Thursday, 7 November 2019
Volume 742
Sitting date: 7 November 2019
THURSDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 2019
THURSDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 2019
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the second readings of the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2), the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2), the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill, and the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill; the third readings of the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill and the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill; and the further stages of the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill. Wednesday, 13 November will be a members’ day and will feature the third reading of the End of Life Choice Bill.
Bills
End of Life Choice Bill
Procedure
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following discussions between the parties, I seek leave for the debate on the third reading of the End of Life Choice Bill to consist of eight 10-minute speeches and 20 five-minute speeches.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Noting that the House is looking like it’s going to have to gather pace, finally, as we head towards the end of the year, can we expect the Government to make some time to pass the Kermadec protection bill, which has been on the Order Paper for quite some time and was an initiative of the previous Government?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course, this is a very busy Government, and we’ve got a very busy legislative agenda with a lot of business that we’re aiming to progress this side of Christmas. I regret to advise the member that that’s not one of them.
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 policies and statements?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: It’s terribly nice to see Mr Bridges here on a Thursday. On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.
Hon Simon Bridges: Was her statement yesterday that “we have employed an extra 263 front-line staff to ensure that we are case-managing and working alongside those on benefits.” correct?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.
Hon Simon Bridges: Why has Carmel Sepuloni confirmed that only 170 of the 263 might be introduced this year and there’s no guarantee they’ll make it to 170 at all?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the Government is an aspirational one, and we are working our way through the process, which takes some time. We’re only two years into this process, not nine years, though we expect, in the fullness of time, for those commitments to be fulfilled.
Hon Simon Bridges: Given she was emphatic that an extra 263 front-line case managers had been hired yesterday, can she give us the actual figure?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, if he sets that down in writing, we’ll make sure he gets the actual figure.
Hon Grant Robertson: Why was it necessary for there to be an additional 263 front-line case workers employed by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and could it have anything to do at all with the fact that there was a gross under-investment in that part of work in the last nine years?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am terribly grateful to the Minister of Finance for putting his finger on the problem that we have had to deal with, and that is, again, another example of the desert of neglect that we inherited.
Hon Simon Bridges: Doesn’t, in fact, the last MSD annual report make clear that the staff are going much more on hardship grants, emergency electricity grants, and the like than getting New Zealanders into work?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, obviously, as anyone with a financial grasp of this country’s economics would know, people, by their own declaration, say they’re better off now, after two years of this Government, than they were under the last nine years of the previous Government, and that would go for all beneficiaries as well.
Hon Simon Bridges: When will there be an extra 263 front-line case managers in place, as she claimed yesterday?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, just as soon as we can get the process completed—
Hon Simon Bridges: Ha, ha!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, actually, if it was a matter of humour and jeering, that would probably describe the last nine years of that administration, in which he prevailed. But the Prime Minister—
Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, it’s only funny if he does it.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no, look, this will not help. I suppose we’ve got Mr Luxon to thank for you being here on a Thursday, but the shouting and jeering at me won’t help. In fact, it’s quite the contrary—I mean, this is like having a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent. But my point is the process will take time, and obviously it’s aspirational, but we will get there.
Hon Grant Robertson: In light of the questioning from the Leader of the Opposition about the 263 front-line case officers for MSD, can the Prime Minister confirm that the Opposition voted against the employment of those people?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, alas, sadly, that’s what happened.
Hon Simon Bridges: When will she be correcting her parliamentary answer from yesterday?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it’s a matter of ensuring the process for the full graduation of those new employed people, in the interests of social welfare, and when that process is completed, the Prime Minister will tell you how she’s done it.
Hon Maggie Barry: All fired up from the court appearance.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Is that it?
SPEAKER: Order! That is not a matter to be referred to in here, and the member should know that.
Hon Simon Bridges: Are these 263 MSD staff, just like the 1,800 net new police, instances where she got the detail badly wrong?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, starting with the second example, there was never, anywhere, a statement of being net new. Words matter. What the coalition agreement says is “strive to ensure that there are 1,800 new front-line police”, and can I just say, on that score, right now, here we are, on 7 November 2019, and we’ve already got 1,765 graduates. We’re way ahead of the programme. But here’s the great news, confirmed by the Minister of Finance: eventually, there will be 1,800 net new, but that wasn’t the commitment or promise that the Prime Minister or anybody over here made. And for a trained lawyer, it’s a disgrace to try and use evidence that is not a fact.
Hon Simon Bridges: Are there two different 1,800 police targets, as her police Minister has said, or not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’ll take the Leader of the Opposition through this very, very slowly. The coalition agreement said “new front-line police”. That means people who will be taken and trained and who will graduate, and, right now, we’ve got to 1,765 graduates and it’s not even the third year. So we are doing marvellously well, and I would have thought anybody interested in law and order would be cheering this Government every day. I would have thought Mr Hudson would be writing to Mr Nash every day and saying, “Mr Nash, thanks for doing what my party could never do.”
Hon Simon Bridges: Why has her police commissioner said there’s only one target of 1,800 net new police, which takes into account attrition?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as much as I admire Police Commissioner Bush, by adding the word “net”, he got it wrong.
Question No. 2—Research, Science, and Innovation
2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made regarding Government support for research into climate change?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): This week, I made two announcements that will have a significant impact on the global fight against climate change. On Tuesday, I released the results of the latest Marsden funding round. The successful projects include a number that will help understand and respond to climate change. As well as these projects, yesterday I had the pleasure of announcing the New Zealand Government’s first space mission. This mission involves the launch of a satellite that will locate and measure methane and will be pivotal in helping to reduce those emissions across the globe. I’m extremely proud that New Zealand will be playing a significant role in this important research. The Marsden projects I’ve announced and the methane satellite mission demonstrate our Government’s continued commitment to making sure New Zealand is not just doing what is required to fight against climate change but is being a world leader.
Dr Deborah Russell: What are the Marsden Fund projects that have been funded?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Some of the exciting projects that have been funded include investigating how carbon dioxide is released from the ocean floor, investigating how rainfall patterns changed in the Pacific during the glacial period, whether airborne microplastics play a role in climate change, and three programmes of work to increase solar panel technology. By backing our top researchers to find new and innovative solutions to tough problems, we are helping to create a strong future for New Zealand.
Dr Deborah Russell: Why has the Government decided to participate in this space mission to locate and measure methane?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our investment in the mission provides three key benefits for New Zealand, demonstrating global leadership by investing in a science mission that will directly help to fight to climate change. It will give Kiwi researchers the opportunity to join a cutting-edge climate science mission alongside the world’s best climate scientists and aerospace experts, and to build important capability in our rapidly growing space sector. This mission represents the first time the New Zealand Government has participated in an international space mission, and a key part of the announcement that I made yesterday is that New Zealand will host mission control.
Question No. 3—Social Development
3. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yes, in particular the statement that both the Prime Minister and I have made that where people are able, we need to be supporting them to be learning, earning, caring, or volunteering. That’s why, as a Government, we have taken action by boosting skills training, with the announcement of a new education to employment brokerage service; raising the minimum wage to $17.70; investing $26.3 million in improving employment and wider wellbeing outcomes for disabled people and people with health conditions; investing nearly $50 million into Mana in Mahi to support our young people into sustainable work; and investing over $76 million into front-line Ministry of Social Development (MSD) case management to deliver more effective employment services.
Hon Louise Upston: Why did she falsely claim in the House yesterday—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Louise Upston: Why did she claim in the House yesterday that the appalling performance in relation to work outcomes was due to a two-year time lag in the data when, in fact, it is this year’s data?
SPEAKER: No. Before the Minister answers, I’m going to give the member one more chance to ask that question correctly.
Hon Louise Upston: Why did the Minister say in the House yesterday that the performance in relation to work outcomes was due to a two-year time lag in the data when it was actually last year’s data?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I was very clear that there is a footnote on the pages that discuss the impact indicators in the annual report that that member was referring to. That states that some of the indicators would be impacted by two years previously, and so I was not claiming falsely.
Hon Louise Upston: Would the Minister like me to read out the work outcomes performance on page 30 of the MSD annual report, which clearly states that data is for 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, and the data is getting worse?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member can read out whatever she likes from the report, and, if she likes, she can also refer to footnote 12 on the second page of the two pages that I referred to yesterday.
Hon Louise Upston: If so many jobs are being created by this Government, why is she failing to get people off benefit and into jobs?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’ve been very clear in the House this week that, actually, just this week we received the information on the most up-to-date employment figures. It is currently 4.2 percent. We have to say in terms of unemployment in this country that the three best results that we’ve received in over a decade have come under this Government. We’ve heard a lot in the House today about the investment that this Government has made into front-line, work-focused case management, and I do want to refer to a report that I saw, which shows there were 300 less budgeted fulltime-equivalent staff at MSD from 2015 to 2019. On top of that, I want to say that the previous Government denied there was a housing crisis, sold off State houses—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —which put—
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —more pressure on MSD front-line staff.
SPEAKER: Order! The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise, and if she does not cease her answers when I call her to order and stand, she will leave the Chamber next time.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Louise Upston: What does she say to people stuck on the dole, who see the Government talking about all these jobs and a low unemployment rate and who are still wondering why MSD can’t help them get a job?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think that the investment that this Government has put into upskilling and training people on benefit and the investment that this Government has put into front-line, work-focused case management was long overdue. The fact that we are in the situation now where employers are crying out for skilled workers is actually a result of the neglect that we encountered because of the lack of action under the previous Government.
Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister think that the fact that MSD can’t get Kiwis the jobs they want and need is the reason why clients trusted MSD more under National than they do under Labour?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I reject the premise of that question. As I’ve said on a number of occasions, this Government is taking a much more balanced approach to how we respond to the needs of New Zealanders who come through the welfare system and need support from the welfare system. It is about—as I’ve said so many times before—providing support for those that are in financial hardship as well as ensuring we’re providing support for upskilling and training and getting into work. It was a very imbalanced focus by the previous Government, and, as we saw over consecutive years, the actual punitive approach that was taken didn’t work. Did they receive zero percent unemployment during their time in Government? No—that wasn’t the case. We’re focused on New Zealanders reaching their potential, and we’re going to keep doing the work that we’re doing.
Question No. 4—Forestry
4. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): More good news. As a consequence of the coalition agreement, where, progressively, we were going to reallocate parts of Government out of Wellington to the provinces, I announced the construction, the beginning, of the new forestry hub in Rotorua. It will house at Scion’s Rotorua hub 50 Ministry for Primary Industries people, with 25 coming from Te Uru Rākau, shared with the Department of Conservation—a highly desirable outcome, bringing those two entities closer together in an efficient use of resources, using New Zealand - engineered timber, delivering social and environmental regional benefits, and actually putting political narrative into institutional fiscal reality.
Jenny Marcroft: What other announcements has he made?
Hon SHANE JONES: As a consequence of the highly successful billion trees strategy sadly attracting attention in consequence to the non-existent policy amongst other parties in the House, I announced the sum of $250,000 to $300,000 request for proposal into ways we can use wood fibre to assist with our transition to a low-emission economy. In this way, we are moving towards value-added, we are assisting in the transition of our economy, and we are creating a new raft of jobs.
Jenny Marcroft: Why is it important for Te Uru Rākau to have a strong regional presence?
Hon SHANE JONES: That’s because the regions love the billion trees policy. There has, unfortunately, been some mischief made as a consequence of poor information and distortion of data, but forestry for many decades has sustained parts of regional New Zealand. I do accept in the time of the National Party 100,000 hectares of farmland was put into forestry. I have not, as the Minister of Forestry, achieved quite that level of ignominy.
Question No. 5—Transport
5. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does page 44 of the Government’s discussion document titled “Moving the light vehicle fleet to low-emissions: discussion paper on a Clean Car Standard and Clean Car Discount” indicate that a 2013 Suzuki Swift would receive an $800 subsidy under the Clean Car Discount proposal, and what does the Rightcar website say is the driver protection star rating for a 2013 Suzuki Swift?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): The table on page 44 of the Government’s discussion document lists a 2013 Suzuki Swift as having tailpipe emissions that could receive an $800 discount. But as I said yesterday, this is only an example of the cars that are already on the road in New Zealand, not the cars that will be imported post-2020. I’m advised that the Rightcar website identifies 37 model variants of the 2013 Suzuki Swift. Some of these model variants are not rated. Some of the cars have a one-star rating; some have a two-star rating. I note that other 2013 vehicle models identified in the discussion document as having low enough tailpipe emissions to receive a discount have a variety of star ratings. For example, safety star ratings for the 2013 Toyota Corolla range from one star to five stars. The same applies to the Nissan Tiida, while others are completely unrated.
Chris Bishop: Why did she say yesterday “You cannot give a one-star rating.” when the Rightcar website has a whole range of cars—as she’s just said—listed by make, model, and year, with one star?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As I just said, the same vehicle model and make from a particular year has a variety of star ratings and in some cases is not rated on that website.
Chris Bishop: So does she concede that it is possible under the Government’s clean-car discount proposal for cars that receive a discount to be one- and two-star - rated?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No final decisions have been made on the Government’s clean-car proposal.
Hon David Parker: It’s for new cars, not old ones.
Chris Bishop: It’s for used cars as well.
SPEAKER: All right, that’s one supplementary gone from the member. [Interruption] Well, he hadn’t started.
Hon Member: Behave. Behave.
SPEAKER: Right, well, that comment, which was directed at me, has resulted in that supplementary being scrubbed, and the members are allowed to ask it and an additional one for the National Party.
Chris Bishop: Has the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) raised with her the desire to not apply the “feebate” for electric cars to one- and two-star - rated cars?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The New Zealand Transport Agency, as I said yesterday, did raise concerns about any conflicts between promoting safer cars and promoting low-emissions vehicles. I disagree with the characterisation that it was raised with me as a desire not to apply the discount to certain cars. The Ministry of Transport has advised me that they have a number of concerns about the NZTA’s proposal to use star ratings as the basis for New Zealand’s vehicle regulatory regime, because the data used to inform star ratings—particularly for the used-car safety ratings—is not sufficiently comprehensive or robust enough to support regulation, especially any particular legal challenge. Not all cars are rated and, therefore, we are pursuing measures like electronic stability control (ESC), which will apply to all used cars imported from 2020. The Rightcar website notes that cars with electronic stability control, which will be mandatory for used cars from next year, are a “safer choice”.
Chris Bishop: Why did she say yesterday, when I asked her the exact same question—has the Transport Agency raised with her the desire to not apply the “feebate” for electric cars to one- and two-star - rated cars—“No.”?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think if the member looks closely at the transcript yesterday, I did say that the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Ministry of Transport had raised concerns about conflicts between promoting safer vehicles and low-emissions vehicles but that they’re actively working on solutions to that—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister misled us.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —and the Government has articulated an absolute commitment to a lower-emissions fleet and a safer fleet, as well as safer roads.
Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe that the interjection by Dr Smith is within order in the House.
SPEAKER: Well, I—unfortunately—think it was. Carry on, Julie Anne Genter.
Hon Member: There you go.
SPEAKER: It didn’t indicate that it was deliberate, which is the offence. Misleading accidentally is not a breach of privilege; it just requires a correction.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’ve finished my answer.
SPEAKER: Has the Minister finished?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes.
Chris Bishop: Does she recall yesterday, on at least two occasions, in response to my supplementary questions, saying words to the effect of “if I was briefed”, thus giving the distinct impression she denied being briefed, or having the issue of the “feebate” for electric cars to one- and two-star - rated cars raised with her by the Transport Agency?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: If the member looks carefully at the transcript, from the beginning I said that I was aware of concerns raised by the NZTA. What was not made to me directly from NZTA was a recommendation or desire to exclude certain cars from the “feebate” scheme based on their star rating.
Chris Bishop: Will she correct her answers yesterday in light of the new information that she has just disclosed to the House, which is the acceptance that the Transport Agency raised with her the desire to not apply the “feebate” for electric cars to one- and two-star - rated cars?
SPEAKER: No, sorry, I think if the member had listened to the previous answer, he wouldn’t have asked that question. I will let the Minister answer, but the member should—one of the things about question time is that it is dynamic, and the member’s question was answered in the previous supplementary.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As I said earlier, I disagreed with the characterisation in the board minute, but I absolutely agreed yesterday, as I have today, that they raised concerns with the ministry and raised concerns that we do work to ensure that our promoting low-emissions vehicles would not result in a proliferation of unsafe vehicles on the road. And, in fact, we can have safe vehicles that are also low-emissions vehicles, happily.
Hon James Shaw: What other vehicle safety initiatives does the Government have to reduce the risk of unsafe cars being imported into New Zealand?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: There is a very wide-ranging work programme in the safety space that has to do with safer roads, safer drivers, and safer vehicles. There will be new mandatory requirements for electronic stability control from March next year, and the Rightcar website characterises cars with ESC as a “safer choice”.
Question No. 6—Transport
6. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she stand by her statement that “My opinion is based on advice from officials”; if so, which of the briefings she received from her officials prior to 26 March 2019 on Let’s Get Wellington Moving recommended prioritising rapid transit ahead of a second Mount Victoria tunnel?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I stand by my full statement yesterday that “My opinion is based on advice from officials, and the officials provided a range of assessments of benefits and costs of different sequencing and different projects.” To the second part, I received a large amount of advice on Let’s Get Wellington Moving prior to 26 March, including the advice I mentioned yesterday from 3 October 2018 from the New Zealand Transport Agency, which identified that the cycling, public transport, and rapid transit components of the package were expected to have higher benefit-cost ratios than the highway components and that rapid transit will support a 10 percent increase in public transport use, improve travel times, support an additional 2,500 jobs, and contribute to a $600 million value uplift along the corridor, as well as moving eight times as many people as the second Mount Victoria tunnel. That’s what informed our views about the privatisation of the programme.
