Tuesday, 12 November 2019

TUESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2019

TUESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Ministerial Statements

Fire and Emergency Services—New South Wales Deployment

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I wish to make a ministerial statement on sending firefighters to New South Wales. The Government is closely watching the situation with these horrific fires, and our thoughts are with our neighbours across the Tasman during this challenging time. As of yesterday morning, there were 100 active bushfire-related incidents across Queensland and New South Wales. New Zealanders will remember the challenges faced during the Tasman wildfires earlier this year. During that event, Fire and Emergency New Zealand responded quickly and capably. We are thankful that no lives were lost here. The conditions being faced in Australia are unprecedented, and it’s the first time since 2009, when the fire danger ratings were introduced, that catastrophic fire weather conditions are in place for the Greater Sydney area. Queensland has declared a state of fire emergency, and a total fire ban remains in place in New South Wales.

Today, in support of Australian firefighters, Fire and Emergency is deploying 21 New Zealand firefighters to help fight the Queensland wildfires that have been raging for the past nine weeks. The New Zealand contingent of six three-person crews, consisting of two task force leaders and one liaison officer, will fly from Auckland this afternoon and begin operations on Wednesday. These crews are in addition to the six New Zealand personnel currently assisting in New South Wales. The request to provide this assistance is in recognition of the high regard in which our fire and emergency personnel are held internationally.

Their deployment is part of the reciprocal arrangements we have with Australia, along with the US and Canada. We assist them when they need our help, and they are available to assist us if we need their support. In the past 12 months, 140 New Zealand firefighters have gone to help in Australia. Deployments such as this also provide valuable deployment opportunities, or development opportunities, for our personnel. Some of the lessons learnt over the past overseas deployments were put into practice at the Tasman fires in February.

The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely, and Fire and Emergency remain in contact with Australian fire authorities about their needs. The situation in Australia is changing rapidly, and deployment details are likely to change at short notice. I’m sure the best wishes of the whole Parliament and all New Zealanders are with all the firefighters combatting these terrible fires in extremely challenging positions. Take care of yourselves, and we appreciate your efforts.

Stuart Smith: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, I’ve lost his name. Stuart Smith—I apologise.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It’s all right, Mr Speaker. The National Party supports sending firefighters to Australia. Australia and New Zealand, whilst fierce rivals on the sporting field, have a long history of mateship off it, and it is important we support each other in tough times. We commend the decision to send firefighters to Australia to support and assist in whatever way we can and bring these fires under control as quickly as possible. We offer our best wishes to all these firefighters, both the New Zealanders travelling over and those already on the ground, and hope they all return home safely.

Bills

Referendums Framework Bill

Discharge from Justice Committee

SPEAKER: The Referendums Framework Bill has been discharged from the Justice Committee under Standing Order 295(3) and is set down for second reading from Thursday.

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 JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes—particularly the passing of the zero carbon Act last week, which was a significant milestone for this Parliament and for New Zealand. I would add that that joins other initiatives like the Green Investment Fund, investment in public transport, the focus on renewables and just transitions, and work around, for instance, focusing on incentivising low-emissions vehicles. I look forward to the ongoing cooperation and commitment of the Opposition to support initiatives that will actually fulfil the obligations set out in the zero carbon Act.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statement on Thursday in the House that the promise to add 1,800 net new police wasn’t a “commitment or promise that the Prime Minister or anybody over here made.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer the member to the coalition agreement, which states we’ll “strive to ensure that there are 1,800 new front-line police.” I’m very pleased to say that, as at last week, we have 1,765 graduates. We are doing very well in heading towards that commitment.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was Stuart Nash wrong to answer multiple—in fact, I think dozens—of written and oral questions saying just that: that it was a commitment to 1,800 net new police, not just graduates?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I say, the coalition agreement was around 1,800 new front-line police. However, not to be outdone, the Minister of Police has always had the ambition of making sure that it’s also in addition. So we are, in fact, working towards both.

Hon Simon Bridges: On what date did the Government first consider two targets for adding 1,800 net new police?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, it’s all contained in the coalition agreement. I’ll quote it once more: “strive to ensure that there are 1,800 new front-line police.” I relish in the opportunity to again announce that, as of last week, we have 1,765 graduates. Given that there are more officers on the front line than ever before, I would have thought that that member opposite would celebrate that fact with us.

Hon Simon Bridges: What happened between midday on 15 October, when Stuart Nash said their target was “1,800 more police over and above the current rate, not 1,800 more graduates” and 4 p.m. on 15 October when Winston Peters said it was only about 1,800 more graduates?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No matter what way you cut it, all the public hear are “more police—more front-line police”, so I welcome these questions. Not only will we have 1,800 new, we also have been factoring in attrition and are working—

Hon Simon Bridges: I hope this is embarrassing her.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN:—to have them as additional, as well. The only thing that member should be embarrassed about is the reduction they had when he was in office. Police numbers are growing, and we are proud of that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to be clear, Prime Minister: is it a fact that the Government is, in fact, ahead of schedule in providing these new 1,800 front-line police?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Indeed, as I say, 1,765 graduates—obviously, not far away from hitting that 1,800. But, again, at the same time we want overall growth in those numbers. There are, of course, police officers who will retire and leave the police force, so we have an aspiration to go beyond that as well.

Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the previous Government had a target of 880 police over four years, and we have delivered that in under two?

Brett Hudson: You haven’t.

SPEAKER: Order! I would have ruled the question out but for the inappropriate interjection.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said, we are making up for what we consider to be neglect when it comes to the resourcing of our front line, and there are more officers on the front line than ever before, which was clearly something that we aspired to in that coalition agreement—to increase those numbers.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she know why the police commissioner answered “No” to the following question: “Have you had any communications that there were two targets relating to the 1,800 target?”

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, you won’t hear any complaints from the police commissioner that we are both graduating 1,800 new police officers and working towards having an additional 1,800 as well. Again, no matter what way you cut it, this all adds up to more front-line police officers, which is only a good thing. And I am sad that the member opposite seems to disagree with that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Are the words “no matter how you cut it” code for “Yes, we have broken this promise.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s code for “We’re ahead of schedule.”

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his policies and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and taken.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What involvement, if any, has he had with the decision due on 5 December on capital requirements for banks?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Sorry, could the member repeat the question? I just lost the middle bit of it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What involvement, if any, has he had with the decision due on 5 December on capital requirements for banks?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is an independent decision of the Reserve Bank. I’ve had a variety of meetings, over the last two years that I’ve been in office, with representatives of trading banks, discussions with the Reserve Bank, and decisions with Treasury about it, but the decision is one for the Reserve Bank.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it his policy that the Reserve Bank’s independence in setting interest rates extends equally to complete independence on regulatory decisions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s not a matter of my policy about that; it’s a matter of what the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act actually says. Over the years, there’s been an evolution in the responsibilities of the Reserve Bank beyond those that were there in 1989, as the member knows. We’ve got a review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act under way, and I would welcome a submission from him if he intends to break a 30-year consensus on the independence of the bank.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he not see a difference between independence on setting interest rates and on all the regulatory functions that have been recently added?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s not a matter, again, of whether I see a difference in that; the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act sees no difference in that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he have an opinion on the appropriate level of risk the Crown should take on behalf of New Zealanders in relation to a potential bank collapse?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that it is the responsibility of our central bank to ensure that we have a safe and effective banking system. They play a very important role in terms of regulation of our banking system. The Government will have opinions on that from time to time, but, I repeat, the decision is in the hands of the Reserve Bank. I think it is very interesting that the member opposite is now deciding that he might like to intervene in the independence of our central bank—an interesting change of tune.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has Treasury provided him with its best estimate of the effect that the new capital requirements, to be released on 5 December, will have on the cost of capital and access to capital?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve had a range of advice from Treasury on that. They continue to give me that advice. We continue to communicate with the Reserve Bank and, indeed, with other trading banks about those matters, but these are decisions that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act mandate has been for them to take, not for politicians to take.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has the Reserve Bank provided him with its best estimate of the effect of the new capital requirements on economic growth in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Reserve Bank has provided a wide range of information, including to the member, I believe.

David Seymour: Does the Minister have an estimate he believes for how many basis points the new Reserve Bank capital requirements will add to the average mortgage?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Personally, I don’t make those judgments; the Reserve Bank has published its judgments on those matters.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether he had a figure that he believed—not who made the judgments.

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister has indicated that guessing at that is not his responsibility.

David Seymour: What preparations can the Minister possibly make for the impacts of the Reserve Bank’s new capital requirements if he has no idea what those impacts will be on the average mortgagee?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is not what I said in my answer.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: He aha ngā rīpoata hou kua kitea e ia mō te ōhanga o Aotearoa?

[What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?]

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Atu kōrero pai—more good news. Last week, Stats NZ released labour market statistics which showed that wage growth, as measured by the labour cost index, reached its fastest annual growth in a decade in the September quarter. On a separate measure, average ordinary time hourly earnings rose by 4.2 percent in the September year. With annual inflation at 1.5 percent across the same period, it’s clear that Kiwi workers are finally starting to see a real increase in wages after missing out for years under the previous Government.

Tamati Coffey: What did the labour market report say about the scale of wage increases?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to the Stats New Zealand data, 59 percent of workers received an increase in salary and ordinary-time wage rates over the year to September. The last time the proportion was higher than this was over a decade ago. The proportion of workers that did not get a pay rise was at its lowest level in over a decade, and the proportion of workers who received a pay increase of more than 3 percent reached its highest in a decade. What this shows is that not only are average wages going up but wages are also going up for more people and by higher amounts.

Tamati Coffey: How does wage growth in New Zealand compare with international counterparts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The latest OECD data shows that New Zealand’s wage growth this year has outstripped the UK, the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and the European Union average. This is yet another indication of the strength of the New Zealand economy compared to our international peers. Despite international headwinds and a slowing global economy, businesses are continuing to invest in their workers, meaning more money in the pockets of New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Education

4. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Absolutely. I particularly stand by the largest investment by a New Zealand Government in school property and the first national plan for managing school growth in classrooms: 2,000 more teachers being supported into teaching after inheriting a 40 percent decline in teacher training enrolments. I stand by the largest pay rise for teachers in a decade. I stand by the decision to make New Zealand history taught in all schools and kura by 2020, and I particularly stand by the decision to abolish NCEA fees for 168,000 young New Zealanders.

Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the total cost of today’s Government announcements on Tomorrow’s Schools, given his statement in April that the final Tomorrow’s Schools task force report would be subject to rigorous cost-benefit analysis?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The cost of actually producing the report is 0.03 percent of the $9.5 billion a year that we spend on schooling.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: what is the total cost of the Government’s announcements, not the task force report.

SPEAKER: You mean the policies announced, not the cost of the announcement?

Hon Nikki Kaye: Yes, that was what my question was.

SPEAKER: Did the member say the “policy announcements” or the “announcement”?

Hon Nikki Kaye: I said the Government’s announcements on Tomorrow’s Schools.

SPEAKER: Well, I think it has been answered.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement that this is not about more centralisation and smothering of boards, given that he today has transferred all decision-making powers around enrolment schemes from boards to officials?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The decisions around enrolment schemes replicate the approach taken by the previous National Government with regard to enrolment schemes in Christchurch.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he guarantee that it will not be mandatory for all of the 19,000 school boards of trustees in New Zealand to undertake training?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has not decided to make training mandatory for school boards, and that’s clear in the documentation we released today.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he consider reversing some of his Tomorrow’s Schools decisions today, given that there will be less parental choice in New Zealand as a result of enrolment decisions and too much power for officials?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject the premise of the member’s question.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he believe the financial performance of DHBs has improved since he wrote to all DHB chairs at the end of last year expressing “disappointment with their collective financial performance”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Financial performance varies from DHB to DHB. Nine DHBs ended their 2018-19 year with a result close to budget or an improved result, if we exclude one-off costs. However, overall deficits have increased, due overwhelmingly to the historical underpayment of staff under the Holidays Act, which dates back as far as 2010. Just last month, that was estimated to cost DHBs $590 million, causing more than half of the overall deficit. But following audit work, I’ve been advised this week that that figure, relating to the previous Government’s neglect, has now climbed to $756.8 million. I make no apology for cleaning up the mess I inherited with the historical underpayment of staff.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, what has led to the $500 million deterioration of DHB finances that isn’t related to the Holidays Act?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A good question. It is indeed the neglect of the previous Government when balance sheets started to run out in 2013, and the trend since that time has been clear. We make no apology for hiring additional staff: 1,500 more nurses in the system than when I became Minister, nearly 600 more doctors, and over 500 more allied health workers. We are cleaning up the mess that we inherited.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, if money is the solution, why did he increase cost pressure funding for DHBs by just $20 million in Budget 2019 and reduce equity support for DHB deficits?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’d have to check the member’s numbers on the former, but in terms of equity support, of course, equity support is what Governments past and present do to ensure liquidity to make sure staff are paid. It’s business as usual.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he admit that despite his rhetoric of funding increases, funding increases have not kept pace with cost increases, especially in staff costs, and that has led to the dramatic deterioration in DHBs’ financial position?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I can confirm is that the $2.3 billion that they stripped out when they were in Government is something that I have inherited to clean up, and so we have put in a record amount in the 2018 Budget. The member’s right. We have increased funding to the health sector. We put even more in in 2019. We make no apology for dealing with the mess that we inherited.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he received a report on DHBs’ combined financial performance for the period 1 July to 30 September 2019, and does that indicate an improvement or deterioration in their financial situation compared with the same period in the previous year?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t have all of those details in front of me. If the member wants to put down a more detailed question like that, I’d happily make sure it’s answered.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, if he’s so worried about financial performance, why does he not know whether the last-quarter performance has improved or deteriorated?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Each quarter has different, of course, details across all the DHBs. DHB performance varies. As I said at the outset, some DHBs have met their budget in the past financial year—for example, once those one-offs that relate to historical neglect are taken into account. Different DHBs have different outcomes. We make no apology for intervening in those DHBs that are not performing. We’ve put Crown monitors into three DHBs; we’ve put a commissioner in in the Waikato. DHBs have to continue to deliver services even though they’re dealing with historical neglect. We make no apology for dealing with the mess that we’ve inherited.

Question No. 6—Children

6. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Children: What are the findings of the Oranga Tamariki Practice Review into the Hastings Case?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): The review says that there were legitimate reasons to be concerned about the safety of the baby, and so Oranga Tamariki were right to be involved with the family. However, practice standards and actions both before and during the events of May show significant failings. The events in May should not have happened, and the trauma caused to all involved could have been avoided if there had been more effort placed on building good relationships with both the parents and the whānau, as well as the NGO workers and midwives who were also supporting this family. Too much reliance was placed on historical information, without acknowledging changes the family had made to minimise safety concerns for baby, and the systems in place to check decisions didn’t work. The findings are extremely disappointing, but I do want to commend the review and the reviewers for their honesty. It confirms the need to press on with the changes that began under the previous Government, and all the changes under this Government, to look after children better and to stop them coming into care in the first place.

Jenny Marcroft: What changes have been made in light of the review?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: All of the recommendations of the review have been accepted by Oranga Tamariki, and it has put five changes in place immediately. These are: unless there is a clear need for action to protect a child from immediate and imminent danger, all interim custody order applications will now be made on notice, to ensure the family is given the opportunity to have their say before a judge makes a final decision; when staff need to act faster to keep a child safe, every section 78 without notice application will go through additional checks, with a regional legal manager, a site manager, and a practice manager all signing off; additional investment will be made into staff training nationwide and greater supervision for family group conferences; practice leaders on every site will look at all reports of concern for unborn and newborn babies, and check that we put the right planning and assessment around vulnerable mothers at the earliest opportunity; and in Hastings, more resources and training will be provided to staff, and a new regional supervisor has been appointed.

Jenny Marcroft: What further changes do you see as necessary as a result of the findings of this review?

SPEAKER: Order! I don’t find any necessary, but the Minister may answer the question.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In addition to the changes already announced, I have informed Oranga Tamariki of my expectations to review the subsequent child provisions to make sure there are no unintended consequences from these. I also want to ensure there is a path back for those parents who have turned their lives around, to improve the internal complaints process, and to drive the culture change and better support the front line. I also expect them to improve relationships with, and devolve over time, the delivery of services to hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations, especially in the area of prevention and early intervention. The staff I meet are absolutely committed to caring for children, and they have a really difficult job doing just that, but front-line practice has to reflect the bigger changes we want to make. We need to do better for all our children, but our focus must be to partner with Māori to turn results around for Māori. Strategic partnerships, real partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations so they are involved in helping families and children much earlier and at every stage—these are vital to achieve these outcomes.

Question No. 7—Social Development

7. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her policies and statements?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yes, in particular the statement I made in the House last week during question time that the previous Government had budgeted for 300 less case managers during their time from 2015. This was despite a growing demand for hardship assistance, housing support, and an increasing number of senior citizens requiring support. I therefore stand by this Government’s policy to fund an additional 263 work-focused case managers through the 2019 Budget. This Government is focused on ensuring that those New Zealanders who need support with both financial assistance and support into upskilling, training, and employment are able to get the help that they need.

Hon Louise Upston: Why has her department only helped 147 young people to secure a driver’s licence in the past four months, out of the Prime Minister’s commitment of 2,500?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The MSD has significant programmes running across the country now to support New Zealanders to get a driver’s licence. I don’t know the figures that that member is speaking to, but there are a number of programmes and I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s only alluding to one.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that this is—and I quote—“a small investment that can go a long way”; and, if so, would she say the current figures show this is a small investment that’s barely going anywhere?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would question the figures that the member has come to the House with. There are a range of programmes that are being run across the country to support New Zealanders to get a licence, because we see that as an important way to support them into employment. What I will refer to is actually a statement made by the principal of Manurewa High School on breakfast TV last week, where he thanked MSD. He thanked the Auckland regional commissioner for the work that we’re doing on driver licensing and cited the important role that it’s playing in the lives of Manurewa High School students.

Hon Louise Upston: Is the Government still intending to deliver their promise to provide driver licensing to every high school student when they’re struggling to support two and a half thousand?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, I would question the numbers that that member has come to the House with. We are being very deliberate with our support towards young people, and it’s a pity that the previous Government didn’t see fit to invest in drivers’ licences for young people and for New Zealanders. For the young people I’ve spoken to who have already benefited from, say, the programme that’s run between MSD and the Auckland chamber of commerce, I’ve had very, very positive feedback.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister to outline the substance—the huge platform of achievement—that she inherited from the previous administration on this subject?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Very little investment by the other side of the House with respect to supporting young people to get their drivers’ licences—in fact, supporting young people at all. I think all of us in this House can recall the former leader of the National Party saying that young people in New Zealand were “pretty damned hopeless”. We don’t feel that way on this side of the House.

Hon Louise Upston: Is this driver-licensing policy an example, like KiwiBuild and Mana in Mahi, where the Government simply has over-promised and under-delivered?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m very proud of the investment that we are making into young people. There is a lot of effort that’s been put into making sure that young people get access to drivers’ licences, but not just that. When you look at the entire programme that has been rolled out from this side of the House, then you see that, actually, we’re taking young people very seriously and we’re taking their potential very seriously. We know the role that they have to play in ensuring that New Zealand is the very best New Zealand moving forward, which is why we invested in things like Mana in Mahi and which is why we will continue to invest in drivers’ licences for young people in New Zealand as well.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Transport: On behalf of the Minister, yes, in the context they were made and taken, and I particularly stand by our record investment in walking and cycling: $390 million in the last three years. That’s $96 million more than the previous Government spent. We’ve already built 194 kilometres of walking and cycling paths, and there’s a lot more to come. And our record investment in safety—an example of that is $1.4 billion upgrading 3,300 kilometres of the country’s highest-risk roads, that is expected to prevent 160 deaths and serious injuries each year.

Chris Bishop: Has she asked the New Zealand Transport Agency why the draft board minutes for 23 August 2019 say that management has raised with Ministers the desire to not apply the “feebate” for electric cars to one- and two-star safety-rated cars, when she said last week that didn’t happen?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Minister, as I said in the House last week, I disagree with the characterisation in those draft board minutes, and I raised those concerns with the Ministry of Transport. I’ve asked the Ministry of Transport to work through those points with the transport agency.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a very direct one about whether or not she’s asked the New Zealand Transport Agency why the draft board minutes say that, and I don’t think that was addressed at all in the answer.

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the Minister to answer it again. I think, on behalf of the Minister, he came quite close in that he said that he asked the ministry to work it through, I think, with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). But I think the question was about direct contact, and, therefore, if the Minister who is acting for the Minister at the moment has the fact, he should give it, and if he doesn’t have that fact, he should indicate that he doesn’t. He doesn’t.

Chris Bishop: Why did she say the Opposition was desperately scaremongering over criticism of the Government’s proposal to subsidise one- and two-star safety-rated cars, when the Transport Agency reportedly warned her of their concern over that exact same thing?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Minister, because they clearly are.

Hon Simon Bridges: In answering that supplementary, did he just repeat what Grant Robertson told him to say, word for word?

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Paul Goldsmith: You’re the puppet master.

SPEAKER: Order! I am certainly no such thing. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.

Chris Bishop: Why does her ministerial diary for July 2019 say that her meeting on 25 July 2019 with Patrick Reynolds and Minister Twyford finished at 7.30 p.m., when a recent written question to me says it finished at 8 p.m.?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Minister, because that’s what the diary says.

Chris Bishop: Did she discuss the composition of, or possible appointments to, the New Zealand Transport Agency board at her 25 July meeting with Patrick Reynolds and Minister Phil Twyford?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On behalf of the Minister, no.

Question No. 9—Education

9. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What changes, if any, is the Government making to strengthen the system of governance, management, and administration of schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government’s reform of the Tomorrow’s Schools system will put more front-line support closer to schools so that they can give every child the best chance to succeed. We’re making pragmatic and workable improvements that we believe will gain broad support. Our changes will influence how the Government’s $9.5 billion schooling budget is spent, and it will result in better targeted and earlier support for boards, stronger leadership support structures for school principals and leaders, and a reset of the relationship between schools and the Ministry of Education.

Jan Tinetti: What, if anything, will these changes mean for school leaders?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the key pieces of feedback that we’ve had from school leaders for some time is that the role of the principal in particular can be very isolated and isolating. Through the reform announced today, we’ll be providing a leadership centre and support for local leadership advisors to better support school principals; there’ll be new minimum principal eligibility requirements; and we’ll be giving stronger incentives to school principals to lead schools that are underperforming or isolated.

Jan Tinetti: What, if anything, will these changes mean for boards of trustees?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The board of trustees model—the idea of self-governing schools—will continue. Boards of trustees will have more support and guidance, they’ll have access to more training and support needs for their identified areas of improvement, a code of conduct will be put in place for school boards of trustees, and they’ll have a more balanced set of objectives. Enrolment zone decisions will also now be made on a local or regional basis, rather than on an individual school basis.

Jan Tinetti: What, if anything, will these changes mean for parents and learners?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the most visible things that will change is that parents and students will have access to free local complaints and dispute resolution panels where they have serious disputes with a school. This is something I know school boards of trustees will also welcome. School communities will have a stronger voice in how school rules are set. Schools currently have a significant regulation-making power but no duty or obligation to consult with their local communities on how they use that. It’s a bit of an aberration in that regard in the regulatory space, and the reforms will address that. Overall, this will provide more support to parents, to learners, to school leaders, to school boards, and to school communities.

Question No. 10—Public Housing

10. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does he stand by all his policies and statements?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement to the Kapi-Mana News when I warned that National’s plan to sell State houses in a fire sale would not lead to good outcomes for any of those tenants. At the time, I underlined that—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I want an assurance that that was a statement as a Minister.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No, it was four years ago.

SPEAKER: Well, the member will resume his seat.

Simon O’Connor: Does the Minister agree with the Government’s removal of upfront funding for community housing providers and that it’s meant 500 property developments are sitting idly, “gathering dust,” as put forward by the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I agree with the policy. That policy change has meant that community housing providers around the country now have access to deal with the increasing demand that this Government inherited and the increasing waiting list. That has meant that not just in Auckland, community housing providers can get access to that funding. Also, areas like Northland, like the Hawke’s Bay, like Rotorua, and like Wellington, that have extremely high demand for that housing, get access to it too. It’s meant we’ve been more flexible to more community housing providers.

Simon O’Connor: How does the Minister make that statement when community housing providers such as Monte Cecilia are saying they do not have the funding to build the homes?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: It’s quite easy, because we’ve changed our policy in order to use that money to make it more available to housing providers not just in Auckland. We are making that money more available to help community housing providers—again, nice and slowly—in the likes of Northland, in the likes of Rotorua, in the likes of Hawke’s Bay, and in the likes of Wellington, where there is increasing need for demand, as there is also in Auckland.

Simon O’Connor: How does the Minister reconcile the claim of former housing Minister Phil Twyford that he wanted community housing groups to build 30 percent of new public houses planned by 2022 and the Government now withdrawing the funds to do so?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I disagree that we’ve withdrawn the funds to do so. We’ve just made it more available to community housing providers across the country, and I’m quite happy to give that member a list of 18 community housing providers up and down New Zealand who are making sure that they can provide for the increasing demand in areas other than Auckland.

Simon O’Connor: What does the Minister have to say to 500 or more families stuck in motels and transitional housing who could have been tenanted if funding was not removed, as put forward by community housing providers?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’d say to those people that we have put 3,381 more community housing places in place since we’ve come into Government, as opposed to the 1,400 fewer public housing places that came about under the previous Government. I’m also proud that this Government, in Budget 2018, committed to the building of 6,400 more community housing places to deal with the increasing demand and the waiting lists that we inherited from a Government that sat on its hands and did nothing for nine years.

Question No. 11—Police

11. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the 1,800 police target that the Commissioner of Police “got it wrong”?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that the target for 1,800 is not net. It is new police, as per the coalition agreement. I also agree with the Commissioner of Police, who, in this year’s annual review, stood by his statements he made for the 2018 annual review that police are recruiting to account for attrition and that Budget 2018 funded them for this and that they are on track to achieve this under the current funding envelope. In the select committee last week, members of that party were glowing in their praise for the work of the commissioner and thanked him for his service to his face, but no sooner had he left the room than they stabbed him in the back, and I find that extremely disappointing and disrespectful.

Brett Hudson: Is he aware that in response to an annual review question prior to October of this year—“have you had any communications that there were two targets related to the 1,800 target?”—the Commissioner of Police said “No.”?

Hon STUART NASH: I wasn’t at the select committee, but I do look forward to seeing a transcript and to getting a reliable and contextual version of what was said. I will also note that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are the only two who have control over the coalition agreement.

Brett Hudson: When had he previously had discussions directly with the Commissioner of Police, prior to October 2019, about the fact that there are two targets for 1,800 police?

Hon STUART NASH: Let me make this very clear once again—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just answer the question.

Hon STUART NASH: I’m about to answer the question, Dr Smith. Listen and you might learn something.

SPEAKER: And Dr Smith will stay in order.

Hon STUART NASH: In the coalition agreement—

Brett Hudson: Answer the question.

Hon STUART NASH:—it states—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Brett Hudson: Why is the Commissioner of Police saying that the target for 1,800 new police includes attrition, when the Prime Minister is saying that the target does not mean 1,800 additional police?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Listen up, Brett.

Hon STUART NASH: Look, listen up. In the coalition agreement, it talks about 1,800 new police. That is the coalition agreement that we signed with New Zealand First. It is what this Government has said that we will deliver, and we were about a year ahead of target. However, what the Minister of Finance has funded is 1,800 over and above. So there are two targets. There have always been, and I have always reported on these two targets.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Brett Hudson: Supplementary. Can he confirm—

SPEAKER: Order! The member doesn’t have the call.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: why does he not just refer this matter to the Minister of Education, who could give an explanation of what words mean and get rid of this nonsense in the House every day?

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STUART NASH: I’m happy to answer that.

SPEAKER: No, no. I think, at any stretch, that’s not this Minister’s responsibility. It might be my wish, but it’s not this Minister’s responsibility.

Brett Hudson: Can he confirm that the Government will not have added 1,800 new police, inclusive of attrition, by the end of this parliamentary term?

Hon STUART NASH: I can confirm that this Government will have added 1,800 new police on 21 November, almost a year ahead of schedule.

Question No. 12—Police

12. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made about improving public safety by restricting unlawful access to firearms?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yesterday, I announced the release of a public consultation document on firearm prohibition orders, or FPOs. The FPOs seek to target our country’s most violent and despicable criminals, and the FPO regime will make sure that we further mitigate the risk of these people having any opportunity to be around, or get access to, firearms. FPOs would stop violent criminals from being around those who have firearms, from using them under supervision, or from having access to them. FPOs set conditions that these people have to follow and allows police to monitor the conditions and create penalties for the breaches. FPOs would come at a potential cost to the human rights protections, such as the right to be secure against unreasonable search. That’s why any such regime would need to be carefully balanced, and that’s why we want to hear from the public about where they think the line should be drawn. The consultation document is on the Police’s website and submissions are open until Monday, 13 January.

Greg O’Connor: What reaction has he seen from those who work with victims of family harm?

Hon STUART NASH: Police attend a family harm incident once every four minutes. In the year to September, police responded to 128,000 family harm incidents—an increase of 19 percent on the previous year. It is also estimated that police turn up to over 200 events a month where a firearm is involved. Rob McCann, the manager of the White Ribbon campaign against violence to women, said, “Firearm prohibition orders could make a real difference if guns are kept out of the hands of people with a history of family harm. … Firearm prohibition orders might also provide the peace of mind to help a victim leave a violent relationship. … Knowing that a partner was not able to possess or own a weapon might give someone the courage to get out, and it might even save a life.”

