opposite side to get on with it. Thank you.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I’m proud to rise and contribute to the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. I’m proud to rise in support of this, because I come from the beautiful Tai Rāwhiti of the beautiful electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti where, of course, amongst other things we are the citrus capital of Aotearoa, where we sell 75 percent of all oranges. Not to say that we are also the chardonnay capital of Aotearoa, although some of our colleagues across the way will dispute that. But I’m proud because this bill goes some way, from my perspective, to not only protecting but enhancing, and sharing the authentic Aotearoa New Zealand food story. This is what this bill enables.

I too want to stand and congratulate the original ushers of this bill—mentioning the former Green member Sue Kedgley and, of course, I want to acknowledge a friend that I shared membership of the Primary Production Committee with, Steffan Browning, who has also joined us here in the House, and, of course, a fellow Gisbornite Gareth Hughes who has ushered this bill through. It’s exciting times.

Like the bill says—the purpose is actually in the title—it allows the consumers the right to know what’s in their food. Of course we’ve heard lots of contributions from various members in the first and second readings and committee stage of the bill about how the select committee decided to take an approach to get the bill through. I want to commend the vision and the collaborative way in which members of the select committee, obviously supported by the officials, ensured that we brought a bill to this House that we can unanimously agree will make a difference to, like I said earlier, protecting and enhancing the unique Aotearoa New Zealand food story.

In that regard, I just want to deviate slightly and acknowledge an ancestor of mine by the name of Hine Hākirirangi, who travelled in the mighty waka migration. Her brother was Paoa, who was the captain of the Horouta waka, and comes from our region. She was renowned for bringing the kūmara plant to Aotearoa New Zealand. People will say, “How do you preserve a kūmara plant when you are travelling across the sea?” Well, Hine Hākirirangi actually strapped the plants under her breast line. Research says that she created an innovative boob tube to keep the plants dry and warm. And she planted them, when they landed here in Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa on my maunga of Manawarū. So we claim to be the first planters of the kūmara through our tipuna Hine Hākirirangi.

So back to the bill, because this was about celebrating our unique New Zealand food story. This bill, although the debate has been on whether it goes deep and wide enough and what foods are in it and what foods are out, I think it’s an absolute starting point to ensure that consumers when they go into the stores, like we in this House all do, and make informed choices about what foods we want to buy, then we want to be able to pick up those items and actually know where they’ve come from. And why do we want to do that? We want to ensure that we are making those informed decisions that the foods we are purchasing are safe.

But we also want to flip it and say, “Actually, if we have a country of origin and we’ve got good New Zealand Aotearoa unique stories about our food, then why can’t we promote the provenance and competitive advantage that this bill can also enable to happen?” So it is a thought, and I know it doesn’t go far and not everyone’s going to be happy on both sides of the debate, but actually, as a progressive nation protecting our unique competitive advantage, it is definitely a bill that we need to celebrate in this House.

Of course there’s been mention around supermarkets versus community events in terms of you don’t have to be subjected to this mandatory labelling. I just want to stand up in this House and acknowledge all the farmers markets, again throughout my electorate—Hawke’s Bay farmers market, Gisborne’s farmers market—because many of us frequent those farmers markets and they actually grow great local produce. Of course they will be relieved, I guess, knowing that this bill does not capture the food produce that they grow locally and sell in their own respective farmers market. Of course that’s a phenomenon that’s gone right throughout the country and it’s uniquely New Zealand and it should be protected and celebrated.

So again, the bill that’s been presented, debated, does go a long way to contribute, like I said earlier and what everybody has said, to ensuring that consumers are well informed when they purchase certain food groups. It is a starting point. We need to ensure, when we pass this bill in its third and final reading—empowering the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs through the Fair Trading Act—that this bill enables him to enhance the regulations if we want to expand the capture of the existing food groups that have been identified through this bill. That again sends a very serious signal to our traders, to our trading partners, how seriously we take and protect the Aotearoa New Zealand food story.

So I want to again acknowledge the original folk that brought this bill into the House and, of course, the hard-working collegial work of the select committee and, without doubt, the patience of the officials. When you look at the bill and how pretty much parts have been deleted, it means that they have worked very hard to ensure that we are presenting a bill here that all sides of the House agree with.

So I’m pleased, like I said, to say that I come from one of the most beautifully producing regions throughout this country. This bill will go a long way to ensuring that we have at least consideration for discerning consumers that frequent supermarkets, as I do. I’m not like Mr Hughes there, who goes and hunts out all the pork. You know, it depends on how you feel about any given day whether pork is on the menu or not, but I’m glad that the select committee took the pork industry submission seriously and made the last adjustments to ensure that bacon was included in this bill. Like Mr Hughes, I have concerns around our pork industry and the importing of too much pork and not ensuring that our own local pork industry is allowed to grow and flourish. This bill isn’t about addressing that, but it does say that we do listen to our pork industry producers and hence we have included that particular food product in this bill.