Nicola Willis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was actually very specific. If you look at the wording of it, what I said was: which of the briefings she received recommended prioritising rapid—
SPEAKER: I hate doing this to two questioners in a row. There was actually a date given for the briefing that was being quoted from. It was a date and a quote from it—that must cover part two.
Nicola Willis: Well, supplementary question.
SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Nicola Willis—but can I just say that the member should know better.
Nicola Willis: I’ll ask my question. On which page of which briefing can I find a specific recommendation from her officials that rapid transit should be prioritised ahead of a second Mount Victoria tunnel?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think the difficulty that member is having is understanding that our views on prioritisation were informed by a range of assessments about costs and benefits and the ability of the projects to deliver more mobility for Wellingtonians, and that’s what I’ve said.
Nicola Willis: On which page of which briefing can I find a specific recommendation from her officials that rapid transit should be prioritised ahead of a second Mount Victoria tunnel?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The decision to prioritise rapid transit over the Mount Victoria tunnel is based on evidence and advice from officials that rapid transit would have significantly more benefits and move more people, and I don’t understand why members opposite find it so difficult to understand why one would make a decision on prioritisation based on something that will deliver real benefits to Wellingtonians.
Nicola Willis: Is it true that the actual recommendations from officials was that construction on a Mount Victoria tunnel should start by 2024, as indicated in this aide-mémoire of 26 March, and that she rejected that official advice?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I disagree with the characterisation of that as the only advice that we received on 26 March. Perhaps she will remember my answer yesterday that that very same aide-mémoire did recommend that the building of rapid transit, public transport, and walking and cycling prior to new road capacity would achieve the outcomes and desires that were identified as the principles and outcomes—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, sorry. I took some advice after yesterday from the shadow Leader of the House and turned down my left-side hearing aid. Notwithstanding that, I’m having trouble hearing the Minister answering the question because she is being shouted down by members on my left. It’s to stop. I think the member has probably said enough anyway.
Nicola Willis: Where in the aide-mémoire of 26 March 2019 does it recommend that rapid transit be prioritised ahead of a Mount Victoria tunnel, or is it actually the case that no such recommendation is made and that, in fact, it recommends—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has finished.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: There is a recommendation in the aide-mémoire from 26 March that suggests that if rapid transit is prioritised ahead of the Mount Vic tunnel, a second Mount Vic tunnel might not be needed. There is also an aide-mémoire from 5 April which states, “From a mode shift perspective it is important for the rapid transit, other public transport, walking and cycling investments to be built ahead of extra road capacity.” This is to avoid additional congestion and additional cars coming into Wellington’s central city, which was an explicit—explicit—desire of the public of Wellington when they fed into the Let’s Get Wellington Moving consultation.
Question No. 7—Education
7. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions is the Government taking to improve energy efficiency in schools?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): More good news. Yesterday, the Government announced the accelerated roll-out of LED replacement lighting for about 550 schools around the country over the next three years. LED lights, to date, have been put into the majority of newly built schools and redevelopments, but now schools, particularly those in small and isolated areas, will have the ability to have LED lights installed so that they can have their older lighting technology replaced with a much more efficient system.
Gareth Hughes: Will the schools be able to keep the power bill savings to reinvest into teaching and learning?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. Yes, they will. LED lights can cut schools’ energy usage for lighting by over 50 percent, and those savings that those 550 schools get will make a significant difference. They’ll be able to reinvest that in other resources that support their students and their staff.
Gareth Hughes: What else is the Government doing to promote sustainability in schools—for example, supporting the use of solar panels?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s a very good question. The Government has also announced a contestable fund to support sustainability initiatives in schools that reduce their environmental impact, including the use of solar panels. The funding can support innovative energy projects in schools like solar panels, replacing inefficient heating systems, and removing coal boilers to ensure that we help to speed up that change. On top of this, we’re developing a nationwide environmental action plan to ensure that schools are energy-efficient in the future.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did LED lighting arrive in this country and why did it take so long before a visionary education Minister understood the technology?
SPEAKER: Oh, I think that’s a reflection on a former Minister.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: To be honest, I don’t know the answer to the first part of the question, but it was some time ago, and it is an absolute tragedy.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do know the date and it does reflect on a previous education Minister who would be very well-known to you—in fact, in a most reflective way—and I think that also it cannot possibly be within the realm of responsibility for Mr Hipkins. He’s responsible for the education of the nation, not for the technology—
SPEAKER: No, no. The question was why hadn’t Ministers of Education—including himself and probably myself—got on to the job earlier, and that is a valid question.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is a terrible tragedy, in fact, that schools have had to wait this long for LED lighting. But now they have got a Government that’s absolutely committed to energy efficiency in our schools, and we’re going to deliver on that.
Question No. 8—Health
8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her Government’s management of the nine measles outbreaks this year?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, and I want to take this opportunity to thank our dedicated doctors, nurses, and public health staff, who have worked so hard to ensure New Zealanders’ health is protected.
Dr Shane Reti: Does her Government’s management of the nine measles outbreaks include a responsibility to the people of Samoa, where three deaths, including that of two babies, have aligned with measles in New Zealand?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Measles is highly infectious, and spread between countries is not uncommon, including into New Zealand at the beginning of this year. I note that the World Health Organization specifically discussed how travel restrictions or border screening for measles is not recommended because international travel can be completed before a person becomes symptomatic. We are working closely with the Governments of Samoa and Tonga to support their response to the global measles outbreaks that are happening, including sending eight nurse vaccinators and medical supplies to Samoa.
Dr Shane Reti: How does she explain that under her Government’s management of measles outbreaks, it took four months from the first measles case in Auckland to public notification of the outbreak?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Public notification of the outbreak, as I understand it, occurs as soon as there is one measles case. I can’t comment on the specifics of the Auckland public notification he’s referring to, but if he puts the question down in writing—as he has done with many hundreds of others—I’m sure we will answer him.
Dr Shane Reti: Did she reply that the first time the word “outbreak” was used in the measles outbreak in Auckland was on 12 June by the Auckland Regional Public Health Service?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Unfortunately, I cannot recall the answer to all 400-plus written questions that I’ve given him answers to, but I will take him at his word.
Dr Shane Reti: Has her Government’s management of the nine measles outbreaks actually resulted in nearly 8,000 cases of measles this year, on the basis that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research had previously modelled that only one in four patients with measles see a doctor?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That’s a hypothetical question. I wouldn’t speculate on that.
Question No. 9—Climate Change
9. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: What is the history of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill in New Zealand?
Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): The bill was the idea of Generation Zero in 2016, a movement of young people committed to safeguarding the climate that they will grow up in. It’s informed by the work of Dr Jan Wright, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment whose March 2018 report called for UK-style, bipartisan climate change legislation. It bears the imprints of the cross-party group of MPs, GLOBE-NZ, convened by Dr Kennedy Graham and co-chaired by the Hon Scott Simpson, and the visit to Aotearoa of John Gummer, Lord Deben, chair of the UK climate commission, arranged by the National Party’s Bluegreens group in 2017. Two months ago, 170,000 New Zealanders took to the streets to ask this Parliament to pass the bill. It was a centrepiece of the Green Party’s 2017 election campaign, and all three parties of Government committed to delivering it. Today, we will.
Chlöe Swarbrick: How will the Government now take more action to reduce Aotearoa New Zealand’s impact on the climate?
Hon JAMES SHAW: With the zero carbon bill framework in place, I’m looking forward to getting on with the job of actually reducing—
SPEAKER: Order! I’ve now reflected on the question. It, unfortunately, does not relate to the primary question.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Reflecting on the history of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, where does this fit in the chronology of plans that this Government has to tackle climate change?
SPEAKER: It just about got there, yep.
Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, now that the zero carbon bill framework is in place, or nearly in place, I’m looking forward to getting on with the job of actually reducing our country’s emissions to help the world avoid the climate crisis. This will include drawing up five-year emissions budgets and plans that reach across the economy to reduce emissions to meet those budgets. These plans will cover transport, energy, waste, and agriculture. Through the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill introduced this week, we will, finally, have a proper emissions trading scheme. Climate change is already happening. It is caused by human activity, it is bad, and we have a plan to fix it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: With but a few minutes to go, could I ask the Minister: in his consultation with other parties, has the National Party given an undertaking to support this far-seeing, visionary legislation?
Hon JAMES SHAW: I understand that the National Party caucus had a meeting last night, and they’ve kept me sweating about where they stand on the bill.
Question No. 10—Public Housing
10. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday in the House that “we are a Government who pledged to get people out of cars, to stop children having to read by torchlight because they didn’t have housing”?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): I always agree with the Prime Minister, particularly because this Government has implemented the biggest house-building programme since the 1970s. Since coming to office, we have housed 12,370 people from the housing register; we have committed in Budget 2018 to $234 million to an additional 6,400 public housing spaces; working with community housing providers, we have housed 798,000 people via the Housing First programme; and increased support by $54 million to sustaining tenancies.
Simon O’Connor: Why, then, has the number of emergency housing grants more than doubled under this Government?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: It’s no surprise that we inherited a housing crisis from the previous Government. In 2013, the previous Government was warned that homelessness stood at 41,000. Their response to that was to reduce the number of public housing places by 1,400.
Simon O’Connor: When he and his colleagues suggested that they would fix the housing crisis back in 2017, was spending 362 percent more on emergency grants to put people into the likes of motels part of that solution?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, the first part of that was to acknowledge there was a housing crisis, and then we committed to make sure that people who needed housing got support. We didn’t sit on our hands when we were warned that there were 41,000 people homeless and reduce the number of public housing spaces by 1,400. The solution to a homelessness problem is increasing supply, not cutting it.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is the Minister aware that if the previous Government had built State houses at the rate that this Government is, there would be 14,000 more State houses, and, indeed, we would not even have a public housing wait-list?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Minister’s question is well-informed.
Simon O’Connor: So why are almost 14,000 families waiting for a State house and nearly twice as many—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Right. Well, the National Party just got an extra five supplementaries there, because there were at least five members who interjected.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could we also go back a bit and ask some of those supplementary questions on previous questions where we were somewhat constrained?
SPEAKER: The answer to that question is no. But there is a carry-over arrangement, so if the member thinks that there are not enough supplementary questions left or they couldn’t be usefully used today, they can be used next week.
Simon O’Connor: The question remains: why are almost 14,000 families waiting for a State house—more than twice as many as under National?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: It is because—as I’ve said to nearly every answer to every supplementary question—five years ago, the previous Government was warned that there were 41,000 people homeless. They were living in crowded conditions and sleeping in cars, and we inherited that situation. They are now coming forward for help because we have sent a clear message to those people that if they need help, they will get it—and we are giving it to them. We are increasing supply and not getting rid of supply, whereas the previous Government, in its nine years in Government, reduced the number of public housing by 1,400. I welcome the Opposition’s new-found interest in the housing register.
Simon O’Connor: Would he say, given the stark contrast between the PM’s ambition and what is actually happening, that the Prime Minister has overpromised or that he has under-delivered?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No. I would say that the previous Government didn’t acknowledge the problem, and we are dealing with it.
Question No. 11—Trade and Export Growth
11. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What progress has the Government made on improving trade access for exporters?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I’m pleased to advise the House that very, very substantial progress has been made on improving trade access in the last two years. The latest example, of many, is the conclusion of the upgrade to the New Zealand – China Free Trade Agreement (FTA), modernising one of our most important and successful trade agreements, which was, of course, landed in 2008 by the Hon Phil Goff. This ensures that New Zealand will once again have the best trade access of any developed country with China. This and many other economic changes, like the R & D tax credits, are why exports have boomed under this Government, notwithstanding international headwinds, which are, in part, caused by rising protectionism in some quarters.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What are the major benefits of the upgrade to exporters?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The upgrade further secures our trading relationship with our largest trade partner, China, and, of course, it updates it to reflect changes in patterns of trade since 2008. With two-way trade at a record $32 billion under this Government, the upgrade will reduce compliance costs, saving exporters millions of dollars a year. It also introduces strong commitments on both sides to promote environmental protections. It improves access for wood and paper lines that currently still have tariffs. We recognise the importance of open and inclusive trade in the current global climate, and, of course, we’re continuing to work hard in Europe, elsewhere in Asia, and the US to open up more opportunities to increase exports, jobs, and New Zealanders’ incomes.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What reports has the Minister received regarding the China FTA upgrade?
Hon DAVID PARKER: There’s been praise left, right, and centre for the Government’s trade success. The wood and paper sector and the dairy and seafood sectors are all pleased with what we’ve achieved. The Employers and Manufacturers Association said the China upgrade and progress on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership were—and I quote—an “historical 24 hours for NZ trade”. The International Business Forum said the deal was ideal in the current trade environment. Several independent commentators have called the upgrade a big win for the Prime Minister. I also noted with interest a comment from the New Zealand Herald’s political editor that a simple congratulation from National to the Government would be justified—it’s never too late.
Hon Todd McClay: Can the Minister confirm that discussions with the European Union over post-Brexit arrangements for the longstanding tariff rate quotas (TRQs) for New Zealand butter and lamb exports have stalled, and, given our exporters are now facing trade access uncertainty over those TRQs, will he commit to taking the EU to the World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes panel should they not meet their longstanding obligation to New Zealand exporters?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I can’t confirm that. What I can confirm is that in the China FTA we didn’t seek a tariff reduction for sour grapes. There’s not much international demand for sour grapes, and that member’s party’s already got that market covered.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister for trade, does that mean that he thinks threatening to go to the WTO is not a brilliant negotiating strategy for New Zealand?
Hon DAVID PARKER: It does, and it’s an unnecessary one at this stage because, of course, the tariff rate quota consequences are a consequence of Brexit, which remains uncertain.
Hon Todd McClay: Does the Minister therefore think holding a protest sign whilst in Opposition helps New Zealanders—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, but that stuff’s OK?
SPEAKER: The fact that I learnt from social media that the Leader of the Opposition wants to speak this afternoon is what’s keeping him in the House at the moment. That question was out of order at the start. I think the member’s team has plenty of spares. If he wants to have another go, it will be another supplementary.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You gave us quite a firm indication yesterday that where there was a question asked that had a particular political aspect to it, we could expect that there would be some flick back. Now, there was no political aspect to the question asked to Mr Parker when he came up with his sour grapes comment, but, apparently, when we now ask a question we are still subject to a higher test. Why is that?
SPEAKER: Well, I’m going to ask the member to rephrase his question.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Or perhaps, put simply, was it reasonable for the Minister to answer a question in the House by accusing the questioner of having sour grapes?
SPEAKER: It probably didn’t help the tone, but my view is that the initial question itself made some assumptions about the position which—I think there were two parts to the question that, if I’d acted strictly, would have been ruled out. But, as the member knows, I’m trying to let things flow slightly better. Further supplementary from—
Hon Todd McClay: No. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could help me exactly as to why that was out of order, because I didn’t actually infer that any member of this House had, and I brought it back to the original question that was asked of the Minister about access. So I asked if it was his view—
SPEAKER: Yes. And the member can resume his seat. If he just reflects a little bit about the areas that this Minister has responsibility for, he, in the first part of his question—in so far as he’d got—had identified very clearly something for which this Minister does not have ministerial responsibility.
Hon Todd McClay: Can he confirm that the Government has made no progress in removing punitive additional tariffs placed on New Zealand steel and aluminium exports by the United States Government, and will he consider joining other countries in considering taking the US to the WTO disputes panel if they don’t meet their fair obligation to New Zealand exporters whose trade access has been restricted?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that the tariffs that were imposed by the United States on New Zealand steel and aluminium remain in place. It is fair to say that despite our best efforts, we have not been able to remove them. Whilst it has little economic effect on the New Zealand economy, it is, of course, very important to the steel and aluminium industries and we haven’t given up on those efforts.
Hon Todd McClay: Will the Government halt its plans for taxes on digital services if it is to progress a free-trade agreement with the United States, given the US has said to France and other countries that they will not negotiate FTAs or honour them should these taxes on digital services be put in place?
SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to allow the question, but I’m going to repeat my request from, I think, earlier this week or last week that members have a seminar to work out what is in order in a supplementary question.
Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s not a matter of my responsibility.
Question No. 12—Immigration
12. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: Prior to 1 October 2019, did Cabinet discuss changes to Immigration New Zealand’s management of temporary visa applications for applicants in a relationship; if so, on what date?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Cabinet discussed policy changes to improve temporary work visas on 10 December 2018 and 2 September 2019. We discussed and agreed that a worker’s partner and children will be able to apply to come to New Zealand on a visitor visa for the length of the worker’s temporary work visa. Cabinet has not discussed Immigration New Zealand’s operational management of temporary visa applications.
Stuart Smith: When he said he was “not aware that there was any specific [Government] directive” to change the way Immigration New Zealand interprets partnership visas, is it possible that directive came from the Rt Hon Winston Peters without his knowledge, given his answer to the primary question?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.
Stuart Smith: Has he seen reports of statements made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he was asked about the partnership visa policy, in which he said, “Has New Zealand First had an influence on trying to tidy up the quality of information on which the immigration department relies? The answer is profoundly yes.”?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I do read the newspaper, yes.
Stuart Smith: If he stands by his statement that Cabinet didn’t discuss the application of the living in a relationship / partnership visa—
Hon Shane Jones: Hurry up.
Stuart Smith: If he stands by his statement that Cabinet didn’t discuss that, and that “Immigration New Zealand made its own decision.”, then why is New Zealand First claiming they influenced the policy?