Greg O’Connor: What advice has the Minister seen about previous proposals for firearm prohibition orders?

Hon STUART NASH: I have seen some criticism that we are sitting on our hands and that we should not consult and that we should have supported a member’s bill that would have introduced FPOs. However, I quote from advice received from Police about the National Party member’s bill: “The provisions in the bill are insufficient to meet its objectives of preventing gang members from possessing firearms.” The Attorney-General at the time was also concerned that the bill included no explicit link between gang membership and relevant offences. The proposals we are consulting on would target people who are at most risk of causing significant harm through the criminal use of firearms. This applies whether a person is a member of a gang or not. Not all serious violent criminals wear patches.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister if he was quoting from an official document, and, if so, could that be tabled please?

SPEAKER: Was the Minister quoting from an official document?

Hon STUART NASH: No. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! It might surprise some members, but some members prepare before they come to the House and come with briefing notes—you know, it’s not a bad habit.

Bills

Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave to take all provisions of the bill as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): As I outlined in my earlier contributions on the Parliamentary Agencies Delegations Legislation Bill, it is an incredibly simple bill. It provides for the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the head of the Parliamentary Service to delegate responsibilities to each other’s employees where it’s appropriate to do that. The bill was not amended by the Governance and Administration Committee. I thank them for their consideration of the bill.

There are two amendments that are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 407 that I do ask the committee to consider. The Statutes Amendment Act that the House passed a couple of weeks ago amended the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 to change the title of the head of the service from General Manager to Chief Executive. So the Supplementary Order Paper that’s now on the Table updates the terminology in this bill to reflect the change that’s already been made in the Statutes Amendment Bill. Other than that, I don’t have any matters to bring to the committee’s attention, although I’m happy to answer any questions, should there be any from members.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to thank the Minister, Chris Hipkins, for his detailed explanation of the reasons for the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which the National Party will support as it is—this bill.

I would take the opportunity, though, in providing further confirmation of that support, to express a caveat that I did in the second reading—perhaps the Minister wasn’t in a position to be able to receive that—which was the concern that, despite the reassurances both in the regulatory impact statement and in the Governance and Administration Committee’s report, the wording of the bill does go further than the intention of the bill. It certainly intended that there are administrative, back-office functions that will benefit from cooperation between the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk which, strictly speaking, isn’t presently available, but, nevertheless, both clauses 4 and 6 go broader than that, actually. They talk about the delegation, effectively, of any functions or powers of a person from one organisation to the other.

I accept the explanation from the Clerk in his submission in the select committee, and also the assurances of the Minister in second reading that that’s not the intention, but I do draw the committee’s attention to the fact that those clauses are quite wide-ranging, and, therefore, could, in the future, actually, be broadened past the intention that is being brought by this bill.

With those caveats, though, it’s not my intention to amend or tighten the clause. I just wanted to point that out and I certainly support the SOP.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 407 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

I want to thank the Primary Production Committee for their work and consideration of this bill. I thank farmers and lenders for their support of this bill and their recognition of its importance. Their input will ensure the scheme is tailored to meet the needs of New Zealand farmers.

Farm debt has grown dramatically in the last 20 years and now sits at more than $62 billion. The Government knows how important farmers, their families, and rural communities are to our economy and country, and that is why we’ve developed the farm debt mediation scheme. We want farmers and their families to be on a level playing field with creditors when it comes to talking about difficult and complex financial issues. This bill is about supporting farmer wellbeing, which the Government is committed to doing through this bill and elsewhere.

I’d also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge our coalition partners, New Zealand First, for their contribution to this significant piece of legislation.

The farm debt mediation scheme’s two key objectives are, firstly, for farmers and secured creditors to constructively and objectively explore options for business turn-around and, secondly, to provide for a timely and dignified exit for those where few other options exist.

There are three parts to the bill. Part 1 sets out the scope of the scheme and which activities, debts, and actions will be captured. Part 2 addresses restrictions for enforcement action on farm debt while setting out the mediation process. Part 3 outlines provisions relating to farm debt mediators and mediation organisations under the scheme. It is proposed that the preliminary provision set out in Part 1 of the bill and the provisions relating to approving mediation organisations and authorising mediators in Part 3 come into force in February 2020, with the rest of the bill coming into force in July 2020.

The committee has recommended that the bill proceed with a number of changes that are designed to enhance the implementation of the scheme, some of which I will cover today. I support all the changes recommended by the select committee. The Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) will support a broad range of farmers and growers engaged in activities ranging from agriculture, including sharemilking, horticulture, aquaculture, viticulture, and apiculture.

The mediation process is designed to address the power imbalance between creditors and farmers. This will be aided by the use of an impartial, experienced mediator who will create an environment where parties can meet in a respectful and constructive manner. The scheme is designed so that creditors must offer mediation to farmers before they can take action on a default. The definition of “enforcement action” has been tightened to recognise the range of actions creditors take to move on a debt, and that will now trigger mediation. Farmers can request mediation as they identify the need. The bill has been strengthened to strongly encourage creditors to accept mediation requests from farmers. We know, from similar Australian schemes, that early mediation brings about discussions that maximise the chance of successful business turn-around and assists the development of lasting resolution of financial issues.

I’m pleased to report that New Zealand banks have signalled their willingness to adopt the mediation process and will strive to identify opportunities for early mediation. Minor amendments to the bill make clear that multiparty mediations will be accommodated by this scheme. The nature of farm debt means it often involves a number of creditors, guarantors, and complex ownership arrangements. Mediation may bring together spouses, business partners, and guarantors with multiple creditors to plan for the future of the farming business.

Mediator cost will be shared equally between parties until a farmer’s contribution reaches $2,000. Above that, in order to recognise the financial vulnerability and stress on farmers going through mediation, any additional mediator cost will be borne by the creditors involved in the mediation. The Ministry for Primary Industries is also exploring options available to support financially distressed farmers in meeting the cost of financial and other professional advice that they may need to prepare to ensure meaningful participation in the mediation process.

In response to a number of submissions, there will now also be an opportunity for creditors to apply to the High Court to take emergency action where there is a significant risk to animal welfare, to environmental damage or crop wastage, or destruction of property.

I believe the bill has been enhanced through the Primary Production Committee—and I once again want to thank them and their process—in a way that respects and preserves the key principles of good faith, of cooperation, and of balancing of power. These and other changes recommended by the select committee reflect a balanced and careful consideration of a wide range of comments received from submitters on this bill. The changes enhance the bill and ensure it is tailored to the needs of New Zealand farmers and the rural communities within which they live.

Just briefly, I’ll outline some of the background. This issue has been around for a long time. In the 1990s—I have to speak up for Gray Eatwell, who was an individual farmer taking on banks at that time. I’d like to mention Janette Walker, who, in the 2000s, was a person who was championing the cause for farmers and debt and stress. For a number of reasons, I guess decisions were made to leave it in the hands of the two parties involved in the transactions.

But I think we have reached a stage now with a level of debt across the agricultural sector—provided by banks, of course, two willing parties—that is creating quite a bit of stress, and we acknowledge that stress across the sector. If you are a farmer with a huge debt, then you’re unlikely to stand up and criticise, I guess, the bank that has loaned you the money. So the reality is that there’s an imbalance in discussions when it comes to a position of financial pressure. We have acknowledged that.

We’ve worked with our coalition partners, who seized on an opportunity to introduce a bill. We sat down and discussed the bill that was in the House and decided that we could put up a slightly better proposal and that it would be considered by the select committee—which they have done very, very carefully.

I think, across this House, we now have wide recognition of the pressures across the farming sector, and a way forward for, we hope, the few farmers who have to undertake a mediation process. But if they do, their families now should feel a little more secure in the knowledge that the process is laid down, I guess, protected by statue, and ensures fairness to them—families who have, I guess, been encouraged to take on debt, who have often been encouraged to increase production, and who are now, for whatever reason, facing, I guess, pressure that the creditor doesn’t see as possible to extract from.

So we’ve been left with a big challenge; we have a solution. I’d like to once again acknowledge the efforts of the Primary Production Committee made up of all parties in this House, acknowledge our coalition partners, and trust that this piece of legislation will be received in the spirit in which it is intended—that is, through cooperation we can assist the farming sector into a more secure financial position.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you to the Minister of Agriculture for that introduction to the bill. He covered a number of the changes that the Primary Production Committee had proposed and were accepted. So I thank him for making those changes, because they were important to tidy up on in the bill.

The essence of this bill deals with farm debt and any mediation that may be required if a farmer gets in trouble with that debt. Now, we don’t perceive that there will be a lot of cases where this bill will actually become a reality, but it is something that is out there as a tool for farmers and banks and other financiers should such a situation arise—it has inevitably arisen in the past and will continue to arise in the future as part of the normal course of any business arrangement. However, at this point of time in the farming cycle, one can see that this bill could actually be very much needed, when we consider the Draconian legislation that is upon the farming sector now from this Government that will force many farmers to re-evaluate their financial position and force banks to re-evaluate their lending processes.

It is not something that has been caused by international markets or any failing on behalf of a farmer or any adverse biosecurity event in New Zealand that has caused that pressure on the New Zealand farming sector. The pressure on the New Zealand farming sector lies directly at the feet of one Minister—Minister O’Connor—and the New Zealand First Party that have been backing up that Minister and have been doing a series—

Hon Damien O’Connor: I was so kind to you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT:—of silly and inane policies that have destroyed the backbone of New Zealand’s economy. That Minister may laugh it off, but look at forestry, for example, and the silly and inane policy of the New Zealand First Party that required an exemption from our overseas investment rules so that overseas purchasers who have come in and purchased forestry—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s all very interesting but we are debating the second reading of a bill that’s been reported back to the House, so stick to the bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Stick to your facts.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: We are, and as that Minister finished his speech looking at the history and the context, we’re looking at the context now, and it’s vital that we put the other side of the context from what the Minister put forward, because he only puts forward one side of the context. If we look at the situation—

Hon Damien O’Connor: I thought I was very balanced.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: What did you say, Minister? Balanced? There was no balance in the Minister’s speech at all. And, if we look at that situation in forestry, another great shining example of the economic genius of the New Zealand First Party was to stop foreign investment, and that is actually—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, but stick to the bill without all those accompaniments. I appreciate that you are able to put some context around it, but you should actually be focusing on the bill as reported back. This is the second reading, where the House is accepting the bill as it’s reported back from the select committee. I’ve just checked the report from the select committee. There is nothing in there that gives that wider context. So that’s why I’m narrowing it for you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, when we look at that wider context, it’s a farm debt mediation bill, and the need for such a bill would be because of the policies that you’ve seen in recent years from this Government—

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

Hon DAVID BENNETT:—and that is the context that we’re looking at in that regard. The members across the other side may like to ignore that, but the reality is that the policies that they have engaged in have put farmers in a predicament where they may have to use this bill.

Marja Lubeck: I feel a third warning coming up.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Did you say something over there? No, I didn’t think so. One of the big things that we had to look at in the select committee was the definition of “farm”, because, in many cases, farming businesses are partnerships and they are more than just the physical farmer; they could be a husband-and-wife partnership where one of the parties may be working in a different environment, like in the town or in another off-farm income. So we wanted to make sure that those kinds of situation were adequately captured by the bill, and that was one of the changes that are in the bill.

Another change was in regard to security interest, and that is in clause 6. There was a little bit of divergence between the parties in this regard. The National Party felt that the security interest that had been enabled in this bill to kick it off, effectively, is a bit wider than what is needed, in the sense that it could include a hire purchase and something like that, whereas we would rather have seen the clause actually be ad certum de minimus in the sense that a certain type of security interest would be the reason to set it off rather than just to have necessarily a hire purchase type of arrangement as setting off that farm debt mediation. So that was one point, and the National Party made it clear in the report that there is a point of difference there between the National members of the committee and other members of the committee.

In regard to the previous point I talked about, with the definition of “farmer”, we did come to agreement between the parties on that, and all the parties that were in the select committee did agree on that wider definition. I think Amy Adams needs to take a lot of credit for that. She really raised the issue and pushed it through within the committee.

There’s another issue that was a big part of it. That was the cost of mediation. Now, some of the members of the banking community and financiers and accountants raised the issue that the cost of mediation could be prohibitive for actual mediation to occur. There was a lot of debate within the committee around that because, theoretically, if you’re in a position where you need mediation, then potentially you won’t have the disposable income or the cash flow to pay for the costs of specialists’ advice for that very such mediation. So one of the changes that was made in this bill—and it was agreed by all parties—was in regard to the capping of the farmer’s contribution of $2,000 to the mediation costs. We had a variation of estimates of what that cost could be. Some believe that it might be well in excess of that, and some felt that that was just the actual mediation-on-the-day costs. But, effectively, it gives a little bit of comfort to farmers so that they can progress through this process not feeling that the cost of the mediation is something that would be detrimental to them undertaking the process.

So those were some of the big issues that were raised at the committee. Effectively, this bill is based on Australian legislation that the New Zealand First Party had seen and wanted to push through, and the Government of the day has picked it up. It’s not going to be a fundamental change to the banking policies in New Zealand. It won’t be a major change to the relationship between farmers and bankers. It will be, potentially, a tool that could be used in certain circumstances. But, in circumstances like we have now, with very strong international payments and prices coming to New Zealand primary producers, one would not see the need for this to the extent that we will see the need, because on the other side of the balance sheet for farmers is the high costs that are coming to them because of Government legislation and silly Government policies.

So this bill will probably be used more than it is needed, and that will be required because of the silly policies that we’ve seen come from New Zealand First that the Minister of Agriculture has promoted and pushed through this Parliament. So another bill that could be for the use of farmers and the financing community is not needed to the extent it will be because of the situation that farmers have been put into by the many policies that they are seeing that are attacking them across the board at this time. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise on behalf of New Zealand First for the second reading of the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2). It is actually a pity that I’ve had to follow such a begrudging speech which seeks to characterise this bill in a way that is not as intended. This is a bill that is there to support our farmers through a range of conditions, and to try to sheet that home to specific Government policies of the day—this is actually a long-standing issue. This goes back, from New Zealand First, back to 1999, with Doug Woolerton introducing a member’s bill. It was subsequently carried on by Ron Mark and, more latterly, by myself, but I’d like to thank the Minister, Minister O’Connor, for allowing this to be picked up as a Government bill. It is a substantive piece of policy that did deserve the full weight of Government support and the Public Service behind it.

In terms of the context of the bill, of course the primary sector is a significant contributor to our economy—another record last year despite the grim protestations across the $446.5 billion record income. But that does sit over $63 billion of debt that has accumulated, and quite rapidly, over the past decade. That is even recognised by the Governor of the Reserve Bank as a risk to the New Zealand economy. In fact, that $63 billion is not actually that far out of line with what the net Crown debt is, and this debt is only carried by 20,000-odd farming families, of which about 20 percent carry most of that debt. So it does show how top-heavy it is and how vulnerable some of our farming businesses are to all manner of challenges.

There are so many challenges in agriculture and horticulture etc. that are beyond control: weather, climate risk, and, of course, with climate change, we’re seeing more of that. We only have to look across the Tasman at the moment to see an example of that. In Otago the other day and Tasman we’ve seen fires, which is something that is forecast to grow. We’ve got the M. bovis outbreak and the recent Psa outbreak in the kiwifruit industry to look on. We’ve got volatility in markets and the trade wars that are happening at the moment. And, of course, we’ve got the Reserve Bank, independent of the Government, making capital requirements on the banking sector that they are looking to extract from their customers, essentially, to not penalise their shareholders. And that is disproportionately, potentially, going to weigh on our farming sector in terms of margins they may have to pay. So there is a range of factors beyond individual farmers’ control.

And, of course, the other thing with farming is—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we’re sort of one-all now, so if we could just come back to the bill.

MARK PATTERSON: So if we look at the power imbalance that this bill seeks to address, we heard some very good submissions before the select committee. Rural Women New Zealand’s Angie McLeod outlined some of these real-life examples of banks obfuscating on their responsibilities and not coming to the table in good faith. I myself have seen that through my office since taking up this bill. There have been a number of farmers come forward and outline very substandard practices, not only from the banks, I might say, but particularly there’s a second- and third-tier level of lenders that are, essentially, bottom feeders—predatory lending. This bill will bring them under the auspices and make them come to the table in a mediation sense and give some certainty to farmers and some relief that that power imbalance that does exist will be evened up somewhat.

Of course, this bill does rely on the New South Wales legislation primarily, and that has been extraordinarily successful. Of course, a lot of our banks operate on both sides of the Tasman, and they had been reluctant to engage in this and, essentially, wanted voluntary codes of conduct. The Government has, to our credit, not been prepared to wear that. They’ve brought forward that there’s only nine or ten, on average, mortgagee sales a year in agriculture, but if you look at the Federated Farmers banking survey, they’re showing about 16 percent of farmers feeling under pressure from their banks in May of this year, and that is up from 11 percent in November of last year. So it is something that is worth keeping a weather eye on. This piece of legislation could be something that those 16 percent of farmers can call upon when it goes through.

I’d like to commend the Primary Production Committee. It was actually a very good example of how select committees should work, notwithstanding the aforementioned fairly ordinary speech from the chair of that select committee, David Bennett. He did have some uncharacteristic and hitherto unseen outbreaks of reasonableness and decorum and did oversee a select committee that worked very constructively to bring this bill into shape, and we’ve made a number of recommendations. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams, who brought her considerable legal mind to this bill and was a very valuable contributor.

I think, in terms of select committees and the value of them, we had 37-odd submissions, and we made a number of changes based on those recommendations. So it does show that submitters coming before select committees are listened to. A number of the changes that we made were to the definition of a “farmer” and a “primary production operation.” And over and above the easily recognised agriculture, horticulture, and aquaculture, we brought in the likes of apiculture—bee-keeping—which had been sitting in sort of an ambiguous place outside the bill. So we brought that in.

We’ve also brought sharemilkers specifically into the bill, and I would commend Richard McIntyre, the Federated Farmers sharemilking chairman, who made a strong presentation to the select committee. One of the issues that we picked up was on the cost to farmers, and we’ve put a cap on that at $2,000. It was estimated that the average cost of a mediation is about $6,000, based off the New South Wales experience, but we felt that even though the farmer was only obliged to cover half of that cost, Richard pointed out that for sharemilkers in vulnerable positions against a very powerful financial institution, even that figure may have been too much and dissuaded farmers from trying to trigger this mediation process. The select committee were unanimous in thinking that the very intent, the actual core, of this bill was to get mediation up and running, and we did not want cost to be a factor, because it’s not only the cost of the mediation; it’s the cost of the advisors and the like that need to come along with this as part of that process as well.

There’s also been a widening and clarification of the scope and definitions of things like guarantor, allowing for multiparty mediation, sharefarming trusts, partnerships, and where there are multi-lender or family circumstances. So that’s been clarified and improved. We’ve allowed the banks to apply to the High Court to trigger a mediation in regard to things like animal welfare, or maybe if the crops are under threat of not being harvested or the like. So there is a counterbalance, I guess, there for the banks to not allow this process to diminish the asset value, and that has to go through the High Court, so there’s a threshold there. It also strengthens the wording to encourage creditors to accept mediation so that it can be the fence at the top of the cliff rather than the ambulance at the bottom, which is the absolute intent of this bill—to get creditors and farmers sitting around a table earlier to get a better outcome in the end. We did look at a de minimis figure, but we dismissed that as we felt that was self-policing, to a point. You’re not going to trigger a mediation at some cost for a small amount. We did talk about an upper cap, but some of these debts are significant.

So New Zealand First is delighted with the way the bill’s come out of the select committee, and we continue to look forward to shepherding this longstanding policy towards legislation in the third reading. Thank you.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I just want to talk a bit about the history—the why, the what, and how this bill’s going to work. This bill has been around for some 20 or 30 years. I believe it was first raised by New Zealand First back in the 1990s twice, and it was pulled from the ballot, I believe, last year under the name of Darroch Ball, and transferred over to Mark Patterson. The Primary Production Committee had a bit of a dabble with the bill. The member in charge of the bill tried to, basically, base it off similar legislation that’s currently in place over in Queensland. Full credit to the Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor. He lifted the bill and, basically, cut and pasted the New South Wales model, which seems to be the way to go. Looking at the numbers in New South Wales, how many have actually used this type of legislation, it’s very few, but I think it’s needed now.

If you look at the amount of debt that farmers have taken on over the last 20 years, it’s gone up from about $12 billion or $13 billion up to $62 billion, and you have to look: why is that? One of the main reasons why debt’s increased so much is the nine years of a strong, stable National Government, a party that backed farmers, a party that was founded by farmers for farmers. We backed farmers. That’s why there was so much confidence. You had farmer confidence—highest levels in three decades. Now it’s dropped to the lowest. The reason why you had such high farmer confidence is you had a party that was backing farmers and an environment where farmers actually had money to invest into things like the environment, like over a billion dollars invested into waterways, and 30-odd catchment groups formed in Southland to improve waterways. They actually had the capital to invest back into the business and grow their businesses.

That confidence has been very quickly undermined by a range of the current Government’s policies. A number of them—for example, the proposed water policies—are causing a huge amount of fear across the rural community in New Zealand. I was talking to a farmer yesterday—it’s going to cost their operation in northern Southland, in the beautiful electorate of Clutha-Southland, $2.5 million to fence 45 kilometres of water, amongst a few other things—$2.5 million. Now, this is a couple in their mid-40s. He’s been working on minimum wage for the last 25 years, recently invested into the business, and their only option, if the water policy goes through as planned, is to sell the farm, and they’ll be left with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. That’s because you’ve got a Government who have proposed water policies that are absolutely going to cripple farmers. This is why this legislation is needed.

You’ve got the ludicrous overseas investment carve-out for forestry. I was in the Catlins yesterday—if you haven’t been there, I highly recommend you go down there—in South Otago. This is a small community. It used to have 35 families back in the early 1990s—farming families. They participate in a range of voluntary organisations. The school had a roll of 35. They had businesses. In the early 1990s, those farms were planted out in trees. Now you’ve got a school with six kids. You’ve only got four or five families. It’s actually quite devastating to see.

This is why this bill is needed. You’ve got the lowest farm confidence in 20 years, a range of Government policies—for example, research and development’s halved, funding’s halved for the primary sector industry. You’ve got banks circling. You’ve got banks putting more pressure on farmers now than ever before. Why is that? About seven or eight months into this Government’s term, the banks could see the writing on the wall. They had meetings. Why would the banks want to back farmers when you’ve got all these negative policies affecting rural New Zealand at the moment? Banks have a huge amount of data. They’ve seen the writing on the wall, and that’s why you’ve got the banks circling. This is the reason why National’s supporting this bill. We know it’s needed more than ever right now, and that’s perhaps the reason why it hasn’t come into play now—because of all the negative policies from the Government.

Take Southland, for example. You’ve got families now who can’t even birth in their local community. You’ve got a rescue helicopter in Te Ānau that is on 24/7.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we now are getting really broad. Come back to the bill.

HAMISH WALKER: OK, Madam Speaker. I was just—yeah, I’ll come back to the bill. We’ve also had the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak: another reason why the banks are winning.

Kiritapu Allan: Now you’re on to M. bovis. What’s this got to do with the bill, mate?

HAMISH WALKER: National supports this bill because of the three or four negative policies outlined—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I decide the interventions, OK?

HAMISH WALKER: That’s the reason why National supports this bill. I commend it to the House.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): We’ve just had to endure five minutes of a member of the Opposition. Not once did he actually turn to the substance of this bill. In this Chamber, the purpose of the role of each of us that holds a position in this House is to give every piece of legislation that comes into this House the due consideration that it deserves. Now, that last speech was an absolute disgrace to those farmers that we are actually trying to work and stand alongside. Now, I know that the Opposition are getting a bit terse. They are getting a bit grumpy because they know that on this side of the House, we’re actually working hand in hand with the primary sector. I know that that’s a bit disconcerting for that member Hamish Walker. It’s a little bit disconcerting, so he, just like the chair of the Primary Production Committee, David Bennett, for the majority of his speech just spieled off negativity after negativity after negativity.

One of the most frustrating things about sitting on this side of the House, particularly when you sit on the Primary Production Committee—and we have pretty good, amicable relationships in that committee—is we have to listen to the absolute garbage that comes out of people that purport to be leaders of our rural communities on that side of the House. It is misinformation, it’s disingenuous, and I strongly appeal to our rural communities to do some fact-checking on those members that get up from that side of the House and speak to things that are, actually, really fundamentally important.

Now I want to turn to the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2). Why has this bill come about? This bill has come about because the previous Government let banks go rampant. They let corporate banks, owned by Australians, by and large, go rampant and milk our rural communities for all they’ve got. So when the sun was shining, those banks absolutely targeted our rural communities—they targeted our farmers. When the milk was flowing and the white gold was there, there were no barriers to letting these Australian, by and large, multinational corporate bankers come in to the homes, the beds, the lives of our rural communities. Where were the backstops then from the self-purported Opposition to be the champions of the regions? They were nowhere to be seen. So what happened in 2016—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. So I now ask the member—I’ve given the member the—

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Absolutely, I’m going to turn to this bill, because this is the context for this bill—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you let me finish and not speak over me? I’ve tried to give everyone a fair go at the start, but if you come to the bill please.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Five minutes I had to endure listening to that previous speaker, Hamish Walker, not once turn his mind or his words—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you arguing with me? Is that member arguing with me?

KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’m not arguing with you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. Are you arguing with me? I’m saying that you are now to come to the bill. I’ve given everyone a bit of a go about the context. I’m now asking you to come to the bill.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: So, turning to this bill, this bill has been called upon by members of our rural communities and has been championed for many years by our friends, our coalition friends, New Zealand First. I want to applaud the member Mark Patterson, as a first-term member of Parliament, a sheep and beef farmer from Lawrence. I want to applaud the work that he has done alongside those members and our rural constituents, alongside those members that have really felt the heat of, I guess, inaction by the previous Government in this area, to ensure that some of our most vulnerable farmers—and it’s not the big farmers that this bill goes to protect; it’s our sharemilkers. It’s our little guys. It’s our family farmers. After the milk price crashed in 2016, it was it was estimated that about 25 percent of farms were going to fail. Nothing was done. But I want to commend Mark Patterson. I also want to commend the Hon Ron Mark, Darroch Ball, all who in some way, shape, or form put their hand to the tiller to try and ensure that this bill got before the House.

But the real credit—alongside those members—must go to our Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damien O’Connor, who has been a constant bastion for the little-guy farmers and has ensured that this bill has come before this House in a way that really does get to the core purpose of what we’re trying to achieve.

So what does this bill do? This bill requires or provides a mechanism to ensure that the farmers that are under some stress have a mechanism to require banks to go to mediation. Articulating the words of the submission from Rural Women New Zealand, they say, “Calling up farm debt has had a devastating effect on the rural families involved because it can result in the farmers and their families leaving their home, families, friends, land, livestock, place of work, and community, all at the same time. This can be a traumatic event for all concerned. Although it is probable that banks will call up loans on farms where the borrowers default due to not being able to meet their commitments—it is the process, timing, and manner in which this happens that often determines the amount of stress and trauma an individual or family will suffer.”

Now, what our farmers were saying to us—and, you know, it was probably well-articulated. I know that the member Mark Patterson has already applauded him, but it was Richard McIntyre and his submission on behalf of the sharemilkers sector of Federated Farmers, which said that when those families are struggling and the pump is on—I’m paraphrasing him now, but he’s spoken a number of times on this issue. But he said when that foot is on the jugular and it feels like they’ve got nowhere else to go, there was no mechanism to be able to ensure that there was some parity to get those people around the table. The banks had the power and those farmers were under an enormous amount of strain. They couldn’t get them around the table, and so what he said is that in those situations, a struggling farm business did not end in a bank taking action; it ended because the farmer just sold up after the bank put pressure on them about an overdraft. Now, with this bill, in cases like this, mediation is extremely beneficial. He said previously it would only happen if the banks agreed to it, but this creates a mechanism to compel those banks to get around the table.

So, look, in the Primary Production Committee, despite all the, sometimes, rubbish that gets said in this House post factum—in the actual committee it has been a really good, thorough process. We’ve heard, I don’t know, probably around 70-odd submissions on this bill from bankers through to farmers, through to the rural women’s network, who really spoke a lot to the mental health implications of financial burdens and strains in the family home when the pressure gets a little bit too much.

Now, there is a whole range of substantive amendments that our select committee put forward, and my colleague spoke prior to this, but one of them was around that wider definition of “farmer.” We had a really in-depth discussion around our select committee to ensure that it’s not just the person with their name who does the work day in and day out on the farm; there may be a spouse and a partnership; there might be a spouse whose primary work is doing something else—it might be, I don’t know, something in town. But that couple, they bear the burden of that financial stress. The purpose of broadening out that definition of “farmer” was to ensure that spouses were included, so that they could also have a right to trigger this mechanism to compulsory mediation, if that could be said.

What’s been spoken a lot about too—is that there was a lot of debate about how much mediation actually costs. I think one of the figures that we heard was up to around $20,000. I think that there was some consensus that it was around about $6,000 to get both parties around the table, depending on whether parties took advice, and so on and so forth. Now, I mean, this has been traversed, but it was important for us that we could, I guess, get rid of the barriers to participation to mediation for all of those concerned. So we’ve kept the farmer’s contribution to mediation costs to about $2,000. Now, as a former commercial lawyer myself, I know that that’s an extremely low cost, but it was very important for us to ensure that equitable access to justice, if you will. We rejected a de minimis requirement; my colleague Mark Patterson covered this off just prior. We also set down criteria as to what could be evidence of bad faith when it came to mediation and rejecting a mediation request was one of those mechanisms that our committee determined would be evidence of bad faith.