I don’t have much more to add, but it was important that we got up on this side of the House to support this third and final reading. It’s important that we are giving consumers informed decisions around food choices. The Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill is intending to do exactly that. It is a starting point; it’s not an end point. And like we’ve heard other members say in this House, giving the powers to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to regulate to add more foods to the list, I think is the right way. I’m assured that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs will ensure that the right checks and balances are applied before he adds to that list. That’s an assurance I’ve heard him give in this House. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its speedy passage in its final reading. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, it is great to have this bill get to the third reading, and it’s an opportunity to reflect on how it got here. I would like to congratulate the member Gareth Hughes for shepherding it through what was at times quite a difficult select committee stage, but we got it there and it’s now here for the third reading. But my constituent, who, I hope, is in the—oh, he is there. It’s fantastic to have Steffan Browning here, who was the originator of the bill, and to have him in the gallery to enjoy this moment tonight is, I think, fantastic. It wasn’t the last act that Steffan did in his time in this House, but it was pretty close to it. So it’s fantastic to have him here to enjoy this moment. I think what drove Steffan was, of course, the right for people to know exactly where their food comes from and the country of origin that it comes from. He’s a very great supporter of the farmers market in Blenheim, and I think that sort of speaks really to what drove him.

Coming from Marlborough, of course, which is New Zealand’s largest wine-producing region, every bottle of wine actually has on it the country of origin. So it’s a given in the wine industry and it has been for many, many years, and it is quite natural that people would expect to know where everything else that they consume comes from. You make your own choice whether you’re going to drink a New Zealand wine or a Chilean wine, but you now also can make a choice whether you’re going to eat a New Zealand potato or an Australian potato or an Irish potato. I think that we all actually understood that. The select committee was all behind it and, obviously, the House is all behind it.

There were some sorts of difficulties with the legislation, as we thought there would be when we worked our way through. In the end, we found out that the Minister had the right, through regulation, to do it anyway. To be able to pass the various regulations is quite difficult legislatively, to put it all in legislation as to where a food type ends, or as to when does it become a New Zealand item or an Australian item, when you start to add other ingredients into a food item for sale, so I think it’s fantastic that we got there in the end, and I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a five-minute call.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to speak at the third reading of this bill, the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. I too want to acknowledge Mr Gareth Hughes for bringing this bill to the House, but also the originator of this bill Mr Steffan Browning, from Marlborough—mighty province—for the work that he did. I know that this bill should be equally shared between Mr Hughes and Mr Browning.

It has been a long passage for this bill, but it was actually a very rewarding exercise for us, as the Primary Production Committee, to actually work through all the issues here. As we’ve heard, we started with a stand-alone bill. It had quite a lot of issues with it. We heard many submissions. We had excellent advice from our advisers, and I do want to acknowledge all of the officials and advisers that were constantly asked. We were testing them every step of the way to try and come up with new things or testing some ideas that we had.

In the end result, I think we have a very fine piece of legislation. We’re amending the Fair Trading Act to provide for these new consumer information standards. The actual details in terms of how the country of origin labelling will actually roll out will be set out in regulations, and it will be staggered so the industry will have time to adopt these new labelling requirements.

I think we’ve had all of the different interests in our minds in the crafting of what we’ve got now with this bill. It’s all about the consumer. It’s all about giving the consumer the information about the origin—where their food comes from. I believe that we have made a very bold step with this legislation in ensuring that that will now happen. It will happen. There will be labelling. Sure, we’re not going to be covering every possible food item—the many thousands that are on our shelves—but it will apply to single-ingredient foods that are fresh or frozen and unprocessed or minimally processed. That was one of the big tasks of our committee: where do we draw the line? How large or how small? How many foods do we capture? But I think we actually struck a really good starting point by the single-ingredient foods

I had a stroke of inspiration when we were in the select committee—probably the one and only contribution I’ve really made—when I actually came up with: what about frozen foods? That opened up a whole new dimension of our discussions because prior to that it was all about fresh foods. So that sort of enlarged it to frozen single-ingredient foods. I like to think that my little “frozo-contribution” has helped improve the bill that we have here today.