SPEAKER: I’m sorry—because it was interrupted and I lost focus on it, I am going to ask the member to ask it again.
Stuart Smith: If he stands by his statement that Cabinet didn’t make those changes recommended to Immigration New Zealand and that Immigration New Zealand “has made its own decision.”, then why is New Zealand First claiming they influenced the policy change?
SPEAKER: Oh, that’s an area that he doesn’t have responsibility for.
Stuart Smith: Do the comments from the Rt Hon Winston Peters show that Mr Peters has more influence over immigration policy than the Minister?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.
Jamie Strange: Did the Cabinet discussions that the Minister referred to in his primary answer relate to culturally arranged marriages?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.
Bills
Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I move, That the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. At the first and second readings of this zero carbon bill, I spoke about its purpose, as detailed in Part 1. But I haven’t, until now, spoken in this House about the intention behind the bill—that which gives it its purpose—and I’d like to take the opportunity to do so now.
In my maiden speech to Parliament, five years ago last week, I said that “Political tribalism is … the [single] greatest barrier to creating enduring solutions to the great challenges of our time. I do not know what the answers are. … I do know that we will need to change the way [we think] about ourselves and our relationship [to] the world”—and I know that the first step in finding the answers is to work together—“presently we are stuck. To get unstuck we will all need to let go of some things and to be more committed to finding the answers than to being right or to others being wrong. Time is too short for resignation. Things are too bad for pessimism. It is too big a task for petty politics. It is too important for partisanship. These things we must transcend and transform.”
Some things are too big for politics, and the biggest of them all is climate change. The intent of the zero carbon bill was, is, and always should be to elevate climate change policy beyond petty politics and partisanship, to transcend and transform a problem so wicked and so stuck that we have made virtually no progress on it in the 30 years we have been aware of it, in spite of the very best efforts of many, many good people. Climate change policy has been a political football kicked up and down the field, and frequently into touch, by changes of Government and, in fact, changes within Governments. This unstable policy environment has prevented progress and sent contradictory signals, which has stymied decisive action until this, the 11th hour and 55th minute before midnight.
The zero carbon bill was conceived not by me, I might add, nor even by the Green Party that Marama Davidson and I together lead, but by Generation Zero, a movement of young people committed to climate action, conceived as a way to depoliticise climate change policy so that we can actually start to make some progress.
I have fought the centrifugal forces of politics to try and create bipartisan consensus and support for this bill, because, with all my soul, I firmly believe that that is the only way we will ever make progress. And that has demanded that we have all, every single one of us, had to let go of some things and to be more committed to doing the right thing. Everyone has had to let go and give a little away, even just a little. But this is bigger than all of us, and it is going to take all of us, and it is going to take everything that we’ve got.
I am but the guardian of this bill. It has had many, many parents. But it would be fair to say it has one grandparent. I’d like to acknowledge the presence in the Chamber today of Dr Kennedy Graham. Dr Graham laid the foundations for bipartisan consensus on climate change policy through the cross-parliamentary, all-party group of MPs, GLOBE-NZ. It’s worth noting that Dr Graham’s deputy chair on that committee was the Hon Scott Simpson, now the Opposition spokesperson on climate change. The Net Zero in New Zealand report that they commissioned from Vivid Economics, with the support from the United States Ambassador Mark Gilbert, the United Kingdom High Commissioner Jonathan Sinclair, the European Union ambassador Bernard Savage, and others, was a watershed moment in building the level of parliamentary consensus that paved the way for the zero carbon bill.
I want to personally thank the Secretary for the Environment, Vicky Robertson, and her stellar team at the Ministry for the Environment, for their work on this bill. They’ve worked under astonishing pressures to support a political process that was at times, shall we say, disobliging. The Environment Committee, ably chaired at first by Dr Deborah Russell, and then Dr Duncan Webb, have also had to work under real pressure to consider complex implications of real significance to New Zealanders, thousands of whom submitted on the bill in writing and in person.
I’d like to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Simon Bridges, and his current and former spokespersons on climate change, the Hon Scott Simpson and Todd Muller. Every step of the way, in the face of strong political pressures, they’ve worked constructively with us to craft a bill that will, I dearly hope, be able to command the support of the whole House.
I want to thank the Government parties, who, again, in the face of strong political pressures, have stuck with it and stuck with us to get it to this point. The Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, in particular, has been personally and constantly involved, and I want to thank her for her unwavering commitment to New Zealand’s leadership on climate action.
I want to specifically acknowledge all of the Green Party’s caucus members, past and present. It was Jeanette Fitzsimons who said in her valedictory speech that the role of the Greens and Parliament is to raise issues that no one else is raising. Today, we are witnessing what happens when you do that for long enough. We stand here today on the shoulders of all of those who came before us, including Rod Donald, who left us far too early, 14 years ago yesterday.
If we are able to reach a parliamentary consensus today, it will only have been possible because the people of New Zealand have increasingly come to demand it. And as I said, this bill has had many, many parents. The Green Party has always seen itself as a parliamentary wing of a much broader movement. This bill delivers on some of the most important work that that movement has done over many decades. In just a few years, climate change has gone from being a fringe issue to one at the centre of global, national, and local politics—where it belongs—and that is because of the work that dedicated people have done in their communities, in their whānau, in their organisations, in their unions, and in their businesses.
I want to acknowledge the people who sparked this movement, who built it, and who have empowered it with such momentum that it is now unstoppable; the lone scientists who raised the flag in the early 1980s and began building a global scientific consensus that human activities are changing the climate that sustains us; the storytellers and the journalists and the artists who saw that science alone would not achieve a solution but that communicating it to everybody else might; the individuals who stood up in board meetings and said, “Our company cannot keep doing business as usual; there is too much at stake.”; the rangatahi who question which is more important: a missed day at school or a missed opportunity to change the world; and the people all over New Zealand who wrote to their politicians and who marched in the streets asking for action, and those who didn’t—those for whom private personal changes in their own lives is their expression of rising to this challenge.
This morning, I became an uncle to our family’s newest nephew. Luca, I hope that when you are older, you look back on this day and you know we did our best for you. In this House today, your House, we see you all and we deliver this bill for you. Let us begin. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): The National Party takes climate change seriously, and we believe in practical, sensible solutions that don’t punish everyday New Zealanders in the process. We are bound by our principles in this area, and we know that if we are science-based, if we utilise and invest in innovation and technology, if we are incentives-based, if we are in line and in step, not out of step, with our international partners, if we are aware of and cognisant of the economic impacts of change, we can do it.
The National Party has a very proud record in office when it comes to climate change. I want to acknowledge the likes of the Hon Nick Smith, Maggie Barry, Scott Simpson, and others in our caucus who have made a difference in this area with sensible, practical policies. I am proud, in my time as a Minister, to have seen energy in electricity go, in our time in office, from 65 to 85 percent, to still have in transport the most significant actions ever, whether that be electric vehicles initiatives, whether that be in public transport or other areas as well.
In relation to this bill, the National Party played, I think my colleague James Shaw would acknowledge, a significant role in it. Before this bill—before, in fact, the Government was even considering in substance the shape of this bill—I gave a speech to the Fieldays in 2018, and I said the following: “In order to drive long-lasting change, broad and enduring political support is needed for New Zealand’s climate change framework on the institutional arrangements we put in place to support a reduction in emissions. Both the Productivity Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment were clear about this. Stability is required to allow people and businesses to plan and respond. It requires a consensus between the major political parties on the overall framework through which we address climate change issues.”
Today, I have written to the Prime Minister and James Shaw, offering to work with them to establish an independent, non-political Climate Change Commission. I want to work with the Government to make meaningful bipartisan progress on climate change. This will be challenging, it will require compromises on both sides, it will require us all to listen and engage respectfully, but the prize is too great not to try, and the consequences on our economy, jobs, and the environment are too serious if we don’t do so responsibly.
The Climate Change Commission would support New Zealand emissions reduction both by advising the Government on carbon budgets and holding the Government to account by publishing progress reports on emissions. The commission would be advisory only, with the Government of the day taking final decisions both on targets and policy responses. I went on to say that there are a number of details I want to work through with the Government before the commission is launched, such as ensuring the commission has appropriate consideration for economic impacts, as well as environmental, and the process for appointments to the commission is also bipartisan. But I am confident that we can work constructively together to establish an enduring non-political framework for all future Governments when considering climate change issues, and I stand by those remarks. That’s what we’ve put in place with this bill.
I want acknowledge Todd Muller and Scott Simpson for the leadership they’ve shown and the hard work that they have shown in being across the many details that go into climate change policy. I also want to acknowledge James Shaw. The talks have been on and off, but he listened and we compromised at significant points along the way. This bill is a product, and it’s not so much as I wanted, but it is a product of compromise, and “compromise” shouldn’t be a dirty word in politics. National will support this bill.
The reality is that there are parts of this bill I disagree with—that I strongly disagree with. We sought amendments in this House last night, and we weren’t successful. In summary, they’re around our principles and ensuring our economy, our food production, and everyday New Zealanders aren’t punished as we make change. New Zealand feeds the world. We produce more food per person than any other OECD nation bar none. That means emissions per capita, yes, they’re high in this country, but we are also the most efficient food producers in the world. The world needs to be fed, and we know how to do it better, more efficiently, more productively than anyone. National is proud of our farmers and the way that they keep improving. They have over the last 30 years, and I know they will over the next 30. We get it.
I have to say New Zealand First does not. They can’t say, over the last two years, that they stand on the side of regional and rural New Zealand. They blocked our amendments last night to this bill, out of ignorance and petty partisan politics. But a National Government that I lead will make all those amendments in our first 100 days in office.
In the interest of time, I’m not going to go fully through those seven amendments we will make. The first is that we’ll make sure the target for methane reduction will be recommended by the independent Climate Change Commission instead of politicians. I want to say I listened carefully to what Minister Shaw said yesterday—I think it was afternoon. This law, in fact, allows him to write to the commission for review of that target. We say, in the National Party, in the interests of New Zealand, that 24 to 47 percent is simply too high. It will punish everyday New Zealanders on farms and, more broadly, around this country. We ask that he does that in coming days: he writes to the commission.
I also want to finish with a wider point. To those in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, this isn’t all up to our farmers. They keep improving, as I said, the last 30 years, and I have absolutely no doubt they will keep up with that over the next 30 years to stay the best in the game. They get it. But, no—we all need to play our role: townies, city folk Gen Y, Gen X, and the boomers. I am proud of National’s pragmatic, sensible, solutions-oriented approach to climate change. I’m proud of our record in office. I’m proud of our bipartisan approach on the framework and this bill, and I pledge to improve this law swiftly when we are in Government.
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): As we usher through Parliament today the zero carbon bill for its third and final reading and vote, there is a storm blowing. There is a storm blowing on the open waters of the western tropical Pacific Ocean. It is hundreds of kilometres east of the Northern Mariana Islands. On Monday, this storm ramped up to a category 2, and then on Tuesday it had intensified to a category 5. The Joint Typhoon Warning Center is calling it a super-typhoon—Super Typhoon Halong. It is estimated its peak winds are at close to 305 kilometres an hour. The report of this super-typhoon says its mesmerising fury and terrifying beauty is capturing the attention of meteorologists worldwide.
As a child, I remember, when these natural events occurred in the past, it was the practice of our village elders in Samoa to attempt to decipher the meaning of such events. They would recite and share stories of similar events of the past, and, based on past climatic patterns, my elders would attempt to predict potential future events or when the next climatic event would occur and what was needed to prepare the people for the impending danger.
This super-typhoon called Halong, in all its fury and ferocity, is an unprecedented event that our modern-day scientists have never seen before. These are unprecedented times. New Zealand, along with the political leaders of the Pacific region, agrees that climate change is the single greatest threat to the livelihood, security, and wellbeing of all Pacific peoples, and that includes New Zealanders. This super-typhoon, and many more like it, will continue to emerge in our region and throughout the world. These natural events are mother Nature’s response to human activities. Mother Nature’s response will be more frequent, more intense, and more ferocious. Our young people all over the world, including right here in Aotearoa New Zealand and across the Pacific region, can see the dangers heading our way. Our young people’s advocacy, their actions in the youth quake movement, underscore the urgency by which we must all act as a nation, as a region, and as a world.
The transformation of New Zealand to a low-emissions nation requires us to act at the scale of the industrial revolution and at the speed of the digital revolution. New Zealand’s climate action has progressed under a number of Governments of different stripes. I think of Helen Clark’s Government, during the Kyoto Protocol period: the introduction of the emissions trading scheme. As a country, we weren’t ready. We couldn’t include agriculture in that emissions trading scheme.
I think of John Key’s Government. They, yes, signed us into the Paris Agreement in 2015. But I also recall that very year we got two Fossil of the Day awards. These are not awards to be proud of; these are awards for failures. I also recall, during that period, how divided our position was as a Pacific Island nation in the region with Tokelau, with the Cooks, and with other Pacific nations. Our reputation went downhill because of lack of action, despite our signing the Paris Agreement.
And so today it is significant. It is a time that we should mark. And so I think we’ve got to try and take the politics out of this. We’ve got to try and take the politics out because it requires everybody on board. So let me just say thank you.
Thank you to the Hon James Shaw. I remember, when we first came in as Ministers, and away we went to the Bond meeting without talking to our leaders about certain views we held around climate change. I thank you for your leadership. I thank you for the patience in trying to bring everybody here on board. I want to thank you for listening to the leadership also of our Prime Minister, the Right Hon Jacinda Ardern, because in the 2017 campaign, she put a stake on the ground and said climate change was the nuclear-free moment of her generation, this generation. And that’s exactly why this is so important. I want to thank you for trying to work across the aisle, acknowledging also the leadership of New Zealand First and their part in this Government. I thank you also for bringing our Opposition party across the aisle.
I want to acknowledge also that you’ve acknowledged that this isn’t just your work; that you stand on the shoulders of others in the past. This is significant to acknowledge. And I see my friend Dr Kennedy Graham. Thank you for all the work that you did in ushering through, while we were in Opposition, and your patience in working also with the Government of the time.
I thank you for listening to business and listening to the farmers. I acknowledge there are about 120 CEOs, 60 percent of big business, who have signed in and have accepted climate change. We cannot bury our head in the sand. And for that leadership, opposition, and anybody else who still thinks climate change is a hoax have been pulled in. I want to acknowledge you’re listening to our young people. Because of their advocacy we’ve called this bill, rightfully, the zero carbon bill.
I acknowledge also you’re listening to Māori. Māori and indigenous knowledge are so important. I’ve been saying our science has to go hand in hand with indigenous knowledge. And for Māori, the rivers, oceans, our mountains, our forests, our rain—those are manifestation of metaphysical beings. And they all are interconnected and they operate under natural laws. I want to thank you for listening to the Pacific region, because by listening to the Pacific region, you have stamped a 1.5 degree goal in this legislation. By listening to the Pacific region, you’ve lifted also our reputation not only as a Pacific Island nation here, but our reputation, together with the mana and dignity of our Prime Minister, in the international arena. Why is that important? It is because we’ve all got to do our part. This isn’t just about us or them. No one country can tackle the issues and the problems and the complexity of climate change. We all must pull our weight. We must all paddle in the right direction.
Finally, I just want to thank you for not listening to the less than 1 percent voice in this. You see, this man here who represents less than 1 percent of New Zealanders—because that’s the amount of people that voted for them—they still think that the economy must be at the expense of something else. I think our Prime Minister has shown the leadership in the international arena that treaties, economic treaties, must incorporate climate change and the effects and impact on the world. This lot here will go down still fighting an archaic thought that somehow if we just do nothing, something will change. But that’s not going to be the case. I want to remind that 1 percent: remember that climate change is a consequence of market failure and since the Industrial Revolution we have socialised the costs of pollution and privatised the benefits. That story needs to be told over and over and over again. Kia kaha.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): When we as parliamentarians gather here in this place day after day, sometimes year after year, much of what we do and attend to is seen by our fellow citizens as being mundane, boring, irrelevant, and, frankly, inconsequential. And then from time to time, there are pieces of legislation that come before this House, pivotal pieces of legislation, that are history making, that are formative in the future of our country, of our citizens, and of the generations that will follow behind us. Today, in this debate, we are marking one of those moments, and so I’m delighted and very proud to be on this side of the House representing Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition in support of this bill.
It’s been a long road. It’s been a long, slow road to getting to where we are today. But I think it’s been worthwhile because here in what is actually the ultimate citizens’ assembly of Aotearoa, it’s good to see a former colleague Dr Kennedy Graham sitting in the Chamber, at a place where he is appropriately most welcome, because Kennedy Graham and others in the last Parliament, and indeed over a long number of years, have provided an awful lot of work along the pathway to getting to where we are today. I enjoyed working with Kennedy Graham on a genuine, cross-partisan, bi-party approach to creating what was then an initiative by GLOBE-NZ in the last Parliament that the Minister for Climate Change referred to in his speech that, ultimately, produced the Vivid Economics report that presented a range of scenarios to take us to a low-carbon economy by the second half of this century. That was pivotal work because it laid the foundation for where we are today.
I want to thank my colleagues and also I want to acknowledge the leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges, because he mentioned in his speech that he made our position very clear back in June of last year at Fieldays. So it should have come, actually, as no surprise to any keen observer of politics what the National Party’s position on this bill would be at third reading, because he actually laid out our position back then when he indicated that he was willing and prepared as Leader of the Opposition to work collaboratively in good faith on behalf of the Opposition and on behalf of the Parliament of New Zealand to try and achieve consensus that would require a degree of compromise by us all, that would be difficult, that would be challenging. But he was prepared to lead us as an Opposition through that debate.