There are a range of positive aspects to this bill, particularly for our smaller farmers who have been struggling financially, and it’s with absolute pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it’s nice to see that the last speaker, Kiritapu Allan, did calm down somewhat by the end of her contribution. It was a rather fiery and farcical start, to be honest. The claim that the last Government let Aussie banks run rampant, as though there’d never been an Australian bank in this country prior to 2008, and that that has led to catastrophe across the sector is absolutely ludicrous. And actually, off the back of that, Mr Patterson’s claim earlier that any second- or third-tier lenders were bottom feeders is, I think, a little bit of a harsh way to describe any number of people in the agricultural sector who provide a bit of support and assistance to people getting into, potentially, their first farm. It’s a bit of a rough claim to call them bottom feeders, in that instance, I’d suggest, Mr Patterson.

Now, this bill is around trying to provide a platform to mediation. And I think the key opportunity here is for those non-bank lenders. Now, having spent a number of years in the rural banking space, I can absolutely give confidence that banks will do whatever they can to avoid getting in a situation where they’re having to sell up a client. That is the worst outcome for both parties. No one wants that and banks will work closely with their clients to try and find any other solution that might avoid that situation. Sometimes that means an early exit for the farmer if cash flow suggests that the equity will continue to be eroded by remaining in business. But alternatively, it might mean providing additional support if the cash flow and forward projections show a strong enough position—that, actually, they can work their way through that and rebuild equity over time.

So it’s a matter of taking those aspects into consideration and, of course, the people—that’s the third part of it. So it’s the cash flow, the collateral, and the character. You’ve got to have a clear understanding of those three considerations in any lending situation. And banks have entire departments that work closely with their clients to try and minimise the impact of getting into this situation, and then the impact of what that might be on the farmers, in the first instance, but actually on the bank’s position, of course, as well.

So this bill provides a good mechanism for those non-mainstream banks to have the ability to work with the farmers or, conversely, the farmer to instigate mediation with some of those lenders who may be second- or third-tier lenders, but often are family connections. It may be parents or relatives that have lent some money to those farmers to enable them to get into business, to get into a farming business they would not otherwise have been able to. And so it’s important that we’re aware of that. It’s not always big banks or rich people lending money to vulnerable farmers.

Actually, these can be pensioners, parents of those farmers, who may not have strong cash flow themselves but do have some equity and are able to either borrow against that from the bank and on-lend it to their children, or they may provide a guarantee to support the security requirements of the farmers. And so we need to be mindful of that as well. And that would just be one aspect that I would raise around the $2,000 cap that has been mentioned in terms of the maximum charge for farmers, because if the other party is not a mainstream bank and may be also significantly cash-flow constrained, it can be challenging for them to be looking at the situation where they may have to stump up significant mediation costs but may not actually be able to do so themselves.

And of course, the other aspect around the definition of “farmer”, which crosses over both lines, potentially, is in a number of instances where you may have an equity partnership, for example, and one of those parties in that equity partnership may also be a lender to that partnership. So they are classified as both a partner by being a farmer in the sense of the definition in this bill but also a lender or a creditor to that entity as well. So that creates another line of confusion—that on glancing through this, I haven’t seen clarified—as to how that would play out in a mediation situation. So I’d be interested to see that.

But, of course, we have seen an increasing amount of pressure being placed on farming businesses. And one aspect that I’d touch on as well is the Reserve Bank’s current consideration around what’s an appropriate level of capital to be required to be held by the banks. And of course, whenever a mainstream bank hears that, of course, they’re going to start reassessing where their risk appetite is sitting in a particular industry. And we’re hearing across the board now that banks are being somewhat more cautious in their approach to additional lending. And actually, the existing lending requirements—there’s encouragement in a lot of spaces to start repaying capital, not just interest costs, and so that has implications as well.

And, of course, we’d heard already about the aspect of whether hire purchases and other unnecessary debts are potentially caught up under this as well. But at the end of the day, it comes back to providing a platform, giving a little bit more support whilst already, I think, there’s a broadly appropriate platform in place in most instances for banks—granted there are some exceptions. This really is, I think, a good opportunity to enable a better process to be established around those non-mainstream lenders. And so on that basis, I do commend the bill to the House.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this legislation. Farm debt’s risen to $62.8 billion; this is a huge issue. It has grown fast over recent years. We’ve all seen the stories—probably many of us have talked to farmers about the mental health issues and the pressures that arise from that large debt burden. We’ve heard from the member Mark Patterson that it’s that small tail of farmers that carry that massive amount of debt around their shoulders, their neck, but it’s an important issue and I’m glad that Parliament is working in a cross-party fashion again when it comes to this issue, to support it.

Now, many people listening might ask, “Well, why farms? Why single them out in particular? Why not other businesses? Shouldn’t they benefit from statutory protections when it comes to mediation?” The fact is that farmers, I think, do have a particular set of circumstances. They are particularly vulnerable to the weather. You know, my thoughts and prayers go to our cousins across the Ditch in Australia that are facing these massive bush fires—I understand there is a catastrophic rating in New South Wales at the moment around Sydney. We are going to see this getting worse and worse when it comes to the effects of climate change. We need to prepare and adapt.

Of course, there is vulnerability to fluctuating prices; biosecurity incursions, which are no surprise to New Zealand as we’ve battled Mycoplasma bovis; but I think also there is the particular issue of the intergenerational nature of farms. Many New Zealand farms are literally where these farmers—their parents, their grandparents, sometimes even earlier—were born, so it’s important that when you do come to servicing that debt, potential default, and bankruptcy, this step is put in place.

I’d like to thank the Primary Production Committee for their consideration. I understand there were 31 written and 17 oral submissions. The Green Party, unfortunately, this Parliament, doesn’t have a seat on the Primary Production Committee so I wasn’t able to participate. But I would like to thank the committee because there are four big substantive improvements, where they’ve amended this legislation, that I’d like to highlight and single out.

Firstly, the original legislation said that a creditor had to offer mediation when the farmer was in default. Now, I hear the argument submitters made that that was coming too late in the piece. Once you get to default, things have already advanced to such a level that, really, you could have fixed it earlier on. I like the phrase of Mark Patterson, which is, “We’d rather have a mediator at the top than an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.” So I note new clause 16A to allow earlier intervention, where the farmer can request it earlier on. We know from international evidence that the earlier you can intervene, the better the outcomes for all parties involved, so I’d like to acknowledge that positive amendment.

The committee’s clarified the definition of “farmer”. Things such as hobby farms, lifestyle blocks, aren’t included and I think that’s entirely reasonable, and what they’ve done in clause 6 is deleted the words “solely” and “principally” from the definition of “farmer”. But they’ve also expanded those who are engaged in the business—so trustees, spouses, partners also come under that definition of “farmer”.

I’d also like to acknowledge the work of capping the costs. We’ve heard the international evidence—well, the evidence from Australia—that mediation costs around $6,000. Originally, those costs were envisioned to be split 50:50 between the creditor and the debtor. However, I think when you realise the fact that you’re only invoking the situation when the farmer is in some debt—is in an onerous debt situation—you know, they are particularly vulnerable. So $2,000 still is a significant sum and we think the committee’s actually got about the right number in terms of the farmers’ costs.

Lastly, and this I think is important from an animal welfare perspective, is an application to the High Court in situations of urgency. We’ve heard other members today talk about the situation where the value of the farm might degrade over time if, say, there are 60 to 90 days for mediation. But there is also the scenario where you’ve got stock on a farm which might not be well cared for, from an animal welfare perspective, while that 60 day mediation process is under way. So we do acknowledge this; we do support this amendment to include an application to the High Court.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank New Zealand First. This is clearly something they’ve worked on for a long, long time. I guess it’s a good example of persistence pays off in politics, so I acknowledge the member who’s ushered this through, Mark Patterson.

National, I think, were trying to make politics out of this. It’s not something our farmers deserve at this point in time. They’re facing a number of pressures, and I think if we’re going to talk about the issues facing farmers many of the problems can be laid at the floor of that Government that had nine years to sort it out. But, instead, what they did is they chased volume over value, they saw this rapid increase in debt. They didn’t act with the most severe environmental crisis facing our local environment, which is the degradation of our waterways. In fact, we’ve seen that nitrous oxide concentrations—the amount of nitrogen we’re applying to our farms—have increased, I think, 650 percent since 1990, much of that under the tenure of the previous Government. I still remember in this House when they were blaming birds and volcanoes for the problems of our water quality crisis and the fact you can’t swim in two-thirds of our streams and rivers. They didn’t face up to it. This Government is acting, unlike that previous Government. So I think it’s wrong, it’s unfair, and giving our farmers a disservice when they’re trying to blame the Government for dealing with the problems that they left.

The Green Party vision—which we’re seeing from this Government—is supporting our farmers into more sustainable practices. And, ultimately, that is going to make our farms more economically sustainable, because we can’t keep chasing volume; we need to chase value. We can’t just keep cramming more cows in our paddocks. We need to embrace sustainable farming practices, which was included in the last Budget. We need to be embracing regenerative farming and organic agriculture, which we know is going great guns in this country. This ultimately is going to see a more sustainable farming system that is more sustainable economically, and continue that social licence. Kia ora koutou.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make a contribution on the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2).

I was reflecting, listening to the speeches this afternoon, back on to the 1980s and indeed the late Collis Blake, who was a farmer in Levin. He, effectively, stopped mortgagee sales in the 1980s by blocking access onto farmers’ driveways with tractors and trucks, and then went and negotiated singlehandedly with banks. I must say, the relationship with farmers and banks has come a long way since the 1980s, but I fear, even more than ever, that we are heading back into a situation like those farmers in the 1980s found themselves in. Because the fear that I have is that Government policy is creating a lot of uncertainty in rural communities. I think that this bill—and that’s partly the reason why the National Party is supporting this bill—is necessary, because when you have a look at the confidence in farmers and if you look across the whole range of business confidence surveys, whether it’s Federated Farmers, whether it’s Rabobank, whether it’s ANZ, and the list goes on, farmers’ confidence is at an all-time low.

Now, why is that? Because their prices are very good, apart from wool. Beef prices: good. Dairy prices: good. Horticulture prices: gangbusters. The list goes on—forestry prices: looking good. But why is it that farmer confidence and sentiment is extremely low, the lowest it’s been in decades, right through, even beyond the global financial crisis? And the reason has to be because they are facing an onslaught of Government policies. I don’t want to spend all of my contribution talking about the onslaught of those Government policies that are causing a negative reaction in rural communities. I could, but I don’t want to because that would be seen as negative, and the list would go on and then the bell would go, and I’d be asking to extend my contribution because the list is as long as both of my arms.

This bill is important right now for not only what’s happening with Government policies but we have also the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act potential changes, and that is also reverberating around rural communities, right now, with banks who are turning up and sitting around the kitchen table and saying to farmers, “Right, you have been paying off interest, OK, thank you very much. But now we want you to pay off principal as well.” Not all debt in agriculture, in the primary sector, is bad. And I’ve heard from a variety of speakers this afternoon alluding to the fact that farmers are out there with their chequebook spending willy-nilly and they’ve caused this demise of ratcheting up debt on themselves. Well, I want to defend farmers and say, actually, in a lot of cases they have been investing in lifting the overall performance and viability of their individual farms, particularly around environmental policies that they have made. And all of those decisions: fencing their waterways, 24,000 kilometres from here in Wellington to Chicago and back, riparian planting—look at the Waihopai River. It got the supreme award last week. That’s a river near Invercargill, surrounded in farmland—it got the supreme award for water quality improvements, and that is because they work collectively together.

The reason that this bill is necessary is—I’ve talked about Government policies, I’ve talked about the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act changes—is also that we know that the family home is on the parcel of land that is a working farming business. So it’s different, isn’t it? It’s a bit like a dairy owner. Quite often the dairy owner lives in the business. Farmers live in the family home that is on the particular property, so when farmers find themselves being rounded on by the banks—that’s starting to happen right now—it means the family home is very, very vulnerable. So this bill is necessary for that reason as well. I’m pleased to see that the Primary Production Committee has capped the mediation costs that farmers will pay, up to $2,000. I think that’s also very, very important. And another note is that it means that farmers will be able to go to their bank and say they want early intervention.

So I support this bill. I think it’s necessary right now; there’s a flood of farms on the market. Some of them are choosing to exit because of Government policies; some are choosing to exit because of the pressure that they’re being put under by their banks. That’s why I support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So the context of this bill is that this is a Government that’s tackling the long-term challenges. Our economy is in really good shape. It’s growing faster than most similar countries. Interest rates, unemployment, and debt are all low. We’ve had the highest annual wage growth in a decade. We’re not afraid of tackling the big issues, and that’s the context. We know that farming is vital to New Zealand’s growth and wellbeing, and it accounts for something like, I think, $46 billion in exports last year. We also know that there is growing debt in the farming sector and that farmers are especially vulnerable to business downturns as a result of conditions that are often outside their control. You’ve heard quite a lot of talk about that this afternoon, which is why this Government—as I said, not afraid of tackling the long-term issues—is actually addressing it.

It started off with a member’s bill—I acknowledge Mark Patterson for that member’s bill—which the Government then sensibly decided should be a wider Government bill. And, thankfully, the Opposition, the National Party, decided that it would support it. It sounds to me as if there was quite a lot of good work done in the Primary Production Committee with 31 written submissions and 17 oral submissions from farmers, banks, and mediation organisations. But this is one of those examples where good work gets done in the select committee and a lot of blather happens in the House from the National Party in Opposition that is looking for a way to justify its nine years of doing nothing in this area. We’ve heard that in 2019—this year—there is $62.8 billion of debt, up from $49 billion in 2009. So one asks oneself what the previous Government was doing during that period. Why didn’t they introduce legislation to bring in a fair farm mediation scheme that was going to guarantee that fair, constructive, and timely process for farmers to work through debt problems with their lenders?

I heard the previous speaker talk about blocking driveways to get banks to negotiate with farmers, but there’s just a great big, glaring gap, and you’ve got to ask yourself what was missing during that period. Was it that the banks were seen as too powerful for the previous National Government to actually take on? Actually, you’ve got to look and see—well, what’s the previous Prime Minister doing now? He’s the chair of one of those banks.

So here we have a Government—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member needs to be a bit careful.

Hon CLARE CURRAN:—that is actually introducing a fair scheme—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member needs to be a bit careful.

Hon CLARE CURRAN:—for the farming community to have a structured, confidential, and impartial negotiation process that allows for the mediator to be a neutral and independent person to help both the farmer and creditor work through their debt issues in an effort to reach agreement. So fairness is actually what this Government is about. It is tackling the hard issues and getting the economy working properly, but introducing fairness for all parts of the community. A big thankyou to Minister Damien O’Connor for taking this issue on.

This is why it’s so hard for the Opposition to argue a position. Even though they’re supporting the bill, it’s really hard for them to argue their position because they didn’t get on and do this themselves in that nine long years of neglect period. Instead, it’s this Government that’s been left to pick up the pieces after we’ve had a system where farmers are dependent on capital gains on land and not productive profit. We’ve had growing farm debt and no recognition of the building pressure on farmers.

This is the Government that’s delivering. They’re delivering for all parts of this sector, and we’re doing it alongside all of the other joined-up policies that are making this country a better place.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to talk on the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2), a bill established to help with creditors and farmers. Clare Curran, the previous speaker—I think she might be going into the fertiliser business when she retires from Parliament, because she produces it on an industrial scale.

We’re supporting this bill. We support this bill. The original bill was brought in by New Zealand First and it was a dog of a bill. They should have just cut and pasted the New South Wales version, and I see that this current bill is, essentially, a copy of that, so the Government had to rescue it.

I see that there were 30-plus submitters and 18 oral submitters, and it was supported by Federated Farmers and the New Zealand Bankers’ Association. We’re talking about $62.8 billion worth of debt, which was, what, $49 billion in 2009. So it’s not a massive increase, but it is still a significant amount of debt for us to carry, and it’s acknowledged that early intervention in these cases rather than forced disclosures is a good method, so we support that.

I’m a farmer myself, and we’re vulnerable—farmers. We are subject to weather, the markets, diseases, and Governments that don’t know what they’re doing introducing all kinds of legislation that puts pressure on farmers, and the farming community, at this point in time, have never been more under load. They’re more under siege than ever before, and this is at a time when they should be jumping from the rooftops because the prices are good, earnings are good, and the weather’s been reasonable. But they’re not. They’re pretty sad. In fact, I’ve got a hill-country farm, and I struggle to make a living off that farm. The fertiliser, the weed control bill, the fencing—if I did it as to best practice, I would spend my entire farm income on that.

So it’s a common misconception that farmers are rolling in dough, because they’re not. Most farmers I know will be lucky to retire with a bit of a nest egg after a lifetime of working seven days a week, so farming is really hard. It’s hard on people, it’s hard on farmers—it’s hard on their bodies—and it’s no wonder they’re struggling. So we need this farm debt mediation bill, because I can see that a lot of farmers, especially with what’s coming down the line, are going to be struggling. There are going to be some farmers who are going to have to walk off their land. Hopefully, a National Government will get back in and change things around, and we can carry on.

On my farm, I could—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you actually going to address the bill?

MATT KING: Oh, yep. I’m talking about farm debt. The banks can be villains at times. They can be villains at times. You hear this story about bank bosses foreclosing on farmers and making them pay back capital right at crunch times, and this definitely goes on. We know that this goes on.

This farm debt mediation bill, in my view, is a mechanism to keep bankers honest. So I commend the bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): This is one of those situations where I haven’t sat on the select committee. I have been aware of this bill and read bits about it, but, as people in the House will know, unless you’re actually directly involved, the nuances of the bill often escape you. Having been requested by my whip to present on this bill, I’ve had the opportunity for the last 10 minutes to read through it, and I’m incredibly impressed by this bill.

What have we actually got here? We’ve got a bill that says that if your business gets in trouble, you will have compulsory mediation—well, not “compulsory”, but highly advised mediation. You’ve got a system that will ensure that before the creditors move in, before you are kicked off your farm, before—and we can go back to any stage in history, which has been littered with opportunities or instances where people have been, basically, kicked off their land. Well, at any stage in history, I’m sure any farmer or anyone involved in agriculture would have loved to have a piece of legislation like this to be able to refer to.

I’m from a family that arrived in New Zealand in the 1840s from Ireland as a result of the Irish famine, when the land became exhausted and when farmers didn’t have access to any such thing. They, basically, starved or they left, and that was probably a very typical example of what happens in the dog-eat-dog of farming—the dog-eat-dog of farming which exists, generally, around the world.

The dog-eat-dog of farming has actually existed largely in New Zealand. One only has to drive around New Zealand, and you’ll still see the skeletons of old dairy factories and you’ll still see the skeletons of old dairy farms. The farm that I grew up on previously is now three farms, and, typically, I’m sure that those involved in farming here and on the opposite benches will know that the piece of land that they now occupy, generally, was probably about at least three or four farms before it became the economic unit it is today. So that is an evolving process.

History doesn’t stop. What we’ll actually see is that the lands that are farmed now that may be an economic unit of maybe 2,000 stock units may in the future become an uneconomic unit unless there is policy around which farming can actually survive at that level. It is inevitable that in a business like farming, there are good businessmen and businesswomen, and there are bad businessmen and businesswomen, there are good farmers and bad farmers, and there are unfortunate farmers and there are unlucky farmers. For whatever reason, anyone who is in business or anyone who is out there contesting the dollar may find themselves in trouble.

So, coming back to this bill, I see that, ultimately, it settles around the role of a mediator. When the raw forces of capitalism—and, let’s face it, across the aisle, are the so-called champions of the raw forces of capitalism—are applied to agriculture, as they are applied to any business, in fact, there will be a protection given by this bill. Having just read the bill—and a member of my own family from that family that arrived in the 1840s from Ireland is the current Minister of Agriculture—I’m actually very proud, I have to say, that around the family dinner table at Christmas, it will be spoken of as a very good piece of legislation. Even those relations of ours that are still on farms, if they should happen to bring up—not that they ever will—that there are any problems on the farm, it will be something to be able to remind them of, which is that this year, this fine Government that I am proud to be part of has actually brought in a piece of protection that no one else in New Zealand really has got. So the businessmen and businesswomen who make up our farmers now should back—they are getting good dairy prices, better than for a long time.

Basically, the thing is that the members opposite when in Government were very fortunate post-2008 and post-2012 when dairy prices were through the roof. We’ve survived that. So there wasn’t the need for farm remediation. There wasn’t the need for the bankers. In fact, at that very time, what were the bankers doing? The very reason this bill is required—the bankers were out there. And what is the definition of “banker”? A banker will lend you his or her umbrella when it’s fine, but will come and take that umbrella back as soon as it’s raining. Well, it is still fine at the moment in farming because we do have high dairy prices. We do have high land prices. We do have high beef prices.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come back to the bill. You started well; you’ve just deviated slightly.

GREG O’CONNOR: But this is why it is so wise, Madam Speaker, that we are bringing this bill in right now, because it is in anticipation that the very famine that has beset every one of us, wherever we came from around the world, whether we came in 1200—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do think it is a long stretch to compare this bill to the Irish Famine, but could we come to debate about the bill?

GREG O’CONNOR: Well, I like to provide context, Madam Speaker, but I will come back. Let’s just have a look at some of the provisions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be good.

GREG O’CONNOR: What are the benefits of this mediation? Mediation is a key word in this bill—a key word: this mediation that will be allowed for those businessmen and women who occupy farmland today, that will generally be denied to most other businessmen and women in New Zealand. It provides a safe environment for farmers to work constructively, with creditors, through debt problems. That really is the key to the bill. While mediation may not save the farm business, it can help facilitate a dignified exit for farmers if necessary, or alternatively, it can allow the farmers to explore options for turning it around. History has shown that the earlier mediation comes and the earlier someone who is in any business—in this case, the agriculture business—does seek help and advice, then the chances of actually turning the financial problem around is increased considerably.

But let’s go back to some of the other provisions of the bill. Who’s going to pay for this scheme? Actually, again, as I read through this, it is unusual to read through a cost and set up of any scheme—one generally expects to see lots of zeros. In fact, the estimated cost to set up the scheme is about $350,000. The estimated annual cost for administering the scheme is about $250,000 to $300,000, met from the Minister for Primary Industries’ existing baseline. The cost of each mediation is expected to cost about $6,000, split between the creditor, of course, and the farmer—of course, limited—and the agricultural business person who is in the business of agriculture, their contribution will be limited to $2,000.

Again, I hail this piece of legislation. It is recognition of the financial vulnerability and stress on the farmer who will be going through this mediation. So I can’t speak highly enough of this piece of legislation and I’m just ashamed that I wasn’t on the select committee, and around the family I should have been briefed on this, perhaps by the family member myself.

Also, important in this legislation—because the other thing we all know is that what we so often need, when anyone gets into financial issues, is time. Once this mediation is initiated, farmers and creditors will have up to 60 days to complete the mediation process.

I daren’t mention Ireland again for fear of upsetting the Speaker, but any business, anywhere, that’s got itself in trouble, certainly in the agriculture business, I’m sure would be only too happy to have had that 60 days—to know that they had 60 days of a cushion to ensure that they did have time for the heat to go out of the business, the heat to go out of the problem, and perhaps, to get that money together. In the bill here is this 60 working days—that’s 60 working days, I might add; not just 60 days to complete the mediation process.

So what is the mediation agreement? Again, going back to the bill, the mediation agreement is produced at the end of the mediation process and it sets out those agreed actions for future arrangement of the debt. Again, any business person would actually be ecstatic to have that sort of fall-back position.

We come, again, back to the bill. What if the farmers did not want to take part in the mediation? Well, the creditors can then apply for an enforcement certificate which would allow for the creditor to proceed. So I doubt very much that the wise men and women who make up our farming industry will decline such an offer. I also ask you, what if the lenders don’t want to take part in the mediation? Again, a threat, particularly when we look at the financial sector—perhaps they’re under pressure to call in the debts. The creditors will be encouraged to accept this mediation. I commend this bill.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to take a brief call on the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) in its second reading. We are farmers as well. I’m pleased to see a bill like this come into the House. Farmers have been under a lot of stress and they will continue to be under a lot of stress, financially, especially. We have seen too many of our farming colleagues take their lives because of the burden of debt. So without any further ado, I commend the bill to the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I, unlike the previous speaker, am delighted to speak on this bill. I am sure the House will be pleased to know that I will not be speaking for 30 seconds on something so important; I will be taking this opportunity to share with the people of New Zealand why this, the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2), is so important.

This bill is about supporting the wellbeing of farmers, which this Government is committed to through this bill and a number of other measures that we have introduced. We are committed to working with farmers to move away from a volume-focused approach to one that focuses on value. This bill sits directly alongside that. In his contribution before, the Hon Nathan Guy asked a very interesting question. “Why is it” he asked, “that farmer confidence, despite being in a situation where prices are at an all-time high, is so low?” I have an inkling. It is because if farmers were to listen to the party that is supposed to—if you listen to them—represent rural areas, you would think that there is nothing but gloom and doom on the horizon. How on earth could farmers be confident about the future when those MPs that represent those electorates tell them that there is no hope? How can they have confidence when they tell the farmers that there is no point staying in the industry?

What this Government says through this bill, and through the many other measures like the $229 million Sustainable Farming Fund, which boosts farm extensions, advisory services, and tools like OVERSEER to help on the farm decision-making and practice, is that this a Government that stands up for farmers.

What we hear on the other side is no vision—a total lack of vision and a desire to stick with the status quo. I think that is why, in the nine years of the previous National Government, there was no bill like this, the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2). They have stood up, but not for long: David Bennett was the only one to do a full call. It was an appalling speech, but at least it was the full allotment. We had Hamish Walker for five minutes; Tim van de Molen for three; and Nathan Guy, a former Minister, was another short call. We had Matt King for three minutes; and, of course, the best of the lot was Joanne Hayes—for 30 seconds. At no point did they talk about in their contributions—in the nine years of the previous Government—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has now had the obligatory three minutes rant, so could the member now come to the bill. I’ve been fair.

KIERAN McANULTY: Madam Speaker, I take exception—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve been fair.

KIERAN McANULTY: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take exception to my speech—which is countering some of the others—being described as a rant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m saying to the member that he will now come to the bill, because he’s had—as I’ve given to many others—three minutes which are not about the bill but are about politics. So he will now come to the bill.

Hon David Bennett: Yeah come on, get to the bill. He hasn’t read it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, I’m quite capable.

KIERAN McANULTY: This bill’s great. This bill is what has long been needed, and, in my view, should have been introduced a long, long time ago. This bill, as I said earlier, is about supporting the wellbeing, because the fact is that there is a power imbalance in the relationship with farmers and the banks. That is nothing new. That has been the case for a long time. I ask the very relevant question—relevant to the discussion today, and certainly relevant to this bill—as farm debt increased to record highs of $62.8 billion: where was the last Government? This Government has come forward, under the initial leadership of New Zealand First. I want to acknowledge the original sponsor of this bill, who took it on, in Mark Patterson—the true voice of Clutha-Southland—who brought this bill in its original form to this House. This Government took it on because it was so important and it deserved the resources and the oversight that a Government bill gets over a member’s bill.

What that bill said to the people of New Zealand is that New Zealand First and Labour and the Greens take this issue seriously. We’ve heard complaints on the other side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh come on, come on now. The speaker knows very well that a second reading speech is when the bill, as it comes back from the select committee, is accepted by the House. So at some stage in their speech they do need to refer to perhaps what’s happened in the select committee, to perhaps some of the changes, some of the detail of the bill. So would the member please do the House the service of focusing on the elements of the bill?

KIERAN McANULTY: I’d be delighted, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity. In fact, it was the next part on my notes here—as I’m sure you’ll understand and appreciate.

Despite having an appalling chair in David Bennett, the Primary Production Committee worked together very well on this bill—Nathan Guy, up to the point that he left, replaced by Todd Muller and Amy Adams. They worked constructively.

Hon David Bennett: How much are you going lose by next year?

KIERAN McANULTY: I believe I’ve hit a nerve, because this is the most David Bennett’s had to say all day.

We have worked constructively, and I know that my colleague and friend Mark Patterson has appreciated the contribution, particularly from Amy Adams, in amending this bill and recommending some changes. Indeed, the Minister himself acknowledged the work that the select committee did to bring forward some welcome changes that were needed to make sure that this bill was fit for purpose.

We heard some submissions. There were three that stood out in particular. One was from Rural Women New Zealand, as my friend Kiritapu Allan mentioned. The other was from those that are actually in the game: the mediators, the ones that came along to the select committee and told stories of this power imbalance that this bill seeks to address.

There was a question raised previously in another contribution that, again, is completely relevant to this conversation. Tim van de Molen, the representative from Waikato, said that banks work at every opportunity to avoid default with farmers. The question I pose is that either he can’t have either been listening or he didn’t understand the submissions that were brought forward at the select committee process, because submitter after submitter after submitter, often in tears, told us of circumstances where the bank wasn’t working with them to save their farm.

It is regrettable that this bill or something similar was not introduced earlier, because those guys would have been able to have the opportunity to mediate. I won’t go as far, because it would be unfair, to suggest that their farms would have been saved. That is not what we’re suggesting that this bill will do. But what this bill will do is introduce mediation into the process.

There is one particular gentleman from Wairarapa whom I have been dealing with directly. His story is deeply saddening. It has touched me. I won’t use his name because of his privacy, but I guarantee he’ll be watching today. I wish that there was compulsory mediation in place when he lost his farm. It is something that has affected him and his family deeply, and I was sorry that the options available to me as a member of Parliament, resident in Wairarapa and representing Wairarapa, along with two others—

Hon David Bennett: You don’t represent Wairarapa.

KIERAN McANULTY: Along with two others there.