This is a very welcome piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge all the contributions that have been made so far, especially Mr van de Molen, the new National Party thespian. I think he’ll rival Andrew Bayly in terms of the presence that he has in the House. They’ve been wonderful contributions. This is worthy of a celebration—it’s worthy of a celebration—and, while Mr Hughes cannot enjoy pork, I’m sure we’ll be able to do a pot of New Zealand pork and pūhā. I’ll have the pork, and he can enjoy the greens. But it’s worthy of a celebration because the consumers now across Aotearoa will, in time, know the country of origin of a fair amount of foods that they purchase every day—where they will be coming from. Thank you. Kia ora tātou.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Hey, I’d like to acknowledge all the previous speakers. I’ve had enough of Mark Patterson’s puns in the House tonight—I’m not one to tell porkies! All the issues have been well traversed. The Nats support this bill. Parliament costs $300 a minute, so I’m going to speak for one minute and save us $1,200. I commend this bill to the House.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I had to get up in a bit of a flash for that one. Thank you very much to the previous speaker. I’m pretty pleased—and proud as, actually—to be able to stand here and support the dignified whakapapa of this legislation, the country-of-origin food labelling bill, and pretty impressed with my colleagues and our members who have brought this bill to this place and absolutely appreciative of the House and the wide support that the members have given to this bill. This is a long campaign of the Green Party in particular, and my colleague Gareth Hughes has been able to bring it to its final reading—third reading—tonight in the House. It’s a massive moment for our country, actually, and for citizens to be able to know where their food comes from.

I have to be able to mention that Steffan Browning—is Sue up there tonight?—and former members are up in the gallery tonight, watching the passage of this final reading. Sue Kedgley, who brought the original bill in, I think, 2007, and, of course, Steffan, who brought it through the last Parliament. So much work also around, in 2007, the 39,000 signatures, I understand, that were presented in a petition in support of New Zealanders being able to know where their food comes from. So I’m proud of the membership in the community-driven mandate to get this bill to where it is. It’s a bit cute of my colleague Gareth Hughes, as someone who doesn’t eat meat, with the economic benefit of this bill being equivalent to quite a bit of meat eating—if we’re talking about consumption benefit, at least. So, again, really proud.

I understand that 55 other countries already have these sorts of standards in place, so I’m glad we’re getting there. Actually, I was thinking. I am a little bewildered as to why it actually took this long. I think this is pretty common sense and a fantastic step for the people of our country to be able to know where their food comes from. I’m glad we’re finally doing it, and that’s the leadership. The fact that 55 other countries have it, I understand, was perhaps some of the nervousness from some industry, as my colleague Gareth Hughes already alluded to in his speech tonight. There was perhaps some nervousness because of some industry wanting to not have the same standards put in place for them. But I say, back our New Zealand brand, back our New Zealand products, and see the added value and the economic benefits for our own New Zealand made products.

I’m really pleased that we’re putting this through. I had a look and my colleagues in the House tonight have covered what the actual bill includes, but I did want to at least mention that what is happening, under the Fair Trading Act, is there will be this “disclosure of a regulated food’s country or place of origin.” It is interesting that those “regulated foods must include food that—(a) is either—(i) only 1 type of fruit, vegetable, meat, fish, or seafood that—(A) is fresh … or frozen and is not, for example, dried, cured, or pickled; and (B) [that] is no more than minimally processed”—just to give members and people a little bit of further understanding. There’s been lots of acknowledgment tonight of pork being put in. I think that’s really good, considering that, I think, two-thirds of pork is imported, including from countries that may have weak or no animal welfare standards. Because this is really just about informed choice and people being able to make those informed choices with this labelling, at least informed of the country of origin.

I did actually appreciate my colleague Meka Whaitiri’s discussion on country of origin as a wider issue. She talked about the whakapapa and the indigenous ingenuity of transporting and transferring foods. It made me think of heirloom seeds and the journey of the kūmara. Obviously, in this bill, it excludes, I guess, second on-sell, like if you’re going to be selling food in cafes or restaurants, of course, the committee and the advisers have obviously found that it’s perhaps not pragmatic and practical to have labelling in that instance but that we’re particularly looking at origin, retail, and supply, so food labelling required for that.

I just also wanted to pick up on where to next, mainly because, as my colleague referred to, there were quite a lot of changes that this bill went through, through the committee, with good advice. We’ve, perhaps, got a good starting point of what is included and how. It’s really good to see that we’ve got a bit of enforcement through offences for false or misleading labelling on packaged food, I understand, with fines of up to $10,000 for individuals and $50,000 for organisations, just to give it a little bit of teeth and to ensure that we mean what we say when we want New Zealanders to know where their food comes from. But it did go through some other sort of compromises and changes and a little bit of balancing-out of a pragmatic approach and being sure that we can also put in further regulations that are going to have a little bit more of the detail of how we do this.

It does, then, leave the question of where to next, if this is a good starting point. I absolutely wanted to pick up on the possibility, for example, of plain language in ingredients. For example, I have to have help from my personal trainer to understand that one teaspoon of sugar equals four grams and that 800 milligrams of sodium should be our cut-off point. See, I can’t get that understanding from the current way that I have a whole one second of supermarket time to look at and try and work this out. I do think there’s possible areas of plain language to be looked at.

New Zealanders, with this bill, will have the power to make their choices based on country of origin, and the reasons why New Zealanders, in surveys and petitions, are in clear support of this is because they want to make those ethical consumer choices. That will mean that there is still work to do, especially around things like palm oil production and really needing to know what products we are buying have that included.