And he talked, then, about it being challenging to achieve; it would require an adjustment to our thinking, but it was something that we must do as a nation. He said that “to drive long-lasting change, broad and enduring political support is needed”, and I agree with that. I agreed with it then when he said it, I agree with it now, and I agree with it into the future. “Stability is required”, he said, “to allow people and businesses to plan and respond”. He said consensus between the major political parties would be required, and that an overall framework, an infrastructure, a way of managing a reduction to our emissions and a transition to a low-carbon economy, would need to be led through practical science, sensible approach, and that a commission was a good way to do it. Then he went on to say that “the prize is too great not to try”. And so I’m very proud that he did try, that we did try, and that, across the House, everyone has been trying their best.
That said, there are a number of matters that we feel are still problematic with this piece of legislation. And Simon Bridges, leader of the National Party, has made it clear this afternoon that within the first hundred days of a re-elected National-led Government there will be changes to this legislation. We prosecuted our agenda for those changes last night at the committee of the whole House. Each and every one of those initiatives was voted down by the coalition Government and its members. We will put that right within the first hundred days of a re-elected National-led Government, and what that means is that a methane target will be recommended to the Minister of the day by the commission.
Earlier this week, I received a letter from a group of agricultural primary sector organisations. It was Beef + Lamb, DairyNZ, the deer industry, and Federated Farmers. Collectively, they represent all of New Zealand’s pastoral farmers, and in their letter, amongst other things, they said to me this: “We also view that sending these targets”—this is in reference to the methane target—“to the Climate Commission is the best way to de-politicise what we all want to be a scientific decision that can have long-lasting support.” I put it to members of the coalition Government that that’s exactly what needs to be done. I understand that there is a clause in the legislation that enables the Minister to request the commission to make a recommendation forthwith, and it’s my fervent hope that the Minister will listen to organisations such as our primary producing groups, listen to us as an Opposition, and take heed of that opportunity that is available to him.
We also had a number of other concerns. We were concerned that there isn’t enough protection around food production, and so we will move, at the appropriate time when we have an opportunity, that the wording of the Paris Agreement is put into the purpose clause of this legislation—that would ensure that the production of food is protected, whilst taking us to a low-emissions economy. And we’ll put in stronger attention and detail and review of what’s happening by nations around the world. We want to be sure that our actions as a nation, as a small nation of less than 5 million people at the bottom of the South Pacific, with a low total contribution to global emissions—we want to make sure that our contribution is in step with those of the rest of the world. And then we want to have some consideration of the impacts; what it means to individual New Zealanders, their families, their businesses and their communities. We’re concerned about the potential for mass forestation.
I want to quote, in this debate, a letter that was sent by none other than the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and he sent this letter to the Minister for the Environment, David Parker, and to the Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw, it’s dated 22 October, and it says, amongst other things, and I quote: “As you are aware, there are real risks associated with relying too heavily on forestry offsets. Much comment has focused on the social impacts of land-use change, and my concern is more directly environmental. Not only are sinks a risky store of carbon in a warming world, excessive reliance on them will defer the transition we must make away from fossil fuels”. And so I urge both those Ministers to take heed of the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
I want to just acknowledge also the visit by Lord Deben, the chair of the UK climate committee, back in 2017 in March. He was hosted to New Zealand by the National Party’s Bluegreen organisation, and we did that because we wanted to engage a conversation about what the legislation that this bill is actually based on—how it had worked in the United Kingdom. And we found that, amongst other things, it had worked quite well for them over there. So we were very pleased to have a pivotal role in bringing him here.
I want to conclude my contribution today by looking to the future, because one of the things that we’ve learnt is that once this legislation is passed, debate will turn to the future. It will turn to how we achieve the changes that are going to be needed and required. And so now is the time to look to the future. Now is the time to look to the future with optimism, with hope, with determination, and together.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I’m really proud to stand in this House today for what is a historic moment. But it is important, I think, when we stand in these moments in time, to remember the reason why we are here today debating this issue in the first place. We are here because our world is warming; undeniably, it is warming. And I am proud, at least, that 10 years on from when I first sat right over there, we’re no longer having the debate over whether or not that is the case. We are merely debating what it is we do about it, because, undeniably, our sea levels are rising. Undeniably, we are experiencing extreme weather events, increasingly so. Undeniably, the science tells us the impact that there will be on flora and fauna and, yes, also the spread of diseases in areas where we previously haven’t seen them. We know, as well, that some island nations will have their clean water sources impacted by rising sea levels and saltwater entering into them. On a daily basis they are already seeing those impacts. Our world is warming, and so, therefore, the question for all of us is: what side of history will we choose to sit on, in this moment in time?
I absolutely believe and continue to stand by the statement that climate change is the biggest challenge of our time—and for us here in Aotearoa New Zealand that means that for this generation, this is our nuclear moment. And so today, if we are to truly reflect that that is what this means for us, we have to start moving beyond targets, we have to start moving beyond aspiration, we have to start moving beyond statements of hope, and deliver signs of action. That is what this Government is doing, and proudly so.
We have committed ourselves to a 1.5 degrees Celsius target that we are embedding in legislation, not just because of the statements of the Paris Agreement but because that is what is required if we are to show our Pacific neighbours that we understand what the impacts above 1.5 degrees Celsius will have on them—it is real. Today, we embed in legislation a climate commission who will play a role in helping us to establish carbon budgets, who will help us establish the targets that we need across the spectrum, that will provide for us advice, particularly on how we deal with issues like methane.
I want to reflect on the last member Scott Simpson’s speech, because there was some discussion of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that were put before Parliament last night. This Government did not vote for them because, in essence, a large majority of them were covered in the legislation itself.
The claim that we should listen to the Climate Change Commission is already embedded in the legislation. They are able to give this Government their advice on targets—so that includes the methane target—based on scientific evidence, based on what they believe is necessary to provide for us, the Government of the day. There is no constraint on that. They can do that within the parameters of both the range that we set, but they can, equally, set outside that range as well. We have given the climate commission the ability to advise based on science, and we stand by that. We have, in the meantime, also tried to give as much certainty, as that science develops, as we can to the primary sector. We’ve said in the near term, let’s aim for that 10 percent reduction, and that is, I think, that near-term certainty that’s required.
We also have the ability for the Minister to ask for the climate commission to report earlier if required. So that power already exists. We didn’t vote on those SOPs, because we believe that we have catered for them in this legislation, that this legislation has been well thought through, well debated, and at the same time has tried to build consensus.
Now, the speaker opposite also, though, made one point that I have to say I beg to differ on, and that is the claim that we should factor in what the rest of the world is doing and base our judgment on whether or not we should be in closer proximity to what, I hate to say—from all of my international engagement—makes me from time to time despair. New Zealand will not be a slow follower. We will not be a slow follower, because, quite frankly, we cannot afford to be, not for the environment but nor for our food producers. They trade on our brand and our name. They trade on New Zealand being environmentally responsible. We have the potential here to lead the way and to instil a higher value to our products in doing so. We have the ability to be the world’s most sustainable food producers and to sell the innovation and technology that comes with developing that much-needed research, development, and technology. This Government’s vision is that we develop the ideas required on behalf of our exporters so we trade on our name, on our brand, on our reputation, on the quality and respect that people have come to know for our products. I will not allow this country to be a fast follower, because we damage our country, our environment, and our exporters if we allow that to happen.
A nuclear-free moment needs to be coupled with action. This is the foundation in our Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, but we need to move beyond that. We have already set an aspiration that as a nation we will plant 1 billion trees, and 140 million are already in the ground. We have said we must transition our electricity generation, and we have a goal of 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035. Next year, the first green hydrogen plant will be opened in New Zealand. It is an exciting time for energy innovation. We have pledged to stop issuing permits for offshore oil and gas exploration. We have funded the new energy research centre in Taranaki. We are working on making low-emissions vehicles cheaper and making sure that they appeal to buyers so that we start to reduce our transport profile. We’re investing in rail, cycling, walking—options that, again, give people choices to get out of their vehicles.
We have, historically, reached agreement with our primary sector leaders to price agricultural emissions in 2025, and that makes us the first in the world to do that. We have done that together. We have built consensus around that plan, and that is something we should all feel proud of. We’re continuing to lead an international collaboration, the Global Research Alliance, around greenhouse gases. Just a few weeks ago, we invested $100,000 in the Cawthron Institute, who are investigating new technologies like seaweed use to bring down the methane profile of our farmers, with the potential for that to reduce methane by 80 percent. A hundred million dollars has gone into the Green Investment Fund to shift private investment towards a zero-carbon economy. Internationally, we continue to fight against fossil fuel subsidies, which have reached US$500 billion. We’re negotiating a free-trade framework to try and remove tariffs on green technology. We’ve put $300 million into international support to reduce climate change impacts, half of that going into the Pacific.
We have done more in 24 months than any Government in New Zealand has ever done on climate action, but we have not done it alone. There has been 170,000 New Zealanders taking to the street, calling for that action—not for hope but calling for that action—around the world. I am proud at the rate at which New Zealanders took to the street to reinforce what it is we are doing in this House today. I acknowledge Generation Zero. I acknowledge all of the environmental NGOs who have played a part for over a decade in calling for more climate action. I acknowledge our food and fibre sector leaders, who are taking historic, bold, courageous steps on behalf of the people they represent. I acknowledge James Shaw. James has done a huge amount of work to get us here today, and it has come at personal sacrifice, but I know he will look back on today and realise that he created a legacy that will not be undone.
When we think about climate change versus the nuclear-free moment, there are some differences, but there are some similarities, and one similarity is that a nuclear-free moment in New Zealand was something that unified us. Thank you, National, for supporting this bill. We have to be unified in the fight against climate change. We have to move together. There will be areas where we don’t always agree, and in one area it will probably be pace of change, but we will keep pushing, doing everything we can to bring you with us. But today we have made a choice that I am proud of, that will leave a legacy, and that, I hope, means the next generation will see that we in New Zealand were on the right side of history.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I’ve got a message for the Prime Minister: New Zealanders do not want to be first and fast and furious; they want to have a fair go. What we’re seeing from what the Prime Minister has just said is that she’s very happy for New Zealand farmers to be sold down the river and for New Zealand’s economy to go with it.
This is a deeply flawed bill. It is a bill, however, that my colleagues have put forward very, very good amendments to, and I absolutely support the work that they have done. Not one member of Parliament on the other side of the House—either New Zealand First, the Greens, or Labour—would support any of those sensible amendments, and that is a shame because it would have made this bill a better bill and better able to help New Zealanders actually adjust to a zero-carbon economy.
In fact, let’s just have a look at the facts, because I thought we had just heard a speech from a president of the Young Socialist League. I would like us to be able to say to New Zealanders that we will not destroy our economy so that the Prime Minister can have herself on yet another front page of The Guardian newspaper.
New Zealanders expect us to make adult decisions, not to go down the track of talking about boomers, Generation Xers and Ys and Zs and whatevers, when, actually, every New Zealander should be concerned about climate change but, even more importantly, about making sure that we do not beggar our economy in order to do this. I love the fact that the Government side is shouting out all the way through the speech—that tells me I am saying things that they don’t like, which means I am saying things that New Zealanders like and agree with, because they do not represent the New Zealanders who are out there every day on farms or even in trucking businesses going about their business. They represent the elite who are very excited about anything that attacks the farming and provincial New Zealand.
This bill is supposed to be a response to the Paris Agreement, and National, of course, supported the Paris Agreement. But, actually, what that Paris Agreement did—something that is out of this bill but which we will be putting into the Act once we are in Government in the first 100 days—is the fact that we always agreed, in the Paris Agreement, that what we did would not halt or stop or impede food production, and therefore that says that this bill, which will become an Act, because it will have majority support, is one which will affect food production unless all the measures that our National MPs have put forward are adopted.
Hon Shane Jones: A billion—a billion.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it’s lovely to hear the Hon Shane Jones keep shouting out “a billion” or something.
Hon Scott Simpson: Hot air.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: A lot of hot air coming from over there, possibly some methane. What I would say to him is this: New Zealanders, we’ve got around 5 million people here. We produce food that feeds many, many millions more. The conservative estimate is 40 million. The more radical estimate is probably 90 to 95 million. And why we can say that is this: we as a country export 95 percent of the food produced in this country. Our economy, our ability to buy cancer drugs for kids, our ability to have schools, and our ability to pay for what we need as a country depend on our agricultural exports and tourism, which, by the way, is quite a big polluter. So we think that what we need to do is to sort out—we know, not just think, that what we need to do is to amend this bill once it becomes an Act and once we’re in Government. Everybody has acknowledged that there is compromise in this. I am deeply concerned by this bill. I am not concerned for the time when we are in Government and we are able to amend it and make it more sensible. That would be a very good thing.
Let’s have a look at the target of methane of 24 to 47 percent, which Dr Deborah Russell—well known to viewers of videos, particularly for the National Party—only said just yesterday that that meant we would have to produce a little less food. Well, not really a little less; actually quite a lot less—quite a lot less—because this Government refuses to give the agricultural sector the ability to really deal with the methane issues, which we will, in Government, give to the agricultural sector.
I’m going to run through the issues that we will be fixing, and I’d like to acknowledge all the hard work done by my colleagues here in the National Party who have done the hard yards on this, not like the other lot. We will be changing these: the target for biogenic methane reduction to be recommended by the independent Climate Change Commission. Otherwise, why bother having it? Why bother having the independent Climate Change Commission if it’s going to be a political decision based on how many votes of Gen whatever they’ve got today as their latest one is going to get them?
Our bill, in amendment, will make clear the stated aim of the Paris Agreement that it’s for greenhouse gas reduction but it does not threaten food production. This bill, actually the current bill, cherry picks from that agreement. We will have stronger provisions that consider the level of action being taken by other countries and allow targets to be adjusted to ensure we remain in step with the international community. The bill that we will be putting through will ensure that the commission considers the economic impacts when providing advice on targets and emissions reductions. The bill will ensure the commission considers the appropriate use of forestry offsets and with regard for the carbon sink represented by tree crops, riparian planting, and other farm biomass. The bill will also see the emissions budgets being split between biogenic methane and carbon dioxide, as recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. And the bill will also include a greater commitment to investment and innovation and research and development to find solutions for reducing emissions.
I spent Monday with my colleague Todd Muller, with DairyNZ, looking at some of the scientific and research work that they’re doing around emissions. They are working very hard to help with the emissions. Farmers and the agricultural community are trying their very best to do their bit. But let’s be frank here. If we’re going to end up, as Dr Deborah Russell admits, with reductions in food production in New Zealand, which exports are going to pick them up? We could say, “Well, biotech or something.” No, we’re not allowed to do biotech now, are we? No. What else could we do? Well, tourism, that’s down 10 percent under this Government and is a big emitter. We could say IT. Well, there is actually a place called Silicon Valley, which I’ve also visited, and had a look at. They’re already doing quite well. And, yes, we do have some great start-up work going on there, but can it compete at the moment or in the very near future with the enormous contribution that the agricultural sector and farmers have given to this country?
I am appalled that around the country we have farmers who are desperate because they see this Government throwing them to the wolves. We need to listen to them and at the same time be utterly responsible both for the environment and the economy. The economy is not just GDP. Yes, that is important, and I’m happy to give the members on the other side a lesson on it, but it is also very important for the fact that that is how our country gets the money to do what it has to do. We can either be a country that wants to go back to the UN to say, “Look how smart we are.”, or we can be a country that really does want to make real change and give the agricultural sector the tools to be able to bring this about.
This bill is flawed, but I know that my colleagues and I will be able to bring through the changes that are needed in the first hundred days of the next term of the next National Government starting straight after the next election. I look forward to it so much.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): What a bitter speech. We know which way that member voted in caucus as to whether this bill should be supported at the third reading. What a negative speech, bereft of hope, and reminiscent of the nine years that Judith Collins was a Cabinet Minister. It was nine years, absent a little bit of time on leave from Cabinet—
Hon Judith Collins: Attorney-General!
Hon DAVID PARKER: —during which—oh, still don’t know Standing Orders? This should be a day of celebration, even for the National Party—even for the National Party. They should see a way through the difficult politics of reducing climate-changing emissions.
Now, can I begin by congratulating James Shaw and the Prime Minister for actually taking this difficult piece of legislation through the House with support of all of the main parties represented here. Can I thank New Zealand First for their contribution, because it’s difficult politics for them, some of this as well, but Parliament has managed to come together. I was one of those who met with Lord Deben when he was here. I don’t think it’s fair to credit Lord Deben with the initiative to have a climate commission. As others have said, Generation Zero have been advocating for this for many years. We adopted it as a position, I think, under Moana Mackey in about 2009 or 2010 when she was still in Parliament, and we’ve been advocating for it for some time.
Its purpose is to depoliticise the carbon reduction tracks that we need to adopt as a country. That so self-evidently is needed in this country, from the speech that we just heard from Judith Collins, and also, I have to say, from the Hon Mr Simpson, because I thought that he was also signalling that slow-follower track that the National Party still want to have us on.
I want to give us a little reminder as to what happened after they took power in 2008. What did they do? They immediately put an unnecessary cap on the price of carbon without a floor. They allowed New Zealand’s emission pricing to be undone by allowing the New Zealand market to be flooded by Ukrainian and Russian hot air, which took the price to close to a dollar per tonne.
What did that encourage? Well, they actively encouraged deforestation in New Zealand, and their record in Government wasn’t a billion trees; it was the loss of close to a billion trees through deforestation. They said that they would be fast followers, and who were they going to follow? Australia. Where’s Australia? Australia hasn’t got a price on emissions in any part of their economy. What are they up there today saying? If they get the chance to modify this legislation, it will make sure that we become slow followers again. They’re somehow going to embed that in changes that they will—I don’t know how they’re going to do it, but somehow the independent climate commission will, under their view of the world, reach different answers.