The fact is that the other side might take the opportunity to have a crack and have a go, but I’m talking about something very serious here. I’m actually using the opportunity—the 10 minutes allotted to me—to talk about a real story. This bill would have introduced compulsory mediation into that process. He would have had the opportunity to address the serious and genuine concerns that he had with the process that he faced. He doesn’t have a farm now, and I fear that the only option available to him is through the courts.

But, nevertheless, we must remain positive. We must look forward, because this bill will bring in the provisions that too many farmers didn’t have available to them at the time. Of course, we could just simply say that mediation should be a compulsory mechanism in this process and leave them to it, but we on this side of the House believe in fair intervention. We might not leave it to the market like the National Party traditionally do, but we say that mediator costs will be shared equally between parties until a farmer’s contribution reaches a fair amount. Above that, in order to recognise the financial vulnerability and stress on farmers going through mediation, any additional mediator costs will be borne by the creditors involved in the mediation. That is fair, and that is a provision that came out of the select committee.

I acknowledge those members that worked constructively with us: Amy Adams worked constructively; Nathan Guy and Todd Muller worked constructively; Hamish Walker, when he was there, worked constructively. This is an example to the people of New Zealand that, actually, when there are things that are important to rural New Zealand, this Parliament comes together. The examples under the last two years of this Government are countless. Time and time again I have made this point when I’ve spoken up to speak on a bill that is relevant to rural New Zealand. It will be welcomed by the areas that many of us live in. It will be welcomed by those that have come into our electorate offices and told us of the sad stories of when they lost their family farm. For them and for those that will face those situations in the future, I proudly commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): I move, That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

A well-functioning animal tracing system is vital for our biosecurity and to protect our most valuable exporters: our primary sector. This is the second reading. Ironically, the first reading of this bill was in 2012. It has taken some time, I guess, to come back and upgrade this bill—or the Act, I should say.

This bill addresses the issues found during the response to Mycoplasma bovis and the recommendations from an industry-led National Animal Tracing and Identification (NAIT) review. It addresses the inaction of the previous Government in ignoring enforcement and ignoring the promotion and utilisation of NAIT in the way it was intended. As I said—

Hon David Bennett: That’s rubbish. That’s lies.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I heard a word that was very unparliamentary. The honourable member that said it should stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: As I said, this Act was first put in place in 2012. We’ve had to move forward—learning from the lessons of M. bovis—to make the changes in this piece of legislation. I acknowledge the valuable input from submitters and the support the bill received from key industry stakeholders. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Primary Production Committee for their work on the bill.

Mycoplasma bovis was the first real test of NAIT traceability, and the scheme was found wanting. Mycoplasma bovis will cost New Zealand almost $1 billion to eradicate, and that cost would have been considerably less if the NAIT scheme had been working well.

The bill package contains a number of provisions. The package amends the NAIT Act and five sets of regulations. The changes ensure the framework underpinning the scheme is fit for the future. They tighten the focus on the basics for good tracing. The amendments support the operational changes being done by NAIT Ltd, the organisation running the scheme.

The changes that we are making include a number of things. Firstly, the NAIT number on a tag is specific to a given location. That is not the current situation. This is fundamental to getting better traceability. Persons in charge of animals—or PICAs, as they are known—will no longer be able to put tags issued for one location on to tags at a different location.

The second thing we’re doing: we’re encouraging better compliance. Most people across New Zealand would say that if there’s a law, then there should be compliance with that law. The reality for NAIT is that was very, very poor. By now, no farmer should be in any doubt that everyone needs to do their part and comply with their obligations under the NAIT scheme and legislation. We are making it easier for the location history of animals to be provided to potential buyers—an issue that was raised during Mycoplasma bovis and the complications with the Privacy Act, although I, personally, have some doubt as to its interpretation on certain matters. We are increasing penalties for non-compliance. I make no apology for stepping up the sanctions on people who continue to not meet their NAIT obligations. The cost and consequences of that behaviour fall on everybody else—the taxpayer and every other farmer across New Zealand.

Thirdly, we’re dealing with the performance of the NAIT organisation. NAIT Ltd is a private company with significant regulatory functions. The bill puts in place some standard ministerial oversight provisions for the NAIT organisation to address identified weaknesses. I have to say that I was very frustrated when I exposed some of the weaknesses but was unable to intervene directly, as any normal Minister would be, given the responsibility that I had to ensure full traceability across the agricultural system. That will now be addressed through these changes. There is a graduated set of tools to ensure that the company that runs the scheme stays on track. The Minister will be able to notify the board of priorities and expectations related to scheme functions and is able to issue a direction if needed. These are very sensible improvements, and I think any Minister with a portfolio responsibility would understand the value in having an ability to give clear guidance.

Other enactments in the legislation: the changes tighten the exemption for sending untagged animals going to meatworks. The direct safety of an individual farmer will be the only justification allowed. This is where sometimes an animal may go on to a truck and be sent to a works, penalty paid, but it’s been a simple opt out for farmers when they haven’t had to tag animals. The expectation is that animals should be tagged before any movement on or off a farm, and the exemption that was allowed for what were unsafe-to-tag animals will now be changed to ensure that that exemption is not abused.

The current voluntary annual reporting of other animal species on farms will now be mandatory so that in disease management, particularly in the terrible and, hopefully, unlikely event that we would ever have foot-and-mouth disease, clearly other species such as sheep and goats that may contribute to the spread of foot-and-mouth disease—currently, there’s no obligation to tag—at least now we will have to have notification of the presence of those animals on farm.

The select committee has recommended that the bill package proceeds with a few revisions, and I support their recommended changes. The committee recommends that the Act does not confirm that the core data within the NAIT system is the property of the Crown. So the Act will remain silent on this. However, other provisions ensure that the core data set is protected by the Crown on behalf of all systems users. I have to say that, personally, I have some unease with the paranoia that was spoken of at select committee about the Crown taking ownership of the database, should that NAIT private organisation ever be sold. As we saw with the previous Government, they tended to sell anything they could lay their hands on, and that did expose databases like this to being passed into private hands. Our provisions that would have ensured control in the hands of the Crown are now left silent, and it will be upon a future Government to ensure that the database of farmers’ information is in fact protected.

As I said before, the committee agreed to change the terminology of the existing exemption for moving untagged animals to meatworks if they are impracticable to tag. That was the exemption. Sadly, we know that some farmers have been misusing this exemption, choosing to interpret “impracticable” as being inconvenient for them. The term “unsafe”, that will be introduced now, focuses this exemption on its primary purpose, which is to manage dangerous animals and protect the health and safety of farmers. The NAIT scheme’s been in place for seven years. Farmers should have the right equipment and the processes to tag their stock, because otherwise they can’t move them anywhere other than to the meatworks. That’s why we considered that this exemption, which was always a temporary measure, could be removed in five years’ time. So that’s a clear warning to farmers that you need practical equipment. The committee has recommended, of course, that instead there is a review of whether the exemption is still needed five years after this legislation is passed.

One of the other issues here: good tracing relies on all animals being tagged. One key checkpoint for biosecurity is when an animal is moved off farm. PICAs are currently responsible for making sure untagged and unregistered animals are not moved. So the provisions in the legislation put in place a more robust scheme—with clear obligations and clear responsibility on PICAs—and there was some discussion around transport companies and whether they should be responsible. What we have is a requirement that transport operators receive an assurance that the animals have been tagged or notification has occurred.

These changes, and the amendments agreed by the committee, reflected a balanced consideration of the comments received from submitters. I commend the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a particularly weak speak from the weakest Minister of Agriculture that this country has ever seen, and we expect that kind of activity. He spent five minutes talking about the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation without actually talking about the Primary Production Committee and what actually happened there. It is disgraceful, I know, what that Labour Party gets up to. Let’s tell the truth of what happened in the committee and what the Labour Party actually did to farmers in this legislation.

There was a process where all farming organisations were engaging with the Minister in good faith, and they were then sitting down and talking about how we could make the NAIT system better, and that was all fine. And then that Minister, at the last minute—you can see the grin on his face—changed the bill on them and took ownership of the data of farmers. That was what this Minister was trying to do in the bill. He had to capitulate in the select committee and give up on that attack on the farming base of New Zealand. That’s the reality of what happened in this bill. He’ll go and talk about how he never had the regulation and the ability to do what he wanted to do; that is rubbish—absolute rubbish. The Minister had all the powers he needed at any point in time. It was his inefficiency and his misguidance that meant that it wasn’t used properly.

This bill is just another part of the development of our animal identification system, and that will continue in the future. This bill will not be the end of the system. But what actually happened in this bill is that the Government tried to make an attack on the data ownership of the New Zealand primary sector—that’s what actually happened. Now, the Minister is not going to dispute that, I’m sure, because that’s exactly what the bill said. At the Primary Production Committee, we had to deal with that issue because it became a very blatant attack on the farming sector, because data is so important for any industry going forward.

To have the data of one industry taken in one fell swoop is a very New Zealand First concept of corporatisation by the Government. They were going to do that with the power industry; it never actually happened, though, did it? We were going to have that grandiose plan. Well, they tried it with NAIT’s data, but they didn’t realise that they had a slight problem with trying to take the NAIT data off farmers, and that was that the NAIT organisation itself had been sold some years prior to that.

So you could probably make a legal argument that if the Government owned the organisation that that data went to, they may then own the data. But you can’t make that legal argument once the organisation has been sold. So we got Crown legal opinion, which showed that the Government was out of step, that the Minister had breached his rights in the sense that he had no ability to take ownership of that data, that the submitters were actually completely right in saying that there was never any intent for data to be taken by the Minister, that the Government had actually overstepped and the Government had to backtrack, and—by their own legal opinion—the Crown found that this Government had acted outside the law in trying to take that data off the farming sector.

Now, they took this clause out of the bill, and now we see in it that the core data is no longer in Government ownership, and, although not clarified to the satisfaction of all farmers—

Hon Nathan Guy: No one owns it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, no one owns it for this stage of the commentary—but, in legal terms, you actually look at the debates in the House as well; they are very important to give context around the commentary. I would say that the debates in this House will clearly show that there can never be—there can never be—any attempt by a Labour Government to try and nationalise the data like they did in this attempt, because they do not have that ability and they do not have that legal standing to do so. So to anybody that may be looking at this in the future and wondering what the legal standing of the data is: the Labour - New Zealand First Government had no right to nationalise it, and they actually had to withdraw.

So it is more than being silent around ownership of data; it is actually saying that the Government does not have the right to that data, because it tried to gain that ownership and then failed through the select committee process.

Hon Member: Is that the best you can do?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, that’s pretty good. You know, it’s not often that many Governments are found by their own legal opinions to have acted outside of the power that’s entrusted in them, and were trying to nationalise an asset that they shouldn’t be allowed to. So thank you for that interruption over there from the member that’s a new member, I note, but who will soon learn not to do that again.

Then my second issue when we came to the legislation—which was another point which we had to deal with the Labour Party on—was in regards to transport companies. Now, the Labour Government and New Zealand First tried to bring in a requirement that all transport companies would now be liable—not, actually, the farmer; the liability would be on the transport company. It took a while for them to understand that that wasn’t a great, smart idea; we had to go through it about five times before they realised that it wasn’t in the best interests of the transport community and, necessarily, anybody involved in the industry. But, finally, we did get there, and we had to coax them around to looking at different options around what could be done, and the best we could get out of them was that they would have another declaration on the declaration paper in regards to animals that had been transported off a property, and it puts the responsibility back on to the farm owner, which is truly where it should be; not on to the transport company, because it’s very difficult in a range of circumstances for transport companies to be able to guarantee that.

So that was bad enough, and the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party finally came to a realisation that they were impractical in wanting to make sure that transport companies had to operate under the basis that they were liable. So it was added to the documentation that would come off a farm. There was no attempt at all from the New Zealand First or Labour members to have any consideration of costs that that would impose on the Government. So there will be an extra cost on the Government because of the decisions of those two parties at select committee. And there was no consideration of the timing of it; they just thought you just click your hands and you can change all the documentation in New Zealand. So it wasn’t until officials came in and said “Well, you might want to have a six-month limit on that to actually make it practical” that the Labour and New Zealand First members actually woke up to the idea of what they were doing, which was actually causing a lot more documentation and another set of processes within the farming sector.

Now, there were a couple of other little things in the bill as well that were changed at select committee: cost recovery for audits and accreditation, quite minor changes in regards to the unsafe exemption that is limited now to five years—Federated Farmers wanted that to continue, but it now has the five-year limit on it. So, effectively, there are a number of other smaller changes, but the two fundamental things that came through the select committee process were the ownership of the NAIT data and also the liability for those that transport NAIT animals.

It is a major backdown by the Government in this area. We were never told by the Government why they wanted to get the data; we can only surmise that they wanted it for purposes that were not needed for this bill, that they wanted it in a manner which could be used on other purposes, and it was very obvious that there is no limitation on the Minister in being able to pass on this information—basically, any Government organisation can apply and basically get this information from the Minister once the Minister has it. Why they would want ownership is something that was never explained to the select committee, and, really, left us—as members of the Opposition—and also the submitters, thinking only the worst of this Government, as you would do, because they are not in the interests of anybody in the agriculture sector.

Jamie Strange: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: And we’ve seen that—and they may laugh over there, but this is one of the steps that they have done to attack the farming sector, and the National Party stood up for farmers and got the result we needed. New Zealand First were backing the Labour Party in trying to nationalise the assets of farmers—that’s what they were doing in this bill. We stood up, we stopped it, we used their own lawyers against them, and we managed to get a result which is fair and reasonable for New Zealanders and for New Zealand farmers. It’s a win for the Opposition and another failure for that failing Government.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) legislation that is before us this afternoon.

As the deputy chair of our Primary Production Committee, I often have the opportunity to follow directly behind the chairperson, the Hon David Bennett. It’s an interesting experience having to follow that member in these discussions, which are so fundamentally important to all of rural New Zealand and our agricultural sector. For a sector that contributes so much to our rural communities’ economic background and to our nation’s export prosperity, you often want to come into this House and speak to the bill and the things it does for our communities. However, I’m often tasked with the job of having to respond to misinformation consistently from that member that chairs our Primary Production Committee—and I just have to put on record that it’s disappointing, to say the least.

The Mycoplasma bovis outbreak for New Zealand—we’ve set aside just under a billion bucks as a nation to tackle just the trauma that that’s caused throughout our country. I would have thought, for a party that prides itself on wanting to stand up for rural New Zealand, for the farmers of this country, that the Opposition’s lead spokesperson on these matters would have turned and spoken to the impacts of that biosecurity outbreak, to the bill that was introduced—this national animal tracing system that was introduced in 2012, that was found to be woefully deficient in its application.

The first real test of the NAIT system was just prior to the last general election. This was consuming the minds and the lives of rural New Zealand, as many of us will know because we live in those regions. Many of us know there was a lot of fear that was coming out at that time in mid-2017, when it became very apparent that the system that our farmers were reliant upon to ensure that we could trace the animals, to ensure that we could track where these biosecurity incursions were coming from—it was really traumatic for farmers up and down the country when we realised that the trust, faith, and confidence that they had in the previous Government to administer a system that would protect our biosecurity was woefully inept.

So I would have thought that that member David Bennett, who chairs this select committee, the Primary Production Committee, would have stood up and had the humility to actually turn to the deficiencies of that system. I would have thought that that member would have spoken to the merits of this bill that we have been considering since—I think it was introduced late last year. We’ve had some tremendous submissions from a broad range of stakeholders, from big farmers and corporates that are mindfully watching over, I guess, the overarching regulatory environment all the time—the Dairy NZs, the Fonterras, the Federated Farmers—through to those farmers that have had to watch the eradication of their stock, through to those farmers that have lost a lot during this entire process.

It was Miles Anderson from Federated Farmers—he’s a spokesperson for their meat and wool sector. He came to the select committee and he said that the NAIT system simply had to work and it didn’t. And it failed our communities. It failed our regional New Zealand. In his remarks—and I think his remarks really got to the substance of why we’re here this afternoon debating this legislation—he said, look, you know, farmers didn’t want to be woefully negligent. They didn’t go about to undermine the requirements that were set out in that 2012 Act. But there wasn’t enough resource put into educating those farmers that had to administer the system, there wasn’t enough resource in terms of ensuring it was seamless and it actually worked, and there wasn’t enough time and energy in that initial legislation to ensure that the regulatory mechanisms to ensure compliance with the system actually functioned effectively.

So I turn to what this bill actually does and what we heard submissions on through the select committee process. I want to start with—normally I wouldn’t start with this, but this is where I want to start—the mechanisms by which we think it is important. And for all those we heard submissions from—like I said, Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ—there was a general consensus that it was very important to lift the penal regime. The penalties as were first introduced under the initial legislation in 2012 were very minimal. If you failed to tag an animal: $150 fine. Those penalties have been lifted. We have lifted those penalties—so it might be a mistake, but we’ve lifted it to ensure that there are fewer mistakes—to $400. Where there is a failure to register stock, those initial penalties were around $300. We’ve lifted that to $800 to ensure that, again, we’ve got the right mechanisms to ensure compliance.

I think some of the substantive penalties that we’ve really made amendments to in this bill, where there are individual failures and these are blatant failures to administer and perform the functions required of persons in charge of animals (PICAs) under the Act—the initial maximum penalty in the 2012 Act was $10,000. We have substantively increased those—with the, I guess you could say, permission or with the blessing of the industry—to $100,000 to show that non-compliance with this Act simply will not be tolerated. If you read any of the analysis on how M. bovis was introduced into New Zealand, there was a consistent view, I guess, that had this system been working right at that time and people had done what they were meant to do, it wouldn’t be costing our country a billion bucks. So that’s at the individual level we’re increasing those penalties, but at the corporate level, that’s where, I guess, the rubber really hits the road. So we’ve increased those penalties from $20,000 to $200,000.

We’ve heard—well, I think amongst the drivel that we heard before—there was a bit of a comment around data ownership. I do want to acknowledge the comments that the Minister Damien O'Connor made in this respect and also those that submitted on this point. It was a point that we received substantive submissions on—as to who actually owned the data that feeds into the NAIT system. This was a legal ambiguity, and that was something that we received advice on from the Ministry for Primary Industries. Why our side of the House, at the very least, agreed that this is something that should lie silent for now is because there was no conclusive view as to where actual ownership does lie. So I want to acknowledge those officials who took the time to inform us as members, because it wasn’t just that side; it was all of us that had shared concerns about the actual legal ownership of that data.

Secondly, another big issue that was really put to us, and there were some exceptional submissions to this point, was around whether or not transporters—so those guys that drive the trucks, pick up the stock, take them from A to B—would be legally responsible or liable under the amendments. And, under the first draft, they were; they were going to be legally responsible for transporting stock that hadn’t been tagged. We heard some exceptional submissions in this respect, which really were persuasive amongst our select committee to ensure that we listened to those transporters. They weren’t the targets of the NAIT scheme and this regime, and all legal liabilities would remain with the PICAs. So those were a couple of the amendments where I think we worked collectively across the House quite constructively to achieve those outcomes.

So, despite the rubbish that gets said in this House from some of the members of the Opposition, I want to acknowledge those who actually do work constructively to ensure that we’re sticking up for rural New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2)—let’s call it “NAIT”—here for the second reading, reporting back from a very robust select committee process.

I would like to start, if I may, with just some reflections on the comments made by the previous speaker, Kiri Allan, who does some good work in the committee. But I think her summary of our critique of what has been put on the table misses the mark. She tried to frame it up as if somehow Mr Bennett, who’s a very superb chair and I’m sure we’d all agree on this side around the contribution—

Kiritapu Allan: Well, now we know you’re lying!

TODD MULLER: Well, see, here we go. It’s all very well to talk about humility and to try and anchor yourself with the tone of caring and then, the moment the Opposition holds a view, you just guffaw and try and tear the person down. I mean, they need to look in the mirror. But I’d like to specifically reference the comments that were made by Kiri Allan when she talked about the importance of her approach in terms of approaching this issue from a position of humility and wondered why she thought there were aspects of Mr Bennett’s very strong contribution this afternoon that were not anchored in the same.

Well, dare I say that she obviously wasn’t listening to the contribution from the Minister, because this is what we have come to expect—the way he framed up this bill, even though, for a number of months, in the context of our response to M. bovis, we have sought at all times to be appropriate, bipartisan, putting the farmers’ interests first. You’d expect that from the National Party. He immediately starts his contribution on the attack, framing us up, in terms of the critiques that we had round the select committee, as paranoia—and I quote directly. And then, of course, the Government side wonders why we react. All I say directly to the Minister is that, instead of succumbing to the red mist that appears every day he appears in this place, he might want to focus on the food safety issues and the biosecurity issues which are front of mind. We’re dealing, of course, with M. bovis. We have, essentially, an avian disease which is already impacting a number of South Island chicken farms in particular. We have swine flu on our doorstep. We have brown marmorated stink bugs on our doorstep. Mr O’Connor, could we respectfully ask you to focus on doing your job as opposed to coming here and spending most of your speech trying to frame up how we are somehow culpable? It does him no credit, and that is why David Bennett’s contribution was so robust and pointed and accurate.

I would like to specifically raise comments and issues that came up through our select committee process. Firstly, as mentioned, we had a number of submissions. Our total was 70 submissions that we considered. We had 10 oral submitters who brought a significant industry experience and perspective to the table, which certainly the National Party found particularly interesting. We have already traversed a number of the issues that were front of mind as we reflected on this bill. The first, of course, was the issue around clarifying ownership of core data. I think the previous Government speaker has skipped over this somewhat. I accept that, at the end of our deliberations, we landed in a place that makes sense in terms of the bill being silent around ownership. But she omitted to make it very clear to the House that the bill as introduced had a very different view as to where ownership sat, and that was the specific intent of the bill. And, as we listened both to officials and, of course, to industry submitters, it became very clear that this was a relatively last-minute—in fact, was a last-minute—insertion into the bill by the Minister.

So the issues that this has raised and the sort of nervousness in the sector over what was the true intent of actually putting that clause in, which made it clear that that ownership of that data would lie with the Crown—that all sits with the Minister, because he chose to put it in. It caught the industry by surprise. It’s all very well standing here and talking about the importance of the industry working together to identify the failings of the NAIT system and, where we can, collectively improve it only to put in, at the eleventh hour, a piece of legislative intent which, essentially, as Mr Bennett, I think quite aptly, put it, sought to nationalise the data, and then wonder why there was such a reaction from the industry. It was poor process. He was caught by it.

The area that I’d like to move on to next is the obligations that sat in the original bill for transporters in particular to be accountable should there be any stock on their truck that wasn’t appropriately tagged and in the NAIT system. We in particular—the National Party side—right from the start signalled that we had major concerns with this, as, again, Mr Bennett earlier articulated. It gives us the sense—and we see it pretty much every day, in terms of our Primary Production Committee deliberations—that the Government’s side are devoid, I think, of very many members who are anchored in the reality of farming and anchored in the reality of the implications of the legislation they put forward.

Jo Luxton: That’s not fair—that’s not fair.

TODD MULLER: It became very clear to us right from the first submission that this was a flaw in the proposed bill. And I hear them saying, “Well, it’s not fair.” Look, ultimately, Government, you have to take accountability for the legislation you frame up and put into the select committee. If it is identified as deficient in thinking, if it’s identified as deficient in intent, then you’d expect us as the Opposition to critique it, to identify your failings and ensure that it’s changed. That’s what’s happened here, and it was a very strong pushback from the National Party that identified the issue. We listened to the transporters. We understood the fact that putting with them the obligation, the ultimate legal obligation, to ensure that animals are tagged when they are simply a transporter from A to B was clearly not the right outcome. We have sought changes, and we have seen changes to clause 12, particularly new section 31A, which gives transporters some comfort that now the obligation sits with the persons in charge of an animal to have certified for the transporter that all those animals are indeed appropriately tagged.

One issue that I would like to touch on, in conclusion, really relates to an area that hasn’t come up yet in our conversations. It came up during the course of our deliberations, and I think it’s an important message to get out there, and that is that for all the changes that sit in this legislation today that we’re reflecting on, it still doesn’t deal with what I would call the operational clunkiness that farmers have to experience in terms of the day-to-day engagement with the NAIT system. Now, we were given very strong feedback and commitment by NAIT themselves and the officials that support this Government that that would be an area of focus and outcome.

Well, certainly from the National Party side, we have a very strong expectation that that’s going to be followed through, because as all of us know, when we strip our particular partisan perspectives away from this debate, part of the success of compliance is actually the rules—and that side have particularly focused on that—but the other is the culture that exists in a sector and, in particular, the ease of the operational interface. If they have been designed in a way that makes it easy for farmers to update and it’s intuitive and it reflects the day-to-day reality of farming, then you’ll find that the compliance will lift. That, ultimately, is not a function of rules and regulations and legislation that we are debating here today; it is, in my opinion, a function of the capability of the management of the NAIT team to be able to identify and put in place a system that can be incrementally improved, year on year, that works for our farmers’ day-to-day realities. I do hope—and this side of the House very much expects—that that is a priority for the organisation and is appropriately supported by this Government over the next few months and years.

Look, in conclusion, this is a solid bill. It is a bill that is needed, and we have collectively, through our unique Primary Production Committee style, landed on a bill that we think will make the system better, will make it more effective, but, ultimately, as I’ve mentioned before, the test of that will be the commitment that the farmers have to the system and the ease that the farmers have in terms of using the system for their own business benefit. Thank you very much, and I certainly support this bill this afternoon.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) to make sure that our primary biosecurity response and animal tracing programme is fit for purpose. Just picking up on some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker, Todd Muller, there has been a real effort within this Mycoplasma bovis biosecurity outbreak to depoliticise this, because there was some squabbling at the start which wasn’t doing our farmers any good. This was a significant outbreak, and it was time for us to support our farmers, not to play political games. So it’s a little disappointing to see that reversing out a little bit this afternoon.

There has been, with this biosecurity outbreak, a huge threat to our bovine agriculture sector, about $20 billion, or probably close to $25 billion between dairy and beef. We found that we had a National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system that was found wanting. Frankly, we had inherited a scheme that had been administered in benign neglect. Quite extraordinarily, in terms of enforcement, there had been one $150 fine up until that outbreak. That was the fact of the matter. It had almost been totally unenforced. We heard through the select committee process that non-compliance of the NAIT system could have been as high as 50 percent, and, boy, have we paid that price. The cost of dealing with this Mycoplasma bovis outbreak, which has been complicated incredibly by a lack of ability to trace animals as was intended, and is actually the purpose of the scheme, has cost us—we have allocated $900 million to that response. If there was ever an example of this Government getting behind our farmers and sitting alongside our farmers, that has got to be it. For those just tuned in or listening in on radio, the previous bill was the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2), another example of this Government getting beside its farmers.

So it’s absolutely imperative that we have a system that works well. Cattle, particularly beef cattle, are traded heavily. There is a lot of movement of cattle. We have to have an efficient system, and one of the key failings of the system is the tags. The tags often come out, and how that is dealt with is key to making sure that the system stays updated and accurate. One of the core issues is with unsafe animals, and through this process, we have a new category, “unsafe to tag”. It was previously “impractical to tag”, and there is a difference there, because I think what was happening—and with that 50 percent non-compliance, there was a portion of PICAs, or persons in charge of an animal, who just weren’t really bothered. There was no enforcement; there was “just put the animals on the truck and be done with it”. We have tightened that up considerably and made “unsafe to tag” as the threshold.

It’s important that that threshold remains, because for those of us that do live in rural New Zealand and do work on farms and have had a lot of experience in putting stock, cattle, on trucks, there are some cattle that are just dangerous. They need to get on a truck and they need to go to the works. That’s the place for them to be, but it is a health and safety matter for those farmers to not have to take their own health into their own hands by being absolutely obligated to have a tag in the ear. But we have to have that threshold high so that it is a genuinely unsafe animal—does have to be visibly rattled—and we are looking to have that review in five years to make sure that that system has not been taken advantage of, as it had potentially been previously.

The other thing I think it does, just talking about the non-compliance before and that single $150 fine—what we had previously was that non-tagging of an animal was $150. That is now $400 under these proposals. Non-registration of an animal has gone up from $300 to $800. Of course, if this gets to court, if it’s a particularly egregious case that gets to court, it was $10,000 for an individual farmer, family farmer; that has gone up to $100,000, and $20,000 for a corporate has gone up to $200,000. So this bill now has teeth.

There’s been quite a lot of discussion around the privacy and who has the access to the information or who owns the information, and that’s been traversed by previous speakers. I guess my comment on that would be how the Government let this key information get into private hands in the first place. We’re not here to relitigate that. We’re here to work out how we can make the best of a situation that probably should not have been. We did take on a lot of advice, and we did land in a place that made the information more available to the Minister so that the data can be available to the likes of the police or territorial authorities, and it has clarified some of those provisions. It exempts animal compliance officers who, essentially, could have been classified as PICAs, or persons in charge of an animal, if they are rounding up stray animals. It authorises the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to access NAIT data.

Of course, this is a unique situation where this data is held by, essentially, a private company. The Minister for Biosecurity did say within his contribution that in real time, responding to a genuinely significant biosecurity outbreak, the lack of access to that information by him as a Minister had impeded the response of MPI. So it’s now much clearer who can apply to access this data, and we did thrash that out through the select committee process. It was potentially a little bit loose. We know where the chain of command is now, and it’s much clearer who has access.