So, all in all, a celebration for our country tonight and my personal pride in my colleagues and the members of the party who have pushed this through, my appreciation for the colleagues across the House and their acknowledgment of this as a real positive step for our industry, for our market, and especially for our citizens.

I wondered if, perhaps, also we might even start to drill it down to town or region of origin in the future. Although, you could just be like Paeroa and actually just put the name of your town on the fizzy drink that they make, so that everyone’s very clear. Sometimes you can work out the town of origin if it is New Zealand made. But this is a really good step and a really good sign. I congratulate Gareth Hughes, Steffan Browning, Sue Kedgley, and all the members, that we are able to put this through tonight. Kia ora.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a privilege to take a short call on the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill, which is in the name of Gareth Hughes and is going through its third reading tonight. I just want to congratulate the member for all his hard work and mahi in bringing the bill this far, and the difference that it is going to make. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it is an honour and a pleasure to speak—and I think I may be the last speaker—on the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. Good things take time, and I can go back some years in this place and recall, I guess, early discussions. I’d like to acknowledge Steffan Browning and I know Sue Kedgley is up there in the gallery, and there are a few new converts to this, with Eric Roy being one of them, given he’s on the New Zealand Pork board now. He too sees the wisdom of this. Some have seen it for a long time.

But it’s kind of typical really, we do all the hard work—us old blokes and lasses—and some young whippersnapper comes along and claims all the credit for it. So I guess in acknowledging the member Gareth Hughes here, look, he’s done a great job. Some of it’s about timing and it’s about having a bit of luck, but he’s followed through on what has been started a long time ago.

The question is, you know, as a food-producing nation, why didn’t we have this in place a long time ago? I can only speak for the good old days, and that’s the last time we were in Government and this issue did come up. Sue Kedgley was one of the MPs, and I guess that at that time, the proposal was bound in with a lot of other initiatives from the Green Party that in the view of the coalition partner, the Labour Party, it was kind of one step too far, considering the trade implications in it. So, unfortunately, the country-of-origin labelling part of it got parked. I’ve always personally been a staunch advocate for it and, indeed, it’s been Labour Party policy for at least the last three elections, but, as I say, good things take time.

Can I say the fact that 55 other countries have this in place, or a similar system, does say that we’re a bit slow in getting around to it. We talked about geographical indicators, and, in fact, we passed a piece of legislation in this House that actually protects the right of winegrowers to say where their wine comes from—not just its country but, actually, the region of a country. So we’ve accepted the wisdom and the value of that for wine.

“Provenance” is a word that’s kicked around a lot, so other regions in the world—and Europe, in particular—that have traded on this have appreciated that consumers want to know not only the country but the region that food comes from. I think that as we move forward to having more value and not just volume from everything we do in the primary sector, we’re starting to appreciate and look for the potential for provenance to deliver better value for the farmers, for the growers, for the horticulturist, and, indeed, for the consumers, because people want to know that the food that they are consuming is good for them, has been produced in an ethical way, and, indeed, comes from a country that is proud to produce safe food—that is, indeed, New Zealand.

I guess we could say that the member has also brought home the bacon, to some extent, and, obviously, there were some contentious issues that came up through this bill. I personally would have rather had a bill with a wider scope, and, as Minister for Food Safety, that was one of the discussions we had with the Green Party and with members of the select committee, but it was too hard. There are technical issues—I appreciate that—so in the end, we’ve arrived at what I think is a fair balance to get a country-of-origin labelling system in place that we can build on as we learn and start to appreciate more, as I say, the issues of provenance.

I’ve got a dream that Golden Bay, in the top of my electorate, which is a geographically isolated area except for a good road in and out and wonderful sea links, and is an area proud of its produce—if it gets on board and it gets some support from Fonterra, it will develop a provenance brand around Golden Bay that looks at seafood, that looks at dairy products, and that looks at meat products and horticulture. They will start to build value from everything that they do.

Can I say that in terms of the definition of “country of origin”—and it’s probably been referred to by previous speakers—it’s that it’s the country in which the food was grown, harvested, or raised, but not where it was packaged, manufactured, or processed. So it is, as I said, at an early stage of consumers’ right to know.

Can I say, regarding the questions of whether it is packaged, manufactured, or processed, that those things are becoming more important and the international food trade. Can I put on the record that in the area of mānuka honey, where we, as a Government, established a standard that says “This is scientifically proven mānuka honey.”, and monofloral and multifloral—there are issues around that. But we’re proud to have established something that is getting for us in the market place some really, really crazy—I’d almost say—prices for 500 grams of mānuka honey because there are some medicinal properties connected with that. I know that if it is used on open wounds, it can clear those up sometimes when other normal, conventional medicines won’t do it—the point being that we have a really valuable product. But there’s an issue around the credibility of that in some markets, and so there’s Miere, which is a group of Māori honey producers, and the bee-keepers and a number of others who have made an application for a trade mark application that would protect their right to claim the term “mānuka” in the market place, and can I say that we support that as a Government.