I was struck, though, when Lord Deben was here, by a forward-thinking—he’s a forward-thinking man, and he told a very amusing story, which is, none the less, of importance. When he was a Minister for the environment under Margaret Thatcher’s Tory Government—not a Government that I’m particularly fond of and that unleashed neoliberalism on the world with Ronald Reagan, but she was a scientist, and he believed in climate change. As Minister for the environment, he had a group of officials come into his office and say, “Minister, we have a duty to put before you the issue as to whether we should lift the sea defences around the United Kingdom. The good news is you’re not going to have a scrap with Treasury because we’re recommending that we don’t lift them.” He said to the officials in the room—and he told this story a couple of times when he was out—“Is there anyone here who has a contrary view?” He said a young official, who happened to be a man, in the corner said, “Well, Minister, if you happen to believe that climate change is real, I believe we should be investing in lifting the sea defences.” He said, “Well, as it so happens, young man, I do believe that climate change is real.”
Thereafter followed a scrap with Treasury to get money to lift the sea defences around the United Kingdom. He had great difficulties doing it, and so he phoned up Maggie Thatcher, his Prime Minister—when he was contributing to his speech he was making—and he said, “Well, what do we do about it?” She said, “You know, John. There’s only two people in this Cabinet that believe climate change is real: you and me—and I believe we call that a majority.” And they lifted the sea defences around the United Kingdom. They lifted the Thames barrier, and isn’t that investment proving wise now? The UK got ahead of these issues. They depoliticised their carbon reductions pathway through the climate commission, and he’s had sufficient respect across both sides of the Houses to be put in charge of that job.
Now, where do we have to go next as a country? In my view, electricity is largely under control. A little bit of history there: the last Labour Government priced carbon, set a 90 percent target, put a moratorium on more fossil fuel baseload. The National Party opposed all of those measures. They said the future was fossil fuels. Gerry Brownlee put out a video at the time of the 2000 election that he had the audacity to caption as “sexy coal”, and he got the nickname of “Sexy Coal Brownlee” as a consequence. He then took over as Minister of energy and sought to remove the 90 percent renewable electricity target, and it wasn’t until he was reshuffled out of that position that Hekia Parata, the following Minister, reintroduced it and was wise enough to stay on course. What are we? We’ve gone from 64 percent renewables to 85 percent renewables, and the cost of electricity has not gone up. The cost of line services increased a little bit, but electricity hasn’t moved one cent. I predict that the decarbonisation pathway in New Zealand will make us wealthier as well as cleaner.
Where do we need to go next? We need to decarbonise transport. That’s electricity through battery, electric vehicles for light transport. But, really, I’ve come to the conclusion that we’re not going to get there as a country or a world without a hydrogen economy. So Megan Woods signed an agreement with Japan to advance the hydrogen economy. We’ve got Japanese investors already in the central North Island. We’re looking at projects to advance this through the Provincial Growth Fund. Just yesterday, or it might even be within the last 24 hours, I went to the import expo in Shanghai, where I was there for trade reasons. Every time I go, I look at how fast forward the hydrogen economy is coming, particularly for public transport, particularly as a firming fuel for intermittent renewables as we get ever closer to 100 percent. Essentially, in the next 20 to 30 years, we need to double New Zealand’s renewable electricity output in order to electrify transport and industrial heat. A deal’s going to have to be done with Fonterra to move from coal for dehydration of milk to renewable electricity. This can be done. These are things that are within our reach.
In respect of the points that Judith Collins made on agriculture—what a negative view of the capability of the agricultural sector. You know, even without a price signal, the agricultural sector has reduced their greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant agriculture by 1 percent per annum for the last 20 years. It’s just that they’ve taken it in volume growth. Well, even if they only continue that 1 percent per annum, over 20 percent compounded, which works in reverse, they would have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent gross if they give that improved greenhouse efficiency to the environment instead of volume growth. If some of these new technologies that we’re investing in come off, they’ll do much better than that.
Now, as to the idea that we’ll stop producing food—what nonsense. We as a Government are expending money not just through the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium—which was not an idea of any political party. Actually, it was an idea of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry for Primary Industries under the term of the last Labour Government. But, you know, it wasn’t our brilliance; it was the brilliance of officials. Those ideas will bear fruit. They’ll do better than 1 percent per annum. But even if they didn’t, what’s wrong with producing a bit more horticultural output? It’s high value. Our horticultural exports, which don’t produce ruminant emissions, are growing faster than dairy. It’s good. We’re investing in agritech to bring forward the automation that we need in horticulture.
Just the Friday before last, Minister Jones, myself, and others announced the partnership between the Government and Scott Technology, one of the best robotics firms in the world, to advance these robotics on farm.
Hon Shane Jones: Otago!
Hon DAVID PARKER: Otago indeed—Otago indeed. So we’re not going to be fast followers. We’re going to lead, and we should be proud of leading. There’s a moral case to be done for this. All of this talk about economics. Yes, of course economics are important. Of course you want to decarbonise in the lowest-cost possible way. But it doesn’t mean to say that you justify doing it in economic terms—that’s just the choice of how you do it. There is a moral imperative that we do this. I find it appalling that those who say that we should, essentially, be slow followers—they used to even say they were going to be fast followers. No credibility for that now, they say.
Having said that, can I return to the positive, because it is good that we have—
Hon Scott Simpson: That’d be unusual for the Minister.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, it is hard to be positive when I follow your negative talk. But I do think it’s good that we have—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry, but the member’s time has expired.
SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill in its third reading. I rise in support of our leader, the Hon Simon Bridges, and I rise in support of the National Party that is known as pragmatic environmentalists. I am very pleased that I rise in support of our position that while we support the broad framework of this bill, that while we support the formation of a climate change commission which is expert-led to provide advice to successive Governments on carbon emissions and budgets, within our first 100 days of a National-led Government, we will make seven changes to the bill which will strengthen it and take all of New Zealand along with us.
I want to, first of all, start with congratulating the Hon James Shaw. We both came in in 2014, and I have watched him progress, and I can say that Mr James Shaw is tenacious and he has drive and passion in the area of climate change. So thank you, the Hon James Shaw, for your driving passion in this bill. I’d also like to thank the honourable Kennedy Graham. I remember going to a dinner as a young backbencher in 2014 with him and the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and sitting there and listening to climate change banter and feeling absolutely out of my depth, which—it’s quite ironic that I now am the spokesperson for conservation and was on the Environment Committee, being thrown into the area of climate change at the mercy of the officials.
I thank the officials for their patience. I also want to take the opportunity to thank, on this side, Todd Muller, my colleague—again, another 2014er, who started with the spokesperson for climate change role—for his patience working through all of this information, and for his pragmatism. And then to Scott Simpson, for the speed in which he took up the Opposition spokesperson’s role and for him digesting and processing the information, as only a National Party MP could, and coming up with a very pragmatic and practical way forward. And then, finally, to the Hon Simon Bridges, for his steel in staying true to our principles that when we think about the environment and what we do with the environment, that we use good science and we robustly debate, and, again, that we take all New Zealanders with us, taking into account economic, environmental, and social effects as a whole.
So I am, again, pleased to be standing here in support, but pleased as to the National Party’s position that within our first 100 days of taking the Treasury benches, we’ll make changes to cover off a number of concerns that we have.
I want to talk about the seven changes that we would make. I have traversed, in my speeches in the committee of the whole House and the second reading, concerns about pace. What I would say to the member opposite, who talked about moving either too slow or moving too fast, is that it’s not about that; again, it’s about taking all New Zealanders with us at a pace that New Zealand is comfortable with, taking into account the ability for New Zealand to produce food, taking into account the social effects of too much planting of pine trees in our rural area—destroying our arable land—and taking into account the effects of those that live in cities, that live rurally, that live in the provinces, and the economics that go with that.
So our first change would be that the target for biological methane reduction be recommended by the independent Climate Change Commission, and why wouldn’t it? This is a group of experts to lead discussions and advice on climate change. So we want that to be recommended based on good science and robustly communicated to us.
That the bill, again, makes it clear, as in the Paris Agreement, that food production is not threatened. As I said before, I’ve traversed this many times in my speeches, and as we’ve heard from speakers on this side: New Zealanders are the best food producers in the world, we produce it efficiently, and we are reputable in our production—and, therefore, that should not change. We need to strengthen provisions that consider the level of action being taken by other countries, and allow targets to be adjusted to ensure that we remain in step with the international community. Again, that’s the pace at which we move. We don’t want to be disadvantaging New Zealand when other countries are not doing the same. Yes, we want to do our part. Yes, we want to be responsible. But, again, we need to move at a pace that technology is available. We do not want to be exporting jobs and livelihoods instead of exporting good food—or in my case, in Southland, the cleanest aluminium in the world.
We need to strengthen the provisions to ensure that the commission considers economic impacts when providing advice on targets and emission reductions—for some reason, the other side thinks that that is somehow dirty; it’s not. When you’re talking about the most vulnerable in our society, we need to take them along too—and they would be hit by some of the impacts and changes of climate change as well. So let’s have a think about the economics across the board, across sectors, and across New Zealand.
That the bill ensures that the commission considers the appropriate use of forestry offsets and that the bill has regard for the carbon sink represented by crops, riparian planting, and other farm biomass. Again, it was traversed quite heavily in the committee of the whole House that we don’t want vast plantations of Pinus radiata—that would destroy rural communities, and, certainly, we don’t just want to be reliant on Pinus radiata, when we have a third of New Zealand already covered in some fantastic native bush. All of those natural landscapes need to be taken into account as well.
That emissions budgets be split between biogenic, methane, and carbon dioxide, as recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and that is all based on long-lived verses short-lived gases, and, hence, should be dealt with separately.
And, finally, that the bill includes a greater commitment to investment in innovation and research and development to find new solutions for reducing emissions. And that comes back to technology—again, that we make sure that we have technology advancement available before we move too quick and at a pace that could see jobs and livelihoods exported offshore.
It is extremely disappointing that the so-called and self-professed champions of the regions, New Zealand First, did not support our Supplementary Order Papers that detailed all of those seven commitments that would have strengthened the bill and made it more robust and made it easier for the commission to take into account those points which have been so eloquently made by this side of the House.
As I conclude, in my final minute of this speech, while the Hon Scott Simpson looked forward with hope, I also look forward with hope. But I finish with the record—and a record of a National-led Government that we continue to build on—in that it should be noted that it was a National-led Government that signed us up to the Paris Agreement, that it was a National-led Government that stabilised emissions while we were in Government, that it was a National-led Government that increased our renewable energy profile from 60 percent to 80 percent, that it was a National-led Government that invested heavily in electric vehicle initiatives, and that it was a National-led Government that invested hundreds of millions into our natural landscape to allow it to flourish and absorb carbon. We will continue to build on that record, in support of reducing climate change emissions.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Jenny Marcroft—five minutes.
JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege to stand and take a call on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill. For almost 30 years as a newsreader, I read stories about global warming; those stories I read to the nation. So, today, I am very proud to stand here and take my call on behalf of New Zealand First, as we pass this historic legislation into law.
Climate change poses a very real and imminent threat to the survival of humankind; I know this, we all know this in this House, and New Zealand knows this. As the kaitiaki of this big, beautiful planet—the jewel in the cosmos—it is our responsibility to absolutely avoid a climate calamity. Concern has seen a mobilisation of record-breaking protests around the nation. In our schools, with the strikes for climate justice, a tsunami of young people have marched in the streets.
The imminent threat of being nuked into oblivion heard a rallying cry in the 1970s. It was in the 1970s that the baby boomers knew that we needed to stop nuclear weapons, and so we ensured that we would have this nuclear-free fight—and we won that. So we know that young people of New Zealand know how to take a strong stand, and we saw that with our baby boomers back in the 1970s. I’m a baby boomer; only just, you may be surprised. I know, I look like I’m Gen X—at least Gen Y, maybe. So today’s youth, and the youth of the 1970s, of which I proudly claim myself, we are fighting for the survival of humanity. It’s not just about New Zealand; it is a global fight and a global battle, and we are playing our part.
New Zealand First, in our coalition agreement with Labour, sought that we would have the creation of an independent Climate Change Commission and that we would introduce a zero carbon bill. We understand that New Zealand is a food basket to the world, and so, from the outset of our climate change negotiations, we had the interests of the agricultural sector at the heart of our conversations. We wanted to provide as much certainty to the agricultural sector as was possible. So we ensured that the Climate Change Commission would not have the statutory independence of the Reserve Bank. New Zealand’s unique methane profile was acknowledged by splitting carbon dioxide and methane gases in the policy; setting a methane target of a 10 percent reduction from 2020 to 2030 to provide certainty to the agricultural sector as it transitions to a low emissions future. We stripped away unnecessary advisory groups supporting the Climate Change Commission.
So New Zealand First is very pleased to have achieved these common-sense moves and also to provide necessary balance to the zero carbon bill. We thank the Minister, the Hon James Shaw, for working so diligently with New Zealand First.
Climate change is evoking a dangerous feeling in the Pacific, and that feeling is fear. That fear has been echoed through our young people that marched in the streets. In Warkworth, near where I live, the largest Kiribati community lives. They have a salt incursion coming up within the aquifers. At some point they will not be able to go home.
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was written by more than 100 scientists—some New Zealanders, some Australians, and some from the Pacific—looked at over 7,000 scientific studies. What they concluded is that the oceans are warming at such a drastic rate that the very chemistry is being altered. That means that our marine ecosystems are in disarray, the coral reefs are dying, and our fish will no longer be able to breed and thrive.
Our Pacific islands, our nations in our Pacific, who are our neighbours, they are the frontline of this warming planet, and it is our duty to do our bit to ensure that our neighbours live in a space where they are able to keep living in their own homes. This legislation is ambitious and far reaching, and it is with great pleasure that New Zealand First commends this ground-breaking law to the House.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am so happy to rise today to speak in support of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill. The process that we’ve taken to get to where we are today has been long, but it has been extremely rewarding. Today, I am very proud that we will pass this crucial piece of legislation. The passing of this bill today will see us begin a journey—a journey of decarbonising our economy and shifting towards a greener and more sustainable future for our country. It is the work that the National Party has done over the last year or so, in a collaborative and cross-party manner, that means we will take this journey in a more sensible and more balanced way that will see us play our part in terms of the global response, without compromising the ability of Kiwi families to thrive.
While there will be compromises along the way, there will also be opportunities. We must move at a pace that balances those compromises and those opportunities in a manner that will see us continue to prosper as a nation. I must at this point pay tribute to my colleagues Todd Muller and Scott Simpson and our leader Simon Bridges. The work that they have put in over the last year in negotiating with the Hon James Shaw has been nothing but exceptional. We are in the position we are today to vote for this bill because of the work that they put in. In particular, they put forward our five guiding principles: that we must be science based, technology driven, that our response must be in keeping with our global trading partners, that we must offer long-term incentives to businesses and consumers, and that we want to ensure that the economic impact is minimised. We can see these reflected in some part in the bill in sections 5L and 5Z, whereby the commission and the Minister must take into account our principles, and, in particular, the focus on technology.
When it comes to technology, we have argued strenuously that we must not kneecap our industries where the technology does not exist for them to be able to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. We must not be out so far in front—contrary to what the Prime Minister has said today—that we sink entire industries. We know that there are many businesses out there who are already taking steps to reduce their emissions, and the results are quite incredible and we must support them.
I was visiting a concrete company, Atlas Concrete, just last week. The concrete industry, for example, has reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent since 2005, and that is despite an increase of 13 percent in production. But there is no available technology at the moment that will allow them to replace the process which produces these emissions. While this technology may be available in the next 15 years or so, we cannot afford to kneecap an industry who is already doing as much as they possibly can, because that means all we will do is import this product from overseas, and the carbon leakage associated with this will increase global emissions.
Similarly, with agriculture, we must acknowledge that our dairy, meat, and fibre that we produce in this country is produced with the lowest emissions of anywhere in the world. We must back our farmers and our food producers who are doing all of the good work. We must take a technology-led approach and move at a pace that sees our farmers continue to innovate and to reduce their emissions as technology allows them to.
This bill sets up an independent Climate Change Commission, with experts who will advise successive Governments so that Ministers can set carbon budgets. And these budgets will provide a stepping stone to a zero carbon future. The idea of this Climate Change Commission has always been broadly supported by the National Party, but the devil is in the detail, as it always is. While we recognise that this legislation is not perfect, there are areas that are required to have some improvement, but this is not compelling enough for us to vote against the bill today. The issue is far too important.
We will commit to making changes in our first 100 days. Our approach today, in voting for this bill, is entirely in keeping with the climate change - related actions we’ve taken under our last Government. We insulated half a million homes. We introduced the emissions trading scheme in New Zealand. We exempted electric cars from road user charges. We signed up to the Paris accord, and, most importantly, we took New Zealand from 65 percent renewable energy to 85 percent. I am proud that we have stuck to our principles and that we have worked constructively with James Shaw on this bill, and the changes that we will make when we are elected to Government next year will lead us to that sustainable future that we all want. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand this is a split call. I call Chlöe Swarbrick—five minutes.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is always a good day to be passing climate action into law, and today has been a long time coming. Most recently, hundreds of thousands of young people—many too young to vote—have fought in the streets so that we can fight in our seats. We can have a clean, green policy that ensures all of us live good, meaningful lives of belonging in our communities. We can’t pretend that it is somehow natural that human beings are destroying the very climate that we rely on to survive. It has been the decision of successive Governments to short-change future generations by selling off their future and calling it GDP.