The work around the transport operators: as the bill was originally introduced, the transport operators were going to be caught up in this, and they’re not totally exonerated, but they do have the ability to contract out or get a declaration from the PICA that the animals are tagged as they should be to be legally compliant. So it doesn’t totally exonerate the transport operator, but it does take them out of full responsibility, because, essentially, it’s not them that will not have tagged the animals. But what we found in real time is if those animals are getting on a truck not tagged, the transport operators have often known about this and not had any power to intervene and make sure. So there’s an extra level of accountability for the PICAs in terms of not wanting to put their transport operators in a position of vulnerability. I would say it is credit to the farmers, and through the select committee process—Miles Anderson from Federated Farmers was mentioned—they said, “It is up to us. It’s up to us as farmers to take responsibility for our animals, and we don’t want the transport operators to be unintentionally captured in this.” So that is to the credit of farmers and farming organisations that they are taking full responsibility.

So this is an evolving process, I think, this NAIT process. I personally believe that we have to look to some alternative technologies. I think the tags are not—you know, that’s where it breaks down a lot of the time, when the tags come out, and they do come out; probably, in my experience, 10 to 15 percent of them will come out in the lifetime an animal. So that’s a significant issue, and we do have to keep evolving the system, but this is a step in the right direction. The Primary Production Committee has worked through the original bill well, improved the bill, and New Zealand First believe this is a further step in the right direction as we evolve our ability to respond to major biosecurity outbreaks. So we continue to support this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I just ask members on both sides of the House to remove the boxes and party files from their desks, please—Mr McAnulty and Mr Guy.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): We all know the introduction of pests and disease into New Zealand carries a huge amount of risk, especially if we get some unwanted bugs or diseases past the border. You only need to look at what’s happening currently. You’ve got infectious bronchitis virus, which is a chicken disease. It’s affected two chicken farms in Otago. Currently, the exports of chickens to Australia have been stopped because of this. Basically, once you have one farm in New Zealand that tested positive for the disease, it affects our exports greatly.

You only need to look at Mycoplasma bovis: it hit the South Canterbury, North Otago region, also the Southland region hard, not just the financial costs, which will cost the Government and the industry close to a billion dollars, but the emotional costs, the emotional fallout. You know, you’ve got young children seeing calves getting loaded on to trucks, getting taken away to the works, never to be seen again, and farmers—they build up genetics over years, often decades, and often they know the cows individually. So it’s heartbreaking for the children. You’ve got the Queensland fruit fly. One fly costs about a million bucks to get rid of. You’ve got to find it, you’ve got to then eliminate it, so it’s not a cheap exercise. You’ve got stink bug. The stink bug incursion rate into New Zealand has increased tenfold over the last four or five weeks. And then you only need to look at foot-and-mouth. The predicted cost of foot-and-mouth hitting New Zealand would be about $16 billion.

So this bill here, the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) bill, which is all about tracking animals, tracking cows, tracking deer, for people who aren’t quite familiar with this word, “NAIT”—it’s a good bill. It’s not supposed to stop disease incursions into New Zealand, but it can stop the spread relatively quickly.

With Mycoplasma bovis, some of the problems—tracking these animals, through faults of the current system, is like a puzzle. It’s like dropping a 1,000 piece puzzle on the desk and then trying to figure out where these cows, where these movements have been. I just want to talk briefly about several amendments the National Party suggested to the Primary Production Committee. I just want to acknowledge all members of that, including the hard-working chair, David Bennett. He does a very good job, a very neutral chair, and I appreciate that David gives everyone a fair go, and also the officials. He really respects the work that the officials do for the committee.

So the key points that the National Party are very happy with: one is around privacy; another around unsafe tagging and non-compliance. We had a big issue around privacy because we had the bizarre situation where you give your information to a public department, then it was being shared to a private company. It’s good to see that changed, and also data duplication. You only need to ask a farming couple in Southland, Mr and Mrs McCallum—they’ve got 1,600 cows. They had to go through 80 different pages of data tracking, nine-digit numbers, and they basically had to track them up between NAIT and also another system called MINDA. So, hopefully, all these changes make it a bit easier for farmers. I just want to finish by acknowledging all the farmers affected by Mycoplasma bovis. Hopefully, we can get through this. And for those reasons, we support this bill.

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 this legislation, the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2).

Now, the Green Party supports improving the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) regime because we need to have accurate information about what’s happening to animals. Now, we were caught unprepared when Mycoplasma bovis hit New Zealand. It’s cost us hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Tens of thousands of animals have had to be slaughtered and our tracing regime wasn’t up to snuff to deal with what was a serious biosecurity incursion. So this is about improving it. I acknowledge the previous speaker, Hamish Walker, and the difficulties many farmers have had engaging with the system previously. This is about improving the regime, because, ultimately, it’s in all farmers’ interests to make sure that we have a strong, robust regime that works, so when tragedy strikes we are prepared.

Now, I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee, but I’d like to acknowledge the members, acknowledge the chair, acknowledge all the submissions. I think it has been improved in the committee. Four big changes I’d like to pull out. Now, the first: one of the reasons why NAIT was so ineffectual early on was the penalty was a miserly $150 per tagging offence and only $300 for registration offences. In the first reading speech, I said, “That’s akin to being like slapped on the wrist with a wet bus ticket.” And it’s true, so I’m glad the committee has increased those penalties from $150 to $400, $300 to $800—still not massive penalties, but, hopefully, will act as more of a deterrent. Alongside the other benefits to make sure the regime is easier to work with, I’m sure many more farmers will be complying.

Now, the obligations around transport was a big area where the committee considered and made some amendments. Now, originally it was that any person moving a NAIT animal was liable. Now, what the committee has decided is that transport operators and drovers shouldn’t have that strict liability. Now, part of the problem was that we know that so many NAIT animals were just being driven around by transport operators who didn’t, I guess, have a stake in maintaining the NAIT requirements of those animals. Now, I think the committee’s erred on the right side, because they’ve said that under clause 12, which inserts new section 31A(2), transport operators or drivers are exempt if a declaration from the person in charge of the animal says that the animal was in the system. Now, what we’re trying to do is encourage NAIT registration and tagging of the animals, as long as the transport operator gets that declaration from the person in charge of the animal. I think that’s where it should lie, so it’s fair to move that strict liability away.

The committee has also recommended amending the legislation in terms of cost recovery. Obviously, the new NAIT system is more advanced. There will be greater administration costs as a result. So the previous old-fashioned per unit charge or flat fee system isn’t really futureproofed. So the idea of a graduated fee response based on the number of animals makes a huge amount of sense. It’s simply going to make sure that their resources are going on to make sure it can protect New Zealand and our economy.

Now, the last area I’d like to touch on is the access to data, because what the committee has done is clarify who’s actually able to access the data. In terms of the Public Service, they can apply for a data access panel through the Ministry for Primary Industries in terms of, I think it’s the 1955 legislation, what’s it called, the territorial authorities—the legislation about animals that are lost and councils have to go find them.

Hon Nathan Guy: The pounds.

GARETH HUGHES: The cows?

Hon Nathan Guy: Pound.

GARETH HUGHES: The pound, that’s right—clarifying the relationship between data access and that old 1955 legislation. But I guess the big area where I wasn’t privy to the conversations, but it looks a fascinating debate from the committee, was access and ownership—not the access to data, that’s been clarified, but it was the ownership of data. Previously, the understanding was this data was the Crown’s, and the committee’s decided to stay silent on this matter but, obviously, it’s going to be a huge debate going forward. The committee has clarified, however, that the Minister can request that data. There is no cost fee in terms of undertaking the roles of the Minister to get an accurate understanding of the situation. This is an area that needs to be cleared up though, I believe, and ultimately I think, given the State’s responsibility—the State’s very clear interest in it—the State’s ownership of that data, I think, is a very important issue. So I guess it’s going to be a debate that’s going to continue. But I’d like to thank the committee for improving this legislation. The Green Party can continue to support it.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s been a good afternoon and, I think, quite a good, reasoned debate on this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2). I remember when it came into the Primary Production Committee, and the debates in the House preceding that. This system, indeed, was tested with M. bovis, and it was found wanting in a number of areas. I think it’s appropriate that the Government has moved to make the necessary changes. Of course, prior to that, we had a bill that came in under urgency with no consultation with industry, the public, or even the Opposition. So we certainly attacked that process, but I’m pleased to see that this one has gone through the full transparency process involving industry and others that came and submitted.

What it does do is it really clarifies a few things, but I think there is a bone of contention around who owns the data. It looks as though Government members pushed pretty hard to say that the Government owned the data. Industry said, “Well, we own it.” So it hasn’t necessarily been easily clarified, but there’s been a bit of a workaround that’s been resolved by the Primary Production Committee and the good chairmanship of the Hon David Bennett. What it does mean is that the Minister can request some information or all of the information from the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system at any time that he or she wishes.

What has been also interesting in the debate, reading the bill, and through the select committee process, is the transport operators being liable for an animal that isn’t indeed tagged. I felt from the start that that was never fair on those truckies, because when you consider it, often these truck drivers can turn up at any hour of the night to load out stock. It’s not appropriate for the driver to be able to—and often these yards aren’t lit, so the driver may have a spotlight on the back of the trailer of the truck, may be able to see that some of the animals are all tagged, but there’s no way that the driver would be able to see that all this particular load of animals are all tagged. So I think the committee has worked through a good process there and the onus is going to sit on the natural person in day-to-day charge of a NAIT animal, which is the person responsible for the animals to ensure that they are correctly tagged, and there will be a six-month lead-in process to that.

The other one was these unsafe animals, where there was another, I think, good robust debate in the Primary Production Committee at the time, because we need to be mindful of the fact that these can be very large bulls. They might be five years old. They could be a tonne in weight. Or stags could indeed be older and they get very, very aggressive at certain times of the year. So I think it’s appropriate to say, well, there is a period of five years to allow the person in charge of the animal to tag these animals, and that will be reviewed in five years by NAIT.

The other thing that we have some concern about on this side of the House is indeed the ministerial direction where the Minister of the day can say to the NAIT board, “Well, here are all of my priorities and expectations under this term of Government, or indeed under the leadership of the Minister.” So we don’t agree that the Minister can just go and direct the NAIT board or senior NAIT staff to say, “Well, here are all my individual priorities and expectations for the period that I’m a Minister. You should follow suit or toe the line.” So we have some concerns about that. We will take the opportunity in the committee process when the Minister is in the chair to ask him very specific questions around some of the areas that I’ve canvassed today. But we do support the changes that are in the bill, and I think that the select committee has done a good job. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Marja Lubeck—five minutes.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to take a short call on this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2). As we have heard, of course, the real test with National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) was Mycoplasma bovis, and it was clear that that test and the scheme have failed. As the previous speaker, Mr Nathan Guy, mentioned, the scheme absolutely was found wanting. So this bill is an important milestone in dealing with the problems of the NAIT scheme. It is dealing with the incredibly detrimental impact for our provincial and regional communities when we had the outbreak of M. bovis, and it made it very clear that we had shortcomings in this NAIT scheme, which obviously needed to be addressed. So this bill will help address the poor tracking of animal movements because we need a well-functioning tracing system, because, as we have mentioned many times now, sadly, a disease affecting one farm can have a ripple effect all through rural communities and, as a result, through the whole economy.

Now, the changes that this bill makes in a well-functioning NAIT scheme will help maintain the confidence not only of the sector but of the wider industry, and, of course, also of our overseas markets. I wasn’t party to the Primary Production Committee process, but I’ve heard several of my colleagues—Kiritapu Allan, Mark Patterson—mention very eloquently the issues with penalties and non-compliance. And, quite frankly, it made a lot more sense than the waffle that we’ve heard by the member David Bennett, who actually is very rude to officials, so I’m not sure why so much praise is heaped upon him when, whenever I see him in action, he is actually very rude.

This bill shows clearly that this Government is committed to working with farmers so that they get more value for what they do. It is this bill, as well as the previous bill that was under discussion before, that completely fits with this Government’s plan to help farmers meet the issues head on, after, of course, we’ve seen National ignoring any of the challenges facing that sector. This bill, as we have heard, reflects the wide range of feedback that submitters have brought to the select committee process. And from what I’ve heard from speakers previously, it has been a very robust process that has resulted in this bill. So this bill, as a result, then, clarifies provisions. It closes some of the exemptions, which, quite frankly, should not be in place and closes a very big hole that exists currently in biosecurity tracing.

It is really clear from what we’ve heard today and in previous speeches that a previous National Government completely ignored the scheme. I mean, one non-compliance notice in four years—you’ve got to wonder. Mr Walker, in fact, with his examples that he mentioned, clearly outlined that his National Government left us a legacy of haphazard attitudes towards biosecurity that this Government now is cleaning up.

So to conclude, then, after nine years of neglect and a National Government that completely ignored the scheme, we are taking action, tackling New Zealand’s long-term challenges head on, making life better, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Matt King—five minutes.

MATT KING (National—Northland): I think the Labour members over there have got to get some new material, get some new lines—that “nine years of neglect” is wearing very thin. The facts don’t back it up, so get some new material, get your spin doctors working.

We at National, we kicked off a review of National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) in 2016 and we acknowledge that it has been severely tested by Mycoplasma bovis and it’s been found wanting. We acknowledge that. This bill amends NAIT to make improvements to the framework governing it, so I acknowledge that. It’s all about animal tracing and identification, but it also overlaps into biosecurity and food safety. So we’re supporting this bill. We want to ensure that it’s fit for purpose and that it’s working. You know, when we’re in Opposition, unlike the Government, we don’t oppose everything for the sake of opposing. We’ve supported a good portion of the bills that have gone through the House in the last two years. We’ve supported them. Some of them are our bills so, of course, we support them—

Hon Member: Most of them.

MATT KING: Most of them are our bills, actually—yeah.

There were 92 submissions; 10 gave oral evidence. I was privy to about an hour or two of submissions when I subbed in on the Primary Production Committee. I’m a farmer myself, so I know all the issues to do with NAIT. National recommended removing the reference to core data being the property of the Crown as it could be problematic, and I understand that. Also exempting transport operators—I was in the select committee when the transport operators were coming in. And when you’re a truck driver and you’re loading cattle late at night, and especially wild cattle, ensuring that they’re all NAIT-tagged would be a nightmare. And so it’s just a practical amendment to the bill to be realistic. So the farmer takes the liability. He takes that off the transport operators’ books, so I agree with that. We requested it. Amending unsafe tags to cover over five years—I’ve had cattle on my farm that you could not get near a cattle yard, and in fact, recently, I had to have one destroyed because of that; it was out of control. So I think it’s a good amendment to the bill to allow that—just a practical way. And so we need to improve our system, our system of traceability. We all agree to that.

I understand when NAIT came it was phased in over a period of time. And for me, it necessitates the purchase of a $2,000 scanning gun plus the NAIT tags themselves. It’s really expensive. And I found that is a decent-sized expense for a farm my size. Also, the NAIT issues are hard. When I’m buying stock off neighbouring farms or nearby farms, they’re meant to scan them and send it away. Well, my experience with doing that with NAIT has been a nightmare, actually—I’ll be honest with you. I’ve scanned all my animals on my farm and sent them in to NAIT in a nice little spreadsheet, left messages for them, phoned them, emailed them several times, and not one reply. So I think there are issues at the moment with the NAIT system and I’d like to see that they are sorted out.

Having one NAIT number per farm location is a good idea. In the previous situation there you could have one NAIT number for a farmer and he could have several farms, or two or three, and so that’s a sensible amendment. I agree with that. And non-compliance with NAIT is a real concern, and I understand that. It’s a frustration for farmers, it’s a frustration for NAIT, but non-compliance is an issue. If you have a system that’s foolproof and you have a NAIT system that works, you would have more compliance from farmers. I acknowledge that. My own experience was sending in information and it not being loaded—very frustrating for me.

And privacy issues—I see this bill solves the privacy issues around information being shared and it increases the penalties: $10,000 to $100,000; $20,000 for body corporates to $200,000; for minor, small-scale offending, $300 to $800; failing to tag offence, $150 to $400—it makes sense. In terms of data access, I had—some people had some stock stolen, the thief put them through the works. They got notified that their stock had gone through the works, and applied to the freezing works for the information to try and track down who put it through. The freezing works cited privacy issues and didn’t produce it. So I’m glad to see that those sorts of issues will be sorted out. So, all in all, a reasonable bill; I commend it to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with pleasure that I rise in support of this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2). Why am I pleased to rise in support of this bill? Because this bill is going to go a long way to protecting our $46.4 billion primary sector industry, which is hugely important to this country and the economy.

I just wanted to touch on a couple of things that members opposite have brought up previously. The Hon David Bennett: he’s talked about some of these changes that have been made to the initial legislation as being a big win for National. Well, I challenge that member, because I was once the deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee and, actually, it is a split committee, equal members on either side, so nothing necessarily will get through unless both sides agree. So whilst this select committee process has included some extremely robust conversations and discussions, I disagree with the fact that one thing or the other has been a big win for the National Party. And, actually, I find that quite disappointing, and I find it very insensitive of that member to politicise something like this when I have come from an area which has been hugely affected by Mycoplasma bovis. So I find the fact that this bill is being politicised very, very disappointing as, I’m quite sure, the farming and rural communities of Rangitata will too.

Hon David Bennett: No, they’re very thankful, actually. They just want you gone.

JO LUXTON: That’s fine, Mr Bennett, if you want to make fun of it and make light of it, go right ahead; so much for the party that is for the farmers and fights for the farmers.

Anyway, I would just like to move on from that. We had another member talk about the expense involved with National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) tagging. Well, actually, I say that that’s a very small price to pay when it comes to protecting our biosecurity for this country. I also want to mention the fact that I am no longer a member of that select committee, but I have sat on it maybe once—

Hon David Bennett: And that’s a shame.

JO LUXTON: —why thank you, Mr Bennett—or twice during the process of this piece of legislation going through. Now, we know that there are a couple of recent events which have highlighted the deficiencies within our NAIT system and how it’s been inadequate, actually, at best. One was an industry-led review that was held from 2016 to 2018. But the biggest event that we’ve had that highlights the inadequacies of the NAIT system is the outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis, the cost of which has been absolutely huge. I think by the time—working towards eradication, there’ll be close to a billion dollars that will have been spent on eradication. And we know that this would have been a lot less had the NAIT system been working well.

Whilst the financial cost has been huge, it is nothing, in my view, compared to the personal cost—the stress that it’s caused families, the mental health that has suffered in our rural communities when dealing with the issue of having to destroy their animals, the impact on our communities, the impact on people who were friends, neighbours. So no longer can we simply afford, financially, and on a personal level, to sit back and do nothing. I think there’s been talk about one person having, I guess, been punished, if you like, over the past few years for not doing what they’re meant to do as far as this NAIT system goes, and I think that’s actually appalling. It is appalling when it is something that is so important to our biosecurity. So we can’t continue to have a bit of a haphazard attitude towards biosecurity, as my colleague Marja Lubeck mentioned earlier. And so there is now going to be an increase in penalties for non-compliance, and I think that is long overdue. It has been well-traversed by previous speakers about what the different amounts of non-compliance are going to change to.

There was talk before about the change for the transport operators. I think, as the piece of legislation was initially introduced, they were going to perhaps be held liable for transporting animals that didn’t have proper NAIT tags, etc. But there have been some great submissions around that, one being from Nick Leggett, the Road Transport Forum chief executive. He talked about the fact that the freight industry was 100 percent behind protecting New Zealand’s biosecurity, but, as has been mentioned by members opposite, it can be difficult for transport operators when collecting animals. We’ve heard about, you know, being at night when visibility is low, etc., etc. So now the transport operators are no longer going to be captured within this piece of legislation, but, actually, the onus is going to be on the farmer or the person selling the livestock. So I think that’s really great for the truck drivers, in this instance.

Another thing that I wanted to touch on was the fact that there have been changes made so that the PICA, or the person in charge of animals, cannot use a tag that’s been issued for an animal at one location on an animal at another location. I think there’s been a bit of an allowance for a bit of a transitional-type period, I guess, whereby they don’t have to—they’ve got 12 months before that will come into effect, so they can continue to use up the tags that they currently have, etc., although it is in the best interests of our farmers to start acting in the best way possible and moving forward with this, at pace. I don’t think the country can afford to sit back and wait for this.

There was also the fact that, prior to this, it was voluntary for declaration of non-NAIT animals, but now that’s going to be mandatory. I think what this comes down to, again, is the fact that this is a big deal when it comes to our biosecurity, our risks, and potential incursions. Prior to this, we’ve had animals that have been onsold, moved around the country—we cannot trace where they have come from. We’ve seen that with the outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis—the difficulty in finding out where this animal has come from, who sold it to whom, and so on and so forth.

So this piece of legislation—I’m hugely proud to commend it to the House and I look forward to seeing this go through the third reading and see it become legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Moving livestock around New Zealand is an everyday part of farming in our country. We need to get the rules right around this and, certainly, with this piece of legislation, we can acknowledge that changes needed to be made. A review was actually kicked off in 2016 to look at ensuring that we were in the right space with that, and I think we can all accept that we weren’t.

Changes have subsequently been made, and some of the proposals in this particular amendment bill are necessary. Increasing the fines is a good aspect within that.

One of the key elements that I’m absolutely glad we’ve seen change from what was originally proposed is around that transport operator liability. We’ve already heard it mentioned a few times, but the impracticalities of expecting a transport operator to be able to identify animals as they’re flying on to a truck at speed in the middle of the night—it is not entirely realistic. So it’s good to see we have achieved a change in that space.

The other big one that we heard about from Mr Bennett, when he talked at the start, was around the ownership of that data, and that was actually one aspect that I suspect hadn’t been wholly understood by the Government when they were looking to put forward these amendments in terms of understanding—

Hon David Bennett: They knew what they were wanting—they wanted to nationalise it. Don’t underestimate these commies.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —the implications of what they were proposing. Of course, the more sinister option is that perhaps they were looking to do something with that, or, indeed, a theme that we’ve seen over the last two years around Government wanting to control much more than indeed they needed to, and in this case, I’m glad that we have seen that change has not actually occurred and the ownership of the core data does not sit with the Crown in terms of this piece of legislation. It’s been omitted altogether, so that’s appropriate.

Now, M. bovis—the Mycoplasma bovis—obviously, has been a devastating biosecurity incursion that we’ve been dealing with in the dairy and beef sector, and that’s ongoing. Now, the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Act is important to ensure that tracking those movements minimises that risk, and I think it’s fair enough to say that perhaps had there been some stronger elements, maybe it would have been different and maybe it wouldn’t. We can’t spend too much time looking back on that, but we actually need to focus on getting this in the right space, and I think we are.

But I’d just like to take a moment to acknowledge all of those farmers that have gone through the terrible challenges presented by Mycoplasma bovis and, indeed, those who are still in that phase, where they are currently a confirmed infected property or under an ownership direction, or whatever stage they may be in. It is tough and it’s difficult, and there is the help out there, so I would encourage them to reach out and make sure they have support through that process. The Rural Support Trust, in particular, have been doing some fantastic work in that space, so I commend them for that.

With biosecurity in general—and this is a part of it—it’s important to have controls when breaches happen, but, actually, we need to make sure that we’re getting the right investment up front to minimise the likelihood of incursions, not just in the dairy and beef sector but actually in horticulture, as well, and there are some significant risks in that space. We have seen it over the last summer as well, with the brown marmorated stink bug and the Queensland fruit flies. These are incursions that, typically, do come in at the borders and they have so far been contained, but it’s an ongoing and ever-present risk. So whilst we’re supporting this bill—and I’d like to just reiterate that—biosecurity needs to remain a strong focus, and we need to have continued strong investment in that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well, it truly is a delight to stand here and speak on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2), and I want to start by acknowledging most of the speakers from the National Party because, for once, on the whole, we’ve actually said pretty much the same things—pretty much the same things. They have acknowledged that the initial bill was substandard, and I want to acknowledge that, and good on them for that. We acknowledge that even though you’ve got to start somewhere—you put proposals out and the select committee process is there to change bills and improve them—this bill has improved because of the solid contribution from most of the National members of the select committee. So, on that basis, I think that it is a great message, yet again, for the second bill in a row that the members of this House can work together on matters that are important.

Of course, you know, we have overcome some pretty difficult situations. We have worked together, despite having David Bennett as the chair of the Primary Production Committee. That man is so worried about his reputation now that he has cajoled his friends Nathan Guy, Todd Muller, and I think it was even Matt King, who said something nice about him. I’ve been an MP for two years, and I have never heard anyone say something nice about David Bennett. Now, all of a sudden, the focus comes on the chair of the select committee, and three speakers in a row say something nice.

Hon David Bennett: Deceitful.

KIERAN McANULTY: Mr Speaker, is it appropriate for a member of Parliament to call another member deceitful? I’m not sure it is—no.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you taking a point of order?

KIERAN McANULTY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know, we all like a bit of banter in this House. We all like to poke a bit of fun, but I think it’s a bit unparliamentary to call another member deceitful.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I didn’t hear the comment, myself, and I don’t know who it came from, but if a member did use that word, then I’d ask him to withdraw.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw.

KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much. I appreciate that, David Bennett. Thank you—thank you. You know, it all gets a bit heated in the House, so there’s rules for a reason. There are rules for a reason. Don’t look at David Bennett, he’s going a bit red—“Beetroot Bennett” they call him.

Anyway, back to the bill. There are some changes in here that have come out of the select committee—and I repeat that that indeed is what the select committee process is for, to improve the bill—and the one that I am actually really pleased it has improved is the obligations that were proposed to be on the carriers of livestock. The fact is that when you are in a situation where the country is facing something unprecedented like Mycoplasma bovis and the initial legislation is proven to be inadequate, it is actually difficult to know where to start as to how to fix it.

The crucial question here is where does responsibility lie when it comes to tracing, because that is, essentially, what we want to do. We want to have a tracing system that everyone has confidence in and one where we can—if it’s needed—trace back to the source of an outbreak of some disease like Mycoplasma bovis. But, in fairness to both sides of this House, the days of finger-pointing around Mycoplasma bovis are long gone. It started when we wanted to bring in a response, but very quickly it stopped, and I think that’s good, because both sides of this House recognise that what this Government, supported by the Opposition, is trying to do with Mycoplasma bovis is something that no other country has done before: eradicate something like that disease, which has spread around pretty much the whole country, essentially, by tracing it back when there are gaps in the system. It is, essentially, those gaps in the system that this bill is trying to address.

So the question that we faced was: where does the responsibility lie? Whose responsibility is it to ensure that at the point of cartage, which is the key element here, where it’s tracing for the moving around of livestock—at what point in that transaction does responsibility lie?

The question was floated: should it lie on the transport operators? We got submissions. I had submissions in my office in Masterton, the most compelling of which was from Martinborough Transport, who came in and said “Look, we understand what you’re trying to do. You need to pass this bill—it is a good bill—but we don’t think it’s fair for responsibility to lie on the carriers.”, and I agreed, and, actually, the members on our side of the House in the select committee, once we heard the submissions and heard what the submitters had to say, agreed also. So I think it’s a good move. It’s a good move, and it has improved this bill in terms of confidence in the system.

We heard Matt King, the one-term member from Northland. He said that—[Interruption] Well, he’s only served one term. He’s only served one term. Jeez, they’re very sensitive, aren’t they? They are very, very sensitive over there. Goodness gracious me! Anyway, Matt King—he stood up and he talked about the difficulties—

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if that member would explain if being a one-term member is more than that member is.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s not a point of order. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion—

Kieran McAnulty: Mr Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There’s a vote going on. Sit down.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 7 November.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a delight to pick up on the 18 seconds of wonderful contribution I made the last time we were considering this particular bill.

We’re in the third and final reading of the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill, and it is a pleasure to be taking a call on this. This is a delicate piece of legislation. Any time we’re talking about organ donation, it is a very sensitive topic—

Todd Muller: Even Darroch thinks it’s funny.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN:—and I’m sure Mr Muller would agree with me that it’s something we need to be very mindful of when we are working through numerous debates in this House. I’d encourage members to have a little bit more decorum when we’re talking about organ donation. It is a serious topic, and making light of the situation I don’t think is appropriate in this setting. I would like to commend—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but—

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Again!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe):—it’s come time for me—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. It’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon Peeni Henare: Take three.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: This is my third attempt now on this call, and I’ve advanced so far one minute. So I’m looking forward to continuing this fantastic contribution. I won’t drag it out too much.

But look, this is a really important piece of legislation here. It is a sensitive issue; I was just touching on that before the dinner break as well. Organ donation rates in New Zealand have been increasing but are still much lower than we’d like them to be, 13 per million as of last year, which is quite a low rate. At the moment, as I understand, the waiting list for people who are looking for organ or tissue transplants is over 550 people. So there is certainly a need to focus on increasing that.

This bill comes about as a result of the Increasing Deceased Organ Donation and Transplantation: A national strategy paper that was released in 2017. And there are some good processes in here to try and lift that rate of donation. Of course, anyone who becomes deceased and is looking to or has previously indicated an intent to donate organs—it’s a very sensitive time, as I mentioned, for their family. Of course they’re going through a grieving process and there are some difficult decisions to make. This helps to tidy up that; helps to encourage a few more people to get involved with this.

I’m proud to say I have “donor” on my driver’s licence as well. It’s fantastic and I’d encourage everyone in this House to consider that if they’re not already.

This is a good piece of legislation. We’re supporting it at this stage. I look forward to seeing some positive increases in donation rates as a result. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this, the final reading of the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill.

Kiwis, we’re really well known for giving the shirt off our back but we’re not so great about giving one of our organs. There’s considerable tapu around giving organs. There’s a certain amount of emotion around giving organs, whether that’s being a donor when you’re alive or after you have passed and becoming a deceased donor. But it’s a really important thing to do.

Each year we do have a large number of genuinely anonymous New Zealanders who give away a very small part of themselves, and they give it away for nothing. They give this gift that is life saving and life changing; and that is the ultimate gift. It’s the ultimate taonga. In fact, you could consider it the ultimate koha.