Nuk Korako: Really?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We do. They’ve come to us for some money. But can I say that I’ve been somewhat cautious because we do and, I think, we should go to the courts to ensure that we have a trade mark to protect “mānuka”, but as long as there are people exporting mānuka honey in either big drums or in lesser containers that ends up not being pure mānuka honey, then our country’s reputation is at risk. So I put on the record that we will support that application if the honey industry get their act together and bring some self-discipline off the back of a standard established by the Ministry for Primary Industries and an export process and packaging process that should ensure that what is on the label, or what is in the jar, is true to label.

So I’m happy to say that off the back of the initiative passed in this House tonight to identify country-of-origin labelling, it gives us value as a country and enables consumers to know where their food comes from. But in exporting products from our country—particularly, if a trade mark is established—we need to know that what we export is absolutely true to label and has integrity in every part of the production system behind that. So I look forward to us making progress on that.

Can I say that the wine industry, too, is a very proud wine industry. Producing Marlborough sauvignon blanc is, I guess, clearly the best international brand that we have, but a third of that is exported in bulk and bottled offshore, and for the most part, it is true to label. It’s “Marlborough sauvignon blanc” when it’s sold in the shops around the UK and EU and in other markets, but there is a lesser, if not a complete, inability to actually guarantee that what goes in a bottle is what has left our shores. So the packaging, manufacturing, and processing of food from New Zealand is, arguably, just as important—particularly in the export markets—as the production of this and the growing of it. The reality is that when we have food that is of value, then people want to copy that and use our labels, or use our reputation, to sell their own food.

Can I say that there’s another issue here, which was discussed, I’m sure, by the select committee, and that is what types of food businesses will be required to label. At this point, the supermarkets, when they sell fruit and the single-ingredient products covered by the legislation, will be, but restaurants will not be required to. What I’d say to you is that it should be New Zealand’s long-term objective to have restaurants proudly displaying the food that they are selling and its country of origin, because in that way, the effort that New Zealand farmers and horticulturalists put into growing the finest-quality food—and if it’s purchased by a restaurant to sell on to customers, then they should be proud of saying “We bought this from the best country in the world.” So, again, that is another evolution, I think, that will come from this very, very good piece of legislation.

Can I say that this is a wonderful piece of legislation. It’s taken a long time to get here, but this will support the efforts of New Zealand producers—get them more value—because people will want to buy from the country that produces the finest food in the world.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 31 October.

Clause 4 Section 70 amended (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Before we continue, I want to advise members that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 164 in the name of Dr Duncan Webb to clause 4, to replace “8 years” with “1 year”, is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill as agreed at the second reading, and therefore this amendment will not be debated.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think going through in clauses is somewhat irrelevant because this whole entire bill is about clause 4, obviously, and in the original bill it’s about changing the maximum penalty for suppliers and for manufacturers from two years, and what Simeon Brown is wanting to do is move it through to eight years. The reason for that—and it’s understood: the intent of why Simeon Brown wants to do that—is because of a couple of reasons, but we’ll get into the technicalities in a second.

If you’re looking at comparing psychoactive drugs—and, in particular, the synthetic cannabis, which is the genesis of this bill and the reasoning behind what this bill is about and where it came from—and what is currently in the Misuse of Drugs Act and what we currently classify as hazardous drugs for very good reasons, there really is no comparison. I think one interesting point to note on the maximum prison sentences is that during the speeches in this House on the Psychoactive Substances Bill there was very little, if any at all, discussion or debate on the maximum penalties for supplying, manufacturing, and peddling these kinds of drugs. And I think it’s also important to note that this really isn’t about the drugs themselves. I know that might be contrary to logic, but it’s not actually about the drugs themselves, because the Psychoactive Substances Act is actually about the licensing of a product. And when something becomes illegal, it’s because it’s not legally licenced and gone through the loopholes.

What we’re dealing with and why it’s such a complex answer is because it’s not easily identifiable what those drugs are, and when a manufacturer comes up with a drug, they can change it in a heartbeat and then reapply to go through the licencing process. So it’s not as easy as just willy-nilly putting something in and identifying it as a drug in the Misuse of Drugs Act like the rest of the illegal drugs are; it’s about the process, and the process that the people who supply this drug and manufacture it have found a way around.

I think that we’ve had enough discussion in this House in regards to the issues between the users—those who are addicted—and those who are manufacturing, supplying, and peddling this drug. I think that it’s a very, very important clarification or difference between identifying a different approach that we need to take, that we haven’t really been able to tackle over the years since we’ve had this problem, in regards to how we address the problem with the users and those addicted and those who are peddling and manufacturing this drug.

I’d like to highlight a couple of the most important examples of why New Zealand First is supporting this bill. But not only that; we believe that the original eight years as a maximum sentence for supplying and manufacturing and dealing this drug doesn’t go quite far enough. We need to increase that to 14 years, and that’s not just a willy-nilly number; that is a realisation that this drug is not equivalent to class C drugs, which is what the eight years is comparing it to. It is actually closer to a more serious level of drug and class of drug: class B.