Today there’s been a lot of talk about the economy. The economy, importantly, is the study and policy of the allocation and maximisation of our resources. It’s not some ambiguous deity, some unknown god-like entity that gets angry, which we’ve got to sacrifice to. It is a system that politicians have designed, and we can change it. Politicians—many of whom have occupied this Chamber before us—have for years prioritised sacrifice of our collective quality of living, have sacrificed our shared environment. Ironically, they have actually privatised profit and socialised costs. All of us are picking up the bill. Those politicians have constructed a system that exploits both people and the planet.
Today we say that enough is enough. Today we create a legal obligation to reduce our climate emissions in this country to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. This is a triumph for climate activists and advocates everywhere, but particularly here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We have reached the starting line, and now comes more action.
Talk of global warming was once dismissed as fringe, and today I would say it is, unfortunately, mainstream, because it’s not theoretical anymore. Its effects are felt in increasing temperatures, in rising sea levels, in ocean acidification, crop failures, resource shortages, mass migration, and so much more. People like the Greens were once dismissed for highlighting the need to act as far back as 30 years ago, when our party was formed under a palpable sense of urgency for a political alternative. Today, a Green Party MP, our co-leader, the Minister for Climate Change—a Green Minister for Climate Change—my colleague the Hon James Shaw is leading the passage of this zero carbon bill, but we need to go further and we need to go faster, and we can. Activism works, so act.
Countries cannot continue to point the finger at each other, playing this daft game of chicken, arguing that they will have to wait for others to act before they do, as we all watch the world burn. That’s why it is important that a small country of five million people with six times as many sheep, floating at the bottom of the Pacific, commits in law to stay below 1.5 degrees. Our action gives others permission. Our action sets precedent. It proves it is possible and shows other countries and the citizens of those countries what their Governments can do.
While many have called for climate action to be apolitical, it is critical to realise that today is only happening because of politics. Decades of inaction have come courtesy of political decision-making, and climate action is happening now as a result of political decision-making. When the public watch Parliament, when they watch politicians behave badly and decide to opt out of engaging, I want them to know the perverse impact that sees that very behaviour continue. When people who want change decide to sit down, the status quo has an excuse to keep on going. If people don’t like their politicians, they need to realise it is within their power to throw them in the bin. Find someone in your community who you do like and support them in running. That is what politics should be.
I am reminded frequently of the chant I chanted with the tens of thousands of school strikers as we marched down Queen Street only a few weeks ago: “Show me what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!” Democracy needs all of us, or it will not work for all of us.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always hard to follow such articulate advocates for the environment, and I just have to say that was amazing, Chlöe Swarbrick—that was amazing. I also want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon James Shaw, who has been and will continue to be a man who has lived and breathed towards a carbon-neutral future on behalf of this country for a long time. I acknowledge the member for his contribution and actually for seeing this bill pass today, and I want to congratulate you on the birth of your nephew and on the birth of hope.
I also want to acknowledge my leader, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, who has shown absolutely that leadership is based on kindness and compassion, coupled with her steely determination to see this happen and her ability to work across Government to get it there. I’m absolutely privileged to be here.
I want to acknowledge the Minister Aupito William Sio for speaking on behalf of our Pacific nations and as a Pacific man. We have a long way to go to support our Pacific nations, but it is important that we do this, and it is important that this bill passes today so that we can start the work.
We’ve stood on the shoulders of giants today, and I am privileged—absolutely privileged. Actually, I got a little bit choked up when I was listening to the various speeches today—not when I was listening to all the speeches today, but those on this side of the House, where we have worked so very hard and listened to the stories of 170,000 people who marched the streets, and the over 10,000 people who made submissions to our select committee, and the 800 people who came in person: little children, great-grandmothers, families, intergenerational families, farmers, environmentalists, and, you know what, environmentalist farmers. There were a lot of those as well. In fact, we heard from everyone: health providers, feminist groups across a plethora. It is clear that this is indeed our nuclear-free moment, and if we cannot change, if we cannot continue to take personal responsibility, we’re absolutely going to flounder.
I’m really concerned that the Opposition today, while supporting this bill, have said that in their first hundred days they will make some changes—changes that actually already exist in this bill. What I say to the members across the House is New Zealand heard you say that. New Zealand is listening to what you will do, and I do think that when we go to the polls next year, they will remember, and our time to account will be there.
This bill has four key elements. We’ve talked about it on and on, and it seems to have been the entire House. I’ve been in the House for the entire week, and that is a good thing. It’s been worth it, but I want to finish with one of the things that for me I absolutely enjoyed about this process, and that is, as a feminist woman, listening to women talk about their environment and talking about how we as a nation need to move forward. So I’d just like to end on the National Council of Women of New Zealand’s submission: “Parliament’s and the Commission’s first consideration must always be human rights and gender equality in exercising powers under the proposed Act. It is families—their homes, health, livelihoods and environment that bear the brunt of adversity from carbon emissions. The Commission must ensure that each successive”—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with no small measure of satisfaction that I stand in support of the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill this afternoon. Can I begin by acknowledging a few people. Absolutely, Simon Bridges, our leader—I don’t think there’s enough understanding of the focus that he had from the moment he became leader to lean in to issues such as this with more determination than we had done previously and to outline very clearly the principles that would underpin our approach with climate change. He did that, and he was a fantastic source of judgment and guidance through the process that we followed.
Can I acknowledge you, Kennedy—Kennedy Graham, who helped guide me to a greater understanding of climate change from very much a zero-carbon base. I’ve learnt a lot over the years. To Scott Simpson, my colleague, the National Party team on the Environment Committee—thank you. I do want to acknowledge James Shaw. There are certain people that you meet in this place who you can connect with. He is one of them. He is a man of huge character and integrity. There were many times in the last 18 months of this process where things could have turned out differently, but for his determination to see this as an opportunity beyond partisan politics, the credit, in no small measure, sits with him.
I’d like to address my comments this afternoon to the 23,000 farming families of New Zealand. I am the National Party’s agriculture spokesperson; I would like to speak directly to them. Now, I appreciate that they are feeling, quite understandably, under a great sense of stress, that they haven’t felt, probably, in a generation. It started with the capital gains tax and various taxes that sat within that. It’s been incredibly amplified by the Essential Freshwater Package, which is in front of rural New Zealand in particular, at the moment. I know that they will be looking at this zero carbon bill with some anxiety.
Can I first say that we have worked assiduously to ensure there are some very strong protections that exist within this bill. Remember, this bill is establishing a commission. This commission will advise successive parliaments around how we reduce, over time, the emissions profile of this country. But the advice that they provide parliaments must be anchored on a number of critical tests that we, the National Party, were determined to put in the legislation. The first was the importance of what the economic impacts would be. The second was that science needed to be at the forefront of their consideration. They needed to understand and reflect what was going on in the rest of the world. So regardless of what has been said by others in this House already, that calibration with the global response is in the bill, and we put that in there, and it is an important part of this framework to give rural New Zealand some comfort.
Now, this is a solid bill, but as you’ve heard from my colleagues, there are areas that we intend to strengthen, if we are given the privilege of leading this country next year. We will focus on the target to ensure that instead of a very wide range, there is a specific number informed by the best and brightest that we hope will sit on that commission. As discussed, food production will be included—the protection of food production, the acknowledgment that that sits at the core of the Paris Agreement that created this endeavour in the first place. That will be put into the legislation more specifically, and particularly for our farming families. We will make sure that there is a specific focus on the appropriateness of the ongoing use of forestry offsets, and, in particular, how we can make sure that the carbon that exists on your farm is counted in this conversation around what you, as farming families and rural operators, bring to this solution—for you’re already world leading, and that needs to be acknowledged, and we are going to make sure that the commission pays due cognisance of it.
We need to be very upfront about the fact that agricultural emissions are a critical part of this country’s challenge. It’s half of our emissions profile. And the reason for that is because we have over 30 million cattle and sheep and five million people. As some would make out, even some on the other side, this is not a national tragedy; it is something that should be celebrated, because the farmers of New Zealand ensure that the emissions from those cattle and sheep are the most emissions-efficient in the world. And so, as we have the conversations that we need to have, as a Parliament and as a country, around how we deal with agricultural emissions, this party will never forget that we stand on the side of farmers, that we understand that the starting point is a position of global leadership.
The Prime Minister earlier this afternoon said we must lead from the front in climate change. Prime Minister, our farmers already do. She said we must lead in terms of innovation and science. Prime Minister, every farmer, every day, is looking at opportunities to improve their business. It underpins the strength of this New Zealand economy. In fact, the New Zealand story is one long arc of adaptation and innovation, driven by the farmers of New Zealand.
And so this party will ensure that as we have this conversation, as we must, and over time reduce our emissions, we start the conversation from a position of acknowledgment: of acknowledging our farming families of this country for their day in and day out effort to produce the most emissions-efficient food in the world. It should be celebrated. We do not argue that we stand still. We accept that we must, over the next five, 10 and 15 years, continue to build on that leadership position. But from the National Party, success in reducing agriculture emissions is not a function of spending the next five years designing a tax to lay over the sector. The Government sees success and emissions reduction as a function of tax. This party, the National Party, sees success in reducing agricultural emissions from a position of partnership, of acknowledging that our farmers are already the best in the world. What is needed is that we need to fuse that position with innovation, with science, and ensure that farmers feel supported on the journey.
The farmers of New Zealand do not feel supported by this Government. All they see, when you strip away the rhetoric of ambition, is a fundamental view that this agricultural sector, that leads this country, that underpins our economy, actually needs to be constrained, because at the core of—[Interruption]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. It’s really difficult with that amount of interjection going across both sides of the House. It is out of order.
TODD MULLER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. At the core of the Government’s philosophy is a fundamental view that the future of the New Zealand economy must depart from its agriculture history, that it must depart from the dependency that we have had, the strength that we have in terms of producing food and fibre to the world. That underpins their view, and they also see this conversation, as I have said, through the lens of punitive tax and a regressive approach in terms of how to deal with emissions. So I will repeat, to be clear. This is a party, the National Party, that understands the importance of reducing our emissions.
Mark Patterson: Vote against it, then. Vote against it. If that’s what you believe, vote against it.
TODD MULLER: We have always held the view, and you’ve heard from my colleagues, and we have taken leadership in the climate change conversation. It was National who signed us up to Paris. It is the National Party who stands here today and says that in this journey, our journey, we must—
Mark Patterson: Come on, vote against it, then.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I want to ask Mark Patterson to stand, withdraw, and apologise. [Interruption] I haven’t finished yet. Interjections should be rare, reasonable, and relevant, not continuously the same interjection—I think seven or eight times, I heard it.
Mark Patterson: I withdraw and apologise.
TODD MULLER: Actually, I might finish on that note, because what we have sought to build is bipartisanship. And when I stand up and articulate our approach, and the principles that have underpinned it, the perspectives that we bring to the debate, and the extent to which I try to give voice, it gets shouted down. And so I put out to you, to the New Zealanders that are listening, that this is a collective approach to dealing with climate change. But this party stands to bring to the table a maturity, a perspective, an understanding that, actually, to do this, we have to do it together and we have to look at ways that respect the other side’s perspectives on how to do it.
Thank you very much. I am very, very pleased to be able to support this bill—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, the member’s time has expired. I understand this is a split call. I call Kiritapu Allan—five minutes.
KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour):
Hope for a generation
Not beyond my reach
Just beyond my sight
Hope for a generation
Hope for a generation
Ki a koutou, ā tātou nei taiohi, ā tātou nei rangatahi kua whai atu, kua whawhai tonu mō tēnei rā whakahirahira. Ko koutou tērā. Ko koutou tērā. Te mana o tēnei rā ki a koutou, ki a koutou, ā te wā.
[To you, our youth, our young people, who have pursued, who have fought for this important day. That is you. That is you. The importance of this day, to you, to you, when the time comes.]
I got a bit nervous singing there, and I’ve been feeling a bit nervous because when I think about the monumental occasion for me of this bill, I can only but turn and thank the generation that is coming through that has gone and taken to the streets—that has taken to the classrooms, that has taken to the beaches—and that has been a constant and continuous loud speaker to us in this House, but also to those people in your own communities, to ensure that today we do the right thing. We do the right thing as people that stand in political leadership, but we do the right thing for those generations that follow after us and those many, many generations to come.
We have a saying in our culture:
Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi.
[When the old net wears out, it will be replaced by a new one.]
When the old nets get a little bit tired, it’s time to chuck them away and let those young leaders come through. For me, it has been the young people that have led us in a cultural shift, but I will say that has been done on the back of many generations that have fought in turn for this day. The Prime Minister said earlier that it was 10 years ago when she pointed across to the other side of the House and she said—she was sitting in that seat and she had to ask this House—they sat there and there was no universal consensus that climate change was actually a real thing. We have moved far beyond that. So I do want to acknowledge those people that have fought for the long legacy to ensure the mana and restoration of our whaea Papatūānuku.
But, too, in turn, as the chair of our rural caucus for the Labour Party, I too want to take a leaf out of my colleague from opposite in the House’s book and speak directly to the food producers of our nation. I want to speak directly to those who are living in our rural constituencies. I am a proud product of rural New Zealand. I hail from the East Coast, born and raised. We grow food. We survive on the whenua. It is the backbone of our economy, but so too we are the most vulnerable and susceptible to the impacts of climate change. I go up my coast, the mighty East Coast, and I look at all of my roads, up in Te Kaha and around the coast. It’s our coastlines that are eroding.
In 2017, we suffered the most monumental flooding event in recent living history. Three hundred families’ homes were under water. Edgecumbe, if you took the bird’s eye view across our town, underwent an unprecedented amount of rainfall during a specific period in time. The trajectory, the predictions, the science tells us that the rainfall will increase in regional areas like ours in the East Coast if we do nothing to curb the tide and address climate change.
This is not the urban liberals fighting against the rural constituents and communities. This is a bill for our country and our people and our nation. We all have a part to play in ensuring that this country is not just a world leader, because, I mean, that’s great—it’s great to be a world leader, and we consistently are—but it’s actually to ensure the viability of our regional communities up and down this country, because I myself, and many people on this side of the House, actually live in the regions. We aren’t corporate executives at some of those big companies that are trying to do things and are based in the urban centres. No, we live and breathe and survive on the food that we get from our land and our places.
So I couldn’t be more proud to stand in this House today, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Hon James Shaw in reaching out your hand to our future generations, those people who are coming through the ranks, to our food producers that you’ve worked tirelessly with alongside the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern to ensure that today we leave a legacy for future generations, to ensure that we tackle climate change and set a real trajectory for future generations moving forward. Tēnā koutou.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): It’s hard to follow those fine words of my colleague and friend Kiritapu Allan, but what a privilege to stand and hustle this bill through its final reading. James Shaw, congratulations on the huge amount of work that you have done to get to this. And, look, congratulations to the Opposition for recognising that it’s time to move forward. We have reached our ecological limits. We must take action, and this is the moment.
I don’t want to focus on divisions; I want to focus on the things that we agree on. We agree at last that those people who think there’s no problem are fundamentally wrong. We agree that it’s time to stop equivocation and delay. It is time now. We agree it is time to start real and substantive action in respect of climate change. This is the time for political consensus, and it is gratifying to see that we have it.
I want to say that the select committees were robust in hearing those submissions, but there was a uniform consensus across industry, across agriculture, across rural communities, across urban communities that the time is now, and the time for action is here. I want to recognise those activists and the important part that activists play in our community—Generation Zero, Extinction Rebellion, and especially the School Strike 4 Climate, who came out in the streets in their droves and made it clear that this Government and this House has a real political mandate to take decisive action.
I want to say that, whilst New Zealand may contribute only a small amount globally, we must absolutely step up and play our part. There are 186 signatories to the Paris Agreement. By definition, on average, they have less than 1 percent of emissions each. We must absolutely step up, and what is more, we are best placed to do so, because it’s important not only that we accept the science but we accept the justice of doing our part, of no longer taking more than our fair share of the environment. We have the ability to change and to innovate and also to absorb the costs in making those changes, and others have the need.
Our Pacific neighbours have huge need for us to step up and do our part—and to the underdeveloped nations as well who aren’t huge emitters, they have a need for us to step up along with other developed countries. We must not have climate colonisation. We must not export this problem. For too long developed nations have absolutely exploited underdeveloped nations and moved their problems there and their pollution and their other issues offshore. It’s time for us to bring that back home and make changes here, onshore.
It’s really good to see that—of all the difficult problems, climate change must be one of the most wicked, the most apparently intractable, the one we can least agree upon, but what a great day for democracy when we come here and we reach a consensus. We come together and we say we have a plan. And, look, the Opposition have views about how they would change the bill were they in Government. That is right. Of course, they would do things a little differently, but we agree on so much. We are now headed in the right direction, and I’m confident that when perhaps one day they are in Government, times will have changed and they will see that the direction that we’re going in, the steps that we are taking, are right. There is no time for retreat from the brave decisions we have made.
This is a day for all New Zealanders. We hear the term “everyday New Zealanders” a lot. Do you know what? I have spoken to them all—the mothers, the fathers, the retired people, the boomers. They’re all out there and they all agree, Ms Marcroft. They all agree that now is the time to take real action. What a privilege for me to stand here. “Commend” is the wrong word. I absolutely endorse and approve of this bill. A fantastic day for New Zealand.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2)
Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2)
Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2)
Third Readings
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2), the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.