There is a key perception, though, in Māoridom that body parts are tapu. One of the problems with that concept is that it means Māori, Pasifika, and other cultures aren’t coming forward in terms of making organ donations, not unless it’s a person who is directly related to them. So we need to find ways to encourage whānau to become donors. Because that is the challenge we have, ensuring that we have plenty of people who are willing to make this ultimate koha.

I won’t traverse the detail of the bill—that has really been done ahead of me by previous speakers—but I would like to talk about a couple of cases of people who’ve been donors. We all have them, whether they are close family or someone in our community—maybe they’re, you know, a sporting legend. We heard the Hon Michael Woodhouse talk about Jonah Lomu and receiving that kidney, that donation. But there are just cases like recently a young 22-year-old Kiwi was killed overseas in the United States, and his parents, a year after he died, went over to the woman who received his heart and they listened to the beat of his heart inside this 60-year-old woman. What an amazing moment it was for them. They knew it wasn’t their son, but to have the sound when they put the stethoscope in their ears, and put it to the chest of their 60-year-old recipient to hear their son’s heart beating—you know that was a very emotional moment for them.

Another woman, she’s given half of her liver to her husband and we know that the liver regenerates, so both their livers have grown back. [Interruption] So, yes. So that’s been an ultimate gift that the wife has done for her husband.

This is T-Bear. T-Bear is a very cute wee bear. The reason that I would like to point out T-Bear is that there’s a well-known Kiwi entertainer Pio Terei, and his son died of leukaemia about three years ago. He lost Teina—his son is Teina, also known as T-Bear—and he lost his battle with leukaemia. Although bone marrow transplants aren’t part of this bill, what is something that we need to do, and will do as a result of this piece of legislation, is we need people who will go out and champion the cause of making donations of their organs, particularly in our Māori community. Pio Terei has set up an organisation which is called Trust Teina, and what they want to do and what they are doing is they are encouraging Māori and Pacific donors to give of their bone marrow. They’ve made a range of bears, these T-Bears, and each teddy bear is uniquely made. And a koha from each T-Bear that is sold is gifted to the Trust Teina. It’s to help raise awareness and donations of Māori and Pacific bone marrow. So Pio Terei is championing that. We need more champions in our community who will encourage others to donate their organs, whether they’re alive or deceased.

Ultimately, this is a good bill. It’s about saving people’s lives. It’s about extending the life of someone. And so, without further ado, I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill.

I just wanted to comment how much I enjoyed the previous speaker’s contribution. I thought that was really interesting. Koha, it’s a very good way to think of it, and I like the visual aid as well.

I want to thank the select committee for progressing this. This was our bill. It was grounded on Chris Bishop’s initial work, so I want to acknowledge Chris. This was sort of a tidy up. Like most select committee processes, it was vastly improved through the select committee process so that we were able to address the main issues, which primarily were around creating an organ donation agency, of which it was appropriately decided that the blood bank—blood people, blood transfusion service—was the most appropriate Crown entity to bed the organ donation agency into.

Then there were some tidying-up things to make it easier to donate. We had the issue that we’d said initially donors and recipients could only be located in New Zealand when, in fact, some approved overseas, international, programmes were also worthy to be a part of this. There were also issues around variable return to work. We’d been a little bit too firm, too tight, in the initial drafting of the legislation, and it made sense to relax that and accommodate more flexible returns to work.

I have a particular interest in organ donation in as much as that when I was working in Boston my clinical appointment was to a place called Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and right opposite Beth Israel was Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Brigham Women’s in 1954 was known as a Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, and that’s where the first transplant actually occurred, the first successful transplant. This was in a gentleman who needed a kidney transplant. Previously you would always succumb within about a week or two because no one quite understood the immune system implications of a transplant. But there’d been some sense that there was something about twins that made transplants successful.

So at Brigham Women’s or Brigham Bent, as it was, there was a gentleman, his kidney was failing, and they got his twin in the operating room next door to actually do the kidney transplant. They finger-printed both—I think Richard Hickman—of them to make sure they were identical twins, and they thought, “Look, this is our best chance. We don’t understand what it is in the immune system that causes previous transplants to fail, but if we have two almost identical humans, we think that good things will happen.”, and that’s exactly what happened. The first successful organ transplant was of a kidney at Brigham Bent in Boston around about 1954. It was 100 metres from where my clinical appointment was, and a fine institution. So I have a particular interest in the history of this bill, and, like the people who have previously spoken, I strongly support organ donation—what greater gift could you give than something that is of you to someone else?

I also just want to hasten the progress of this bill into legislation. I thank those that have brought it to this point, and I too commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. The Green Party is very pleased to support the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill and would like to commend Stuff for the series of articles that they have been doing on organ donation.

I was struck as well as Jenny Marcroft by the recent article which told the story of Jamie Shennan and his parents. I think that article really conveyed that amazing gift of health and of life that organ donors provide, whether they’re deceased or whether they’re living. The work that Stuff has done with these articles in just showing readers what is involved—getting beyond that whakamā, that shame process that means that people are often reluctant to ask others for the gift of an organ, because it is the ultimate gift, but making organ donation more understandable.

This bill, in the establishment of the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service, by widening the mandate of the New Zealand Blood Service, is also doing what Stuff has been doing in ensuring that there is more advocacy and a greater public understanding of organ donation based on encouraging more people to think about putting that inscription on their driver’s licence so that if they die, their organs will be available. So the work in the bill and this provision for now having a national agency that has a clear responsibility for raising the profile of organ donation and supporting clinical governance and coordinating that whole donation and transplantation process is a really good step forward.

I would acknowledge Chris Bishop, because, of course, this bill is based on his original bill. I concur with the comments that Dr Reti has made about the very practical changes that the bill provides in order that people who are taking time off work to recover as living donors from giving, perhaps, a kidney can be recompensed for that. Similarly, if they are part of a recognised international organ donation scheme, this bill makes the changes there that they will be able to be recompensed for lost work time, and gives the Director-General of Health some discretion around that as well.

So it is a good and practical bill that makes significant changes that will, I hope—particularly through the work of the new New Zealand Blood and Organ Service—increase the profile of organ donation and increase the number of New Zealanders who are prepared to do that. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak with great pleasure at the third reading of the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill, as I have in each of the readings. This is a bill whose time has come.

We have, as a House, I think, traversed the issues very carefully at select committee level—things were ironed out. This is a piece of legislation that needed to happen, but it’s very encouraging to find that as it has made its passage through the House, it has attracted journalists to write stories about people who have had organ donation problems and who have had successful outings as well, because I think, as with dementia and a lot of other issues, some of these things are not properly discussed. So I think the general conversation about planning for the provision of our death and what we might do with our organs afterwards—we’ve all, I think, had a boost in the idea of putting information on drivers’ licences and doing all of these things. When the original legislation went through, I think there was a 500 percent increase—that’s the one—in organ donors receiving compensation for the year before. So it really does work to offer people compensation.

It’s a huge undertaking. A friend of mine—whom I spoke to only yesterday, actually—a couple of years ago had a heart transplant. This is a guy who was very fit, had a healthy lifestyle—all of those things—and his heart failed him, and he needed, with great urgency, to have a transplant. The provision for it, the way it was enacted, the counselling and so forth that went around it, and the aftermath, I think, where the person who has donated the organ is able to, perhaps, meet with the donor organ’s family—which I think must be incredibly challenging and confronting for the family but also, at heart, very comforting to think that you have given another person a life that emerged from a tragedy, whether it’s a car accident or so forth.

But I think it is important that the change to section 10 set out in clause 6, providing for qualifying donors to get earnings compensation for up to 12 weeks while recuperating, is really important. Obviously, it depends what you donate, and a heart, obviously, is not something that someone can give and survive. But none the less, I think that when it comes to all of the other issues with kidney failure—people that have been in this House and members of Parliament and their families. I know we all know of them and their personal stories. But none the less, the availability of compensation, the raising of the level of awareness—I think all of these things have made this a healthy debate and one of great rarity and scarcity, that there is such an outbreak of agreement across the political divide. It’s rare enough that this happens.

Andrew Bayly: It’s a beautiful thing.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It is a beautiful thing indeed, as Andrew Bayly, my colleague, has piped up from the back seats. I, without hesitation and with complete conviction, commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Marja Lubeck.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill. Contrary to some of the previous speakers, I have not spoken on this bill in the other readings and I wasn’t part of the Health Committee that considered the bill, so I had to do a little bit of reading up on it. I also went to the Organ Donation New Zealand website and I found it quite sobering: the statement that the website opens up with. It says, “In New Zealand, there are currently more than 550 people waiting for an organ or tissue transplant. Sadly, some of those people will die waiting, while others will continue to lead lives restricted by long-term treatment.” I think that’s the submissions that the select committee heard: 16 in total and five submitters came to Wellington to be heard. As a result of considering that feedback, the select committee then recommended several amendments to this bill to make clarity and practicability within that bill’s provisions.

One of the stories of the submitters was particularly touching. It was a person who was very passionate about making organ donation and the whole system easier. Also, he wanted to ensure that those people who choose to be donors do not have that decision overturned when they actually die. That person told the select committee a very personal story of a person they loved and who died while they were waiting for such an organ to be donated.

There are many more stories, in particular, on this website that I mentioned: Organ Donation New Zealand lists several stories. One is of a woman called Marcella Russell, who inherited a genetic heart condition, lived a good life for 16 years, but then needed an operation, had another 17 years, and then slowly started to decline, and, at some stage, quite rapidly. She spent a lot of time in hospital waiting. She couldn’t do the things that we all take for granted. She was basically just waiting for a lifeline, for someone to come up with a donation that would give her more time. She was very lucky. She was one of the lucky ones for whom an organ became available, and, after a successful operation and seven weeks in hospital, she did end up having a second lease on life, if you want to call it that.

So it’s really clear from reading those stories on the website that organ donation makes a real difference. If there were more donors, there would be more people that could benefit from lifesaving operations. So that is exactly what this bill does: it makes the whole system of organ donation easier, and it does so in two parts. People have spoken of those already, but I quickly want to just recap that Part 1 of the bill provides for increased compensation for live organ donors, and it amends the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Act 2016. Basically, in the current legislation if live organ donors go back to work earlier than the 12 weeks—perhaps go back into part-time employment or reduced hours—they immediately cease to have their entitlement to compensation. That is a gap in the legislation that this bill is fixing with Part 1.

Part 2 establishes a national organ donation function, and it will be renamed the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service. Again, that is to raise awareness of the organ donation and transplantation needs.

So, in short, the purpose of the bill is to encourage and support live and deceased organ donation and transplantation rates in New Zealand. It can be said that the changes in this bill perhaps are small. They will, however, make organ donation easier, and, by enabling people to live fuller lives and to not spend the rest of their lives waiting for an organ to be donated, that makes, obviously, a huge difference. Someone has called it a koha in previous speeches, and it is the greatest gift that someone could give.

There’s, of course, one first step people can take. They can go to the Organ Donation New Zealand website to have a look at what can be done to perhaps become a donor. You can make a note on your driver licence. I know people have mentioned that in second readings. I, too, have that noted on my driver licence. Greater awareness is great. I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill. Can I start by acknowledging my colleagues from across the House on the Health Committee. It’s actually great to be part of a committee that makes a real difference. I think, out of all the committees, when you look at them, the Health Committee is the one that I think makes a real difference. You look at some of the others like the Finance and Expenditure Committee—I’m not really sure what goes on there. In the Primary Production Committee it just seems like they sit around and have a chat! But, of course, the Health Committee is one that really makes a difference in individual New Zealanders’ lives.

This bill, although a small bill and very technical—an omnibus bill, if I get that correct at this hour of the night. It had a small number of submitters, but those small numbers of submitters made a real difference to the bill, and I think it shaped up very well.

Although I do give one warning with the bill: it really shows the limitations of Parliament and of Government. We can pass legislation and provide a framework for the national organ donation agency and support more organ donations, but the problem is, in New Zealand—as many will know—we need a real cultural shift. People can put that they want to be a donor on their drivers’ licences, but we know the very real issue. When that person passes away—they might be in the hospital—the family turns up, challenges that, and puts the health professional right in the firing line. And, of course, they don’t want to take sides as well.

So, yes, this is a start, but it’s very much the start of a discussion—not the end of it—of how in New Zealand we can have a real step change, a real cultural shift, to allow more organ donations that will go on to save lives but very much enrich other Kiwis’ lives, as we’ve heard several times across the House in other people’s speeches.

Organ donation makes a huge difference in people’s lives. It saves lives. But, ultimately, now, this bill is up to the people of New Zealand to make a real cultural shift so that we increase the number of organ donations in this country. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise and speak on the third and final reading of this bill. As my colleague Matt Doocey said, there was really good cross-party support on this bill because of the importance that organ donation means to people’s lives.

I think—just again reflecting on what my colleague Marja Lubeck was saying about that whole transformation it can make in somebody’s life—for many, having an organ donated is lifesaving. It makes that difference between life and death. For others, it just transforms their life because they’re not having to rely on dialysis or other things that, basically, limit their quality of life. So it’s incredibly, incredibly important that we get this right.

Basically, at the moment there’s a real waiting list for organ donation and, on average, about 550 people waiting at any one time for an organ. So it’s incredibly important that we raise the profile of organ donation and make sure that for people that are happy to donate—either, basically, by putting something on their driver’s licence, or for people that they can get a match with as a live donor—that process is facilitated.

So there is a national strategy for increasing deceased organ donation and transplantation, and Part 2 of this bill looks at how we can create that oversight and the governance for this, by creating an entity within the New Zealand Blood Service, renaming that the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service, and giving them the governance role for looking at the oversight of organ donation and also supporting organ transplantation in our country.

At the Health Committee, there was quite a bit of discussion because many people thought that if they put something on their driver’s licence that said “donor”, that was it—that, basically, you automatically became an organ donor. But the actual practicalities of the situation are that, in that situation, usually the discussion has been happening at the ICU level, and it’s usually between grieving family members having to make a really tough call. But it’s also about the health professionals that are guiding the family through those decisions. And so there was quite a bit of discussion, again at select committee and in some of the submissions, about the need for training and support of those health professionals to lead those conversations, often at an incredibly difficult time in families’ lives, and to actually explain the benefits of donation but also making sure those conversations happen at the right point for that family in their decision making.

It’s having, basically, an entity that can oversee that process and make sure that we’re looking at implementing the strategy—what the strategy looks at is raising the profile of organ donation so that people not only put something on their driver’s licence but they also have that conversation with the family so their family knows somebody’s intent and are not having to think about that at an incredibly stressful time—but also looking at effective clinical governance, looking at training, and having that oversight so that we do actually know what we’re aiming for, and making sure our health professionals in that situation have the adequate resourcing and training. So it’s really important, in terms of Part 2 of that bill, just to put in place that critical infrastructure to make sure that can happen.

Part 1 of the bill, though, looks at live donors and compensation. Up until now, we did have compensation for live donors, and it could go up to 12 weeks, but it was an all-or-nothing thing where somebody, basically, had donor surgery and then, if they wanted to go back to work, their compensation ceased. For many people, you might want to take a more gradual approach in terms of getting back to work. One of our submitters raised a scenario where a close relative had donated a kidney to him and then they ended up with an unexpected infection, and so that really knocked them back for quite a few weeks. There’s a whole range of scenarios where somebody may want to go back to work part-time or they may go back to work and then they realise, “OK, I need some more time.” So what this bill does is allows that flexibility, where you can go back part-time or you can actually go back and then, if you need to, you can get further compensation up to that 12-week period. So it just makes it that little bit easier for people to consider that donation process.

Just one of the other things, before I close, is just looking at some of the scenarios where we’ve got overseas paired exchanges in terms of organ donation and thinking about how we make sure that the legislation keeps up with that. Up until now, you could only get that compensation if the surgery happened in New Zealand for both the donor and the recipient and also if that person receiving the transplant was eligible for publicly funded health services. What this does is it changes it so that we can actually accommodate the fact that you might actually be part of a paired organ donation programme that’s been approved. So what the bill does is it allows for that and also creates a schedule that then lists approved paired organ donation exchange programmes. So the Australia and New Zealand Paired Kidney Exchange Program has been added to Schedule 5 so that that then comes in, in terms of when you’re considering eligibility, in the criteria.

Basically, this is an important bill, and I think it’s got the potential to put that framework in place that will increase the number of people that are making those donations, and then the follow-on effect is having that impact on people’s lives.

I just want to close by reading you a quote from Lisa, who, basically, on the Organ Donation New Zealand website, had told her story. She just said, after her transplant: “I’ve never felt more alive than I do today. I’ve been liberated from the battle of breathlessness and absorb every moment I have with my daughter with immense pleasure. I work full time in a vibrant, energetic environment, and, miraculously, I can breathe big, deep, oxygen filled, life-giving breaths. Thank you would never be enough.”

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill is a bill that I’m very proud of, actually, because I’ve had a little bit to do with the laws and the rules around organ donation. This bill actually seeks to improve on the status quo which was improved in the last Parliament, and it was my member’s bill that provided for people to get greater amounts of compensation when they are an organ donor.

The law used to be that you got the sickness benefit—we’ve changed the name, but it’s the equivalent of the sickness benefit. You used to have rock up to Work and Income New Zealand, and say, you know, “I want to donate a kidney to my sister” or whatever, and after a laborious process of talking to a Work and Income New Zealand case manager, most of the time the case manager didn’t even know that the entitlement existed, so they had to file through the luminous case files and the material that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m sure you’re very familiar with from your past roles. And at some point, various people were declined compensation and they were declined their benefits. And, of course, when you do donate an organ—typically, in New Zealand, a kidney—it’s anywhere between six, if you’re lucky, you know, more likely 12 weeks off work, so for a lot of people having to sacrifice that income and go down to the sickness benefit was an enormous sacrifice. And, of course, it puts people off donating. Most people do it out of altruism, they do it out of the goodness of their hearts, typically for a family member—although, not always. There are actually people, every year in New Zealand, who donate organs, kidneys for people they’ve never met, because they’re just good-hearted people. I think the law was wrong, and the law didn’t treat them like the heroes that they actually are.

So now the law says: if you are an organ donor, you are entitled to earn, from the Government, exactly what you were earning before. So if you’re on a good salary—$100,000, say, for example—and you donate a kidney to your brother to save his life or prolong his life, you get what you’re earning for that time that you’re off work. I think that’s an improvement. What this bill does is build on that and it makes some minor and technical amendments.

When we were crafting what became the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Act at the Health Committee—it spent quite a long time at the Health Committee; I wasn’t a member of the committee but I subbed in—it was quite tricky crafting the provisions, because you’ve got ACC and you’ve got the various income support mechanisms in New Zealand, and it’s a very tricky area to get the definitions of “hours” and “weekly earnings” and “monthly earnings” and all of that stuff right. It started off as a member’s bill. We were very fortunate to have officials’ support—and I do want to pay tribute to the health officials; they do a great job. But what this bill does is make some technical amendments to the way in which “usual hours” is defined. I think that’s going to be a positive thing. It’s largely a bit of a tidy up and technical.

The other major part of the bill is, of course, around the Blood and Organ Service, which has been renamed. For quite a long time now, we’ve been going back and forth about who should be the appropriate body to oversee organ donation in New Zealand, and that will now be the New Zealand Blood Service to oversee and provide clinical governance of the organ donation and transplantation service. It’s a good move. Actually, it was the previous Government’s plan to do that pretty much straight away, so it’s a little bit frustrating, I have to say, that we’re now sort of into the fag end of November, and we’re sort of still passing the legislation to do it, but, you know, “good things come to those who wait” is the saying, and that’s a positive thing. It should have happened earlier, but it’s a positive thing.

The next step is the funding. I stay in touch with this space, and the people who work in this area say to me that it’s a positive move. They say that it should have happened sooner and all the rest of it, but they also say that the next step’s the money. So my plea to Minister Henare over there, who’s an Associate Minister of Health, is: you’ve got to come up with the dough in the next Budget, my friend, because the blood service is going to require an infusion—not a blood infusion—of cash to get on with the job. But it was a positive move—

Hon Andrew Little: Easy to do when you’re not doing tax cuts.

CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! Well, we’re not talking about a huge sum of money; we’re only talking about a few million, Minister Little. I’m sure—with the largesse that’s been showered upon the Government of New Zealand by the hard-working taxpayers of New Zealand over the last two years—you can find it within your measly hearts for a few million to make the blood service work.

Ultimately, of course, the more organ donations there are in New Zealand, the better. People who spend their lives on dialysis—firstly, their quality of life is low, and, secondly, it’s vastly expensive for our district health boards, because it’s an incredibly expensive ongoing procedure. So, of course, the more organ donations we can get, the better. This bill is a step in the right direction, so I commend it to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Unfortunately, I wasn’t here to take the first call as the lead Minister on this particular bill, but I’m thankful to have the opportunity to speak as the final speaker on this bill, and I want to commend all members across the House for their contributions. I do want to acknowledge Mr Chris Bishop, and he is right. The work that he did in the last Government to progress and to bring the issue of organ donation once again back on to the radar of the general public I think is commendable. As has been mentioned by many members, those involved in the Health Committee process, and those who have just recently studied up on the bill have found that, actually, collectively we made a far better bill, something that will be progressive and allow a platform to look into the growth and the expansion of organ donation, and, dare I say it, donations of other kinds.

It’s easy to focus on the organ donation part. From my discussion with the New Zealand Blood Service, there is also a huge lack of donors in the blood space, in the plasma space, and, as was mentioned earlier by my New Zealand First colleague, the bone marrow donation space. I’m proud to say that I’m a donor of all three. I’m on the bone marrow register myself. I donate blood. I donate plasma. I think this will allow for an opportunity, as was mentioned by other members of the House, for what organ donation looks like from a Māori perspective. But in order for that to happen, the framework had to be set up, and this bill does that.

In a sort of hand-in-glove moment, it allows the New Zealand Blood Service and the Organ Donation Service to come together. I want to just pick up, briefly, on a point made by my colleague Dr Liz Craig about clinical governance and how important that is for the organ donation side. One can imagine the clinical aspect of organ donation is significant, and it does provide some challenges for an organisation so small. But in making the two organisations one, it’s important that we acknowledge the challenge of clinical governance, and also, just as important, that we get it right.

The back-office function, if you like, is one that will allow for better efficiencies and economies of scale as we look into the administration of this into the future. I want to pick up on the point made by Mr Bishop that, from my discussions with the New Zealand Blood Board, there are some options and opportunities for us into the future to look at the funding model.

As we’ve brought together these two organisations and the role that the district health board has played in the past in supporting the organ donation aspects, it’s important too that we have a look at what the funding model might look like into the future—in particular, if we hope to grow on the aspirations that have been offered by my colleagues across the House with respect to organ donation.

I’m also the Minister responsible for diabetes in this country. Much has been made about the kidney transplant and the exchange programme with the Australians, our counterparts. It’s important, then, if we’re going to consider all parts of somebody who suffers from diabetes, how we look into the way we front-load the system, and that’s primarily about education and making good lifestyle decisions to make sure you lead a healthy life, and, then, all the way to the other end, where we actually opt for an organ donation. That entire spectrum must be considered as one, and this is actually just one part of that entire spectrum, in particular with those who suffer from diabetes.

Just in my concluding remarks, I do want to offer a number of thanks—one, to the officials who have continued to hold this bill as it’s progressed through the House. The committee has already been mentioned for their great work in coming together and working collaboratively on such a good bill. I’ve already mentioned Mr Bishop. And, just finally, I want to thank all of the donors—those who have donated in the past, those who are considering donation, and those in the future who we hope will donate, because, as has already been mentioned, it is one of those gifts of life, and I think we can’t thank them enough, for those who have and for those who may consider it into the future, because it is important.

Dr Reti talked about the history of kidney transplantation and identical twins. As a twin myself, I consider myself lucky that, if ever the case was needed, I’ve got a twin brother that might, in the goodness of his heart, consider to donate to me—

Chris Penk: Might be the other way round.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Ha, ha! It could be the other way around; that’s for sure. To see just where it’s come from to where it’s headed, I think, really does offer us some good opportunities for this space, and I think that this country can certainly put its hand up and make sure that organ donation becomes one of those key conversations in our families and in our communities to make sure that people, when they need it, are able to receive it. This is a good bill. I’m thankful to supporters across the House, and I look forward to the work to be done by this organisation as it moves into the future.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill

Third Reading

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon—

Hon Andrew Little: Andrew Little.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —Andrew Little, sorry.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I’m such a forgettable person! I move, That the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill be now read a third time.

Can I begin by thanking members of the House through the committee stage—and, indeed, members of the Justice Committee—for getting the bill to the point it is at the moment, and there were changes that the bill achieved through those stages. I think we have a very good bill, and I’m going to talk a little bit about the motivation for it, the objectives of it, and what I think it will do in relation to our criminal justice system.

I want to acknowledge members opposite, particularly Chris Penk and the Hon Tim Macindoe, who, I know, made very worthy contributions, as they do on most things, actually, but they did in the committee stage of this bill, and I took the time to assiduously read their contributions, because I normally hang on their every word!

Hon Tim Macindoe: Ha, ha!

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t know why Mr Macindoe finds that very funny; I’d find it flattering, normally. I think the way that the National Party has approached it—I know they don't support the bill generally, but their attitude has been, notwithstanding their in-principle objections to an organisation like this, nevertheless, they wanted the bill to be as perfect as it possibly could be. They made some interesting contributions about how the rights of victims fit into the work of a Criminal Cases Review Commission.

If I go back to the beginning, right now, for a person who has been convicted of a crime who is determined and who strongly feels, and may well be, innocent and they’ve exhausted all their appeal rights, right now we have the process called the royal prerogative of mercy. At the moment, the mechanics of that are that a person will apply, usually, to the Governor-General—possibly they'll go directly to the Minister of Justice. In any event, the application will be referred to the Ministry of Justice and its legal section to find somebody who's got a bit of time up their sleeves to examine it—examine the application, triage it—and, if they think it has merit, maybe it'll be briefed out to a lawyer, who has to have time, and they will have to find time to do that. Or the legal department of the Ministry of Justice may well decide, in their triaging sort of approach, that it doesn't warrant any further attention. Either way, it is very close to the executive for what ought to be, in relation to an appeal against a conviction or a re-examination of a conviction, independent of the executive.

Other countries in the world have grappled with this—other Commonwealth countries, notably England and Scotland. They both have Criminal Cases Review Commissions, and they were motivated by the fact that they had cases that had gone right through their court processes, their appeal processes, and yet convictions were upheld which were then found to be demonstrably unjust, unjustified, and actually just wrong. Innocent people were locked up, in some cases for extensive periods of time, and the criminal justice system simply wasn't nimble enough, agile enough, or flexible enough to discover the conviction of the innocent early enough, and so those people ended up spending a lot of time inside.

Now, we've had cases in this country, even quite recently, where exactly the same thing has happened. You can think of some of the leading cases where somebody has been convicted, has appealed, has had their conviction quashed and a retrial ordered, has been convicted again and then subsequently found to be totally innocent. Teina Pora is probably the most recent one of those, but you could think about Arthur Allan Thomas. He had two trials and two appeals to the Court of Appeal before, not through a royal prerogative of mercy process—it was a very special process engineered by the Prime Minister of the day, Robert Muldoon—that resulted in him being considered to be innocent and a pardon issued. A very rare thing for a pardon to be issued.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill provides a genuinely independent approach to dealing with those cases of miscarriage of justice and is dedicated—and I suspect it will be—because they will have to be a determined body of people who will conduct the investigations, examine the background to the case and the conviction, and decide whether or not there are grounds, therefore, to refer it to the Court of Appeal for a review of the conviction.

The reality is that, as good as our justice system is, no justice system is perfect; it gets things wrong, but sometimes it gets things spectacularly wrong. We just need to have that other safety valve that allows for those who are innocent but who find themselves convicted, for whatever reason—overzealous policing or investigative or detective work that leads people to draw conclusions and draw inferences that they're not entitled to do; perhaps not very well represented at the trial stage of their court case. They end up convicted and they get drawn into the system. The reality about the justice system, good as it is in very, very many respects—very good as it is, in fact—is it does have the capacity to be somewhat self-perpetuating once it makes a set of findings and draws a conclusion. It is sometimes very hard to shift the system off that, and so this is a way of making sure that those who, having exhausted their appeal rights, are innocent, strongly believe themselves to be innocent, and for which there are good grounds can go to find a place where their case—their circumstances—can be examined.

The benefit of this approach, too, is that it's not bound up in the legal niceties that you would expect in an appeal process. It is an opportunity to kind of take a step back, go back to square one perhaps, look at the evidence—perhaps even investigate other possibilities that weren't properly examined at the time the case was being managed through the courts—and, potentially, discover that somebody has been wrongfully convicted and there's been a miscarriage of justice.

I know that members opposite were concerned about the impact of these sorts of processes on victims of crime, and we know that any appeal process for the victims of a crime, particularly where there has been a conviction, can be an even more confusing and sometimes traumatising time for victims, because, just as they are in the process of putting what has been a traumatic event behind them, it all gets dug up again. I get correspondence from people who’ve had that experience. I know how it feels. I’ve heard from people about that. The bill as it currently stands, as we go through this third reading, does already require—or, at least, places the Criminal Cases Review Commission under the Victims’ Rights Act. So there is a notification obligation on the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

But I just make this point, though, too: from the position of the person who is innocent, the person who has been wrongfully convicted, it is very important for the sake of the victim to let them know what is happening on a matter that could affect them, but there can be no greater injustice—apart, obviously, from the wrongful conviction—than for a victim to discover that the person who was accused of harming them and convicted of harming them hasn't actually done it and that the person who has harmed them is actually running around in the community somewhere scot-free. That is an injustice too, and it's not just an injustice to the person wrongfully convicted; it's an injustice to the victim as well.