When we’re talking about the maximum jail sentence, we need to understand—and we’ll hear it, I’m sure, from members on this side of the Chamber especially—that many of the problems arise from those who are addicted to the drug, and those who need to sell the drug to feed their own habit, and those who are in certain circumstances that can be judged by some as being sympathetic to their cause. The fact is that if you look at this bill in isolation, what it does—because it’s a very, very simple bill and a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that New Zealand First is putting in—is it gives the judge the tool to enforce a maximum sentence.

Now, everybody in this committee knows that very, very rarely does a judge dish out a maximum sentence, for any crime, really, but especially with crimes around drugs and involving drugs. So when they do, and if they do, we have to understand that this bill is not talking about or affecting those who are addicted—those who the judge and our system can see have issues that have perhaps led them to the situation that they’re in. The judges still have discretion. So when you look at that for what it is and its facts, the only time that this bill and the SOP that New Zealand First is putting forward for the maximum sentence will actually be enacted will be for the worst of the offenders—the worst of those people who care not about the number of people who die. They care not about the effects that this poison has on not only the individual but their families and society and the community as a whole. They don’t care about that. These drug dealers and these manufacturers only care about themselves, and they want more people to be addicted. They don’t care what kind of a poison they create. They don’t care about the side effects.

The judge has that discretion. If the judge decides that it is the worst-case scenario, that’s when the maximum sentence will be applied, at the discretion of the judge. I’d like to highlight what I mean. There are a couple of very recent news articles, and they identify the problem very clearly. This one was dated August of this year, and it states “Police arrest three men in ongoing synthetic cannabis investigation … Three men, including a patched Head Hunters gang member, have been arrested in West Auckland”. This is not talking about those who are addicted to the poison, to synthetic cannabis. They’re not talking about the users; they’re talking about those who don’t care: the gang members who are peddling this stuff.

Hawke’s Bay is another one. In September of this year: “Hawke’s Bay police losing the battle to synthetic drug dealers … Area commander Inspector Dave Greig admits police are losing the battle against [these drugs and the dealers] as gangs ramp up recruitment and become more sophisticated. He says the Mongrel Mob is responsible for the supply of almost all of the synthetics.” I want to repeat that: “He says the Mongrel Mob is responsible for the supply of almost all of the synthetics.” Now, if anybody wants to stand up in this Chamber and say that this piece of legislation that directly covers what the title actually says, which is “(Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution)”—that’s what’s in the title. It doesn’t have “Users or Those Addicted”; it says “(Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution)”.

Inspector Greig says “addiction is a health, not a justice, problem and he is focused on bringing down the big-time dealers.”—agreed. New Zealand First has always had the stance that for those who are users and who are addicted, this is a health issue, but what also needs to be understood is the context in which the dealers and manufacturers and suppliers of this drug are working, what environment they’re working in within this legislation. When you compare the two years that it is now, versus the drugs that we’ve got in just the class C maximum, which is eight years, it’s little wonder why these drug dealers are manufacturing this and giving it to the people on the street.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Just a point of clarification: you did rule a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) out of order, and I think it’s numbered 164. Now, I didn’t see an SOP by me tabled with the number 164, so I’m just really seeking your clarification on that point, just so that we know what’s debatable and what’s not.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So, at this stage, there is no—I have been advised that it was tabled in the last session. We are just checking that. It is, obviously, not on the Table, so therefore there can be no debate if it doesn’t exist. So we will overlook that at this stage.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. In that case then, I’d like to speak to my tabled amendment that was tabled on 31 October at 9.45. It’s an amendment which would replace clause 4 and do two things. It would replace “8 years” with “2 years”, but it would give—

Marja Lubeck: Very good.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Absolutely right—it would be a much more reasonable sentence. But, actually, much, much more important than the length of the sentence is the direction that must be given to the court, and that is a direction to impose rehabilitative and reintegrative sentences, because what we don’t want to do is to send people to a training ground for criminal activity and simply teach them how to deal drugs better.

Now, what we know is that when young people, particularly, find their way into prison, the reoffending rate is extremely high—sometimes up to 70 percent. There are two key reasons for that. One is because there are no resources focused on rehabilitation, on teaching these people the skills so that they can re-enter the community. But, more importantly—and I think this is the greater gap—is the reintegration. The fact is that prison is an isolating place. It does the opposite of teaching people how to have meaningful social relationships, having a relationship in a workplace, having a relationship with whānau, and having an ordinary relationship with friends. So any court-imposed penalty should have a reintegrative element, and we know that if resources are put into reintegration, the costs of criminality fall because reoffending rates fall, and imprisonment costs fall, and what we see is that the whole cycle of criminality is improved.