Where’s everybody going? The three regulatory systems bills are omnibus bills that contain small regulatory amendments to legislation administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. The objectives of the bills are to improve regulatory systems by clarifying and updating statutory provisions to give effect to the purpose of the principal Acts and their provisions; addressing regulatory duplication, gaps, errors, and inconsistencies within and between different pieces of legislation; keeping the regulatory system up to date and relevant; and removing unnecessary compliance costs and costs of doing business.
The Government has committed to maintaining and updating existing legislation to respond to changing environments and citizen needs. Regulation, when implemented well, underpins markets, protects the rights and safety of citizens and their property, and assists the efficient and equitable delivery of goods and services. Regulation is an important tool for preserving and advancing the public interest. We want regulations to be simpler so people can focus on growing their business rather than compliance costs.
We’re working hard to make dealing with the Government easier. That’s why the Government is investing $7.1 million in Business Connect. Business Connect will enable businesses and Government agencies to work together, smarter. Our objective is to integrate access to multiple services through a single digital platform and cut out repetitive paperwork. Over time, businesses will be able to apply for a range of permits, licences, and consents without having to repeat the same information and documentation over and over.
These bills make a few changes that are quite important. In the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), I’d like to pick up on the changes that relate to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. This bill addresses an obvious gap between the intent of the parental leave scheme and the legislation, whereby spouses or partners are treated differently to other types of primary carers in a similar situation—for example, adoptive parents. Last year, a Christchurch father was unable to get paid parental leave to care for three children after his partner died. The birth mother died following the birth of their child. The man was working full time while his partner hadn’t had a job in the 12 months leading up to her due date.
Parental leave payments are only available to the primary carer of a child under six years. The way the legislation is drafted means that for biological parents, eligibility to parental leave payments usually stems from the mother’s eligibility. The mother may transfer the payments to a partner, but the partner of a birth mother is not eligible for payments in their own right. If the mother is ineligible and passes away, then the partner is not able to receive payments.
This bill fixes that issue and extends parental leave payments to those partners. The workforce bill also enables labour inspectors to use their investigative powers to ascertain whether workers are employees so they can ensure workers are paid the minimum wage, get their full leave entitlements, and have a safe workplace. As the number of contractors rises, determining whether someone is an employee or not is becoming increasingly important.
The Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2) makes amendments to 14 Acts. Importantly, the bill changes the law so people guilty of some forms of tax evasion are automatically prohibited from directing or managing a company for five years. The bill seeks to add two additional types of offence to this list—namely evasions or similar offences under section 143A and 143B of the Tax Administration Act 1994—for evasion and similar actions, along with aiding, abetting, inciting, or conspiring with another person to commit such offences as set out in section 148 of that Act.
The second amendment is to the Insolvency Act. Currently, the Act prohibits an undischarged bankrupt from either directly or indirectly managing or controlling a business, being employed by a relative, or being employed by an entity such as a company or trust owned or controlled by a relative. This is to prevent a bankrupt from having significant control over the finances of the businesses during their bankruptcy. However, an undischarged bankrupt who works for a relative with no remuneration is not considered as employed, and can therefore avoid these restrictions. This bill seeks to extend the restrictions on employment to include working without reward for a relative or for an entity owned or controlled by a relative.
The Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) includes two parts. Part 1 serves to simplify the role of the Community Housing Regulatory Authority and reduces the administrative burden on registered community housing providers. Part 2 amends the Retirement Villages Act 2003 to clarify that the higher maximum fine will apply for breaches of the Act, where an operator or promoter of a retirement village did not take all the practicable steps to ensure an advertisement was not misleading or deceptive, or where an operator of a retirement village contravenes their obligations relating to the code of practice of operating a retirement village. The code of practice sets out the rights and obligations of retirement village operators and residents, and it is important that the operators understand the consequences of breaching the code and that the register has clarity when detecting such breaches and offences under the Act. Both of these offences are of a serious nature and are similar to the other offences that currently receive the higher maximum fine.
I would like to thank the three select committees for their consideration of these bills. The committees have considered changes to 19 statutes and reflected on submissions covering technical and detailed information. I commend the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2), the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems Workforce Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.
SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I just want to note that the Minister who read that speech is not the Minister in charge of the bill, and therefore I did not interrupt, but I am not going to let members read their speeches from now on.
ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will make a few comments—I won’t be as long as the Minister, Iain Lees-Galloway—in supporting the three bills at the third reading stage. There are a number of Acts, as the Minister quite rightly said—14 Acts, in fact—affected by this legislation.
The one point I’d like to make is that a small change in select committee occurred where clause 7—I’m just going to, if I may, Mr Speaker—was introduced in the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2), but it had already been affected by a change in the insolvency practitioners regulations, just recently. It involved the issue of being a liquidator and the rules around being a liquidator. So it was interesting that this bill was trying to amend that situation around the ability of a person to be a liquidator, but it had already been done over here in another bill earlier.
You wonder, with these repairs and maintenance type bills, how often that happens and what regulations are not picked up. It was good that this was picked up, but I’m sure there will be situations where regulations are duplicated, in other words. I would like to note to the House that there is a good piece of work going on right now which endeavours to grab all of the regulations around Parliament into one portal, or into one spot, so that we can understand and know where all the regulations relating to a particular issue might be. So that’s a bit of work that is going on at the moment, and that will assist us all in discovering areas of duplication in matters that have been picked up by the select committee in this instance. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I, as a matter of practice, when I’m speaking on third readings, like to do a couple of things. First thing I like to do is thank the select committee for the work that they have done in hearing the submissions and allowing that process of consultation to impact and effect change to legislation.
I like to thank the officials because they work very hard to make sure that the legislation comes back in a form that is useful for all of us. And I like to thank the submitters—and I often feel that it’s important that some of the work that the submitters do is recognised in the House at third reading, because it’s important to know the passage of travel that we have engaged upon in these particular discussions.
In this debate, I’m going to just take a fairly brief call but I want to touch on a couple of aspects of two of the bills that are part of this cognate legislation. The first one I want to just touch on is the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2). There are some changes in part of this to the Retirement Villages Act, and, in particular, there is the discussion that the Social Services and Community Committee came upon and the recommendation that they made with regards to ensuring advertising was not misleading or deceptive—that was changes to clause 7. And I want to refer to Trevor Garnett and the Commission for Financial Capability and the submissions that they made.
Mr Garnett’s discussion was about breaches of the code of practice and in his submission, though he supported the bill, he had indicated that he thought the $50,000 as a remedy for breaches of code of practice was too low for a multinational company, and he was seeking a higher threshold or higher fines for corporates involved in the retirement village business.
The Commission for Financial Capability were also concerned about wanting to ensure that there was a limit on the number of times a new panel could be sought when there were disputes. Currently—in the legislature that we are going to pass, there are disputes panels and if they can’t agree, a new panel is put in place—there are no limits to the number of times that those panels can be put in place. The view of the Commission for Financial Capability on this was that if a couple of panels can’t agree, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with the dispute itself. However, the select committee did not see that as warranting changes to the legislation, so that was not recommended by them.
The select committee did recommend, though, that all practical steps are taken to ensure that advertising is not misleading or deceptive in the case of retirement villages promoting their particular products to potential retirees to retirement villages.
The other part that I want to talk about is the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), particularly the changes to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, who spoke a little earlier, touched on the case where the father who was not a biological father could not access paid parental leave because the mother of the child had not actually been eligible.
Now, what this seeks to correct—and what it does do—is it ensures that where there is a non-biological parent or carer who is in charge of a child, they have access to paid parental leave. There are a couple of conditions that sit around that: that the child is under a year of age; that the spouse or partner who is the biological parent cannot for some reason take advantage of the paid parental leave—and in this case, the mother had passed away; and that the biological parent hadn’t had the opportunity to apply for or wasn’t eligible for paid parental leave.
It’s one of those interesting and, you know, very tragic situations that you never think of when you’re developing legislation. But it’s important, and it certainly is important to that father, that we recognise that this is an issue and we do what we can to put that in place, and I want to thank the committee for doing that. I don’t want to take any more of the House’s time. I think this is important legislation to pass and I want to commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look, very, very pleased to say what will be a short call. Obviously, three cognate bills, I just want to keep mine around the amendments to the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act of 1992, and that’s of course within the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2)—one of the three.
Look, it’s a very, very simple change. It applies to community housing providers. It basically says the register that’s required of a community housing provider that’s to be recognised, if you will, by the Crown does no longer require that all the details of the provider’s board members be provided. They don’t have to, provided that that board member is no longer a member of the community housing provider at the time—at the time—they get recognised by the Government. So a very simple example is if someone’s on the board of community housing provider X, and over the course of the year—half way through—that person resigns or steps away and a week later the organisation gets community funding, the names don’t have to be there. So a very simple technical change.
But I’ll finish on two points. One is it will be welcomed by the sector in the way anything that makes things more efficient always is. Secondly, just to acknowledge the important work the community housing sector does. So it is not an overly emotional or deep change but an important one, and I commend the legislation to the House.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Infrastructure): This legislation provides me with yet another opportunity to attend to parliamentary housekeeping. I think I’m correct in saying that historically these housekeeping bills would have been regarded as statutory revision. There would have been an omnibus bill, where issues that the bureaucracy had identified that weren’t well drafted to start off with don’t require gallons of rhetoric and don’t require great periods of debate. I suppose it’s reflective of the fact we’re reaching the end of the week. There’s been a high point earlier this afternoon with virtually everyone passing the climate change legislation.
There’s one thing I do want to highlight, however. The legislation has a crack at dealing with the Retirement Villages Act. And when you think about—in fact, I’m thinking about myself in 2025, which is quite uncharacteristic, as you well know. In 2025, there’s going to be a million people in Aotearoa over the age of 65 and that shows there’s an enormous market that investors are pursuing through the retirement villages estate.
I recall being the Minister for Building and Construction. Unfortunately, I was hounded out of that role after a lightbulb episode, but prior to that, I did a considerable amount of positive work, not the least of which is to bring some order to the Retirement Villages Act and I look forward in a future opportunity to further tidying up this area of the law, when you consider the large number of Kiwi families that are going to have their wealth stored in such estates.
I think that, whilst this bill addresses the fact that the code of practice, if you do breach it you’ll suffer a various offence, at a deeper level, I do think—and it’s beyond the ambit of this bill—that it’s probably ripe for a very deep dive. There are enormous amounts of wealth stored by people in their senior years as they enter into these estates. There are expectations from the mokopunas and their children that something will be left and I’m very, very keen, at a future point after we’ve dealt to these small improvements, to be taking that up.
On the question of protecting vulnerable employees, the Deputy Speaker’s already spoken about that. This is ongoing work. I think that probably an area where additional power and authority is going to have to be vested, in the bureaucracy—perish the thought I should say that—is enabling labour inspectors to be more forthright and penetrating with their investigative powers. I’ve been very, very concerned that over the years labour inspectors have been marginalised and sidelined, and we’ve expected the market to police and to hold people accountable in a largely liberalised labour market. That has not worked well for many of the people that are my own, and many of the young men and women who have come from overseas and found themselves in very vulnerable positions. So in that respect, this is a positive contribution.
The final thing that I would join with the Deputy Speaker, Hon Poto Williams, in talking about, because I’ve had some recent—
SPEAKER: The former Assistant Speaker, now a Minister.
Hon SHANE JONES: Oh really? Yes, you’re quite right, she is a Minister. I hope I’m not replaced by a new Minister myself, although I can imagine myself being quite a talented Speaker; there are certain people on the other side of the House that would spend great periods of time in political penury.
SPEAKER: That requires an understanding of the rules.
Hon SHANE JONES: Anyhow, I’ll come back to what I’m paid to do and talk about parental leave—OK, for fear of earning unnecessary attention of a negative nature from the Speaker, I’ll pretend I never heard that.
On the question of parental leave: family relationships are fluid, family relationships do change, and this legislation enables people who are entitled to to capture the assistance of the parental leave. In fact, my son and his partner just had a baby last week and I was very cross with him. He went straight back to work; I don’t think he knew there was a parental leave option. We’re from the sort of time—my grandmother had 17 kids and as she popped them out—
Andrew Bayly: Back to the bill.
Hon SHANE JONES: —she just went back on the kauri gumfields. There’s far too much noise from over there, but I can understand because they voted for the Government’s bill for climate change.
SPEAKER: Oh, come on. Look, I hate to prove Mr Bayly right when he was inappropriately interjecting, but I think Mr Jones knows he—
Hon SHANE JONES: OK, sir, I’ll wind up this speech, I’ll wind it up [Interruption]—although the term “wind up” has this certain impact on the other side of the House. So, obviously, these parental leave improvements, through what I call a kind of statutory revision bill, reflect the Government’s broader policy of creating a productive economy. And, also, we will make progress at an appropriate time on the fair pay agreements and other such things. But like the cheddar cheese ad says: these things which are good do take time. Thank you very much.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you for inviting me to speak on the regulatory systems amendment bills.
SPEAKER: I wouldn’t go that far.
ANDREW BAYLY: What a hodgepodge speech that was from the Hon Shane Jones; to not know that his colleague had been made a Minister some months ago, I just find very, very intriguing. And, of course, he did invite us to maybe help him with what he might do if he left Parliament. I’m just saying publicly that if he wants some vocational training or options, I’m very available, and I’m sure some of our colleagues on this side of the House would be very helpful in terms of what he might do post-politics.
SPEAKER: Well, they’ve already done that once for him, but I probably shouldn’t interject that.
ANDREW BAYLY: Well, OK—we’ve had a wide range and number of speakers talking on the whole aspect to these bills. There’s a whole stack of stuff, as you know. I just thought I would speak very briefly on their amendments to the Insolvency Act 2006. And this is about bringing up to date some of the elements in the bankruptcy provisions in that particular Act. Specifically, what this bill does is it clarifies the value of the tools of—if someone was a builder, for instance, it means the official assignee who is, of course, as Mr Speaker will know, a court official who actually distributes assets held by a bankrupt, and when they distribute that to creditors. What this bill does is it provides some element of flexibility around allowing the people, the bankruptcy person, to actually have access to their tools so they can continue making a living.
Also, there are some things around requiring rules stopping bankruptcy people actually going away and working for relatives, regardless of whether they’re rewarded for that work or not, and they must actually get consent for that. Also, I think the requirement to provide that official signee with some information—there’s certainly stuff around their details, their contact details, but also where they live and all that sort of stuff, which is very, very important. But also when a creditor makes a claim, and this happens often in bankruptcy arrangements, someone will put the company into receivership. That will trigger a distribution after some time, and at that point creditors sometimes become aware that they are potentially—there’s an option of actually receiving some of the proceeds from the distribution, and they make a late claim after the original list of creditors has been formed. What this clarifies is that those people will not miss out, and I think it’s a very important provision for creditors because, after all, in this situation we want to see creditors paid as much as they should be entitled to.
I think there’s also some rules around providing undistributed moneys in the event that there’s money left over after a bankruptcy to go to the public trust. Again, a good set of provisions, and I think an important contribution to the Insolvency Act.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support these regulatory systems amendment bills. I agree with the former speaker, the Hon Shane Jones, who talked about them being house-cleaning bills. And I would just give you one tiny example: this legislation deals with geographical indicators for wine and spirits, and it simply details the scenario where the registration has expired and instead of taking it off the register, which is the status quo, it’ll stay there; a good example of house-cleaning.
It amends 14 Acts in the workforce, housing, and economic development areas. I note the comments from Alastair Scott around identifying regulations, the need for greater transparency—I know that’s been a conversation in other parliamentary circles, and I think it is something we need to do to evolve and modernise our Parliament, because this is how much of modern lawmaking actually occurs.
A key area I spoke on in my first reading speech on this legislation, which was picked up by Poto Williams, was around parental leave when the situation arises where a spouse dies. And as she pointed out, this wasn’t anticipated in the original legislation or original regulations, but for a very small amount of cases this tragedy can have a huge impact. And here’s an example where housekeeping can make a difference for Kiwis suffering in tragedy or in simple, more prosaic cases when it comes to registration for wine and spirits. The Green Party stands for improving regulation, simplifying it, making it more transparent and understandable, and that’s why we’re pleased to support it tonight.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the regulatory systems amendment bills, third reading. This is a great example of good National Party legislation; it’s cleaning up regulation, cutting red tape, making it easier to do business. It’s the type of thing which we need to see more of here in this House.
This is amending 20 pieces of legislation in one go. I think that’s efficient use of Parliament’s time, and because it’s such efficient use of Parliament’s time I don’t think I should be taking up any more of it. I commend the bills to the House.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will stand to make a short contribution on these omnibus bills. They are, as has been mentioned previously, housekeeping matters. What they ultimately do is to clarify the purpose of various pieces of legislation, and, indeed, make the regulatory environment fairer as well. So there might be technical, reasonably minor tweaks to various pieces of legislation, but, ultimately, what it does is to make the law clearer, to make the regulatory environment fairer, and, ultimately, specific groups of people better off. For example, in one part of it, in terms of the housing amendment, it reduces the administrative burden that’s placed on registered community housing providers and it ups the penalties for those who breach the code of practice when it comes to retirement villages as well. So, ultimately, this is important to specific groups of people, it makes life fairer for them, and I commend the bill to the House.
HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It’s a privilege to stand at the end of a busy week—5.30 on a Thursday—for this legislation which, basically, is a bit like spring cleaning. You go around your house and you tidy up a few areas, sort them out. Sometimes it might take me a few hours; it might take the wife just 20 or 30 minutes. She’s a lot more effective at that type of thing. An omnibus bill, basically, has 20 bills, chucks them all together, and sorts them out, as opposed to taking up quite a bit of parliamentary time, as opposed to getting them all through the select committee, and probably having a much less efficient rate.