So this bill, far from creating problems for victims, is actually about putting at peace victims who have been wrongfully led to believe that the person who perpetrated harm against them has been brought to justice and the matter is all closed. The reality about injustice is this, as we know—a sense of injustice—someone who has genuinely been done an injustice never lets it go. It sits in the craw, it gnaws away at you, it bedevils you, it burdens you, and that is why the extra safety valve that the Criminal Cases Review Commission provides to our criminal justice system will be a very important one, will be a very good one.

When I look at the experience of Criminal Cases Review Commissions in other countries—Norway is the only other country that has one—there is a bit of going out to prisons and prisoners, because we know there are people in prison who do not know how to access services that might lead to a wrongful conviction being discovered and, therefore, being put right. So they go out and do that. But the estimates are that there will be a handful of cases each year, as there are a handful of applications for the royal prerogative of mercy at the moment, and there will be the opportunity now to give a thoroughgoing examination to any application like that so those issues of injustice can, hopefully, finally be put to bed.

I know that one issue that also exercised the members opposite was the make-up of the commission and the fact that there will be people with a non-legal background on the commission. What has been shown in other jurisdictions, actually, is that that is helpful—people with a social work background. IRD investigators, for example, in the UK make up people in the commission because they bring a different perspective, a not entirely legal perspective to it, which is also important when considering issues where the legal system actually has slipped up. You need a bit of external common sense brought to it.

So, on that basis, I’m very pleased to see the bill in this stage, and I commend it to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill at this, the third and final reading. I acknowledge that the speech by the Minister has canvassed a number of the issues that we have previously canvassed on this side of the House, and that’s helpful. Being the final reading of this bill, I will nonetheless reiterate those from our perspective. But I wanted to structure my remarks in the following way: first, to understand the problem that this bill is designed to solve; second, to consider what tools are already available, notwithstanding that they are imperfect tools, admittedly; third, to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the existing structures to consider whether the reform of those might be the more useful approach; then, obviously, to consider the line that the Government is going down in terms of what it is that they are establishing here—the Criminal Cases Review Commission itself—and then, of course, summarising our position, including emphasising at the end that, ultimately, we are unable to support the bill.

Notwithstanding that, as the Minister has been good enough to acknowledge, we’ve sought to take a constructive approach throughout, including at select committee—on that split committee that is the Justice Committee. We could see no good reason to deny the changes that were constructive, in the name of making it a better piece of legislation to result from the parliamentary process.

The first of those points, then: defining the problem. We can turn to the purpose clause of the bill and see that it seeks to establish an independent body to investigate and review criminal convictions and sentences and to decide whether to refer them under the Act to an appeal court. The aim of the exercise more broadly, however, is of course to deal with the situation of miscarriages of justice. That’s a situation that is very serious, for the reasons that have already been outlined, and I would like to think that there isn’t a member in the House, or indeed perhaps a person in New Zealand, who would be comfortable with the notion that there are miscarriages of justice and would be happy to accept that merely as a statistical inevitability and not examine the proposition further. But, nevertheless, it is inevitable that such things do occur.

However, thinking about the tools that are currently available for remedying such a problem, we note, of course, that there is an appeals court framework and structure already within the system. The purpose of this Criminal Cases Review Commission—hereafter, I’ll just call it the commission, if I may—is, essentially, to consider whether an appeal is worthy then to be heard by the courts. So it’s an extra step in the process which is not in itself able to be decisive, provide any further finality of justice. Of course, there is also a royal prerogative of mercy, which the Minister of Justice has outlined and, being a royal prerogative, traditionally is exercised by the Governor-General, standing in the stead of the monarch in this country in this day and age.

Thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of that existing system, well, we have an ability for a person who has been or claims to have been wrongly convicted to go back into the system and have another go, not merely a second bite or third bite of the cherry but actually to have some particular reason that they’re able to have their case heard again. I do acknowledge the points that have been made by submitters to the Justice Committee as well as in the House prior to now—access to justice issues, in relation to that. There are members of our society who are less able to access those avenues of justice and the issues might be financial, and they might also be around awareness of such arcane concepts as being aware that there is such a thing as the royal prerogative of mercy. Also, there might be an injustice whereby some cases naturally appeal more than others, and I use the word “appeal” in a pretty general sense. Some cases naturally seem to lend themselves to the attention and the assistance of white knights, so-called, and be a cause célèbre, and others are less interesting to the public and go unaided. So that’s a matter of injustice in itself. So I acknowledge those points but, in doing so, would also point out that there are opportunities that we can and should take as a Parliament to consider ways to improve the access to justice, the knowledge and ability to find those avenues of appeal, and so forth.

I’ll just note briefly that a secondary function of the Criminal Cases Review Commission is to conduct thematic inquiries, essentially, and that’s something which I’ve pointed out before in this House is, essentially, replicating—different branches of Government already have the ability to look at patterns that are developing in our criminal justice system, where it might be that a number of different miscarriages of justice take place in a way that reflects perhaps a systemic bias against a group of New Zealanders, or perhaps certain methods or techniques have been proven over the course of time and with a multitude of cases particularly convincingly, it might be, that are leading to unsafe convictions, as we’d say.

Moving, then, to the proposal that’s before us now—and I note in passing that the legislation seems set to succeed because parties opposite have committed to support it. But considering this new beast that is the commission, it is neither fish nor fowl, in the sense that it doesn’t sit firmly within the court system but neither is it part of executive Government. It’s not an appeal court in itself, so it can’t actually provide the remedy that the person’s after but can just really reopen a can of worms that might have good reason to be reopened but at the same time might also just simply be another roll of the dice for someone who has been convicted and rightly so, as well as, of course, providing a much-wanted avenue for those who have been unfairly convicted.

The Justice Committee made a number of constructive changes which I would class along with various minor or technical achievements, some which I think are helpful in, effectively, making the commission more like a court, in the sense that the relationship with the Evidence Act is more clearly established, the right of various kinds of privilege is more clearly set out, and so forth. The membership of the commission is something that we’ve emphasised we’ve had some difficulty with, not because we think it’s unhelpful to have people who are not legally qualified but we just don’t think that the balance is right to have as little as a third of the commission to be legally qualified and no requirement that those need to have any criminal type of experience in the courts, nor, even, that they have practiced in New Zealand. So that’s a serious shortcoming in our submission.

As the Minister again has acknowledged in relation to the status of victims, we think it would be helpful to have an explicit acknowledgment that when the commission is considering whether to review and refer a case, the interests of the victim involved must be considered. That was a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) change that we recommended but which was not successful in the committee stage, along with the related SOPs that we put forward. One was to do with ensuring that a victim is notified at every step of the process if it’s in prospect that their case will be reopened, and also a separate proposal that legal aid funding be provided for victims whose cases are looked into again, noting that they would have financial costs that would be imposed upon them as a result of that, through no fault of their own, as well as emotional costs and perhaps physical costs and so forth.

The point made by Minister Little that no one is well served by a miscarriage of justice is well made. Of course, the victim as well as the wrongfully convicted person, and I suppose we could say more generally society at large, the rule of law, is offended by such things. But, for the reasons that we’ve described, and I say this in concluding my remarks, we don’t believe that this is the right way to go about reducing the number of miscarriages of justice, of course, in the first place or even dealing with them in necessarily the most efficient manner, which we believe could be done much better by reforming the existing structures—for example, better financial support and access to justice for those who genuinely need it.

In summary, for all the reasons I’ve stated, we are unable to support the bill in its form at the third reading. We note that it will pass nonetheless, surely, and so it will be that as a constructive, loyal Her Majesty’s Opposition, we will continue to watch it carefully in its operation going forward, and we hope that it’s more successful than we fear it will be.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill. It’s important, at the third reading stage, that we acknowledge our Government partners New Zealand First in a really important piece of legislation that brings a greater sense of justice and fairness to our current justice system. It’s not that long ago when we’ve heard many contributions through the media and through other discussions around really high-profile cases such as those of Teina Pora and the miscarriage of justice carried out through those areas that received so much discussion publicly, and it’s important to note that this will be an improvement.

The key part that this bill enables is to replace the royal prerogative of mercy by establishing the CCR, the Criminal Cases Review Commission. This is able to be done when there is a suspected miscarriage of justice, and that’s exactly what the problem has been in the past: it’s very unclear, sometimes, when a miscarriage of justice has happened. It’s important to note, too, that I go back to the departmental report that was done by the Justice Committee, which I sit on, and specifically outlines in that report—it is stated that this commission is designed to be more accessible and transparent than the current system and, they note, particularly for Māori and Pacific people. There are often issues in terms of access to justice and making sure that everybody is treated equally before the law, that in some instances in the past there have not been good avenues and access to justice that this legislation seeks to rectify—so by having a clear pathway and by having a commission that is able to be more transparent for the fact that it is in fact an independent body that is able to review the convictions and sentences where there is that suspected miscarriage of justice.

It has the ability to do several things in terms of what further steps can be taken. If the commission considers that no further action needs to be taken, that is within their power, but it can also refer cases back to the appeal courts. But it does not determine guilt or innocence. The commission itself will replace the referral power currently exercised by the Governor-General, and that’s under section 406 of the Crimes Act—so by having the ability to have that greater transparency, and in matters looking at those, to come to the attention during exercise of those functions that are carried out regularly.

So there’s already been a mention by the Minister of Justice tonight of overseas jurisdictions, and with those overseas jurisdictions that have a similar function, a similar commission, the bill requires that a third of the members have legal qualifications and two-thirds of the members have relevant knowledge. That’s important, because it’s important to have that knowledge of the criminal justice system.

At least one member of the commission also must have knowledge or understanding of Te Ao Māori, Māori tikanga, and concepts of Te Ao Māori. I think that goes back to my point already made at the beginning, that it’s incredibly important that we look at access to justice. This has been a particular issue for iwi Māori in the past, for making sure that there is a clear pathway for review if there has ever been a thought that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and making sure that there are no obstacles to be able to see that.

In terms of what the role of the CCR is: to be a final opportunity to deal with credible claims of miscarriage of justice, and to have a way of putting that through in a way that the public is clear of what is happening and that there is transparency not only for those who are accused and before the courts, not only those who are victims of crime, but also for the public, also for New Zealanders to understand what is happening. If there is consideration that we have an independent commission that has a greater level of transparency, I think that gives New Zealanders a greater sense of confidence within our justice system that it is operating fair, that it is operating in a way that is not showing favour to any particular group or any particular area, and that there is a sense of being able to provide a clear review when there is concern that someone hasn’t received fair access to justice.

I think this is an excellent bill. I’m grateful for the Minister for doing the work on this; I’m grateful for our partners in Government, New Zealand First, as being a part of our coalition agreement; and I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m no longer a member of the Justice Committee, but I’ve taken quite an interest in this piece of legislation. I think it’d be fair to say that no one in Parliament wants miscarriages of justice to occur. They are a blight on our legal system, and, of course, it’s important that we seek to minimise them and it’s important that when they do occur, they are dealt with properly and addressed as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.

This bill is a strange beast in some ways, because it doesn’t replace the royal prerogative. Basically, what it does is place a framework around it—bolsters it, I suppose, buttresses some of the things that are already there. I suppose the question for the Parliament is: has the case been made that the status quo is insufficient to deal with miscarriages of justice, and we on the National Party side of the House do not believe that that case has been made.

Take three examples that have attracted public comment in the last decade or so. Take the Bain case: controversial case, tried and convicted in 1994, sent to prison. There was lots of doubt about—well, there was lots of comment about the verdict and about the way in which the police investigated that case. Various books written, particularly by Joe Karam—that then led eventually to Mr Bain appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which ordered a retrial. That’s the system working as it should. The retrial was ordered—2009, from memory—he was retried, and, of course, found not guilty and walked free.

Now, that didn’t involve a criminal cases review commission. It didn’t require one. He appealed. The judicial committee ordered a retrial on the grounds of some of the inadequacy of the evidence. There was a real risk to the safety of the verdict. A retrial was ordered, and he was not convicted at the second trial—no need for a criminal cases review commission. To those who say, “Well, it should’ve happened sooner.”, I would say Mr Bain could and should have appealed sooner. He was imprisoned from 1995, from memory, onwards, and the appeal was only heard in 2009. At any stage, he could’ve appealed. Of course, there was an appeal in 2000 to the Court of Appeal and it was dismissed, but that right of appeal to the Privy Council existed, notwithstanding the passing of the Supreme Court Act in 2004—that preserved his ability to do that.

Take the Pora case, which has been dealt with in recent years, including in this Parliament. Everyone has a huge amount of sympathy for Mr Pora, but, again, that did not require a criminal cases review commission to be dealt with. Again, that was dealt with through the normal legal appeals. Take a case that some people have commented on in recent years: the Lundy case—convicted in the Palmerston North High Court in the mid-1990s of the shocking murder of his wife and wee daughter, and various writings, particularly by journalist Mr White, in the North & South magazine. There was lots of comment in public debate that the safety of the verdict was in question, particularly about the time of death related to the McDonald’s that the Lundy family had eaten, and particularly related to the safety of the admissibility of the DNA that was later found at the retrial to be on Mr Lundy’s—I think it was his T-shirt that was found in the car. Now, that went all the way to the judicial committee as well, eventually, on appeal. That was sent back down to the High Court for a retrial. Mr Lundy was retried and he was found guilty. So it’s not a case of someone innocent being in jail at the moment, but that was dealt with through the normal process.

I use these cases to illustrate the point that I don’t see what is deficient about the status quo that would justify the establishment of a criminal cases review committee, and my colleague Chris Penk has gone through some of the defects that we see in the legislation. In my brief contribution, I just want to make the point that we have a very robust and effective system, I believe, in New Zealand of checks and balances in our judicial system right now, and I do not believe the Government has made the case that we need a criminal cases review commission. I accept that other countries have done that. I accept that the United Kingdom has established one—they did that in 1997—but I do not believe that just because the United Kingdom does something, we should follow suit. The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. I suspect if New Zealand was part of the EU, we would not be doing the same.

Simeon Brown: Oh, come on!

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, well, I don’t want to get into a—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, and we won’t.

CHRIS BISHOP: He’s outed himself as a Brexiteer. I don’t want to get into that.

Brett Hudson: He’s a Rees-Mogg—a little Rees-Mogg!

CHRIS BISHOP: I’m struggling to know how to compare Simeon Brown to Jacob Rees-Mogg. I really am struggling. That would be—

Brett Hudson: Equally erudite and articulate.

CHRIS BISHOP: He’s certainly erudite. But may I say, Madam Assistant Speaker, you have been a more fair-minded and impartial observer than Speaker Bercow in the United Kingdom—but anyway, I digress. I just make the point: the Government has not made the case for what will be quite a complicated model with a series of procedural defects.

Just in closing, I’ll just make the point around the lack of requirement for commissioners to have any legal qualification. Only a third will be required to have a legal qualification. A third aren’t required to have any experience of the criminal legal system, and these people are being asked to consider, essentially, a legal question of whether or not the evidence supports a rehearing. We believe that that is a real defect in the legislation, and therefore we do not support it. Thank you.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would just like to address a couple of the points that Mr Bishop made, and Mr Penk made as well. In fact, Mr Bishop made his side of the argument quoting the cases of the likes of David Bain and Teina Pora and Mark Lundy. He used that as evidence for voting against this bill, because this was the normal process. I struggle to believe that Mr Bishop doesn’t understand that all of those cases weren’t the normal process, especially Teina Pora, but with David Bain as well. I mean, he mentioned the fact that Joe Karam was one of those ones that actually made publicity of the issue. I mean, he can screw his face up if he wants, but the fact is that those victims of gross miscarriages of justice would never have come to light unless they had a few things: one, a champion of the community that believed in them enough to make enough noise for them, on their behalf; that they had enough money backing them to not only make the noise but take those noises to the court and make sure the right people heard them; but also, a lot of luck involved with that as well.

So if it is true that the argument from the National Party is that that’s the norm, and that that’s the status quo, and that that’s what’s effective, and therefore they’re not voting for this bill, then we’re in real trouble, because we’ve got an Opposition party that can’t see the issues that have arisen through this justice system. Look, we have a great justice system—don’t be mistaken—but we will always have mistakes, and we’ll always have errors and issues, and cases will fall through the cracks. This is what this commission—

Chris Bishop: We’ve got three appeals.

DARROCH BALL:—will help solve.

Mr Bishop, I believe, just said, “Well, three people.” Well, I’d like him to stand face to face to those people and say this isn’t worth it. Mr Penk actually, and I wrote down when he said it, said that this is a potential to open up cans of worms when they may not need to be opened up. Well, the fact of the matter is that there are some cases that absolutely need to be opened up, Mr Penk. We cannot accept that the status quo is working. We cannot accept that the status quo is working.

I would just like to say that it’s a pleasure to support this bill, not least of which because this is in the coalition agreement between the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party. I think that if we look at the most important parts of what this commission does and brings which are different to the status quo, that the National Party is not supporting, it is the fact that it is independent, and it has that mandate to not only review cases that are brought to its attention but also effectively investigate possible miscarriages of justice too. I think that the Minister when he gave his speech explained it quite well, and I hope I can do the same, in regards to the fact that part of the issue that this commission is going to be solving is the fact that miscarriages of justice do not only affect the likes of Teina Pora or those who have had it happen to them, but they also dramatically affect the original victims of the original crime as well, because they have the perspective that not only has the wrong person been punished for this and been held to account but the original perpetrator has not been held to account and is still out there. I think it’s a very important point that the Minister made.

I think what also the National Party is, unfortunately, missing from it is that there is quite a high threshold in order for the commission to be able to give any case to the Court of Appeal. It needs to include a number of considerations before it takes that step and it is quite a high threshold, like I said. It includes that the eligible person has exercised their right of appeal; the extent to which the application relates to the argument, evidence, information or a question of law previously raised; and, third, that there is actually a prospect that the Court of Appeal will actually allow it and hear it.

New Zealand First is supporting this bill. It’s a very good bill, and we believe that it strikes the right balance between having the high threshold but also ensuring that miscarriages of justice that need to be addressed are. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m quite pleased to be following the member Darroch Ball, because he has spoken after me on a couple of previous occasions as this bill has moved through the House, and I think he has tried repeatedly to suggest that I and other National Party speakers have been arguing that the status quo is fine and that there are no problems. That hasn’t been the position that we have been articulating. What we have said is that this bill is not the solution to the problem that Government members have been identifying, and, in fact, we are concerned that this creation of the new Criminal Cases Review Commission will give rise to further miscarriages of justice, albeit of a different type, and, in particular, relating to victims. And I’ll come back to that in a moment.

I do want to commend the very fine work that the member for Helensville, our court spokesman, has done in leading the charge for National on this bill, because it’s fairly unusual for a first-term member to take the lead. He has really picked up the ball and run with it in a very impressive way and I think he articulated the National Party’s concerns very clearly before, so I won’t cover all of the points that he made, but I’ll just thank him for the work that he has done.

The real solution to the problems, or at least some of the problems that have been identified, is to improve the timeliness of the way in which courts deal with the issues that come before them. And we do have a problem at the moment that sees many people becoming victims of that old maxim, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Unfortunately, by creating the Criminal Cases Review Commission, there is a very real risk that those delays will be exacerbated, adding further to the suffering of those who are seeking justice.

I did appreciate the fact that in his opening remarks, as the Minister of Justice moved the third reading of this bill tonight, he complimented both Chris Penk and me for our contributions. I think we have had a very thoughtful debate on both sides of the House. We’re not in agreement, but there has been genuine engagement and a respectful acknowledgment of each other’s points of view. So I want to thank the Minister for doing that. And he did, at least, acknowledge the fact that we have repeatedly raised as one of our main reasons for not being able to support this bill our concern that it will add further to the suffering of victims. There is nothing in the bill that acknowledges that victims have a very real interest in this matter and, in fact, by failing to deal with the rights of victims, this bill does pose a very real threat of re-victimising and re-traumatising the experiences that victims have to go through.

As is often said in this House, they don’t choose to be victims, they don’t choose to end up in the criminal justice system, they don’t choose to relive the trauma of going through the trial—and sometimes many trials—in order to lead to the outcome that the courts will come to. And so we should be very mindful of their concerns and not adding to them, which, as I say, we believe is happening. And so while the Minister did acknowledge that we had raised those concerns, I was disappointed that I don’t believe tonight in his speech he gave an answer to them. He certainly didn’t deal with the fundamental concerns that we had raised and reassure us that our concerns are unfounded. We’re getting towards the end of this debate, but I hope that some of the remaining speakers will deal specifically with that issue. And I know that there are many people who advocate for victims who are hoping to hear that as well. It’s getting late in the piece, but let’s still hope it might happen.

I don’t need to say much more other than to say I don’t doubt for one moment the good intent that is underpinning this bill, and that, I think, is why we’re having a very respectful debate. There clearly are issues that have been well highlighted by some previous speakers relating to some high-profile miscarriages of justice. The Minister mentioned some of those; so have some of my colleagues. Sadly, they have occurred in the past and, almost inevitably, miscarriages of justice will occur again in the future. But this bill won’t stop that, and this bill is highly unlikely to resolve some of the most significant cases that have happened without adding further problems. It is an expensive measure that I think doesn’t meet its mark, and for that reason, as others have indicated on this side of the House, unfortunately, we are still unable to support this bill.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s quite a thrill for me to stand in support of this bill on its third reading, and I do want to congratulate and acknowledge the Minister of Justice, as well as the coalition partner who, very wisely, included this as part of their agreement and brought it to us in the House. So thanking everyone on this side of the House, I do so as a member of the Bar and as a member of the executive of the New Zealand Criminal Bar Association: an organisation that lobbied for this for many years, an organisation that represents defence lawyers, prosecutors, judges, members of the police force, justice sector experts and professionals and academics—people at the front lines. We knew that this Criminal Cases Review Commission was something that was needed.

We based that lobbying on the success that commissions like this have had elsewhere in the world, like the UK but also on the ever-increasing heartbreaking deterioration of New Zealand’s own justice system—and we are a country who prides ourselves in having a system of justice that’s not only fair, not only transparent but also accessible equally to everyone, that isn’t being bought and sold on the free market. Part of that is the right to access justice when a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Part of the right to fair process—and most people know the right to fair trial, the right to counsel; all of those things. But here in New Zealand we also recognise the fundamental right to an appeal, a right that was eroded so—I’ll say “heartbreaking” again and I’ll refer the National Party to the Court of Appeal judgment that said their legal aid policy was not just unfair but unlawful. Imagine that. Imagine a Minister of Justice adopting policy that the Court of Appeal told her was unlawful and maintaining that in a system of justice.

Hon David Bennett: You pass legal bills every day. You’re part of the coalition.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: You did it. You did it and the judgment stands. Imagine how embarrassing it must be, and that’s why they’re so loud tonight.

An appeal is a complex thing. An appeal is something that needs to be dealt with by senior lawyers, because a miscarriage of justice isn’t just that a finding of facts may have been wrong. It’s not just that a jury could have found differently than a different jury or a judge could have found differently on a matter of fact or law; it’s that something went so fundamentally wrong that the—

Chris Bishop: Well, appeal it.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Well, people can’t appeal, actually, because you cut legal aid so much that only the wealthy can appeal, and that’s shameful.

Hon David Bennett: Oh no, shame on me. Shame on me.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Could the Hon David Bennett make a higher standard of contribution or resist making one at all.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: That’s uncertain at this point. But the point is that an appeal requires a senior lawyer, and with the cuts to legal aid—the cuts that were found to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal—that hasn’t been possible in New Zealand in the majority of cases for a very long time. We haven’t been able to assess whether a judge made a ruling that was so wrong in law that a miscarriage occurred. We haven’t been able to figure out whether witnesses should have been interviewed and weren’t by counsel, who made an error, because it is a high-level thing. But the other thing is that we know people are litigious. Criminal appellants can be litigious, so the courts do also get a lot of cases—and people have raised this point—that are superfluous.

Well, this commission—this bill, once it’s passed—will protect our system of justice from both of those things. Our courts are overworked. They do have to deal with a lot, and this means that the bar is met at a different level: that we know—experts have told us—that a case has merit. The commission is not deciding the case; it’s deciding whether there is merit enough for the Court of Appeal to consider it. At that point, the court considers it, so the courts’ workload comes down. It’s much more efficient, and you know what? It saves victims the trauma of coming to court in cases that are superfluous appeals. It actually protects victims, so high-level expert decisions are made about whether or not something went wrong in the law, went wrong in terms of the factual findings, before a victim has to be dragged into court. That’s the protection that this bill, actually, will provide.

And what’s more that I would like to celebrate is the commission’s mandate to actually launch its own inquiries and tell the Government, based on what it’s seeing in terms of the appeals that are coming to it, what might be going wrong in our system of justice. That is invaluable. If we know that we are falling over in certain ways, if judges are making certain mistakes across the nation in the same way, if we know that police are falling short in different ways, that’s invaluable to us. For the first time in our system, we’re going to have an independent commission telling us that.

And what’s more, there is the recommendation of the inclusion in the committee of tikanga Māori expertise, and we know that that has been a huge shortfall for our system of justice for a very long time. We know that miscarriages of justice are much more likely to affect Māori. We know that our system of justice at every level targets Māori unfairly, whether it’s in arrests, in convictions, in sentences. That’s what miscarriages of justice are about, and we’re going to have experts on this commission making those findings, launching their own inquiries, and saving the courts.

So I do commend this bill to the House, but, before I do, I would like to acknowledge past presidents of the Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand, Tony Bouchier, and the present one, Noel Sainsbury. I’d like to acknowledge the whole executive committee of the Criminal Bar Association—everyone who fought for this—for being activists as well as lawyers, for suing the Government and winning when it did something unfair and unlawful, for standing up for access to justice and for equality, and today, we’ve made a little bit of that into law. So I do commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just don’t see the need for this bill in our court system. Now, we have a very strong judicial system, and I remember when the Labour Party brought to this House the need to remove the Privy Council and replace it with the Court of Appeal in New Zealand. They were very adamant, at that stage, that that would be the final court and all that was needed for the court system. Suddenly, now we have the need for a commission of review. There’s no need in our small country to have another stage in the legal system. This is really just trying to bring more bureaucracy into the system.

Golriz Ghahraman: This isn’t a stage; that’s not how it works, David.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: That is how it works, because it is a review commission. So in between every level of the court system, someone can apply to this review commission, and then—

Golriz Ghahraman: Yeah, it’s a diversion.

Hon DAVID BENNETT:—and so it is another court in our four-court system. And why would we want to do that? Why do we need to do that? It’s just a gross abuse of New Zealand taxpayer funds for the interests of the Green Party so that they can feel that they are dealing with people’s personal interests.

It’s very sad that the New Zealand First Party, which is the handbrake on this Government—or they say they are—has let this go through. And it’s very silly that the Labour Party—that, actually, had proposed to take out the Privy Council and replace it with the Court of Appeal—is now buckling to the pressure of the Green Party to have this fifth court process. It’s completely unnecessary, will achieve nothing, and is part of a coalition that looks for problems where there are none and just creates more bureaucracy in the system, more costs in the system, and a failure of a justice system that actually works very well as it stands.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, I omitted to say this is a split call.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill in the third and final reading. There are a couple of points that speakers previous to me have raised that I’m going to address in my contribution. First and foremost is in the Minister’s introduction of this third reading. He used the phrase “safety valve”, and that this commission should be seen as a safety valve, adding to our justice system. I want to reference that, because that’s exactly what we are trying to do here. The commission, as the Minister outlaid, will be set up to investigate miscarriages of justice. I, unlike that previous member that’s resumed his seat, David Bennett, have every faith that the appointed commissioners will not just take any frivolous cases, but will subject those approaching the commission to the same test that we have currently.

In the Minister’s use of the phrase “safety valve”—I would think all members of the House would consider how we improve our justice system. I believe we do have a very well-oiled justice system, but, like we said previously, we get things wrong. And so we should be open to forever improving our justice system so that those that are subjected to it feel that they are being treated fairly. The other words the Minister used—and it’s also in some of our contributions in the reading of this bill—were independence and targeted. So this commission will be an independent body targeting those that may bring their cases to them. They won’t be part of the Ministry of Justice, where, presently, if you have applied for the prerogative of mercy clause, you then have to fit within the Ministry of Justice’s current, busy workload. So having an independent body that has the resources, the energy, and the targeted expectation that will examine each appeal, I think, is a good thing.

I want to just talk about the make-up, and I want to talk about the introduction of a commissioner that has knowledge in tikanga Māori and Te Reo Māori and knowledge of Te Ao Māori. I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee. They couldn’t agree on making this particular—couldn’t agree on the bill, but they did make a series of well-considered amendments. One of them, actually, when I read it, I thought I was reading a select committee report from the Māori Affairs Committee, because not only did we talk about the knowledge of Te Ao Māori and tikanga Māori, we talk about specialists advisers with cultural knowledge, and we also talk about procedures consistent with the Treaty principles.

Some members in this House have talked about certain sectors of our community that do not access the appeal rights within our justice system, none more so than Māori, and in terms of the prerogative of mercy, virtually none—very few. The Teina Pora case, as expressed by other members in this House, was not ignited or engaged or instigated at his instigation; it was his advocates and friends on the side. And if we are going to ensure that our justice system is equitable and accessible, then a commissioner surely must be a way to achieve that aim. And so the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill is attempting to do that. It is attempting to add the value and make sure that our justice system is free and accessible to all.