Let’s not pretend—and I know Mr Darroch Ball gave an impassioned speech about the evil of these people, but the fact of the matter is that many of these offenders are themselves in the grips of addiction. They are themselves in a cycle of poverty, of misery, of addiction, and of mental health trauma, and what they need is those problems to be addressed.

Simply throwing them into a cell doesn’t address that, so my tabled amendment from the last session addresses that. It says that we should have rehabilitation as a focal point, and when I say “rehabilitation”, I would hope that the court would be very directive, that it’s giving those people the kinds of life skills that will make sure that they can become useful members of the community, because one of the difficulties we have is that people find themselves supplying synthetic cannabis for want of a meaningful alternative.

So we need to rehabilitate them so that when they come out, they know how to operate finances, they know how to find a job, and they have all of those skills that most of us take for granted and that most of us pass on to our children, but in some cases, it simply isn’t done. That reintegration is the fact that that next step of the corrections process is taking that member and slowly placing them back into a community setting and saying “Here is somewhere that you can belong. Here is someone who will support you. Here is a job.”—perhaps a supported job—“Here is building some work relationships.”—relationships of trust which, sadly, for some, are not very common in those communities they come from.

So what this amendment does is it says, “Look, we don’t need to put people away for eight years.”, and even if imprisonment is the answer, we need to have a humane prison environment. It’s something that this party has been looking at for some time, and something that we’ve seen in the new prison being built that will have a mental health facility attached.

So in this tabled amendment, what we see is a change of direction. Rather than Mr Brown’s sledgehammer, we see something entirely different. We see something where we accept the humanity in every person, and what we want to see happen is that out of that process comes not someone who feels punished and alienated, but someone who can move back into the community with a new sense of worth, with some healing done, and with new and better connections with family and community.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Now, just before I give the next call, I can advise Dr Duncan Webb that in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 164, he has given it to the clerks but not released it, I understand. I’m giving him an indication that it would be out of order—so it’s an indicative decision—because it would be contrary to the principles and objects of the bill, which, of course, is about increasing penalty, and the House accepted that at the second reading.

Dr Duncan Webb: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So I’m not going to argue it. It’s—

Dr Duncan Webb: No, I’m—thank you for your direction.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —been ruled—well, it hasn’t been ruled out. I’m giving you—because we haven’t got it on the Table. But that would be my ruling.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It’s an absolute—well, here we are, we’re debating a bill. Look, I guess there is a range of different questions and considerations that one could turn their mind to when we start to talk about the punitive implications of raising sentences without taking an overarching, holistic approach to sentencing and doing it in isolation through ad hoc bills, and in this instance, here we are with the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill.

Section 70(3)(a) in clause 4 is amended to replace “2 years” with “8 years”, the intention of that being to get tough on the guys that are out there supplying some of the most vulnerable people within our communities. So I guess I want to start my remarks by saying that this isn’t an issue we take lightly. I want to acknowledge the harm that psychoactive substances are having within our communities, and, in particular, where you and I are both from, we know because we see it day in and day out, the harm that psychoactive substances are causing within our communities. So the issue for debate and discussion from this side of the House isn’t about the harm that is caused as a consequence of the psychoactive substances circulating within our communities, but the issue is the way in which we go about mitigating that harm.

So in my name this evening I’ve tabled Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 162 that proposes: “[Replacing] clause 4 … with 4 Section 70 [to be] amended (Offences relating to psychoactive substances that is a not approved product) [and] In section 70(3), [to] replace paragraph (a) with: (a) in the case of an individual,—(i) to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 8 years; and (ii) when sentencing under subparagraph (i), where relevant, the court must take into account—(A) kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face reconciliation between the offender and any affected person):”.

As I alluded to prior, in communities like ours the victims and the perpetrators—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry. Can I just interrupt the member. Is she speaking to an SOP?

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Number 162 that has been tabled and which I—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes. No, no, you haven’t actually released it.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: It’s on the Table, and I just took it off the Table.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s right. You haven’t released it.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well—it’s been tabled because the Clerk tabled it. And that’s—I’ve been waiting for it to be tabled, which is why I’m speaking to it, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is it on the Table? It’s on the Table? It’s in order. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. So in communities like ours in the East Coast and in Te Tai Rāwhiti offenders and victims aren’t mutually exclusive—in fact, more often than not they are intimately known to each other. The proposal at subparagraph “(A) [is that] kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face reconciliation between the offender and any affected person):” is taken into consideration by the court in the sentencing process. At subparagraph (B), the proposal is at sentencing to take into consideration “whakamā (appreciation and shame in respect of [the] wrongdoing and its impact)” on the community.

Now, I’ve just been reading sentencing notes from the District Courts in our region and, look, there’s been a real array of approaches to the way that individuals, who have been charged with a criminal offence under this provision, have responded in terms of their own remorse and recognition of the harm that they are inflicting on the community.