Just four different bills I’d like to talk about briefly. The amendments it makes to the Companies Act 1993 basically get rid of a wee bit of red tape, enough to make a difference. Often people are very busy when they’re trying to register a company and maintain company records and so forth every year. The second area I’m quite excited about is the Limited Partnerships Act 2008. Again, it looks at compliance costs, and it prohibits a bankrupt for directly or indirectly taking part in management of a company. Thirdly, amendments to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 basically clarifies and gives clearer definitions and updates those provisions to give the effect to the purpose of the Act which it was originally set up for 17 years ago. Finally, the amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1986 are basically changes around safety standards by clarifying what defines a good.
It’s good legislation, and I’d just like to acknowledge the hard work of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. From what I hear, they do a good job, and I commend these bills to the House.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak briefly on these bills. The one part I’d like to point out that I think is a good change that’s included in the vast array of small technical changes in these omnibus bills is the change in Business Connect, in terms of what that does to make it easier for businesses to deal with Government. So instead of filling out forms time and time again, this would enable one business to fill out a permit or other types of regulatory requirements in one place. If you already have a New Zealand Business Number, it automatically populates all of your details into those forms. So for small-business owners in New Zealand, those people that take a lot of time to do all their own paperwork, this bill provides an excellent mechanism to make daily life easier. So I commend this Government for taking the initiative to put into practice basic steps to make life for those small-business owners easier on a daily basis. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
NICOLA WILLIS (National): I stand to commend the regulatory systems amendment bills to the House. These are fairly routine fix-ups to pieces of legislation, clarifying and updating statutory provisions, addressing regulatory duplication, and keeping the system up to date and relevant. I sit on the Regulations Review Committee and what is clear is that New Zealand’s regulatory system is incredibly complex. Officials can’t tell us how many regulations we have, which seems extraordinary but is, in fact, the case. So there is a big project under way at the moment to bring all of our regulations together into one place so that there is more transparency about what they are, and they’re more readily available to New Zealanders.
These sorts of bills are the kinds of exercises that need to occur regularly to ensure that those regulations are in good shape, and I commend them to the House.
PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my job to have the final word on these bills, and can I echo everything everyone has said in terms of this being about housekeeping and bringing together a number of pieces of legislation that needed fixing up. On this side of the House, we seem to be fixing things up all the time, and that’s why this may just seem trivial, but absolutely not. We are making life easier for Kiwis all over New Zealand in a whole range of ways and ensuring that they can do business, that their lives in terms of their everyday know how and can-do is improved. So I’m proud that this is in front of us this evening as we finish off quite an important afternoon. I commend these bills to the House.
Bills read a third time.
Bills
Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill
Second Reading
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill makes a small but significant adjustment to the law to allow the two organisations on which this House depends, Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, to work together more closely by each being able to delegate responsibilities to employees of the other. They will be able to share corporate services such as human resources, engagement, and records management, reducing costs but also providing better services for members of Parliament and everybody else who makes this place function. It is an omnibus bill that amends both the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988 and the Parliamentary Service Act 2000.
Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk have been working more closely for some time. For many years, the office’s legal team has provided advice to the Parliamentary Service. There is common provision for IT services through Parliamentary Service’s contract with Datacom. The creation of a single parliamentary engagement team to manage education, public engagement, interparliamentary relations, school visits, communications, and website management has recently shown the value of a more integrated approach.
The bill has been considered by the Governance and Administration Committee, and I thank committee members and chairperson Dr Jian Yang for their work. They were given the full six months for the select committee process but reported the bill to the House in under three months—an excellent and efficient committee. There were three submissions, including one from the Public Service Association that made the point that the people who work for the two organisations are passionate about their work and raised good questions about the ongoing arrangements around negotiating processes for people working together by means of delegation but being employed under separate agreements. I trust that the two organisations will address this issue as the reformed practices come into effect. It also raised the possibility of allowing delegation to other agencies in the wider Public Service. This would potentially compromise the status of these two agencies as being distinct from agencies associated with the executive.
I thank Tipene Apatu and Max Banner for taking the trouble to make a submission. A technical amendment will be necessary and I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper at the committee of the whole House stage next week.
It is important to underline that the role of the Office of the Clerk is to be a completely independent source of advice and knowledge on parliamentary law, practice, and procedure, and is the administrator of parliamentary processes. We should remind ourselves again of the words of the former Clerk of the House, Mary Harris, who has said that the independence of the Clerk would be difficult to maintain if a Clerk was located in the Parliamentary Service and that the current division of responsibilities allows the Clerk to give free and frank advice fearlessly.
The Governance and Administration Committee heard from the present Clerk that he did not see the bill as a first step in merging the two agencies. The committee supported his view and was correct to say that the intent of the bill is to minimise duplication, not to join the two organisations together. It is the Government’s view that protecting and maintaining the independence of the office is absolutely essential to sustain the high reputation that the New Zealand Parliament has among the community of Westminster Parliaments.
The Francis Review has provided added context to these changes. The unifying of the human resources capability was a proposal that arose from the review, so it is important that this be put in place as soon as possible.
This is a small bill, but it will make a contribution to the evolution of the services provided to this House and to New Zealand by the key organisations that serve it. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party and the shadow Leader of the House to confirm our party’s support for this bill at second and subsequent readings, and I will be the only one taking a call. I think, as the Minister has indicated, that this is, at least on the face of it, a relatively straightforward bill and we will continue to support it, but there is a slight qualification in that.
But can I first take this opportunity, actually, to express my admiration for the quality of the support that is received from both the Clerk’s Office and the Parliamentary Service. Overwhelmingly, members and the public are extremely well served by the work that they do. The Minister mentioned, for example, school visits. I’m well aware not only of the work that goes on when schools come here to this place, but also your initiatives in taking—
Hon Clare Curran: That’s right. Hear, hear!
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —the Parliament out to the schools. The Hon Clare Curran and I have benefited from that and so did the—
Hon Clare Curran: We learnt a thing or two.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: We certainly did learn a few things. Certainly, we benefited from the experience at Bathgate Park School, in my case, in the not too distant past.
My caveat is this, though. Quite rightly, I think both Minister Hipkins at first reading and the Minister in the second reading have identified the purpose of the bill as the sharing of certain corporate services—I quote the select committee report: “the sharing of certain corporate services between the parliamentary agencies to enable cost efficiencies. The Clerk of the House told us he did not see this bill as a first step in merging the two agencies;”. That is certainly not the intention, but the bill is worded in a way that makes that quite possible.
Clauses 4(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) and (c) make it very clear that the Clerk may delegate any of the Clerk’s functions to a deputy, to the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service, or an employee of the Parliamentary Service—any of the Clerk’s functions. Now, the Minister mentioned parliamentary engagement, IT, school visits—essentially, back-office functions. That’s not what the bill says. And conversely, the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service may delegate any function, duty, or power to and including the Clerk or Deputy Clerk. We do have, I think, actually, a bit of a blurring of the lines in an appointment or two that have been made between the two entities.
So I simply raise this as a means of putting on record my concern and the party’s concern that the intention of the bill actually be followed in practice and that we don’t, as the Clerk of the House told the select committee, drift into a blurring of the key functions. I do believe that that independence that was articulated by the previous Clerk, Mary Harris, is absolutely fundamental to the excellent support that we would continue to receive. With that not immaterial—but I don’t want to overstate the caveat; with those comments, I want to just confirm our party’s support at second reading.
MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t wish to prolong the debate unduly, following on from the very helpful comments from Minister Sepuloni and my near namesake on the other side of the House. I wish to really make two points. One is to carry on from the point that Mr Woodhouse was making about the critical importance of maintaining the independence of the Office of the Clerk. I think that is an important point to make in this debate. It’s about what the bill does not do, and, in my view, the bill, as it is constructed, is pretty carefully constructed to ensure that that independence is retained. I think, in my own relatively limited parliamentary experience, about one episode where I was chairing a select committee and I had before me an amendment to quite an important piece of legislation, and it was my job to rule whether that amendment was in or out of order. The Clerk quite fearlessly gave advice that was clearly not the advice that I was minded to follow. That was an example, and I did not follow it. That was a very good example—
SPEAKER: The member was wrong.
MICHAEL WOOD: —of the way in which the—I won’t get into an argument with you now about that, Mr Speaker. That would be entirely out of order. But that was a very good example of the role that the Clerk plays in this place, and were the services of Parliamentary Service (PS) and the Office of the Clerk to be merged, it would be an odd situation in which PS, which in many ways is a provider of services to members of this House, would also be potentially an organisation which should also be providing free and frank and fearless advice, which is very much the role of the Clerk. So preserving that line is extremely important, and myself and the Labour Party are very satisfied that that is achieved. Certainly, through reviewing the comments of the Clerk through this process, it would appear that the Clerk agrees as well, and that gives us, I think, great confidence.
The other thing I want to touch on briefly is the way in which I think the provisions of this bill, which do allow certain functions of the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Service to work more closely together, can help us with some of the cultural changes and practices that are recommended by the Francis report. It is a reality of this place—which is, you know, a close and often challenging working environment—that with, effectively, three major agencies, the Office of the Clerk, Ministerial Services, and Parliamentary Service, all operating within their spheres but overlapping at times, that does create, I think, probably, some challenges in terms of reporting lines, accountabilities, and where to go if certain issues arise. So I think anything which helps to modernise, make more efficient, and allow those organisations to collaborate together more closely, while retaining their core functions, is an important and valuable step. So with those two points in mind, I happily commend the bill to the House.
MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It’s with pleasure that I rise to add New Zealand First’s support to this Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill. Of course, New Zealand First is the party famous for its adherence to common sense, and that’s exactly what this bill does. It is the epitome of common sense. Where we have a duplication of the operations of the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk, we are looking through this legislation to streamline that and drive efficiencies into that. I must say, you know, for the record—and I’m sure that it goes for all parliamentarians—we are incredibly well served by both those entities within our parliamentary ecosystem here. As a relatively new MP, I never fail to be impressed by the service we get, particularly from the clerks.
So New Zealand First does support this bill. We do note the need for the independence of the Clerk and are reassured, I think, by the Clerk’s submission to the select committee that it would indeed not be a first step to a merger, and understand the importance of that not occurring. Of course, we’re also reacting to the Francis Review, which sees the way that this place operates evolve. As I said before, it is a rather strange ecosystem to be part of, and both those entities play a key role. I think this bill was part of that evolution—that we want to make this place a better and more efficient place to work. So I, on behalf of New Zealand First, have much pleasure in further supporting this bill through the process.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. On behalf of the Green Party, I rise to support this legislation. I echo the comments of the previous speakers of the deep appreciation for the staff of the Clerk’s Office and the Parliamentary Service. We’re incredibly well served, and our democracy is better as a result. I’d note that this has come back from the Governance and Administration Committee with only three submissions but no amendments. It shows, I think, the quality of the drafting in the first place. I’d also like to echo the comments of the Clerk that he doesn’t see this as the first step towards merging the agencies, and again tautoko the comments that we need to keep that independence.
While we are reflecting on aligning the two entities, I’d like to make a personal reflection on, I think, the arbitrary unfairness of the working conditions and how Ministerial Services and Parliamentary Service staff are treated differently in regards to leaders’ and members’ budgets. I think if Parliament could align those, there would be greater fairness and understanding across people who work on behalf of the country in this precinct on the whole. There could be another opportunity to reflect on that in the future. Kia ora koutou.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill
Third Reading
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: I move, That the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill be now read a third time.
The overarching purpose of this bill is to encourage and support live and deceased organ donation and transplantation rates in New Zealand. I wish to acknowledge members from across the House for their support of this important legislation. Colleagues from across the House gave their support to the bill in its first and second readings. I’d also like to, once again, thank members of the Health Committee for their thoughtful consideration of the bill and for the recommendations they made.
The bill is in two parts. Part 1 of the bill amends the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Act 2016. This Act provides for earnings compensation to be paid to organ donors while they recuperate from donor surgery. The bill allows for compensation to be paid to donors who are not currently eligible but who clearly fall within the purposes of the Act. While the Act is mainly working well, it does not provide for earnings compensation to be paid to donors who choose to return to work for less than their usual hours during their recuperation period—this bill addresses that issue.
The bill also provides for donors who are part of an approved overseas organ exchange programme. The Australian and New Zealand Paired Kidney Exchange Program, which has recently commenced, has been approved in the bill. This means that New Zealand organ donors who participate in this programme will now be eligible for earnings compensation. This is in keeping with the purposes of the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Act.
Part 2 of the bill amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. The bill provides for a national organ donation function to be established within an existing Crown entity: the New Zealand Blood Service, which is well positioned to take on this expanded role. Under the bill, the New Zealand Blood Service will have a statutory name change to the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service to reflect its expanded role. Its new key function will be to provide oversight and clinical governance of the organ donation system, and to support the organ transplantation system.
It will also drive and oversee implementation of the 2017 national strategy, increasing deceased organ donation and transplantation. The strategy sets up a number of initiatives to help increase New Zealand’s deceased organ donation and transplantation rates. The strategy is focused on raising awareness about organ donation, it aims to ensure that every opportunity for donation is approached in the most effective possible way and in a way that is culturally appropriate for Māori, for Pasifika, and for those from other cultural backgrounds.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the highly skilled and dedicated staff in the New Zealand Blood Service, the Auckland District Health Board, and Organ Donation New Zealand for the valuable work that they do. I’d also like to acknowledge the impact that these changes may have on them.
Planning is under way for any future transition of services into the national organ donation function, with a focus on ensuring services are not disrupted and that expertise is retained.
While New Zealand’s organ donation rates are improving, they are still relatively low compared to other countries. More can be done to increase donation rates, enabling lifesaving treatment for people with organ failure.
This bill encourages and supports live and deceased organ donation and organ transplantation, and takes us one step closer to improving organ donation rates in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
Personal Explanations
Oral Questions—Question No. 6 to Minister
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, thank you. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer given today during question time.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is not.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: In answers to supplementary questions from Nicola Willis, about the contents of an aide-mémoire dated 26 March 2019, my response made reference to the content of that aide-mémoire that was incorrect. My response was, in fact, a reference to a different briefing, dated 25 January 2019.
Bills
Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I begin, firstly, by joining in with the Minister in thanking the hard-working staff of the New Zealand Blood Service for the excellent work they do, and also to all of the health professionals who were involved in the process of organ donation and transplantation and the management of the conditions faced by those with, particularly, chronic renal conditions, but also a number of other conditions that benefit from both deceased and live organ donation.
One of the things that I think the Health Committee, in particular, was affected by and interested in and, in fact, connected to was the many thousands of stories of New Zealanders up and down the country who are either going through the process of waiting for a transplantation or having benefited from it.
In my case, I do have direct experience of that with a very close friend of mine who has chronic kidney disease and who has had, actually, two kidney transplants in his adult life: one from a deceased donor to whom, of course, he was very grateful, and one a live organ donation. The journey that I’ve watched him go through has been an extraordinary one, because it was actually in the late 1990s that he started experiencing the symptoms that led to him being on home haemodialysis—at the same time as that great All Black, the late Jonah Lomu. In fact, at that time, unbeknownst to most members of the public, he was struggling with his own kidney condition, and I found it extraordinary that someone whom I knew and who was otherwise pretty fit looked like he was wading through quicksand at the same time as that great All Black was still managing to do amazing things on the rugby field. I think that speaks volumes to that person’s character.
We heard so many stories like this. As the Minister says, we are not in a position to say our organ donation rates are as high as they could be. We rank about 30th amongst developed nations. Many of the countries above us have systems that have, for example, opt-out processes, as there are in Spain and many other countries, or other incentives or requirements that encourage both deceased and live organ donation. So, in the national strategy that the Minister mentioned, I think there are significant opportunities to continue to increase our organ donation rates, some of which the committee heard during the select committee process, but which was actually beyond the scope of what we were doing here—for example, the question of whether the Human Tissue Act already provided for a deemed consent that could not be overruled by family members. I have a particular interest in that one, and I would encourage the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service, when it has this mandate, to actually look very closely at that. But there are a number of other incentives, of course.
The member’s bill passed by my colleague Chris Bishop has actually catalysed live organ donation by removing a financial barrier. Part 1 of this bill is actually going to make some very good amendments to improve that further, including encouraging what is, effectively, a trans-Tasman exchange scheme where—as the chair of the select committee said in the committee of the whole House yesterday—many of the people who would want to donate but for whom blood and tissue - type mismatches don’t allow that could nevertheless, through a third party, be able to contribute anyway. That will certainly mean that those people are going to have financial support for that.
This is a really good bill. It’s been a very good process. I do hope that with the establishment of the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service, our donation rates do continue to increase. I commend the bill.
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I think the primary question to answer tonight is what is this bill trying to provide a solution for. In fact, in following on from my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, it is actually trying to find organs for 550 New Zealanders who are on a waiting list. Currently, those 550 New Zealanders have to wait for somebody to pass away. So, in fact, donors have been sourced from people who are in the intensive care units, on a ventilator, and so we have historically relied on deceased donors.
In 2007, we had 73 such donors. In 2018, we had 62. In terms of the international context, New Zealand, per million, we do rank pretty lowly: 13 per million—Australia’s 21, the UK is 23, the US is 32, and Spain is 46. In fact, that regime has been enabled because, in their jurisdiction, they do have an opt-out consent process, which means that if people find themselves in situations where they have died, the State in that instance actually takes those organs.
I will commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): It is a real privilege to rise in the final seconds on a Thursday evening—
SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member, and, actually, I probably could have anticipated it by doing it earlier, but the debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. Have a good weekend.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.