In my closing minute, I want to acknowledge the Minister for bringing this important piece of legislation to the House. I want to acknowledge New Zealand First, who advocated for this bill. I want to acknowledge the submitters that came in front of the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge the officials that wrote it, and also the select committee members who considered it and made some very good amendments. It is a point to all of us on this Justice Committee that there are clearly going to be occasions where we differ across the House. It is always my hope, as the chair of the Justice Committee, that we actually report back to the House on pieces of legislation, even though we disagree. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill. Look, I just want to start by saying that I think everyone in this House would agree that the Teina Pora case was a terrible miscarriage of justice, and it was a tragedy of a series of events that led to a conviction that, as we all know, shouldn’t have happened. Meka Whaitiri, the previous speaker, highlighted the fact that through advocacy and through some individuals that believed in him and got behind him and supported him, actually, we are able, finally—and it took way too long—to have at least some vindication for him and some compensation to follow up as well.

But the reality of it is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission wouldn’t have helped Teina Pora one little bit. It wouldn’t have changed his outcome. It wouldn’t have changed the process. You’ve got the speaker from New Zealand First Darroch Ball standing up, and I don’t doubt Darroch’s—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Full name, please, Mr Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL:—that he has a genuine belief in this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Full name of members.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I said “Darroch Ball”. So I don’t doubt at all Darroch Ball’s belief in this bill. However, he said the threshold—the test—to actually get a case into the Criminal Cases Review Commission is very high. It’s a very high test. So if that’s the case, and if you actually went back and had a look, I don’t even know whether Teina Pora’s case would even have got in front of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

But then you come back to the bill and, actually, when you look at the test, the test is very low. The standard the commission must meet to refer cases back to the appeal court is merely that it is in the interests of justice to do so. That is a very, very low test, and I anticipate that you’ll have a flood of applications to this commission. By the way, the commissioners themselves—you would have to challenge and question whether or not they’ve got the right training and the right background to be actually making decisions like this, and all I can see is just a mass referral straight back into the appeal court that will put pressure back on the court.

I have to say that Chris Penk, who took control of this bill and shepherded it through all stages in the House and the select committee and who has done an outstanding job and who, by the way, is a qualified lawyer that’s been involved in our criminal justice system as a partner in a law firm before he came to this House of Representatives, tried to put a very good Supplementary Order Paper into the House to actually strengthen the bill around the rights of victims to make sure that they are engaged and to make sure that they understood what was happening and understand that, actually, the case was now back in front of the Criminal Cases Review Commission—what that actually meant for them—and it wasn’t supported. So I find it a bit rich that we have the Government parties standing up and telling us how strong this bill is and how good it is, and yet they wouldn’t actually support the people that are adversely affected or who will be materially affected by the cases that come up in front of the commission.

I think that we’ve been very clear and very articulate about the fact that we will support any good legislation that comes to this House that’s going to strengthen our criminal justice system, and especially around protection for victims, but this bill does not do that. It doesn’t even come close to it. It’s going to be additional cost, it’s laying another layer of complexity inside our criminal justice system to slow things down when we already have a very good appeals process, and, on top of that, we’re going to have victims that aren’t even going to be consulted or included or who understand what is actually involved with this process. So we cannot support this bill. We would have liked to have seen changes made to strengthen it, especially around victims’ rights. They weren’t supported, and that was unfortunate. Therefore, the National Party in Opposition cannot support this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you. Gosh, you know, I’ve listened really hard through this debate to try and really understand the logic of the argument being put across by the other side of the House, and I’m still not there yet. I’ve heard “cost” and “complexity” said numerous times, and never once have I heard “justice” or “fairness”.

So I went and looked for that quote that starts “The measure of a society” or “A society can be judged”, and I found a whole lot of different versions of it, as we know, from people like Dostoevsky. He said, “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals”. Nelson Mandela said that “no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.” You know, there was Gandhi, there was Truman—variations on the theme.

Basically, the point is that, I guess, the divide that exists between the National Party and the Government is around values. It is around a values-based system that actually puts a value on justice and on trying to strive for something that is better to ensure that what we are trying to strive for is a justice system that doesn’t settle for miscarriages of justice when they occur.

So I went and had a bit of a look through as to what was being said during the debate around this bill, and I only came on to the Justice Committee towards the end of this, when it was almost being reported back to the House. But I wanted to read what some of the legal minds were saying about the concept of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and what sat behind it.

There’s this chap who, I understand, is recently deceased—Sir Thomas Thorp, a former High Court judge—who spoke a few years ago, saying that it was inevitable that a criminal cases review commission would be established in this part of the world. His comments were influenced by a review that he conducted in 2005, comparing New Zealand’s system of dealing with claimed miscarriages of justice with those in Scotland and England. I know that they were dismissed by the other side of the House, but, based on those experiences, Sir Thomas estimated that there were likely to be at least 20 innocent people in jail here, and he concluded that we should establish something akin to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Referrals by that commission had resulted in around four wrongful convictions being corrected each year, compared to New Zealand’s rate of one to two every two years under the royal prerogative of mercy system.

I guess that maybe what it comes down to is what the National Party is saying tonight about cost and complexity. It’s too high a cost, in their view, to improve our system so that there is a better system for miscarriages of justice. I think that Meka Whaitiri referred before to the safety valve system—a better safety valve system.

Actually, when Andrew Little was speaking about the justification for this piece of legislation, he talked about the intent of keeping the commission at arm’s length from the judiciary. He said that “miscarriages are currently handled through the Ministry of Justice but the new commission will be independent of the ministry as a way of keeping it free from the perception of undue influence.” He said that “There will be people in prison who should not be there. The benefit of the commission is that it will use a more methodical and systematic approach to dealing with claims of miscarriages of justice.”

Could we not aim to be better? Could we not aim to be a better country in this regard? Is that not worth something—to strive to be better, where people feel that if there is a miscarriage where they are imprisoned, there is somewhere to go that is better, where there are better outcomes?

Nigel Hampton QC said a couple of things about this. He said that “the royal prerogative of mercy process is long out-dated and too constrained.” and, according to him, two of its principal defects are “that the ‘handling’ of petitions for its exercise rests with ‘insiders’ within the very system under critical scrutiny, rather than with a separate body of independent, objective observers, based and acting outside the mainstream criminal justice system; and that no proper re-investigation of the facts occurs—instead, reliance [rests] on the ‘fresh’ materials put before the officials by the petitioner, rather than having a body with an uncluttered mind prepared to reinvestigate (whether fully or in discrete areas) the matter at issue.”

I don’t know about you—not you, Madam Speaker, or it might include you—but isn’t that something we could aspire to? To be better at this, and to be a country where we could actually hold our heads up high and say that the measure of our society is that we want to make sure that we treat our most vulnerable in the best way possible so that they have better access to justice and that that justice can be seen to be served.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill as the last National Party speaker on the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill. I do want to just acknowledge the sentiment of what the Hon Clare Curran was saying there around the importance of justice and the importance to ensure that we don’t see miscarriages of justice taking place. But the problem with this bill is it is not going to solve that. It’s not going to create a perfect system. It’s not going to actually stop miscarriages of justice happening in the first place. All this bill is doing is setting up another process whereby another body is able to look into a case and make a decision as to whether this case should be referred to the Court of Appeal; that’s simply what it does, and actually that’s already what people have the right to be able to do. They have the right to be able to appeal their cases and to appeal to the Court of Appeal, who can then make a decision as to whether there are grounds for something to be re-looked at and looked into.

The issue here in our court system is actually issues of timeliness, which need to be sorted, issues of representation, issues which actually will make our system faster and fairer so that people do have access to justice and access to ensuring they have access to the appellate courts as well.

I do just want to reiterate the point made by my colleague Chris Penk, who has been standing up talking about victims. The Hon Clare Curran might say, “No, we need to get justice.”, and I agree, but let’s also talk about victims, because they are also part of the picture here. When you have a process which allows those who have been convicted to simply go to this new body to try and find, potentially try and find, another grounds, another way to get to the Court of Appeal, where there may or may not have been a miscarriage of justice, why shouldn’t victims be notified? Why shouldn’t the victim of that crime actually be notified? I think it’s a real shame that they aren’t even notified that their case may be being reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. That is something which is fundamental to our criminal justice system, is the recognition of victims and their rights. It should not be something which is given tokenism, which is what this piece of legislation does.

The National Party does not support this bill.

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Arthur Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, John Grisham, Stieg Larsson, Jack Reacher—all crime writers. The world loves a good mystery. The world loves a good criminal case. What’s happened, of course, is that in a world which is a very digital world, a world where many people receive their entertainment, receive, in fact, their information on the world, they get it from the television, they get it from the movies, and they get from the books. What that means is that everybody becomes an expert on law and order. You can be a photocopier salesman and still stand up in the House and talk about being an expert on law and order because you’ve watched a few mysteries on the telly. Well, in reality, it’s not like that in the real world.

In the real world, when a crime is committed, when the detectives are called in—and yes, I trained detectives, but it’s not like it is on the telly. It’s a matter of rebuilding what’s happened. The art of a good detective is to reproduce what happened at the time of the crime, so that everything you learn, every single fact you learn—obviously, you start with the body, what did we learn? So we interrogate every fact we learn, so we understand. So it’s a building process to make sure that we fully understand what exactly has happened, to reconstruct, continually reconstruct, continually reconstruct, so by the time you have that case before the court, you can answer the questions. There will always be those parts that you can’t reconstruct without. The best form of evidence is always a properly obtained confession from the suspect or the offender, but under various changes in the law, that’s a relatively rare thing these days. So we compensate with DNA. We compensate with fingerprints. We compensate with other forms of evidence which make up the case and often, in the absence of a confession, do help make the case.

There are certainly people who are in prison who are innocent. Most of them are a little bit further down the food chain of offending. Many of them are there because they’ve been forced by their gang leader to confess. They’re there because they may have confessed for different reasons and they end up in court. They’re not the ones that generally get captured. They are not the ones that end up in North & South magazine. They’re not the ones that end up in television documentaries. They are not the ones that end up the most talked about cases. In fact, several speakers tonight have mentioned Teina Pora. The reason it took the Teina Pora case to come to court to get the justice that he rightly got was because he didn’t represent one of those popular cases. He didn’t represent someone that was immediately an attractive proposition for a magazine article. He didn’t actually attract those types, whereas with many of the cases that did, generally where, and almost invariably, the offender was someone who the people who wrote the book, shall I say, could relate to, that’s generally what happened. Someone who was probably from the same socioeconomic class, that was what the type of people—that’s where a lot of the cases that were heard.

So in the time that’s left to me, how does this relate to this bill? And you might ask—I did, perhaps because I’ve been speaking for a while. Where it becomes very pertinent is that the justices—we as legislators here, we play a very important part to ensure that people have faith in the system. It’s about ensuring that, as much as people have an understanding of the system, it’s more important—and they think they have an understanding, but actually what they really do need is actually to have faith in our system. New Zealand does have a very good justice system, many people have spoken about it here tonight. I’ve been lucky enough to have spent time with justice systems and examined justice systems around the world. We are pretty good. Like we do many things in New Zealand, we benefit from being one single jurisdiction. We benefit from being very efficient. Unlike the Americans, who have, at last count, something like 19,000 different police forces—even our Australian colleagues have eight—we’re very rare round the world, as there is one jurisdiction, and that makes us very, very efficient.

But even within that, even in that digital age that I’ve spoken about, it is important there’ll be those cases that because of people’s ability to grab hold of the airwaves, because of people’s ability—good writers, good self-promoters, just good promoters—to actually get the airwaves, to have a good proportion of New Zealand’s population actually believing that an injustice may have been done, then it actually is necessary to have another system. That’s why while I may have been a little bit sceptical when I first came to this, I now do understand that this is not actually another level. We still have the Supreme Court, we still have a Court of Appeal, we still have the High Court, and they are the courts that will actually look at the legalities. They’ll look at it whether evidence was properly obtained; that’s through that system. They will ensure that they test the legality of the evidence, because anyone that’s been on a jury will understand that a lot of the evidence that comes before court is tested. The jury are kicked out of that room for some time because they can’t hear the arguments as to whether they can actually hear that evidence at all.

What I like about this is that actually there is going to be the opportunity that much of that evidence that doesn’t get heard—in fact, once the court case is gone through, it doesn’t actually get held by others who are going to be actually looking at the case—will actually get to be seen.

I think for every time there will be doubts raised—actually, anyone who understands that it’s just about putting the right people on this Criminal Cases Review Commission will actually see that, yes, if it’s looked at properly, the correct conclusion was reached: the jury did get it right, the judge did get it right, and the right decisions were made. Unfortunately, because of the way the separation—because of, as I said before, the preponderance of crime stories, the preponderance of documentaries and now all sorts of social media and those who have no right to be commenting, those experts on law and order—with the preponderance of them out there, actually, they will look. What I’d like to see is someone with an investigative background also on this. I see there’s the opportunity for that to ensure that that actually does happen.

So this is a piece of legislation whose time has come. I like to think we’ve now entered the digital age. We’ve entered the age where so much of our information that we get—we don’t get it from a newspaper that obeys the rules: the good old rules. There will be journalists here who will know that when we began in journalism, if you’re going to allege something, you go to the person you’re making the allegations against to ensure there’s some semblance of balance in that newspaper story. That was what reporters, that was what the newspapers, that was what the media used to be like. It’s not like that anymore. We now know, with the preponderance of websites—most of which are very partisan—this is really a result of that partisanship. This is the result of the need to ensure that with that partisanship that is so much a part of the modern way in which people receive their information, that there is now another method to test that.

So, again, having been on the journey through this bill, beginning with it as something of a sceptic, I’ve seen it. I’ve looked about it objectively, and I think this is a piece of legislation whose day has come, and I’m happy to commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I am very happy and I am very proud to get this piece of legislation to its third reading and not too far away from becoming law.

I think most New Zealanders have an inherent idea of what a fair go is, what is fair, what is reasonable, and also an inherent idea of what is unreasonable. The practice that we are regulating this evening is an area which, I think, for some time has been an area where most New Zealanders have seen uncontrolled, exorbitant, and, sometimes, intimidating behaviour from those who immobilise cars in the legislative sense and language, or who clamp vehicles in private car parks, sometimes without those cars actually breaching any time limit or rules for that car park, and then charging what, in many cases, were unreasonable and, in a few extremely unreasonable cases, exorbitant amounts of money for those clamps or immobilisers to be removed.

This is a piece of legislation that, when I took over the Commerce and Consumer Affairs portfolio, was something that I inquired into, and, to be perfectly frank, was quite stunned that nothing could be done to deal with this issue unless there was a legislative change. The fact that we’ve had to take this through the legislative process has meant that it’s taken some time, but we’re very happy to get it to this point. The point of this bill is to end the practice of the cowboy clampers who have been preying on people who can least afford to pay exorbitant amounts of money to have their cars unclamped, and to cap the fee to remove that clamp, in the situations contained in this bill, to $100.

Now, there was some debate that I was witness to during the committee stage about whether or not enough work had been done to build a case for this piece of legislation. And I also note that the Opposition is voting in favour of this bill. So to the second point, can I thank them for their support of this piece of legislation, but to the first point, can I just say that you can’t have it both ways. The Opposition has criticised this side of the House for setting up reviews or working groups, but this simply was a problem, when I became a Minister, that I wanted to deal with.

There wasn’t too much research to be done, other than a regular reading of, potentially, the New Zealand Herald. An endless flow of consumer pain around stories around, again, the likes of $700 being charged to remove a clamp, I think, goes against that inherent feeling of New Zealanders of what a fair go is. Getting charged $700 to remove a clamp from a car, in this Government’s idea, is not a fair go. So we didn’t have to muck around to determine that. We didn’t wait the complete term of a Government to say, “This is an issue.” We arrived, saw the problem, and did something about it. It’s something that might be a little bit foreign to the members on the other side of the House, but I thank them for their judgment to actually support this piece of legislation.

What I am looking forward to is, predominantly, my Auckland colleagues using this piece of legislation as one of the things that they can talk about in terms of delivery for their constituents. Again, it’s predominantly Auckland-based stories where those motorists have been preyed upon and nothing was done. Again, endless flows of stories and nothing was done—certainly by the previous Government. So I’m proud to have got this piece of legislation through to the point where we’re at the third reading.

Some thanks, again, do need to go to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their work on this piece of legislation. It’s not a long bill. It’s quite a simple bill. But I think it will give a lot of people who park on a regular basis—and I think that’s most New Zealanders who’ve got a car—quite a lot of peace of mind.

There was some robust debate, as I mentioned, again, around the committee stage, and I just wanted to go through some points and some questions that were raised. My colleague Jamie Strange did note that during the select committee process there were some questions raised about whether or not we should do more around signage, and I just wanted to reiterate the message that I gave to the House during the select committee stage that the Fair Trading Act already has the ability to create, under regulations, some standards when it comes to parking signage. So if there is the necessity to go beyond what we’ve got in this piece of legislation, the Fair Trading Act can be brought into play and increased signage standards can be brought in via regulation. So this could be a moveable feast, but I do think this will make a big difference in terms of consumer protection and also, hopefully, preventing a lot of the practices that some of these cowboy clampers have been up to for some time.

I do want to notice in the legislation the penalties that will come in if those who have clamped cars transgress against the legislation. For an individual, it will be a fine of up to $3,000, and, for a company, a fine of $15,000. So I hope that not only will the business model for some of those clamping companies change but those potential penalties, if they continue to offend, will act as a rather large financial deterrent for them to continue their ways.

I do want to apologise also to my colleague Kieran McAnulty, because, during the committee stage, I did say to him that I believed there was an incident where there was some clamping in the town of Masterton. I have rethought that, and it wasn’t Masterton; it was a town in the South Island that I visited, which I won’t mention, because of the cost of the clamping there.

But, hopefully, the passage of this legislation will mean the end of the pain for those consumers, who, for far too long, have been scared to park in a local car park because of some of the practices of these cowboy clamping companies. We’re quite happy that this legislation sends a message to them that the golden days are over and that charging whatever you like to people who least suspect it has come to an end, and that there’s a limit to what you can charge, because we have tried to strike the balance with property rights too. There are some people who will park incorrectly, and this legislation still allows clamping to occur, but that exorbitant amount of money that some companies charge is to come to an end. And it will be set at $100.

So, again, can I thank—I think—all members in the House, who are going to vote for this legislation, for giving those motorists the peace of mind that the maximum they will pay, if they do transgress, won’t be $700 or $800 but that it will be $100, and I think that will give a whole lot of New Zealanders peace of mind and that they won’t be scared that when they go down to the local shops, they’re going to end up with a $700 bill instead of a $2.50 loaf of bread. I commend this bill to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill, after that great 10 minutes from the Minister—a fine, stellar performance. Now, this is not—and I’ll make an allusion shortly to a previous speaker, just in passing—some pot-belly thriller. We’re not going to keep you in suspense to the end. We are going to support this bill in this its third reading.

But I just want to note in passing, having heard that speech from the Minister, that I’ve sat here listening to another member talk a whole list of fiction crime writers, in a speech that I couldn’t make head or tail of, but I do think the House has found its very own Inspector Clouseau.

But on to this bill—on to this particular matter. I have a bouquet and brickbat for the Government. The first bouquet, to the Minister: unlike his colleagues, this Minister decided to do something and then just went ahead and did it. If some of his colleagues were of a similar mind, we might have actually passed some legislation in this House that wasn’t the work of the previous Government.

But that comes, on the other side of that coin, with the other side of this—the brickbat. See, what would normally happen—what would normally happen—in the passage of legislation: first, the Government would have an idea—unless it’s this Government, in which case they’ll either outsource the idea to a working group or take the idea from the Opposition. But a Government would have an idea. They would then set officials to do a bit of work to get some facts and some evidence to support some policy that they’d then turn into legislation and bring to the House. Well, we had a gut feel from Mr Faafoi. Minister Faafoi said, “I need to do this. I want to do this. Don’t worry about facts and evidence. We’re not an evidence-led Government; we’re just going to take some action.”

Well, at least they’ve taken some action.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Well, vote against it, then.

BRETT HUDSON: In actual fact—we’re going to return to the bouquet, Mr Faafoi—we’re actually going to support this action. The fact that they didn’t bother with the evidence is material, but we’ll let it fly this time.

We have all heard stories in our electorates—all of us—of people that have been treated terribly by people who have the authority to clamp a vehicle—whether it’s clamping moments after a car is parked illegally or improperly or charging enormous amounts of money to get that car unclamped. The desire to do something was clearly there across both sides of the House. Regrettably, because the Government didn’t do it, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee had to do the work of actually working through the policy—and I commend them; they did a very, very good job.

I’m not going to take a long time, but I just want to mention one other thing in passing, because—looking across at Ms Russell—we are working on another bill in the select committee, where, although it places enormous burden on other people, the ones that are exempt are Government entities. And this is the same case in this bill.

So while we are limiting the ability to charge for clamping to $100 in this bill, the ones that get away with it are either central enforcement agencies or, more likely, territorial authorities. So if you’re the Government or city hall, you can charge what you like, but the rest of you are limited to $100.

But none the less, aside from that, let us not forget the fact that there are too many instances of people being treated appallingly in terms of wheel-clamping activities. It is right to take action and, notwithstanding any criticism that could be levelled about that policy work, it is still a good thing that for New Zealanders and those who can least afford it, who tend to be the ones that are caught most often with these practices, it is a good thing that we are taking some practical action to change that—and for that I will extend some small credit to the Minister. Congratulations, and we will also commend this bill to the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to take a call on this. Can I commend the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for taking action on a problem that hasn’t just evaporised, it hasn’t just occurred in the last two years; it’s been around for a long, long, long time: wheel clamping, and the impact it’s had on people who legitimately go about their daily lives. So for the consumers, for the business owners, and for the clamping operators themselves, this bill simply clarifies and ensures that those that are resorting to clamping have a $100 limit—that’s both for the operators as well as those who are subjected to clamping.

I just want to share a wee story in supporting this particular bill as a business lease owner of one of my electoral offices—I have four throughout my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. In one particular part of my electorate, Hastings, I am constantly having the back door of my property filled up with our neighbours parking in it. So from a business lease owner, it is hugely disruptive, when you are trying to deal with constituents on a daily basis, that that’s the only parking slot, and, yet, we have people constantly parking where they shouldn’t be despite the signs saying it’s private. Do I want them clamped? No—no, I don’t. But if they were clamped, I’d like to ensure that the bill that protects both those that are clamped and those that apply the clamps is really, really clear. So this is what the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill is doing.

So I want to commend the Minister for taking action as quickly as he has. I’m no longer on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee; I was there when this bill first came to us, and, yes, there was very heated debate as members on that select committee—

Chris Bishop: We want you back.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Thank you very much; I’d love to come back. But we had some very, I felt, constructive debates around ensuring that this bill was fit for purpose. We had several submitters that came in, but what I do want to commend the chair of that select committee, Mr Darroch Ball, for is inviting more of the clampers to appear in front of the select committee, to ensure, before we reported back to the House, that we had canvassed their views. So I want to commend the actions of the select committee, as I left, that they took those particular actions so that we were making a piece of legislation that also took into perspective those clamping operators. And I want to commend those that appeared before the select committee and put their views forward.

It is a simple bill. It does set clear regulations around it. I believe both consumers—like I said, business operators and clamping operators themselves will welcome this clear, simple piece of legislation. On that note, I commend it to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Well, I think that’s a heroic bit of optimism by the previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri. I’m not sure that wheel-clamping operators are going to welcome this piece of legislation, because what it does is allow the maximum wheel-clamping fee to be $100. I do not think that those people who currently, essentially, extort money out of people on the basis that they’ve parked for five seconds too long in a private parking spot are going to welcome it, and, frankly, I think that’s a good thing.

Another speaker made mention of the fact that everyone in their electorates has examples of cowboy clampers—the alliteration is a happy coincidence, isn’t it, for this one—cowboy clampers who, essentially, charge extremely high fees. I think every electorate MP would have an example of that; I certainly do in Hutt South. It’s an issue that, when we were last in Government, I actually looked at myself, introducing a bill similar to what we have here. That didn’t happen, but I do welcome the legislation that’s been brought forward, which National is supporting.

I suppose, on the one hand, you could say, you know, good on people for taking advantage of a business opportunity. You know, if you park on someone’s private land, it’s not your land; people who own private property are entitled to set the conditions upon the terms that you come on to that property, and if you stay too long, a minute too long, you’ve given up your licence to be on that property and the person whose property you’re on is entitled to ask you to leave and, if you don’t leave, then charge you money. That would be the sort of arch-libertarian view of the world, and I suppose that has some plausibility to it.

But I suppose the real point, the simple reality, is that these parking spaces are, for most people, not anywhere different to parking on the street. They’re not any different to parking in a public car park provided by the local council, for example. Typically what they are are three or four parks, sometimes next to public car parks operated by the council. People can’t distinguish because the signage is often totally deficient, and people come back to their car—they think they’ve probably parked in a public car park and they’ve got away with it—and they find that, actually, they’ve parked on Mr Smith’s private car park, and Mr Smith has decided to charge $700 for being over the limit. If you don’t pay, you’re stuffed, basically. So I think this is an attempt to deal with what is clearly a practical, real problem for people, and I think it’s a good step forward.

Some countries actually ban private wheel clamping. The bill doesn’t go that far. I think that’s something worth thinking about. Some countries do it—I think in various parts of Australia. I think in some states of Australia, it is just banned outright; you can’t do it. I think that’s something that’s worth discussing. But I think, generally, this is a good step forward. I think every electorate MP is going to welcome it. Good on Minister Faafoi for getting on with the job. He’s a man who’s developed a well-deserved reputation as a doer in a Government that is, generally, incompetent at delivering.

Barbara Kuriger: He’s a lone soldier!

CHRIS BISHOP: Ha! He’s a lone soldier! He’s a lone ranger—Faafoi the Lone Ranger! He’s a man who should have been promoted a lot earlier, but good on him for taking action. Thank you very much.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. I also would like to congratulate the Minister Kris Faafoi for bringing in this bill and getting it through the House and also seeing it through the entire process, including the select committee. All those who are on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee can understand that, when we first got it to the select committee, it seemed, on the face of it, quite a simple bill and we thought it would go through quite easily, but it seemed that, when we opened one door and closed that, another three opened and we had to go through them. It was a can of worms, really, solving this issue, and I think that it was because it was so unregulated that, when we started, sort of, to pick up sticks, if you like, it started affecting a whole lot of other different things.

I think that Mr Bishop actually brought up a good point, which was that I think the complicated nature of this issue has caused other jurisdictions to actually ban clamping outright.

I agree that this could be a conversation in the future, and this would be an interesting one to have, but I think that what we’ve got in front of us, which is a piece of legislation that is quite balanced, and throughout the whole process—not just the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, but that was the main backbone of it, coming up with this legislation, but also all of the stages and including the previous stage, which was coming up with a balanced but focused piece of legislation and getting that balance between the retailers, the companies that do the clamping, and also the people who have fallen victim to the cowboy clampers in unacceptable situations which we all agree we can’t let carry on. There are examples where we’ve had $600, $700, $800 for a fee for getting rid of an immobiliser or a clamp for being two minutes over, or even clamping when there’s children still in the car. So something needed to be done, and I congratulate the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for bringing this legislation to the House and coming up with what is a good step forward in dealing with those issues.

One of the issues that was brought up also, because it was a big one in the select committee, was the issue of the signage, but also the big one was the $100 cap. That was debated quite—not heatedly but in-depth and—

Chris Bishop: Collegially.

DARROCH BALL: Yeah, collegially in-depth, and we believe that we’ve come up with a solution, a balanced one and a focused one but also one that can be addressed through regulations in the future, which I also think is quite an important part of this legislation.

So New Zealand First supports this bill and congratulates the House on supporting it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a real privilege to stand up at 9.57 on a Tuesday night to discuss the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. This is a very important bill. I’ve got some experience with companies that tow cars, as does Denise Lee, as of just Saturday night. Denise Lee had a fantastic concert at U2, and, unfortunately, afterwards, after having a few good hours at U2, she came back and, what do you know, the car’s up on the tow truck. So that was a good lesson for Denise, but she covered her tracks very well, as you would have seen in the media. She’s very quick on her feet. She said “It wasn’t my fault, because I parked the car and I went to the concert but, unfortunately, I parked my car a bit too quick, as the barriers”—apparently they changed the barriers. They used to put the barriers closer to Mt Smart Stadium, and then she got caught out. So, Denise Lee—it’s a shame she’s not speaking on this good bill. She would have a few good things to say.

This is a good bill. There’s often a power imbalance with some of these towing companies. Often, they turn up to your car—predatory behaviour—they’ll charge, in one case from a submitter, $740 dollars. Seven hundred and forty dollars for a person that was in a car park for 90 minutes. You may ask: how is that fair? I don’t believe it is, but if you need your car back and your car’s worth more than about a thousand dollars, of course you’re going to pay them the money to get the car back. If you want to take action, often action can take weeks, if not months, in the local courts or through mediation. So it’s good that this bill’s sorting out that power imbalance with some of these companies.

There’s no parking wardens in parts of Clutha-Southland. There’s none in Milton, Balclutha, Gore—there’s part-time ones in Gore. In Queenstown, there are part-time parking meters as well. So, just for Denise Lee: if you’re watching this, Denise, it may pay for you to move down to Clutha-Southland, and your car won’t be towed. National supports this bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill at probably 9.59-odd. The Green Party, of course, supports this very common-sense piece of legislation, that being the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. It’s been well canvassed by a number of speakers before myself about the predatory behaviour that a number of these cowboy clampers—in the words of my colleague Chris Bishop—behave in, charging exorbitant amounts of money to folks who, oftentimes, don’t think that they have been privy to adequate signage.

However, it also has to be canvassed the issue of that kind of balance that is required, that balance being that when somebody does park on somebody else’s property, when that property is used as a place of business or, in the instance of my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri, as her electorate office, it is indeed the case that that parking spot—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.