So the underpinning thesis here is that where a person understands the nature of that harm, they take it upon themselves, they understand that whakamā not only to themselves but to their family and the community—that that is taken into consideration at that sentencing stage.

At subparagraph (C) “whakahoki mauri (rehabilition):”—whether that person has engaged in any process to rehabilitate themselves as a consequence. It could be (a) in respect to the direct offending or (b) in respect of the circumstances that led them to that point in their life where they were—again, as I said, I alluded to that I’d been reading—[Time expired]

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call in response to some of the debate points which have been raised during this debate this afternoon on my bill in regards to increasing the penalties for supply and distribution of psychoactive substances.

Firstly, I’d like to just say that there are a number of Supplementary Order Papers coming through very late and I would like to address the ones that I can at this stage address. But, firstly, I’d like to acknowledge New Zealand First and their Supplementary Order Paper to increase the penalty to 14 years—a Supplementary Order Paper which National will be supporting. We see the harm that these drugs are causing in our communities and I really wonder why some people in this committee want to filibuster and slow this debate down so that this bill does not get passed—[Interruption]—so the bill doesn’t get passed. And I’d like to even address the committee and quote the Prime Minister, who said, “Supply is different for me and actually a health-based approach does say those who are supplying harmful drugs actually do need to be held to account.” We should be going after those who are, I think, preying on the vulnerable, because we do see that there are vulnerable people who are using synthetics.

There is a need in our community to address this issue. We’ve seen over 50 deaths from these drugs in the past year. We have seen the number of hospitalisations which are being caused. We see our hospital system, our St John Ambulance system overloaded and there is a need—there is a need—to address the supply of these drugs. And I have all the way through this debate acknowledged the need for us to also ensure that there is an addressing of help for those who are suffering from addiction to these drugs. Members will remember back in March I brought a petition to this House calling for a select committee inquiry into addiction to these drugs and looking at ways in which this Parliament could address that, and the Justice Committee decided—the Labour members decided—not to progress that element. I find it an absolute shame that the members on this side of the House can talk about this issue all day and all night and how there is a need to do something, but they had an opportunity to do something in select committee and they absolutely failed to. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just calm down. I don’t think that yelling is going to make any difference and the member has the right to be heard.

Kiritapu Allan: We can dispute some issues that he’s raising, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): And you interject at your own risk.

SIMEON BROWN: I would like to address a number of the Supplementary Order Papers that I do have in front of me. There are three in the name of Chlöe Swarbrick. The first one, Supplementary Order Paper 159 removes the criminal offence of possession. That is not in the purpose. The purpose of the bill here is increasing the penalty for supply; the penalty for possession is a separate matter. And while we do believe—and I echo the words again of Darroch Ball—that for those who are suffering from addiction to these drugs, we do need to be treating it as a health issue, there must also be the deterrent effect for smaller penalties for possession retained, and that is in line with other legislation. There is a wider debate going on around that issue and that is something which this Parliament, I’m sure, will be looking at, at some point, but that is not what this bill is doing. This bill is targeting suppliers of these drugs. That is what this bill is intending to do.

Supplementary Order Paper 160 intends to reduce to two years the term of imprisonment for anything except for manufacture and importation. There are separate penalties, and I think the member may be confused because sections 25 and 26 of the Psychoactive Substances Act do address illegal importation and manufacture of approved products and it’s about not having licences to import, not having licences to manufacture. Those are separate matters, whereas the definition of sale or supply in the legislation as it stands is an incredibly broad definition and includes all manner of disposition for valuable consideration. So in section 8 of the Act “sell includes every method of disposition for valuable consideration,” whether that’s “(a) bartering: (b) offering or attempting to sell or having in possession for sale, or exposing, sending, or delivering … or causing or allowing to be sold, offered, or exposed for sale:”. This is one of the very broadest definitions of “sell” and so this section already deals with that issue.

There’s Supplementary Order Paper 161 introducing mitigating factors for sentencing. The Supplementary Order Paper seems confused. It talks about penalties for mitigation of offending for importing without a licence. That is the offence in sections 25 and 26 dealing with approved products. Section 70 deals with unapproved products, and I think that’s a critical point which needs to be realised. Section 70 is about unapproved products. The rest of the Act is dealing with approved products.

There’s also Supplementary Order Paper 170 in the name of Duncan Webb, which seeks to put in place a mitigating factor. Again, the courts have the ability to take into account all of those mitigating factors when they’re making their decisions.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before I call the next member, just remember that this is the committee of the whole House. Every member has four opportunities to make a five-minute speech. There’s plenty of opportunity to debate. So let’s have a good debate and get on with it.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Madam Chair, thank you. I just wanted to touch on the point that was raised by the member in the chair just previously with regard to how those who are in possession of these substances are not going to be captured by this. The clause that we’re debating is clause 4, which amends section 70 to increase the penalty for “selling or supplying unapproved psychoactive substances.” However—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Having said that, I’m very sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.